[meteorite-list] Claimed pairings

From: Richard Kowalski <*damoclid_at_meteoritecentral.com*> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <455162.14591.qm_at_web113613.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> · damoclid_at_meteoritecentral.com

--
Richard Kowalski
Full Moon Photography
IMCA #1081
--- On Thu, 6/17/10, cdtucson at cox.net <cdtucson at cox.net> wrote:
> From: cdtucson at cox.net <cdtucson at cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Claimed pairings
> To: "meteorite list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>, "Richard Kowalski" <damoclid at yahoo.com>
> Date: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 4:17 PM
> Richard,
> All due respect here. 
> If you are hunting and you find a meteorite. You look
> around and 
> you find more of the same. You can almost be certain it is
> from the same fall. I 
> mean realistically what are the odds of finding any
> meteorite?? Now calculate 
> the odds of finding two different meteorites together. Now
> we are at 
> astronomical odds against. 
> Yes, Almahatta sitta proves material from the same 
> fall can be very different but, testing confirmed it is
> still from the same fall. 
> So, in most cases it is easy to consider pairings based on
> find locations. 
> Yes, 
> there have been numerous cases of totally unrelated
> meteorites found together 
> but, they usually are ruled out as paired right away
> visually.? As an example. 
> Snyder Hill was found while looking for Cat Mountain but,
> they looked totally 
> different visually. And therefore ruled out as being
> paired. that said. The info 
> put forth so far is as follows. 
> This is a rough outline of the facts as presented so far; 
> !. Meteorites are found by Mbarek.. 
> 2. Mbarek distributes some of them including NWA 5400 to
> Greg. 
> 3. Mbarek passes. ( Allah rest his soul) 
> 4. Estate of Mbarek retains 334 grams of same find
> material. 
> 5. 334 grams from Mbarek gets offered by Ali and is highly
> sought. 
> 6. This gets confirmed by Habibi Aziz. 
> 7. Aziz shows copies of emails from Jambon ( in french)
> which confirm it is paired with NWA 5400 and NWA 5363.And
> O-isotopes were doone. 
> 7. Passing of Mbarek adds to confusion but, this is
> material that originated from the same guy we 
> are talking about here. 
> 8. Pairing may not be official until isotopes are done but
> hardly a gamble here. 
> Although this will get science more material (nothing wrong
> with that) .
>  According to Abibi Isotopic 
> results have been done and confirm this is not a brachenite
> . Even though it looks like one.
> Requiring tests that can only be done by certain people
> puts a huge and possibly 
> an unnecessary burden on finders job description. 
> It's a bit like finding a body with a bullet in the head
> and saying the cause of 
> death is unknown until the autopsy. 
> Do we really need to wait for an autopsy? Sure we do as a
> formality but, that 
> does not change the results of the race. Either way he died
> of a bullet in the 
> head. 
> Ipso facto, This material is paired unless someone is
> lying. If people are 
> telling the truth then this is paired and asking for more
> isotopes is mere 
> confirmation of a fact we already know. 
> I hate the thought of having to cut up every meteorite just
> to prove it came 
> from the same fall. 
> Before they discovered Calcalong creek amongst the
> millbillies it was easy to 
> find a nice uncut Millbillillie. Not so now a days. Most
> have been cut to see if 
> they match calcalong Creek. To me this is a shame. 
>  Again this is said with the utmost respect to everybody.
> This is just my opinion.
> I would hate to go to a known strewnfield and then have to
> jump through hoops to prove it came from where I found it. 
> Part of this email is from a post that did not go through
> to list before. 
> 
> 
> Carl 
>  
>  
> --
> Carl or Debbie Esparza
> Meteoritemax
> 
> 
> ---- Richard Kowalski <damoclid at yahoo.com>
> wrote: 
> > Not being a professional meteoriticist, I would assume
> that any meteorite claimed to be paired with another needs
> to be studied by qualified scientists. From what I
> understand it is always preferable to have the scientist who
> did the original classification to study any meteorites
> submitted for possible pairing because they are 1, familiar
> with the material, 2, have material used for the original
> classification on hand for comparison and 3, are able to use
> the same instruments used for the original classification
> for any additional material being submitted.
> > 
> > After the material has been studied and found to be
> paired,I would imaging that there is some peer reviewed
> process to announce the pairing, is there not?
> > 
> > We've seen with Alamhata Sitta that you can have very
> different classifications from the same fall and because of
> this extensive studies needed to be made to confirm that the
> stone were from the same fall, even though they were all
> found in the same area.
> > 
> > It also seems to me that anyone claiming a pairing has
> the responsibility to provide samples for testing and is
> also responsible for all costs associated with this testing.
> The onerous of proof goes to the person claiming they have
> paired material. Until this scientific proof, that can and
> is peer reviewed for validity of the procedures used to
> determine the said pairing, any and all claims of a pairing
> should be rejected outright and in their entirety.
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Richard Kowalski
> > Full Moon Photography
> > IMCA #1081
> > 
> > 
> >? ? ???
> > ______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
>