MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 3.

[ElGatoLoco698]

Why are you using Wikipedia as your source? You said Plait used Wikipedia and blasted him for it.

[soupofdefish]

It's so funny to hear them change from one story to another. There the same, no there absolutly differnt, yes the moon has no water, no the moon has water. Yes no maybe aww hell with it....lmao.....JW keep on keepin on.....

[LunarTuner]

More thoughts: one can chip away at the outer layer of a meteorite, but it's still going to contain isotope ratios of several elements that clearly identify it as being neither earthen or lunar. I'm sure even non-NASA geologists know this.

JW, explain exactly how one chips away at a rock to carve it into a moon rock without a geologist seeing recognizing it? Just how? How does one infuse He 3 into a rock? It took millions of years of cosmic rays. Do you have unique knowledge of some process?

[LunarTuner]

JW, you doubted Wikipedia as a reliable source at 1 point, but used it at another.

Yes, the moon rocks are absolutely unique. Almost every rock in the universe contains similar basic elements and compounds. That DOESN'T mean they are ALL the SAME. O2 ratio is not the only ratio! You're discussing 2 or 3 similarities and ignoring HUNDREDS of differences between earth and moon rocks--namely in proportions of element--the main criteria geologists us to distinguish rocks in the first place.

[LunarTuner]

How does "a few meteorites" in 1912 make Antarctica "a haven" in 1969?

Frankly, I think Plait could be wrong here. I see NO record (except from hoax conspiracists) that Von Braun came back with ANY meteorites (lunar or other) in 1966. It's a wives' tale as far as I can see.

JW, I know lunar samples have the same 02 isotope ratio and minute traces of H2O, but can you explain why we glossed over the many other VERY DIFFERENT isotopes and the completely unique quantities of elements?

[yourboycal]

"But, it turns out, solid evidence for water on the moon was under our noses the whole time." - Nationalgeographic dot com

=*(. Why pull our chains nasa! why! I wanna believe we landed on the moon but the lie after lie after lie after lie makes it extremly hard! How many conspiracy theorists did we tell to F*k off when they said moon rocks were just like earths . Arg! but they were right on that point.

[intheblues]

dude, who is that reading the passages in your videos? Please find someone else or read it yourself. :| Sorry but it's horrible. I like your videos but this is so anoying

[euro944t]

That's Jew Gold in moon rocks

[shorty962]

please, PLEASE, kill the guy that talks at

2:39. his voice is the reason there are is starvation in africa.

[gonyea12]

Dude, breath then talk.

[tkw251070]

cont'd: An ideal place to do conduct analysis without secondary contamination. Again, taking headlines of science for the masses and using them to draw your own conclusions to fit with your theory. Can you offer detail about differences between the methods used to analyse the moon rocks here on Earth and the ESA experiment? I can point you to papers in other areas of physics that contradict. Your reporting style reminds me of the the toxin and Salmon scare in the UK that cost 100s of jobs.

[Focoist911]

If your loved one died, you would probably get them stuffed and put them in your kitchen and continue to pretend they are still alove, talking to them, hugging them...its pathetic. Its actually tragic what the jews have so successfully done in dumbing the goy down to this level of neanderthal stupidity and foolishness.

[tkw251070]

Jarrah: When the moon rocks were brought back from the moon, the methods for working out the RA of isotopes were very crude. Have you any idea how difficult is is to work out RA of isotopes. You only need a little bit of contamination and you can reach the wrong conclusion. 40 year hence, techniques have changed which shed new light. It's called science. Also, the ESA craft spewed up rock from below the surface of the moon. It also spat it out in a vacuum.

[Focoist911]

The russians brought rocks back from the moon didn't they?

You people just will never get it right? They couldn't send MEN to the fucking moon. GET IT? So they FAKED IT because the Russians had already beaten them on 9 other space firsts.

They totally had the institutional setup to fake it. The Apollo missions were top secret in the R&D.

[tkw251070]

Wow, Jarrah is quoting from Wikipedia now, I'm convinced. Also, 15 tonnes of Helium 3 on Earth, he is again quoting scientists in the wrong way. It's an estimate of the total. Scientists estimate the mass of Astatine in the Earth to be 1 oz, that's the total amount. 15 tonnes of Helium 3 does not mean it is all in one place. It's an estimate based on the amount in the atmosphere. That makes it rare. Has Jarrah any idea how difficult it is to rarefy Helium, let alone separate Helium isotopes?

[tkw251070a]

I'm sorry Jarrah, but I agree with SecretSquare. Most of your videos are based around high level news reports or docos; most of which have their own agendas, sensationalise or present science for the masses. You also tend to home in on badly phrased sentences or even odd words in emails to spin things to meet your agenda. Really, put a stop to this mate, it's really dire and in scientific terms awful, really awful. You obviously have some great talents, but not in critical science. Please!!!!

[straydog02]

"I'm sorry Jarrah, but I agree with SecretSquare."

But of course you do! .. You must have been assigned to pretend to debunk ALL of Jarrah's hoax evidence on ALL of his videos... Can you Apollogist/propagandists be any more obvious?

[tkw251070]

I've been assigned have I? How did you reach that conclusion? Yet another CT answer me thinks. Do you see what CT thinking does to your mind? Maybe I'm just some guy that thinks we did land on the moon and want to debunk the ludicrous hoax proponents. Let's think - can you do that? You accuse the US government of hoaxing the moon landings. If they were that powerful they'd pull the plug on this wouldn't they? Surely???? Answer that. Let's guess, there won't be an answer.

[straydog02]

"I've been assigned have I? How did you reach that conclusion?"

Your overly obsessive "debunking" comments on so many of Jarrah's videos was my first clue... Your ability to blow so much hot air about nothing important, was another.

"Maybe I'm just some guy that thinks we did land on the moon and want to debunk the ludicrous hoax proponents."

Maybe, but my guess is that you're part of NASA's very long arm of think tank disinformation.

[straydog02]

"Let's think - can you do that?"

Only when I'm not chewing gum at the same time.

"You accuse the US government of hoaxing the moon landings. If they were that powerful they'd pull the plug on this wouldn't they? Surely???? Answer that."

Why would NASA pull the plug on "this" when they have guys like you to defend them?.. It's just all part of the game.

"Let's guess, there won't be an answer."

Looks like you guessed wrong.

[tkw251070]

Hahaha, a few days of commenting on moon hoax videos and I'm accused of being obsessive and a NASA informant. Seen your name posted over lots of similar vids, so you have no right to call me obsessive after a few days. And the way you referred to Jarrah, how sweet and endearing. You are obviously comfortable in your own community aren't you, but don't like the challenge of others? Secondly, I do not work for NASA. At least you gave me answer to my question. The first for a moon hoax advocate.

[tkw251070]

Oh, as for calling me obsessive, don't you think Jarrah, greeny et al are a bit obsessive too?

Just reading an article on MARIE and how it measured that on a 30 month mission to Mars, astronauts would still be in safe radiation limits. Data taken in 2001.

I'm off out now, to go and talk to real people who live and breathe in front of me, and not my imaginary friends on YouTube.

[SerpoEban]

Jarrah

I have to say man this is very compelling evidence you have presented here. Your presentation is excellent. Ive been in numerous arguments about this and Ive always gotten stuck on the reflectors which like you siad is commonly used to debunk the whole thing. Thats puts some extra ammo in my arsenal now, lol. I think your doing a great job brother, keep it up.

[LunaCognita]

Great job as always Jarrah!

[ImTheSecretSquare]

As for the isotopes part, this is simple. No, the "isotopes" they are referring to on the ESA mission are not oxygen. The article is about the D-CIXS, an instrument to measure magnesium, silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, and titanium on the Lunar surface.

Of course, Jarrah deliberately did not mention that. The entire "Moonfaker" series has a single theme -- present small pieces of single stories as imagined "contradictions", without doing the slightest bit of research to resolve them.

[WhiteJarrah]

The Moonfaker series' theme is to be available as a resource for counter information against the lies and misrepresentation of facts plaguing sites like Bad Astronomy and Clavius.

Three people calling me a liar in one day, what next? I have a very limited tolerance level for people who call me a liar without a shred of evidence to back it up. You have 48hrs to retract it or you will not be seen posting here again.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"I have a very limited tolerance level for people who call me a liar without a shred of evidence to back it up."

I'm sorry, I retract my statement. It was said in frustration.

Nonetheless, I would still say that you are conflating numerous different articles with little understanding of them. There are both similarities and differences between Moon rocks and Earth rocks, that's why the different quotes. As I say, you present "contradictions" and do no research to resolve them.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

As for the helium-3 part, Jarrah, as usual, is simply using his own made-up interpretation of a high-level news report. Helium-3 is not found on the inside of Moon rocks, it adheres to the outside. Moon rocks are all volcanic, and helium will not dissolve in magma.

Then Jarrah talks about how traces of "cosmic radiation" wouldn't be found, when the original article said SOLAR WIND. These are TOTALLY different, and really belies how he knows absolutely nothing about science.

[WhiteJarrah]

"Helium-3 is not found on the inside of Moon rocks, it adheres to the outside."

If helium3 cannot be found on the inside of the rocks, why are their proposals to mine it on the moon - which means tunneling underground to dig it up on a large scale?

As for the radiation, read Opik's article. He's talking about shielding astronauts from solar AND cosmic radiation.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"why are their proposals to mine it on the moon - which means tunneling underground to dig it up on a large scale?"

"Mining" does not exclusively mean tunneling underground. Mining helium-3 would take the form of strip-mining. It is within the soil, adhering to the rocks.

"He's talking about shielding astronauts from solar AND cosmic radiation."

First off, it's still solar wind, not radiation, second, the 'nauts didn't return rocks six feet deep anyway.

[WhiteJarrah]

""Mining" does not exclusively mean tunneling underground."

Yet there are proposals for such underground expeditions.

Why is it that whenever a conspiracy theorist posts information from a credible source that directly contradicts what you claim, you simply say it's wrong?

[WhiteJarrah]

If you're not gonna trust 60 Minutes, what about China? I don't suppose you've read the GalaxyDaily article I show in this vid? "China has announced plans to map "every inch" of the surface of the Moon and exploit the vast quantities of Helium-3 thought to lie BURIED IN LUNAR ROCKS as part of its ambitious space-exploration program."

"First off, it's still solar wind, not radiation"

The solar wind IS radiation, why else do you think the Van Allen belts exist?

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"China has announced plans to map "every inch" of the surface of the Moon and exploit the vast quantities of Helium-3 thought to lie BURIED IN LUNAR ROCKS"

GalaxyDaily said that, not China. And that doesn't contradict what I'm saying -- helium-3 is found in soil because it is adhering to the grains, and has been buried by millions of years of meteor ejecta. It is not found inside solid rock.

"The solar wind IS radiation"

More importantly, it's atomic nuclei which stick to the rocks.

[WhiteJarrah]

"GalaxyDaily said that, not China. "

They are merely reporting what China has stated - they claim they plan on collecting moonrocks because the rocks themselves are rich in helium3.

"More importantly, it's atomic nuclei which stick to the rocks."

They can still penetrate meters of rock.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"They are merely reporting what China has stated"

There is a big difference between quoting what they stated and reporting what they stated.

"They can still penetrate meters of rock."

No, they can't. You are simply saying that. Please give me a credible source saying atomic nuclei can penetrate meters of rock.

And by the way, you still haven't given me a credible source that says mining helium-3 requires tunneling underground. 60 Minutes didn't say that, nor did GalaxyDaily.

[WhiteJarrah]

"No, they can't. You are simply saying that. Please give me a credible source saying atomic nuclei can penetrate meters of rock."

Atomic nuclei are made up of protons and neutrons, just like GCRs are protons, the solar wind is what the Van Allen belts are mostly made of and as I have emergies of a few hundred MeV to even 10GeV.

Astrophysicist Ernest Opik proposed tunneling 6feet underground to hide from this radiation, but I'm sure he's not a credible enough source for you.

[WhiteJarrah]

"and as I have emergies of a few hundred MeV to even 10GeV."

Typo.

And as I have demonstrated, they have energies of a few hundred MeV to even 10GeV

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"Yet there are proposals for such underground expeditions."

Please provide your source for helium-3 extraction proposals involving tunneling underground.

"Why is it that whenever a conspiracy theorist posts information from a credible source"

What credible source? You simply claimed mining helium-3 required tunneling underground and have provided no source whatsoever.

[WhiteJarrah]

"What credible source?"

I posted a clip from 60 Minutes that states there is helium3 (incidently, the reporter for that special got her info about moon rocks from Jack Schmitt).

I show you the GalaxyDaily article which clearly echoes China's plans of getting helium3 from moonrocks.

These aren't credible sources for you?

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"These aren't credible sources for you?"

No, 60 Minutes is not a credible source for determining whether helium-3 is found inside Lunar rocks or adhering to the surface of soil grains, nor is GalaxyDaily. This is a consistent problem with Moonfaker -- your "science" is entirely high-level news articles. It is not surprising or unusual that news articles about science will have simplifications or outright errors, such as your point about SMART-1. You need to do that extra level of research.

[WhiteJarrah]

"What credible source?"

This is a huge problem you have. No matter what source a conspiracy theorist gives, you simply dismiss it. I'm willing to bet that if Neil Armstrong himself admitted it were a hoax, you'd just say he's gone crazy - Jay Windley certainly said he would!

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"No matter what source a conspiracy theorist gives, you simply dismiss it"

I am not dismissing your evidence, I am saying that you are misinterpreting their words badly.

"Astrophysicist Ernest Opik proposed tunneling 6feet underground to hide from this radiation"

But NOT from large atomic nuclei. Not individual protons but the larger atomic nuclei that can be found in the rocks as the quote in the movie says. Once again, you are reading what you want to believe into things.

[WhiteJarrah]

"I am not dismissing your evidence, I am saying that you are misinterpreting their words badly."

First you dismiss GalaxyGaily and 60 Minutes, then you accuse me of misinterpereting the data. Which is it?

"But NOT from large atomic nuclei."

Do you have any idea what happens to large atomic nuclei when they collide with matter? It shatters into a dangerous spray of secondary particles which burrow deep into the said matter.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"Do you have any idea what happens to large atomic nuclei when they collide with matter? It shatters into a dangerous spray of secondary particles which burrow deep into the said matter."

Yes it does indeed. This is precisely what we see in moon rocks exposed to the surface -- the telltale tracks of heavy nuclei such as iron smashing into the rock. The nuclei do not penetrate meters down -- the radiation does, the nuclei don't.

[WhiteJarrah]

"The nuclei do not penetrate meters down -- the radiation does, the nuclei don't."

Do you even consider what you are saying? The nuclei IS radiation.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"The nuclei IS radiation."

That has nothing to do with it. The secondary radiation generated by the nuclei hitting the surface can potentially go very deep. The actual nuclei, however, do NOT penetrate very deep -- they "shatter" on the surface. It is these tracks that we find on the surface of Moon rocks.

Solar wind heavy nuclei penetrate micrometers, GCR heavy nuclei penetrate centimeters. (Google "GCR penetrating protons".)

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"First you dismiss GalaxyGaily and 60 Minutes, then you accuse me of misinterpereting the data. Which is it?"

You are misinterpreting the data. I did not dismiss them -- you claimed I did. They are entirely correct, they are just simplifying things for a non-technical audience. "In Lunar rocks" is much easier to understand than "in the voids in the Lunar soil".

[WhiteJarrah]

"They are entirely correct, they are just simplifying things for a non-technical audience. "In Lunar rocks" is much easier to understand than "in the voids in the Lunar soil"."

Oh please. School kids know the difference between soil and rock, just what audiences do you think they are trying to appeal to? Toddlers?

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"School kids know the difference between soil and rock, just what audiences do you think they are trying to appeal to"

You are misrepresenting what I said. I'm not saying they don't think their audience knows what soil is, I'm saying that they're not going to specify that the helium-3 is really found in the voids in soil. If it were a show about aquifers, I would not expect them to say "water in the voids in permeable rock", I would expect them to say "water in the ground".

[WhiteJarrah]

"You are misrepresenting what I said."

I beg to differ. They said that there was helium3 inside the rocks, you just claim they meant soil. Now you're are just putting words in peoples' mouths and clutching at straws. I have very limited tolerance for people who simply twist people's words to try and make something support their case when it in fact doesn't.

They found helium3 inside the rock, accept it.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"They found helium3 inside the rock, accept it."

No, they didn't. Google "mobile helium-3 mining", read the first link, it will tell you that helium-3 was found in lunar REGOLITH -- which is lunar soil. They find the most helium-3 in the most finely divided soil -- because, of course, the most finely divided soil has the most surface area for He3 to cling to.

Helium-3 is in soil, not rock. That's why they strip-mine it like tar sands. There's no tunneling involved, no bedrock.

[WhiteJarrah]

"No, they didn't."

And yet Ouyang Ziyuan of China's moon project announced plans to dig up lunar rocks so that they could extract the helium3 from inside.

Oh wait, lemme guess. Not credible enough? He actually meant something else? I've misinterpreted what he said? Which excuse is it this time?

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"And yet Ouyang Ziyuan of China's moon project announced plans to dig up lunar rocks so that they could extract the helium3 from inside."

I just pointed you to a technical presentation by an actual Lunar soil expert on the mechanics of mining helium-3. He unambiguously said that you mine helium-3 from the tiniest particles in Lunar soil. What is your response to that? Is it really simply that someone was paraphrased in a non-technical article as saying it's "in the rocks"?

[WhiteJarrah]

"Is it really simply that someone was paraphrased in a non-technical article as saying it's "in the rocks"?"

A more logical scenario is that they've said something that hurts your case and now you must try to maintain a semblance of correctness by putting words in their mouth.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"A more logical scenario is that they've said something that hurts your case and now you must try to maintain a semblance of correctness by putting words in their mouth."

Fine. In other words, you have no response whatsoever to Dr. Kring's presentation, except to continue to point to non-technical articles and insist that you have interpreted their words correctly, despite the fact that you know so little about the subject that you think helium-3 mining requires tunnels.

[WhiteJarrah]

Why is it so hard for you to accept that there is helium3 on the inside of rocks as well as on the outside?

Think about it for moment.

Regolith is basically powdered moon rock. All the sources I have read explain that lunar helium3 is caused by cosmic rays striking colliding with the helium atoms in rock and soil. Opik clearly states that cosmic rays can penetrate two-meters below ground.

Do you seriously that all these rocks below the outer layer of dust would be devoid of internal helium3?

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"All the sources I have read explain that lunar helium3 is caused by cosmic rays striking colliding with the helium atoms in rock and soil."

Which source is that?

Every source I have read says it's in the solar wind, which deposits it on the surface, where it slowly gets buried by meteor ejecta.

[WhiteJarrah]

"Which source is that?"

Harrison Schmit, "Mining The Moon" October 2004 Popular Science.

"Cosmic rays knock out neutrons from helium, turning it into helium-3. Stray neutrons strike other helium atoms, creating more helium-3."

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"Cosmic rays knock out neutrons..."

The quote in its entirety: "1. Helium is created in the sun. _In space_, helium is struck by cosmic rays. Cosmic rays knock out neutrons from helium, turning it into helium-3. Stray neutrons strike other helium atoms, creating more helium-3. 2. Diverted by Earth's magnetic field, _helium-3 collects on the moon_"

What was it? "I have very limited tolerance for people who simply twist people's words to try and make something support their case"?

[WhiteJarrah]

My patience with you is now at an end. This will be the last straw, I don't suppose you have read the article "Russia, U.S. spar over magic fuel by Gordon Thomas"

In it we find this statement, and if you can't comprehend it may god have mercy on you're soul.

"Enough of the gas (helium3) is buried ___nine feet beneath the surface of the moon___ to provide unlimited power on Earth for 1,000 years."

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"nine feet beneath"

Is this it? Hardly a reputable source, but no worries; if you'll just go to the fourth page of Mining the Moon, he speaks of strip-mining to a depth of, surprise surprise, nine feet.

As I said earlier, it accumulates on the surface and is slowly buried by meteor ejecta. If you'll read the long quote from Mining the Moon he says the same thing. This is exactly what I was saying earlier when I said it was in the voids in the soil.

[WhiteJarrah]

"Is this it? Hardly a reputable source"

I figured you say it, of course what would the writer know? He's only a political analysist who reports on the affairs of the US and Russian governments and space programs.

You've broken the camel's back, no matter what source I give, you just dismiss it. "Oh it's not credible enough, they mean soil, your misinterpreting it." Do you have any idea how lame your excuses sound?

[WhiteJarrah]

You'll find that it is not just GalaxyDaily that reported China's story of there being helium3 in the rocks: Reuters reported it, the Register reported it, it's all over the internet. What? Were they all taking him out of context? Did they all mean soil?

[WhiteJarrah]

I see no further reason to continue pissing match, because no matter what source I give, it'll never be good enough for you. If all 50 lunar geologists came forward and said "Yes there is helium3 inside the rocks" you'd still just claim they mean soil.

Goodbye.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

You know, Jarrah, I really could not have found better evidence for my own argument than "Mining the Moon". I really appreciate this one.

If you'll look on page 3, it says specifically that the helium-3 rides in on the solar wind, and Earth's magnetic field pushes it to the Moon, where "it has accumulated on the surface and been mixed with the debris layer of dust and rock, or regolith, by constant meteor strikes"

This is exactly what I am saying.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"despite the fact that you know so little about the subject that you think helium-3 mining requires tunnels."

Speaking of which, you told me earlier that I was dismissing your credible sources that helium-3 mining requires tunneling underground. However, I never saw your source for that -- neither 60 Minutes nor GalaxyDaily says anything like it. Kring's presentation clearly indicates helium-3 mining is done strip-mining style. Where did you get your information?

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"And yet Ouyang Ziyuan of China's moon project announced plans to dig up lunar rocks so that they could extract the helium3 from inside"

So far as I know, by the way, the "rocks" comment is entirely Daily Galaxy's addition. The word is used before they introduce Ouyang, and he does not reference rocks at any point during the quote. I tried to look at the original article but it is in Chinese. Do you have any reason to believe Ouyang referenced rocks?

[ImTheSecretSquare]

Joe Rogan is wrong -- they did not bring back hundreds of pounds of meteorites from Antarctica. That is simply fundamentally wrong, and what can Phil Plait possibly say about it? Naturally, Jarrah at no point attempts to bolster the information that Joe Rogan claimed. The claim about Antarctica is also false -- before 1969, there was no reason to believe large numbers of meteorites could be found in Antarctica.

[WhiteJarrah]

"The claim about Antarctica is also false -- before 1969, there was no reason to believe large numbers of meteorites could be found in Antarctica."

Except for the fact that meteorites had been collected there since 1912.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

""The claim about Antarctica is also false -- before 1969, there was no reason to believe large numbers of meteorites could be found in Antarctica."

Except for the fact that meteorites had been collected there since 1912."

That would make it the last continent on Earth to have meteorites discovered there by fifty years -- why would that make anyone believe large numbers could be found in Antarctica? There were about 900 known meteorites in 1912.

[ImTheSecretSquare]

"meteorites had been collected there since 1912"

Between 1912 and 1968, according to the UK Natural History Museum's Catalogue of Meteorites, four meteorites were found in Antarctica. One in 1912, one in 1961, one in 1962, and one in 1964. If von Braun had been a secret geologist and wanted to personally look for meteorites for some unknown reason, there would be many more promising and less out-of-the-way places to look for meteorites than Antarctica.

[HeadLikeARock]

Hartmann referred specifically to isotopes of oxygen. McKay didn't specify which element's isotopes he was referring to. Apples and oranges comparison.

[straydog02]

"Hartmann referred specifically to isotopes of oxygen. McKay didn't specify which element's isotopes he was referring to."

If he didn't specify, then how do you know he wasn't referring to the same isotopes?

"Apples and oranges comparison."

Lame.. Is that all you've got?

[HeadLikeARock]

"If he didn't specify, then how do you know he wasn't referring to the same isotopes?"

How do you know he was?

"Lame.. Is that all you've got?"

Nope, it was just an observation.

[straydog02]

NASA scientists did indeed rewrite history.. and unfortunately for us, their "history" is nothing but a complete contradiction to the original history.. In other words, a LIE.

[pt1gard]

looks like plait and wendley are caught lying once again LMAO