How many of the following will be true about the Canadian Prairie meteorite by next July?

Not a bird, not a plane... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ULBce47NIA

A meteorite collector is offering $10,000 to find a piece of the rock, which was estimated to weight many tons before exploding. There'll be enough people out looking for fragments that some will doubtless be found...

Meteorite fragments found
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/11/28/fragments-of-canadian-fireball-found/

So...if, say, private property was damaged by a chunk of the rock, *and* pieces of the rock are found, will only the 'Any combination of above' choice win? I wouldn't think so, as the choices don't state "Only a crater from this meteorite will be found" or "Meteor will be magnetic only". In other words, there's overlap here; can we assume this was intentional? Also, a one kilogram chunk of rock falling at terminal velocity in so-called dark flight will usually leave a small indentation in the earth when it lands; such an indentation can correctly be called a crater, though it's not, of course, what any of us would consider a classical crater. And finally, while pieces of the meteorite may be found, it's a scientific certainty that not *all* of the pieces will or can be (some may be under water, or hidden in bushes, or so close in appearance to extant stones that they'll remain indistinguishable, etc.); what will constitute a 'yes' result for choice # 2 ('Meteorite recovered in Saskatchewan or Alberta')?

Just askin'... ;)

I am confused by possible settlements also:

No evidence recovered or crater found or damage - NOT an option any longer as evidence (meteor fragments) have been recovered.
Meteorite recovered in Saskatchewan or Alberta - YES as it was recovered in Saskatchewan.
Meteorite will be magnetic - Unknown at current time
Crater from this meteorite found - Unknown (but unlikely) at current time
Damage to pvt property or livestock - Extremely unlikely, as damage would have been reported.
Any combination of above - ABSOLUTELY as any combination MUST include ONE item as an option.

With my comments above, at least TWO of the options MUST settle as YES and therefore this question needs to be voided, unless Hubdub is prepared to settle on two or more options being possible outcomes. NONE of the options except for #1 is mutually exclusive from the other and therefore if it is found that the meteor is magnetic then obviously both options #1 and #2 are valid correct responses, even though the last option claims "Any combination of above". The final option does NOT state that a combination would override any of the other options.

I love this question and think it was a great addition, but I feel that the settlement issues are much too vague and therefore open for too much interpretation.

I can hear what you're saying, but I thought the question was quite clear.

Option 1 is now no longer a possibility - as bits of meteor have been recovered (get your money out, folks!)

The next 4 options, in my mind, had an implicit 'ONLY' after them. As yet, only the second option has been confirmed. If neither option 3, 4 or 5 occur by the suspend date, the question will settle on option 2.

However, if either option 3, 4 or 5 occur, a 'combination' of the events has occurred, so the question will settle as option 6. I suppose it is a bit confusing that if, say, a crater is found (which they are using lasers to find, it doesn't have to be a massive deep impact crater), then the question won't settle for option 4 but rather option 6.

You've correctly identified that the only possible outcome at present are options 2 and 6, so it's a race to see whether any of the other events occur. Is this clear now?

I agree with you 99.99% Tisha... BUT the .01% comes from option 3 then. If option 3 is settled as YES, then wouldn't options 2 and options 6 also be valid settlement issues, as option 3 could NOT settle as YES unless option 2 had settled as YES also? I respect the implicit "ONLY" ... but honestly how could the meteorite be found to be magnetic if no meteorite was recovered? The arguement from people would be that they put money on option 2 or 3, and since they could both be valid settlements as YES ... there is much confusion to be had.

To further confuse the issue...what would qualify as 'damage' for #5? There's a possibility that, for instance, a gravel-sized piece of the space rock will have been found to leave a tiny dent in the hood of a farm tractor; is that a yes? Or does it have to be something requiring a specific dollar amount to repair/replace? And--again in regards to #4--will any hole/indentation be considered a 'crater', or will only a high-velocity impact structure be considered?

FWIW, the rock appears to be an ordinary chondrite, meaning that it may or may not have enough iron inclusions to be magnetic to any degree...

Lol. @paulcroft - if we're 99.99% in agreement, I'm celebrating! I agree with what you're saying about the overlap with Options 2 and 3, so if anyone has put money on the 'meteorite will be magnetic' option, I hereby announce that I will offer you a refund of your prediction if you want one.

@sqlman - I don't think there's a minimum damage requirement, save for obviously we can't settle it unless it's been reported. So, if what's widely reported is a microscopic dent, I'd tend to think that would count for settlement. Same with the craters - I think that anything that is found and identified as a 'crater' by mainstream media will be sufficient for settlement, even if it's not massive.

Fair enough. Thanks...

I hate to keep nitpicking, but several media outlets are showing a photo of a small (10cm) indentation in the ground made by a 13kg chunk of the rock; does that qualify as damage to private property?

FWIW, the thing will probably become known as the Marsden Meteorite (as their generally named after the nearest post office).