[meteorite-list] Information about Randsburg iron meteorite
Hello to the List. For my DVD Encyclopedia of Meteorites, I'm searching for information about this new iron. I need the following information : - weight (in kg) - classification, analysis (including % in Ni, Fe...) - circumstances of find - US state where it was found or kept I thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, Pierre-Marie PELE www.meteor-center.com ___ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Hi, Doug, It's clear you experience great sympathy for Ortiz. But I caution you to examine the evidence closely. The analogy you suggest for the Sterling meteorite hunter is not quite accurate nor apt. I hope you like lots of links, 'cause that's what we have here. Initially, suspicion fell on Jean-Claude Pele, because he hacked the Yale SMARTS site for the SMARTS pointing information for K40506A that same day (July 26). He even posted the SMARTS log information on the Yahoo Minor Planet Mailing List, but after 2003EL61 was announced, and a complete ephemeris of K40506A: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15142 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15143 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15144 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15145 People were immediately suspicious. The next message reply asks Where'd you get this data??! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15147 and Pele tells him how he hacked it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15149 Here is where he got them. These are the SMARTS observing logs. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/Jul/20050703.log http://www-astro.mps.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/Jan/20050125.log http://www-astro.mps.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/Jan/20050126.log http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/Jan/20050127.log http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/May/20050505.log Here's his protestation that he wasn't the thief: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15283 and he gets Brian Marston (MPC) to clear him. Obviously, he does not regard using these logs to make a discovery to be harmless, but is desperately concerned to establish that HE DID NOT do such a thing nor aid any one else to do it. The complete MPML posts were re-posted to Freelists by Marco Langbroek, a member of this list, if you want to see them all: http://www.freelists.org/archives/fmo/07-2005/msg00082.html Pele's innocent of discovery. He wasn't him. It was Ortiz and Co., using the IAA computer: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ortiz/ the same IAA computer used to report Ortiz' discovery. The SMARTS site was not secured nor password protected, nor is it now. Here's the SMARTS Consortium website URL: http://www.astro.yale.edu/smarts/ It's very open, but obviously intended for the use of the members of the Consortium. You can even access their UNIX directory list: http://www.astro.yale.edu/smarts/smarts13m/ There is no attempt to conceal the observing logs. On the bottom left are links to the nightly logs. And through the directory link you can get to the ccd processing logs as well. For example, here's the URL to the discovery night, or Brown's first observation of K40506: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/ObsLogs/2004/May/ Click on 20040506 and the log will download. Of course it isn't called K40506A until later, but it's in there somewhere... The name K40506A isn't code as you called it, Doug. It's a field ID number for a thing that has no name and is being referenced for the first time; that's all. The number is merely the year,month,day of first sighting. Brown gave out that ID number in 2004, when he told the AAU that he would report on it at their September 2005 meeting with this notice: http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v37n3/dps2005/320.htm Teasing all this out was not easy. Yes, it was (unintentionally) accessible, but it is difficult and would yield usefull information only with a lot of work. You'd have to want it pretty bad, need it, in fact. Brown was too naive. Also, he doesn't seem to have been aware that Google indexes EVERYTHING, and that you could do what actually was done to him. He said: It's true that the information was available without breaking into any sites. It's also true that sometimes I don't lock the door to my house. I hope that people don't think it's therefore OK to come in and take my stuff. http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3526451 I have no idea why you think Brown is such a plotter, like his not criticizing Ortiz earlier, so he can criticize him more later. That's paranoid, Doug, really. Nor why you think his congratulations to Ortiz were not sincere? They were unqualified and open. He had no suspicions at this point because he was unaware that the observing logs had been accessed by anybody outside SMARTS. As for your suggestion that the log accesses are faked, Brown would have to know in advance when Ortiz would announce, an impossibility pretty much, don't you think? As you can tell, GOOGLE is the key here. Without it, connecting the AAU notice with the observing logs and the ccd processing logs (they are crucial too because they identify K40506A in the field coordinates), both of which are on-line, are useless to a competitor. As for envy and resentment, does that justify stealing somebody's else's observations? If Ortiz actually
[meteorite-list] ADD - Meteoriteshow latest ebay auctions
Dear List Members, I have not been active on ebay for a long time, working on Ensisheim and Ste Marie shows in June and then travelling abroad... I'm now back home and have some new meteorites and tektites for sale on ebay... Most of them are classified meteorites are from Acfer and Tanezrouft in Algeria, and you know that it will take a long time before new meteorites can be sourced from this country where it is now totally forbiden to go and search for meteorites. Therefore, you will have here an alternative to NWAs, for a change! For the 2 1/2 days left, I also have 2 nice Sikhote-Alin (fusion crust, flow lines, complete individuals), 2 Indochinites, 2 Moldavites and a beautiful LDG... You can first get a complete overview at: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZmeteoriteshowQQhtZ-1 But should you prefer to have some direct links to the most interesting items, here is my selection... Some of the auctions will end very soon! 1- METEORITE : CM2 - ACFER 331 3.4 gr - W0 ! You know this great meteorite (750g TKW) that I have already proposed on ebay before in fragments, but I managed to cut some slices before Ensisheim show. Cutting Acfer 331 is not easy as it is a very fresh and friable CM2 but I finally had the opportunity to do it the right way and the result is just great! So you can add this nice end-cut to your collection, having 2 days and a half left for bidding. It is still at the starting price of $100.00, so you have a real opportunity to make a very good deal!!! http://cgi.ebay.com/METEORITE-CM2-ACFER-331-3-4-gr-W0_W0QQitemZ6561087080QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem 2- METEORITE: L6 O.C. - ACFER 342 15.8gr SLICE Also 2 1/2 days left to bid for this 15.8g slice. Cut very thin (2mm only), it has a very wide surface for the weight (76x36mm) and shows its slightly weathered structure, with nice metal flakes. Its price is still low ($13.00) and this is another potential good deal!!! http://cgi.ebay.com/METEORITE-L6-O-C-ACFER-342-15-8gr-SLICE_W0QQitemZ6561242584QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem# ebayphotohosting 3- METEORITE: L6 O.C. - TANEZROUFT 070 - 3.9gr SLICE This slice of Tanezrouft 070 is only 1mm thick and you get a chance to have a wide surface of this 240g meteorite. Quite highly shocked (S4), it is also not much weathered (W2) and shows a nice structure. I have just a few slices left... and offer 2 slices within these auctions. Good luck! http://cgi.ebay.com/METEORITE-L6-O-C-TANEZROUFT-070-3-9gr-SLICE_W0QQitemZ6561242840QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewI tem#ebayphotohosting 4- METEORITE: L6 O.C. - TANEZROUFT 070 - 12.1 gr SLICE Here is the second slice of Tan 070 (43x36x2mm). This one displays a huge 6mm chondrule and is really beautiful! Have a look at: http://cgi.ebay.com/METEORITE-L6-O-C-TANEZROUFT-070-12-1-gr-SLICE_W0QQitemZ6562140939QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZVie wItem 5- METEORITE: LL3 O.C. - ADRAR MADET 46.6gr SLICE Adrar Madet was found in Niger by some friends and classified as a LL3.6, but registered by the Nom. Com. as a LL3... This slice is big and has been very smoothly polished on both sides, displaying its wonderful structure with lots of armoured chondrules. Even if you do not intend to bid, you can have a look at the pictures pour le plaisir des yeux! We cut just 4 pieces from this meteorite, one for analysis and two for collectors. This is one of the two sices left and we want to keep the rest of the meteorite as it is (1800g) because it is a beautiful stone... http://cgi.ebay.com/METEORITE-LL3-O-C-ADRAR-MADET-46-6gr-SLICE_W0QQitemZ6562140753QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewIt em 6- METEORITE: EL5 ENSTATITE - ADRAR BOUS 4.6gr END-CUT You must be aware that EL5s are extremely rare enstatites... With a TKW of 360g, this one is quite small but the structure appearing on cut sections is amazing. Here you have the opportunity to get an end-cut, with a 24x20mm smoothly polished cut section, showing the desert varnished surface on the other side. After this one, there are only very few slices available for collectors. Don't miss it! http://cgi.ebay.com/METEORITE-EL5-ENSTATITE-ADRAR-BOUS-4-6gr-END-CUT_W0QQitemZ6562142212QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZ ViewItem 7- METEORITE: L4 O.C. - TANEZROUFT 065 11.5 gr SLICE Tanezrouft 065 is a very porous meteorite (20% porosity) and is quite an unusual L4 chondrite. We were very lucky to find it as about 80% of the 30kg meteorite was burried underground. We could hardly see 3 smaller fargments and a little emerging part of the main mass at the surface (see picture on the ebay annoucement). This slice has been both side polished and is still at its starting price of $25.00! You have about 6 days left to get it. http://cgi.ebay.com/METEORITE-L4-O-C-TANEZROUFT-065-11-5-gr-SLICE_W0QQitemZ6562141817QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZVie wItem#ebayphotohosting 8- METEORITE: L5 O.C. - TANEZROUFT
[meteorite-list] cut links
Dear All, Some of the links appearing in my previous post have probably been cut... If you cannot re-build them, please contact me off-list and I will send you all necessary information. Kindest regards, Frederic Beroud http://www.meteoriteshow.com IMCA member # 2491 (http://www.imca.cc/) __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] re: One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Hi Sterling, Doug et al., This is rapidly becoming a highly convoluted history now, and I urge everyone to be very careful with damning judgements on either Ortiz or Brown. Initialy, I thought (based on the information provided about logged IP's etc.) that things were very wrong. Thinking it over and separating facts from assumptions, I however started to realize that scenario's were perfectly plausible which would clear Ortiz et al. from fraud attempt accusations. In fact, this is what I wrote early yesterday in a private message to A/CC editor Bill Allen when we were privately discussing the unheard of developments around 2003 EL61, and possibe scenario's about what could have happened as seen from various viewpoints: You find something in your data which suggest highly unusual characteristics (a +17.5 mag TNO, who would have believed that was possible before this find?). Being relatively unknown in the field, would you risk being laughed at? It would not surprise me if this is why their initial submission to the MPC did not lable it as TNO. It would make sense, when they would try to find out extra information about recent TNO finds. Reading the meeting abstract for which they submitted an abstract themselves, and which talks about the find of some very large TNO's, it would be natural they hit Google to see if they could find something more about it than just this abstract which gives little information. Then you find a publicly accessible website with apparently more info on those objects, such as positions. Accessing it, you discover to your dismay it seems to concern YOUR object. Now starts a process of check and double-check: is it reallly the same object? Yes, it seems so... So what do you do? Mind you, the status of Brown's discovery is * very unclear* at that point. No MPEC has yet been released for this object, it is not in the MPC TNO database, there is nothing official on it. If I were in Ortiz et al.'s shoes in such a situation, and knowing a discovery of this kind means a much better chance of funding for my research and position (which are always very dire here in Europe), I would not hesitate at all to go public at that point, formally claiming the, and my rightly independant, discovery with an MPC report leading to an MPEC as well as a public statement on the find, before the actual meeting on which Brown et al. might or might not give out more information. That you scoop Brown et al. is Brown et al's problem, it was their decision to not go public yet so their responsibility. I agree that they had good reasons to not go public yet (I do not agree at all with those who maintain their secrecy would somehow be wrong and anti-scientific, that is nonsense), but then they also knew the risks of that. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The question then is: should Ortiz et al. have mentioned that Brown might have yet unreported observations on the same object? I do not agree at all with those who maintain they should have. These were unpublished data: the one single abstract for a meeting that yet had to take place (!) only mentions a name code, nothing there to identify this object with your object (or any other object for that matter). Scientificaly, they therefore do not yet exist. You can mention them out of courtesy, but there is no need to do so whatsoever. I am a scientist myself, and every scientist will be familiar with the situation that you publish something, and know through the grapevine that someone else is working on the same problem and might have yet unpublished results on this. If you would have to acknowledge this, scientific literature would be full of statements like: There are suggestions that Dr X and prof Y might have yet unpublished data on this same [insert subject]. Everybody would see how ridiculous this would be. In reality, you only mention this if you have private communications with these other researchers, you want to give them credit out of courtesy (and/or because their data strengthen your case) and they allow you to mention their data as a private communication. And there is no obligation to do so at all (as long as you do not use their results). Also note that I am talking of giving credit in scientific publications, announcements or meetings here. Ignoring other's work on similar objects/subjects is quite the norm in press releases for example. I know of no PR department of a scientific institution that does not do that. Note that here I assume that Ortiz et al. took note of, but did not *use* the data gleaned from the telescope log they accessed, other than to check against their own data. If the opposite was the case, the situation would be wholy different. Indeed, Ortiz et al then would have the obligation to credit Brown, and their actions would be scientific misconduct. And now, Ortiz posted this message yesterday (reproduced below) on the MPML list (I did not get to see it
Re: [meteorite-list] re: One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:05:15 +0200, Marco Langbroek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I were in Ortiz et al.'s shoes in such a situation, and knowing a discovery of this kind means a much better chance of funding for my research and position (which are always very dire here in Europe), I would not hesitate at all to go public at that point, formally claiming the, and my rightly independant, discovery with an MPC report leading to an MPEC as well as a public statement on the find, before the actual meeting on which Brown et al. might or might not snip The question then is: should Ortiz et al. have mentioned that Brown might have yet unreported observations on the same object? I do not agree at all with those who maintain they should have. These were unpublished data: the one single abstract for a meeting that yet had to take place (!) only mentions a name code, nothing there to identify this object with your object (or any other object for that matter). Scientificaly, they therefore do not yet exist. You can mention them out of courtesy, but there is no need to do so whatsoever. I am a scientist myself, and every scientist will be familiar with the situation that you publish something, and know through the grapevine that someone else is working on the same problem and might have yet unpublished results on this. If you would have to acknowledge this, scientific literature would be full of statements like: There are suggestions that Dr X and prof Y might have yet unpublished data on this same [insert subject]. Everybody would see how ridiculous this would be. Why not do the HONEST thing and go to Brown and say here, look at this data we have, I think we are looking at the same object. Why don't we pool our data and publish together? This whole situation reminds me somewhat of the case of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. After Wallace found out that Darwin had been for years working on a similar theory to his, Wallace didn't sneak a look at a copy of Origin of Species (grabbing a few choice points from it for his work) then rush to press with his own theory. Darwin didn't try to crush him so that HE could publish first. The fact that Darwin's work later was the only one generally remembered is because Darwin did MORE work, and was more through and detailed about it: Read this excerpt for an article on Wallace, and see the similarities to this situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace Wallace had once briefly met Darwin, and was one of Darwin's numerous correspondents from around the world, whose observations Darwin used to support his theories. Wallace knew that he was interested in the question of how species originate, and trusted his opinion on the matter. Thus, he sent him his essay, On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type (1858), and asked him to review it. On 18 June 1858 Darwin received the manuscript from Wallace. In it, Wallace describes a novel theory of what is now known as natural selection, and proposes that it explains the diversity of life. It was essentially the same as the theory that Darwin had worked on for twenty years, but had yet to publish. Darwin wrote in a letter to Charles Lyell: he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters! Although Wallace had not requested that his essay be published, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker decided to present the essay, together with excerpts from a paper that Darwin had written in 1844, and kept confidential, to the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858, highlighting Darwin's priority. Wallace accepted the arrangement after the fact, grateful that he had been included at all. Darwin's social and scientific status was at that time far greater than Wallace's, and it was potentially unlikely that Wallace's views on evolution would have been taken as seriously. Though relegated to the position of co-discoverer, and never the social equal of Darwin or the other elite British natural scientists, Wallace was granted far greater access to tightly-regulated British scientific circles after the advocacy on his part by Darwin. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Darren wrote: Why not do the HONEST thing and go to Brown and say here, look at this data we have, I think we are looking at the same object. Why don't we pool our data and publish together? This happens sometimes when the peope involved know each other well. When this is not the case, it could be risky to do so. I agree the above is a sane thing to do if it concerned a colleague I know and trust. I disagree that not doing this would be dishonest, however. It is normal scientific conduct to report on your own data in the context of what has been *published* by others, and ignore potential unpublished materials. That's just the way it goes in science. Otherwise, things would get unworkable. In this case, it was even more simple. It concerned the report of astrometric data to the MPC, not publication of a paper. MPC rules are very clear: the first who reports astrometric data, gets credit, in the Minor Planet Electronic Circular that reports on the object in question. Brown et al. did not report to the MPC, Ortiz et al. did, so the latter gets credit. That's the way it goes for *ALL* newly discovered solar system objects. There's no reason why 2003 EL61 should be an exception. Considering Wallace and Darwin: there are science historians who feel that Darwin and some people supporting him did outmanouvre Wallace when they discovered Walllace was indepently arriving at an evolution by natural selection theory. - Marco - Dr Marco Langbroek Dutch Meteor Society (DMS) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] private website http://home.wanadoo.nl/marco.langbroek DMS website http://www.dmsweb.org - __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] MArtin Altmann
Martin, can you please email me off list to this address. Sorry, but one of my email accounts is down. Mike Farmer __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Sexy New Lunar Martian Photos
Hi all...Since it's been a bit quiet on the list lately, we thought now would be a nice time to share some photos of our sexy new Lunar Martian specimens. Enjoy! http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/Lunar_Martian/ -John Dawn Arizona Skies Meteorites Arizona Skies Meteorites __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] re: One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Hi, All, Ah, opinion is such a flighty thing. I read Ortiz' declaration and it all makes perfect sense. He's a fine fellow, it seems, but... We often, deep in our concerns, follow a sequence of reasonings, all of which seems perfectly sound and proper from each step to each step, to the end, yet when an outsider looks at the completed action without knowing the steps, he may see things in a light that never was. Stoss uses NEAT data, DSS and POSS data, to refine the orbit. He never uses Brown's data? Wouldn't that help refine it? Yet, 20 minutes after the times of his own Mallorca observations and recovery of the object, someone at IAA is accessing Brown's positional data AGAIN. I am most curious. Why? Are they merely curious? At this point, they have discovery positions (2003), archival positions (NEAT, etc.), and current position (Mallorca) of their object. Why check someone else's data if you are not going to use it and claim that you are not even sure if it's the same object? Of course, with Stoss' work, they know its orbit as well as Brown, perhaps even better because they have archival positions which Brown appears not to have searched for. What do they need with Brown's data? To me, it seems inexplicable behavior in the context of their narration. In fact, with what orbital data they already have, they can easily determine from Brown's data accessed the first time that it IS the same. If for no other reason than this, one should always consider the appearances of things to others, whether an interested or disinterested party. It is merely wise to do so, as many a politician has discovered, often woefully. Marco says, Note that here I assume that Ortiz et al. took note of, but did not *use* the data gleaned from the telescope log they accessed... That, of course, is the tipping point issue, entirely and completely. Ortiz et al. assert it, or at least imply it; they do not actually address it directly. We must *assume* it or not *assume* it, and when that is so, one must expect different people to make different assumptions. Science can be quite as cut-throat as any other human endeavor, although one would never know it from the public image of scientists. There is a Nobel-winning scientist, in the past decade, in a field I shall not name, who is absolutely detested by the majority of workers in the same field for stealing others' work by a variety of means, by every means possible, in fact, countless thoroughly despicable behaviors. But, he got that prize... and probably for a theory that will be ultimately quite discredited. If Ortiz made some use of Brown's data he will not admit to, but really made the 2003 discovery, it is, to use an American expression, small potatoes. Myself, in his position, would have mentioned it. Marco calls Brown's observations unpublished and unreported yet also refers to a published abstract of Brown's and to the publicly accessible website. If so, there's a reason that that the law refers to publishing on the web. To place anything on the web is to PUBLISH it, legally. So, we are drawing a line here that weaves in and out among various definitions of publish, and that line is not a straight line. Is the criterion peer-review alone? Not to the world at large... Completely aside, that is why you aspiring authors should never put your great novels-to-be on your website. Technically, that is publication; and should a real publisher ever want it, you will find that you have reduced its value because they would be buying reprint rights, which are not worth the same as first rights. Just a tip... If I had been the SMARTS Consortium's webmaster, I would have told them to make the front end accessible, with the pretty pictures and the press releases, and to put the Consortium's business under 128-bit encryption and password protected. (It's never too late to do this, Mike Brown, if you're listening, and no trouble. If the tiny bank in a town of 1500 pop. can do it, so can Yale and CalTech...) Other scientists may airily say, O, free and public data, I found it on a website, but the law says copyrighted intellectual property... It's a question of which frame you view reality from. There are other approaches. The Lowell Observatory Deep Ecliptic Survey puts hundreds of KBO's in databases and literally begs for somebody to follow up on them. Many are lost again because there is no followup astrometry. Of course, an ecliptic survey would not have found 2003EL61 or 2003UB313 at all... We're just at the very first stages of exploring Trans- Neptunian space. Five or ten years from now, this may be largely forgotten in a splurge of discovery. I hope so, anyway. And I think there will be a splurge of discovery. When 2003UB313 was discovered, I posted a long (multi-part) post hypothesizing three logical categories or populations of planets: Terrestrial (differentiated rocky/ iron worlds), Jovian
[meteorite-list] Katrina Charity Raffle
I thought I would have been notified about winning the Meteorite Hunting Expedition by now...;] __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Katrina Charity Raffle
Me too about winning the six pointed Nininiger star! ;-) From: Pete Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Katrina Charity Raffle Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:59:41 -0400 I thought I would have been notified about winning the Meteorite Hunting Expedition by now...;] __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] MeteoriteArticles.com AD: Collection Pieces++++
Hello All, First a few ebay auctions of interest. All started at $0.99. Check my other auctions, now and later this week-month for lots of more $0.99 auctions. Dalgety Downs Thin Section http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6561861323 109 gram BicoliteChoice Piece, $218 retail http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6561854766 NWA 873 Main Mass http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6561862949 NWA 096 H3.8 Thin Section http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6561868563 NWA 060 CO3.3/3.4 Thin Section http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6561870987 NWA 876 H5 Main Mass http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6562373037 Sikhote-Alin Iron Meteorite Double Oriented!! 14.6g http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6562444703 HENBURY Iron METEORITE, 12.5g., with HUSS Number http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6562383655 A Comet Strikes The Earth, Signed by Nininger http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6561858585 Find a Falling Star, Hardbound, Signed by Nininger http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6562392481 Check out this Stranged shaped Canyon Diablo http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6562382642 Missing some of my postcards? Buy at least 5 different and you can have them for $1.00/each half price. Listed here: http://www.meteoritearticles.com/postcardsale.html Plus lets fo through a box and price a few items..I have these plastic shoebox sized rubbermade boxes. Five of these fit into larger Rubbermade plastic boxes. These boxes are stacked everywhere around my place and upon each other, under things...I think I need a new place. Anywaylets see. Slovak 10.6g, $40.00 Cole Creek 10.6g $25.00 Songyuan, Fall, 1.5g, $12.00 Sikhote-Alin, 9.91g...shaped like gun, $15.00 Essex Meteorite Pendent. This was made by the finder and given to me for writing that short article in Meteorite Times. Basically a cab, with a silver setting. $75.00 Columbus, NM. Main Mass. H5 45.9g. $450.00 Hualapai Wash 004. Gold Basin area L6. Name was never approved. Purchased from finder, O'Keefe. 8.49g. $50.00 Park Forest14.5g from the Garza stone. Large crust on two sides, for size at least. Purchased from Rob Elliott, who retailed Garza PF at $100/g. Selling for $725.00. Half price. NWA 2119 4.6g. Complete slice L3.8 with tkw of only 41.9g. Only $30.00. Juangcheng .1.184g individual .$8.00...100% crusted baby. Powellsville 2.20g, $20.00 Darwin Glass. 14.4g shaped kinda like finger. I have sold several kg. of DG. I kept this because of its shape...14.4g is not large. $15.00 Valera. 2.99g Cow Killer. $20.00 Park Forest Winslow St. House Crater $2000. lots of paperwork and photos. Only horizontal meteorite crater in the world! Okay .I am getting tired now. Thought I would make it at least half way though the box but I have been really pushing myself the last 48 hours just ran out of gas. Be sure to check the eBay items and if you need photos of anything listed above let me know. I might not answer to tomorrow morning, and perhaps I will try to hang out in the chat room tomorrow to answer collection sale questions. Clear Skies, Mark Bostick www.meteoritearticles.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Katrina Charity Raffle
Just back from the meteorite raffle, finished like 30 minutes ago! You will never believe who won the first grand prize! Oh my... Mike Farmer --- Pete Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought I would have been notified about winning the Meteorite Hunting Expedition by now...;] __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Katrina Charity Raffle
Notkin??? Rob Wesel http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com -- We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of the dreams. Willy Wonka, 1971 - Original Message - From: Michael Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pete Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Katrina Charity Raffle Just back from the meteorite raffle, finished like 30 minutes ago! You will never believe who won the first grand prize! Oh my... Mike Farmer --- Pete Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought I would have been notified about winning the Meteorite Hunting Expedition by now...;] __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
