MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #08: Zap Pits
Uploaded by philwebb59 on 04.06.2010
Transcript:
Jarrah: Another characteristic that the propagandists point to are tiny craters supposedly caused
by micrometeorites, otherwise known as zap-pits.
On page 175 of the Desert Publications edition of his book, Bill Kaysing discussed a method
that NASA could have used to fake the tiny craters.
“There is a laboratory in Santa Barbara that specializes in extremely high-speed impact
studies.
They’ve achieved velocities of 32,000 feet per second with a two stage projectile system.
Obviously, rock specimens could be exposed to high-speed particles thus simulating small
particle meteorite bombardment.”
Here Kaysing offers up one of his famous “I know a guy who knows a guy” stories.
It’s no more than a bare assertion fallacy.
Kaysing says that some unidentified company in Santa Barbara had equipment back in the
sixties that was capable of emulating micrometeoroid impacts and thus produced the zap pits found
in NASA’s fake moon rocks.
So, why didn’t Kaysing give us the name of the company?
Was it a secret?
No.
Was he protecting a source?
No.
He just didn’t want to make it easy for anybody to check the facts.
It’s not impossible to figure out who the company was by looking at the clues Kaysing
left us.
Kaysing said this laboratory used a two stage projectile system capable of 32,000 fps.
OK.
He’s obviously talking about a two-stage light-gas gun.
Two-stage describing the design, light-gas describing the gas in the pump tube, usually
hydrogen or helium.
I’m not going to waste valuable class time describing how this gun works, but if you’ve
ever played with a pellet gun you already understand the concept thoroughly.
The salient point here is that the projectile has to fit snuggly into the barrel, if they
wanted to maintain control of it and hit their [intended] target.
Now, there were about a dozen of these guns in labs across the US in the sixties.
One was in Santa Barbara, at the General Motors Defense Research Laboratories.
Long story short, they were hurling 1-1/4 inch metallic disks (either aluminum, or copper,
or tungsten) at targets (sheets of steel and other metals) and measuring the shock wave
characteristics to calculate the shock Hugoniot equations of state.
In other words, they were probably trying to figure out if they could induce enough
shock or vibration to detonate a Soviet ICBM reentering the earth’s atmosphere, by throwing
a fast moving cloud of custom designed shrapnel at it.
That’s my educated guess as to what their “defense” contract was about.
They had more things to worry about back in the sixties than manufacturing moon rocks.
The limiting factor in using this gun is that the barrel was designed for 1-1/4 inch projectiles
weighing 100 to 200 grams.
If they tried to fire microgram sized shot with this gun, they would have difficulty
controlling it.
They’d have no directionality.
If more than one high-velocity shot hit a silicate rock simultaneously, the multiple
stress points would probably fracture the rock.
In fact, if they used too much shot they would pulverize their targets.
And if they used too little shot, it would get hung up in the sabot or get lost in the barrel.
But most importantly, this gun fell short of the 32,000 fps bogie that Kaysing claimed it had.
So, maybe he didn’t even know about this gun afterall and he just made the whole thing up.
That’s possible.
Then from a more practical standpoint, how would anyone back in the sixties know what
a micrometeoroid impact looked like?
How would they know how to simulate it correctly?
What data would they have used to verify that their projectiles were the right shape, size,
weight, material, and traveling at the correct speed?
NASA performed their first micrometeoroid impact studies in 1966 and 1967, by sending
detectors to moon on the five Lunar Orbiter missions.
The data NASA collected from that experiment was used to calculate a risk assessment and
determine how much protection was necessary for the Apollo astronauts and their spacecraft.
“Artificial” micrometeoroid impact studies were not even dreamed of until the long-term
missions came around - the Shuttle, Skylab and the International Space Station.
Jarrah: If NASA were concerned about distinguished traces of projectiles, being found in the
fake moon rocks, why wouldn’t they just use projectiles made from the same metallic
elements found in the samples?
Such as aluminum, which, as a matter of fact, is exactly what NASA does today to simulate
micrometeoroid impacts on the International Space Station.
Aluminum pellets?
First off, ACTUAL micrometeoroids bear no mineralogical or chemical similarity to the
aluminum alloy pellets used during today’s micrometeoroid simulations.
Like their big brothers, the meteorites, micrometeoroids are made of rock, mostly iron and a few oxides.
ESA, mainly, farms out this type of testing today for the International Space Station.
They’re testing the long-term reliability of the exterior of their spacecraft and the
effect on spacecraft functionality by shooting the hull with aluminum alloy pellets.
And although there is aluminum in some moon rocks, it’s in the form of aluminum oxide
and fine metallic grains.
You definitely wouldn’t expect to find aluminum clumped around ALL the zap pits.
And the aluminum pellets used to do micrometeoroid impact studies on earth would be made of an
aluminum ALLOY, and they would leave an obvious trace of metallics at the surface during impact
and down through the tiny boreholes.
It might be suspicious to a lab tech who cross-sections one of NASA’s moon rocks and by performing
a basic spectrographic analysis identifies a common aluminum alloy on the inside of a
moon rock, an alloy that is knowingly manufactured on earth.
That wouldn’t fool a geologist’s grandmother.
Jarrah: I have never claimed everything Bill Kaysing says is accurate.
As wishful as it is, there will never be any material from either side of the fence that
will be without error.
My attitude is not simply because Kaysing said it.
My stance is: Bill said it, and I have verified it.
Really?
So how did Jarrah verify this particular claim?
Did he give us the name of the company that supposedly did the micrometeoroid impact
studies in the sixties?
No.
Did he demonstrate a tiny ring of aluminum alloy exists around even one zap pit?
No.
Instead, just as he always does, Jarrah blindly accepts and repeats Grandpa Kaysing’s nonsense
without question.
So far, NONE of Kaysing’s claims, which were subsequently “verified” by Jarrah
and used in any of his videos that I’ve seen, has passed even the most casual inspection.
Kaysing’s Conspiracist’s Bible appears to be nothing but TOTAL speculation and innuendo.
And Jarrah is doing almost as well with HIS groundless moon rock claims.
Ciao moon hoax conspirators, wherever you are.
by micrometeorites, otherwise known as zap-pits.
On page 175 of the Desert Publications edition of his book, Bill Kaysing discussed a method
that NASA could have used to fake the tiny craters.
“There is a laboratory in Santa Barbara that specializes in extremely high-speed impact
studies.
They’ve achieved velocities of 32,000 feet per second with a two stage projectile system.
Obviously, rock specimens could be exposed to high-speed particles thus simulating small
particle meteorite bombardment.”
Here Kaysing offers up one of his famous “I know a guy who knows a guy” stories.
It’s no more than a bare assertion fallacy.
Kaysing says that some unidentified company in Santa Barbara had equipment back in the
sixties that was capable of emulating micrometeoroid impacts and thus produced the zap pits found
in NASA’s fake moon rocks.
So, why didn’t Kaysing give us the name of the company?
Was it a secret?
No.
Was he protecting a source?
No.
He just didn’t want to make it easy for anybody to check the facts.
It’s not impossible to figure out who the company was by looking at the clues Kaysing
left us.
Kaysing said this laboratory used a two stage projectile system capable of 32,000 fps.
OK.
He’s obviously talking about a two-stage light-gas gun.
Two-stage describing the design, light-gas describing the gas in the pump tube, usually
hydrogen or helium.
I’m not going to waste valuable class time describing how this gun works, but if you’ve
ever played with a pellet gun you already understand the concept thoroughly.
The salient point here is that the projectile has to fit snuggly into the barrel, if they
wanted to maintain control of it and hit their [intended] target.
Now, there were about a dozen of these guns in labs across the US in the sixties.
One was in Santa Barbara, at the General Motors Defense Research Laboratories.
Long story short, they were hurling 1-1/4 inch metallic disks (either aluminum, or copper,
or tungsten) at targets (sheets of steel and other metals) and measuring the shock wave
characteristics to calculate the shock Hugoniot equations of state.
In other words, they were probably trying to figure out if they could induce enough
shock or vibration to detonate a Soviet ICBM reentering the earth’s atmosphere, by throwing
a fast moving cloud of custom designed shrapnel at it.
That’s my educated guess as to what their “defense” contract was about.
They had more things to worry about back in the sixties than manufacturing moon rocks.
The limiting factor in using this gun is that the barrel was designed for 1-1/4 inch projectiles
weighing 100 to 200 grams.
If they tried to fire microgram sized shot with this gun, they would have difficulty
controlling it.
They’d have no directionality.
If more than one high-velocity shot hit a silicate rock simultaneously, the multiple
stress points would probably fracture the rock.
In fact, if they used too much shot they would pulverize their targets.
And if they used too little shot, it would get hung up in the sabot or get lost in the barrel.
But most importantly, this gun fell short of the 32,000 fps bogie that Kaysing claimed it had.
So, maybe he didn’t even know about this gun afterall and he just made the whole thing up.
That’s possible.
Then from a more practical standpoint, how would anyone back in the sixties know what
a micrometeoroid impact looked like?
How would they know how to simulate it correctly?
What data would they have used to verify that their projectiles were the right shape, size,
weight, material, and traveling at the correct speed?
NASA performed their first micrometeoroid impact studies in 1966 and 1967, by sending
detectors to moon on the five Lunar Orbiter missions.
The data NASA collected from that experiment was used to calculate a risk assessment and
determine how much protection was necessary for the Apollo astronauts and their spacecraft.
“Artificial” micrometeoroid impact studies were not even dreamed of until the long-term
missions came around - the Shuttle, Skylab and the International Space Station.
Jarrah: If NASA were concerned about distinguished traces of projectiles, being found in the
fake moon rocks, why wouldn’t they just use projectiles made from the same metallic
elements found in the samples?
Such as aluminum, which, as a matter of fact, is exactly what NASA does today to simulate
micrometeoroid impacts on the International Space Station.
Aluminum pellets?
First off, ACTUAL micrometeoroids bear no mineralogical or chemical similarity to the
aluminum alloy pellets used during today’s micrometeoroid simulations.
Like their big brothers, the meteorites, micrometeoroids are made of rock, mostly iron and a few oxides.
ESA, mainly, farms out this type of testing today for the International Space Station.
They’re testing the long-term reliability of the exterior of their spacecraft and the
effect on spacecraft functionality by shooting the hull with aluminum alloy pellets.
And although there is aluminum in some moon rocks, it’s in the form of aluminum oxide
and fine metallic grains.
You definitely wouldn’t expect to find aluminum clumped around ALL the zap pits.
And the aluminum pellets used to do micrometeoroid impact studies on earth would be made of an
aluminum ALLOY, and they would leave an obvious trace of metallics at the surface during impact
and down through the tiny boreholes.
It might be suspicious to a lab tech who cross-sections one of NASA’s moon rocks and by performing
a basic spectrographic analysis identifies a common aluminum alloy on the inside of a
moon rock, an alloy that is knowingly manufactured on earth.
That wouldn’t fool a geologist’s grandmother.
Jarrah: I have never claimed everything Bill Kaysing says is accurate.
As wishful as it is, there will never be any material from either side of the fence that
will be without error.
My attitude is not simply because Kaysing said it.
My stance is: Bill said it, and I have verified it.
Really?
So how did Jarrah verify this particular claim?
Did he give us the name of the company that supposedly did the micrometeoroid impact
studies in the sixties?
No.
Did he demonstrate a tiny ring of aluminum alloy exists around even one zap pit?
No.
Instead, just as he always does, Jarrah blindly accepts and repeats Grandpa Kaysing’s nonsense
without question.
So far, NONE of Kaysing’s claims, which were subsequently “verified” by Jarrah
and used in any of his videos that I’ve seen, has passed even the most casual inspection.
Kaysing’s Conspiracist’s Bible appears to be nothing but TOTAL speculation and innuendo.
And Jarrah is doing almost as well with HIS groundless moon rock claims.
Ciao moon hoax conspirators, wherever you are.