Re: [meteorite-list] Time for change - here in US (was, Re: something about Las Vegas)
Hi Bob, You are right, I did not read the articles. I was just responding to this thread on the List. But as it stands, the OC's recovered from the Southwest Deserts don't appear to be something that most Universities are currently looking to study or add to their collection . If they were, we would have scientists willing to classify them for free as they did years ago. Even with funding the Universities may not be interested due to lesser scientific value. I do not think it is necessary to classify every OC found on a dry lake bed or desert strewn field. You are entitled to your opinion and I just feel differently about the subject. I don't think we would ever have the true picture anyways due to erosion, meteorites being buried upon impact on Earth, movement of meteorites by Native Americans, other people recovering pieces from the same area over the years. You and I both know that meteorites will appear different due to weathering depending on where they are found in the strewn field, hill top, river bed, etc. Now throw in the dynamics of the Lake bed freeze and thaw cycles, movement of meteorites over the hundreds of years. What about different scientists classifying the same OC at different labs and having slightly different results. I was told that you can not have L,LL, H and L/H meteorites from the same fall. I have proof from many hours of field work from one location that it is spread over many miles on stable surface. It proves that you can have L, LL, H and transitional H/ L from one fall. The only way to confirm this is thru terrestrial dating which would never happen due to funding. I would bet that is what you are finding on lake beds. >Stump Springs 130 field-numbered finds, only 84 provisional numbers,only 1 >classified find. No strewn-field data is published. Wow Bob, Really! What is the rush? Is there a time frame on strewn field recovery work? Some people like to hunt and discover the bigger picture before putting it all out there. At what point do you stop and give up when you are still making finds? All of my data with field map, in situ pictures, and descriptions of finds will be released at a later date.This will only show data from one fall. Every fall is different. I have yet to see any strewn field maps from any of your published locations. >Yelland Dry lake Hundreds of >fragments, and only one classification. Worlds >only one meteoritedry lake! Was there any strewn-field data recorded?There >still is >no estimateof how many >original masses formed all of these clusters >of fragments, or theirlocations. This is one big fuster cluck. There are two classifications from Yelland . Are you suggesting that I should have had every fragment classified from this location? Can you imagine the reaction I would have gotten if I presented this? " Hi Alan, here are all the fragments (just over one thousand). I just know these stones are different. Can you give me one thousand provisional numbers?" I have field data from Yelland before any piece was removed. What would this data prove? Probably NOTHING. Only that a large OC was recovered from a dry lake bed and fragmented into thousands of pieces. The field data would give me a direction in which to look for other pieces but again the Scientists do not seem to be interested in this. From the last count over 200 lbs have been recovered and with the exception of one stone all of the pieces look identical to each other. Again as I said there are two classifications from Yelland thus far and the majority of fragments look identical. Could these two classifications be from different segments of a large main mass? Feel free to stop by and sort through all of the Yelland fragments. If you find anything different I will buy you dinner. >please allow me to update this table of recoverydata:Stewart Valley - over 700 >recorded finds, only 22 in the MBD, 6different classifications, only the H6 >and L6 >are paired. Where's thebeef? Are you thinking that there were 6 different falls on Stewart Valley dry lake bed? That is hard to imagine that many different falls in one area. Anything is possible I guess. Sonny -Original Message- From: Robert Verish To: Sonny Clary Cc: Meteoritecentral List Sent: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 7:10 pm Subject: Time for change - here in US (was, Re: something about Las Vegas) Hi Sonny, Apparently, you haven't read any of my articles where I clearlypointed to the top of the pyramid where the funding for meteorite studies arerationed-out, and why there is a lack of funding for classifying USmeteorites. I commiserate with the classifiers on this lack of funding and in noway am I laying any guilt on them. I well understand that no US researchercan come forward as a benefactor in this current situation. My offer of USchondrite type-specimen was actuallydirected to researchers outside of theUSA. Again, that was stated in my article, as w
Re: [meteorite-list] Time for change - here in US (was, Re: something about Las Vegas)
All of the taxpayer's money spent on the shrimp on a treadmill study would have gone a long way to study meteorites. A link to my favorite Mantis shrimp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj-yAHTfVeE I guess we know what bureaucrats think is more important. An impact from space or the jogging habits of a lowly decapod crustacean. Personally, I have given up all hope that hard-working taxpayers money will ever be spent wisely. Adam - Original Message - From: "Robert Verish via Meteorite-list" To: "Sonny Clary" Cc: "Meteoritecentral List" Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 7:07 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Time for change - here in US (was,Re: something about Las Vegas) Hi Sonny, Apparently, you haven't read any of my articles where I clearly pointed to the top of the pyramid where the funding for meteorite studies are rationed-out, and why there is a lack of funding for classifying US meteorites. I commiserate with the classifiers on this lack of funding and in no way am I laying any guilt on them. I well understand that no US researcher can come forward as a benefactor in this current situation. My offer of US chondrite type-specimen was actually directed to researchers outside of the USA. Again, that was stated in my article, as well. Your defense of US geochemists is commendable, but unnecessary in this instance. I don't need to ask their position on this funding matter. It's well documented. But maybe we should also ask the opinion of other researchers, maybe even outside of the MetSoc. Maybe even outside of the USA. Ask them what they think about us not recording or documenting (let alone not classifying) newly found meteorites. Researchers like those that are studying the rate of influx and number of falls per unit area. And other researchers such as those that are interested in knowing exactly how many small meteoroids are flying around in the vicinity of our astronauts. We should ask all of them. We should ask all the stakeholders. Even US taxpayers, who are stakeholders as well, because I'm sure they are assuming their tax dollars are being spent wisely on protecting them from meteoroids hitting them. I'm sure all of these various people are counting on us to do our job in this regard, and not to literally ignore found meteorites. I've been waiting for one of the other old-timers to make this realization and make a comment, but I'm getting more impatient as I get older. So, I'll say it now. It wasn't that long ago that we, as US meteorite-hunters, were thanking our lucky stars that we didn't have to deal with all of the stifling regulations that our comrades in Australia and Canada were having to put-up with. But they made some crucial adjustments in their culture and now those countries are experiencing a golden age in meteorite-recovery. It's amazing how fast things have turned 180 degrees. Bob V. P.S. - please allow me to update this table of recovery data: Stewart Valley - over 700 recorded finds, only 22 in the MBD, 6 different classifications, only the H6 and L6 are paired. Where's the beef? Tungston Mountain - over 700 recorded finds, only 22 in the MBD, 10 are unpaired, the eight H4s are probably paired. Still no justification for a complaint. Lucerne Valley - over120 meteorites, CK are the majority of the 66 classifieds, but there were 5 unique classes in the first 7 finds, 9 in 12, 10 in 15. Coyote Dry lake - over 350 recorded finds, only 82 are in MBD, so far 56 of these are classified. >8 unique classes. No one has done a pairing study. Stump Springs 130 field-numbered finds, only 84 provisional numbers, only 1 classified find. No strewn-field data is published. Yelland Dry lake Hundreds of fragments, and only one classification. Worlds only one meteorite dry lake! Was there any strewn-field data recorded? There still is no estimate of how many original masses formed all of these clusters of fragments, or their locations. This is one big fuster cluck. On Tue, 9/15/15, wahlperry--- via Meteorite-list wrote: Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Local to Las Vegas expert needed to rewiew afind. To: raremeteori...@centurylink.net, meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 1:53 PM Hi Bob, Adam and List, >This is a concern that others have shared with me, and has prompted me to >write on this subject in three separate articles, which essentially said, >"Hey, here are some US chondrites that need to be classified." >Still haven't received any offers deleted Stewart Valley TBR plus finds finds, Tungston Mountain TBR meteorites/ fragments Lucerne Valley 124 meteorites Coyote Dry lake 341 meteorites Stump Springs 130 plus meteorites Yelland Dry lake Hundreds of fragments more deletions ___
[meteorite-list] Time for change - here in US (was, Re: something about Las Vegas)
Hi Sonny, Apparently, you haven't read any of my articles where I clearly pointed to the top of the pyramid where the funding for meteorite studies are rationed-out, and why there is a lack of funding for classifying US meteorites. I commiserate with the classifiers on this lack of funding and in no way am I laying any guilt on them. I well understand that no US researcher can come forward as a benefactor in this current situation. My offer of US chondrite type-specimen was actually directed to researchers outside of the USA. Again, that was stated in my article, as well. Your defense of US geochemists is commendable, but unnecessary in this instance. I don't need to ask their position on this funding matter. It's well documented. But maybe we should also ask the opinion of other researchers, maybe even outside of the MetSoc. Maybe even outside of the USA. Ask them what they think about us not recording or documenting (let alone not classifying) newly found meteorites. Researchers like those that are studying the rate of influx and number of falls per unit area. And other researchers such as those that are interested in knowing exactly how many small meteoroids are flying around in the vicinity of our astronauts. We should ask all of them. We should ask all the stakeholders. Even US taxpayers, who are stakeholders as well, because I'm sure they are assuming their tax dollars are being spent wisely on protecting them from meteoroids hitting them. I'm sure all of these various people are counting on us to do our job in this regard, and not to literally ignore found meteorites. I've been waiting for one of the other old-timers to make this realization and make a comment, but I'm getting more impatient as I get older. So, I'll say it now. It wasn't that long ago that we, as US meteorite-hunters, were thanking our lucky stars that we didn't have to deal with all of the stifling regulations that our comrades in Australia and Canada were having to put-up with. But they made some crucial adjustments in their culture and now those countries are experiencing a golden age in meteorite-recovery. It's amazing how fast things have turned 180 degrees. Bob V. P.S. - please allow me to update this table of recovery data: Stewart Valley - over 700 recorded finds, only 22 in the MBD, 6 different classifications, only the H6 and L6 are paired. Where's the beef? Tungston Mountain - over 700 recorded finds, only 22 in the MBD, 10 are unpaired, the eight H4s are probably paired. Still no justification for a complaint. Lucerne Valley - over120 meteorites, CK are the majority of the 66 classifieds, but there were 5 unique classes in the first 7 finds, 9 in 12, 10 in 15. Coyote Dry lake - over 350 recorded finds, only 82 are in MBD, so far 56 of these are classified. >8 unique classes. No one has done a pairing study. Stump Springs 130 field-numbered finds, only 84 provisional numbers, only 1 classified find. No strewn-field data is published. Yelland Dry lake Hundreds of fragments, and only one classification. Worlds only one meteorite dry lake! Was there any strewn-field data recorded? There still is no estimate of how many original masses formed all of these clusters of fragments, or their locations. This is one big fuster cluck. On Tue, 9/15/15, wahlperry--- via Meteorite-list wrote: Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Local to Las Vegas expert needed to rewiew afind. To: raremeteori...@centurylink.net, meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 1:53 PM Hi Bob, Adam and List, >This is a concern that others have shared with me, and has prompted me to >write on this subject in three separate articles, which essentially said, >"Hey, here are some US chondrites that need to be classified." >Still haven't received any offers deleted Stewart Valley TBR plus finds finds, Tungston Mountain TBR meteorites/ fragments Lucerne Valley 124 meteorites Coyote Dry lake 341 meteorites Stump Springs 130 plus meteorites Yelland Dry lake Hundreds of fragments more deletions __ Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
