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

From: Thomas Webb <webbth1_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <254001.61172.qm_at_web36203.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Mon, 10/12/09, Thomas Webb <webbth1 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Thomas Webb <webbth1 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Fwd: Fw: Re: Bassikounou OCTOBER 16th
> To: "info at niger-meteorite-recon.de" <info at niger-meteorite-recon.de>
> Date: Monday, October 12, 2009, 9:25 AM
> Svend and List,
> So to my original question of which date is correct for the
> fall, we still do not have a definitive answer.
> Does anyone else want to offer any information?
> Thanks,
> Thomas H. Webb
>
> --- On Mon, 10/12/09, info at niger-meteorite-recon.de
> <info at niger-meteorite-recon.de>
> wrote:
>
> > From: info at niger-meteorite-recon.de
> <info at niger-meteorite-recon.de>
> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Fwd:? Fw: Re:?
> Bassikounou OCTOBER 16th
> > To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > Date: Monday, October 12, 2009, 6:33 AM
> >
> > 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
> > ?
> > ?
> > ?
> > ?
> > ?
> > ?
> > ?
> > ______________________________________________
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
>
>
>


      
Received on Mon 12 Oct 2009 09:26:44 AM PDT