• Tibet Contradictions and Omissions

    by
    YourGemologist
    Published on 02-15-2012 07:13 AM  Number of Views: 109871  
    0 Comments Comments
    a publication of the World Gem Society.....15.February.2012...........

    Tibet Contradictions and Omissions

    The Tucson meeting on Tibet andesine just added to the weight of the hoax

    Now that we are back in the ISG/WGS office we have been able to perform more accurate testing and evaluation of the claimed Tibet and Inner Mongolian andesine specimens provided to us in the Wednesday morning discussion panel at the Tucson Gem Show. The results speak to the pure desperation on the part of those trying to keep this hoax alive, to the point that they are now totally making serious errors in their claims, omitting very important evidence, and contradicting themselves to the point of virtual frivolity.

    Contradictions
    "Tibetans believe its wrong to dig in the earth for minerals".

    We will review one of the most profound contradictions that surfaced in this discussion panel when Richard W. Hughes was dealing with the question so many have raised about the images of the Tibet mines he produced. The question concerns why he shows images of the Tibet andesine mines with no holes dug as seen at left of Tibet mine owner Li Tong and Brendan Laurs of the GIA. Mr. Hughes explanation was: "Tibetans believe its wrong to dig in the earth for minerals".

    Of course the problem is that two of the Wednesday morning panel members had already published expedition photographs showing what was reported to be Tibetan miners digging in the earth for andesine. Clearly these folks need to get their stories straight before making these kinds of statements. Below left is an image from the first reported expedition to the Tibet andesine mine, below center and right are images from the second expedition to the same mine by Abduriyim. For that matter, even the first two expedition reports contradicted each other.
    "The Inner Mongolian samples.....were inert to both long- wave and short- wave UV radiation,..." Dr. Abduriyim, GIA Gems and Gemology, Winter 2008
    At left you see a specimen of what was presented to us as Inner Mongolian andesine from Dr. Abduriyim and his team at the Tucson meeting. As you will note above, Dr. Abduriyim in the GIA published articles claimed the Inner Mongolian andesine to be inert to UV. Below is this specimen taken in ambient light, long wave UV and short wave UV. Obviously Dr. Abduriyim has contradicted himself either with an incorrect report published by the GIA, or else this specimen is not actually from Inner Mongolia as claimed by Dr. Abduriyim at Tucson. The faint red fluorescence to short wave UV is textbook for Mexican feldspar. Please note that we have several of these from the Wednesday meeting and all show this same reaction to short wave UV in direct contradiction to the Abduriyim/GIA report, or else in contradiction to the claim by the Wednesday morning group at Tucson.
    "Inner Mongolia (China) Guyang County Deposit"
    Speaking of contradictions, all of the Inner Mongolian andesine is reported to be from the same deposit as shown in the image above: "Inner Mongolia (China) Guyang County Deposit". For those of you who are familiar at dealing with rough, look at the images below of two of these specimens and ask yourself if they appear to have come from the same deposit. A smooth water worn pebble and a sharp edged crystal? The very specimens contradict each other as being from the same deposit, and yet these two were among the specimens reported to be from the same Inner Mongolian deposit by Abduriyim and Hughes.
    Omissions
    While there is a lot of research ongoing from various groups on this subject, the one area that we have found most remarkable is the omission of facts regarding the surface features of the claimed natural Tibet andesine by the Abduriyim/Hughes/Rossman group. To date we have over 50 rough specimens claimed to be natural Tibet andesine from the various expeditions. These include sources from King Star, Litto Gems and now Abduriyim. All have failed to report the feature you see at left which we have found on all of the rough stones. By XRF and SEM testing we know what this bright fluorescent material is on the surface of these rough stones, and can tell you that in no published report by GIA or anyone else has mention by made of this feature. Below you see a photo set from our report of 2010 where we documented this material and provided photographic evidence. To date, none of the group from the Tucson discussion panel has reported on this. We have a more complete report of our evaluation of the surface of this rough material coming out in a future edition that will provide prima facie evidence that these specimens have been subjected to treatment. And please remember, these are now based on actual specimens provided by Hughes and Abduriyim.
    Finally we note an optical anomaly that raises a serious question regarding the natural origin of the color of this claimed Tibet andesine crystal. This is one of the specimens from the Abduriyim team that claims to be natural and untreated Tibet andesine. But if you look at the image at left you will notice that the color follows the line of the surface contour of the water worn pebble, not the expected color pattern of a naturally colored gemstone. This stone gives the appearance that the color was induced after the crystal was a water worn pebble, as the color follows the shape and pattern of the water worn surface. Not quite a scientific test, but for those of us in the gemstone business for 30 or 40 years this is certainly not an expected color pattern for a natural gemstone. And what caused that mechanical looking damage to the surface of this stone. We previously reported on finding this exact same pattern on the claimed Tibet andesine and the Inner Mongolian andesine. How could this same damage pattern be on supposedly natural, untreated gemstones found 2000 miles apart?

    This is just a general overview of some contradictions and omissions that continue to plague the Tibet andesine group. Contradictions of their own stories, contradictions of their own science, and omissions of important features may well serve to pull the plug on this thing when it is fully exposed.

    We understand the Jewelers Ethics Association has an important research report coming out later this week. When it does we will send out a link. Next week we will present our advanced testing that will investigate further these surface features. We believe these actually contain the smoking gun that will derail this whole Tibet andesine myth.....once and for all.....again.

    For about the 3rd or 4th time now...we are losing count.

    Robert James
    World Gem Society

     
     
    1. Categories:
    2. Gem Study