[meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
humboldt bay jay
humboldtbayjay at gmail.com
Sun Mar 17 21:14:39 EDT 2024
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 5:50 PM Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> 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 8:03 PM humboldt bay jay <humboldtbayjay at gmail.com>
> 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 the metbul "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 1:21 PM Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
>> 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 7:09 AM humboldt bay jay via Meteorite-list <
>>> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> 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 10:29 PM <
>>>> meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to
>>>>> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>>
>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>>> meteorite-list-owner at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 (paul at tucsonmeteorites.com)
>>>>> 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: <paul at tucsonmeteorites.com>
>>>>> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>>>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
>>>>> Message-ID: <B9FA8D09888B415E9BF201CB08E98D1B at secureserver.net>
>>>>> 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 <rrg85382 at gmail.com>
>>>>> To: bernd.pauli at paulinet.de
>>>>> Cc: Meteorite Mailing List <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Very sad news
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>> <CAGSP0MWZt2RtT_w=
>>>>> JXHjTi60UojwDGVDoReUF4jfJd7PaiMF8A at 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 <
>>>>> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> 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
>>>>> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> > 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 <humboldtbayjay at gmail.com>
>>>>> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 14
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>> <
>>>>> CAAt9en4eeBOF8M_4p5anUOO9wO9+_QQV1E9-1MBjdnJ6yVhFtg at 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 <
>>>>> meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to
>>>>> > meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 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
>>>>> > meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> > You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>>> > meteorite-list-owner at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 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 (paul at tucsonmeteorites.com)
>>>>> > 2. Meteorite carbon (Benzaki Mohamed)
>>>>> > 3. Very sad news (bernd.pauli at paulinet.de)
>>>>> > 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: <paul at tucsonmeteorites.com>
>>>>> > To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>>>> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
>>>>> > Message-ID: <E402350C7FB04BC489E974C560D88522 at secureserver.net>
>>>>> > 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 <kemkemexpedition at gmail.com>
>>>>> > To: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorite carbon
>>>>> > Message-ID:
>>>>> > <
>>>>> > CAGZKZ4-7HUfr2N7mzy4hApuFExCsSJU66gN+v9AjUXJkT8TxCw at 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: bernd.pauli at paulinet.de
>>>>> > To: "meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com"
>>>>> > <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>>>> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Very sad news
>>>>> > Message-ID: <825781290.98647.1710366500765 at www.ud-mail.de>
>>>>> > 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 <etchplain at att.net>
>>>>> > To: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Claims of Extrasolar Spherules from Pacific
>>>>> > Ocean Site CNEOS 2014-01-08 Disputed
>>>>> > Message-ID: <088038b3-ec22-4815-b8fc-d187f665a8a7 at att.net>
>>>>> > 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
>>>>> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> > 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
>>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> End of Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 261, Issue 15
>>>>> ***********************************************
>>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20240317/1ba2f6a5/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Meteorite-list
mailing list