OK... a sanity check here. If it screams meteorwrong why list it in the collection of meteorites with the caption "Possible lunar???" Such speculation cloaked in "???" is a disservice to novices who happen upon the photo when Googling and use that caption to justify their meteorwrongs.
Maybe it is just me, but when I see meteorwrongs casually listed in a list of valid meteorites I wonder what we are doing here. Suggesting that this is a meteorite is like putting the cart before the dead horse. Hinting it is possibly a rare lunar meteorite is something we collectors should stay far away from. It feeds into the Boggy Creek Vision Rock mindset. If one is serious about becoming a mentor for others they should master "Meteorite 101". There are many obvious contradictions in this example. This rock should never have gotten to first base as a meteorite candidate. I don't know what criterion this object was evaluated with but whatever they were, throw them away! 1. How many lunarites have chondrules?.....Zero. Lunarites by definition don't have chondrules. 2. What do chondrules look like?...well... not like fossils and not like these. A student of meteorites should know what chondrules look like. They should also know on sight 10 items mistaken for chondrules. 3. What "anorthosite" properties was the friend referring to? Cleavage? hardness? Specific gravity? Or was it microscopic clays in this SANDSTONE(or so it appears)? 4. There is NO fusion(root word:fuse: aka melt) crust on this slice. Manganese /organic staining from being buried in acidic soil should not be mistaken for it. Hint: a grainy surface almost by definition can't show "flow features" This is a huge peeve of mine. So many wannabe Ebayers are advertising fusion crust where none exists that the myth is starting to take over. Just like chondrules: people read descriptions then try to adapt their rock to fit the description. Same with "fusion" crust claims. A black color doesn't fusion crust make! There is a pallasite on EBay right now that literally a rusty ball, but the seller assures buyers this is fusion crust. I hear all the time about fusion crusts on iron meteorites--ain't no such thing! Seems any wind worn NWA on EBay that isn't obviously fractured has fusion crust--NOT. --and next time any of us get coned into identifying someone's "meteorite" instead of giving them false hope just say NO! It is harder to say no but in the long run; People get mad at you when you tell them they don't have a meteorite even when you make them promise before hand to not get mad. I know I sound like a pedantically nagging purist insisting on "book learning" but I think we should strive for accuracy. We are no better than the Boggy Creek Emerald Meteorite Vision Rock crowd when we ignore the science in favor of the romance. Sincerely, Elton --- "Gary K. Foote" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Norbert. My first impression was the same as > yours. The porosity of the specimen > was my first clue. It does seem to have some > flow-like shape on one edge and there > appear to be something like chondrules in the > matrix, but beyond that it screams > meteorwrong to me too. > > Hi Gary, > I see actually nothing that would make me think > that this sample could be > of lunar origin. The overall texture, color, and > appearance doesn't even > hint to a meteoritic origin. Probably just another > terrestrial rock. > > Sorry. > > > All the best, > > Norbert Classen ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list