[meteorite-list] Lunar? Met 101 Long Rant

[Gary K. Foote]

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
>