[meteorite-list] Re: New Lunar? New Continent

From: MexicoDoug_at_aol.com <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Feb 2 03:49:52 2006
Message-ID: <b8.2bfa2da.311321a6_at_aol.com>

Hola Ken,

You make excellent arguments by a preponderance of suspect and circumstancial
evidence which as you imply, is and was quite self evident. It might be hard
to keep a straight face while discussing this particular material given the
level of maturity you and most have on the list discussing these seemingly
obvious calls. But here is a more unique problem apparently being presented for
this claimed piece of Chixulub's impactor that was miraculously propelled over
to some Colorado railroad tracks area if I remember correctly. Peer reviewed
science is being claimed via a Master's in Geology thesis and there is a
pervasive disclaimer. The potential to get hurt here as you warn is much greater
than typically we see and it deserves attention. The problem with the science
seems to me is that it hasn't been independently peer reviewed. So it relies
on the reputations alone of the institution which has conferred the degree
and is allowing, or ignorant to the fact that it to be interpreted in this
manner.

I would suggest the approach on this one needs to be different as it has a
level of sophistication that is more interesting than the product itself.
People can write and say whatever they want and the best that can happen is you
might get your money refunded by caliming misleading advertising. Seems
senseless to me. Why not take it at face value of the claim and find whoever is
lending their institution's name to it. I did exactly that, and no one answered my
email some time back. That tells me it is an institution that isn't very
concerned about where its approval is tendered. That was all I needed to know, as
I wanted to include this material in my own research program where I could
have made some iindependent conclusions possibly published as a footnote.

Even if there are many reasons why my email could have gone unanswered, I
lost interest after the silence. But if I wanted to take this a step further, I
would get a statement from the committee approving the research at institution
that sponsored it and apparently conferred the degree.

There is always a possibility that it is all fabricated, however, that would
become obvious when checking with the advisor or committee. While I totally
support your concerns on this one, the neal deal is not another soggy bottom
fossil martian spider flaming through the roof deal...so fire with fire and
publications with publications. That's my personal viewpoint. An institution
that gets burnt once that is self respecting will take corrective action in the
future, and save a lot of heartache for many. And one that won't will lose
face and maybe acreditation. So now that we are through Lunar and Chicxulub, we
still have Martian pre=solar grains, etc. to worry about. So I'd say it is
time to expose the University for what it is: innovative scientific, innocently
abused, or flakey phonies, before wading through the rest of the drainage
coming thtough its pipelines...
Saludos, Doug
PS I'm looking for my old email to them and will share it with you and Anne
unless someone else decides to research the university (which had a nice web
page) and make that info known to the meteorite community. It's been a while
since I monoresponded.


En un mensaje con fecha 02/01/2006 11:33:46 PM Mexico Standard Time, Ken N.
escribe:

<< Asunto: Re: [meteorite-list] Re: New Lunar? New Continent
 Fecha: 02/01/2006 11:33:46 PM Mexico Standard Time
 
 Hi Doug,
 If I may focus on actions, past and present. His 'lunar' abstract was
 clear also: " A new vesicular meteorite ... was found ... the specimen
 is compositionally within the achondrite group meteorites; particularly
 of the lunar Mare rock suite...Trace element chemistry analysis yields
 values (ppm) consistent with a lunar origin...the appearance of orange
 glass spheres is similar to those present in samples obtained from the
 Apollo 17 mission... Analysis of this rock suggests a lunar origin,
 potentially from the lunar Mare rock suite. However, future study
 involving cosmic ray exposure (4He/20Ne) and U/Pb radiometric dating is
 necessary before final conclusions can be made."
 (http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004AM/finalprogram/abstract_76183.htm) Sound
 familiar?
 
 Now, how would you feel if you paid 10K/gram for this 'lunar' with a COA
 only to discover it wasn't what you were told. You also find your
 purchase had a disclaimer saying "like any other rational theory it is
 subjected to change as future research is presented. As such, we can
 offer no warranty to the results of future findings, should they
 prove/disprove a [lunar] origin." What good is the COA if it is a
 theory? It is a lunar meteorite if you buy it, but after you buy it, it
 is a theory. That is what I perceive Mr. Ray to be offering with his
 Granada slag material.
 
 Mr. Ray's auction (6601599997) states: "Chicxulub meteorite (0.116 g)
 comes with COA/ guarantee - very rare, meteorite that wiped out the
 dinosaurs, NR!" Where is the meteorite? Mr. Ray claims your purchase
 contains "as well as greater than 10% of the original chondrite meteor!"
 Is that so??? Let's check out the Nickel content of that 'greater than
 10%'. One might expect to find 0.1-1.0% Ni, however the data shows only
 49 ppm of Ni. (http://www.chicxulubmeteorite.com/4.pdf) What kind of
 'chondrite meteor' was Chicxulub if had virtually no Nickel? Too many
 assumptions in the Chicxulub/Getafe theory! Occam's razor - There is no
 meteoritic content because the Granada specimen is slag. (Even if it
 did contain +10% meteorite, it should be labeled 'meteoritic' rather
 than 'meteorite'. {my opinion})
 
 I am no expert and I may have interpreted the data incorrectly. Perhaps
 the more enlightened will share their insights.
 
 best,
 Ken
 
 
 
 MexicoDoug_at_aol.com wrote:
 
>Ken, Actually I read the entire thesis back in November and wrote to the
>Faculty about the importance of this work if it were indeed genuine. The
thesis
>is quite clear, that there is much work remaining to be done, which is also
>mentioned in the promotion of the material, so technically, until something
>further is published in this material...well you know... It appears that
it is a
>real thesis, the small university exists, but the dean nor advisor didn't
>bother to answer me back about my concerns.
>
>Saludos, Doug
>
>
>Ken escribe:
>
><< Asunto: Re: [meteorite-list] Re: New Lunar? New Continent
> Fecha: 02/01/2006 5:44:09 AM Mexico Standard Time
> From: magellon_at_earthlink.net (ken newton)
> Sender: meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com
> To: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>
> In Nov 2004 the news of potential new Colorado lunar was published to
> the List. Checking the chemical analysis from the abstract
> (http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004AM/finalprogram/abstract_76183.htm)
> Allan Treiman quickly alerted the List that there was a problem. (see
> email below) Allan was right. Randy Korotev added that not only was it
> not a lunar meteorite, "I suspect that this object is a piece of
> industrial slag."
> (http://epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resources/meteorites/granada.htm) On one of
> his websites, Neil Ray apologized for "for any misunderstanding or
> confusion that my published abstract has brought about." You would
> think this would be the end of the matter, but it is not.
>
> Perhaps you have seen the eBay auctions "Chicxulub meteorite (0.xxx g)
> comes with COA/ guarantee
> very rare, meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs, NR!" (ex.
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6601599997) Well
> guess what? It is the same 'lunar' material (Granada) resurrected by Mr.
> Ray to a new and more prosperous life.
>
> Initially I wrote Mr. Ray about his use of the the term 'meteorite' in
> his eBay auction title.
> (http://home.earthlink.net/~ebaywrong/auction/Chicxulub.html ) He
> refuses to change "Chicxulub meteorite" while at the same time admitting
> it is not a meteorite? (more 'misunderstanding or confusion') I thought
> he was legit, and then I looked at his research conclusions.
> (http://www.chicxulubmeteorite.com/) Making this short, I disagree with
> his conclusions.
>
> And what would Allan Treiman have to say about the new theory? Well, I
> asked him. He said, "The simplest explanation, with the data I have, is
> that Mr. Ray's rock is a piece of EAF slag." (EAF stands for Electric
> Arc Furnace).
> best,
> Ken Newton
> IMCA #9632
>
>
> Treiman, Allan wrote:
>
> >Hi, Meteorite list --
> >
> > From the data in that abstract, I'd be very cautious
> >this rock.
> >
> > First, the data in the abstract are not consistent with
> >themselves. For isntance the rock is cited as 45% anorthite,
> >but only 3.7% Al2O3. Anorthite contains ~36% Al2O3, so a
> >rock that is 45% anorthite must contain at least 45% of 36%
> >Al2O3, or 16% Al2O3. Only a factor of four off!!!
> >
> > Second, the chemical analysis is far off any known a moon rock.
> >It shows 26.15% SiO2, which is not even enough if the rock were
> >all olivine. The rock has 5.38% MnO, which is way more than any
> >lunar rock. An earth rock with that much MnO would be mined as
> >ore! The analysis has CaO of 39.6%, which is way higher than
> >any moon rock -- lunar anorthosite has ~19% CaO, and mare basalts
> >have ~8-12% CaO.
> >
> > If it is lunar, its like nothing else.
> >
> > Allan
> >
> >
> >Allan H. Treiman
> >Senior Staff Scientist
> >Lunar and Planetary Institute
> >3600 Bay Area Boulevard
> >Houston, TX 77058-1113
> > 281-486-2117
> > 281-486-2162 (FAX)
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com
> >[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com]On Behalf Of
> >Mikestockj_at_aol.com
> >Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 2:16 PM
> >To: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com; COMeteoriteClub@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [meteorite-list] Re: New Lunar? New Continent
> >
> >
> >Hi All
> >Just wanted to let the word out about the new possible Lunar meteorite.
It
>is
> >a 3200 gram beauty from.........and no it is not the dry deserts of
Africa
>or
> >Antarctica..... a little hint it's the first North American
Lunar.....drum
> >roll please....Colorado. How exciting is that. I guess it is good/lucky
to
>be in
> >Colorado (two achondrites in one year).
> >It is from Granada near Lamar for all of you Coloradans. That would be
the
> >south eastern side of the state near Kansas for everybody else or about
200
> >miles SE of Denver.
> >Again it is only a possible Lunar.....but I'll keep you posted.
> >I have included an abstract to the upcoming Geological Society of America
> >meeting in Denver about the meteorite.
> >
> >PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF A NEW ACHONDRITE (MARE BASALT?) OF POSSIBLE LUNAR
> >ORIGIN FROM NEAR GRANADA, COLORADO, USA
> >
> >http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004AM/finalprogram/abstract_76183.htm
> >
> >Time to go hunt......anyone want to go. Oops I'm half way there. :)
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >
> >Mike Jensen IMCA 4264
> >Bill Jensen IMCA 2359
> >Jensen Meteorites
> >16730 E Ada PL
> >Aurora, CO 80017-3137
> >303-337-4361 >>
>__________________________________________ >>
Received on Thu 02 Feb 2006 03:49:42 AM PST