Re: [meteorite-list] conflicting viewpoints
Hi all - Given the market prices, I wonder why the academic institutions and academic departments in Libya, Algeria, Morocco, etc. have not turned to meteorite hunting as a source of funds. Possibly the answer lies in the skills required for searching - the eyesight, the concentration, the identitfication, and just the plain old obsession required for it. While the USGS plays a role, they have a lot to do. One might think that the task would be part of NASA's mandate, but what NASA really does is buy rockets. The lunar meteorite/Apollo samples cost comparison is interesting, now extend that to consider the case for Mars sample return samples. All in all, maybe the situation as it exists, what has happened, is optimal, and perhaps the free market is the best way to go here. It is certain that Bob Haag played his role. just some thoughts in the night, Ed --- Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, List, Dr. Hutson, It is true that many meteorites have been found by dealers/hunters that would have just sat on the ground otherwise, as scientists do not go out into the field to search for meteorites (with the exception of Antarctica). If it is true that scientists do not go out into the field to search for meteorites, then the word you are looking for is all rather than many. Setting Antarctica aside for the moment, we see academic geologists go out into the field for data, academic paleontologists go out into the field for data, academic paleoanthropologists go out into the field for data, as well as academic anthropologists of the living humans, academic social scientists go out into the field for data, whether it's The 'Hood or the rain forest, academic astronomers go out into the field for data and build there multi- billion dollar observatories to collect that data, academic oceanographers and marine biologists go out into the field for data, which field is an ocean replete with storms, danger, and a lot of vomiting -- I could stretch this list out for a page, but I won't. So, pray tell, WHY do academic meteoriticists NOT go out into the field for data? Do paleoanthropologists sit in their labs waiting for someone to bring by the missing link to be classified? Does the anthropologist wait for some stranger to drag in a pygmy? And so forth, for another equally long list... The answer, naturally, is No. They are the ones that know; they are the ones that go. Surely, you would not stipulate that private individuals, dealers, collectors, lay-persons, are better qualified, better trained, more skilled, better working SCIENTISTS in the field than those whose academic area of study, specialty, lifelong object of knowledge, is meteorites? OK, at this point, I lift my foot from the throttle... There are research scientists and field scientists, theoretical physicists and experimental physicists, lab people and field people, thinkers and doers, mentational scholars and scholars who like to dig in the blazing desert at 120 degrees, whether it's for ancient man in the Afar or a chunk of the Moon in Oman, but... I have listened to (OK, read) this same argument on this List for years, with the same things being said over and over again. Everybody is missing the point. Step back and look again. The mighty-meteorite- hunter, dealer, merchant, collector hierarchical network has grown up because there is a glaring structural deficiency in science. In non-academic terms, there is a big hole and people will fill it, an empty gap into which human activity has poured, as it always has and always will. This is a structural problem, people, nothing more. The one field of academic scientific study among many that deals with physically real objects from all over the universe, be they fossils, other humans, rare species of other natural life, continents, mountains and oceans, or galaxies far away, that never leaves the lab to look at, or look for, the object of their study is... the academic scientific study of meteorites. It is a scientific field of study with a research pole and no field pole, like a magnetic monopole of the knowledge biz. The Indiana Jones of Meteorites who puts on all that khaki and jumps on a plane bound for God Knows Where at the first news of a confirmed fall is not a mild mannered professor in real life, because...? Because there are NO professors that do that. So instead private individuals, be they businessmen or enthusiasts or both, do that. Whose fault is that? Look not to the heavens, Horatio, the fault lies in our academic structural problem. There once WERE academic professorial meteorite field scientists: H. H. Nininger (who was a professor who quit his college to chase meteorites), Kulik who went back and back into Siberia until he found Tunguska, Krinov, Lincoln LaPaz, all academics, all both
Re: [meteorite-list] conflicting viewpoints
and whether it is conducted, as Jeff put it, dare I say it, legally, well, I'll just stick with murky. A lots of those overseas localities themselves seem murky to our eyes. But if the playing field is not level, aren't you implying murkiness always has the advantage and usually wins the day? A dreary prospect. I think non-murky methods may be disadvantaged in some ways, yet possess certain advantages murkiness can't access. Sterling K. Webb - - Original Message - From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:32 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] conflicting viewpoints Dear all, It is simply not true that scientists only collect meteorites in Antarctica. I personally know of many scientific collecting expeditions, including countries like Oman, Morocco, Mauritania, Libya, Niger, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, Chile, Australia, and the US, all in the last 10 years, all done in cooperation with or by local institutions. What you have to remember is that there are political barriers for outsiders who want to do official research in some of the most important of these countries, whereas the countries themselves have few or no scientists who work on things like meteorites. Probably two of the three most important meteorite-producing countries on the list above are Libya and Algeria, and I probably don't have to tell anybody why it has been difficult for other countries to mount official expeditions to these places (although there have been a few and things are slowly improving). In contrast, there are now active, healthy scientific relationships between the Omanis and foreign institutions resulting in many meteorite finds. The same goes for Australia, where most of the Nullarbor meteorites have been found by scientific expeditions. But private collectors have not faced these political barriers in places that have proved difficult for scientists to penetrate, or at least they have largely been able to avoid them. They do not need to go through official diplomatic channels, or at least for the most part they have avoided it. A passport, some money, the ability to endure harsh conditions, and a willingness to take risks are what have given us many desert finds by nonscientists. Some of this has been legal, some maybe not, and a lot of it is murky. But murky is unacceptable for a foreign scientist trying to raise money for an expedition. Could scientists have done more over the last 10 years to collect desert meteorites themselves? Probably so. But the playing field is not level between those who must do things openly, officially, and, dare I say it, legally, as every university and museum must, and private collectors who can fly by the seat of their pants. Jeff At 04:56 AM 8/14/2006, Sterling K. Webb wrote: Hi, List, Dr. Hutson, It is true that many meteorites have been found by dealers/hunters that would have just sat on the ground otherwise, as scientists do not go out into the field to search for meteorites (with the exception of Antarctica). If it is true that scientists do not go out into the field to search for meteorites, then the word you are looking for is all rather than many. Setting Antarctica aside for the moment, we see academic geologists go out into the field for data, academic paleontologists go out into the field for data, academic paleoanthropologists go out into the field for data, as well as academic anthropologists of the living humans, academic social scientists go out into the field for data, whether it's The 'Hood or the rain forest, academic astronomers go out into the field for data and build there multi- billion dollar observatories to collect that data, academic oceanographers and marine biologists go out into the field for data, which field is an ocean replete with storms, danger, and a lot of vomiting -- I could stretch this list out for a page, but I won't. So, pray tell, WHY do academic meteoriticists NOT go out into the field for data? Do paleoanthropologists sit in their labs waiting for someone to bring by the missing link to be classified? Does the anthropologist wait for some stranger to drag in a pygmy? And so forth, for another equally long list... The answer, naturally, is No. They are the ones that know; they are the ones that go. Surely, you would not stipulate that private individuals, dealers, collectors, lay-persons, are better qualified, better trained, more skilled, better working SCIENTISTS in the field than those whose academic area of study, specialty, lifelong object of knowledge, is meteorites? OK, at this point, I lift my foot from the throttle... There are research scientists and field scientists, theoretical physicists and experimental physicists, lab people and field people, thinkers and doers, mentational scholars and scholars
Re: [meteorite-list] conflicting viewpoints
Hi, List, Dr. Hutson, It is true that many meteorites have been found by dealers/hunters that would have just sat on the ground otherwise, as scientists do not go out into the field to search for meteorites (with the exception of Antarctica). If it is true that scientists do not go out into the field to search for meteorites, then the word you are looking for is all rather than many. Setting Antarctica aside for the moment, we see academic geologists go out into the field for data, academic paleontologists go out into the field for data, academic paleoanthropologists go out into the field for data, as well as academic anthropologists of the living humans, academic social scientists go out into the field for data, whether it's The 'Hood or the rain forest, academic astronomers go out into the field for data and build there multi- billion dollar observatories to collect that data, academic oceanographers and marine biologists go out into the field for data, which field is an ocean replete with storms, danger, and a lot of vomiting -- I could stretch this list out for a page, but I won't. So, pray tell, WHY do academic meteoriticists NOT go out into the field for data? Do paleoanthropologists sit in their labs waiting for someone to bring by the missing link to be classified? Does the anthropologist wait for some stranger to drag in a pygmy? And so forth, for another equally long list... The answer, naturally, is No. They are the ones that know; they are the ones that go. Surely, you would not stipulate that private individuals, dealers, collectors, lay-persons, are better qualified, better trained, more skilled, better working SCIENTISTS in the field than those whose academic area of study, specialty, lifelong object of knowledge, is meteorites? OK, at this point, I lift my foot from the throttle... There are research scientists and field scientists, theoretical physicists and experimental physicists, lab people and field people, thinkers and doers, mentational scholars and scholars who like to dig in the blazing desert at 120 degrees, whether it's for ancient man in the Afar or a chunk of the Moon in Oman, but... I have listened to (OK, read) this same argument on this List for years, with the same things being said over and over again. Everybody is missing the point. Step back and look again. The mighty-meteorite- hunter, dealer, merchant, collector hierarchical network has grown up because there is a glaring structural deficiency in science. In non-academic terms, there is a big hole and people will fill it, an empty gap into which human activity has poured, as it always has and always will. This is a structural problem, people, nothing more. The one field of academic scientific study among many that deals with physically real objects from all over the universe, be they fossils, other humans, rare species of other natural life, continents, mountains and oceans, or galaxies far away, that never leaves the lab to look at, or look for, the object of their study is... the academic scientific study of meteorites. It is a scientific field of study with a research pole and no field pole, like a magnetic monopole of the knowledge biz. The Indiana Jones of Meteorites who puts on all that khaki and jumps on a plane bound for God Knows Where at the first news of a confirmed fall is not a mild mannered professor in real life, because...? Because there are NO professors that do that. So instead private individuals, be they businessmen or enthusiasts or both, do that. Whose fault is that? Look not to the heavens, Horatio, the fault lies in our academic structural problem. There once WERE academic professorial meteorite field scientists: H. H. Nininger (who was a professor who quit his college to chase meteorites), Kulik who went back and back into Siberia until he found Tunguska, Krinov, Lincoln LaPaz, all academics, all both researchers AND field workers. But no longer. Or at least, very little, for the last half century. OK, time to drag Antarctica back into the discussion. Yes, almost as many Antarctic meteorites as the rest of the world's collection. Is this the missing field science of meteorites? Yes and no. 1.) No falls, just finds. 2.) Cryodynamics collects the meteorites and piles them up in one place; if the climate were benign you could send bright teenagers to collect them (if there were any bright teenagers) or grad students. It's like shooting fish in a very cold barrel, though. 3.) Antarctica, in theory a sacred preserve for all mankind where national claims are not allowed, is in reality restricted to the activities of (big) nations and only to activities of a national character: top-down, institutional, bureaucratic, official. Antarctica's meteorites are national, institutional, official property, a world apart. In effect, institutional science has staked its exclusive claim to Antarctic meteorites and renounced its claim to do field work
Re: [meteorite-list] conflicting viewpoints
Dear all, It is simply not true that scientists only collect meteorites in Antarctica. I personally know of many scientific collecting expeditions, including countries like Oman, Morocco, Mauritania, Libya, Niger, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, Chile, Australia, and the US, all in the last 10 years, all done in cooperation with or by local institutions. What you have to remember is that there are political barriers for outsiders who want to do official research in some of the most important of these countries, whereas the countries themselves have few or no scientists who work on things like meteorites. Probably two of the three most important meteorite-producing countries on the list above are Libya and Algeria, and I probably don't have to tell anybody why it has been difficult for other countries to mount official expeditions to these places (although there have been a few and things are slowly improving). In contrast, there are now active, healthy scientific relationships between the Omanis and foreign institutions resulting in many meteorite finds. The same goes for Australia, where most of the Nullarbor meteorites have been found by scientific expeditions. But private collectors have not faced these political barriers in places that have proved difficult for scientists to penetrate, or at least they have largely been able to avoid them. They do not need to go through official diplomatic channels, or at least for the most part they have avoided it. A passport, some money, the ability to endure harsh conditions, and a willingness to take risks are what have given us many desert finds by nonscientists. Some of this has been legal, some maybe not, and a lot of it is murky. But murky is unacceptable for a foreign scientist trying to raise money for an expedition. Could scientists have done more over the last 10 years to collect desert meteorites themselves? Probably so. But the playing field is not level between those who must do things openly, officially, and, dare I say it, legally, as every university and museum must, and private collectors who can fly by the seat of their pants. Jeff At 04:56 AM 8/14/2006, Sterling K. Webb wrote: Hi, List, Dr. Hutson, It is true that many meteorites have been found by dealers/hunters that would have just sat on the ground otherwise, as scientists do not go out into the field to search for meteorites (with the exception of Antarctica). If it is true that scientists do not go out into the field to search for meteorites, then the word you are looking for is all rather than many. Setting Antarctica aside for the moment, we see academic geologists go out into the field for data, academic paleontologists go out into the field for data, academic paleoanthropologists go out into the field for data, as well as academic anthropologists of the living humans, academic social scientists go out into the field for data, whether it's The 'Hood or the rain forest, academic astronomers go out into the field for data and build there multi- billion dollar observatories to collect that data, academic oceanographers and marine biologists go out into the field for data, which field is an ocean replete with storms, danger, and a lot of vomiting -- I could stretch this list out for a page, but I won't. So, pray tell, WHY do academic meteoriticists NOT go out into the field for data? Do paleoanthropologists sit in their labs waiting for someone to bring by the missing link to be classified? Does the anthropologist wait for some stranger to drag in a pygmy? And so forth, for another equally long list... The answer, naturally, is No. They are the ones that know; they are the ones that go. Surely, you would not stipulate that private individuals, dealers, collectors, lay-persons, are better qualified, better trained, more skilled, better working SCIENTISTS in the field than those whose academic area of study, specialty, lifelong object of knowledge, is meteorites? OK, at this point, I lift my foot from the throttle... There are research scientists and field scientists, theoretical physicists and experimental physicists, lab people and field people, thinkers and doers, mentational scholars and scholars who like to dig in the blazing desert at 120 degrees, whether it's for ancient man in the Afar or a chunk of the Moon in Oman, but... I have listened to (OK, read) this same argument on this List for years, with the same things being said over and over again. Everybody is missing the point. Step back and look again. The mighty-meteorite- hunter, dealer, merchant, collector hierarchical network has grown up because there is a glaring structural deficiency in science. In non-academic terms, there is a big hole and people will fill it, an empty gap into which human activity has poured, as it always has and always will. This is a structural problem, people, nothing more. The one field of academic scientific study
Re: [meteorite-list] conflicting viewpoints
that represents is much more difficult, but I would think there would be at least 5000 repeat buyers (10-12 purchases a year), so a cumulative number of 8000 collectors at a minimum and as many one-time purchasers in the past near-decade of eBay sales is possible. And that's only eBay, and largely only the USA. There might be as many as 100,000 to 150,000 items in private hands. (From 0 in 1998 to 30,000 in 2006 averages = 15,000 times 9 years of eBay.) That could be exaggerated -- in either direction. I'll bet that between 2000 and 2004, Dean Bessey had at least 30 thousand meteorite listings on eBay, auctions, store, website. (I'm NOT asking, Dean, that's your business, not ours -- but we still like to guess, just the same.) The phrase river of meteorites seems justified. And even if it's only 50,000 or 80,000, that's still a boatload of meteorites... List members, what's your estimate? How many meteorites in private hands? Sterling K. Webb - I think my first post of this bounced -- too long with reply to reply to reply. Try again after trimming. - - Original Message - From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:32 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] conflicting viewpoints Dear all, It is simply not true that scientists only collect meteorites in Antarctica. I personally know of many scientific collecting expeditions, including countries like Oman, Morocco, Mauritania, Libya, Niger, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, Chile, Australia, and the US, all in the last 10 years, all done in cooperation with or by local institutions. What you have to remember is that there are political barriers for outsiders who want to do official research in some of the most important of these countries, whereas the countries themselves have few or no scientists who work on things like meteorites. Probably two of the three most important meteorite-producing countries on the list above are Libya and Algeria, and I probably don't have to tell anybody why it has been difficult for other countries to mount official expeditions to these places (although there have been a few and things are slowly improving). In contrast, there are now active, healthy scientific relationships between the Omanis and foreign institutions resulting in many meteorite finds. The same goes for Australia, where most of the Nullarbor meteorites have been found by scientific expeditions. But private collectors have not faced these political barriers in places that have proved difficult for scientists to penetrate, or at least they have largely been able to avoid them. They do not need to go through official diplomatic channels, or at least for the most part they have avoided it. A passport, some money, the ability to endure harsh conditions, and a willingness to take risks are what have given us many desert finds by nonscientists. Some of this has been legal, some maybe not, and a lot of it is murky. But murky is unacceptable for a foreign scientist trying to raise money for an expedition. Could scientists have done more over the last 10 years to collect desert meteorites themselves? Probably so. But the playing field is not level between those who must do things openly, officially, and, dare I say it, legally, as every university and museum must, and private collectors who can fly by the seat of their pants. Jeff __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] conflicting viewpoints
Hi all - How are these NWA pieces getting provisional numbers without positive ids as meteorites and thus samples being obtained for scientific purposes? Who is allowing them to be represented as meteorites without proper id as such? Where is the dealers association? What happened while I was away? Plese no long replies - keep it short and sweet. good hunting, Ed --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is in response to the posting Stop thieves! Meteorite marauders of Norway! by Michael Mazur. In his posting, Mr. Mazur says There aren't many of us but I'd like to think that we're not thieves who don't care about science as is implied by the article. If you disagree with Elen's proposal, maybe a gentle note explaining how you think meteorite collectors and dealers can and do help science would be a good idea. I am a scientist, not a collector or a dealer, and I see a bit of both sides of this issue. It is true that many meteorites have been found by dealers/hunters that would have just sat on the ground otherwise, as scientists do not go out into the field to search for meteorites (with the exception of Antarctica). It is also true that in general, a type specimen of each meteorite is deposited in a repository during classification, making this material available to scientists for research. I say in general, because some of the repositories are private collections and it is not clear that this material will be available to scientists in the future. So why arent scientists jumping up and down in happiness. Well, for one thing, not all of the material that is found will ever be seen by a scientist. A lot of meteorites are being sold without being classified. Ive received more than one request from a person who bought a meteorite off of e-bay with a provisional NWA number, who wants their sample classified. As these are whole stones, with no material missing, it is clear that someone requested a provisional number, just for the purpose of being able to sell a named meteorite. Some of these may not even be meteorites. Additionally, scientists arent happy about the current system because some of the dealers/collectors have been known to lie about important information (such as when and where a sample was collected). Also, most public repositories (museums and universities) dont have funds to purchase samples, and so cannot compete with dealers when a fresh fall occurs. It is important to study fresh falls quickly, before theyve experienced significant terrestrial weathering. While some dealers/collectors are very generous about donating substantial amounts of material to an institution for study, others are very reluctant to give even the minimum 20 grams require by the Nomenclature Committee. For large-scale breccias (think Portales Valley), a 20 gram sample gives a very misleading view of the entire meteorite. Also, as many analytical techniques are destructive; if only 20 grams is available to scientists (who cant afford to buy samples), then that sample is unlikely to be thoroughly studied. Finally, private collections can be lost when the collector dies. I recently had someone come in with a fist-sized piece of Canyon Diablo that they had bought for $3 at a garage sale. It had no information the people selling the meteorite werent even aware that it was a meteorite. It had obviously come from someones collection. Also, recently a private collector here in Oregon died unexpectedly, without leaving a will. He was a bachelor with no close relatives. One of the dealers from whom he had purchased meteorites was aware that the man had wanted to leave his collection to a museum. Distant relatives called me in to help identify samples. The samples had gotten jumbled and separated from the labels, I suspect when the relatives were looking through the samples. The collector had a catalog (without photographs), and we were able to match most of the samples to the descriptions in the catalog, although a handful of samples remained unidentified. The collectors relatives then sold off all of the material. They may or may not have included correct information with the samples. So, I suspect that unless ALL dealers become more generous with the amount of samples they donate (particularly for falls to local institutions), they will find that more and more countries are going to place restrictions on the ability of dealers/hunters to purchase or collect samples. Unfortunately, it only takes one or two bad apples to give all dealers a bad reputation. And if you are a collector who values your collection and doesnt want to see your material broken or sliced up and sold on e-bay, then you should write a will, directing what should happen to your collection when you die. If you intend to leave your material to an institution, you should leave
