From: Eric Twelker<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Date: Sunday, December 19, 2010, 12:41 PM
Hi IMCA
This reply will divert a bit from the
Wilber Wash issue, but I think it is related. Lamesa,
Tahoka, and Wellman (f) have all been mentioned in this
thread and their lack of publication may be related to
Wilbur Wash. A large number of meteorites (including
the prior three) that were classified by Ted Bunch have
"gone missing." This includes some of mine and a much
larger number of other meteorites--perhaps approaching a
hundred--from other dealers. The inclination in the
dealer community has been to blame Ted Bunch. Because
Ted has been mostly unresponsive or erratic in replies to
inquiries, he seems a likely party to blame.
That said, McCartney did manage to get
one response out of Ted. He blamed a researcher from
the University of New Mexico that used to sit on
NomCom. I asked Jeff Grossman about the accusation,
but he declined to answer. Something's going on here
and some people know about it but are unwilling to
share. Apparently a large number of classifications
and samples have been lost and this fact is being swept
under the rug or worse. It doesn't seem that anything
is being done. In the meantime collectors and others
are incorporating pieces into their collections. I
will add that this is the IMCA's business as at least some
of the people involved are IMCA members and may be acting in
ways that are questionable.
Eric Twelker
On Dec 18, 2010, at 10:54 PM, [email protected]
wrote:
I agree.
The lack of a proper find location is not enough to
prevent a meteorite from being classified. All the
SAHXXXXX meteorites, from the Labennes, lack complete
coordinates and they have been classified and published.
So, what else?
The expert who did the classification, Dr. Karner,
knows his job, he is not new at this and the Un. of New
Mexico has done classification for a very long time, so I
would not expect problems with the classification process
itself.
So what else?
Anne Black
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Catterton<[email protected]>
To: IMCA Mail List<[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 8:38 am
Subject: Re: [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash
(correction)
That does not sound too proper, or correct from my
experience and sounds like the "story" provided by Joe about
his Mifflin find (which the facts there were not accurate
also)
While it may just be a name, I dont personally like
the fact that data was lied about or corrupted by the
finder. To use the claim that it was to keep the location
secret is not a valid excuse, Jack and Whetstone clearly
showed that location is not needed to get approval. There is
no rule concerning "No exact location, no
classification" that I have been made aware of - again, see
Whetstone as the location has still not been made available
and its official.
Most likely, the type deposit was not provided
therefor the material remains unofficial.
Just my thoughts and opinions from my experience with
testing and classification... for the record, I had NWA 5799
tested, approved and published in less then 4 months and
know of many others whos material did not take the time
this, Tahoka or Zunhua has taken.
Perhaps there is more going on, but to get an official
name, its not really that hard - even if it is just
provisional.
Hope everyone is doing well!
Greg Catterton
www.wanderingstarmeteorites.com
IMCA member 4682
On Ebay: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/wanderingstarmeteorites
On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WanderingStarMeteorites
--- On Sat, 12/18/10, Davio L. Ribeca<[email protected]>
wrote:
From: Davio L. Ribeca<[email protected]>
Subject: [IMCA] Update 2 - Wilbur Wash (correction)
To: "IMCA Mail List"<[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, December 18, 2010, 6:18 AM
*Posted w/ permission
Hi Anne,
That's pretty much all that I know. I can tell you
that after the analysis the meteorite laid around for a long
while because of personnel changes at the University. Also,
Wilbur Wash was first name given because the discoverer did
not want to reveal the exact location of the find. It took
some time (after the discoverer thoroughly searched the true
location area) before the true find location (ranchland in
Lochiel) was given to the University. No exact location, no
classification procedures is the rule, I guess. The exact
coordinates were eventually given to the University.
The return of the paper work to the University, and
whatever else the University sends to the name givers
(naming committee), and the new name may occur
simultaneously, I don't know. Anyway, I'm somewhat satisfied
with the update. I'll keep my eyes wide open to see if all
this comes to pass. I plan on contacting Dr. Karner after
the holidays to secure more information. I'm an old retired
mathematics/science admin. educator, maybe he'll take the
time to help me. The finder is Carl Esparza, who was very
helpful and kind. He sold the meteorite main mass to Michael
Cottingham. The main mass now resides with a person named
Jason Utas, who I also plan on contacting. If you find out
more please share. This was an interesting investigation.
Thank you for all your help and concern. I'm hoping my
wife, Frances, and I can meet you in person someday, soon.
Ciao,
Davio R.
IMCA Member 4050
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
IMCA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.imcamail.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imca
_______________________________________________
IMCA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.imcamail.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imca
_______________________________________________
IMCA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.imcamail.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imca
