Hi Peter.....why ask one of most experienced group of meteorite enthusiasts and experts (all of which are passionate about helping others to search for new finds and material) for an opinion based on a visual analysis/photos of your samples if you are certain for yourself and are willing to dismiss a unanimous verdict....if you are that certain they are meteorites then you should submit samples to an experienced university for scientific analysis. Even if we had all agreed that they were meteorites that would still be the recommendation.
Good luck. Graham On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Peter Richards <[email protected]> wrote: > -This stone seems to have a feature which suggests a (modified) layer > of the stone was once in a malleable state, and, also, under pressure, > appearing as if it has been folded back (on the left side of the > stone, note what was revealed is duller in texture, and more grey than > the glassy outer surface):: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/67498324@N08/8580370971/in/set-72157633060844363/ > -This has a surface with a "bubbly" appearance, suggesting liquid > material collected before concretizing: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/67498324@N08/8580364375/in/set-72157633060844363/ > -Here is a shot of the collected masses from a vicinity about the size > of a very small house: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/67498324@N08/8580374795/in/set-72157633060844363/lightbox/ > The location where these were collected, incidentally, is due north of > the location where many of the heavier Park Forest fragments were > found, and well within the constraints, of course, of known strewn > field dispersion, which has led me to believe these may have been a > part of the same fall, and undetected for a number of reasons, > including the commonality of gunshots in the area (especially true ten > years ago if I understand correctly), and rather poor air quality > which might have led people living nearby to remain oblivious of any > new arrivals such as these would have been, according to my theory. > Some are very dense, and others are less so. I understood that there > were two main types of material recovered in Park Forest, and wonder > whether any additional variety prospectively found here might > represent the remains from an asteroidal impact, or something of that > sort. > > Peter Richards > ______________________________________________ > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
