[meteorite-list] Loaves and fishiness

[Paul H]

Marc D. Fries wrote:

>I'm rather intrigued with Shirokovsky. 

Yes, I agree, it is an interesting X-File type of 
object. I might track down some metallurgists, 
whom I know, to see what they have to say. Also, my 
Russian wife can translate into and type letters 
in Russian on my Russified Mac, if needed.

>In looking at the pictures, a couple of things 
>jump out - first off, most of the pieces are shaped 
>like loaves of bread, or like ingots.  

In terms of being "...then sand-cast the resulting 
melt into fine sand pre-forms roughly pounded out 
to look like meteorites.", they seem to be too 
ingot-like to have been made as deliberate fakes 
formed to look like meteorites. To me, the ingot-like 
forms suggest some sort of industrial by-product, 
not something shaped to deceive. My (naive?) 
impression is that we are dealing with self-delusion 
on a massive scale instead of fraud.

That the olivines are of a type associated with Ni-Cu 
ores and of the approximate age of Ni-Cu ores 
associated such deposits suggests to me that whatever 
created the Shirokovsky material might have something 
to do with the smelting of such ores. The local Ural 
olivines are far too old and not associated with 
Ni-Cu ores from what I can tell and, thus can't be 
their source. If Shirokovsky was made simply as a
fake,
the people involved logically wouldn't have ignored 
local olivines,in favor of more distance olivines 
associated with the Ni-Cu ores.  

(Also, it doesn't look like it has been underwater 
for 44 years. (Of course the water is cold, but 
still there should be some obvious corrosion.)

>Secondly, the comment that the olivines did not 
>equilibrate with the metal matrix, but rather 
>"cooled quickly in a strongly oxidizing environment" 
>is interesting.  An oxidizing environment such as 
>...air?? 

This is a devasating argument. Quick cooling
in an oxidizing environment certainly puts the
stake in heart, as if it was needed, of the 
meteorite interpretation.

Also, I get the feeling that the promoters of it make
much of a nonexistent connection between the hole
in the ice and what was found on the bottom of the 
reservoir. Given that the fall happened in 1956, how 
do they know exactly where to search in 2002 some 
44 years later? Are there any records of someone 
determining the location of the hole in 1956 with a 
survey before the ice melted? 

It would be interesting to find out what sort 
boat and barge traffic uses the Kosva River near 
Shirokovsky. If there is any sort of commercial
or industrial traffic, there is almost an 
unlimited variety of stuff that could get dumped
into the reservoir. I suspect the promoters of this 
material as a meteorite likely don't realize that 
all sorts of really weird stuff gets dumped into 
reservoirs.

Yours,

Paul
Baton Rouge, LA



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo