All, I have been a member for around bit over a year— ever since I bought my first meteorite, an end chunk of Pallasite. I took that meteorite to my daughter’s eight grade class and presented to the entire class, passing it around. It was a really enjoyable experience for me.
Anyway I just wanted to say that I learned a ton from that email chain over the past few days!! Shannon Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 23, 2024, at 22:00, John Lutzon via Meteorite-list > <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: > > Hello Anne, > > In most cases, I Agree. In this case, both parties were respectful but had > different views of > several implications of information divulgence. I enjoyed their points and > the results. > > Meteorite related aspects and meteorite discussions on a Meteorite-List, > Brilliant!! > John Lutzon > >> On 03/23/2024 2:19 PM EDT Anne Black via Meteorite-list >> <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> wrote: >> >> >> Hey Everybody, >> >> When you have a disagreement with somebody, did you ever consider resolving >> it PRIVATELY? >> >> >> Anne Black >> IMPACTIKA.com >> impact...@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: >> 1. 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. >> 2. 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. >> 3. 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 >> OfMark 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 5:50PM 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 8:03PM 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 themetbul"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 1:21PM 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 7:09AM 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 10:29PM >>>>>>> <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: <825781290.98647.1710366500765@http://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 > ______________________________________________ > 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
