[meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question (hopefully)

From: Bob Loeffler <*bobl_at_meteoritecentral.com*> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:40:44 -0600 Message-ID: <CCF73E2939004DF6ADB6143D7A798A40_at_dell> · bobl_at_meteoritecentral.com

----
Michael, All, 
You're just getting hung up in the terminology. A collector who 
collects meteorites that have hit man-made objects is fine by me. But 
when people start going around using the word "hammer" to describe 
such stones - and people are taking the liberty of using terms like 
"hammer-fall stones" to sell stones that haven't hit anything other 
than the ground...you're just asking for trouble. 
All I'm saying is that the word itself is unnecessary. It takes a 
detail about a meteorite and generalizes it - if the stone hit a 
building, it's a hammer, if it hit a road, it....may be a hammer, if 
it hit a car, it's a hammer. 
It's not like we're streamlining things by applying this one term - 
we're just losing information, and while you say the term "hammer" is 
well-defined, I would like to point out the debate on-list about the 
'hammer status' of a meteorite that hits a dirt road or a 
plowed/cleared field. After all, a dirt road is about as much of a 
man-made structure as a leveled and cleared field. Same goes for a 
dirt dam. 
So a "hammer" is a meteorite that has fallen on anything that isn't 
virgin land? I mean...things seems to be a little vague right now. 
Your definition: 
"Hammer:" any individual which is part of a hammer fall in which 
one or more of the individuals struck an artifact, animal or human. 
Define a "human artifact." Would a road or plowed field be included 
in your definition? Or does it have to be a smaller sort of tangible 
object that's been altered by humanity in some way? What if a 
meteorite hits something like a rose bush in my yard, here in LA. 
That rose bush wouldn't be here if it weren't for people, and if its 
remains were excavated from the archaeologic remains of my house in 
several thousand years, it would be treated as an artifact, 
because...it is one. That rose is the product of hundreds of years of 
selective breeding, and wouldn't exist in this climate if it weren't 
for my grandmother, who planted it, and us, who water it. 
Or how about the meteorite that hits a plowed field? Again, you're 
looking at a piece of land that has been substantially altered by the 
hand of man - it has been leveled, cleared, and fertilized for decades 
in all likelihood. That piece of land has undergone more alteration 
than the dirt berm upon which an Ash Creek stone was found - that was 
just a bunch of dirt piled into a hill. 
Or how about a dirt road - that's just a strip of land that's been 
scraped over by a bulldozer. Much less altered than a plowed field. 
Again, when you start using generic terms to describe things, you lose 
specificity. When I say that people shouldn't collect "hammers," I'm 
not critiquing your collection of meteorites that have hit man-made 
things. 
I'm criticizing your use of a term that takes the *individual* history 
of each stone and makes it "a hammer." 
Chiang Kahn no longer hit a boat - it's a "hammer." 
Sylacouga no longer clipped Mrs. Hodges - it's a "hammer." 
And Peekskill didn't hit a car - it's a "hammer." 
Now do you see what I'm saying? There's no reason to start calling 
things "hammer" and try to define a new term that is subjective, no 
matter how much you say it's not. 
Such practices can be useful - when I see a meteorite, it wouldn't 
help me for someone to say that, for example, 
NWA 004 is a meteorite with Fayalite (mol%): 22.2 and Ferrosilite 
(mol%): 18.6 (12.6-20.5). 
I can read that, but what means more to me is that because of that 
information, it is classified as an L4. 
L4 is what means something to me - not the Fa/Fs numbers. Maybe they 
will in a few years, but not right now. 
So when I see you making up a new term to describe something that is 
already very easily described and doesn't need clarification...I guess 
you're free to do it, but...I don't understand why you're not just 
saying "this is a stone that hit a building." 
Because that seems clear enough. 
Just say "it hit a boat." Or say "this one was found on the ground, 
but another stone from this fall hit a building." 
We'll know what that means. 
And yes, Michael, there are dealers going around selling things like 
Park Forest who are saying that their pieces are from a "hammer-fall" 
and that the pieces that they're selling could have hit a man-made 
object. Without any sort of verification, I would say that making 
such claims is nothing but a cheap marketing ploy. 
If you don't know where the stone that you're selling fell, don't say 
that it might have hit something man-made when most stones hit nothing 
but dirt. 
Or are you going to sell every Junacheng you get as "maybe the stone 
that fell in the woman's cooking-pot?" 
Because, if so...it's just a marketing ploy. 
And Shawn, you missed my point entirely. I hope this message 
clarifies things. 
Regards, 
Jason 
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2917 - Release Date: 06/17/10
00:35:00