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 and compare! 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! Jim On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Matson, Robert D. <robert.d.mat...@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. > > --Rob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Wooddell [mailto:jimwoodd...@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 > disagreement. > 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. > > Jim > > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Matson, Robert D. > <robert.d.mat...@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 > -- Jim Wooddell jimwoodd...@gmail.com 928-247-2675 ______________________________________________ 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
