[meteorite-list] Claimed pairings

From: Greg Catterton <star_wars_collector_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <698508.88222.qm_at_web46411.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I agree with you as to why it happens, but at the same time, if one meteorite is to be held with such lax standards, it casts a bad impression to some when such fuss is raised about others.
I have tried to stay out of the pairing debate, but this is one time that I will chime in.

I honestly think that the same standards should apply equally to all meteorites, regardless of what kind it is.
Its very bad to say its ok to overlook this one, but not that one.
Kind of like selective enforcement of the Laws.
Enforcement of rules and laws should be across the board and equal, or not followed at all.

I wont ever buy or sell NWA 869 due to my opinions of the standards surrounding it. It is tainted with double standards - Just my opinion on it.

While I do not know what Greg is selling the NWA 5400 for, I do know is a good amount more then $1 per gram but the money should not be the deciding factor as to following the rules or not.

I hate to say it, but from all the recent debates about pairings/hammers/etc the main issue that is brought up is financial gain and monetary values. Is that all many of you think about when holding a meteorite or finding one? How much is it worth?

Its sad for me to see this, meteorites are something very special to me that here more often then not is being overshadowed by the money aspect rather then the fact that these are things that come from space, they provide us a chance to do something and take part in something that we would not be able to do otherwise. How many people have been to the moon? How many have touched something from the moon? I am willing to bet less then 5% of the world will ever get to. We get to do what others dream about. Does it always have to be about the money? Yes, I sell meteorites. Yes, I make money off meteorites. I also know what they are and feel fortunate to be able to take part in the world of meteorites and understand that value sometimes does not mean money.

Before I discovered meteorites, all I could do is look at the moon and wish. Thanks to meteorites, I can TOUCH the moon!!! Thats where the value is, or should be.

I will end this post by asking everyone who has had comments about pairing issues this... why raise such a fuss about pairing of one, when you outright ignore it on others?
People claim science all too often, but when it comes down to it, I honestly feel it is all marketing and money related intentions that will stand in the end while the true science takes a back seat to filling pockets with cash.


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


--- On Fri, 6/18/10, Meteorites USA <eric at meteoritesusa.com> wrote:

> From: Meteorites USA <eric at meteoritesusa.com>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Claimed pairings
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Friday, June 18, 2010, 2:24 PM
> 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
> >
> >? ?
> ______________________________________________
> 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 02:44:16 PM PDT