Including Original "Paul H. Letters" Copyright © 1996-2017 Paul V. Heinrich - All rights reserved.



Wednesday, 7 July 2004

Loaves and fishiness

Loaves and fishiness

Paul H bristolia at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 7 22:51:57 EDT 2004

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

No comments: