Yikes! Abstracts to meetings are not peer reviewed! jeff
On 7/21/2010 10:05 PM, Adam Hupe wrote:
Hi Jason and List, I do not refute Melinda Hutson's article that was never peer reviewed and contains several errors according to the classifying scientists. I asked scientists about the article and they stated, it is obvious that she didn't read the original peer reviewed abstract carefully, even mistaking the type of petrology that was discussed using formulas that simply do not apply to the texture NWA 2999 exhibits. There were several prestigious coauthors listed in the original paper; Unique Angrite NWA 2999: The Case For Samples From Mercury. Who am I to argue with the world's best? I will keep an open mind and hope for some ground truth that will hopefully settle it once and for all. I think the authors were making a point of having an open mind and that the subject should be debated possibly stimulated more scientific interest in Angrites. It took a long time to win over the scientific community that some of these meteorites were actually from Mars. It was debated to death and now nobody argues about the Shergottite parent body any more. Best Regards, Adam ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
