The problem I have is every one should spend their hard earned money in the field looking for these damn things to ease the people that don't leave their driveway. I'm sorry before u bitch and complain get off your ass and not spend time in Stewart Valley or in Franconia getting DCA crap classified. Work in the field and contribute. Make a contribution to science before u bitch about other people. Hunting ain't free.
On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:19 PM, "Richard Montgomery" <rickm...@earthlink.net> wrote: > One of the stones from this find was "lent" to the NASA team, with an open > mind and naivte perhaps; a situation that definitely shook her by total > surprise and dismay, when another finder of another stone offered a > perspective. She wasn't pleased to learn that she may never see it again. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Verish" <bolidecha...@yahoo.com> > To: "Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral" <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:34 AM > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Novato update > > > Thanks Rob, > for clearing the air and getting this thread back on track. > And now that the dust has settled, we're back to my original concern: > > Why do we have to wait for just the name to be approved? > > Here is the question I am posing to the List, stated another way: > > If everyone is in agreement with the Jenniskins arrangement, then why can't > the Committee credit UCLA for the type specimen and move forward with > approving at least the name "Novato" (if need be, at least provisionally)? I > mean, what is the difference whether the type specimen goes first to UCLA, > then goes to NASA, or vice-versa? I mean, for goodness sake, it's NASA we're > talking about here. > > Why do we have to wait for the results from the consortium before we know the > approved name of this meteorite? > I mean, we didn't even have a consensus classification for Sutter's Mill, but > that name still got approved! We didn't have to wait for the results of the > consortium, then. Why now? > > But before I conclude, allow me to state several things > FOR THE RECORD: > > Contrary to any unfounded assertions that may get printed on this List, there > is no "problem" getting type-specimens from finders to researchers: > > There were 8 Sutter's Mill finds donated from finders & property owners. > The name "Sutter's Mill" was approved BEFORE a classification could be agreed > upon and long before the consortium published their results. > > There were 2 Battle Mountain specimens voluntarily donated by finders to > researchers. The name "Battle Mountain" was approved 30 days after the fall. > What delay? > > Other US falls with "no problems" getting type-specimens: > Mifflin, Lorton, Whetstone Mtns, Ash Creek - no delays in name approval. > > Finders of the "Novato" meteorite were making arrangements to submit type > specimens to researchers, prior to Jenniskins announcement to the Press that > he was submitting the Webber stone as a type specimen. Days after his > announcement is when I finally made my Novato find, and at that time I never > dreamt we would be having this discussion in 2013. If it becomes necessary, I > am prepared (as are other finders) to submit a type specimen to UCLA. But not > until we all have been given a proper explanation. > > -- Bob V. > > > --- On Mon, 4/29/13, Matson, Robert D. <robert.d.mat...@saic.com> wrote: > >> From: Matson, Robert D. <robert.d.mat...@saic.com> >> Subject: [meteorite-list] Novato update >> To: "Pat Brown" <scientificlifest...@hotmail.com>, "Jim Wooddell" >> <jim.woodd...@suddenlink.net>, "Met List" >> <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> >> Date: Monday, April 29, 2013, 8:51 PM >> >> Hi All, >> >> I've been informed by one of the Novato finders that this is >> a non-issue. >> Dr. Jenniskens has long-since pledged to donate more >> than adequate Novato type specimen to UCLA for it to be >> approved by the Nomenclature Committee. That it hasn't happened >> already is simply because Dr. Jenniskens wished to ensure that all >> academic requests for meteoritical material were handled promptly. >> 29 grams >> of the first recovered stone were generously donated by Lisa >> Webber to SETI for scientific analysis; of that, whatever is not >> consumed >> in destructive analyses has been promised to UCLA. >> So there is no cause for alarm; people just need to be patient. >> --Rob >> >> > On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:32 AM, Robert Verish <bolidecha...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Actually, it's still the "Novato" (provisional) meteorite. >> It still is not in the Meteoritical Bulletin. >> >> This is the slice that Brien Cook originally cut with the intention of >> submitting it to UCLA. But when he read that someone else was going to >> supply the type-specimen, he then placed it on eBay. >> >> It would be nice if some Institute or consortium would make an offer and try >> to repatriate this slice and make it a type-specimen so that this US-fall >> could finally be made "official". All I'm saying is, this "leaving an >> official-status hanging-in-mid-air" would never happen in Canada. They would >> just simply buy the type-specimen. >> >> It's time for the US to catch-up with Canada. It's time for a change. >> Bob V. > > > ______________________________________________ > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > ______________________________________________ > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
