[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

>