This is regarding those I have worked with and who were involved in "The Project." The following is in chronological order but without dates. Names of people are changed to Letters to keep anonymity, with the exception of a few people:
* (Educator, Friend and colleague A):
My friend and colleague and fellow educator who got me deep into the world of meteoritics many years ago through long talks and discussions, showing and sharing with me his famous meteorite samples from his very thorough and very respectable private collection. I in turn have started my own respectable meteorite collection. He also loaned me his copy of Harvey Ninniger's Find a Falling Star until I purchased my own copy, and as well past catalogs from the Robert Haag collection. As a result I was bitten by the meteoritics bug in a very serious way. We have shared many collecting adventures together and continue to share our meteorite passion.
*Glyn Howard, Physics and Earth Science Educator ...
Prior to going to any professional meteorite analysts (meteoriticists) I knew my discovery was a very massive rare meteorite discovery. I knew they were rare type achondrite meteorites. I could prove the megascopic evidence. I could prove the macroscopic evidence. However, at the time I didn't know how to prove the microscopic evidence and the parent body through geochemistry analysis.
* (Retired Engineering/construction estimator,
my Father and lapidary rock work specialist A1):
My father is very good at lapidary work, rock hounding, and giving loving fatherly advice, and working together on many projects over the years. We have shared many outdoor adventure sports and many rock hounding adventures over the decades.
Also my father was very fortunate enough to have done a workshop with Meteorite Thin-section Technician C, and he is honored to have worked with him, and as well a chance to get to know him. My father had a great hands-on learning experience working with one of the best thin-section technicians in the world.
*(Meteorite analyst/technician and meteorite
curator B1 who works with University of ____________ , and their
associated lab. He also works with PhD B2):
False information, misinformation, disinformation, and gatekeeping. He wrote a lengthy email in response when I called him and his PhD colleague out for lying to me and misrepresenting the truth. I caught them on it. They offered a public meteorite identification service and they didn't tell the truth. Very unprofessional.
As I said, I knew from the beginning I had discovered a very significant meteorite find. One day the public will know the entire story.
A little more of the story concerning first going to university meteorite analysts who are all very well known in the world wide meteoritics community ...
I knew they were meteorites. I knew they were igneous rocks. Therefore I knew they were rare achondrites. I knew they were from a differentiated planetary body. My first impression and hypothesis were they were Lunar. However, I couldn't prove the parent body. I didn't know how at the time. Now I do.
Then I went to a few very well known and respected meteorite analysts (these PhDs are famous and well known in the meteoritics world) who provided their services for identification and classification of meteorites.
The first two analysts that I met with, I asked a very straight forward question before we got started. And if they didn't answer the question correctly, then I was out the door. I asked them if they both felt that the prospectors involved in the discovery of the "Old Woman Meteorite" were treated fairly and ethically by our U.S. government? They both said "No." Good answer. I would stay. And I told them so.
We were getting along very well, we talked, shared information, they showed me around their lab, they showed me the hands-on workable replica/copy of a very particular NASA Mars surface probe mission and the command center that would soon be operational when JPL would set it on the surface of Mars and then hand over the control to this command center. I got a chance to look through their optical mineralogy/petrology thin-section polarizing microscope, and I looked at a thin-section of one the most beautiful Mars meteorite thin-sections out there under XPL, and I mentioned right then that I wanted to learn how to do this also.
They held a few significant pieces from my discovery including "Bikkurim." I can read people very well. They were trying to contain their excitement. Their eyes lit up as they looked at one another holding "Bikkurim", and they were desperately trying "to hide their hand of cards against their chest" (as the saying goes), and play it very, very cool. I played dumb and asked the question of one of the PhDs, "I know they are igneous rocks, so if they are meteorites, then that means they are from a known terrestrial planetary body, correct?" And the one PhD said "yes." The other analyst was looking at "Bikkurim" up-close under a large magnifier on a stand. The top of "Bikkurim" is broken and allows one to see inside nicely. The 2 pieces fit perfectly together like a 3D puzzle. It fractured when it fell to Earth and hit the ground. Both pieces were just a few decimeters away from one another at the discovery site when I found it. The one analyst looking under the magnifier said, "I think that its a Basalt. I think it could be from Mars. It looks Martian."
Now, someone could say, "hey doesn't that mean he gets the credit for first calling it?" Well, this "Reader's Digest" version of the longer story isn't over yet. Not by a long shot. And by the way, "Bikkurim" and GSB are the exact same igneous extrusive rock type, both are Dacite, an evolved lava, having been found within the same footprint of the find/discovery site. I chose both GSA and GSB as key type representative samples of the larger discovery, so that I wouldn't have to cut any larger samples. I want to keep them whole and pristine for as long as possible.
When they asked about the discovery site I wouldn't tell them. I told them I'm going after the reward. I wasn't willing to share the discovery site, and that's when the unethical and unprofessional behavior really began, I just didn't know it yet. They agreed to take the 2 cut and highly polished sections, one from GSA and one from GSB, that my father (who is very skilled at rock cutting and lapidary work, and both cut sections had one side polished) had prepared. They would send off the sections to one of the best meteorite thin-section technicians in the world and I would pay for it. Then they would analyze the thin-sections and then they would get back to me. Many emails before this meeting and after this meeting occurred. I have them all.
Enough time had elapsed. I emailed the one PhD, and finally he replied. In a nutshell he said "GSA is a Tuff," and "GSB is a Sedimentary rock," and he said they are not meteorites. Again, I have all the emails.
I was livid. I knew they were lying, and the lies weren't even clever. I called them out on it. Even beginning Earth Science students wouldn't ever make this mistake. They both had admitted earlier when we met in person they were igneous rocks after I put them on the spot and asked them. Yes, they called GSA a "Tuff" but it is not, not by a long shot.
GSA is a very dense and very hard (from impact shock metamorphism) igneous extrusive volcanic Rhyolite. GSA has no texture or density anywhere near a igneous extrusive volcanic Tuff. GSB is an igneous extrusive evolved lava, a volcanic rock called Dacite. Both are silica rich. GSB is no where near a sedimentary rock. It was laughable.
See section 3.3 Mineralogy and Compostion of Syrtis Major (from Komatiites to Dacite and Rhyolite, and more ...)
The Syrtis Major volcano, Mars: A multidisciplinary
approach to interpreting its magmatic evolution
and structural development
My father mentioned how hard it was to cut and polish both GSA and GSB. Both GSA and GSB are harder than Mohs 7.0+ but less than Mohs 10, and very dense. They both hold a very nice mirror lapidary polish if worked to that extent. The thin-section technician also mentioned these truths. It was harder than normal to prepare the thin-sections and took a little more time and care as a result. Then when samples of GSA and GSB were sent off for whole rock oxide analysis to a very well known private company in the mining industry and university geology research world (SGS), and they also have considerable meteorite experience in their research lab as well, they in addition mentioned how hard it was to crush, and powder, and prepare both GSA and GSB for ICP-MS whole rock oxides and trace mineral analysis. All of these evidences from 3 very experienced people or group of people support the fact that GSA and GSB are both harder than Mohs 7.0+ but less than Mohs 10, even though typically only minerals and not rocks are given a Mohs hardness. But in this case it's warranted, both GSA and GSB are fine-grained. So this evidence suggests very well that GSA and GSB are impact shocked, having experienced shock melting, localized melting, and solid state recrystallization, all of which increases the hardness of minerals, and therefore the over-all hardness of the rock, due to extreme pressures and heat and therefore increases its density.
"In geology, solid-state recrystallization is a metamorphic process that occurs under situations of intense temperature and pressure where grains, atoms or molecules of a rock or mineral are packed closer together, creating a new crystal structure. The basic composition remains the same."
Increases of pressure and temperature of course happens in impact shock metamorphism to an extreme and in a moment, with polymorphic minerals of quartz such as Coesite, Stishovite, Seifertite, Tridymite , and Cristobalite forming. And when quartz melts due to impact shock pressures and temperatures it is now amorphous and called Lechatellierite. There is a theorized connection between Lechatellierite and "Toasting." See these research articles on toasting ...
The Origin of "Toasted" Quartz in Impactites Revisited
The Origin of "Toasted" quartz in terrestrial impact structures
*(PhD Cosmochemist, meteoriticist, and
Professor of Planetary Science, University Professor B2 who works
with University of ___________ , and their associated lab. He
also works with Meteorite analyst/technician and meteorite curator
False information, misinformation, disinformation, and gatekeeping. Igneous extrusive volcanic Dacite, an evolved lava, is not a sedimentary rock. Nor is hard dense igneous extrusive volcanic Rhyolite a less dense volcanic Tuff. My Earth Science students wouldn't even make these mistakes. It was purposeful misinformation, disinformation, and gatekeeping. Also in addition, I would like to ask PhD Cosmochemist and professor B2, why does NASA name, and continue to name, missions after Greek and Egyptian gods? Seems this particular latest NASA mission name has a very specific forced acronym and purposeful name to match an Egyptian god. Why doesn't NASA use the many names of the one and only Judeo/Christian G-d? Why do they keep honoring Greek and Roman gods throughout NASA? What message are they trying to tell us?
*(Senior Research Specialist, Meteorite
Collection Manager, Meteorite analyst and technician B3 and assistant
for B1and B2. She works with University of __________ ):
She works with B1 and B2. She is also the one who handled mailing the meteorite samples GSA and GSB and the meteorite thin-sections back to Glyn Howard. She knows much of the story and what happened at their lab. She was on many of the email chains. At one time she apologized via email or note. I'm not sure exactly what she was apologizing for, she didn't say. She just apologized.
I gave meteorite analyst and meteorite curator B1, PhD Cosmochemist and professor B2, Senior Research Specialist and Meteorite Collection Manager B3, a second chance, an opportunity to come clean, to do the work correctly and honestly, to just be honest and to do the requested work correctly as they offered to do originally as a University service and public business identifying meteorites. All would be forgiven. They didn't choose to do so. I had to move on.
*(Meteorite Thin-section technician C):
Exceptional professionalism and very high quality work. The very best at what he does. He is highly sought after for his double polished meteorite thin-section craftsmanship. He formerly worked for NASA (retired), with extensive experience working on Apollo Lunar rocks and Mars Meteorites, and now in retirement he works for himself and his own Petrographics business. He may be retiring from his petrographics business. I hope his son or family continues the wonderful business with the same high quality and craftsmanship. It would be a huge loss to the meteoritics community if we no longer have his services, craftsmanship, science, and art.
*(PhD Planetary Cosmochemist and meteoriticist
D, specializing in achondrites from known planetary bodies. He
works for the University of _______________ ______ ______________
False information, misinformation, disinformation, and gatekeeping.
Notes regarding meeting with:
PhD Planetary Cosmochemist and meteoriticist D.
I emailed PhD D, and I asked to come in and see him at the University to have him look at my meteorites, that at the time I knew were achondrites, and my best hypothesis at the time -- the PB was Lunar. I knew they were meteorites. I knew they were achondrites. I wasn't sure about the PB. I gave PhD D all my contact information as well as my cell number.
He emailed me back and we made arrangements. I would be meeting with him right after Christmas before the new year. I told PhD D I was looking forward to the meeting. That evening before the meeting, there was a very interesting close conjunction between the Moon and Mars in the night sky. A prophetic sign. I thought how appropriate this astronomic event occurred just before we met to talk about achondrite planetary meteorites.
We met at the University at the Department Hall he works at, and he came down stairs to meet and to let me into the building. Everyone at the University was on holiday break, but even so, he was happy to come in and meet with me and to take a look at the meteorite material I had.
We went up to his office and he had the opportunity to look at a few of the meteorite specimens that I brought from my discovery, "Bikkurim," and "Tars Tarkis" specifically, though at the time I hadn't named these meteorites yet. He also shared with me a sample of a very well known (even famous) planetary achondrite meteorite found in the United States that he and another cosmochemist and meteoriticist within his department are famously known for doing the original geochemistry/cosmochemistry, identification, classification and then publishing the results in the Meteoritics Bulletin.
We then took the thin-sections from GSA and GSB that I had brought and went to his optical mineralogy/petrology polarizing microscope lab and had a look at GSA and GSB using the very well prepared thin-sections I had of both. He made mention that they (their University cosmochemistry and meteoritics department) are looking for another thin-section specialist and I was happy to give him the name of the thin-section specialist who made my very high quality and very exceptional thin-sections. The technician (meteorite thin-section technician C) who made my thin-sections happens to be one of the best in the science and art of thin-section making in the worldwide meteoritic community, and he formerly worked for NASA (now retired) and has vast experience working on Apollo Lunar rocks and Mars meteorites.
As PhD D was looking at both GSA and GSB thin-sections under the polarizing microscope he kept mentioning that he liked what he was seeing. "I like what I see Glyn," indicating he was in agreement and he was also seeing impact shock metamorphism at the mineral grain microscopic level in PPL and XPL. He said this several times while looking at both GSA and GSB thin-sections under the thin-section polarizing microscope.
Well, Impact Shock Metamorphism is permanent; it does not vanish. And it only forms in a couple of ways. There were no nuclear blasts in the discovery site ever. In this case, therefore, it only forms due to Impact Shock Metamorphism from an original extraterrestrial impactor into an extraterrestrial body. Keep that in mind.
Next we went to prepare
the thin sections for the JEOL EPMA.
It requires liquid Nitrogen to run. It also requires a carbon coating sputter machine to properly prepare the thin-sections for EPMA use. There is a right way to Carbon coat thin-sections for EPMA use and there is a wrong way. At the time I didn't know this. I was walking and talking with PhD D as we went along. Eventually we got to the sputter machine for Carbon coating and he prepared GSB with a very thick Carbon coat. It was very silver and opaque it was so thick. Later he used <1 micrometer alumina cream to remove as much of the Carbon coating from GSB thin-section when he was all done, as possible, however it wasn't all removed. It remains on the excess epoxy of the GSB thin-section as evidence.
See this online PPT regarding "How to properly Carbon coat thin-sections for EPMA use":
In this case it was not properly done. It was over-coated rendering the readings to be in error. I believe this was intentional. It was another way to throw up a road-block with purposeful and intentional false generated data, leading to further misinformation and error.
From the PPT ...
"Variation in the carbon thickness between standard and unknowns can create additional uncertainty and error: 1) the electrons entering the specimen lose energy passing through the coating, reducing the x-ray intensity produced within the specimen, and 2) emergent x-rays are absorbed by the carbon as they leave the sample on the way to the detector. These effects are largest for the light elements, but also higher Z elements also.**"
As I have said, PhD D, did not prepare the thin-section Carbon coating properly. This is not how a thin-section is to be prepared for EPMA use. I was completely naive and ignorant of this fact, and he knew this. Once again falsifying results purposefully in science is academically dishonest or worse.
Later working with another EPMA specialist PhD H, at a different research University and watching how he prepared an additional and different GSA and GSB thin-section for our use with a Carbon coating, I learned that proper thin-section preparation was completely different. It was a very light and thin indigo red coating you could barely tell it was there, and we could still place it under an optical mineralogy/petrology polarizing microscope and still see very clearly all the mineral grains and birefringence colors with only a hint of change. Immediately I knew, thinking back, that PhD D used my ignorance, my naivety, to overcoat the thin-section of GSB, to render readings inaccurate and in error using the SEM and EMPA.
Well, back to the lab with PhD D with the thin-section of GSB, over-coated with Carbon. He decided to only work with GSB, (it was more interesting and we didn't have all the time we needed, just the afternoon). We then went downstairs to the SEM and EPMA lab.
PhD D retrieved some liquid Nitrogen and started the EPMA. He said it took a period of time for the EPMA to be ready for use. He then mentioned, while we are waiting, let's take a preliminary look at GSB under the SEM. If the results there are favorable then we can move onto the EPMA. I agreed, not knowing anything different. However, now knowing more ...
"A very close relative of the SEM is the Electron Probe Microanalyzer (EPMA). The basic optical design of the EPMA is very similar to the SEM, but the EPMA is arranged to optimize X-ray signal detection, while the SEM is optimized for visual information and only secondarily for X-ray and other electron interactions."
Why use the SEM this way when it isn't optimized for this use and the thin-sections were purposefully not prepared properly? Something wasn't right. I didn't know that at the time.
Recall it was my hypothesis, the Parent Body was the Moon, and that they were Lunar meteorites. I had gone through many possible PBs in my mind. I even thought they could be from Mars at one time, but then I thought no-way that I could be that lucky. I knew they were meteorites, and I knew they were igneous with no chondrules, and therefore formed on a differentiated planetary body, and so therefore achondrites. I just didn't have the evidence for which PB they originated from (Mercury?, Lunar?, Mars?, Asteroid 4 Vesta? Other?) On any given day, my hypothesis for the PB was different. But by the time I came to see PhD D, I had locked in my guess as Lunar. He knew this. I told him my hypothesis.
So while waiting for the EPMA to be ready he had a preliminary look at thin-section GSB under the SEM. We looked at many of the opaque shiny reflective mineral grains (that looked "metallic" under a mineralogy/ore microscope using incident light). Every opaque mineral grain we looked at came up as an Iron-oxide (FeO). After looking at many opaque mineral grains he finally said, they are all Iron-oxides, FeOs. This can not be from the Moon. We would expect Iron (Fe), and Nickel (Ni). We aren't finding any.
I then asked him, well they are meteorites, so where could they be from? What PB? He then said he doesn't think they are meteorites. He thinks they are terrestrial, from Earth. Sorry.
I was dumb-founded. I knew they were meteorites. I knew they were achondrites. I just didn't know the PB. The impact Shock Metamorphism was still there in both GSA and GSB. It didn't go away. It will not go away. It is permanent empirical evidence of meteoritic origin. I was shocked. I didn't challenge him on it. At the time I didn't know how too. At the time I didn't know that many Mars meteorites are loaded with opaque shiny "metallic" looking FeOs and sulfides and more, in thin-section. In fact, it is ubiquitous in many Mars meteorites, just as I/we were seeing in GSA and GSB throughout the thin-section matrix. I didn't know this at the time, and again I couldn't challenge PhD D, regarding this, and he knew this. He knew I was naive and he took advantage of my ignorance.
In PhD Dante Lauretta's and Marvin Killgore's excellent meteoritics reference book, "A Color Atlas of Meteorites in Thin Section," they state several times in the section on Mars meteorites with very good color plate examples of PPL, XPL and reflective incident light and scanning electron micrographs of several well known and famous Mars meteorite thin-sections with FeOs, sulfides, and other opaque mineral grains, that these opaque mineral grains are ubiquitous throughout the matrix of many Mars meteorites and the thin sections made from them. GSA and GSB both clearly and exactly demonstrate this in abundance. It's a dead give-away for those with Mars meteorite experience along with the other necessary impact shock metamorphism and other meteoritic clues.
A Color Atlas of Meteorites
in Thin Section:
I knew that meteorite analysts talk. I knew they know each other; it's an exclusive and very small community. I knew before meeting with PhD D that there was a chance of foul play and academic dishonesty, and professional jealousy occurring. I knew it was a possibility. I had experienced it trice already from 3 professional meteorite analysts at another University. I was prepared for it. But it is still shocking when it happens. It was right then I suspected that PhD D, had done the same thing as the two other well known meteoriticists plus one other who works with them had done before, which is to falsify results, throw-out misinformation, build walls to stone-wall, all to try to dissuade me from going forward and proving that my discovery are rare achondrite Mars planetary meteorites.
It happens. I experienced it more than anyone should ever have to experience it. Pure science or applied science at the University research level, can be a cut-throat competitive world. It doesn't have to be this way.
Read the following article to understand this:
"Contrary to their
public image, scientists are normal, flawed human beings. They
are as capable of prejudice, covetousness, pride, deceitfulness,
etc., as anyone."
-- David Weatherall, "Conduct Unbecoming," American Scientist (Vol.93, January-February 2005), p.73
It's sad that this happens. But scientists are humans. Humans can and do act with really bad intentions and behavior for a number of wrong reasons and causes. It shouldn't ever happen but it does. I left PhD D's office, thanked him for his time. On the drive back to where I needed to go I contemplated all that took place that afternoon and realized PhD D wasn't being honest. He had done the same thing that 2 other well-known meteoriticists did, he falsified the results and threw out purposeful misinformation to thwart and dissuade me from continuing on. It didn't work. I knew right then what I would do. I would learn to do it myself.
I'm an Earth scientist I can learn to do this and I did. I would soon purchase my own optical mineralogy/ore polarizing microscope, to add to my binocular specimen microscope in which I use 2 professional SLR camera polarizing filters at 90 degrees with the thin-section in between. This is a great set-up for a whole thin-section view and lower magnifications of the mineral grains. The impact shock metamorphism can be seen very well with the background matrix going dark or black due to isotropic glass with specific mineral grains standing out in bright birefringence color and contrast. Mounting the thin-section on a thin cardboard mount that extents beyond the filters, you can turn it just like a stage on a real polarizing mineral microscope to see the birefrigence colors change, and to see the undulose extinction in many of the mineral grains occur due to impact shock metamorphism.
Later when both GSA and GSB thin sections were studied under another EPMA, again by another EPMA technician (PhD F) and whom I paid for his services, it was verified that many of the FeO mineral grains also have Nickel (Ni) enriched positive in relief lamellae, verifying my new unique discovery that I had discovered previously with my mineral/ore polarizing microscope in reflecting incident light prior to using his services. It's a new phenomenon that hadn't been seen before, as far as I can tell, searching and looking through the scientific literature.
I later got back in touch with PhD D, regarding my Ni enriched lamellae within FeOs discovery within GSB, and he was intrigued. He mentioned that I could send the thin-sections for GSA and GSB back to him and he would have another look at them. I said no. I'm going to finish the project on my own. I'm going to prove what I know I have discovered.
I was done with the unethical games and behavior that certain PhD cosmochemist and meteoritic academicians were using against me. I'm going to finish my meteoritic research project and make sure it's done right. I now knew what I had -- Mars meteorites, and I learned how to prove it also. As they say, if you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself. So be it.
*Glyn Howard, Physics and Earth Science
After working with PhD Planetary Cosmochemist and meteoriticist D, I finally decided to do the full identification and classification myself. No more unethical games.
Nothing like being mistreated, having to suffer being fed purposeful misinformation, and having to endure purposeful disinformation by several meteorite analysts and PhDs who were unethically acting as gatekeepers, to motivate me to learn to do the work myself. I knew what I had. But I had to learn to prove it completely.
As the old adage goes, "If you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself." I have the Earth Science background; I knew I could learn to do this. I was very motivated to learn to do this, since I also have a keen interest in meteoritics and I teach Physics and Earth Science. I already had my own binocular specimen microscope and used 2 professional quality large SLR camera polarizing filters at 90 degrees to view the thin-sections in between the filters in PLL and XPL prior to visiting PhD D, after the visit with PhD D, I then purchased my own optical polarizing mineralogy/ore microscope and got to work on my project intimately .
*(PhD Geologist, Oceanography/Earth/Space
Science professor E, she is the director of Education Alliance,
and a program scientist in addition. She is at the University
of ___________ _______ __________ ):
She is a Educator Colleague, confidant, good listener, giver of good advice, and a great educator of science educators in the Earth Sciences. She knows much of the story concerning my discovery. She gave me her personal contact from when she worked at the AMNH, in NY City, in the meteoritics department. The AMNH contact suggested I take my meteorite to the well known PhD Planetary Cosmochemist and meteoriticist D of whom I had already worked with. See the notes above regarding working with PhD Cosmochemist D, and that unfortunately didn't go as well as it should have.
AMNH -- Earth and Planetary Sciences
AMNH Meteorite Department
AMNH -- Arthor Ross Hall of Meteorites
Resources for Educators
PhD Geologist E always told me, "Glyn, well at least you can always write a book no matter what happens." Very true. But I'd prefer to see the project through all the way to completion, since it's "The Peoples' National Treasure." The people need to benefit directly from this incredibly exciting, unique, and record shattering Mars meteorite discovery. It will do "The People" a world of good, as well, provide the world-wide scientific community decades of Mars scientific research material. Many discoveries regarding Mars will result due to this U.S. World Record Mars Meteorite Discovery, in fact it has begun already.
*(PhD Geologist, private EMPA analyst,
and professional JEOL electron-microprobe instructor F):
He did great work as requested and paid for, identifying many mineral grains and taking images. His services are somewhat expensive, but worth the product he produces. He was reluctant to do the transect analysis across the very silvery lamellae that I asked him specifically to do at first, but finally he came through in the end. I asked him to specifically identify many grains of interest that I asked him to probe, he took images, took EMPA transects across Ni rich lamellae thinner than 1.0 micron in width, and took images of this work in addition.
Prior to this test it was my hypothesis that the bright silvery very narrow (less than one micron in width) lamellae would be rich in Nickel (Ni) due to what I was seeing through my optical mineralogy/ore microscope. I could see that they also stood up slightly against the background in 3D relief suggesting they were slightly harder in the Moh's hardness scale to account for this. At first, PhD EMPA analyst F, was very reluctant to do the transect that I wanted. He said he didn't think it was Nickel (Ni) and that I would be wasting time and money. He suggested it was Martinization in FeOs. I finally had to ask him directly to just do the test/science as I requested, and let's just see the results. Let's see. I'm paying for these tests anyway.
Sure enough the lamellae were at least 30% greater in Ni wt.% than the background Ni for all the very thin silvery lamellae just as I thought they would be -- Nickel enriched. The actual wt.% for Ni is actually more-than-likely greater, since the resolution of the EMPA testing tip volume is greater than one micron in diameter and over samples the test area as a result when it encounters very thin less than one micron lamellae. Geologist and EMPA analyst PhD H, first explained this to me, regarding the EMPA.
This is a very significant discovery. These thin Nickel (Ni) lamellae in FeO grains haven't been described before, that I'm aware of. I've searched. It is my theory that these thin Ni enriched lamellae are due to impact shock metamorphism in FeO grains that are also enriched with Nickel (Ni). It is a new impact shock metamorphism effect not described before. It isn't Widmanstatten pattern. It isn't Martinization as PhD EMPA analyst F suggested. I disagreed with him on this. This is something new, similar to "Epsilon Fe" found in Iron/Nickel meteorites when they are further subjected to additional impact shock metamorphism in a lab setting, they also show these very narrow microscopic (sub-micron) Ni rich lamellae, but in my case these are found in FeO grains. See the book: Shock Metamorphism of Natural Materials, edited by Bevan M. French and Nicholas M. Short, 1968.
This is a unique discovery. I will call it/name it "___________ -- _______ Pattern" in honor of my discovery and thin-section technician C, and his very fine craftsmanship and quality work which allowed me to make this very interesting discovery. Without his very high quality double hand polished meteorite thin-sections I wouldn't have made this discovery.
On one of the correspondence via email after the confirmation and discovery of the Ni enriched lamellae, PhD F had my return address on the letter-head/email as Langley, VA instead of my correct City, and State. Is it possible that PhD F sent off the results, (the results of the work that I had specifically requested him to do and then paid for), to NASA, in Langley, VA in addition to sending them to me? I would like to know the truth on this matter. I suspect that he did. He does do contract EMPA work for NASA. It could be an innocent mistake but considering he knew I knew it was a rare Achondrite meteorite, and I also knew that he knew it was too (but he wouldn't ever suggest that or admit to it) makes me highly suspicious. The meteoritics analysis world is rather small in number considering. Seems everyone knows everyone else to some degree. I suspect he notified contacts in NASA, Langley, VA, concerning the meteorite that I had discovered and that I asked him to do analysis work on. I'm sure he would consider doing something like this to keep NASA abreast of new meteorite discoveries.
I also know that he knows many of the other meteoriticist PhDs that I had been working with. He instructs and gives workshops for JEOL in the use of JEOL EMPA use. Again the meteoritics community is rather small. Everyone seems to know everyone else in this very narrow, highly specific niche field of study, that also just so happens to be incredibly exciting and interesting.
*Glyn Howard: After discovering the Ni enriched lamellae in the FeO grains using my own optical mineralogy/ore microscope, and having this discovery confirmed using EMPA by PhD F, I contacted Cosmochemist PhD D again to let him know what I had discovered. He offered to have another look at GSA and GSB. I said no thank you. I'm going to do the work myself as much as possible and determine the classification and the Parent Body of the meteorites. He had the chance to do the right thing the first time and he didn't. I'm going to finish the work honestly that needs to be done.
*(PhD Geologist and Professor G, from
the University of ______________ at _____________ ):
He's the best at what he does. I wanted him to do the one Oxygen stable isotope test on GSA and GSB. He offered to team-up. However, I wanted to finish the project on my own as much as was humanly possible and do what I could do on my own. He wanted me to share all my data. I wasn't willing to do so. I wanted him to only do the Laser Fluorination Oxygen isotope test for meteorite planetary body atmospheric test, which is a standard for identifying the Parent Body of achondrite meteorites. PhD G eventually decided he didn't want to work/team with me since I didn't want to share or give up my data.
As I requested, I wanted him to only do the one test that he is the best at and that he helped to develop. Why would I want to give away the credit for my full discovery when I've worked so hard for it?
I hope PhD Professor G will eventually reconsider
and be willing to do the test I would like him to do, and then
be given the full credit for that test due him and his team:
"Laser fluorination system for the high-precision analysis of three isotopes of oxygen (16O,17O,18O), especially useful for identification of different classes of meteorites."
*(PhD Geologist and EMPA lab analyst H, at the University of ______________ EMPA lab):
He provided great professional work using EMPA, along with his help, experience, and advice. PhD H sent me onto success when I came to him to verify PhD F's work, and it was verified, and to also identify more mineral grains of interest in GSA and GSB that I had. But more importantly, with PhD H's EMPA experience and help to accomplish the Parent Body test as described by the Papike research paper to distinguish achondrite meteorite PB of origin such as Earth, Moon, Mars, or asteroid 4 Vesta. With PhD H's advice, he informed me of another way to do the plagioclase, %Anorthite test, since we were running out of time to do the remaining EMPA PB tests on this particular visit. PhD H told me to do the Michael-Levy technique, and by the time I would return to do more EMPA work, I would already know the PB for GSA and GSB. PhD H was very professional, very helpful, and willing to share his experience and his advice. He was a pleasure to work with.
By the time I returned to do more EMPA work with PhD H, I knew the Parent Body (PB) was Mars for both GSA and GSB, having done thoroughly the Michael-Levy test on both GSA and GSB. I was incredibly satisfied and happy about the confirmation of the PB finally. I thanked PhD H, for suggesting the Michael-Levy technique for the Plagioclase, %Anorthite test to be used to determine the PB of the meteorites. His professional service, help, experience, and advice really sent me on my way to complete "The Project."
*(Geology PhD (I) departmental colleague of PhD Geologist H):
He told me about SGS Mineral Services in Canada (great advise) when I asked PhD Geologist (I) if their geology department would do the whole rock oxide tests on GSA and GSB which he does for the geology department there at the University. PhD Geologist (I) then offered the name of the very well known NA mining and research private analysis company that many university geology departments utilize to get these tests done and then receive the raw data results back in a very accurate, professional, and timely manner: SGS Mineral Services in Canada. They also keep all privately owned propriety data secure as they professionally should. Great advice from PhD (I) and I thank him for it. SGS is really a top notch private mining industry and research company. They have considerable research experience in meteoritics in addition. The whole rock oxide and trace mineral tests by ICP-MS for GSA and GSB and the raw data from these tests were provided in a very timely and professional manner. I will use their Geochemistry services from now on.
SGS Minerals Services
185 Concession St.
PO Box 4300
Lakefield, Ontario, K0L 2H0
t +1 705 652 2000
f +1 705 652 6365
e Email us
*PhD candidate in Cosmochemistry, graduate
student Jason Utas, UCLA
Jason Utas wrote personal private email peer review like responses (2) (also including personal ad hominem attacks) to my work regarding the analysis of GSA and GSB, having learned of my discovery and study via the world-wide meteorite community's well known "Meteorite List" and a link to my website. This private email was sent to me and a few other members on The Meteorite List. This has since become a very public issue, but then not of my doing. Therefore, I have a full response/rebuttal at this page ... (Coming soon, please be patient. I'm not ignoring you Jason. I will be responding to each of your criticisms directly. Yes, I didn't finish by the date I wanted to be done by. Life is busy. When I do fully respond there will not be any ad hominem personal attacks. I try to live by Yeshua's Golden Rule: "Treat others as you want to be treated.")
The World Famous "Meteorite List" Archive posts and discussions regarding -- the U.S. WRMMD
(Caution: one must wear fire proof asbestos underwear when reading these posts and have a strong back-bone) (to be published Rosh Hashanah 2016, 5777AD/CE)
Most of the people I worked with were very good, very ethical, very honest people, and as well very good scientists/science researchers. However, there were those few who crossed the ethical line in science that should never be crossed, and falsified their results purposefully, or threw-out purposeful misinformation, or disinformation, and/or acted as gatekeepers. This is dishonest, unethical, and wrong. I persevered to overcome these obsticals regardless. Many people would have probably given up. I think this is what they were hoping that I would do. I'm sure they were counting on it.
My advice -- just do science. Be happy for discoverers who make incredible discoveries (or not so incredible and even small discoveries). Be happy for the original discoverers and don't be jealous or show or experience professionally envy or otherwise. Be a better person. Be a better scientist.
In a way, I'm glad it happened this way. It motivated me to learn how to do it all and I'm better off as a result. My interest and love of meteoritics has grown immensely due to this experience. All has resulted in the education of a meteoriticist ...
"Contrary to their public image,
scientists are normal, flawed human beings. They are as capable
of prejudice, covetousness, pride, deceitfulness, etc., as anyone."
-- David Weatherall, "Conduct Unbecoming," American Scientist (Vol.93, January-February 2005), p.73
What was meant for evil against me by people with wrong motives, G-d in his infinite wisdom has turned around and has used for good ...
Genesis 50:20 (KJV 2000)
"But as for you, you thought evil against me; but G-d meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save many people alive."
Romans 8:28 (KJV 2000)
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love G-d, to them who are the called according to his purpose."
Remember the 10th Commandment:
Exodus 20:17 (KJV 2000)
"You shall not covet your neighbor's ... , nor any thing that is your neighbor's."