TRUMP SCIENCE ADVISOR DENIES APOLLO MOON LANDINGS EVER HAPPENED

Here is why you can't use moon rock age dating to justify that the moon rocks are genuine:

Let's take a look at the study you quoted here:

https://www.sciencealert.com/we-fin...ge-of-the-moon-thanks-to-apollo-14-moon-rocks

The study led by Melanie Barboni looked at eight Apollo 14 zircon grains that had been previously been analyzed by Taylor et al. Let's take a look at the following table that summarized their results:


And what do we see here? We see 40 sample plots, 30 of which are previous Taylor results and 10 Barboni results. The results all fall between 3.9 and 4.3 billion years - this is totally in line with earth rock ages. And we also see an attempt at "modeling" the age of the moon with the result that the moon is now surprisingly older than previously thought with the headline:

"Moon Rocks Reveal That We Were Very Wrong About The Age of The Moon"

So, was everyone previously wrong or is this just another guesstimate of the ages of things that are too old to actually measure the age of? And of course the headline also bolsters the idea that Apollo was real...

Most people probably believe that scientists can measure the ages of billion year old rocks - well, they can't - not without making assumption after assumption and guess after guess built layer upon layer with no real justification - and what they end up doing is building a theoretical house of cards where the underlying assumptions hold up the resulting data on top - but pull out a few of those erroneous underlying assumptions and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down...

 

Nope. That's why you should never listen to an ignorant conspiracy theorist!

Bullcrap. Earth rocks do not fall within that age range.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html

"The oldest rocks on Earth found to date are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near the Great Slave Lake, which are 4.03 billion years old. Rocks older than 3.5 billion years can be found on all continents. Greenland boasts the Isua Supracrustal rocks (3.7 to 3.8 billion years old), while rocks in Swaziland are 3.4 to 3.5 billion years. Samples in Western Australia run 3.4 to 3.6 billion years old."

You know absolutely nothing. The modelling is largely based on ages of off world rocks, namely Apollo and meteorites!

Everyone was correct, it's you and your inept understanding that is wrong. You concentrated on just one small aspect of the differences and failed miserably on that.

Most people are quite correct.

 

OK I'll play rock-paper-scissors with you...

"The oldest material of terrestrial origin that has been dated is a zircon mineral of 4.4 billion years enclosed in a metamorphosed sandstone conglomerate in the Jack Hills of the Narryer Gneiss Terrane of Western Australia. The zircons from the Western Australian Jack Hills returned an age of 4.404 billion years, interpreted to be the age of crystallization."

Using the supposed ages of billion year old rocks for proof of anything is nonsense...

 

The Jack Hills zircon crystals are tiny fragments. These have been heavily weathered and noticeably so! They are not the mean upper limit of Earth rocks.

When you said the Apollo rocks fall within the boundary of Earth rocks you were completely wrong. To deflect from this you find an isolated example that isn't even a rock.

I have provided you with a few documents now, that quite specifically explain why Earth rocks are not as old as the proposed age of the planet. Basically the billions of years of weathering have completely destroyed the oldest rocks. There is not a single geologist who would dispute what I said and none would agree with you.

No it isn't you very ignorant person. No amount of evidence can get through to you. You are completely wrong for about the 50th time!

READ THIS AND DIGEST IT

https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Which part of that concise explanation confuses you?

 

Define "rock" for me.

 

A zircon is a crystal. It is a mineral component of igneous rocks.

"A mineral is a naturally occurring, inorganic solid with a definite chemical composition and a crystalline structure formed by geological processes. A rock is an aggregate of one or more minerals where as a rock may also include organic remains and mineraloids. Some rocks are predominantly composed of just one mineral."

Zircon crystals especially fragments are not classified as rocks. And before you compound the Jerk Card, the Apollo zircon example was posted as an example of crystallzation analysis accuracy!

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-ever-happened.512081/page-29#post-1068254989

But you always fall a little short of directly ageeing with the claim and your stand is always a little ambiguous.

So you are saying that you agree with the claim that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would create enough erosion to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

If that's your stand, you are all washed up in the eyes of thinking people. Nobody with an IQ over ninety who sees this is going to take your analyses of Apollo seriously as you are obviously not a truth-seeker. You are an obfuscator*. All you can do now is try to bury this to reduce the number of people who see it.

How much do they pay you to post here?


*
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
https://openheartedrebel.com/2012/0...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/

 

My stand has no ambiguity at all. I agree with the experienced engineer not the ignorant internet spammer.

It doesn't even register with that empty vessel you call a brain. You have been through this exact straw man bull a dozen times already. We've already had your moronic "all washed up", "no credibility" drivel each time! Your opinion is worthless rhetoric.

Let me make this situation quite clear. You are probably mentally ill. Nobody types the same things thousands of times without having some sort of OCD or delusion. You are obviously a very poorly educated person. You know nothing about any single subject you post about. You have no useful working knowledge of geology, physics, radiation, orbital mechanics, weightlessness, water! and a whole host of sub-divisions of the Apollo missions.

You are possibly the least qualified of anyone to even express an opinion, let alone argue about things and assess other people's credibility. You are not even qualified to assess what IQ level would or should determine. In short, anything you say can be dismissed into the trash can.

A truth seeker? What's that exactly? Because if you are claiming to be one, when in fact you are the complete opposite, then no I am not!

Nope. I made a thread on this subject debunking your moronic claims. A truth seeker would have conceded they were wrong based on it. You are just a liar and a coward who could never do this. It would invalidate 10 years of spam and OCD.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-dust-free-sand-strawman-claim.443515/

Interested viewers who read that thread will see without any doubt that your whole claim is a useless straw man. The conditions you claim, dust free, are clearly not what is observed. Only liars will claim this is not the case. Clear flat prints are being made throughout footage, that has dust being kicked around. The footage shows ballistic motion of the soil that falls at lunar freefall speed. When the video is compensated by 245% speed to show Earth speed, the astronauts move with absurd motion.

You are cornered on this and you obviously know it!
Your only response is to bizarrely claim that this is obfuscation, when it is 100% irrefutable evidence they are on the Moon.

"They" don't pay me anything. Where do I apply for such a position. If there is a buck to be made arguing with the grossly ignorant, count me in.

 

This thread is about footprints.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-dust-free-sand-strawman-claim.443515/

Please link to where you prove that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would create enough erosion to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

 

It's about showing your moronic claim is irrelevant!

You haven't proved it doesn't. You cite dead links and non expert testimony. I proved beyond any doubt that it ISN'T a dust free sand that we see. I also cite a proper expert. In terms of your idiot straw man, even if the expert were wrong, it is irrelevant.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-ever-happened.512081/page-30#post-1068255954

Hey "truth seeker"! You missed this part of my post:-


Interested viewers who read that thread will see without any doubt that your whole claim is a useless straw man. The conditions you claim, dust free, are clearly not what is observed. Only liars will claim this is not the case. Clear flat prints are being made throughout footage, that has dust being kicked around. The footage shows ballistic motion of the soil that falls at lunar freefall speed. When the video is compensated by 245% speed to show Earth speed, the astronauts move with absurd motion.

You are cornered on this and you obviously know it!
Your only response is to bizarrely claim that this is obfuscation, when it is 100% irrefutable evidence they are on the Moon

 

Of course you are right about the sand, but check out this video:



The sand is billowing as it would in air - also, the sand should rise higher and fall more slowly than it appears to do if it were on the moon - it obviously was recorded on earth because we could easily produce the same effect on earth with a dune buggy...

 

The comedy troll says the spammer is right and the engineer is wrong. Who would have thought it!

Nope. The slow moving equivalent golf cart is pushing lunar soil up 2 metres. It follows a measurable ballistic trajectory and falls straight to the surface.

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/proof-we-landed-moon-dust#page-2

Nope. It falls exactly as it should and rises many times higher than very powerful sand buggies

Then you should have no trouble showing an example of this.

In the meantine:-

 

Actually, the more I watch the video it just looks to me to be a scale model set with a dummy astronaut. This is the same thing that others have said. Just my subjective opinion...

 

****Facepalm****

The world of a mad conspiracy nut encapsulated in one very ridiculous post.

 

There might have been some areas with some dust in the sand. My point though is that Jay Windley* got caught telling an obvious lie when he was trying to obfuscate the anomaly.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-ever-happened.512081/page-29#post-1068254989

His telling that obvious lie destroyed his credibility. All of the pro-Apollo posters who agreed with him also destroyed their credibility. Betamax here seems to agree with him so he is not to be taken seriously. He's a pretty skilled sophist but this issue is simply too clear to save with sophistry.

The issue I'm raising here is not about whether there was any dust in the sand. It's about whether just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Betamax keep's giving answers to questions I haven't asked and insisting he's answered my question because he wants to avoid addressing the issue directly.


*
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

 

What anomaly spammer? Windley didn't get caught doing anything. He was up against an idiot opinion and gave his expert one. He wasn't lying just because you say so. Your opinion is entirely worthless.

Your opinion is discarded. You are as ignorant as they come.

You are not raising an issue, you are ignorantly spamming your opinion. You are not qualified to give it.

No spammer. I have answered it dozens of times. I agree with him. It's a straw man. The questions I ask gave you cornered. You are like the Black Knight. You would be forcibly removed from the debating hall for being too ignorant.

 

Interested viewers can see why the serial forum spammer avoids this.

 

Let's talk about the actual physics of the issue.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-ever-happened.512081/page-31#post-1068273305

How can grains of sand being placed just one time bump into each other hard enough to create any dust, let alone enough dust to cause enough erosion to create a dust cloud when the sand is driven over? It would take a team of people with sledge hammers beating the sand for several days straight to cause that much dust.

 

Collisions from being loaded and unloaded. Vibration during transit. This is thousands and thousands of tons from an unknown source to an unknown destination, unknown drivers and vehicles, unknown recompense and no evidence for one scrap of it. It's also a straw man, since we can clearly see fine dust and prints being made. We can also see cowardly spammers avoiding this REAL issue and obsessing over one that doesn't occur!

Hogwash. "What" much dust are you referring to? It takes only a small amount to be visibly suspended in air.

 

What if some workers transported the large-grained dust-free sand in wheelbarrows to the site and laid it down very carefully? Imagine that it's entirely dust-free when it's carefully placed in the wheelbarrows. Would it be impossible for the sand to be dust-free during the filming?

 

Small areas are perfectly feasible to be dust free. We don't see this on any footage.

How does this grey sand arrive for the unknown number of workers to barrow it?

 

Forget all this sand nonsense - the real question here is - how does an astronaut with pressurized gloves on - use duct tape to mend a red hot 500 degree fender on the moon?

 

Another idiotic sidestep and no acknowledging the huge list of mistakes you've come up with!

The "red hot" fender had broken off He was taping maps together and then clamping them using items from the optical telescope. Google it, learn something.

What idiotic reason is there to continue this "hoax" into a 6th landing and inventing a story about the damn fender!

The suit was pressurised at 4 psi. The gauntlets had 2 layers. The inner layer was rubber and pressurised. The outer layer was not. Another unoriginal claim, coming from the cretin Ralph René.

Tell me something Troll, since you referred to the Black body constant, how do you get the figure for 500 degrees?

 

I was just going by the red fender on my Chevy

 

The issue I'm raising here isn't about the footage. It's simply about whether it's possible to transport and place large-grained dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

Read what the pro-Apollo posters at Clavius* said.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1094

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15
(see posts #25 and #26)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

So do you think those posters at Clavius are right when they say it's impossible to transport and place large-grained dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?

I think the credibility of the Clavius site is a pretty important Apollo-related issue. I've seen a lot of cases on forums in which the pro-Apollo poster's rebuttals are quotes from "Experts" at the Clavius forum. I think it's important to make sure everybody knows that they are experts alright but they are experts that have sold out and are getting paid to lie.

*
http://www.clavius.org/

I've seen "apollohoax.net" referred to as "the Clavius forum" quite often. I call "apollohoax.net" "the Clavius forum" to make sure everone knows what I'm referring to.