[meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. reply

From: Greg Hupé <gmhupe_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 15:18:01 -0500
Message-ID: <8A4BAAE51EF641C888975B25638ACE22_at_Gregor>

Hello Doug and All,

First, I would like to apologize to Doug and all who read the exchange, an
ongoing passion and pursuit of mine in regards to this meteorite. I was
blunt, kind of an ass and disrespectful, I apologize.

I talked with Tony Irving today and part of the conversation was spent on
the NWA 2828/Al Hagg problem. I have been corrected/reminded, initially Dr.
Irving used the term "Paleo" but was suggested by powers at be to use
"Fossil" in the classification on the Bulletin, so apparently it was the
committee who preferred the 'Fossil' reference. Not really finger pointing,
just part of the reality of facts in the process of knowledge for this
meteorite.

I think at the end of the day I am probably too 'passionate' about this
meteorite because we have been part of the knowledge and understanding
process from the very first piece of this material I took home from Morocco
in 2005. At the time, it was a crust-less, interesting 'rock' that I gambled
on and bought to send a sample to the lab, even the Moroccans who picked a
piece of it from the site didn't know if it was an Earth rock or
who-knows-what. Luckily the nomads were picking up every strange stone that
didn't seem to fit in with the area rocks. As time went by, well, NAU's web
site tells the story from there.

As for time needed to 'correct' the Al Haggounia classification, seven years
have gone by since the first piece [of NWA 2828] was discovered and then
analyzed. In the time since, the "round things" that popped out after I
began to slice and make ready pieces to offer collectors after the first NWA
2828 'Aubrite' abstract was submitted and approved, I quickly realized those
"round things" as I called them on the phone to Tony that day changed
everything and I did not offer any of the material publicly until the
know-known classification proved itself. It was also after that realization
that the NWA 2828 scientific team submitted their abstract, "EL3 Chondrite
(not Aubrite) Northwest Africa 2828: An Unusual Paleo-meteorite Occurring as
Cobbles in a Terrestrial Conglomerate" that was quickly approved by the
Meteoritical Society, except for the term "Paleo".

You can probably sense why I and others have been frustrated over the
continued "Aubrite" classification of AL Haggounia when all the proof has
been out for years. Bottom line, too many collectors are ripped off every
year by sales of Al Haggounia as an "Aubrite". I was told directly by one
European dealer a year or two ago, "As long as the Bulletin says it is an
Aubrite, than I will continue to sell it as one". Pity... it would seem
inaction is not a good thing!

Again to all, I do apologize for spending so much time on this 'issue', just
a "dead horse" that will never really be buried until it can raise up and
live again with its accurate classification.

Best Regards,
Greg

====================
Greg Hup?
The Hup? Collection
gmhupe at centurylink.net
www.LunarRock.com
NaturesVault (eBay)
IMCA 3163
====================
Click here for my current eBay auctions:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault



-----Original Message-----
From: MexicoDoug
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:25 PM
To: gmhupe at centurylink.net ; Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. reply

Hi Greg,

It was a little late when I posted and I hadn't rested since Nov. 30;
and as a topic of discussion I guess this shouldn't be pursued.
Anyway, the classification will be changed if you give it some time,
and if you have a greater grasp of what's gone on, so be it; how a
letter to the editors of the bulletin is construed as 'arrogant' is
completely lost on me but it sounds like I really don't want to know
why.

" your own cute spin on it"
"This does 'confirm "EL6 is a good match!!!"

Speaking of the classification: don't know what my 'cute spin' is
considering I've agreed with the revised US classification you since my
first post after reading the well-researched page that was posted. The
reason I posted the 2011 EL6 article was because it would seem to be
new and confirms it is not an aubrite and the authors saw more material
or/and research and are now convinced of that. It would seem things
are moving in the right direction, just slowly. I'm sure this will all
be resolved in its due time.

Speaking of the terminology - fossil, paleo meteorite: Like you, I
will speak my mind about the concept of meteorite "fossils" anytime and
any place because that is a claim that just doesn't sound right. Too
bad it was attached to this relict. When you said you were going to be
blunt and call discussing it 'boring to most', I took umbrage. But all
that has passed and I hope all works out as it usually does in time.

I suppose if a meteorite is shown conclusively to have fallen in a
previous time period it would be accurate to call it a an Ionian
(middle-Pleistocene) meteorite if, for example, that is applicable, to
refer to the fact that it was shown to have fallen in that time. That
would make Gold Basin a Tarantian (upper-Pleistocene) meteorite as
another example. It sounds very different to me to call the meteorite
a fossil vs. have a reference to when it fell, but perhaps it's just me.

Best of luck to you as well, Peace;
(waves the white flag)
Kindest wishes
Doug


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Hup? <gmhupe at centurylink.net>
To: Meteorite-list <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>; MexicoDoug
<mexicodoug at aim.com>
Sent: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 3:00 am
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. yawn?


Respectfully Doug,
My god man, really?

You wrote,
"What is your reply to this 2011 EL6 poster? Is it 'acceptable' to you
since aubrite is removed? Or must more blood be drawn from the
stone..."
Doug, I have no influence to anyone's written or online articles...
consult
them! This does 'confirm "EL6 is a good match!!!

You wrote (sorrowfully arrogant & ignorant):
"A simple email to the editor at this point should be what is needed;
no one
likes getting yelled at to do something, I'm sure no one is happy to
change
it now."
Doug, I am not yelling at anyone. When this subject enters our lives I
will
speak my mind with what I know. If you want to get evolved, don't dog
me,
match up to Tony, Ted and 'Al Hagg... et al'. I am simply the field
person
from 2005 who brought out NWA 2828, I know, the start of this mess!!!
:-/

And, "YES!", Doug, I challenge the Bulletin to decide this "dead
horse", too
much time has gone by. Doug, I do not know why you push this 'mud' with
your
own cute spin on it, you seem to be a smart person, talk to the
experts, not
me! ;-)
I will be happy to educate you and whoever wants to know my involvement
with
anything I am passionate about. If you do not ask, do not , or only
presume
to speak for the masses, you will be corrected!!

Doug, good luck with your hunt on this one! ;-)

Best Regards,
Greg

Dead Horses Can't Live Until They Are Buried Standing UP!



-----Original Message-----
From: MexicoDoug
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 2:33 AM
To: gmhupe at centurylink.net ; Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. yawn?

"Doug, not to be blunt, but this entire conversation is an 'Extremely',
'Old', 'Archaic', "Fossil" of a subject that it is almost boring to
most of
us..."


Hi Greg,

Thanks Greg for that thought and precisely for that reason if you want
a classification changed it is strange to mix a dead horse with what
you would like to be another live one a.k.a. removing the 'aubrite'
classification.

I do think it is strange that these classification corrections haven't
been made (as you can see in my post) and Drs. Bunch and Irving have
made believers out of me; one can only respect the resources they
dedicated to elucidating the variations of this crapped up old pile of
earth rocks that is almost boring to a few of us that were meteorites
at one time and are just weathered ghosts of what they once were.

What is your reply to this 2011 EL6 poster? Is it 'acceptable' to you
since aubrite is removed? Or must more blood be drawn from the stone
;-) I don't mean to be blunt either and please accept my apology which
I offer in advance if there are ruffled feathers somewhere due to this
classification.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2011/pdf/5298.pdf

But everyone who was on the list certainly heard about that
classification problem ... and likely from you ... and likely more than
once ... and why give more airtime to it (could it be this is a
discussion group and not a solution group?), because only a few care:
that's your "dead horse" and other discussion ending logic. I
respectfully disagree and I think attitude has a lot to do with the
present problem (this is not directed at anyone specific, and most
definitely NOT the scientists ? they get kudos). A simple email to the
editor at this point should be what is needed; no one likes getting
yelled at to do something, I'm sure no one is happy to change it now.

Any other air time is likely to only result in character assassination,
?Get it right!? to Met Soc editors, do they get paid to listen to
that?; so to be clear, what's the point of it on the list other than
entertainment value or public humiliation?

The nomenclature of fossil/paleo/ancient is entirely another issue.
But by shoving the fossil/paleo issue forward when marketing this
material, for some rusted out relicts, well, let's just say that by
tying two dead horses together, neither does the other any favors.
This continues to be a marketing representation every time someone buys
this material, and we must be vigilant to keep ideas about finding
fossil life in meteorites divorced from our observations given past
'problems' and media distortion.

On eBay, the majority of these are currently marketed as fossil
aubrites. The one that says EL3 says it has many metal flecks in it
(does that make sense? Wow if so, kind of makes me wonder if it really
isn?t just a highly weathered meteorite, like other cheapo rusted-out
meteorites, that happened to get in some old lakebed.)

I mean, let?s see the stages of a meteorite:

fresh fall $$$; fresh find $$; weathered find $; highly weathered find
??; tons of barely recognizable relict ?/$ ?

Maybe, if that is what the customer likes. But there are hundreds of
new list members that would be interested in the relict definition (and
why the meteoritical society chose that) and hundreds more that worry
about the classification. General material is always cycled on the
list and that allows newer members to participate rather than be told
what is right and see how these things evolve. You really shouldn't be
speaking for "most of us" on my fossil hot button. For every
mouthpiece on the list there are 50 more folks that have no strong
opinion or find it all interesting.

Respectfully yours, as always, facts ? are optional but you are welcome
to kindly add them;
But only I will read my paleo horse his last rights especially when the
smart money is on him! ;-)
Doug


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Hup? <gmhupe at centurylink.net>
To: Meteorite-list <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 1:00 am
Subject: [meteorite-list] "Al Hagg".. Get it Right.. Finally!


Hi Doug and All,

Doug, not to be blunt, but this entire conversation is an 'Extremely',
'Old', 'Archaic', "Fossil" of a subject that it is almost boring to
most of
us... Unless you really understand 'et al'...
The bottom line is, money or not, get the facts corrected before more
collectors continue to buy 'misinformed' Aubrites.. Bottom Line!!!

This is one of those ongoing subjects that one needs to understand
before
they step in their own mud...!

Best Regards,
Greg

====================
Greg Hup?
The Hup? Collection
gmhupe at centurylink.net
www.LunarRock.com
NaturesVault (eBay)
IMCA 3163
====================
Click here for my current eBay auctions:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault



-----Original Message-----
From: MexicoDoug
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 11:15 PM
To: joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com ;
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] NAwhat'sME (was...Are these meteorites???)

"http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Al_Haggounia.html"

Wow, what a great and insightful page to these stones. Maske one want
to get on a plane and go digging themselves. Does the list have an
opionion of this already or is it one of those things that fell between
the sofa cushions and never got cleaned up?

What is the status of the proposed reclassification in the Bulletin as
an EL3? If it hasn't been done yet can anyone post an opposing view to
keep the aubrite or other classifications alive?

Maybe it hasn't been done because this relict meteorite is being called
a "fossil"? I've heard of fossil living people but fossil meteorites -
please let's not go there! Seems like there is more than one change
being proposed on this page. Best IMO - one thing at a time, leave
that battle for another time.

IMO:

The use of the word 'fossil' for dug up minerals according to this
dictionary is obsolete:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fossil

...but beyond that for any it is extremely confusing to the commercial
side of this especially to innocent buyers and hopefully the IMCA and
other alike groups can regulate this if it sounds reasonable; since it
is generally used to describe for living organisms or structures left
by them, and therefore has associated with it an air of ancient life to
the new collector, and there is no need to evoke this term any more
than 'aubrite' if in fact that doesn't fit. As for 'paleo', it sounds
like a $2 word for $0.06 per gram meteorite as well.

Relict is a perfect term and even has precedence as it has been used
throughout the Chicxulub studies to describe the tektites which in a
similar fasion have been incorporated into sediment.

So after reading the excellent and painstaking work by Drs. Ted Bunch
and A. Irving, one has to wonder where Conan the Barbarian is just to
come in and say:

They are relicts and they are EL3's, further use of any other mentioned
terms is immediately hereby suspended until noticed by the axe-wielding
squad ;-), or an opposing view makes its stand in a peer-reviewed
article.

Kindest wishes
Doug


-----Original Message-----
From: JoshuaTreeMuseum <joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com>
To: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 2, 2011 10:19 pm
Subject: [meteorite-list] Are these meteorites???




More than 20 pairings?:


The Al Haggounia "Fossil or Paleo" Meteorite Problem:

http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Al_Haggounia.html



Phil Whitmer
______________________________________________
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 Sat 03 Dec 2011 03:18:01 PM PST


Help support this free mailing list:



StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
reddit
Yahoo MyWeb