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

From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:22:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKBPJW8_SA4LYoVy7X+sMzuWmnd19n0YDctAuc812YgD3_CHkQ_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mendy,

No need to disagree, because we are in complete and total agreement! :)

Private parties have made significant contributions to the body of
data in the Bulletin. And I am an advocate for private involvement in
the field.

What I meant was - I don't think the Bulletin was ever intended to
serve as a tool for private meteorite collectors and dealers. It has
definitely turned into such a tool and the benefits go both ways.

TKW is one of those numbers with some grey area and I think any
accurate and updated accounting of recoveries would necessarily
involvement private parties, since those private parties are
recovering most of the meteorites outside of Antarctica.

Best regards,

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:
> Mike,
> 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 01:22:23 PM PDT

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb