[meteorite-list] Unobserved fall [bounced reply - resent]

From: Robert Verish <bolidechaser_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 11:14:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1357586065.79046.YahooMailClassic_at_web142506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Re-transmit.
Last week I sent 3 posts to the List, none of them made it, and they still don't appear in any of the Archives.
The following message is a "re-transmit" of one that was "bounced-back" to me from the Met-List server.

Art! PLEASE BRING BACK THE "OLD" ARCHIVES!

---------------- Original Message ----------------

[meteorite-list] Unobserved fall

valparint Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:20:03 -0800

"Find" does not tell us if a fall was observed. Maybe not a big deal for the old hands but useful info for newbies.

"Observed" and "Find" usually occur at different times and are, therefore, different pieces of information.
One does not contain the other.

The MetBul uses this terminology - "Observed fall: No". Grammatically,
equivalent to "unobserved fall". Then they add "Year found: 1576". Two pieces of unequivocal information.

I don't control the terminology of the meteorite world. I do control the MPOD
and it was my decision to use "unobserved fall" in order to convey more
information.

cheers

Paul Swartz
IMCA 5204

--------------- End of Original Message ---------------

Re: [meteorite-list] Unobserved fall

From: "Robert Verish" <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
To: "Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:20:03 -0800, valprint wrote:

"A 'find' does not tell us if a fall was observed. Maybe not a big deal for the old hands but useful info for newbies."
------------------------------------------

Sorry for my delay in replying to this post, but I first wanted to ask a couple of the "old hands" that I personally know, whether or not they agreed with those comments. And this may come as a surprise, especially if you would assume that the reactionary "old hands" would be resistant to change, but they were all open to any improvements in terminology, especially if the "improvement" would be useful to newbies.

But the general consensus of the "old hands" was that it would actually be the newbies that would be the most confused by the existence of two terms meaning the same thing. It would be particularly difficult during the transition, the introduction of the new phrase while the usage of the old term is still in vogue. And the transition would be a very long period of time given how the old term is so entrenched.

As is typical of "old hands", they questioned "why now?" Why hasn't this long-standing terminology been a problem until now? Maybe there is no problem. Maybe the premise of the iconoclasts is flawed, and it needs to be reexamined.

"A 'find' does not tell us if a 'fall' was observed."
Is this always true?
I'm not sure how the terms "find" and "fall" are defined here?

For the sake of the "newbies" and for clarity, the "old hands" said this:
When you are making labels for your specimens,
where it says "Fall or Find?", **
a "Fall" always tells you that the fall was observed (or witnessed), and
a "Find" always tells you that the fall was unobserved,
or better stated, that there were no reports it was observed.
After all, who can honestly know that it was not observed?
Isn't it possible that a "Find" could be changed to a "Fall"?
Which makes the term "unobserved fall" sound presumptuous.

(** - based upon Met Soc usage in "Guidelines for Nomenclature")

Anyway, that's what I got from the "old hands" that I asked.

I haven't stated my personal opinion about what I think is the meaning and usage of the term "unobserved fall", because that would be more appropriate in a separate post.

So many falls, so little time to find them,
Bob V.
Received on Mon 07 Jan 2013 02:14:25 PM PST