The Apollo Moon rocks - irrefutable proof that we landed

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.4
4. Elements very common in Earth rocks are absent or in very small amounts: quartz, calcite, magnetite, micas, amphiboles, and sulfide minerals.
5. The Oxygen isotope ratio is the same for Moon rocks and Earth rocks. But this is the only isotope ratio that is the same.
6. 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.
7. He observes similar elements to Earth rocks, but fails to point out the stunning major point, they occur in hugely different proportions.
8. 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
9. Meteorites not of Lunar origin differ both chemically and mineralogically from Earth and Moon rocks.
10. The oxygen isotope ratios are completely different.


Here we are 25 posts in and the serial forum spammer has still not directlyaddressed any of these points. He doesn't actually understand any of it, so just dumps spam videos and thinks they mean something. He doesn't even understand why they don't.

 

He's referring to Jarrah White.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL87BD99395C7513BC
http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html

He refers to him as "The blunder from down under". The viewers can come to their own conclusions.

 

Actually it comes from here:
https://www.apollohoax.net/

Speaking of the "viewers", explain to them why you are cowardly avoiding literally hundreds of posts where you are getting your useless butt kicked? The OP, where you have avoided it completely. You seem to be under the impression that spamming crap that you don't understand anyway is sufficient to combat the original post that you also don't understand!

Serious question: You are ignorant about this whole subject. Your observational skills are woeful in the extreme and when you take into account your profound ignorance about what it is you are commenting on, how the hell can you not see that you aren't even qualified to post a single thing!?

You don't understand and rebuttal, let alone your original spammed cut and paste, do you not understand that you are a forum joke?

 

Go back and read post #9 again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-proof-that-we-landed.604239/#post-1073760436
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
28. "Moonstones" coming from the Earth -
"lunar probes" were not necessary
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally: "Moonstones" cannot be proved

"Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have no geology background so I can't form opinions on the technical details. My not having a background in geology doesn't detract from Jarrah's arguments. I just have my common sense.

Stop this video at the 5:11 time mark and read what it says.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...on-missions-were-real.603866/#post-1073774621

All layman can do is look at both sides of an argument and see who makes the most sense. Here's an example.

MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 8, How NASA faked the Zap-Pits in Apollo Samples. PART 1


MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 8, How NASA faked the Zap-Pits in Apollo Samples. PART 2

 

I've talked about the Clavius site and its forum before.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...landing-is-fake.553296/page-3#post-1070463619
https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15
(Start reading at post #20)

It's obviously a disinfo site created by a bunch of sophists who know the moon missions were faked.

 

That is called spam and yes you have. You run away and cowardly evade every single piece of evidence because of your idiotic batshit circular logic.

No. It's obviously a site populated by industry experts who tear your pathetic arguments to pieces. They know Apollo happened exactly as claimed because they are smart enough and honest enough to be able to look at all the evidence properly.

I would actually appeal to your better judgement, or at some level your honesty but clearly that is never going to happen. You simply have no capacity for honest discourse.

You are a despicable spammer. I have dismantled your pathetic spam website and have posted the contents in this thread. Like the dishonest person you are, you have just ignored it:

Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo Moon Rocks - Idiotic Website (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

Precisely! It doesn't shut you up though, does it!

How the hell would you know? You have no background, so go away and get a clue somewhere!

No. You have this:
Dunning-Kruger effect | Definition, Examples, & Facts | Britannica

No, they can attempt to better understand the subject. They can use occam's razor: All things being equal? This clown Jarrah White and all the entire geological community!

You are done, you need to logoff and get a life. Because anyone who can be bothered to view these threads will see you getting your ignorant butt kicked, time and time again. Your dishonesty in evading post after post is actually one of the most blatant pieces of trolling possible.

 

I missed a direct response to the above!

 

Instead of attacking a geology layman, you should be analyzing the videos in post #2 and telling us why you disagree with what's said.

 

Instead of posting pathetic videos you should be itemizing why you think they explain the very points raised in the OP!
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo Moon Rocks - Part 1 (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo Moon Rocks - Part 2 (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo Moon Rocks - Part 3 (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo Moon Rocks - Part 4 (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

So "layman", tell the viewers why four blog posts - posted and ignored by you in this very thread! - itemizing the crap by White in copious detail don't refute his ignorant batshit?

p.s. You are worse than a layman, because even though you have zero understanding you still defend bullshit that you don't understand/

 

In your spam by numbers post, tell the viewers where exactly each of these points are refuted:
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.
4. Elements very common in Earth rocks are absent or in very small amounts: quartz, calcite, magnetite, micas, amphiboles, and sulfide minerals.
5. The Oxygen isotope ratio is the same for Moon rocks and Earth rocks. But this is the only isotope ratio that is the same.
6. 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.
7. He observes similar elements to Earth rocks, but fails to point out the stunning major point, they occur in hugely different proportions.
8. 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
9. Meteorites not of Lunar origin differ both chemically and mineralogically from Earth and Moon rocks.

 

Go back and read post #29 again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-that-we-landed.604239/page-2#post-1073774830

You seem to be on standby here about eighteen hours a day. You have the time to watch those videos and refute the points you don't agree with.

 

No. It was batshit the first time around.

Yes, I have the time. I will never let the likes of you post your batshit on this forum without me dismantling it!

Go back and read post 1 and post 26 then do something you have never once done, behaved in an honest fashion and address them properly!

 

I’d say with the thousands of people who worked on the Apollo program and to get us to the moon and back, if the moon landing was fake, one of those many thousands would have come out and said so. Way too many people involved in the moon landing for a leak of a faked landing not to have happened by now. Forget any other evidence pro or con. There are always government sources willing to leak. The fact there were none, speaks volumes.

 

(from post #26)

I'm a layman when it comes to geology. Nobody wants to hear my opinion. Maybe the points you made debunk Jarrah's info and maybe they don't. You're not going to get anywhere by demanding that a layman settle the issue. I just posted all that so it could be discussed.

 

...and physics (heat, gravity, motion, pendulums!), orbital mechanics, engineering, photography, video recording including cameras - pretty much every single thing in this whole subject. And further, you aren't just a layman you are worse, you assume something is correct simply because it fits in with your layman moronic claims!

THAT is the quote of the century!

You are being completely dishonest. You don't have the skills to determine what is truth or not! But Occam can help here. Who to believe - the entire community of the world's finest geologists who make collectively a 100% proven case for the authenticity of the lunar samples, or some clown on YouTube who has a history of failure, cherry picking/omission and has had his videos dismantled ever since he started trying to make a living out of it on YouTube!

 

You seem to be afraid to analyze these videos.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-proof-that-we-landed.604239/#post-1073757147

Why don't you stop stalling and analyze them. If they're so bad, tell us why they're bad. The viewers are watching and judging.

 

You are an absolutely appalling troll. They are covered in my thread you are afraid to honestly respond to:

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/apollo-moon-rocks-part-1.html
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.



"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.



"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 onlyisotope 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!



"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."

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7519293/
"Lunar mare basalts are depleted in F and Cl by approximately an order of magnitude relative to mid-ocean ridge basalts and contain two Cl-bearing components with elevated isotopic compositions relative to the bulk-Earth value of ∼0‰. The first is a water-soluble chloride constituting 65 ± 10% of total Cl with δ37Cl values averaging 3.0 ± 4.3‰. The second is structurally bound chloride with δ37Cl values averaging 7.3 ± 3.5‰. These high and distinctly different isotopic values are inconsistent with equilibrium fractionation processes and instead suggest early and extensive degassing of an isotopically light vapor.æ

"Over the 50 y since the Apollo missions, chemical and isotopic compositions of lunar materials have revolutionized our collective scientific understanding of planetary materials. A major finding is the recognition that lunar materials are strongly depleted in volatiles relative to Earth and that they exhibit a range of volatile-element stable isotope anomalies (1–16). Studying these isotopic systems allows us to better understand volatile sources and mechanisms by which volatile elements are lost throughout planetary evolution. The chlorine isotope system is of particular interest because the Cl isotope values of the Moon are uniquely high."

 

Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo Moon Rocks - Part 2 (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)


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.




"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?





"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.



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!

 

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 "

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?

 

@Scott - please explain why you have failed to answer this slam-dunk post!

 

I was wondering whether there are ANY viewers reading this who think the Apollo missions were hoaxed? I say this because practically every spammed post says the "viewers" can decide! Surely there isn't anyone who still thinks this dead-in-the-water hoax horseshit has any merit.

I wonder what the viewers think about the appalling evasion being exhibited by the main "hoax-poster"!

 

The anomalies in footage* have already proven the hoax. This renders the rock issue moot.

*
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-31#post-1074385963

 

Apollo landed on the Moon six times. A magnificent achievement. Only very ignorant people say otherwise. Proven:
HERE: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...urd-hoax-coffin.604367/page-3#post-1074375897
HERE: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...urd-hoax-coffin.604367/page-3#post-1074316564
HERE: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...urd-hoax-coffin.604367/page-3#post-1074235516
HERE: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-that-we-landed.604239/page-2#post-1073774696
HERE: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...are-on-the-moon.580330/page-2#post-1074385704