[meteorite-list] WG: Chiang Khan differences of opinion

[Martin Altmann]

Then, supposedly only, they would have 2 entries, Chiang Khan (a) & Chiang
Khan (b) ?

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Michael L Blood [mailto:mlblood at cox.net] 
Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 19:29
An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite List
Betreff: 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 altmann at meteorite-martin.de 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:mlblood at cox.net]

> 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 altmann at meteorite-martin.de 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: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com

>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von

> Michael

>> L Blood

>> Gesendet: Montag, 24. März 2008 00:25

>> An: dave at fallingrocks.com; mmorgan at mhmeteorites.com; 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 at 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 dave at fallingrocks.com 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

>> Meteorite-list mailing list

>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

>> 

>> ______________________________________________

>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com

>> Meteorite-list mailing list

>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

>  

> 

> 

> ______________________________________________

> http://www.meteoritecentral.com

> Meteorite-list mailing list

> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list