Henning Haack, Richard C. Greenwood, Henner Busemann<\/p>\n
Icarus
\nIn Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 25 September 2015<\/p>\n
LINK<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n “… Consistent with the O study, the noble gases do not provide any evidence for an extraterrestrial origin of the samples. The lack of any cosmogenic noble gases (particularly striking in 3He, 21Ne, 38Ar) is consistent with a terrestrial origin or an extraterrestrial origin under large shielding. UPDATE (5 May, 2016)<\/strong>: Yana Anfinogenova, John Anfinogenov, Larisa Budaeva, Dmitry Kuznetsov<\/p>\n PDF LINK<\/strong><\/a> “The article provides an open discussion and a critical feedback to the comments of Haak 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. ”<\/p>\n Refers to:<\/strong><\/p>\n John\u2019s Stone: A possible fragment of the 1908 Tunguska meteorite<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n John Anfinogenov, Larisa Budaeva, Dmitry Kuznetsov, Yana Anfinogenova<\/p>\n Icarus
\nBased on the combined evidence obtained in this study we infer that John\u2019s stone is a terrestrial rock unrelated to the Tunguska impactor.”<\/p>\n
\nResponse to the Comment by Haak et al. (2015) on the paper by Anfinogenov et al. (2014): John’s stone: A possible fragment of the 1908 Tunguska meteorite<\/p>\n
\nPDF (open access)<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n
\nVolume 243, 15 November 2014, Pages 139\u2013147<\/p>\n