Mitch, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We would like to SEE the proof and I would like the following conflicts resolved to win me over. You could foreclose all the nay saying and skeptics by resolving the following conflicts:
Six+ conflicts in your claims for the Illinois Lunarite are incompatible within your own claims and suggest this is other than a lunar meteorite. 1. One matching plot out of 8+ graphs isn't proof--in fact it is disqualifying. I can find something somewhere to plot any two substances together with some shared feature. Minus 1 2. "Lunar Isotopic Oxygen Plot "Match""... Those would be the same as terrestrial plots owing to the Earth-Moon common origin. This match proves only that they originated in the local neighborhood. This doesn't rule out a slag pile in South Chicago and it doesn't rule in the moon. 0/ Neutral 3. The main mass size you've claimed couldn't physically exist for a meteorite found on earth. There is an envelope of maximum object size that can be launched from the lunar surface via impact that 1) does not melt due to acceleration energies YET 2) have enough mass to survive transit of the atmosphere. That envelope accommodates a original mass of a few kilograms not a few tons. Bonus points lost in that your petrological content doesn't include shock induced masklenite/glass. Minus 2 and also disqualifying. 4. It is 99.99999% improbable to have a valid lunar specimen which is an all inclusive, collective petrology, commingled conglomeration, that contains virtually every single petrological type found in lunar meteorites known to science. The glaring exception would be a melt pile assembled by aliens in a anti-gravity experiment gone arye. Minus 1-- Practically impossible so practically disqualifying. 5 Two legitimate, proven, qualified, do-it-for-a-living-professional experts on meteorites (who are also list members) have passed judgment on your material, while you have yet to reveal the researchers who did your analysis along with their complete reports. Minus 2 Pretty much disqualifying in my book. 6. Why haven't you dated the material if you've done all the other extensive testing? Why leave out the one test that would prove a date more inline with lunar ages? Minus 1 7. Why can't you get anyone to come forward to defend your claim and sponsor it before the NonCom Committee. Frankly, every planetary scientist in the world would want a chance at that rock given its exotic preliminary classification. The only thing you didn't claim was antraxite content with fossil life forms--Otherwise, you'd have the perfect and complete meteorite-plus collection in a single specimen. Minus 1 If you are keeping score: Plus 0, Neutral 1, Minus 8. This cannot be a lunar meteorie nor any planetary meteorite--it is not a chondrite so unless you can underpin your claims with something such as an absolute formation age from 100,000 to 300,000 to 4.3± billion years, it can't be a meteorite-- period. Skeptically but honestly submited Elton > On 11/3/08 5:17 PM, "Patricia Harris" aka Mitch Minor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Back in 2005 Ted Bunch confirmed this specimen as a 100% meteorite, and he wasmsuppose 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 ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
