[meteorite-list] Claimed pairings

From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:01:08 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTilAbuXlxa-Buw2IHNWkQwXaeCw9d0HrlbALly5F_at_mail.gmail.com>

Some thoughts on "pairings" ....

1) The vast majority of classified NWA meteorites have no firm find
location data. There are coordinates for some, ballpark area
locations for others, and no data whatsoever for many. Often, all
that is known is the city in Morocco where the stone was purchased -
presumably after being transported a good distance and possibly
changing hands more than once along the way. It is reasonable to
assume that there are hundreds of unmapped strewnfields in the desert
of NWA and it's probable that some of these strewnfields may overlap.
So it is also reasonable to assume that many classified NWA meteorites
are pairings to other NWA meteorites. It is not the duty of those
doing the classification work to compare the new meteorite to every
known meteorite to find possible pairings - this is usually done in
significant cases, accidentally, or during the course of routine
research. Of the countless NWA H5 chondrites, who is going to sit
down and check each and every one for pairings? What is the incentive
to do so? I think it must be taken as a given that the NWA catalogue
contains hundreds (if not thousands) of unnoticed pairings. In terms
of NWA numbers, what are we on now? About 7000? I wouldn't be
surprised if 1000 turned out to be redundant pairings.

2) One reason the NWA system is in place is to catalogue all of these
"nomadic" meteorites. The system does not care if a new meteorite is
in fact an old meteorite being classified again. It's not the duty of
the classification people or the Meteoritical Society to do this
pairing work, so they accept the new meteorite and give it a new NWA
number. If somebody wants to come along later and comb through the
catalogue looking for pairings, then the data is there for anyone to
use. It is my hope that someone will straighten out the NWA mess one
day and determine once and all what meteorites are paired with what -
so then we can better understand the relationships of these meteorites
and perhaps narrow down their possible strewnfields in some cases.

3) pairing controversy is not going to vanish. There is an apparent
double-standard with pairings and NWA 869 is a good example. We don't
see bickering over self-pairings of NWA 869 - that just flies under
the radar for some reason.

4) it is also reasonable to assume, that in many cases, when a large
meteorite shows up on the market, it probably comes from a strewnfield
where it has smaller brothers and sisters that are undiscovered. But
unlike Canyon Diablo or Western US strewnfields, the NWA strewnfields
are not mapped or well-defined. So, if one finds a meteorite near the
NWA 869 strewnfield, and it looks like NWA 869, that does not mean it
is NWA 869. If one finds a meteorite in the Gold Basin strewnfield,
and it looks like a Gold Basin meteorite, it probably is - but it
might not be. At best, without having a find analyzed, the best a
hunter or finder can say is - "this meteorite was found in the Gold
Basin strewnfield here at xx.xxx, xx.xxxx." We don't have that
benefit with NWA material because nobody has gathered any meaningful
strewnfield data from the find areas.

5) a polymict rubblepile like Almahata Sitta can leave behind a
chaotic strewnfield of apparently different types - which can only be
sorted out in a lab and not in the field or by eye.

[/peanut gallery]




On 6/17/10, Richard Kowalski <damoclid at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Carl,
>
> I did not refer to any particular pairing claim.
>
> Your analogy about finding a body with a bullet in the head argues against
> you. Yes, of course you wait for the autopsy. Anything less is NOT science.
>
> Believe what and who you want, but that doesn't make it scientific fact.
>
> Claiming a pairing, just because material if found near by is not science
> either. Period.
>
> The meteorite market is very thin and is based on trust. For my money
> (literally) I want legitimate scientific proof to stand with the meteorites
> in my collection. Third party emails carry no weight whatsoever.
>
> Have a pairing? Show me the peer reviewed scientific paper proving your
> claim. Pretty simple and straight forward.
>
> To reiterate a quote from the 1980's "Trust, but verify."
> I'll add that if you can't verify, there is no reason to trust.
>
> Show me the lab results that show the claimed paired material is EXACTLY the
> same as the original and I'll gladly plunk down my hard earned funds.
>
> This is a much greater problem than a single claim too. If the trust is lost
> that the material, any material, might not be what is claimed, I'm certainly
> not going to be buying it, or any more meteorites in the future. I mentioned
> other collectibles that hold my interest in a post yesterday. I can just as
> easily spend my money buying those items as I can meteorites. If you want to
> see the collectible meteorite market collapse, because all trust in the
> material being exactly what it is claimed to be with no ambiguity, go ahead
> and allow scientifically unsubstantiated claims continue unabated.
>
>
> --
> 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 h 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gilmer - Galactic Stone & Ironworks Meteorites
http://www.galactic-stone.com
http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thu 17 Jun 2010 08:01:08 PM PDT