[meteorite-list] RICHLAND, Final

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:08:14 -0700
Message-ID: <93aaac890703202108x45c0baf2mc746d61b8d361639_at_mail.gmail.com>

Mike, All (...),
I apologized to those who deserved it. After what you said, I don;t
believe you should get one. You seem to think that your account of
the dates was correct. I don't. Steve Schoner just posted to say
that your account is false as well.

-- And you did assume that John had withheld information from you out
of spite. I stupidly believed you when you stated that you had
actually tried to contact him to resolve the issue as opposed to
brooding on it for seven years. Sorry Mike, I don;t believe in
multiple dropped emails. It doesn't happen that often - and even if
it did, by whatever stroke of luck, actually happen, you still decided
to simply sit there in steeping malevolence for the better half of a
decade, instead of simply calling him (google his name, the number's
there).
I only stated the supposition that he was angry with you after
believing what you said about repeated contact, etc. If your
statement had been true, then yes, the statements that I made before
would have been justified. I apologized or the incorrectness of
these, based on the faulty information I was fed by you. When I say
that I try to contact a person, I don;t simply give up after a few
emails that aren't responded to, sorry. If that ever happens, I call,
write, go see them - anything to ensure that they actually get
whatever message they need to get (assuming that it's something as
important as this sort of issue, which ends in a clearly malevolent
misunderstanding on your part - lasting for seven years).

So yes, I'm sorry my statements regarding John's intentions were not
true. They were less vindictive than yours, which you already state
you apologized for. I apologized for mine regarding him as well.

However, unless you discount Steve Schoner's take on the story as
well, I see no way in which you can possibly defend your statements
from before. The time scale, as I stated before, was indeed measured
in months instead of years. Not only I, but Steve as well stated
this.

The only real problem that I see is that you believe unconditionally
that your account of what happened seven years ago is correct.
I hate to break it to you Mike, but even *you* can be wrong.

Jason

*And Mike, you can take my name out of the address list in your
messages - the only reason I'm still getting any mail from you is that
it's routed through the list.

On 3/20/07, Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 Wed 21 Mar 2007 12:08:14 AM PDT