[meteorite-list] Unusual new lunar or hokum?

From: Ted Bunch <tbear1_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:55:50 -0700
Message-ID: <C534EBA6.85C5%tbear1_at_cableone.net>

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
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon 03 Nov 2008 07:55:50 PM PST