[meteorite-list] Claimed pairings

From: Greg Stanley <stanleygregr_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:33:22 -0700
Message-ID: <SNT117-W319170B6574DA3210D9BA3D2C00_at_phx.gbl>

List:

It's too bad data was not collected for the NWA finds over the last 10 years - I would love to see maps of all the different strewn fields there.

Greg S.

----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:24:03 -0700
> From: eric at meteoritesusa.com
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Claimed pairings
>
> 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 wrote:
>>
>>
>>> From: Galactic Stone& Ironworks
>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Claimed pairings
>>> To: "Richard Kowalski"
>>> Cc: "meteorite list"
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: cdtucson at cox.net
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Claimed pairings
>>>>> To: "meteorite list",
>>>>>
>>> "Richard
>>>
>>>>> Kowalski"
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________
> 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
                                               
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
Received on Fri 18 Jun 2010 02:33:22 PM PDT