[meteorite-list] Claimed pairings

From: Meteorites USA <eric_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:24:03 -0700
Message-ID: <4C1BB9C3.4070901_at_meteoritesusa.com>

NWA 869 is an L4-6 ordinary chondrite, the only thing special about NWA
869 is that it's brecciated, and that's not a HUGE deal. There's also
literally tons of it, and it can be purchased for less than $1/g
typically. Hence the reason it falls under the radar. If it were an
angrite, or a terrene meteorite, or Martian, or Lunar, or Howardite,
Eucrite, or Diogenite, there would probably be no self pairings flying
under the radar as it seems with 869.

Regards,
Eric



On 6/18/2010 11:11 AM, Greg Catterton wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 02:24:03 PM PDT