[meteorite-list] 5 reasons to record meteorite coordinates

From: Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:43:37 -0800
Message-ID: <7C640E28081AEE4B952F008D1E913F1702E840E3_at_0461-its-exmb04.us.saic.com>

Carl added:

> In my opinion the need for this info is outweighed by the
> harm it causes.

I fail to see any harm whatsoever in recording the coordinates of
a meteorite find location.

Regarding point use #1 (photographic provenance), you countered with:

"NOT A SCIENTIFIC NEED BUT IS I AGREE EQUALLY AS USEFUL AS A STICKY
LABEL."

The sticky label is useless if it becomes separated from the meteorite,
and offers no proof of the stone's original find location. The easiest
way to have traceability of a stone to its find locality is an in situ
image with a GPS unit displaying the coordinates. And before you say so,
yes: such images can be faked, of course. But anyone unscrupulous
enough to do so, if caught, will likely be blacklisted by researchers
and collectors alike.

Regarding point #2 (dynamics of recent falls), you had the audacity to
write:

> YES, THIS DID A LOT OF GOOD FINDING MORE LORTON PIECES. SORRY.

About all I can say to that smart-ass response is "screw you". You
obviously have no idea how much time I've spent working on this fall
(as well as countless others) and how difficult it is to estimate
strewn field distributions from scraps of data. If the Lorton fall
had occurred in a more hospitable location, I'm confident more
fragments would have been found by now. And despite the difficult
search conditions, it wouldn't surprise me if another Lorton meteorite
*is* eventually found.

Moving on to point #4 (estimation of annual fall rate):

> YOU CAN ALSO MAKE THESE GUESSES AT WILL.

It's not a "guess" if you've got scientific data backing it up. It's
an estimate with error bars.

Finally, point #5 (fluvial and aeolian transport):

> I'M SURE THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME BUT I CANNOT THINK OF A TIME IT
HAS.

I can name at least 8 dry lakes in California and Nevada where this
happens.

> ROB, ALL OF THOSE POINTS ARE OF NOTE BUT FALL INTO THE TRIVIAL
DEPARTMENT
> TO MOST OF US. AGAIN MOSTLY BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO BE
LEARNED
> BY THEM.

I completely disagree with this dismissive "trivial to most of us"
attitude. It's selfish, and not forward-thinking at all.

> BY GIVING UP CO-ORDS YOU GIVE UP YOUR TREASURE MAP. WHO DOES THAT?

I do. And yes, as a result, others have benefitted from me sharing that
information. But in return, many of them (most?) have had the courtesy
to share their find coordinates with me in the areas that I've done
extensive work. Likewise, I do the same for the principal
investigator(s)
of other areas where I happen to make finds. Quid pro quo.

--Rob
Received on Tue 09 Mar 2010 06:43:37 PM PST