Re: [meteorite-list] Fwd: sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Jason and Martin I agree with Art, please continue your argument off-list. Cheers Peter Davidson Curator of Minerals National Museums Collection Centre 242 West Granton Road Edinburgh EH5 1JA 00 44 131 247 4283 p.david...@nms.ac.uk -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Art Jones Sent: 08 March 2013 21:35 To: Jason Utas; Meteorite-list; altm...@meteorite-martin.de Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Fwd: sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Guys, I think the horse is way past dead on this one, let's end the thread. Thanks, Art -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jason Utas Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:00 PM To: Meteorite-list Subject: [meteorite-list] Fwd: sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Martin, Please don't compare my knowledge about meteorites to Jorge's behavior. Eric nailed this one on the head. I have a degree in geology insofar as I am currently taking structural geology to complete the degree. For all intents and purposes, I am as qualified as anyone with a relevant degree, having taken mineralogy, petrology, and field-mapping, the only required courses that involve mineral and rock identification. Most scientists who study meteorites, regardless of their degree, would not be qualified to visually pair any meteorites in the fashion that Adam described for his NWA 4880 specimens. I suppose you could try to hold me to the arbitrary you don't have the degree on your wall yet, but I'll have it in two months. You're just attacking me ad nauseam. I don't get it. So, what constitutes an expert in such things? Perhaps someone with fifteen years' experience with meteorites? Someone who can look at an auction like Jorge's, see the texture of the crust, and know that it's not right? Perhaps someone who has done that sort of thing several times? I know there are other folks around who could discriminate between the relevant meteorites in those situations, but...I don't know any well-known 'scientists' who could. I've put photos of one of the NWA 7034-paired fragments on facebook. Painfully obvious that it's the same stuff. If you don't think it's enough proof, by all means take it to the IMCA. If they ask me to change the wording of anything, I suppose I'll have to. Until then, please stop quoting the rules to me. You were removed due to ethics violations, remember? Or did you resign before you could get booted? I forget. Jason On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de wrote: Hi Jason, Uff, slowly you seem to understand, what others smarter than we both got already from the 1st posting on. I say: - Your material has a different status than NWA 2975 and NWA 7034, especially a lower collector's (and therefore monetary) value. - You present your material in a way, which makes a possible buyer believe, that they are either part of the very stone(s) to which classifiers and the Meteoritical Society designed the numbers NWA 2975 and NWA 7034, or that they were confirmed by a professional meteorite scientist to be paired to them. - As long as you don't own a degree in that field and as long they don't undergo the formal classification and acceptationprocedures of the Meteoritical Society, you're not allowed to call them formally paired to these numbers, but you have to make it unmistakably clear, that this is only your personal guess. - It is good business practice to use the same conventions, how to label and name such material, like they are established among your dealers and collectors colleagues. - The way you present and describe your material breaks the binding rules of the International Meteorite Collectors Association, to which you agreed to abide as a member. In particular those, quoty quote: If members wish to sell or trade meteoritic specimens, then those items must be 'actually and exactly what is claimed.' (Merriam-Webster-Dictionary) Our members agree to adhere to the highest standards of meteorite identification and proper labelling practices. (...) I agree that it is the sole responsibility of each member to accurately describe meteoritic material for sale, trade or other related transactions without providing any misleading or false information. and especially (...) I agree that unclassified 'meteorites' purchased on eBay or other avenues from unknown sellers might not be meteorites. I will not sell or trade any meteorites I may have found (or any questionable meteoritic material) unless I first obtain verification from a meteorite expert. And especially: Verified but unclassified material should be specified as such. Meteoritical Society guidelines will prevail in the circumstance of meteorite naming and pairing
Re: [meteorite-list] Fwd: sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Hi Jason, don't make the old man tired. Please don't compare my knowledge about meteorites to Jorge's behavior. I can't compare you with Jorge, because I don't know Jorge at all. The same way like most people don't know a Jason Utas at all. And how many people will know a Jason Utas in hundred years? Have you once thought about that? And there is the big difference, between your stones and the stones who got a number. Still in hundred years, when nobody will know anymore, how and who the talented Mr.Utas jr. was, the collectors will have for their collection specimens the reference in the Bulletin and a reference mass in the once classifying institute. And that makes a difference in the collectors', the scientific and the monetary value. While your stones will have gone to nirwana, just like they never existed, cause they remained unanalyzed and unrecorded. And cause you emphasize science always so strongly. Very Practically, tell me - those, who made the destructive test with your material and those who worked on the maskelynites of your other Martians, what shall they do, if they want to publish papers about their work? They can't refer to the samples as NWA 7034 or NWA 2975 because it's not valid and incorrect. Well and if they'd write in their articles, that their research objects are said to be paired to 7034 and 2975, pers.comm. J.Utas, who visually compared them with 7034 and with photos of 2075... that would take a lot away from the weight of their results. Anyway, if you're so convinced of your meteoritic abilities, then I don't know, why you feel such an overwhelming reluctance instead to write the specimens are paired to NWA 7034, NWA 2975 in your advertising, to use the verb to pair transitively and to state: I paired the stones to NWA 7034, NWA 2975 That would be fair towards the buyers, cause they can then decide, whether a Jason is a Jorge for them or whether a Jason is just as good as a Dr.Irving regarding Martians. However, Imagine all would act like you. Everybody being self-convinced to recognize a meteorite. I take a corner of the curbstone and due to my 30+ years lasting occupation with meteorites, I decided to be expert enough and decide it to be a silica-rich ungrouped achondrite, similar to some photos I saw, or a sedimentary limestone from Neptune, and btw. because it is my birthday date, I bestow the curbstone with the name: NWA 21370 or I name it Heinz-Kevin. Want to say, in acting like you, why should anyone still let a meteorite classify? The Meteoritical Bulletin and the standards of the Meteoritical Society meteoricists of meteorite classification are then absolutely obsolete. Thank you for the allowance to bring it to the IMCA. Maybe tomorrow, have to work now. Best, Martin PS: Bad try. That I quitted IMCA had more than one reason, none of them you do know. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason Utas Gesendet: Freitag, 8. März 2013 02:00 An: Meteorite-list Betreff: [meteorite-list] Fwd: sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Martin, Please don't compare my knowledge about meteorites to Jorge's behavior. Eric nailed this one on the head. I have a degree in geology insofar as I am currently taking structural geology to complete the degree. For all intents and purposes, I am as qualified as anyone with a relevant degree, having taken mineralogy, petrology, and field-mapping, the only required courses that involve mineral and rock identification. Most scientists who study meteorites, regardless of their degree, would not be qualified to visually pair any meteorites in the fashion that Adam described for his NWA 4880 specimens. I suppose you could try to hold me to the arbitrary you don't have the degree on your wall yet, but I'll have it in two months. You're just attacking me ad nauseam. I don't get it. So, what constitutes an expert in such things? Perhaps someone with fifteen years' experience with meteorites? Someone who can look at an auction like Jorge's, see the texture of the crust, and know that it's not right? Perhaps someone who has done that sort of thing several times? I know there are other folks around who could discriminate between the relevant meteorites in those situations, but...I don't know any well-known 'scientists' who could. I've put photos of one of the NWA 7034-paired fragments on facebook. Painfully obvious that it's the same stuff. If you don't think it's enough proof, by all means take it to the IMCA. If they ask me to change the wording of anything, I suppose I'll have to. Until then, please stop quoting the rules to me. You were removed due to ethics violations, remember? Or did you resign before you could get booted? I forget. Jason On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de wrote: Hi Jason, Uff, slowly you seem to understand, what others smarter
Re: [meteorite-list] Fwd: sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite
Guys, I think the horse is way past dead on this one, let's end the thread. Thanks, Art -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jason Utas Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:00 PM To: Meteorite-list Subject: [meteorite-list] Fwd: sharp protrusion from an iron meteorite Martin, Please don't compare my knowledge about meteorites to Jorge's behavior. Eric nailed this one on the head. I have a degree in geology insofar as I am currently taking structural geology to complete the degree. For all intents and purposes, I am as qualified as anyone with a relevant degree, having taken mineralogy, petrology, and field-mapping, the only required courses that involve mineral and rock identification. Most scientists who study meteorites, regardless of their degree, would not be qualified to visually pair any meteorites in the fashion that Adam described for his NWA 4880 specimens. I suppose you could try to hold me to the arbitrary you don't have the degree on your wall yet, but I'll have it in two months. You're just attacking me ad nauseam. I don't get it. So, what constitutes an expert in such things? Perhaps someone with fifteen years' experience with meteorites? Someone who can look at an auction like Jorge's, see the texture of the crust, and know that it's not right? Perhaps someone who has done that sort of thing several times? I know there are other folks around who could discriminate between the relevant meteorites in those situations, but...I don't know any well-known 'scientists' who could. I've put photos of one of the NWA 7034-paired fragments on facebook. Painfully obvious that it's the same stuff. If you don't think it's enough proof, by all means take it to the IMCA. If they ask me to change the wording of anything, I suppose I'll have to. Until then, please stop quoting the rules to me. You were removed due to ethics violations, remember? Or did you resign before you could get booted? I forget. Jason On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Martin Altmann altm...@meteorite-martin.de wrote: Hi Jason, Uff, slowly you seem to understand, what others smarter than we both got already from the 1st posting on. I say: - Your material has a different status than NWA 2975 and NWA 7034, especially a lower collector's (and therefore monetary) value. - You present your material in a way, which makes a possible buyer believe, that they are either part of the very stone(s) to which classifiers and the Meteoritical Society designed the numbers NWA 2975 and NWA 7034, or that they were confirmed by a professional meteorite scientist to be paired to them. - As long as you don't own a degree in that field and as long they don't undergo the formal classification and acceptationprocedures of the Meteoritical Society, you're not allowed to call them formally paired to these numbers, but you have to make it unmistakably clear, that this is only your personal guess. - It is good business practice to use the same conventions, how to label and name such material, like they are established among your dealers and collectors colleagues. - The way you present and describe your material breaks the binding rules of the International Meteorite Collectors Association, to which you agreed to abide as a member. In particular those, quoty quote: If members wish to sell or trade meteoritic specimens, then those items must be 'actually and exactly what is claimed.' (Merriam-Webster-Dictionary) Our members agree to adhere to the highest standards of meteorite identification and proper labelling practices. (...) I agree that it is the sole responsibility of each member to accurately describe meteoritic material for sale, trade or other related transactions without providing any misleading or false information. and especially (...) I agree that unclassified 'meteorites' purchased on eBay or other avenues from unknown sellers might not be meteorites. I will not sell or trade any meteorites I may have found (or any questionable meteoritic material) unless I first obtain verification from a meteorite expert. And especially: Verified but unclassified material should be specified as such. Meteoritical Society guidelines will prevail in the circumstance of meteorite naming and pairing (- mean point, therefore the brackets, would be, to remind you, that for you the way that Mr. Jorge authenticated his pseudo-Chelyabinsk wasn't sufficient - but nothing else did you with your Martians, i.e. to trust your source and to inspect them personally. There is the danger for you, to loose credibility in attacking others..) And see, Especially the last point regarding the Code of Ethics of IMCA makes it so comfort for both of us, cause we don't have to discuss, whether those procedures are necessary or meaningful or which
