On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Barry Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:
> You can see...I don't know this. I do know that research for new and
> old find is utmost importance..I can understand that.
> I don't know the particulars and should maybe keep my mouth shut, but
> I can tell you that for the uninformed, this bickering is not the best
> thing for the new collector.
> The List should maybe be something someone follows later in their hobby
> ...like finally learning your beautiful girlfriend does actually
> take a shit sometimes...:)
>
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:02 AM, MEM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>
>> The people about to make a lot of money..or not..don't paint a pretty
>> picture
>> here...
>> Is this what the list is about?
>>
>>
>> Nope. Nor is it what the thread is about.
>> Money could be an artifact of the outcome but the issue of scientific
>> pairing is
>> two fold:
>> Paring legitimizes interchangeable research using a sample from either stone.
>> Pairing does not skew the data plots for composition/chemistry/etc by
>> counting a
>> sample more than once.
>> ( I know this will shock some here to learn that meteorites are not just
>> fashionable collectibles but are in-fact used in scientific research--Who'd a
>> thought, eah?)
>>
>> The converse is that uninformed and unscientific "visual pairing" does not
>> satisfy the requirements of the above needs.
>>
>> On the commercial issue, it is a long and costly process to do meteorite
>> petrology-- most always paid for by one of the owners. To be paired the
>> chemistry/petrology of all named meteorites must be researched to establish
>> compelling evidence of pairing. Exceptions: a meteorite fall on a area
>> known to
>> contain no other meteorites, the stream of visually identical debris which is
>> recovered in a short time, or the stones can be physically matched--these
>> can be
>> presumed to be paired unless tere is evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> Claims of pairing which are not scientifically validated is akin to
>> plagerizing
>> and is taking both scientific and commercial value from another who did go
>> through the process.
>>
>>
>> In "reverse pairing" or "unpairing" there is one atrocity that I still am
>> disgusted over: a meteorite find was recovered over an area. It was entirely
>> reassembled to compose a complete meteorite: known as the "meteorite
>> puzzle".
>> This is the only known case in history. Were it kept together, a lot of
>> research
>> could have been done-- cosmic ray penetration, shear stress, understanding
>> why a
>> particular meteorite fragmented into 17 pieces, and etc. But some
>> self-styled
>> meteorte dealer wannabe--(wait maybe this was while he was a non dealer?
>> Nope!
>> This was while a dealer)--whatever-- he so "loves" meteorites being "shared"
>> that he bought the Puzzle for his collection-- never to ever sell it he
>> assured
>> the seller. Then he promptly put all 17 pieces on ebay as individual
>> auctions
>> to be sold to 17 different buyers--DESTROYING the scientific rarity.
>>
>>
>> Elton
>>
>>
>
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
