[meteorite-list] Mifflin, Amiss

Sat May 7 23:23:54 EDT 2011

I first want to say that Carl has "made things right" with me.
Secondly, I am fairly sure most of the material has been made known to the buyers at this time and steps have been taken to make things right with them.

Upon being informed of this, I contacted the person who did the testing and they confirmed the results. I have dealt with him, and trust his work 100%. 

I hope those that are following this understand I was sold a stone that was told to me was mifflin and have done what I needed to help resolve this issue and show that I have done nothing under handed.

On a side note, and I learned of some of this from this issue...

Two people reportedly stole meteorites from the land owners in WI. 
Large ones... 
One made a totally BS story of it being found under a bridge that was published and upon reading is really laughable with many holes that most would readily pick out... I know because he told me directly. The other... while I dont know full details, many others do, but remain quite.

WHY has this activity not been addressed and just swept up under the rug?
Surely these actions need addressed just as this does. 

I want to make it clear that while I am not attempting to cast blame or redirect this issue, there is more going on that still remains a little secret to those that know and it too should come out.

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, 5/7/11, drtanuki <drtanuki at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: drtanuki <drtanuki at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Mifflin, Amiss
> To: "jason utas" <jasonutas at gmail.com>, meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 10:31 PM
> 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 <jasonutas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: jason utas <jasonutas at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Mifflin, Amiss
> > To: "Meteorite-list" <meteorite-list at 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 at 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 at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> 