Question about J White's moon rock composition

[AstroBrant]

A YouTuber has asked me to comment on WunderBlunder's claims in his moon rocks video series. I really don't know that much about it. He was asking about oxides, etc. Any comments would be helpful.

[Luke Pemberton]

A YouTuber has asked me to comment on WunderBlunder's claims in his moon rocks video series. I really don't know that much about it. He was asking about oxides, etc. Any comments would be helpful.

Where to start? He does not understand oxidation. The first his major blunders is where he argues that 'proponents of the moon landings claim that the moon rocks are unoxidised.' Jarrah creates a strawman: this means that the rocks didn't react with oxygen but this can easily faked by taking a meteorite and chipping away the oxidised outer layers that were created by earth entry. Jarrah does not understand oxidation in the correct context, it means an atom or ion loses electrons. So, in the moon rocks there are only trace quantities of Fe³⁺ - that's another story. Most of the iron is in it elemental state and exists as nano particles or is in the ferrous state Fe²⁺. The high proportion of elemental iron and ferrous iron is rare in Earth rocks as oxygen and water would simply not allow them to exist in the same proportions. In simple terms, moon rocks would rust. Scientists who have studied the moon rocks report Fe³⁺, but also report that it is likely to be from terrestrial contamination. Look how easily a nail forms a veneer of rust when exposed to atmosphere. It's the same with his water claims, where he insists that propagandists say that there is no water in the moon rocks, but water has been found on the moon in situ. He neglects that water found on the moon is in polar regions and the shadows of craters, and scientists aer still debating whether they are observing hydroxyl or adsorbed water (the last time I looked, at least). It has always been reported that water was found in moon samples, but scientists thought it was Earth contamination. Jarrah neglects this too.

Water has also been found in lunar glass beads recently. Jarrah says that this is the smoking gun that NASA have been hiding and the cat has been let of the bag by careless scientists. What Jarrah fails to mention is that SIMS was used to sample the water in the beads which is a much more sensitive technique than used previously (I think it was an infra red technique - need to look it up). A step change in analysis and sampling techniques is revealing new information, that's called progress, right?

In geological terms, rocks that are formed in the presence of water tend to contain large proportions of secondary minerals. There are not large proportions of secondary minerals in moon rocks. If I recall, he found a paper that showed trace amounts of mica in a moon rock, and the created another strawman to attack. He claimed that [we] were telling lies when we said no secondary minerals could be found in moon rocks.

He claims that zap pits from micrometeorite collisions could be created using a gun, and that the He3 present in the moon rocks could have been coated on them using a He3 source.

He claims that because the ratio of oxygen isotopes in earth rocks and moon rocks is similar the moon rocks are Earth rocks mixed in with meteorites. He neglects that the ratio of isotopes for heavier elements is different.

He neglects the absence of lighter elements in the moon rocks. Take the Genesis rock, it's practically at the calcium end of the anorthosites. Why? There's not a great deal of sodium on the moon.

He neglects that glass beads found on the moon show evidence of being created in a low g vacuum, and hold treasures of iron particles that can only be explained by space weathering.

I can go on more and more and more, and there are many here with more expertise than me on this subject.

[Peter B]

...He claims that zap pits from micrometeorite collisions could be created using a gun...

Given the size of zap pits, obviously this is a gun firing little bitty bullets.

[Dalhousie]

A YouTuber has asked me to comment on WunderBlunder's claims in his moon rocks video series. I really don't know that much about it. He was asking about oxides, etc. Any comments would be helpful.

Snip

He claims that because the ratio of oxygen isotopes in earth rocks and moon rocks is similar the moon rocks are Earth rocks mixed in with meteorites.

What does this even mean?

He neglects the absence of lighter elements in the moon rocks. Take the Genesis rock, it's practically at the calcium end of the anorthosites. Why? There's not a great deal of sodium on the moon.

This is not only a good point but is something that was not predicted beforehand.  It could only have been discovered by going there

He neglects that glass beads found on the moon show evidence of being created in a low g vacuum...

Once again, this time with feeling, the low G environment does not, AFAIK, leave an imprint in the rock.  This myth is as persistent as some of the hoaxer ones. 

I can go on more and more and more, and there are many here with more expertise than me on this subject.

You did very well as it is.

I would add the presence of solar wind gases in the regolith samples with unique compositions and isotope ratios, the spattering of impact glass on most surfaces, the presence of agglutinates, the prevalence of breccias and other signs of shock metamorphism such as maskelynite.

[Luke Pemberton]

...He claims that zap pits from micrometeorite collisions could be created using a gun...

Given the size of zap pits, obviously this is a gun firing little bitty bullets.

Precisely, and this was pointed out to him by Phil Webb. He declined to comment. Jarrah takes the line that he proves each of Ralph and Bill's claims, and he can prove this particular Kaysing claim because he found a gun that used compressed gas to fire aluminium pellets at high speed. Phil Webb explained to him the principle of rifling and how the little bitty bullets needed to simulate micrometeorites cannot be fired by a compressed gas gun if the little bitty bullets are much smaller than the diameter of the barrel's gun he found (I think all that makes sense).

[Luke Pemberton]

What does this even mean?

I know, it is utter rubbish.

Once again, this time with feeling, the low G environment does not, AFAIK, leave an imprint in the rock.  This myth is as persistent as some of the hoaxer ones. 

Have I got something incorrect? I understand that the glass beads that Saal et. al. investigated show that they cooled and outgassed very quickly because they formed in a vacuum, and that their roundness was evidence of doing so in low-g. Have I got the latter part wrong, in which case I stand corrected? The fact that the glass beads exist in such abundance at all is evidence that they came from a place where there is little erosion. I might be getting confused here, but I'm beginning to recall that their roundness is attributed to there being no erosion, not low-g?

You did very well as it is.

Thanks.

I would add the presence of solar wind gases in the regolith samples with unique compositions and isotope ratios, the spattering of impact glass on most surfaces, the presence of agglutinates, the prevalence of breccias and other signs of shock metamorphism such as maskelynite.

I've learned a couple of new things here. Thanks.

[Trebor]

There is an excellent source here:
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

While it talks mainly about meteorites it goes into a lot of detail on the mineralogy of lunar rocks.

[Luke Pemberton]

There is an excellent source here:
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

While it talks mainly about meteorites it goes into a lot of detail on the mineralogy of lunar rocks.

Yes, that is a good overview. Jarrah attacked information from a website that was clearly written by an enthusiast to make his case. He likes to pick his sources to suit does Jarrah. Whenever he cites from a professional source they never agree with his position. He used the Saal et. al. paper that was published in Nature, yet there nothing in that paper to suggest that the rocks were not of lunar origin. In fact, the title even used the term 'Lunar' to describe the samples they examined. This is worth a look.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/index.cfm

[JayUtah]

Have I got something incorrect? I understand that the glass beads that Saal et. al. investigated show that they cooled and outgassed very quickly because they formed in a vacuum, and that their roundness was evidence of doing so in low-g.

You're not wrong.

The spherules formed as the result of finely dispersed molten regolith ejected in meteor impacts.  In ballistic trajectories in low gravity, the molten droplets remain effectively in free-fall for quite a while, forming into spheres.  This is how we used to make lead musket balls.  When the land back on the surface, they're glass beads for all intents and purposes.

I read something by Dr. John Keller many years ago about convection patterns in lunar rocks that formed on the surface, in lunar gravity.  I would have to go find my notes to say for sure, but my long-ago memory of the take-away was that yes indeed, you can in some cases tell whether rock solidified in lesser gravity.  Dalhousie, that's not meant to contradict you.  But I think it bears greater scrutiny.

[JayUtah]

Whenever he cites from a professional source they never agree with his position.

He's not the only one to use this technique.  We need a name for it, like "Borrowed Ladder Fallacy" or something.  A lot of fringe rhetoric is based on cherry-picking or invoking a statement from a bona fide expert and then trying to apply it inexpertly to a fringe claim.  Bennett and Percy cite an expert on radioisotopes to argue that the "half-life" of the Van Allen belts after Project Dominic amplified them briefly would have been some number of years.  The method they take from the physicist is correct for radioisotopes, but Bennett and Percy are the ones who wrongly apply it to an agglomeration of charged particles, which has nothing to do with radioisotopic decay.  The Van Allen belts are not composed of radioisotopes.

To me it's a no-brainer:  if you quote an expert and then reason from that expert's statement that some proposition must be true, then you should confirm with the expert that it's a defensible extrapolation from his statement.  Otherwise you're just applying your own judgment (the subsequent reasoning) and attributing it falsely to someone else.  I remember Jarrah tried to cite some solar weather expert at NOAA to support his radiation claims.  I contacted the expert to ask him if he knew what Jarrah had done and whether he believed the Apollo missions were real.  The guy wasn't too pleased, as I recall.

[onebigmonkey]

I have bought several volumes from Lunar Science Conferences that reported on samples and data analyses at the time of the missions - they don't seem to be available online as a whole but individual conference papers might be: all 3 from the 1st one 2/3 from the 2nd one, and 2/3 from the 4th one. They are magnificent things - full of tons of stuff I don't understand. The glass beads get mentioned right from the start!

The idea that secrets have been kept about the Apollo samples is nonsense - it's all out there in lovely paper form and not hard to find.

If anyone wants me to look for anything specific (or even scan a paper) I'd be happy to oblige.

ETA: just bought the missing one from the 4th conference

[AstroBrant]

Thanks all for the feedback. The person who asked me about this goes by the YT username MrBattlestar10. I vouch for him. He is not a hoax nut. I will give link him here in case he wishes to ask questions or just thank people.

[onebigmonkey]

Nice article on lunar water;

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/who-discovered-water-on-the-moon-110774900/?no-ist

[Luke Pemberton]

The spherules formed as the result of finely dispersed molten regolith ejected in meteor impacts.

Spherules, that was the word I was looking for. Thanks.

This is how we used to make lead musket balls.  When the land back on the surface, they're glass beads for all intents and purposes.

I remember being taught the process for making lead shot during an A-level physics lesson many years ago, and reading about this process in the first year of my doctoral studies when examining the surface tension of melts.

I read something by Dr. John Keller many years ago about convection patterns in lunar rocks that formed on the surface, in lunar gravity.  I would have to go find my notes to say for sure, but my long-ago memory of the take-away was that yes indeed, you can in some cases tell whether rock solidified in lesser gravity.  Dalhousie, that's not meant to contradict you.  But I think it bears greater scrutiny.

I recall something similar in response to Kaysing's claims that lunar rocks were made in a ceramics laboratory. The point was raised that if this was the case geologists would tell immediately by examining convection currents. If I recall the argument was that a small sample made in a ceramics lab would not demonstrate the same convection currents as rocks formed by the slow cooling of a larger body.

[Luke Pemberton]

The method they take from the physicist is correct for radioisotopes, but Bennett and Percy are the ones who wrongly apply it to an agglomeration of charged particles, which has nothing to do with radioisotopic decay.  The Van Allen belts are not composed of radioisotopes.

Then they indeed are truly idiots of the 1st class, much like Jarrah and his video series 'Radioactive Anomaly.' It really grates me that he claims to be an expert but decides to title his thundering evidence with an incorrect term, and then when this is pointed out he dismisses the criticism as nit picking. Any 'astro-fizzysist' worth their salt would not make that mistake, yet he openly calls me the 'alledged physicist' and you the 'alledged aerospace engineer.'

To me it's a no-brainer:  if you quote an expert and then reason from that expert's statement that some proposition must be true, then you should confirm with the expert that it's a defensible extrapolation from his statement.  Otherwise you're just applying your own judgment (the subsequent reasoning) and attributing it falsely to someone else.

Mauldin's Prospects for Interstellar Travel, another prime example of citing an expert but not invoking his entire judgement. It's a common tactic. The CTs fall silent when asked if they have checked whether their source also thinks Apollo was hoaxed.

I remember Jarrah tried to cite some solar weather expert at NOAA to support his radiation claims.  I contacted the expert to ask him if he knew what Jarrah had done and whether he believed the Apollo missions were real.  The guy wasn't too pleased, as I recall.

You mentioned this annoyance at another thread. Real experts have better things to do than be bothered with addressing the claims of cranks. If I recall you thought he was annoyed at being cited by Blunderwonder, and annoyed that you bothered him.