It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I have recently completed a review of the geological literature and the consensus is that this is a periglacial structure very similar to--if not the same as-- a "pingo". Alekseyev (2012) Patom Cone aka Patomsky Krater appears to be a unique land form in Irkutsk itself and has enough variation to be unique in all the world. Pingos form in permafrost areas but not under an ice sheet--hence "peri-glacial". There are hundreds if not thousands of them across the Arctic. Some larger and some smaller. The research supports an ice wedging/ ice jacking of ice fractured bedrock and excludes a volcano or meteorite origin.
This region( Trans Bakial Mountains) was covered by a southern icecap from the Gobi ice sheet which was in existence up to 6000ybp(?). The permafrost has been determined to be up to an astonishing 200m in the region and may have existed until very recently. A pingo forms over many decades as ground water fills natural rock joints and with each freeze cycle shatters the bedrock. Through many cycles the small channels enlarge into a major large one. After this merging the growth is rapid yet cyclical with freeze-thaw episodes. The ice platform jacks the shattered clast of rocks to the surface and those that spill over start building the cone's side walls. The inner cone may represent a final swan's song in development when the area warmed to the point that the permafrost was depleted. Many pingos subside and form lakes in the basins within the peak. Those lakes over fill and in a mature pingo finally cut multiple channels giving it a griddle appearance with many multiple mini peaks. Pingos are hydraulic laccoliths. They require a groundwater and permafrost interaction over time in order to form. Suggested reading the Wikipedia article on Pingo.
Antipin (2011) First thought this was a young volcano. When that was disproved, he theorized that the original cone was formed when deep magma generated CO and H2 gas which worked its way to the surface and exploded when mixed with air. The physics in general and evidence within the cone itself don't support such a working theory. There is some trace of methane and carbon monoxide at the cone. So while a gas explosion may be remote, the possibility that deep gas can be released is not so remote. However it speaks little against the probability that this is a structure formed by ice wedging.
There is no evidence what-so-ever of a buried UFO. A Russian Biologist put forth that theory based on a misunderstanding of a uranium concentration in trees beginning 50-60 years ago running for 20 years( deeply in the cold war years). The crater is not far from a one of the world's largest mining districts: Murun and coincides with suspected large scale uranium mining in the region. The biologist put forth the concept that a nuclear reactor engine exploded after a crash and made a bulge. He himself admitted that he did not understand reactor related isotopes. The radioactivity at the cone is actually below the regional background which is understandable given the large "average" background level owing to close by uranium deposits.
Some other expeditions mapped the gravity and 2/3D image of the cone and found no magma channel and a profile for a pingo and not that of a meteorite impact. Ermolin (2011), (Demezhko et al., 2011)
I did not retain all the links to photos.
But you retained some? Please, if you have access to any it would be nice if you would post them. Its quite difficult to take you seriously as a researcher if you dont retain your research.
Asking me to "google" it is lazy on your part, and being that its your claim the onus of proof is on you; Or as we say here on the interwebs: PICS OR DIDNT HAPPEN