Tuesday, July 5, 2011

The Apollo Moon Rocks - Part 3

Assertion 7 - Nasa's moon rocks have different elements and isotopes

Here we have a statement that shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter, by demonstrating that JW doesn't know there are different types of isotopes for different elements. He previously got this wrong by assuming the same oxygen isotope ratios, meant all isotope ratios were the same!

"In Exhibit D Part 4 - 4:10 Jarrah says, "How can the moon rocks have exactly the same isotopes as the earth in 1999 and then completely different isotopes in 2001? You can't have it both ways." As he does elsewhere, he throws two totally unrelated statements against each other and makes them sound contradictory. Here, he takes Dr. William Hartman's statement about "same oxygen isotope ratios" and plays it against a statement by Dr. David McKay that "There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don't normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays." The two statements are not contradictory. Hartman is talking about oxygen isotope ratios, McKay about solar isotopes -- isotopes of elements other than oxygen."

White fails to grasp that this one point alone debunks his whole case. Moon rocks with solar isotopes, Earth rocks without them.

Assertion 8 - Significant signs of oxidation

Jarrah White doesn't understand the process of oxidation and how oxides are formed.


"Jarrah asks, "How can moon rocks be composed of all these oxides and yet not show signs of oxidation, as is claimed by propagandists and certain other geologists?" Good point, except, oxidation is not the only way to produce metallic oxides. The oxides present in moon rocks were formed at extremely high temperatures during the moon's infancy by a process called fractional crystallization, not as a result of oxidation. The simple fact that newly fallen chondrites are rich in oxides demonstrates the fact that rocks can contain oxides without being exposed to an oxygenated atmosphere."

Earth rocks undergo weathering causing secondary minerals, which is completely absent from NASA's moon rocks. Two major minerals found in Moon rocks plagioclase and olivine would be completely or partially replaced by chlorites which are virtually absent in Moon rocks. Mica, another common weathering induced mineral is completely absent from Moon rocks. Iron found in the Moon rocks, shows no sign whatsoever of rust, or ferric oxide.

Assertion 9 - Only a handful of pro-Nasa geologists have looked at the rocks

A staggering statement that even a scant amount of research demonstrates as complete baloney.


"In Exhibit D Part 4 - 5:00 Jarrah says, "Out of all the thousands and thousands of geologists within the scientific community, only a tiny handful has physically studied the lunar material. As space.com reported on May 23rd, 2000, about 40 to 50 scientists are still investigating the moon rocks." Jarrah quotes an article by geologist, Callum McAllister. The operative word is "still." It doesn't say only 50 scientists have ever studied the moon rocks over the past 40 years. That's a ridiculous statement. For the record, space.com reported in July 1999 that 60 scientists were STILL studying Nasa's moon rocks. Actually, the first 48 rocks returned by Apollo 11 alone were studied by 142 independent labs worldwide. And between 1970 and 1975, 379 independent scientists and research labs presented reports at the LPSC on NASA's moon rocks. Today, the JSC curate sends out 400 samples annually  "


Assertion 10 - They were shot with aluminum pellets to simulate zap pits

Unbelievable statement. As if geologists wouldn't notice the traces of aluminum in the samples! Aluminum pellets do not equate to tiny dust particles, the zap-pits on the Apollo rocks are very small indeed.

"In Exhibit D Part 4 - 6:35 Jarrah reads from Kaysing's Bible that some company out in Santa Barbara did high impact studies back in the 1960's. Kaysing was living in Santa Barbara when the Apollo 11 landed on the moon so no doubt he heard rumors about what was going on there. Although he never tells us who they are, we find the company anyway and demonstrate that the projectiles they used would not produce zap pits. Jarrah shows the website for a company that does high impact studies today for the ISS using aluminum pellets. Jarrah doesn't understand that the pellets they use are made of an aluminum alloy that scientists could easily identify with a SEM."

The zap pits are visible under magnification and have been made from high impact collision from something only micrograms in size. If this was done with some kind of magic gun to fire single microgram pellets! , they would need to be of a composition that would not be easily identifiable.

Assertion 11 - The soviets faked theirs by using scrapes from NASA rocks given to them

Take careful note of what White says here. He is saying that the Soviets could have taken scrapings from the samples given by NASA. Even though they both have amazing similarities, there are also many differences, as you would expect. More on this later.



"In Exhibit D Part 5 - 3:30 as if this has anything to do with the validity of NASAs moon rocks, Jarrah speculates that the US gave the Soviets, who, according to Jarrah, are known liars and idiots, moon rocks from Apollos 11 and 12, so that they had the material they needed to create their own lunar samples. The Soviets, who in case you didn't know are known liars and idiots, according to Jarrah, then sacrificed the Apollo moon rocks they were given and scraped off fragments to pass off as coming from Luna 16. Of course, the Luna 16 samples can be shown to be chemically different from anything the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 brought back, which proves nothing really."

Variable titanium oxide, how did NASA get the percentages right for 94/95 clementine ratio reflectance values? Is the entire clementine team in on the fake, or the numerous people who have studied the clementine readings?

Part 4...