[meteorite-list] NWA 5400, etc

From: michael cottingham <voyagebotanica_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:57:08 -0600
Message-ID: <BAY148-w1225FA0ED7CD3810DD9A6AD1DF0_at_phx.gbl>

Hello,
Yes, even though that would be an educated implication for most of us...yes to state "official" would be better. ?
Michael

----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:54:36 -0700
> From: meteoritekid at gmail.com
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 5400, etc
>
> The terminology. There could well be paired meteorites. You're
> forgetting the word "official."
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:52 PM, michael cottingham
> wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>> There are no pairings to NWA 5400. Not at this time and for a TRUE pairing to be done, WELL show me the science. There is none at this time, so there are no pairings. What is hard to understand about that?
>> Michael
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:46:53 -0700
>>> From: meteoritekid at gmail.com
>>> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 5400, etc
>>>
>>> Hello Richard, Michael, Carl, All,
>>>
>>> Richard, you said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I couldn't agree more. I think the real issues here revolve around a
>>> general lack of knowledge in the following areas:
>>>
>>> 1) The claim that the stone has been analyzed by Dr. Albert Jambon has
>>> been called into question. I would suggest that someone (probably not
>>> a Moroccan meteorite dealer, since that's apparently not good enough
>>> for Greg Hupe, who "has" the NWA 5400 number) contact him to find out
>>> what he has to say about the meteorite.
>>>
>>> 2) Apparently Dr. Jambon's credibility and ability to perform an
>>> adequate analysis of a meteorite has been called into question as
>>> well. I suggest that someone with the appropriate credentials should
>>> review his papers and analyses to figure out if his work holds merit.
>>> Well, I believe the burden of proof falls to the one pointing the
>>> finger. As such, I ask that Greg Hupe support his claims that Dr.
>>> Jambon has provided false or erroneous data on meteorites. If this is
>>> a one-time event (with NWA 5400), I ask that Greg bring forth the
>>> information that proves that Jambon did not conduct an adequate
>>> analysis - if he has indeed studied the stone at all, as various
>>> Moroccan dealers have claimed.
>>>
>>> I would typically ask the person who has stated that the meteorite is
>>> a given classification to figure such a thing out, but Greg has
>>> claimed that these Moroccan meteorite dealers are lying and trying to
>>> cheat him. If he wishes to actually prove this, I suggest he bring
>>> forth some proof - a statement from Dr. Jambon should suffice, if he
>>> can be coerced to post on the list.
>>>
>>> 3) Michael (Cottingham), I just saw your post and suggest that you
>>> stop saying that a given meteorite from NWA "has no pairings." Even
>>> if no official pairings have been made, there are almost always
>>> pairings to given meteorites that are either never published - or
>>> aren't for some years after the original find. Making such claims as
>>> "there are no pairings" when we already know that the finders of the
>>> material are claiming that more has been found -- and it is likely
>>> only a matter of time until "officially paired" stones surface --
>>> means that you would arguably be guilty of fraud should they surface.
>>> -> You said there were no pairings. If other stones are found/surface
>>> => pairings. ==>That's technically false advertising.
>>>
>>> Especially if Dr. Jambon actually did the work that the Moroccan
>>> fellows are saying he did. Since we don't know if he did or not at
>>> the moment...well, we have a strange situation. But it's not one in
>>> which I'd be comfortable saying "there are no pairings."
>>>
>>> I partly agree with you, though. There are no official pairings (as
>>> per the Meteoritical Society) at this time.
>>>
>>> But there's a hell of a lot of material on the market that is visually
>>> identical that is likely to be paired.
>>>
>>> Take that as you will.
>>>
>>> I'd just ask that people stand back and take a look at the situation.
>>> There are a few basic details that we need cleared up by Dr. Jambon,
>>> and if someone here is on good terms with him, a statement would
>>> be...very helpful.
>>> We can all sit here arguing and calling each other liars until the
>>> cows come home, but there's not enough information to draw a
>>> conclusion.
>>>
>>> Well, aside from the fact that we need more information.
>>>
>>> Carl...I generally agree with you, but apparently the integrity of the
>>> Moroccan dealers trying to sell this material has been called into
>>> question. While I personally trust the fact that they found these
>>> stones next to each other, that's not good enough for the Meteoritical
>>> Society, as it shouldn't be. Far too many people have honestly
>>> claimed to have material paired to others' stones only to find out
>>> that it's completely different as per a lab analysis.
>>>
>>> I agree - this material is likely paired. But I don't know if it has
>>> been proven yet...only Dr. Jambon can clear that up. If he has
>>> actually performed the isotopic analyses necessary to make that claim,
>>> then...great, we're settled. If not, we should get that done asap.
>>>
>>> The trouble is that Dirk is entirely correct. We have numerous
>>> examples of overlapping strewn-fields with multiple finds in the areas
>>> we're personally searching, including numerous examples of unrelated
>>> meteorites being found within fifty to a hundred feet of each other.
>>> Of course, we've never found two similar-looking primitive achondrites
>>> so close to each other, but it's not beyond the realm of
>>> possibility...a very, very low possibility....
>>>
>>> But hey - wouldn't it be great if there were 10 more kilos of the
>>> stuff around? Everyone should be happy!
>>>
>>> Even if it's an unrelated Brachinite from ten feet away, it's $15/g.
>>> Buy a piece and get it analyzed yourself - it's dirt cheap!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Richard Kowalski 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM, michael cottingham
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey there,
>>>> There are NO pairings to NWA 5400. I, nor anyone else have seen any scientific facts on the matter that would conclude such claims. All this nonsense, that there is more material and it is all paired to NWA 5400 is just nonsense! SHOW ME AND ALL OF US THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF! If you do not have it, please stop these claims until you do.
>>>> Best Wishes
>>>> Michael Cottingham
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail.
>>>> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
>> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
> ______________________________________________
> 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
                                               
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
Received on Thu 17 Jun 2010 07:57:08 PM PDT