[meteorite-list] Falls and finds

From: Michael Farmer <mike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:15:25 -0700
Message-ID: <49A7CA09-1F71-4825-B38D-43E1313B4E95_at_meteoriteguy.com>

Why don't we just leave things that work as they are? In more than 18 years of selling meteorites, I have never heard of finds morphing into "unobserved falls". Poor marketing gimmick to try and remake finds into something more interesting (not sure who buys into such scams).
If there is some anecdotal evidence that a meteorite may be a fall it is usually noted in the writeup.
Any label I get describing a meteorite as an "unobserved fall" will be promptly thrown where it belongs, in the trash heap of schemes and scams:)
By the way, has the Alpha-site been disclosed yet, or is that still a "secret"?

Michael Farmer

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 6, 2013, at 10:52 PM, Michael Mulgrew <mikestang at gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe we need to try a different language. How about the universal
> language of mathematics?
>
> [Observed fall: No] != [unobserved fall]
>
> or
>
> IF(observed fall, fall, find)
>
>
> Nip this in the bud before someone makes up a term for an unobserved meteor...
>
>
> -Michael in so. Cal.
>
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com> wrote:
>> Noit makes perfect sense actually, is it a fall or a find. I spoke to Garvie yesterday, who made very clear there are only two terms, fall or find.
>> You would make a great politician, mincing words until no logic is left to find.
>> An old meteorite found in a field was found, thus a find.
>> been that way for centuries, no need to change it now.
>>
>> Michael Farmer
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 5, 2013, at 9:30 AM, <valparint at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> The Meteoritical Bulletin Database uses the following terminology:
>>>
>>> Observed fall: No
>>>
>>> Does that disturb you?
>>>
>>> Paul Swartz
>>>
>>>> I find this new attempt to change terminology disturbing. I have hundreds of old catalogs from the top museums and dealers from more than 200 years ago till today, all of them list falls and finds. None of them discuss unobserved falls as an acceptable alternative.
>>>> Are we really ready to just accept anything thrown out there, and watch as all manner of BS is used to discredit hundreds of years of accepted terminology?
>>>> My private collection focuses on witnessed falls, with date and time and science to back it up.
>>>> I am not interested in another group which would include every meteorite ever to have fallen, since they did actually all fall at some point.
>>>> Well, I guess Anne can delete her birthday fall calendar page since now we can simply put every NWA on any date you choose to believe it might have possibly fallen:).
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Mon 07 Jan 2013 12:15:25 PM PST