I appreciate the immense amount of time I anticipated you would spend on your reply.
Thinking extensively about this, I wondered why you tried to shame me as a hypocrite, even when you have witness to me striving for best practices. Having autism I often struggle to understand people's intention. Many times I have gone wrong assuming the worst in people's actions. So one of my strategies is to try to think of the best possible intention that someone could have. I admit sometimes it is difficult with your approach (and attempt to shame me) but since your critique was not sound I came to reason that you saw an injustice that I perpetrated against Benzaki Mohamed and you felt the need to "punch the bully in his face". A fierce sense of justice that sometimes leads me to act foolish is also part of my condition so I was able to have sympathy with this realization. Now that you have responded I can more clearly see your intention. So here is my considered response. To the community: I am happy to assist with meteoritics in any way that I can. If you have material that you feel might be paired with mine I am happy to look at any information and give my honest response. It would be unethical and dirty feeling to do otherwise. I have not made it to where I am in life by acting in short term interests. Relationships are life long. To Benzaki Mohamed: I am sorry if I shamed you. I am often blunt and act quickly. Jason's best point is that I should have reached out to you in private first. If you send me images or any supporting information I am happy to give you my honest opinion. You would then have my full support marketing the material as paired if it checks out. To Jason: I forgive you. I know what it is like to have conflict with the world. Best regards, Jason On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 5:50 PM Jason Utas <meteorite...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Jason, > > As long as material is described accurately, I don't care what you do. I > only butted in here because it annoyed me to see you attacking a Moroccan > seller who is probably selling accurately paired material, while you’re > openly doing the same thing with other meteorites. Glass house + throwing > stones, not cool. > > I'm saying that it *should* be fine for you to buy and sell HaH 346 and > Jikharra 001 as those meteorites as long as you've accurately IDd them. > But not if you're going to tell other people they can't do the same thing. > That's the rub. > > Your points - > > 1 & 4) Why does it matter where you got your HaH 346? It didn't matter > to you where Benzaki got his NWA 15758. > > Your posts didn't address the origin of Benzaki Mohamed's CK in any > way, or whether or not his material is paired with NWA 15758. Based on > everything you've shared here, you don't know or care about whether or not > Benzaki's material is paired with yours. Your concern is "your NWA number" > and protecting that investment. I can empathize with that, but your #1 and > #4 bullet points don't agree with your actions: > > Did you ask Benzaki where his material had come from before you sent that > public complaint? No. Did you confirm that it came from a different > finder, the same place, or a different place? No. When it came to > 'protecting your NWA number,' none of that mattered. Sure, the onus is on > him to show it's paired, but you didn't give him a chance. > > You were preemptively trying to avoid any possible / probable pairings to > 'protect your investment.' I understand your motivations, and think many > dealers would take your side, but it's ethically questionable, at best. > TKWs affect meteorite values, and if you're aware of significant pairings, > (main) masses, etc., and you hide that information from your customers, > that's dishonest. Sure, new things can turn up, but what if a dealer sold > you a "main mass," and you later found out that they were aware of a larger > specimen all along? Would you care? Would you be annoyed? What would > you think? > > ...Is what you're doing here any different? > > You asked me what I would do. I sold some NWA 15364 (nakhlite) a while > back. When describing it, I said: "Northwest Africa 15364 is one member of > a large pairing group including, but not limited to: Hassi Messaoud 001, > Bir Moghrein 002, Qued Mya 005, NWA 13368, NWA 13669, NWA 13764, NWA 13786, > NWA 14369, NWA 14962, and NWA 15200. The published total known weight of > these finds is approximately 4.3 kilograms. It is probable that additional > pairings will be approved in the future." That was ~as accurate as I could > describe the meteorite's pairings and TKW, to the best of my ability. I > spent a bit of time looking at the analytical data for each of them in the > Bulletin, finding photos of each of them, and trying to make sure I got it > right. I guess I could have omitted mentioning the pairings, to make my > pieces seem more rare? Would that be honest? I'd say no. But a few > dealers are definitely doing that with some of those pairings... > > It hurts collectors. Last week, I saw someone comment on a Facebook post, > excited because he'd purchased multiple pieces of the above nakhlites. He > thought he'd bought pieces of different meteorites, not pieces of paired > stones. He seemed disappointed to learn otherwise. It's great for the > sellers, not so good for collectors. And it's not a new issue. The first > similar instance I remember was in an ancient met-list thread back in the > early 2000s, when someone tried to sell a meteorite paired with NWA 869. > NWA...900ish, if I recall... It's probably been 15 years. Hmmm... > > http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/0989.html > > http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/1120.html > > http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/0961.html > > My email doesn't go back that far, had to find it on Google. NWA 900 is > another 869 pairing, but the problem was NWA 904. > > I've never really sat down and thought about it, but a significant part of > the NWA market is based on dealers pleading or feigning ignorance about > pairings and TKWs to collectors. It's ~accepted conduct, and it’s > totally unethical. Dean Bessey called it out back in 2004, and nothing's > changed. > > 2 & 5) We're talking about scientific descriptions of rocks. Little > rocks are rocks. Big rocks are rocks. Size doesn't matter. > > Unfortunately, larger finds and falls are widely distributed, tend to get > less scrutiny, and get mislabeled often. Those three big meteorites you're > using as examples are some of the biggest problems, because they're such > large finds. Sure, it can be fun: I couldn't tell you the number of > interesting things I've pulled out of lots of "NWA 869" over the years. > And you should keep an eye out for the fresh L3s in shipments of HaH 346. > Many of them still have skid-marks, and there's nothing quite like a W0 > type-3. If you're on Facebook, you've probably seen the multi-kg lots of a > totally new brecciated eucrite being offered as Jikharra in the past week > or so, at Jikharra prices. But the mistakes aren't always unintentional, > and they don't always favor the customer. And it's no one's responsibility > to catch them, so...it just happens. Boatloads of random, unclassified > meteorites are sold as NWA 869, HaH 346, Taza, Ziz, etc. Every big DCA > meteorite. Ever since Agoudal was discovered, ~fresh pieces keep coming up > as Taza, at inflated prices. A ~300 gram lot sold on eBay just a few weeks > ago. There are some on eBay right now. Both of those irons are pretty big > finds. A fake Tissint even turned up in a Heritage Auction a year or so > ago. "But it's a big find" = not a good argument for arbitrary pairing. > > The issue is accuracy, and material getting misrepresented, and I don't > have a good answer. The Meteoritical Society has its official pairing > guidelines here, Section 4.2: > > https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/docs/nc-guidelines.htm > > The rules say that you need proof of pairing. Proof. Either fragments > physically fit together, or you have in situ photos -- or you shouldn’t > assume rocks are paired. That would theoretically ensure that no mistakes > are made. And when scientists are in charge of things, like in Antarctica, > that's what happens. Everything gets analyzed. > > No meteorite dealers follow the guidelines. 0. Historically, our > community has assumed that a dealer who got a meteorite analyzed could > reliably "self-pair" other meteorites to that specimen. The reasoning was > that a lab had analyzed a sample, and the dealer could directly compare > the analyzed specimen to others, so there was little room for error. It > "helps to ensure authenticity." But, in reality, this practice gave > dealers a carte-blanche to "pair" any meteorites that looked grossly > similar. As long as you got one rock classified, no one would question > anything you called paired. It's great. It can be really convenient if > you get something analyzed and more of it turns up later. But...it also > opens the door for problems. > > From a practical standpoint: we're never going to get air-tight > documentation for most finds, large or small. And it would be ~impossible, > and a huge waste of resources, to analyze every specimen of something like > NWA 869. Or even NWA 15758. It doesn't work. In the end, everyone does > their own thing, both collectors and scientists trust dealers to pair > things correctly, and most things wind up being correctly identified. Many > don't, though. It ultimately comes down to the given dealer, their > experience, their judgement, and their honesty. And no one is perfect, and > dishonest people exist, so material will be mislabeled. It is inevitable. > > You and I are both familiar with how NWA meteorites are bought and sold: > single finds are often divided and sold on by any number of sellers and > resellers. ~Identical lots of the same find turn up simultaneously with > multiple dealers, often with a few odd meteorites mixed in. That's > completely normal, and NWA sellers are frequently aware of others who are > also offering the same material. The way you responded to Benzaki Mohamed > denied all of that, and was demeaning. > > There's no good reason to assume Benzaki's material either is or isn't NWA > 15758 until you see it for yourself. He's a pretty well-known dealer; I'd > want to see the stones for myself, but, without knowing any other details, > I'd be inclined to think he was right about the pairing. Kind of like how > you're saying it would be okay to trust Benzaki if he was selling a lot of > a larger find like Jikharra 001. And like how everyone trusts you to > ensure that all of the fragments you're selling as NWA 15758 are paired, > even though probably just one piece was analyzed. ...And how everyone > would trust you if you bought Benzaki's new lot and said it, too, was > paired with NWA 15758... > > Everyone is relying on your experience, your judgement, and your > integrity, to determine whether or not those fragments are all paired. Yet > you're telling Benzaki, or his supplier, or maybe even the actual finder of > NWA 15758, that they can't do the same thing, in this one case. Not > because they're unfamiliar with the find, not because they don't have the > same amount of experience as you, not because they're dishonest -- but > "because of the resources you invested into getting the meteorite > classified." > > I don't agree with that. > > I guess you're also arguing that NWA 15758 is different because it's "just > 1 kg." But...is it? I haven't reached out to Benzaki to check out this > new lot, but it sure sounds like that might not be true. > > 3) I don't see a difference between labeling a specimen as "someone > else's" approved DCA number versus selling a specimen like that. Either > way, you're assigning an identity to a meteorite. It's the same thing in > the long run, especially if you're posting the photos publicly. If you > think one is wrong, then the other should be, too. I don't have an issue > with folks doing that as long as there's no doubt that the ID is correct, > but I'm also not the one attacking someone else for doing it. Case in > point: I agree that your large eucrite looks to be paired with Jikharra > 001. But, if you're going to play that card, and post it as "likely > paired" on your website, it should be fine for Benzaki to say the same > thing about his CK / NWA 15758 if he believes it. Right? If not, you're > holding Benzaki to a higher standard than yourself. > > By now, you've had some time to look into this. Did you ask for photos of > Benzaki's CK? Did you figure out if his lot is from the same area as > yours? From the same finder? Do they look like the same material? Do you > think they're paired? What is the real TKW of NWA 15758? Is it just the > ~1 kg in the Bulletin? How much more is out there? None? Just this one > lot? More? > > You asked me what I would do. If it were my meteorite, I'd want to know. > And I wouldn't want to hide that information from potential buyers. I > don't think that would be honest. > > If it turned out that Benzaki was right about the pairing, you attacked > him for correctly labeling a meteorite. I'd say you should probably > apologize to him. > > Sorry this got so long. > > Jason > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 8:03 PM humboldt bay jay <humboldtbay...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I am sending this again as I realized I only replied to you and not the >> list as well. This turns out good for me because it offers a chance to >> better compose my thoughts. I was running errands when I sent the first >> email. To begin again: >> >> Jason, >> I see what you are saying, and it is a reasonable point but I disagree. >> These are the reasons: >> >> 1. I can elaborate that "since you never contacted me" means I would have >> been happy to provide assistance and the name if the vendor would have done >> so with some images of supporting information such as sourcing from the >> same finder. >> >> 2. There is a clear difference between multi ton finds that have ample >> documentation and a kilo find that has had little publicity. Even then I >> agree that best practices are to communicate leading me to >> >> 3. Point out that you were part of one of my conversations about this in >> regard to the likely Jikharra specimen you are referencing. You stated >> that "The Jikharra’s obviously that." You are also well aware that I am >> not selling any of the obviously Jikharra until my own classification is >> approved because you were part of the discussion. >> >> 4. You don't actually know where I sourced my material because you did >> not ask. For example the metbul mentioned many kilograms traded as >> Ghadamis that was not in Marcin's possession. Since I bought and traded >> Ghadamis before the name HaH 346 was approved, how do you think I should >> have handled the situation differently? >> >> 5. In regards to nwa 869 the following quote is from the metbul "At >> least 2 metric tons of material comprising thousands of individuals has >> been sold under the name NWA 869 in the market places of Morocco and around >> the world." along with the appropriate caveats due to its abundance- >> "Scientists >> are advised to confirm the classification of any specimens they obtain >> before publishing results under this name." So again I do not feel you >> are making an apples to apples comparison with your critique of my logic. >> >> We all obviously respect your encyclopedic understanding of meteorites so >> perhaps you can share with us your framework for best practices in these >> situations. >> >> Best regards, >> Jason >> >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:21 PM Jason Utas <meteorite...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello Jason, >>> To be consistent, you should remove the HaH 346 and NWA 869 specimens >>> you have listed for sale on your website. Those classifications were >>> submitted by other dealers; your stones are unclassified individuals from >>> DCAs with no evidence of their find locations, etc. >>> On your "featured" page, you also have a specimen listed as a "likely >>> Jakharra 001 Pairing." Similar issues aside, relying on that standard, it >>> should be okay for Benzaki Mohamed to call his specimens "likely NWA 15758 >>> pairings." >>> Regards, >>> Jason >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:09 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list < >>> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Benzaki Mohamed for swiftly reaching out to me. I appreciate >>>> your attention to this matter. All is good. >>>> Best regards to everyone, >>>> Jason Whitcomb >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29 PM < >>>> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to >>>>> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >>>>> >>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>>> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com >>>>> >>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>>> meteorite-list-ow...@meteoritecentral.com >>>>> >>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>>> than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Meteorite Picture of the Day (p...@tucsonmeteorites.com) >>>>> 2. Re: Very sad news (Ruben Garcia) >>>>> 3. Re: Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14 (humboldt bay jay) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Message: 1 >>>>> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:35:54 -0700 >>>>> From: <p...@tucsonmeteorites.com> >>>>> To: <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> >>>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day >>>>> Message-ID: <b9fa8d09888b415e9bf201cb08e98...@secureserver.net> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain >>>>> >>>>> Thursday, Mar 14 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: HAH 346 >>>>> >>>>> Contributed by: J?r?me de Creymer >>>>> >>>>> http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/14/2024 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Message: 2 >>>>> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:17:06 -0700 >>>>> From: Ruben Garcia <rrg85...@gmail.com> >>>>> To: bernd.pa...@paulinet.de >>>>> Cc: Meteorite Mailing List <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> >>>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Very sad news >>>>> Message-ID: >>>>> <CAGSP0MWZt2RtT_w= >>>>> jxhjti60uojwdgvdoreuf4jfjd7paim...@mail.gmail.com> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>>> >>>>> Hi Bernd, >>>>> >>>>> I've know John for a very long time. This is very sad indeed. Thank >>>>> you for >>>>> posting this. >>>>> >>>>> Ruben Garcia >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 4:03?PM bernd.pauli--- via Meteorite-list < >>>>> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Dear List, >>>>> > >>>>> > It is my sad duty to inform you that John Blennert has passed away >>>>> :-( >>>>> > >>>>> > John, rest in peace! >>>>> > >>>>> > Bernd >>>>> > ______________________________________________ >>>>> > Meteorite-list mailing list >>>>> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >>>>> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>>>> > >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>>> URL: < >>>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/55acab68/attachment-0001.htm >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Message: 3 >>>>> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:53:43 -0700 >>>>> From: humboldt bay jay <humboldtbay...@gmail.com> >>>>> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >>>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14 >>>>> Message-ID: >>>>> < >>>>> caat9en4eebof8m_4p5anuoo9wo9+_qqv1e9-1mbjdnj6yvh...@mail.gmail.com> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>>> >>>>> Benzaki Mohamed, >>>>> Since you have never reached out to me about my classification, Nwa >>>>> 15758 >>>>> CK6, I politely request that you do not use this name. I invested time >>>>> and >>>>> resources into having it analyzed and if you wish to sell your >>>>> material as >>>>> a named meteorite I suggest you do the same. Thank you in advance. >>>>> Jason >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:29?PM < >>>>> meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to >>>>> > meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >>>>> > >>>>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>>> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>>>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>>> > meteorite-list-requ...@meteoritecentral.com >>>>> > >>>>> > You can reach the person managing the list at >>>>> > meteorite-list-ow...@meteoritecentral.com >>>>> > >>>>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>>> > than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..." >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Today's Topics: >>>>> > >>>>> > 1. Meteorite Picture of the Day (p...@tucsonmeteorites.com) >>>>> > 2. Meteorite carbon (Benzaki Mohamed) >>>>> > 3. Very sad news (bernd.pa...@paulinet.de) >>>>> > 4. Claims of Extrasolar Spherules from Pacific Ocean Site CNEOS >>>>> > 2014-01-08 Disputed (Paul) >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> > >>>>> > Message: 1 >>>>> > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:35:54 -0700 >>>>> > From: <p...@tucsonmeteorites.com> >>>>> > To: <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> >>>>> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day >>>>> > Message-ID: <e402350c7fb04bc489e974c560d88...@secureserver.net> >>>>> > Content-Type: text/plain >>>>> > >>>>> > Wednesday, Mar 13 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: Hamlet >>>>> > >>>>> > Contributed by: Anne Black >>>>> > >>>>> > http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/13/2024 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------ >>>>> > >>>>> > Message: 2 >>>>> > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:16:15 +0000 >>>>> > From: Benzaki Mohamed <kemkemexpedit...@gmail.com> >>>>> > To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >>>>> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite carbon >>>>> > Message-ID: >>>>> > < >>>>> > cagzkz4-7hufr2n7mzy4hapufexcssju66gn+v9ajuxjkt8t...@mail.gmail.com> >>>>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi all members liste , I have a nice carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 >>>>> paired ,if >>>>> > anyone interested please contacte me. >>>>> > -------------- next part -------------- >>>>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>>> > URL: < >>>>> > >>>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240311/7131a467/attachment-0001.htm >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------ >>>>> > >>>>> > Message: 3 >>>>> > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:48:20 +0100 (CET) >>>>> > From: bernd.pa...@paulinet.de >>>>> > To: "meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com" >>>>> > <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> >>>>> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Very sad news >>>>> > Message-ID: <825781290.98647.1710366500...@www.ud-mail.de> >>>>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>>> > >>>>> > Dear List, >>>>> > >>>>> > It is my sad duty to inform you that John Blennert has passed away >>>>> :-( >>>>> > >>>>> > John, rest in peace! >>>>> > >>>>> > Bernd >>>>> > -------------- next part -------------- >>>>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>>> > URL: < >>>>> > >>>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/b5109823/attachment-0001.htm >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------ >>>>> > >>>>> > Message: 4 >>>>> > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:16:00 -0500 >>>>> > From: Paul <etchpl...@att.net> >>>>> > To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >>>>> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Claims of Extrasolar Spherules from Pacific >>>>> > Ocean Site CNEOS 2014-01-08 Disputed >>>>> > Message-ID: <088038b3-ec22-4815-b8fc-d187f665a...@att.net> >>>>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >>>>> > >>>>> > Recently, a preprint has been posted to the arXiv site that >>>>> > >>>>> > disputes proposal that Be,La,U-rich spherules recovered form >>>>> > >>>>> > Pacific Ocean Site CNEOS 2014-01-0 are from an extrasolar >>>>> > >>>>> > origin. Instead, they argued to be microtektites of terrestrial >>>>> > >>>>> > lateritic sandstone. >>>>> > >>>>> > The preprint is: >>>>> > >>>>> > Desch, S., 2024. Be, La, U-rich spherules as >>>>> > >>>>> > microtektites of terrestrial laterites: What goes \\ >>>>> > >>>>> > up must come down. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05161. >>>>> > >>>>> > https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05161 >>>>> > >>>>> > https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2403/2403.05161.pdf >>>>> > >>>>> > The proposed extrasolar spherules are discussed in: >>>>> > >>>>> > Loeb, A., Adamson, T., Bergstrom, S., Cloete, R., >>>>> > >>>>> > Cohen, S., Conrad, K., Domine, L., Fu, H., Hoskinson, >>>>> > >>>>> > C., Hyung, E., Jacobsen, S., Kelly, M., Kohn, J., Lard, >>>>> > >>>>> > E., Lam, S., Laukien, F., Lem, J., McCallum, R., >>>>> > >>>>> > Millsap, R., Parendo, C., Petaev, M., Peddeti, C., >>>>> > >>>>> > Pugh, K., Samuha, S., Sasselov, D., Schlereth, M., >>>>> > >>>>> > Siler, J.J., Siraj, A., Smith, P.M., Tagle, R., Taylor, >>>>> > >>>>> > J., Weed, R., Wright, A., and Wynn, J. 2023., >>>>> > >>>>> > Discovery of Spherules of likely extrasolar composition >>>>> > >>>>> > in the Pacific Ocean site of the CNEOS 2014-01-08 >>>>> > >>>>> > (IM1) bolide. arXiv preprint 2308.15623 >>>>> > >>>>> > https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15623 >>>>> > >>>>> > https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.15623.pdf >>>>> > >>>>> > Loeb, A., Adamson, T., Bergstrom, S., Cloete, R., >>>>> > >>>>> > Cohen, S., Conrad, K., Domine, L., Fu, H., >>>>> > >>>>> > Hoskinson, C., Hyung, E., Jacobsen, S., Kelly, M., >>>>> > >>>>> > Kohn, J., Lard, E., Laukien, F., Lem, J., McCallum, R., >>>>> > >>>>> > Millsap, R., Parendo, C., Petaev, M., Peddeti, C., >>>>> > >>>>> > Pugh, K., Samuha, S., Sasselov, D., Schlereth, M., >>>>> > >>>>> > Siler, J.J., Siraj, A., Smith, P.M., Tagle, R., Taylor, J., >>>>> > >>>>> > Weed, R., Wright, A., and Wynn, J. 2024. Recovery >>>>> > >>>>> > and classification of spherules from the Pacific Ocean >>>>> > >>>>> > site of the CNEOS 2014 January 8 (IM1) bolide. >>>>> > >>>>> > Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society 8: 39. >>>>> > >>>>> > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ad2370/meta >>>>> > >>>>> > Related paper, reprint and press release: >>>>> > >>>>> > Desch, S., and Jackson, A., 2023. Critique of arXiv >>>>> > >>>>> > submission 2308.15623, "Discovery of Spherules of >>>>> > >>>>> > Likely Extrasolar Composition in the Pacific Ocean >>>>> > >>>>> > Site of the CNEOS 2014-01-08 (IM1) Bolide", by A. >>>>> > >>>>> > Loeb et al arXiv:2311.07699 >>>>> > >>>>> > https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07699 >>>>> > >>>>> > https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.07699.pdf >>>>> > >>>>> > 'Alien' spherules dredged from the Pacific are probably just >>>>> > >>>>> > industrial pollution, new studies suggest. LiveScience, Nov. 16, 2023 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> https://www.livescience.com/space/extraterrestrial-life/alien-spherules-dredged-from-the-pacific-are-probably-just-industrial-pollution-new-studies-suggest >>>>> > >>>>> > Gallardo, P.A., 2023. Anthropogenic Coal Ash as a Contaminant >>>>> > >>>>> > in a Micro-meteoritic Underwater Search. Research Notes of the >>>>> > >>>>> > AAS, 7(10), p.220. >>>>> > >>>>> > http://ispcjournal.org/journals/2024/32/PhC_vol_32_Lomas.pdf >>>>> > >>>>> > Yours, >>>>> > >>>>> > Paul H. >>>>> > -------------- next part -------------- >>>>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>>> > URL: < >>>>> > >>>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/4f81045c/attachment-0001.htm >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------ >>>>> > >>>>> > Subject: Digest Footer >>>>> > >>>>> > ______________________________________________ >>>>> > Meteorite-list mailing list >>>>> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >>>>> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------ >>>>> > >>>>> > End of Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14 >>>>> > *********************************************** >>>>> > >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>>> URL: < >>>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/5e27a1cd/attachment-0001.htm >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Digest Footer >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________________________ >>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list >>>>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >>>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> End of Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15 >>>>> *********************************************** >>>>> >>>> ______________________________________________ >>>> Meteorite-list mailing list >>>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >>>> >>>
______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
