[meteorite-list] A 'Find' of Another Kind - the Vote is In!

From: Thomas Webb <webbth1_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1357711388.2397.YahooMailClassic_at_web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Kevin,
Hilarious! I think I need a box of that wine!
Thomas




--- On Wed, 1/9/13, Kevin Kichinka <marsrox at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Kevin Kichinka <marsrox at gmail.com>
> Subject: [meteorite-list] A 'Find' of Another Kind - the Vote is In!
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2013, 12:35 AM
> Team Meteorite:
>
> The wind is howling to the stars on a chilly (22*C/72&F)
> night here on
> the central plateau of Costa Rica.
>
> Thanks to the miracle of modern refrigeration, I've just
> utilized the
> 'last breast' from Thanksgiving to make Turkey Chowder for
> dinner. As
> a single guy living alone, there's probably some symbolism
> there.
>
> To work off the enzymes and growth hormones knowingly
> consumed in that
> last breast, I stepped out on my patio with a glass of
> Chilean wine I
> poured out of a box. The second I opened the door, the choir
> of
> crickets cut off their chorus.
>
> "Hey, it's just me. Sing on!" I requested in Spanish.
>
> Bueno. "Chirp, chirp, chirp...."? cantaban los
> grillos.
>
> Even the insects are friendly here. I like it.
>
> While wishing with all my might that Steve of Chicago can
> find a
> partner to exchange a "Gao with sexual orientation, flow
> lips and a
> rollover line" for a copy of THE Bob Haag's Catalogue from
> 1985 (and
> hoping, too, that the prices are 'still in effect'), I
> pondered the
> good Dr. Jeff Grossman's work to refine a 'fall', going
> where no man
> has gone before.
>
> Pull the tab-top off of your box of wine and join me under
> the windy
> stars while I review how this played out on the m-list, what
> was until
> now the uncontested definition of a meteorite 'fall'.
>
> Hey, hey. This is a classy discussion. I know its poured
> from a box,
> but no Dixie cups, OK? Only 'Glass' glass.
>
> First the gauntlet was thrown. Note the conviction of Jeff's
> opening
> three word volley....
>
> "In all seriousness....
>
> ... I have considered refining, or at least qualifying the
> definition
> of "fall." The categories I've considered are these,
> and? the
> definitions are first passes:
>
> Observed fall: observed to fall, either visually or with
> instruments,
> and collected soon after the event. The event was well
> documented.
> Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites
> is consistent
> with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur
> immediately,
> directly points to a fall at the time of the observed
> event.
>
> Unobserved fall: No observations were made of a fall event,
> but physical
> evidence conclusively points to a fall on a specific date or
> within a
> very narrow range of dates.
>
> Probable fall: In these cases, there was a well-documented
> meteor event
> with characteristics consistent with a meteorite fall,
> followed by the
> collection of meteorites some time later. There is a strong
> likelihood
> that the meteorite fell in the observed event, but physical
> evidence is
> not fully conclusive.
>
> Possible fall: The same situation as a probable fall, but
> there is
> significant doubt about whether the meteorite is connected
> to the event
> or about the reliability of the observations of the event.
>
> Doubtful fall: The same situation as a possible fall, but
> there is a
> high degree of doubt.
>
> This was all suggested by the circumstances surrounding the
> Bene(a)
> and (b) meteorites, which I would have put in the "possible
> fall"
> category, if such a thing existed.
>
> Jeff "
>
> *******************************************************************************************
> Ships may pass quietly in the night, but the list threw
> anchor on this
> one and prepared to send broadsides.
>
> The esteemed and most respected Anne M. Black (is it true
> that the 'M'
> stands for 'meteorite'?) came down on the 'logical side' and
> supported
> Jeff's new terminology. The Most Excellent Paul Swartz put
> on the same
> uniform and ran a lap for the team.
>
> But Michael Farmer fired the first volley - "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?
>
> Adding.... "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.
>
> Well into his second box of red, Jim Wooddell exclaimed in
> support, "I
> don't often agree with Michael Farmer, but when I do, I am
> drinking!
> Stay thirsty my friends!
>
> Good advice, Jim!
>
> John Cabassi "sees no reason to change."
>
> Bill Kies came up with his best contribution ever when he
> explained "
> If all finds are falls and all falls are finds, even though
> all falls
> haven't been found and all finds have been found, a fall has
> to be
> found before it becomes a fall or a find, but a find is just
> a find
> even though it fell, so everything that's found fell and
> everything
> has to fall to be found and a fall has to be a find before
> it's a fall
> at all and never the twain shall meet?"
>
> The crickets sense a hit song and will call you in the
> morning, Bill.
>
> But seriously, Thomas Webb writes, "The terms "find" and
> "fall" are
> concise and understood by everyone in the
> meteorite community. I don't see the need to introduce terms
> that may
> lead to more ambiguity."
>
> Michael Blood raises the bid three oo-googles, "I am sure
> there are
> many, many other times when a meteorite is found within 24
> hrs of the
> Fall so that date of the fall is known, though the fall was
> technically "unobserved" - but I see no reason to become so
> specific
> other than in notations of the details - and most certainly
> not as a
> separate "classification," as what has already been noted:
> all "finds"
> were "unobserved falls" if you use the term loosely.
>
> Upon which Mike of the 'Galactic Meteorite Minis and Fossil
> Fabricator
> Factory'- noticing approaching marketing anomalies announced
> -
> "Attention: sales of all unobserved falls are hereby
> suspended until
> further notice."
>
> "So are the sales of unobserved finds" hastily added Werner
> Schroer of
> Australia, sitting in a tub of ice while watching a box of
> unobserved
> Henburys melt to vapor in the Nullarbor heatwave.
>
> CG took the opposite tack, seeing opportunity, and offered
> an
> assortment of rare, museum-quality, 'about to fall'
> specimens at
> incredible and special introductory prices. They were
> sold-out before
> they even hammered the ground.
>
> But then the list took a turn for practicality.
>
> "In other words, if it ain't broke, don't change it" wrote
> Gary
> Fujihara, deep in meditation while double-tasking, stringing
> fragrant
> flower leis, a surprise bonus gift for his many meteorite
> clients.
>
> (Surgically) Masked man Michael Mulgrew took a precautionary
> medical
> stance on the issue, "This new term only exists on one web
> page. May
> it stay in quarantine there. "
>
> Bob Very Verish simply stated statute - "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."
>
> Just like most lines of my Federal tax return.
>
> Linton Rohr knows what he sees, "I observed a large quantity
> of
> specimen ID cards, before printing my own. Fall vs. Find
> seemed to be
> well established, generally accepted, and just plain
> traditional."
>
> Greg Hupe? was all for simplicity - "I find that I
> prefer 'fall' and
> 'find' as well, straight to the point. Now I
> better get back to work before I fall behind any more!..".
>
> ..... as was space-saving Mendy - "I like the conciseness of
> Fall
> versus Find - It's easier to fit and write on a specimen
> card."
>
> 'Greenie" Jodie Reynolds is for conserving every possible
> electron and
> posits that 'falls and finds' simply be reflected as digital
> entries
> '0' and '1'.
>
> Roman Jirasek, he of the best museum ID labels,
> simultaneously wonders
> and concludes, 'you can't put a date on an unobserved fall
> can you?
> You can definitely put a date on a find."
>
> Finally, our group therapists observed....
>
> "People can argue about many things. My question is -?
> why?" - Mike Miller
>
> Inventing a scary new creature, Martin Altmann prays,
> "Please folks,
> don't make such a bugbear out of that, like it has happened
> with the
> so-called "hammer falls". I think, meteorites are already
> expensive
> enough."
>
> Fred Hall reminds us of the Wisdom of the Ages -
>
> "An "unobserved fall" is two words to describe the one word
> that has
> been used for a century - "Find".
>
> The one word "Find" is good enough for the Catalogue of
> Meteorites.
>
> It was good enough for Harvey Nininger.
>
> It is what I shall always use."
>
> Me too, Fred.
>
> I can only wonder about the relevance to our discussion of
> something
> we already have called 'weathering factor'.
>
> Owners of my book, "The Art of Collecting Meteorites" can
> turn to page
> 53 (I knew this book would eventually be good for something
> - ad)
> where I cite Wlotska et al. (1993) -? "A weathering
> scale for ordinary
> chondrites".
>
> The intent of their work was to guess terrestrial age. He
> offered two
> scales, the first described the effects of chemical
> alteration with
> "WO - a fresh fall" to "W6 - massive replacement of
> silicates by clay
> minerals and oxides." His second scale estimated terrestrial
> ages with
> "W0 = <5,000 years" to W6 = 30,000 - 50,000 years."
>
> Sometimes even with a complicated thing like meteorites,
> whenever
> possible, keepin' it simple, works. Here's a modern
> example.
>
> Some thing fell from the sky. Bedouin warriors were roused
> from their
> sleep in Al-Qaida-controlled northern Mali by an
> explosion? they
> confused with anti-aircraft fire. Invading NATO forces
> looking for a
> lost drone pick up some rocks the next year on top of?
> the dessicated
> skeletons of two donkeys, left like "asses in a moment". The
> specimens
> go to the lab, they check out as L, H, LL, Carbonaceous,
> whatever, get
> their faelite %, get their O-isotopes plotted, get their
> Wlotska's W =
> numbers.
>
> In most cases I think we can call it, 'handled.'
>
> But smarter folks than me will decide this issue. I'm glad
> Jeff is
> trying something new. Better everyday in every way.
>
> Next up, "Tucson 2013 - Driving v Flying (but is
> teleportation now
> cost effective?)
>
> >From Nine Degrees North...
> Just me and the crickets singing to the stars.
>
> Kevin Kichinka
> Rio del Oro, Santa Ana, Costa Rica
> www.theartofcollectingmeteorites.com
> "The Global Meteorite Price Report - 2013" email me now for
> your copy
> ______________________________________________
>
> 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 Wed 09 Jan 2013 01:03:08 AM PST