[meteorite-list] Carancas Bull
From: Walter Branch <waltbranch_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:59:02 -0400
The problem is where you draw the distinction.
What about a person or animal who is not killed by the shock wave but may by
thrown the ground, either by compressed air or ground movement? Would that
meteorite be considered a "hammer?"
What about sound waves that travel through the air as a meteorite flies
overhead and reach a human eardrum, thus producing a "sound?" Technically,
the compressed air impacted a human eardrum, so would that meteorite be
considered a "hammer."
What about a clod of dirt thrown up in the impact, hitting someone's shoe?
Speaking only for myself, I draw a distinction between a person, animal or
man-made object who is actually hit, or makes physical contact with the
meteorite vs. not. Nothing, more.
Besides, one could also argue that neither the blast wave nor the bomb
actually killed our hypothetical person. It was the bomber who actually
killed the person. Then we open up another can of worms, so-to-speak.
Keep it simple. Did the meteorite itself actually hit something?
My advert: Above fueled by fruit punch from ye old Piggly Wiggly (it's a
grocery store chain here in the southeast US)
No foolin' :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl Pitt" <darryl at dof3.com>
To: "Bob Loeffler" <bobl at peaktopeak.com>
Cc: "Meteorite List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Carancas Bull
Bomb blasts were introduced as a way of ramping into a discussion of
shock waves. Be it a bomb or an extraterrestrial impact, we're
talking about the rapid compression of environmental air pressure.
Let's look at Meteor Crater as an example. The impactor was a
fraction of the size of the crater; the volume of the crater was
primarily the result of shock waves; and we refer to the impact having
been responsible for the entire crater.
In fact Meteor Crater is of course referred to as an IMPACT crater. No
one makes the distinction of what aspect of the crater touched the
molecules of the impactor.
Returning to Carancas, I don't understand the distinction that a
bull---real or imagined---isn't considered "impacted" by the very same
shock waves responsible for the overall size of the "impact crater."
It's revealing that a casualty which results from shock waves created
by a bomb are defined as Primary Blast Injury. It seems logical the
same nomenclature will be applied to the first person who is a little
too close to the impact of cosmic debris.
Does anyone know whether shock waves crated by an object the size of
Carancas could have been sufficient to have killed a nearby bull?
At least in the case of Valera, we know the "shoulder" (thoracic
vertebrae and scapula) were crushed by the impactor.
PRODUCT ENDORSEMENT: All of the aforementioned words were fueled by
On Mar 15, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Bob Loeffler wrote:
> Hi Darryl and Walter,
> I'm not trying to start this debate up again, so I'm not posting this to
> I think you were getting off topic when talking about bomb blasts and
> because that is not what a "hammer" or "hammer stone" is, according to
> Michael Blood who coined the term. If a meteorite hit a person (or
> or human artifact), it's a hammer stone. But if it hits the earth and
> creates a blast that hurts or kills a person, the meteorite is not a
> stone because the blast affected the person, not the meteorite itself. I
> think that is the distinction that Walter was trying to convey.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Darryl
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:53 AM
> To: Walter Branch
> Cc: Meteorite Mailing List
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Carancas Bull
> My point was that an impact/blast that results in a mortality
> producing shock wave is universally defined as an impact/blast
> casualty. Your attempt to pull shock waves out of the equation in an
> assessment of an impact/blast is akin to taking water out the equation
> in a drowning.
> Moving on, I feel I should clarify my position. I never liked the
> term "hammer"---it feels so comic strip-y---and agree it's overused.
> I agree with Anne's orthodoxy on the application of the term---except
> as it pertains to the point addressed above.
> All best / d,
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 6:48 AM, Walter Branch wrote:
>> Hi Darryl,
>> Okay, but...
>>> or scholarly assessment---
>> That's what I assumed we are attempting. This list is for meteorite
>> enthusiasts, not journalism enthusiasts.
>> I propose we stick to discussing meteorites, not bomb blasts.
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darryl Pitt" <darryl at dof3.com>
>> To: "Walter Branch" <waltbranch at bellsouth.net>
>> Cc: "Meteorite Mailing List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] WG: AW: [IMCA] Hammers & Orientation
>> from Dave
>> Hi Walter!
>> With all respect....
>> In ANY report---except where there exist the specificity of a coroner
>> or scholarly assessment---bomb victims are bomb victims.
>> There is never differentiation between those killed by blast injury,
>> penetrating wounds, blunt trauma or smoke/fire. In fact the foregoing
>> types of injury are correctly referred to as primary, secondary,
>> tertiary and miscellaneous BLAST INJURIES. Primary blast injury is
>> specifically a rapid increase in air pressure--a shock wave.
>> If the bull was killed by a shock wave created by an impact---it was
>> killed by the impact.
>> And that's no bull....
>> On Mar 10, 2009, at 10:11 PM, Walter Branch wrote:
>>> Hello Darryl,
>>>> is a bombing victim killed by a bomb-produced shock
>>>> wave not killed by the bomb?
>>> No. They would killed by the shock wave.
>>> If dirt kicked up by a meteorite hits a person, is said meteorite
>>> then a "hammer?" No.
>>> Like all analogies, it eventually breaks down.
>>> It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end -
>>> Douglas Adams.
>>> -Walter Branch
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darryl Pitt" <darryl at dof3.com>
>>> To: "Impactika" <impactika at aol.com>
>>> Cc: <IMCA at imcamail.de>; "Martin Altmann" <altmann at meteorite-
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 6:57 PM
>>> Subject: Re: WG: AW: [IMCA] Hammers & Orientation from Dave
>>> (deep breath)
>>> is a bombing victim killed by a bomb-produced shock wave not killed
>>> the bomb?
>>> hi anne! ;-)
>>> On Mar 10, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Impactika wrote:
>>>> Hello Dave, and all,
>>>> I submit another example to you: Carancas, since it has been
>>>> discussed on the other List.
>>>> In my personal opinion, only one fragment of the Carancas
>>>> meteorite would qualify as a hammer: the fragment that hit the
>>>> house on the picture, but it would have to be properly
>>>> documented, with proof that this specific fragment, and not
>>>> another one, or a piece of ejecta, is the actual fragment that
>>>> damaged this roof. Any other fragment is just that: a fragment
>>>> of the Carancas meteorite. As for the animals, they might have
>>>> been hit by a shock wave, not by a fragment of the meteorite.
>>>> With the same logic, a few of the Park Forest fragments can
>>>> qualify as hammers, I am talking about the actual fragments that
>>>> hit cars, roofs, .... and only those. And again, only with
>>>> proper verifiable documentation. All other pieces of Park Forest
>>>> are just that: pieces of the Park Forest meteorite.
>>>> That still leaves Peekskill and Claxton as hammer meteorites,
>>>> since they are single stones, and witnessed, documented falls.
>>>> As for me, as a dealer, I will not use the term hammer on my
>>>> website unless I have absolute proof and documentation that a
>>>> certain specimen did hit a human, animal, or something man-made
>>>> (roads, trees, fields.... don't count!).
>>>> But that is my opinion.
>>>> Any others?
>>>> Anne Black
>>>> IMCA - #2356
>>>> In a message dated 03/10/09 09:16:39 Mountain Daylight Time,
> altmann at meteorite-martin.de
>>>> Von: dave at fallingrocks.com [mailto:dave at fallingrocks.com]
>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. M?rz 2009 15:47
>>>> An: Martin Altmann
>>>> Betreff: RE: AW: [IMCA] Hammers & Orientation
>>>> Hi, Martin,
>>>> Please forward this quick note back to the IMCA list; I'm on a web
>>>> interface and can't respond to the list from here...thanks:
>>>> . . . . . . . . . . .
>>>> The problem, at least in my view, with hammers is the fact that
>>>> they are most appreciated by the least meteorite-savvy buyers.
>>>> These newbie collectors are most exposed to paying a ridiculous
>>>> price because a piece of, say, Thuathe was found in the roof of
>>>> a hut -- yet the piece they're contemplating purchase around
>>>> was picked up in a field two miles away. Thuathe might not be
>>>> the best example, as it's a killer meteorite in its own right.
>>>> Your example of Gao- Guenie, though by no means reflected in
>>>> market pricing (yet, anyway), might be better.
>>>> . . . . . . . . . . .
>>>> IMCA #5967
>>>> Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a
>>>> IMCA mailing list
>>>> IMCA at imcamail.de
>>> IMCA mailing list
>>> IMCA at imcamail.de
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Received on Sun 15 Mar 2009 07:59:02 PM PDT