[meteorite-list] NWA 5363 UNGROUPED OR BRACHNITE
From: Barry Hughes <bhughes_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 04:41:00 -0400 Message-ID: <AANLkTikYkLV7qXosACS8v0dScknjNVji9TSMtyo=mXLG_at_mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Barry Hughes <bhughes5551 at gmail.com> wrote: > You can see...I don't know this. ?I do know that research for new and > old find is utmost importance..I can understand that. > I don't know the particulars and should maybe keep my mouth shut, but > I can tell you that for the uninformed, this bickering is not the best > thing for the new collector. > The List should maybe be something someone follows later in their hobby ...like finally learning your beautiful girlfriend does actually > take a shit sometimes...:) > > On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:02 AM, MEM <mstreman53 at yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> >> ?The people about to make a lot of ?money..or not..don't paint a pretty picture >> here... >> ?Is this what the list is ?about? >> >> >> Nope. ? Nor is it what the thread is about. >> Money could be an artifact of the outcome but the issue of scientific pairing is >> two fold: >> Paring legitimizes interchangeable research using a sample from either stone. >> Pairing does not skew the data plots for composition/chemistry/etc by counting a >> sample more than once. >> ( I know this will shock some here to learn that meteorites are not just >> fashionable collectibles but are in-fact used in scientific research--Who'd a >> thought, eah?) >> >> The converse is that uninformed and unscientific "visual pairing" does not >> satisfy the requirements of the above needs. >> >> On the commercial issue, it is a long and costly process to do meteorite >> petrology-- most always paid for by one of the owners. ?To be paired the >> chemistry/petrology of all named meteorites must be researched to establish >> compelling evidence of pairing. ?Exceptions: a meteorite fall on a area known to >> contain no other meteorites, the stream of visually identical debris which is >> recovered in a short time, or the stones can be physically matched--these can be >> presumed to be paired unless tere is evidence to the contrary. >> >> Claims of pairing which are not scientifically validated is akin to plagerizing >> and is taking both scientific and commercial value from another who did go >> through the process. >> >> >> In "reverse pairing" or "unpairing" there is one atrocity that I still am >> disgusted over: a meteorite find was recovered over an area. ?It was entirely >> reassembled to compose a complete meteorite: ?known as the "meteorite puzzle". >> This is the only known case in history. Were it kept together, a lot of research >> could have been done-- cosmic ray penetration, shear stress, understanding why a >> particular meteorite fragmented into 17 pieces, and etc. ?But some self-styled >> meteorte dealer wannabe--(wait maybe this was while he was a non dealer? ?Nope! >> This was while a dealer)--whatever-- ?he so "loves" meteorites being "shared" >> that he bought the Puzzle for his collection-- never to ever sell it he assured >> the seller. ?Then he promptly put all 17 pieces on ebay as individual auctions >> to be sold to 17 different buyers--DESTROYING the scientific rarity. >> >> >> Elton >> >> > Received on Sun 25 Jul 2010 04:41:00 AM PDT |
StumbleUpon del.icio.us Yahoo MyWeb |