Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Mag40]

Deleted

[onebigmonkey]

It merely shows that Apollo samples differ from those collected in a completely different location.

Your own Apollogist expert, Korotev, says this:
"We have no reason to suspect, based on data obtained from orbit that any region of the moon is rich in types of rocks significantly different from those we that know about or postulate might exist. [...] It is highly unlikely that any yet-unfound lunar meteorite will differ substantially from the Apollo lunar rocks and known lunar meteorites in the minerals it contains or in its geochemical character."

You fail to understand what Korotev says. He does not say Apollo samples represent every possible sample. He is saying that they have a very good idea about what's there thanks to all of the work done by many nations onthe ground and in orbit.

ALSO:  Chinese Regolith particle average weight is 1/4th that of the Apollo regolith.  (5/8ths diameter--- cubed).

And therefore statistically less representative.

China and USA are interdependent for trade and economy.   It shouldn't surprise you that China isn't dumb enough to do something that may have backlash to themselves.

Hasn't stopped the USA imposing tariffs and legal restrictions on them.

Or if China does know this "dirt" - is it better to "leverage your dirt?" (get something from it) - or to expose it, lose your leverage and cause damage likely to cut both ways??  NASA wants you to believe as you do -- so keep on believing.

NASA doesn't care what you believe.

China knows Apollo happened, it uses Apollo data all the time. China's probes have photographed the Apollo landing sites and seen the evidence of human activity there.

[Mag40]

I refer to this 2019 article.

I suggest you run along and "refer" to more articles instead of this moronic cherry-picking.

So the 2-3" deep dust reported by Apollo, followed by an ABRUPT hardness -- doesn't seem to match this description.

Why didn't you follow the source of the citation? Was that too hard for you? Page 286:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter07.pdf
"Since about 4 b.y. ago, the impact flux on the lunar surface has been relatively low, and a regolith only a few meters thick is adequate to shield the underlying bedrock almost indefinitely. For this reason, the regolith thickness rarely exceeds 10 to 20 m. Regolith thicknesses on the maria are typically only a few meters (Langevin and Arnold, 1977; Taylor, 1982). Astronauts have drilled to a depth of approximately 3 m in the regoliths at Apollo sites, and estimates based on grain-size distributions suggest that the maximum thickness of the regolith may not exceed 20 m, at least in these locations (McKay et al., 1974). Early estimates of regolith thicknesses by Oberbeck and Quaide (1968), based on crater-shape models, ranged from 3.3 m on Oceanus Procellarum to 16 m for the inner wall of the crater Hipparchus. At the four Surveyor mare sites, apparent regolith thicknesses range from 1 to 10 m (Shoemaker et al, 1968).

The current consensus is that the regolith is generally about 4–5 m thick in the mare areas but may average about 10–15 m in older highland regions. Beneath this true regolith is a complex zone that probably consists of large-scale ejecta and mpactfractured, brecciated bedrock (based on orbital radar data and modeling; Peeples et al., 1978; Langevin, 1982). This layer of fractured bedrock has been called the megaregolith and may consist of large (>1 m) blocks. Some of the inferred properties of this megaregolith are different from those of the unconsolidated surficial material that has been sampled (see Fig. 4.22). However, the detailed properties of the megaregolith are essentially unknown, and we shall not consider it further in this section.

The formation and evolution of the lunar regolith is a complex process. At any given spot, the nature and history of the regolith is determined by two completely random mechanisms. One is destructive—the excavation of existing regolith by impact craters. The
other is constructive—the addition of layers of new material (either from bedrock or older regolith) that is excavated from either near (small) or distant (large) impact craters. Superimposed on these mechanical processes are the effects of solar and cosmic particles that strike the lunar surface. At the very surface, dust particles form microcraters, and solar-wind atomic particles are trapped in the outer layers of regolith grains, while high-energy particles produce distinctive nuclear reactions to depths of several meters."

So the source has no problem reconciling Apollo with what you see as a contradiction! Perhaps, and this is just a wild guess, you haven't a clue what you are talking about!


"These simultaneous processes combine to produce a regolith whose structure, stratigraphy, and history may vary widely, even between locations only a few meters apart. Surface layers can be buried and then reexposed. Single layers, or slabs containing multiple layers, can be transported, overturned, or buried. Deciphering these complications is a major challenge that requires the application of a wide range of analytical techniques—petrologic studies, gas analyses, measurements of radioactivity, stable isotope studies, trace element geochemistry, magnetic measurements, and statistical modeling—to have any hope of success. "

Why would there be an abrupt "hardness?"  What hardened it all of a sudden at 2-3" deep? Do you know?  I don't.

Therefore people should educate you because you must be right in your ignorant claims? There is a heating/freezing, compression/compaction and friction. All over billions of years.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter09.pdf

[najak]

Weasel words.
You cherry-picked the little bits that appeals to your fallacious narrative but conveniently ignored the bita where the author said that the landings were not on doubt or questioned.
Why is that?

I see it like this, he said "I showed up and saw the him holding the smoking gun looking at the dead man lying on the floor, but I'm not saying he killed him."

So I shared the first part - "he was holding a smoking gun standing in front of a man freshly shot and bleeding out."  And shout "cherry-picking".   I'm sharing the pertinent evidence of the article.

[najak]

The huge setback for NASA was three dead astronauts, not Baron's very public account of NAA's failings.

Baron was exposing how widespread were the QA issues, that despite all his efforts to report them -- got no response.  This investigation needed to stop before more people came forward -- funny thing though - no one ever did after Baron tragically died.   AND his 500-page report went missing!!  This is not fishy to you??

I'm sad for the astronauts too.   Grissom's last words -- "Jesus Christ, if we can't even talk between 3 buildings, how are we going to get to the moon?"

Answer:  Accelerate development by 50% cutting more corners, and cutting out test flights...  that seems like the best response. 

Bean was right -- "That's crazy!  You can't do that!"....  but they did -- and magically, it all worked out like a fairytale after that..   No more deaths, after Baron.

[najak]

Yes, you posted this already. It was never reported as being "OMG, there are cosmonauts in lunar orbit.". The only  fluster was that they had carried out a lunar orbit ans return in a potentially human rated craft containing live cargo. It doesn't provide a feasible refutation at all - the voices they heard were clearly from a craft in lunar orbit, not transmitted from Earth.

If NASA wanted to fake it, in a similar fashion - they could drop some equipment on the moon...  similar to Surveyors.  Or use two lunar orbiting satellites -- to produce the effect that they were "on the moon" with continuous comms.   It would appear legit, no?

[najak]

ALSO:  Chinese Regolith particle average weight is 1/4th that of the Apollo regolith.  (5/8ths diameter--- cubed).

And therefore statistically less representative.

The average size of regolith particles is only 1/4th the mass reported by Apollo.  This is significantly different and unexpected, and without a good hypothesis to support it.

Their individual size does not make this "size differential" any less vital.

And they did gather enough samples to make it fully "statistically representative".   There was no shortage on samples here.

[Mag40]

Baron was exposing how widespread were the QA issues, that despite all his efforts to report them -- got no response.  This investigation needed to stop before more people came forward -- funny thing though - no one ever did after Baron tragically died.   AND his 500-page report went missing!!  This is not fishy to you??

Begging the question. What's fishy is how you seem to know what was in it.

I'm sad for the astronauts too.   Grissom's last words -- "Jesus Christ, if we can't even talk between 3 buildings, how are we going to get to the moon?"

Bollocks! You're not sad, you're playing the troll game. Frustration at early development problems spilled over with simple comms errors.

Answer:  Accelerate development by 50% cutting more corners, and cutting out test flights...  that seems like the best response. 

You know absolutely nothing about this do you? Clearly the bloody Command Module worked in space.

Bean was right

"On Earth, I weighed 150 pounds; my suit and backpack weighed another 150. 300 pounds. Up there, I weighed only 50. So I could prance around on my toes. It was quite easy to do."
 Alan Bean

[Mag40]

The average size of regolith particles is only 1/4th the mass reported by Apollo.  This is significantly different and unexpected, and without a good hypothesis to support it.

What the hell would you know?

Their individual size does not make this "size differential" any less vital.

Listen "rookie", you know nothing about this.

And they did gather enough samples to make it fully "statistically representative".   There was no shortage on samples here.

Obvious troll is obvious.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter07.pdf
The formation and evolution of the lunar regolith is a complex process. At any given spot, the nature and history of the regolith is determined by two completely random mechanisms. One is destructive—the excavation of existing regolith by impact craters. "

[najak]

Therefore people should educate you because you must be right in your ignorant claims? There is a heating/freezing, compression/compaction and friction. All over billions of years.

What do you think is "freezing"?   That requires water.   And heating these materials to 200 F -- what does this accomplish?

With 1 meter of small dust adding every million years ... do you find it odd that the dust layer they reported is only 2-3" thick on average?   Followed by a cemented/solid underlayer?  I do.

What would cause it to "suddenly harden" so consistently?

Also - this belief that "it would vary greatly" from that paper, doesn't seem to match Apollo either.

No one writing Moon paper dare question Apollo.  These professionals need to collect a paycheck, so they simply don't let it cross their mind.

Think about Christian Ministers, who may know of the Biblical flaws -- but they don't talk to their congregation about it.  They have a paycheck to worry about.

If a "Moon Studies" guy loses his "credibility" (as they'd term it) - and thus his job -- He's going to be working fast food after that.

So I take their "evidence" more seriously than I do their "Apollo Affirmations" (which are a given).

[Mag40]

If NASA wanted to fake it, in a similar fashion - they could drop some equipment on the moon...  similar to Surveyors.  Or use two lunar orbiting satellites -- to produce the effect that they were "on the moon" with continuous comms.   It would appear legit, no?

Derrrr - no it wouldn't. The Input signal feeding the lunar response has to be fed in by someone from Earth.

[najak]

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter07.pdf
The formation and evolution of the lunar regolith is a complex process. At any given spot, the nature and history of the regolith is determined by two completely random mechanisms. One is destructive—the excavation of existing regolith by impact craters. "

That randomness is not "geography specific" - it's saying the same randomness exists all over uniformly.  Yet our 6 Lunar Mission samples, from many geographies, all had a LOT more in common with each other, by far, than they did with China's samples.  Huge discrepancy here, serves as evidence to support MLH.

[Mag40]

What do you think is "freezing"?

Figure of speech. But, hey, you jump on it.

With 1 meter of small dust adding every million years ... do you find it odd that the dust layer they reported is only 2-3" thick on average?   Followed by a cemented/solid underlayer?  I do.

You find it odd do you, therefore your complete ignorance on the matter builds an immovable conclusion? I've seen Dunning and Kruger in the past, but you've got it real bad.

What would cause it to "suddenly harden" so consistently?

Define consistently!

Also - this belief that "it would vary greatly" from that paper, doesn't seem to match Apollo either.

Explain thoroughly.

[najak]

Derrrr - no it wouldn't. The Input signal feeding the lunar response has to be fed in by someone from Earth.

That's now how the Russian prank worked.   They used the satellite as a "relay".  Similar trick could help NASA in their faking efforts, if they would dare to fake it.

[Mag40]

Derrrr - no it wouldn't. The Input signal feeding the lunar response has to be fed in by someone from Earth.

That's now how the Russian prank worked.   They used the satellite as a "relay".  Similar trick could help NASA in their faking efforts, if they would dare to fake it.

God, I'm so close now, that ticked another box on HB bingo.