[meteorite-list] Claimed pairings

From: Jeff Grossman <jgrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:30:48 -0400
Message-ID: <4C1D3708.3040308_at_usgs.gov>

On 2010-06-19 5:14 PM, cdtucson at cox.net wrote:
> Jeff,
> Correct me if I'm wrong. And please understand that I make these comments with all due respect.
> You said
> " I would also say that claims in peer-reviewed scientific papers may not
> be better than those in the Bulletin or abstracts, unless the paper is
> directly concerned with the topic of pairing."
> Okay. this thread was started by people claiming that they had material paired with a possible Earth Meteorite" because they both looked like brachinites. A very rare type to find.
> The peer reviewed comments that were posted on this very list spoke to the very fact that this is Not an "Earth Meteorite" whether it is paired or not.
> This peer review came from Dr. Rubin at UCLA. This based mainly on the fact that metal was found in this meteorite.
> So, if we are to follow your point then this has been peer reviewed and therefore carries a lot of weight.
>
That was not peer review. It was casual discussion.
> I know we are talking about a bunch of super intelligent people here. Yourself included so, what are we supposed to think?
> I mean even you folks cannot decide who is right.
>
Neither I nor Rubin has actually reviewed the evidence. And, the
question of pairing has absolutely nothing to do with the question of
where a meteorite formed.

jeff
> And we are talking about a rock that may have originated from Earth? My own question about this is; if this were from Earth, wouldn't the o-isotopes had changed after all this stuff happened? Dr. Weiss stated that the gases in ALH84001 were from an older Mars atmosphere and that is why it did not match the younger atmosphere that is known on Mars today. So, again, why is ours the same? This gets very confusing but I love every minute of it.
> Generally, we base our finds on very educated visual conditions before anything else.
> So, to discount a good visual observation in an industry that would never be successful without good visual observation is to me underestimating it's huge importance .
>
One should not "discount" them, if the meaning of this word is
"ignore." But one might weigh them less heavily if contradicted by
chemical, isotopic, or petrologic data.

Jeff
> If we see chondrules we then look at the size and abundance of them . If we see metal we then look at how much and what kind it is. If we see fusion crust it may be weathering rind. If we see quartz is probably not a meteorite. And some would have you believe that if it does not stick to a magnet it is not a meteorite. In this case they are wrong and then your visual senses kick in. Does it have crust? chondrules? plagioclase? CAI's? Carbon? etc....
> I hope my comments don't burn bridges for me. I read this list to learn and answers to my questions help me do just that. Even if I am wrong it still becomes a learning experience. I wish more Scientists such as yourself would post more often.
> It is a good mix to hear from you between the Ads and the questions about what sex a meteorite is.
> Again, Thank you.
> Carl
> --
> Carl or Debbie Esparza
> Meteoritemax
>
>
> ---- Jeff Grossman<jgrossman at usgs.gov> wrote:
>
>> Even though pairing statements in the literature are not always
>> scrutinized carefully, they should always be attributed to the person
>> who has made the claim (if not, they are worthless). These can be
>> evaluated based on the reputation of the person involved. Moreover, you
>> can write to the person and ask for the evidence upon which the claim
>> was based. So, it's not like all pairing statements are worthless. It
>> just may take effort to evaluate them (which is why the Nomenclature
>> Committee does not take on this job... it's hard!).
>>
>> I would say that you can write a few general rules for evaluating claims
>> if you are a non-expert:
>>
>> 1) The rarer the type of material, the more likely published claims of
>> pairing are to be right.
>> 2) Claims backed up by chemical and isotopic evidence are better than
>> claims backed only by mineralogical data, which in turn are better than
>> claims based only on visual inspection.
>> 3) Claims backed by geographic data are better than those which are not.
>>
>> I would also say that claims in peer-reviewed scientific papers may not
>> be better than those in the Bulletin or abstracts, unless the paper is
>> directly concerned with the topic of pairing. Casual pairing statements
>> in papers may not have received much attention from reviewers.
>>
>> So the weakest claims are made by collectors who buy two NWA ordinary
>> chondrites and think they look the same.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> On 2010-06-19 3:49 PM, Bob Loeffler wrote:
>>
>>>> Your analogy about finding a body with a bullet in the head argues against
>>>>
>>>>
>>> you. Yes, of course you wait for the autopsy. Anything less is NOT science.
>>>
>>> I agree with Richard. The police, district attorney and medical examiner
>>> will never assume (at least in the US) that the bullet in the head killed
>>> the person. An autopsy will always be required because this usually
>>> indicates foul play (aka murder). How many times have we seen that the
>>> bullet didn't kill the person? Lots of times. Maybe that was done to throw
>>> the authorities off from the real cause, like slow poisoning over a 6-month
>>> period by a pissed off wife. :-)
>>>
>>> If something doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny (or never even tested),
>>> then it's just more BS and somebody will get away with murder (or fraud in
>>> the case of meteorite buying/selling).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Richard
>>> Kowalski
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:38 PM
>>> To: meteorite list
>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Claimed pairings
>>>
>>> Carl,
>>>
>>> I did not refer to any particular pairing claim.
>>>
>>> Your analogy about finding a body with a bullet in the head argues against
>>> you. Yes, of course you wait for the autopsy. Anything less is NOT science.
>>>
>>> Believe what and who you want, but that doesn't make it scientific fact.
>>>
>>> Claiming a pairing, just because material if found near by is not science
>>> either. Period.
>>>
>>> The meteorite market is very thin and is based on trust. For my money
>>> (literally) I want legitimate scientific proof to stand with the meteorites
>>> in my collection. Third party emails carry no weight whatsoever.
>>>
>>> Have a pairing? Show me the peer reviewed scientific paper proving your
>>> claim. Pretty simple and straight forward.
>>>
>>> To reiterate a quote from the 1980's "Trust, but verify."
>>> I'll add that if you can't verify, there is no reason to trust.
>>>
>>> Show me the lab results that show the claimed paired material is EXACTLY the
>>> same as the original and I'll gladly plunk down my hard earned funds.
>>>
>>> This is a much greater problem than a single claim too. If the trust is lost
>>> that the material, any material, might not be what is claimed, I'm certainly
>>> not going to be buying it, or any more meteorites in the future. I mentioned
>>> other collectibles that hold my interest in a post yesterday. I can just as
>>> easily spend my money buying those items as I can meteorites. If you want to
>>> see the collectible meteorite market collapse, because all trust in the
>>> material being exactly what it is claimed to be with no ambiguity, go ahead
>>> and allow scientifically unsubstantiated claims continue unabated.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
>> US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383
>> 954 National Center
>> Reston, VA 20192, USA
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>

-- 
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman       phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey          fax:   (703) 648-6383
954 National Center
Reston, VA 20192, USA

Received on Sat 19 Jun 2010 05:30:48 PM PDT