[meteorite-list] 5 reasons to record meteorite coordinates

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:02:04 +0100
Message-ID: <008e01cac0be$d9becd80$07b22959_at_name86d88d87e2>

Ooops, forgot a remark.

>but if you look at most papers...they don't describe new meteorites. They
>describe features or studies performed on previously studied meteorites.

I know many papers about NWAs and other hot desert finds.
That there aren't more may be also caused, by many institutes abstaining
from acquiring NWAs, falsely believing they could be illegal
and other institutes not being able to acquire meteorites in general, cause
of the short-back of funds.

But more important and that should be fully on your line:

With the NWAs we lay the foundation stones for the research for upcoming
generations of scientists.

So to say, we are just finding the Semarkonas for the future generations.

:-)
Martin


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Jason Utas [mailto:meteoritekid at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. M?rz 2010 21:09
An: Martin Altmann; Eric Wichman; Meteorite-list
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] 5 reasons to record meteorite coordinates

Hello Eric, Martin, All,

I'll address Eric's message first:

>Though I appreciate you enthusiasm your logic isn't that, well, realistic
for good solid scientific data, especially when it comes to new falls which
will most likely become the centerpiece of meteoritics in the years to come.

I'm talking about places like NWA where thousands of meteorites that
are, for the most part, already thousands of years old, are currently
being swept into piles and sold for pennies per gram.

>It's already BIG news every time there's a new fall somewhere in the world,
and we've learned much more about where meteorites come from and how the
interact with the Earth's atmosphere and even more about fall dynamics in
the last 3 years than the entire history of meteoritics.

Right, which isn't to say that we wouldn't know more if zealous
collectors hoping to find more pieces chose to document their finds
before moving on to try to find another.

>What about news falls? Are we to leave them in the dirt to weather for a
"few hundred years"? Wouldn't it be better to "save" them from the plow and
rain? Or could they just sit there for a few hundred years until scientists
"decide" to go pick them up?

Not at all; just take a look at Holbrooks today. Not nearly as
attractive as they were a mere century ago. Same goes for Malotas,
Gao, etc.

>Do you still think "not much will happen" to them? They will weather, they
will deteriorate, and if the meteorite falls in a humid and rainy area they
won't last long at all nor be of much value to science after a few hundred
years. Even IF you were able to find them after that long of a period in
that environment what shape would they be in. Now if they fall in a desert
then that's better, but we can't really call up 1-800-Meteors and order a
fireball to drop in the desert can we? ;) Now that's a novel idea... I
wonder.... Hmmmm

Etc, etc. Falls are a different story, and you really only get to the
point in your PS, so I'll skip to that.

>P.S. As a side note:
Everyone should record data on ALL meteorite finds, but alas, I've
seen people simply pick up stones and walk away without taking photos
or recording coordinates of NEW falls. It's a shame, but it happens.
At least if you look at the newest falls over the last 3 years or so,
you'll see that a good majority of meteorite hunters do in fact record
all data possible and only then do they remove the stone.

Bingo. There's your problem. Even when people have the means to
document every find (e.g. Ash Creek, Buzzard Coulee, Park Forest,
etc.), not all people do! It's one thing to say that it's not
plausible to document every NWA, but when it comes down to it, there's
no excuse for not documenting stones when, if you're willing to make
the effort and responsibility to hunt for rocks from space, you're
choosing to *not* make the effort to document your find as well as it
should be done. It's simply irresponsible.

So, to reiterate - I'm not advocating leaving fresh falls on the
ground, but when it comes down to it, as I said before Jeff even said
it - perhaps we should have some sort of a regulatory/qualifying way
to judge and permit meteorite hunters before they go out into the
field. It would make a lot of sense...

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Martin Altmann
<altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:

> In my opinion the phase in meteoritic science and planetology of sampling
> celestial bodies by the means of meteorites to understand their formation,
> composition, history and to learn about the solar system and the Earth,
> is not yet completed.

I said as much in my message.

> At least not yet finished to that degree, that aspects like the
> terrestrialization, weathering, type populations, atmospheric flights,
> should come to the fore in meteoritic science and the research on the
> extraterrestrial properties of the meteorites would take a back seat.

I agree - terrestrial history is undoubtedly less important than
extraterrestrial.

My problem is that you're willing to take the terrestrial/entry
history and erase it, just like that.
Most NWA's are very old; they would not suffer if they were left there
for even centuries.
If we left them until the time when we could go there and properly
document them, they would not suffer.
You say that it is worth it to pick them up *now* so that we get the
extraterrestrial data and lose the terrestrial data.
I think that it would be better to wait the extra few decades so that
we might get both sets of data.
You have yet to explain why you think that it is worth it to pick them
up now as opposed to later in exchange for the loss of all
terrestrial/entry data.

> Not a year of the last both decades, were not new meteorites with
absolutely
> new stunning information were recovered.

And if we were taking things more slowly and recording, those stones
would still be recovered later. They would.
And we would find more stones paired with them, but maybe not right
now. Maybe in ten years or twenty.
But we would find them eventually if we kept looking, and we would
probably find more if we decided to hunt the areas thoroughly. But we
do not know where NWA 5000, 482, 011, etc were found, so we cannot
look for more.

> Unfortunately - I know, that you might be not so firm in meteoritic
> statistics - such exceptional meteorites can be only found, if a very
large
> number of new meteorites are found.

Wow. Really, Martin? I've been doing this for how long and you don't
think I can rattle off the percentages of stony to stony-iron to HED
finds and falls, etc?
Now you're just being a jerk...

> You're more or less suggesting that we should leave that to upcoming
> generations.
> You have to excuse my impatience, but I'm living now.
> And the scientists too.

Ah, that's where we differ in opinion.
I've been to the labs and seen what they're doing. Yes, they get many
new meteorites to analyze thanks to the NWA rush, but if you look at
most papers...they don't describe new meteorites. They describe
features or studies performed on previously studied meteorites. I
spoke with Alan Rubin a while back at UCLA - we were looking at a
large poster-sized photograph of a thin section of Semarkona. As he
said, he could spend many lifetimes analyzing the countless chondrules
in the photo, probing each and every relict grain to determine its
thermal history...

Scientists don't need more, more, more.

Yes, it's great that they're getting so much material to work with,
but, hell - they can't even get through all of the Antarctic material.
 There's too much there already.

You say we need to find more to advance science. I agree. But I
would advocate letting off and letting science catch up to us a little
- and in the meanwhile, preserving the terrestrial history of the
stones that we can - instead of simply grabbing what you can while
you're alive.

Because that's a very egocentric perspective.

> And if we would leave the recovery to upcoming generations, I simply have
no
> faith, that this will happen.

It's happened before us, and it will happen in the future. I see no
reason for you to say such a thing.
You might as well say that people will stop collecting minerals or
fossils, or lose interest in geology altogether.
It's a very strange thing to say.

> The official expeditions are tending to a zero-point. In the 1980ies -
> 1990ies there were still some last ones, but then?

It doesn't take an "official expedition" to document finds well. It
takes someone with a cheap digital camera and a GPS. You keep
insinuating things that don't make sense.

> If such an important and wealthy meteorite country like Australia, isn't
> able to set up a single searching expedition in the last 15 years.
> (Before were three, two of them sponsored by the Europeans).

Well, they have, actually...though the WAMET and EUROMET folks haven't
been down there in a while, they did find nearly a thousand meteorites
in Australia in the early 1990s.
But those meteorites, in some cases, have been there for upwards of
35,000 years. And they *do* do a pretty good job of chasing down new
falls using their camera network.
I just don't understand this rush of yours. They're rocks. Yes, I
understand that falls weather, etc, but the vast majority of
meteorites are already weathered. Sitting there for another few
decades isn't going to to much, if anything, to them. Yes, I would
prefer to see more meteorites on the market, but if it's the choice
between an stone with coordinates or a stone without them...well,
that's not much of a choice, is it?

> And Sahara - most productive meteorite area on the globe, before
Antarctica.
> Nothing there. Euromet tried in once - without success.
> And else? Maybe a few of the Ilfaehgs - I'm not so well informed. That's
> all.
> Well and in USA - remember that some on the list were somewhat astonished,
> that only Art Ehlmann found his way to the West-strewnfield?

Honestly, I'm amazed more than anything. That strewnfield was
*discovered* by scientists!

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/dpp/news/021909_Meteorite_Pieces_Located_in_West_
TX

Some people sure have bad memories....
It's true that most of the stones found were collected by hunters and
collectors, but perhaps that's simply because it was a common
meteorite, rather uninteresting to science, and it had a high price
tag.
Compare to 2008 TC3, where scientists went all the way to Sudan to
recover specimens.

> The only regular expedition to recover hot desert meteorites on Earth,
> Is the Suisse-Oman-team - according there website 3-6 people, 3-6 weeks
once
> per year.

But almost all Omani meteorites are recovered with data anyway, so
that's kind of pointless. They're gathering data, but no more than
would already be gathered by collectors over there.

> In Europe, in Russia, in Australia the institutes moan about the blatant
> lack of funds.

O...k...

> In all Sahara countries, without now Morocco, and in Oman no
> meteorite departments exist at all.

Right, but you're just saying unrelated things. This has nothing to
do with why NWA finds shouldn't be documented.

> China with its enormous surface - there are virtually no meteorites
> recovered.

Due to a lack of education, probably, but yes...

> So there is not much reason to adhere the illusion, that the field work
and
> the recovery work the private sector did, will ever done in future by
> institutional expeditions.

And there's no reason to say that it won't. Unless, of course, there
are few meteorites left to be found.
Then they couldn't, even if they had the means.
Which is what I keep saying. There's no reason not to wait, because
once you pick that rock up and bring it to Rissani, you don't know
where the hell it was found. And it wouldn't suffer for sitting in
the desert for another twenty, or even two-hundred years.

> Well and you obviously are not aware, how the very most meteorites aside
> Antarctica found their way into the labs and the museums.

Again, you're being a bit of an a**.

> For 200 years there was a symbiosis between the private people who found
> meteorites. Make your stats, note that in the recent 20 years the private
> sector had let the find rates explode.

Education at its best.

> Now all these new laws mean nothing than, if you don't believe in an end,
> nothing else than a huge hiatus in meteorite history and meteorite
science.

Even you use the word "hiatus." Hiatus means a temporary reprieve.
Temporary.
And using it, you seem to want to imply that, once recovery has
stopped, it will never recommence.
The trouble with this break is that it is happening in large part
where collecting was already being done by motivated hunters who *did*
document finds well. Canada and Australia were not the problem. Oman
is not the problem.
NWA is the problem. That's where meteorites are losing their
identities, and that's where we need restrictions.
I say let Canada and Australia 'go free.' Allow responsible hunters
with GPS' and cameras to hunt. But there's no excuse for this highly
unscientific recovery of meteorites from NWA so that we can get as
many samples into labs as quickly as possible.
Well, unless you're a dealer hoping for a new lunar.

> I won't argue about single falls with you.
> Check all the falls from Ourique on - who had found them, who had
collected
> the tkws and who made the documentation and publications about the fall
> documentation, if there exist any- than you'll see.

All I could find online was that an Antonio Silva discovered the first
stone, and that locals subsequently recovered others. Not sure what
your point is here.

> Semarkona and so on... btw. aren't you know at an university? Try to get a
> non NWA-bracchinite - unfortunately all were found in Australia, much luck
> in asking for some from down-under.

I can get you a full slice of Eagle's Nest if you want. I *do* know
who has what...

> Joking aside. Can't you use once the Meteoritical Bulletin database?
> Can't you see what happened in the last 10-20 years?
> The privates produced several Semarkonas, Orgueils and so on - by far more
> than ever were found in history and ever will be found in Antarctica.
> Some hunters and dealers brought to light each of them much more weight
and
> much more different meteorites of a rare type, than the 33 years Japanese,
> Chinese, American and European Antarctic campaigns yielded.
> (And at what for little money for the institutes!).

And if we hadn't, in almost all cases, those meteorites would still be
sitting in NWA, intact, and with their coordinates as well. Waiting
to be found by someone with a GPS. Someone who could come back and
reliably hunt for more in a thorough fashion.
In a few decades, we could easily have twice as much or ten times as
much of this rare material than we do now. Maybe we will. But if we
do, pairings will be unknown, and, assuming that some meteorites are
actually heterogeneous, much information will actually be lost.

> You can't be serious, if you would deny the importance of these recoveries
> and the advances for science they meant.

I keep acknowledging it, but at least now you're finally saying that
it's more important to you to have them *now,* which is a statement I
can't agree with.

>>Well, it's keeping some out.
>
> What do you mean? It's keeping all out. And especially these, who are
> responsible for us today knowing, that there are so many meteorites found
in
> Oman at all. Same applies to Sahara.

Some people are stopping going to Oman, some people are choosing not
to hunt in the US, and many are choosing not to hunt in Australia.
But many are choosing to continue to go to these places to look for
meteorites.

> And - such laws, preventing any private possession or even hunting lead to
> the fact, that first of all nobody is setting a foot outside the door to
> find meteorites at all - and that those, who will do it still, will tend
> obscure their finds and will misreport coordinates, because their finds
have
> no legal status anymore - therefore also for your basic concern such laws
> are not useful.

Depends on the country - some allow you to own, some not to export,
some to export with a permit, some pay you for them, etc. So saying
that the laws discourage hunting....look at Neuschwanstein, look at
Grimsby and Buzzard Coulee. Such laws don't seem as discouraging as
you suggest. And coordinates were not misrepresented in those places;
you would have to make them very false in order to change the
*country* in which they were found.

>>And many more lunar and martian and rare meteorites were found because of
>>the documentation.
>
> So is it o.k. to say to these Martian and Moon finders: Thank you for
having
> feathered our nest, to have enlightened us, that in Oman there are such
> things to be found and where,
> Here you have our wet handclasp (as we say in German), from now on you're
> criminal and you have to stay out.
> Not my concept of being well-educated.

Well, assuming that those known fields have been hunted out, you're
lamenting the loss of nothing, really.
I suppose not being able to hunt legally, which I've already said, in
a place like that I don't particularly agree with because of the fact
that most meteorites there were being well-documented.
Though there are many examples of falsified coordinates, etc., which
is something I do disagree with.

> I tell you, what for lunaites and Martians we would have, without the
> privateers.
> 19 lunaites from Antarctica, 5.5kgs.
> That's all - maybe you want to count in the 200g of SaU169 - but it
wouldn't
> have found, cause without the private pioneers we wouldn't have any
official
> hunting party in Oman.

Well, there is a team out there now, so that's not true. Granted,
it's only one team, but one team can recover many stones in a
trip...and it's not like they're going anywhere any time soon. Oman
is another place where most stones are very old, and while science is
undoubtedly the better for them, perhaps it would be better if people
didn't lie about where they found them. Perhaps it would be better if
it took longer for a scientific team to recover the material and
information weren't falsified.

> Well and with help of the private hunters, we have 50kgs more, and 48
> additional different lunaites more.

It's not as though the material wouldn't still be waiting to be picked
up with coordinates if we didn't have it yet.

> The Antarctic teams needed 18 years to find their 19 lunaites,
> the private hunters 13 years + 7 for the Calcalong before.
> With the Martian we would have Nakhla, Chassigny, Lafayette, Governador,
> Shergotty - for Zagami the insitutes would have to hope, that it wouldn't
be
> national treasure... at least a private dealer is responsible for a good
> part of the distribution of Zagami..
> (With the other you have to check, how they were acquired).
> And 15 finds from Antartica. ?SaU 094 was a later find in the strewnfield
of
> SaU 005-150, recovered, documented and harvested by the private hunters.
> Private hunters 33 different Martians.
> Weight of the 15 Antarctic ones 26.7kg - time 33 years.
> Weight of the 33 private finds ?33.2kg - time 13 years.
> Weight of the 6 "historics" ? ? 39.1kg - time 195 years.

More, more, more, fast, fast, fast. There is no reason for this. I
agree - more is better. But when you lose documentation, I would
favor taking our time and actually recording where they were found
instead of using, again, basely unscientific recovery methods. Those
rocks would still be there, waiting to be picked up - another fact
that I keep saying and that you keep ignoring.

> Uuuh, seems almost, that the private sector could have donated more lunar
> material for free to institutes, than all official efforts in meteoritic
> history of mankind yielded....

Now that's something I think we can all agree is waaaayyyyyy
over-optimistic.

> For me, these finds are an advance.

Don't see what you mean by that.

> And many dealers and hunters see it as a duty of their profession to
create
> finds of meteorites of special scientific significance at all, to deliver
> them to science and to make them available at rates, that any institute
can
> afford to do research on that material at will.
> Seen the pblications, I dare to state, the many more scientists were able
to
> work on the hot desert finds made by the private sector than worked on the
> finds of the official sector.

I admire such lofty goals, but the incentive to find new and rare
material is money, not science. Hence a lunar sells for more than an
LL3.1, and hence, people try to find lunars. Unequilibrated material,
while it is still valued, is what tells us so much more about the
early solar system. And it's worth a mere fraction of the other
stuff.
Go figure.

> Btw sometimes I get the feeling, when I'm raeding your emails, that you
> might have some difficulties to accept the commercial side of meteorite
> hunting.

Accept it? Well, no, I don't have a problem with that. I understand
what it's done for the science of meteoritics, etc. What I dislike is
the commercialization of the hobby to the extent that science actually
winds up the worse for it, which is what you don't seem to have a
problem with.

> The desert boom in Sahara and Oman and with it that great step forward in
> meteorite science was only possible, because the finders were allowed to
> recover their expenses and to earn money in selling their finds.
> Else we wouldn't know, that there are meteorites at all to be found
> and if you don't allow that, well than you'll get Australia.

Right, and they typically did a good job of recording their finds - so
great. My problem is with NWA, and with irresponsible people who go
to Ash Creek and Buzzard Coulee and don't GPS and photograph stones in
situ.

> (Huhuhu, Orgueil was dealt in 19th century around 100$/g, one of the
> extremely rare cases, that then a type was cheaper than the same type
today)

Well, take inflation into account. $1000/g nowadays is actually
cheaper than $100/g in the 19th century.

> It would interesting, how you would estimate the number of "good" hunters
in
> the US-deserts and how high in your opinion the number of hunters there
is,
> not caring for documentation.

I don't know number of each - all I know is that there are many
hunters at places like Franconia and Gold Basin who go to look for
meteorites and who don't care to take a GPS or camera, and they're
starting to go cold-hunting. Many of them have little incentive to
record coordinates.

> In NWA we haven't the infrastructure that all the nameless hunters could
be
> instructed, how to document their finds and to equip them with GPS-devices
> and cameras.

Well, we do. All it would take is a GPS, pen and paper. Not much
infrastructure.

> In Algeria anyway it wouldn't be possible, cause due to the new
> laws no meteorite trade isn't allowed anymore.

>From what I understand that doesn't stop the nomads from crossing
over, so I don't see where there's a problem.

> And else, the meteorite prices of the NWAs are still to low, that such a
> task could be financed.

It could easily be financed. GPS' cost as little as $50 nowadays.
How much money did you make off of your last lunar? Enough to buy one
or two and change your profit by 1%? If every dealer and did that,
they would all have GPS' by now.

> Well.
> I don't understand you fully - if you want better documented meteorite
> finds, just go to your university, delineate a research project, apply for
> funds, go on the hunt.

It wouldn't make a dent.

> Or establish a cooperation with an Algerian university and hunt there to
> make it better.

That might make a difference, but I'm busy enough here trying to
double-major, in clubs, working in a physics research lab here,
so...yeah. Maybe if I go into meteoritics in graduate school it would
make sense, but there's too little in the way of meteorites here at
Berkeley to warrant suggesting such a project because there are no
professors who are that into meteorites to back it.

> Don't tell: I have no time or there is no money.
> This we hear all the time and these are the excuses all institutes are
> making for so many years. Also these, who are strong advocates for
> protectionist laws.

Oh, it's not a money issue. It's a politics issue and a priorities
issue. I think that would be really fun, but I'm already committed to
a project here working on meteorites. The fact that you're making the
kind of argument that says "if you care so much, then why isn't your
life devoted to the cause" means that you've really nothing to say
against the idea, though, because you've stopped questioning it. So I
guess it really does have some merit.

> >From nothing nothing comes.
> No sweet without sweat.
> These truisms any hunter or dealer has internalized.

Hah, and don't I know it. Not all hunters are willing to go out in
the summer. We do.

> Well in the end again.
>
> We have different opinions (and that's o.k.).

Clearly.

> For me it's more important, that a scientists has at all a sample to put
in
> his microprobe.

They would always have had enough for that. I'm against this surplus
where there are too many to be classified and they can only analyze
the rare ones because there are so many OC's that they can't deal with
them all. That's a problem. And the lack of coordinates is a
problem. And in the long run, we will have less material to show for
it because we have not hunted thoroughly and mapped out strewnfields,
etc. And this is where we disagree- I say move slower and more
thoroughly. You say move fast, take what you can, and move on.
Science doesn't work like that.

> For you it's more important to preserve field information than to recover
> meteorites.

Yeah.

> You are more interested in the terrestrial history of a meteorite.
> I'm more interested in that, what a meteorite tells of those heights, we
> never will be able to access - and how that all haf happened with the
solar
> system, the Earth, the life....

No. I'm more interested in the solar view of things as well.
But I acknowledge and value the terrestrial aspect of their history as well.
Saying that I believe it should be preserved doesn't mean that I think
it's more important. I just think that it's important enough to
warrant saving.

Any real scientist would.

Regards,

Jason

>
> PS: shht remarks: Before Almahata Neuschwanstein was the best documented
> fall ever. An exemplar of a perfect cooperation of private sector and
> science.
> The scientists made available every data about the possible strewnfield to
> anyone who wanted to search - and only with the manpower of these private
> hunters and laymen the three stones could finally have been recovered.
>
> Task forces for new possible falls...
> Jason - Romania, the poorhouse of Europe. And not directly a typical
> meteorite country.
> Why could it happen there, that with the possible meteorite dropper 3
years
> ago (was't it at Comanesti somewhere) you had the next day there police
and
> military combing the area for a possible meteorite?
> Why that isn't possible elsewhere?
> Why not e.g. USA or in Switzerland, one of the richest country in the
World,
> where Suisse scientists don't get tired to trumpet what for an invaluable
> national and natural heritage the meteorites of Oman would be and where a
> kind of law also concerning meteorites does exist.
> Why there again the private enthusiasts had to do all the field work with
> the Lake Constance fireball - in alerting radio stations and newspapers to
> find eye- and earwitnesses, in doing interviews with them, in collecting
> data, in trying to triangulate and to narrow the possible strewnfield down
> and in spending days and weeks searching in the field?
> Why no Suisse meteorite scientist felt a need to occupy himself with
trying
> to find the first possible Suisse fall after 80 years?
>
> And like that, it's quite everywhere.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jason Utas [mailto:meteoritekid at gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. M?rz 2010 14:45
> An: Martin Altmann; Meteorite-list
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] 5 reasons to record meteorite coordinates
>
> Martin, All,
>
>> Not that different from Antarctic meteorites, which have lost their
> original
>> context by the transportation by the ice.
>> Nevertheless they aren't considered useless and good sums of public money
>> are spent to recover them.
>
> Right, but you're comparing apples and oranges. ?Yes, they're still
> valuable. ?No matter how many times I say it, you seem to find it
> necessary to reiterate it.
> But you're comparing meteorites from antarctica which are transported
> naturally, resulting in the following facts:
> 1) There's nothing we can do scientifically to deduce where they fell.
> ?The ice has erased that information. ?Beyond knowing that they fell
> somewhere 'upflow,' we know nothing about where they fell: we
> couldn't.
> 2) Where they fell is in this case not as relevant. ?Because
> glaciation collects meteorites from many places together into one
> place, knowing where they fell wouldn't help you to find more. ?At the
> same time, the scientists do keep track of where, on which ice field,
> each meteorite was found. ?Hence we know that many Antarctic stones
> are paired.
>
> What we don't see is scientists simply assigning every Antarctic
> meteorite a number independent of where it was found. ?They are still
> given prefixes so that pairings may be assigned with some accuracy.
> Apparently location, as much as it can be discerned, is still relevant
> to them.
>
>> I am glad, that we have NWAs - where would be in meteoritics, if we
> wouldn't
>> have had them?
>
> A bunch of meteorites sitting in the desert with determinable
> coordinates waiting to be picked up.
>
> You can always put off picking up a meteorite for a few hundred years,
> and in most cases, not much will happen to it.
>
> But once you pick it up and walk away without noting the find
> location, there's just nothing you can do to get it back.
>
>
>> In my opinion in that find context question
>> one can't compare meteorites with vertebrate fossils or archaeological
>> things.
>> Because other than these object, a meteorite always offers information
>> beyond and independently from its terrestrial history:
>
> Fossils give us a biological and evolutionary history of life, which,
> although it overlaps with Earth's geologic chronology, operates rather
> independently. ?True, it's easier to date fossils based on geologic
> continuity, but we don't inherently value fossils because of what they
> tell us about the geologic processes that preserved and altered them;
> we value fossils generally for what they tell us about what life
> consisted of in eons past.
> But knowing where a fossil was found is quite relevant to its
> provenance, no? ?Even if you can date it without knowing where it was
> found, and you can get the biological/evolutionary information out of
> it, it's still a good thing to know where a fossil was found. ?How
> else do you find more?
> You're just making an arbitrary distinction between terrestrial and
> extraterrestrial history. ?Arbitrary.
>
>> It tells us stories from other celestial bodies and the solar system.
>
> Fossils, life.
>
>> And it does that even if it's only a fragment of a stone. If not too
> small,
>> each meteoritic fragment is a pars pro toto of the whole fall.
>
> Just as a complete fossil is a part of an ecological mosaic that we
> will never wholly uncover, and each fragment of bone, a chip off of a
> tile in that picture of the past.
>
>> Different it is, if you have a fragment of a dino-bone or an artefact,
>> With them the essential piece of information has to be gained from the
> find
>> context.
>
> Only because isotopic dating is much harder on earth. ?If you could
> determine the age of such fossils independently, they would be
> perfectly analogous to meteorites; they would be biologically
> relevant, but without a geologic context, you simply wouldn't know
> where to find more, and maybe find the rest of the fossilized
> organism.
>
> 2008 TC3 is the perfect example - if nomads had gone out and found the
> meteorites without noting coordinates, what would we know about the
> fall? ?Well, if they brought the stones out as a new fall, we might
> think them paired, especially after terrestrially dating the stones,
> but the fact of the matter is that, assuming only a few stones were
> recovered, we might get all ureilites, or all EH, or H. ?Knowing where
> the stones were found and conducting an intensive search in the area
> is the only reason that we have as comprehensive an idea of that
> asteroid's composition as we do now, and that's a fact.
>
>> And also the circumstances are somewhat different.
>> If you find a fossil, you can ram your flag into the site, because you
> know,
>> where one fossil was found, there are more. And as they were preserved in
>> the soil for dozens of million years, you have all the time of the
>> worrrrrrld to excavate the site.
>
> And if you find a meteorite in a certain place and flag the location,
> you might well find more of the same type nearby.
> Different processes, same thing. ?There may be more fossils near the
> one you found, and there might be more meteorites near the one you
> found. ?But you have to know where they were both found to look for
> more.
>
>> Note also, what for efforts are undertaken, to excavate archaeological
>> sites. There are some, where a professor's lifetime wasn't enough to do
> all
>> the documentation.
>
> The method is different, true - most meteorites don't require
> excavation, but...some do.
> And with fossils, you have examination - with meteorites we have
> analysis. ?There are still many secrets contained in Orguiel and
> Murchison - more than will be unravelled in my lifetime.
> I see little difference.
>
>> Such efforts do not exist in the World of meteorites.
>
> We know everything to know about Semarkona, Ibitira, Kaidun, Orgueil,
> and all meteorites?
> No. ?Studies will continue to discover more information and to
> interpret it correctly.
> That's the real difference between studying fossils and meteorites.
> Meteorites are a means of figuring out how things formed geologically.
> ?On earth, we've got that (geology) generally figured out, and we
> study fossils to figure out how life formed evolutionarily. ?We know
> enough about fossils, biology, etc., to know how things generally
> worked, though. ?With meteorites, we know less about how things came
> into existence and more about the chronology afterwards.
> Kind of like how we are still trying to figure out how life first came
> into existence, but we know how things generally worked after that.
> Understanding phases of metamorphism generally isn't a problem.
> Figuring out where Ureilites came from, on the other hand....not so
> easy.
>
>> Other than Jason, I don't think, that the very surfaces of the US-deserts
>> and the dry lake beds remain absolutely unchanged for thousands and
>> thousands of years.
>
> The lakes around here dried up in the pleistocene about 15,000 years
> ago. ?They've been periodically wet and dry in the meanwhile, but we
> do know that some meteorites in the American Southwest (e.g. Gold
> Basin) have been around for nearly 20,000 years. ?So while they might
> not be unchanged, they're still here - at least some of them.
>
>> And if once a stone disappeared in the ground, it's
>> quite impossible to find it.
>
> Hardly. ?Half of the meteorites being found out here are being found
> by metal-detectorists, buried.
> Of course, a lot of those have been found in known
> strewnfields....which illustrates my point.
> Franconia. ?One find. ?Can you imagine if the finder was not a
> qualified meteorite hunter and did not record where he found it? ?The
> loss? ?No Franconia on the market, no Sacramento Wash meteorites, no
> Buck Mountain Wash meteorites, Palo Verde Mine, etc.
> Same goes for Gold Basin and Hualapi Wash, White Elephant, Temple Bar,
etc.
> Knowing where one was found led to the discovery of thousands of
> pieces of those meteorites - and to others in the area that would
> never otherwise have been found.
> Thanks to the fact that hunters in California recorded that meteorites
> were found at Superior Valley, we also have an acapulcoite, and Rob
> Matson's CK4 from Lucerne, as well as his E-chondrite from Roach Dry
> Lake.
> Having a strewnfield makes hunting more worthwhile; without it, you'd
> have to be hoping to make that random cold find, which many people
> aren't patient enough to do.
>
> So, it took knowing where other meteorites were found to find those
stones.
>
>
>> See also Oman, where after each rain, new
>> meteorites appear on the surface. And Sahara was once a green place - not
> so
>> long ago, at least most of the NWAs, if I think about their average
>> terrestrial ages, still had witnessed that period.
>
> True.
>
>> In non-desert regions, a meteorite will be covered by vegetation often in
>> less than a year, after a couple of years it will be fully disappear in
> the
>> humus layer.
>
> Most likely.
>
>> With fresh falls, it is in meteorite science consensus and state of art,
>> that the specimens shall be recovered rather in hours than in days.
>> Task forces to recover new falls (compare it btw. to the emergency
>> excavation teams, if on a construction site an archaeological object is
>> found) timely seem not to exist in most of the prohibitive countries.
>
> Australia, yes, Canada...no teams, but scientists found Buzzard Coulee
> and Grimsby pieces. ?Ummm...organized teams, I agree, are hard to come
> by - but they typically do chase falls down one way or another. ?It's
> not like hunters go out in organized teams, though, so I don't see why
> you're saying we're better than the scientists.
>
>> And in almost all cases, where a fireball promises to be a dropper, the
>> essential field work to make it possible at all, that a stone might be
>> recovered, is done by the private collectors.
>
> No. ?Part of the reason why Whetstone was so amazing was because a
> collector/hunter actually tracked it down without the find being made
> by locals or radar information from scientists. ?It was the first time
> that anyone has done that in many, many years. ?Private collectors
> often recover stones, but the finding of the fall is typically done
> due in large part to scientists, and not to us.
>
>> That laws would help or would be necessary to preserve coordinates is in
> my
>> opinion a spurious discussion.
>> First of all, most desert meteorites and the most significant desert
finds
>> in USA, I guess, are found by experienced meteorite hunters, well knowing
>> about the importance of find documentation.
>> (In fact, as
>
> And some aren't. ?Temple Bar was found somewhere near the Gold Basin
> strewnfield...or something like that. ?Somewhere in northwest Arizona.
> ?But this is kind of a side-issue. ?You seem to be saying that most
> hunters here are doing a good thing by documenting our finds. ?And I
> would like to point out that if we didn't, we wouldn't find a fraction
> of the stones that we actually do find.
>
>> Secondly. (The DaG-meteorites were documented too)
>> The Oman finds were perfectly documented by the private hunters from the
>> beginning on. With in situ photos, GPS coordinates, description of the
>> surrounding soil, day of find, number of pieces, exact weights and later
>> complete classification, even some strewnfields were mapped and published
>> and also many more scientists around the world were able to do research
on
>> the finds, as it is today the case with the "official" finds, as well as
> by
>> far more of these specimens enrich the institutional collections around
> the
>> world and are partially on public display, than the "official" ones
>> ?- and many teams of these private hunters were led by professional and
>> examined geologists.
>
> And many more lunar and martian and rare meteorites were found because
> of the documentation. ?Fact.
>
>> Nevertheless the laws came and additionally with almost every opportunity
> it
>> was agitated that existing laws should be better enforced to eliminate
the
>> successful finders and pioneers out.
>
> Well, it's keeping some out. ?But you're talking about the application
> of restrictive laws where hunters by and large already record relevant
> information. ?I'm talking about doing what we can where that
> information is being lost so that it might be preserved - and recorded
> later.
>
>> To break laws may be a peccadillo for Jason as an occasional spare time
>> hunter,
>> professional hunters and those, who generate the lion share of the annual
>> World meteorite output can't work like that.
>
> I don't know what you're saying here. ?If the laws state only that I
> can hunt for meteorites, that they belong to the US government, and
> that I cannot sell or trade my finds, then I have never broken one of
> these laws.
> But you seem to confuse this with the notion that the world meteorite
> output would drop if all hunters were to do this as well. ?I agree
> that there is no system in place for this to happen in NWA, but the
> time and effort it would take to do so would be easily doable if the
> hunters out there had the necessary equipment - and if we were to
> prohibit them from hunting so that qualified people might go there an
> hunt with GPS' and the like, well, yes, output would fall, but from a
> scientific perspective, we would get more out of *it in the long run.*
> ?We would know where particular meteorites were found, and we would
> have much more detailed strewnfield maps, and more pieces of the rare
> meteorites than have been found. ?In the long run.
>
> You have NEVER addressed this idea, and always say the same thing in
> response to this issue and I'm getting fed up with your dancing around
> the point.
>
> Jason
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> PS.
>> And in general, we should abstain from iterate from these myths about
>> profit. Can me anyone show a hunter, who became rich and wealthy in
> selling
>> his US-desert finds?
>> I don't know any, you?
>>
>> PSS: No laws at all have proved to be the most efficient and
> cost-effective
>> way for any country to produce the most finds, the largest tkws and that
>> these end in the institutes.
>>
>> So I suggest: No laws at all, at best, a right for preemption.
>>
>> That meteorite finders are rewarded for their work, performance, service
-
>> is not only a matter of course it is an imperative of ethical behaviour.
>> Full stop.
>>
>> Confiscation with financial compensation I think wouldn't work, as the
>> official side would be overextended to determine a market value.
>> In fact already today only a few very scientists and clerks seems to have
> an
>> idea of meteorite pricings - else we wouldn't have all these new laws and
>> else the institutes would buy like fools, to take advantage from the now
>> still so unseen low price level.
>>
>> Second possibility. 50-50 if state is land owner,
>> or in general 50% for the country, no matter where the meteorite was
> found.
>> The latter will be possible, because of the strong legal protection of
>> property in free governments under the law, maybe only in non-democratic
> or
>> communist countries or other dictatorships.
>> That of course would make meteorites more expensive for all others,
> private
>> collectors, scientists and curators.
>>
>> Huhuhu.... if I take Wietrzno-Bobrka...then in Poland in every fifth
>> generation a meteorite is found.
>> It must be a very very happy country that it hasn't any other problems
> grave
>> enough, that they had the leisure to invent a law for meteorites....
>>
>> Maybe a self-regulating system? If now less than a new meteorite per year
> is
>> found in Australia, maybe the laws there are recognized to be obsolete
and
>> will be cancelled?
>>
>> Panama, Israel, Liberia... they haven't any meteorite yet.
>> Perhaps they should pass a law of preventive character, for the case that
>> one day a meteorite will fall there?
>>
>> Any innocent bystander of that global meteorite laws debate would come to
>> the conclusion, that this all is a very very silly thing, I suppose.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Carl
> 's
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. M?rz 2010 00:17
>> An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] 5 reasons to record meteorite coordinates
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Carl,
>>
>> Another way to see how important co-ordinates are is just to look at
> what's
>> happened to the NWA meteorites. Nobody knows where they are found, so
many
>> pairings and unclassified stones!
>>
>> Good luck on the classification of your new find.
>>
>> Carl2
>>
>>
>>>I don't yet understand why people put so much importance on find
>> co-ords and strewnfields... I
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Wed 10 Mar 2010 09:02:04 PM PST