[meteorite-list] Shirokovsky authenticity questions?
From: Sharkkb8_at_aol.com <Sharkkb8_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:13:10 2004 Message-ID: <1f0.78ae820.2bdc73a3_at_aol.com> --part1_1f0.78ae820.2bdc73a3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Shirokovsky was mentioned on the list last night. =A0 Per the website <A HRE= F=3D"www.shirokovskymeteorite.com"> www.shirokovskymeteorite.com</A>, this is a pallasite which fell in February= of=20 1956, and came to rest at a depth of ~70 feet below the surface of a Russian= =20 reservoir. =20 Currently there are rumours in the scientific community (some of them quite=20 highly placed) that Shirokovsky is actually not, indeed, a meteorite;=20 evidently there still may be significant questions about its composition. =20 Being a Shirokovsky-specimen owner and thus more than a little concerned, I'= m=20 wondering if we could take advantage of Jeff Grossman's kind presence on the= =20 list, and inquire as to whether The Meteoritical Society has taken an=20 official position on Shirokovsky, one way or the other? =A0 I have also noti= ced=20 that there is no entry for Shirokovsky in the Meteoritical Bulletin's "Maste= r=20 Index".=A0 Is that simply because its recovery was too recent to have allowe= d=20 for inclusion in a Bulletin (after all, it just surfaced -- no pun intended=20 -- some time in 2002), or could it be due to inconclusive authenticity=20 isues?=A0 Jeff? Gregory =20 --part1_1f0.78ae820.2bdc73a3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE= =3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><I><BR> Shirokovsk</I>y was mentioned on the list last night. =A0 Per the website <A= HREF=3D"www.shirokovskymeteorite.com">www.shirokovskymeteorite.com</A>, thi= s is a pallasite which fell in February of 1956, and came to rest at a depth= of ~70 feet below the surface of a Russian reservoir. <BR> <BR> Currently there are rumours in the scientific community (some of them quite=20= highly placed) that <I>Shirokovsky </I>is actually <I>not</I>, indeed, a met= eorite; evidently there still may be significant questions about its composi= tion. Being a Shirokovsky-specimen owner and thus more than a li= ttle concerned, I'm wondering if we could take advantage of Jeff Grossman's=20= kind presence on the list, and inquire as to whether <B>The Meteoritical Soc= iety </B>has taken an official position on <I>Shirokovsky</I>, one way or th= e other? =A0 I have also noticed that there is no entry for <I>Shirokovsky <= /I>in the <B>Meteoritical Bulletin</B>'s "Master Index".=A0 Is that simply b= ecause its recovery was too recent to have allowed for inclusion in a Bullet= in (after all, it just surfaced -- no pun intended -- some time in 2002), or= could it be due to inconclusive authenticity isues?=A0 Jeff?<BR= > <BR> Gregory <BR> </FONT></HTML> --part1_1f0.78ae820.2bdc73a3_boundary-- Received on Sat 26 Apr 2003 07:43:31 PM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|