Hi Dean,
Yes this is very confusing and unscientific. As you deal in fossils, I
think you have a gut appreciation of what a fossil is (rare occurence, once
living, formed in a long process, from sediment deposition) and what it is
not (an inorganic rock). For example, Adam Hupe has been confusing the term
relic with relict in his posts (spell check I am sure), which is basically
the same very dubious leap of definition. The "fossiliferous" nature can be
better explained by:
Paleoölogists argue that the rare petrified relict ooliths formed during
sediment deposition in an old soggy-bottomed Sahara creek from promiscuous
remains of pyroxene-based creatures (with a DNA paucity).
"Fossil" is used in quotes to distinguish lithified alien life forms vs.
common DNA-coded carbon life forms. "Aubrite" is a golden glowing substance
developed by The "Authentic Fossil" (trademarked logo) company to be used on
watch dials in the "Relic" product line in place of radium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil,_Inc.
Alternately, Fossil (TM) may be written for marketing purposes, much like
Amgala, Inc.
Interestingly, the MetSoc NomCom approved a whole series of Numbers starting
with AL HAGGOUNIA 001. Wonder if there was more to this than meets the eye?
Why a 001 before any mention of a 002? Is this somewhat of a departure for
the NomCom, and the series have been used to designate numbers either
unassignable locations in dense regions (e.g., NWA), or, regions with too
few place names to go around (e.g. Oman), or the new category of Relict
meteorites (e.g., Österplana) -like those recovered in some sediments known
to yield meteorites. Could the latter have influenced putting the premature
numbering system in place for Al Haggounia?
LOFL,
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sterling K. Webb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "dean bessey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] The EL3/Aubrite/whatever - Why FOSSIL?
Hi, Dean,
I'm sure someone will have the paper and a
mountain of details, but the short-and-simple is:
it sat in a lake bottom which turned to a swamp
which turned to a "pan" and so forth as the Sahara
dried out and went from a wooded grassland with
lakes and rivers to a pocket edition of the Inferno.
A "fossil" is when other minerals, by aqueous
alteration, replace the original (usually) organic
materials. In a meteorite, this is the extreme form
of weathering and terrestrialization. The term
"fossil" fits what happened to it, although people
leave those quotes around so you'll know the term
is by analogy to organic fossils.
A lot of strange claims have been made about its
age because many mistakingly believe the Sahara is
an ancient desert. No, it was a pretty nice neighborhood
until the last ice age glaciation started to fail. Rain
started getting scarce in the eastern Sahara about
14,000 years ago and in the western Sahara about
12,000 years ago.
Desertification is a long process. The NE Sahara
was home to prosperous Greek states until about 2200
years ago, and only 2000 years ago the NW Sahara
was one of the great Breadbaskets of the Roman Empire
and remained so until only 1600 years ago. Not much like
Iowa now, I understand...
Hope that helps.
Sterling K. Webb
----------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "dean bessey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:18 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] The EL3/Aubrite/whatever - Why FOSSIL?
I dont want to get involved in the thread about what
the classification is (I will be pretty happy no
matter what the proposed options are) but can somebody
explain to me why its called a "Fossil" meteorite?
I realize that the term "fossil" can be loosely used
to describe pretty much any old stuff (You could even
call a living person a "fossil" meaning a person with
old fashioned stubborn views) but given that this is a
scientific classification I would expect more rigid
use of the term in a scientific standpoint.
To become fossilized means that over a long peroid of
time (Usually millions of years) actual organic
material gets replaced by stone so that when you have
a fossil such as a dinosaur tooth, fossil shark tooth
or ammonite you actually have a rock and not a real
creature. No DNA can be extracted since its only a
rock. Thats why we dont even know if dinosaurs were
warm or cold blooded. We are only studying a rock when
we study dinosaur fossils - not a real original
artifact. So called mammoth tusk fossil or 10,000 year
old fossil buffalo bones are not really a fossil since
you get the original item - not a fossilized version.
Fossil insects and bacteria in amber is often not
fossilized even if millions of years old.
But the meteorite in question has not been fossilized.
The chrondrules are real chrondrules and not a
replaced with stone chrondrule. You are not getting a
calcified stone when you buy this "fossil" meteorite.
You are getting a real original meteorite (Even if
highly weathered and oxidized).
I realize that dealers (Including myself) call it a
fossil or paleo meteorite but can somebody explain to
me why it should be called a fossil (Or Paleo)
meteorite?
Thanks
DEAN
PS: If somebody wants 200 or 300 kilos of this email
me for details
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
