March 17, 2009 16:47
To: complaints@imca.cc
Subject: IMCA Complaints
Your Name: Robert Ryder
Are you IMCA member?: no
Message: Good morning, I sell my Lynx Wash IIE Iron Meteorites (ungrouped
silicated) on ebay, by ryderdude760. There are three of your members who
claim to be experts in the classification of meteorites. All have accused
me of fraud. I request that you respond to this email so I can forward
their actions of harassment to you.
Thank you,
Bob Ryder |
March 17, 2009 19:14
To: Robert Ryder
Re: IMCA Complaints
Dear Robert Ryder,
Thanks for contacting us, and feel free to forward the postings that you
feel are a harassment by one (or several) of our members. We will look into
that, and keep you informed.
However, having just looked at your auctions I have some questions, too: Who
classified your alleged iron meteorite, and who determined that it is a IIE
group iron? Only a few authorized labs in the world can do this, and so your
auctions do indeed look doubtful, especially since "Lynx Wash" is no
approved meteorite name, and no such meteorite has been submitted for
approval to the Meteoritical Society to the best of my knowledge. It is not
published in the Meteoritical Bulletin, and this sure makes your auctions
look a bit suspicious. Besides that, you say that is "ungrouped silicated",
something that excludes itself if you say at the same time that it's a IIE
group iron. Can you explain that obvious contradiction?
One last question:
you say that the elemental composition for your finds has
been analyzed.
Could you please furnish me with information on the exact
Nickel content of your alleged meteorite? This would surely help.
All the best,
Norbert Classen
President IMCA Inc.
|
March 19, 2009 21:28
To: Norbert Classen
Re: IMCA Complaints
Dear Norbert Classen
Last night I emailed the IMCA Members that had issues with my Lynx Irons,
that I was in communication with you. Only one was a netative response, I
will forward them later. This message is to inform you the basic
foundation that I stand on. Following are quotes that guide me though life.
Weldon T. Moore, author of the "Genesis Of The Elements" father of the old
miner friend of mine. He said many problems exist today because they have
been created by the inventions of the minds of men, and not by the simple
hand of creation.
Thomas Jefferson placed great emphasis of the concept of Rights. He said we
did not bring the English Common Law, as such, to this Continent, we brought
the Rights of Man as evidenced through and by the tried and true ancient
system of Common Law.
Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia, 1928. It took one thousand years, to the
1300's, for lawyers, churches and governments working together to invent
corporations. This shows how little intelligence these persons have, taking
that long to invent something artificial. These same persons are the ones
who invented the statute laws that discriminate against women and the races,
and not the Common Law. When the People find out that they have been
hood-winked into believeing in corporate gods, lords and judges; all hell
will break loose.
In the 1600's English judges determined that common law came from the bible.
July 4th 1985 was the last Catholic Mass I attended. Rev. Kubiak said in
his sermon that we shouldn't put much emphasis on the bible because it was
written by man for man.
Pamela and Will Gaston said about corporate government; do not listen to
what they say, watch what they do.
I have put-off listing any more Lynx Irons until we can come to a better
understanding between us. I am an actual one of We The People and hope you
are addressing me as such. I am a simple man who lives a simple life-style
and wishes no one any harm.
Sincerely,
Bob |
March 19, 2009
To: Robert Ryder
Re: IMCA Complaints
Dear Robert Ryder,
Thanks for your follow up email, and your background information. Just let
me inform you about one of the basic principles that I stand on:
extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; and for this simple reason
meteorites need to be analyzed, and confirmed by qualified laboratories who
are familiar with the scientific background to do so. You said in your eBay
autions that the elemental compositions of your finds have been determined
in a laboratory, and I asked a simple question about that: what's the Nickel
content (in percent) of your finds? This will easily help us to find out if
your finds are possibly meteoritic or not. That's why I have been asking.
You would be surprised how many people think they have found a meteorite,
and are very disappointed later when they find out that this is not the
truth. So it's good that you suspended your sales for now as it is important
to properly study your finds prior to selling them as meteorites of a
certain class (IIE iron meteorites, or ungrouped iron meteorites).
I hope you understand my concerns. They are actually not directed against
you, but all in your favour as you might be liable for selling something for
what it's not as long as your specimens have not been definitely confirmed
to be of meteoritic origin, and accepted and published by the Meteoritical
Society.
All the best,
Norbert Classen |
March 20, 2009 03:54
To: Norbert Classen
Re: Ni, Co content
Good evening, Fe 46.9% Ni .0011% Co .00043% from a total of 13 different
fall rocks from 13 different areas of the fall.
I have a fourth analysis of what I believe are stoney-irons, Fe 5.22% Ni
.0064%. I have kept these separate from the others fore they were found
outside the area of the Lynx Irons. These are also high in Ti, Al, Mg, Ca
and have more then 50 elements.
I have no way of emailling the documents I have.. It's a 25 mile trip to
Palo Verde, 7 miles of unpaved desert roads, so only mail on Wednesday's.
I look forward to your response. Thanks, Bob |
March 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Re: Ni, Co content
Dear Robert Ryder,
The Ni values quoted for "Lynx Wash" pretty much exclude a meteoritic origin
for your samples, sorry. The lowest known nickel values for iron meteorites
range around 3.00% Ni, and even if we would assume that these are bulk
values ignoring the silicated portion of your find (which could be virtually
free of Ni) we would arrive at a nickel content of maximally 0.0024% Ni for
the iron portion of "Lynx Wash", a value that is totally out of range for
any known meteorite but very well consistent with terrestrial iron,
haematite, or industrial slags. Being off by a factor of 1000, the measured
Ni values clearly indicate that "Lynx Wash" is no iron meteorite, and so
it's good that you suspended all your sales. I would also suggest that you
contact your previous buyers, refund them, and get your specimens back.
Unless this is done they could unwittingly resell this material as
meteorites - something that is actually not the case.
Sorry that I have no better news for you, but the analysis clearly shows
that your samples are no meteorites but of terrestrial origin.
Kind regards,
Norbert Classen
President IMCA Inc. |
March 23, 2009 22:48
To: Norbert Classen
Subject: Fw: Your eBay listing is confirmed: Lynx Wash Carbon Silicate Iron Meteorites 47oz "NEW"!!!
Dear Norbert,
you will find my response to the correspondence I recently recieved from you and some of your members in my new listing attached below. Sincerely, Bob
Lynx Wash Carbon Silicate Iron Meteorites 47oz "NEW"!!!
Lynx Wash Carbon Silicate Iron Meteorites 47oz "NEW"!!!
(Quote from auction)
"...Recent correspondence sent to me by Norbert Classen, President of the
fictitious corporation known as the IMCA Inc. and some of his members,
tends to suggest a mutual admiration society! To them I say:
Of the billions of meteorites that bombard our planet daily;
do you folks really believe that all of them must be identical in composition?
This assumption that iron meteorites must assay with certain elements
in order to be 'genuine' is not supported by chronologic studies of primordial
radioisotopes. To assume that there can only be one type of iron/silicate meteorite
formation is unfounded. No human on earth can definitely state that he/she knows,
for a fact, exactly which one of the billions of heavenly bodies lost
the errant rock known as a 'genuine' meteorite! One must remember:
All of the planets and stars (suns), in the universe are constructed
of the same elements that are found on earth! This fact has been proven
by Spectrographic analysis many times over by qualified Astronomical experts
world-wide. In this case, the burden of proof that my meteorites are not
genuine rest with the accuser(s)..."
|
March 23, 2009 6:25 PM
Re: Your eBay listing is confirmed: Lynx Wash Carbon Silicate Iron Meteorites 47oz "NEW"!!!
Dear Robert Ryder,
We are no "fictitious corporation", as you will soon find out. We are a corporation
registered with the State of Nevada, and we take such things seriously.
As for your "answer", you are wrong, again. There are - of course - several
types of iron meteorites, and they all contain certain percentages of Ni.
Nickel is a so called siderophile element, i.e. it is a "iron loving"
element that tends to go wherever the iron goes. To arrive at a iron
composition with such low nickel values as in the case of your "Lynx Wash"
samples you need a large planet such as Earth to create it.
During the accretion of our own planet most of the nickel went with
the iron to form a iron core, and the iron that is left in Earth crust
became more and more Ni-poor after billions of year of igneous processing.
This is planetary science, not an opinion formed by a few hobbyists.
If you are interested, I can quote you a few scientific books which you
should read prior to making assesments that are obviously based on wishful
thinking, and not on hard facts. The only thing that is "fictitious" here
is your claim that your samples are meteorites. It will be simple to prove
that, scientifically, and some of the samples that you have sold are already
on their way to a qualified laboratory for independent testing. It will
be our pleasure to publish these results as soon as we have them, for
everyone to read.
Regards,
Norbert Classen |
March 25, 2009 02:30
To: Norbert Classen
Subject: Fw:You've received a question about your eBay item, Lynx Wash Carbon Silicate Iron Meteorites 47oz "NEW"!!!
Dear Norbert,
Here is a sample of the emails from your one of your members. The burdon of proof is on you Norbert, I will save all these emails and post them in my future listings. They will make good reading for all ebayers. Thanks, Bob
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: eBay Member: paseclipse
To: ryderdude@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 3:09:22 PM
Subject: You've received a question about your eBay item, Lynx Wash Carbon Silicate Iron Meteorites 47oz "NEW"!!!
eBay eBay sent this message to Robert Ryder (ryderdude760)...
Dear ryderdude760,
AND YOU CONTINUE TO RIP PEOPLE OFF! YOUR JUST A F****** THIEF! SOONER OR LATER THIS WILL ALL CATCH UP WITH YOU!
- paseclipse |
Mar 25, 2009 at 8:20 AM
To: Robert Ryder
Re: You've received a question about your eBay item, Lynx Wash Carbon Silicate Iron Meteorites 47oz "NEW"!!!
Dear Robert Ryder,
Thanks for forwarding this to me. However, it doesn't seem that eBay user "paseclipse" is an IMCA member. We have no Del from California... Seems that you are also making friends elsewhere.
As for the "burdon of proof" - you are wrong, again, it's upon you as you are the one who is selling this alleged "meteorite". I'm just saying that it's very clear from the data you provided that this can't be an iron meteorite as it's Ni values aren't consistent with this claim. We even contacted Reed Laboratories (one of the labs that tested your "Lynx Wash" on your behalf), and they confirmed that your samples are not meteorites. They said that they will try to stop you from using their test results as long as you use them to hold up fraudulent claims. Interesting, isn't it? So what is your proof that you have a meteorite there if even your own labs are telling the opposite? It would be kind of you if you could enlighten me on this. If you have no proof, and if the data suggest that your claims are false how can you keep advertising and selling your "Lynx Wash" samples as meteorites?
On the other hand, we are in the process of having a sample of "Lynx Wash" tested that you sold to one of our members. I'm actually not holding my breath, but it will sure provide us with the necessary data to prove that you are selling terrestrial rocks or slags as meteorites.
As for "good reading", we will also take the liberty to post all your conversations with me. I hope you don't mind, especially after you took the liberty to mention my name and our conversations in an eBay auction. I guess it's my right to clarify what you are talking about, and to enlighten the public about the background of our dispute...
Thank you,
Norbert Classen
President IMCA Inc |
March 25, 2009 at 9:15 AM
To: Robert Ryder
Subject: Copyright Infringement
Dear Robert Ryder,
It just came to my attention that the Miles picture you are using in your "Lynx Wash" auctions is protected by Copyright and used without permission. It's actually copyrighted to our member Luc Labenne, and was obviously taken from his website meteorites.tv without permission (see picture in the attachment). The copyright holder Luc Labenne just empowered us to take legal steps against you and this obvious copyright infringement, and we will certainly do so if you don't remove that picture from your auction within the next 24 hours. Of course, we will also contact eBay in this regard if you fail to remove that picture in due time.
All the best,
Norbert Classen
President IMCA Inc.
 |
March 25, 2009 17:18
To: Norbert Classen
Re: Copyright Infringement
Dear Norbert,
I removed the Miles picture from my Lynx Wash Irons, thanks for the notice. I have an analysis of eleven silicated iron meteorites from different parts of the world, that I downloaded from the Internet. Nickel was not detected in ten of them, including the three Miles silicated iron meteorites tested. Thanks for pointing out that ebayer "paseclipse" is not one of your members.
Thanks, Bob |
Mar 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM
To: Robert Ryder
Re: Copyright Infringement
Dear Robert Ryder,
Thanks for removing the picture so swiftly - very much appreciated. And thanks for recognizing that "paseclipse" is no IMCA member. As I said before, we take this very seriously, and I hope that our members do not approach you in such an unprofessional way.
As for the silicated meteorites you are talking about: the fact that Nickel might not be listed in some studies doesn't mean that it hasn't been detected. It's sometimes not mentioned as it is so abundant in iron meteorites. Take Miles, for example - according to the Meteoritical Bulletin Database Miles has a Nickel content of 7.96%, i.e. more than 3000 times more than what has been detected in your "Lynx Wash" samples. Please have a look at the Meteoritical Bulletin Database entry for Miles to see that I'm not making up these things:
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php?code=16641
What other silicated iron meteorites do you have in mind? It will be my pleasure to look up the data for you to show that you are wrong (or unexperienced in this regard). I repeat: the simple fact that Ni isn't listed for iron meteorites in some studies is due to the fact that it's so abundant (as is Fe - iron - that is also often omitted in these studies), and it doesn't mean that it hasn't been detected. Quite the opposite is true - most silicated iron meteorites are relatively Ni-rich with at least 3% Ni or much more (as I already told you).
So go ahead: show me the other "cases", and I will show you the studies where the Nickel content is listed. Or go ahead and type the name of the respective silicated iron meteorite into the "Search" field of the Meteoritical Bulletin Database, and see for yourself. In most cases the Ni cotent will be listed as e.g. for the silicated iron meteorite Zagora with a Ni content of 9.8%:
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php?code=30387
If you don't find the Ni content listed there it will be my pleasure to look it up for you in the original studies of the respective meteorites. No big deal to prove that you just misunderstood the studies which you downloaded from the Internet...
Let me repeat: there are no iron meteorites or silicated iron meteorites with Ni as low as in "Lynx Wash" - all values determined for "Lynx Wash" show it to be of terrestrial origin, and that's what Reed Laboratories (one lab that tested "Lynx Wash" on your behalf) did also confirm. So let me ask once more: why do you still think "Lynx Wash" could be a meteorite? Is there anything that could support this claim?
All the best,
Norbert Classen
President IMCA Inc. |
----- Forwarded Message to Norbert Classen----
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:12:07 PM
Subject: You've received an answer to your question about item Lynx Wash Carbon Silicate Iron Meteorites 57oz "NEW"
Dear star_wars_coiiector,
Good afternoon, did you ever hear of a Common Law Criminal Tort Claim? They are easy to file. All I have to do is file one in a county recorder's office of my choice. Have a nice day.
- ryderdude760 |
March 26, 2009 7:07 PM
To: Robert Ryder
Re: You've received an answer to your question about item Lynx Wash Carbon Silicate Iron Meteorites 57oz "NEW"
Dear Robert Ryder,
Are you talking to me? If so, I have no idea of what you are trying to say... If your email is in response to an eBay member it would sure help to see his original message to you. Without that I fear that you are only wasting your and my time.
BTW, I'm still waiting to hear an explanation from you for why Reed Laboratories state that your samples are not meteoritic while you are distributing their analysis papers to support your erroneous claims at the same time. This sure creates the impression of a willfull misrepresentation of facts. You always seem to be fast when it comes to answering questions that fit your scheme, but you always seem to keep suspiciously silent when it comes to answering the most basic questions. Inquiring minds want to know...
All the best,
Norbert Classen |
|