Hello, Good question. I have accounted for and taken "out" of the gene pool, almost all of the bad Mifflin that I got dragged into. I do not know about the others.
Best Wishes Michael Cottingham On May 7, 2011, at 8:31 PM, drtanuki wrote: > Jason, > You raise several good points and analysis. One further question that should > be asked is how many grams of this rock were put into the market as Mifflin? > And have they made their way into the "gene pool" to how many buyers and > sellers and yet to reproduce more offspring? Dirk Ross...Tokyo > > > --- On Sun, 5/8/11, jason utas <jasonu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From: jason utas <jasonu...@gmail.com> >> Subject: [meteorite-list] Mifflin, Amiss >> To: "Meteorite-list" <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> >> Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 10:12 AM >> Hello All, >> >> My story begins in the summer of last year. I saw >> some strange pieces >> of 'Mifflin' on ebay that I thought looked funny. >> People were talking >> about the meteorite having two lithologies, but...the >> slices and >> individuals that I saw looked 'off.' A select few >> looked like >> H-chondrites, and they had the telltale signs of wear that >> freshly-imported Moroccan falls bear: worn edges, exposed >> metal flakes >> on protruding corners (where the fusion crust had been worn >> off due to >> improper packing), etc. >> >> At the time, I did nothing but send a private email to Anne >> Black >> notifying her of my suspicions. I spoke with some >> other prominent >> list-members addressing it, and they all agreed that the >> material >> looked funny, but that nothing could be done about it given >> the >> required burden of proof. >> >> So, I sat on my hands for several months. >> >> Just over a month ago, I saw a piece of the funny-looking >> 'Mifflin' on >> ebay. It looked similar to some pieces that I remembered >> seeing on >> ebay months before, and, being an end-cut, I was able to >> see both the >> stone's funny-looking inside -- and the apparent metal >> grains on the >> stone's exterior. >> >> I used the 'buy-it-now' option to purchase the end-cut, and >> it >> arrived while Peter and I were in Morocco. When we >> returned, I >> promptly shipped the end-cut off to Tony Irving of the >> University of >> Washington; he agreed to analyze the stone posthaste. >> >> The results came back, but Tony wanted to wait until the >> probe was >> recallibrated so that he could run it again to be sure. >> >> Lo and behold, he did confirm that my end-cut was an >> equilibrated >> H-chondrite, with an olivine Fa of 18.6. For >> comparison, Chergach and >> Bassikounou both have Fa contents of 18.4 and 18.6, >> respectively. >> >> University of Madison, Wisconsin performed most of the work >> on the >> Mifflin fall. Between them and the Field Museum, over >> twenty separate >> stones were analyzed. They were all L5. Mifflin >> is classified as an >> L5, with an Fa of ~24.9 +/- 0.2. >> >> I then sent Tony the link to the ebay auction so he could >> confirm that >> the piece that he had analyzed was indeed the piece that I >> had sent >> him. He did. >> >> I purchased my end-cut from Bryan Scarborough (IMCA), who >> purchased it >> from Michael Cottingham, who purchased it from Greg >> Catterton (IMCA), >> who purchased the stone with Carl Esparza from the finder. >> >> Carl told me the following story over the phone: >> He was contacted "out of the blue" by someone hunting in >> the Mifflin >> strewn-field. According to Carl, the finder stated >> that he thought >> there was a "conspiracy against him," because no one would >> offer him >> more than $5/g. and he believed his finds were worth more >> than that. >> So, according to Carl, he then offered the finder $10/g, >> and a deal was >> struck. >> >> But...the finder asked that he not be paid via paypal or >> wire >> transfer; he wanted cash mailed to a P.O. Box. >> >> So, Carl mailed the money to the P.O. Box and the first of >> two 'Mifflin' >> stones was over-nighted to him the next day. It >> should be noted that >> Carl included Greg Catterton as his partner in this deal, >> and Greg >> sent over several hundred dollars to help pay for the >> stones. >> >> Unfortunately, as Carl said over the phone, his old >> computer recently >> died, so he lacks the name and email address of the finder, >> as well as >> the number/address of the P.O. Box to which he sent the >> money. Carl >> is also unwilling to share the bank receipt from the >> transaction which >> would prove that he did make a large cash withdrawal for >> the stones. >> I asked Carl for the finder's phone number, but he told me >> that he had >> recently tried to call the finder, himself, only to find >> that the >> number had been disconnected. >> He was unwilling to share the number with me, regardless. >> >> On the phone, Carl suggested that his source had likely >> ripped him >> off, and he said that he believed that it was the reason >> why he had >> been asked to send the money untraceably, as he did; Carl >> described >> the situation as a "typical scam." >> >> He also suggested that the stones *might* be from an >> unrelated fall -- >> or could be the result of Mifflin being an 'Almahata Sitta >> sort of >> fall.' >> >> I can't disprove either of those ideas, but they are >> unlikely for the >> following reasons: >> >> 1) Almahata Sitta is a unique event in the history of >> meteoritics. >> Different lithologies have been observed in many >> meteorites, but to >> have individual stones of completely different and >> unrelated meteorite >> types falling separately is unique. Out of the 1,238 >> accepted >> observed falls in the meteoritical bulletin, only one has >> exhibited >> individuals that have consisted of different meteorite >> types (for >> example, H + L, Ureilite + EH, etc). >> >> And it's not that we haven't been looking for similar >> events; with >> each and every fall, multiple stones are analyzed, and the >> simple fact >> of the matter is that they are always similar...with *one* >> exception. >> >> So, Almahata Sitta is an exception. How much of an >> exception? 0.08% >> of meteorite falls are like it. Less than a tenth of >> a percent. >> Possible...but extremely unlikely. We also have to >> wonder about why >> or how this hunter managed to find the only two H's from >> the fall that >> were recognized. Over twenty other stones were >> studied and this >> finder supposedly turned up two or three that were all >> H's. It's 'funny.' >> >> The other possibility that Carl advocated is that the >> stones may actually >> have been found in Wisconsin -- and they may be part of a >> new fall that >> somehow slipped under the radar. He initially >> suggested that they were >> from the fireball widely seen across the Midwest on May >> 10th, but, at the >> time, I had paypal records from Greg that stated that he >> had sent Carl the >> money for the stones as early as April 24th. >> So we ruled out that possibility.. >> >> But, I agree; the stones could theoretically have come from >> a >> different fall. The end-cut that I bought showed no >> visible signs of >> weathering. No oxide, no anything. Given the >> weather in and around >> Mifflin at the time of the fall, we can assume that the >> stones were >> picked up within a week or so of having fallen. No >> AMS reports of >> anything in the region for the given timeframe doesn't >> disprove >> anything since meteorites often fall without much ado, >> but...two falls >> in the same place *at the same time?* >> Granted, it's possible. Not very likely, though. >> >> And you've still got to wonder about why no one else found >> any >> H-chondrites while looking for Mifflin. It's not like >> meteorites were >> laying thickly on the ground. Everyone who found >> stones out there put >> considerable time into hunting -- and they all found only >> L5's. So if >> Carl's source were telling the truth, and he did find the >> stones, it >> seems best to assume that he wasn't hunting in the Mifflin >> strewn-field, because, if he were, he would 1) probably >> have found >> L5's, and 2) other people would probably have found H's as >> well. >> >> The conclusion I draw from this is that the truth has >> become >> well-hidden. What is certain is that I have been >> refunded by >> Bryan, and I know for a fact that Bryan has been refunded >> by >> Michael Cottingham, who has in turn been refunded by Greg >> Catterton. >> >> What I have heard, however, is that Carl has been defending >> the >> legitimacy of his stones, and is refusing to refund Greg >> Catterton. >> >> Regardless of whether the material is Mifflin or another >> meteorite >> (from Wisconsin or from NWA -- it doesn't matter), the >> simple fact >> of the matter is that the material sold by Carl has been >> shown to be >> different from how it was advertised, and as such, he >> should be >> willing to accept its return for a refund. If he >> wishes to get it >> analyzed and sell it to others as a new meteorite, that is >> his >> concern. >> >> I am fairly certain that Bryan, Michael, and Greg >> unknowingly sold the >> material as Mifflin, believing that it was indeed what they >> sold it >> as. >> >> That is my 2 cents. >> >> Regards, >> Jason Utas >> ______________________________________________ >> Visit the Archives at >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html >> Meteorite-list mailing list >> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >> > ______________________________________________ > Visit the Archives at > http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
