[meteorite-list] NWA 5400, etc

From: Darryl Pitt <darryl_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:53:45 -0400
Message-ID: <E885CB7E-44CB-4C57-ACA2-134F3213ACDF_at_dof3.com>

Dear List,

I personally believe the debate on 5400 has moved off-center. I mean,
is the salient issue really whether or not other material is paired to
5400?

I don't think so.

It seems to me the controversy centers on "What's worthy of
distribution for list-members consumption"---because that's the issue
which ignited the inferno.

Should vague rumor-mongering be acceptable? Never. As I mentioned
previously, however, when an accredited scientist suggests there is a
pairing (or possible pairing) of materials, it would seem such
information should be able to be disseminated to the list without
repercussion. It's a useful bulletin or update which is of service to
the meteorite community, as expressed by a professional, and can be
navigated by each list member however they choose.

To me---that seems righteous. What do you think?

All best / d




On Jun 17, 2010, at 8:36 PM, GERALD FLAHERTY wrote:

> Well, we ALL know the Hupe's stringent credentials when they bring
> something to market. Why not wonder about a somewhat dubious claim
> from an unfamiliar source. If it's true, the Moroccans should jump
> at the chance to verify their prize and claim the reward.
> What's the problem, time and money? That is the name of the game
> On Jun 17, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Jason Utas wrote:
>
>> Gerald, All,
>> As I said, typically I would hold them responsible, but when their
>> credibility has been called into question - I mean, you're saying
>> that
>> the people whom Greg has openly stated are lying should provide the
>> proof.
>> How good would that be?
>> Jason
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:14 PM, GERALD FLAHERTY <GRF2 at comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On the contrary, it was Greg who brought this to the market place
>>> after getting a it thoroughly studied. If someone claims "me
>>> too", it becomes their responsibility to prove it their claim by
>>> peer review.
>>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Jason Utas wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry - I was a little fuzzy on that point - I suggested that it
>>>> should be peer-reviewed, and then said that Greg should provide the
>>>> evidence. I was too vague - if Greg's the one making such
>>>> accusations, I have the feeling that he should be the one to get
>>>> such
>>>> things done, whether or not he's the one doing them himself. He
>>>> shouldn't be able to just keep claiming that a scientist with
>>>> credentials is performing bad work without supplying some form of
>>>> proof, or even the intent to get it.
>>>> It's practically libel.
>>>> I agree with you completely, RIchard.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Richard Kowalski <damoclid at yahoo.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Hey Jason,
>>>>>
>>>>> a few points.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that if Greg is arguing that Dr. Jambon did not perform
>>>>> proper and complete studies of the submitted material, it is
>>>>> critical that the work be reviewed. Unfortunately Greg is not
>>>>> his peer. This is why I state that the scientific study need to
>>>>> be peer reviewed. Fellow meteoriticists are the ones qualified
>>>>> to determine if Dr. Jambon is a competent scientist and the lab
>>>>> he used adequate to make the determination of the pairing. Not
>>>>> Greg.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll also reiterate my statement that anyone claiming a pairing
>>>>> has the burden of proof, that their material is paired to the
>>>>> already classified material. This then needs to be peer reviewed
>>>>> to assure that the scientist is competent and the laboratory
>>>>> adequate to make the determination. This level of proof is
>>>>> beyond almost all dealers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Richard Kowalski
>>>>> Full Moon Photography
>>>>> IMCA #1081
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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
Received on Fri 18 Jun 2010 10:53:45 AM PDT