The
"Did We Land On
The Moon Controversy".
The Boggy Creek Collection of Meteorite Finds.
February 8, 2003
by S. Ray
DeRusse
updated
October 2007.
Numerous individuals have expressed a profound interest in finding out
through Internet resources, whether or not Americans
actually landed on the Moon. These searches go back to " the beginning
of the Internet and stretch back to "the original lunar
landing(s)".
BCC Meteorites, using hard copy printed materials and analysis of
meteorites in the lab as a launching pad
can make the following assumptions and conclusions based on years of
studying both the purported landings and NASA, the agency making the
claim(s). Based on all of the information available and personal
knowledge of a plethora of scientific misconduct by falsification and
fabrication by NASA funded scientists we make the following
conclusion(s);
A) BCC Meteorites has found substantial valid
evidence to show that NASA
landed
humans on the Moon in July of 1969.
B) BCC Meteorites has not found
the necessary evidence to confirm any lunar landings after July of
1969, or the evidence is scant, flimsy, or non-existent.
C) Conclusion B is bolstered by evidence of scientific
misconduct in such things as mis-identification of the Takysie Lake
lunar sample, which was the result of a combination of motive and
opportunity on the part of agency scientists, and set in motion for the
purpose of not disturbing the Apollo program. According to Steve
Shoner, Dr. Ninninger insisted to his last breath that he had found
a lunar meteorite strewn field in Canada. In 2002 BCC Meteorites
was given an opportunity to examine a batch of samples sent by
Shoner of AMS, and we discovered Dr. Ninninger was
correct. He did find a lunar meteorite strewn field. Except for
terrestrial contaminants one of the samples examined matches the Apollo
sample mean composition with a good figure of merit.
D) In 2000 an agency scientist, Dr. Everett K. Gibson operating out of
the Johnson Space Center, intentionally mis-identified yet
another
lunar meteorite sample BCC9601, as part of a program seeded by UT
Austin
scientist
Dr. Mark Cloos and others, to advance an agenda of scientific
misconduct, greed, fraud, and discrimination all having
non-scientific financial and political-social underpinnings.
E) This finding alone shows the Agency is
capable of misconduct exceeding ordinary parameters and there is no
evidence to show otherwise.
In 2003, when the Agency became aware that BCC Meteorites was
about to expose massive scientific misconduct by their funded
academics, they issued CFR-1275
(Investigation of Research Misconduct) for discussion and comment. BCC
Meteorites commented to the Agency and The House Science Committee none
of whom responded, which is what you would expect from
organizations and individuals with something to hide. Several months
later in
October of 2003, the Agency filed CFR-1275
into the Federal Register without comment. It
turns out, CFR-1275 was a smoke screen constructed for the sole
purpose of clearing NASA of any wrongdoing should the DoJ decide to
prosecute the scientists whom NASA was covertly encouraging to commit
scientific misconduct by falsifiaction and fabrication. As a result of
C and D above, other substantial evidence exists to show the Agency is
an active
participant in routine intentional, extra-terrestrial geologic
sample misappropriation
and/or misidentifcation to achieve a vast array of specific
political,
non-scientific goals. S. Ray DeRusse
In 1982, James A. Michener published through Random
House a book titled, SPACE. The reader is encouraged to read this book
with particular emphasis on pages 419 and 429 for possible answers
regarding the purported lunar landings.
"In the Spring of 1979 I was appointed to
the NASA Advisory Council, which advises NASA, and there I met
repeatedly with men who conducted our space effort, and visited several
times the great NASA bases at which the work was done. I was allowed to
particpate in the full life of the agency. I did this uninterruptedly
for four years. My acquaintance with NASA engineers and scientists was
extensive, and to them I owe a great debt, especially those at Langley,
Wallops, Ames, Houston, Huntsville, Goddard and the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory". James A. Michener.
|
Important:
If you were sent here via a link from
Dr.
Randy Korotev of Washington
University in St. Louis, please be aware that the document he
created represents pseudo-science of the highest order and
is completely politically motivated. Political motivation is
defined
here
as; "a need to advance an agenda of scientific misconduct, greed,
fraud,
and
discrimination using science and the academic arena as an operational
nerve center". We have already dissected, debunked, and
discredited his linked non-scientific document(s) and posted the
results on SCIFRAUD.
I informed Dr. Korotev, "you have a very
narrow and fraudulent view of lunar chemistry" (surface and
subsurface). Dr. Korotev responded with an apology to BCC
Meteorites for his scientific misconduct and attempted fraud on
WIKIPEDIA. He did not deny the allegations lodged
against him regarding lunar chemistry!
In essence, Dr. Korotev
and a small
band of rogue (unsupervised) scientists have constructed a shallow mold
to fit their vision of all lunar materials. This short-sighted and
faulty vision was shattered by BCC
Meteorites as far back as 2002, when we verified Taylor's
(HIGP) lunar surface chemistry weaned from the extensive Clementine: Lunar Surface Data Mapping Project.
We apologize to the public and legitimate research scientists for any
confusion
created by these pseudo-scientists at our public and private
universities funded by the taxpayers through, including but not limited
to the NSF and NASA. |
* The chemical composition of lunar regolith
among other factors, is dependent upon the original parent composition
(crystallized lunar
surface and subsurface) of which
BCC 9601 is a parent pre-cursor
forming a primary baseline. As primary differentiated surface
contributor it is
mafic poor and acidic rich highlands surface crust. In a
previous phase separation report by XRD, the technician noted
the plagioclase feldspar component as 33%. We have issued a corrected
retabulation and the
plagioclase feldspar component is actually 48% not 33%.
Plagioclase
feldspar
is a major component of lunar composition as shown
by BCC9601as well
as other relevant research sources.
|
Photo by and courtesy of F. Badalottie,
Astronomica Lanrgenus, Cremona Italia
This page is based on a television special, Conspiracy Theory: Did
We Go to the Moon? produced by Bruce Nash and aired on the
Fox Network in March, 2001. It is also a critique of a scientist who
responds to this program and the non-believers of the lunar landings.
I saw the television program and thought it
was well presented and well balanced because diverse points of view
were voiced. Of course we have no reason to believe that this historic
event was faked. No 10 or 12 year old at the time watching a black and
white TV set is going to believe otherwise. Although the program raised
some interesting issues, the Moon truly is not such a great leap in
exploration because it's not really that far away in the greater scheme
of things. For me the most interesting part (having a background
in nano-technology and electrical devices) is the speed at which analog
devices were being developed to address all of
the issues encountered in space. It's like building the space shuttle
out
of Volvo technology. I've owned many of these.
One of our best scientists, Randy Korotev, from
Washington University, St. Louis, has responded to this issue and
posted his information on the net to address this television program. I
cannot believe that such a widely respected scientist having studied
lunar samples for more than 30 years, in an almost defensive posture is
responding to this issue in such a manner as he does. In the final
analysis, it does not appear that he is actually responding to the
program because of what he writes in his paper. It is
mainly about the chemistry of the moon and meteorites, rather than the
issues presented by the non-believers of the lunar landings. The page
that caught my attention and interest is titled, "How Do We Know That It's a Rock From The Moon".
This controversy has existed long before now. Why
did he choose this year (2002), to update and post this information
about lunar rocks? One has to begin at the end of that page to realize
where he's going with it. Is it written because the new data from
Clementine and Prospector needs massaging out of a respected
publication or publications to fit outdated research constraints and
results? Was there some trouble adding our new Clementine
discoveries to the scientific record?
Here is the last part first, sections, "ODD ROCKS and THEY
WERE FAKED"
Odd Rocks, he writes;
| "As noted above, there are
known exceptions to the generalizations, and we lunatics certainly hope
that we haven't discovered all the minerals and rock types that occur
on the Moon. However, known samples of unusual composition and
mineralogy are rare and usually occur only as small (<1 gram) clasts
in breccias or in the soil. (1) We have no reason to suspect,
based on data obtained from orbit on the Clementine and Lunar
Prospector missions, that any region of the Moon is rich in types of
rocks significantly different from those we know about or might
postulate might exist. Most ore-forming processes on Earth
involve water, so we would not expect any hidden ore deposits on the
Moon. Keep in mind that if 20+ rocks have been blasted off the
Moon and found on Earth, that any given point on the lunar surface can
have rocks from any other
point. (2) For this reason, the
fact
that the lunar surface was “poorly sampled” by the Apollo and Luna
missions
is in itself not a good reason to suspect that rocks vastly different
from
those that we have studied exist at unsampled points on the Moon. Tens
of thousands of lunar rocks and rocklets have been studied since the
Apollo missions. It is highly unlikely that any yet-unfound lunar
meteorite will differ substantially in the minerals it contains or in
its geochemical character from the Apollo lunar rocks." |
The first statement
(1), in bold above, is not based on fact at all. All of the
information being processed right now and in the last 4 years from
Clementine contradicts this and sheds new light on how much more
diverse the Moon is than was
previously realized. In fact he, himself, has written about this
and
has been referenced in newer papers. [Oddly, in abstract no.
1209, LPSC,
March 2000, "On The Relationship Between Site Geology And The
distribution Of Surface Regolith Composition At The Apollo Sites", he
references himself four times, Jolliff once, Rhodes once, James
once, and Wentworth once].
The second statement in bold is written to cover
himself while massaging and reinforcing the existing scientific record.
The pre-Clementine and extensive scientific record literally complains
about the fact that the Apollo Missions brought back very narrow ranges
of material. "Poorly sampled". "We have no reason to suspect"?, why
would you suspect anything? Suspicion is not the same thing as
intellectual inquiry. Just work with what you have,
but update your records with the arrival of reflectance spectra data
and the Clementine mapping data and new rare samples.
This statement is just to cover himself in case new
meteorite samples are found from unsampled areas or new meteorites are
inconvenient to recognize. He's basically trying to put a
lid on new samples (i.e. BCC9601), but leaving the door slightly ajar,
"just in case" the herd mentality shifts the other way, he wants to be
able to open the door without too much trouble. The last sentence
regarding "tens of thousands of lunar rocks have been studied since the
Apollo missions", I think he means a few pounds of material has
been studied by tens of thousands of scientists tens of millions of
different times or something like that. But we don't know
since we don't have an exact inventory of material distributed or
number of
scientists working on lunar material.
The graph below
compares and resolves BCC9601 bulk composition to the Apollo and Luna
samples by
plotting % composition as a function of elemental oxide. We can see
that
BCC9601 is refractory rich (surface crust ) while the samples brought
back
by the Apollo Missions and Russians is refractory poor, mafic rich.
(Breccias,
refractory depleted small rocklets gathered together by meteorite
impacts
and re- welded together by subsequent impacts). "Some
evidence
of an impact event is left behind by the impactor". (The
debris
collected on the surface of the Moon by our Astronauts represents some
of
this impact evidence and was impact-excavated from so far down in the
craters
that it had no opportunity to escape the Moon, landing where it did on
the
lunar surface). The chemical compostion on an oxide basis provides the
upper
limits as indicated by EDS analysis for what should be expected from
the
lunar differentiated surface crust. Interesting to note are the
incompatible
phases present in the bulk mass. There is no clear separation between
the
incompatible phases due to the lack of water, lack of an enriched
oxygen
atmosphere and the unique vauum pressure surrounding the minor planet.
Later
and lastly forming compounds should be enriched in SiO2 and
K since all available Ca, Al, Fe, Ti , and Mg have been removed from
the
system during intial heating and melting. Phase separation also
indicates a complete solid solution progressed between NaSi and K once
CaAl was out of solution with NaSi. This complete solid solution and
crystallization
cooling accounts for excess SiO2 and a Potassium enriched plagiolclase
phase,
(microline and quartz). The crystalline arrangement and ground mass
indicates
the cooling was very slow and this piece of the lunar surface was
affected
only by solar wind and stellar grain implantation.
They Were Faked- he writes;
(1)Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the
world) who has studied lunar rocks knows that anyone who thinks the
Apollo
lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy
doesn't
know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too
good.
They tell a self consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot
that's
better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. (2)
I've
studied lunar rocks and soils for 30+ years and I couldn't make even a
poor
imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the
lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in
government labs, no one in “the Government” could do it either, even
now that we know what lunar rocks
are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an
extremely dry
environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity.
In
addition to having craters on the surface, they display evidence for a
suite
of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and
small
meteorite impacts. (3) They contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen,
neon,
argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope
ratios
different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain
crystal damage
from cosmic rays. They have crystallization ages, determined by
techniques
involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks
(anyone
who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize). It
was
easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it
would
have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth. [After
writing
these words I learned that virtually the same sentiments had already
been
expressed by some of my lunar sample colleagues.]
|
In the above
section we eliminate (1) we underlined. Without equivocation, he is
probably correct about this (within less than 2 % compositional
deviation). Why would you want
to try to match exactly something that cannot support organic material?
No
offense to all those people who have tried to reproduce lunar soil (for
biogenic
purposes), including those of you who have spent time trying to grow
plants
in lunar soil simulants, but this is not going to make you the
brightest
star on the H-R diagram for obvious reasons. It has been done,
its
not perfect but it is very close, as we show below.
| With respect to item number 2 in bold above,
where Korotev writes government labs could not make lunar soil.
Approximately 27,000 lb of JSC-1 (lunar soil ), simulant is currently
available for distribution to qualified investigators. The only cost is
for shipping. The material is stored at the Texas A&M Lunar Soil
Simulant Laboratory. Investigators desiring a portion of this simulant
should address their requests to Dr. Walter
Boles, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University,
College
Station, TX 77843 (Telephone 409-845-2493, fax 409-862-2800). And on
this
page dated 1994 and contrary to what Korotev writes, is the
"government
made" lunar soil simulant whose chemical
composition
very closely appears to match the narrow range of Apollo material in
your
inventory and falls within the ranges of lunar mare soil samples. The
material
was made with "discretionary funds" offered by the JSC. That must have
cost
a "pretty discretionary penny." There was an update on JSC-1 in late 2004. |
The sentence I numbered number (3) above is highly
questionable. While the markers for emissivity of solar wind may
contain hydrogen in small quantities, it means nothing to the ordinary
person (your audience), if you subsequently say there is no water on
the Moon without saying why. (Here is
a crtitique addressing water on the Moon and related to scientific
misconduct and fraud at UCLA but this
applies to
all our colleges and universities ). Since we are talking about rocks,
Mr.
Korotev should have explained to his ordinary readers that the lunar
magma
ocean boiled away all water if there ever was any period. (Hmmmmmm, the
Earth
cannot be expected to form Isotopes at the same ratio and speed as the
Sun,
a nuclear furnace. I think I read somewhere that Oxygen Isotope
ratios
for the Moon and Earth are similar but I could be wrong about that.).
The
Isotopic composition is an important marker, but for a body (like the
Moon)
that has formed in a semi-closed system and is billions of years in the
making,
several factors have to be considered. But Isotopic composition alone
is
not the determinant of whether or not a sample is of lunar origin as
Lindstrom
et. al. has pointed out. Its isotopic composition may vary as a
function
of depth, because we do not know if the Moon like the Earth has turned
itself
inside out, once, ever, or never. Has it's clock been reset completely
or
regionally from impactors? And we know from the literature that massive
impact
events can contribute to clock resetting.
Notice that gray stuff the
Astronaut is stepping on? He has lunar dust all over the
bottom of his suit.
For the non-believers of the lunar landings, you know he was not near
any
dry cleaning service so it is possible some of this material came
back. It is composed of anhydrous silicates including
micro-crystals of quartz and
metal particles, and impact related debris. Mr. Korotev wrote in his
paper
that quartz does not exist in lunar rocks and on that same page that
there
is no quartz in lunar rocks as a major phase. Perhaps the fact that the
apollo
brecciated and non-brecciated samples are mafic and ultra mafic owes to
this
notion. Surface crustal material from the Moon should contain
quartz
as a minor or major phase. (NASA
Conference
Publication 2255, see below). In a small area of his paper, Korotev
confuses the reader by printing the information below contrary to what
he had just written, (about no quartz in lunar rocks).
| "Some mare basalts contain up to
5% cristobalite, a silica mineral. There are some rare lunar
samples
with 50-70% SiO2 because they contain tridymite, quartz, or silica
glass.
These include felsites (“granites”) and related silica-rich rocks like
quartz
monzodiorite. There are also rocks that contain <10% CaO because
they
contain little plagioclase. These include some ultramafic rocks
like
dunite and some picritic volcanic glasses. We might expect that
the
abundance of ultramafic rocks might be greater in or near the giant
South
Pole-Aiken basin." |
If there is no
hydrothermal activity (water), on the Moon there should be no
"granites" or they should be very different, or rare (
as Lindstrom et al has pointed out), and
quartz monzodiorites if they do exist are more than
likely impact excavated remnant breccia material. He says "there are
some
rare lunar samples with 50-70% SiO2 because they contain tridymite,
quartz,
or silica glass. He knows that these ultra acidic samples can only be
differentiated
surface crustal material consistent with Bowens Reaction Series, and
the
magma ocean model, and cannot at the same time be ultramafic rocks. The
fact
that they could be quartz monzodiorites is consistent with an impact
related
accretionary mechanism but not indicative of a completely
differentiated
solid solution process. The lower (CaO), plagioclase component is
consistent
with NaSi replacing CaAl for electrical neutrality (environmental
stability
field in seeking the lowest energy level), during the cooling and
crystallization
stage making a sample more Na Si rich (almost 1/3 SiO2 higher at
the
surface) , but these cannot be confused with granites nor ultramafic
rocks,
there are vast differences.The statement written above by itself
is
consistent with new findings weaned from remote mapping and spectral
data regarding lunar diversity, but contrary to previous claims made
about lunar composition "simplicity", and quote "we know what
rock types are like and what to expect based on Apollo samples."
If quartz and its polymorphs are not a major or
minor component of differentiated surface crustal material from the
Moon on at least
a regional basis, science is in a lot of trouble or Mr. Korotev is
incorrect.
More than likely he is incorrect but just doesn't have the evidence in
front
of him. Lunar surface magma material, as shown below, right, should
contain
micro-crystals of quartz homogeneously (evenly), distributed throughout
the
sample and can only be distinguished under a microscope. The
reader
should not be lulled by any Scientist into believing that a major or
minor
phase of quartz and its polymorphs contained in differentiated lunar
surface
crustal material is going to appear like a large piece of clear glass
commonly
seen in rock collections from Earth. There are many differences in the
quartz
found on Earth and the Moon. In addition, the reader should be wary of
any
scientist making unfounded claims regarding, lunar quartz, and
magnetism.
The informed reader knows that Silicon and Oxygen
are the bulk elemental components of the Moon and that those two
elements combined at the proper temperature and pressure make quartz
and its polymorphs. If we remove the SiO2 from the system the moon will
remain a really large glob primarily of Iron, Aluminum, and Titanium,
or a really small sphere by planetary standards.
Table 5.12 of NASA Conference
Publication 2255 shows the mineral discovered as far back as 1980,
including
SiO2-Quartz. The entire index contents is also on
this
page.
 |
 |
|
QUE 94281 on the left
relative to BCC9601 on the right, Lunar Highlands Surface Crust. Note
the impact fractures on the bottom half.
Note:
The circular-oval marks on BCC9601interior
surface
(bottom piece), was caused when trying to slice open the sample.
Because elevated levels of Al in the sample makes An very tough
material, we were unable to cut the sample with a normal water
lubricated diamond wet saw we had to switch half way through the
process to an oil lubricated saw used for cutting iron, steel ,
and exceptionally hard materials. Anorthosite is very tough
stuff. If you see the Moon through a 10 inch reflector telescope
as Francesco Badalotti did (top of page), which of the two lunar
samples above
would you have expected the man in the suit to bring back from the
Moon?
........................You're absolutely right......................we
would
too. One was found in Antarctica, the other on top of the limestone
cretaceous
sea floor in Central Texas. If we do go back to the Moon, the sample on
the
right is what we may expect to find below the regolith on the highlands
surface.
The piece on the left is QUE 94281. It was described by Korotev as " An
unattractive
rock that could pass for a cinder or piece of slag. It weighed 23
grams,
just less than an ounce". (From NASA photo S95-14590). He is right, it
looks
very, very, very, suspicious to us, and we know how many mistakes have
been
made in meteorite identification of samples from Antarctica, but
chemical
analysis provides the final verdict. Perhaps the difference in
appearance
is evidence that the Moon really is varied in composition? Or perhaps
the
sample on the left is not lunar material? Or perhaps the chemical
nature
for the one on the right renders it better resistant to terrestrial
weathering? |
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the
author, after all, along with others, much of his research helped us in
identifying BCC9601, and several other pieces. But here's a very big
set of problems illustrated
below, for treating and dismissing the Clementine and Prospector
Missions
and data as Korotev does. Keep in mind that he is updating this
page
as late as the year 2002. To reiterate, Korotev
writes;
| "We have no reason to suspect,
based on data obtained from orbit on the Clementine and Lunar
Prospector missions, that any region of the Moon is rich in types of
rocks significantly different from those we know about or might
postulate might exist".............."For this reason, the fact that the
lunar surface was “poorly sampled” by the Apollo
and Luna missions is in itself not a good reason to suspect that rocks
vastly
different from those that we have studied exist at unsampled points on
the
Moon". |
In their "CLEMENTINE
CASE STUDY; NEW VIEWS OF THE MOON'S FELDSPATHIC TERRANE", Tompkins
and Heather conclude;
"The Clementine multispectral
data
are a valuable tool in surveying the feldspathic highland terrane for
atypical lithologies. Such a survey is required if we are to fully
understand the origins
of the crust and manner in which the variability within the crust
formed,
either during early lunar differentiation or via subsequent magmatic
activity.
Detailed observations of Tyco and King have already demonstrated the
use
of these techniques to investigate the compositional geology of an
impact
site. The reduced Clementine UVVIS dataset by the USGS will help to
streamline
the ongoing analysis of a wide range of impact features across the
lunar
crust."
In further exploring this satellite,
and In his "A New Moon for the Twenty-First
Century", G. Jeffrey Taylor (Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and
Planetology) writes
in part;
"The magnificent Apollo program returned 380 kilograms of rock
and dirt from the Moon from mid-1969 to late 1972. The samples have
been studied in great detail, but the job is not yet done. New
analytical techniques have been developed, necessitating new analyses.
The mountains of data returned by Clementine and Lunar Prospector have
sparked numerous new analyses of
the samples. The Apollo missions returned samples from only six
locations
on the Moon, all relatively close together on the Earth-facing side of
the
Moon. The sampling was expanded somewhat by unpiloted, robotic missions
sent
by the Soviet Union in 1971, 1972, and 1976. These missions returned
about
150 grams of lunar soil. One of the most important aspects of lunar
samples
is that they come from known locations on the Moon, thereby providing
calibration points for remote sensing data."
" The nature and origin of the
PKT is
controversial. A common rock type among Apollo samples is nicknamed "
LKFM." As Randy Korotev reviews in his paper, this acronym has a long
and confusing history. It stands for "Low-K Fra Maura" basalt. The K
stands for potassium, and the low was added to distinguish it from
medium and high-K varieties. The original samples were not basalts,
which are lava flows. Instead they were impact-produced glasses in the
lunar soil. Rocks of the right composition were found in abundance at
the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 site, and they were all
impact melt breccias (fragments of assorted rocks and minerals bound
together
by a magma made during impact). Originally an adjective, LKFM began to
be
used as a noun--the name of a rock type--and the acceptable
amount of potassium began to be stretched. Though baffling to
newcomers to the field, most of us happliy used "LKFM" and knew what it
meant. It had FeO and Al2O3 contents of about 10 and 18 wt%,
respectively, a range in potassium concentrations, and characterisitc
relative abundances of trace elements. Korotev knew what it meant
too, but always hated the term and tried to get the rest of us to stop
using it. It was not a very successful campaign! His current suggestion
is to call rocks with the LKFM characterisitics "thorium-rich, mafic
impact melt breccias," but is forced to refer to them as LKFM in his
paper so the rest of us know what he is talking about."
Gamma Ray
Spectrometer Results from the Lunar Prospector, nor the Clementine
returned and published data below that agrees with his newest writings.
A partial analysis of returned data from the Prospector
states;http://www.lunar.arc.nasa.gov/results/gamres.html
"The GRS is especially
sensitive to the heavy, radioactive element thorium and the light
element potassium. These are particularly plentiful in the last part of
the crust to solidify. Thus, mission scientists are able to determine
the global distribution of KREEP (K-Potassium. rare earth elements, and
P-phosphorus), a chemical "tracer" of sorts which helps to tell the
story of the Moon's volcanic and impact history......................In
addition to mapping thorium and other elements, a number of other lunar
science
issues can be addressed using the GRS data; these include: 1)
Identifying
and delineating basaltic regions in the lunar maria using maps of Iron
and
Titanium composition; 2) Determining the composition of hidden or
"Cryptic"
mare regions that were originally found in the lunar highlands using
Clementine
data; 3) Identifying and delineating highland petrological regions; and
4)
Searching for anomalous areas with unusual elemental compositions that
might
be indicative of deposits with resource potential."
In Lunar and
Planetary Science XXVIII (1997) Peterson et. al. presented the
following paper reproduced in relevant part here;
LUNAR ANORTHOSITE: IDENTIFICATION AND DISTRIBUTION
OF
REMNANTS OF THE PRIMORDIAL CRUST.
INTRODUCTION
Evidence
strongly
suggests that Earth's Moon was once covered by a magma ocean which
differentiated as it cooled [src.]. In the later stages of
crystallization, plagioclase feldspar
formed a cumulate floatation crust composed primarily of anorthosite
(rock
containing >90% plagioclase feldspar) many kilometers thick.
The
concurrent and subsequent heavy bombardment experienced by the Moon has
disrupted
or obscured much of this original crust, but portions of it appear to
have
remained in tact, especially on the northern lunar farside and globally
at
depth. While some other mechanisms for the production of anorthosite,
such
as differentiation of plutons, have been suggested, the majority of
anorthosite
outcrops present at the surface of the Moon today may be portions of
the
original crust.
Several spectral techniques are available for
remotely identifying anorthosite on the Moon. They utilize
multispectral data sets obtained from Earth based telescopes or from
spacecraft orbiting or flying by the Moon. While the techniques are
related, they differ in strengths and weaknesses. By comparing and
combining the results from the various techniques we can increase our
confidence in our understanding of the global distribution of
anorthosite............................... Analysis of data returned by
the Galileo and Clementine spacecraft has greatly improved our
understanding of global distribution of lunar anorthosite. [emphasis
added].
In Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 34, 25-41 (1999),
Tompkins et. al. publishes the following reproduced here in part;
Mineralogy of the lunar crust: Results from Clementine.
INTRODUCTION
Lunar crustal
evolution is broadly understood within the frame-work of a magma ocean
model, in which the Moon's ancient crust formed through the flotation
of anorthosite-rich plagioclase in a global fractionation event (src.).
Other litholigies such as magnesium suite rocks and mare basalts are
believed to have formed through subsequent serial magmatism. These
models satisfy constraints imposed by a
variety of data, including lunar sample chemistry. Apollo gamma-ray and
x-ray
spectrometry, and geophysical measurements. These data, however are
limited
by either spatial resolution or a lack of global coverage. In
particular the
lunar sample collection is a relatively small and non-random
representation of the Moon's crust, yet the presence and abundance of
specific lithologies (the ferroan anorthosite suite, low K-Fra Mauro
(LKFM) rocks, the magnesium suite etc.) within the collection impose
key constraints upon models for both
crustal evolution and the current composition and structure of the
lunar crust.
Remote sensing provides a global perspective that
the lunar collection alone cannot. The Clementine mission, which
returned global, high spatial resolution multispectral images of the
lunar surface presents an opportunity to examine compositional trends
across the entire Moon. For example, Clementine spectral data have been
used to estimate FeO and TiO2 abundance of the weathered soils that
blanket the Moon's surface (src). For more pristine rocks and fresh
soils, whose optical properties have not been extensively altered by
space weathering processes, mafic mineralogy may be identified
(src).Where such materials have been uplifted from beneath the surface,
as in the central peaks or peak rings of impact craters, identifying
their mineralogy offers a glimpse of crustal composition at depth.
Mr. Korotev should
shed the notion of pigeonholing used as an arm twisting tool to dismiss
new finds and related evidence with statements such as "A rock that
does not plot along this line is almost certainly not a lunar
meteorite". In addition, Galileo,
Clementine, and Prospector serve as shining beacons to hundreds of
thousands
of school children not just in the US but all over the world as it
helps
to erase memories of failures and fiascoes, such as the improper
navigation
procedures for the Mars Lander, and the short attention span required
of
scientists in forgetting to convert feet and inches to the metric scale.
Mr. Korotev writes; [After writing these words I
learned that virtually the same sentiments had already been expressed
by some of my
lunar sample colleagues.] Is there any way possible you can send to us
the
names of these colleagues by email? We would like to see who on
this
list after studying lunar samples for 30+ years has been burdened
with
a sudden stroke of genius.
This scientist has not landed on his feet by
somersaulting through a jungle gym of contradictory statements,
contrary to new evidence. Given the glaring disagreement with
Korotev's latest update(s) of 2002, and our current understanding of
planetary processes and confirmations by remote spectral data weaned
from the Moon. This posting by Mr. Korotev represents a huge loss
to science that cannot be put into words. If given the
opportunity Molly Ivins might say, "The December 2002 lunar
materials
conference should be a real humdinger".
S. Ray DeRusse
Note: In
criticizing the biogenic experiments in lunar soil simulants, we did
not intend to say that the work itself is not worthy of investigation
but rather that employing probability and statistics combined with
sample chemical analysis, to establish confidence levels should be
considered. If the biological products cannot survive in an environment
similar to the Moon, given that the goal would be
human occupation, then what's the point. Organisms can work for us, but
now
then we may run into the problem that someone will try to genetically
tailor
an organism to survive the lunar conditions. Is that really necessary?
Lunar Prospector; GAMMA RAY SPECTROMETER RESULTS
At this web page, http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/results/gamres.htm
the results are summarized but raise some very interesting issues.
The following quotation is taken from that page and aside from the fact
that it
disagrees with Korotev's latest writings, it raises some other
compelling issues to which we have given a lot of thought.
" It has long been known
that a full understanding of the surface elemental composition of the
Moon will significantly improve our understanding of lunar formation
and evolution. For example, one long-standing issue of lunar formation
that can be addressed with global composition data concerns the
elements aluminum, uranium, thorium (refractory elements) and iron
oxide content of the Moon. There are suggestions from Apollo, Galileo,
and Clementine data that the Moon is enriched, that is has
greater abundances of these refractory elements and iron oxide compared
to the Earth. If the Moon indeed has such enrichments, then lunar
origin models which assume that most of the Moon's material comes from
the Earth's mantle (such as the giant impact hypothesis) would be
incorrect."
This
section was removed. On studying the exisiting research materials
on lunar
breccias and Takysie Lake, BCC9601, and numerous lines of
evidence,
show that in fact there is absolutely no way the Moon is a piece of the
Earth
made from a Mars sized impactor.
This information written in textbooks and touted as scientific fact and
or theory is an
idea in textbooks which has no basis in fact.
Our scientific misconduct section
is under construction. Reporting conduct on scientists who
have worked on this project either directly or indirectly and who been
exposed as committing scientific misconduct and fraud by a
preponderance and actual documented evidence.
