PDA

View Full Version : Irrefutable proof



Peter B
2002-May-03, 01:33 AM
In another thread, Karamoon said: " If solid irrefutable proof was presented to me of Apollo's authenticity tomorrow -- evidence that I accepted -- I wouldn't just shrug my shoulders, pack up my bags, and start sifting through alt.conspiracy for another controversial topic."

Okay Karamoon. The rocks from the Moon.

Are they Earth rocks? No, because their structure is different from other Earth rocks. They were formed in the complete absence of water and air, which is not possible on the Earth.

Are they Earth rocks with the water baked out of them? No, this isn't possible. The evidence would still point to them as Earth rocks.

Are they maunfactured in a NASA lab? No, because they contain crystals which take millions of years to form. NASA would've had to start making those rocks millions of years ago to create those crystals.

Are they genuine Moon rocks retrieved by a robot mission? No, because the sheer volume of rocks, regolith and core samples represents too much to have been collected by robot probes. The best the Soviets could do was scoop up a small amount of soil adjacent to their landers. Any NASA robot mission would've required robots with the dexterity of C-3PO to collect the rocks, then a return vehicle on the scale of the lunar module to return the rocks, all remotely controlled from Earth. Not impossible, but certainly more tricky than just sending humans to the Moon.

Are the rocks all subject to a conspiracy of the world's geologists? No, the vast majority of these geologists aren't employees of NASA, and thus not under their control.

So how do you explain the Moon rocks?

To me, they're irrefutable proof. What are they to you?

Karamoon
2002-May-03, 01:44 AM
Please, not another moon rock debate.

Nooooooooooooo!

jrkeller
2002-May-03, 03:29 AM
Why not another moon rock debate?

Try this site.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm

Actually, Scottie transported them to the Enterprise and then crew time wrapped back to 1969 and gave them to NASA.

Peter B
2002-May-03, 03:35 AM
Okay, Karamoon, you've obviously had this discussion before, while I haven't.

Would you prefer to point me to a BB with a previous debate, so I can see the pros and cons?

roidspop
2002-May-03, 03:49 AM
There ought to be a standing challenge to the HB side; put up or shut up. The only acceptable proof that we never went...an independently supervised mission to the moon, robotic or manned (paid for by the HB's) which fails to find any physical evidence of descent stages, rovers, flags and so forth at the places where NASA claims it landed. A few hundred million bucks should cover it. I imagine side bets could go that high, easily. Surely there are at least a million HBs? Surely they're so convinced of their positions they'd be willing to cough up a few hundred bucks a piece to put all the gullible dupes in their place? I'm sure the Russians would love the business; ESA or the Japanese could handle it too. Get somebody neutral to supervise the mission and make sure no funny stuff is going on...that might be a show-stopper, come to think of it. Of course, the HBs would claim, upon seeing incontrovertible evidence of hardware at an Apollo landing site, that it was a hastily-assembled robotic mission thrown together to fake a manned landing. So, you'd almost have to land and examine the stage left on the surface to determine if it had an autonomous guidance system or not. It might be necessary to do a complete inventory of all artifacts at the site. That might clinch it. Much more expensive though. But, if they're as smart as they think they are, they can recoup the cost of the mission from selling the TV rights, and if they are ultimately vindicated (as they surely must be!), they'll garner incredible politcal and commercial clout. How can they miss?

So, let's hear no more cavils from the HB gang...put your nickels together and fly or put a sock in it.

jrkeller
2002-May-03, 03:52 AM
There's this one.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=472&forum=3

but it started before Karamoon joined.

Lisa
2002-May-03, 07:25 AM
Roidspop, I've tried that. There was a gentleman here who was claiming all sorts of things. Murder and coverup was the least of it.
I challenged him on this. I even offered to do the legwork. Heck, I'm retired military, I can at least fly cheap. All I wanted from this gentleman was names. He's making all these accusations, why not get a response form the accused? This wasn't going to cost him a cent, I was willing to foot the whole bill.
After this challenge, he started off on another tangent. For some reason, he didn't want to talk to me anymore.
What does this tell you?
Lisa
(Edited - people with long fingernails shouldn't type at 0130)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lisa on 2002-05-03 03:27 ]</font>

roidspop
2002-May-03, 04:39 PM
You're absolutely correct: you can always tell an HB, but you can't tell him much.

I have been corresponding with one who has bizarre ideas about gravitation, and is fixated on the notion that NASA discovered anomalous gravitation at Eros during the NEAR mission. I suggested he do some calculations and see what they had to say. He couldn't because he didn't know the math. I provided him with it. He never got through the first equation. All our 'exchanges' have been like this.

I've thought that an in-your-face bet along the lines I suggested might have some effect, but I don't seriously believe it. As you point out, these folks slip off to the side and continue ranting, and only a tiny fraction of the other side can devote the time and resources to debunking and probably don't care enough to make a wager. Eventually the Chinese will make their own visit to the moon...then there will be a "vast Sino-American hoax".

How about a site that reveals that they're the ones at the bottom of it all? HB (who are actually dupes of the Illuminati) worrying about return trips to the moon discovering their alien masters' hidden lunar bases, so they attempt to discredit NASA so there will never be return flights? That's one I'd love to see! I'm pretty sure they're behind chemtrails too. They make people dumber (so they won't be a threat to the World Order)by releasing 'paranodium' within the brain when the subject is exposed to the mere sight of a contrail. That's pretty effective stuff!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: roidspop on 2002-05-03 12:41 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: roidspop on 2002-05-03 12:46 ]</font>

Peter B
2002-May-05, 08:20 AM
Karamoon

I repeat my request. If you don't want to discuss this issue, point me to somewhere where you HAVE discussed this.

I wouldn't want to get the impression that you're trying to avoid the topic.

jrkeller
2002-May-06, 07:35 PM
Karamoon's response is typical. Just silence. Maybe we will go away.

Let's see some facts or even attempted facts.

JayUtah
2002-May-06, 11:43 PM
Not necessarily. Karamoon takes long breaks away from online forums, not necessarily to lick his wounds but because he is actually doing a fair amount of reading. Just remind him when he returns, and he'll answer your questions.

jrkeller
2002-May-07, 12:34 PM
Well, that's good to here. I never have a problem with people who a different point of view as long as it is well researched.

JayUtah
2002-May-07, 02:53 PM
Karamoon's research doesn't usually have much to do with the questions at hand. He's on a long-term project to research the possibility that NASA and the contractors did not recover quickly enough from the Apollo 1 fire, and so all the early Apollo missions were fake and Apollo 14 or 15 was the first authentic mission.

He does tend to do more research than the average hoax believer, and frequently from respectable sources. Of all the hoax believers I've met, he's the one with the most chance of researching his way out of superstition.

Peter B
2002-May-18, 10:16 AM
Karamoon

While you're here, would you like to respond to this thread, please.

jrkeller
2002-May-18, 01:45 PM
Here's the problem that I see with the whole moon hoax idea. With the Internet, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to find a site that promotes your viewpoint. I couldn't find anything that supports that statement that the Moon Rocks are fakes. The only thing I found is an interview with Bill Kaysing where he says that they are fakes and that some unnamed geologist in Seattle says that they are fakes. Yet I can find all kinds of information proving that they come from the moon.

FYI, here's a nice site.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/lunar/lunar.htm

If you read a little this site says that over a 1000 samples are sent out each year for research, yet we haven't heard much about those rocks being fakes.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-18 09:46 ]</font>

Karamoon
2002-May-19, 03:38 PM
Peter B: While you're here, would you like to respond to this thread, please.

Um, I respond tomorrow, if you don't mind, as I have to leave for work shortly.

The Rusty Lander
2002-May-23, 06:26 AM
On 2002-05-07 10:53, JayUtah wrote:
Karamoon's research doesn't usually have much to do with the questions at hand. He's on a long-term project to research the possibility that NASA and the contractors did not recover quickly enough from the Apollo 1 fire, and so all the early Apollo missions were fake and Apollo 14 or 15 was the first authentic mission.


Hmmm...I suppose if we go with this hypothesis we could conjecture that the Apollo 13 was the first real attempt to have a moon landing and that's why there were problems because there were still things to be nutted out in practical application that weren't discovered in the sumulations.

JayUtah
2002-May-23, 03:18 PM
I suppose if we go with this hypothesis we could conjecture that the Apollo 13 was the first real attempt to have a moon landing and that's why there were problems because there were still things to be nutted out in practical application that weren't discovered in the sumulations.

There weren't "so many" problems on Apollo 13. There was only one problem: the rupture of a cryogenic oxygen tank.

The problem with your hypothesis is that Apollo was already a program designed carefully to build on the success of each prior mission and to learn from what it taught.

Apollo 11 (landing) wasn't possible until Apollo 10 (powered descent and abort test) had succeeded, and Apollo 10 wasn't possible until Apollo 8 (translunar trajectory and lunar orbit insertion) had succeeded.

Apollo 12 (pinpoint landing, extended stay) wasn't possible until Apollo 11 had succeeded. Apollo 13 didn't succeed, so Apollo 14 was assigned its mission (hybrid trajectory, pinpoint landing in difficult terrain), which was not possible without Apollo 12.

It's actually less credible to believe that everything up to Apollo 13 or 14 was fake, and that Apollo 14 was real and fulfilled a very long and daunting list of mission objectives with no prior successes to build upon. That's like saying a football team up and won the Superbowl without playing any prior games and without practicing together as a team first.

Donnie B.
2002-May-23, 03:31 PM
Well, the problem with that hypothesis is that the fault that led to the Apollo 13 explosion had nothing at all to do with the LM, lunar landing/surface equipment, or the mission's lunar trajectory. It was a damaged oxygen tank in the SM that exploded. Similar tanks were present in every Apollo spacecraft, both lunar and Earth-orbital. It could have happened on any of the missions.

You're not suggesting that the earlier missions weren't launched at all, are you? Just that they stayed in Earth orbit? (Never mind that it would be impossible to conceal that fact from the many people around the world who were tracking the missions.)

Karamoon
2002-May-24, 01:38 AM
Jay: He's on a long-term project to research the possibility that NASA and the contractors did not recover quickly enough from the Apollo 1 fire, and so all the early Apollo missions were fake and Apollo 14 or 15 was the first authentic mission.

That reminds me. Here (http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=774&forum=12&start=25&39) is that post I promised in defense of my theory.

You don't have to respond to it, Jay (it was mostly written some time ago). If you feel the need to respond then I won't bother following it up.

While I am at it, here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=745&forum=3&14) is the Baron reply I didn't bother posting as well. The same applies to that also.

I am largely withdrawing from debate but will still follow matters from behind the curtain.

Peter B
2002-May-24, 05:24 AM
Karamoon

Would you be willing to find the time to comment on the question I originally asked about the rocks, please. Even if it's only to link to another posting you made somewhere on the topic.

Thanks.

JayUtah
2002-May-24, 08:35 AM
You don't have to respond to it, Jay (it was mostly written some time ago). If you feel the need to respond then I won't bother following it up.

That's okay. I won't expect a response, and I won't interpret lack of same to be a concession. However, since there's nothing good on TV tonight, I'll answer it.

Karamoon
2002-May-24, 11:36 AM
The reason I groaned at the rock issue was because I had earlier made some comments to the AULIS guest book (http://www.aulis.com/view.php3) (you will have to scroll down) and was later embroiled over at Apollo Hoax in further discussion. I'm not sure that particular thread survived (after the discussion board was almost wiped clean) but the original comment made over at AULIS still does.

The same is pretty much true for every thing else I have discussed and what I believe may be true. I decided to collate everything together in an essay entitled "Learning to run before you can walk", and had intended to direct people to that for the information they seek, but that has now been placed on the back burner.

Peter B
2002-May-24, 02:25 PM
Thanks Karamoon.

So would someone be able to explain the differences between a lunar meteorite recovered in Antarctica and a rock recovered from the Moon?

Would the inner part of the meteorite be discernable from a genuine Moon rock?

DaveC
2002-May-24, 02:56 PM
There is nothing on the Aulis board that brings any closure to this issue. Squirm made some comments about Antarctica being a particularly rich source of meteoritic material. The issue of how 843 pounds of lunar rock would have suddenly materialized in order to support a hoax isn't addressed, nor are the sources of the opinion that moon rock collected in Antarctica is indistinguishable from lunar rock brought back during the Apollo missions.

No, Karamoon, this issue hasn't, as you implied been discussed in any depth, and there is certainly no evidence at Aulis, or anywhere else that I've looked, that provides even a mote of science to the theory that the moon rocks could have been faked. I think we're all tired of unidentified sources being hauled out by HB's in support of their pet theories. If you or Squirm can't identify the experts that say the moon rocks could be faked, and how that could be done, it's pretty clear that the experts cited are simply a figment of someone's imagination. I don't buy the repeated argument that if they identify themselves they'd be killed by NASA. That's just a B.S. copout designed to hide the fact that the story is fabricated.

Ian R
2002-May-24, 03:38 PM
To avoid any confusion, can I just point out that Karamoon and Squirm are the same person.

JimB
2002-May-24, 03:49 PM
On 2002-05-24 10:25, Peter B wrote:
Would the inner part of the meteorite be discernable from a genuine Moon rock?


When comparing a moon rock returned by Apollo and a moon rock fallen to a dry part of earth, it depends on how closely you examine them.

The exteriors are absolutely and totally different. A rock on the surface of the moon is exposed to the solar wind (which includes elements that are very rare on earth) and has been blasted by millions of years of tiny meteorites producing a glassy, pitted surface. Very unique to the moon (or any airless body in space). Meteorites have a melted exterior that is usually very smooth and undulating. During infall, most of a space rock falling to earth is ablated away, only about 10 to 30% of the original rock remains to land on the earth. All that unique pitted surface is gone.

The interiors would be difficult to tell which is which. There will be some minor differences because the Apollo rock has been protected from water and air while the meteorite has been sitting in it for years. (If the meteorite is on the surface of the earth for too long it becomes terrestrialized and we may never know it came from space.) You'd have to go deep inside the meteorite to find an area not touched by water and most meteorites are not very big.

In fact, if you put an Apollo lunar basalt, a meteoric lunar basalt, and an earth basalt (all showing just fresh interiors) in my hand, I'd have a tough time telling them apart. Give me a 10-power hand lens and I'd do better. Give me a microscope and I'd have a fair chance. Give me a typical university geology lab and there's no problem. Or let me see the exteriors with just a hand lens...

Actually, Apollo brought back a lot of rocks but a small variety (only six sites) and geologists are using lunar meteorites to fill in some of the gaps.

Karamoon
2002-May-24, 04:12 PM
Dave, as Ian has just pointed out, Squirm was my alias before I changed it to Karamoon. We are one and the same.

My initial suggestion was that they may have recovered ample surface material from Antarctica without reporting their findings, something that you need to be well prepared for in order to do. You may even be able to remember the thread I mentioned a moment ago-- if I recall correctly I think you may have even started it?

I am not trying to say, nor am I implying, that this has been discussed at "great length". I hadn't previously said that the rock was manufactured, either. In fact, I actually remember withdrawing from the initial thread because I hadn't looked at the issue too closely.

JayUtah
2002-May-24, 04:17 PM
I would say it was discussed at length at Apollohoax. At least I think I remember participating in such a discussion.

DaveC
2002-May-24, 04:17 PM
On 2002-05-24 11:38, Ian R wrote:
To avoid any confusion, can I just point out that Karamoon and Squirm are the same person.


Thanks, Ian. I suspected that, based on the similar writing styles and beliefs, but hadn't found anything acknowledging it. It seems to be common among HBs to use two or more different pseudonyms on the same board.

I did ask Squirm on the Apollohoax forum to identify the geologist(s) who see no diffence between meteorites gathered in Antarctica and moon rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts. He's never done that, so I assume he either fabricated the story or accepted some hearsay information without question. It always amazes me how these "urban legends" rapidly develop the same status as truth.

I still remember the excitement among the faculty at the University of Toronto when they got their sample of moon rock for study. Unfortunately, I was in engineering, not geology, so I didn't get to actually see the rocks - but there were prints of lunar rock micrographs up on the wall in the geology lab for years (they may still be there). It seemed clear that the rocks were unlike anything that anyone there had ever seen. Pretty compelling argument that the rock didn't come from a terrestrial location.

The Antarctic collection scenario just doesn't wash - even if there is any truth to the allegation that von Braun went to Antarctica in the 60's

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-05-24 12:33 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-24, 04:18 PM
Actually, Apollo brought back a lot of rocks but a small variety (only six sites)

This is why we were so eager to trade lunar surface samples with the Soviets, even during the Cold War. Their unmanned probes returned material from parts of the surface that Apollo never went to.

JayUtah
2002-May-24, 04:34 PM
It seems to be common among HBs to use two or more different pseudonyms on the same board. Curious.

This is different. Karamoon announced his name change on the Apollohoax board where, at the time, he was concentrating most of his attention. He stopped using the name "Squirm" entirely, which he felt may have conveyed overtones he did not wish to convey. Unlike Carrot Cruncher a.k.a. Slime a.k.a. CC a.k.a. several "throwaway" pseudonums, Karamoon is not trying to appear as if he is different people.

JayUtah
2002-May-24, 04:43 PM
even if there is any truth to the allegation that von Braun went to Antarctica in the 60's

I've always been puzzled by why von Braun would go or be sent to Antarctica to recover moon rocks. Why von Braun? Why not someone who wouldn't have been noticed? Why not a geologist? I suppose it's because the hoax believers only know of a few names associated with Apollo, so everything that's part of the alleged hoax has to be personally done by one of these prominent folks. Von Braun was a fine engineer, but I don't know if he would have recognized a lunar meteorite if one fell on him.

DaveC
2002-May-24, 05:04 PM
On 2002-05-24 12:34, JayUtah wrote:
It seems to be common among HBs to use two or more different pseudonyms on the same board. Curious.

This is different. Karamoon announced his name change on the Apollohoax board where, at the time, he was concentrating most of his attention. He stopped using the name "Squirm" entirely, which he felt may have conveyed overtones he did not wish to convey. Unlike Carrot Cruncher a.k.a. Slime a.k.a. CC a.k.a. several "throwaway" pseudonums, Karamoon is not trying to appear as if he is different people.


Thanks, Jay. I was probably on my sabbatical from Apollohoax when that happened. I didn't mean to imply anything sinister - it's just that it becomes hard to trace the discussion with an individual when their ID changes. I'm pleased that Karamoon avoided creating that problem - my oversight that I missed his announcement.

Von Braun was a fine engineer, but I don't know if he would have recognized a lunar meteorite if one fell on him.

And if there were a plan to surreptitiously gather meteorites from Antarctica and pass them off as "Apollo rocks", why would NASA raise suspicion by having their chief rocket engineer go anywhere near Antarctica. The whole scenario fails on technical, logistical and "optics" grounds.

Karl
2002-May-24, 05:19 PM
On 2002-05-24 12:43, JayUtah wrote:

I've always been puzzled by why von Braun would go or be sent to Antarctica to recover moon rocks. Why von Braun?


Because he wanted to go? I was recruited to go work down there (for a full year) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif but turned it down. If I had a chance to go for a few weeks, I'd jump at it. I'm sure he had the clout to make the decision for himself.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/history/vonBraun/exploring.gif

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/history/vonBraun/spaceage2.html

http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy2/igy2.html

Summer 1967-68
Summer visitors include Werner Von Braun who joins the 200 club



Edit to add link and image

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-05-24 13:27 ]</font>
Edit to add another link

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-05-24 13:50 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-24, 07:22 PM
Because he wanted to go?

I'm not disputing that he went. I'm questioning the allegation that he went there in order to pick up moon rocks. There's a big difference between going to Antarctica on vacation and going there -- either voluntarily or by assignment -- in order to collect specimens to pass off as samples obtained from the moon.

Hoax believers want to assign that purpose to von Braun's visit, but to me it makes no sense for him to have either decided to go, or to have been sent there, specifically in order to find and bring back lunar meteorites. Von Braun wasn't the best person for that job, and he knew it. Further, he was a closely-watched person.

When someone proposes something like this, you have to ask yourself, "Is this the best way to achieve the goal?" If, as in this case, there is a clearly superior course of action (i.e., quietly send a team of professional geologists), it is more plausible to suppose that the hoax believer's scenario is an attempt to tack a hypothetical ulterior purpose onto existing circumstances.

jrkeller
2002-May-24, 08:54 PM
I think are a few things to consider when the HBs bring up the whole Antarctic meteoroid idea.

First of all, while 850 lbs of lunar material may have been returned from the moon, that equates to thousands of individual pieces (FYI the Apollo 17 sample catalogue is four volumes of approximately 500 pages each). There were many scoop up and bag some soil samples. Small little rocks were then taken out of these sample bags. For example, Apollo 16 brought back 112 samples with a mass greater than 25g (approximately 1 oz), the Apollo 16 crew collected 267 rocks (and more in the soil samples) and Apollo 17 return 330 greater than 1g.

The cataloging of the lunar samples continued into the 1980's for some of the missions and into the 1994 for the Apollo 17 samples. I would suspect that in those 22 years between the Apollo 17 mission and the final cataloging, that many people worked on these rocks.

Secondly, it wasn't until 1969 that researchers (from Japan) realized that Antartica contained a lot of meteorites.

http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/marslife/meteorit.htm

A few months doesn't leave a lot of time to find a whole bunch of rocks (about 100), make them look like surface rocks, add some solar gasses He3 (extremely rare and expensive) and create soil, all the time making sure that the samples weren't tainted with water or oraganics

I still don't see how an Antarctic lunar meteoroid could be confused with a real lunar rock or made to look like one taken from the surface. How would one remove the outer melted reentry surface and put on a new, but old looking surface.

The Aulis site recommened by Karamoon as usual doesn't provide any specifics on how it was done, just that it was done. The one suggestion I found there was that ball bearings were used to created a surface is laughable. While this process could rough up a surface, traces of the ball bearing materials would be on the surface. Materials like stainless steel, or pure aluminum do not occur naturally and would be a dead give away to a fake. Furthermore, this process could not create surfaces that are made when gasses bubble through a rock.

BTW, I got all my moon rocks data from my complete set of Apollo Preliminary Science Reports and Lunar Sample Catalogues.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-24 17:03 ]</font>

Jim
2002-May-24, 09:56 PM
Summer 1967-68
Summer visitors include Werner Von Braun who joins the 200 club

Ol' Werner was one remakable dude!

First, he realizes that Apollo is destined to failure and a hoax will be necessary even before the first Apollo manned flight.

Second, he recognizes that "lunar rocks" will add authenticity to that hoax.

Then, before anyone else knew it, he determines that Antarctica is a great source of meteorites, some of which will be of lunar origin and could be passed off as lunar rocks.

Finally, in one short trip, he retrieves over 800 pounds of lunar meteorites... more than any other expedition managed of all kinds of meteorites. Not only that, he weeds out the Martian and other meteorites - apparently by Mark I Eyeball - and keeps only those of lunar origin.

And he does all this while running the Manned Space Flight effort at Marshall... and even finds time to scuba off Puerto Rico!

Karamoon
2002-May-25, 01:12 AM
jrkeller: While this process could rough up a surface, traces of the ball bearing materials would be on the surface. Materials like stainless steel, or pure aluminum do not occur naturally and would be a dead give away to a fake.

Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets (http://www.space.com./news/spaceagencies/apollo_moon_rocks_010326.html)

Interesting, but by no means conclusive.

Karamoon
2002-May-25, 01:12 AM
Jim (McDade/Scotti?): Ol' Werner was one remakable dude!

Indeed. He got tangled up in some pretty awful business over there in Germany, for a while. Perhaps he was blinded by his passion. Either way, he was blinded.

Jim: First, he realizes ...

I guess this is my fault for mentioning squid.

Jim: Finally, in one short trip, he retrieves over 800 pounds of lunar meteorites...

Ah, don't get ahead of yourself now.


ps. So, who do you think will win the World Cup, then? I have Spain down as a dark horse.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karamoon on 2002-05-24 21:18 ]</font>

Karamoon
2002-May-25, 01:14 AM
Personally, I think there is a conspiracy to keep my active in debate.

It won't work, I tell you!

JayUtah
2002-May-25, 01:31 AM
Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets (http://www.space.com./news/spaceagencies/apollo_moon_rocks_010326.html)

The problem with this article is that it doesn't identify any mystery that's of use to conspiracy theorists. The contaminants in question are materials that the samples would have come in contact with during their collection, packaging, and transportation by Apollo astronauts, and during subsequent handling by LRL staff. It doesn't raise any issues that contradict advertised Apollo procedures.

It's all about falsifiability (in the epistemological sense). If you want to argue that the samples were textured by shooting substances at it, you have to show evidence of that substance, and also show that the presence of that substance can't be explained by anything reasonably arising out of the Apollo procedures. If all you have is something that can be explained either by a hoax theory or by the accepted Apollo story, then you have nothing. You can't texture a rock by shooting Teflon at it.

jrkeller
2002-May-25, 01:39 AM
Karamoon,

Thanks for the link. I had seen that one before.

Are you suggesting that since the rocks are contaminated by trace materials that they are fakes?

I'll take the experts word on this that this is contamination instead of some unnamed source on Aulis or librarian Bill Kaysing that these are traces of some manufacturing process.

For more info see.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/moon_rock_analysis_000522_MB_.html

A nice quote from the article

The astronauts brought back 2,415 separate bits of the moon ranging in size from a grain of sand to nearly the diameter of a basketball.

and this one too,

Geologists also have found 19 fragments of lunar meteorites that were blasted off the surface by impacts and landed in parts of Antarctica, Australia, Morocco and Libya.

So if it is a hoax, in the years up to 1972, the Antarctic meteorite discovers would have had to find 2415 meteorites and alter them accordingly. I find that really hard to believe.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-24 21:43 ]</font>

Silas
2002-May-25, 02:04 AM
Geologists also have found 19 fragments of lunar meteorites that were blasted off the surface by impacts and landed in parts of Antarctica, Australia, Morocco and Libya.


Tektites, right? Only 19? I had thought that tektites were quite a bit more commonplace than that. I may be laboring under a misapprehension...

Oopsie! I just hit a textbook, and it said that tektites are from material ejected from impacts. i.e., nearby Meteor Crater in Arizona, tektites would be stuff that was thrown up and came down again...

What is the term for lunar material thrown up from impacts that lands on earth...and are there only 19 known such fragments?

(I'm so confused!)

Silas

Andrew
2002-May-25, 03:32 AM
Supposing, for a second, that the lunar samples were recovered on earth.
Surely it would take any amount of geologist many, many years to accumulate that many samples of former lunar surface material?
They'd need to plan well in advance to scour the earth for lunar surface material, and to do it in secret.
You could, of course, sidestep this by postulating that more surface material was recovered in the later missions than was admitted by NASA.

JayUtah
2002-May-25, 03:58 AM
You could, of course, sidestep this by postulating that more surface material was recovered in the later missions than was admitted by NASA.

The problem with this hypothesis is that it's possible to request from LRL pieces of specific lunar samples. Someone making such a request would expect certain characteristics in the sample. Further, most requests for LRL samples are for pristine samples that have not been used for any prior research or even exposed to air or light. Contamination and damage from prior research would be immediately evident upon examination.

The problem therefore becomes how to stretch those precious real samples for so long under those circumstances. If people are asking for specific rocks that has never seen the light of day, and they would know if their stipulations had been met, then you can't say it's just the same rock being passed around.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-24 23:59 ]</font>

DaveC
2002-May-25, 07:32 PM
You're just not thinking like a conspiracist, Jay. Someone found a really big lunar meteorite (probably von Braun when he was in Antarctica in January, 1967) and NASA had it processed - removed the fused outer surface, busted it up into many small pieces, cooked it to drive out all traces of water and oxygen, used the pulverized outer layer to "sand blast" the surface of the remaining pieces of its core, subjected it to a bunch of radiation bombardment and simulated solar wind and BINGO - virgin moon rock. This, added to other similarly processed lunar meteorites provides the samples that fooled the world's geologists until the later Apollo missions returned different samples from different areas of the moon.

No problem - just invent the processes you need to make it happen. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif