The Apollo Moon rocks - irrefutable proof that we landed

You have to laugh at somebody claiming 842lbs of lunar samples, peer reviewed by the best geologists on the planet is "moot" because of some moronic debunked to death horseshit. Six missions landed on the Moon and retrieved these samples.

@Scott - please explain why you have failed to answer this slam-dunk post!
In your spam by numbers post, tell the viewers where exactly each of these points are refuted:
Summary:
1. The water found in the volcanic beads is at trace level, circa 50 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.
4. Elements very common in Earth rocks are absent or in very small amounts: quartz, calcite, magnetite, micas, amphiboles, and sulfide minerals.
5. The Oxygen isotope ratio is the same for Moon rocks and Earth rocks. But this is the only isotope ratio that is the same.
6. White deliberately fails to point out that amongst others, Neon 21 and Argon 38 isotopes are found in Moon rocks but not in Earth rocks.
7. He observes similar elements to Earth rocks, but fails to point out the stunning major point, they occur in hugely different proportions.
8. 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
9. Meteorites not of Lunar origin differ both chemically and mineralogically from Earth and Moon rocks.

How many times has this been evaded with off topic spam?

 

So further to the ridiculous claim this footage is in gravity, here it is in animated gif format:


Now a number of things are immediately obvious from this....

• The dish on the right is clearly and totally obviously under tension.
• When the LM thrusters pitch it around to orientate the craft for docking something makes the dish flap for a few seconds.
• The "hoax claim" uses upside-down footage that makes it look like it is dropping downwards - it isn't! The Moon is below.
• When the footage is correctly orientated it no longer looks like gravity.
• After a few seconds the dish stops moving, it just rolls round and "defies gravity"! Right there, the hoax claim shoots itself in the foot and we now have another piece of footage that shows the LM in lunar orbit.

Case closed. Anyone who claims this looks like gravity is in full denial. Apollo landed on the Moon six times.

I actually just realized what is happening. The RCS thruster to pitch the LM around is located in the vicinity of the dish shown here on the far left of the diagram:


This is quite a significant exhaust to rotate a few tons.

 

You showed it upside-down. I know that in zero-G there's no up or down but if you show the original footage, the movement is totally consistent with the LEM's being in Earth gravity. It dangles and sways back and forth the way it would in Earth gravity. That movement is not consistent with zero-G.

 

Do you actually read posts properly in their entirety? Or is this a comprehension failure?
From HERE
"Why does every damn thing have to be done for you! The docking footage is right at the start! It begins at 8.50!
From this video you will notice (or damn well should!) that the footage has been inverted by some youtube users from the original, no idea why.

But HERE is all that original footage the right way up and in its entirety."
NASA Video: Apollo 12 16mm Film by the Astronauts (1969) - YouTube

and HERE!
"I say you are ignoring a) its orientation - on the original footage it "falls" UP! b) the very irrefutable subsequent NON movement as it continues to rotate.. Anybody who views that objectively and honestly will see that the only movement is from the thruster burst and once it stops, so does the swaying. The fact that it then stops completely, proves to an honest person that it is in space."

How foolish do you feel, that IS the original footage YOU are using inverted footage!

Ignorant and inaccurate bare assertion. No it doesn't.

Briefly as it is hit by the RCS thruster, then it completely stops even when the craft continues rotating! Right there, an honest person would just concede.

An utterly clueless claim. Inertia and force exist in zero gravity the same as in gravity! How can you not know this basic, basic thing.

 

Viewers...

Watch this footage.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tart-to-finish.602133/page-10#post-1074316476

No matter what the orientation was when it made public, the above orientation shows that the radar dish fell and dangled and swayed back and forth which is consistent with gravity and inconsistent with zero-gravity. Showing it with the orientation inverted doesn't change that. The viewers can come to their own conclusions.

 

Why is this person ignoring so much of what is typed. This is just pathetic and has been going on for close to 20 years.

INVERTED from the original DAC reel!

And again with this ignorant claim. Inertia and force exist in zero gravity the same as in gravity! How can you not know this basic, basic thing.

Well actually it does, It shows that when viewed with the Moon below the camera, as it was filmed, the movement looks quite normal.

And the hundred-times-written spam! The viewers want to know why you have ignored post #51 above? They also want to know how you explain the obviously detached dish shows ZERO movement as it continues rotating. Gravity will pull it in one direction. If you say that is "up" in the animated gif, how come it doesn't fall "up" when the LM rotates. Duhhh!

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-31#post-1074385879

 

"Pathetic. So we have self-winding magic wires now!? Absolutely ANY ridiculous excuse from you rather than admit your failures. There is no movement whatsoever even when it is 90 degrees to the point where it started moving."

Viewers, did anyone notice he failed to reply to post #51? I can quote a considerable number of similar posts where he has ignored rebuttal or offered absolutely useless "explanations" like the one above.

The simple explanation is that this was a docking maneuver performed in 1969, in lunar orbit by Apollo 12. Though I haven't established this for definite, it appears to be the direct force from the RCS thruster has dislodged the dish. In a vacuum all sorts of temperature variations could possibly cause such a failure.

More pertinently though, once the dish clearly breaks free from its connector, it sways for a second or two then becomes perfectly still EVEN as the LM rotates a full 90 degrees! THIS actually proves that the footage is in space without gravity. No wonder we are getting obfuscation. Yet another thing to add to the massive list.

Here's another thought as well. NONE of this footage was broadcast on TV. It was filmed on the 16mm DAC camera and developed back on Earth. NASA simply MUST have watched it through. In addition to this occurring on the film, it was discussed on the audio recording! So it wasn't as though they wouldn't be aware of it.

The claim amounts to this. NASA decided to "invent" a malfunction on the dish and discuss it on audio, then setup their "fake" filming to record this incident.....even though (according to this stupid hoax-claim) it shows the presence of gravity. That is some seriously stupid logic!

 

I guess "wind" is the wrong word since it only wound a half turn.

As the LEM rotated the "wire", or "cord" wrapped around the bar until there was nothing left from which the radar dish could dangle. Part of the dish itself rested against the bar and gravity pulled it downward. It could no longer dangle. Of course it's going to stop moving.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-30#post-1074385661

 

Please don't guess. If they are informed guesses it's ok, but yours never are.

There is NO "wire" or "cord"! What the hell are you talking about?

Just utterly pathetic obfuscation. If I came out with that horseshit even YOU would say it was horseshit!

Viewers, are you seeing this evasion - it happens every single thread!

I make a large post he responds to 1 line.
Hey @Scott you "missed" all this.
Viewers, did anyone notice he failed to reply to post #51? I can quote a considerable number of similar posts where he has ignored rebuttal or offered absolutely useless "explanations" like the one above.

The simple explanation is that this was a docking maneuver performed in 1969, in lunar orbit by Apollo 12. Though I haven't established this for definite, it appears to be the direct force from the RCS thruster has dislodged the dish. In a vacuum all sorts of temperature variations could possibly cause such a failure.

More pertinently though, once the dish clearly breaks free from its connector, it sways for a second or two then becomes perfectly still EVEN as the LM rotates a full 90 degrees! THIS actually proves that the footage is in space without gravity. No wonder we are getting obfuscation. Yet another thing to add to the massive list.

Here's another thought as well. NONE of this footage was broadcast on TV. It was filmed on the 16mm DAC camera and developed back on Earth. NASA simply MUST have watched it through. In addition to this occurring on the film, it was discussed on the audio recording! So it wasn't as though they wouldn't be aware of it.

The claim amounts to this. NASA decided to "invent" a malfunction on the dish and discuss it on audio, then setup their "fake" filming to record this incident.....even though (according to this stupid hoax-claim) it shows the presence of gravity. That is some seriously stupid logic!

 

Yup, some seriously stupid logic. As a viewer of this thread, I have to say @Scott is doing absolutely nothing to convince me that moon landings were a hoax. Some of the ‘proof’ he provides is hilarious. The evidence you provide won’t convince him but it does clarify to others why the moon landings were not a hoax.

 

Have you looked at all of these anomalies?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-31#post-1074385963

 

Kindly stop spamming your debunked horseshit. The post directly underneath that link to a link to links spam says it all:
It must terrify you to be wrong after 20 years of forum spamming.

Your link 1: No specific claim, just ridiculous links to links to big lists all addressed and all responses ignored, as you always do. This is your never-ending tactic. Repeat your wall of batshit spam and ignore everything. You were doing this very same thing with me over 12 years ago and you are still doing it. That is just so very pathetic.
Your link 2: Batshit about a flap on the LRV that defies logic and ignores how they filmed all that footage. ALL addressed numerous times. Then this 20 year obsession with a flag! Unbelievable that you STILL spew out this garbage.
Your link 3: This is the crap about noises on the footage. It contradicts every claim made about how it was done (ie. sound added after video - to incorporate all the live sporting events that get discussed). You failed miserably to answer why the hell they would have hot mics in a supposed soundless vacuum stage. Duhhh!
Your link 4: Just a vague link to an idiot youtuber you blundered upon. Zero analysis, zero quantatitive observation on what to watch. ZERO analysis on why this "shillstomper" has provided any salient evidence.

 

@Scott Demonstrate your "scientific method" (stifles a snigger) - NASA deciding to fake this (six times? MEH!) scripted a failure with the dish. They had an astronaut discussing it and they chose to setup the failure. OR, it happened during filming and they simply scripted references to it accordingly.

Either way, they MUST have known about it! Now what world of idiotic incompetence do they do so if it shows "gravity"? And what brainless world of wtf, do they do it in the first place!?

Spoiler: Guess what?

THEY WOULDN'T! Duhhhh.

Logic should be the tool of "truth-seekers" Conspiracy-theorists - try, just for once to use it huh?

 

I have read every post on the various moon threads and nothing you say or link to convinces me that the moon landings were a hoax. The bigger picture is — there is too much evidence that convincingly leads ones to believe the moon landings took place. If one focuses on a small amount of what they think is evidence that the moon landings were a hoax and ignores everything else, then one might believe the lies. I believe in looking at all sides and drawing a conclusion. You have no conclusive evidence of anything. Your focus is too narrow and only on what you believe.

 

Bump. Where is this guy? Is he EVER going to debate properly?

 

I mean...if you ignore the fact that we have sat photos of the lander on the moon which we can see whenever we want...sure. The moon rocks kind of help.

 

Check out this info...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-29#post-1074075919

...and check out post #62.

The anomalies have already proven the hoax so the rock issue isn't about whether Apollo was faked. It's about how Apollo was faked.

I'm no geologist but I collected some info on the rocks posted by Apollo hoax-believers.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...roof-that-the-moon-missions-were-real.603866/

 

This is my rebuttal to your idiotic videos, explain why you have never answered these!

Video 1:-
This is made by the incredibly misguided hunchbacked. He uses partial crops of the massive original files as his "evidence". These partial crops are of course taken using editing software and enhanced accordingly! He does no such analysis on the multi-gigabyte full TIF images that are not edited. Fail.

Video 2:-
An appalling conclusion erroneously obtained. He says the pictures of the Apollo hardware should be better, because Earth bound satellite telescopes can pick out smaller objects. What stunning ignorance. The Earth has nearly 3 times the albedo of the brightest parts of the Moon, has massive color variances and the telescopes are designed specifically for ultra close up detail. Compared to the low light emitting Moon, devoid of color or contrast and using a telescope that had multiple purposes.

Video 3:-
The no fly zone is a request for Apollo 11 and 17 only and completely irrelevant. The trails he says disappear, do not! Once again he uses small contrast boosted crops and fails to use the large original images.

The spam cut and paste response. The "anomalies" have been systematically destroyed. Your failure to acknowledge this, is of no importance.

No, you are a "layman" in every single thing as far as I can tell. But a proper layman will at least attempt to learn the subject. You never do and blunder along making one ignorant claim after another.
Your idiotic link has been addressed in this thread but of course you ignored that as well. All in all, a totally pathetic effort.

 

Hoax claimants don't ignore them, they make up horseshit about them being faked. They ignore posts like this though showing this to be impossible!
This was taken from a forum post many years ago, referencing an expert:-
This is some of his work - http://www.mem-tek.com/apollo/ISD.html

"There are several reasons why it would be impossible to doctor the LROC images. I will list the various reasons, in no particular order, as I think of them:

1. The LRO Team, not NASA, controls the LRO. The LRO mission control center is on the campus at Arizona State University. Thus it is the LRO Team who schedules what targets the LRO shoots, and when. Not sure, but I believe that these target commands are uploaded to the LRO on a daily basis.

2. There is no way to upload images to the LRO.

3. Jarrah believes that the LRO images of the landing sites are doctored after they are transmitted to earth. The problem with that theory is that the LRO transmits around 280 GB of data back to earth every day. This data is transmitted as analog data by the LRO's Ka band antenna, is received at White Sands and converted from analog to digital data on-the-fly, and then the data is piped directly to the LRO mission control center at ASU. If NASA or any other entity were to take the time to doctor LRO images of the landing sites, then the LRO team would certainly notice the delay when receiving LRO images of the landing sites.

4. Let's imagine the impossible -- toss out 1 through 3 -- and assume that the LRO images of the landing sites somehow are doctored before they arrive at ASU. Here are the technical hurdles which would have to be overcome. They could be overcome, but only if you took a lot of time, as in a couple of days:

4a. All fake Apollo hardware must be positioned with sub-pixel accuracy. It would be very easy to tell if this wasn't done, simply by 2x or 4x bicubic resampling LRO images of the landing sites and then overlaying the images.

4b. The LRO almost always has to be slewed towards the east or west in order to look at the landing sites. This is because the LRO rarely passes directly over a landing site. This now imposes the need to make sure that viewing perspective of the fake Apollo hardware overlaid on the LRO images is correct.

4c. And now one would have to fake the shadows cast by the fake Apollo hardware. That would be very difficult to accurately accomplish since of course the lunar terrain is far from level at the half meter scale.

4d. Even after all of the above, faking the Apollo hardware -- especially the shadows of said hardware, becomes very difficult. Why? Because each NAC CCD is read out by first reading out all of the even numbered pixels (called the A channel) and then reading out all of the odd numbered pixels (the B channel). The problem is that this readout method (which is slightly faster than reading out the entire row of pixels) introduces the pattern of dark 1 pixel wide bands seen in the LRO images. This banding pattern is non-linear in terms of brightness for a variety of reasons, but my point is that trying to overlay a "correct" banding pattern on top of the fake hardware now becomes virtually impossible due to issues which I will describe further below.

5. Each of the LRO's Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) optical systems consists of an 8" aperture 700 mm focal length Ritchie-Chretien telescope with a group of field corrector lenses placed ahead of the focal plane. The field corrector lenses are mounted in a metal assembly in similar fashion to the way that lenses are mounted in older camera lenses which featured all metal mechanical construction. Temperature changes which occur when the LRO passes from the sunlit side to the dark side of the moon cause these lens elements to creep around very slightly, on the order of a few ten thousandths of an inch. This results in very slight random optical decentering.which in turn produces a very slightly different PSF function for LRO images taken each time the LRO's orbit shifts back to the sunlit side of the moon.

5a. It would be impossible for me to get the results which I do when deconvolving and enhancing the LRO images of the landing sites if the PSF function for the "fake" overlaid Apollo hardware didn't match the PSF function for the rest of the image. There is no getting around this issue. If a somewhat incorrect PSF function was applied to the "fake" image data to be overlaid, then the fake image data would stand out like a sore thumb as showing either an obviously incorrect deconvolution result or showing slight trailing in a random direction compared to the rest of the image.

5b. Image deconvolution involves the use of a PSF which is either calculated from the image (takes a while to do), or which is present in the image itself. For PSFs, I select and use one of the small pieces of highly reflective Kapton film which was blown off the LM descent stage when the ascent stage lifted off. The PSF of one of these pieces of Kapton film usually involves at least 10 to 20 pixels of PSF data. That is a lot of PSF data which one would need to generate not only for each pixel of the fake image to be overlaid, but which also must be fully merged into the actual PSF data of the original image. This would have to be pulled off with 64-bit depth precision since I perform image deconvolution at 32-bit depth precision. In other words, some serious number crunching would be involved in order to make sure that the fake overlaid image is not detectable.

5c. Assuming that, somehow, issues 5a and 5b are tackled, and after taking the time to test the results, then one would have to tackle the repeating electronic noise patterns which are present in every LRO image. The placement of these repeating electronic noise patterns are random since the noise patterns come from all of the electronics on-board the LRO itself. Want to see the noise patterns? Simply use Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis. The upshot is that the repeating electronic noise patterns, present in the rest of the original image, would have to be incorporated into the fake image of the Apollo hardware which was to be overlaid onto the original LRO image. But wait...one would have to do this, while at the same time factoring in the issues mentioned in 5a and 5b! And each LRO image contains a few hundred repeating electronic noise patterns from transistors, diodes, capacitors, various circuits, other instruments, and the LRO's Ka band antenna. Lots of stuff, all very faint, but readily visible using FFT analysis.

6. Okay, now let's assume that somebody takes the time to address all of issues described in 4 through 5. The best way to actually fake the Apollo hardware would be to, and if you had plenty of time...

-- decompand the original LRO image,
-- then fully calibrate the original LRO image,
-- then to use FFT to identify and remove all of the original electronic noise patterns in the original image,
-- then to simulate the perspective of the fake Apollo hardware which one wishes to overlay,
-- then to simulate the shadows of the fake hardware in the fake image which one wishes to overlay while at the same time taking into account the terrain of the original image and making the shadow patterns correctly match to at least at or better than the image scale which generally is around 0.5 meters,
-- then properly simulate the effects of the A and B channel vertical nonlinear CCD readout patterns in the fake image,
-- then overlay the fake image of the Apollo hardware onto the original LRO image,
-- then reapply the original image's electronic noise pattern,
-- then de-calibrate the image,
-- then re-compand the image,
-- then insert all of the original LRO spacecraft data which was sent along with the original image's data stream,
-- then calculate and apply new but fake checksums for both the image and the data stream,
-- and finally, then send the fake image to the LRO Team's mission control center at Arizona State University,
-- and then come up with a reasonable explanation for the LRO Team as to why, each time the LRO images one of the Apollo landing sites, that the resulting image is mysteriously delayed for several hours or days in order to accomplish all of the above, to simply to keep alive some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax which other countries would be able to prove within a decade, if not much sooner.

7. Obviously the dozens of scientists and researchers involved with the LRO, if one is to believe conspiracy theorists, would have to be "in" on the conspiracy -- more than 40 years later. That is beyond being patently absurd.

8. On average, every year roughly a half dozen research papers are published which reveal new and completely unique findings related to studies of the moon rocks returned by the Apollo astronauts. Findings which are impossible to duplicate, unless one is willing to believe that to this day research scientists are part of some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax conspiracy.

9. You can't bounce data off of the LRO. You would have to bounce data off of the moon itself since LRO's reflectivity in radio wavelengths is several orders of magnitude less than the moon. Any Ka band (since that is what the LRO uses) transmitter strong enough to bounce a fake signal off of the moon in order to simulate the LRO's Ka band transmission to earth would be picked up by radio astronomers around the world, and they would be very pissed off due to the interference with their work.

Every LRO image of an Apollo landing site is unique. By this, I mean that the solar altitude above the terrain, the direction of solar incidence onto the terrain and direction of solar emission off of the terrain, and the LRO's viewing perspective when looking at an Apollo landing site and surrounding terrain always is unique for each image. Thus, I just realized that absolutely everything in the LRO image would have to be faked if the fake image were to somehow be uploaded to the LRO prior to the LRO team commanding the LRO to actually image one of the Apollo landing sites. In order to do this, one would have to have a DTM of the terrain with better than 1/2 meter accuracy in terms of both the position and altitude for every single object in the image. That is one hell of a huge swath of terrain to model down to 1/2 meter accuracy in both position and elevation in a DTM. To do so would require at least several dozen LRO images of each landing site over a several year period, combined with supercomputer crunching of all of the image data. So far the best LRO DTMs produced from NAC images have accuracies in the neighborhood of around 5 meters -- far short of what would be needed to properly simulate the height of every object plus the shadow direction and shadow length cast by every object in the image. The altitude component of a NAC DTM is what has by far the least resolution and thus the most amount of error. And this is just to fake one single LRO image. In a nutshell, I realize now that it is utterly impossible to fake a LRO image and upload it to the LRO beforehand."

 

The pathetic evasion continues: will this poster EVER start answering the difficult posts!

 

If you ever run into a real flat-earther, show him or her one of these videos.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rocketcam

The curvature of the Earth can be seen from high altitudes.

How do you know you were being told the truth? Something published that says something happened isn't proof that it happened. A lot of countries are in thrall to the US and does its bidding, or are part of the same group. The physical evidence (post #62) trumps second-hand info.

 

As you deduced, don't waste your time, there is simply no amount of evidence that will suffice. EVERY single piece of evidence is denied and every single piece of idiotic hoax crap is held on to at all costs, no matter how thorough the rebuttal evidence showing it to be horseshit.

And of course, once NASA go back to the Moon we'll get the same group of foolish people denying it and yelling batshit about CGI, but strangely these people can't use that same "reasoning" to work out that things like "ufo" or "space beam" videos are created by people in their mom's basement.

 

Ignoring your ridiculously-naive flat-earth evidence, this statement above is one of the most foolish things I have ever seen. We have people independent of the US providing 3rd party evidence. This includes all other space agencies throughout the years. In terms of "being told" things, we are also given reasons why this is the case.

The idea that they are all aware of this stupid hoax and are all corruptible is borderline insanity - it is a vast number of people, particularly the staff at NASA.

It is when corroborating evidence is provided! I find it nauseating that the criteria you apply for evidence is ignored for your own batshit sources.
This website details evidence from other agencies that confirm every single related detail!
Apollo Stuff (onebigmonkey.com)
I cannot imagine that you would ever even read it, but it is some truly extensive and astonishingly accurate work. Just one image taken on the Moon proves they were exactly where claimed:
The Visor Has It (onebigmonkey.com)
To be frank, I don't think you have the capacity to perform such detailed analyses or even understand them.

Complete batshit hogwash. Once again we have the US having every other country in their pocket and this massive group of people keeping this pathetic "hoax-claim" a secret! MEH!

That would be the title of this damn thread that you have continually evaded! You keep dumping stupid videos with no analysis and a website that appears to be written by an imbecile. You systematically avoid things, or offer utterly ludicrous "explanations" that even you must know are complete horseshit.

NOW! For god knows how many times requested, answer THIS(and more added):

@Scott - please explain why you have failed to answer this slam-dunk post!
In your spam by numbers post, tell the viewers where exactly each of these points are refuted:
Summary:
1. The water found in the volcanic beads is at trace level, circa 50 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.
4. Elements very common in Earth rocks are absent or in very small amounts: quartz, calcite, magnetite, micas, amphiboles, and sulfide minerals.
5. The Oxygen isotope ratio is the same for Moon rocks and Earth rocks. But this is the only isotope ratio that is the same.
6. White deliberately fails to point out that amongst others, Neon 21 and Argon 38 isotopes are found in Moon rocks but not in Earth rocks.
7. He observes similar elements to Earth rocks, but fails to point out the stunning major point, they occur in hugely different proportions.
8. 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
9. Meteorites not of Lunar origin differ both chemically and mineralogically from Earth and Moon rocks.
10. There is no terrestrial weathering on any Apollo sample - this rules out meteorites and Earth rocks.

 

You know that only a person with a degree in geology could address all of that. If they turn out to be valid points, there's still the scenario of their having been collected by robotic craft. There's also the scenario of all of that's being bogus info. The rock issue is moot anyway because the anomalies in the footage (linked to in post #62) have already proven the hoax.