[meteorite-list] Find coordinates for recent falls

[Jim Wooddell]

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.MATSON at 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:jimwooddell at 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.MATSON at 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
jimwooddell at gmail.com
928-247-2675