[meteorite-list] Mifflin, Amiss
From: Thunder Stone <stanleygregr_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 12:52:37 -0700 Message-ID: <SNT117-W158F0585BCB9E9989EB31DD2840_at_phx.gbl> List: I would like to add some additional information regarding the Mifflin I purchased in June of last year. I bought a 7 gram piece off of ebay. I quickly asked where it came from as I wanted to know for my collection and the email is shown below. An ~80 piece found on Shephard Road??? I would like to point out that Michael has settled our transaction. If you note: Jason mentions stone(s); so how much more of this material is out there? Greg S >Hello, >Your package went out earlier today. No, yours was not the 25k, but close. >That slice came from an ~80 gram stone that Greg Catterton acquired. It was found on Shephard Road as I was told. No coorid. >were given. >best Wishes and Thanks >Michael >Hi Michael: >I just paid for the 7.01 gram WI Meteorite - >This is the first I've purchased from you - Am I number 25,000. Now wouldn't that be crazy. >I'm so glad I got this from you. I went to Wisconsin and hunted for 5 days and did not find any, so now I'm happy to get one. >Can you provide me with the total weight of the stone it is cut from and the coordinates. I would really like to know as I'm >planning a nice display frame for the stone. >Again Thanks and congratulations on you 25,000-th sale. >Greg Stanley ---------------------------------------- > Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 18:12:16 -0700 > From: jasonutas at gmail.com > To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > Subject: [meteorite-list] Mifflin, Amiss > > Hello All, > > My story begins in the summer of last year. I saw some strange pieces > of 'Mifflin' on ebay that I thought looked funny. People were talking > about the meteorite having two lithologies, but...the slices and > individuals that I saw looked 'off.' A select few looked like > H-chondrites, and they had the telltale signs of wear that > freshly-imported Moroccan falls bear: worn edges, exposed metal flakes > on protruding corners (where the fusion crust had been worn off due to > improper packing), etc. > > At the time, I did nothing but send a private email to Anne Black > notifying her of my suspicions. I spoke with some other prominent > list-members addressing it, and they all agreed that the material > looked funny, but that nothing could be done about it given the > required burden of proof. > > So, I sat on my hands for several months. > > Just over a month ago, I saw a piece of the funny-looking 'Mifflin' on > ebay. It looked similar to some pieces that I remembered seeing on > ebay months before, and, being an end-cut, I was able to see both the > stone's funny-looking inside -- and the apparent metal grains on the > stone's exterior. > > I used the 'buy-it-now' option to purchase the end-cut, and it > arrived while Peter and I were in Morocco. When we returned, I > promptly shipped the end-cut off to Tony Irving of the University of > Washington; he agreed to analyze the stone posthaste. > > The results came back, but Tony wanted to wait until the probe was > recallibrated so that he could run it again to be sure. > > Lo and behold, he did confirm that my end-cut was an equilibrated > H-chondrite, with an olivine Fa of 18.6. For comparison, Chergach and > Bassikounou both have Fa contents of 18.4 and 18.6, respectively. > > University of Madison, Wisconsin performed most of the work on the > Mifflin fall. Between them and the Field Museum, over twenty separate > stones were analyzed. They were all L5. Mifflin is classified as an > L5, with an Fa of ~24.9 +/- 0.2. > > I then sent Tony the link to the ebay auction so he could confirm that > the piece that he had analyzed was indeed the piece that I had sent > him. He did. > > I purchased my end-cut from Bryan Scarborough (IMCA), who purchased it > from Michael Cottingham, who purchased it from Greg Catterton (IMCA), > who purchased the stone with Carl Esparza from the finder. > > Carl told me the following story over the phone: > He was contacted "out of the blue" by someone hunting in the Mifflin > strewn-field. According to Carl, the finder stated that he thought > there was a "conspiracy against him," because no one would offer him > more than $5/g. and he believed his finds were worth more than that. > So, according to Carl, he then offered the finder $10/g, and a deal was > struck. > > But...the finder asked that he not be paid via paypal or wire > transfer; he wanted cash mailed to a P.O. Box. > > So, Carl mailed the money to the P.O. Box and the first of two 'Mifflin' > stones was over-nighted to him the next day. It should be noted that > Carl included Greg Catterton as his partner in this deal, and Greg > sent over several hundred dollars to help pay for the stones. > > Unfortunately, as Carl said over the phone, his old computer recently > died, so he lacks the name and email address of the finder, as well as > the number/address of the P.O. Box to which he sent the money. Carl > is also unwilling to share the bank receipt from the transaction which > would prove that he did make a large cash withdrawal for the stones. > I asked Carl for the finder's phone number, but he told me that he had > recently tried to call the finder, himself, only to find that the > number had been disconnected. > He was unwilling to share the number with me, regardless. > > On the phone, Carl suggested that his source had likely ripped him > off, and he said that he believed that it was the reason why he had > been asked to send the money untraceably, as he did; Carl described > the situation as a "typical scam." > > He also suggested that the stones *might* be from an unrelated fall -- > or could be the result of Mifflin being an 'Almahata Sitta sort of > fall.' > > I can't disprove either of those ideas, but they are unlikely for the > following reasons: > > 1) Almahata Sitta is a unique event in the history of meteoritics. > Different lithologies have been observed in many meteorites, but to > have individual stones of completely different and unrelated meteorite > types falling separately is unique. Out of the 1,238 accepted > observed falls in the meteoritical bulletin, only one has exhibited > individuals that have consisted of different meteorite types (for > example, H + L, Ureilite + EH, etc). > > And it's not that we haven't been looking for similar events; with > each and every fall, multiple stones are analyzed, and the simple fact > of the matter is that they are always similar...with *one* exception. > > So, Almahata Sitta is an exception. How much of an exception? 0.08% > of meteorite falls are like it. Less than a tenth of a percent. > Possible...but extremely unlikely. We also have to wonder about why > or how this hunter managed to find the only two H's from the fall that > were recognized. Over twenty other stones were studied and this > finder supposedly turned up two or three that were all H's. It's 'funny.' > > The other possibility that Carl advocated is that the stones may actually > have been found in Wisconsin -- and they may be part of a new fall that > somehow slipped under the radar. He initially suggested that they were > from the fireball widely seen across the Midwest on May 10th, but, at the > time, I had paypal records from Greg that stated that he had sent Carl the > money for the stones as early as April 24th. > So we ruled out that possibility.. > > But, I agree; the stones could theoretically have come from a > different fall. The end-cut that I bought showed no visible signs of > weathering. No oxide, no anything. Given the weather in and around > Mifflin at the time of the fall, we can assume that the stones were > picked up within a week or so of having fallen. No AMS reports of > anything in the region for the given timeframe doesn't disprove > anything since meteorites often fall without much ado, but...two falls > in the same place *at the same time?* > Granted, it's possible. Not very likely, though. > > And you've still got to wonder about why no one else found any > H-chondrites while looking for Mifflin. It's not like meteorites were > laying thickly on the ground. Everyone who found stones out there put > considerable time into hunting -- and they all found only L5's. So if > Carl's source were telling the truth, and he did find the stones, it > seems best to assume that he wasn't hunting in the Mifflin > strewn-field, because, if he were, he would 1) probably have found > L5's, and 2) other people would probably have found H's as well. > > The conclusion I draw from this is that the truth has become > well-hidden. What is certain is that I have been refunded by > Bryan, and I know for a fact that Bryan has been refunded by > Michael Cottingham, who has in turn been refunded by Greg Catterton. > > What I have heard, however, is that Carl has been defending the > legitimacy of his stones, and is refusing to refund Greg Catterton. > > Regardless of whether the material is Mifflin or another meteorite > (from Wisconsin or from NWA -- it doesn't matter), the simple fact > of the matter is that the material sold by Carl has been shown to be > different from how it was advertised, and as such, he should be > willing to accept its return for a refund. If he wishes to get it > analyzed and sell it to others as a new meteorite, that is his > concern. > > I am fairly certain that Bryan, Michael, and Greg unknowingly sold the > material as Mifflin, believing that it was indeed what they sold it > as. > > That is my 2 cents. > > Regards, > Jason Utas > ______________________________________________ > 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 Mon 09 May 2011 03:52:37 PM PDT |
StumbleUpon del.icio.us Yahoo MyWeb |