[meteorite-list] Mifflin, Amiss

[Shawn Alan]

Jason and Listers,


This is a very interesting post in the since I have to say something doesn't add up. One an anonymous finder contacts Carl and has him send cash to a PO box..... Red flag. Two the phone number is disconnected..... Three the transaction was done in cash. I have to say with those three elements this would have to be a scam, someone got had. If this was a legit sale wouldn't it have been done in the correct ways via pay pal not some undercover 007 style, sending cash in the mail to a PO BOX?

As for testing goes, cant Carl Agee do a terrestrial age analysis and also have a cre done which can prove or disprove this theory that someone is suggesting that Mifflin has two litholgies, which I have to say isnt the case and that these stones are not related to Mifflin in anyway from the evidence presented by Jason.

Now the question is who was the scammer. I have to assume that one this scammer knew what they were doing and somehow was or is connected to the meteorite collecting world or they are really smart and picked up how to scam meteorite hunter 101. First of all they knew of Carl, two they knew of the fall, three, they knew of what a freshly fallen meteorite looks like and four the meteorite in question is a real meteorite but not from the same fall.

I think the scammer is one of us or is connected to one of us just because of the circumstances of the event and that the meteorite is a real meteorite and has fusion crust. If it was a non meteoritest, I think it would have been a stone, but this was not the case it was a real meteorite in the mists of being a fake Mifflin. This is to good to be done by some non meteorite collector but again people are getting smarter these days to make some cash. But this means that this scammer would have to buy a real meteorite to turn around to sell as a fake recent meteorite fall.
 
All I can say is if I came into this situation I would have thought the sale would have been a scam right from the start with me sending money to a PO box. Also I am glad I didn't buy this stuff I was able to buy some from Joe Kerchner which that had some drama in its self as well.
 
My 2 cents
 
Shawn Alan 
IMCA 1633 
eBaystore 
http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html 







[meteorite-list] Mifflin, Amiss
jason utas jasonutas at gmail.com 
Sat May 7 21:12:16 EDT 2011 

Previous message: [meteorite-list] Where is everyone? Facebook? 
Next message: [meteorite-list] Mifflin, Amiss 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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