the fake Anonymous 7/9/2020 9:17:43 AM |
What*s the deeper perception of this "fix"? Nova062 in one row with toe-curling fakes like Nova059-Nova061? Whow!
So, here*s my prediction of your fix (assumed you really find a scientist who is interested in material from a secred place): We*ll have thousands of new "nova" numbers which are most likely NWA meteorites. Whooow! |
the original Anonymous 7/8/2020 6:46:33 PM |
So, here is my fix: When a classified meteorite has its find location withheld, just assign it the next Nova number. Move on. Allow it to be studied!
Just admit that Nova numbers are actually *provisional* * pending the resolution of the disputed or withheld find location. Far better than letting it languish for 25 years.
See the latest Nova approvals. |
the fake anonymous 7/6/2020 1:50:34 PM |
:-) |
Andi Koppelt 7/6/2020 2:09:42 AM |
Seems as someone likes to read his own posts here... I guess this chondrite steems from NWA like most others. Nothing special. |
the original Anonymous 7/6/2020 1:37:35 AM |
So, here is my fix: When a classified meteorite has its find location withheld, just assign it the next Nova number. Move on. Allow it to be studied!
Just admit that Nova numbers are actually *provisional* * pending the resolution of the disputed or withheld find location. Far better than letting it languish for 25 years.
See the latest Nova approvals. |
the original Anonymous 7/6/2020 1:35:49 AM |
. For that matter, for a Committee that is tasked with *approving names for classified meteorites*, nowhere does it mention any case in which a classified meteorite would NOT get a name, provisional or otherwise. Because, doing so would be tantamount to *cutting off your nose to spite your face*. Why deny a researcher a classified meteorite for study, just because the find location is disputed or withheld. It certainly doesn*t appear to be a problem for the vast number of NWA meteorites being studied that their find location is unknown. |
the original Anonymous 7/6/2020 1:34:56 AM |
Without giving away too much, the finder is not only a professional, but is a naturalist, as well as, a conservationist. He loves hiking in his little part of the desert and covets its unspoiled beauty. He bemoaned being forced to divulge his locality, knowing that it would be quickly overrun with ATV tracks, and that it would never look the same. Some here may say that his interests are selfish, but he still insists that his question, *Why is it so important?*, still goes unanswered.
Now, you may say, that this is a perfect case for assigning a *Nova* number, but (apparently) when a find locality is purposely withheld, the NomCom will purposefully not approve a name for that classified meteorite. I wrote *apparently*, because there is nothing written in the Guidelines for Nomenclature to support that policy. For that matter, for a Committee that is tasked with *approving names for classified meteorites*, nowhere does it mention any case in which a classified meteorite would NOT |
the original Anonymous 7/6/2020 1:33:23 AM |
Anne, I appreciate your question, because I asked the finder that same question. But the answer that I was given will not be well received by those of us who frequent this MPOD.
In the finders* defense, remember what I wrote 4 years ago: *The finder, who was a professional, but in an unrelated field, was very discouraged to see how disinterested his counter-parts were in the meteoritic discipline with American meteorite finds.* And he was even less impressed with the on-line, self-appointed *meteorite experts* (who insist that they can tell a meteorite just from an image), when they told him that his specimen wasn*t a meteorite, or that it was transported from NWA. So, given his poor first impressions, is it no wonder that his reply to this question was, *Why should I?* *What is so interesting about my meteorite, now, that it is so important to know where it was found?*
Without giving away too much, the finder is not only a professional, but is a naturalist, as well as, a co |
Anne Black 7/5/2020 4:44:09 PM |
Just one question. Why withhold the find location? It has been 4 years. |
not really Bernd Pauli 7/5/2020 4:20:55 PM |
... and the subtopic of "should the NomComm be more liberal in assigning 'Nova' designations"? Discuss among yourselves.
|
Bernd Pauli 7/5/2020 4:17:23 PM |
This is a test to see if anybody can post to the MPOD as Bernd. If you can read this message then it tells me that anybody can post here as "Anonymous". If this "test" gets blocked from being posted, then congrats to Paul on a job well done. It also tells me that "anonomous" was blocked from posting and impersonating as me (Anonymous) and was forced to misspell his name in order to get his post accepted. But, if Bernd can read this, then I may as well tell him that I am highly disappointed that he confused me (Anonymous) with the troll "anonomous". And thank you Anne for making the distinction, but what wasn't explicit in what I originally wrote (4 years ago) was that the "finder" insisted that I remain anonymous, fearing that it was too much information and would lead to revealing the find location, and the study area. So, if this thread must continue, then keep in mind that the topic is really "Withheld Find Locations" and the subtopic of "should the NomComm be more liberal in |
Ralph Croning 7/5/2020 2:44:19 PM |
This is a great little chondrite but certainly can't be an NWA specimen since it was found in the USA - unless of course we mean North West America ;-) |
Anne Black 7/5/2020 2:27:47 PM |
Thank you Bernd. Yes it is a chondrite, therefore not a martian. "Anonomous" should have the courage to sign his name. And so does the finder. But that was 4 years ago, what did he do since then? |
Bernd Pauli 7/5/2020 9:49:27 AM |
Hello Anonymous: "it is a superb first chondrite for this person" - there are no Martian c h o n d r i t e s! |
Bernd Pauli 7/5/2020 7:14:09 AM |
Yes, it might be NWA 1465 or NWA 2502! |
Dan 7/5/2020 6:24:17 AM |
An interesting find.
Have you returned to look for more fragments? |
Francesco Moser 7/5/2020 5:08:24 AM |
looks like NWA1465 CV3-an
|
Graham Ensor 7/5/2020 4:33:21 AM |
Possible CV3?
|
Jesper 7/5/2020 4:22:46 AM |
Could look a bit like CR... |
|