Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums


Nugget Shooter Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About Odinxgen

  • Rank
    Silver Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Response to the Comment by Haack et al. (2015) on the paper by Anfinogenov et al. (2014): John's stone: A possible fragment of the 1908 Tunguska meteorite Yana Anfinogenova, John Anfinogenov, Larisa Budaeva, Dmitry Kuznetsov (Submitted on 6 May 2016 (v1), last revised 22 Sep 2016 (this version, v4)) The article provides an open discussion and a critical feedback to the comments of Haack et al. (2015) and emphasizes a significance of the first macroscopic evidence for a candidate meteorite of a new type: planetary-origin meteorite composed of silica-rich sedimentary rock. Discussion concerns the arguments for (i) candidate parental bodies including the Earth, Mars and icy moons of Saturn and Jupiter; (ii) PGE anomaly versus glassy silicate microspherules and quartz grains anomaly in the area of the 1908 Tunguska catastrophe; (iii) isotopic heterogeneity of unmixed silicate reservoirs on Mars; (iv) possible terrestrial loss or contamination in the noble gas signatures in meteorites that spent time in the extreme weather conditions; (v) cosmogenic isotopes and shielding; and (vi) pseudo meteorites. We conclude that the list of candidate parental bodies for hypothetical sedimentary-origin meteorites includes, but is not limited by the Earth, Mars, Enceladus, Ganymede, and Europa. A parental body should be identified based on the entire body of evidence which is not limited solely by tests of oxygen and noble gas isotopes whose signatures may undergo terrestrial contamination and may exhibit significant heterogeneity within the parental bodies. Comments: 11 pages, 49 references Subjects: Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP) Cite as: arXiv:1605.01892 [astro-ph.EP] (or arXiv:1605.01892v4 [astro-ph.EP] for this version) Submission history From: Yana Anfinogenova [view email] [v1] Fri, 6 May 2016 11:18:08 UTC (140 KB) [v2] Sun, 29 May 2016 12:46:45 UTC (140 KB) [v3] Sat, 25 Jun 2016 06:46:32 UTC (146 KB) [v4] Thu, 22 Sep 2016 03:10:34 UTC (146 KB)
  2. Regarding the oxygen isotope date, I see it this way and this is perfectly reasonable. The stone was not found for almost 100 years, contamination is likely right?
  3. Yes I can, The John's stone reference is not to claim meteoric origin of that stone, It is in the epicentre of the Tunguska event. And Also you have your opinion, mine is that John's stone IS a meteorite, especially after speaking to Yana... Or Dr. Anfinogenova regarding this. And these photos of John's stone fragments are from the lab that own rights to it. John's stone has screwed up Oxygen Isotope data that is refutable but that data is the only reason it is not considered a meteorite as far as I know.
  4. I have received permission from authors of the papers behind a pay wall to share them for the purpose of identifying stones as well as parts of our conversations if anybody is interested message me and let me know why, and I will send what I can via message or whatever works best. -Odin 10.1016@j.pss.2007.12.014.pdf 1605.01892.pdf 1706.06093.pdf 2014 Anfinogenov Icarus.pdf 2015 Anfinogenov Bonatti Icarus.pdf 2016 Haack Icarus.pdf 6388.pdf 15740-18093-1-PB.pdf brack2002.pdf cavosie2018.pdf foucher2010.pdf Mineralogical_alteration_of_artificial_m.pdf
  5. Dear reader, I want to preface this forum post with my deepest and sincerest thank you. Simply by reading this post you assist our entire community by discussing an important topic when it comes to meteorites, Sedimentary meteorites. It is not my intention here, now to convince or change opinions. My intention is to open up a dialogue, as it were, between ourselves. If sedimentary meteorites exist, there is no route to verify them and if you read my previous posts you will see that if mine is a true sediment meteorite, it is not received well. But I think everybody here is greatly knowledgeable in rocks, like I am, and there is no help for me at least from the academics, the labs, or researchers in institutions like them. Let's pursue this with a clean and clear mind, I know it is tiresome to explain why someone is wrong and they won't listen. But this is not the lens we should view this from. It's not everyday that a sandstone with such a strong claim comes forward. This is fact and our community has let one after another slip when it comes to these stones. Frank Cross was wrong once about a copper bearing, this made it easy for people to ridicule him for bringing forward another "observed fall" (or 3) Even though the copper bearing WAS an observed fall, perfectly reasonable right? Well here we are in 2019, over 50 years later, and while infrequent, a google search on the old meteorite mailing list will reveal that multiple sandstones with ONE very important thing in common have come forward and been met with the same fate as I have met. Ridicule. This one common factor is A white crust. this crust is obvious in my stone and thankfully it does not react to hydrochloric acid, ruling out calcium coating. Is it not true that the fusion crust is the most important identifier of a potential meteorite? In the field, do we rely on oxygen isotope data and other sciency tests far beyond me, or physical traits and instinct? This is why I am posting John's stone, as a tribute to this perfect launch pad for our discussion. To argue that this does not look like a meteorite is the argument of a blind man. Our disbelief of meteoric origin of this stone comes from one man. Haack, and his strange isotope data. Don't take my word for it, look it up like I have, I know that this is refutable and I won't try and convince anyone of this at all! But the physical traits are nuts to me! not only physical traits but it is in the epicentre of the event, And is not a stone belonging to this area. Sounds good to me. Moving past John's stone I want everybody to examine these photos fairly and honestly(**-Edit The images in the gallery Are my stone and all except 1st one here are John's stone from Tunguska event), Please, if you would. I can demonstrate fusion crust easily, and I would like to ask this community to help me prove this. There is no institution, or person that can, I have tried and been laughed at to the point where I actually kind of hate this stone. But right now no geologist can positively ID this stone and they usually rely on all of the fringe things that can happen to a sandstone and saying well it's probably just one of those freak stones!(This was a real thing said to me by a Geologist with a PhD.) I will not accept this, and I know that these "freak occurrences" Are EXPECTED in a sed-type. If you don't believe me then refer to the amazing research available, because the deeper I dug the more that was revealed to me. So with that I will shut up, and I am waiting to hear from certain people especially but everybody is welcome to comment but Please keep it to what I would need to do to correctly I.D. If it is a sandstone that's terrestrial that's fine, but I need to be able to prove this. I have heard all opposition to this but there are facts that support my claim that are not being discussed because I have no idea why honestly. Given the strong white crust at the top and the conical teardrop shape(ish?) I think that it's more than fair to finally have a good look at these mythic legends, The White-grey crusted sandstone was thrown out in the past, and people in this community shake their head and say, he should have kept it (Frank Cross). Well here we go I found one and at the end of the day is finding the meteorite not the hardest part!? https://imgur.com/gallery/jVLSDLv Happy hunting and warm regards, -Odin
  6. Thank you, I expect opposition. As of now no avenue exists to verify my claim, I can prove the fusion crust exists, its just white/grey. Areas of this stone are crusted with it but it's not a full coat. I appreciate honest feedback, I really do. I know that everybody gets exhausted by fake claims or wrong individuals that refuse to accept fact. I am not one! But apology accepted Bedrock. No hard feelings I expect I will continue to agree with 99.99% of your opinions ;) -Odin
  7. I understand Au seeker, thanks for letting me know and I apologize for being rude. I will refrain from personal attacks of all stripes going forward and I hope my behavior has not offended anyone as I do all of this with a light heart and not maliciously! -Odin
  8. Ahh you are offended? That's funny because you have spent a long time here making fun of others including me. And now that I press this behavior I am out of line? How absurd! I never said my rock was in fact from mars, I only know of Mars and a few moons in our solar system capable of making sediment rocks. That being said I pretend at nothing. You refuse to educate yourself on some hard truths in this community and are perfectly relevant and fair. My stone represents every single characteristic we should look for in a sediment meteorite. You keep saying I am wrong but prove it! I have already laid out the facts here. A sandstone entering our atmosphere will survive, and will aquire a white crust, (Ref stone 1,2,3,4,5,6) This white crust is fragile and I am far from the first to present such a stone, (Ref, Frank Cross 1947) A meteorite expert with far more pedigree than you or me. Ridiculed into silence about the stones. Even though they were observed falls. You ARE acting like a fool, and I would never insult another by saying they are one thing or another but YOUR behavior is out of line. You don't care about my stone or a correct ID, You seem to like thinking I am wrong. So keep on thinking that and I will continue avoiding you here. It is intentional, you continuously disrespect me and others and now you are trying to act like a saint. Idc what you have to say Bedrock, I rely on opinions that are based in reality. I realize claiming a sandstone meteorite blows your mind but I never asked for this. And I have supported every single claim with fact. Referenced and cited the places I got these facts and I am grateful to be so fortunate as to have found this now, where there is a lot of research saying YOU are wrong instead of me. I think there is some divine karma at play here and the tables have flipped. Maybe YOU should be nicer to people and you wouldn't think I am calling you names?
  9. they do not friend, Very obviously not a meteorite. Buuut Keep looking and you might find something.
  10. Also slag is catalouged online. you can find a nice slag picture book which I have used to compare my own to always BEFORE I ask for help. Let me see theese water worn rocks my friend because everybody interested in shutting me down swears they see them all the time but I have yet to see a similar stone ECEpt when I got some HI-Res images of John's stone which while it is a gravelite remove the included pebbles and the matrix is Just like mine, it's dense like mine and I suspect Nasa had a good reason for being there and taking samples earlier this summer.
  11. This is the exact opposite of what I have been told. there are several reasons that rule out water and one is the crust Can have only 2 possibilities assuming this is terrestrial. Glaciers carried and deposited calcium around the stone This rock simply was subjected to high heat and pressure within the crust before surfacing. Also stone meteorites go through a completely diffrent process than sandstone in the atmosphere, melting is not as likely as the grains readily dislodging themselves, Which would also mean that nobody suggesting the pocks are there because of a difference in density is neccesarily wrong it's just obvious to me that this only happened on the face that was less aerodynamic as the sides arent pocked but clearly and heavily ablated. The third picture I posted is probably my favorite fragment because its crust is white and looks like someone took white tar and smeared it on the surface, everywhere else is pretty sandstoney except for a few places here and there but the entire stones outer layer for maybe >1 mm is crusted white. the ironoxide staining washed off with a solution I was recommended and while its still off color it revealed that it was in fact white and stained from sitting in the dirt. Duh. The crust is a crust and I understand it is not exactly the typical thing we look at. Water did not melt the crystals that accumulated in the pocks, thats insane. And the Manitoba geological survey swears up and down that the features are from a glacier BUT the thing is, when they dropped hydrochloric acid on it there was no reaction. No answer for this and I likely won't get one. Right now I am trying to get this thing examined but nobody wants to take it. The stone is a perfect teardrop shape.no now that I broke it but the top of this image was the section i was able to breask off because it was much thinner there AND opposite to that is the only face on the stone. Not likely that water did this at all nor has any geologist I have brought it too evsn suggested that. AAnd unfortunately I don't know where to find our local meteorite bros as there are only 1 or 2 and not likely to be interested.
  12. Probably why The Tunguska meteor exploded in the atmosphere.
  13. I would say no mate, While I have been recommended to this topic I think it's important that you look at the sandstone I have presented. First thing Jimale, Sandstone will turn white or grey when subjected to high temperature, this is why any possible sed-type meteorite must have a white outer crust as even with this present it is a LOOOOONNG shot to identification. I don't know what the first image is of but I will post a few images of my sandstone, the gravelite in the tunguska epicentre, and the foundation stone which is a terrestrial sandstone with some more bizarre features. One common trait among all three of them is super high density. candidates for sed-type meteorite rock doesn't thud they ting, and I imagine if you hit these two rocks with a hammer they will break.
  14. I don't want to argue false information. Everything I have stated in this forum is true, And you may hypothesize all you want, I am only more certain of my find and it will serve as condemnation of this community as I have stated this already. The rock speaks for itself, and if you are unwilling to do any research into this topic kindly keep your OPINION to yourself. Many people here have not only denied facts I have laid out but ridiculed me for due diligence and intuition that should be celebrated. This speaks to the advancements the internet has made to meteoritics as all of my study of fusion crust, regmaglyphts, flow lines ect, was a key reason I was so quick to identify this as a meteorite while professional hunters were apparently in disbelief. Just enjoy the fact that the first confirmed sed type meteorite may be on the horizon and the discussion began here. -Odin
  15. Update* I spoke with a researcher with expertise in meteorites, and specifically with several published papers on Sed-Types. She confirmed my analysis of the stone is consistent with previous finds thought to be Sedimentary Meteorites. She noted my cleverness in being able to identify these features and with her opinion I should now be taken seriously with the local University. As per her recommendation I am pursuing Electro Microscopy and if possible thermoluminescence and I wanted to share this exciting development with the people in this fine thread. Expect new updates here when my suspicions are confirmed as the thing we are looking for is fracturing caused by high energy impact which is physically apparent in the breaking pattern. Link to my youtube video for the individuals interested in following this topic. I know it's a fantastic claim and most break through discoveries are. But research all supports the evidence of this stone being in fact a Sed-type meteorite. WOW! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnMpqU3cXws&t=904s
  • Create New...