[meteorite-list] Lunar? Met 101 Long Rant

[Mr EMan]

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" <gary at webbers.com> 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