[meteorite-list] Find coordinates for recent falls
From: Jim Wooddell <jimwooddell_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 11:57:34 -0700
Rob, Exactly. During the hunting frenzy, it's normal to not share
data. Back to the norm...yes. Sharing, for example, may occur
between hunters in the field but not the general public. I would not
have an issue sharing data in the field with most hunters I know. So,
for example if we were both hunting an area, I might call you over
and show it to you...in situ. Or at the end of a day we might meet up
Still, a hunter may choose, for whatever reason, not share the find.
We'd never know it or might learn about it way down the road.
While I would like to actually see a strewn map of Stanfield or any
field, I understand is may never happen in whole or in part. So what
we may see is what I call bragging rights... Rob found a 400 grammer,
Jim found a 2 grammer, Bob found a 600 grammer, just for examples.
I for one, enjoy strewn field data as you have seen!
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Matson, Robert D.
<ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com> wrote:
> 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
>> 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,
-- Jim Wooddell jimwooddell at gmail.com 928-247-2675Received on Thu 02 May 2013 02:57:34 PM PDT