[meteorite-list] NWA 482 questions

Hi Mike,

> Robert, that is simple, since the purchase of this meteorite, we have been

> hassled in public and private by a good number of people, many on the list,

> in the last two years! I am simply tired of this ugly rumor raising it's head

> every few months. Mark posted questions, that have been answered so

> many times, that I am now asking him to clarify how the stone was offered

> to him?

I understand. Reading through all my filed emails on the subject of

NWA 482 over the last year and a half, I can see how frustrating

it is to have to keep answering the same dumb questions again and

again. The statement about a different, larger, mass was not one

I had seen before, though, so I thought that it would require just

a simple response. Fortunately, the meteorite had a rather distinct

shape, and there is no possible way that it could have at one time

been 25% heavier than its reported weight without it looking

like a peanut. So I think a good, if terse, response would have

been, "Anyone who says this meteorite once weighed 1278 grams

obviously never saw it while it was whole."

> As for the Met Bul. The matter is the same as when first reported. The

> meteorite was purchased by a consortium of people, the hupes had the

> largest investment so they got the main mass., just under half. so they

> wanted the Bulletin updated. I feel the new one is misleading as it says

> that the Hupes owned the stone, the fact is that they owned, HALF the

> stone, the main mass. There are 10 other owners that are not mentioned.

> Either way, that is just semantics that the Hupes wanted. They made

> the change, there is no secret or surprises there.

In light of what the Hupes report on their own website about the acquisition

of the stone, I have to agree with you that the new wording is even more

misleading than the original.

"From the day the meteorite was purchased it belonged to Adam and

Greg Hupe (Hupe)...."

This statement is patently false, and I'm surprised that the Meteoritical

Society would allow it. That's the main reason I said I was confused

by the incompatible wordings of Met. Bull. 85 and 86.

Best wishes,

Rob

Reply via email to