[meteorite-list] Claimed pairings

From: Greg Catterton <star_wars_collector_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <63305.95268.qm_at_web46415.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

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.

I have to agree with this 110%.
Thats the one main reason I will not buy it.


Greg Catterton
www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com
IMCA member 4682
On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites
On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WanderingStarMeteorites


--- On Thu, 6/17/10, Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Claimed pairings
> To: "Richard Kowalski" <damoclid at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "meteorite list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Date: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 8:01 PM
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ______________________________________________
> 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 Fri 18 Jun 2010 02:11:50 PM PDT