[meteorite-list] Shirokovosky Update

From: Adam Hupe <adamhupe_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:16:34 2004
Message-ID: <1a3801c36722$f163bba0$b4dbe60c_at_attbi.com>

Dear List Members,

I feel it is important to share pertinent information regarding questionable
meteorites. I receive emails all the time in regards to our openness in
reporting data that is sometimes controversial. Several scientists are
afraid to have their names associated with questionable material and
therefor will not report directly to the List. Who can blame them, the last
time I openly reported without bias the outcome of some material it was
immaturely compared with a cat turd in public. Here is part of an email I
received from a high-placed source who wishes to remain anonymous:

*********************************************************
By the way, regarding another "anomalous meteorite" - the Shirokovsky one.
I can say that on a Russian www-page of GEOKHI institute
http://www.geokhi.ru/~meteorit/shirokovsky1.html a conclusion is given that
the Shirokovsky samples were not [present] in outer space. The olivine has
a
terrestrial natural origin, while the metal has an artificial one. So they
suppose that the investigated samples are results of failed/unsuccessful
melting in a furnace, in which the olivine was used as a refractory.
Destruction of the refractory led to failure in the melting. The mixture of
the olivine and the metal was thrown into the Shirokovsky reservoir (storage
lake).

However for the most interesting is that the conclusion is completely absent
on the associated www-page in English:
http://www.geokhi.ru/~meteorit/shirokovsky1-e.html while other info is
present in there (you can check yourself using
http://babelfish.altavista.com/ ). We can just guess why... (if you want to
spread the info, please, exclude my name from it, as I don't want my name
being mentioned in association with this story...).
********************************************************

I can only assume since the official report was never translated properly
into English that states Shirokovsky is artificial, it is just too hot a
subject for some to report publicly. Since the above mentioned web site
translates the original report properly I can not understand why the most
important detail was omitted, that Shirokovsky is man made. Perhaps
somebody can explain why this has not been made public in English since all
the tools were in place to do so.

All the best,

Adam
Received on Wed 20 Aug 2003 09:57:06 AM PDT