Addendum - June, 2009

The "gentleman from Sweden" that I mention above, Mr. Göran Lindfors, has recently sent the following e-mail message to me and several people that I know.

From: Göran Lindfors <mars@tele2.se> To: [several, including me] Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:40:43 +0200 Subject: Randy Korotev, Lunar meteorites analyze !!! Here are the new important Lunar meteorites chemical analyze results done by Randy Korotev at Washington University in St.Louis ( Augusti 2008 ). Please notice that Randy Korotev choosed not put this new analyze on his website, since it was showing to be of perfect Lunar origin !!! SiO2 Al2O3 TiO2 FeO, Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2O K2O I dont't see any hint of "industrial" metals in this sample = by Randy Korotev. http://community.webshots.com/user/LunarMeteorites http://www.flickr.com/photos/7694996@N05/ Best Wishes /// Göran Lindfors mars@tele2.se

Because the message is inaccurate and misleading, I explain the facts as I know them here. Also, I name Mr. Lindfors here because I believe that I have a right to do so now, considering that he mentions my name in his e-mail messages.

At this writing, I have received more than 3600 e-mail messages from Mr. Lindfors since 2004. In recent years, each message has had an average of 20 JPG images attached, most of rocks that look like the one in the photograph above.

Mr. Lindfors has never sent me a sample of his alleged lunar meteorites. He has never sent me anything other than e-mail.

In January, 2008, a fellow I did not know e-mailed me with this information.

"Göran Lindfors contacted me about his alleged lunar meteorites... He wanted me to authenticate them, but I told him that I am not qualified to do so... [H]e sent me a 1 gram sample from a larger stone. I told him that I would like to send it to you."

I have not contacted my correspondent about the statement I am writing here, so I am not identifying him. I'll call him Prof. GLM. He's a retired professor and well known statistician and philosopher. Prof. GLM asked me if I would chemically analyze the sample if he sent it to me. I was happy to do so.

On February 19, 2008, I received a small package in the mail from Prof. GLM. It contained only 2 small photographs of a rock, but no actual rock samples. I informed Prof. GLM.

"I never opened up the package I sent to you. Why would he send a picture? He told me that he was sending a square thin piece - and that is what it looked like. I also asked him to send me a small piece for my collection in case it turned out that the sample was lunar. He sent me a small tiny-pebble sized rock as well, and I assumed that it was the piece I requested."

Prof. GLM sent me some of the small rock, crumbs totaling about 50 milligrams. I split the sample in two and analyzed the two subsamples by INAA (instrumental neutron activation analysis) in my lab in May and June of 2008. I sent Prof. GLM the message below on June 30, 2008, with the results of the analysis.

Dear [Prof. GLM]: We've got the analysis of the material Mr. Lindfors sent to you. It's certainly not any kind of meteorite. Unfortunately, our technique is mainly a trace-element technique. We'd prefer a complete major-element analysis for figuring out what this stuff really is, but I can tell from our composition and just looking at the sample that it's rich in quartz, a mineral that does not occur on the Moon in anything but trace abundance. SiO2  n.a., but I suspect very high Al2O3 n.a. TiO2  n.a. FeO   0.6% = 0.7 Fe2O3 = much too low for any meteorite MgO   n.a. CaO   <0.3% too low for a stony meteorite Na2O  0.1% too low for a lunar meteorite K2O   0.7 too high, considering the low Na see http://meteorites.wustl.edu/metcomp/mgfe.htm http://meteorites.wustl.edu/metcomp/alca.htm Cr   40 ppm very low Co    3 ppm low Ni   28 ppm low Au   <4 ppb low for most lunar meteorites Ir   <3 ppb low for most lunar meteorites Together, these concentrations exclude any meteorite. Cr is high in all kinds of meteorites http://meteorites.wustl.edu/metcomp/cr.htm Finally, I don't know if you're a student of the rare earth elements, but here's a comparison of the "REE pattern" of typical continental crust, typical lunar crust (average of several feldspathic lunar meteorites), and Lindfors' sample. On this plot an ordinary chondrite would be a horizontal line at 1. http://meteorites.wustl.edu/meteorwrongs/Lindfors_REE.gif The Lindfors sample has a terrestrial REE pattern, not chondritic and not lunar. So I suspect the sample is mostly Ca-poor sediment of some kind "diluted" with quartz, compared (for example) to a shale. I don't see any hint of "industrial" metals in this sample. Sincerely, Randy

Prof. GLM asked if he could forward my message to Mr. Lindfors, and I encouraged him to do so. Unfortunately, in my report to Prof. GLM, I used some geochemical jargon: "n.a." means "not analyzed." It's clear from Mr. Lindfors' message above that he received my e-mail.

Mr. Lindfors is correct in that I did not put the results of the analysis on my website. I can't understand why he would want me to do so. Until now, I have made no mention of the analytical results nor my interpretation of them on any of my websites. The issue to me was that it was not fair to Mr. Lindfors for me to say "these are not Moon rocks" on the basis of the sample that I analyzed. First, there was the "chain of evidence" issue. I did not receive the sample directly from Mr. Lindfors. I did not actually know the person who sent the sample to me. Maybe the sample really wasn't from Mr. Lindfors' rocks. Second, I did not have Mr. Lindfors' permission to publicly post the data. I now take his e-mail message above as an invitation to do so.