Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
One thing that distinguishes earth rocks from moon rocks is the high concentration of solar
isotopes in the moon rocks.
Some isotopes are produced chiefly by near constant exposure to the solar wind, occasional
solar flares and the ever-present cosmic rays.
Earth rocks are protected from this radiation by the earth's magnetic field and the atmosphere.
One of the more interesting solar isotopes that Jarrah picked up on is Helium-3, which
only occurs in trace amounts on earth.
Jarrah: First of all, it is not only the outer layer that contains Helium-3.
It's the inside too.
Narrator: "Nine years after Apollo 17 returned to earth, scientists discovered the moon rocks
the astronauts collected contained something far more valuable than gold.
Inside them was a substance called Helium-3."
Jarrah misses the fact that the moon rocks themselves contain relatively little Helium-3
compared to the lunar regolith.
The weak-bonded Helium-3 in moon rocks is produced by radiation from occasional solar
flares that permeates the top few centimeters and from cosmic rays that penetrate up to
three to five meters into the rocks.
The high concentration of strong-bonded Helium-3 in the lunar regolith is produced by the persistent
solar wind ions that attain much shallower penetration.
And I hate to contradict 60 Minutes, but the presence of Helium-3 was originally reported
at the Second Lunar Science Conference in 1971.
Then in 1985, thirteen years after the return of the last Apollo mission, engineering students
at the University of Wisconsin discovered that the samples of lunar regolith they were
investigating contained significant quantities of Helium-3.
This second discovery intrigued scientists, because, Helium-3 could be used as a clean
fuel source for nuclear fusion reactors.
The amount of Helium-3 estimated to be trapped in the lunar regolith could supply the entire
world's energy needs for hundreds or possibly even a thousand years or more, while producing
no radioactive byproducts.
Jarrah: Because Helium-3 can be found inside the rock, as well as on the outside, chipping
away the outer surface wouldn't lose anything.
It's the same case with traces of cosmic radiation.
Cosmic rays would be found on the inside, as well as on the outside, because they can
penetrate several meters of material.
This is like saying you can turn a cat into a dog if you put the right ears on him.
It's no more than a bare assertion fallacy.
The idea that you could chip away the thin layer of fusion crust from a meteorite and
manufacture rocks resembling those in NASA's collection is ludicrous.
Sculptors, for instance, use calcite rocks like marble because they are relatively soft
and they don't split along crystal planes like the harder minerals found in moon rocks -
feldspar being a good example.
The ceramist, whom Jarrah refers to, would obviously leave tool marks in the rocks.
Sculptors sometimes refer to these marks as "bruised stone" and they are caused by
burrs or imperfections on the hardened tool that cut grooves
or scratches into the newly exposed rock surface.
These marks are easily visible under low power magnification.
And it would be almost impossible for the tool not to leave traces of itself behind on the rock
in the form of metallic dust, flakes and fragments.
Such trace evidence would stand out like a sore thumb to even to a non-geologist.
Jarrah also overlooks that fact that removing the fusion crust would subsequently remove
a large portion of the Helium-3, which occurs in the highest concentration near the outer
surface of the meteroites.
And he totally ignores the fact that the mineralogy, chemical composition, and oxygen isotope ratios
of meteorites are different than the moon rocks and chipping away the fusion curst doesn't
magically make them the same.
Jarrah: Again, chipping away the outer surface would not remove evidence of cosmic rays found
inside the meteorites.
Second, if NASA wanted to lace their fake moon rocks with helium-3, they could have
obtained this isotope from nuclear materials.
In total, the Apollo astronauts, allegedly brought back 382 kilograms of rock.
Fifteen tons of Helium-3 would be more than enough to apply to NASA's fake moon rocks.
First off, Helium-3 is not the only solar isotope found in moon rocks.
The isotopes Neon-21 and Argon-38 are two other solar isotopes that are used to calculate
the cosmic ray exposure age of moon rocks.
And there are several other isotopes and isotope ratios that can be used to "authenticate"
the origin of the moon rocks.
Ignoring these other characteristic isotopes found in lunar samples is a fallacy of omission.
Secondly, the amount of Helium-3 on earth has NOTHING to do with the Helium-3 found
in moon rocks and lunar regolith.
This is a red herring fallacy.
Apparently someone has data showing that there is only 15 tons of Helium-3 on the earth.
That number is quoted in many places, including this Daily Galaxy article.
I've seen estimates much higher than this in other places, but who cares.
And, just where is this Helium-3 anyway?
Is it sitting in a gas cylinder in some warehouse somewhere, ready to use, or is it still buried
in the earth's mantle?
All the Helium-3 in the world isn't going to do anyone any good if it's stuck in rock
that's buried under the earth's crust or at the bottom of the ocean.
But what difference does it make?
It's irrelevant.
Thirdly, how do you suppose NASA put all that Helium-3 into those fake moon rocks?
Jarrah doesn't offer [us] a clue.
Dr. David McKay said that 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 cosmic ray exposure.
And while direct exposure to atmospheric Helium-3 might "contaminate" the surface of some
earth rocks, there would be no penetration - no Helium-3 inside the rocks.
So, how did NASA do it?
Did they use their magic oven?
That seems to be the only plausible explanation.
Because, unless you're an actual moon rock, sitting on the surface of the moon, being
constantly punished by either solar or deep-space cosmic radiation, the only way you could produce
Helium-3 is by breaking down some larger element already present in the rock.
And fourthly, even if they started with 382 kilos of rock AND soil from, let's say,
the top of Mount Everest, where you would find the highest levels of solar radiation
to begin with, those rocks already have exposure ages of "a few" million years, simply
soaking them in a nuclear reactor for another ten years wouldn't change their exposure
age very much.
According to papers that were presented at the Second Lunar Science Conference in 1971,
the exposure age of one sample was on the order of 67 million years.
And another sample was estimated through cross-sectioning to be between 63 million years at the top
surface, due to solar flares, and 144 million years deeper into the rock, thanks to super-penetrating
cosmic rays.
And the Neon-21 and Argon-38 tests gave similar ages.
The tests that these scientists performed in the 1970's would have easily uncovered
ANY artificially induced Helium-3.
This cosmic ray exposure age, which measures the age of newly formed solar isotopes, should
not be confused with the age of the moon rocks as determined by radiometric dating, which
looks at isotopes that were present when the rock was first crystallized.
Using that testing the youngest moon rocks brought back by Apollo are as old as some
of the oldest existing rocks on earth.
So, at the end of the day, we find that doping earth rocks with Hellium-3 to duplicate an
exposure age over 60 million years would simply be impossible.
Also, meteorites found on earth have different oxygen isotope ratios and contain hydrous
minerals, not found in moon rocks.
And chipping away fusion crust from meteorites collected on earth doesn't change the DIFFERENCES
found INSIDE them.
And the fallacies just keep on coming.
Ciao moon hoax conspirators, wherever you are.