[meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. yawn?
From: Ted Bunch <tbear1_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 19:15:03 -0700 Message-ID: <CB0025B7.1A558%tbear1_at_cableone.net> Hello Greg and readers--- I swore never to get involved in this "Dead horse" issue again after our (Bunch, Wittke, Irving) web site manifesto in 2009. Unless, the past classification errors were corrected by the Nom Com, inane biases/politics were flushed down the toilet, and a serious in-depth study was made on "Al Haggounia", NWA 2965, NWA 2828, etc., an enigma by any other name - henceforth referred to here as "this or the stone". None of this has happened. What we know: 1. The original classification is wrong - if a stone has chondrules, then by definition it is a chondrite. If a stone is devoid of chondrules, then it is not a chondrite, fairly simple. The meteorite in question has chondrules, hence it is not an aubrite which is an achondrite, fairly simple. 2. The original classification of NWA 2965 is wrong. Chondrules were not found in the first sample studied, they were found later when we extended the survey search in the original sample and to many other samples of this stone. The Irving and Bunch teams worked independently at that time, but soon realized their mistakes on 2828 and 2965 and submitted corrected versions based on cooperative and rather exhaustive efforts with tons of new data, to the Nom Com, fairly simple procedure. Nothing. No feedback, no change, nothing. We tried several more times, nothing! The members of that Nom Com and the Bulletin Editor have retired from these positions. Subtle attempts for reconsideration with new Nom Coms and Editors also failed. Not so simple anymore. 3. This is not a simple stone. It has chondrules with clear glassy mesostasis as well as optically opaque, glassy matrix of non-stoichiometric feldspathic compositions. However, there are rare matrix patches that are poorly crystallized. The stone also contains very tiny prismatic enstatite crystals with micron sized, oblate to spherical glass inclusions (these enstatite crystals could very well be pre-solar condensates), in addition to vermicular carbon, well formed and poorly formed "graphite", and tiny (<2 microns) unresolved carbon grains. Overall, the stone fits an EL3 best, or may be an EL3/4, as suggested by J. Wasson and A. Rubin, or simply the political way out, an "E", suggested by J. Grossman. But not an EL6 (lack of recrystallization/equilibration/etc.) and certainly not a chondrule-bearing igneous aubrite. In my opinion, this stone could represent an unequilibrated primitive regolith that formed gently on an E asteroid. Sometimes my opinions don't amount to very much. . The classification disagreement can be likely resolved by an in-depth, peer-reviewed publication. Details on some issues of this stone, as well as the "revised" NWA 2828 and NWA 2965 classifications are available at: http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Al_Haggounia.html Thanks Greg for supplying the vehicle for one more round of horse pounding. Ted ____________________________________________________________________________ ____ On 12/3/11 1:00 AM, "Greg Hup?" <gmhupe at centurylink.net> wrote: > Respectfully Doug, My god man, really? You wrote, "What is your reply to this > 2011 EL6 poster? Is it 'acceptable' to you since aubrite is removed? Or must > more blood be drawn from the stone..." Doug, I have no influence to anyone's > written or online articles... consult them! This does 'confirm "EL6 is a good > match!!! You wrote (sorrowfully arrogant & ignorant): "A simple email to the > editor at this point should be what is needed; no one likes getting yelled at > to do something, I'm sure no one is happy to change it now." Doug, I am not > yelling at anyone. When this subject enters our lives I will speak my mind > with what I know. If you want to get evolved, don't dog me, match up to Tony, > Ted and 'Al Hagg... et al'. I am simply the field person from 2005 who > brought out NWA 2828, I know, the start of this mess!!! :-/ And, "YES!", > Doug, I challenge the Bulletin to decide this "dead horse", too much time has > gone by. Doug, I do not know why you push this 'mud' with your own cute spin > on it, you seem to be a smart person, talk to the experts, not me! ;-) I will > be happy to educate you and whoever wants to know my involvement with > anything I am passionate about. If you do not ask, do not , or only presume > to speak for the masses, you will be corrected!! Doug, good luck with your > hunt on this one! ;-) Best Regards, Greg Dead Horses Can't Live Until They > Are Buried Standing UP! -----Original Message----- From: MexicoDoug Sent: > Saturday, December 03, 2011 2:33 AM To: gmhupe at centurylink.net ; > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. > yawn? "Doug, not to be blunt, but this entire conversation is an > 'Extremely', 'Old', 'Archaic', "Fossil" of a subject that it is almost boring > to most of us..." Hi Greg, Thanks Greg for that thought and precisely for > that reason if you want a classification changed it is strange to mix a dead > horse with what you would like to be another live one a.k.a. removing the > 'aubrite' classification. I do think it is strange that these classification > corrections haven't been made (as you can see in my post) and Drs. Bunch and > Irving have made believers out of me; one can only respect the resources > they dedicated to elucidating the variations of this crapped up old pile > of earth rocks that is almost boring to a few of us that were meteorites at > one time and are just weathered ghosts of what they once were. What is your > reply to this 2011 EL6 poster? Is it 'acceptable' to you since aubrite is > removed? Or must more blood be drawn from the stone ;-) I don't mean to be > blunt either and please accept my apology which I offer in advance if there > are ruffled feathers somewhere due to > this classification. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2011/pdf/5298.pdf > But everyone who was on the list certainly heard about that classification > problem ... and likely from you ... and likely more than once ... and why give > more airtime to it (could it be this is a discussion group and not a solution > group?), because only a few care: that's your "dead horse" and other > discussion ending logic. I respectfully disagree and I think attitude has a > lot to do with the present problem (this is not directed at anyone specific, > and most definitely NOT the scientists ? they get kudos). A simple email to > the editor at this point should be what is needed; no one likes getting yelled > at to do something, I'm sure no one is happy to change it now. Any other air > time is likely to only result in character assassination, ?Get it right!? to > Met Soc editors, do they get paid to listen to that?; so to be clear, what's > the point of it on the list other than entertainment value or public > humiliation? The nomenclature of fossil/paleo/ancient is entirely another > issue. But by shoving the fossil/paleo issue forward when marketing > this material, for some rusted out relicts, well, let's just say that by tying > two dead horses together, neither does the other any favors. This continues to > be a marketing representation every time someone buys this material, and we > must be vigilant to keep ideas about finding fossil life in meteorites > divorced from our observations given past 'problems' and media distortion. On > eBay, the majority of these are currently marketed as fossil aubrites. The > one that says EL3 says it has many metal flecks in it (does that make sense? > Wow if so, kind of makes me wonder if it really isn?t just a highly weathered > meteorite, like other cheapo rusted-out meteorites, that happened to get in > some old lakebed.) I mean, let?s see the stages of a meteorite: fresh fall > $$$; fresh find $$; weathered find $; highly weathered find ??; tons of barely > recognizable relict ?/$ ? Maybe, if that is what the customer likes. But > there are hundreds of new list members that would be interested in the relict > definition (and why the meteoritical society chose that) and hundreds more > that worry about the classification. General material is always cycled on > the list and that allows newer members to participate rather than be told what > is right and see how these things evolve. You really shouldn't be speaking > for "most of us" on my fossil hot button. For every mouthpiece on the list > there are 50 more folks that have no strong opinion or find it all > interesting. Respectfully yours, as always, facts ? are optional but you are > welcome to kindly add them; But only I will read my paleo horse his last > rights especially when the smart money is on him! ;-) Doug -----Original > Message----- From: Greg Hup? <gmhupe at centurylink.net> To: Meteorite-list > <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 1:00 am Subject: > [meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. Get it Right.. Finally! Hi Doug and All, Doug, > not to be blunt, but this entire conversation is an 'Extremely', 'Old', > 'Archaic', "Fossil" of a subject that it is almost boring to most of us... > Unless you really understand 'et al'... The bottom line is, money or not, get > the facts corrected before more collectors continue to buy 'misinformed' > Aubrites.. Bottom Line!!! This is one of those ongoing subjects that one > needs to understand before they step in their own mud...! Best > Regards, Greg ==================== Greg Hup? The Hup? > Collection gmhupe at centurylink.net www.LunarRock.com NaturesVault (eBay) IMCA > 3163 ==================== Click here for my current eBay > auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault -----Original > Message----- From: MexicoDoug Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 11:15 PM To: > joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com ; Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Subject: > Re: [meteorite-list] NAwhat'sME (was...Are these > meteorites???) "http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Al_Haggounia.html" W > ow, what a great and insightful page to these stones. Maske one want to get > on a plane and go digging themselves. Does the list have an opionion of this > already or is it one of those things that fell between the sofa cushions and > never got cleaned up? What is the status of the proposed reclassification in > the Bulletin as an EL3? If it hasn't been done yet can anyone post an > opposing view to keep the aubrite or other classifications alive? Maybe it > hasn't been done because this relict meteorite is being called a "fossil"? > I've heard of fossil living people but fossil meteorites - please let's not go > there! Seems like there is more than one change being proposed on this page. > Best IMO - one thing at a time, leave that battle for another time. IMO: The > use of the word 'fossil' for dug up minerals according to this dictionary is > obsolete: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fossil ...but beyond that > for any it is extremely confusing to the commercial side of this especially to > innocent buyers and hopefully the IMCA and other alike groups can regulate > this if it sounds reasonable; since it is generally used to describe for > living organisms or structures left by them, and therefore has associated with > it an air of ancient life to the new collector, and there is no need to evoke > this term any more than 'aubrite' if in fact that doesn't fit. As for > 'paleo', it sounds like a $2 word for $0.06 per gram meteorite as > well. Relict is a perfect term and even has precedence as it has been > used throughout the Chicxulub studies to describe the tektites which in > a similar fasion have been incorporated into sediment. So after reading the > excellent and painstaking work by Drs. Ted Bunch and A. Irving, one has to > wonder where Conan the Barbarian is just to come in and say: They are relicts > and they are EL3's, further use of any other mentioned terms is immediately > hereby suspended until noticed by the axe-wielding squad ;-), or an opposing > view makes its stand in a peer-reviewed article. Kindest > wishes Doug -----Original Message----- From: JoshuaTreeMuseum > <joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com> To: meteorite-list > <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 2, 2011 10:19 pm Subject: > [meteorite-list] Are these meteorites??? More than 20 pairings?: The Al > Haggounia "Fossil or Paleo" Meteorite > Problem: http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Al_Haggounia.html Phil > Whitmer ______________________________________________ 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/listi > nfo/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/listi > nfo/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/listi > nfo/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/listi > nfo/meteorite-list Received on Sat 03 Dec 2011 09:15:03 PM PST |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|