Tuesday, July 5, 2011

The Apollo Moon Rocks - Part 4

Assertion 12 - Smart-1 uncovered minerals and rocks different to nasa rocks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHJ_7FtiCBE

"Jarrah claims that SMART-1 performed a soil sample analysis while it was pounding into the moon at 4500 mph. Then he shows ABC News coverage of the SMART-1 impact which says that the probe has uncovered minerals different to the rocks gathered on the surface during moon walks. The key is the chemical signatures in the dust and debris thrown up by the collision. This is the most legitimate sounding evidence that Jarrah gives through his entire two hour documentary. The only thing they don't tell us, is what those new minerals are. In fact, at the end of the broadcast, the announcer says, "it's hoped results [of the analysis of the dust thrown up by the crash] will be available within a year." It is fairly obvious that the news teaser he presents over and over again was probably made to sound interesting to attract an audience for the ABC Sunday Night News. It appears to be a mix of information from several different articles on the ABC website. And Jarrah completely misses the fact that scientists expect to find new minerals on the moon someday."

He states the probe performed a soil analysis?? See the description of the equipment on board to see that this is more baloney:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART-1


Assertion 13 - Smart-1 agree with soviet samples and both are different to NASA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwikhjO93Ec

"In Exhibit D Part 5 - 8:45 Jarrah says, "So, it seems, the actual moon rocks are different to the Apollo moon samples, but not the Soviet samples."

Evidently, either the Russian moon rocks were never identical to their American counterparts in the first place, or ESA is covering for mother Russia, and forgot to cover for NASA." Actually, what happened was that SMART-1's D-CIXS (x-ray spectrometer) found calcium in the same area that the Soviets collected their Luna 16 and 20 samples. Calcium? This happens to be what? Only the fourth most common element in the Apollo moon rocks? Jarrah even states that as he reads two different lists of lunar materials. Talk about your anomalies and contradictory statements. Jarrah seems to have a hard time keeping his conspiracy theories straight."


Let me restate that one again:-

Jarrah White "So it seems the actual Moon rocks are different to the Apollo Moon samples, but not the Soviet samples"


Jarrah White "The Soviets could have used the Apollo samples and scraped off grains to fake their own samples"



You just cannot make up this level of ignorance and contradiction.

Some SMART-1 information:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMWX03VRRE_index_0.html


Assertion 14 - An Apollo photograph shows a "C" on it as used by stage props

Entry level hoax belief, and one of the easiest of them all to disprove. The "C" is a hair or piece of lint on the lens, as a copy was made of the picture. No such markings appear on the original picture, or more importantly, the frame before on the same magazine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEygpL7r6Pk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxwL4DCzUN4


Conclusion:
There simply is no case to defend with the Apollo Moon rocks. There are so many reasons why they were not possible to fake, yet still hoax believers cling to this idea that somehow, magic rock manipulating machines, fooled the entire geology community!

We have no explanation at all for the Apollo core samples of 2-3 metres in length.

There is no doubt where the rocks came from:-