Look Who it Was Random video

MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 3, Apollo Samples, Meteorites & Tektites. PART 3

1,190 views · Published 13 June 2011 · 12:55 · Indexed 4 November 2026

Channel: Jarrah White · 2011 · Science & Technology

Watch on YouTube

As pointed out in the previous video, the data NASA released from Surveyor indicated that moon rocks contains the same proportions of the same elements found in terrestrial basalts and eucrites. And subsequent to the return of the alleged moon rocks, further comparisons have been made.

Much the same way terrestrial igneous rocks and Apollo samples have similar chemistry and mineralogy, such similarities have also been noticed in HED meteorites (Eucrites, Howardites and Diogenites). So similar are these rocks that there have subsequently been cases of eucrites initially identified as lunar meteorites and vice versa. To account for the identical characteristics between HED meteorites, moon rocks and terrestrial igneous rocks, some have proposed that the mars-sized planet that supposedly struck the earth was identical in composition to the HED meteorites and that the moon inherited some of the impactor's composition (Rusicka et al).

More likely is that NASA used both types of rock as ingredients for their fake moon samples. Just as I theorized in MoonFaker Exhibit D, NASA's rocks are in fact a combination of terrestrial rocks and meteorites. The advantage of adding meteorite materials to earth materials is that they show evidence of solar and cosmic radiation that is absent in the latter.

Since the release of MoonFaker Exhibit D, I have also received quite a lot of emails from people informing me of the lunar origin theory of tektites. Although the majority of scientists believe tektites were formed on earth during meteorite impacts, there are other scientists (such as NASA's John O'Keefe) who believe tektites are of lunar origin because of their similarities to the high-silica glasses found in the Apollo samples and even the lunar spherules. Samples 12013 and 14425 are good examples.

Playing his usual word games, Webb objects to my theory that meteorites were used by insisting that all non-lunar meteorites have different oxygen isotope ratios to the Apollo samples. Had he bothered to research this or even understood the diagrams he randomly flashes on screen, he would have known this is false. Although generally having slightly less values of Oxygen17 and Oxygen18, there are known examples of HED meteorites that have the same oxygen isotope ratios as Apollo samples. These include DaG 872, Cachari-1 and Melrose.

Webb then muddies my statement "the only materials (in Apollo rocks) that are uncommon to earth are also common place with meteorites". He alleges this statement is a bare assertion fallacy unrelated to any previous statement I made. It is very related, the materials I was referring to were the ones that show evidence of cosmic ray exposure - which is also a characteristic of meteorites. This is obvious to anyone who watches my videos in context.

Webb then again resorts to plagiarism of Randy L. Korotev's website and changing the scope. Much the same way Korotev only compared the Apollo samples with terrestrial sedimentary rocks, the only meteorites he compared them to were chondrites. Once again, it is apparent that Webb either didn't understand the information he copy and pasted, or deceptively destroyed the exception. Much the same way he tried to apply the characteristics of terrestrial sedimentary rocks to terrestrial rocks in general; Webb tries to apply the characteristics of chondrites to non-lunar meteorites in general.

The rest of his video is cherry-picking selected clips from Exhibit D that he can then use out of context as part of his strawman arguments.
          First with my evidence of NASA, ESA and the BBC turning around and claiming that the analysis of the rock samples led scientists to doubt giant impact theory, despite previously claiming the exact opposite in 1999.
          And then when I point out that William Hartmann has unwittingly confirmed my theory: as it turns out the "lunar" meteorites he refers to in his book are in fact different to the rock found by SMART-1. And he continues to deny the presence of hydrous minerals in the Apollo samples despite evidence to the contrary.

Webb is simply incapable of keeping anyone in context and sticking with the facts.

More from this channel