Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

Feel free to explain how these scientists don't know what they're talking about, or accept that people collected those rocks from the surface of the Moon.

Thank you for responding.  For me, you just illustrated that even the Apollogists here, do not see an issue with the hyperbole claims of the Apollogy.

The evidence that remains to substantiate these claims is miniscule.   Honeysuckle has 67 second audio clip which simply matches... where is the chain-of-custody for this audio clip?   And how do we know it was broadcast directly from the S-Band of the LM on the surface of the moon?   - we don't.

Where are the S-Band transmission tapes themselves?  Gone.   With all of the rest of the source tapes.

The dirty details behind each claim are not noted...  purposefully skewing the "claim" to make it seem far more substantial than it truly is.

Claim -- "thousands of Amateurs witnessed it" -- we have ONE -- Larry Baysinger and his friend, for 30 minutes.   They CLAIM.  Where are these recordings?  How many witnesses claimed to hear these recordings?  ZERO, AFAIK...     This is ALL of the evidence that back up that BIG CLAIM.

I'll stop here.  You confirmed for me that the basis upon which this Apollo Religion was founded, is a exaggerations with much less substantiation than most people know. 

Apollogists are not motivated to be Truthful - they are motivated to be "Convincing" -- and so accept without question/concern - the skewed/exaggerations that support their beliefs/religion.

That's a lot of words to not address either the Soviets or the rocks.

If Apollo was faked, either: NASA fooled the Soviets, in which case you need to explain how; or the Soviets knew Apollo was fake and said nothing, in which case you need to explain why. Or maybe I'm wrong somehow, and there's a third alternative I've missed, in which case you need to explain what.

And as I've already pointed out, the scientists who've studied the Apollo rocks can explain how they know the rocks must be from the Moon, can't be fake, can't be from Earth, can't be lunar meteorites and can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. To that end, here is a link to an interview of Australian scientist Ross Taylor, who was invited by NASA to be involved in the study of the Apollo 11 rocks:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html

Russia validated our rocks, then we validated theirs -- "hey, they look the same".  By May 1972, we were fully allied with Russia to collaborate moving forward on joint missions.   Just because the "mainstream narrative says Cold War" doesn't mean this is the actual case.  To presume you know what goes on behind closed doors at the top level -- is a stretch.   "Cold War & Fear - Communism" - gives the govt the right to spend a lot more money to "Protect us" while giving out profitable contracts to their cronies ... Apollo was in part driven by this fear of Russia gaining airspace/missile dominance.  I don't presume to "know" -- but instead admit "we don't really know".

Many moon rocks can be found at the South Pole, where Von Braun went in 1967... to gather moon rocks.   Radiate them a bit, and poof, they "look like moon rocks" because they are....   How could you tell the difference?  Especially when most of those to investigate were "chosen/selected".  Do you think them saying "nah, this ain't a moon rock" would have been accepted any better than someone today saying "nah, look at that Rocket accelerating too fast -- this can't be real" - these guys get shat upon.   And in their case, would likely lose their job.   Aside from that -- using real moon rock from Antarctica where the cold freezes/preserves them better -- how could a scientist identify it as fake?

Moon Scientists all have one thing in common -- they are funded through grants, from the government.   You don't bite the hand that feeds you.  Just ask Thomas Baron.

[onebigmonkey]

And yet here you are, presuming to know what goes on behind closed doors.

[Zakalwe]

I've stood and showed my work.  I stand by my work.

In this thread alone you have refused to present your argument in favor of your claim for a minimal necessary RCS thrust resolution. You demand that a new thread be opened to contain it. You further conceded that your work along those lines is incomplete and untrustworthy, but you refuse to withdraw the claim based on it.

I retracted the 1 msec as "Pending"-- it was based on rough estimates.  I made the statement, you questioned it - I answered honestly and re-classified it as "needs more investigation".

You think this is not integrity?

I'd like to get some neutral voices to weigh in -- not just Apollogists whose religion I am offending.  I am receiving the treatment of the Salem Witches on Trial.

I'll make another pass at each thread - to ensure each is tied up.

For the "Rocket thrust is usually lower during takeoff" - I'll give you some references.  But then that thread is done... unless you want to make a proof that hasn't been shown before (that anyone seems to know of).  Otherwise, demanding that I present the proof that no Apollogist has ever been able to supply -- is Salem Witch treatment -- it's fully unreasonable.

Boohoo. Dry your eyes.
It is not enough to envoke the Galileo Defence....you must also be correct.

[najak]

And yet here you are, presuming to know what goes on behind closed doors.

My focus is on what appears to me as "the impossible things" that Apollo did.  You can draw your own conclusions.

I favor trusting in Physics over Politics.  People lie and deceived, but Physics does not.

So my intent is to simply present all of these cases as accurately as I can, and thoroughly.  As objections are raised here, I have been addressing them, inside the document even.

I still have a bit of work to do to catch up with a few objections/corrections - such I had Apollo 16 at 500' from the Lander at Launch, instead of 300'.  And I need to also do some "Aspect Ratio Skew" analysis to see if might impact anything.

[najak]

Boohoo. Dry your eyes.
It is not enough to envoke the Galileo Defence....you must also be correct.

Not crying but also accurately identifying the situation.  The jury here (those in control of this forum) are biased against me.   Neutral eyes could see that.

If you want to contribute to any of the threads -- offer up a hypothesis or evidence that what I'm concluding about the specific instance, please do.  I want as many counter points to be raised as you can muster.

But since I'm "the witch" the predictable outcome is that everyone is going to jeer at me, and call me guilty and wrong -- no matter the actual reality.

I'd like to get some more neutral voices in here, who aren't so attached to the Apollogy.

Y'all seem to want an Echo Chamber here.  Same as most Fundamentalist churches.   "You are encouraged to be skeptical, so long as you come around to concluding the 'Right' answer -- the Bible is God's Only True Word."  In this forum, I'm encouraged to debate, but if I don't conclude that "We Landed Humans on the moon" - then it's a guaranteed, automatic loss for me.

If you were in the MLH forum, -- it would be the OPPOSITE.

I disagree with BOTH mentalities.  I hate it when they treat Apollogists in the same way you all have been treating me...   I almost got banned from the MLH group for defending the Apollogists, calling them "goldmines" - because it's a RARE apollogist who will walk into the "den of lions" only to be abused unfairly - like a Witch in Salem.  (or more correctly, a Quaker, which was a leading cause for being accused).

[Peter B]

Feel free to explain how these scientists don't know what they're talking about, or accept that people collected those rocks from the surface of the Moon.

Thank you for responding.  For me, you just illustrated that even the Apollogists here, do not see an issue with the hyperbole claims of the Apollogy.

The evidence that remains to substantiate these claims is miniscule.   Honeysuckle has 67 second audio clip which simply matches... where is the chain-of-custody for this audio clip?   And how do we know it was broadcast directly from the S-Band of the LM on the surface of the moon?   - we don't.

Where are the S-Band transmission tapes themselves?  Gone.   With all of the rest of the source tapes.

The dirty details behind each claim are not noted...  purposefully skewing the "claim" to make it seem far more substantial than it truly is.

Claim -- "thousands of Amateurs witnessed it" -- we have ONE -- Larry Baysinger and his friend, for 30 minutes.   They CLAIM.  Where are these recordings?  How many witnesses claimed to hear these recordings?  ZERO, AFAIK...     This is ALL of the evidence that back up that BIG CLAIM.

I'll stop here.  You confirmed for me that the basis upon which this Apollo Religion was founded, is a exaggerations with much less substantiation than most people know. 

Apollogists are not motivated to be Truthful - they are motivated to be "Convincing" -- and so accept without question/concern - the skewed/exaggerations that support their beliefs/religion.

That's a lot of words to not address either the Soviets or the rocks.

If Apollo was faked, either: NASA fooled the Soviets, in which case you need to explain how; or the Soviets knew Apollo was fake and said nothing, in which case you need to explain why. Or maybe I'm wrong somehow, and there's a third alternative I've missed, in which case you need to explain what.

And as I've already pointed out, the scientists who've studied the Apollo rocks can explain how they know the rocks must be from the Moon, can't be fake, can't be from Earth, can't be lunar meteorites and can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. To that end, here is a link to an interview of Australian scientist Ross Taylor, who was invited by NASA to be involved in the study of the Apollo 11 rocks:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html

Russia validated our rocks, then we validated theirs -- "hey, they look the same".  By May 1972, we were fully allied with Russia to collaborate moving forward on joint missions.   Just because the "mainstream narrative says Cold War" doesn't mean this is the actual case.  To presume you know what goes on behind closed doors at the top level -- is a stretch.   "Cold War & Fear - Communism" - gives the govt the right to spend a lot more money to "Protect us" while giving out profitable contracts to their cronies ... Apollo was in part driven by this fear of Russia gaining airspace/missile dominance.  I don't presume to "know" -- but instead admit "we don't really know".

Yes, I suspected you'd take the third option, and that it would be some version of the "Cold War is Fake" meme.

If you're serious about applying a "we don't really know" attitude to the historiography of the Cold War, then that suggests to me that you're comfortable with the idea of adding the entire history profession to the engineers and scientists you've so far challenged the integrity of.

But is that really the case? Do you seriously believe "we don't really know" about the nature of the Cold War? What about other events in history? World War Two? The Tunguska Event? Caesar's Conquest of Gaul?

Many moon rocks can be found at the South Pole,

I've already pointed out we can tell the difference between the Apollo rocks and lunar meteorites. The difference is so obvious that anyone with normal eyesight who is given a tray of five Apollo rocks and five lunar meteorites would be able to correctly sort them.

where Von Braun went in 1967... to gather moon rocks.

Why would you send a rocket engineer to gather moon rocks? Especially when lunar meteorites as a category weren't identified until more than 10 years later.

Radiate them a bit, and poof, they "look like moon rocks" because they are....   How could you tell the difference?

Saying this can only mean you're completely unaware of the differences between Earth rocks and Apollo rocks (and lacking in knowledge about radiation for that matter). Are you going to read the Taylor interview I linked for you? Or are you going to show some of that integrity you claim for yourself and admit that (a) it's possible for people to know of these differences, and (b) you don't actually know what those differences are?

"Especially when most of those to investigate were "chosen/selected".  Do you think them saying "nah, this ain't a moon rock" would have been accepted any better than someone today saying "nah, look at that Rocket accelerating too fast -- this can't be real" - these guys get shat upon.   And in their case, would likely lose their job.

If you'd bothered to read the Taylor interview, you'd know some of the differences between Earth rocks and the Apollo rocks, and you might have an inkling of just how fundamental they are. In that case, you'd realise why there'd be no need for a scientist to have to make a pretense that they were different.

Aside from that -- using real moon rock from Antarctica where the cold freezes/preserves them better -- how could a scientist identify it as fake?

I refer to my earlier statement about a tray of five lunar meteorites and five Apollo rocks. Have a think about the ways they might differ from each other.

Moon Scientists all have one thing in common -- they are funded through grants, from the government.   You don't bite the hand that feeds you.  Just ask Thomas Baron.

What exactly do you mean when you say "the government"? The US government? If so, do you seriously think that only USAnian scientists can study the Apollo rocks? If not, then how can the US government possibly affect what non-USAnian scientists say about the rocks?

https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm

That's the website to use when you want to request a lunar sample for research. Feel free to point out where "the government" has any say in it, especially for non-USAnian scientists.

[JayUtah]

I retracted the 1 msec as "Pending"-- it was based on rough estimates.  I made the statement, you questioned it - I answered honestly and re-classified it as "needs more investigation".

I don't see where you retracted the claimed value. You were asked for the source of the 1 ms value, and you said you would present it only in a separate thread. Then you tried to shift the burden of proof to require a counterclaim, which you then went on to assume must be 10 ms and tried to make me supply an argument in favor of.

You think this is not integrity?

I'd like to get some neutral voices to weigh in -- not just Apollogists whose religion I am offending.

No. Dismissing people who find legitimate errors in your claims and legitimate questions about your methods as merely "religious" lacks integrity. Earlier you said you welcomed opposition, but now you've changed your tune. You don't seem to believe that there can be a reasonable opposition to your beliefs, and therefore the only reason someone would have for disagreeing with you is some dishonest form of ideological bias.

I am receiving the treatment of the Salem Witches on Trial.

No, you're being properly held to account. If you make a claim with no basis—as you did—you will be held accountable for it. That accounting took the form of asking for the basis and expressing the willingness to entertain it, whatever it may have been. If you are unwilling to cooperate in that fashion, then the proper approach is to categorically retract the claim, not perform a rhetorical or tactical tap dance to avoid responsibility.

For the "Rocket thrust is usually lower during takeoff" - I'll give you some references.  But then that thread is done.

You may resign from any thread you wish. And no one can prevent you from lying elsewhere about what happened in it, but you certainly won't win prizes for integrity if you do so. Your demand that that thread, or any thread, entails others obeying your instructions for how they will formulate and present their responses is of little consequence.

[JayUtah]

My focus is on what appears to me as "the impossible things" that Apollo did.  You can draw your own conclusions.

And when we do that, and cite our basis for doing so, your rejoinder is to accuse everyone of some irrational "religious" bias regardless of their stated rationale. Then you have the audacity to demand that you have or seek integrity.

So my intent is to simply present all of these cases as accurately as I can, and thoroughly.

That certainly did not extend to the computer code. You claimed on the basis of a lifetime of expertise as a software engineer that the computer code was not "capable." Your expertise is undemonstrated along those lines, but Mike Stewart's is not. He has copiously documented running the actual software on the actual hardware and demonstrating that it works. He has also presented his findings publicly before audiences of computer professionals. That is a vast amount of contravening evidence you need to overcome in order to establish a claim to the contrary. And when push came to shove, you simply declared the matter to be above the heads of your critics and insisted we move on. While you provide some rigor in parts of your presentation, you seem to rely equally on bluff and buster.

As objections are raised here, I have been addressing them, inside the document even.

I do not agree that you are accurately representing there the discussion that has occurred here.

You concede that some of the graphs you present relevant to ignition transients are for solid fuel rockets, but then you claim without justification that they remain relevant. That neither reflects the discussion in this thread nor the science. It appears instead to be what you want people to believe about your performance in the debate.

You took another graph from a general paper on combustion excursions and purported it to reflect actual data that shows less thrust during an ignition transient. You ignored the statement on the same page as your graph that engine performance and behavior cannot be generalized accurately and must be established by measurement for any particular engine. You have been presented with information specific to the ascent engine design and testing that anticipates a significant overpressure condition at ignition. But your version of this discussion suggests you successfully established that ignition transients uniformly reduce thrust.

Finally, your other graph is expressly not based on any data. In context, it merely serves to illustrate the difference between a numerical integration of impulse (such as occurs in actual flight) and the analytical integration of impulse, which would be more appropriate to the paper design stage where certain simplifying assumptions are in order.

Taken as a whole, your documentation creates the false impression that you have amassed a coherent set of published data disputing the notion that the LM ascent can have benefitted from an ignition transient. None of the discussion disputing the validity and applicability of those illustrations appears in your document. Thus it does not accurately reflect the debate you participated in.

[Mag40]

And as I've already pointed out, the scientists who've studied the Apollo rocks can explain how they know the rocks must be from the Moon, can't be fake, can't be from Earth, can't be lunar meteorites and can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions.

You are parroting the HB narrative without researching it properly.
https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/
"Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied Apollo lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks that the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of a government conspiracy does not know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that is better than any story that a conspirator could have conceived. I have studied lunar rocks and soils for 50+ years and I could not “make” even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government” could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated chemical and physical effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Apollo rocks and soils contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth samples of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Apollo igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the moon and bring back some rocks and soil than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth.

Conspiracy theorists overlook an important obvious constraint: three Russian Luna missions (1970-1976) and the Chinese Change’e 5 mission (2020) have also collected and studied samples from the moon that have the same fascinating Moon-like properties as the Apollo samples. If the U. S. government had somehow cheated, our Russian and Chinese scientist friends certainly would have let us all know about it, but they have not. Scientists are just people who do, in fact, argue with each other. Some even delight in proving other scientists wrong."

There is a vast amount of rebuttal to your really uninformed simplistic statements. I'm not even scratching the surface.

Many moon rocks can be found at the South Pole, where Von Braun went in 1967... to gather moon rocks.

Yeah, NASA sends a rocket engineer to go on a rock hunting forage and makes sure that it is highly publicised!

Radiate them a bit, and poof, they "look like moon rocks" because they are..

Just so ignorant. The fusion crust wipes out things like zap-pits and stronger isotopes on the edges. The atmospheric entry burning cracks the rock in significant ways.

How could you tell the difference?

Terrestrial weathering for starters, significant atmospheric water absorption and interaction within. Then there's the isotope decay, no zap pits, no outer helium-3. Your crass suggestion they irradiated the rock and geologists wouldn't know the difference is based on nothing but your HB opinion.

Aside from that -- using real moon rock from Antarctica where the cold freezes/preserves them better -- how could a scientist identify it as fake?

The problem is that you don't know therefore you assume that experts with 20+ years geology experience also cannot know.

[bknight]

Feel free to explain how these scientists don't know what they're talking about, or accept that people collected those rocks from the surface of the Moon.

Thank you for responding.  For me, you just illustrated that even the Apollogists here, do not see an issue with the hyperbole claims of the Apollogy.


The evidence that remains to substantiate these claims is miniscule.   Honeysuckle has 67 second audio clip which simply matches... where is the chain-of-custody for this audio clip?   And how do we know it was broadcast directly from the S-Band of the LM on the surface of the moon?   - we don't.

Where are the S-Band transmission tapes themselves?  Gone.   With all of the rest of the source tapes.

The dirty details behind each claim are not noted...  purposefully skewing the "claim" to make it seem far more substantial than it truly is.

Claim -- "thousands of Amateurs witnessed it" -- we have ONE -- Larry Baysinger and his friend, for 30 minutes.   They CLAIM.  Where are these recordings?  How many witnesses claimed to hear these recordings?  ZERO, AFAIK...     This is ALL of the evidence that back up that BIG CLAIM.

I'll stop here.  You confirmed for me that the basis upon which this Apollo Religion was founded, is a exaggerations with much less substantiation than most people know. 

Apollogists are not motivated to be Truthful - they are motivated to be "Convincing" -- and so accept without question/concern - the skewed/exaggerations that support their beliefs/religion.

That's a lot of words to not address either the Soviets or the rocks.

If Apollo was faked, either: NASA fooled the Soviets, in which case you need to explain how; or the Soviets knew Apollo was fake and said nothing, in which case you need to explain why. Or maybe I'm wrong somehow, and there's a third alternative I've missed, in which case you need to explain what.

And as I've already pointed out, the scientists who've studied the Apollo rocks can explain how they know the rocks must be from the Moon, can't be fake, can't be from Earth, can't be lunar meteorites and can't have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. To that end, here is a link to an interview of Australian scientist Ross Taylor, who was invited by NASA to be involved in the study of the Apollo 11 rocks:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html

Russia validated our rocks, then we validated theirs -- "hey, they look the same".  By May 1972, we were fully allied with Russia to collaborate moving forward on joint missions.   Just because the "mainstream narrative says Cold War" doesn't mean this is the actual case.  To presume you know what goes on behind closed doors at the top level -- is a stretch.   "Cold War & Fear - Communism" - gives the govt the right to spend a lot more money to "Protect us" while giving out profitable contracts to their cronies ... Apollo was in part driven by this fear of Russia gaining airspace/missile dominance.  I don't presume to "know" -- but instead admit "we don't really know".

Many moon rocks can be found at the South Pole, where Von Braun went in 1967... to gather moon rocks.   Radiate them a bit, and poof, they "look like moon rocks" because they are....   How could you tell the difference?  Especially when most of those to investigate were "chosen/selected".  Do you think them saying "nah, this ain't a moon rock" would have been accepted any better than someone today saying "nah, look at that Rocket accelerating too fast -- this can't be real" - these guys get shat upon.   And in their case, would likely lose their job.   Aside from that -- using real moon rock from Antarctica where the cold freezes/preserves them better -- how could a scientist identify it as fake?

This is wrong on many levels.  Firstly, the last time I check there were like a dozen Moon meteorites on the continent of Antartica. So there aren't 800 +-. I have one year in geology and I could tell the difference at a glance of the ones from Antartica and the Moon rocks in storage at NASA. It's not that difficult to anyone except of course you and you fellow HBs.  Thomas Baron, yes the whistle blower, he presented and was given his due.  NASA didn't/doesn't have any death squads, if they had the death toll would be much larger.  His report basically described what he called a lack of safety procedure in subcontractors and was promptly fired by North American Aviation, IIRC.  His subsequent report on the tragedy of Apollo 1.  Did you know that all manned spacecraft were subjected to the same 100% O2 test prior to launch? Their luck ran out during the test of pollo 1.  Did you know that your source Jarrah White accused NASA of killing those three astronauts?  He has a 20 part video series on the subject.  But he never mentioned what I told you in this series.  After viewing them I left his website never to return.  Yes, NASA was a bit careless, and carless again prior to the Challenger disaster.  And you might think they learned their lesson, no it took the Columbia disaster to change the thinking of NAASA management.  So, Thomas Barron although tragic was not related to Apollo.  If you would spend as much time studying Apollo as looking for anomalies "that absolutely prove it was a hoax", perhaps you would learn more.

Moon Scientists all have one thing in common -- they are funded through grants, from the government.   You don't bite the hand that feeds you.  Just ask Thomas Baron.

You Jarrah tried to make the case that the Chinese retuned Moon sample looked much different than NASA, implying NASA rocks were bogus.  Scientists that studied both didn't com to that conclusion.

[TimberWolfAu]

You are parroting the HB narrative without researching it properly.
https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/

I had a short conversation via email with Dr Korotev earlier this year, seems quite happy to exchange with people who are genuinely interested in a subject, and gave me a few points that I wasn't aware of (not surprising when I'm starting from a position of "space rock go whooosshhhh"  ). I did like that some of them are blindingly obvious when pointed out, while others are in the intricate details. An example being the 4π vs 2π irradiation of lunar-meteorites vs lunar surface samples. (That symbol is supposed to be pi, doesn't look so good here)

[najak]

Did you know that your source Jarrah White accused NASA of killing those three astronauts?  He has a 20 part video series on the subject.  But he never mentioned what I told you in this series.  After viewing them I left his website never to return.  Yes, NASA was a bit careless, and carless again prior to the Challenger disaster.  And you might think they learned their lesson, no it took the Columbia disaster to change the thinking of NAASA management.  So, Thomas Barron although tragic was not related to Apollo.  If you would spend as much time studying Apollo as looking for anomalies "that absolutely prove it was a hoax", perhaps you would learn more.

Thanks for the info.  It's never been my theory that Apollo 1 was on purpose...  surrounding evidence, at a glance, didn't seem to support it.  As such, I never investigate the MLH claim on this either.  Send me a link to his 20-part presentation - and I'll watch it, and make a preliminary assessment.  Perhaps we're in agreement here.

However for Thomas Baron - I think he was "offed" in association with him "stopping NASA progress" by EXPANDING the testimony to many others (named in his 500 page doc)...  After his "tragic death" there were no more witnesses -- go figure..   AND the 500 page report he submitted went MISSING.

NASA's response to this tragedy?  "Accelerate development even more!" -- Bean is on record calling it "Crazy!  You can't do that."   A year later Webb, the guy who helped start it all, the head of NASA -- resigned just prior to Apollo 8.  My theory currently is that the determination of doing "Plan B" was put into effect.  Failure was not an option.  And the deception, at govt level, was justified under the cover of "DoD military operation" which is permitted to include deception.

For me, the breaking of development processes, the Baron exposure of what it was really like on the ground floor, and the era of Vietnam, Gulf of Tonkin, 2 Kennedy Assassinations, Johnson, Nixon -- all don't seem like an particularly "honest era for govt".

I'm still just a 9-week rookie - what do I know?

[najak]

I had a short conversation via email with Dr Korotev earlier this year, seems quite happy to exchange with people who are genuinely interested in a subject, and gave me a few points that I wasn't aware of (not surprising when I'm starting from a position of "space rock go whooosshhhh"  ). I did like that some of them are blindingly obvious when pointed out, while others are in the intricate details. An example being the 4π vs 2π irradiation of lunar-meteorites vs lunar surface samples. (That symbol is supposed to be pi, doesn't look so good here)

I find it suspicious that the first moon rock they unsheathed, in Denmark, turned out to be an ABSOLUTE FAKE, 100%.   Many other "moon rocks" are encased permanently such that you can't open them up  to check them out.  How many other "museum moon rocks" have been uncased to authenticate?  Just wondering.   All I know, at this point is the MLH viewpoint, which focuses on the "one big fake rock" that should shake us up a bit (but not you, I'm sure).

Care to share the Apollogist defense on this mini-topic?  I currently hold no claim other than I was appropriated moved by the Denmark fakery of a rock given by Armstrong himself.

[TimberWolfAu]

I had a short conversation via email with Dr Korotev earlier this year, seems quite happy to exchange with people who are genuinely interested in a subject, and gave me a few points that I wasn't aware of (not surprising when I'm starting from a position of "space rock go whooosshhhh"  ). I did like that some of them are blindingly obvious when pointed out, while others are in the intricate details. An example being the 4π vs 2π irradiation of lunar-meteorites vs lunar surface samples. (That symbol is supposed to be pi, doesn't look so good here)

I find it suspicious that the first moon rock they unsheathed, in Denmark, turned out to be an ABSOLUTE FAKE, 100%.   Many other "moon rocks" are encased permanently such that you can't open them up  to check them out.  How many other "museum moon rocks" have been uncased to authenticate?  Just wondering.   All I know, at this point is the MLH viewpoint, which focuses on the "one big fake rock" that should shake us up a bit (but not you, I'm sure).

Care to share the Apollogist defense on this mini-topic?  I currently hold no claim other than I was appropriated moved by the Denmark fakery of a rock given by Armstrong himself.

Sure, please provide the catalogue number for the rock that apparently Armstrong gave to the Rijksmuseum, all Apollo samples have an id number, so what is the number for this one?

The simple fact remains, the 'rock' wasn't given to the Rijksmuseum by Armstrong, or any other member of Apollo 11, let alone NASA, as NASA wasn't giving out any lunar samples in 1969, the first ones went out in 1970.

The 'rock' was found in the personal possessions of a former prime minister (who wasn't even prime minister in 1969, having been out of office for about 11 years), Willem Drees. Drees had provided many items to the Rijksmuseum before his passing. The 'rock' was found in his possessions, held by the Rijksmuseum, along with the note that gets associated with the 'rock', and the two were assumed to belong together (at which point, it must be pointed out that the people who found the 'rock' weren't scientists, but a pair of artists, setting up an exhibition). There is no evidence Drees even met the Apollo 11 crew, who were in the Netherlands for a handful of hours.

OneBigMonkey, on his website, and Paolo Attivissimo (I can't link his site from work), to name just two people, have looked into this in nice detail.

[Peter B]

I find it suspicious that the first moon rock they unsheathed,

It wasn't "unsheathed" because it was never "sheathed".

in Denmark,

It was the Netherlands.

turned out to be an ABSOLUTE FAKE, 100%.

Finally, you got something sort-of right. It was identified by a geologist as petrified wood. However it was never labelled by the museum as a Moon rock, so it doesn't really count as fake anyway.

Many other "moon rocks" are encased permanently such that you can't open them up  to check them out.  How many other "museum moon rocks" have been uncased to authenticate?  Just wondering.

Probably none, because that wasn't their purpose. Remember, the main objective of Apollo was to demonstrate the superiority of USAnian science and technology over that of the Soviets, so the gift rocks were essentially a physical reminder to each country that the USA had accomplished that mission.

All I know, at this point is the MLH viewpoint, which focuses on the "one big fake rock" that should shake us up a bit (but not you, I'm sure).

No it doesn't, because you're ignoring all the other samples which have been available for study by scientists from around the world. I've pointed you at the LPI website and how to find documents which summarise literally every lunar sample rock, including lists of scientific papers written based on the study of those samples.

Care to share the Apollogist defense on this mini-topic?  I currently hold no claim other than I was appropriated moved by the Denmark fakery of a rock given by Armstrong himself.

It wasn't given by Armstrong. That's three errors in the course of your post, suggesting you've done pretty limited research into the issue.

So here's the story.

The rock in question, which is about the size of a matchbox, was presented to Netherlands former Prime Minister Willem Drees by the US Ambassador to the Netherlands J William Middendorf. After Drees's death, his family found the rock with other memorabilia in his desk, and gave it to the Rijksmuseum.

A Rijksmuseum staffer phoned NASA to ask if NASA ever gifted a Moon rock to the Netherlands, and the NASA staffer correctly answered 'Yes'. At this point the conversation ended, whereas the Rijksmuseum staffer should have asked for details about the gift rock. If that had been done, this issue would never have arisen as it would have been obvious that the Drees rock wasn't the gift rock.

The rock was put on display, and a geologist correctly identified the rock as petrified rock.

The actual gift rock was presented by the crew of Apollo 11, not the US Ambassador. The gift rock was presented to Queen Juliana as the head of state, not to a random former PM. The gift rock was the size of a grain of rice, not the size of a matchbox. And the gift rock was placed on display in the Science Museum in Leiden, where it's still on display.

Even without knowing those details, a moment's thought should be sufficient to make alarm bells ring. The total weight of rocks brought back by Apollo 11 was 21.55 kilograms, and the research teams selected to study the rocks were being provided with samples of a few grams. Therefore the idea that NASA would be willing to hand out a larger amount than that to a random former PM of a minor allied nation makes no sense.

Then there's the fact that every Apollo sample has its own unique number, and a bunch of photos of it. You're welcome to go through the LPI's list of samples and see if you can find the Drees rock among them.

In the meantime, thousands of scientists have studied far smaller samples of Apollo rocks, using that form I linked to request the samples.