[meteorite-list] Museum investigation: 'Probably a rock, not meteorite'
From: cdtucson at cox.net <cdtucson_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:33:26 -0400
---- Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:
> Carl, All,
> I wouldn't equate it at all to the pole analogy, because...well, it's
> different. The pole is already owned by someone to begin with.
THERE YOU GO AGAIN! NOBODY WANTS THE POLE JASON. USING MY ANALOGY IT WOULD BE THE CAR OWNERSHIP THAT IS IN QUESTION HERE NOT THE POLE. THE POINT IS THAT THE CAR WAS NOT FOUND. NOR WAS THE LORTON METEORITE.
> You can't really argue that, if I hit a pole with my car, I will gain
> the right to own it.
THINK HERE JASON . NOBODY IS SAYING THE LORTON METEORITE OWNS THE BUILDING BECAUSE IT HIT IT ANY MORE THAN THE POLE OWNS THE CAR . WE ARE TALKING THIRD PARTY HERE. THIS CONCEPT REQUIRE DEEP THOUGHT HERE. HAVE SOME COFFEE.
Even if my car is parked and a telephone pole
> falls on it, that pole is still the property of whoever owned the pole
> - if it weren't, the pole would become mine and I would have to pay
> for the damages caused by *my* pole.
> And if anything that hits my car becomes mine...well, let's just say
> that I'm sorely tempted to try to drive my way into the lobby of the
> AMNH and give good ole' Willamette a nudge with my bumper.
> The only reason that this is debatable is because meteorites are
AND A FALL IS ALSO DIFFERENT THAN A FIND.
They're not like anything terrestrial in that no one owns
> them before they hit the ground. If I pick anything up off of the
> surface of the earth, at this point in time, it already belongs to
AGAIN THIS IS NOT A FIND ON THE GROUND. IT NEVER HIT THE GROUND. IT HIT A MOVING CAR.
- unless I manage to find it in international waters, in which
> case I might be able to get away with claiming ownership with no
> strings attached (I'm excluding Antarctica, for obvious reasons).
> There are disputed borders and crap like that, granted, but everything
> has already been claimed, at least once.
> Not meteoroids. Existing meteorites, yes, but meteoroids, up there in
> space, destined to fall, are still unclaimed property.
ONLY UNTIL WA GOVERNMENT STEPS IN.
> It's why they're different.
YES, THEY ARE WAY DIFFERENT.
> In this case, I think the most relevant issue has to do with renters
> versus owners being able to claim meteorites. Ideally I think that it
> should depend on the existing contract - if the renter is liable to
> fix damages, it seems to me that they should have the right to the
> stone, and if the owner is responsible, surely they should get the
> But then a question would arise - what about the owner who has made a
> contract that, while it holds the renter liable for damages, makes an
> exception for when a meteorite falls through their roof, offering to
> pay for the one-time-repairs and asking for the meteorite...in that
> case, wouldn't the renter have the option of saying no, and then
> keeping the stone if they paid for the repairs, as was contractually
> asked of them?
YES, IT COMES DOWN TO WHO ARGUES THE CASE BETTER IN COURT. I THINK THE PREVIOUS CASES HAD RATHER LIMP LAWYERS. ESPECIALLY THE HODGES CASE. THE LANDLORD HAD A LAWYER AND MRS. HODGES OBVIOUSLY DID NOT. GEE, I WONDER WHY THE LANDLORD WON THAT ONE.
> Interesting stuff..
YES IT IS. IN SOME CASES THEY ARGUED OWNERSHIP BASED ON THE METEORITE BECAME PART OF THE LAND BUT IN THESE CASES THE METEORITE SIMPLY COULD NOT HAVE BECAUSE IT NEVER TOUCHED THE GROUND. AS YOU SAY A DIFFERENT SITUATION. .
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM, <cdtucson at cox.net> wrote:
> > Steve,
> > This St. louis Meteorite is interesting. What if the car had been ?driving on private land? As ?discussed previously on this list, this should be referred to in the Lorton Court Case. As that meteorite also never did hit actual Earth. It hit legally rented space and was ?found in much the same way as a car that hits a telephone pole. Do you say the "pole found the car"? I think not! ?Yes, Lorton was found but was much more than that. It was a "Fall". Silly?
> > http://www.meteorman.org/St_Louis_Meteorite.htm
> > --
> > Carl or Debbie Esparza
> > Meteoritemax
> > ---- MeteorHntr at aol.com wrote:
> >> In a message dated 4/13/2010 4:29:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> >> veomega at gmail.com writes:
> >> "Then, on the bounce, it touches the Earth and ?becomes the Property of
> >> The State."
> >> So if a meteoroid embeds itself ?into your car, or you catch it before
> >> it hits the ground (ya, improbable as ?it seems), or if bounces off a
> >> cow and you catch it, does it belong to you ?now since it did not
> >> become a meteorite?
> >> - YvW
> >> ***************
> >> Veomega,
> >> As I understand, the St. Louis meteorite hit a car and stayed in it ?while
> >> it was being driven down a city street. ?On an aside, I don't think ?the
> >> City of St. Louis asserted any claim that it was their ?property.
> >> Steve Arnold
> >> of Meteorite Men
> >> ______________________________________________
> >> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> >> Meteorite-list mailing list
> >> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> > ______________________________________________
> > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Received on Wed 14 Apr 2010 02:33:26 PM PDT