On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:58:47 -0700, you wrote: >Anyway, 1,500 pounds of fragments doesn't count as a single "largest" >meteorite.
If those 1,500 pounds were found in contact with each other in that one hole (as the article seems to be saying) then would you not agree that it was probably a single 1,500+ pound piece that has rotted in situ? Wherther or not the description of the find is accurate isn't solidly established, but if it was found as described-- 1,500 pounds, one hole, close contact with each other, I don't think it unfair to think it was from a 1,500+ pound individual. There is more detail and a photo in this version of the article that I posted a few days ago: http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/14956160.htm ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
