[meteorite-list] Lunar? Met 101 Long Rant

From: Gary K. Foote <gary_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:10:24 -0500
Message-ID: <45700DA0.6989.6A6FDA_at_localhost>

You're right of course Elton. I have changed my site to reflect the specimen's unknown
nature. In the future I will try to constrain my enthusiasm to the facts and not
speculation.

Cheers,

Gary

On 30 Nov 2006 at 20:40, Mr EMan wrote:

>
> 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
>
Received on Fri 01 Dec 2006 11:10:24 AM PST