Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums


Nugget Shooter Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


CaliforniaFinder last won the day on September 27 2015

CaliforniaFinder had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Los Angeles

Recent Profile Visitors

974 profile views

CaliforniaFinder's Achievements

Copper Member

Copper Member (1/7)



  1. Jason Utas here. There are rocks that look like that, and that's not fusion crust...
  2. Then the sharp edge doesn't make sense. Fusion crust - sharp broken edge - fusion crust - doesn't work. That ain't crust.
  3. The "crust" on it looks like it fell ~yesterday (no rust), but you're saying weathering's covering everything up? ...And a broken corner is the same color and similar texture as the crust...? That doesn't add up. It's fresh or it isn't. Does it look like a weathered stone? No. Does it look like a fresh stone? Kind of, but not really. Mike says the chipped corner is also covered in fusion crust because it's the same color as the smooth sides. I think it looks like a piece of homogenous, fine-grained black rock that's been mostly weathered ~round, and then got chipped on one edge.
  4. Look carefully at this photo. The rough flat side facing us is a broken face. We're looking at the interior of the rock. The protruding corner near the top is a little more worn / less desert-varnished, and it's lighter in color because felsic minerals like quartz / feldspar are showing through. And look at that deep pit to the right of center. It's grainy. That's not fusion crust. That's not exposed chondrite. It's a pocket of softer still-dark-grey-rock that's eroding out. Compare this stone to others found in the field. They're rusting. You should see rust spots. Chondrules. If it's magnetic, but it's not rusty, where's the iron? ...It's present as magnetite / hematite. If you don't want to cut it, don't cut it. You don't need to. It's not basalt. Looks more like a fine-grained metamorphic rock.
  5. Shouldn't need to window it. The corner here is broken with a sharp edge and it's black and granular, through and through. The other stones from this fall all show oxidation. This one doesn't. It doesn't contain ferrous iron. I'd be glad to see it in person, but these photos are fine...
  6. Adamana looks to be an H-chondrite. A few people hypothesized that it could be a piece of Holbrook because it was found left in a dump far beyond the big end of the field. I would not believe those claims.
  7. That broken edge sure looks like basalt. IMBs usually rust pretty readily due to the larger grains of Fe and FeS. The texture looks like a lot of the basalt you find in the Mojave. I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think that's a meteorite.
  8. Weathering, petrology, everything is identical to NWA 869. Weathering on Bouse is unlike any other stones found in the Southwest. The stones have almost no internal oxidation, but show evidence of extreme wind polishing and chondrule corrasion. "Bouse" stones were from an area of aeolian erosion and active dunes. In a much more arid desert than the American Southwest. No one has done this kind of study on it, but I don't think there is any question that Bouse is fake. NWA 869 is a distinctive meteorite among the thousands of Northwest African meteorites. It looks even more out of place among Gold Basins and Franconias.
  9. Bouse is NWA 869. Don't waste your time.
  10. First photos look like the lammelar weathering typical of Al Haggounia. Could well be a meteorite, despite the other comments. Second stone is an OC.
  11. Sure, although Lunar breccias can contain fine-grained granulitic clasts that would look similar. The issue is the size distribution. Large clasts can be present, but the ratio of large clasts to smaller clasts / matrix is too high in your specimen - it's not regolith. Your specimen has two major particle sizes: fine-grained matrix and ~cm-sized clasts, with not much in between and ~nothing larger. That implies mechanical sorting, and we don't see that in ~any meteorites.
  12. Breccia, terrestrial. Clast size distribution is off for just about all brecciated achondrites (HED and Lunar). Too many large clasts. Second photo's too blurry for a positive rock ID. Since the clasts are angular, it's probably volcanic (Conejo formation), but those may be ripped-up, fine-grained clasts in a sedimentary rock (e.g. turbidite, Chatsworth formation). http://research.nhm.org/pdfs/37041/37041.pdf
  13. Rock is too fine-grained and dark for most meteorite types, and the surface cracks/texture are typical for pieces of massive hematite. 100% not a meteorite.
  • Create New...