Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 > > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Michael L Blood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 >> >> >> >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- >> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von > Michael >> L Blood >> Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 00:25 >> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 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@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 >
Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
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 -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Michael L Blood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 > > > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Michael > L Blood > Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 00:25 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 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@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
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 > > > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Michael > L Blood > Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 00:25 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 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@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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 clas
Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
Michael & List, My anonymous reference to you as "a dealer" was to protect you from any perception of shenanigans on your part, though by no means did I ever have that perception myself (again, the research was and is as much the responsibility of the buyer as it is of the seller, and the information circulating as a result of the TKW question and the Chiang-Khan example have been well worth the trade in and of themselves). This was just one of a couple of examples I threw out to get a topic in circulation, and Jeff gave a more than adequate answer to the question. It seems that there's a certain responsibility on just about everyone involved to properly record the outcome of these events and that the science side is willing to do whatever they need to, within reason, to get the record straight so to speak (symbiotic, as it should be). Even the uncertain stories in the world of meteorites are part of the fun and mystique... Dave -Original Message- From: Michael L Blood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 7:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin Altmann; Meteorite List Subject: 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@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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: [meteorite-list] Chiang Khan differences of opinion
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 -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Michael L Blood Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 00:25 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 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@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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 pu
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@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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 Meteorit
