Re: [meteorite-list] Al Hagg.. reply
Hi Greg, It was a little late when I posted and I hadn't rested since Nov. 30; and as a topic of discussion I guess this shouldn't be pursued. Anyway, the classification will be changed if you give it some time, and if you have a greater grasp of what's gone on, so be it; how a letter to the editors of the bulletin is construed as 'arrogant' is completely lost on me but it sounds like I really don't want to know why. your own cute spin on it This does 'confirm EL6 is a good match!!! Speaking of the classification: don't know what my 'cute spin' is considering I've agreed with the revised US classification you since my first post after reading the well-researched page that was posted. The reason I posted the 2011 EL6 article was because it would seem to be new and confirms it is not an aubrite and the authors saw more material or/and research and are now convinced of that. It would seem things are moving in the right direction, just slowly. I'm sure this will all be resolved in its due time. Speaking of the terminology - fossil, paleo meteorite: Like you, I will speak my mind about the concept of meteorite fossils anytime and any place because that is a claim that just doesn't sound right. Too bad it was attached to this relict. When you said you were going to be blunt and call discussing it 'boring to most', I took umbrage. But all that has passed and I hope all works out as it usually does in time. I suppose if a meteorite is shown conclusively to have fallen in a previous time period it would be accurate to call it a an Ionian (middle-Pleistocene) meteorite if, for example, that is applicable, to refer to the fact that it was shown to have fallen in that time. That would make Gold Basin a Tarantian (upper-Pleistocene) meteorite as another example. It sounds very different to me to call the meteorite a fossil vs. have a reference to when it fell, but perhaps it's just me. Best of luck to you as well, Peace; (waves the white flag) Kindest wishes Doug -Original Message- From: Greg Hupé gmh...@centurylink.net To: Meteorite-list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; MexicoDoug mexicod...@aim.com Sent: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 3:00 am Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Al Hagg.. yawn? Respectfully Doug, My god man, really? You wrote, What is your reply to this 2011 EL6 poster? Is it 'acceptable' to you since aubrite is removed? Or must more blood be drawn from the stone... Doug, I have no influence to anyone's written or online articles... consult them! This does 'confirm EL6 is a good match!!! You wrote (sorrowfully arrogant ignorant): A simple email to the editor at this point should be what is needed; no one likes getting yelled at to do something, I'm sure no one is happy to change it now. Doug, I am not yelling at anyone. When this subject enters our lives I will speak my mind with what I know. If you want to get evolved, don't dog me, match up to Tony, Ted and 'Al Hagg... et al'. I am simply the field person from 2005 who brought out NWA 2828, I know, the start of this mess!!! :-/ And, YES!, Doug, I challenge the Bulletin to decide this dead horse, too much time has gone by. Doug, I do not know why you push this 'mud' with your own cute spin on it, you seem to be a smart person, talk to the experts, not me! ;-) I will be happy to educate you and whoever wants to know my involvement with anything I am passionate about. If you do not ask, do not , or only presume to speak for the masses, you will be corrected!! Doug, good luck with your hunt on this one! ;-) Best Regards, Greg Dead Horses Can't Live Until They Are Buried Standing UP! -Original Message- From: MexicoDoug Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 2:33 AM To: gmh...@centurylink.net ; Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Al Hagg.. yawn? Doug, not to be blunt, but this entire conversation is an 'Extremely', 'Old', 'Archaic', Fossil of a subject that it is almost boring to most of us... Hi Greg, Thanks Greg for that thought and precisely for that reason if you want a classification changed it is strange to mix a dead horse with what you would like to be another live one a.k.a. removing the 'aubrite' classification. I do think it is strange that these classification corrections haven't been made (as you can see in my post) and Drs. Bunch and Irving have made believers out of me; one can only respect the resources they dedicated to elucidating the variations of this crapped up old pile of earth rocks that is almost boring to a few of us that were meteorites at one time and are just weathered ghosts of what they once were. What is your reply to this 2011 EL6 poster? Is it 'acceptable' to you since aubrite is removed? Or must more blood be drawn from the stone ;-) I don't mean to be blunt either and please accept my apology which I offer in advance if there are ruffled feathers somewhere due to this classification.
Re: [meteorite-list] Al Hagg.. reply
The term fossil does not refer to the time period in which the meteorite fell. It refers to the conglomeritic texture of the meteorite. It's a borrowed geological term for anything (usually plant or animal remains) that have become embedded and preserved by natural processes in the Earth's crust. The only time constraint is it has to have been buried before the beginnng of recorded history. In this case the meteorite has become incorporated into the surrounding conglomerate material consisting of carbonate clasts from the limestone bedrock and an aggregate of pebbles and related lithologies from the nearby hills and alluvial fans. From the Ted Bunch et al. article: NWA 2828/2965 as a fossil or paleo meteorite. Of course! However, there are few guidelines. The Meteoritical Society Guidelines for Meteorite Nomenclature say this about relict meteorites: c) Special provisions are made in these Guidelines for highly altered materials that may have a meteoritic origin, designated relict meteorites, which are dominantly (95%) composed of secondary minerals formed on the body on which the object was found. Examples of such material may include some types of meteorite shale, fossil meteorites, and fusion crust. We find this rather confusing and ambiguous. Because rounded pieces of NWA 2828/2965 are clearly incorporated into a terrestrial rock (an indurated conglomerate) by natural geological processes, then they should be considered as fossil meteorites (albeit from a huge ancient fall). - Phil Whitmer Joshua Tree Earth Space Museum - Original Message - From: MexicoDoug mexicod...@aim.com To: gmh...@centurylink.net; Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:25 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Al Hagg.. reply Hi Greg, It was a little late when I posted and I hadn't rested since Nov. 30; and as a topic of discussion I guess this shouldn't be pursued. Anyway, the classification will be changed if you give it some time, and if you have a greater grasp of what's gone on, so be it; how a letter to the editors of the bulletin is construed as 'arrogant' is completely lost on me but it sounds like I really don't want to know why. your own cute spin on it This does 'confirm EL6 is a good match!!! Speaking of the classification: don't know what my 'cute spin' is considering I've agreed with the revised US classification you since my first post after reading the well-researched page that was posted. The reason I posted the 2011 EL6 article was because it would seem to be new and confirms it is not an aubrite and the authors saw more material or/and research and are now convinced of that. It would seem things are moving in the right direction, just slowly. I'm sure this will all be resolved in its due time. Speaking of the terminology - fossil, paleo meteorite: Like you, I will speak my mind about the concept of meteorite fossils anytime and any place because that is a claim that just doesn't sound right. Too bad it was attached to this relict. When you said you were going to be blunt and call discussing it 'boring to most', I took umbrage. But all that has passed and I hope all works out as it usually does in time. I suppose if a meteorite is shown conclusively to have fallen in a previous time period it would be accurate to call it a an Ionian (middle-Pleistocene) meteorite if, for example, that is applicable, to refer to the fact that it was shown to have fallen in that time. That would make Gold Basin a Tarantian (upper-Pleistocene) meteorite as another example. It sounds very different to me to call the meteorite a fossil vs. have a reference to when it fell, but perhaps it's just me. Best of luck to you as well, Peace; (waves the white flag) Kindest wishes Doug -Original Message- From: Greg Hupé gmh...@centurylink.net To: Meteorite-list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; MexicoDoug mexicod...@aim.com Sent: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 3:00 am Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Al Hagg.. yawn? Respectfully Doug, My god man, really? You wrote, What is your reply to this 2011 EL6 poster? Is it 'acceptable' to you since aubrite is removed? Or must more blood be drawn from the stone... Doug, I have no influence to anyone's written or online articles... consult them! This does 'confirm EL6 is a good match!!! You wrote (sorrowfully arrogant ignorant): A simple email to the editor at this point should be what is needed; no one likes getting yelled at to do something, I'm sure no one is happy to change it now. Doug, I am not yelling at anyone. When this subject enters our lives I will speak my mind with what I know. If you want to get evolved, don't dog me, match up to Tony, Ted and 'Al Hagg... et al'. I am simply the field person from 2005 who brought out NWA 2828, I know, the start of this mess!!! :-/ And, YES!, Doug, I challenge the Bulletin to decide this dead
Re: [meteorite-list] Al Hagg.. reply
Hello Doug and All, First, I would like to apologize to Doug and all who read the exchange, an ongoing passion and pursuit of mine in regards to this meteorite. I was blunt, kind of an ass and disrespectful, I apologize. I talked with Tony Irving today and part of the conversation was spent on the NWA 2828/Al Hagg problem. I have been corrected/reminded, initially Dr. Irving used the term Paleo but was suggested by powers at be to use Fossil in the classification on the Bulletin, so apparently it was the committee who preferred the 'Fossil' reference. Not really finger pointing, just part of the reality of facts in the process of knowledge for this meteorite. I think at the end of the day I am probably too 'passionate' about this meteorite because we have been part of the knowledge and understanding process from the very first piece of this material I took home from Morocco in 2005. At the time, it was a crust-less, interesting 'rock' that I gambled on and bought to send a sample to the lab, even the Moroccans who picked a piece of it from the site didn't know if it was an Earth rock or who-knows-what. Luckily the nomads were picking up every strange stone that didn't seem to fit in with the area rocks. As time went by, well, NAU's web site tells the story from there. As for time needed to 'correct' the Al Haggounia classification, seven years have gone by since the first piece [of NWA 2828] was discovered and then analyzed. In the time since, the round things that popped out after I began to slice and make ready pieces to offer collectors after the first NWA 2828 'Aubrite' abstract was submitted and approved, I quickly realized those round things as I called them on the phone to Tony that day changed everything and I did not offer any of the material publicly until the know-known classification proved itself. It was also after that realization that the NWA 2828 scientific team submitted their abstract, EL3 Chondrite (not Aubrite) Northwest Africa 2828: An Unusual Paleo-meteorite Occurring as Cobbles in a Terrestrial Conglomerate that was quickly approved by the Meteoritical Society, except for the term Paleo. You can probably sense why I and others have been frustrated over the continued Aubrite classification of AL Haggounia when all the proof has been out for years. Bottom line, too many collectors are ripped off every year by sales of Al Haggounia as an Aubrite. I was told directly by one European dealer a year or two ago, As long as the Bulletin says it is an Aubrite, than I will continue to sell it as one. Pity... it would seem inaction is not a good thing! Again to all, I do apologize for spending so much time on this 'issue', just a dead horse that will never really be buried until it can raise up and live again with its accurate classification. Best Regards, Greg Greg Hupé The Hupé Collection gmh...@centurylink.net www.LunarRock.com NaturesVault (eBay) IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault -Original Message- From: MexicoDoug Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:25 PM To: gmh...@centurylink.net ; Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Al Hagg.. reply Hi Greg, It was a little late when I posted and I hadn't rested since Nov. 30; and as a topic of discussion I guess this shouldn't be pursued. Anyway, the classification will be changed if you give it some time, and if you have a greater grasp of what's gone on, so be it; how a letter to the editors of the bulletin is construed as 'arrogant' is completely lost on me but it sounds like I really don't want to know why. your own cute spin on it This does 'confirm EL6 is a good match!!! Speaking of the classification: don't know what my 'cute spin' is considering I've agreed with the revised US classification you since my first post after reading the well-researched page that was posted. The reason I posted the 2011 EL6 article was because it would seem to be new and confirms it is not an aubrite and the authors saw more material or/and research and are now convinced of that. It would seem things are moving in the right direction, just slowly. I'm sure this will all be resolved in its due time. Speaking of the terminology - fossil, paleo meteorite: Like you, I will speak my mind about the concept of meteorite fossils anytime and any place because that is a claim that just doesn't sound right. Too bad it was attached to this relict. When you said you were going to be blunt and call discussing it 'boring to most', I took umbrage. But all that has passed and I hope all works out as it usually does in time. I suppose if a meteorite is shown conclusively to have fallen in a previous time period it would be accurate to call it a an Ionian (middle-Pleistocene) meteorite if, for example, that is applicable, to refer to the fact that it was shown to have fallen
[meteorite-list] Al Hagg.. reply
Greg Hupé respectfully wrote: First, I would like to apologize to Doug and all who read the exchange, ..., I was blunt, kind of an ass and disrespectful, I apologize. These are not the words of a kind of an ... but the words of a true, a sincere, an honest gentleman! You deserve our respect and my hat is off to you! Cheers, Bernd __ 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
Re: [meteorite-list] Al Hagg.. reply
NomCom did not publish either the term paleo or fossil, nor do I think we have ever published these terms for any meteorite. I don't think they are particularly well defined. We put the term fossil in quotes in Alex Bevan's description of the Gove meteorite, but we listed it according to the objective term relict meteorite which means that most of the primary minerals have been replaced with terrestrial minerals. The latter term is defined in the Guidelines for Meteorite Nomenclature (and AH 001 does not qualify). The MB database follows the science, and sometimes that takes years. The NomCom does not DO science, nor does it search the literature for potential reclassifications. If somebody publishes a paper that straightens out all of these meteorite classifications, and sends it to us (or if somebody on nomcom sees it), we can consider an update. Right now, I cannot find a thing in the peer-reviewed literature, just the original metbull submission and some abstracts. Jeff On 12/3/2011 3:18 PM, Greg Hupé wrote: Hello Doug and All, First, I would like to apologize to Doug and all who read the exchange, an ongoing passion and pursuit of mine in regards to this meteorite. I was blunt, kind of an ass and disrespectful, I apologize. I talked with Tony Irving today and part of the conversation was spent on the NWA 2828/Al Hagg problem. I have been corrected/reminded, initially Dr. Irving used the term Paleo but was suggested by powers at be to use Fossil in the classification on the Bulletin, so apparently it was the committee who preferred the 'Fossil' reference. Not really finger pointing, just part of the reality of facts in the process of knowledge for this meteorite. I think at the end of the day I am probably too 'passionate' about this meteorite because we have been part of the knowledge and understanding process from the very first piece of this material I took home from Morocco in 2005. At the time, it was a crust-less, interesting 'rock' that I gambled on and bought to send a sample to the lab, even the Moroccans who picked a piece of it from the site didn't know if it was an Earth rock or who-knows-what. Luckily the nomads were picking up every strange stone that didn't seem to fit in with the area rocks. As time went by, well, NAU's web site tells the story from there. As for time needed to 'correct' the Al Haggounia classification, seven years have gone by since the first piece [of NWA 2828] was discovered and then analyzed. In the time since, the round things that popped out after I began to slice and make ready pieces to offer collectors after the first NWA 2828 'Aubrite' abstract was submitted and approved, I quickly realized those round things as I called them on the phone to Tony that day changed everything and I did not offer any of the material publicly until the know-known classification proved itself. It was also after that realization that the NWA 2828 scientific team submitted their abstract, EL3 Chondrite (not Aubrite) Northwest Africa 2828: An Unusual Paleo-meteorite Occurring as Cobbles in a Terrestrial Conglomerate that was quickly approved by the Meteoritical Society, except for the term Paleo. You can probably sense why I and others have been frustrated over the continued Aubrite classification of AL Haggounia when all the proof has been out for years. Bottom line, too many collectors are ripped off every year by sales of Al Haggounia as an Aubrite. I was told directly by one European dealer a year or two ago, As long as the Bulletin says it is an Aubrite, than I will continue to sell it as one. Pity... it would seem inaction is not a good thing! Again to all, I do apologize for spending so much time on this 'issue', just a dead horse that will never really be buried until it can raise up and live again with its accurate classification. Best Regards, Greg Greg Hupé The Hupé Collection gmh...@centurylink.net www.LunarRock.com NaturesVault (eBay) IMCA 3163 Click here for my current eBay auctions: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault -Original Message- From: MexicoDoug Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:25 PM To: gmh...@centurylink.net ; Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Al Hagg.. reply Hi Greg, It was a little late when I posted and I hadn't rested since Nov. 30; and as a topic of discussion I guess this shouldn't be pursued. Anyway, the classification will be changed if you give it some time, and if you have a greater grasp of what's gone on, so be it; how a letter to the editors of the bulletin is construed as 'arrogant' is completely lost on me but it sounds like I really don't want to know why. your own cute spin on it This does 'confirm EL6 is a good match!!! Speaking of the classification: don't know what my 'cute spin' is considering I've agreed with the revised US classification you since my first
