Hello Anne, In most cases, I Agree. In this case, both parties were respectful but had different views of several implications of information divulgence. I enjoyed their points and the results. Meteorite related aspects and meteorite discussions on a Meteorite-List, Brilliant!! John Lutzon
> On 03/23/2024 2:19 PM EDT Anne Black via Meteorite-list > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey Everybody, > > When you have a disagreement with somebody, did you ever consider resolving > it PRIVATELY? > > > Anne Black > IMPACTIKA.com > [email protected] > > > On Friday, March 22, 2024 at 08:27:09 PM MDT, Mendy Ouzillou via > Meteorite-list <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I’m not getting in the middle of these discussions. I will simply make the > following 3 statements + 1 opinion: > 1. Here is Mohamed’s exact statement: “Hi all members liste , I have a nice > carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 paired ,if anyone interested please contacte me.” > Notice that he used the word “paired” making no claim it was part of the TKW > of NWA 15758. > 2. This discussion about “pairing” has been going on for forever. The > Global Meteorite Association has a policy to guide transparency: > https://gmeta.org/standards/descriptive-terms/pair-pairings. Mohamed could > have use better terminology to clarify the type of pairing, but I personally > did not see his description as problematic and applauded his transparency. > 3. On a related note, when a north African (or any seller) offers material > for sale that is unclassified, there is NO issue with doing so. They are > under no obligation to get material classified before trying to sell. As long > as both parties are transparent, and they agree to the terms of the > transaction, there is no injury to either party. > > My opinion is that our community is sufficiently large that we cannot know > every seller, much less their intent. Most of us do repeat business with > sellers we trust, but that in no way means that all other sellers have ill > intent. Like anything transaction in life – caveat emptor. > > My regards to the community, > > Mendy > > From:Meteorite-list <[email protected]> On Behalf > OfMark Lyon via Meteorite-list > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 9:50 PM > To: humboldt bay jay <[email protected]> > Cc: Meteorite-list <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15 > > Jason Humboldt, > > You just have to learn to tune out Jason utas. He has been doing this for > years. He isnt going to change. You should have seen some of the messages he > sent me before i blocked him. The first time I met him he went in my display > room in tucson and started complaining about me selling taza (nwa 859) > because it was his dad's classification. Then he claimed he was just using it > as an example because he thought he overheard me attacking dustin Dickens (a > friend of mine) for pairing meteorites. More recently, he made damaging > accusations about omolon specimens actually being brahin. Not caring how it > affected a Russian group who had just spent months travelling and collecting > the materials. He always thinks he is right, and he very seldom is. For the > record, you did not attack a Moroccan seller. You politely told him not to > use your classification, which was probably a single person classification > with low total known weight. Anyone with common sense can see that this is > different from huge finds like hah346 and jikhara 001 and erg chech and > whatever else he complained about. I didn't read his whole message because I > have heard it all before. Collectors want to know they are getting these, and > not another meteorite. People are not using these names to be dishonest but > to accurately describe what they are selling. It would be doing the community > a disservice not to use these names. > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 9:04 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I appreciate the immense amount of time I anticipated you would spend on > > your reply. > > > > Thinking extensively about this, I wondered why you tried to shame me as a > > hypocrite, even when you have witness to me striving for best practices. > > Having autism I often struggle to understand people's intention. Many times > > I have gone wrong assuming the worst in people's actions. So one of my > > strategies is to try to think of the best possible intention that someone > > could have. I admit sometimes it is difficult with your approach (and > > attempt to shame me) but since your critique was not sound I came to reason > > that you saw an injustice that I perpetrated against Benzaki Mohamed and > > you felt the need to "punch the bully in his face". A fierce sense of > > justice that sometimes leads me to act foolish is also part of my condition > > so I was able to have sympathy with this realization. Now that you have > > responded I can more clearly see your intention. So here is my considered > > response. > > > > To the community: I am happy to assist with meteoritics in any way that I > > can. If you have material that you feel might be paired with mine I am > > happy to look at any information and give my honest response. It would be > > unethical and dirty feeling to do otherwise. I have not made it to where I > > am in life by acting in short term interests. Relationships are life long. > > > > To Benzaki Mohamed: I am sorry if I shamed you. I am often blunt and act > > quickly. Jason's best point is that I should have reached out to you in > > private first. If you send me images or any supporting information I am > > happy to give you my honest opinion. You would then have my full support > > marketing the material as paired if it checks out. > > > > To Jason: I forgive you. I know what it is like to have conflict with the > > world. > > > > Best regards, > > Jason > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 5:50PM Jason Utas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello Jason, > > > > > > As long as material is described accurately, I don't care what you do. I > > > only butted in here because it annoyed me to see you attacking a Moroccan > > > seller who is probably selling accurately paired material, while you’re > > > openly doing the same thing with other meteorites. Glass house + throwing > > > stones, not cool. > > > > > > I'm saying that it should be fine for you to buy and sell HaH 346 and > > > Jikharra 001 as those meteorites as long as you've accurately IDd them. > > > But not if you're going to tell other people they can't do the same > > > thing. That's the rub. > > > > > > Your points - > > > > > > 1 & 4) Why does it matter where you got your HaH 346? It didn't matter to > > > you where Benzaki got his NWA 15758. > > > > > > Your posts didn't address the origin of Benzaki Mohamed's CK in any way, > > > or whether or not his material is paired with NWA 15758. Based on > > > everything you've shared here, you don't know or care about whether or > > > not Benzaki's material is paired with yours. Your concern is "your NWA > > > number" and protecting that investment. I can empathize with that, but > > > your #1 and #4 bullet points don't agree with your actions: > > > > > > Did you ask Benzaki where his material had come from before you sent that > > > public complaint? No. Did you confirm that it came from a different > > > finder, the same place, or a different place? No. When it came to > > > 'protecting your NWA number,' none of that mattered. Sure, the onus is on > > > him to show it's paired, but you didn't give him a chance. > > > > > > You were preemptively trying to avoid any possible / probable pairings to > > > 'protect your investment.' I understand your motivations, and think many > > > dealers would take your side, but it's ethically questionable, at best. > > > TKWs affect meteorite values, and if you're aware of significant > > > pairings, (main) masses, etc., and you hide that information from your > > > customers, that's dishonest. Sure, new things can turn up, but what if a > > > dealer sold you a "main mass," and you later found out that they were > > > aware of a larger specimen all along?Would you care? Would you be > > > annoyed? What would you think? > > > > > > ...Is what you're doing here any different? > > > > > > You asked me what I would do. I sold some NWA 15364 (nakhlite) a while > > > back. When describing it, I said: "Northwest Africa 15364 is one member > > > of a large pairing group including, but not limited to: Hassi Messaoud > > > 001, Bir Moghrein 002, Qued Mya 005, NWA 13368, NWA 13669, NWA 13764, NWA > > > 13786, NWA 14369, NWA 14962, and NWA 15200. The published total known > > > weight of these finds is approximately 4.3 kilograms. It is probable that > > > additional pairings will be approved in the future." That was ~as > > > accurate as I could describe the meteorite's pairings and TKW, to the > > > best of my ability. I spent a bit of time looking at the analytical data > > > for each of them in the Bulletin, finding photos of each of them, and > > > trying to make sure I got it right. I guess I could have omitted > > > mentioning the pairings, to make my pieces seem more rare? Would that be > > > honest? I'd say no. But a few dealers are definitely doing that with some > > > of those pairings... > > > > > > It hurts collectors. Last week, I saw someone comment on a Facebook post, > > > excited because he'd purchased multiple pieces of the above nakhlites. He > > > thought he'd bought pieces of different meteorites, not pieces of paired > > > stones. He seemed disappointed to learn otherwise. It's great for the > > > sellers, not so good for collectors. And it's not a new issue. The first > > > similar instance I remember was in an ancient met-list thread back in the > > > early 2000s, when someone tried to sell a meteorite paired with NWA 869. > > > NWA...900ish, if I recall... It's probably been 15 years. Hmmm... > > > > > > http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/0989.html > > > > > > http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/1120.html > > > > > > http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2004/nov/0961.html > > > > > > My email doesn't go back that far, had to find it on Google. NWA 900 is > > > another 869 pairing, but the problem was NWA 904. > > > > > > I've never really sat down and thought about it, but a significant part > > > of the NWA market is based on dealers pleading or feigning ignorance > > > about pairings and TKWs to collectors. It's ~accepted conduct, and it’s > > > totally unethical. Dean Bessey called it out back in 2004, and nothing's > > > changed. > > > > > > 2 & 5) We're talking about scientific descriptions of rocks. Little rocks > > > are rocks. Big rocks are rocks. Size doesn't matter. > > > > > > Unfortunately, larger finds and falls are widely distributed, tend to get > > > less scrutiny, and get mislabeled often. Those three big meteorites > > > you're using as examples are some of the biggest problems, because > > > they're such large finds. Sure, it can be fun: I couldn't tell you the > > > number of interesting things I've pulled out of lots of "NWA 869" over > > > the years. And you should keep an eye out for the fresh L3s in shipments > > > of HaH 346. Many of them still have skid-marks, and there's nothing quite > > > like a W0 type-3. If you're on Facebook, you've probably seen the > > > multi-kg lots of a totally new brecciated eucrite being offered as > > > Jikharra in the past week or so, at Jikharra prices. But the mistakes > > > aren't always unintentional, and they don't always favor the customer. > > > And it's no one's responsibility to catch them, so...it just happens. > > > Boatloads of random, unclassified meteorites are sold as NWA 869, HaH > > > 346, Taza, Ziz, etc. Every big DCA meteorite. Ever since Agoudal was > > > discovered, ~fresh pieces keep coming up as Taza, at inflated prices. A > > > ~300 gram lot sold on eBay just a few weeks ago. There are some on eBay > > > right now. Both of those irons are pretty big finds. A fake Tissint even > > > turned up in a Heritage Auction a year or so ago. "But it's a big find" = > > > not a good argument for arbitrary pairing. > > > > > > The issue is accuracy, and material getting misrepresented, and I don't > > > have a good answer. The Meteoritical Society has its official pairing > > > guidelines here, Section 4.2: > > > https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/docs/nc-guidelines.htm > > > > > > The rules say that you need proof of pairing. Proof. Either fragments > > > physically fit together, or you have in situ photos -- or you shouldn’t > > > assume rocks are paired. That would theoretically ensure that no mistakes > > > are made. And when scientists are in charge of things, like in > > > Antarctica, that's what happens. Everything gets analyzed. > > > > > > No meteorite dealers follow the guidelines. 0.Historically, our community > > > has assumed that a dealer who got a meteorite analyzed could reliably > > > "self-pair" other meteorites to that specimen. The reasoning was that a > > > lab had analyzed a sample, and the dealer could directly compare the > > > analyzed specimen to others, so there was little room for error. It > > > "helps to ensure authenticity." But, in reality, this practice gave > > > dealers a carte-blanche to "pair" any meteorites that looked grossly > > > similar. As long as you got one rock classified, no one would question > > > anything you called paired. It's great. It can be really convenient if > > > you get something analyzed and more of it turns up later. But...it also > > > opens the door for problems. > > > > > > From a practical standpoint: we're never going to get air-tight > > > documentation for most finds, large or small. And it would be > > > ~impossible, and a huge waste of resources, to analyze every specimen of > > > something like NWA 869. Or even NWA 15758. It doesn't work. In the end, > > > everyone does their own thing, both collectors and scientists trust > > > dealers to pair things correctly, and most things wind up being correctly > > > identified. Many don't, though. It ultimately comes down to the given > > > dealer, their experience, their judgement, and their honesty. And no one > > > is perfect, and dishonest people exist, so material will be mislabeled. > > > It is inevitable. > > > > > > You and I are both familiar with how NWA meteorites are bought and sold: > > > single finds are often divided and sold on by any number of sellers and > > > resellers. ~Identical lots of the same find turn up simultaneously with > > > multiple dealers, often with a few odd meteorites mixed in. That's > > > completely normal, and NWA sellers are frequently aware of others who are > > > also offering the same material. The way you responded to Benzaki Mohamed > > > denied all of that, and was demeaning. > > > > > > There's no good reason to assume Benzaki's material either is or isn't > > > NWA 15758 until you see it for yourself. He's a pretty well-known dealer; > > > I'd want to see the stones for myself, but, without knowing any other > > > details, I'd be inclined to think he was right about the pairing. Kind of > > > like how you're saying it would be okay to trust Benzaki if he was > > > selling a lot of a larger find like Jikharra 001. And like how everyone > > > trusts you to ensure that all of the fragments you're selling as NWA > > > 15758 are paired, even though probably just one piece was analyzed. > > > ...And how everyone would trust you if you bought Benzaki's new lot and > > > said it, too, was paired with NWA 15758... > > > > > > Everyone is relying on your experience, your judgement, and your > > > integrity, to determine whether or not those fragments are all paired. > > > Yet you're telling Benzaki, or his supplier, or maybe even the actual > > > finder of NWA 15758, that they can't do the same thing, in this one case. > > > Not because they're unfamiliar with the find, not because they don't have > > > the same amount of experience as you, not because they're dishonest -- > > > but "because of the resources you invested into getting the meteorite > > > classified." > > > > > > I don't agree with that. > > > > > > I guess you're also arguing that NWA 15758 is different because it's > > > "just 1 kg." But...is it? I haven't reached out to Benzaki to check out > > > this new lot, but it sure sounds like that might not be true. > > > 3) I don't see a difference between labeling a specimen as "someone > > > else's" approved DCA number versus selling a specimen like that. Either > > > way, you're assigning an identity to a meteorite. It's the same thing in > > > the long run, especially if you're posting the photos publicly. If you > > > think one is wrong, then the other should be, too. I don't have an issue > > > with folks doing that as long as there's no doubt that the ID is correct, > > > but I'm also not the one attacking someone else for doing it. Case in > > > point: I agree that your large eucrite looks to be paired with Jikharra > > > 001. But, if you're going to play that card, and post it as "likely > > > paired" on your website, it should be fine for Benzaki to say the same > > > thing about his CK / NWA 15758 if he believes it. Right? If not, you're > > > holding Benzaki to a higher standard than yourself. > > > > > > By now, you've had some time to look into this. Did you ask for photos of > > > Benzaki's CK? Did you figure out if his lot is from the same area as > > > yours? From the same finder? Do they look like the same material? Do you > > > think they're paired? What is the real TKW of NWA 15758? Is it just the > > > ~1 kg in the Bulletin? How much more is out there? None? Just this one > > > lot? More? > > > > > > You asked me what I would do. If it were my meteorite, I'd want to know. > > > And I wouldn't want to hide that information from potential buyers. I > > > don't think that would be honest. > > > > > > If it turned out that Benzaki was right about the pairing, you attacked > > > him for correctly labeling a meteorite. I'd say you should probably > > > apologize to him. > > > Sorry this got so long. > > > Jason > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 8:03PM humboldt bay jay > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am sending this again as I realized I only replied to you and not the > > > > list as well. This turns out good for me because it offers a chance to > > > > better compose my thoughts. I was running errands when I sent the first > > > > email. To begin again: > > > > > > > > Jason, > > > > I see what you are saying, and it is a reasonable point but I disagree. > > > > These are the reasons: > > > > 1. I can elaborate that "since you never contacted me" means I would > > > > have been happy to provide assistance and the name if the vendor would > > > > have done so with some images of supporting information such as > > > > sourcing from the same finder. > > > > > > > > 2. There is a clear difference between multi ton finds that have ample > > > > documentation and a kilo find that has had little publicity. Even then > > > > I agree that best practices are to communicate leading me to > > > > > > > > 3. Point out that you were part of one of my conversations about this > > > > in regard to the likely Jikharra specimen you are referencing. You > > > > stated that "The Jikharra’s obviously that." You are also well aware > > > > that I am not selling any of the obviously Jikharra until my own > > > > classification is approved because you were part of the discussion. > > > > > > > > 4. You don't actually know where I sourced my material because you did > > > > not ask. For example the metbul mentioned many kilograms traded as > > > > Ghadamis that was not in Marcin's possession. Since I bought and traded > > > > Ghadamis before the name HaH 346 was approved, how do you think I > > > > should have handled the situation differently? > > > > > > > > 5. In regards to nwa 869 the following quote is from themetbul"At least > > > > 2 metric tons of material comprising thousands of individuals has been > > > > sold under the name NWA 869 in the market places of Morocco and around > > > > the world." along with the appropriate caveats due to its abundance- > > > > "Scientists are advised to confirm the classification of any specimens > > > > they obtain before publishing results under this name." So again I do > > > > not feel you are making an apples to apples comparison with your > > > > critique of my logic. > > > > > > > > We all obviously respect your encyclopedic understanding of meteorites > > > > so perhaps you can share with us your framework for best practices in > > > > these situations. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:21PM Jason Utas <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hello Jason, > > > > > To be consistent, you should remove the HaH 346 and NWA 869 specimens > > > > > you have listed for sale on your website. Those classifications were > > > > > submitted by other dealers; your stones are unclassified individuals > > > > > from DCAs with no evidence of their find locations, etc. > > > > > On your "featured" page, you also have a specimen listed as a "likely > > > > > Jakharra 001 Pairing." Similar issues aside, relying on that > > > > > standard, it should be okay for Benzaki Mohamed to call his specimens > > > > > "likely NWA 15758 pairings." > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:09AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thank you Benzaki Mohamed for swiftly reaching out to me. I > > > > > > appreciate your attention to this matter. All is good. > > > > > > Best regards to everyone, > > > > > > Jason Whitcomb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:29PM > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > > > > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > > > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Meteorite Picture of the Day ([email protected]) > > > > > > > 2. Re: Very sad news (Ruben Garcia) > > > > > > > 3. Re: Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14 (humboldt bay > > > > > > > jay) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:35:54 -0700 > > > > > > > From: <[email protected]> > > > > > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day > > > > > > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, Mar 14 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: HAH 346 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Contributed by: J?r?me de Creymer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/14/2024 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:17:06 -0700 > > > > > > > From: Ruben Garcia <[email protected]> > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > Cc: Meteorite Mailing List <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Very sad news > > > > > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <CAGSP0MWZt2RtT_w=jxhjti60uojwdgvdoreuf4jfjd7paim...@mail.gmail.com> > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bernd, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've know John for a very long time. This is very sad indeed. > > > > > > > Thank you for > > > > > > > posting this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ruben Garcia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 4:03?PM bernd.pauli--- via Meteorite-list < > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear List, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is my sad duty to inform you that John Blennert has passed > > > > > > > > away :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, rest in peace! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bernd > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > > > > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > > > > > URL: > > > > > > > <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/55acab68/attachment-0001.htm> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message: 3 > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:53:43 -0700 > > > > > > > From: humboldt bay jay <[email protected]> > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, > > > > > > > Issue 14 > > > > > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <caat9en4eebof8m_4p5anuoo9wo9+_qqv1e9-1mbjdnj6yvh...@mail.gmail.com> > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Benzaki Mohamed, > > > > > > > Since you have never reached out to me about my classification, > > > > > > > Nwa 15758 > > > > > > > CK6, I politely request that you do not use this name. I invested > > > > > > > time and > > > > > > > resources into having it analyzed and if you wish to sell your > > > > > > > material as > > > > > > > a named meteorite I suggest you do the same. Thank you in advance. > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:29?PM < > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > > > > > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > > > > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > > > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Meteorite Picture of the Day ([email protected]) > > > > > > > > 2. Meteorite carbon (Benzaki Mohamed) > > > > > > > > 3. Very sad news ([email protected]) > > > > > > > > 4. Claims of Extrasolar Spherules from Pacific Ocean Site CNEOS > > > > > > > > 2014-01-08 Disputed (Paul) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:35:54 -0700 > > > > > > > > From: <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day > > > > > > > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, Mar 13 2024 Meteorite Picture of the Day: Hamlet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Contributed by: Anne Black > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.tucsonmeteorites.com/mpodmain.asp?DD=03/13/2024 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:16:15 +0000 > > > > > > > > From: Benzaki Mohamed <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite carbon > > > > > > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > cagzkz4-7hufr2n7mzy4hapufexcssju66gn+v9ajuxjkt8t...@mail.gmail.com> > > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all members liste , I have a nice carbonaceous Nwa 15758 CK6 > > > > > > > > paired ,if > > > > > > > > anyone interested please contacte me. > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > > > > > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > > > > > > URL: < > > > > > > > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240311/7131a467/attachment-0001.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message: 3 > > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:48:20 +0100 (CET) > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > > > > > To: "[email protected]" > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Subject: [meteorite-list] Very sad news > > > > > > > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear List, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is my sad duty to inform you that John Blennert has passed > > > > > > > > away :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, rest in peace! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bernd > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > > > > > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > > > > > > URL: < > > > > > > > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/b5109823/attachment-0001.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message: 4 > > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:16:00 -0500 > > > > > > > > From: Paul <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > Subject: [meteorite-list] Claims of Extrasolar Spherules from > > > > > > > > Pacific > > > > > > > > Ocean Site CNEOS 2014-01-08 Disputed > > > > > > > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recently, a preprint has been posted to the arXiv site that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disputes proposal that Be,La,U-rich spherules recovered form > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Ocean Site CNEOS 2014-01-0 are from an extrasolar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > origin. Instead, they argued to be microtektites of terrestrial > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lateritic sandstone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The preprint is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Desch, S., 2024. Be, La, U-rich spherules as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > microtektites of terrestrial laterites: What goes \\ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up must come down. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05161. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05161 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2403/2403.05161.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The proposed extrasolar spherules are discussed in: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Loeb, A., Adamson, T., Bergstrom, S., Cloete, R., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cohen, S., Conrad, K., Domine, L., Fu, H., Hoskinson, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > C., Hyung, E., Jacobsen, S., Kelly, M., Kohn, J., Lard, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E., Lam, S., Laukien, F., Lem, J., McCallum, R., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Millsap, R., Parendo, C., Petaev, M., Peddeti, C., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pugh, K., Samuha, S., Sasselov, D., Schlereth, M., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Siler, J.J., Siraj, A., Smith, P.M., Tagle, R., Taylor, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > J., Weed, R., Wright, A., and Wynn, J. 2023., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Discovery of Spherules of likely extrasolar composition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the Pacific Ocean site of the CNEOS 2014-01-08 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (IM1) bolide. arXiv preprint 2308.15623 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15623 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.15623.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Loeb, A., Adamson, T., Bergstrom, S., Cloete, R., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cohen, S., Conrad, K., Domine, L., Fu, H., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hoskinson, C., Hyung, E., Jacobsen, S., Kelly, M., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kohn, J., Lard, E., Laukien, F., Lem, J., McCallum, R., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Millsap, R., Parendo, C., Petaev, M., Peddeti, C., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pugh, K., Samuha, S., Sasselov, D., Schlereth, M., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Siler, J.J., Siraj, A., Smith, P.M., Tagle, R., Taylor, J., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Weed, R., Wright, A., and Wynn, J. 2024. Recovery > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and classification of spherules from the Pacific Ocean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > site of the CNEOS 2014 January 8 (IM1) bolide. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society 8: 39. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ad2370/meta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Related paper, reprint and press release: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Desch, S., and Jackson, A., 2023. Critique of arXiv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > submission 2308.15623, "Discovery of Spherules of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Likely Extrasolar Composition in the Pacific Ocean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Site of the CNEOS 2014-01-08 (IM1) Bolide", by A. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Loeb et al arXiv:2311.07699 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07699 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.07699.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Alien' spherules dredged from the Pacific are probably just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > industrial pollution, new studies suggest. LiveScience, Nov. > > > > > > > > 16, 2023 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.livescience.com/space/extraterrestrial-life/alien-spherules-dredged-from-the-pacific-are-probably-just-industrial-pollution-new-studies-suggest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gallardo, P.A., 2023. Anthropogenic Coal Ash as a Contaminant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a Micro-meteoritic Underwater Search. Research Notes of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AAS, 7(10), p.220. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://ispcjournal.org/journals/2024/32/PhC_vol_32_Lomas.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul H. > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > > > > > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > > > > > > URL: < > > > > > > > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/4f81045c/attachment-0001.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > End of Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14 > > > > > > > > *********************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > > > > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > > > > > URL: > > > > > > > <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240313/5e27a1cd/attachment-0001.htm> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > End of Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15 > > > > > > > *********************************************** > > > > > > ______________________________________________ > > > > > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > ______________________________________________ > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > ______________________________________________ > Meteorite-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > ______________________________________________ > Meteorite-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
