[meteorite-list] NWA 5400, etc

From: cdtucson at cox.net <*cdtucson_at_meteoritecentral.com*> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:30:26 -0400 Message-ID: <20100617213026.74VGG.813423.imail_at_fed1rmwml34> · cdtucson_at_meteoritecentral.com

--
Carl or Debbie Esparza
Meteoritemax
---- Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote: 
> Gerald, All,
> 
> We bought the following iron meteorite in slices off of ebay
> from...Greg, or Adam, I forget.  Each piece was being sold as a piece
> of a new mass of Tafrawet (NWA 860).
> 
> http://picasaweb.google.com/MeteoriteKid/Irons#5417262630959925810
> 
> We have an end-cut of Tafrawet; upon seeing the auctions, I was
> certain that the iron being sold wasn't Tafrawet, and we quickly
> purchased all of the remaining specimens (two or three had already
> sold via buy-it-now).  The photos were good enough for me - Tafrawet
> is a fresh fusion-crusted iron; this wasn't, and the widmanstatten
> patterns were completely different.
> 
> We sent emails to the buyers of the other slices, but never received a
> reply from any of them.
> 
> We submitted a slice of the iron to UCLA - it's a new IAB (not a piece
> of NWA 860) that should be approved shortly.
> 
> I agree: generally, Greg and Adam are good with such things.  But if I
> caught this mistake, I can only assume that they have made others as
> well.
> 
> ...Another one of those 'take that as you will' statements....
> 
> Regards,
> Jason
> 
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:36 PM, GERALD FLAHERTY <GRF2 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > Well, we ALL know the Hupe's stringent credentials when they bring something to market. Why not wonder about a somewhat dubious claim from an unfamiliar source. If it's true, the Moroccans should jump at the chance to verify their prize and claim the reward.
> > What's the problem, time and money? That is the name of the game
> > On Jun 17, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Jason Utas wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> 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