[meteorite-list] 1864: fiction or fact? help!

From: chris aubeck <caubeck_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Sep 21 14:52:44 2004
Message-ID: <20040921185242.98898.qmail_at_web50804.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi again,

Thank you for your comments about this "report!" That
it's fiction, in fact a hoax, I don't doubt at all. In
fact, it emerged some 11 times between 1864 and 1900
in different newspapers and in different languages.

This is actually the reason I was curious about the
science behind the fiction. The meteorite was far too
large to be real, but were the references to its
physical composition total nonsense?

As I wish to present this story as a stage in the
development of meteorite-related myths and
misidentifications through history, as part of a
report with wholly educational aims, it would be
interesting to know whether a scientist working in the
mid-19th century would have spotted this fake
immediately, and how.

Also, how big would the crater of such a large
meteorite be? Is there a way to estimate it?

If anyone on the list comes across any similarly weird
reports (inscribed aerolites, hollow meteorites,
fossil-bearing ones, etc.) I would very much like to
add them to my study. Folklore of this kind has so
rarely been examined.

As requested, the text in Spanish can be found below
(it first appeared in French).

Many thanks,

Chris

*****************************************************

Son notables, a primera vista las rajaduras y
asperezas de las cuales han debido desprenderse
pedazos considerables: la masa entera est? cubierta
por cierto esmalte negro, desde 3 hasta 9 ? pulgadas
de espesor. El interior contiene 5% de carb?n al
estado de grafito, sulfuro de hierro magn?tico, un
carbonato de magnesia y de hierro, el cual puede
considerarse como una variedad de breu merite,
sustancia ?sta extremadamente escasa; s?lice, talco,
algunos minerales complejos que no se encuentran en el
tierra, por ejemplo la Sheibirsite, que es un fosfuro
doble de hierro y n?quel, clorito de amon?aco, sal muy
vol?til, su presencia en el aerolito es una prueba que
el estado candente de la superficie no ha durado largo
tiempo y que el calor no ha penetrado hasta el
interior de la masa y esto es en concordancia con la
poca conductividad de su composici?n y por fin
conten?a Cesio y algunos silicatos alcalinos que nos
son desconocidos.

A siete varas hemos encontrado el Ofito, a 15 el
Granito. La piedra era muy dura para agujerear y
adelant?bamos muy despacito

******************************************************
  






 --- JKG <h3chondrite_at_cox.net> wrote:
> I found this story to be quite entertaining and
> think it would sound very
> convincing to a person who lacked the basic
> understanding of
> meteorites. The overall language of the article
> coupled with the use of
> geological and chemical terminology sets it in a
> class above the usual
> fictitious accounts. However, anyone who has
> studied meteorites on even
> the most basic level (Meteoritics 101 and lower)
> would know that this rock
> measuring 495 X 742.5 feet could not be a meteorite.
> The mass is
> sufficient large (several time over, actually) that
> the earths atmosphere
> would have no effect on slowing it's entry speed. If
> the meteor didn't
> break up during entry for some reason it would have
> vaporized on impact; no
> large pieces of it would remain and there would be a
> crater of tremendous
> size where this rock now sits.
>
> Best,
>
> JKG


=====
http://embark.to/magonia

C / Mayor 51, 3 B,
28013 Madrid
Spain

Tel: 600376311 (with image capabilities)


        
        
                
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Received on Tue 21 Sep 2004 02:52:42 PM PDT