Bull shit! My opinion at that time is consistent with what I stated today. See the following e-mail to Minor dated 1/23/07.
Find another way to con money! Ted On 11/3/08 5:17 PM, "Patricia Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100% meteorite, and he was > suppose to classify this meteorite, and publish it. I waited 9 months for > classification but Ted never completed it. Since then many tests have been > completed to support my classification for this Lunar meteorite specimen. All > tests completed offer facts and support for my classification. The Mineral > Chemistry End Members, and Isotopic measurements Oxygen Isotopes are all > within Lunar Mineralogy, and Lunar Isotopic fields. Geochemists, and > Scientists have studied this Lunar Specimen , and they are in agreement with > my classification. If you have other questions please feel free to contact me. > Mitch Minor office (815)740-3834 cell(815)545-5803 > > > --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Ted Bunch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Ted Bunch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:06 PM >> Hi Mike - I concur, the whole picture looks strange to me. A >> 5 ton lunar >> meteorite in one piece? Where were the O2 analyses done? >> There are only a >> few trustworthy labs that can do O2 analyses. In any case, >> I don't think the >> reported O2 data are that discriminating between lunar and >> terrestrial. >> Some of the mineralogy looks OK, some does not. The plotted >> major oxide >> compositional data look impressive for lunar origin, but >> there are >> terrestrial mafic compositions that are just as >> lunar-looking. The hand >> sample surface is very irregular and looks more like a >> weathered terrestrial >> surface than fusion crust. >> >> Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't >> quack like a duck. My >> advice is to wait until it has been officially classified >> and/or Randy >> Korotev has looked it over before buying a piece. I also >> suggest that the >> Starchaser group do FeO/MnO ratios on olivine and pyroxene. >> These ratios are >> discriminating and can save everyone a lot of trouble. My >> guess is that this >> "lunar" is a glacial erratic from Canada. >> >> Buyer beware, >> >> Ted Bunch >> >> >> >> >> On 11/3/08 7:06 AM, "Michael Gilmer" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Group! >>> >>> I ran across this one on eBay today : >>> >>> >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350119620351 >>> >>> Something about it doesn't ring true. >>> >>> There is a lot of quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo in the >> listing. >>> >>> Is this for real or some highly-misinformed >> individual? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> MikeG >>> >>> >>> >> ......................................................... >>> Michael Gilmer (Louisiana, USA) >>> Member of the Meteoritical Society. >>> Member of the Bayou Region Stargazers Network. >>> Websites - http://www.galactic-stone.com and >> http://www.glassthrower.com >>> MySpace - >> http://www.myspace.com/fine_meteorites_4_sale >>> >> .......................................................... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________________________ >>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com >>> Meteorite-list mailing list >>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >>> >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list >> >> >> ______________________________________________ >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com >> Meteorite-list mailing list >> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > > ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list