[meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds
From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 21:06:42 -0400 Message-ID: <CAKBPJW_y_CMfywgLr6WQjP+6ns1vwrFee1pEcCu1uJgFVmThdw_at_mail.gmail.com> Hi Mendy and List, I think the idea of expanding the nomenclature is a good idea for some, and it's an issue that has been considered a few times over the years. As collectors, dealers, and/or hunters, we all have a passion for our hobby/field and we want to contribute to it in some positive way. The contribution can take many faces - recovering specimens that are valuable to science, donating specimens to science, adding to the body of knowledge, correcting errors in the literature, or just being thankful of the hard work the scientists do to unlock the mysteries held by these ancient space rocks. In this case, I think the idea of expanding the nomenclature in regards to falls and finds is an attempt to contribute by clarifying an area that is somewhat nebulous (pun intended). We have to ask ourselves - will this proposed change benefit the science in some way? As passionate collectors and laymen, we yearn to get involved, but we must remember that the Meteoritical Bulletin was created by scientists to serve science. It is a reference for those who are doing research - a repository of reliable data. As laymen (advanced or not), we are along for the ride, so to speak. We are lucky because the Meteoritical Society is open to non-scientists and those outside of academia. We get to browse the database and use it to organize our collections and study our specimens. Our needs are not necessarily the same as the needs of science. Changes to nomenclature are not undertaken lightly. There must be a clear need that will benefit science in some way - making the research more efficient, streamlining the availability of data, clarifying errors, clarifying areas of possible conflict, etc. Will adding additional terms to delineate the various states of a find/fall benefit science in some way? Falls are valuable to science because they are fresh and have the least degree of terrestrial alteration - not because some person witnessed the event. How fresh a specimen is can be determined in the lab to establish a terrestrial age. This can be done for any meteorite, no matter how fresh or old it may be. This provides hard data that can be used in research. A specimen can be labeled "fall", "find", "probable fall" or any other term, but the scientific value is contained within specimen itself, not in the label assigned by NonCom. As a collector, I see value in adding more terms that will clarify the find/fall status of a given meteorite. If we are to see NonCom back any changes of this nature, it must be clearly demonstrated that science will benefit in some way. I am not sure if this is the case. But then again, what the heck do I know? LOL. Best regards, MikeG -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone ------------------------------------------------------------- On 5/7/14, Mendy Ouzillou via Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> wrote: > So far the response has been basically, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." > However, doing so ignores changes in technology that enables us to identify > meteors at specific locations in space and time and possible fall locations. > Take Indian Butte for example. The MetBull identifies this meteorite as a > Fall (witnessed) from 1998. However, the first specimen was not found until > 2013. According to the feedback so far, this meteorite should then have been > classified as a find. Indian Butte is only one example of the situation > actually being broke - so in my mind, new information and new situations > deserve a fresh perspective. By the way, I agree with the classification of > it as a fall. Given only two present choices - "fall" is the most > appropriate. > I am in no way suggesting adding the many types of descriptors as proposed > by Jeff, but I am proposing adding one more called the "correlated fall". As > technology improves, I believe we will be seeing more situations like Indian > Butte where an event is captured, but material is not found for years after > the event. > Change is not always bad. :-) > Mendy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Mulgrew [mailto:mikestang at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:06 PM > To: Carl Esparza > Cc: Meteorite List; Mendy Ouzillou > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds > > Fall, find, anything further is unnecessary clutter. All falls are finds, > but not all finds are falls, the rest is just semantics. > > K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid > > Michael in so. Cal. > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:01 PM, <cdtucson at cox.net> wrote: >> Mendy, >> All due respect to you and Jeff Grossman (one of our Royalty figures) but, >> to me a fall is either observed or there is great evidence like damage >> caused by the impact. All else is a find. Because after all, all finds are >> falls or how else would they be here? >> Best Rgards, >> Carl >> meteoritemax >> -- >> Love & Life >> >> ---- Mendy Ouzillou <mendy.ouzillou at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I've been thinking about the email Jeff sent out some time back and >>> wanted to propose a slightly different set of names and simplify the >>> nomenclature. >>> You can see Jeff's original email below. I think we have all >>> struggled with defining meteorites that are neither observed falls >>> nor finds and part of the reason is that we were conflating too many >>> ideas. >>> Observed fall: Observed to fall, either by eyewitnesses or with >>> instruments. >>> 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, the strewn field location (if >>> there is one) and appearance taking into account weathering >>> associated with time on the ground, may be directly attributed to the >>> fall. >>> Correlated fall: No material was found immediately after an observed >>> event, but later analysis and physical evidence conclusively points >>> to an observed event on a specific date or within a very narrow range of >>> dates. >>> Find: Material was found and no event can be conclusively associated >>> with an observed event. A find that appears like a fresh fall is >>> still a find if no observed event can be associated with it. >>> Feedback welcome. >>> Mendy Ouzillou >>> IMCA8393 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com >>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of >>> Jeff Grossman >>> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 6:26 AM >>> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com >>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day >>> >>> I should add: my first two categories are types of falls, whereas the >>> last three are types of finds. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> On 1/5/2013 8:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: >>> > 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?ov >>> > (a) and (b) meteorites, which I would have put in the "possible fall" >>> > category, if such a thing existed. >>> > >>> > Jeff >>> > >>> > On 1/4/2013 8:57 PM, Michael Farmer wrote: >>> >> 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:). >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Michael Farmer >>> >> >>> >> Sent from my iPad >>> >> >>> >> On Jan 4, 2013, at 6:47 PM, "Mike Bandli" <fuzzfoot at comcast.net> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> If a meteorite falls from the sky and no one is there to hear it, >>> >>> does it make a sound? >>> >>> >>> >>> ;^] >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Mike Bandli >>> >>> Historic Meteorites >>> >>> www.HistoricMeteorites.com >>> >>> and join us on Facebook: >>> >>> www.facebook.com/Meteorites1 >>> >>> IMCA #5765 >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >>> >>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom >>> >>> they are addressed. >>> >>> If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, >>> >>> distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender >>> >>> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake >>> >>> and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the >>> >>> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, >>> >>> distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of >>> >>> this information is strictly prohibited. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com >>> >>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of >>> >>> hall at meteorhall.com >>> >>> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 5:36 PM >>> >>> To: Anne Black >>> >>> Cc: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com; valparint at aol.com >>> >>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day >>> >>> >>> >>> Right, Anne. That is why they are referred to as a "Fall" or a >>> >>> "Find". >>> >>> Concise! >>> >>> Cheers, Fred Hall >>> >>> >>> >>>> Every single meteorite ever found on Earth is necessarily the >>> >>>> result of a fall, they are not native to Earth. The only >>> >>>> difference is that some falls are seen, witnessed, and some, the >>> >>>> vast majoriry, >>> are not. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> So calling them Observed or Unobserved falls is logical. That is >>> >>>> what happened to all of them. >>> >>>> That is simple reality. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Anne M. Black >>> >>>> www.IMPACTIKA.com >>> >>>> IMPACTIKA at aol.com >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>>> tFrom: hall <hall at meteorhall.com> >>> >>>> To: Michael Farmer <mike at meteoriteguy.com> >>> >>>> Cc: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>; >>> >>>> valparint <valparint at aol.com> >>> >>>> Sent: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 6:13 pm >>> >>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> 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, and it is what I shall always use. Keep it >>> >>>> concise. >>> >>>> Regards, Fred Hall >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> That would make sense for say New Orleans, where a stone went >>> >>>> through a >>> >>>>> house and no one in their right mind would suggest that it did >>> >>>>> not >>> >>>> fall at >>> >>>>> that time say between 8 am and 4 pm when there was no hole in >>> >>>>> the >>> >>>> house, >>> >>>>> yet it was not seen to fall. >>> >>>>> An old rock found in a field does not suggest anything about >>> >>>>> fall >>> >>>> date. So >>> >>>>> it is a find, something never really argued against until now? >>> >>>>> It has crust which can suggest it is not thousands of years >>> >>>>> old, most >>> >>>> of >>> >>>>> our Springwater meteorites have black and blue crust but >>> >>>>> nevertheless >>> >>>> it >>> >>>>> is a find. >>> >>>>> Michael Farmer >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Jan 4, 2013, at 10:28 AM, <valparint at aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> An "unobserved fall" is, well, a fall that was not observed, >>> >>>>>> in contradistinction to a fall that was observed. The >>> >>>>>> terminology of the Meteoritical Bulletin Database is "Observed >>> >>>>>> fall: no". >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> The information being conveyed is NOT that the meteorite fell >>> >>>>>> but >>> >>>> that >>> >>>>>> the fall was not observed. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> In general, the questions about falling and finding are: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 1) was the fall observed? >>> >>>>>> 2) if so, when was it observed? >>> >>>>>> 3) if not, is there any guesstimate of when it fell? >>> >>>>>> 4) regardless of weather it was observed or not, when was it >>> >>>>>> actually found? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Paul Swartz >>> >>>>>> MPOD webmaster >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> What is an "unobserved fall"? Every meteorite fell at some >>> >>>>>>> point. I have thousands of unobserved falls in my collection. >>> >>>>>>> Michael Farmer >>> >>>>> ______________________________________________ >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> ______________________________________________ >>> >>> 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://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >Received on Wed 07 May 2014 09:06:42 PM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|