Here's an appropriate news item:
http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/?catid=3&newsid=43452 http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/?catid=3&newsid=43452 Best, Pete > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:14:15 -0800 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum? > > 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 > 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 _________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
