[meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion

From: Michael L Blood <mlblood_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:28:52 -0700
Message-ID: <C40D40F4.15377%mlblood_at_cox.net>

The Meteoritical Bulletin obviously feels differently, as do the
Primary field collectors - and so do I.
        Best wishes, Michael

on 3/24/08 5:07 AM, Martin Altmann at altmann at meteorite-martin.de wrote:

> Well, technically, I'd say,
> as long as the 2-fall-hypothesis isn't established, and it doesn't happen
> that often, that within short time in the same place two meteorite falls,
> we have to count all pieces found there to Chiang Khan.
> Best,
> Martin
>
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael L Blood [mailto:mlblood at cox.net]
> Gesendet: Montag, 24. M?rz 2008 04:49
> An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite List
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
>
> Hi Martin,
> To me, the important question is how much of this material is
> The same fall.
> Michael
>
> on 3/23/08 4:41 PM, Martin Altmann at altmann at meteorite-martin.de wrote:
>
>> In fact, there is also an inconsistency in the last Catalogue of
> Meteorites
>> itself.
>> In the header of the entry the tkw of Chiang Khan is listed as 367g
>> but in the distribution of the specimens in the same entry are listed
> pieces
>> in a total weight of 3279grams. (Largest amount at UCLA with 2588.4g
> there,
>> and the piece of 800g in the University of Bangkok isn't mentioned).
>> So together with the Ex-Haag-piece and Oliver's finds - he's moving at the
>> moment, will ask him as soon as he has an Internet access again, how many
>> grams in total - we have at least 6kg.
>>
>> Best!
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von
> Michael
>> L Blood
>> Gesendet: Montag, 24. M?rz 2008 00:25
>> An: dave at fallingrocks.com; mmorgan at mhmeteorites.com; Martin Altmann;
>> Meteorite List
>> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
>>
>> Hi Dave & all,
>> Regarding your post below....
>> My information regarding TKW of the Chiang-Khan fall is from
>> The primary finder and author of the web page cited by Martin Altmann:
>>
>> http://www.meteorite-oliver.com/About_Chiang_Khan/about_chiang_khan.html
>>
>> Of particular interest is the comment therein:
>>
>> " Nobody was able anymore to give precise indications as to the exact
> date
>> of the event. Some 20 years ago it was, so they say, in the month of
>> November, without doubt - that's what I was told in the villages of the
>> strewn field.
>> Whatever it was that happened then - one is led to presume a second
>> meteorite fall on the same day or on the day after. According to recent
>> research (isotope analysis), the two large specimens, which are in
> private
>> Collection and in Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, do not originate
> from
>> the Chiang-Khan fall. They are believed to have been transported into
>> Thailand from Laos. Two small pieces from Thailand were analyzed, one is
> H4
>> tending to H5; one was determined to be H5 in Japan, whereas the large
>> pieces are H6. Most of all, the noble gas contents of the large specimens
>> differ extremely from those of the Chiang-Khan pieces!"
>>
>> Please note that this is also weighted by the comments by Jeff
>> Grossman Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:58 PM
>> To: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] More on Chiang Khan
>>
>> "The Meteoritical Bulletin does publish
>> announcements of new masses when they are
>> significant. Submit the report to the
>> editor. You will need good evidence that the
>> additional mass is really part of same fall."
>>
>> Please also note that I have every reason to believe that both Bob
>> Haag and Matt Morgan believe the piece in reference is part of the
>> Chiang-Khan fall. However, this believe might be weighted against
>> The above comments (and I acknowledge I could be wrong on this).
>> I recognized your reference of source for purchase as "a dealer"
> was
>> Almost certainly intended to protect me from any perception of shenanigans
>> In this matter - and I thank you for your intent. However, I was fully
> aware
>> Of all of the above comments and felt confident the major finder and the
>> Meteoritical Bulletin were correct in their assessment of related falls,
>> just as I am confident there is no intention to deceive, whatsoever, on
> the
>> part of Bob Haag or Matt Morgan and that their belief in the authenticity
> of
>> the stone mentioned is both sincere and reasonable. People will have to
>> decide for themselves whom is correct and whom is in error. I sided with
> the
>> primary finders and the Meteoritical Bulletin. I see no way to resolve
> this
>> without individually typing the stone, but even that, like the Baygoria
>> cluster.... Er... controversy .... will not be conclusive if this (other?)
>> fall was also submitted and originally included as part of the Chiang-Khan
>> fall, anyway - but the Meteoritical Bulletin does not see it as such.
>> Sincerely, Michael Blood
>>
>>
>> on 3/22/08 6:39 PM, Dave Gheesling at dave at fallingrocks.com wrote:
>>
>>> Matt & List,
>>>
>>> First, Matt, thanks for the info and congrats on having that terrific
>>> specimen in your already spectacular collection...simply superb.
>>>
>>> This prompts a second question, which is "Why is there not a means to
>>> 'officially' correct the record when a fall or find turns out to have a
>>> dramatically different TKW at some point after the formal classification
>> has
>>> cleared?" I'm not talking about confusion in the early stages of mining
> a
>>> strewn field, but rather about falls and/or finds where in many cases
>>> decades have passed since the initial discoveries and, for all intents
> and
>>> purposes, everything that will ever be found has been found (a slippery
>>> slope of a generalization, but hopefully this makes sense). There are
>> many,
>>> many such examples, and I'll post a link to only one below (read Remarks
>> in
>>> my Djermaia listing):
>>>
>>> http://www.fallingrocks.com/Collections/Djermaia.htm
>>>
>>> I purchased my Chiang-Khan from a dealer without much research, which was
>>> completely my responsibility, to be clear. That said, it was marketed as
>>> representing something approaching 5% of the recovered material from that
>>> fall (which, again, is officially recorded as 367 grams when we know that
>>> there is one stone of almost twice that size and speculation on the list
>> is
>>> that the TKW is actually likely to be near 7 kilograms). We had some
>> banter
>>> about the finer points of orientation a couple of weeks ago and how that
>> has
>>> an impact in the marketplace, and it seems to me that this is at least as
>>> large an issue. And, forgetting the market altogether, shouldn't there
>>> perhaps be a more focused effort to "get the record straight" for the
>>> benefit of history? I'm probably missing something out of ignorance
>> here...
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for thoughts and comments...always trying to learn
>>> something new.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
 
Received on Mon 24 Mar 2008 02:28:52 PM PDT