Some Cosmored "Hoax" Videos

Link 1:-
This is a youtube search on "Moonfaker" by Jarrah White. I have no intention of debunking every single thing in his hopelessly ignorant videos. I offer instead a youtube search for "Moonfaker critique", where Phil Webb has already debunked a large proportion of them already:-

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker+critique&aq=f


Link 2:-
This is a demonstration whereby having a Phd in no way gives you skills in other fields. Hologram image analysis is not photogrammetry.
Before I debunk this rubbish, I want to present a critique on David Groves.

1. He begins by telling us that he is the director for Quantec Image Processing Ltd, a point raised 3 times, as though it has some weight of argument. The company went into liquidation in 1999 and ceased to trade in 2000. The film came out in 2000.

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=1055&page=3#31777

2. Groves performs a heat experiment on the Kodak film, by placing it in an oven!! For those who understand physics, using convection as a means to heat something, when supposedly comparing to the activity in a vacuum where none such convective heat is possible, is just plain stupid.

3. Groves fires a full strength X-ray at the film and concludes that it is a comparison to Solar x-ray, when the x-ray strength from the Sun is less than 1/1000th of  a standard x-ray machine! In addition, he lists the energy levels in measurements of REM, when this is a measurement of human tissue exposure, instead of RADS which is the unit he should have used!

http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html

4. He used the wrong camera, and gave no indication that the magazines had been strengthened as per the ones used on Apollo.

If he is a scientist, he's a pretty poor one, selling out to make a buck!

Analysing the actual clip:-
The video clip is from What Happened On The Moon. Groves says he places the secondary light source next to Aldrin, yet ignores the most obvious of all methods to determine where the source is, by eye. As can be seen from this photo close up, the centre of the picture is about 30 centimetres to the left of his boot and it is so stunningly obvious that the hotspot is pointing straight back at the camera! The light source is the spacesuit of Armstrong, lit up like a Christmas Tree from the Sun! The clip even shows the video record with him brightly lit.

Percy, the maker of the film, then compares the TV footage using low bandwidth 10 fps, exposed for the surface, to the picture lit by surface reflected light and exposed accordingly. Just plain daft, as though a TV picture on a Vidicon camera will compare to a Hasselblad still camera!

They then debunk themselves with some "normal" and "backlit" models of the LM. In the backlit versions, we see the ground shadows soften noticeably, and the ladder now casts a solid shadow! Way to go Percy, I'm sure none of the gullible HBs noticed that one!

Percy then goes on to indicate average Lunar albedo as 7%, and says it is "untenable" as a natural light reflector. Bunkum. I wonder how many people think the Moon is not bright enough when viewed from Earth!

http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut26-1.htm

"Our Moon’s average visual albedo is 0.12. The brightness of the Moon changes dramatically as its phase changes. During first and third quarters, the visible Moon is 50% illuminated by the Sun, but its brightness is only about 8% of full Moon -- an increase of 2.7 magnitudes. The Moon’s visual albedo on its illuminated segment gets progressively smaller as the angle between the Earth and Sun on the Moon (phase angle) increases. A major reason for this decrease of visual albedo with increasing phase angle is the greater creation of shadows on the irregular lunar surface, thereby reducing reflected light back to Earth."

Indeed, one of the properties of the Moon, is its propensity to reflect light back at the light source. It is why a full Moon is 8 times brighter than a half Moon.

The natural backlighting of the Moon's surface is obvious to all but blnkered HBs, and corrupt film makers. Remember also, that the average albedo accounts for such things as crater rims, depressions and rocks, which are much lower, so a reasonably open area of surface will be higher than the average.

Percy continues with his ignorance, by showing pictures exposed for the surface, up sun and distant terrain to supposedly demonstrate nearfield under exposed rocks have shadows. Bunkum.

He uses a picture of the LM with a huge over glare from the Sun, indicating a high exposure, to insist it has been filled in with a light. Yet, we see no shadow softening, and no secondary shadows as per his example shown above.

Continuing the clip, we hear the account of HJP Arnold (assistant to MD of Kodak 1966-74) where he makes some observations about the quality of the pictures. Presumably the film makers used this to suggest that perfect photography was not possible. Despite the hundreds of duff photographs never shown, the hours and hours of practice performed, and preset aperture and exposures calculated, this is just more bunkum.

It did make me smile when I heard what Mr Arnold said:-

"That sequence of images on the Lunar surface, taken mainly by Armstrong of course, with that one camera, which incidentally was left on the Moon, so it's gonna be a marvellous relic for when we eventually get back there of course.... the film came back."

I get the impression he knows we landed on the Moon, and has no trouble believing the film made it back safely!

Percy now moves up a gear to pure subterfuge. He "analyses" the classic Aldrin photo and concludes all sorts of fall off problems, and alignment problems(from David Groves who concludes the camera must have been tilted down!) assuming I suppose that the Moon is as flat as a pancake! He then shows the picture to Jan Lundberg (of Hasselblad) who cannot explain it.
Perhaps if he had used the correct version, rather than a magazine adjusted crap copy, he would have had no problem with it at all?

Here is the photo analysed by somebody who knows what they are doing:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q07Xrsc397E

Here is why Jan Lundberg was confused:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VZIwtrDsRQ

And visually, the picture shown to him, and the proper picture next to each other:-

Link 3:-
This is another clip from the film What Happened on the Moon.
Firstly he looks at a photo of Al Bean and concludes the astronaut was above him in the visor reflection as though it's impossible?? He was in a slightly elevated position. The area they took these photos was undulating and perfectly normal as one would expect from the Moon's surface.

He then concludes that 2 Apollo 11 photographs are suspect, because the horizon is a different level to other shots at different angles. Once again, for some reason, he seems to think the Moon is dead flat! Google Moon shows perfectly the terrain of the Apollo 11 landing site with its undulations, and is fully consistent with what is seen.

HBs have no trouble in believing this contention, with David Percy begging the question at every opportunity, yet failing to realise this so simple point.

This clip from the camera setup, shows the nature of the terrain, clearly undulating and a very wide area. This sequence alone, debunks the stupid "shot in a studio" contention!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juIX4suNoFs&feature=player_detailpage#t=253s


Link 4:-
This is where I become suspicious of whether you have actually watched this clip. It is a small Real Player version of the film "Was it a Paper Moon", which you include later on in your wall of spam.
I will address that film separately.


Link 5:-
This is where some observant HB has noticed a Mythbusters film with some fleeting scratches on a small piece of film played back through a studio monitor and concludes they are "wires"!

Directly responded to by Mythbusters:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9mYWWHREag

Completely refuted in this clip from a very long wires debunk video:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjEItn1sSQg&feature=player_detailpage#t=44s

Not only does that clip show the two scratches appearing in the exact same frame as each other, but also shows that the scratch doesn't match the astronauts movement. Not wires - scratches. Bunkum.


Link 6:-
Doesn't work. I expect it is a clip from the What Happened On The Moon film, and I will address it in one series(including and expanding upon the two clips above).

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.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i71ncUGDHvI

"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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x-d6h65Y-M

"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  "

http://www.universetoday.com/35404/after-40-years-moon-rocks-still-revealing-secrets/


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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0UCj6XFK4

"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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0UCj6XFK4

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/soils/soils_hb.pdf

"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...

The Apollo Moon Rocks - Part 2

Assertion 4 - Materials not found in Earth rocks are common to meteorites

Now the sideways shuffle is implied. He has so far, indicated that the Apollo rocks are from Earth, now he is moving to the assertion that they are in fact a combination of Earth rocks and meteorites! Bunkum.

We have already established that Earth rock have the same oxygen isotope ratios as Moon rocks, and that neither have anywhere like the same ratios as those found in non-lunar meteorites. So wherever this contention goes, it is already doomed to failure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xvgM5FTTu4

"Jarrah says that NASA's moon rocks are a combination of meteorites mixed with earth materials. He also plays an interview with Dr. Richard Hartman several times in his video series, but apparently, he never paid attention to what D. Hartman actually said, because Dr. Hartman directly contradicts Jarrah's claims.

He then goes on to say that some of NASAs moon rocks are meteorites because they contain radiation. But, as Dr. Richard Hartman points out, moon rocks and meteorites have different oxygen isotope ratios because they came from different parts of our solar system, making it impossible for NASA to pass one off for the other.

Not only is this claim a contradiction to his earlier bogus claim that Moon rocks are identical to Earth rocks, but most meteorites that are found on Earth, by weight, are iron or stony-iron meteorites that, unlike moon rocks, are loaded with high elemental iron.

The next most abundant type of meteorites, the common chondrite, is composed mostly of silicate minerals that contain chondrules. These meteorites are also unlike moon rocks, which do not contain chondrules.

Except for the radiation emitted from meteorites, they are completely different mineralogical, chemically, and most significantly, because they came from different spots in our universe, they differ in their oxygen isotope ratios, which was the evidence that Jarrah previously used to prove moon rocks were the same as earth rocks. You can't have it both ways Jarrah."

Summary:

1. Meteorites not of Lunar origin differ both chemically and mineralogically from Earth and Moon rocks.

2. The oxygen isotope ratios are completely different.


Assertion 5 - Von Braun collected the Moon rocks from Antarctica
Let's put this into perspective. If such an expedition was undertaken, would NASA send a rocket engineer and the technical team, or would they send recognised geologists? Why would they highly publicise such an event, if the objective was to gather meteorites for fakery?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzKOgFvy56o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVe2LqgOn_U

"Regardless of how Jarrah hypes Antarctica as a haven for Meteorites, only four meteorites were discovered in Antarctica between 1912 and 1967 (55 years), while nearly a hundred were discovered anywhere except Antarctica, between 1912 and 1917 (5 years). As for lunar meteorites, that is meteorites that actually resemble NASA's moon rocks, only 29 out of the 129 known to exist came from Antarctica. Before 1969, Antarctica was not considered a rich source of meteorites in general, and since 1974, more lunar meteorites have been found in Oman than in Antarctica, so Antarctica should have been the last place on earth NASA would have sent a rocket scientist to look for meteorites to pass off for moon rocks."

http://www.depts.ttu.edu/communications/vistas/archive/05-spring/stories/theory.php

"On Antarctica, decades ago, Admiral Byrd named a 4,085-foot-high summit “Mount Wade” after the geologist. Among the letters that Chatterjee first found upon arrival at Texas Tech was one addressed to Wade from Wernher von Braun (1912-1977), one of the most important rocket developers of all time. Von Braun was searching for a secretive locale to help train the United States’ earliest astronauts. Wade pointed von Braun to Antarctica."!

"Jarra White cites wikipedia, which is updated by members of the public. Somebody had added the incorrect paragraph suggesting that the one week trip was a meteorite gathering expedition! It was later removed, as it originated from the mockumentary by Aren Ranen "Did We Go?"!

White then alleges that wikipedia was adjusted to cover this up! The original note was added with a citation for an edition of Popular Science, when the edition quoted, had no reference to meteorite gathering whatsoever! Indeed, it classified the trip exactly as it was stated:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=kCEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q&f=false


White claims that Antarctica was a veritable goldmine of meteorites since 1912 when only 4 had been found between that time and the Antarctic expedition in 1967 - none resembling a Moon rock. In that same period of time, many more were found in places such as Texas!!

In 1969, Japan found only 9 meteorites during their own Antarctica meteorite gathering mission! In total, 129 meteorites ever found, after analysis, show that they originate from the Moon and only 29 from that total came from Antarctica. The first one to actually be found as a Moon rock was in 1979 and recognised as such after elemental ratio tests were finalised in 1982.

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm


Assertion 6 - Meteorites were made to look like Moon by removing the outer melted layer
A ceramicist could not simply chip away at meteorites and make them look like moon rocks. There would be obvious tool marks left behind and it would rob the meteorites of most of their Helium-3. It's a moot point anyway, because meteorites and moon rocks have different oxygen isotope ratios.

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

Any tool used would leave trace amounts of metal and would be impossible to miss. The most concentrated portion of helium-3 is located on the outside of the rock from constant solar wind ions allowing a shallow penetration of the rock. Chipping away the outer layer would indicate no such evidence of solar wind induced helium-3, and that in itself would be evidence of tampering.

Since non lunar meteorites have completely different elemental and isotope ratios, predominantly oxygen, it would make no difference anyway!

Neon 21 and Argon 38 are two other isotopes found in Lunar rocks. White completely ignores these and other isotopes, iuncluding the difference in the oxygen isotopes ratio, he already debunked himself on that during part of an interview he quoted.

Even now, we don't have particle accelerators powerful enough to soak rocks with high energy atomic nuclei to duplicate the effect of millions of years of solar radiation, cosmic or otherwise!


Part 3...

The Apollo Moon Rocks - Part 1

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."

The article he quoted from:-
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....