Thread: Reply Lunar Meteorite (08Oct2010) by Goeran Lindfors

We cannot reply for "Lunar Meteorite (08Oct2010) by Goeran Lindfors" due to blocking for reply. The following is reply for this material:

1) He shows only photos and some scientist name, but without any analytical data.

2) This sample was synthesized by high temperature by the following reasons.
a) It contains large silica grains from mixing materials (which has none in the Moon).
b) It contains anomalous minerals by heating (which has no report on the Moon).
c) It contains Fe but no Mg (which is no report on the Moon).
d) Landing details is unknown (which is lacking data for meteorite if he said meteorite)
e) It contains "too much carbon" with some carbon-texture which are evidences by
syntheses on the Earth (by hand). This is spherule-like sample with much carbon.

3) In short, it is lunar simulation material (sumulant), but not previous (real) lunar
meteorite types. But it is so similar only photos, with good technique. It good for
educational model on school and museum play, but not so real sample without
touching by hand. Good luck.

4) The detailed data are sent to American peoples and scientists to show the above
analytical results last year.

5) I know now that he posted in this science forum separately in Europe.

Hi everybody:

Addition for the previous reply is summarized as follows:

1) The previous conclusion to us is only large spherule, not for stone with fusion crust.

2) Sample with fudion crust did not show to us.

3) His conclusion to us is only comparison with images of photos, not real sample.

4) His interest is to evaluate for significant one.

5) Our conclusion for his spherule is synthetic one with very skillful way.

6) It might be good for display or educational materials to be touched by themself
if they would like to sell it. Good luck?

Do you write manuals for video recorders by any chance?

Originally Posted by Home200

Do you write manuals for video recorders by any chance?

Science is Science.
This is Science Forum place.

Here is not in court story, where someone bough it by expensive cost.

Such person has few idea to make new own story, except to use other name and photo.
This is not real Science.

Science is Science.
This is Science Forum place.
Here is not in court story, where someone bough it by expensive cost.
Such person has few idea to make new own story, except to use other name and photo.
This is not real Science.[/quote]
------------------------------------
(to intelligent person)

Science should be proved by any experimental data or theoretical calculation.

This is "significant style" for young people and unknown person, from "educational point."

But this is effective to "real research for Science" in research point. No doubt.

If someone make synthetic one without "time" factor in lab,
they do not know "real natural samples collected in the fields" which have "many factors"
to form it including long "time" factor in the Space. Few knowledge.

Thank you! I think you have made yourself reasonably clear. Yes, this is a science forum, and we evaluate the posts according to the scientific method. If you follow some discussions closely, you will see that pure speculations and fringe "science" is strongly criticised here.

Regards,
Dishmaster (Moderator).