[meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 82, Issue 48

From: Steve Schoner <schoner_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 01:06:29 GMT
Message-ID: <20100617.190629.29219.0_at_webmail11.dca.untd.com>

I can put an end to this whole spat regarding NWA 5400.

I made the thin section that was used to classify Sonny Clary's "Moapa Valley" meteorite by Dr. Irving, an extremely rare meteorite type.

Dr. Irving is also one of the investigators that classified NWA 5400.

If I can obtain a small sample of Aziz'z perported "NWA 5400" I can put this entire thread to rest with an emphatic conclusion-- Should Dr. Irving agree to examine the petrographic slide and sample that I would send to him for that purpose.

Regards,
Steve Schoner
Petrographic Slide technician
http://www.petroslides.com
IMCA #4470
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:46:53 -0700
From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] NWA 5400, etc
To: Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Message-ID:
        <AANLkTindWF7rLlzvXitHDbSf1P3KjJCI03Aspv2xAIEz at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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 <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
>


____________________________________________________________
Refinance Now 4.0% FIXED!
$160,000 Mortgage for $633/mo. Free. No Obligation. Get 4 Quotes!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3341/4c1ac6c8baf0342d285st05duc
Received on Thu 17 Jun 2010 09:06:29 PM PDT