[meteorite-list] RICHLAND, Final

From: Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <167578.41809.qm_at_web33114.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Jason,
this is sad, your attempt at an apology by saying that
everything that I said was a lie is not an apology at
all.
I have emailed Dr. Wasson privately, apologized for
any mmisunderstanding or percieved wrongs by either
one of us.
That being said, every last thing I said on this list
is true as far as my attempting to get the data for
the last seven years. You actually need to stop saying
that I am a liar on here. This is clearly your intent.
This is not a private matter, there were issues
involved with this meteorite that affected the
hundreds of collectors that paid for it. Some of the
things should not have been said, that is true. But
the facts needed to be heard.
You told me John was angry at me "snatching" the
meteorite from under him and yourself, the fact that I
never got a response for years seems to play to that
fact. What else was I supposed to think, when my
emails went unanswered? If Dr. Wasson never saw them,
then it is a simple matter of mail lost in cyberspace,
not an uncommon thing these days.
Again Jason, I have emailed Dr. Wasson, thanked him
for providing the data today, and apologized to him
for any percieved wrong.
Now it is time to let it drop, we have the data, that
is all we need now.
Just please do not call me a liar again, that is a
little difficult for me to ignore.
thanks everyone, including Dr. Wasson for cleaning the
closet and putting a name to Fredericksburg/Richland.

Michael Farmer


By the, this is exactly what this list is here for,
the sharing of information, even if it takes some
chatter to get the information shaken out of the
trees.


--- Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello All,
> Dr. Wason just emailed both Mike and myself,
> clearing this entire issue up.
> I don't know exactly why this entire argument was
> brought to the
> list's attention, as it was clearly a private
> matter, and for this I
> apologize.
>
> After the ridiculous accusations that Mike posted
> against John (which
> were founded in fasle assumptions made on Mike's
> part), I also
> responded with comments that were technically
> untrue. I would like to
> clear this up.
> Mike stated that John refused to send him the data
> because of a
> disagreement that they had regarding the purchase of
> the iron by Mike.
> I assumed that Mike knew what he was talking about,
> and wasn't simply
> throwing wild accusations around. As it turns out,
> Mike was entirely
> wrong on this, and, as a result, my argument was
> false as well. I
> supposed that, based on Mike's supposition that Dr.
> Wasson was
> actually retaining information for whatever purposes
> (supposedly
> spite), Farmer should simply apologize and that the
> entire issue would
> be cleared up.
>
> As it turns out, Dr. Wasson had simply become
> occupied with other work
> at the time, and had forgotten to email Mike the
> data.
> That being said, the question arises as to why Mike
> did not simply
> re-request the data/ask Dr. Wasson to submit the
> iron again.
> Regarding this, I can offer no explanation - Mike
> will have to help
> you out on that end.
>
> In any case, I apologize for the presumptions which
> I helped to
> further, that were based on the false data provided
> by Michael Farmer.
> Based on what I actually knew at the time, coupled
> with the
> information from Michael Farmer, which I made the
> mistake of believing
> as true, there was little possibility, in my
> opinion, of my reaching
> another conclusion at the time.
>
> John, I apologize for the statements that I made,
> and I would like to
> apologize again to the list for all of this.
>
> Jason
>
>
> On 3/20/07, Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I think Sergey's explanation is most likely, that
> the
> > Richland mass was the transported piece, since it
> only
> > weighed 12 kilograms.
> > I don't recall seeing any signs of human damage
> (other
> > than many plow cuts) but this was a very hard
> iron. I
> > like good mystery, and this is an interesting
> one.
> > Unfortunately we do not know the exact location of
> the
> > find, so there is not much more that could be done
> to
> > search the farm for more pieces.
> > Michael Farmer
> > --- dean bessey <deanbessey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > --- Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > > Jeff,
> > > > Now comes the question of how a large piece of
> a
> > > > meteorite came to rest 178 miles (297 km) from
> the
> > > > first piece.
> > > > Does anyone have an explanation as to how or
> why
> > > it
> > > > could/would be transported so far back then,
> and
> > > > buried in a farmers field?
> > > >
> > > I suspect that the natives could have done it.
> The
> > > question is why (And not bother to take care of
> at
> > > it
> > > afterwards).
> > > It might have been to eroded to tell (And there
> may
> > > no
> > > longer be photos or memories of the uncut mass)
> but
> > > I
> > > wonder if there was evidence on the original
> mass
> > > that
> > > some pieces were crudely chipped of.
> > > If there was pieces chipped of, a plausable
> > > explanation of why the indians took so much
> trouble
> > > to
> > > move it is that they were making iron tools with
> it
> > > (A
> > > semi common occurance in the pre iron world).
> > > Then after some years of this chipping, neglect,
> war
> > > or other reasons may have caused it to be
> abandoned
> > > and slowly be buried by natural means.
> > > Of course that is onely one possible explanation
> and
> > > there is no real evidence for it but would be a
> > > reason
> > > why it was moved. It could well be another fall.
> > > Just an idea
> > > Cheers
> > > DEAN
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to
> love
> > > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures
> > > list.
> > > http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > >
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> > >
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Tue 20 Mar 2007 06:38:24 PM PDT