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

From: Jeff Grossman <jngrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:29:37 -0400
Message-ID: <52619A31.1060003_at_gmail.com>

Yep.

On 10/18/2013 3:18 PM, Mendy Ouzillou wrote:
> Jeff,
>
>
> Thank you for the thoughtful response. In the last paragraph you stated, "if somebody thinks a new find rises to the appropriate level of significance, they should ask to have it published." Does that mean that we should send you an email?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mendy
>
>
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jeff Grossman <jngrossman at gmail.com>
>> To:
>> Cc: "meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:54 AM
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Role of the MetBull and the meteorite community
>>
>>
>> Let me put an end to this argument right now. The Bulletin is not
>> intended as a resource for scientists only. That's why all copies of
>> the Bulletin are free to download from MAPS or the MetBull website
>> without any embargo period. The Meteoritical Society is dedicated to
>> promoting research and education in planetary science. The Bulletin
>> fulfills both purposes. The intended audience is scientists and the
>> general public. I have made many modifications to the website for the
>> benefit of non-scientist viewers, and I'm always open to new
>> suggestions. (Of course, I can't speak for Krinov, now dead for 30
>> years, about why he started the Bulletin. He wrote that he wanted to
>> convey information about new falls and finds as quickly as possible.)
>>
>> An "authoritative source" is somebody who is both qualified to make a
>> statement and has direct knowledge of the work to back it up. It can be
>> anybody. In the present case, I would expect to see a report from
>> somebody who actually weighed the specimen and verified that the object
>> is a real meteorite. If the authority who made these statements did so
>> in an authored publication, then anybody could report it to the Bulletin
>> for inclusion. In general, I would not consider a news report in the
>> media to be authoritative.
>>
>> The other issue here is what kind of information the Society wants to
>> track in the Bulletin. It is entirely staffed by volunteers, so there
>> are limits to what is feasible. In general, we report the discovery of
>> significant new masses of any meteorite. Significance is in the eye of
>> the beholder, and I realize the term means different things to
>> collectors and scientists. NOBODY would argue that the discovery of
>> this huge Chelyabinsk stone is not significant. But we do have to make
>> the call on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, if I had to update the
>> database every time somebody found a new piece of Holbrook, it would be
>> a never-ending job. All I can say is that if somebody thinks a new find
>> rises to the appropriate level of significance, they should ask to have
>> it published. On a similar note, meteorites are sold and traded all the
>> time, and the locations of masses noted in the Bulletin change. We
>> don't even try to keep track of this, unless something dramatic happens.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/18/2013 12:57 PM, Mendy Ouzillou 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.
>>>> Chelyabinsk.
>>>>
>>>> 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,
>>>>
>>>> MikeG
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> 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 04:29:37 PM PDT