Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? Lunarite ages?
=On Mon, 11/3/08, Mr EMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...so unless you can underpin your claims with something such as an absolute formation age from 100,000 to 300,000 to 4.3± billion years... In further reading, I am unable to locate lunar crystallization ages but they allude to 4.2 and 3.9 billion years. Plus one had an extremely young Lunar find in Africa with an orbital age of " a few hundred years" but no details. Anyone have table of lunar absolute, orbital, and terrestrial ages? Elton __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Here's an appropriate news item: http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/?catid=3&newsid=43452 http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/?catid=3&newsid=43452 Best, Pete > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:14:15 -0800 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? > > Mitch, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We would like to SEE > the proof and I would like the following conflicts resolved to win me over. > You could foreclose all the nay saying and skeptics by resolving the > following conflicts: > > Six+ conflicts in your claims for the Illinois Lunarite are incompatible > within your own claims and suggest this is other than a lunar meteorite. > > 1. One matching plot out of 8+ graphs isn't proof--in fact it is > disqualifying. I can find something somewhere to plot any two substances > together with some shared feature. Minus 1 > > 2. "Lunar Isotopic Oxygen Plot "Match""... Those would be the same as > terrestrial plots owing to the Earth-Moon common origin. This match proves > only that they originated in the local neighborhood. This doesn't rule out a > slag pile in South Chicago and it doesn't rule in the moon. 0/ Neutral > > 3. The main mass size you've claimed couldn't physically exist for a > meteorite found on earth. There is an envelope of maximum object size that > can be launched from the lunar surface via impact that 1) does not melt due > to acceleration energies YET 2) have enough mass to survive transit of the > atmosphere. That envelope accommodates a original mass of a few kilograms not > a few tons. Bonus points lost in that your petrological content doesn't > include shock induced masklenite/glass. Minus 2 and also disqualifying. > > 4. It is 99.9% improbable to have a valid lunar specimen which is an all > inclusive, collective petrology, commingled conglomeration, that contains > virtually every single petrological type found in lunar meteorites known to > science. The glaring exception would be a melt pile assembled by aliens in a > anti-gravity experiment gone arye. Minus 1-- Practically impossible so > practically disqualifying. > > 5 Two legitimate, proven, qualified, do-it-for-a-living-professional experts > on meteorites (who are also list members) have passed judgment on your > material, while you have yet to reveal the researchers who did your analysis > along with their complete reports. > Minus 2 Pretty much disqualifying in my book. > > 6. Why haven't you dated the material if you've done all the other extensive > testing? Why leave out the one test that would prove a date more inline with > lunar ages? Minus 1 > > 7. Why can't you get anyone to come forward to defend your claim and sponsor > it before the NonCom Committee. Frankly, every planetary scientist in the > world would want a chance at that rock given its exotic preliminary > classification. The only thing you didn't claim was antraxite content with > fossil life forms--Otherwise, you'd have the perfect and complete > meteorite-plus collection in a single specimen. Minus 1 > > If you are keeping score: Plus 0, Neutral 1, Minus 8. This cannot be a lunar > meteorie nor any planetary meteorite--it is not a chondrite so unless you can > underpin your claims with something such as an absolute formation age from > 100,000 to 300,000 to 4.3± billion years, it can't be a meteorite-- period. > > Skeptically but honestly submited > Elton > >> On 11/3/08 5:17 PM, "Patricia Harris" aka Mitch Minor > wrote: > Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a > 100% meteorite, and he wasmsuppose 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 > > __ > 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
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Mitch, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We would like to SEE the proof and I would like the following conflicts resolved to win me over. You could foreclose all the nay saying and skeptics by resolving the following conflicts: Six+ conflicts in your claims for the Illinois Lunarite are incompatible within your own claims and suggest this is other than a lunar meteorite. 1. One matching plot out of 8+ graphs isn't proof--in fact it is disqualifying. I can find something somewhere to plot any two substances together with some shared feature. Minus 1 2. "Lunar Isotopic Oxygen Plot "Match""... Those would be the same as terrestrial plots owing to the Earth-Moon common origin. This match proves only that they originated in the local neighborhood. This doesn't rule out a slag pile in South Chicago and it doesn't rule in the moon. 0/ Neutral 3. The main mass size you've claimed couldn't physically exist for a meteorite found on earth. There is an envelope of maximum object size that can be launched from the lunar surface via impact that 1) does not melt due to acceleration energies YET 2) have enough mass to survive transit of the atmosphere. That envelope accommodates a original mass of a few kilograms not a few tons. Bonus points lost in that your petrological content doesn't include shock induced masklenite/glass. Minus 2 and also disqualifying. 4. It is 99.9% improbable to have a valid lunar specimen which is an all inclusive, collective petrology, commingled conglomeration, that contains virtually every single petrological type found in lunar meteorites known to science. The glaring exception would be a melt pile assembled by aliens in a anti-gravity experiment gone arye. Minus 1-- Practically impossible so practically disqualifying. 5 Two legitimate, proven, qualified, do-it-for-a-living-professional experts on meteorites (who are also list members) have passed judgment on your material, while you have yet to reveal the researchers who did your analysis along with their complete reports. Minus 2 Pretty much disqualifying in my book. 6. Why haven't you dated the material if you've done all the other extensive testing? Why leave out the one test that would prove a date more inline with lunar ages? Minus 1 7. Why can't you get anyone to come forward to defend your claim and sponsor it before the NonCom Committee. Frankly, every planetary scientist in the world would want a chance at that rock given its exotic preliminary classification. The only thing you didn't claim was antraxite content with fossil life forms--Otherwise, you'd have the perfect and complete meteorite-plus collection in a single specimen. Minus 1 If you are keeping score: Plus 0, Neutral 1, Minus 8. This cannot be a lunar meteorie nor any planetary meteorite--it is not a chondrite so unless you can underpin your claims with something such as an absolute formation age from 100,000 to 300,000 to 4.3± billion years, it can't be a meteorite-- period. Skeptically but honestly submited Elton > On 11/3/08 5:17 PM, "Patricia Harris" aka Mitch Minor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100% meteorite, and he wasmsuppose 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 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
This is NOT true at all!!! I was approached by Mitch Minor quite some time ago to purchase some of his pieces. I knew they were clearly not meteorites but he insisted Ted had said they were. On chatting to Ted he said this was not the case at all and that all the specimens he'd been sent were terrestrial which Mitch was told and then told again after contacting me. This guys indiscretions go back years and is well known to us. Remember the "planetary" specimens on ebay for hundreds of thousands? Same person! Have a look at Ken's page here: http://meteorite-identification.com/ebay/minor.html http://meteorite-identification.com/ebay/m_minor.html Ohh... and here's a page of Randy Korotev's that mentions Mitch's pieces: http://meteorites.wustl.edu/meteorwrongs/m239.htm Cheers, Jeff Kuyken Meteorites Australia www.meteorites.com.au Director - I.M.C.A. Inc. www.imca.cc - Original Message - From: "Patricia Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ted Bunch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? 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 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
If you are mitch minor, then you know very well that this IS NOT lunar material. I forwarded you test results from the material you sent me, which proved to be FAKE lunar material. I also contact the testing placves you provided that also basicly said you were full of it and would not accept what they had to say. One even went as far as to say the testing inoformation you provided was doctored and not in the original form it was when they returned it to you. I trust my testing source 100% and your material IS FAKE. you sir are a con artist at worst, or at best who can not accept the truth. I will call you out here and publicly on this. You sent me 5 grams of "lunar" material that is not real. You are a liar and a fraud. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Patricia Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Patricia Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? > To: "Ted Bunch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 7:17 PM > 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 > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > &
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
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
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
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
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Hi All This guy has been mentioned several times on the list and is a well known scam artist. In fact he is so well know Randy Korotev has give him his own page; http://meteorites.wustl.edu/meteorwrongs/m239.htm It is too bad some one possibly bought a piece of his garbage; http://cgi.ebay.com/LUNAR-METEORITE-OLIVINE-GABBRO-64-4-GRAM-SLICE-NICE_W0QQitemZ350001108996 Hard to be sure though as the sellers ID is kept secret. How about this auction of his. Is it an Imilac? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350114894419 BTW I am going to block him from bidding on any of my Ebay auctions. Mike Mike Jensen Meteorites 16730 E Ada PL Aurora, CO 80017-3137 USA 720-949-6220 IMCA 4264 website: www.jensenmeteorites.com On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hola, > This fellow's been selling complete crap for the past year or so. > Terrestrial slag as a new "plessitic octahedrite," Campo del Cielo's > as Canyon Diablo's (a difference of $200-250/kg in value), and bits of > terrestrial metamorphic/igneous crap (see the link) as lunar material. > He's repeatedly shrugged off demands for real classifications, never > mind his blatant selling of false and renamed material. > There are people who make honest mistakes and there are cheaters. > This one's about as sleazy as they get. > Regards, > Jason > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Stefan Brandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> doesn´t this lunar have a name, with all this classification done??? >> >> Stefan the lunatic >> >> >> >> >>> 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 > __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
I recieved a sample of his "Lunar" for me to have tested - I told him I would buy it after I had it tested it IS NOT LUNAR. I even forwarded my test results to ebay who keeps allowing the clown to list it. Ebay is downright dirty and is boardering of contributing to fraud and this guys scam. This guy is a liar, ebay knows it and has done nothing about it. --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Michael Gilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Michael Gilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 9:06 AM > 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
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Yes - it has a name - Asphalt 001. Mitch is back... same old charts, different rocks. 1.) "Found by Starchasers Meteorites August 2005, ILLinois USA" 2.) "Classified by Starchasers Meteorite Curator Mitchell R. Minor" 3.) "Starchasers Meteorites is the Sole supplier for this Illinois USA Lunar Breccia Olivine Gabbro Mixed Mingled Mare Basalt" 4.) "Comes with Certificate Of Authenticity from Starchasers Meteorite Collection, and comes with LIFETIME AUTHENTICITY GUARANTEE. We guarantee all meteorites we sell are authentic, and we offer a 30 day money back satisfaction guarantee minus shipping cost" (minus shipping cost? Shipping is free!) With a main mass of 11,150 lbs. Mitch will be setup for life if he can just find someone to buy it. Though, shipping is free and it comes with one of Ron's membrane boxes :) - therefore it must be a lunar YOU DON'T NEED A MICROSCOPE TO ENJOY THIS BEAUTY! (but you do need some form of head trauma) - Original Message - From: "Stefan Brandes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? doesn´t this lunar have a name, with all this classification done??? Stefan the lunatic 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
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:06:36 -0700, you wrote: >Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it doesn't quack like a duck. A rule of thumb I have for anything is-- if it writes like a duck, it probably should be avoided. And that auction description is written as a duck had wrote it-- meaning that the quality of the writing looks like a migratory waterfowl has been pecking at a keyboard. Anyone who is a native English speaker that composes English text that badly has to have something wrong with them, and should be treated with extreme suspicion. Plus, this: http://meteorite-identification.com/ebay/minor.html __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
doesn´t this lunar have a name, with all this classification done??? Stefan the lunatic 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
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
Hola, This fellow's been selling complete crap for the past year or so. Terrestrial slag as a new "plessitic octahedrite," Campo del Cielo's as Canyon Diablo's (a difference of $200-250/kg in value), and bits of terrestrial metamorphic/igneous crap (see the link) as lunar material. He's repeatedly shrugged off demands for real classifications, never mind his blatant selling of false and renamed material. There are people who make honest mistakes and there are cheaters. This one's about as sleazy as they get. Regards, Jason On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Stefan Brandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > doesn´t this lunar have a name, with all this classification done??? > > Stefan the lunatic > > > > >> 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
Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
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
[meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?
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
