[meteorite-list] Find coordinates for recent falls

From: Matson, Robert D. <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 11:38:08 -0700
Message-ID: <7C640E28081AEE4B952F008D1E913F17077B2A2C_at_0461-its-exmb04.us.saic.com>

Hi Jim,

Okay -- it seemed like you were making a point of singling out
Stanfield as some anomaly, but I gather you were just mentioning
it because it's the most recent case and would seem to signal
a return to the "old ways" after the rare triplet of coordinate
sharing on Sutter's Mill, Battle Mountain and Novato. I still
think it's too soon to throw up Indian Butte/Stanfield as a
poster child for coordinate secrecy -- the coordinates may
eventually be made public by the finders. Certainly the finds
are being numbered in much the same way that they were for the
Nevada and California falls. The other examples I mentioned are
better ones, IMO, since sufficient time has passed that if
coordinates were going to be made public, they would have been
by now. Btw, I want to add that I was mistaken about Mifflin --
I was reminded by Mike Miller that Eric Wichman did compile and
make public a detailed map of a significant fraction of the
finds there. So Mifflin is really the first example of a fall
where significant sharing of find information took place.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Wooddell [mailto:jimwooddell at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:13 AM
To: Matson, Robert D.
Cc: Meteorite List
Subject: Re: Find coordinates for recent falls

Hi Rob,
No, I am very fair I think. My reasoning was to provide two different
samples of field recovery. Sutters Mill was, IMO, an exception and not
the norm. It did not reflect an accepted practice. So I used Stanfield
as a perfect example of the difference. It is not the normal condition
to share find data and recently it seems that changed. I fully
understand that and do not disagree with it. We are not in
Stanfield is a perfect example of the process we are speaking of
relative to Novato, Sutters Mill...not working.
To think this will work in the real world, I think, is not practical.
In a perfect world maybe.
I am not ragging on Stanfield at all....I hope it did not come across
that way.


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Matson, Robert D.
<ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com> wrote:
> Hi Jim/List,
> You wrote, in part:
>> While I agree 100% that it's nice to have field data....lord knows
>> I've go through hell with the Franconia project, Stanfield is a
>> perfect example of this process not working. Has no really useful
>> field data in regards to assigned numbers. It simply is not working
>> as data is withheld....so only those hunters know what their finds
>> are.
> I think you're being a bit unfair here. The first find was made only
> 11 weeks ago. Given how many manhours have gone into each meteorite
> recovery, is it really fair to expect the finders to reveal their
> coordinates when they're still out there looking for more? Those
> coordinates aren't lost; you'd only need to consolidate information
> from 2 or 3 key people to have all of them. Will it happen someday? I
> really can't say. Mind you, I think it would be very interesting from
> a scientific perspective to have the full picture at Indian
> Butte/Stanfield. There was a significant difference between the upper
> atmospheric wind direction, and the bolide's flight direction, which
> leads to a very complex strewn field distribution when coupled with
> the multiple fragmentations that the meteoroid underwent.
> But the reality is that Sutter's Mill, Novato and Battle Mountain are
> rare exceptions to the more usual practice of withholding coordinates
> for recent (and not-so-recent) falls.
> Show me the public coordinates for Ash Creek, Whetstone Mountains,
> Buzzard Coulee, Addison, Grimsby, Mifflin or even Park Forest. That's
> right: they don't exist.
> Best wishes,
> Rob
Received on Thu 02 May 2013 02:38:08 PM PDT

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb