Fwd: Meteorite hunter takes £10,000 rock to auction - And a part

Fwd: Meteorite hunter takes £10,000 rock to auction - And a part

In "Fwd: Meteorite hunter takes £10,000 rock to
auction - And a part at
http://www.mail-archive.com/meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com/msg114325.html
Rob Elliott is quoted:

"Sadly, some journalists don't let the facts get
in the way of a good story!!"

An example of this is the story that I found in the
sidebar to the "Meteorite hunter takes £10,000
rock to auction" on Astro Watch at

http://www.astrowatch.net/2013/08/meteorite-hunter-takes-10000-rock-to.html

In the sidebar, there is a link to "Bosnia
'meteor' intrigues new generation in wake of
Russia strike" at:

http://www.astrowatch.net/2013/02/bosnia-meteor-intrigues-new-generation.html

In this story, a everyday sandstone concretion is
touted as a possible meteorite along the same old
tire claims, i.e. it allegedly being "It was so
hot that it was impossible to approach,” that a
person hears about just about every “witnessed”
meteorwrong.

In this case, this pseudoscience did not come from
the Guardian, but from “The Telegraph” in “Bosnia
'meteor' intrigues new generation in wake of Russia
strike (A mysterious rock at a quarry in central
Bosnia has seen a spike in visitors in the wake of
the meteor explosion over Russia last week.)
February 24, 2103 at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9890814/Bosnia-meteor-intrigues-new-generation-in-wake-of-Russia-strike.html

A person would think that before publishing this
story that a newspaper like The Telegraph would
consult a geologist before publishing local
folklore as news. Obviously, that was not done.

In case of both articles, I get the impression that
someone, somewhere, neither wanted the facts to
confuse their readers nor obstruct the writing of
an entertaining story.

Yours,

Paul H.

Shirokovsky - Some Thoughts

Paul H bristolia at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 7 01:22:44 EDT 2004

Peter Marmet wrote:


>as far as I know, the lastest info is still this

>special statement of the meteoritical society:


http://www.meteoriticalsociety.org/bulletin/shirokovsky.pdf
"

One really curious thing about the Shirokovsky
material is that its K-Ar age of the olivine is
"about 270 million years". This is curious because
there are metalliferous ultramafic rocks of that age,
which contain dunite, a rock composed entirely of
olivine.

What is also most curious is that Au, Ir, and Os of
the olivine is typical of olivine found in Cu-Ni
deposits. It is curious because, there are large
ultramafic Cu-Ni ore deposits that occur in Russia
which contain olivine-rich rocks. For example,
there are "seven major ore deposits associated
with the basal portions of such olivine rich
intrusives" in the Noril'sk / Talnakh Ni-Cu-PGE
(Platinum-Group Elements) ore deposits. By coincidence

or not, these olivine-rich intrusives are part of
subsurface sills associated with extensive flood
basalt accumulations, called the "Siberian Traps",
is about 251 million years in age, which is quite
close to the "about 270 million years age" of the
Shirokovsky material. The inexact age determination
made on it, could be off by 20 million years.

Within the Central Urals, there are numerous
ultramafic
complexes that contain dunites associated with rich
chromite and PGE (Platinum-Group Elements)
mineralization and ores. Any of these could be
potential nearby sources of the olivine, which might
have been associated with ore being transported or
smelted.

Given the detailed analyses of the olivine in the
Shirokovsky material, a person should be able to
determine whether any potential / possible source for
the olivine described in the above Meteoritical
Society Report exists within Russia.

mark ford wrote:


>In all the pictures I have seen, to me

>it doesn't quite seem right for a

>pallasite the crystals look a bit too

>sharp and pointed', (just an observation)

>anyone agree with me?


I agree completely with you. Go read "[meteorite-
list] Shirokovsky Texture - A Red Flag As to Its
Origin??" at:

http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2003-June/091826.html

There I stated:

" I have been looking at a number of pictures of
fragments of Shirokovsky that were shown on
various web pages and pictures of pallasites.
After comparing them, there appears to be, in
my opinion, a rather drastic difference in the
texture of the olivine grains within each. In the
pallasites, indvidual grains are equant and either
rounded or euhedral. Also, in the pallasites, a
person can find examples of olivine grains that
have coalesced together.

Examples of this texture can be seen at:

http://www.meteoriteman.com/collection/thiel.htm
http://www.meteoriteman.com/collection/dora.htm
http://www.meteoriteman.com/collection/mtvernon.htm
http://meteorites.asu.edu/pallasite.jpg

In comparison, pictures of the pieces of
Shirokovsky that I have found have a different
texture. the olivine crystals are far more angular
and variable in outline than found in the pallasites,
for which I found pictures. In fact, some of the
olivine pieces in pictures of Shirokovsky are even
flat rectagular blades quite unlike anything seen
in true pallasites. In addition, I don't see any of
the merged / coalesced olivines seen in other,
Overall, the Shirokovsky has the appearance of a
terrazzo floor made up of fragmented rocks."

Yours,

Paul
Baton Rouge, LA