[meteorite-list] Fight Over Meteorite Crashes Into Court

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:41:32 +0200
Message-ID: <003f01cb2a75$252f53f0$6502a8c0_at_name86d88d87e2>

>Very interesting

...but also very silly.


Btw. I can't understand that meteorites are set under laws for artifacts or
are referred to as "artifact".

Latin "ars,-tis" means technique, the art, skill

And "factum" means "made".

An artifact is - sorry for the tautology, but it's the same word -

an artificially made object. A man-made object.


I would feel somewhat unwell, to be sentenced by a judge, treated by a
doctor, administered by a clerk,

who doesn't even know such simple things.

And the publications of a scientist or curator, who pleads for meteorites
being artifacts or falling under the laws of artifacts,
well - I wouldn't read them, if he or her in our modern times isn't aware,
where meteorites stem from and if he or her thinks, they must be artificial.
I would think that person would be an ufologist or a mystic.

....same with meteorites being "antiques".

Ouch
Martin


----- Original Message -----
From: <meteorhntr at aol.com>
To: "Thunder Stone" <stanleygregr at hotmail.com>;
<meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com>;
<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Fight Over Meteorite Crashes Into Court


List,

If declared by the judge as so, would this mean meteorites found on top of
the ground, and not imbeded into the ground on federal lands would now not
belong to landowner (U.S. Govt)?

I wonder what the Smithsonian's stance is on this issue will be when their
representatives are called if the case goes to court?

Very interesting.

Steve Arnold
of Meteorite Men
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Received on Fri 23 Jul 2010 10:41:32 AM PDT