meteorite times magazine
DESCRIPTION
March 2012 IssueTRANSCRIPT
Meteorite Times MagazineContentsby Editor
Featured Monthly Articles
Accretion Desk by Martin Horejsi
Jim's Fragments by Jim Tobin
Meteorite Market Trends by Michael Blood
Bob's Findings by Robert Verish
IMCA Insights by The IMCA Team
Micro Visions by John Kashuba
Meteorite Calendar by Anne Black
Meteorite of the Month by Editor
Tektite of the Month by Editor
Terms Of Use
Materials contained in and linked to from this website do not necessarily reflect the views oropinions of The Meteorite Exchange, Inc., nor those of any person connected therewith. In noevent shall The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. be responsible for, nor liable for, exposure to anysuch material in any form by any person or persons, whether written, graphic, audio orotherwise, presented on this or by any other website, web page or other cyber location linkedto from this website. The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. does not endorse, edit nor hold anycopyright interest in any material found on any website, web page or other cyber locationlinked to from this website.
The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. shall not be held liable for any misinformation by any author,dealer and or seller. In no event will The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. be liable for any damages,including any loss of profits, lost savings, or any other commercial damage, including but notlimited to special, consequential, or other damages arising out of this service.
© Copyright 2002–2011 The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. All rights reserved.
No reproduction of copyrighted material is allowed by any means without prior writtenpermission of the copyright owner.
Meteorite Times MagazineChantonnay: 200 Years and One Fine Personby Martin Horejsi
One hundred years ago this August…a meteorite fell on the small villa of Chantonnay, France. The stone was studied throughout the next twohundred years including under the observant eye of Tschermak who described a fibrous translucentmineral within the matrix. The fibers turned out to be olivine bronzite, a compound that later became classof meteorites often referred to as H chondrites.
The sole cut and polished face on my specimen of Chantonnay holds a pleasant blend
of light and dark matrix sprinkled with metal flake and chondrules.
The crust on Chantonnay was noted as being an “entirely opaque” and a “black semiviterousmagma.”
The specimen number S121 is a notation from the Jim Schwade Collection.
Dr. Schwade acquired this specimen from the famous meteorite collector Walter Zeitschel.
While Jim is still with us, unfortunately Walter has moved on to other things.
While long past history is a great thing in meteorite collecting, there is also the human element, in specificthe collectors. As the piece of Chantonnay made its way through time, it stopped by visiting WalterZeitschel for a while. Walter passed on December 6th of 2009 leaving the rest of us to remember him andshare his story with the new crop of collectors. Walter was truly a gentleman of this sport and a very fineambassador of meteorites. He is still greatly missed.
This original specimen card from Walter Zeitschel accompanied Chantonay (sic) into theSchwade collection,
and in turn also became an important piece of collection history.
The above text is some of the ancient research done with Chantonnay in the 1800s.
I always find it interesting to read such things as it sheds light on both the limited amount of
previous knowledge the scientist had to work with, but also the wonderful insights and
conclusions teased out of the odd rock from space.
As the vertical rays of the sun once again march north across the equator of our fine planet, take amoment and consider all that a historical meteorites have been through, and an slightly longer moment toremember those in our club whose collections are no longer growing.
Until next time….
Meteorite Times MagazineSpring Clean Up, Well Sort Ofby Jim Tobin
Not to dispute the old saying, that time flies. But, it just moves along. It is we that have a changingperception from day to day or year to year. But, time itself passes at a constant rate. Unless, I am badlymistaken this is the last month of year ten of Meteorite Times. I think Paul and I realized that we might beoffering something that people would enjoy. But, we never conceived that we would reach the 11 yearmark when we started. Or that it would seem to come so fast. Oh, sorry I am de-emphasizing the speedof passing time.
About when we started Meteorite Times is when I “lost” some small Odessa irons that I had gotten atTucson from a non meteorite dealer. Liked them a lot and thought that I might someday make jewelry outof them. They were really small and suited to placing in a silver cage or as was the fashion a decade agosilver soldering a loop to them. Well, as I said I immediately “lost” them.
I have the word lost in quotation marks since I knew within a few feet where they must be in my garage.The problem was that my grown-up family was needing my garage for storing their stuff as they movedfrom apartments to houses and so on and over again.
My garage remained in a horrible condition until today. This morning, I finally accepted the challenge ofclearing out my old darkroom and the rest of the garage. Getting it set up to become a digital studio andlab has finally made it to the top of my “do it list“. I gave away all my chemical photography equipment acouple years ago. I never cleaned the darkroom up though, which had ages before become part of thestorage area. I had maintained a small spot for finishing the polishing of jewelry and meteorites but allaround me was hip deep clutter. In the middle of the garage I had maintained another small area with onerock saw and the diamond lap. It has been a pain for a while working in the clutter, but the work itself neversuffered.
Back to the lost meteorites. I forgot where I had put the Odessa individuals. I knew they were somewherenear that reserved clear spot, or on the bench just outside where my torches are. Today I found them onthe shelf above the small clear spot in an envelope. I do not recall even putting them in an envelope. Ifound many other things too during the clean up. I was however, pretty brutal about throwing stuff away. Igot rid of nearly all the electronics related material. I can not imagine sitting down to do much electronicsanymore. The meteorites will I think keep me busy enough. I do want to get back to making some jewelry
though. I found my old shingle that hung over my bench when I worked at the craft plaza in my 20’s. Imade over the years many wedding sets for friends and relatives along with other jewelry. I have madeone or two pieces at least every year since just to keep my skills from dulling completely. But, there will bea piece of bench space in the garage for jewelry when the cleaning is over. There are always those piecesof meteorite that are too small or too ugly to sell as a specimen. But they can be made into somethingreally nice when polished and set. I can see my kiln on the floor. I am about two feet from reaching it tosee what kind of shape it is in. There is only one light box of stuff sitting on top of it. So hopefully it is ok.
I have picked the two scales that will go into the darkroom or “meteorite laboratory”. The first is a Mettlerwith a 160 gram capacity that has less ranges to the right of the decimal point then the one in my officebut is still very sensitive. For larger work I am sending out a Torbal scale that is good to 2 kilogram.
I bought a desktop studio set up last week to aid me in taking pictures. It is a white fabric cube with springsteel in the sides that keeps it popped up. It works like the window shades for cars that pop open. Thestudio came with two nice lights and a small tripod plus several colored backgrounds. These I willprobably not use. I would guess that the meteorites will be photographed with the white backgroundalmost exclusively. I have a couple more lights and may employ them as well. I’ll have to do someexperimenting to see how much illumination I need for the close up work. I think it more a matter of evenshadow-free illumination than more light.
I have cleared out the cabinets and drawers of all the old photo paper. All the related old chemicals havebeen disposed of. It is ready to go digital except for vacuuming and putting in carpet.
It has been a few months since I first mentioned that the garage was going to be reworked into a meteoritecutting lab. But, I am close now just a few more days. I am writing this early in the month so by the timethe issue actually comes out online I should be up and running. Some pieces of equipment have not evenseen the light of day for ten years. It will be fun to get them out of their boxes and set up again. Look formore of our beautiful polished pieces of Muong Nong Layered Tektite. They take a long time in thevibrating lap but they are really worth the work required.
Several more days have gone by since the last paragraph was written. Now, the floor is nearly completelycleared and the darkroom has been vacuumed. One of the benches is completely cleaned off. Thevibrating lap is moved out ready to put up on the two tables that have just been sitting there disassembledfor ten years. Got some of my overheard lights up and working again. Today I was out there for just a fewminutes in the morning and I found another forgotten piece of the past. I do not even remember everhaving it but it had stuff in it and I must have been the one who picked it up and put it in there. It is thepouch that came with my first metal detector. It must be about thirty-six or thirty-seven years ago that Ibought a White Coinmaster. I used it for years and still have it and also my father’s that he got at the same
time. There were no meteorites ever found with it but, relics and lots of bullets and coins were found.Ghost towns, and mines were explored with it. As a young man I had great fun with it. For its time it wasone of the finest detectors available. It’s a pain to use by today’s standard. In many places where therewas black sand in the soil it required constant readjustment of the ground balance. But, it was sensitiveand I found a lot of stuff with it. I took it to Gold Basin once and tried to use it there on meteorites. I realizedvery fast that if I was to be productive as a meteorite hunter I needed to move up to something moremodern and automatic. The poor old White has never been used since. But, one of my grand daughters isinterested in all things scientific and in having a metal detector; so she may get one of the Whites.
I moved the desk top studio out there this morning. I made a bracket yesterday to hold my camera overwhere I am going to shoot. I had made a support for one of the big enlargers years ago and had left itattached to the countertop. It was really nothing more than a galvanized piece of thin wall pipe that theenlarger head moved up and down. But, now it will serve as a nice hands free mounting for my digitalcamera. And as before I can move the camera up and down. It took about five minute for me to braze acouple bolts to a pipe clamp so I could attach a ball head camera mounting that I had laying around. Itworks wonderful. I will not have to fight the problem of adjusting a tripod and there will be no shadows toworry about.
I do not think there are any more surprises waiting in the garage. It is almost cleaned up. Now I just haveto get rid of all the trash and junk. There is an electronic waste recycling event down the street nextweekend so all the old computers and monitors will go away to that. That just leaves a couple dozen bigtrash bags of other stuff. It was a good project and speaking as the world’s greatest procrastinatorcleaning the garage should have happened long ago.
Until next month enjoy
Meteorite-Times MagazineMeteorite Market Trendsby Michael Blood
Like 3 likes. Sign Up to see what your friends like.
This Month’sMeteorite Market Trends
by Michael Blood
Please Share and Enjoy:
Meteorite Times MagazineThe Whitmire (South Carolina) Bolide of February 13th 2012 Thesearch for meteorites from this fireball-meteor still continues.by Robert Verish
The Whitmire (South Carolina) Bolide of February 13th 2012The search for meteorites from this fireball-meteor still continues.
Meteor makes headlines in The Whitmire News!(Wasn’t really a “meteor shower”, but hopefully, it was a meteorite shower;-)
Continuation of front-page article on page 2.(Actually, this was a better than average news article, compared to other “meteor” articles that I’ve read in
much larger newspapers.)Another title to this article could be – “How I Spent My Spring Vacation”. But this is not a picture“slideshow” of my week long stay in South Carolina last month. This is more of an effort to draw attentionto a special celestial event that occurred over the town of Whitmire, South Carolina in the early morninghours of 2012 February 13th (01:42 am EST / 06:42:47.831 UTC).
This “celestial event”, that I speak of, was the passing of a very bright meteor, or fireball, that waswitnessed by many as it fell in an arc across the night sky, and then was followed by a rumbling sonicboom (which makes this fireball a “bolide”).
It is my hope, that by writing this article, more people will take an interest in this “meteor” event and try tofind the meteorite(s) that fell from this bolide, while it is still freshly fallen. I realize that to the lay person thiswill be “like looking for a needle in a haystack”, but look folks, at least now we know where the “haystack”is located! We have confirmed NOAA Doppler Radar that shows the debris falling from this bolide. Thisarticle is a timely attempt to convey that data, as well as, an attempt to convince the reader that, contraryto popular wisdom, it IS possible to search and find even a small meteorite in a pine forest.
First, allow me to state the obvious: I did not find any meteorites during my visit to South Carolina.But it was not for lack of good areas that I could search. The fact of the matter is, there were too manygood areas to search. I hadn’t given myself enough time. I feel that I needed to give myself, at least, 2 to 5more days of searching. (After all, it took me all of 11 days to find my first and only Mifflin meteorite, and Iwas in the strewn-field the whole time!)So, it’s not a matter of me asking others to do what I couldn’t do. It’s more a matter of me letting enoughpeople know that if they continue what I have started, it will only be a matter of time until a meteorite isfound.
Second, I will not be going into detail as to what were all of the reasons that convinced me there aremeteorites on the ground in Whitmire and that prompted me to pick-up my bags and fly to South Carolina,so if you are interested in those kind of technical details, you would be best served to go directly to my“REFERENCES” section at the end of this article.
As an aside (and hopefully this doesn’t become a major distraction to my main objective – “getting peopleinterested in looking for this meteorite”), this article will also serve as a “wake-up call” to the US meteorite-reseach community, that US meteorite falls are going unrecovered due to federal policies that need to bechanged. Statutes that have been put in place to protect and preserve legitimate artifacts are obstuctingthe recovery of freshly-fallen meteorites. It is the contention of this writer that a meteorite from this fallwould have already been recovered by now, except that the professional meteorite dealers/hunters(typically, one and the same) have been totally absent from this recovery effort. The reason being is thatthe majority of the area under this meteor’s Doppler radar pattern (the predicted fall location) is publiclands and there is no system in place to compensate these professional hunters should they find ameteorite. In fact, it’s not permissible to pick it up, let alone keep it.And another fact, there was another meteorite fall in Saskatchewan, shortly after this Whitmire fall, whichcompletely drew away attention from Whitmire, as all the big meteorite dealers started packing forCanada. But what this means is that these “professional hunters” would rather go out of the U.S. and goto Canada (where they know their recovery efforts would be compensated), even though there were morerisks and having to endure frigid mid-winter conditions.Simply put, the U.S. meteorite-researchers are losing out to the Canadians, who had the forsight toCHANGE their POLICIES (I repeat, NOT their laws, but how those laws are administered), and who arenow seeing a four-fold increase in the recovery of Canadian meteorite falls.This is what I define as a “wake-up-call”.
Now, let’s get back to my story.As soon as I arrived in Whitmire, I felt that luck was going my way when I stopped at the mini-mart to getdrinks, and there in the newspaper stand was a tall stack of freshly delivered Whitmire News papers –with the very prominent headline: “Meteor shower puts Whitmire on map”!
I immediately bought up a couple dozen, and along with my pre-printed flyer and card, I handed-out thesecomplimentary newspapers to all of the private property owners who lived in the vicinity of the “NOAADoppler radar reflections” (which is essentially, all of the residents along Jalapa Road). I felt there wasnothing more to be gained by interviewing eye-witnesses, (after all, I already had the Doppler radarreflections) so I went straight to work at doing what is my forte, searching for and finding small meteorites.By the way, regarding the newspaper article that appeared in the Whitmire News (see the above image),our colleague Dirk Ross and his website is mentioned several times.
Finding “private property owners”, meeting and talking with them, and getting their permission to searchtheir property was much more time consuming than I had anticipated. My succcess percentage at gettingpermission was about 50%. Some of the owners that declined permission expressed an understandable
interest to search their property, themselves. Or they wanted me “to be accompanied in the search bytheir [adult] son”. All of these owners thanked me for bringing their attention to this bolide, and seemed tobe genuinely sincere in wanting to contact me should they find anything in the future.
One of the property owners had an interesting reason why she didn’t give me permission. She said that “ithad already been hunted by two other people”!The two people that she was referring to were: http://imca.cc/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=173>Michael Johnson from Boiling Springs, SC, andhttp://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=nscpsearch&q=South+Carolina+meteorite+Stuart+McDaniel>Stuart McDaniel of Lawndale, NC,who’s All-Sky Camera caught this fireball-meteor on video which made it possible for other researchers tocalculate where this bolide fell, which made it possible to find the Doppler radar reflections, and whichultimately brout me here to Whitmire, SC. So, a major tip-of-the-hat to Stuart! Kudos for him.
If you, too, would like to visit Whitmire and to lend some help to recovering this meteorite, you don’t haveto “re-invent the wheel” or start-all-over-again, as I did (such as contacting property owners, etc). Since Ihave returned from my trip there have been a number of people local to Whitmire who have come forwardand expressed interest in conducting and leading “group searches”. (I’ll list their names and emailaddresses below.)My colleague, Dr. Nick Gessler (from Duke Univ.), continued the recovery effort at Whitmire and isconducting a public outreach program at Greenville and in South Carolina. His efforts have resulted ingetting Dr. Barry Morris, the Whitmire Community School science instructor, to volunteer as being thepoint-of-contact for future “group” recovery efforts on private property, since he is prominent in thecommunity and is already in contact with the local private property owners.
Any “group effort” attempting a meteorite-recovery on public lands will involve prior planning. The SumterNational Forest (NF) Archaeologist, Mike Harmon, is requesting that he be contacted, first.
So, here are the names and email address for the points-of-contacts in Whitmire:
Barry Morris Email: [email protected] who is a well-respected Science Teacher at WhitmireCommunity SchoolMike Harmon Email: [email protected] who is theUSDA Archaeologist at Enoree Ranger Station –Sumter National Forest
Now here are some pictures from my “Spring Vacation”:
Upon entering the town, you will see a sign that says,
“Welcome to Whitmire – The Pearl of the Piedmont”(Being a Pittsburgh Steelers fan, I would hasten to add,
“Also the birthplace of Donny Shell”)
Main-street for Whitmire (in its entirety).There are 2 small restaurants located here (in this image). The nearest motel is in Newberry (15miles S).
These signs are at the very south-end of town. This is an intersection on SC66 where you can turn SWand hit the Buncombe Trailhead, or turn north towards the Whitmire high school where Dr. Barry Morris is
the science teacher, and is the point-of-contact with the local property owners for getting permission toseach private property and for organizing group searches.
Private property in the predicted fall location offers the best opportunity to search in cleared-out areas. It isimperative that you contact the property owner prior to hiking in these areas. For assistance in contacting
private property owners, please contact Dr. Barry Morris at the Whitmire Community School.
Clearings (cleared-out areas) are not essential for conducting a meteorite-recovery search. Coniferforests, whether they are on private property or are part of the Sumter NF, offer equally good surfaces for
conducting a search. In fact, a case could be made (for the smaller falling stones, at least) that thebranches of the pine trees would afford an opportunity for those stones to be deflected just enough to
keep them from penetrating the ground, and may even bounce back up and sit on top of the pine-needlelitter.
Because of their darker-color, burnt pine-cones and conifer seeds stand-out against the lighter-coloredpine-needles and oak-leaf litter on the forest floor. This suggests that similar-sized, dark-colored stones
should also stand-out on the ground in a pine forest.
In the predicted fall location, private property is usually surrounded by the Sumter NF, which are publiclands that are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The National Forests, like
Sumter, are multi-use areas, but the general public must give consideration to the contractors and leasors(such as logging companies) that work throughout these public lands. There will be some areas whereaccess will be restricted, but these areas are always very well posted. Nevertheless, there are many
designated hiking paths and horse trails that the general public can utilize.
In the Sumter National Forest (NF) there are numerous, well-maintained “horse trails” that can be easilyhiked.
As this sign shows, the only areas in the Sumter NF that have restricted access are those areas wherelogging are actively being conducted (for obvious reasons).
Gravel roads leading to inactive logging areas offer a great deal of “bare” surface for hiking, as well.
While hiking, if you encounter a tree with markings such as these, above, you have entered an area thathas been designated for logging purposes. USDA contractors make these marks on what is called,
“boundary trees”. This boundary may also indicate that you are exiting public lands (and possibly enteringprivate property).
USDA contractors make these marks on “boundary trees” to indicate the boundary of NF with privateproperty.
If you are hiking in the NF and should miss seeing this mark on a “boundary tree”, you are very likely tosee soon a “private property” posted sign, like the one below.
Please do not enter private property without permission.
Needs no explanation.The boundary of the NF with private property is well-posted, particularly if that property is a private “hunting
club”.
You know you have strayed onto private property, if you encounter one of the above, which I call a hunters“blind”. Actually, this is a portable “blind”, and it is not on private property, but was left behind deep in the
NF. But what I’d like to point-out in this image, is how dense the pine forest is, yet you can still see forest-floor easily. I maintain that these conditions are very favorable for a meteorite-recovery effort: A dense
stand of trees with numerous small branches to deflect a falling stone from penetrating the ground, and auniform, light-colored surface (pine-needles) upon which even a small black stone can be easily spotted.
(You have no idea how many animal droppings there are in these woods;-)
No! This is not a TARDIS!When you’ve strayed out of the NF and you encounter this, you’ve entered private hunting grounds. Whenit’s hunting season these “blinds” have men with loaded weapons waiting to shoot a deer or turkey. When
you hike into hunting club property without permission you might be considered a turkey. Don’t be aturkey! (Get rid of cable;-) Get permission before entering private property.
Unfortunately, a lot of wasted wood is left behind after logging operations have ceased. But even thoughthis litter makes it difficult to spot small black rocks, at least all of the thick undergrowth has been cleared
away. Even in these not-so-optimal-conditions, there is still a chance for a recovery to be made.
Even now, I still can’t get over the fact that for all of the 6 days I spent hiking in these woods, I never oncesaw anyone else searching for debris from the February 13th Whitmire Bolide fall. Were all of the
meteorite-recovery experts really intimidated with the prospect of having to search in a dense forest? Ormore likely, were they all discouraged with the prospect of having their meteorite finds (if found on public
land) being turned over to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC?
Consider the image above. It depicts what is argueably a 100+ year old well, which makes this an“archaeological site”. Which means that this is protected and should not be disturbed. While hiking in a
National Forest, if a person should encounter one of these (or for that matter, any object of archaeologicalinterest), it should be left untouched. There are no restrictions in taking pictures, though, and it would be a
good idea to take a GPS waypoint. Hiking and taking pictures in National Forests does not require a“permit”.
While hiking in the Sumter National Forest, I encountered several rock piles, cairns, caves, and monoliths,which a prudent person would consider to be of some archaeological value. In some cases I took picturesof them, as well as GPS waypoints. But I always left them untouched. Hiking and taking pictures in Sumter
NF does not require a “permit”.
While hiking in the Sumter National Forest, I encountered several rock piles, cairns, caves, and monoliths,which a prudent person might consider to have some archaeological value. In some cases I took pictures
of them, and usually I took GPS waypoints, as well.- – - But I always left them untouched. – - -
Hiking and taking pictures in Sumter NF does not require a “permit”.
Because of their darker-color, hardwood nuts stand-out against the lighter-colored fungi, pine-needles andoak-leaf litter on the forest floor. This suggests that similar-sized, dark-colored stones should also stand-
out on the ground in a pine forest. In fact, I would carry a bag of unshelled “hickory nuts” to use as a“throw-down” in order to gauge my ability to spot a small, round black object in the leaf litter on the ground.
Because of their darker-color, animal droppings stand-out against the lighter-colored duff of the forestfloor. More evidence that similar-sized, dark-colored stones should also stand-out against exposed
subsoil in this piedmont area.
It was very rare to see a rock poking-out from the pine-needle-oakleaf duff. So, when I saw this cobble itcaught my attention. But since it wasn’t the right size/shape/color for a freshly fallen meteorite, I walked on
by. Yet it still had that look I’ve seen in weathered desert meteorites, so I went back to the cobble andplaced my magnet stick next to it.The magnet was attracted to it! I stood there for a while entertaining thenotion of whether this could be an old weathered meteorite, or not, but then decided to get-on with the taskat hand, and continue with the search for a “blacker-fresher” meteorite. In any case, I had no choice but toleave it behind, because as the current USDA policy stipulates, if it was a meteorite, it is considered to be
an artifact, and must remain untouched…. ! …. So there it still remains.(And USDA, until you change this policy, please don’t bother asking me for the coordinates. Quid pro quo.)
The same applies to this object, as well.
Before departing Whitmire on my return trip going back home, I paid a visit to the Sumter NF RangerStation. I gave them my remaining copies of the Whitmire News paper and informed them about the
“Meteor” (which they were well-aware of) and then I shared with them copies of the NOAA Doppler Radarimages (which are the following 2 images, below). I also recommended that the Rangers brief all USDAemployess, contractors, and leasors, to be aware that they could encounter meteorites from this fireballwhile conducting their daily duties in the Jalapa Road area of the Sumter NF. They informed me that theSumter NF Archaeologist was out of his office at that time, and they strongly advised me to contact him
ASAP. Five hours later I was in Charlotte NC, boarding my flight back home.
Esko’s predicted fall location as it appears on the Dirk Ross website.(You can click on the above image in order to ENLARGE.)
CLOSE-UP of a portion of Esko’s predicted fall location.
On the flight going back home, I could look back towards the east and see Newberry County, and where Ihad spent the last 6 days hiking in the Whitmire area. I could only hope that those who continue the
search will have better luck.Again, here are the names and email address for the points-of-contacts in Whitmire:
Barry Morris Email: [email protected] who is a well-respected Science Teacher at WhitmireCommunity SchoolMike Harmon Email: [email protected] who is theUSDA Archaeologist at Enoree Ranger Station –Sumter National Forest
References:
Jake Schaefer and his blog titled “SC (2/13/2012 at 6:42 UTC)“. (Post to Meteor Observers):“The data from the seismographs, coupled with the allsky camera [video from Stuart McDaniel], lead to anestimated trajectory that does point towards those radar hits[from Rob Matson]. They are definitely withinthe uncertainty/error bounds.”
(You can click on the above image in order to ENLARGE.)http://3dradar.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/sc-2132012-at-642-utc/
Composite Doppler radar image compiled by Rob Matson. (personal communication):Regarding the image below:“Yes, this is the radar complex I’m talking about. It’s significant not only due to its size and timing relativeto the fall, but also because of the “candy-striping” in it. …there is also a lower altitude hit in the very nextsweep from Greer (which is the lowest elevation angle, one file later.) There is also the hit from theColumbia radar (06:43:03, 2.5-deg cut angle) just a smidge east of the main hits from Greer, addingconfidence that the returns are all real and not just noise. –Rob”
(You can click on the above image in order to ENLARGE.)http://meteorite-recovery.tripod.com/2012/whitmire/SC_3radar_composite.jpg
Jim Wooddell – on his website “DesertSunBurn“. (His post to Meteor Observers):“To help Rob a little….”http://k7wfr.us/RobertMatson/Columbia_064303_scan5.kmz
http://k7wfr.us/RobertMatson/Greer_065003_scan1.kmz
http://k7wfr.us/RobertMatson/Greer_064049_scan6.kmz (You can click on the above links in order to OPEN Google Earth.)http://lists.meteorobs.org/pipermail/meteorobs/2012-February/014701.html
Stuart McDaniel – on his website “Sandia/NMSU Sentinel All Sky Camera Network“. (As seen on a post toMeteor Observers):“Congrats to Stuart McDaniel and the Sandia/NMSU Sentinel All Sky Camera Network for the nicecapture! Jim Wooddell.”(You can click on the link below in order to OPEN Stuart McDaniel’s All Sky Camera video.)http://skysentinel.nmsu.edu/allsky/viewer/209655
ASC video analysis by Esko Lyytinen. (His post to Meteor Observers):http://lists.meteorobs.org/pipermail/meteorobs/2012-February/014691.htmlandFlight-path data generated by Esko Lyytinen. (personal communication):“Hi Bob and all,
I also calibrated the Greensboro security camera video, with the help ofdirect contacts with Clark McClure .( There may still be the posibility to maybe improve this calibration.Clark also sent me some star images taken with digital camera from thesame site, that are not yet in effective use. The calibration was made bymeans of Google maps and also for pixel X/Y ratio, the digital cameraimages of the scenery were in use. …………………………….The stars seenare not very well situated as to the observed track.)Combining with the video data of Stuart McDaniel from Lawndale,I get the arrival direction FROM 316 ( 315.7 )and the “angle below horizontal” 45 ( 45.3) degrees.Estimated uncertainties in these arearound one degree.The combining was also fitted (in the same fitting) with the radartarget(s), taking into account dark flight and wind effect simulations.The entry velocity was derived as 14.0 km/s .The luminous flight end velocity was derived as about 7 km/s.The luminous flight beginning height was 89 km and end 26.7 km inLawndale camera and 27.1 in Greensboro video.
The resulting modeled strewn field central line can bee seen athttp://lunarmeteoritehunters.blogspot.com/2012/02/breaking-news-mbiq-detects-large-meteor.htmlAnd there you can also see the mentioned Greensboro video.
As it may appear from above, this central line was fitted with the radartargets. Robert Matson sent me the actual times ( and altitudes) of theradar scans and a rough estimation of the size of those observed minorfragments was derived and the wind effect from the radar hit to downwas also taken into account.
Regards,Esko”
Dirk Ross…Tokyo – on his website “ DesertSunBurn“. (His post to Meteor Observers):From: drtanuki Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 11:43 AM To: [email protected] ;Global Meteor Observing Forum Subject: [meteorobs] SC projected MetFall Location Dear List, Projectedfall information from the SC Bolide is now posted:http://lunarmeteoritehunters.blogspot.com/2012/02/breaking-news-mbiq-detects-large-meteor.html Thankyou to Esko Lyytinen, Finland. Dirk Ross…Tokyo(You can click on the link below in order to OPEN the Original Message.)http://lists.meteorobs.org/pipermail/meteorobs/2012-February/014717.html
As generated by Esko Lyytinen. (personal communication):“the meteoroid solar system orbit data in the form of Langbroek Excel sheet screen image”
(You can click on the above image in order to ENLARGE.)http://meteorite-recovery.tripod.com/2012/whitmire/orbit_20120213_064247UT-esko.gif
As supplied to me by Mike Hankey. (personal communication):“…here are the AMS plots. If you want to contact any of these eye-witnesses, LMK and I can send youtheir emails.”
(“Click” on the above symbol in order to SEE IMAGE.)http://www.amsmeteors.org/fireball2/ams-event-map2.php?year=2012&event_id=228
LINKS:
“ROCKMANSC’s photostream” – Michael Johnson’s images from the predicted fall location:http://www.flickr.com/photos/30591991@N04/6782939758/?map=1
“TERA News” – from the Tyger-Enoree River Alliance – Jon Durham (TERA Riverkeeper)http://www.tygerenoree.com/News/news.html
“New Video Shows Upstate Meteor” – by: WSPA Staff | WSPA-TV7 SPARTANBURG, S.C.With 27 comments!http://www2.wspa.com/news/2012/feb/14/big-boom-monday-morning-may-be-meteorite-officials-ar-
3220118/
“UFO Explodes Over South Carolina? 2012″ – from one of your typical UFO websites:http://www.2012honduras.com/2012/02/15/ufo-explodes-over-south-carolina-2012/
My previous articles can be found *HERE*
For for more information, please contact me by email: Bolide*chaser
Meteorite Times MagazineThe Mysterious Hico Structure, Hamilton-Erath Counties, Texasby IMCA TEAM
Paul V. HeinrichLouisiana Geological SurveyLouisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Within Texas, credible proposals have been made for the extraterrestrial impact origin of six geologicalstructures. Convincing cases have been made for three of these structures, i.e. Marquez structure (LeonCounty), Odessa crater (Ector County), and Sierra Madera (Pecos County), of being of impact origin(Gibson 1990; Littlefield et al. 2007; Howard et al. 1972; Wilshire et al. 1968; Wong 2001). The Bee Bluffstructure in Zavala County, Texas, is disputed (Sharpton and Nielsen 1988; Jurena et al. 2001). Anotherproposed Texas impact structure, the Wilbarger structure in Wilbarger County, has been discredited bydetailed field research (Nelson 2006). The origin of the last of these structures, the Hico structure, whichlies in Hamilton-Erath County, remains an unresolved mystery.
The Hico structure is a circular disturbance that is developed in Lower Cretaceous strata, upper GlenRose, Paluxy, and lower Walnut formations about 3 km (1.8 miles) north of Hico, Texas and 32.085degrees north latitude and 98.0342 degrees west longitude. On aerial photographs, it appears as acircular feature about 3 km (1.8 miles) in diameter (see map). The arc segments comprising this anomalyconsists of tree lines and drainages associated with ring-like troughs, which encircle the central uplift ofthe Hico structure. On Landsat imagery, the Hico structure is at the center of a subtle 9-km (5.5-mile) indiameter circular feature (Wiberg 1981, 1982; Milton 1987).
History
Mr. William J. McBride first discovered the Hico structure in 1953 while mapping the geology of HamiltonCounty for Humble Oil and Refining Company. In 1956, they drilled the center of this structure looking foroil and gas. Unfortunately, well logs and other data acquired during the drilling of this well and McBride’soriginal report were lost in a warehouse fire (Wiberg 1981). If copies either of the report, well logs, seismicsections, and other data were archived elsewhere and survived the fire and could be located, they mightprovide invaluable data concerning the origin of the Hico structure.
Later, Mr. Oscar Monnig, a Fort Worth meteorite collector and amateur astronomer, pointed out thisenigmatic structure to Dr. James R. Underwood, who at the time was a professor for West Texas State
University, as a potential impact structure. Later, Dr. Underwood suggested to Ms. L. Wiberg that the Hicostructure would be a suitable subject of study for a master’s thesis at Texas Christian University. Thisresearch yielded Wiberg (1981, 1982) and Milton (1987). Approximately twenty years after Wilson (1981,1982), Heggy et al. (2004) examined the Hico structure using ground penetrating radar and analysis ofSRTM Digital Elevation Model.
Local Geology
The bedrock, in which the Hico structure has developed, consists predominately of nearly horizontal,Lower Cretaceous marls, limestone, and sandstone, which dips about 3.5 m per km (18.5 ft per mile)towards the southeast (Figure 1). The oldest strata exposed within the vicinity of the Hico structure is 24m (79 ft), which belongs to the upper Glen Rose formation, of micritic and fossiliferous limestonealternating with resistant beds of marls. Overlying the Glen Rose Formation is 15 to 20 m (49 to 66 ft) ofreddish brown, friable sandstone, which contain hematite concretions, of the Paluxy Formation. Some 40m (130 ft) of the lower and middle Walnut Formation, which consists of calcareous clays and thin-beddedlimestones overlies the Paluxy Formation and outcrops in the vicinity of the Hico structure. Both thePaluxy and Walnut formations contained distinctive limestone and sandstone marker beds, which wereused to map the deformation of strata within the Hico structure in detail (Wiberg 1981; Milton 1987).
Structure
As interpreted by Wiberg (1981, 1982) and Milton (1987), the Hico structure consists of a circular feature,about 3 km (1.8 miles) in diameter, consisting of a central uplift and a ring graben (Figure 1). In addition,they noted that the Hico structure lies at the center of a subtle 9-km (5.5-mile) in diameter circular featureof uncertain origin.
The central uplift of the Hico structure, as illustrated by Wiberg (1981) and Milton (1987), consists of outerand medial zones of circumferential folding surrounding the center of the structure, which is hidden bycolluvial deposits (Figure 1). The outer zone of folding consists of open, undulating “pie-crust” folds, whichare defined by the marker beds recognized by Wiberg (1981). Towards the center of the feature, thesefolds become tighter to form a medial zone of chevron folds with axes radial to center of the Hicostructure. These folds consist of vertical or near-vertical beds of Glen Rose limestone. Holocene andQuaternary colluvial deposits blanket the center of the central uplift. As result, neither the age nor thestructure of the rocks comprising the center of this structure is known. Wiberg (1981) and Milton (1987)suspects that the bedrock within the center consist of Pennsylvanian age sandstones of the TwinMountain Formation, which have been uplifted by as much as 80 m (260 ft)(Wiberg 1981, 1982; Milton1987).
Wiberg (1981, 1982) and Milton (1987) argue that a ring graben surrounds the central uplift. Theyconcluded that the outer boundary of this ring graben is defined by a series of major faults, which are partof a ring fault (Figure 1). The inner boundary of this graben consists of numerous obscured faults, whichhave small displacement ranging from 8 to 18 m (26 to 59 feet). Within the ring graben, erosional outliersof Walnut Formation have been downfaulted into Paluxy and glen Rose Formation. Although largelyobscured by alluvial and colluvial deposits, circumferential folding also appears to be present within thering graben (Wiberg 1981, 1982; Milton 1987).
Wiberg (1981) reported observing a subtle 9-km (5.5-mile) in diameter circular feature, within which theHico structure lies at it center, in Landsat imagery. She was unable to find a geological explanation for thisfeature.
Later, Heggy et al. (2004) examined the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) constructed from the Shuttle RadarTopography Mission (SRTM) data. They found three previously unrecognized topographic rings, of whichthe outermost one is 5 to 6 km (3 to 3.7 miles) in diameter. Ground penetrating radar study of these ringsindicated that these rings are controlled by ring faults similar to those that form the outer boundary on thering graben.They concluded that the outermost ring represents the true diameter of the Hico structure. They make nomention of the 9-km (5.5-mile) in diameter feature observed by Wiberg (1981).
Evidence of Shock Metamorphism
Wiberg (1981) collected samples of a marker bed composed of calcite-cemented sandstone from
outcrops of folded Paluxy Formation exposed in the central uplift of the Hico structure. Powered samplesof this sandstone were analyzed using x-ray diffraction. No indication of coesite, a high-pressure form ofquartz created by extraterrestrial impacts, was found in these samples. She also prepared samples ofsandstone and limestone from the folded strata from the central uplift. She found a lack of any evidence ofshock metamorphism in either the sandstone or limestone samples (Wiberg 1981, 1982; Milton 1987).
Milton (1987) examined two borrow pits exposing friable limestone of the Glen Rose Formation within thecentral uplift. In one borrow pit, she found surfaces exhibiting convergent striations. Although the striationsare irregular due the friable nature of the limestone, they were interpreted by Milton (1987) to be shattercones.
Geophysical Surveys
Wiberg (1981) acquired gravity and magnetic data along transects across the Hico structure. Analyses ofthis geophysical data revealed neither gravity nor magnetic anomalies associated with its central uplift.She did find weak Bouger gravity anomalies associated with the ring faults associated with the ring graben(Wiberg 1981, 1982; Milton 1987).
Discussion
According to the Spray and Hines (2007), the principal criteria for determining if a geological feature is animpact structure formed by the hypervelocity impact of a meteorite or comet are (1.) presence of shattercones, (2.) presence of shocked quartz with multiple planar deformation features within in situ minerals,(3.) presence of high-pressure mineral polymorphs within in situ minerals, (4.) morphometry of thestructure, (5.) presence of an impact melt sheet and/or dikes, and impact melt breccias, and thepresence of impact pseudotachylyte and breccias associated with radial and concentric fault systems. Sofar in terms of these criteria, only the morphometry of the Hico structure and report of shatter cones byMilton (1987) having been found in a borrow pit appear to meet these criteria. Unfortunately, Milton (1987)provides neither the detail descriptions nor photographs needed to document the occurrence of shattercones. As a result, the existing published evidence is inadequate and insufficient to demonstrate theexistence of shatter cones associated with the Hico structure.
The morphometry of the Hico structure is generally regarded as insufficient proof of its impact origin.Unfortunately, circular terrestrial structures, e.g., volcanoes, salt diapirs, glacigenic features are generatedby numerous other means, so the Hico structure’s circular morphometry is not sufficient to prove impactstructure status. However, as discussed by Wiberg (1981, 1982) and Milton (1987), the internal structure,which includes a ring graben and central uplift, of the Hico structure is quite similar to known impactstructures. This and the lack of any plausible non-impact mechanisms for its origin, strongly indicate, butdo not prove, that it is an extraterrestrial impact structure.
Conclusions
Although conclusive evidence for the extraterrestrial impact origin of the Hico structure is still yet to befound, it appears that it is quite likely an extraterrestrial impact structure.The search for definitive evidence of shock metamorphism associated with the Hico structure is stillincomplete and more research needs to be done. First, the identity of the bedrock underlying the center ofthis structure still needs to be determined. Finding uplifted and deformed Pennsylvanian bedrock beneaththe colluvium covering the center of this structure will greatly strengthen the case for the impact origin ofthis structure. In addition, it is within the strata underlying the center of the Hico structure where the bestchance for finding shocked quartz exists. Finally, the shattered cones reported by Milton (1978) need toverified and better documented before they can be accepted as proof of the impact origin of this structure.
In addition, another unanswered question is the significance of the 9 km in diameter feature reported byWiberg (1981). The existence and origin of this circular feature was completely ignored by Heggy et al.(2004)’s investigation of smaller circular features. Whether it is real, how it formed, and what is its relationto the Hico structure remains an unresolved mystery.
Acknowledgments
I thank Douglas Carlson, Assistant Professor of Research, Louisiana Geological Survey for taking thetime to review this article and his advice on how to improve it.
References Cited:
Littlefield, D. L., P. T. Bauman, and A. Molineux. 2007. Analysis of formation of the Odessa crater,International Journal of Impact Engineering, v. 34, pp. 1953–1961.
Gibson, J. W. 1990. Marquez Dome-an impact in Leon County, Texas. Unpublished M.S. thesis,University of Houston, Houston, Texas, 65 p.
Heggy, E., F. F. Horz, A. Reid, S. A. Hall, and C. Chan. 2004. Potential of radar imaging and soundingmethods in mapping heavily eroded impact craters: mapping the Hico Crater. 35th Lunar and PlanetaryScience Conference, abstract no. 1462, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas.http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1462.pdf, 224 KB PDF file, last visited on September 28,2007.
Howard, K. A. T. W. Offield, and H. G. Wilshire. 1972. Structure of Sierra Madera, Texas, as a guide tocentral peaks of lunar craters. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 83, pp. 2795–2808.
Jurena D., B. M. French, and M. J. Gaffey. 2001. Planar Deformation Feature Orientations and Distributionin Quartz Grains from the Carrizo Sand Formation in South Texas: Relation to the Bee Bluff Structure.Lunar and Planetary Science XXII abstract no. 1828. Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas.
Nelson, J. 2006. personal communication, November 2006, Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign,Illinois.
Milton, L. W.. 1987. The Hico impact structure of north-central Texas. in pp. 131-140, J. Pohl, ed.,Research in Terrestrial Impact Structures. University of Munchen, Munich, Federal Republic of Germany.
Sharpton, V. L., and D. C. Nielsen. 1988. Is the Bee Bluff structure in South Texas an impact crater? InLunar and Planetary Science XIX. Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas. pp. 1065-1066.
Spray, J., and J. Hines. 2007. Earth Impact Database.http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/index.html, last visited on September 28, 2007.
Wiberg, L. 1981. The Hico Structure; a possible astrobleme in north-central Texas, U.S.A. UnpublishedM.S. thesis, Texas Christian University: Fort Worth, Texas, 75 p.
Wiberg, L. 1982. The Hico Structure: a Possible Impact Structure in North-Central Texas, USA. 13thLunar and Planetary Science Conference, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas, p. 863-864.
Wilshire, H. G., and K. A. Howard. 1968. Structural patterns in central uplifts of cryptoexplosion structuresas typified by Sierra Madera. Science, v. 162, p. 258-261.
Wong, W. A. 2001. Reconstruction of the subsurface structure of the Marquez impact crater in LeonCounty, Texas, USA, based on well-log and gravity data. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, v. 36, no. 11,p.1443-1455.
This article is a re-print from the Houston Gem and Mineral Society Bulletin and used with permission andthe instructions in their newsletter state the following. ‘Permission to use material originating in thisnewsletter is given freely providing that credit is given to the author and the source. Articles without abyline are considered to have been written by the editor.’
Meteorite Times MagazineAn Ungrouped Carbonaceous Chondriteby John Kashuba
NWA 5958 C3.0-ung was 286 grams of fragments. We bought a fragment from Greg Hupé and had thinsections made from it.
The Met Bull entry and two papers are here:http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=50844http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/2343.pdfhttp://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/2325.pdf
3.534 gram fragment of NWA 5958 C3.0-ung
The large tan chondrule fragment is about 1.7 mm across. The protruding white chondruleabove and to the right is about 0.5 mm in diameter. NWA 5958 C3.0-ung
Here the original chondrule has had at least three shells of additional material accreted to it.
Total diameter is almost three millimeters. Thin section in transmitted light. NWA 5958 C3.0-ung
Chondrule diameter is almost three millimeters. Thin section in cross-polarized light. NWA5958 C3.0-ung
Two small mutant barred olivine chondrules. Thin section in cross-polarized light. NWA 5958C3.0-ung
A small distorted barred olivine chondrule. Thin section in cross-polarized light. NWA 5958
C3.0-ung
A fine-grained object with larger mineral grains embedded. Thin section in cross-polarizedlight. NWA 5958 C3.0-ung
A fine-grained object with embedded mineral grains flanked by mineral grains that appear tohave accreted additional material. Thin section in cross-polarized light. NWA 5958 C3.0-ung
CAI. Thin section in cross-polarized light. NWA 5958 C3.0-ung
A droplet shaped chondrule 0.6 mm across with interesting internal textures. Thin section inplane-polarized light. NWA 5958 C3.0-ung
We see that the chondrule contains both olivine and pyroxene. Why does the chondruleappear to have flattened sides? Why does it appear to have the point of a droplet? Thinsection in cross-polarized light. NWA 5958 C3.0-ung
Is this the answer to the droplet point question, a cosmic taffy pull? Thin section in cross-polarized light. NWA 5958 C3.0-ung
Meteorite Times MagazineMeteorite Calendar – March 2012by Anne Black
Please click on the meteorite calendar to view a larger image.
Meteorite Times MagazineNWA 6472 LL3.2 8.00 gramsby Editor
Our Meteorite of the Month is kindly provided by Tucson Meteorites who hosts The Meteorite Picture of theDay.
Contributed byPeter Marmet, NWA 6472 LL3.2 8.00 grams
Submit Pictures to Meteorite Pictures of the Day
Meteorite Times MagazineLibyan Desert Glass 27.4 gramsby Editor
Libyan Desert Glass 27.4 grams
Meteorite Times MagazineMeteorite-Times Sponsorsby Editor
Please support Meteorite-Times by visiting our sponsors websites. Click the bottom of thebanners to open their website in a new tab / window.
Once a few decades ago this opening
was a framed window in the wall
of H. H. Nininger's Home and
Museum building. From this
window he must have many times
pondered the mysteries of
Meteor Crater seen in the distance.
Photo by © 2010 James Tobin