[meteorite-list] When is a fall...?

From: Dark Matter <freequarks_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:12:14 -0600
Message-ID: <822da19a0904251512g3f8b9c45jeb853591139ab703_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I considered this question from the other side once. Back in March of
2005, my Accretion Desk Column in the Meteorite Times was titled "
Find2Fall: When a Meteorite Find Becomes a Meteorite Fall.

It seem that there remains just a hint of a chance that in many falls,
the recovered specimen might not be from the witnessed fall. Unlikely,
but not non-zero especially since many stones are recovered days or
even weeks later.

Certainly it seem improbable that the phenomena of a fall would occur
over the location of another recent fall but it could happen.

But back to my point. In my article I highlight some examples where
for various reasons, it seemed funny to me to continue considering the
meteorite a find just because no witness came forward and reported the
fall.

Anyway, here's the link to the article.

http://www.meteorite-times.com/Back_Links/2005/March/Accretion_Desk.htm

Best,

Martin



On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Galactic Stone & Ironworks
<meteoritemike at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good question Mark.
>
> It may be splitting hairs, but there is a distinction that can be
> drawn here between a "fall" and a "witnessed fall" - one is usually
> considered synonymous with the other, but in my mind a "witnessed
> fall" implies a human observer witnessed part of the fall - either the
> bolide or the impact or both.
>
> Meteors/meteorites that are imaged with satellites or captured with
> radar should be considered "falls", but I wouldn't apply the term
> "witnessed fall" to them. ?As a collector, I am being arbitrary, but I
> draw a distinction between falls witnessed by human eyes and falls
> imaged or tracked by technology alone.
>
> Ideally, a fall should be seen by human observers and radar or
> satellite - like Tagish Lake.
>
> Best regards,
>
> MikeG
>
>
>
>
> On 4/25/09, Mark Crawford <mark at meteorites.cc> wrote:
>> I read a definition of a fall as being where the meteor is 'usually seen
>> as a fireball' before it lands and is recovered. Obviously, I thought,
>> it needs to be seen burning up - that's the very definition of a fall.
>>
>> I then considered that the definition would strictly be 'observed' to
>> fall. One could imagine a scenario where an object may not be witnessed
>> by the human eye, but which were otherwise recorded. *Pribram and
>> *Innisfree were recorded photographically; Pribram and (I think)
>> Innisfree were also witnessed by eye, but if they hadn't been I'd still
>> call them falls.
>>
>> Then I wondered about 2008 TC3. It was observed and projected to impact
>> earth, the landing area was calculated. Material was recovered. Now if
>> the KLM pilot hadn't seen the fireball, and if the putative Meteosat
>> image (*http://tinyurl.com/d4sna5) *hadn't appeared - would this still
>> be classed as a fall?
>>
>> When is a fall not a fall? :)
>>
>> Mark
>> **
>>
>> --
>> Mark's Meteorite Pages: http://meteorites.cc
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>
>
> --
> .........................................................
> Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA)
> Member of the Meteoritical Society.
> Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network.
> Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and http://www.glassthrower.com
> ..........................................................
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Sat 25 Apr 2009 06:12:14 PM PDT