<Should be obvious to the casual observer or the term "flight
marked" should be used. >
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 1:13
PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Note on
meteorite descriptions.
My opinion on your points...........
A - I would term the mere presence of flow lines as saying that the
meteorite was "flight marked" but not necessarily Oriented.
B - I don't think that the absence of fusion crust would mean that a
specimen could not be Oriented. An example would be the famous "King of
Irons" Gibeon. In my opinion, Orientation refers to shape also.
C- Yes, I believe that the elongation of regmaglypts is a sign of
possible orientation. When this is combined with a flat bottom with a
roll over rim the signs of Orientation are even more convincing.
I think the real test of orientation is when you can look at the piece
and actually visualize the direction of flight. I have seen many photos
on ebay described as oriented where I ask myself - "Oriented in what
direction?"
Orientation should be obvious to the casual observer or the term "flight
marked" should be used.
Best Wishes to all..............
Jim Strope
421 Fourth Street
Glen Dale, WV 26038
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 3:24
AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Note on
meteorite descriptions.
Michael, Jim, Matteo, list,
This is an interesting thread.
I think it should be developped. And I
have questions for experts like you guys.
A: Does the presence of some flow lines is
enough to say that a meteorite is oriented ?
B. Does a meteorite with conical shape ( approx
similar to Bob Haag Venus cone ) but without any crust ( due to a long stay
on earth surface before find) can be said oriented .
C: When thumbprints have a
particular elliptical shape with a depressed side and a rim on the
other side, is it a sign of orientation.?
Best regards
Michel FRANCO
Caillou Noir
