[meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. reply

From: dorifry <dorifry_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 13:19:10 -0500
Message-ID: <3C456D67C8A145EC970EE9F7A594B429_at_DoriPC>

The term "fossil" does not refer to the time period in which the meteorite
fell. It refers to the conglomeritic texture of the meteorite. It's a
borrowed geological term for anything (usually plant or animal remains) that
have become embedded and preserved by natural processes in the Earth's
crust. The only time constraint is it has to have been buried before the
beginnng of recorded history.

In this case the meteorite has become incorporated into the surrounding
conglomerate material consisting of carbonate clasts from the limestone
bedrock and an aggregate of pebbles and related lithologies from the nearby
hills and alluvial fans.

>From the Ted Bunch et al. article:
NWA 2828/2965 as a fossil or paleo meteorite. Of course! However, there are
few guidelines. The Meteoritical Society Guidelines for Meteorite
Nomenclature say this about "relict meteorites":

  c) Special provisions are made in these Guidelines for highly altered
materials that may have a meteoritic origin, designated relict meteorites,
which are dominantly (>95%) composed of secondary minerals formed on the
body on which the object was found. Examples of such material may include
some types of "meteorite shale," "fossil meteorites," and fusion crust.

We find this rather confusing and ambiguous. Because rounded pieces of NWA
2828/2965 are clearly incorporated into a terrestrial rock (an indurated
conglomerate) by natural geological processes, then they should be
considered as fossil meteorites (albeit from a huge ancient fall).



---------------------------------

Phil Whitmer

Joshua Tree Earth & Space Museum

----- Original Message -----
From: "MexicoDoug" <mexicodoug at aim.com>
To: <gmhupe at centurylink.net>; <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. reply


> Hi Greg,
>
> It was a little late when I posted and I hadn't rested since Nov. 30; and
> as a topic of discussion I guess this shouldn't be pursued. Anyway, the
> classification will be changed if you give it some time, and if you have a
> greater grasp of what's gone on, so be it; how a letter to the editors of
> the bulletin is construed as 'arrogant' is completely lost on me but it
> sounds like I really don't want to know why.
>
> " your own cute spin on it"
> "This does 'confirm "EL6 is a good match!!!"
>
> Speaking of the classification: don't know what my 'cute spin' is
> considering I've agreed with the revised US classification you since my
> first post after reading the well-researched page that was posted. The
> reason I posted the 2011 EL6 article was because it would seem to be new
> and confirms it is not an aubrite and the authors saw more material or/and
> research and are now convinced of that. It would seem things are moving
> in the right direction, just slowly. I'm sure this will all be resolved
> in its due time.
>
> Speaking of the terminology - fossil, paleo meteorite: Like you, I will
> speak my mind about the concept of meteorite "fossils" anytime and any
> place because that is a claim that just doesn't sound right. Too bad it
> was attached to this relict. When you said you were going to be blunt and
> call discussing it 'boring to most', I took umbrage. But all that has
> passed and I hope all works out as it usually does in time.
>
> I suppose if a meteorite is shown conclusively to have fallen in a
> previous time period it would be accurate to call it a an Ionian
> (middle-Pleistocene) meteorite if, for example, that is applicable, to
> refer to the fact that it was shown to have fallen in that time. That
> would make Gold Basin a Tarantian (upper-Pleistocene) meteorite as another
> example. It sounds very different to me to call the meteorite a fossil
> vs. have a reference to when it fell, but perhaps it's just me.
>
> Best of luck to you as well, Peace;
> (waves the white flag)
> Kindest wishes
> Doug
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Hup? <gmhupe at centurylink.net>
> To: Meteorite-list <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>; MexicoDoug
> <mexicodoug at aim.com>
> Sent: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 3:00 am
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. yawn?
>
>
> Respectfully Doug,
> My god man, really?
>
> You wrote,
> "What is your reply to this 2011 EL6 poster? Is it 'acceptable' to you
> since aubrite is removed? Or must more blood be drawn from the stone..."
> Doug, I have no influence to anyone's written or online articles...
> consult
> them! This does 'confirm "EL6 is a good match!!!
>
> You wrote (sorrowfully arrogant & ignorant):
> "A simple email to the editor at this point should be what is needed; no
> one
> likes getting yelled at to do something, I'm sure no one is happy to
> change
> it now."
> Doug, I am not yelling at anyone. When this subject enters our lives I
> will
> speak my mind with what I know. If you want to get evolved, don't dog me,
> match up to Tony, Ted and 'Al Hagg... et al'. I am simply the field person
> from 2005 who brought out NWA 2828, I know, the start of this mess!!! :-/
>
> And, "YES!", Doug, I challenge the Bulletin to decide this "dead horse",
> too
> much time has gone by. Doug, I do not know why you push this 'mud' with
> your
> own cute spin on it, you seem to be a smart person, talk to the experts,
> not
> me! ;-)
> I will be happy to educate you and whoever wants to know my involvement
> with
> anything I am passionate about. If you do not ask, do not , or only
> presume
> to speak for the masses, you will be corrected!!
>
> Doug, good luck with your hunt on this one! ;-)
>
> Best Regards,
> Greg
>
> Dead Horses Can't Live Until They Are Buried Standing UP!
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MexicoDoug
> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 2:33 AM
> To: gmhupe at centurylink.net ; Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. yawn?
>
> "Doug, not to be blunt, but this entire conversation is an 'Extremely',
> 'Old', 'Archaic', "Fossil" of a subject that it is almost boring to
> most of
> us..."
>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Thanks Greg for that thought and precisely for that reason if you want
> a classification changed it is strange to mix a dead horse with what
> you would like to be another live one a.k.a. removing the 'aubrite'
> classification.
>
> I do think it is strange that these classification corrections haven't
> been made (as you can see in my post) and Drs. Bunch and Irving have
> made believers out of me; one can only respect the resources they
> dedicated to elucidating the variations of this crapped up old pile of
> earth rocks that is almost boring to a few of us that were meteorites
> at one time and are just weathered ghosts of what they once were.
>
> What is your reply to this 2011 EL6 poster? Is it 'acceptable' to you
> since aubrite is removed? Or must more blood be drawn from the stone
> ;-) I don't mean to be blunt either and please accept my apology which
> I offer in advance if there are ruffled feathers somewhere due to this
> classification.
>
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2011/pdf/5298.pdf
>
> But everyone who was on the list certainly heard about that
> classification problem ... and likely from you ... and likely more than
> once ... and why give more airtime to it (could it be this is a
> discussion group and not a solution group?), because only a few care:
> that's your "dead horse" and other discussion ending logic. I
> respectfully disagree and I think attitude has a lot to do with the
> present problem (this is not directed at anyone specific, and most
> definitely NOT the scientists ? they get kudos). A simple email to the
> editor at this point should be what is needed; no one likes getting
> yelled at to do something, I'm sure no one is happy to change it now.
>
> Any other air time is likely to only result in character assassination,
> ?Get it right!? to Met Soc editors, do they get paid to listen to
> that?; so to be clear, what's the point of it on the list other than
> entertainment value or public humiliation?
>
> The nomenclature of fossil/paleo/ancient is entirely another issue.
> But by shoving the fossil/paleo issue forward when marketing this
> material, for some rusted out relicts, well, let's just say that by
> tying two dead horses together, neither does the other any favors.
> This continues to be a marketing representation every time someone buys
> this material, and we must be vigilant to keep ideas about finding
> fossil life in meteorites divorced from our observations given past
> 'problems' and media distortion.
>
> On eBay, the majority of these are currently marketed as fossil
> aubrites. The one that says EL3 says it has many metal flecks in it
> (does that make sense? Wow if so, kind of makes me wonder if it really
> isn?t just a highly weathered meteorite, like other cheapo rusted-out
> meteorites, that happened to get in some old lakebed.)
>
> I mean, let?s see the stages of a meteorite:
>
> fresh fall $$$; fresh find $$; weathered find $; highly weathered find
> ??; tons of barely recognizable relict ?/$ ?
>
> Maybe, if that is what the customer likes. But there are hundreds of
> new list members that would be interested in the relict definition (and
> why the meteoritical society chose that) and hundreds more that worry
> about the classification. General material is always cycled on the
> list and that allows newer members to participate rather than be told
> what is right and see how these things evolve. You really shouldn't be
> speaking for "most of us" on my fossil hot button. For every
> mouthpiece on the list there are 50 more folks that have no strong
> opinion or find it all interesting.
>
> Respectfully yours, as always, facts ? are optional but you are welcome
> to kindly add them;
> But only I will read my paleo horse his last rights especially when the
> smart money is on him! ;-)
> Doug
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Hup? <gmhupe at centurylink.net>
> To: Meteorite-list <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 1:00 am
> Subject: [meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. Get it Right.. Finally!
>
>
> Hi Doug and All,
>
> Doug, not to be blunt, but this entire conversation is an 'Extremely',
> 'Old', 'Archaic', "Fossil" of a subject that it is almost boring to
> most of
> us... Unless you really understand 'et al'...
> The bottom line is, money or not, get the facts corrected before more
> collectors continue to buy 'misinformed' Aubrites.. Bottom Line!!!
>
> This is one of those ongoing subjects that one needs to understand
> before
> they step in their own mud...!
>
> Best Regards,
> Greg
>
> ====================
> Greg Hup?
> The Hup? Collection
> gmhupe at centurylink.net
> www.LunarRock.com
> NaturesVault (eBay)
> IMCA 3163
> ====================
> Click here for my current eBay auctions:
> http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MexicoDoug
> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 11:15 PM
> To: joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com ;
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] NAwhat'sME (was...Are these meteorites???)
>
> "http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Al_Haggounia.html"
>
> Wow, what a great and insightful page to these stones. Maske one want
> to get on a plane and go digging themselves. Does the list have an
> opionion of this already or is it one of those things that fell between
> the sofa cushions and never got cleaned up?
>
> What is the status of the proposed reclassification in the Bulletin as
> an EL3? If it hasn't been done yet can anyone post an opposing view to
> keep the aubrite or other classifications alive?
>
> Maybe it hasn't been done because this relict meteorite is being called
> a "fossil"? I've heard of fossil living people but fossil meteorites -
> please let's not go there! Seems like there is more than one change
> being proposed on this page. Best IMO - one thing at a time, leave
> that battle for another time.
>
> IMO:
>
> The use of the word 'fossil' for dug up minerals according to this
> dictionary is obsolete:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fossil
>
> ...but beyond that for any it is extremely confusing to the commercial
> side of this especially to innocent buyers and hopefully the IMCA and
> other alike groups can regulate this if it sounds reasonable; since it
> is generally used to describe for living organisms or structures left
> by them, and therefore has associated with it an air of ancient life to
> the new collector, and there is no need to evoke this term any more
> than 'aubrite' if in fact that doesn't fit. As for 'paleo', it sounds
> like a $2 word for $0.06 per gram meteorite as well.
>
> Relict is a perfect term and even has precedence as it has been used
> throughout the Chicxulub studies to describe the tektites which in a
> similar fasion have been incorporated into sediment.
>
> So after reading the excellent and painstaking work by Drs. Ted Bunch
> and A. Irving, one has to wonder where Conan the Barbarian is just to
> come in and say:
>
> They are relicts and they are EL3's, further use of any other mentioned
> terms is immediately hereby suspended until noticed by the axe-wielding
> squad ;-), or an opposing view makes its stand in a peer-reviewed
> article.
>
> Kindest wishes
> Doug
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JoshuaTreeMuseum <joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com>
> To: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Fri, Dec 2, 2011 10:19 pm
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Are these meteorites???
>
>
>
>
> More than 20 pairings?:
>
>
> The Al Haggounia "Fossil or Paleo" Meteorite Problem:
>
> http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Al_Haggounia.html
>
>
>
> Phil Whitmer
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Sat 03 Dec 2011 01:19:10 PM PST