[meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

[Ted Bunch]

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" <meteorhound at yahoo.com> 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 <tbear1 at cableone.net> wrote:

> 

>> From: Ted Bunch <tbear1 at cableone.net>

>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

>> To: michael_w_gilmer at yahoo.com, meteorite-list at 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"

>> <michael_w_gilmer at yahoo.com> 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 at meteoritecentral.com

>>> 

>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

>> 

>> 

>> ______________________________________________

>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com

>> Meteorite-list mailing list

>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

> 

> 

>       

>