The Apollo Moon rocks - irrefutable proof that we landed

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Betamax101, Sep 29, 2022.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. This thread will present irrefutable proof that we landed on the surface of the Moon and retrieved 842lbs of lunar samples.

    2. This thread will take the ignorant claims made about the lunar rocks and show how they have no merit whatsoever:

    MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #00: Introduction - YouTube

    Making a bare assertion, and using Jarrah White videos to back up your statement demonstrates that you rely on them for your proof. I shall address the assertions made by Jarrah White accordingly.

    Assertion 1 - Nasa rocks contain water

    This assertion is made as a means to imply that, as both Earth and Moon rocks contain water, Apollo samples could simply just be faked from Earth rocks. Bunkum.



    "Several of my rebuttals are in the form of "the operative word in this sentence is" Jarrah has a talent for taking a seemingly harmless statement and turning it into a fallacy by changing a word or its scope. In this case, the operative word is "samples." The space.com article he quotes says "Water was found in lunar samples" and he parrots it back as "all moon rocks have water in them and all scientists and geologists are liars." However, the water referred to in the space.com article was only found in tiny, nonporous, volcanic spherules, and scientists did not have instruments sensitive enough to measure this water until recently. It has always been assumed that the trace water found in moon rocks was the result of terrestrial contamination, due to the obvious lack of any hydrous minerals in the moon rocks. But finding water in these spherules has sparked new life into the search for water elsewhere on the moon. Since Jarrah published Exhibit D, data from both the Chandrayaan-1 and Deep Impact spacecraft confirmed the earlier findings of the Cassini probe, which detected the same signature of water on the moon's surface as originally identified in the first Apollo moon rocks back in 1970. This finding destroys Jarrah's claim that NASA's moon rocks have water in them, therefore they could not have come from the dry lifeless moon."



    The article he quoted from:-
    http://www.space.com/5603-water-discovered-moon-samples.html

    In typical Jarrah White fashion, he finds a story with a headline designed to capture audience interest and suggests it as a blanket statement. He then accuses numerous people of lying when they made the statement that there was no water found in the Apollo samples, whilst deliberately not quoting back this passage from the article:-

    "For the past four decades, the limit for detecting water in lunar samples was about 50 parts per million (ppm) at best, said Erik Hauri, geochemist at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C. and co-author on the study. We developed a way to detect as little as 5 ppm of water.
    The group found up to 46 ppm of water within the glass beads. Saal and his collaborators then used modeling to estimate how much water originally existed in the magma within the moon's interior, knowing some water would have escaped the molten droplets as a gas on the surface."


    He then compunds this by suggesting that they knew all along about the presence of water, by indicating that Dr Mark Norman of NASA had previously said there was "almost no water in the samples. The samples came back with trace elements of water, but since no mica, clay minerals or hydrous iron oxides, minerals that would be present if water had played a part, the trace water was assumed to be caused by condensation from the containers used during transport, since it was barely detectable.

    And, as for this being some sort of conspiracy of silence, the findings were presented to his peers at conference in 1970!
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/167/3918/538.short

    Summary:
    1. The water found in the volcanic beads is at trace level, ie. 50 or parts per million.
    2. The beads are clearly formed in 1/6th gravity, as many are perfectly spherical. This does not occur with those found on Earth.
    3. White implies that all the rocks contain water, when it has only been found within the volcanic beads.


    Assertion 2 - Earth and Moon rocks have identical elements and isotopes

    White makes this assertion once again to imply that NASA's rocks could have been altered Earth rocks, cooked in a ceramic oven! Bunkum.



    "Bill Kaysing claimed that faking believable moon rocks was the easiest thing to do, but he didn't suggest how it could be done. He left the dirty work for Jarrah, who seriously couldn't figure out how it was done either. He starts by quoting Dr. William Hartman who said that moon rocks and earth rocks have identical oxygen isotope ratios, suggesting that the earth and the moon came from the same part of the solar system. Jarrah construes this to mean that earth rocks and moon rocks share the same isotopes in general. Then the National Geographic children's book that Jarrah quotes from says that moon rocks and earth rocks contain the same elements, but in far different proportions. Jarrah focuses on the "same elements" part and totally ignores the more significant "different proportions" part. Again, we can use Jarrah's source to blow away his claim that moon rocks are "identical" to earth rocks."


    Summary:
    1. Elements very common in Earth rocks are absent or in very small amounts: quartz, calcite, magnetite, micas, amphiboles, and sulfide minerals.
    2. The Oxygen isotope ratio is the same for Moon rocks and Earth rocks. But this is the only isotope ratio that is the same.
    3. He deliberately fails to point out that amongst others, Neon 21 and Argon 38 isotopes are found in Moon rocks but not in Earth rocks.
    4. He observes similar elements to Earth rocks, but fails to point out the stunning major point, they occur in hugely different proportions.
    5. Whilst making his point on isotopes, he doesn't notice his source demonstrates that meteorites found on Earth have radically different isotopes to Earth and Moon rocks. Including the one he refers to, the oxygen isotope.

    http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/gm2/news/features/isotopes.htm


    Assertion 3 - The Apollo Moon rocks were "doped with helium 3"

    First off, we need to establish that Helium 3 occurs very little on Earth. It is found in only trace amounts. Most of the Helium-3 on Earth, identifiable through deep surface spectroscopy, is well below the surface.
    To suggest Helium-3 is easy to make, and easy to impregnate rocks with it, is utter baloney. Were such a device available, the whole energy crisis would be solved overnight!



    "Without actually exposing pristine earth rocks to actual solar radiation, you can only produce Helium-3 as a byproduct of tritium decay. And although tritium can be produced through the neutron bombardment of nitrogen, which might be present in the starter rocks, even our most powerful particle accelerators could only penetrate a paper thin skin of the surface with neutrons and it would be impossible to make the rocks look like they have a cosmic ray exposure age well over 60 million years, as measured in NASAs moon rocks. Jarrah's proposal is unequivocally impossible."
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those videos are rebuttals to Jarrah's videos. If you're going to post rebuttals to videos, you should also post the videos that are being addressed so that the viewers can see the whole picture. Jarrah gives counter-rebuttals to that guy's rebuttals.

    Here's the whole series. The viewers have the right to see the whole picture.

    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 1, Water In Apollo Samples. PART 1



    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 1, Water In Apollo Samples. PART 2



    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 2, Apollo Samples & Earth Rocks Are The Same. PART 1.



    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 2, Apollo Samples & Earth Rocks Are The Same. PART 2.



    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 2, Apollo Samples & Earth Rocks Are The Same. PART 3


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 3, Apollo Samples, Meteorites & Tektites. PART 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1HbFQhLh38



    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 3, Apollo Samples, Meteorites & Tektites. PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkeTFx3fOi0


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 3, Apollo Samples, Meteorites & Tektites. PART 3
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu0b_UVciro


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 3, Apollo Samples, Meteorites & Tektites. PART 4
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4tNUWwRrDw


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 3, Apollo Samples, Meteorites & Tektites. PART 5
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjNzbTTVIf8



    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 3, Apollo Samples, Meteorites & Tektites. PART 6
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJl_yiNmtfg


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eDaQo29E-w


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD1xwUxs6DI


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 3
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6UgLh-u-zc


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 4
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GtOD3eGetI


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 5
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef2BLwxOI8U


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 5, Helium-3 & Fusion Crust. PART 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmAqFbI0PdQ


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 5, Helium-3 & Fusion Crust. PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isGR7igYUZw


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 6, Oxidation, Micas & Ferric Iron in Apollo Samples. PART 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si7BOsKYbp8


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 6, Oxidation, Micas & Ferric Iron in Apollo Samples. PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCE4Y4zkhY


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 6, Oxidation, Micas & Ferric Iron in Apollo Samples. PART 3
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lvJ0oSQwkQ


    MoonFaker: Moonrocks Revisited. Episode 7, Lunar Geologists & Getting Apollo Samples. PART 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuGBneBJzLY


    MoonFaker: Moonrocks Revisited. Episode 7, Lunar Geologists & Getting Apollo Samples. PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcYzZcBuE-4


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 8, How NASA faked the Zap-Pits in Apollo Samples. PART 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABOium729yM


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 8, How NASA faked the Zap-Pits in Apollo Samples. PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAoax8cdbyo


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 8, How NASA faked the Zap-Pits in Apollo Samples. PART 3
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwxZgu3sDVY&t=4s


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 9, Apollo Samples vs The Soviet Luna Samples. PART 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq7tAe7rVt0


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 9, Apollo Samples vs The Soviet Luna Samples. PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95berDo-9Y8


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 10, SMART-1 & Lunar Minerals Different to Apollo. PART 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHah89QCxVg


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 10, SMART-1 & Lunar Minerals Different to Apollo. PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U9dT6goNpU


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 10, SMART-1 & Lunar Minerals Different to Apollo. PART 3
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ-s1nYjwec


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 10, SMART-1 & Lunar Minerals Different to Apollo. PART 4
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GygbjL_enWY


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 10, SMART-1 & Lunar Minerals Different to Apollo. PART 5
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osUwSWJrgnw


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 10, SMART-1 & Lunar Minerals Different to Apollo. PART 6
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a-VDw3kG3M


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 10, SMART-1 & Lunar Minerals Different to Apollo. PART 7
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxmhenJF1cA


    MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 11, Tranquillityite Found In Australia
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X_aNM6AUXM




    More info here...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...on-missions-were-real.603866/#post-1073757014
     
  3. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,433
    Likes Received:
    662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Spammer of crap.
     
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What the Apollo Moon rocks told us | Astronomy.com

    Among the fruits of more than 80 hours the Apollo astronauts spent on the lunar surface were the treasures that came home. All told, the explorers carted back 842 pounds (382 kilograms) of Moon rocks, some 2,200 separate samples from six different lunar sites. It took years, but properly interpreting these rocks gave us the biggest scientific result from the entire Apollo program: understanding how the Moon formed.

    Returning lunar samples was a priority from the beginning. One of the first things Neil Armstrong did after his descent down the ladder was to pocket a specimen as the original collected piece of the Moon. The missions that followed Apollo 11 were far more aggressive, returning a wide variety of Moon rock samples, effectively opening a window into lunar geology.

    From the outset, the Apollo astronauts used a variety of tools to collect their samples, including rakes, tongs, and scoops. Astronauts searched a variety of geological features, too, hoping to assemble a suite of lunar minerals and rocks of different ages.

    The youngest areas of the Moon are the mare, the lowlands, that filled with basaltic lava relatively late in the Moon’s formation. They typically consist of rocks that are 3.2 billion years old, whereas rocks from the older lunar highlands date to some 4.4 billion years ago. The youngest geological actions on the Moon, based on crater counts, probably were lava flows about 1.2 billion years ago. But, alas, we have no samples of these very young lunar rocks.

    What exactly do Moon rocks look like? They are mostly grayish, and include many basalts, and breccias (rocks made up of broken and reassembled pieces), and mafic plutonic rocks from the highlands. This last type formed underground and were pushed up by the forces that created the lunar mountain ranges.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's rather disturbing isn't it. He's been doing this for 18+ years. What makes it doubly crazy is he doesn't actually understand anything he posts, nor can he understand any rebuttal.
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, so ignoring the ridiculous 36 video spam from above and yet again, as always, the complete failure to enter into any cross debate (because he actually really hasn't got a clue!):

    Assertion 4 - Materials not found in Earth rocks are common to meteorites

    Now the sideways shuffle is implied. He has so far, indicated that the Apollo rocks are from Earth, now he is moving to the assertion that they are in fact a combination of Earth rocks and meteorites! Bunkum.

    We have already established that Earth rock have the same oxygen isotope ratios as Moon rocks, and that neither have anywhere like the same ratios as those found in non-lunar meteorites. So wherever this contention goes, it is already doomed to failure.



    "Jarrah says that NASA's moon rocks are a combination of meteorites mixed with earth materials. He also plays an interview with Dr. Richard Hartman several times in his video series, but apparently, he never paid attention to what D. Hartman actually said, because Dr. Hartman directly contradicts Jarrah's claims.

    He then goes on to say that some of NASAs moon rocks are meteorites because they contain radiation. But, as Dr. Richard Hartman points out, moon rocks and meteorites have different oxygen isotope ratios because they came from different parts of our solar system, making it impossible for NASA to pass one off for the other.

    Not only is this claim a contradiction to his earlier bogus claim that Moon rocks are identical to Earth rocks, but most meteorites that are found on Earth, by weight, are iron or stony-iron meteorites that, unlike moon rocks, are loaded with high elemental iron.

    The next most abundant type of meteorites, the common chondrite, is composed mostly of silicate minerals that contain chondrules. These meteorites are also unlike moon rocks, which do not contain chondrules.

    Except for the radiation emitted from meteorites, they are completely different mineralogical, chemically, and most significantly, because they came from different spots in our universe, they differ in their oxygen isotope ratios, which was the evidence that Jarrah previously used to prove moon rocks were the same as earth rocks. You can't have it both ways Jarrah."

    Summary:

    1. Meteorites not of Lunar origin differ both chemically and mineralogically from Earth and Moon rocks.

    2. The oxygen isotope ratios are completely different.


    Assertion 5 - Von Braun collected the Moon rocks from Antarctica
    Let's put this into perspective. If such an expedition was undertaken, would NASA send a rocket engineer and the technical team, or would they send recognised geologists? Why would they highly publicise such an event, if the objective was to gather meteorites for fakery?





    "Regardless of how Jarrah hypes Antarctica as a haven for Meteorites, only four meteorites were discovered in Antarctica between 1912 and 1967 (55 years), while nearly a hundred were discovered anywhere except Antarctica, between 1912 and 1917 (5 years). As for lunar meteorites, that is meteorites that actually resemble NASA's moon rocks, only 29 out of the 129 known to exist came from Antarctica. Before 1969, Antarctica was not considered a rich source of meteorites in general, and since 1974, more lunar meteorites have been found in Oman than in Antarctica, so Antarctica should have been the last place on earth NASA would have sent a rocket scientist to look for meteorites to pass off for moon rocks."

    http://www.depts.ttu.edu/communications/vistas/archive/05-spring/stories/theory.php

    "On Antarctica, decades ago, Admiral Byrd named a 4,085-foot-high summit “Mount Wade” after the geologist. Among the letters that Chatterjee first found upon arrival at Texas Tech was one addressed to Wade from Wernher von Braun (1912-1977), one of the most important rocket developers of all time. Von Braun was searching for a secretive locale to help train the United States’ earliest astronauts. Wade pointed von Braun to Antarctica."!

    Jarrah White cites wikipedia, which is updated by members of the public. Somebody had added the incorrect paragraph suggesting that the one week trip was a meteorite gathering expedition! It was later removed, as it originated from the mockumentary by Aren Ranen "Did We Go?"!

    White then alleges that wikipedia was adjusted to cover this up! The original note was added with a citation for an edition of Popular Science, when the edition quoted, had no reference to meteorite gathering whatsoever! Indeed, it classified the trip exactly as it was stated:-

    http://books.google.com/books?id=kCEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q&f=false

    White claims that Antarctica was a veritable goldmine of meteorites since 1912 when only 4 had been found between that time and the Antarctic expedition in 1967 - none resembling a Moon rock. In that same period of time, many more were found in places such as Texas!!

    In 1969, Japan found only 9 meteorites during their own Antarctica meteorite gathering mission! In total, 129 meteorites ever found, after analysis, show that they originate from the Moon and only 29 from that total came from Antarctica. The first one to actually be found as a Moon rock was in 1979 and recognised as such after elemental ratio tests were finalised in 1982.

    Meteorite information | Some Meteorite Information | Washington University in St. Louis (wustl.edu)

    Assertion 6 - Meteorites were made to look like Moon by removing the outer melted layer
    A ceramicist could not simply chip away at meteorites and make them look like moon rocks. There would be obvious tool marks left behind and it would rob the meteorites of most of their Helium-3. It's a moot point anyway, because meteorites and moon rocks have different oxygen isotope ratios.



    Any tool used would leave trace amounts of metal and would be impossible to miss. The most concentrated portion of helium-3 is located on the outside of the rock from constant solar wind ions allowing a shallow penetration of the rock. Chipping away the outer layer would indicate no such evidence of solar wind induced helium-3, and that in itself would be evidence of tampering.

    Since non lunar meteorites have completely different elemental and isotope ratios, predominantly oxygen, it would make no difference anyway!

    Neon 21 and Argon 38 are two other isotopes found in Lunar rocks. White completely ignores these and other isotopes, iuncluding the difference in the oxygen isotopes ratio, he already debunked himself on that during part of an interview he quoted.

    Even now, 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 solar radiation, cosmic or otherwise!
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ESA - ESA helps analyse untouched Moon rocks
    "To extract the regolith, a 70 cm cylindrical tube was hammered into the landslide deposit to produce a core, which was then separated into two halves on the surface of the Moon. The lower half of the section, known as sample 73001, likely contains a region of the subsurface that is cold enough to have trapped loosely bound volatiles, such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen. To try to preserve these precious gases, it was sealed in a vacuum container on the lunar surface and then double sealed in a second vacuum container back on Earth.

    [​IMG]
    Moon sample 73002 dissection

    The upper portion of the core, sample 73002, was also carefully contained after being collected, but was not vacuum sealed. Both halves have remained in storage, under the expert care of the NASA Astromaterials Curation Team, since being returned.

    ESA initially has a supportive role in the planning and processes associated with examining the lunar samples, working with the NASA curation team to ensure that the scientists are able to make their highly precise measurements. Francesca made the trip to NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, USA, in December 2019 to assist in the meticulous dissection of 73002 into subsamples, shortly after it was opened. During dissection, a detailed record is made of exactly where each subsample comes from within the core, allowing the science teams to make inferences about lunar processes.

    [​IMG]
    Moon facts: age and composition

    To prepare for the opening of the lower portion sample, ESA scientists and engineers are currently working closely with ANGSA noble gas and volatile experts to design a tool to capture any precious gases it may contain. The results of the analysis will address questions first pondered by Apollo-era scientists."
     
    AARguy likes this.
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What casual viewers to this ridiculous sub-forum can see quite clearly, is that there are literally dozens of threads that, in every case, develop into a generic dumping ground for spam and garbage about this impossible hoax. So, when we get the serial forum spammer bumping a thread halfway down the page instead of one closer to the top, we know that he is clearly following an agenda to flood the top of the forum with his spam.

    He isn't interested in debate. I posted clear rebuttal (in post 1 and 6) to his moronic 36 spam rock videos, he ignored them completely because like every subject he regurgitates out on this forum, he has zero understanding of it.

    He has no interest in discussing his latest piece of junk (on another thread - what kind of person posits a claim about photography in a vacuum that is totally absurd in its concept and implication?), it's the "throw as much crap at the wall as possible" tactic because he wants others to experience his own total failures and shortcomings, whereby they too may be sucked in to stupid belief systems without any understanding or compulsion to disprove them.

    In previous posts, this comedian has postured himself as using the scientific method, see if anyone can actually spot this in action!
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no background in geology so I really can't opine. People can read Phil Webb's analysis and Jarrah Whites analysis and decide for themselves.


    This is the reason I maintain that the alleged moon rocks aren't proof of anything.

    28. "Moonstones" coming from the Earth -
    "lunar probes" were not necessary

    http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Generally: "Moonstones" cannot be proved

    "Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    We don't have a real moon rock from a neutral source with which to compare the Apollo and Soviet samples. There's no reason for me not to post other technical stuff for others to see.

    The stuff you post isn't proof as it may all be bogus info. In a hoax the size of this, bogus info will be part of the plan.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2022
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's a video I made many years ago that barely scratches the surface. It certainly doesn't incorporate all the truly idiotic claims made by the serial forum spammer where god knows how many new people are in on this ridiculous hoax garbage!



    Then go away and get a hobby you know something about!

    You aren't qualified to determine the validity of the crap you post! Once again you post that spammed idiotic website that I completely debunked and you ignored the entire contents of my rebuttal!

    A truly idiotic statement. The rocks show every attribute possible for them to be from the Moon, have no possibility to be Earth rocks or meteorites and have been examined by people who don't spam the internet for kicks!
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2022
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I gave a rebuttal but you seem to have unshakable faith in what you read in the mainstream.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...on-missions-were-real.603866/#post-1073731012

    I maintain that mainstream info is controlled by a bunch of corrupt people and it's not unreasonable to suspect that all their info that you post is simply bogus info so we have to agree to disagree on this point.
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apollo's Bounty: The Science of the Moon Rocks - Scientific American
    "The lunar rocks brought home by Apollo astronauts reshaped our understanding of the moon and the entire solar system. Gathering more of them is one of the most important reasons to go back.

    I was born too late to witness Apollo 11, but my life and career as a planetary scientist have been directly shaped by the samples brought back by the six missions that landed on the moon. For instance, some of my research concerns explosive volcanic deposits on the lunar surface. The data that I have used come from samples that were scooped directly off the surface by astronauts during Apollo 15 and 17. Other data were gathered by orbiting spacecraft that scientists built and sent to the moon as a direct result of the scientific and technical knowledge gained through the Apollo missions.

    In the past 50 years NASA has received 3,190 unique lunar sample requests from more than 500 scientists in more than 15 countries, according to Ryan Zeigler, NASA’s Apollo sample curator. Over the decades, he says, the agency has distributed more than 50,000 unique lunar samples, and currently 145 scientists are studying more than 8,000 samples in diverse fields, including astronomy, biology, chemistry, engineering, materials science, medicine and geology. Above all, the moon rocks have revolutionized our understanding of three major subjects: the nature of the lunar surface, the origin of the moon and the evolution of our solar system."


    And according to Mr. "I have no background in geology", they are all lying/corrupted and his idiotic go-to spam website knows the real "truth".
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The lies continue. Nowhere has the serial forum spammer offered even the slightest response to this webpage(below) detailing why his website is a pile of garbage. The link he points to above is some inaccurate, subsequently bullshit generalized crap about 911!

    A moronic feat of circular logic. The same criteria is 100% more applicable to the batshit websites you frequent and suck up!

    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo Moon Rocks - Idiotic Website (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
    The following website is used by the serial forum spammer because he thinks it actually offers tangible arguments. All excerpts from the website will be in italics and grey background.

    28. "Moonstones" coming from the Earth - "lunar probes" were¨not necessary (geschichteinchronologie.com)
    "The proof that the "moon landing" was in the moon hall: sand and dust are the same It seems strange, but sand and dust in the "training" have the same graining size as in the "moon landing". And this is impossible (Wisnewski, p.174) So this is another proof that the "moon landings" all were in the halls.
    This is NO conspiracy theory, but these are the facts, you stupid Wikipedia."

    From the tone of the dialog it can quickly be deduced that we are not dealing with an intelligent argument. He claims the soil grain size in testing is the same as the soil samples, from a bare assertion reference and then concludes it is impossible. Then from this insane circular logic it becomes "proof". He then refers to Wikipedia, which is obviously the limit of his actual research capabilities.

    "Examples of "moonstones": Stones should give an impression
    When you are asking for "moonstone" in the Internet (in German: "Mondgestein"), then you should have the searching word "moonstone", "moon stone" or surprisingly the best searching word is "lunar sample". Funnily enough the research almost always knows what kind of stone it is and can compare the stones with stones from the Earth, or the stones are almost identical. And there are mad indications that "moonstones" would be worth more than gold. So, there exist fantasies that there are things on the moon more worth than gold..."


    There appears to be no substance to any of that garbage. Gold is deemed as some unsurpassable element by this person, clearly the rarity of lunar samples is what makes them valuable. There then follows some pictures that offer no arguments just meaningless observations.

    "Generally: "Moonstones" cannot be proved
    Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).

    [All in all all shown "moonstones" could be also from the Earth. The indications that "moonstones" would eventually be more worth than "gold" lets rise the fantasy for the greedy, capitalistic society at the same time. When the "moonstones" would be from the Earth so one had lost more than "gold"...]"


    Absolutely absurd speculative and very ignorant statements. Summarizing this involves pointing out the samples contain ZERO evidence of terrestrial weathering, contain numerous solar isotopes including helium-3 on outer skin from solar wind, show evidence of formation in low gravity, contain many tiny impact craters from micro-meteorites and collectively cannot be from Earth or meteorites. The author presumes once again to quote as reference, a rather uninformed individual "Wisnewski" who is given to numerous bare assertions with no evidence to support them!

    The idea that these samples are more valuable than gold is hardly an economical goal considering the cost of retrieving the damn things.
     
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First of all, the anomalies in the footage* have already proven that Apollo was a hoax. There are plausible scenarios that would explain why we read that lots of scientists have studied the rocks and pronounced them real.

    Some of them might have been fooled and some of them might have been in on the scam.
    Some of the samples might have been collected by unmanned robotic craft and those samples were given to the scientists that couldn't be bought or threatened.
    The media lie so nothing we read in them can be taken seriously.

    Since the hoax has already been proven, we have to figure out which plausible scenario is the correct one. We may never do it but our not knowing that doesn't make the anomalies in the footage and photos go away.

    Mainstream info is corrupt. Do a search on "Chomsky media".


    *
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-22#post-1073703706
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...on-missions-were-real.603866/#post-1073758164
     
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spam and inaccurate bullshit. You have had your ass kicked all over this forum and have just run away in ignorance.

    Bullshit. You aren't even qualified to understand the subject or the processes these scientists follow.

    Idiotic crap. None of them have been fooled and nobody is on this batshit "scam". You however, continue to be fooled on a daily basis.

    Made up batshit. The Soviets managed grams of the stuff and NASA brought back 842lbs. You have zero evidence for any of your unmanned claims. Not one single tiny scrap of evidence.

    Idiotic circular logic. We know for a fact that your sources lie copious amounts of times, so your double standards are noted.

    The landings are proven and you have 18-20 years of failure invested in spamming and evasion. In all that time you've learnt jack!

    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo Moon Rocks - Idiotic Website (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
    "The stage-managed race for "moonstones"
    According to the access into the falsification practice with the planet machinery "LOLA" at Langley and according to the possibilities of radio communication not over some 100 km all flights of the "moon probes" are a lie. And because the transport of "moonstones" was not a neutral, controllable procedure, and because according to the technical data of the little aberration of the landings from the landing points and because of the cosmic radiation (sun storms with many sunspots) the Apollo flights cannot have been performed, the official data about "moonstones" do not seem very reliable. By the "moonstones" one lie supports the other one, in case of the "moonstones" in cooperation with the "Soviet Union".


    There is no substance in that paragraph at all - conspiracy garbage and bare assertion. He basically says radio communication over 100km is impossible. Just plain stupid.

    "With the secrecy and with the term "conspiracy theory" against all critics the ****-and-bull story of the moonstones is defended successfully in the propaganda and in the media..".

    Bare assertion nonsense.

    "13 July 1969 Start of the "SU" "lunar probe" Luna 15 with the aim of a landing "on the moon" on 21st July (Wisnewski, p.210)"

    No claim - just a reference.

    "16 July 1969 Start of Apollo 11 with the aim of a landing "on the moon" on 21st July
    (Wisnewski, p.210) But until now the "USA" have not even brought one single "lunar probe" to the moon and brought back (Wisnewski, p.210)."


    No claim - just a reference.

    "21 July 1969 "SU": The "lunar probe" is said have crashed "on the moon"
    The reasons for the crash are "not known" (Wisnewski, p.210-211)."


    No claim - just a reference.

    "24 July 1969 Apollo 11 claims they had brought "moonstones" (soil samples) "from the moon" all in all 20 kg "moonstones" (Wisnewski, p.209,210)."

    No claim - just a reference.

    "since 24 July 1969 The research on the "moonstones" is only for "elected people"
    Research with the "moonstones" is only possible with a proposal and with a detailed justification of the project. Then some milligram "moonstone" are released (Wisnewski, p.211)."


    No claim - just a reference. But quite rightly NASA only allows qualified people to examine the samples.

    "14 to 24 November 1969 Apollo 12 claims having brought back parts of "lunar probe" "Surveyor 3" "from the moon" Astronauts from Apollo 12 claim they had brought back parts of the "lunar probe" Surveyor 3, among others the little camera. But according to indications of NASA the camera shall have contained a terrestrial bacterium which had survived the "stay on the moon"."

    Nonsense claim - what is "terrestrial bacterium"? If NASA faked bringing back Surveyor parts then it can easily fake bullshit bacterium.

    "(In: David, Leonard: Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets; www.space.com; 26.3.2001; www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/apollo_moon_rocks_010326.html (August 2006); Wisnewski, S.216)"

    No claim - just a reference.

    "[Then there is the proof that the "lunar probe" Surveyor 3 had never been "on the moon", and that is - again - NO conspiracy theory, but this is logic, you stupid Wikipedia]."

    No claim - just idiotic bare assertion.

    "12 July 1970 "SU": Start of the "lunar probe" "Luna 16" with the aim of a landing "on the moon" (Wisnewski, p.211)"

    No claim - just a reference.

    "24 July 1970 "SU": Flight back of the "lunar probe" "Luna 16" "from the moon" and landing on Earth with ca. 100 gr "moonstone" This is the official data (Wisnewski, p.211)."

    No claim - just a reference.

    "since 1970 The superpowers comparing their "moonstones" Now funnily enough the officially hostile superpowers are comparing their "moonstones" and "accept the authenticity of the Apollo material" of each other. (In: www.clavius.org; Wisnewski, p.211)."

    No claim - just a reference. A hint of sarcasm and stupid implied bare assertion.

    This website is a ridiculous source for anything other than batshit bare assertion - no wonder the serial forum spammer uses it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2022
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just look at this spammer, he is completely evading every single post made. He comes up with the "they're all lying" or "it's all faked" bullshit, based on nothing more than his own ignorant fumbling on the web. He uses words like "plausible" / "could have" / "maybe" yet has already admitted he knows nothing about any subject he posts on.

    As a "hobby", you absolutely suck at it!
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apollo 11 Anniversary: Moon Rock Sample Preparation - Kemet
    "
    Extracts from Industrial Diamond Review June 1971
    The problems of slicing and polishing hard, high cost materials are well known to electronics manufacturers, metallurgists and others, and it is not uncommon for the price of one boule or crystal to exceed that of the sawing equipment and/or lap. The lunar rock brought back by the three Apollo missions probably constitutes the most 'expensive' material on earth and it is therefore not surprising to find that similar techniques and equipment, involving diamond tools and compounds, are being employed in sample preparation

    Nearly 220 lb (100 kg) of moon rock and dust has now been brought back to earth by the three Apollo missions. The crew of Apollo 11, the first men on the moon, collected only 48 lb of lunar material, but even that small sampling from the Sea of Tranquillity-less a proportion kept untouched as a permanent record-had to be distributed amongst the 1000 plus scientists in the USA. Britain. Canada, Japan. Australia and Western Europe who were co-operating with NASA (the US National Aeronautics & Space Administration) in the initial study."
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-apollo-moon-rocks-idiotic-website.html

    "So: Earth stones were brought "from the moon"

    An idiotic conclusion.

    "The "moon astronauts" shall have collected Earth stones on the moon? When this is true it's not necessary to fly to the moon to find "moonstones". But this conclusion is not allowed officially until today (August 2006) in the media. But the collision theory should explain the similarity of Earth stones and moonstones. The articles in the encyclopedias must all be adapted to this NASA theory..."

    Basically this fool is offering his ignorant claim again that Moon rocks are from Earth. With no terrestrial weathering, solar isotopes, significant exterior(and interior)helium-3, zap pits, evidence of formation in low gravity and with no heat damage from entry to Earth!

    "(In: Heck, Philipp: Der Mond - unser geheimnisvoller Nachbar. Entstehung, Missionen, Aufbau [The moon - our mysterious neighbour. Building, missions, construction]; http://lexikon.astronomie.info/ 7.6.2002; Wisnewski, S.213)"

    No claim - just a reference.

    "1978-1982 Indexing of the "moonstones" - the "moonstones" are living...
    But Andrew Steele, an astro biologist at the University of Portsmouth in England, detects with his microscopic research that there is terrestrial life in the "moonstones" to be found:
    -- brush hairs /-- plastic parts /-- nylon parts /-- Teflon parts
    -- terrestrial little animals, some of them "pretty snotty".
    So, there is the question how the ultra cleaned storage at the NASA looks like. Because the many terrestrial contaminations can only come from the Earth from a time after the building of the moon. The website www.space.com indicates such events as "dirty little secrets"."


    This is hearsay and the conclusion from the article is really stupid. If any such contamination were found on the sample in question, there is nothing to discount local recent contamination.

    "The question if the "moonstones" come from the Earth is not allowed of course...
    (In:-- Wisnewski, p.215-216) The contradiction: "moonstones" are not "similar"
    According to the indications of this article "moonstones" are not at all similar to the Earth stones:
    -- "moonstones" shall be very dry
    -- "moonstones" shall contain no water molecules
    -- "moonstones" shall have no oxidation
    -- "moonstones" shall not contain any iron
    -- "moonstones" shall be easy to distinguish from Earth stones.
    Original text: "Compared with terrestrial samples, all lunar rocks are oddballs because they are so dry," Ryder said. "They contain no molecules of water, they're not oxidized and they contain no ferric iron. They're easy to distinguish from rocks on Earth."(Hoversten, Paul: 30 Years Later, Moon Rocks Retain Their Secrets; 23.7.2002; Wisnewski, p.213)"


    No claim - just a reference.


    "Conclusion: All thesis about "moonstones" are worthless
    By this any thesis about "moonstones" is invalid because the statements are absolutely controversial that no thesis is reliable any more. But the media reported all as a sensation to rise their number of copies and to rise their number of viewers, and the "research" has opened a new researching field "moonstones" which is paid by the tax payer again with millions of $ and Euros... for nothing.
    (Conclusion Palomino)
    This is NO conspiracy theory, stupid journalist, but these are facts.
    -- David, Leonard: Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets; www.space.com; 26.3.2001; www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/apollo_moon_rocks_010326.html"


    No claim - just bare assertion gibberish. That webpage appears to have been written by a very stupid person.

    Basically the website that the serial forum spammer keeps sticking up has zero credibility, zero quantified and verified references that back up his bullshit bare assertions and no counter evidence that disprove the Apollo samples are from the Moon. No wonder he keeps using it!
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2022
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Apollo rocks, proof man landed on the Moon and also showing that some people have no integrity whatsoever in their ignorant denial.
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, for the serial forum spammer to ignore or offer his puerile and ignorant observations:

    Advanced Analysis of Apollo Moon Rock Sample Illuminates Lunar Evolution (scitechdaily.com)
    "Sophisticated analysis of a rock sample taken from the Moon during the Apollo 17 mission nearly 50 years ago revealed new information about the complex cooling and evolutionary history of the Moon. The findings, from University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa researchers, were published in Nature Communications
    Nature Communications is a peer-reviewed, open access, multidisciplinary, scientific journal published by Nature Research. It covers the natural sciences, including physics, biology, chemistry, medicine, and earth sciences.

    Apollo 17 astronauts collected the rock sample troctolite 76535 from the Moon’s surface in 1972, and it remains one of the most scientifically valuable samples of the Moon due to its pristine nature. Further, the rock type is widespread on the Moon and likely contains important clues to understanding lunar formation."

    "The study also demonstrates the value of re-examining previously analyzed samples using modern techniques and how quickly new data can reshape our understanding of planetary evolution."

    So all those samples, 50 years later, modern equipment and they still stand up to scrutiny.
     
  21. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,433
    Likes Received:
    662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Maybe, Scott can’t handle the evidence that the moon rocks are real because it messes with his belief that the moon is made of cheese.
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The evidence won't go away, but sadly neither will the serial forum spammer. he is incapable of seeing any reason. The last few days have brought forth even more irrefutable evidence that an honest person would just look at and know when the game was up. He is totally afraid to do this, the loss of face in his eyes would be too much to bear. He knows Apollo landed on the Moon. He knows this without any doubt, but his stubbornness and need to troll/spam is too strong. The internet if full of misguided and very foolish people - sadly he will be contributing to this figure increasing because not once does he concede properly.

    I could post every one of the thousands of reports from proper experts and he would wave them all away with an idiotic website he doesn't understand or yet another garbage video from the "Blunder". There is no reaching such a person.
     
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The viewers demand you answer these posts honestly. You are chickening out of honest debate - you have been doing this for over a decade with me, why are you so afraid? Just admit your errors and go and do something honest and worthwhile. Nobody will ever care about your 20 years of failure. Get a new "hobby".
     
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2019/pdf/1708.pdf
    "Micro-craters are well preserved and studied in Apollo samples at sub-micron scales in two- dimensions [1-5, 8-9]. Seminal efforts by Horz, Hartung, Gault, and others have outlined basic crater morphology relationships across suites of Apollo lunar samples."

    "By investigating the target volume beneath the largest 5 zap pits in the sample, we have been able to evaluate the extent to which the relatively fresh- appearing micro-craters produced internal displacements, melting, and fracturing within their target volumes, and the relation to diameter (KE of the impact). For the largest of the zap-pits, a zone of impact deformation could be identified in the 1-2 μm/voxel xCT scan, with a radial extent up to 50% of the radius of the crater cavity (Fig. 3). Beyond this, an outer zone of likely impact related damage forms a fracture network radiating roughly 5-6 radii from the center."
     
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113

Share This Page