I wonder which version of the word "plausible" you are referring to. I would suggest the one bolded below.
plau·si·ble (plôz-bl)
adj.
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
3. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking:
Making a bare assertion, and using Jarrah White videos to back up your statement demonstrates that you rely on them for your proof. I shall address the assertions made by Jarrah White accordingly.
Assertion 1 - Nasa rocks contain water
This assertion is made as a means to imply that, as both Earth and Moon rocks contain water, Apollo samples could simply just be faked from Earth rocks. Bunkum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vJH6lemd_k
"Several of my rebuttals are in the form of "the operative word in this sentence is" Jarrah has a talent for taking a seemingly harmless statement and turning it into a fallacy by changing a word or its scope. In this case, the operative word is "samples." The space.com article he quotes says "Water was found in lunar samples" and he parrots it back as "all moon rocks have water in them and all scientists and geologists are liars." However, the water referred to in the space.com article was only found in tiny, nonporous, volcanic spherules, and scientists did not have instruments sensitive enough to measure this water until recently. It has always been assumed that the trace water found in moon rocks was the result of terrestrial contamination, due to the obvious lack of any hydrous minerals in the moon rocks. But finding water in these spherules has sparked new life into the search for water elsewhere on the moon. Since Jarrah published Exhibit D, data from both the Chandrayaan-1 and Deep Impact spacecraft confirmed the earlier findings of the Cassini probe, which detected the same signature of water on the moon's surface as originally identified in the first Apollo moon rocks back in 1970. This finding destroys Jarrah's claim that NASA's moon rocks have water in them, therefore they could not have come from the dry lifeless moon."
http://www.space.com/5603-water-discovered-moon-samples.html
In typical Jarrah White fashion, he finds a story with a headline designed to capture audience interest and suggests it as a blanket statement. He then accuses numerous people of lying when they made the statement that there was no water found in the Apollo samples, whilst deliberately not quoting back this passage from the article:-
"For the past four decades, the limit for detecting water in lunar samples was about 50 parts per million (ppm) at best, said Erik Hauri, geochemist at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C. and co-author on the study. We developed a way to detect as little as 5 ppm of water.
The group found up to 46 ppm of water within the glass beads. Saal and his collaborators then used modeling to estimate how much water originally existed in the magma within the moon's interior, knowing some water would have escaped the molten droplets as a gas on the surface."
He then compunds this by suggesting that they knew all along about the presence of water, by indicating that Dr Mark Norman of NASA had previously said there was "almost no water in the samples. The samples came back with trace elements of water, but since no mica, clay minerals or hydrous iron oxides, minerals that would be present if water had played a part, the trace water was assumed to be caused by condensation from the containers used during transport, since it was barely detectable.
And, as for this being some sort of conspiracy of silence, the findings were presented to his peers at conference in 1970!
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/167/3918/538.short
Summary:
1. The water found in the volcanic beads is at trace level, ie. 50 or parts per million.
2. The beads are clearly formed in 1/6th gravity, as many are perfectly spherical. This does not occur with those found on Earth.
3. White implies that all the rocks contain water, when it has only been found within the volcanic beads.
Assertion 2 - Earth and Moon rocks have identical elements and isotopes
White makes this assertion once again to imply that NASA's rocks could have been altered Earth rocks, cooked in a ceramic oven! Bunkum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41eaDU8aflo
"Bill Kaysing claimed that faking believable moon rocks was the easiest thing to do, but he didn't suggest how it could be done. He left the dirty work for Jarrah, who seriously couldn't figure out how it was done either. He starts by quoting Dr. William Hartman who said that moon rocks and earth rocks have identical oxygen isotope ratios, suggesting that the earth and the moon came from the same part of the solar system. Jarrah construes this to mean that earth rocks and moon rocks share the same isotopes in general. Then the National Geographic children's book that Jarrah quotes from says that moon rocks and earth rocks contain the same elements, but in far different proportions. Jarrah focuses on the "same elements" part and totally ignores the more significant "different proportions" part. Again, we can use Jarrah's source to blow away his claim that moon rocks are "identical" to earth rocks."
Summary:
1. Elements very common in Earth rocks are absent or in very small amounts: quartz, calcite, magnetite, micas, amphiboles, and sulfide minerals.
2. The Oxygen isotope ratio is the same for Moon rocks and Earth rocks. But this is the only isotope ratio that is the same.
3. He deliberately fails to point out that amongst others, Neon 21 and Argon 38 isotopes are found in Moon rocks but not in Earth rocks.
4. He observes similar elements to Earth rocks, but fails to point out the stunning major point, they occur in hugely different proportions.
5. Whilst making his point on isotopes, he doesn't notice his source demonstrates that meteorites found on Earth have radically different isotopes to Earth and Moon rocks. Including the one he refers to, the oxygen isotope.
http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/gm2/news/features/isotopes.htm
Assertion 3 - The Apollo Moon rocks were "doped with helium 3"
First off, we need to establish that Helium 3 occurs very little on Earth. It is found in only trace amounts. Most of the Helium-3 on Earth, identifiable through deep surface spectroscopy, is well below the surface.
To suggest Helium-3 is easy to make, and easy to impregnate rocks with it, is utter baloney. Were such a device available, the whole energy crisis would be solved overnight!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjCSLzH2ZTo
"Without actually exposing pristine earth rocks to actual solar radiation, you can only produce Helium-3 as a byproduct of tritium decay. And although tritium can be produced through the neutron bombardment of nitrogen, which might be present in the starter rocks, even our most powerful particle accelerators could only penetrate a paper thin skin of the surface with neutrons and it would be impossible to make the rocks look like they have a cosmic ray exposure age well over 60 million years, as measured in NASAs moon rocks. Jarrah's proposal is unequivocally impossible."
Part 2....
Part 2....
