[meteorite-list] Novato update

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 20:51:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CABEOBjLZk=r=PKaP9AnUwovbrq4Ns_=2YYWaxtmQJ=7WWdoVLg_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hello Greg,

After getting turned down a few times, I started asking a few
questions of the landowners who said they were committed to "only
NASA" coming onto their land.

Turns out a few private hunters whose names I won't mention decided to
say that they were working with NASA, and they told landowners not to
let (other) private hunters on their land.

Kind of made sense after I recalled that we'd run into one of the two
men earlier in the field, and his truck had a NASA sticker in the
window. Before he recognized me, he told me he was working with NASA,
but I hadn't thought anything of it.

I suppose Dr. Jennisken's team could have been doing similar things,
but that wasn't the impression I got in the field. The stories about
NASA being so tough was largely being told by one of the
aforementioned two hunters.

Go figure.

Jason

www.fallsandfinds.com


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Greg Hup? <gmhupe at centurylink.net> wrote:
> All,
> re: Navato, Sutter's Mill...
>
> I feel that the efforts of one individual purposely 'attempted' to drive a
> huge wedge between the private sector and the land owners starting at
> Sutter's Mill (I was not at Navato to witness first hand this, but read
> about it!!). During that meteorite event, that tactic worked initially but
> the stamina and longevity of private funds and professionalism fueled
> further local resident recoveries and financial motivation to find the
> Sutter's Mill stones yet to be discovered.
>
> To further challenge the antic's of the 'NASA' representative, I believe the
> PRIVATE sector donated a greater portion of the specimens being studied
> around the world as we speak!!
>
> My only issue is when one 'pro' distorts the truth to a point where the
> unknowing believe it true because it comes from a 'NASA' representative!!
>
> Greg
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Jason Utas
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 9:15 PM
> To: Jim Wooddell ; Michael Gilmer ; Meteorite-list
>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Novato update
>
> Hello Jim, Michael,
> I'll be frank: I do not believe that the majority of meteorite hunters
> and especially locals would have reached out to submit their find data
> had not an "official/NASA" online tally been published.
>
> At the very least, I think we can all agree that you would have
> collected *as much* data as did Dr. Jenniskens. Many locals clearly
> wanted nothing to do with private meteorite hunters, and the
> importance of "SM numbers" was only realized when the stone
> weights/locations/finder's names were published on the NASA-affiliated
> website.
>
> We all appreciate the work you put into it, and you probably did as
> good of a job as you could have, but the locals in the field were very
> excited about being involved with a NASA/SETI project, and that helped
> to drive many of the submissions.
>
> With regards to Novato:
>
> Without Dr. Jenniskens' efforts (published fireball trajectory
> estimates and his description of what to look for), Novato #1 would
> not have been recognized, and we do not know whether or not any of the
> subsequent finds would have been made. The entire fall could easily
> have been missed.
>
> Instead, thanks to the newspaper articles about the fireball (with
> information from Dr. Jenniskens), Novato #1 was recovered. Once we
> had that data point, we knew where to look. It also gave us greater
> incentive to look in general. It's much harder to motivate getting
> out to hunt when you're *pretty sure* rocks made it to the ground, but
> know little else about where they might be. You wind up spending less
> time in the right areas, etc.
>
> His subsequent outreach efforts subsequently yielded Novato #6.
>
> I think that would make him indirectly one of the most successful
> hunters of the strewn-field. He was responsible for the discovery of
> Novato stones #1 and #6, and the information he published indirectly
> led to the recovery of...everything else.
>
> Stanfield will be another case of a poorly documented fall unless the
> coordinates are eventually made 'public' on Galactic Analytics. I'm
> not saying there are rules that must be adhered to or anything like
> that, but the way things are generally being done is unscientific. If
> data is being lost, it's a shame. That's about it. I don't think
> anyone can argue with the fact that it's nice to see the data at some
> point, and to make a strewn-field map. If it's an important fall like
> Sutter's Mill, it helps to recover more, too.
>
>> Also, Dr. Rubin pointed out he was the one the distributed with was
>
> sent to him, not Peter.
>
> The sample was forwarded to Dr. Rubin from the sample obtained by Dr.
> Jenniskens, I believe -- from Novato #1. Not sure exactly what you
> mean.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
> www.fallsandfinds.com
>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Jim Wooddell <jimwooddell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> And keep in mind I was the one maintaining the filed data field for
>> the Garmin GPS (gdp) files daily on the project and GE KMZ for finds.
>> Not all meteorites found have SM numbers. Can not speak for that
>> process for Novato.
>> While I agree 100% that it's nice to have field data....lord knows
>> I've go through hell with the Franconia project, Stanfield is a
>> perfect example of this process not working. Has no really useful
>> field data in regards to assigned numbers. It simply is not working
>> as data is withheld....so only those hunters know what their finds
>> are. Nothing but bragging rights and I am not saying there is
>> anything wrong with bragging rights.
>> That said, no one needs to or has to comply to these rules. They are
>> unofficial. You and I might never know about finds in the field.
>> Hunters want to delay public information as long as they can for have
>> better chances of finding stones for themselves. We see this....and I
>> am not complaining, just pointing it out. So in the real world, it is
>> not working.
>>
>> Also, Dr. Rubin pointed out he was the one the distributed with was
>> sent to him, not Peter.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Galactic Stone & Ironworks
>> <meteoritemike at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a small correction, not to blow my own horn, but to clear up a
>>> misconception in Jason's post.
>>>
>>>> 7) Re: Jim's comments about find numbers (and apparently bragging
>>>> rights) -- No. Without the 'consortium,' publicly posted numbers,
>>>> etc. we would have much less of an idea of where/how many of the
>>>> Sutter's Mill meteorites were recovered. The majority of the
>>>> information shared on the SETI website would not be known, the strewn
>>>> field would be poorly known (relative to now), etc. And the fall is
>>>> now well-documented, and the information is publicly shared. That's
>>>> worth a heck of a lot.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is not 100% true. I was tracking and tallying the finds before
>>> the official page went online. I still have hundreds of emails from
>>> the public and finders who contacted me to share info. I was in
>>> touch with Dr. Jenniskens early on and he told me he was tracking the
>>> finds also, so we agreed to share data. At that point, I stopped
>>> collecting or archiving find coordinates and asked the finders who
>>> contacted me to forward that data to Dr. Jenniskens. From that point
>>> on, I stopped collecting coordinates and just focused on finds,
>>> finder's name and weights, to calculate the TKW.
>>>
>>> After that, I was still getting oodles of emails, full of photos and
>>> questions. I weeded out the meteorwrongs and forwarded the legitimate
>>> finds to Jenniskens. Numerous times, finders contacted me first and I
>>> always sent them to Jenniskens.
>>>
>>> If there was no official page by SETI/NASA/Whoever, I would have
>>> continued the tally and would have included find coordinates. I was
>>> glad that Jenniskens was handling the coordinates, because that
>>> lessened my work load a bit.
>>>
>>> I did this for science and to help people work together to share data.
>>> And I expect, that if I had not done it, somebody else would have
>>> stepped forward to do it.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> MikeG
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/1/13, Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello All,
>>>> 1) I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Dr.
>>>> Jenniskens went through the work of obtaining the type specimen and he
>>>> should be able to work on it as he sees fit. If that delays the
>>>> publication of the meteorite for a few months, it doesn't matter.
>>>> Doing so does not adversely affect anyone or anything, in any way.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Carl -- I think the difference here is that the stone has had all
>>>> of the work necessary for approval completed, but it is being held up
>>>> so that Dr. Jenniskens can oversee the additional work that is being
>>>> done. If he had given the type sample to UCLA earlier on, he might
>>>> not have been able to accommodate sample requests (and he has been
>>>> very forthcoming with doing so), so I think it's less a matter of
>>>> control as one of opportunity. Many of the studies that have been
>>>> performed on the rock are not often done on equilibrated ordinary
>>>> chondrites. It's still valuable information, but not data that is
>>>> usually included in a Meteoritical Bulletin writeup.
>>>>
>>>> Which isn't to say that UCLA is not capable of doing the same,
>>>> but....none of this matters. The stone will be approved and UCLA will
>>>> get their type specimen. Since Dr. Rubin already received a small
>>>> sample in order to describe the stone petrographically, he is included
>>>> in the consortium and will be a co-author in any publications turned
>>>> out by it (thus rendering Michael Farmer's most recent criticism
>>>> somewhat moot). Since Dr. Jenniskens did put in a lot of trajectory
>>>> calculation/outreach/recovery effort, I don't see why he's not
>>>> entitled to work on the specimen first.
>>>>
>>>> 3) The destructive work mentioned by some in a negative light includes
>>>> many studies outlined here:
>>>>
>>>> http://asima.seti.org/n/
>>>>
>>>> Stuff like Ar-Ar dating, raman spectroscopy, and other studies require
>>>> the dissolution or otherwise destruction of small portions of the
>>>> meteorite. It's standard procedure. Most of those kinds of studies
>>>> aren't performed on your average equilibrated chondrite fall, though,
>>>> so...be glad that it's happening with this one. More of this kind of
>>>> information could help us better understand the histories of these
>>>> bodies in the solar system.
>>>>
>>>> So for those of you saying that SETI/Dr. Jenniskens is doing things
>>>> they can't or shouldn't....they're not. They're just organizing
>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> 4) Having met with Lisa Webber and Glen Rivera a few times after they
>>>> handed N#1 over to Dr. Jenniskens, I don't think Richard Montgomery's
>>>> statement holds any water, either. They seemed genuinely happy to
>>>> provide the stone for analysis. I can't see how or why that would have
>>>> changed in the time since then, since they had already handed over the
>>>> stone and clearly expected ~20+ grams to go to an institution.
>>>>
>>>> 5) Some people seem to not like Dr. Jenniskens. I loaned them N#5 for
>>>> non-destructive work and picked it up in person last Friday night.
>>>> SETI's pretty cool, and they seem to be doing good work, most of it
>>>> pertaining to asteroids, near-Earth/Earth-crossing bodies, Mars, and a
>>>> variety of other things. This kind of thing is really right up their
>>>> alley.
>>>>
>>>> 6) Michael Mulgrew's recent comment makes no sense to me. Every
>>>> meteorite must be studied to some extent prior to publication, or it
>>>> could not be published. Some meteorites require O-isotope analyses,
>>>> some require trapped gas analyses, and others require only a few
>>>> mineralogical data points and a petrographic description. Where to
>>>> draw that line can be somewhat arbitrary, but one must be careful.
>>>> There was some confusion a few years ago because O-isotope data was
>>>> not obtained on a new NWA acapulcoite, and it was classified as an
>>>> winonaite. Later pairings were worked on more thoroughly. Novato is
>>>> a little different because we all know it's an L6, but still. The
>>>> write-up in the bulletin will reflect the variety of analyses
>>>> performed on the rock, I'm sure. Since most folks wouldn't go through
>>>> the trouble of doing this much work on an L6, I'm glad that someone is
>>>> organizing it.
>>>>
>>>> 7) Re: Jim's comments about find numbers (and apparently bragging
>>>> rights) -- No. Without the 'consortium,' publicly posted numbers,
>>>> etc. we would have much less of an idea of where/how many of the
>>>> Sutter's Mill meteorites were recovered. The majority of the
>>>> information shared on the SETI website would not be known, the strewn
>>>> field would be poorly known (relative to now), etc. And the fall is
>>>> now well-documented, and the information is publicly shared. That's
>>>> worth a heck of a lot.
>>>>
>>>> How many of you checked the SETI website for updates while hunting for
>>>> SM or N? Yeah. Useful.
>>>>
>>>> Really not sure where all of the criticism is coming from. This
>>>> meteorite isn't lost. It's not in limbo. It's being studied and will
>>>> be approved. This should be done with in a few months. A scientist
>>>> wants to do a thorough job on it. Sounds good to me.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I seem to think this is a control issue. Someone wants total control
>>>>> over
>>>>> the meteorite. Sad to dominate a meteorite fall.
>>>>> Never seen this type of action before.
>>>>> Submission changes nothing about the science or the papers released
>>>>> later.
>>>>> It is simply the act of registering the meteorite officially. I think
>>>>> they
>>>>> don't want to release the type specimen or else the receiving
>>>>> institution
>>>>> (UCLA) or (NASA) will then possibly release papers outside the control
>>>>> of
>>>>> the "Consortium"?
>>>>> My two kopeks.
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 1, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Carl Agee <agee at unm.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm having a hard time understanding this "problem" with Novato. Since
>>>>>> when do deposit samples not get analyzed and worked on? Maybe I'm
>>>>>> missing something here but the way I do it, is the sample gets ID-ed
>>>>>> and classified and then if it merits further research that happens
>>>>>> next, in that order. For example, you cannot submit an abstract to
>>>>>> LPSC or MetSoc on an unclassified or provisional meteorite.
>>>>>> Classification is absolutely the first thing that should happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carl Agee
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Carl B. Agee
>>>>>> Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics
>>>>>> Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences
>>>>>> MSC03 2050
>>>>>> University of New Mexico
>>>>>> Albuquerque NM 87131-1126
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel: (505) 750-7172
>>>>>> Fax: (505) 277-3577
>>>>>> Email: agee at unm.edu
>>>>>> http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Michael Farmer
>>>>>> <mike at meteoriteguy.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, hunting costs money, lots and lots of it. Ask me, I'm on the
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> side of the planet right now and western unions as coming in daily.
>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>> credit cards accepted where I am:)
>>>>>>> But we have responsibilities. Pay to play, including getting the type
>>>>>>> specimen properly curated. I am in 100% agreement with the noncom on
>>>>>>> this one.
>>>>>>> Science must come first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael Farmer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 1, 2013, at 7:38 AM, robert crane <rrobber1 at msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem I have is every one should spend their hard earned money
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the field looking for these damn things to ease the people that
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> leave their driveway. I'm sorry before u bitch and complain get off
>>>>>>>> your ass and not spend time in Stewart Valley or in Franconia
>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>> DCA crap classified. Work in the field and contribute. Make a
>>>>>>>> contribution to science before u bitch about other people. Hunting
>>>>>>>> ain't free.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:19 PM, "Richard Montgomery"
>>>>>>>> <rickmont at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of the stones from this find was "lent" to the NASA team, with
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> open mind and naivte perhaps; a situation that definitely shook her
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> total surprise and dismay, when another finder of another stone
>>>>>>>>> offered a perspective. She wasn't pleased to learn that she may
>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>> see it again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Verish"
>>>>>>>>> <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> To: "Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral"
>>>>>>>>> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:34 AM
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Novato update
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks Rob,
>>>>>>>>> for clearing the air and getting this thread back on track.
>>>>>>>>> And now that the dust has settled, we're back to my original
>>>>>>>>> concern:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do we have to wait for just the name to be approved?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is the question I am posing to the List, stated another way:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If everyone is in agreement with the Jenniskins arrangement, then
>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>> can't the Committee credit UCLA for the type specimen and move
>>>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>>>> with approving at least the name "Novato" (if need be, at least
>>>>>>>>> provisionally)? I mean, what is the difference whether the type
>>>>>>>>> specimen goes first to UCLA, then goes to NASA, or vice-versa? I
>>>>>>>>> mean,
>>>>>>>>> for goodness sake, it's NASA we're talking about here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do we have to wait for the results from the consortium before
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> know the approved name of this meteorite?
>>>>>>>>> I mean, we didn't even have a consensus classification for Sutter's
>>>>>>>>> Mill, but that name still got approved! We didn't have to wait for
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> results of the consortium, then. Why now?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But before I conclude, allow me to state several things
>>>>>>>>> FOR THE RECORD:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Contrary to any unfounded assertions that may get printed on this
>>>>>>>>> List, there is no "problem" getting type-specimens from finders to
>>>>>>>>> researchers:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There were 8 Sutter's Mill finds donated from finders & property
>>>>>>>>> owners.
>>>>>>>>> The name "Sutter's Mill" was approved BEFORE a classification could
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> agreed upon and long before the consortium published their results.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There were 2 Battle Mountain specimens voluntarily donated by
>>>>>>>>> finders
>>>>>>>>> to researchers. The name "Battle Mountain" was approved 30 days
>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>> the fall. What delay?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Other US falls with "no problems" getting type-specimens:
>>>>>>>>> Mifflin, Lorton, Whetstone Mtns, Ash Creek - no delays in name
>>>>>>>>> approval.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finders of the "Novato" meteorite were making arrangements to
>>>>>>>>> submit
>>>>>>>>> type specimens to researchers, prior to Jenniskins announcement to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Press that he was submitting the Webber stone as a type specimen.
>>>>>>>>> Days
>>>>>>>>> after his announcement is when I finally made my Novato find, and
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> that time I never dreamt we would be having this discussion in
>>>>>>>>> 2013.
>>>>>>>>> If it becomes necessary, I am prepared (as are other finders) to
>>>>>>>>> submit a type specimen to UCLA. But not until we all have been
>>>>>>>>> given a
>>>>>>>>> proper explanation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Bob V.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- On Mon, 4/29/13, Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Novato update
>>>>>>>>>> To: "Pat Brown" <scientificlifestyle at hotmail.com>, "Jim Wooddell"
>>>>>>>>>> <jim.wooddell at suddenlink.net>, "Met List"
>>>>>>>>>> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Monday, April 29, 2013, 8:51 PM
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've been informed by one of the Novato finders that this is
>>>>>>>>>> a non-issue.
>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Jenniskens has long-since pledged to donate more
>>>>>>>>>> than adequate Novato type specimen to UCLA for it to be
>>>>>>>>>> approved by the Nomenclature Committee. That it hasn't happened
>>>>>>>>>> already is simply because Dr. Jenniskens wished to ensure that all
>>>>>>>>>> academic requests for meteoritical material were handled promptly.
>>>>>>>>>> 29 grams
>>>>>>>>>> of the first recovered stone were generously donated by Lisa
>>>>>>>>>> Webber to SETI for scientific analysis; of that, whatever is not
>>>>>>>>>> consumed
>>>>>>>>>> in destructive analyses has been promised to UCLA.
>>>>>>>>>> So there is no cause for alarm; people just need to be patient.
>>>>>>>>>> --Rob
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:32 AM, Robert Verish <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's still the "Novato" (provisional) meteorite.
>>>>>>>>>> It still is not in the Meteoritical Bulletin.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the slice that Brien Cook originally cut with the
>>>>>>>>>> intention
>>>>>>>>>> of submitting it to UCLA. But when he read that someone else was
>>>>>>>>>> going to supply the type-specimen, he then placed it on eBay.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice if some Institute or consortium would make an
>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>> and try to repatriate this slice and make it a type-specimen so
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> this US-fall could finally be made "official". All I'm saying
>>>>>>>>>> is,
>>>>>>>>>> this "leaving an official-status hanging-in-mid-air" would never
>>>>>>>>>> happen in Canada. They would just simply buy the type-specimen.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's time for the US to catch-up with Canada. It's time for a
>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>> Bob V.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>>>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>>>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Carl B. Agee
>>>>>> Director and Curator, Institute of Meteoritics
>>>>>> Professor, Earth and Planetary Sciences
>>>>>> MSC03 2050
>>>>>> University of New Mexico
>>>>>> Albuquerque NM 87131-1126
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel: (505) 750-7172
>>>>>> Fax: (505) 277-3577
>>>>>> Email: agee at unm.edu
>>>>>> http://meteorite.unm.edu/people/carl_agee/
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com
>>> Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
>>> Twitter - http://twitter.com/GalacticStone
>>> Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone
>>> RSS - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Wooddell
>> jimwooddell at gmail.com
>> 928-247-2675
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Mon 06 May 2013 11:51:18 PM PDT