[meteorite-list] Awesome Shock Melted (NWA 6963) Martian Specimens

From: Bigjohn Shea <bigjohnshea_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 23:32:13 +0100
Message-ID: <trinity-072a4a98-c6db-4d5a-a493-2ce34eb98e37-1521498733231_at_msvc-mesg-gmxus009>

Dear Art,
Hope you are well.

I formally request that I be made a ?Moderator? for the Metlist, so that there is SOMEONE, who can put an end to this back and forth bickering when it gets out of hand. Which it has in this scenario...

I have extensive experience as an Administrator for both the ?Meteorites? page on facebook, and the ?Is it a Meteorite? page at the same online venue, for numerous years now.

Most Sincerely,
John A. Shea, MD
IMCA 3295







Sent using the mail.com mail app

On 3/19/18 at 4:51 PM, Jason Utas wrote:

> I've sold some of those pieces of NWA 7034 to NASA, scientists in Japan,
> Europe, etc., etc., etc. They were all happy to get NWA 7034 at 1/4 the
> price of what some other dealers were asking. And, just like Ruben's NWA
> 6963, it was all real.
>
> At the end of the day, that's what you're fighting for. Artificially
> inflated values like those fostered by the GIA. Makes sense when you're
> sitting on kilograms of a Lunar and prices have tanked. Transparent.
>
> Your response to a relevant point with repeated personal attacks that
> change tune every time I refute them is, frankly, pathetic. Grow up.
>
> Glad you finally conceded that the rules are the rules, and that neither
> you, nor the Nomenclature Committee, enforce them. Hopefully this can be
> dropped on the list.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Adam Hupe <raremeteorites at centurylink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Jason
> >
> > Complain to the Meteoritical Society if you actually think they will
> > listen given your reputation. Congratulations you were one of the first
> > to self-pair a key planetary meteorite which has not gone unnoticed by your
> > peers.
> >
> > All my meteorites are official so I sleep fine at night.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/19/2018 11:09 AM, Jason Utas wrote:
> >
> > "Two or more newly discovered meteorites in dense collection areas may be
> > considered paired with each other or with another formally named meteorite
> > if there is overwhelming evidence, including geographic data that are
> > consistent with the meteorites being part of a single fall. The evidence
> > must be evaluated by the Committee. All approved members of a pairing group
> > will be named with a geographic prefix plus a number in the same way as are
> > unpaired meteorites; special type-specimen requirements will apply to newly
> > paired meteorites (?7.1g). If two or more numbered meteorites with formal
> > names are subsequently determined to be paired, their names should not be
> > changed."
> >
> > The rules are the rules. All you've established in this thread is that
> > "the scientists" sometimes break the rules. You've broken the rules. And
> > you're somehow, for reasons I cannot fathom, demanding that everyone else
> > must actually follow them.
> >
> > You're a bleeding hypocrite.
> >
> > It is what it is.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Adam Hupe <raremeteorites at centurylink.net
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> And one more thing, I see you were deliberate in trying to start multiple
> >> arguments by forwarding these messages. I reply all since you felt is
> >> necessary to include others.
> >>
> >> Interesting, I can debate for months but I find your responses so silly
> >> as to not be taken too seriously.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you should join the debate team at UCLA to brush up on your
> >> skills.
> >>
> >> LMAO
> >>
> >> Adam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/19/2018 12:10 AM, Jason Utas wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh, right. Now I'm on medication of some kind. I'll call you on this:
> >> please provide evidence.
> >>
> >> Oh, that's right. There isn't and can't be any. I'm not on any
> >> medication of any kind, prescription or otherwise. I'd take low-dose
> >> aspirin, but I donate platelets every month or so, and they advised me not
> >> to.
> >>
> >> This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. You don't like where the
> >> thread is going? Throw out baseless lies. Great strategy.
> >>
> >> I cited all of my claims, and any of your *former* friends can
> >> corroborate everything I just said about the IMCA. There's a reason you
> >> don't have any friends left on the meteorite-list. At the end of the day,
> >> you're talking shit about me for quoting rules at you and pointing out that
> >> what you and others have done did not agree with them. That's not
> >> "badmouthing" anyone. It's stating facts.
> >>
> >> Your lawsuit with Mani was thrown out. Even the impartial arm of the
> >> American Judicial System says you're full of shit. I hope you enjoyed
> >> paying that retainer.
> >>
> >> I didn't even say you were insane. One of your fellow
> >> then-IMCA-board-members did.
> >>
> >> https://aeon.co/essays/so-you-re-surrounded-by-idiots-guess-
> >> who-the-real-jerk-is
> >>
> >> Cut your losses.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Adam Hupe <
> >> raremeteorites at centurylink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jason,
> >>>
> >>> Insane? I am not the person who takes medications to stay on track all
> >>> day.
> >>>
> >>> You have been listening to somebody who ripped me off and then publicly
> >>> claimed he might not make it through the night after I publicly called him
> >>> out on it. This same person accused me of being two people at the same
> >>> time. These statements and what has been posted on Facebook will not help
> >>> his defense in federal district court. I am not the one running around
> >>> with an ulcer since I have done nothing wrong other than call people out.
> >>>
> >>> You display all the same symptoms of the person you have been listening
> >>> to.
> >>>
> >>> Your lies on the other hand, are even simpler to prove since they are
> >>> well-documented here, in records and in social media.
> >>>
> >>> You reflect poorly on the community you say you want to serve,
> >>>
> >>> Just look at what you wrote. You have badmouth half the scientific
> >>> community which you want to be accepted in and you call me insane?
> >>>
> >>> Enough time wasted on a senseless and lonely dust eater.
> >>>
> >>> Instead of lowering my standards any further by debating with you, which
> >>> will accomplish nothing, I will continue to fine tune a major project that
> >>> promises more than what you could ever imagine.
> >>>
> >>> Adam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3/18/2018 10:26 PM, Jason Utas wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You mean the current NWA 869 write-up *also* breaks the published
> >>> rules? "The scientists" have clearly stated the rules. I'm copy and
> >>> pasting from the guidelines:
> >>>
> >>> "Two or more newly discovered meteorites in dense collection areas may
> >>> be considered paired with each other or with another formally named
> >>> meteorite if there is overwhelming evidence, including geographic data that
> >>> are consistent with the meteorites being part of a single fall. The
> >>> evidence must be evaluated by the Committee. All approved members of a
> >>> pairing group will be named with a geographic prefix plus a number in the
> >>> same way as are unpaired meteorites; special type-specimen requirements
> >>> will apply to newly paired meteorites (?7.1g). If two or more numbered
> >>> meteorites with formal names are subsequently determined to be paired,
> >>> their names should not be changed."
> >>>
> >>> The rules are the rules. All you've established in this thread is that
> >>> "the scientists" sometimes break the rules. You've broken the rules. And
> >>> you're somehow, for reasons I cannot fathom, demanding that everyone else
> >>> must actually follow them.
> >>>
> >>> You're a bleeding hypocrite.
> >>>
> >>> It is what it is.
> >>>
> >>> And your continuing lies are what they are. I resigned from the group
> >>> for stating that NWA 7034 that I purchased from an IMCA member, as NWA
> >>> 7034, was NWA 7034. I have SEM data and images from UCLA confirming it. I
> >>> did not, however, donate 20% of the mass to UCLA. Unfortunately, as more
> >>> recent board-members have made abundantly clear to me, they didn't, at the
> >>> time, realize that you were bat-shit insane. They have repeatedly
> >>> apologized and asked me to re-join the group, also repeatedly. I will tell
> >>> you, again, what I told them: I would not join a group that espouses
> >>> someone like you as a member. I don't need the IMCA. As far as I am
> >>> aware, I am responsible for ousting most of the IMCA members who have ever
> >>> been removed from the group for selling misrepresented material. For some
> >>> reason, no other members of the group or in our community spotted the fakes
> >>> or did anything about them.
> >>>
> >>> Re: your last email. You're joking, right? This blurry photo
> >>> <https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/get_original_photo.php?recno=5631053>
> >>> clearly shows that these stones are all paired? Do you understand the
> >>> difference between a chemical *analysis* and a *photograph?*
> >>>
> >>> You're putting me on. You must be. If I can take a photo of a pile of
> >>> stones and "they're all paired," boy have I been doing things the wrong
> >>> way. You need to get on the phone to ANSMET right away. They've been
> >>> wasting millions of dollars and thousands of man hours *analyzing*
> >>> meteorites! All they needed to do was pile similar-looking rocks together
> >>> and take a photo!
> >>>
> >>> And...there you have it. Ruben's stone is paired. The photo looks like
> >>> NWA 6963. It's paired. We're good. We can go home now.
> >>>
> >>> You need to sit back and think about what you're actually saying.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 9:42 PM, Adam Hupe <
> >>> raremeteorites at centurylink.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jason,
> >>>>
> >>>> Just to entertain your old debating points that were found to have no
> >>>> merit in the past or now, especially in academic circles, I will clarify
> >>>>
> >>>> For your information, we received several official numbers for NWA 869
> >>>> pairings but were told to use the NWA 869 nomenclature instead since the
> >>>> NWA 869 entry had been revised to reflect these official pairings.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Meteoritical Society's Metoeritical Bulletin entry for NWA 869 was
> >>>> revised on 14 Nov 2005 and again revised on 29 Oct 2013 to reflect that
> >>>> over two metric tons of NWA 869 was recorded. All of the official pairings
> >>>> are now included in a single nomenclature assignment.
> >>>>
> >>>> For somebody who fancies themselves as a future scientist, you sure are
> >>>> no good at discovering the truth, you lack observation skills and data
> >>>> (facts) seem to make little difference.
> >>>>
> >>>> Adam
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
Received on Mon 19 Mar 2018 06:32:13 PM PDT