[meteorite-list] Role of the MetBull and the meteorite community

From: Mendy Ouzillou <ouzillou_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1382115458.33545.YahooMailNeo_at_web126205.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>


With all due respect, we will have to agree to disagree.

If it was not for private hunters, collectors and dealers the MetBull would be a sad place indeed. So why should they (we), as active contributors, feel like outsiders looking in. Perhaps, the original intent was for it to be for purely scientific purposes, but that is clearly not the case now. Whether intended or not, the MetBull is one of the most important tools and resources out there for the entire meteorite community. Our continued use, participation and feedback can only make it an even better tool for the entire community, including the scientific one.

I think many on the list would be interested in the answers to my questions below.

Mendy Ouzillou

> From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike at gmail.com>
>To: Mendy Ouzillou <ouzillou at yahoo.com>
>Cc: Jeff Grossman <jngrossman at gmail.com>; "meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:02 AM
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Chelyabinsk trajectory modeling -- how welldid we do? Part 1 of 2
>Hi Jeff, Mendy and List,
>Jeff is obviously the voice of the Bulletin here, but here is
>something for collectors and dealers to consider....
>The Bulletin is not designed or intended for collectors and dealers.
>It is for science.? As laymen (advanced or not), we are privileged to
>have free and open access to it.? This is very generous of the
>Meteoritical Society, because they could easily gate it off and
>require a password to access it.? This would prevent issues like the
>recent crash brought on by a high-traffic Facebook post.? But it would
>also deny the general public a very useful resource.
>TKW is a number that is constantly in a state of flux as recoveries
>are made over time, and it is a number that is very difficult to
>verify on an authoritative level.? This is especially true with
>showers that produce large numbers of meteorites on the ground, i.e.
>Petrologic type, composition, O-isotope, and other analytical data can
>be reproduced independently.? TKW information is harder to verify and
>involves more of the honor system to varying degrees.
>For example, I have kept a running total of the Sutter's Mill TKW
>since the day after the fall.? And I consider my number to be very
>accurate to the best of my ability to collect and verify this
>information.? The vast majority was gathered via email reports and a
>minority via telephone calls.? None of this information was collected
>by me first-hand in the field.? So, if asked how authoritative my TKW
>might be, I cannot answer with any level of certainty that would be
>required for scientific use.? Some fruitloop could lie to me or
>someone could honestly make a mistake when reporting a find, so who
>really knows?
>Sutter's Mill Tally page - http://www.galactic-stone.com/pages/lotus
>Recent Meteorite Falls page - http://www.galactic-stone.com/pages/falls
>I think both of the above resources are quite accurate and are useful
>for collectors, dealers, and laymen.? But verifying such information
>is an ongoing and imperfect process.
>Best regards and happy huntings,
>Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com
>Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
>Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone
>Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone
>On 10/18/13, Mendy Ouzillou <ouzillou at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Jeff,
>> You raise an interesting question that impacts MANY other bulletin entries.
>> What is an "authoritative" report or who is capable of making one? Would a
>> member or the IMCA or a reputable dealer qualify?
>> The big concern is double (or even triple) reporting masses that have been
>> sold or traded but at some point the "official" TKW becomes completely
>> irrelevant. Perhaps the scientific community is not so concerned with TKW,
>> but the collector community certainly is. The problem however is very
>> relevant to collectors who are not aware that the low TKW achondrite they
>> want to buy is not so rare.
>> I, of course, realize that TKW is only a small part of the story since what
>> the collector really cares about is how much material is actually available
>> outside in the market. However, updating the TKW or maybe creating a new
>> category called "unofficial TKW" would go a long way to help.
>> Regards,
>> Mendy Ouzillou
>>> From: Jeff Grossman <jngrossman at gmail.com>
>>>To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 5:58 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Chelyabinsk trajectory modeling -- how
>>> welldid we do? Part 1 of 2
>>>It will, if and when we get an authoritative report.
>>>On 10/17/2013 11:54 PM, Galactic Stone & Ironworks wrote:
>>>> Will the Met Bulletin database entry be updated to reflect the new TKW
>>>> that includes this large mass?
>>>> The previous TKW shown in the Bulletin is 100kg and the following
>>>> additional note in the write-up : "The total mass collected by local
>>>> people is certainly >100 kg and perhaps > 500 kg."
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> MikeG
>>>Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>>Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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 Fri 18 Oct 2013 12:57:38 PM PDT

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb