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

From: Jeff Grossman <jngrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:59:58 -0500
Message-ID: <4EDA8DCE.6050202_at_gmail.com>

NomCom did not publish either the term "paleo" or "fossil", nor do I
think we have ever published these terms for any meteorite. I don't
think they are particularly well defined. We put the term "fossil" in
quotes in Alex Bevan's description of the Gove meteorite, but we listed
it according to the objective term "relict meteorite" which means that
most of the primary minerals have been replaced with terrestrial
minerals. The latter term is defined in the Guidelines for Meteorite
Nomenclature (and AH 001 does not qualify).

The MB database follows the science, and sometimes that takes years.
The NomCom does not DO science, nor does it search the literature for
potential reclassifications. If somebody publishes a paper that
straightens out all of these meteorite classifications, and sends it to
us (or if somebody on nomcom sees it), we can consider an update. Right
now, I cannot find a thing in the peer-reviewed literature, just the
original metbull submission and some abstracts.

Jeff


On 12/3/2011 3:18 PM, Greg Hup? wrote:
> 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
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 03:59:58 PM PST