[meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day

From: Robert Verish <bolidechaser_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 11:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1357586570.34425.YahooMailClassic_at_web142502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

The following message is being resent - sorry for any duplicated posts:

-------------------
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
Sunday, January 6, 2013 2:09 PM
From: "Robert Verish" <bolidechaser at yahoo.com>
To: "<valparint at aol.com>" <valparint at aol.com>
Cc: "<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>"

Hey Paul,

I'll go ahead and apologize, now, in case your message to Michael was personal, but now that it appears on the List, I need to point-out something regarding your reference to the Meteoritical Bulletin.

Should you have the occasion to fill-out the MetBull Template for Submission (to request a name) used for reporting falls and finds (as I have recently), you will find the following:
in the report form there are two columns to be filled-in:

"Fall or Find Date" - "Enter the actual date that the sample fell or was found in the field."

"Fall" - "Enter Y for an observed fall. Otherwise leave blank."

This form and the Met Soc "Guidelines for Meteorite Nomenclature" is replete with the terms "fall" and "find", and nowhere is there any reference to a category that could be called "unobserved falls".
The closest that I could find was, "Otherwise leave blank."

I'm just saying, you made the reference to the MetBull, so I'm just making "full disclosure".
Bob V.


--- On Sat, 1/5/13, Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com> wrote:

> From: Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day
> To: "<valparint at aol.com>" <valparint at aol.com>
> Cc: "<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Date: Saturday, January 5, 2013, 8:52 AM
>
> No it 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:).
> ______________________________________________
>
Received on Mon 07 Jan 2013 02:22:50 PM PST