I have possibly found 2 new impact craters, what should i do

[BoJangles2]

I may have possibly found 2 new (undiscovered) impact craters, what should I do?

Ok, obviously I'm only an amateur, though I have been idly looking for impact craters for about 18 months via things like “Google Earth” and Nasa’s “World Wind” (just for the fun of it). I have inspiration from recent discoveries found through such mediums as above, touted and reported by the news over the last 2 years.

To my ultimate dismay, I’ve allready discovered many craters that were already previously documented (some of the most notable craters on earth mind you) .

So here I am, 18 months on, and I think I have a fairly good idea of what I'm looking for (after pinning many known craters (after the fact) and double checking with Wiki). I basically have a collection of about the 300+- possible sites around the world, which may or may not be impact craters.

So what should I do if (I think) I`ve really found an undiscovered impact crater?

Should I; email someone who studies this stuff (geologists) knowing full well they will not be able to substantiate such a find without visiting the site and sampling the rocks and writing a paper.

Or try to ascertain for myself whether such a site is an impact crater (via trial and error sampling, and letting people have a look at the results) and doing my best to write my own paper (knowing I have never authored a paper, but anything is achievable given enough time an effort).

The thing is I know how cagey scientists are when it comes to research data and papers. I also know full well that the anomalies I have found have a high probability of not being what I expect, but there is a chance (as small as it may be), that I have indeed found something undiscovered (in regards to impacts).

I could paste you many topographical views from many types of satellites and many different pictures of the very specific geological anomalies I'm talking about. But I'm a bit wary (due to the nature and history of scientific discoveries) of disclosing the particular sites I have found. So I'm asking the only academic and knowledgeable place I really have contact with, to give me their opinions.

What should I do?

---

Before anyone tells me I should have the site varified by someone knowledgeable. That particular process may lose me the credibility in what I have discovered (if in the small chance, it is what I expect), its well known that it’s not who discovers something, it’s who proves it that earns the recognition. Or should I just submit-and-email someone who knows, and let them take the credit for something I have found. Or is it the case that most professionals would give credit where credit is due.

The problem is, I have a long history of people taking credit for my own work (music, business ideas, market analysis), and it’s a case of 10 times bitting 11 times shy.

Has anyone got any suggestions?

Ps. Since it is a large world, and they are fairly small craters (5-10km) and fairly old (seemingly), I should be able to paste some pictures here without too much fear of being scooped (if they are indeed what I expect). But I’d like to hear the opinion of MW or other SDC heavy weights before proceeding.

Thanks for your time in advance, and I look forward to your response.

Pps. This may be in the wrong subsection/forum, I'm sorry for any inconvenience (smarter people hang out here)

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well, I guess the first question is, what makes you think these are impact craters? Is this stricly from a photo view, or have you visited the sites and searched for some physical evidence?

What is the surrounding geological setting?

If, in order to protect your possible (Unlikely we know, but possible ) discovery, if you'd like to have some PM conversations on this I'd be happy to help and give my opinion and advice. You could save the PM's as evidence of your discovery priority, but if you knew me you'd realize it's not necessary. I don't cheat in science!

Off the top of my head, I've never considered the question before, so don't have any easy answers, but I will contact some in the meteoritic community and see if they have any advice.

This might be better off in Ask the Astronomer, but I guess we can leave it here for now.

Wayne

 

[3488]

Hi Bojangles,

How about reporting your finds to The National Geographic?

Clearly explain & perhaps using lat & lon, & any image evidence, i.e do a screen dump & save to the highest resolution, send to the National Geographic.

How about likewise to the USGS & NASA????

You would have to keep ALL evidence to prove that you were the first to spot these. I.e keep emails sent in your Sent Items as that will display the date & time & copies of any documents, sceen dumps, etc likewise.

Andrew Brown.

 

[yevaud]

Interesting hobby.

This is a hard one. I know where/to whom to report new Asteroid or NEO object to - that's at the Harvard Smithsonian. But this would be Planetary Science / Geophysics, and damned if I have ever heard of people doing this.

I suppose the best shot to ask to whom one would submit a discovery would be the American Geophysical Union ( http://www.agu.org ) - but from my experience with working in the sciences / academia, do NOT spill all the beans, even if they are persistent. If they will not point you in the proper direction, get back to us here, and we'll figure it out for you.

Oh, for everyone else's edification, to report an amateur asteroid or NEO finding, contact:

IAU Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
60 Garden Street
Cambridge, MA 02138

Or, alternately, online at:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/chat.html

 

[MeteorWayne]

Hi Bojangles,

How about reporting your finds to The National Geographic?

Clearly explain & perhaps using lat & lon, & any image evidence, i.e do a screen dump & save to the highest resolution, send to the National Geographic.

How about likewise to the USGS & NASA????

You would have to keep ALL evidence to prove that you were the first to spot these. I.e keep emails sent in your Sent Items as that will display the date & time & copies of any documents, sceen dumps, etc likewise.

Andrew Brown.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

My advice is not to do that (National Geographic, that is)

I have had dealings with them investigating foolish reports of meteor impacts. First of all, they get very territorial, and second, they seemed much more concerned with getting a good story, than being rigorously scientific. In fact they ignored my experienced advice and shooed me away with threats.

IMHO, run away, run away

 

[yevaud]

Territorial? Hell, they'd steal the story from Bo, and claim it as their own discovery. S'why I said to not budge when contacting someone like the AGU, if they persist in not pointing him off to the proper reporting authority and keep trying to obtain details.

I saw my own adviser and another PhD Astrophysics literally almost come to blows in the hall one day. It appears that the other guy had somehow gotten into my Adviser's PC, obtained a paper he was working on, and claimed it as his own. A cutthroat business, it is.

[Edited for boneheaded grammatical errors. Sue me.]

 

[MeteorWayne]

Hopefully, Jon Clarke will see this. He might have the best advice, and he's from "Down Under" as I believe BoJangles is.

 

[yevaud]

Yes, Jon is our Gold Standard for this subject.

Another institute that might be able to point Bo off to the right place is the Lunar Planetary Institute ( http://www.lpi.usra.edu/ ). Same caveat applies, "be cautious what you reveal).

 

[porkchopsnapplesauce]

I am not sure what you would get if they were credited to you anyway, so take this with a grain of salt. If you post one of the most likely ones here, you will at least be getting the information out to the public under your name. You would then also be able to get input/feedback from the forum to help find out if it could be what you think it is.

 

[BoJangles2]

Thanks guys for all your responses.

Most likely, what I have to offer is just terrestrial geological anomalies (like what would be expected from natural geological formations). But as you can tell I have some reservations as to what I should revel to whom (probably all in vain). It would be nice to think I could come up with something new and unknown though (but these assumptions were formed out of satellite images all the same).

I have many questions, and love to know many answers obviously. I def have some great sat images from all different types of satellites, and some very good 3d cross sections with 3d gradient elevation spectrums, thanks to nasa world wind.

I also know that the base geology is fairly old 500-2000 and the structures them self look fairly old
Ill capture some images and see how I progress from there, I might take MW up on his offer.

Once again thanks for your input.

 

[yevaud]

Fwiw, I have some modest experience at identifying various terrain features. Go to my profile, email me one or two of the images - I don't need to know where they are, and I would not steal your thunder - and I'll let you know if they do, in fact, have the morphology to be eroded impact sites.

 

[JonClarke]

Confirming something is an impact crater takes a lot of specialised expertise and access to the site. Unless you have both, and the necessary equipment, you are going to have to work with somebody. You are unlikely to get very far if you are worried that someone might steal your idea.

The most appropriate agency to contact would be the relevant national or state geological survey. Whether they do anything about it is anybody's guess. Money is usually short.

University people would be a second choice, but they would have to be interested and have the resources to go the work.

Other organisations suggested - LPI, NGS - don't have the resources to check out such claims (and for the record, I don't share Waynes low opinion of NGS (who on at least one occasion were right when he was wrong).

Jon

 

[BoJangles2]

Thanks once again for all your input, and I take all your opinions very seriously, and truth be known I doubt I’ve found anything at all, additionally I realise that most scientists wouldn’t be so unprofessional.

Though I think my biggest fear would be revealing a site to a bunch of people, having them not bother about it, and then one day someone goes and proves it because of my own personal work, then getting no credit for it. Small chance, though it can’t be counted out. But as I said, the chances are (and a good a chance at that) I’ve found nothing.

A lot of the sites I’ve identified are in Australia, so I'm wondering if should pack up the 4wd and go visit some of these sites for myself. Obviously with newer impact sites, it would be bleatingly obvious when looking at particular rocks whether they have been transformed by an impact, i.e. shock quartz and breccia, though I'm wondering for extremely old impacts that are highly eroded, what would be the chance of finding such material.

So a question would be, with and extremely old impact site that has suffered a massive amount of erosion, would the original underlying rock be as easily indentified. I.e. how far does the transformation affect on rock go down into the original site? If you could see a crater at all would the remaining rocks still show the standard telltale effects?

Since I have so many potential sites, I might start just pasting locations and diff sat images just for fun, though I have a handful of really good sites I'm not sure if I'm willing to divulge just yet.

 

[JonClarke]

A lot of the sites I’ve identified are in Australia, so I'm wondering if should pack up the 4wd and go visit some of these sites for myself.

If this is a real possibility the two people you need to contact are Andrew Glickson at the Australian National University in Canberra and Peter Haines at the Geolgical Survey of Western Australia. Between them these two guys have done most of the work on Australian impacts.

Obviously with newer impact sites, it would be bleatingly obvious when looking at particular rocks whether they have been transformed by an impact, i.e. shock quartz and breccia, though I'm wondering for extremely old impacts that are highly eroded, what would be the chance of finding such material.

So a question would be, with and extremely old impact site that has suffered a massive amount of erosion, would the original underlying rock be as easily indentified. I.e. how far does the transformation affect on rock go down into the original site? If you could see a crater at all would the remaining rocks still show the standard telltale effects?

Shock features can generally be found at least one crater radius depth. Structural features - radial and concentric features, and central uplifts are usually pewrsistant features wvent when ejecta sheets, melt sheets and pseudo tachylites have long gone.

Since I have so many potential sites, I might start just pasting locations and diff sat images just for fun, though I have a handful of really good sites I'm not sure if I'm willing to divulge just yet.

That would be fun!