[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.&nbsp; <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.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff?<BR=
>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Gregory&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_1f0.78ae820.2bdc73a3_boundary--
Received on Sat 26 Apr 2003 07:43:31 PM PDT


Help support this free mailing list:



StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
reddit
Yahoo MyWeb