Including Original "Paul H. Letters" Copyright © 1996-2025 Paul V. Heinrich / website © 1996-2025 Dirk Ross - All rights reserved.



Thursday, 26 June 2008

Using GIS for Meteorite Hunting and Study

Using GIS for Meteorite Hunting and Study

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 26 23:52:17 EDT 2008

McCartney Taylor wrote

"I, too, am a GIS person. Since Land ownership &
GIS has just been brought up, I have to take this
one step farther and mention good & free
GIS packages."

I do not bother with ESRI as a GIS program even though
where I work has a group license for it. It takes a long,
long
time to learn how to work. Instead, I use Global Mapper,
which only costs about 300.00 dollars and is very easy to
use and does what I need it to do. Also, their support
people, not only return email and other inquiries about
problems, they typically do it the same day that you
contact them. More information can be found at:

Global Mapper - http://www.globalmapper.com/

It does a spectacular job with Digital Elevation Models
(DEMs)
especially those made from LIDAR data. Some examples of
DEMs made from the LIDAR data can be seen in "The
Scotlandville, Denham Springs, and Baton Rouge Faults - A
Map Guide for Real Estate Buyers, Sellers, and Developers
in
the Greater Baton Rouge Area" at

http://www.lgs.lsu.edu/deploy/uploads/BRFaultsGuide.pdf

Yours,

Paul H.

Mars hit by huge object four billion years ago, study finds

Mars hit by huge object four billion years ago, study finds

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 26 09:08:30 EDT 2008

Asteroid impact made Mars two-faced, Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/06/25/scimars125.xml

Giant impact explains Mars dichotomy EurekAlert (press release), DC
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/ciot-gie062308.php

Mystery Behind Mars’s Lopsided Shape Revealed eFluxMedia
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Mystery_Behind_Marss_Lopsided_Shape_Revealed_19520.html

Yours,

Paul H.

100th Anniversary of the Tunguska impact Nature issue

100th Anniversary of the Tunguska impact Nature issue

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 26 09:05:06 EDT 2008

The latest issue of Nature (Volume 453 Number 7199)
celebrates the 100th Anniversary of the Tunguska impact.
It has papers and articles about impact events on the Moon
and Mars and NEOs. The URL for this issue is:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7199/

The articles and papers include:

1. Planetary science: Tunguska at 100

2. Planetary science: The hole at the bottom of the Moon

3. Planetary science: The burger bar that saved the world

4. Gallery feature: All craters great and small

5. What Spaceguard did

6. Planetary science: Forming the martian great divide

7. Mega-impact formation of the Mars hemispheric dichotomy
by Margarita M. Marinova, Oded Aharonson & Erik Asphaug
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7199/abs/nature07070.html

8. The Borealis basin and the origin of the martian crustal dichotomy
Jeffrey C. Andrews-Hanna, Maria T. Zuber & W. Bruce Banerdt
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7199/abs/nature07011.html

9. Implications of an impact origin for the martian hemispheric dichotomy
F. Nimmo, S. D. Hart, D. G. Korycansky & C. B. Agnor
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7199/abs/nature07025.html

Giant Asteroid Flattened Half of Mars, Studies Suggest, Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=giant-asteroid-flattened

Mars' two-faced riddle 'solved', BBC News, UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7473128.stm

Yours,

Paul H.

Wednesday, 25 June 2008

New Paper on Silverpit (Impact ??) Structure, North Sea

New Paper on Silverpit (Impact ??) Structure, North Sea

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 25 15:31:00 EDT 2008

Dear Friends,

In the Journal of the Geological Society, there is a new paper on the proposed
Silverpit Impact Structure. It is:

Wall, M.L.T. , and J. Cartwright and R.J. Davies, 2008, An Eocene
age for the proposed Silverpit Impact Crater. Journal of the Geological
Society. vol. 165, no. 4, pp. 781-794
DOI: 10.1144/0016-76492007-138

http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Article.asp?ContributionID=1441435
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4ABEBE2BF6408E5C5CB6

Using seismic stratigraphy, and microfossil, including calcareous nanofossil,
data from regional wells, they dated the age of the first sediments onlapping
into this structure. This relationship suggests that the structure is Middle
Eocene in age. As a result, they conclude that this structure is 10 to 15 million
years younger than previous age estimates and this structure is far too young
to be associated with the K-T boundary. They also argue that the Silverpit
structure is considerably younger than when regional folding and salt
flowage occurred. This, they argue makes it too young to have been created
by this regional folding and salt flowage as argued by other papers.

Silverpit crater
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverpit_crater

North Sea crater shows its scars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4360815.stm

Yours,

Paul H.


Santa Fe, NM Impact Crater Latitude and Longitude

Santa Fe, NM Impact Crater Latitude and Longitude

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 25 12:51:32 EDT 2008

In “Santa Fe, NM Impact Crater article”, Charles O'Dale
asked about the Santa Fe - Hyde Park, New Mexico, Impact
Structure:

“Any idea on the exact position of this structure (Lat/Long)?”

According to the SEIS database, version 10, it is:

Latitude: 35.728277
Longitude: 105.85966

The SEIS database, version 10 can be found at:

http://web.eps.utk.edu/ifsg.htm

yours,

Paul H.

Friday, 20 June 2008

New Paper About Chondrule and Chondrite Formation

New Paper About Chondrule and Chondrite Formation

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 20 15:03:01 EDT 2008

In the June 20, 2008 issue of Science there is a paper about
the formation of Chondrules and Chondrites.

It is:

Alexander, C. M. O'D., J. N. Grossman, D. S. Ebel, and F. J. Ciesla,
2008, The Formation Conditions of Chondrules and Chondrites.
Science. vol.. 320, no. 5883, pp. 1617-1619.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1156561

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5883/1617

Yours,

Paul H.

Monday, 9 June 2008

Correct URLS to PDF files of Tunguska “crater” papers

Correct URLS to PDF files of Tunguska “crater” papers

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 9 09:30:49 EDT 2008

In my initial post I have the wrong URLs for some of the papers.
which Listed in it. The old post was at:

http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2008-June/045010.html

The correct URLs for the PDF files are:

Gasperini, L., F. Alvisi, G. Biasini, E. Bonatti, G. Longo, M.
Pipan, M. Ravaioli and R. Serra, 2008, A possible impact
crater for the 1908 Tunguska Event. Terra Nova. vol. 19,
no. 4, pp. 245-251 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3121.2007.00742.x
Correct PDF file

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2007.00742.x

The comment and reply are:

Collins, G. S., N. Artemieva, K. Wünnemann, P. A. Bland,
W. U. Reimold, and C. Koeberl, 2008, Evidence that Lake
Cheko is not an impact crater. Terra Nova. vol. 20, no. 2,
pp. 165–168 doi:10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00791.x
Correct PDF file

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00791.x

Gasperini, L., Enrico Bonatti, and Giuseppe Longo, 2008,
Lake Cheko and the Tunguska Event: impact or non-impact?
Terra Nova. vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 169-172,
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x
Correct PDF file

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x

Yours,

Paul H.

Saturday, 7 June 2008

Comment and reply to Tunguska "crater" paper now available online

Comment and reply to Tunguska "crater" paper now available online

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 7 16:54:18 EDT 2008

The comment and reply on the alleged crater associated with the
Tunguska impact event are now online and free to download.

The original paper is:

Gasperini, L., F. Alvisi, G. Biasini, E. Bonatti, G. Longo, M.
Pipan, M. Ravaioli and R. Serra, 2008, A possible impact
crater for the 1908 Tunguska Event. Terra Nova. vol. 19,
no. 4, pp. 245-251 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3121.2007.00742.x

Web page
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2007.00742.x

PDF file
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x

The comment and reply are:

Collins, G. S., N. Artemieva, K. Wünnemann, P. A. Bland,
W. U. Reimold, and C. Koeberl, 2008, Evidence that Lake
Cheko is not an impact crater. Terra Nova. vol. 20, no. 2,
pp. 165–168 doi:10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00791.x

Web Page
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00791.x

PDF file
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x

Gasperini, L., Enrico Bonatti, and Giuseppe Longo, 2008, Lake
Cheko and the Tunguska Event: impact or non-impact? Terra Nova.
vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 169-172, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x

Web Page
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x

PDF file
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x

Yours,

Paul H.

Monday, 2 June 2008

"GSA Today" Comments and Reply Published on Firestone's and Abott's Research

"GSA Today" Comments and Reply Published on Firestone's and Abott's Research

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 2 16:41:57 EDT 2008

1. The Original Paper by Printer and Ishman

Pinter, N., and S. E. Ishman, 2008,Impacts, mega-tsunami, and
other extraordinary claims. GSA Today. vol. 18, no. 1 pp. 37–38
Web page - http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2FGSAT01801GW.1
PDF File - http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/18/1/pdf/i1052-5173-18-1-37.pdf

2. Bunch's and Others’ Comments

Bunch, T. P., J. Kennett, and D. K. Kennett, 2008, Comment:
Impacts, mega-tsunami, and other extraordinary claims. GSA
Today. vol. 18, no. 6 p. 11
Web Page - http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2FGSATG10C.1
PDF File - http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/18/6/pdf/i1052-5173-18-6-11.pdf

Bunch et al.'s SUPPLEMENTARY CALCULATIONS AND INFORMATION:
Web Page - http://ie.lbl.gov/mammoth/GSAToday.html

3. Firestone's and Others’ Comments

Firestone, R. B., and A. West, 2008, Impacts, mega-tsunami,
and other extraordinary claims: COMMENT. GSA Today Online.
April 2008, DOI: 10.1130/GSATG11C.1, p. e13
Web Page - http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-static&name=i1052-5173-18-6-e13
PDF File - http://www.gsajournals.org/pdf/online_forum/i1052-5173-18-6-e13.pdf

4. Abbott's and Others’ Comments

Abbott, D. H., E. F. Bryant, V. Gusiakov, W. B. Masse, and
D. Breger, 2008, Impacts, mega-tsunami, and other
extraordinary claims: COMMENT. Published Online: April 2008,
DOI: 10.1130/GSATG9C.1, p. e12
Web Page - http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-static&name=i1052-5173-18-6-e12
PDF File - http://www.gsajournals.org/pdf/online_forum/i1052-5173-18-6-e12.pdf

5. Printer's and Ishman’s Reply to the Above Comments

Pinter, N., and S. E. Ishman, 2008, Impacts, mega-tsunami,
and other extraordinary claims: REPLY: GSA Today online,
June 2008, DOI: 10.1130/GSATG13Y.1
Web Page - http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-static&name=i1052-5173-18-6-e14
PDF file - http://www.gsajournals.org/pdf/online_forum/i1052-5173-18-6-e14.pdf

SUPPLEMENTARY CALCULATIONS AND INFORMATION, Pinter, N., and
S.E. Ishman, 2008. Reply to comments on “Impacts, megatsunami,
and other extraordinary claims.” GSA Today, vol. 18.
PDF file - http://www.geology.siu.edu/GSATSupplement.pdf

6. GSA Today: Comments and Replies web page - http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-static&name=i1052-5173-14-3

An interesting paper is:

Reimold W.U. 2007. The impact crater bandwagon. Meteoritics
& Planetary Science. v.42. p 1467–1472.

Yours,

Paul H.


Thursday, 29 May 2008

Beryllium-10 Study on the Origin of Tektites

Beryllium-10 Study on the Origin of Tektites

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Thu May 29 12:52:31 EDT 2008

While looking for something else I came across an
interesting tektite study. It is;

Serefiddin, F., G. F. Herzog, and C. Koeberl, 2007,
Beryllium-10 concentrations of tektites from the
Ivory Coast and from Central Europe: Evidence for
near-surface residence of precursor materials.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. vol. 71, no. 6,
pp. 1574-1582 (March 15, 2007) doi:10.1016/j.gca.2006.12.007

To get the abstract of this article enter the above
doi number in the box at http://dx.doi.org

they concluded:

"Although not definitive, consideration of several possible
cosmic-ray exposure histories suggests that about half the
interior 10Be has a meteoric origin, which if corrected to the
time of formation yields a concentration compatible with
those measured in typical contemporary soils. The observations
are consistent with the formation of three of the four main
tektite groups from surface soils or sediments."

Yours,

Paul H.

New Paper on Lunar meteorite, Miller Range (MIL) 05035

New Paper on Lunar meteorite, Miller Range (MIL) 05035

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Thu May 29 10:37:22 EDT 2008

A paper about a new lunar meteorite has been accepted for
publication in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. It is:

Joy, K. H., I. A. Crawford, M. Anand, R. C. Greenwood, I. A.
Franchi, and S. S. Russell, in press, The Petrology and
Geochemistry of Miller Range 05035: A New Lunar Gabbroic
Meteorite. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.

Miller Range (MIL) 05035 is identified as a lunar gabbroic
meteorite. Its mineralogy, bulk-rock chemical composition and
the bulk oxygen isotope values are similar to those of other
mare basalts. It consists predominately of pyroxene grains
with large plagioclase feldspars and accessory quartz, ilmenite,
spinel, apatite and troilite. This meteorite is similar to
Asuka-881757 and Yamato-793169 and basaltic regolith
breccia MET 01210.

Yours,

Paul H.


Saturday, 17 May 2008

penny just dropped - Reflected Light Petrography

penny just dropped - Reflected Light Petrography

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Sat May 17 20:32:21 EDT 2008

Dave Harris wrote:


>I am sure I saw some reference on the list about

>these Nantan thin sections that appear on Fleabay.

>Having just got a polarizing scope I just realised

>that they can either be ruut t/s or completely

>opaque as Fe and sulphides are opaque to the

>standard 30 micron thickness, and would be a

>bit dull anyway - expecially looking at rust!

>How funny - shows I learnt SOMETHING already

>about mineral optics


There are petrographic microscopes, which use reflected polarized light to
conduct petrographic analysis of opaque minerals in polished thin sections.
To take advantage of reflected light petrography, the thin sections usually
have to be polished.

Determination of opaque minerals in reflected light microscopy
http://www.unige.ch/sciences/terre/mineral/fontbote/opaques/opaques_properties.html

Ore Petrology and Phase Equilibria
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mckibb01/node11.html

Ore (Petrographic) Microscopes
http://www.oremicroscopes.com/

Trinocular Ore Polarizing Petrographic Microscope
http://usbmicroscopes.biz/usb-microscope/trinocular-ore-polarizing-petrographic-microscope/

A couple of books:

Ore Microscopy and Ore Petrography by James R. Craig and David J.
Vaughan (1994), ISBN:0471551759

Atlas of the Textural Patterns of Ore Minerals and Metallogenic
Processes by S. S. Augustithis (1995) ISBN:3110136392

Bunch, T. E. and A. M. Reid, 1975, The Nakhlites. I - Petrography and mineral
chemistry. Meteoritics. vol. 10, pp. 303-315, pp. 317-324.

Yours,

Paul H.

Thursday, 15 May 2008

A New Question (Antarctic Politics)

A New Question (Antarctic Politics)

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Thu May 15 23:43:14 EDT 2008

Martin Altmann pondered:

“Besides... I have some ideas (sorry, happens from time
to time):

Could it be also a reason for Antarctic meteorites never
can't be traded, that according the Antarctic treaties,
none of the governments involved in Antarctic hunts
can't get ownership in these meteorites?”

For a discussion of the politics of doing science in Antarctic, there
is a delightful article. It is:

Naylor, S., M. Siegert, K. Dean and s. Turchetti, 2008, Science,
geopolitics and the governance of Antarctica. Nature Geoscience.
vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 143 – 145. doi:10.1038/ngeo138

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n3/index.html#fe

Yours,

Paul H.

Tuesday, 6 May 2008

Terrestrial Meteorite Hunting on the Moon

Terrestrial Meteorite Hunting on the Moon

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Tue May 6 09:31:42 EDT 2008

Dear Friends,

In the most recent issue of Astrobiology, there is an article advocating
the collecting of terrestrial meteorites from the Moon. They suggest that
there are pieces of the ancient Earth, blasted into space from the
surface of early Earth to be found on the Moon as "terrestrial
meteorites". They argue that an unique record of early Earth might
be found on the Moon in the form of "terrestrial meteorites".

The paper is;

Ian A. Crawford, Emily C. Baldwin, Emma A. Taylor, Jeremy A.
Bailey, Kostas Tsembelis, 2008, On the Survivability and Detectability
of Terrestrial Meteorites on the Moon. Astrobiology. vol. 8, no. 2,
pp. 242-252. doi:10.1089/ast.2007.0215.

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2007.0215

Best Regards,

Paul H.

Wednesday, 16 April 2008

New Meteorite Crater Discovered in New Mexico

New Meteorite Crater Discovered in New Mexico

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 16 09:54:43 EDT 2008

There is a paper, which is in press about the discovery of a new
meteorite structure in New Mexico. It is:

Fackelman, S. P. J. R. Morrow, C. Koeberl, T. H. McElvain, in press,
Shatter cone and microscopic shock-alteration evidence for a post-
Paleoproterozoic terrestrial impact structure near Santa Fe, New
Mexico, USA. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Accepted
Manuscript, Available online 7 April 2008,
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.033 ( http://dx.doi.org)

The abstract reads in part:

“Field mapping, morphologic description, and petrographic
analysis of recently discovered shatter cones within
Paleoproterozoic crystalline rocks exposed over an area >5
km2, located ~8 km northeast of Santa Fe, New Mexico,
USA, give robust evidence of a previously unrecognized
terrestrial impact structure. Herein, we provisionally
name this the “Santa Fe impact structure”. The shatter
cones are composed of nested sub-conical, curviplanar,
and flat joint surfaces bearing abundant curved and
bifurcating striations that strongly resemble the multiply
striated joint surfaces (MSJS) documented from shatter
cones at Vredefort dome.”

and

“The PFs and PDFs are dominated by a basal (0001)
crystallographic orientation, which indicate a peak shock
pressure of ~5–10 GPa that is consistent with shatter
cone formation.”

Yours,

Paul H.

Friday, 11 April 2008

Why is Mars Lopsided? - Giant Impact Hypothesized

Why is Mars Lopsided? - Giant Impact Hypothesized

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 11 10:16:23 EDT 2008

Why is Mars Lopsided?, The Martian Chronicles

http://martianchronicles.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/why-is-mars-lopsided/

WHAT HAPPENED TO MARS? by Kelly Beatty

http://theuniversalseduction.com/articles/what-happened-to-mars

Kerr, R. A., 2008, An Early Big Hit to Mars May Have
Scarred the Planet for Life. Science. vol. 320. no. 5873,
pp. 165 - 166.

J.C. Andrews-Hanna, M.T. Zuber, and W.B. Banerdt,

"The Martian dichotomy: An elliptical impact basin?",
39th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference,
abstract #1980, 2008.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2008/pdf/1980.pdf

DO MEGA IMPACTS LEAVE CRATERS? CHARACTERIZING MEGA
IMPACTS AND THEIR RELATION TO THE MARS HEMISPHERIC
DICHOTOMY. by Margarita M. Marinova, Oded Aharonson, and Erik Asphaug,
Seventh International Conference on Mars

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/7thmars2007/pdf/3354.pdf

Yours,

Paul H.

Monday, 7 April 2008

Tektites and "Fused Glass" in Israel ???

Tektites and "Fused Glass" in Israel ???

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 7 13:23:46 EDT 2008

In sci.archaeology USENET discussion, The following
statement was made:

"There is an area in Israel where Sodom and Gomorrah
are believed by most historians to have once been.
The plain is littered with spherules of fused glass,
which only forms when very high heat is combined with
great pressure. ..."

This claim was allegedly made on a PBS show in the
mid-1990s according to a post in the thread "Re: Nobel
Laureates v Creationists", Message-ID:
<iojbj0ledno57l9u4f19i9k7mndatv28ac at 4ax.com>,
by "Scotius" at:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/13ce10fb77d1fc61/54edd76022891b71?lnk=st&q=%22fused+glass%22+%22Sodom+and+Gomorrah%22#54edd76022891b71

Does anyone on this list either know what PBS special
is being referred to by this comment or primary
literature that documents the occurrence of "spherules
of fused glass, which only forms when very high heat
is combined with great pressure " within any part of
Israel? Is this claim about "spherules of fused glass"
having been found in Israel being mentioned in a
mid-1990s PBS Special a figment of "Scotius"
imagination?

While trying finding out about the occurrence of "fused
glass" in Israel, my web search found reference to
"tektites" having been found in articles by written
pseudoscientific alternative archaeologists including:

1. THE ATLANTEANS Tutors or Tyrants?
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/atlanteans.html

2. ATLANTIS 2012 AND THE AGE OF REVEALING
The High Window Articles by Michael Tsarion.
http://taroscopes.com/highwindowsarticles/2012.age.reckoning.html

Both of the above web pages stated:

"Why are radioactive tektites and isotopes found all over
the Dead Sea basin and at the very location posited for the
ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah?"

and 3. Atlantis, Alien Visitation, and Genetic Manipulation - 06'
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/atlantida_mu/atlantis_alienvisitation/atlantis_alienvisitation06.htm

"How does the detractor explain the presence of
radioactive tektites and isotopes at the very
sites now known to be the Biblical Sodom and
Gomorrah and Jericho?"

None of these web pages provide any source for tektites
being found in Israel.

Has any credible source reported anything about tektites
being found in Israel? Or is this usual claptrap that alternative
archaeologists post to the Internet?

Best Regards,

Paul H.

Wednesday, 2 April 2008

Cosmogentic dating, and bad science on ancient meteorite impactor?

Cosmogentic dating, and bad science on ancient meteorite impactor?

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 2 13:12:04 EDT 2008

Dear Friends,

In” [meteorite-list] Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor? - Part 2”
< http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2008-April/043471.html >,
I wrote:

“Hermanns et al. (2006) also noted of the younger deposits, which
contain the frictionite:

“Pieces of wood recovered from a reconnaissance gallery
in the Tauferberg gave a conventional 14C age of 8710+/-150
years BP (Heuberger, 1966), and an AMS 14C age of 8705+/-
55 years BP (Ivy-Ochs et al., 1998),”

References Cited:

Hermanns, R.., L.. Blikra, M. Naumann, B. Nilsen, K. Panthi, D.
Stromeyer, O. Longva, 2006, Examples of multiple rock-slope collapses
from Köfels (Ötz valley, Austria) and western Norway. Engineering
Geology. vol. 83, no. 1-3, pp. 94-108.”

Note, the other two references are:

“Heuberger, H., 1966, Gletschergeschichtliche Untersuchungen in
den Zentralalpen zwischen Sellrain-und Otztal. Wissenschaftliche
Alpenvereinshefte. no. 20.

Ivy-Ochs, S., H. Heuberger, P. W. Kubik, H. Kerschner, G. Bonani,
M. Frank, and C. Schluchter, 1998, The age of the Köfels event.
Relative, 14C and cosmogenic isotope dating of an early Holocene
landslide in the central Alps (Tyrol, Austria). Zeitschrift fur
Gletscherkunde und Glazialgeologie. vol. 34, pp. 57–70.

In “Cuneiform clay tablet translated for the first time” (EurekAlert
(press release), DC, March 31, 2008 )
< http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/uob-cct033108.php >,
the authors of “'A Sumerian observation of the Kofels' impact event'”
state that this so-called impact is recorded in a tablet dated about 700 BC
(2700 BP) and occurred 3123 BC (5123 BP).

If the above radiocarbon dates are calibrated to calendar years, they
indicate the Kofels event occurred about 9700 BP calendar years. This
is approximately 7000 years before the event was recorded and
approximately 4600 years before they argue that this so-called “impact”
occurred.

They dismiss the radiocarbon dates by claiming that the wood samples
were somehow magically “contaminated” by the impact. I say “magically”,
because there is not a practical way that an impact, especially an imaginary
one, could have contaminated the wood samples buried by the landslide.

The radiocarbon dates are supported and the claims of “contamination”
are refuted by cosmogenic isotope dating, which would be unaffected
by an impact. Cosmogenic isotope dating by Ivy-Ochs et al. (1998)
that yielded dates of 8880+/-490, 10,070+/-520, and 10,630+/-
570 calendar years BP. These dates are very close to the calibrated
radiocarbon date of about 9,700 BP. Thus, they confirm that the
Köfels landslide occurred thousand of years before either the
Sumerian tablet was argued to have been made, or the when the
so-called “impact” was suppose to have occurred. The Köfels
landslide is much too old to have any connection with any of them.

Reference Cited

Ivy-Ochs, S., H. Heuberger, P. W. Kubik, H. Kerschner, G. Bonani,
M. Frank, and C. Schluchter, 1998, The age of the Köfels event.
Relative, 14C and cosmogenic isotope dating of an early Holocene
landslide in the central Alps (Tyrol, Austria). Zeitschrift fur
Gletscherkunde und Glazialgeologie. vol. 34, pp. 57–70.

Cosmogenic isotope dating links

Cosmogenic isotope dating of a Sioux Quartzite erosion surface,
Southwestern Minnesota by Carrie Patterson, MGS
http://www.geo.umn.edu/mgs/beryl10/SiouxIntro.html

Cosmogenic Exposure Dating and the Age of the Earth
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tcn.htm

Additional thoughts on the Köfels "impact" / landslide can be found at:
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2008-April/043471.html

Yours,

Paul H.

Tuesday, 1 April 2008

Sardis Iron

Sardis Iron

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 1 12:08:27 EDT 2008

Sean T. Murray wrote:

“There is a write-up on Sardis that was on the Georgia
Mineral Newsletter, Volume IX, No. 4, Winter 1956 (part 1)
and Volume X, No. 4, Winter 1957 titled "Meteorites in
Georgia" by E. P. Henderson and A. S. Furcron. (There
are also reprint of the document from 1966). From the
Department of Mines, Mining, & Geology, 19 Hunter
Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia.”

Two other references for the Sardis Iron are:

Henderson, E. P. and Cooke, C. W., 1942, The Sardis (Georgia)
meteorite. Proceedings of the U S. National Museum. vol. 92,
pp. 141—150.

V. F. Buchwald, V. F., 1977, The Mineralogy of Iron Meteorites.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series
A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 286, No. 1336,
pp. 453-491.

Yours,

Paul H.

Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor? - Part 2

Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor? - Part 2

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 1 08:59:48 EDT 2008

In "Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor?",

Sterling K. Webb wrote:

“See, I started out sceptical, and now I'm not so sure...

This collector considers "köfelsite" as an impactite:
http://www.somerikko.net/collection/index.html
"Age between 8000 and 16000 years is from glass.
Theory has been recently presented that köfels has been
formed during a giant landslide about 9000 years ago.
That landslide was so huge that rock melted because
friction. So there is still a possibility that Köfels is not
an impact structure. However, there is lots of big
landslides in Alps but no other similar cases is found
yet. Also PDF's in quartz has been reported in samples
from Köfels, and PDF's are produced only by impacts."
http://www.somerikko.net/old/geo/imp/refer.htm

There has been iridium analysis, but it's inconclusive.”

The origin of the pumice, called either “hyalomylonites” or
“frictionites” associated with the Köfels has been studied in
great detail by:

Erismann, T. H., 1977, Der bimsstein von Köfels impaktit oder
friktionit?. Material und Technik. vol. 5, pp. 190–196.

and Erismann, T. H., H. Heuberger, and E. Preuss, 1977, Der
Bimsstein von Köfels (Tirol), ein Bergsturz-“Friktionit. Mineralogy
and Petrology. vol. 24, no. 1-2, pp. 67-119.

The abstract to Erismann et al. (1977) stated:

“For more than a century the genesis of the fused rocks
found in the landslide masses of Köfels (Ötztal, Tyrol)
has remained enigmatic. The initially promoted hypothesis
of a volcanic origin could not be backed by sufficient
evidence. So in the last decade the possibility of a meteorite
impact has been accepted by a large number of scientists.
It is, however, by no means in accordance with all facts
observed. In 1971, Preuss presented the idea of the melting
heat being generated by the friction between sliding and
stationary rock surfaces. As this working hypothesis
proved to be in good accordance with petrographic and
geomorphological evidence it was studied in detail by the
authors in cooperation with the Swiss Federal Laboratory
for Testing Materials (EMPA). The corresponding research
project (ldquoBig Sliderdquo) was based on a careful
analysis of the effects of the energy generated by the
landslide. By setting up plausible models for movement,
heat generation, and heat transfer and by solving the
resulting differential equations it became evident that —
as far as the landslide masses did not glide on a very
thick layer of stone powder (dynamically a rather
unprobable supposition)-large amounts of fused rock
(ldquofrictioniterdquo, for definition see chapter 2.2) must
have been produced. The enormous size of the particular
landslide was recognized as a determining factor in this
connection. The theoretical results thus obtained could
be backed experimentally by producting artificial pumice
under conditions approaching those of the Köfels landslide.”

Erismann et al. (1977) fairly well demonstrates that the estimated
kinetic energy of the rock mass displaced by the landslide would
have generated the heat necessary to melt the rock and form the
“pumice”, which they called “frictionite”. The frictionite occurs
in dikes several decimeters to meter thick at the top of the landslide
deposit.

The Köfels landslide, about 2 to 3 cubic kilometers in mass, is the
**largest** landslide in Europe. It is not surprising that it has some
unique aspects to it being the only one of its size in the region.

Another study, which examined glass found in the Köfels landslide is:

Masch, L., H.. R. Wenk, and E. Preuss, 1985. Electron microscopy
study of hyalomylonites-evidence for frictional melting in landslides.
Tectonophysics. vol. 115, pp. 131–160.

They studied glass, which they called “hyalomylonite”, which occurs
in the Köfels landslide deposits. It differs from frictionite in that it
occurs as veins 1 mm to 3 cm thick and lacks porosity. from their
analysis, they concluded that the hyalomylonite was created by
kinetic heating of the rock during the landslide.

Similar hyalomylonite / frictionite deposits has also been found in
megalandslides in the Himalayas of Nepal and Peru as discussed by:

Heuberger, H., L. Masch, E. Preuss, and A. Schrocker, 1984,
Quaternary Landslides and Rock Fusion in Central Nepal and in the
Tyrolean Alps. Mountain Research and Developments. vol. 4, no. 4,
pp. 345-362.

Weidinger, J. T., J.-M. Schramm, and R. Surenian, 1996, On preparatory
causal factors, initiating the prehistoric Tsergo Ri landslide (Langthang
Himal, Nepal). Tectonophysics. vol. 260, no. 1-3, pp. 95-107.

and

Legros, F., J.-M. Cantagrel, and B. Devouard, 2000, Pseudotachylyte
(Frictionite) at the Base of the Arequipa Volcanic Landslide Deposit
(Peru): Implications for Emplacement Mechanisms. The Journal of
Geology. vol. 108, no. 5, pp. 601–611.

Hermanns et al. (2006) presents significant problem for the impact
hypothesis in that he found that there is evidence of multiple landslides.
It was the largest and youngest of these landslides that created the
frictionite when it slid over the older deposits. To explain multiple
periods of landsliding, a person would have to argue that two different
impacts occurred at virtually same spot at different times separated by
a significant period of time.

Hermanns et al. (2006) also noted of the younger deposits, which
contain the frictionite:

“Pieces of wood recovered from a reconnaissance gallery
in the Tauferberg gave a conventional 14C age of 8710+/-150
years BP (Heuberger, 1966), and an AMS 14C age of 8705+/-
55 years BP (Ivy-Ochs et al., 1998),”

References Cited:

Hermanns, R.., L.. Blikra, M. Naumann, B. Nilsen, K. Panthi, D.
Stromeyer, O. Longva, 2006, Examples of multiple rock-slope collapses
from Köfels (Ötz valley, Austria) and western Norway. Engineering
Geology. vol. 83, no. 1-3, pp. 94-108.

-- Alledged PDFs --

Impacts and meteorites
http://www.somerikko.net/old/geo/imp/refer.htm

The above web page, states

“Also PDFs in quartz has been reported in samples
from Köfels, and PDFs are produced only by impacts.”

The alleged PDFs found in the deposits of the Köfels landslide were
examined by Dr. Christian Koeberl according to:

Deutsch, A., C. Koeberl, J.D. Blum, B.M. French, B.P. Glass,
R. Grieve, P. Horn, E.K. Jessberger, G. Kurat, W.U. Reimold,
J. Smit, D. stoffler, and S.R. Taylor, 1994, The impact-flood
connection: Does it exist? Terra Nova. vol. 6, pp. 644-650.

This paper reports that Dr. Koeberl found them **not** to be PDFs.
Rather, he identified them to be nonPDF llamellar deformation
features typical of tectonic, not impact, processes.

How these llamellar features formed is discussed by:

Leroux, H., and J.-C. Doukhan, 1993, Dynamic deformation of quartz
in the landslide of Koefels, Austria. European Journal of Mineralogy.
vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 893-902.

-- Additional Note --

Sorenson et al. (2003) concluded:

“Analysis of the Köfels sturzstrom seems to indicate
that most aspects can be explained without recourse to
exotic emplacement scenarios. The bulk of the material
resembles the debris from an energetic but conventional
landslide.”

Reference Cited

Sorensen, S.-A., and Berthold Bauer, 2003, On the dynamics of
the Köfels sturzstrom. Geomorphology, vol. 54, no. 1-2, pp. 11-19.

Yours,

Paul H.