Article: Discovery of probably Tunguska meteorites at the bottom of Khushmo river's shoal

Article: Discovery of probably Tunguska meteorites at the bottom of Khushmo river's shoal

In "Re: [meteorite-list] Article: Discovery of probably
Tunguska meteorites at the bottom of Khushmo river's shoal." at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com/msg112777.html
Robert wrote:

" http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.8070.pdf

Discovery of probably Tunguska meteorites at the
bottom of Khushmo river's shoal (by) Andrei E. Zlobin
Vernadsky State Geological Museum, Russian Academy
of Sciences, Mokhovaya 11/11, 125009, Moscow,
Russian Federation

I am stunned.
>From the Vernadsky State Geological Museum,
Russian Academy of Sciences!!
The "shatter-cones" appear to be aragonite crystals.
The samples are all m-wrongs.
This paper would never pass the peer-review of Club-Space-Rock,
how did it get past the Cornell University Library?
http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement
How did this ever get published?"

If a person looks at the endorsemen web page at
http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement , it specifically
states:

"The endorsement process is not peer review."

Thus, the articles posted to arXiv are not peer-reviewed.

Over the years, I have noticed that the arXiv endorsement
system, although it allows "publication" of articles at a much
lower cost than conventional peer-reviewed journals, also
allows some rather questionable material to at times to be
"published" on arXiv. This material includes catastrophist
pseudoscience such as "Tails of a Recent Comet" by Milton
Zysman and Frank Wallace at http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0416
and long discredited and scientifically illiterate nonsense
about a "pole shift" causing the end of the last glacial as in
"On the change of latitude of Arctic East Siberia at the end
of the Pleistocene" by W. Woelfli and W. Baltensperger at
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2489?context=physics.geo-ph

A person has to take a critical look at what appears on
arxiv.org and not accept it at face value. It appears the
arXiv Blog simply repeats what the article is about
without making a critical examination of the article's
content. It is largely an Internet version of a press
release and should be viewed with the same skepticism
and critical eye as any press release.

Comments about another arXiv reprint can be found
in "Meteorite crater found on mount Ararat?" at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com/msg94574.html

The article is:

Yours,
Paul H.

Finally, a plausible explanation for Tunguska

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Wed May 27 12:06:55 EDT 2009

Darren Garrison write:

“ http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6868/56/
Russian Scientist: UFO collided with Tunguska Meteorite to save Earth
Tuesday, 26 May 2009” - rest of text deleted

Notice at its bottom, the web page states:

"2009 MINA Smart News for Smart People"

PDF file at

http://macedoniaonline.eu/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=6868

Yours,

Paul H.

Tunguska Questions

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Fri May 15 14:26:27 EDT 2009

In regard to Tunguska and bioturbation, Meteorites USA asked:

“Paul H's post on bioturbation brings up an interesting
question. The first expedition led by Leonid Kulik to
Tunguska in 1927 to study the devastation and search
for meteorites happened 19 years AFTER the event
in 1908, (He had an earlier expedition in 1921 but
wasn't successful in reaching the epicenter until 1927).

19 years is a LONG time for meteorites in the forested
and swampy environment full of little critters, insects,
and plants that could bury any stones. How deep can
meteorites be buried in 19 years of snow, rain storms,
mudslides, spring melt, critters, ants, termites, and
other animals?

This is very interesting point, because 19 years likely would
be sufficient time for relatively small fragments of meteorite
to be buried. Dr. Donald Johnson found right after buying the
in which he lives, a layer of bricks buried beneath 2 or 3 inches
of soil. This had been bricks that had been placed on the
ground, without using any mortar hold them together, as
simple patio. Given when the house was built, the bricks
could not have been placed on the ground more than 20
years before he found them. It was this discovery that
inspired him to start his research on bioturbation from what
can remember of his class lectures.

The depth of burial at Tunguska, would depend, in part, on
how deep any permafrost present at that location melts each
year and how deep that and other processes allow bioturbation
to occur. I suspect that between bioturbation and cryturbation,
any small and even relatively large, meteorite fragment would
very quickly disappear beneath the soil and muck.

It would be interesting to find some specific information about
the soils present at the Tunguska Site and do a detailed taphonomic
analysis of what the soil and sediment data means in terms of
"meteorite taphonomy". It would be no different then doing an
analysis of site formation processes for an archaeological survey
area in order to either predict where the archaeologists should
look for artifacts or in order to interpret what was or was not
found by the archaeologists when they surveyed an area.

I have done enough site formation processes analyses for archaeologists,
that I could, for a scientific search for meteorites, do the same thing for
a strewn field and make a prediction of where a person would expect
meteorites to be found.

Best Regards,

Paul H.

Correct URLS to PDF files of Tunguska “crater” papers

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 9 09:30:49 EDT 2008

In my initial post I have the wrong URLs for some of the papers.
which Listed in it. The old post was at:

http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2008-June/045010.html

The correct URLs for the PDF files are:

Gasperini, L., F. Alvisi, G. Biasini, E. Bonatti, G. Longo, M.
Pipan, M. Ravaioli and R. Serra, 2008, A possible impact
crater for the 1908 Tunguska Event. Terra Nova. vol. 19,
no. 4, pp. 245-251 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3121.2007.00742.x
Correct PDF file

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2007.00742.x

The comment and reply are:

Collins, G. S., N. Artemieva, K. Wünnemann, P. A. Bland,
W. U. Reimold, and C. Koeberl, 2008, Evidence that Lake
Cheko is not an impact crater. Terra Nova. vol. 20, no. 2,
pp. 165–168 doi:10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00791.x
Correct PDF file

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00791.x

Gasperini, L., Enrico Bonatti, and Giuseppe Longo, 2008,
Lake Cheko and the Tunguska Event: impact or non-impact?
Terra Nova. vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 169-172,
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x
Correct PDF file

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x

Yours,

Paul H.

Comment and reply to Tunguska "crater" paper now available online

Paul bristolia at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 7 16:54:18 EDT 2008

The comment and reply on the alleged crater associated with the
Tunguska impact event are now online and free to download.

The original paper is:

Gasperini, L., F. Alvisi, G. Biasini, E. Bonatti, G. Longo, M.
Pipan, M. Ravaioli and R. Serra, 2008, A possible impact
crater for the 1908 Tunguska Event. Terra Nova. vol. 19,
no. 4, pp. 245-251 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3121.2007.00742.x

Web page
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2007.00742.x

PDF file
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x

The comment and reply are:

Collins, G. S., N. Artemieva, K. Wünnemann, P. A. Bland,
W. U. Reimold, and C. Koeberl, 2008, Evidence that Lake
Cheko is not an impact crater. Terra Nova. vol. 20, no. 2,
pp. 165–168 doi:10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00791.x

Web Page
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00791.x

PDF file
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x

Gasperini, L., Enrico Bonatti, and Giuseppe Longo, 2008, Lake
Cheko and the Tunguska Event: impact or non-impact? Terra Nova.
vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 169-172, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x

Web Page
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x

PDF file
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2008.00792.x

Yours,

Paul H.

paper About Tunguska Event Impactor

Paul H bristolia at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 23 13:34:50 EDT 2004

In the March (2004) issue of Planetary and Space
Science, there is a paper discussing the identity
of the impactor, which produced the Tunguska Event,
that might be of interest to some list members.
The paper is:

Q. L. Hou , E. M. Kolesnikov , L. W. Xie , N. V.
Kolesnikova , M. F. Zhou and M. Sun, 2004,
Platinum group element abundances in a peat layer
associated with the Tunguska event, further
evidence for a cosmic origin. Planetary and
Space Science. vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 331-340
doi:10.1016/j.pss.2003.08.002

Based upon "excess" Pd, Rh, Ru, REE, Co, Sr, and Y
found in a peat column from the Northern peat bog
of the 1908 Tunguska explosion site, they concluded
that the impactor, which created the Tunguska event
was "more likely a comet", although the possibility
that the impactor might have alternatively been a
carbonaceous asteroid. They estimated that the
mass of either the comet or carbonaceous asteroid
was as large as 103-106 tons.

I am only reporting what this paper stated. I don't
know enough about the pro and cons of the various
arguments about the Tunguska event to evaluate
their conclusions in any intelligent manner. If
anybody needs more information, he or she can
find contact information for the authors by
clicking the link, "Volume 52, Issue 4, pp. 259-340
(March 2004)" at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00320633

and following the article link to the abstract.

(Besides my library doesn't subscribe to Planetary
and Space Science. Thus, I only have access to the
article's abstract.)

Yours,

Paul