Shannon, And? Don't tease us---who had more fun?--you or the kids? Which pallasite? Best, John
> On 03/23/2024 10:32 PM EDT Hotmail <s_beards...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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
