[meteorite-list] NWA 5400, etc

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:16:07 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimMs9cLrX1xErXt1trK2S4OCaloFDLWF1n2wWN3_at_mail.gmail.com>

Gerald, All,
As I said, typically I would hold them responsible, but when their
credibility has been called into question - I mean, you're saying that
the people whom Greg has openly stated are lying should provide the
proof.
How good would that be?
Jason

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:14 PM, GERALD FLAHERTY <GRF2 at comcast.net> wrote:
> On the contrary, it was Greg who brought this to the market place after getting a it thoroughly studied. If someone claims "me too", ?it becomes their responsibility to prove it their claim by peer review.
> On Jun 17, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Jason Utas wrote:
>
>> Sorry - I was a little fuzzy on that point - I suggested that it
>> should be peer-reviewed, and then said that Greg should provide the
>> evidence. ?I was too vague - if Greg's the one making such
>> accusations, I have the feeling that he should be the one to get such
>> things done, whether or not he's the one doing them himself. ?He
>> shouldn't be able to just keep claiming that a scientist with
>> credentials is performing bad work without supplying some form of
>> proof, or even the intent to get it.
>> It's practically libel.
>> I agree with you completely, RIchard.
>> Thanks,
>> Jason
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Richard Kowalski <damoclid at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Hey Jason,
>>>
>>> a few points.
>>>
>>> I agree that if Greg is arguing that Dr. Jambon did not perform proper and complete studies of the submitted material, it is critical that the work be reviewed. Unfortunately Greg is not his peer. This is why I state that the scientific study need to be peer reviewed. Fellow meteoriticists are the ones qualified to determine if Dr. Jambon is a competent scientist and the lab he used adequate to make the determination of the pairing. Not Greg.
>>>
>>> I'll also reiterate my statement that anyone claiming a pairing has the burden of proof, that their material is paired to the already classified material. This then needs to be peer reviewed to assure that the scientist is competent and the laboratory adequate to make the determination. This level of proof is beyond almost all dealers.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>
>
Received on Thu 17 Jun 2010 08:16:07 PM PDT