Irna posted the links to: "First Tunguska Meteorite Fragments
Discovered" The Physics arXiv Blog, May 2, 2013 at
[www.technologyreview.com] and the original paper,
"Discovery of Probably Tunguska Meteorites at the Bottom of
Khushmo River's Shoal" at [arxiv.org] .

The general consensus of meteorite collectors and researchers
on the meteorite list is that the author of this papers does
not know what he is writing about and at least a couple of the
figured specimens are regular terrestrial rocks instead of
meteorites. Some of the more opinionated posts include:

1. Re: [meteorite-list] Article: Discovery of probably Tunguska
meteorites at the bottom of Khushmo river's shoal at [tinyurl.com] .
(posted May 2, 2013)

2. Re: [meteorite-list] First Tunguska Meteorite Fragments
Discovered at [tinyurl.com] and 3. [tinyurl.com] .
(posted May 2, 2013)

I have to agree that the illustrated material is not at all
convincing and that a couple of the specimens figured in the
arXiv Blog look very much like concretions.

The meteorite-list archive is at [tinyurl.com] .

Some rather questionable material occasionally gets
"published" on arXiv including some outright catastrophist
pseudoscience such as "Tails of a Recent Comet" by Milton
Zysman and Frank Wallace at [arxiv.org] and outright
nonsense about a "pole shift" causing the end of the last
glacial in "On the change of latitude of Arctic East Siberia at
the end of the Pleistocene" by W. Woelfli and W. Baltensperger
at [arxiv.org] . As a result, a person has to take a critical
look at what appears on arxiv.org and not accept it at face
value as the arXiv Blog typically does.

Yours,

Paul H.

"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
William Faulkner, Act 1, Scene III, Requiem for a Nun (1951)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2013 10:35PM by Paul H..