Cela se trouve, il y a des complices dans les feedbacks laissés...
. Quand au vendeur, il a mis quantité de témoignages de personnes expérimentées (géologues, institutions, etc) qui lui ont donné un avis négatif... mais tout est OK pour lui. C'est juste ahurissant :
uly, 2020, UNH Biology Department was unable to identify the glass-like coating/smear on hundreds of strangely broken trees. They sent it for chemical analysis which shows it to be a mineral coating, (glass, since mineral/rock does not smear or coat things). There is no other scientific possibility for mineral/glass smears on a tree, broken or not. That chemical analysis posted in photos of sample for sale.
I also had more thin section slides made, showing cross-sections of glass fusion crust on the surface of 6 small anorthosite meteorites, one with chemical analysis matching NASA's Lunar granite. Thin sections are the most solid proof you can get for a meteorite. (thin section images posted with smaller cut meteorites for sale, and on youtube slideshows).
I sent Dr. Melinda Hutson the links to my thin section slideshow, and the others, and offered to send samples and thin sections for her to register the strewn field in November, 2020. She replied, "They don't look like meteorites". "I'm sorry, I can't help you". No explanation. No mention of ANY of my proof. No questions, no interest. Nothing. Strange.
Other great quotes:
The Smithsonian, about my original 90 lb Lunar basalt, "No fusion crust or other characteristics of meteorites.", and "We don't look at chemical analysis that were performed elsewhere". I guess they didn't see the fusion crust that Dr. Melinda Hutson thought might be fraudulent, and didn't see the regamaglypts that she wrote were "too big".
I love the Smithsonian, but I then sent photos of a dozen amazing, or at least impressive more recent meteorites, microscopic photos of fusion crust on meteorites and on broken trees. They wrote, "none of them look like meteorites and fusion crust is NOT found on trees".
Harvard, Dr. Charles Langmuir, "No average person has ever found a meteorite." and "That's not fusion crust, it's sedimentation on glacial dropstones." and "If there were that many meteorites up there, we would already know about it".
MIT Planetary Program nameless researcher, after 5 months, several emails of photos and 20 small samples with 4 chemical analysis, "The iron levels are too low to be meteorites", apparently forgetting about our closest planetary body, THE MOON.
Randy Korruptev, Washington U., ( retired ) St. Louis, about my original meteorite, "I wouldn't waste my money on a chemical analysis if it were my rock." and later, about recently found meteorites, "Those aren't meteorites"
Dr. Turd, Curator of Meteorite Museum, U. of Alberta, Canada, "That's not fusion crust, those aren't meteorites, there's no strewn field, that's not glass on the trees. Stop sending photos."
Jen Weimer, NH Forestry Biologist, about several dozen photos and personally visiting a great site w/ lots of coated/scraped branches, "It is all normal rotting processes". (Before UNH examined it)
Rick Chormann, NH Geologist, about just the main mass, (apparently all he had time to look at), "It's all normal terrestrial bedrock, glaciated, weathered. The glassy spots are extra-fine glacial polishing".
UNH, Joe Licciardi, Earth Sciences Chair, "Were not qualified to determine if a rock has a glass coating on it", and later, when pressed about the microscopic glass filaments on several meteorites, "weathered silicates". When pressed about glass smears on broken trees, NO REPLY.
UNH, Jo Laird, Geology, about my original meteorite, "it's terrestrial". When asked about the thin sections of fusion crust, and glass smears on broken trees, NO REPLY.