Controversy over meteor fragments recovered from waters near Manus Island

[gary]

Originally Posted by Marian Faa, ABC

An exciting discovery has led to controversy after scientists from Harvard University collected fragments believed to belong to a huge interstellar meteor, but PNG officials have raised concerns that the research was conducted within their waters without a permit.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-...-png/102592908

[leon]

I'm doubtful, but then I am a non believer .

Leon

[Peter Ward]

The pettiness of the PNG bureaucrats is quite remarkable.....there was
a snowball's chance in hell that the PNG authorities would have even launched
a similar discovery/recovery mission, hence to whine about the Harvard team
having the "wrong visa" is laughable.

I have a sizeable meteorite that was recovered in Western Australia in the late
1960's, thankfully before their Museum Act of 1969: an act which declares ALL meteorites subsequently recovered in WA are property of the crown.

Yeah right...as if you'd spend the time and expense of scouring the desert for meteorites and if you got lucky, hand them over gratis.

Hence the expression: possession is 9/10th's of the law

[AdamJL]

Avi Loeb is a name familiar to those who pay attention to the UAP phenomena (not aliens, just UAP!). He's one of the few out there wanting to collect clean data on the subject, unsullied by classified releases from military source where you can never verify the data in full.

[ChrisD (Chris)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

... I have a sizeable meteorite that was recovered in Western Australia in the late
1960's, thankfully before their Museum Act of 1969: an act which declares ALL meteorites subsequently recovered in WA are property of the crown.

Yeah right...as if you'd spend the time and expense of scouring the desert for meteorites and if you got lucky, hand them over gratis.

Hence the expression: possession is 9/10th's of the law

Certainly you have the right to keep it and I understand it would be a thrill to have and to hold.

However, it may be worth considering that meteorites can carry immense scientific significance and provide valuable insights into the formation and composition of our universe, shedding light on celestial bodies beyond our reach.

Museums are equipped with the necessary resources and expertise to preserve and protect meteorites. They can ensure that the specimen is stored under optimal conditions, safeguarding it for future generations. If kept privately, there's a higher risk of damage, loss, or the meteorite ending up in less responsible hands.

Museums serve as educational institutions, sharing knowledge and discoveries with the public. The public can appreciate and learn from the meteorites through exhibitions, educational programs, and research initiatives. The impact of sharing this unique find with others can be immeasurable.

Many scientific discoveries, including meteorites, are seen as part of the global heritage, and preserving and studying them collectively benefits humanity.

A museum display can be a lasting legacy. Your name will be associated with the discovery and recognised for a contribution to scientific research and understanding.

Chris

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by ChrisD

Certainly you have the right to keep it and I understand it would be a thrill to have and to hold.

However, it may be worth considering that meteorites can carry immense scientific significance.....

Chris

The sentiment is understood, but in this case the fall was a Mundrabilla fragment (one of dozens, if not hundreds recovered), of which the WA museum already has a 12 ton behemoth sized sample ...I doubt there would be very little new to learn from my modest space-rock.

Curiously, NSW has no such law unilaterally declaring State ownership...it's finders keepers, but I can see merit in encouraging the submission of samples for study, after which they should be returned to the finder.

[Rainmaker (Matt)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

The sentiment is understood, but in this case the fall was a Mundrabilla fragment (one of dozens, if not hundreds recovered), of which the WA museum already has a 12 ton behemoth sized sample ...I doubt there would be very little new to learn from my modest space-rock.

Curiously, NSW has no such law unilaterally declaring State ownership...it's finders keepers, but I can see merit in encouraging the submission of samples for study, after which they should be returned to the finder.

[Rainmaker (Matt)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

The sentiment is understood, but in this case the fall was a Mundrabilla fragment (one of dozens, if not hundreds recovered), of which the WA museum already has a 12 ton behemoth sized sample ...I doubt there would be very little new to learn from my modest space-rock.

Curiously, NSW has no such law unilaterally declaring State ownership...it's finders keepers, but I can see merit in encouraging the submission of samples for study, after which they should be returned to the finder.

maybe then I might ‘loan’ them a few dozen samples from my collection…..

[Shasta55 (Chris)]

Originally Posted by AdamJL

Avi Loeb is a name familiar to those who pay attention to the UAP phenomena (not aliens, just UAP!).

Well I was never one of those. But it's surprising what the Youtube algorithms toss up when you view astronomy related clips. One such was the one hour Ch 7 special done by Ross Coulthart. That led me to his book, and his & Bryce Zabel's "Need to Know" podcasts.


Whilst I'm not quite ready to design a tinfoil hat, I find the circumstantial evidence - quite a bit backed-up with hard data - pretty intriguing. People with real scientific cred like Professors Loeb and Gary Nolan only add to the interest in "The Phenomenon".


After taking an interest in the subject my once high opinion of Neil De Grasse-Tyson has nosedived due to his arrogant and scornful debunking of such people's endeavors.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Shasta55

............ I find the circumstantial evidence - quite a bit backed-up with hard data - pretty intriguing. People with real scientific cred like Professors Loeb and Gary Nolan only add to the interest in "The Phenomenon". .......

OMG more wrecked alien space craft



P.S.
After 20,000 hours of watching the sky I only saw two events that made me go hummm.... Blue Sprites atop a very active thunderstorm...and a meteor that blew up under a 20,000 high cloud deck. The effect was similar to VERY large flash bulb going off.

Way cool, but no need to invoke ET.

[Swagman105 (Geoff)]

I am sure the controversy referred to here was the lack of a permit given for the recovery of the fragments but not to the controversy about interstellar objects falling to Earth.
Our solar system itself evolved from a cloud of interstellar gas and dust. It was probably one of a cluster of stars that formed from an even larger region of gas and dust.
The powerful solar winds that resulted would have blown away most of the interstellar gas left over from the formation of our and other stars.
But what of the dust, the solid particulate matter of different sizes formed of generations of star deaths?
Our own solar system has vast numbers of these solid (ice or rocky) objects left over from its formation in the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud loosely held by our solar systems gravity.
How many more would have been lost to interstellar space wandering through its vast distances over billions of years. We are now starting to get an idea that there maybe just as many planets wandering in interstellar space as there are in orbit around stars.
I think it reasonable to think that interstellar space is not as empty of meteoric objects as perhaps we generally realise and that many of these wanderers formed in more exotic locations of our galaxy and with exotic compositions may find their way to our solar system and be trapped here and hidden among the many that formed in our local cloud.
It may still be considered a long shot to have one do a bullseye hit on our earth, but then there are probably many more entering our solar system being trapped or merely passing through than we probably think.