Hey Everybody,
When you have a disagreement with somebody, did you ever consider resolving it
PRIVATELY?
Anne blackimpactika.comimpact...@aol.com
On Friday, March 22, 2024 at 08:27:09 PM MDT, Mendy Ouzillou via
Meteorite-list <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
I’m not getting in the middle of these discussions. I will simply make the
following 3 statements + 1 opinion:
- Here is Mohamed’s exact statement: “Hi all members liste , I have a nice
carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 paired ,if anyone interested please contacte me.”
Notice that he used the word “paired” making no claim it was part of the TKW of
NWA 15758.
- This discussion about “pairing” has been going on for forever. The Global
Meteorite Association has a policy to guide transparency:
https://gmeta.org/standards/descriptive-terms/pair-pairings. Mohamed could have
use better terminology to clarify the type of pairing, but I personally did not
see his description as problematic and applauded his transparency.
- On a related note, when a north African (or any seller) offers material
for sale that is unclassified, there is NO issue with doing so. They are under
no obligation to get material classified before trying to sell. As long as both
parties are transparent, and they agree to the terms of the transaction, there
is no injury to either party.
My opinion is that our community is sufficiently large that we cannot know
every seller, much less their intent. Most of us do repeat business with
sellers we trust, but that in no way means that all other sellers have ill
intent. Like anything transaction in life – caveat emptor.
My regards to the community,
Mendy
From: Meteorite-list <meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com> On Behalf Of
Mark Lyon via Meteorite-list
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 9:50 PM
To: humboldt bay jay <humboldtbay...@gmail.com>
Cc: Meteorite-list <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
Jason Humboldt,
You just have to learn to tune out Jason utas. He has been doing this for
years. He isnt going to change. You should have seen some of the messages he
sent me before i blocked him. The first time I met him he went in my display
room in tucson and started complaining about me selling taza (nwa 859) because
it was his dad's classification. Then he claimed he was just using it as an
example because he thought he overheard me attacking dustin Dickens (a friend
of mine) for pairing meteorites. More recently, he made damaging accusations
about omolon specimens actually being brahin. Not caring how it affected a
Russian group who had just spent months travelling and collecting the
materials. He always thinks he is right, and he very seldom is. For the
record, you did not attack a Moroccan seller. You politely told him not to use
your classification, which was probably a single person classification with low
total known weight. Anyone with common sense can see that this is different
from huge finds like hah346 and jikhara 001 and erg chech and whatever else he
complained about. I didn't read his whole message because I have heard it all
before. Collectors want to know they are getting these, and not another
meteorite. People are not using these names to be dishonest but to accurately
describe what they are selling. It would be doing the community a disservice
not to use these names.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 9:04 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list
<meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
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
______________________________________________
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
