>To: Treiman, Allan

>Subject: RE: Possible meteorite

>

>Allen,

>

>I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I have a lot of things

>to do and everything has taken longer than I thought. I wanted to get good

>pictures of the fusion crust and that took almost two weeks because all I

>have is a toy microscope with a very simple camera attachment. I have no

>control over exposure or focus and it was very frustrating. Now I have the

>photos and some reports finished on paper, but I haven't gotten them into the

>computer yet. I was hoping to e-mail the stuff to you, but I have decided it

>is easier to bring the stuff up on a web site. It should be operational (at

>least part of it) in a day or two. If you want to send me your address, I

>will snail mail you the pictures and reports I have made. Otherwise, I'll

>let you know by e-mail when the Mars portion of my web site becomes

>available. My web site address is micromike.com. I have shown the rock to

>Chris Romaneck and he believes the rock has flown through the air. Everyone

>who sees it agrees although several local geologist believe it melted after

>being ejected from a volcano. That can't be true, because the rock is filled

>with sand and the sand has been melted also. This means the sand was laid

>down before the rock came through the atmosphere. Thanks again.

>

>micromike

>

>----------

>Sent: Thursday, April 17, 1997 1:08 PM

>Subject: Possible meteorite

>

>

>

>Dear Mr. Moore -

>

> Thank you for writing again. I realize it is frustrating to 'know'

>something

>to be true, and yet have experts disagree with you. It is really important

>here, as a scientist, to ask yourself if the experts might be right and you

>might be mistaken.

> From your letter, it is clear that you have thought a lot about this

>rock, and have had some good luck in finding a scientist to analyze

>it for you. Getting a chemical analysis is really quite good, considering

>how much it costs (in money and time) to do one. So, you overstate

>the case when you say that "... I have had no luck in getting this thing

>tested."

> You are, of course, correct that we cannot have found all possible types

>of meteorites, so yours could conceivably be one even though it doesn't

>look like known varieties. But there are some characteristics that all

>meteorites

>share because they all must come through the Earth's atmosphere. It is basic

>physics that they must be going at least 10 kilometers per second as they

>hit

>the Earth's atmosphere. And anything going that fast will heat up enormously

>

>as it enters the atmosphere. It will melt or burn, just like the Space

>Shuttle tiles

>you mention. This melting makes the fusion crust, a layer rich in glass on

>the

>outside of meteorites. [The word fusion means melted, it has nothing to do

>with

>nuclear fusion].

> If your rock doesn't have a fusion crust, it can't be a meteorite. Who

>knows how it

>got onto your ranch, but it didn't fall from space through the Earth's

>atmosphere. If

>the meteorite fell the day before you found it, is should have a fresh, very

>shiny glass

>fusion crust. Nearly all fusion crusts are black, but a few meteorites have

>greenish

>crusts. (And iron meteorites are a bit different, but your rock is not

>iron.) If your rock

>does not have a fresh, shiny, glassy crust, it cannot be a fresh meteorite

>fall. On old

>meteorites that have sat in the weather for many , many years, the fusion

>crust

>becomes rough and pitted, just like old bottle glass does. If the meteorite

>has been out

>a really long time, the fusion crust becomes just a smooth, rusty layer

>around the

>meteorite.

> Some places, including west Texas, earth rocks get coated with a thin

>dark layer. This

>is called desert varnish, and may be from thin layers of bacteria that grow

>on the rocks

>whenever they get wet. But this layer is not fusion crust.

>

> Quite honestly, your description of the rock makes it seem EXTREMELY

>unlikely that it

>is a meteorite. Although many meteorite are volcanic rocks, only one or two

>have pores in

>them. A rock, like yours, with pores and passageways and thin walls seems

>like a poor bet

>to survive passing through the Earth's atmosphere. Remember from the film

>Apollo 13,

>that the astronauts had to hit the earth's atmosphere at just the exact

>angle to keep from

>being crushed? The same is true for rocks -- delicate structures would get

>destroyed.

>Likewise, sand in the rock, sand that could pour out, would not survive

>entry. This sounds

>much more like the rock was on Earth a long time perhaps in a river bed.

>

> I would look at a piece of the rock, if you would like, but I am not at

>all hopeful that it is

>a meteorite. I cannot promise that I will confirm what you already 'know'

>about this rock.

>I can only promise to look at it, do a few analyses if necessary, and report

>back to you on

>my opinion, as a person who has seen lots of meteorites, studied some of

>them, and

>understands something of where they come from and how they get here. But

>there is a

>catch. You say that you want someone to "work with you to test my

>hypothesis...". I will

>not look at your rock unless you can tell me what evidence would prove your

>hypothesis

>true, and what evidence you would accept that would prove the hypothesis

>false.

>

> Yours,

> Allan Treiman