Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds
Mendy, Indian Butte is clearly a fall. I live in Tucson and this event made the local news big time. It was such a big event that the University of Arizona's leading (at the time) meteoriticist David kring took it upon himself to actually organize a posse to go out and get this meteorite. He actually went himself as he did many other times. I was one of the ones that headed out looking. I looked for 2 days myself. But, we all knew that some day it would be found. And you are correct. Recorded technology is what did the trick and made it possible to properly identify this as a 'fall. And again, to me this is a classic example of what a true Fall should be and is . Best, Carl Meteoritemax -- Love Life Mendy Ouzillou via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com wrote: So far the response has been basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, doing so ignores changes in technology that enables us to identify meteors at specific locations in space and time and possible fall locations. Take Indian Butte for example. The MetBull identifies this meteorite as a Fall (witnessed) from 1998. However, the first specimen was not found until 2013. According to the feedback so far, this meteorite should then have been classified as a find. Indian Butte is only one example of the situation actually being broke - so in my mind, new information and new situations deserve a fresh perspective. By the way, I agree with the classification of it as a fall. Given only two present choices - fall is the most appropriate. I am in no way suggesting adding the many types of descriptors as proposed by Jeff, but I am proposing adding one more called the correlated fall. As technology improves, I believe we will be seeing more situations like Indian Butte where an event is captured, but material is not found for years after the event. Change is not always bad. :-) Mendy -Original Message- From: Michael Mulgrew [mailto:mikest...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:06 PM To: Carl Esparza Cc: Meteorite List; Mendy Ouzillou Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds Fall, find, anything further is unnecessary clutter. All falls are finds, but not all finds are falls, the rest is just semantics. K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid Michael in so. Cal. On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:01 PM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Mendy, All due respect to you and Jeff Grossman (one of our Royalty figures) but, to me a fall is either observed or there is great evidence like damage caused by the impact. All else is a find. Because after all, all finds are falls or how else would they be here? Best Rgards, Carl meteoritemax -- Love Life Mendy Ouzillou mendy.ouzil...@gmail.com wrote: I've been thinking about the email Jeff sent out some time back and wanted to propose a slightly different set of names and simplify the nomenclature. You can see Jeff's original email below. I think we have all struggled with defining meteorites that are neither observed falls nor finds and part of the reason is that we were conflating too many ideas. Observed fall: Observed to fall, either by eyewitnesses or with instruments. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, the strewn field location (if there is one) and appearance taking into account weathering associated with time on the ground, may be directly attributed to the fall. Correlated fall: No material was found immediately after an observed event, but later analysis and physical evidence conclusively points to an observed event on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Find: Material was found and no event can be conclusively associated with an observed event. A find that appears like a fresh fall is still a find if no observed event can be associated with it. Feedback welcome. Mendy Ouzillou IMCA8393 -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 6:26 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day I should add: my first two categories are types of falls, whereas the last three are types of finds. Jeff On 1/5/2013 8:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: In all seriousness, I have considered refining, or at least qualifying the definition of fall. The categories I've considered are these, and the definitions are first passes: Observed fall: observed to fall, either visually or with instruments, and collected soon after the event. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, directly points
Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds
Mendy, Understand the point you're trying to make, but Indian Butte, aka Stanfield, is clearly a fall: http://fallingrocks.com/Collections/Stanfield.htm All the best, Dave www.fallingrocks.com -Original Message- From: Meteorite-list [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Mendy Ouzillou via Meteorite-list Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 6:08 PM To: 'Meteorite List' Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds So far the response has been basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, doing so ignores changes in technology that enables us to identify meteors at specific locations in space and time and possible fall locations. Take Indian Butte for example. The MetBull identifies this meteorite as a Fall (witnessed) from 1998. However, the first specimen was not found until 2013. According to the feedback so far, this meteorite should then have been classified as a find. Indian Butte is only one example of the situation actually being broke - so in my mind, new information and new situations deserve a fresh perspective. By the way, I agree with the classification of it as a fall. Given only two present choices - fall is the most appropriate. I am in no way suggesting adding the many types of descriptors as proposed by Jeff, but I am proposing adding one more called the correlated fall. As technology improves, I believe we will be seeing more situations like Indian Butte where an event is captured, but material is not found for years after the event. Change is not always bad. :-) Mendy -Original Message- From: Michael Mulgrew [mailto:mikest...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:06 PM To: Carl Esparza Cc: Meteorite List; Mendy Ouzillou Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds Fall, find, anything further is unnecessary clutter. All falls are finds, but not all finds are falls, the rest is just semantics. K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid Michael in so. Cal. On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:01 PM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Mendy, All due respect to you and Jeff Grossman (one of our Royalty figures) but, to me a fall is either observed or there is great evidence like damage caused by the impact. All else is a find. Because after all, all finds are falls or how else would they be here? Best Rgards, Carl meteoritemax -- Love Life Mendy Ouzillou mendy.ouzil...@gmail.com wrote: I've been thinking about the email Jeff sent out some time back and wanted to propose a slightly different set of names and simplify the nomenclature. You can see Jeff's original email below. I think we have all struggled with defining meteorites that are neither observed falls nor finds and part of the reason is that we were conflating too many ideas. Observed fall: Observed to fall, either by eyewitnesses or with instruments. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, the strewn field location (if there is one) and appearance taking into account weathering associated with time on the ground, may be directly attributed to the fall. Correlated fall: No material was found immediately after an observed event, but later analysis and physical evidence conclusively points to an observed event on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Find: Material was found and no event can be conclusively associated with an observed event. A find that appears like a fresh fall is still a find if no observed event can be associated with it. Feedback welcome. Mendy Ouzillou IMCA8393 -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 6:26 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day I should add: my first two categories are types of falls, whereas the last three are types of finds. Jeff On 1/5/2013 8:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: In all seriousness, I have considered refining, or at least qualifying the definition of fall. The categories I've considered are these, and the definitions are first passes: Observed fall: observed to fall, either visually or with instruments, and collected soon after the event. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, directly points to a fall at the time of the observed event. Unobserved fall: No observations were made of a fall event, but physical evidence conclusively points to a fall on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Probable fall: In these cases, there was a well-documented meteor event with characteristics
Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds
So far the response has been basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, doing so ignores changes in technology that enables us to identify meteors at specific locations in space and time and possible fall locations. Take Indian Butte for example. The MetBull identifies this meteorite as a Fall (witnessed) from 1998. However, the first specimen was not found until 2013. According to the feedback so far, this meteorite should then have been classified as a find. Indian Butte is only one example of the situation actually being broke - so in my mind, new information and new situations deserve a fresh perspective. By the way, I agree with the classification of it as a fall. Given only two present choices - fall is the most appropriate. I am in no way suggesting adding the many types of descriptors as proposed by Jeff, but I am proposing adding one more called the correlated fall. As technology improves, I believe we will be seeing more situations like Indian Butte where an event is captured, but material is not found for years after the event. Change is not always bad. :-) Mendy -Original Message- From: Michael Mulgrew [mailto:mikest...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:06 PM To: Carl Esparza Cc: Meteorite List; Mendy Ouzillou Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds Fall, find, anything further is unnecessary clutter. All falls are finds, but not all finds are falls, the rest is just semantics. K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid Michael in so. Cal. On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:01 PM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Mendy, All due respect to you and Jeff Grossman (one of our Royalty figures) but, to me a fall is either observed or there is great evidence like damage caused by the impact. All else is a find. Because after all, all finds are falls or how else would they be here? Best Rgards, Carl meteoritemax -- Love Life Mendy Ouzillou mendy.ouzil...@gmail.com wrote: I've been thinking about the email Jeff sent out some time back and wanted to propose a slightly different set of names and simplify the nomenclature. You can see Jeff's original email below. I think we have all struggled with defining meteorites that are neither observed falls nor finds and part of the reason is that we were conflating too many ideas. Observed fall: Observed to fall, either by eyewitnesses or with instruments. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, the strewn field location (if there is one) and appearance taking into account weathering associated with time on the ground, may be directly attributed to the fall. Correlated fall: No material was found immediately after an observed event, but later analysis and physical evidence conclusively points to an observed event on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Find: Material was found and no event can be conclusively associated with an observed event. A find that appears like a fresh fall is still a find if no observed event can be associated with it. Feedback welcome. Mendy Ouzillou IMCA8393 -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 6:26 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day I should add: my first two categories are types of falls, whereas the last three are types of finds. Jeff On 1/5/2013 8:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: In all seriousness, I have considered refining, or at least qualifying the definition of fall. The categories I've considered are these, and the definitions are first passes: Observed fall: observed to fall, either visually or with instruments, and collected soon after the event. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, directly points to a fall at the time of the observed event. Unobserved fall: No observations were made of a fall event, but physical evidence conclusively points to a fall on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Probable fall: In these cases, there was a well-documented meteor event with characteristics consistent with a meteorite fall, followed by the collection of meteorites some time later. There is a strong likelihood that the meteorite fell in the observed event, but physical evidence is not fully conclusive. Possible fall: The same situation as a probable fall, but there is significant doubt about whether the meteorite is connected to the event or about the reliability of the observations of the event. Doubtful fall: The same situation as a
Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds
Hi Mendy, I concur, change is not needed. I don't believe not finding a witnessed event constitutes a change. And, with the addition of many many all sky cams, sonics and radar, falls are going to be the norm in the future. While sonics could be in question, to answer a 'funny'.if a meteor falls in the woods and no one is around to witness it, does it make a sound? Yes if a sonic station hears it! ;) Besides the fact the definitions have been working a very very long time, another really obvious reason why change is not needed is many people who should get their terminology right...don't! And we see it all the time! There really should be no time constraint on a fall. There is no way I would consider Indian Butte, based on evidence presented, a find. Who has that screw loose?I do like the original name better thoughmade more sense to me and fit the addresses (with zip codes) less than a mile away! And the fact there is an Indian Butte, AZ not even close to the fall makes it kind of strange. Jim On 5/7/2014 3:07 PM, Mendy Ouzillou via Meteorite-list wrote: So far the response has been basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, doing so ignores changes in technology that enables us to identify meteors at specific locations in space and time and possible fall locations. Take Indian Butte for example. The MetBull identifies this meteorite as a Fall (witnessed) from 1998. However, the first specimen was not found until 2013. According to the feedback so far, this meteorite should then have been classified as a find. Indian Butte is only one example of the situation actually being broke - so in my mind, new information and new situations deserve a fresh perspective. By the way, I agree with the classification of it as a fall. Given only two present choices - fall is the most appropriate. I am in no way suggesting adding the many types of descriptors as proposed by Jeff, but I am proposing adding one more called the correlated fall. As technology improves, I believe we will be seeing more situations like Indian Butte where an event is captured, but material is not found for years after the event. Change is not always bad. :-) Mendy -Original Message- From: Michael Mulgrew [mailto:mikest...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:06 PM To: Carl Esparza Cc: Meteorite List; Mendy Ouzillou Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds Fall, find, anything further is unnecessary clutter. All falls are finds, but not all finds are falls, the rest is just semantics. K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid Michael in so. Cal. On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:01 PM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Mendy, All due respect to you and Jeff Grossman (one of our Royalty figures) but, to me a fall is either observed or there is great evidence like damage caused by the impact. All else is a find. Because after all, all finds are falls or how else would they be here? Best Rgards, Carl meteoritemax -- Love Life Mendy Ouzillou mendy.ouzil...@gmail.com wrote: I've been thinking about the email Jeff sent out some time back and wanted to propose a slightly different set of names and simplify the nomenclature. You can see Jeff's original email below. I think we have all struggled with defining meteorites that are neither observed falls nor finds and part of the reason is that we were conflating too many ideas. Observed fall: Observed to fall, either by eyewitnesses or with instruments. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, the strewn field location (if there is one) and appearance taking into account weathering associated with time on the ground, may be directly attributed to the fall. Correlated fall: No material was found immediately after an observed event, but later analysis and physical evidence conclusively points to an observed event on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Find: Material was found and no event can be conclusively associated with an observed event. A find that appears like a fresh fall is still a find if no observed event can be associated with it. Feedback welcome. Mendy Ouzillou IMCA8393 -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 6:26 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day I should add: my first two categories are types of falls, whereas the last three are types of finds. Jeff On 1/5/2013 8:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: In all seriousness, I have considered refining, or at least qualifying the definition of fall. The categories I've considered are these, and the definitions are first passes: Observed fall: observed to fall, either visually or with
Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds
Hi Mendy and List, I think the idea of expanding the nomenclature is a good idea for some, and it's an issue that has been considered a few times over the years. As collectors, dealers, and/or hunters, we all have a passion for our hobby/field and we want to contribute to it in some positive way. The contribution can take many faces - recovering specimens that are valuable to science, donating specimens to science, adding to the body of knowledge, correcting errors in the literature, or just being thankful of the hard work the scientists do to unlock the mysteries held by these ancient space rocks. In this case, I think the idea of expanding the nomenclature in regards to falls and finds is an attempt to contribute by clarifying an area that is somewhat nebulous (pun intended). We have to ask ourselves - will this proposed change benefit the science in some way? As passionate collectors and laymen, we yearn to get involved, but we must remember that the Meteoritical Bulletin was created by scientists to serve science. It is a reference for those who are doing research - a repository of reliable data. As laymen (advanced or not), we are along for the ride, so to speak. We are lucky because the Meteoritical Society is open to non-scientists and those outside of academia. We get to browse the database and use it to organize our collections and study our specimens. Our needs are not necessarily the same as the needs of science. Changes to nomenclature are not undertaken lightly. There must be a clear need that will benefit science in some way - making the research more efficient, streamlining the availability of data, clarifying errors, clarifying areas of possible conflict, etc. Will adding additional terms to delineate the various states of a find/fall benefit science in some way? Falls are valuable to science because they are fresh and have the least degree of terrestrial alteration - not because some person witnessed the event. How fresh a specimen is can be determined in the lab to establish a terrestrial age. This can be done for any meteorite, no matter how fresh or old it may be. This provides hard data that can be used in research. A specimen can be labeled fall, find, probable fall or any other term, but the scientific value is contained within specimen itself, not in the label assigned by NonCom. As a collector, I see value in adding more terms that will clarify the find/fall status of a given meteorite. If we are to see NonCom back any changes of this nature, it must be clearly demonstrated that science will benefit in some way. I am not sure if this is the case. But then again, what the heck do I know? LOL. Best regards, MikeG -- - Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone - On 5/7/14, Mendy Ouzillou via Meteorite-list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com wrote: So far the response has been basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, doing so ignores changes in technology that enables us to identify meteors at specific locations in space and time and possible fall locations. Take Indian Butte for example. The MetBull identifies this meteorite as a Fall (witnessed) from 1998. However, the first specimen was not found until 2013. According to the feedback so far, this meteorite should then have been classified as a find. Indian Butte is only one example of the situation actually being broke - so in my mind, new information and new situations deserve a fresh perspective. By the way, I agree with the classification of it as a fall. Given only two present choices - fall is the most appropriate. I am in no way suggesting adding the many types of descriptors as proposed by Jeff, but I am proposing adding one more called the correlated fall. As technology improves, I believe we will be seeing more situations like Indian Butte where an event is captured, but material is not found for years after the event. Change is not always bad. :-) Mendy -Original Message- From: Michael Mulgrew [mailto:mikest...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:06 PM To: Carl Esparza Cc: Meteorite List; Mendy Ouzillou Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds Fall, find, anything further is unnecessary clutter. All falls are finds, but not all finds are falls, the rest is just semantics. K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid Michael in so. Cal. On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:01 PM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Mendy, All due respect to you and Jeff Grossman (one of our Royalty figures) but, to me a fall is either observed or there is great evidence like damage caused by the impact. All else is a find. Because after all, all finds are falls or how else would they be here? Best
[meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds
I've been thinking about the email Jeff sent out some time back and wanted to propose a slightly different set of names and simplify the nomenclature. You can see Jeff's original email below. I think we have all struggled with defining meteorites that are neither observed falls nor finds and part of the reason is that we were conflating too many ideas. Observed fall: Observed to fall, either by eyewitnesses or with instruments. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, the strewn field location (if there is one) and appearance taking into account weathering associated with time on the ground, may be directly attributed to the fall. Correlated fall: No material was found immediately after an observed event, but later analysis and physical evidence conclusively points to an observed event on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Find: Material was found and no event can be conclusively associated with an observed event. A find that appears like a fresh fall is still a find if no observed event can be associated with it. Feedback welcome. Mendy Ouzillou IMCA8393 -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 6:26 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day I should add: my first two categories are types of falls, whereas the last three are types of finds. Jeff On 1/5/2013 8:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: In all seriousness, I have considered refining, or at least qualifying the definition of fall. The categories I've considered are these, and the definitions are first passes: Observed fall: observed to fall, either visually or with instruments, and collected soon after the event. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, directly points to a fall at the time of the observed event. Unobserved fall: No observations were made of a fall event, but physical evidence conclusively points to a fall on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Probable fall: In these cases, there was a well-documented meteor event with characteristics consistent with a meteorite fall, followed by the collection of meteorites some time later. There is a strong likelihood that the meteorite fell in the observed event, but physical evidence is not fully conclusive. Possible fall: The same situation as a probable fall, but there is significant doubt about whether the meteorite is connected to the event or about the reliability of the observations of the event. Doubtful fall: The same situation as a possible fall, but there is a high degree of doubt. This was all suggested by the circumstances surrounding the Benešov (a) and (b) meteorites, which I would have put in the possible fall category, if such a thing existed. Jeff On 1/4/2013 8:57 PM, Michael Farmer wrote: I find this new attempt to change terminology disturbing. I have hundreds of old catalogs from the top museums and dealers from more than 200 years ago till today, all of them list falls and finds. None of them discuss unobserved falls as an acceptable alternative. Are we really ready to just accept anything thrown out there, and watch as all manner of BS is used to discredit hundreds of years of accepted terminology? My private collection focuses on witnessed falls, with date and time and science to back it up. I am not interested in another group which would include every meteorite ever to have fallen, since they did actually all fall at some point. Well, I guess Anne can delete her birthday fall calendar page since now we can simply put every NWA on any date you choose to believe it might have possibly fallen:). Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On Jan 4, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Mike Bandli fuzzf...@comcast.net wrote: If a meteorite falls from the sky and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? ;^] -- Mike Bandli Historic Meteorites www.HistoricMeteorites.com and join us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/Meteorites1 IMCA #5765 --- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or
Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds
Mendy, All due respect to you and Jeff Grossman (one of our Royalty figures) but, to me a fall is either observed or there is great evidence like damage caused by the impact. All else is a find. Because after all, all finds are falls or how else would they be here? Best Rgards, Carl meteoritemax -- Love Life Mendy Ouzillou mendy.ouzil...@gmail.com wrote: I've been thinking about the email Jeff sent out some time back and wanted to propose a slightly different set of names and simplify the nomenclature. You can see Jeff's original email below. I think we have all struggled with defining meteorites that are neither observed falls nor finds and part of the reason is that we were conflating too many ideas. Observed fall: Observed to fall, either by eyewitnesses or with instruments. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, the strewn field location (if there is one) and appearance taking into account weathering associated with time on the ground, may be directly attributed to the fall. Correlated fall: No material was found immediately after an observed event, but later analysis and physical evidence conclusively points to an observed event on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Find: Material was found and no event can be conclusively associated with an observed event. A find that appears like a fresh fall is still a find if no observed event can be associated with it. Feedback welcome. Mendy Ouzillou IMCA8393 -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 6:26 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day I should add: my first two categories are types of falls, whereas the last three are types of finds. Jeff On 1/5/2013 8:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: In all seriousness, I have considered refining, or at least qualifying the definition of fall. The categories I've considered are these, and the definitions are first passes: Observed fall: observed to fall, either visually or with instruments, and collected soon after the event. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, directly points to a fall at the time of the observed event. Unobserved fall: No observations were made of a fall event, but physical evidence conclusively points to a fall on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Probable fall: In these cases, there was a well-documented meteor event with characteristics consistent with a meteorite fall, followed by the collection of meteorites some time later. There is a strong likelihood that the meteorite fell in the observed event, but physical evidence is not fully conclusive. Possible fall: The same situation as a probable fall, but there is significant doubt about whether the meteorite is connected to the event or about the reliability of the observations of the event. Doubtful fall: The same situation as a possible fall, but there is a high degree of doubt. This was all suggested by the circumstances surrounding the Benešov (a) and (b) meteorites, which I would have put in the possible fall category, if such a thing existed. Jeff On 1/4/2013 8:57 PM, Michael Farmer wrote: I find this new attempt to change terminology disturbing. I have hundreds of old catalogs from the top museums and dealers from more than 200 years ago till today, all of them list falls and finds. None of them discuss unobserved falls as an acceptable alternative. Are we really ready to just accept anything thrown out there, and watch as all manner of BS is used to discredit hundreds of years of accepted terminology? My private collection focuses on witnessed falls, with date and time and science to back it up. I am not interested in another group which would include every meteorite ever to have fallen, since they did actually all fall at some point. Well, I guess Anne can delete her birthday fall calendar page since now we can simply put every NWA on any date you choose to believe it might have possibly fallen:). Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On Jan 4, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Mike Bandli fuzzf...@comcast.net wrote: If a meteorite falls from the sky and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? ;^] -- Mike Bandli Historic Meteorites www.HistoricMeteorites.com and join us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/Meteorites1 IMCA #5765 --- This email
Re: [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds
Fall, find, anything further is unnecessary clutter. All falls are finds, but not all finds are falls, the rest is just semantics. K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid Michael in so. Cal. On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:01 PM, cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: Mendy, All due respect to you and Jeff Grossman (one of our Royalty figures) but, to me a fall is either observed or there is great evidence like damage caused by the impact. All else is a find. Because after all, all finds are falls or how else would they be here? Best Rgards, Carl meteoritemax -- Love Life Mendy Ouzillou mendy.ouzil...@gmail.com wrote: I've been thinking about the email Jeff sent out some time back and wanted to propose a slightly different set of names and simplify the nomenclature. You can see Jeff's original email below. I think we have all struggled with defining meteorites that are neither observed falls nor finds and part of the reason is that we were conflating too many ideas. Observed fall: Observed to fall, either by eyewitnesses or with instruments. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, the strewn field location (if there is one) and appearance taking into account weathering associated with time on the ground, may be directly attributed to the fall. Correlated fall: No material was found immediately after an observed event, but later analysis and physical evidence conclusively points to an observed event on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Find: Material was found and no event can be conclusively associated with an observed event. A find that appears like a fresh fall is still a find if no observed event can be associated with it. Feedback welcome. Mendy Ouzillou IMCA8393 -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 6:26 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day I should add: my first two categories are types of falls, whereas the last three are types of finds. Jeff On 1/5/2013 8:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: In all seriousness, I have considered refining, or at least qualifying the definition of fall. The categories I've considered are these, and the definitions are first passes: Observed fall: observed to fall, either visually or with instruments, and collected soon after the event. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, directly points to a fall at the time of the observed event. Unobserved fall: No observations were made of a fall event, but physical evidence conclusively points to a fall on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Probable fall: In these cases, there was a well-documented meteor event with characteristics consistent with a meteorite fall, followed by the collection of meteorites some time later. There is a strong likelihood that the meteorite fell in the observed event, but physical evidence is not fully conclusive. Possible fall: The same situation as a probable fall, but there is significant doubt about whether the meteorite is connected to the event or about the reliability of the observations of the event. Doubtful fall: The same situation as a possible fall, but there is a high degree of doubt. This was all suggested by the circumstances surrounding the Benešov (a) and (b) meteorites, which I would have put in the possible fall category, if such a thing existed. Jeff On 1/4/2013 8:57 PM, Michael Farmer wrote: I find this new attempt to change terminology disturbing. I have hundreds of old catalogs from the top museums and dealers from more than 200 years ago till today, all of them list falls and finds. None of them discuss unobserved falls as an acceptable alternative. Are we really ready to just accept anything thrown out there, and watch as all manner of BS is used to discredit hundreds of years of accepted terminology? My private collection focuses on witnessed falls, with date and time and science to back it up. I am not interested in another group which would include every meteorite ever to have fallen, since they did actually all fall at some point. Well, I guess Anne can delete her birthday fall calendar page since now we can simply put every NWA on any date you choose to believe it might have possibly fallen:). Michael Farmer Sent from my iPad On Jan 4, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Mike Bandli fuzzf...@comcast.net wrote: If a meteorite falls from the sky and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? ;^]
[meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds
Hello Mendy and Listers Mendy glad you posted what Jeff suggested.. Kinda makes since, but at the end of the day all someone has to do is put that info on the nomenclature page in description of the meteorite. I think fall or find is perfect. All finds are falls at one point in time and all fall are finds, cause someone found the meteorite. But the reason behind fall/find is to document what was witnessed falling from the sky or if it was just found. At any case, this is making my brain hurt, but I think fall or find is perfect and don't need any other definitions to explain those events. We have enough categories and classifications with meteorites as is, do we really need more??? :) Shawn Alan IMCA 1633 ebay store http://www.ebay.com/sch/imca1633nyc/m.html Website http://meteoritefalls.com [meteorite-list] Definitions of types of falls and finds Mendy Ouzillou Tue, 06 May 2014 12:45:37 -0700 I've been thinking about the email Jeff sent out some time back and wanted to propose a slightly different set of names and simplify the nomenclature. You can see Jeff's original email below. I think we have all struggled with defining meteorites that are neither observed falls nor finds and part of the reason is that we were conflating too many ideas. Observed fall: Observed to fall, either by eyewitnesses or with instruments. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, the strewn field location (if there is one) and appearance taking into account weathering associated with time on the ground, may be directly attributed to the fall. Correlated fall: No material was found immediately after an observed event, but later analysis and physical evidence conclusively points to an observed event on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Find: Material was found and no event can be conclusively associated with an observed event. A find that appears like a fresh fall is still a find if no observed event can be associated with it. Feedback welcome. Mendy Ouzillou IMCA8393 -Original Message- From: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Grossman Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 6:26 AM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Picture of the Day I should add: my first two categories are types of falls, whereas the last three are types of finds. Jeff On 1/5/2013 8:12 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote: In all seriousness, I have considered refining, or at least qualifying the definition of fall. The categories I've considered are these, and the definitions are first passes: Observed fall: observed to fall, either visually or with instruments, and collected soon after the event. The event was well documented. Physical evidence associated with the collected meteorites is consistent with a fresh fall, or, when collection does not occur immediately, directly points to a fall at the time of the observed event. Unobserved fall: No observations were made of a fall event, but physical evidence conclusively points to a fall on a specific date or within a very narrow range of dates. Probable fall: In these cases, there was a well-documented meteor event with characteristics consistent with a meteorite fall, followed by the collection of meteorites some time later. There is a strong likelihood that the meteorite fell in the observed event, but physical evidence is not fully conclusive. Possible fall: The same situation as a probable fall, but there is significant doubt about whether the meteorite is connected to the event or about the reliability of the observations of the event. Doubtful fall: The same situation as a possible fall, but there is a high degree of doubt. This was all suggested by the circumstances surrounding the Benešov (a) and (b) meteorites, which I would have put in the possible fall category, if such a thing existed. Jeff On 1/4/2013 8:57 PM, Michael Farmer wrote: I find this new attempt to change terminology disturbing. I have hundreds of old catalogs from the top museums and dealers from more than 200 years ago till today, all of them list falls and finds. None of them discuss unobserved falls as an acceptable alternative. Are we really ready to just accept anything thrown out there, and watch as all manner of BS is used to discredit hundreds of years of accepted terminology? My private collection focuses on witnessed falls, with date and time and science to back it up. I am not interested in another group which would include every meteorite ever to have fallen, since they did actually all fall at some point. Well, I guess Anne can delete her birthday fall calendar page since now we can simply put every NWA on any date you choose to believe it might have possibly fallen:).
