MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 2.

[ElGatoLoco698]

All this over a few molecules of water in moon rocks? Some scientists say there is water, some say there is no water. Big deal. I can go dig up some dirt in my backyard and have it analyzed in detail. You can bet that some scientists will say there is gold atoms in it. And some scientists will say there is no gold, because the amount of gold is less than 1 part per billion. The most import issue is the amount of water. Moon rocks have far less water than Earthly rocks. Plain and simple.

[WhiteJarrah]

@ElGatoLoco698 "Moon rocks have far less water than Earthly rocks."

Correction. They contain as much water as their terrestrial cousins and they contain hydrous minerals and ferric iron oxides associated with it. And this has been known since 1970. See MoonFaker Moon Rocks Revisited Episode 1.

[ElGatoLoco698]

@WhiteJarrah Oh I'm getting there. I just found your videos. Your presentations are well thought out and produced extremely well. Very interesting indeed. However, your evidence leaves something to be desired. I'm not so sure it would even count as evidence. Also your use of the word propagandist to describe the non believers of the moon hoax theory, is insulting. I've only watched Flagging the Gems and this series so far. Is there an order I should be viewing?

[LunarTuner]

JW, no one argues that earth rocks & moon rocks have the same O2 isotope ratios. Big deal! They share the same elements. But by your own observation from reading that scholarly Nat Geo picture book, "IN FAR DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS"! Similarities don't nullify the profound differences.

I share LOTS of material with a giraffe, but I'm not a giraffe!

If Von Braun (a non geologist) could get that much meteorite material in Antarctica in 1 week, wouldn't geologist regularly to get tons?

[LunarTuner]

To say Plait, Windley & a many other international geologists are "liars" regarding water in SOME samples is truly unfair, disappointing & way out of bounds! JW, the means of detecting this tiny trace of H2O in these spherules wasn't even available until recently! Mention of H2O in samples years ago was a matter of contamination. The lying accusation is an unnecessarily inflammatory jump.

There is NOT water in ALL moon rocks & when there is, a TREMENDOUSLY different amount than in earth rocks.

[Monkeyboysdontknow]

What a load, as usual. You call someone a "liar" by manipulating things out of context. You provide Phil Plait's radio interview from a 2005 show where he claims (absolutly truthful at the time) that no water was found in the moon rocks. However it wasn't until a Discovery channel article (dated July 9, 2008) mentioned the first time discovery of water in moon rocks (using refined methods that were 2 magnitudes better for water detection) that such info was publicly available. Who's the liar?

[receiver69]

@Monkeyboysdontknow

Jarrah has always preferred to stay in his cozy little walled garden here at Youtube, where he can bask in the attention of his adoring group of fans and not have to face any real opposition. I think he knows what would happen if he ever had to defend himself in a mainstream forum against people who actually know what they're talking about.

Taking things out of context will make Concorde a fake too.

Who's the liar? Most people know. Only some hoaxheads ignore the facts.

[Astrobrant2]

@receiver69 PhilWebb59 has done an excellent job of completely debunking Jarrah's moon rock claims. Bill Kaysing didn't know diddly-squat about moon rocks OR earth rocks and one of his favorite deceptions was to broadly claim oh how easily this or that could be faked.

The quote from the YouTuber was about more than just the "presence of" water. Jarrah used that quote because it isn't completely correct and then he has the gall to call three qualified people liars on the basis of it.

[Monkeyboysdontknow]

@Astrobrant2 Yes, isn't it interesting how this self-titled person of "integrity" actually operates?  I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.

[datzfast]

@receiver69 penis envy

[Astrobrant2]

@Monkeyboysdontknow Jarrah knows this now. I think he probably knew it when he made this video, but if not, he has certainly learned this since then. Yet this video still remains.

Jarrah tries to advance himself by calling experts and academically superior people liars. It is all about his ego and conceit in his quest to become a woo-woo celebrity. In the process, he insults and falsely accuses many people that he, Kaysing, and Rene COMBINED couldn't hold a candle to.

[imnazhole]

Nixon and NASA have fucked up the paradigm of understanding and knowledge for scientists and geologists who understand that our earth is born out of volcanic creation of ground and soil and erosion due to our atmosphere. Thanks to the enormous lies of NASA and their asstronots they have totally confused scientists, geologists and physicists and have produced a world wide misunderstanding and realm of confusion for understanding out universe and solving mysteries of creation and evolution.

[philwebb59]

@imnazhole Nixon and NASA were able to "confuse" scientists? These scientists, geologists and physicists no longer understand the most fundamental scientific principles because Nixon and NASA "confused" them? Hundreds of years of scientific discovery have gone down the drain because NASA lied? Wow? What a sad, yet simple, world you live in.

[yourboycal]

"Forty years on, at the same annual conference, Taylor and his colleagues announced that they have been wrong all along." physics today dot org

Three groups presented evidence that certain crystals in the volcanic rocks collected by Apollo astronauts contain as much as several thousand parts per million of water." physics today dot org

[philwebb59]

@yourboycal The spherules found in lunar regolith contain water. This finding was made possible by the use of equipment and measurement techniques that were not available until recently.

[yourboycal]

@philwebb59 Thats fine . Then we should say to the best of our knowledge there is no traces of water. But these people preach it like its the bible in some scientific circles. Thats the problem with science today . There to arrogant and ignorant . This is a bad combo. Then when the truth is revealed they cry oh the tech was not available back then blah blah. When they could've admitted that since day one. Thats what i dont like

[philwebb59]

@yourboycal The space dot com article that Jarrah sites from clearly states that for the past 40 years, the limit for detecting water in any geological samples was 50ppm. Using secondary ion mass spectrometry techniques, not available before 2008, they can now detect the presence of water down to 5ppm. Prior to 2008, the water detected in lunar samples was assumed to be contamination that had leaked into the transport containers. The water in the spherules, however, is clearly not contamination.

[Monkeyboysdontknow]

@yourboycal "Then we should say to the best of our knowledge there is no traces of water."

Semantics - look it up. Do your homework and see EXACTLY what the experts had to say on the matter. What you REALLY don't like is science you obviously don't understand. The problem with science? That they do whart science dictates? Postulate..test..test again..and again..have peer review..test again..modify original idea to fit the data obtained. You have a PROBLEM with this? How old are you really?

[yourboycal]

@Monkeyboysdontknow Clearly you didnt read the post before hitting reply =/

[cadu1995]

Jay Milosh?4:04 "The Lunar rocks are so dry?NOT A SINGLE MOLECULE OF WATER" THIS ASSHOLE IS A SCIENTIST? ALL BULLSHIT. moonrocks=earthrocks.

liars-& frauds- Now SCIENTISTS FIND WATER IN THE ORIGINL MOON ROCKS?lol

fools &liars.

[EGMAG]

Part 1 My theory is before the solar system existed, there was a great mass collision of two gigantic bodies of matter, traveling at tremendous speeds. On impact, all materials were drawn out in sequence of mass matter & gases, directly influenced in accordance to the gravitational fields of the sun. This designated, the distance, weight, mass, size & numbers of terrestrial bodies & their place in continual orbiting tracks.

[EGMAG]

PART 2 The moon material consisted of molten hot vaporous material at the time, much lighter then the earth & so as it began to solidify was caught in earths orbit before it escaped into space.

[apollotls]

3w. lpi. usra. edu / meetings / lpsc2010/pdf/ 2439. pdf

.. water has been found for the first time in rocks that were brought back to Earth ...40 years ago....To determine where this moon water came from, researchers studied thin slices of rocks ...

James Greenwood, a planetary scientist ... and lead author of a new paper describing the results, .. discovered that the levels of the deuterium isotope in moon water are double that of Earth's and "not from this planet."

[krisdevalle]

Oh for fucks sake. Sure, send a rocket scientist to look for geologic samples. And take photos.

[Focoist911]

Phil Plait is a jew. The jews dont want Americans to find out they stole all the Apollo money.

[cadu1995]

@Focoist911 5:14 Where are all thos light refections coming from? Totally impossible for them to be from the SUN. lol Moon set lights.

[32GaugeSlug]

This is moronic. I'm not even going to pretend to know whether they did or didn't land on the moon. I just don't fucking know. There's nothing wrong with not knowing you know. You don't have to make your mind up and mindlessly argue on youtube all your life.

[AThousandTigers]

...Except there is massive amounts of evidence that they did that the MoonFaker dudes just ignore.

[Focoist911]

I too simply dont know. I wouldn't put money either way. But to be honest, I dont believe it. I can see enormous motive to "make it or fake it". There was no reason why the Russians wouldn't have followed them there. There is massive reasons why the US would have rather directed those resources on actual war-able technologies such as the SR71 and so on and so on.

[32GaugeSlug]

Such as?

[toastedhippy]

"ours is not to reason why, ours is but to cheat and lie"...dr. smith on 'lost in space' a tv program--which I think was done in hollywood but maybe some of you debunkers can convince me that is was a real space mission

[Focoist911]

Phil Plait must be a Crypto Jew. Is Plait a jew name?

[AThousandTigers]

When is an astronaut going to punch YOU in the face?

[Focoist911]

Do you want it to get violent? It WILL get violent as when peaceful revolution is made impossible violent revolution is inevitable.

[Simboiss]

False. Non violent revolutions are possible...

[AThousandTigers]

oh god I forgot to check back, and I must say your rage is delicious, focoist

[trodas]

Only people who lack the arguments need to use violence to protect their lies.

[fanbutton]

What's even more strange is that how they took a german kraut, like von Braun and made him, from July 1960 to February 1970, the Director at NASA's Huntville, Alabama center.

[Focoist911]

I can't remember who said it but when asked "Do you think the americans will put man on the moon" he replied, "Of course we will, out Germans are better than their Germans".

Regardless, they obviously couldn't make it in the end and decided to fake it. It wasn't hard to fake. The Apollo was a top secret operation - they had all the powers and facility to cover everything up and silence everyone involved.

[Simboiss]

We can add that with several billions of dollars, anyone can build quite a package of huge lies...

[straydog02]

"got any proof that anyone was finding lunar meteorites in the Antarctic before 1969?"

No, but looky what else I found!

"Two small spheres of glass were recovered by Apollos 12 and 14. The Apollo 14 specimen (14425), when analyzed under the electron microprobe, showed a composition essentially identical to some Australasian Tektites; so identical, in fact that if this specimen had been found on the Antarctic ice shelf instead of Fra Mauro, it would have been declared a tektite!

[straydog02]

"The Australasian tektites are glassy blobs found on or near the surface of the ground from the Philippines, through southeast Asia, all the way to Tasmania."

How about them apples?

The Apollo 12 and 14 glass spheres are essentially IDENTICAL TO AUSTRALASIAN TEKTITES, found on EARTH!

On and the article also said this..

"Apollo 11 was expected to find vast quantities of tektites on the Moon, yet did not."

I bet!

astronomytoday(dot)com/astrono­my/interview3(dot)html

[Grumblingone]

Personally I have a feeling that the meteorite hunting in Antarctica is just another assumption. Not a bad hypothesis but there doesn't see to be any written evidence.

But given the number of people that study that study what few samples of meteorites there are, I not surprised there is a lot of conflicting information.

I'm still thinking it was a 2 for 1 deal. Barren environment investigation AND meteorite samples. Any meteorite would be worth finding due to the lack of erosion effects on it.

[straydog02]

"Personally I have a feeling that the meteorite hunting in Antarctica is just another assumption."

I think it's much more than an assumption, considering the fact that the Wiki article was changed to have us believe that von Braun's trip there was to scope out a good training place for the Apollo astronots.. I've never found any info that any of them ever trained in the Antarctic either, so that makes the change of story even more suspect, imo.

[zakabog]

"I think it's much more than an assumption, considering the fact that the Wiki article was changed to have us believe that von Braun's trip there was to scope out a good training place for the Apollo astronots."

HeadLikeARock brings up the point that the citation in question contains no references to gathering meteorites so there's no reason for it to be in the wikipedia article. Then there's the fact that pre-Apollo no one knew what a lunar meteroite was so how could they look for them?

[straydog02]

"HeadLikeARock brings up the point that the citation in question contains no references to gathering meteorites so there's no reason for it to be in the wikipedia article."

What a crock!.. There's no references of any of the Apollo astronots ever training in the Antarctic either, yet that baloney remains in the Wiki article.

"Then there's the fact that pre-Apollo no one knew what a lunar meteroite was so how could they look for them?"

LOL .. I really hope you're kidding.

[zakabog]

"LOL .. I really hope you're kidding."

I actually hope you're kidding. You really believe you can find lunar meteorites without ever knowing what a lunar meteorite is? If I asked you to search a junkyard for the passenger side taillight from a 1956 Cadillac Coup Deville without ever telling you what it looks like, what markings to look for, etc., how would you know when you found it?

[straydog02]

"I actually hope you're kidding."

Funny how you keep posting the same sorry excuses that you've read on web site like clavius, whose sole purpose is to debunk the Apollo Hoax with any lies necessary.

Lunar meteorites were being discovered in the Antarctic long before Apollo 11 pretended to land men on the Moon.

[zakabog]

"Lunar meteorites were being discovered in the Antarctic long before Apollo 11 pretended to land men on the Moon."

I wasn't posting an excuse, I asked a question, how exactly do you find something if you don't know what you're looking for?

Secondary question, got any proof that anyone was finding lunar meteorites in the Antarctic before 1969? Like a newspaper article or a scientific journal claiming that lunar meteorites have been found?

[straydog02]

"I wasn't posting an excuse, I asked a question, how exactly do you find something if you don't know what you're looking for?"

I don't know but I sure found what I was looking for!

Australasian tektites that are identical to the Apollo 12 and 14 glass beads found on the "moon".

[zakabog]

"I don't know but I sure found what I was looking for!

Australasian tektites that are identical to the Apollo 12 and 14 glass beads found on the "moon". "

Cornered with a tough question you quickly change the focus from finding meteorites in Antarctica to talking about Australian tektites.

That's a distraction tactic.

You're claimed that the trip to Antarctica was to find lunar meteorites, so I must know how anyone could find something if they don't know what to look for.

[straydog02]

"Cornered with a tough question you quickly change the focus from finding meteorites in Antarctica to talking about Australian tektites."

That's because when I was researching lunar meteorites, I came across evidence that the Apollo rocks are IDENTICAL to tekitites found on Earth. It seems like everytime I look for proof that Apollo was not faked, I find evidence that it was.

"You're claimed that the trip to Antarctica was to find lunar meteorites,"

According to a Wiki article it was.

[zakabog]

"According to a Wiki article it was."

Wikipedia is a site that can be edited by anyone who clicks edit. The article cited doesn't say the mission was to find meteorites so there was no reason for it to be there in the first place (probably some hoax believer added it in.) Do you have any published documentation (pre 1969 would be perfect since until 1969 no one knew what a lunar rock was) that says the trip to Antarctica was to find lunar meteorites?

[straydog02]

"The article cited doesn't say the mission was to find meteorites so there was no reason for it to be there in the first place (probably some hoax believer added it in.)"

Actually it was the other way around and some Apollo believer deleted that rock collecting reference out later.

"Do you have any published documentation (pre 1969 would be perfect since until 1969 no one knew what a lunar rock was)"

Unfortunately, there isn't any documented evidence of the von Braun expedition online.

[zakabog]

"Actually it was the other way around and some Apollo believer deleted that rock collecting reference out later."

Not the wikipedia article, the citation, the article the entry used as a reference. That article does not mention collecting lunar meteorites.

"Unfortunately, there isn't any documented evidence of the von Braun expedition online."

How about offline?

[straydog02]

"Not the wikipedia article, the citation, the article the entry used as a reference. That article does not mention collecting lunar meteorites."

That's because it has been deleted by somebody who didn't want people to see it.. but lots of people already had seen it and knew it was now missing.

It's being discussed on another chanel somewhere .. I'll link it here if I find that discussion again.

[zakabog]

"That's because it has been deleted by somebody who didn't want people to see it.."

You don't get it, I'm talking about THIS -

"Space Man's Look at Antarctica," Popular Science, Vol. 190, No. 5, May 1967, pp. 114-116, 200.

That article was the one cited as claiming they went looking for lunar meteorites but the Popular Science article does not mention that at all, so that claim is coming purely from the author of the wikipedia entry with no evidence or citation to back it up.

[straydog02]

"How about offline?"

I just remembered that wspaceport sent me a PM with the von Braun geological expedition info, that he got from a book which was written by someone who apparently knew all about his trip to Antarctica.. I'll see if I can find that info.

[straydog02]

cont... The non deleted Wiki reference states that von Braun went to the Antarctic to look for a good place for the Apollo astronots to train.

Yet there is NO evidence anywhere that ever showed that any oof them ever trained in the Antarctic.. Strange huh?

[straydog02]

"so I must know how anyone could find something if they don't know what to look for."

von Braun's trip to Antarctia was a GEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION .. His team knew exactly what they were looking for, it's just that PUBLICLY the "first" lunar meterorite wasn't "discovered" until the late 70's.. That way nobody would suspect that the Apollo rocks were nothing but doctored up lunar meteorites that von Braun's GEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION TEAM brought back from Antarctica.

[zakabog]

"von Braun's trip to Antarctia was a GEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION .. His team knew exactly what they were looking for..."

Yes, I know that's what you claim, but can you explain how they knew what they were looking for? If I showed you 1,000 meteorites would it be possible for you to tell me which one was from an unknown planet?

Or are you suggesting they had secret unmanned missions to the moon to collect moon rocks so they could find lunar meteorites on earth?

[straydog02]

"Yes, I know that's what you claim, but can you explain how they knew what they were looking for?"

No, that wasn't my claim, it's common knowledge that von Braun went there with geological team .. NASA claimed that von Braun went there to "vacation".. but if that's true, then why take a geological team along?

Weird "vacation" to take, right in the middle of developing the Saturn V rocket's manned trip to the Moon, don't ya think?...cont.

[zakabog]

"No, that wasn't my claim, it's common knowledge that von Braun went there with geological team"

Your claim is that they were looking for lunar meteorites. It's still a claim no matter who Von Braun went with, until you find something that says he went their looking for meteorites (or explain some method by which he would know what a lunar meteorite was.)

[straydog02]

"Your claim is that they were looking for lunar meteorites. It's still a claim no matter who Von Braun went with, until you find something that says he went their looking for meteorites.."

You are aware of what GEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION TEAMS do, right?

They DON'T take "vacations", and they DON'T look for "training grounds" for NASA's astronauts, either.. What they do is COLLECT ROCKS AND METEORITES to STUDY.. Or in the case of Apollo, pass off as coming from the Moon.

[zakabog]

"What they do is COLLECT ROCKS AND METEORITES to STUDY.. Or in the case of Apollo, pass off as coming from the Moon."

Ah, so your claim is that they just wanted to find meteorites (not from the moon) to pass off as lunar rocks, and none of the "moon rocks" actually came from the moon?

[straydog02]

"If I showed you 1,000 meteorites would it be possible for you to tell me which one was from an unknown planet?"

No, but then I'm not a professional geologist.

"Or are you suggesting they had secret unmanned missions to the moon to collect moon rocks so they could find lunar meteorites on earth?"

Russia collected moon rocks with their unmanned missions, so it's possible that NASA did the same, during their Apollo simulations.

[zakabog]

"Russia collected moon rocks with their unmanned missions, so it's possible that NASA did the same, during their Apollo simulations."

But it seems to be implied from what I've seen of this video that Jarrah believes the Russians faked their rock collecting missions. So was it impossible to collect rocks and bring them back? If not, how long before 1965 was the mission? They would of needed time to analyze the rocks before the expedition to know what to tell Werner Von Braun to look for.

[Focoist911]

Jarrah, "believes" something? You kooks like believing in things dont you? I guess you never revocered from the Santa Clause hoax either.

Wankers like you Zakabog trolling the internet you little jew schill.

[zakabog]

"No, but then I'm not a professional geologist."

Okay let me make this easier for you to understand. Draw me a picture of an unknown planet. It must look really similar to the unknown planet, well of course scaled down to fit a reasonable frame, 6"x6".

Can you do it accurately without knowing what the unknown planet looks like?

[HeadLikeARock]

Re the Wiki article. A quick search through the history of the article shows it was changed at 8:04 on 2 Jan 2008, because the cited article contains no reference to gathering meteorites.

I have a copy of the article (not to hand) from May 67, and cannot recall any mention of meteorite hunting. Greenmagoos also has the article, I'm sure he can confirm this.

The only mystery is where the claim came from originally.

[supacool69]

It's amazing how easily scientists are willing to believe in their own invented "evidence".

[straydog02]

I had that exact same debate with wspaceport once .. He told me that von Braun never collected any meteorites on his trip to the Antarctic, but only went there to see if it would be a good place for the Apollo astronots to train.. So when I posted that Wikipedia reference, stating Von Braun's real purpose for making that geological expedition was to gather moon rocks for Apollo and that the astros never trained there, he said that whoever wrote that article was a lying moon hoax believer!.. LOL

[Aurinkohirvi]

That the articles in Wikipedia were re-written to hide the von Braun expediton's real purpose, shows it's these Apollo defenders who also can write wikipedia articles.

And of course it is! If you tend to fool the masses, control the mass media! And Wikipedia is definately one.

[straydog02]

"And of course it is! If you tend to fool the masses, control the mass media! And Wikipedia is definately one."

Unfortunately when it comes to Apollo, there is now more NASA disinformation spread across the internet, than there are sites exposing the hoax.. I'm afraid that soon the internet will be as controlled as the American news media is.

[Aurinkohirvi]

straydog02: "I'm afraid that soon the internet will be as controlled as the American news media is."

Yep. Without anarchy in the Internet, goodbye free speech, hello official Big Money truth!

[pt1gard]

if my man jarrah says u have used multiple names, then u have :)

[zakabog]

"...this finding eliminates the possibility that they are of lunar origin"

No it doesn't... the earth has water yet it remained molten during the entire period that the moon was formed and survived the same explosion, the only difference is that when the earth was done cooling it had enough mass to retain an atmosphere and keep the water from evaporating off. The amount of water left in the rocks shows that it's very likely they came from the moon and cooled before all the water could escape.

[un4g1v3n1]

Go to segment 5 Zak and wake up from your Apollo hypnosis!!!

[zakabog]

"...as we've just demonstrated there is indeed water in the moon rocks"

Yes but it was in such small amounts that it remained undetected for over 40 years. Which would fully support the theory that the water (most of it) was vaporized.

[zakabog]

"...all rocks contained minerals common to earth"

Asteroids contain minerals common to earth. Does that mean all asteroids are from earth?

According to a quote from your last video -

"and common substances such as clay minerals that are ubiquitous on Earth are TOTALLY ABSENT IN MOON ROCKS."

The minerals the rocks DO contain are common to earth, but that does not mean the rocks contain every common mineral found in rocks on earth.

[pt1gard]

how many diff IDs have you used on utube, shill?

[zakabog]

"how many diff IDs have you used on utube, shill?"

I'm confused, I've been using the same ID on youtube for over two and a half years. I don't exactly understand your point or why you think I use more than one ID. Well okay there is Zakab0g which I created because someone blocked my other name (zakabog) from posting comments to their videos.

[zakabog]

Moon rocks do completely lack signs of alteration by water, that statement is not completely incorrect, although I must ask, why are you useing statements from random youtube users and people who are not geologists when discussing a study on moon rocks? Are you afraid the geologists are going to prove you're wrong when comparing moon rocks to earth rocks?

[un4g1v3n1]

5:33

All those facts together can be easily explained once the collective ignorance of believing in Apollo is removed from peoples consciousness. And the rocks are viewed as having come from Earth in the first damn place. How long will the public refuse to look at all of the facts, and wake up? Thank you for posting this Jarrah! It's up to people to watch it now!

[zakabog]

"All those facts together can be easily explained once the collective ignorance of believing in Apollo is removed from peoples consciousness."

They can better be explained by the recent discovery of very small traces of water in the moon rocks which Jarrah so kindly pointed out in this new video series. Since that would explain every factor of the moon rocks plus fit with the current theories on the formation of the moon, without requiring any advanced moon rock creating technology.

[un4g1v3n1]

Your Apollo world is falling apart at the seams with the excuses you've relied on for too long now! Get ready to explain why you have perpetuated propaganda to defend the treasonous acts of Von Braun and the NAZI scientists responsible for ripping off American Taxpayers. The day is coming Zak. Hope you have a decent excuse for your treasonous propaganda spewing!

[zakabog]

"Your Apollo world is falling apart at the seams with the excuses you've relied on for too long now!"

What excuses? The water was just discovered the middle of last year and Jarrah JUST made this video. I'm only explaining the content in this video so how on earth could I have used any of these "excuses" for too long?

[un4g1v3n1]

Your list of excuses are so long, I cannot fathom where I should begin. How about major solar flares not occuring during Apollo missions for a start. NGDC will settle that for you. But I suppose you have no intention of enlightening yourself in that department either. This video series proves, conclusively that Apollogists like plait and windley are liars. It also proves, if you move on to segment 5, that the rocks do not match up with current study of lunar material discovered by ESA!

[zakabog]

"How about major solar flares not occuring during Apollo missions for a start."

Oh I thought you were actually having a conversation relevant to the comments on this video. I said no major solar particle events, although we've already established you don't know the difference.

"if you move on to segment 5, that the rocks do not match up with current study of lunar material discovered by ESA!"

I think it's more likely that I'll find the ESA was looking at rocks from elsewhere on the moon.

[zakabog]

"I think it's more likely that I'll find the ESA was looking at rocks from elsewhere on the moon."

Ah, sorry I was wrong, they just dug deeper than Apollo.

[straydog02]

"Ah, sorry I was wrong, they just dug deeper than Apollo."

Ah, sorry but that's one of the lamest excuses you've tried yet. But then I guess the Apollo astroNOTS were too busy hitting golf balls, singing little ditties, carving hearts in the "moondust", and falling down like a pack of silly frat boy clowns on a romp, to bother to take proper core samples or test the radiation on the lunar surface!

You're just one of NASA's Cyborgs, parroting the same meaningless disinformation they all do.

[zakabog]

"Ah, sorry but that's one of the lamest excuses you've tried yet."

SMART-1 went 10 meters deep, Apollo went half a meter, soil is different as you dig down. How can you consider that an excuse?

[straydog02]

"SMART-1 went 10 meters deep, Apollo went half a meter, soil is different as you dig down. How can you consider that an excuse?"

Let me put it this way so you might grasp what I'm saying.. The Apollo samples have MORE in common with common Earth rocks, and NOTHING in common with the REAL lunar samples recently retrieved by Smart 1.

That might not send up any red flags for a NASA Cyborg like you, but it sure sends up some big red flags for a hoax believer like me.

[zakabog]

"The Apollo samples have MORE in common with common Earth rocks, and NOTHING in common with the REAL lunar samples recently retrieved by Smart 1."

Care to show me any published document that says the analysis of Lunar soil from SMART-1 shows it being nothing like the soil from Apollo?

By the way, SMART-1 didn't retrieve samples, it slammed into the ground at a high speed and sent back data on the composition of the soil it impacted. It collected no samples, and brought nothing back.

[straydog02]

"Care to show me any published document that says the analysis of Lunar soil from SMART-1 shows it being nothing like the soil from Apollo?"

You did watch this video explaining how scientists have determined that the Smart 1 samples don't match the Apollo "moon" rocks, right?

"By the way, SMART-1 didn't retrieve samples, it slammed into the ground at a high speed and sent back data on the composition of the soil it impacted."

Right and none of that data matched any of the Apollo "data".

[zakabog]

"You did watch this video explaining how scientists have determined that the Smart 1 samples don't match the Apollo "moon" rocks, right?"

I watched the video I was told was proof that the rocks don't match, that was part 5. If that's wrong then please direct me to the part where the scientists say the rocks are nothing like the rocks found on Apollo.

"Right and none of that data matched any of the Apollo "data"."

I've not seen that claim anywhere in parts 1, 2, or 5. What part is it in?

[straydog02]

"Right and none of that data matched any of the Apollo "data"."

I've not seen that claim anywhere in parts 1, 2, or 5. What part is it in?"

By data I meant the info on the mineral content in the Smart 1 lunar samples, compared to the lack of them in the Apollo ones.

[zakabog]

"By data I meant the info on the mineral content in the Smart 1 lunar samples, compared to the lack of them in the Apollo ones."

Oh, of course, and it's in no way possible that the Apollo missions didn't find every single mineral on the moons surface and that the SMART-1 mission found a handful of new minerals along with all of the old ones?

Did anyone ever make the claim that they were expecting SMART-1 to find exactly the same minerals they found in the Apollo rocks?

[straydog02]

"Did anyone ever make the claim that they were expecting SMART-1 to find exactly the same minerals they found in the Apollo rocks?"

I have no idea what scientists expected to find with the Smart 1 data, but I would think that at least some of the mineral content data should match some of the Apollo rocks, seeing as they all allegedly came from the same small natural satellite.

[zakabog]

"I have no idea what scientists expected to find with the Smart 1 data, but I would think that at least some of the mineral content data should match some of the Apollo rocks"

Some of it probably does, no one said that none of the minerals were the same, just that it uncovered new minerals. If it found 100 minerals and 98 of them were found on Apollo, then that would be considered finding new (2) minerals.

[straydog02]

"Some of it probably does, no one said that none of the minerals were the same"

The scientists said that the Smart 1 samples were nothing like the Apollo rocks and that they contained minerals not found in the Apollo rocks.. I'm afraid it doesn't get an clearer than that.

[zakabog]

"The scientists said that the Smart 1 samples were nothing like the Apollo rocks"

Where do they say that? I've asked numerous times and you've yet to show me where they say the samples were nothing like the Apollo rocks.

"and that they contained minerals not found in the Apollo rocks.."

Like I said, if they found only 2 new minerals then they've found minerals not found in the Apollo rocks. Finding new minerals only proves that Apollo didn't find every mineral on the moon.