Additionally, overexposure of Figure 7 make comparisons between Figure 6 and 7 difficult. However, if you take into account the fact that Figure 9 is inverted and rotated about 30 degrees clockwise with respect to Figure 8, the fuzzy spots are still present, and so the author's statements in the caption and in the text are wrong. F. Figures 10 and 11 are enlargements of portions of Figures 2 and 3 and are supposed to show major damage to the biotite and erasure of halos. The halo is obvious in Figure 12. However, as with Figures 4 and 5, no landmarks are similar in the two images, and so the photographs are likely to be of different fields of view.
Conclusions are, therefore, impossible.
It is unlikely that Figures 14 and 15 show the same field of view. I. Figures 16 and 17 claim to show erasure of radiation halos after heating to 300 degrees C. Contrary to their captions, Figure 17 is obviously at half the magnification of Figure 16, and one is inverted relative to the other. It is unclear in Figure 16 which of the few fuzzy spots are supposed to be radiation halos, but comparison with Figure 17 is impossible anyway because lower magnification and heat damage obscure many regions where the spots supposedly no longer exist. These scientists have used techniques ranging from field studies and microscope petrography, to chemical analyses of rocks and minerals, and to laboratory experiments and thermodynamic calculations. There are two other, perhaps more disturbing issues.