[meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 02:49:37 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=JZ=WpSFUDoCFGufgccc7LvjG-1kQ32L0NQHEj_at_mail.gmail.com>

Alright, fine, Martin.

> "[Cue the long reply from M***** about how coordinates are all
> overrated and irrelevant...if it happens, I'll step out of this as
> well. ?Enough of that.]"
>
> Who had said in short (for you native speaker), that in weighting missing
> coordinates versus a stone itself,
> for him personally - other than for perhaps J**** - it never would be a
> question, to throw Lafayette or Paris into the dustbin or to abstain from
> analyzing the first Venerian meteorite, only for the reason that they came
> with no coordinates.

Yes, because that's what I'm suggesting. Just throw meteorites away
if they don't have coordinates.
You're using a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Give it a break. Anyone with half a brain can see through that sort of talk.

> Simply because he is always so curious about that, what was and is going on
> beyond our small backyard out there in the solar system, where - giant heap
> - mankind can't get to.
> And because he respects and appreciates also the work of ANSMET, NIPR, PRIC.

...

> "In many cases,
> they're not getting paid anything extra to do that work for *you (and
> me).*"
>
> ...and the *greater good of science.*

The greater good of science would be better served by their
concentrating on research - not by their wasting their time
meticulously analyzing thousands of ordinary chondrites for the likes
of us collectors.
Granted, there are rare stones mixed in, but if you're talking about
maximizing scientific advancements, there's really not much of an
incentive for them to petrographically grade and write up every detail
necessary for the approval of most meteorites, because the vast
majority of them don't teach us anything new.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but if you're talking about
accelerating the 'greater good of science,' scientists should analyze
stones to the point of figuring out if they're something interesting
-- or not. And if they're not interesting, they should just say
'ordinary equilibrated chondrite' and not waste any more time on them.

> The latter is what researching scientists at universities are paid for in
> general, aren't they?

No. They're generally expected to write a papers/conduct research at
a set rate, and analyses are considered to be 'on the side.' That's
why, when you read something like MAPS, most of the papers aren't
analyses of new meteorites. They're usually studies performed on
older meteorites.

> (...and at least here, if they achieve to get an appointment as a tenured
> German civil servant,
> then the payment incl. old-age plan is all in all comfortable.

I don't know what the expectations of researchers are over there, but,
regardless of salary, if these scientists are getting paid only to
conduct research, asking them to do more is asking them for a favor.
Saying that they get paid a comfortable amount and thus should analyze
meteorites for us simply doesn't make any sense. I'm not going to ask
Bill Gates to analyze all of the meteorites in the world just because
he makes the most money. [reductio ad absurdum, but it makes a valid
point - you're saying they *should* do work they're not being paid to
do]

Furthermore, you seem to have completely missed the point of what I
was saying. It's not that the scientists themselves are paying for
these analyses. They typically have set departmental or lab budgets
that are limited by chancellors, department heads, etc. Analyzing
meteorites means making thin sections, scheduling additional probe
time, and using their own time, and usually there's a cost associated
with all of that. That cost has to be paid, usually by their lab,
which always has a limited budget. More analyses = less money for
research.

> Although I concede, that the modern practice to give scientists, especially
> the younger and in branches with an excess supply of applicants, only serial
> contracts of always maximum 2 years, is quite shabby, cause they are often
> so lousy endowed, that they reach almost the level of successful planetaries
> recoverers only. I hope in overseas it's better?)

Sorry, but the language of the above paragraph isn't easy to decipher.
 Not sure what you're saying there.

>>So it can be a pretty thankless job.
> Sounds like the description of a meteorite hunter, dealer, finder,
> who mainly have to live from their passion ?:-)

If that's their passion, then they have the life they want, pursuing
their dream. Money = / = happiness. But you seem to be equating
working in a lab analyzing meteorites to the profession of finding and
dealing meteorites. I think it's fairly obvious that those are two
very different professions. I see the inherent appeal of one - namely
the adventure and excitement of chasing down falls and traveling that
meteorite hunting and selling entails. Not so sure about the research
position.

> But if a scientist has a passion for meteorites, I think, it can be also a
> fulfilling occupation, can't it?

So you're saying that these scientists should be analyzing meteorites
because it's their passion.
I mean...I guess, if they really like analyzing meteorites rather than
performing original research, then that's what they should do.
Perhaps you should ask around at the next Met. Soc. meeting and see
how many of those scientists dream of just analyzing new meteorites.
Then send all of your samples to them.

>>Be thankful that they do as good a job as they do.
>
> Who would be not?
> And who wouldn't be thankful that the hunters and dealers do their job as
> good as they do?

It sure sounds as though there are plenty of people who aren't. Have
you been reading the recent posts?

>>In many cases,
>>they're not getting paid anything extra
>
> Hmm shall we collect on the list here, because of this reason, some money,
> for the Aussies finally starting to analyze their 500 unclassified Nullarbor
> finds they're sitting for 20 years now on? (Bevan, 2006)
> Or is that job of the state.... ?especially if you think about the legal
> status given to meteorites down there.
> (----> which would lead to the debate about laws, ethics and moral,
> Greg seemed to have wanted to start.)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Have these stones been
sitting in institutions' hands for that long, and if so, what are you
trying to say is the cause of their being analyzed *now?*
And since we don't have any real information about the situation, what
are you trying to say about it anyways?
We don't know the budgetary constraints of institutions capable of
performing competent analyses down there, nor do we know why they have
or haven't been analyzing meteorites, so this is a moot point.

If you can find any evidence to suggest that the reason they haven't
been analyzing meteorites is simply because they don't want to...then
I guess you could say that, only in Australia, the scientists have
been focusing on other things. Which is their choice. As collectors,
we think it's more interesting to see new meteorites than it is to
study ones we already have. As a scientist, it's important to
recognize the fact that there's a ~1% chance of a new meteorite
turning out to be something that might be considered 'individually
scientifically important' (e.g. an individual meteorite that, in light
of all of the data we already have, adds a relevant detail to our
knowledge of the solar system).

So is it worthwhile for scientists to analyze new meteorites? Of
course. But if they're choosing to do other things like write papers
on something else, who are you to criticize them?

> Well it's simple,
> in NWA-countries, we simply have not the infrastructure, that coordinates
> could be taken,
> I suppose it's also partially because of the argument, Jason told below in
> another context.
> NWAs aren't paid highly enough for, that a better field documentation could
> be made
> - and additionally the crystallization of idiocy and dilettantism into
> certain laws encourages and advances the loss of find data first and in
> extremo the loss of new materials at all.

Well I won't disagree with what I've already said.

> Well and else, for quite all it is a matter of course, to give the
> coordinates and find data, if known to them.
> So I think, that what Greg reports or the Labennes did are exceptions.
> Remember e.g. the first lunar Oman finds - they were firstly also published
> without the location, but the coordinates were added after a while then -->
> leading to additional finds by others than the original finders.

Saying that they are exceptions to the rule excuses them from lying?!

Wow.

You're saying that so long as greed is the exception to the rule, it's ok.

Yeah, I know what happened in Oman. But I think that keeping the
coordinates secret for 14 years is long enough. If they haven't done
a good job by now, they should probably give it up. They haven't
submitted any new finds since the year 2000, after all. 11 years
since they submitted a new Sahara stone.

A reasonable person would probably say 'long enough' at this point.
Hell, it's one thing if they're actually working on it, but another
entirely if they're just keeping the location as a private 'honey
pot.'

> Neither any advantage for us, the lousy dealers pack, which as is well-known
> is in ooonly for the money,
> would come to my mind, in concealing find data,
> especially cause meteorites with coordinates are better paid on average than
> those with names.

Again with the 'reductio ad absurdum' thing (granted I've used it at
least twice above). You talk about dealers like they're some evil
pack of misers. You don't seem to understand that when I talk about
us as a community exploiting meteorites as best we can, I include
myself in the lot.

And you're facing a pretty big logical problem. Since meteorites with
coordinates sell for more, why *don't* the Labennes release theirs?
Their meteorites would go up in value instantly.

No; they've realized that keeping their find locations secret will
result in more profit for them, since they are the only ones who can
go back to find more. Well, their family and Michel Franco,
apparently.

> That the find coordinates are withheld for a while, is acceptable, at least
> for finds - for fresh falls, where as many specimens have to be secured as
> early as possible, it is the wrong method -

A while? It's been over a decade, and they have not renewed their
vows to divulge data. It looks like they've long since forgotten
their naive promise to provide the public with the coordinates for
their recoveries.

> the same is often common practice also in scientific work, like e.g. for
> newly recovered archaeological sites or fossil sites, to keep the pack away
> until the work is done.

They found their first meteorites in 1997. You tell me how long they
should have. And since you're so supportive of the advancement of
science by recovery of new meteorites, how can you condone such
'selfish' behavior? Surely they should share the coordinates so that
more meteorites can be found more quickly and science can move
forward!
You are literally contradicting yourself by suggesting that they
should be able to withhold coordinates!

> "We collectors and dealers seem to feel *entitled*"
>
> No, rather a few don't understand correctly, what MetSoc is made for, I'd
> think.

Perhaps, but they tend to be quite loud.

Regards,
Jason


>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason
> Utas
> Gesendet: Montag, 20. Dezember 2010 01:29
> An: Meteorite-list
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
>
> Hello All,
> I'd like to reply to a few of the points made in the below messages;
> while I would prefer to stay out of the mechanics of the
> classification/submission part of it, several other points were made
> that apply to the majority of people currently getting specimens
> analyzed and named that should be addressed.
>
> Anne said:
>>>> The lack of a proper find location is not enough to
>>>> prevent a meteorite from being classified. ?All the
>>>> SAHXXXXX meteorites, from the Labennes, lack complete
>>>> coordinates and they have been classified and published.
>
> The Labennes promised to release their data. ?Using this as a
> justification for a statement like "meteorites don't need coordinates
> in order to become official" doesn't make sense. ?No one knew ahead of
> time that the Labennes would lie. ?They did not keep their word.
> In light of that fact alone, I would suggest that the meteorites be
> renamed as NWA, since all we know is that they came from somewhere in
> North (West?) Africa. ?But changing the nomenclature of meteorites
> that have already been published in numerous papers and books is not
> usually done.
> Nowadays, everyone knows that "Sahara XXxxx" is just another name for
> a homeless African meteorite, and that's what the name has come to
> represent. ?Is it ideal? ?No. ?Is it worth changing the accepted names
> of hundreds of meteorites just because their names don't fit to an
> ideal nomenclature system? ?Maybe. ?That's not my call, though. ?And
> it's not a clear-cut issue.
>
> G. Catterton said:
>>>> To use the claim that it was to keep the location
>>>> secret is not a valid excuse, Jack and Whetstone clearly
>>>> showed that location is not needed to get approval.
>
> We've gone over this on the list countless times. ?The coordinates for
> Whetstone Mountains are on file with the nomenclature committee. ?The
> information is there, but has not yet been made public.
>
> So the only recent case in which meteorites have been submitted and
> made official is with the 'Sahara XXxxx' stones, and that's because a
> 'reputable dealer' did not keep his word. ?And it's a tough issue,
> because I would trust the Labennes in a trade or purchase -- the name
> hasn't been sullied like those of...a few others on this list.
>
> And why is that? ?Probably because withholding promised find
> information isn't viewed as a transgression comparable with something
> like switching an NWA L3 with Zulu Queen, or something along those
> lines.
>
> And yet, when you look at the difference between an NWA L3 and Zulu
> Queen, the only differentiating factor is provenance. ?Where the stone
> came from, how much was found, etc. ?Kind of like the difference
> between a named stone in general versus a 'Sahara XXxxx' or NWA stone.
>
> But people know what they're getting when they buy 'Sahara XXxxx'
> stones. ?I don't know if the Labennes will ever release their data,
> but I very much doubt that they will, ever. ?I'd like to be pleasantly
> surprised in the near future, but it's probably not going to happen.
> -Why would they?
>
> [Cue the long reply from M***** about how coordinates are all
> overrated and irrelevant...if it happens, I'll step out of this as
> well. ?Enough of that.]
>
> The last point I'd like to make addresses the nature of our little
> meteorite market and how it interacts with the scientific sphere.
>
> We collectors and dealers seem to feel *entitled* to the services of
> the people working in the field of meteoritics. ?It's one thing to
> criticize someone who's being lazy and clumsy, losing samples left and
> right. ?It's another thing entirely to jump on the back of researchers
> who are simultaneously trying to do real scientific research -- and
> analyze hundreds, if not thousands, of stones for folks like us on the
> side. ?I can understand the indignation of someone who has a sample go
> missing -- it's happened to me as well.
>
> But what I don't do is get angry at the person who has analyzed ten or
> twenty or a hundred meteorites for me, and who happens to misplace a
> sample or two. ?Especially if it's a common NWA chondrite. ?I haven't
> heard of any rare material going missing, but...things rarely get
> truly lost.
>
> The best way to go about things is to remember that these scientists
> are doing you an expensive service that they are not obligated to do.
> Be thankful that they do as good a job as they do.
>
> The reason we have so many meteorites available and classified today
> is because of them, and it's because of them that many people on this
> list have been able to literally pay their bills. ?In many cases,
> they're not getting paid anything extra to do that work for *you (and
> me).*
>
> So it can be a pretty thankless job.
>
> But, if Eric Twelker is right, and there is more than meets the
> eye...and someone has been consistently doing a shoddy job of keeping
> records, samples, and submissions up to date, then it seems to me that
> such a person should be cut from the path to a meteorite's approval.
>
> Transparency with regards to the issue would be nice as well. ?Money's
> at stake, after all.
>
> If anyone has any more questions about Wilbur Wash, I'd be more than
> willing to supply the information I have, though it seems as though
> some of you IMCA folk did a better job of tracking down the stone's
> analytical history than I was able to.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Ted Bunch <tbear1 at cableone.net> wrote:
>> Dear Greg and Eric--Your stones were classified and submitted and we have
>> discussed this problem. Greg your stone is NWA 5511; Eric, your stones are
>> NWA 5440 and 5441, this you already know. These are part of MIA III or
>> missing in action. As an example of the problems classifiers have had and
> to
>> some degree still have, I give below the MIA II list (names of individuals
>> are deleted). Most of these were finally cleaned up by the present Editor,
>> Mike Weisberg, whose efforts in this matter are greatly appreciated. With
>> respect to the N. American classifications, those in question, in addition
>> to at least 10 others, were sent off to the Editor in charge a long time
>> ago. Inquires were made several times with no response. After significant
>> time has pasted, I no longer inquire or re-submit.
>>
>> We do not get paid for classifications, any monies received go to the
>> University for instrument time. You, Greg and Eric, were never charged. I
> do
>> not submit an invoice until official approvals are received. The Editor,
>> members of the NOM COM, and most classifiers that I know do not receive
>> compensation either. We have rather thankless jobs and put up with
>> inefficiencies and abuses.
>>
>> Because of these problems, we posted on our NAU web site that we do not
>> classify any more for the general public. ?Many of you,
>> ?make money from classifier's efforts, It costs me about $3K per year to
>> classify meteorites.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> November 12, 2008
>>
>>>
>>> Some ?missing? submissions that have occurred over the last couple of
>>> years and are still MIA and I am NOT HAPPY! I have addressed these issues
>>> several times.
>>>
>>> 1. Originally submitted in Nov. 2006, then again in Jan. 2007: NWA 2682,
>>> 2683, 2684, ?2685, 2686, 2687, 2688, 2689, 2691, 2692, 2693, 2694, 2695,
>>> 2696, 2095. Our original submission in Nov. was not put into the ?proper?
>>> format that was posted on Oct. 26.
>>>
>>> 2. April 2007 submissions: NWA 4650 through NWA 4664
>>>
>>> 3. Others: NWA 4551, 4541, 4284, 4448, 4544, 4545, 4549. 4409, 4410,
> 4411,
>>> 4412,
>>> ? ?4413, 4414, 4284, 2909.
>>>
>>> 5. Submitted in Nov. 2006, again in Jan. 2007: Dhofar 1127, 1128, 1130,
>>> ? ?1131, 1136, 1139, 1144, 1148, 1154, 1156, 1168, 1170, 1176, 1178,
> 1181,
>>> 1226, 1232,
>>> ? ?1243, 1250, 1251, 1261, 1272, 1429, 1430, 1431. 1432. ?Same as for #1.
>>> Now official.
>>>
>>> 6. And most amazing of all ? I submitted an EXCEL sheet of those listed
>>> below, some are on Jeff?s web site (blue),
>>
>> ?others are not (red) and only some are on the tracking list (blue).
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ?Jeff?s & tracking sites: NWA 4429, 4431, 4432, 4433, 4434, 4436,
>>> 4437, 4440, ? ?4443.
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ?Missing everywhere: NWA 4430, 4435, 4438, 4439, 4441, 4442, 4444,
>>> ? ? ? ?4445, 4446.
>>>
>>> 7. One lunar, Jiddat al Harasis (#1004) ? now official as 348.
>>>
>>> 8. And, 12 submitted for N. America a couple of years ago and one NEA
>>> submitted long ago before your tenure.
>>>
>>> These were sent directly to either BLANK. BLANK or to you at the ?and
>>> copied to at least one other.
>>
>> The N. American items went to BLANK, several times.
>>>
>>> Ted
>>
>>>
>> Eric and Greg, if you want to continue discussion about your stones,
> please
>> do it off line. I have seen enough pissing contests on the LIST and do not
>> want to be part of one. My apology to you and others who are in a
>> "neglected" position, we are not perfect and have made mistakes, but I do
>> not apologize for issues out of my control. FYI, I have prepared another
> MIA
>> list and will send it to Mike after critical classifications for LPSC
>> abstracts have been handled by Mike and the NOM COM, i. e., after 1-10-11.
>> These classifications have priority over the general public requests at
> this
>> time and I do not want to clog up Mike any more than he already is.
>>
>> You might inquire to Tony Irving, Allan Rubin, Randy Korotev, among other
>> classifiers, about problems they had/have. The system is not perfect and
>> improvements have been made, more should and can be made.
>>
>> Ted Bunch
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/19/10 10:47 AM, Greg Catterton wrote:
>>>
>>> Seeing as how this was mentioned... Ted has also lost 2 samples of mine.
>>> A very unusual black chondrite? and another LL5/6 Polymict breccia.
>>> Its been over 18 months. I was told the thin sections were lost... I know
>>> of two others who have had issues with him losing material. I too have
> had
>>> little or no email replies.
>>>
>>> Greg Catterton
>>> www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com
>>> IMCA member 4682
>>> On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites
>>> On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WanderingStarMeteorites
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Sun, 12/19/10, Eric Twelker<twelker at alaska.net> ?wrote:
>>> ?551
>>>>
>>>> From: Eric Twelker<twelker at alaska.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
>>>> To: impactika at aol.com
>>>> Cc: star_wars_collector at yahoo.com, imca at imcamail.de
>>>> Date: Sunday, December 19, 2010, 12:41 PM
>>>> Hi IMCA
>>>>
>>>> ? ? This reply will divert a bit from the
>>>> Wilber Wash issue, but I think it is related. ?Lamesa,
>>>> Tahoka, and Wellman (f) have all been mentioned in this
>>>> thread and their lack of publication may be related to
>>>> Wilbur Wash. ?A large number of meteorites (including
>>>> the prior three) that were classified by Ted Bunch have
>>>> "gone missing." ?This includes some of mine and a much
>>>> larger number of other meteorites--perhaps approaching a
>>>> hundred--from other dealers. ?The inclination in the
>>>> dealer community has been to blame Ted Bunch. ?Because
>>>> Ted has been mostly unresponsive or erratic in replies to
>>>> inquiries, he seems a likely party to blame.
>>>>
>>>> ? ? That said, McCartney did manage to get
>>>> one response out of Ted. ?He blamed a researcher from
>>>> the University of New Mexico that used to sit on
>>>> NomCom. ?I asked Jeff Grossman about the accusation,
>>>> but he declined to answer. ?Something's going on here
>>>> and some people know about it but are unwilling to
>>>> share. ?Apparently a large number of classifications
>>>> and samples have been lost and this fact is being swept
>>>> under the rug or worse. ?It doesn't seem that anything
>>>> is being done. ?In the meantime collectors and others
>>>> are incorporating pieces into their collections. ?I
>>>> will add that this is the IMCA's business as at least some
>>>> of the people involved are IMCA members and may be acting in
>>>> ways that are questionable.
>>>>
>>>> ? ? ?Eric Twelker
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 18, 2010, at 10:54 PM, impactika at aol.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lack of a proper find location is not enough to
>>>>
>>>> prevent a meteorite from being classified. ?All the
>>>> SAHXXXXX meteorites, from the Labennes, lack complete
>>>> coordinates and they have been classified and published.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what else?
>>>>> The expert who did the classification, Dr. Karner,
>>>>
>>>> knows his job, he is not new at this and the Un. of New
>>>> Mexico has done classification for a very long time, so I
>>>> would not expect problems with the classification process
>>>> itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what else?
>>>>> Anne Black
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Greg Catterton<star_wars_collector at yahoo.com>
>>>>> To: IMCA Mail List<imca at imcamail.de>
>>>>> Sent: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 8:38 am
>>>>> Subject: Re: [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash
>>>>
>>>> (correction)
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not sound too proper, or correct from my
>>>>
>>>> experience and sounds like the "story" provided by Joe about
>>>> his Mifflin find (which the facts there were not accurate
>>>> also)
>>>>>
>>>>> While it may just be a name, I dont personally like
>>>>
>>>> the fact that data was lied about or corrupted by the
>>>> finder. To use the claim that it was to keep the location
>>>> secret is not a valid excuse, Jack and Whetstone clearly
>>>> showed that location is not needed to get approval. There is
>>>> no ?rule concerning "No exact location, no
>>>> classification" that I have been made aware of - again, see
>>>> Whetstone as the location has still not been made available
>>>> and its official.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most likely, the type deposit was not provided
>>>>
>>>> therefor the material remains unofficial.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my thoughts and opinions from my experience with
>>>>
>>>> testing and classification... for the record, I had NWA 5799
>>>> tested, approved and published in less then 4 months and
>>>> know of many others whos material did not take the time
>>>> this, Tahoka or Zunhua has taken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps there is more going on, but to get an official
>>>>
>>>> name, its not really that hard - even if it is just
>>>> provisional.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope everyone is doing well!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg Catterton
>>>>> www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com
>>>>> IMCA member 4682
>>>>> On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites
>>>>> On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WanderingStarMeteorites
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Davio L. Ribeca<fishsealevel at comcast.net>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Davio L. Ribeca<fishsealevel at comcast.net>
>>>>> Subject: [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
>>>>> To: "IMCA Mail List"<imca at imcamail.de>
>>>>> Date: Saturday, December 18, 2010, 6:18 AM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Posted w/ permission
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Anne,
>>>>> That's pretty much all that I know. I can tell you
>>>>
>>>> that after the analysis the meteorite laid around for a long
>>>> while because of personnel changes at the University. Also,
>>>> Wilbur Wash was first name given because the discoverer did
>>>> not want to reveal the exact location of the find. It took
>>>> some time (after the discoverer thoroughly searched the true
>>>> location area) before the true find location (ranchland in
>>>> Lochiel) was given to the University. No exact location, no
>>>> classification procedures is the rule, I guess. The exact
>>>> coordinates were eventually given to the University.
>>>>>
>>>>> The return of the paper work to the University, and
>>>>
>>>> whatever else the University sends to the name givers
>>>> (naming committee), and the new name may occur
>>>> simultaneously, I don't know. Anyway, I'm somewhat satisfied
>>>> with the update. I'll keep my eyes wide open to see if all
>>>> this comes to pass. I plan on contacting Dr. Karner after
>>>> the holidays to secure more information. I'm an old retired
>>>> mathematics/science admin. educator, maybe he'll take the
>>>> time to help me. The finder is Carl Esparza, who was very
>>>> helpful and kind. He sold the meteorite main mass to Michael
>>>> Cottingham. The main mass now resides with a person named
>>>> Jason Utas, who I also plan on contacting. If you find out
>>>> more please share. This was an interesting investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for all your help and concern. I'm hoping my
>>>>
>>>> wife, Frances, and I can meet you in person someday, soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ciao,
>>>>> Davio R.
>>>>> IMCA Member 4050
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> IMCA mailing list
>>>>> IMCA at imcamail.de
>>>>> http://lists.imcamail.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imca
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> IMCA mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>> IMCA at imcamail.de
>>>>> http://lists.imcamail.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imca
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> IMCA mailing list
>>>>> IMCA at imcamail.de
>>>>> http://lists.imcamail.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IMCA mailing list
>>> IMCA at imcamail.de
>>> http://lists.imcamail.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imca
>>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Mon 20 Dec 2010 05:49:37 AM PST