[meteorite-list] Novato update
From: Rob Matson <mojave_meteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 00:52:21 -0700
A few remarks on your recent email:
> With regards to Novato: Without Dr. Jenniskens' efforts (published
> fireball trajectory estimates and his description of what to look for),
> Novato #1 would not have been recognized, and we do not know
> whether or not any of the subsequent finds would have been made.
Whether Petrus had published a trajectory or not, a trajectory *was*
provided by me, just as I did for Sutter's Mill, Chelyabinsk, Mifflin and
quite a few other falls over the last decade. So in the case of Novato,
there was redundancy. Also, if not for the second find at Novato by
a private hunter, the first might very well have gone unrecognized
as a meteorite. Don't forget that Dr. Jenniskens initially misidentified
it as being terrestrial.
> Instead, thanks to the newspaper articles about the fireball (with
> information from Dr. Jenniskens), Novato #1 was recovered.
I agree that what Petrus should be most commended for is generating
excellent PR in the Bay Area which no doubt contributed to that
initial house-hitter being suspected by the homeowner as a
> Once we had that data point, we knew where to look.
People knew where to look, with or without that data point -- at
least to within a couple miles crosstrack.
> It also gave us greater incentive to look in general.
There's no denying that there is always nagging uncertainty prior to
making that first find. That first find is always a game-changer.
> Stanfield will be another case of a poorly documented fall unless the
> coordinates are eventually made 'public' on Galactic Analytics.
There seems to be a bit of animosity directed toward the Stanfield
fall, or at least it has become a bit of a whipping boy. I don't recall
seeing similar negative remarks being made about Ash Creek or
Whetstone Mountains or Grimsby or Buzzard Coulee or dare-I-say
Chelyabinsk. Why pick on Stanfield?
> I'm not saying there are rules that must be adhered to or anything
> like that, but the way things are generally being done is unscientific.
> If data is being lost, it's a shame.
No data is being lost, any more than data at any of the other falls
I mentioned has been lost.
Received on Tue 07 May 2013 03:52:21 AM PDT