[meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:07:45 +0100
Message-ID: <004b01c88da7$ace0d610$177f2a59_at_name86d88d87e2>

Well, technically, I'd say,
as long as the 2-fall-hypothesis isn't established, and it doesn't happen
that often, that within short time in the same place two meteorite falls,
we have to count all pieces found there to Chiang Khan.
Best,
Martin


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Michael L Blood [mailto:mlblood at cox.net]
Gesendet: Montag, 24. M?rz 2008 04:49
An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite List
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion

Hi Martin,
        To me, the important question is how much of this material is
The same fall.
        Michael

on 3/23/08 4:41 PM, Martin Altmann at altmann at meteorite-martin.de wrote:

> In fact, there is also an inconsistency in the last Catalogue of
Meteorites
> itself.
> In the header of the entry the tkw of Chiang Khan is listed as 367g
> but in the distribution of the specimens in the same entry are listed
pieces
> in a total weight of 3279grams. (Largest amount at UCLA with 2588.4g
there,
> and the piece of 800g in the University of Bangkok isn't mentioned).
> So together with the Ex-Haag-piece and Oliver's finds - he's moving at the
> moment, will ask him as soon as he has an Internet access again, how many
> grams in total - we have at least 6kg.
>
> Best!
> Martin
>
>
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von
Michael
> L Blood
> Gesendet: Montag, 24. M?rz 2008 00:25
> An: dave at fallingrocks.com; mmorgan at mhmeteorites.com; Martin Altmann;
> Meteorite List
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
>
> Hi Dave & all,
> Regarding your post below....
> My information regarding TKW of the Chiang-Khan fall is from
> The primary finder and author of the web page cited by Martin Altmann:
>
> http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/About_Chiang_Khan/about_chiang_khan.html
>
> Of particular interest is the comment therein:
>
> " Nobody was able anymore to give precise indications as to the exact
date
> of the event. Some 20 years ago it was, so they say, in the month of
> November, without doubt - that's what I was told in the villages of the
> strewn field.
> Whatever it was that happened then - one is led to presume a second
> meteorite fall on the same day or on the day after. According to recent
> research (isotope analysis), the two large specimens, which are in
private
> Collection and in Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, do not originate
from
> the Chiang-Khan fall. They are believed to have been transported into
> Thailand from Laos. Two small pieces from Thailand were analyzed, one is
H4
> tending to H5; one was determined to be H5 in Japan, whereas the large
> pieces are H6. Most of all, the noble gas contents of the large specimens
> differ extremely from those of the Chiang-Khan pieces!"
>
> Please note that this is also weighted by the comments by Jeff
> Grossman Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:58 PM
> To: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan
>
> "The Meteoritical Bulletin does publish
> announcements of new masses when they are
> significant. Submit the report to the
> editor. You will need good evidence that the
> additional mass is really part of same fall."
>
> Please also note that I have every reason to believe that both Bob
> Haag and Matt Morgan believe the piece in reference is part of the
> Chiang-Khan fall. However, this believe might be weighted against
> The above comments (and I acknowledge I could be wrong on this).
> I recognized your reference of source for purchase as "a dealer"
was
> Almost certainly intended to protect me from any perception of shenanigans
> In this matter - and I thank you for your intent. However, I was fully
aware
> Of all of the above comments and felt confident the major finder and the
> Meteoritical Bulletin were correct in their assessment of related falls,
> just as I am confident there is no intention to deceive, whatsoever, on
the
> part of Bob Haag or Matt Morgan and that their belief in the authenticity
of
> the stone mentioned is both sincere and reasonable. People will have to
> decide for themselves whom is correct and whom is in error. I sided with
the
> primary finders and the Meteoritical Bulletin. I see no way to resolve
this
> without individually typing the stone, but even that, like the Baygoria
> cluster.... Er... controversy .... will not be conclusive if this (other?)
> fall was also submitted and originally included as part of the Chiang-Khan
> fall, anyway - but the Meteoritical Bulletin does not see it as such.
> Sincerely, Michael Blood
>
>
> on 3/22/08 6:39 PM, Dave Gheesling at dave at fallingrocks.com wrote:
>
>> Matt & List,
>>
>> First, Matt, thanks for the info and congrats on having that terrific
>> specimen in your already spectacular collection...simply superb.
>>
>> This prompts a second question, which is "Why is there not a means to
>> 'officially' correct the record when a fall or find turns out to have a
>> dramatically different TKW at some point after the formal classification
> has
>> cleared?" I'm not talking about confusion in the early stages of mining
a
>> strewn field, but rather about falls and/or finds where in many cases
>> decades have passed since the initial discoveries and, for all intents
and
>> purposes, everything that will ever be found has been found (a slippery
>> slope of a generalization, but hopefully this makes sense). There are
> many,
>> many such examples, and I'll post a link to only one below (read Remarks
> in
>> my Djermaia listing):
>>
>> http://www.fallingrocks.com/Collections/Djermaia.htm
>>
>> I purchased my Chiang-Khan from a dealer without much research, which was
>> completely my responsibility, to be clear. That said, it was marketed as
>> representing something approaching 5% of the recovered material from that
>> fall (which, again, is officially recorded as 367 grams when we know that
>> there is one stone of almost twice that size and speculation on the list
> is
>> that the TKW is actually likely to be near 7 kilograms). We had some
> banter
>> about the finer points of orientation a couple of weeks ago and how that
> has
>> an impact in the marketplace, and it seems to me that this is at least as
>> large an issue. And, forgetting the market altogether, shouldn't there
>> perhaps be a more focused effort to "get the record straight" for the
>> benefit of history? I'm probably missing something out of ignorance
> here...
>>
>> Thanks in advance for thoughts and comments...always trying to learn
>> something new.
>>
>> Dave
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
 
Received on Mon 24 Mar 2008 08:07:45 AM PDT