[meteorite-list] Re: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat May 6 01:00:55 2006
Message-ID: <042101c670c9$b2bb6200$6401a8c0_at_c1720188a>

Rob,

Since you felt it necessary to step up, claim guilt and show disrespect for
a leader in Meteoritics, I felt I had better respond publicly.

Dr. Irving has earned a Ph.D. and the Nom Com votes on his submissions. I
think these qualifications speak for themselves as far as qualifying rocks.
Of course, the stones were brought back and analyzed properly, something
that you failed to do and then made up excuses for. I recently sent in 5
different type samples for the same type of meteorite because the variances
made it unclear to me that they were part of the same event even though I
have seen thousands of meteorites. Every stone from NWA 2999 had a piece
removed, thin-sections made and were all studied. Every multiple stone
classification sharing the same nomenclature was voted on and approved. The
Nom Com has made provisions for multiple stone entries. One only has to
read their submission forms to see this has been taken into consideration.

If the Nom Com accepts classifications from Cascadia, then I suggest having
your material examined there as they would be more qualified then yourself
at making pairing judgements. Borrowing numbers and data to make stones
look like official meteorites is in poor taste and demonstrates a lack of
morals as far as I am concerned.

Since when has NWA 1877 ever sold for a thousand a gram? You may be
confusing it with NWA 1459 which is not paired, was the first Olivine
Diogenite in private hands and weighed less than a hundred grams. I see you
stole information from an AGU copyrighted abstract, posted it on your site
and gave credit to NASA for it. Are you still dealing Campo as something
else? Get your facts straight before pointing you finger at others.


Adam

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Wesel" <nakhladog_at_comcast.net>
To: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>;
<meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 9:20 PM
Subject: Clowns . was Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)


> Perhaps the term should be "Officially Sorted By A Scientist Over A Few
> Beers" or "OSBASOAFB's"
>
> Just what could Dr Irving do in the field that I can't do in my office.
Did
> he have his field SEM with him, his field ion microprobe, his field
> polarascope? Or was he a fish out of water without his lab relying on you
to
> tell him what was and wasn't a meteorite?
>
> And the MetSoc has no position on selling meteorites yet, though members
> have been buying this material.
>
> Jeff Grossman's own unedited words (he is the NomCom chair Adam if you
are
> not familiar with his work):
>
> "On the question of pairing... for most meteorites, pairing studies are of
> little scientific interest and not worth taking the time to do. Visual
> pairings are almost worthless. For the important meteorites, pairings get
> worked out in the scientific literature over time. This may be unsettling
> for some dealers, but that's the way it is."
>
> So apply that to your "cutting parties" and the serious pairing work that
> goes on Adam.
>
> I could take these down to Cascadia tomorrow and say "whaddya think" and
it
> would be no less official than yours.
>
> and finally from Dr Grossman:
>
> " It is acceptable and routine, however, for people to make statements
> indicating that various numbered stones may be paired (although I would be
> cautious about believing such statements unless they appear in the
Bulletin
> or other scientific publications)."
>
> So don't proclaim IMCA standards as MetSoc/NomCom standards to me.
>
> Enough was said earlier, you had to open it again.
>
> And you bring up number borrowing, I paid for 20% of the cost to get NWA
> 1877 classified so it is just as much mine as yours.
>
> Cheap, lazy, thieving, Clown...out :0)
>
> Rob Wesel
> http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com
> ------------------
> We are the music makers...
> and we are the dreamers of the dreams.
> Willy Wonka, 1971
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>
> To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 7:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Self Proclaimed Pairings Issues (SPPI)
>
>
> > The excuse that I have 3,000 pieces of what looks like the same stone
> > won't
> > fly. As I stated before, every piece of NWA 1110 was examined by a Nom
> > Com
> > approved scientist. NWA 3118, which consisted of thousands of pieces
was
> > thoroughly gone through by Dr. Irving in the field, in Morocco. Dr.
Bunch
> > literally went through over 2,000 lbs. of my material in Denver taking
> > three
> > days to do so. Scientists help me to sort material at cutting parties.
> > For
> > the most part, they seem more than willing to go through large batches
of
> > material. I have a new find consisting of several thousand pieces that
> > with
> > the help of Dr. Irving were sorted out and classified. Which would you
> > rather have, a self proclaimed pairing or pieces that have been examined
> > by
> > a competant scientist?
> >
> > I am not trying to police any market, just stating that the standards
set
> > by
> > the I.M.C.A. and the Meteoritical Society serve a very important
purpose.
> > Every other industry seems to have standards in place, why not
meteorites?
> > If you agree to be a member of the I.M.C.A. you also agree to the
> > standards
> > set forth by the Meteoritical Society. A dealer who operates without
> > standards is nothing more than a clown as far as I am concerned.
> >
> > Enough Said,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
>
Received on Sat 06 May 2006 12:57:38 AM PDT