Hi Darryl,
Oh I agree. I'm curious about how the real analysis will turn
out. I used the term "fusion crust" before when I said I saw none on
the suspected object, maybe that was the wrong term. I saw no dark
material on it indicating a space origin. Looked to "clean" to me.
By the way, my posts seem to take a day or 2 to get to the list, not
sure why. I'm mostly a "lurker" to reduce spam coming in to me but
now and then I like to join in.
Regards!
Tom
On Jan 6, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Darryl Pitt wrote:
Thanks for posting this article.....which exasperates.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD AT RUTGERS?
There is very little about the New Jersey object that resembles a
freshly fallen meteorite. It's shape is so ambiguous---at best---
that the only possible way to determine whether it was a freshly
fallen meteorite is for a a little destructive analysis. The
parameters used for the identification: density, magnetic
properties, markings and coloration are wholly insufficient in the
determination of the origin of such an object.
While it may ultimately be among the most unusual freshly fallen
meteorites known to exist, such an assessment cannot and should not
ever have been made by simply passing it around for a casual
analysis and singing kumbaya.
Best/ darryl
On Jan 5, 2007, at 7:03 PM, Tom Randall (KB2SMS) wrote:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-
object0105,0,6089007.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines
http://home.hvc.rr.com/kb2sms/
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
http://home.hvc.rr.com/kb2sms/
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
