Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

#1: ...it's how we can rely on mainstream views about any subject, like the Cold War...or Apollo.
#2:
a. They can't be from the Earth.
b. They can't be fake.
c. They can't be lunar meteorites.
d. They can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions.

#1: If we didn't land men on the moon, what will you do then?  (Say Aldrin finally spills the beans...)
#2:
a-c: "So they say"...  Moon-rock science has not much commercial value... it's govt grant funded.  Them declaring Apollo is Real is a given.   All of these seem to have viable methods to produce seemingly authentic moon rocks from those gathered in Antarctica.  Unfortunately, our only source of information is from govt' funded scientists, possibly hand-selected by NASA.

What is more telling to me is something that I CAN VALIDATE, such as physics.

d: I agree.  I don't think we gathered moon rocks with unmanned vehicles.   We're in agreement here, right?

[onebigmonkey]

This is the bottom shelf of one of my bookcases. It contains conference proceedings dealing with Apollo material, held after each mission. It is incomplete. There are lots of papers there.

All of the scientists in there, and they come from a wide range of countries and institutions, are happy that the Apollo samples and other experimental data, are genuine. They are scientists that have validated data. They were not vetted by NASA. All that was required for them to get a lunar sample was to say what they wanted to do with it so that it didn't waste a very limited resource. Other data were made available freely.

Not all research is government funded. Even if it was, that funding does not dictate the outcomes. False reporting would not survive peer review. Claims that scientists are forced to produce pro-Apollo reports to keep their jobs and funding is delusional paranoia. It shows a lack of understanding of how academia works.

Apollo data is still used internationally to validate readings from modern probes, because it is genuine.

In terms of the realities of the cold war, I suggest you look at the career of Apollo 10 astronaut Tom Stafford.

[TimberWolfAu]

This is the bottom shelf of one of my bookcases. It contains conference proceedings dealing with Apollo material, held after each mission. It is incomplete. There are lots of papers there.

All of the scientists in there, and they come from a wide range of countries and institutions, are happy that the Apollo samples and other experimental data, are genuine. They are scientists that have validated data. They were not vetted by NASA. All that was required for them to get a lunar sample was to say what they wanted to do with it so that it didn't waste a very limited resource. Other data were made available freely.

Not all research is government funded. Even if it was, that funding does not dictate the outcomes. False reporting would not survive peer review. Claims that scientists are forced to produce pro-Apollo reports to keep their jobs and funding is delusional paranoia. It shows a lack of understanding of how academia works.

Apollo data is still used internationally to validate readings from modern probes, because it is genuine.

In terms of the realities of the cold war, I suggest you look at the career of Apollo 10 astronaut Tom Stafford.

Sheesh, all I've got (in the way of old books) is the Apollo 16 PSR (soon to take a nerve inducing trip), and a reprint of the Apollo 11 flight plan, although I think I have PDFs of some of those on your shelf.

[Jason Thompson]

#1: If we didn't land men on the moon, what will you do then?  (Say Aldrin finally spills the beans...)

A deathbed confession from one individual does not topple all the rest of the vast piles of material evidence of the reality of Apollo. It isn't a house of cards.

#2:
a-c: "So they say"...  Moon-rock science has not much commercial value... it's govt grant funded.  Them declaring Apollo is Real is a given.   All of these seem to have viable methods to produce seemingly authentic moon rocks from those gathered in Antarctica.  Unfortunately, our only source of information is from govt' funded scientists, possibly hand-selected by NASA.

How wonderfully predictable. All the science must be fake because it doesn't agree with your ideas. And you really have no idea how academia works if you think reporting outcomes can be guaranteed, especially over more than half a century.

What is more telling to me is something that I CAN VALIDATE, such as physics.

Except you keep demonstrating you don't have the foundation to validate it. Moreover you have said that the people arguing with you here have no understanding of physics, which is an absurd assertion to level at a group of people including aerospace engineers.

[onebigmonkey]

This is the bottom shelf of one of my bookcases. It contains conference proceedings dealing with Apollo material, held after each mission. It is incomplete. There are lots of papers there.

All of the scientists in there, and they come from a wide range of countries and institutions, are happy that the Apollo samples and other experimental data, are genuine. They are scientists that have validated data. They were not vetted by NASA. All that was required for them to get a lunar sample was to say what they wanted to do with it so that it didn't waste a very limited resource. Other data were made available freely.

Not all research is government funded. Even if it was, that funding does not dictate the outcomes. False reporting would not survive peer review. Claims that scientists are forced to produce pro-Apollo reports to keep their jobs and funding is delusional paranoia. It shows a lack of understanding of how academia works.

Apollo data is still used internationally to validate readings from modern probes, because it is genuine.

In terms of the realities of the cold war, I suggest you look at the career of Apollo 10 astronaut Tom Stafford.

Sheesh, all I've got (in the way of old books) is the Apollo 16 PSR (soon to take a nerve inducing trip), and a reprint of the Apollo 11 flight plan, although I think I have PDFs of some of those on your shelf.

Oh there's more, much more! I have the PSRs for Apollo 14-17, quite a few of the Surveyor reports, the photography compilations from Apollo 8, 10 and 12, and a collection of the original meteorological satellite data publications. I like to collect the original material - it removes the "oh it was secret/altered post facto/insert dumbass claim here" arguments, but finding them within budget isn't easy.

I compiled this list of title pages from the conference proceedings, and collated the abstracts of all the Soviet authors from those to prove a point to someone else a while ago, but they seem appropriate here:

https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/procs/confprocs.pdf

https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/procs/sovs.pdf

[Zakalwe]

.

d: I agree.  I don't think we gathered moon rocks with unmanned vehicles.   We're in agreement here, right?

Go on then...so how WERE they gathered?

[najak]

Go on then...so how WERE they gathered?

MLH theory is that they were gathered from Antarctica, and radiated to give them a fresh "I've been in no atmosphere" quality.

I've looked up where these rocks/samples have GONE -- and it seems that most were examined at Johnson space center... not by 3rd parties.   Hundreds of rocks simply "went missing" for which NASA said "we didn't keep receipts/records so we have no idea"...  I'm not seeing the actual evidence of these rocks being studied by a lot of independent labs around the world - do you have this evidence somewhere, I'd like to see it.

Last time I saw this "catalog of rocks" - these were all from NASA, classified by NASA -- not 3rd parties.   That's not so compelling to me.

I'm open to evidence on this - it's not something I've spent much time on yet.

[Peter B]

#1: ...it's how we can rely on mainstream views about any subject, like the Cold War...or Apollo.
#2:
a. They can't be from the Earth.
b. They can't be fake.
c. They can't be lunar meteorites.
d. They can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions.

#1: If we didn't land men on the moon, what will you do then?  (Say Aldrin finally spills the beans...)

You've already been told that the historical record relies on more than the say-so of any single person. It would be no more believable than if Magnus Carlsen stepped up and said he's received instructions from computers for every game of chess he's played in the last 20 years - he can say it all he likes, but there's no supporting evidence.

#2:
a-c: "So they say"...  Moon-rock science has not much commercial value... it's govt grant funded.

Funded by which government? Evidence please.

Them declaring Apollo is Real is a given.   All of these seem to have viable methods to produce seemingly authentic moon rocks from those gathered in Antarctica.

We've already explained to you that the differences between lunar meteorites and Apollo rocks are so obvious that even non-scientists could tell them apart. Mag40 specifically told you some of those differences. Do you acknowledge this information was given?

Unfortunately, our only source of information is from govt' funded scientists, possibly hand-selected by NASA.

Evidence please that non-USAnian scientists are funded by the US government.

What is more telling to me is something that I CAN VALIDATE, such as physics.

What is more telling to me is that you clearly haven't followed any of the links I've provided: Honeysuckle Creek, Sven Grahn, the Lunar and Planetary Institute, the Ross Taylor interview, and the lunar sample request form. I can understand why - because then you don't have to confront the extent of evidence which contradicts you.

d: I agree.  I don't think we gathered moon rocks with unmanned vehicles.   We're in agreement here, right?

So, do you think the Soviets collected any lunar samples with their unmanned sample retriever missions?

[Zakalwe]

Go on then...so how WERE they gathered?

MLH theory is that they were gathered from Antarctica, and radiated to give them a fresh "I've been in no atmosphere" quality.

I've looked up where these rocks/samples have GONE -- and it seems that most were examined at Johnson space center... not by 3rd parties.   Hundreds of rocks simply "went missing" for which NASA said "we didn't keep receipts/records so we have no idea"...  I'm not seeing the actual evidence of these rocks being studied by a lot of independent labs around the world - do you have this evidence somewhere, I'd like to see it.

Last time I saw this "catalog of rocks" - these were all from NASA, classified by NASA -- not 3rd parties.   That's not so compelling to me.

I'm open to evidence on this - it's not something I've spent much time on yet.

What a load of utter drivel and nonsense.

Apollo samples have been studied for decades by universities and professionals all over the world. You are handwaving all of that away just because you believe differently with no evidence.
Show me ANY evidence that you can "irradiate" a meteorite and make it indistinguishable from the rock that has never been in an atmosphere, that has been exposed to water and has not passed through an atmosphere at meteor speeds. Show me where this has been tested and passed. I"ll be waiting over there...

Account for hundreds of Kgs of rocks please. Compare that to the quantities mechanically recoverd by the Russians.

You have zero interest in the truth. You have just shown that be dismissing the Lunar samples without doing any research, as you have just admitted.

Pathetic.

[TimberWolfAu]

MLH theory is that they were gathered from Antarctica, and radiated to give them a fresh "I've been in no atmosphere" quality.

How did they know which ones were from the moon and which ones were 'regular' meteorites? Remember, no lunar samples had been returned by any agency at that point in time. For the record, the first recognised lunar meteorite is Alan Hills A81005, discovered in 1982. Having spoken with one of the scientist who studied it, they dismiss your idea that lunar meteorites, or any meteorite, could be 'converted' into believable surface samples, there's a lot more to it than just radiation, for starters, how do you REMOVE radiation markers?

I've looked up where these rocks/samples have GONE -- and it seems that most were examined at Johnson space center... not by 3rd parties.   Hundreds of rocks simply "went missing" for which NASA said "we didn't keep receipts/records so we have no idea"...  I'm not seeing the actual evidence of these rocks being studied by a lot of independent labs around the world - do you have this evidence somewhere, I'd like to see it.

Yes, because that's where the Apollo program was having their lunar surface samples stored. From there, sites all over the globe could request samples, many of which are sent out every year, and to date, no one has said "hey, this isn't a lunar surface sample!!"

Last time I saw this "catalog of rocks" - these were all from NASA, classified by NASA -- not 3rd parties.   That's not so compelling to me.

Again, yes, because NASA, via Apollo, collected them, so of course they catalogued them. Just like Roscosmos catalogued the Lunokhod samples, and CNSA the Chang'e samples.


Some light reading for you then;
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1970GeCAS...1.1213H%3E
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X20304945
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703798001343

[onebigmonkey]

Go on then...so how WERE they gathered?

MLH theory is that they were gathered from Antarctica, and radiated to give them a fresh "I've been in no atmosphere" quality.

How many lunar meteorites have been collected from Antarctica, and how do they know they are lunar in origin? And no, von Braun didn't collect them. His well publicised visit there was not to collect rocks.

I've looked up where these rocks/samples have GONE -- and it seems that most were examined at Johnson space center... not by 3rd parties.   

See the list of conference proceedings I posted.

Hundreds of rocks simply "went missing" for which NASA said "we didn't keep receipts/records so we have no idea"..

What has gone missing are the many goodwill rocks donated to governments. It does not amount to hundreds, and how other people look after them once NASA gave them away is nothing to do with NASA. Also, make your mind up: does NASA have rigid control over these rocks or not?

.  I'm not seeing the actual evidence of these rocks being studied by a lot of independent labs around the world - do you have this evidence somewhere, I'd like to see it.

Because you haven't looked generally, or at the links already posted.

Past time I saw this "catalog of rocks" - these were all from NASA, classified by NASA -- not 3rd parties.   That's not so compelling to me.

Who else do you think would have them? You're not in charge of this zoo either.

I'm open to evidence on this

No, you really aren't.

- it's not something I've spent much time on yet.

Evidently.

[Peter B]

Go on then...so how WERE they gathered?

MLH theory is that they were gathered from Antarctica, and radiated to give them a fresh "I've been in no atmosphere" quality.

What sort of radiation? What amount?

I've looked up where these rocks/samples have GONE -- and it seems that most were examined at Johnson space center... not by 3rd parties.   Hundreds of rocks simply "went missing" for which NASA said "we didn't keep receipts/records so we have no idea"...

What's your source for this? And seeing as you put words in quotes, do you mean they're exact quotes of what someone said?

I'm not seeing the actual evidence of these rocks being studied by a lot of independent labs around the world - do you have this evidence somewhere, I'd like to see it.

I've already given you place to look: the Lunar and Planetary Institute website. Seeing as you're such a brilliant code wrangler, do you think you can navigate the website yourself, or would you like some instructions?

Last time I saw this "catalog of rocks" - these were all from NASA, classified by NASA -- not 3rd parties.   That's not so compelling to me.

Cut out the misdirection. The scientific papers written about the Apollo rocks are published in science journals, not by NASA.

I'm open to evidence on this - it's not something I've spent much time on yet.

No you're not. You've clearly not followed links provided, and you've repeated claims after we've pointed out how they're wrong.

[jfb]

Great. So now maybe you could address the issue of the Apollo rocks more generally, as well as the historiography of the Cold War.

One piece of evidence against the Cold War was JFK's attempt to establish a collaboration with Russia on the Moon Landing in 1963.   This doesn't sound like "enemies" to me...  They said "no thanks, but good luck with that" -- soon after JFK was assassinated.   JFK wouldn't go into Vietnam?  Was exhibiting doubts about Apollo's mission, possibly willing to pull the plug?  Anti-Banks/CIA?  Who knows -- why he was assassinated.  BUT -- 1963 we see he doesn't seem to be too concerned by Cold War...  maybe that was part of it...  the DoD profiteers wanted the Cold War to be something that struck fear in Americans to justify govt spending to mitigate these fears.

I'm half-talking-from-my-ass here -- I'm sure.   I haven't researched it thoroughly, but only enough to know there was a LOT of shady stuff going on.  And I do not put much trust in govt feeding us fear narratives about "the enemy" - which then justifies spending.  I'm leery at best.

The X Files was not a documentary.

You know, some of us were born before 1980 and have first-hand memories of all of this.  When she was in high school my wife got chased through East Berlin by a bunch of soldiers after taking pictures of a monument.  We saw the news stories out of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan as they happened.  We saw the reports from Vietnam on the news every night. 

To think all of that was fake or staged requires an exceptionally shallow mind. 

The Cold War was very real and very scary.  I winced every time Reagan joked about bombing Moscow on a hot mic.  Tornado drills in elementary school served double duty as nuke drills.  Every day carried the very real possibility of nuclear flaming death from over the horizon.  I am not exaggerating. 

We knew this.  Why do you think every other sci-fi movie in the '70s and '80s was set in a post-apocalyptic radioactive wasteland?  Why were movies like "Wargames" and "Red Dawn" and "Threads" such huge hits?  Even the Aussies were getting in on the act:

We literally came this >< close to all-out nuclear exchanges with the Soviet Union on multiple occasions.  Look up the names Vasilli Arkhipov and Stanislav Petrov, men who literally, single-handedly prevented nuclear war on two different occasions (at great personal cost in Arkhipov's case). 

I lived in San Antonio, which, with multiple Air Force bases (including a logistics wing at Kelly) and Army posts, was actually a high-value target. 

There were occasional diplomatic overtures and joint ventures to keep it from turning it into a hot war (with nukes), but that didn't make it any less real.  Southeast Asia was a total cluster both because the Best and the Brightest ... weren't, and because the Soviet and Chinese proxies were especially brutal; Hitler was third-rate on the mass-murder scale compared to Stalin and Mao, but none of them could touch Pol Pot on percentage. 

Apollo only happened because there was real, genuine, pants-wetting fear of the Soviets gaining the high ground (literally).  The Saturn V was as much a statement of how much nuclear flaming death we could drop on Moscow as it was anything else. 

You are not anywhere near as smart or clever or well-informed as you think you are.  You've basically spent an afternoon skimming through "Chess for Dummies" and are confident you could beat Kasparov or Fischer in less than 20 moves. 

Son, you are about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.  You might as well claim the Holocaust was fake, too. 

[Mag40]

I guarantee that najak will not give meaningful replies to any of the above posts including mine, that has specific data related rebuttal. He has proven himself to be just like every other HB who has ever turned up, a great big time waster who is just not going to concede irrefutable things. He will just run away, supply ludicrous replies or continue yelling his claims unabated.

Lets be really generous here and say that 1% of all discovered meteorites turn out to be from the Moon. Now Apollo didn't just bring back rock samples, they also brought back regolith and 3m hammered in core samples - I'm guessing that nobody is dumb enough to suggest they got them from Antarctica.

With me so far Najak? Now it takes time to process rocks to find out their source, certainly not something they would do in the short time they were there.

Apollo brought back a catalogued total of 842lbs of samples. Let's say 800lbs are rocks.

Now to find that amount of rocks from the Moon (and it is by no means guaranteed!), multiply that 800lb amount by 100 (1% are from the Moon) meaning they need to bring back 80,000lbs, all to be verified.

So, send a damn rocket engineer, publicise it, photograph it and tell him he needs to go find 400 tons of rocks on the ground.

No worries though as they can (solve the bloody energy crisis!) by magically irradiating rocks with amongst other isotopes, helium-3! They can also magically impregnate many on the surface with microscopic zap-pits that leave no trace to even basic geologists!

Somewhere along the line they will magically remove the "impossible to miss or remove" terrestrial weathering that alters minerals within the rock. They will magically remove all fusion crusts that are certainly going to be present in arctic conditions and whilst they invisibly do that, remove all signs of internal cracking and heating that are completely and unmissably obvious.

Once this absurd list of things has been done they will send them out to thousands of geologists over 50 years and not one of them will find any fault with any of this.

How many people to do all that totally impossible shite?

[jfb]

• Go to Antarctica
• Grab some rocks
• "Irradiate" half of those rocks (how and with what forms of radiation and at what energies are left as an exercise for the reader)
• Submit all the rocks to a lab for the same kind of analysis that was done on the lunar samples
• Compare with analyses of Apollo samples

This will at least tell us if faking samples in this manner is even possible.  I don't think it is (Antarctic rocks are subject to physical weathering processes that lunar rocks aren't), but we won't know until someone wastes the money to find out.