[meteorite-list] Fwd: Fw: Re: Bassikounou OCTOBER 16th

From: info at niger-meteorite-recon.de <info_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:33:52 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1061511110.75877.1255343633020.JavaMail.open-xchange_at_oxltgw14.schlund.de>

Mexicodoug wrote:

> Also the clear error that it states that
> the measurements were taken in December - January 2006 should be updated to
> January 2007, if in fact that is the date. It would seem they received that
> typo from Svend whose website says the same=2 0thing at the moment, on page
> 5 of his superb article when discussing the support between the two
> different fall dates (4 days apart):
?
This is not the case. In my report I simply quoted the information received
through the classifying institute. Of course the lab submitted their data
directly to the editors in charge and not through me. So concerning this point
the Bulletin and my report share the same sources but do not depend on each
other.As you?may see,?the passage in question was set in quotation marks in my
article because I quoted the author's words. I also named the author to make it
clear that I am not the originator of the dates given for the measurements.
? The text says "December-January 2006" and I totally agree with you it should
better read "December-January 2006[-2007]", however, "December 2006" for the
time of the radionuclide measurements makes perfect sense to me.
?
As far as the fall date is concerned, that indeed is a tricky question. This is
what I can contribute:
?
For the very first find of Bassikounou that became public, the 3 kg El Moichine
mass, October 12 was reported by the owner of that mass. However this particular
meteorite had already changed hands several times and so?had the information
assigned to it. To my knowledge this particular date, October 12, was then
forwarded to the classifying institute together with the classification sample
by the owner of that mass. A process I was not involved in.
?
When?Matthias and I started our research we had not much more to rely on but
this date and the information from the owner of the first mass. It was not even
known by that time that Bassikounou was a multiple fall. That is why we used the
October 12 date in the early correspondence on the fall too. However in the
course of our work it turned out that most eye witnesses as well as the local
media reports?gave of October 16 as the fall date. Accordingly we corrected the
date in our papers and subsequently in the online version of our report. We also
forwarded these findings together with the article in Horizons to the
researchers in charge.
?
Public and private research has chronologically overlapped in the case of the
publication of the Bassikounou fall in the Meteoritical Bulletin. Thus it is
regrettable and at the same time totally comprehensible that a variation occurs.
I am convinced that the issue will be thorroughly cleared by the author's of the
submission text once they are noticed of the discrepancy by the editor in
charge.
?
Contrary to any peer- and committee-reviewed system a private online editor has
the invaluable vantage that he is able to react quite promptly to emerging new
facts. Besides my own website describes just a hand full of falls which makes it
quite easy to keep track of new evidence. And because I am just a one man show
not even all of the corrections kindly forwarded to me make it online in time.
The Meteoritical Bulletin data base however deals with ten thousand entries
which are constantly reviewed under very high standard. An incredible ammount of
time and effort is put into?it by the editors to maintain these
standards.?The?Bulletin's data base has achieved a quality that is hardly
matched by any other public access databases in comparable fields. One has to
admit this before pointing to "obvious" errors.
?
Best regards
?
Svend
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Received on Mon 12 Oct 2009 06:33:52 AM PDT