Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

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.

Thanks for the info and correction.  A key goal of my mission is integrity.  I present things here, because here is my best shot for getting "the other side of the story".   This does seem to take the steam out of the MLH claim.  I won't take your rebuttal here as "gospel either", until I validate it more.  I've created a pre-draft placeholder for "Moon Rock validations".

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tuw5zNJnbGJ5cJZfHJGomIwyXp2nKiTxcvSDk9VNBGE/edit?usp=sharing

[najak]

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.

Thanks for the explanation.  And you are correct, I've done no research on this - so raised it here in this "generic thread" to gather the counter-story.  I figured there was one.

[Peter B]

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.

Thanks for the explanation.  And you are correct, I've done no research on this - so raised it here in this "generic thread" to gather the counter-story.  I figured there was one.

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

[najak]

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

I prefer "Physics" because it's unchangeable, provable, factual - in nature.

Once you talk about "history", the subjectivity becomes immense, and truth becomes hard to define.  For example, even as of February 2020, half of all USA Americans couldn't agree upon whether or not the Election was rigged.   But I assure you, "History" will record it as "not-rigged" and "January 6th as an Insurrection attempt by Trump" -- no matter the truth.  Yet if Trump were in full control, History would say "it was rigged" -- and that would become "history".

If Daniel Ellsberg hadn't leaked the info about corruption associated with Vietnam reporting -- their original reports would have all been recorded as "History"..  If no one leaked the info about "Gulf of Tonkin", this history too would have remained unchallenged. 

So when we talk of the "Cold War" - it's hard to decipher the truth.  How much of this narrative was "manufactured" to justify Apollo and Vietnam, and other profitable (for the politicians with kickbacks) government spending.   It's an interesting topic, but not one in which I believe we can "know the truth" for much of it.

For now, I'll stick with Physics proofs/evidences.

[najak]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

It is not evidence against the cold war, it was a product of it. Kennedy's proposal was part of trying to make US-USSR relations less antagonistic after the Cuban Missile crisis. The Soviets did not dismiss it out of hand, but it died along with Kennedy thanks to the USSR's dislike and distrust of LBJ.

One tends to find that those who dispute the cold war did not live through it.

[najak]

One tends to find that those who dispute the cold war did not live through it.

A war with no shots fired... just "scares" which were told to us by the government.  Real or not - I suspect it was "based on truth" but spun from there. 

If the government hadn't proclaimed it - not sure we would have been aware of it.  It's not like "living through WW2 where German bombs are falling on London".

JFK trying to mend it, was not in the best interests of those wanting to profit from this scare.  Wasn't the "Communism scare" part of the justification for our involvement in Vietnam -- to fight against the spread of evil Communism?   Lots of profit and government spending for "war and fear".   By default, I follow-the-money as a vital part of my assessments of history or present day situations.

[najak]

One tends to find that those who dispute the cold war did not live through it.

I'd also not dismiss the Russian motivation for "an enemy too" - Cold War gave them a scare too.  All governments need the support of the governed, and giving them a common enemy is a known effective means to raise this loyalty/support.   They then translated it into an "Alliance" by 1972, which also gave them a good reason to spend more money.  Then after a while - back to the Cold War antics again -- so up/down -- I'm not sure what degree of what history records is real vs. manufactured, especially on the world stage level.   I think there's a considerable amount of spin and manufacturing of narratives at the top level.

The subjectivity of it all, makes it interesting to discuss and ponder -- but I'm not convinced of the reliability of our assessments.

[onebigmonkey]

A large number of shots were fired in Korea and Vietnam, inthe proxy wars it generated, and at the heads of people trying to escape East Berlin. The Soviet tanks in Prague and Budapest were not delivering cake.

The perceived motivations for it are irrelevant. It existed, and it motivated the policies and actions of the parties involved in it.

[Mag40]

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.

Thanks for the explanation.  And you are correct, I've done no research on this - so raised it here in this "generic thread" to gather the counter-story.  I figured there was one.

This is definitely an omission for the Bingo card.

[najak]

The perceived motivations for it are irrelevant. It existed, and it motivated the policies and actions of the parties involved in it.

I wish this forums allowed the "Like" link.  I would have liked your post here.  I sense your heart/tone to be kind and full of grace, and that you seem to be very well read and informed and intelligent.  I'm glad for your involvement here.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

Thanks for the explanation.  And you are correct, I've done no research on this - so raised it here in this "generic thread" to gather the counter-story.  I figured there was one.

Why did you post something you've done no research on? Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending you assumed there was more to the story that you were hoping to uncover. Here is your post from Reply#87:

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.

You are presenting all of this as fact, not as an open question that you'd like to have resolved. Up until it was dismantled, you accepted as truth, and passed it on as truth, that Armstrong himself gave a fake Moon rock to Denmark. Which leads us to...

This does seem to take the steam out of the MLH claim.  I won't take your rebuttal here as "gospel either", until I validate it more.

Where was all of this validation when you heard and passed on the fabrications? You've compared your treatment here to the Salem Witch Trials, but the only thing being persecuted here is bad faith arguments, poor reasoning, and arrogant condescension. All you have to do to get the discourse you claim you want is to start behaving with integrity you claim to have.

A great start would be to stop passing on unvetted information as factual and only admitting that you didn't do the appropriate research after being corrected. Hold yourself to a higher standard and no one here will be required to do it for you.

[Bryanpoprobson]

The whole premise of the Netherlands Moon rock can be dismissed with a little application of logic.
The sample itself weighed a little under 2Kgs:- Why would a Dutch (Ex) Prime Minister, of no particular note, be afford the singular honour of being given a large sample of Lunar Rock (personally) by the Apollo 11 astronauts? He was not even in office at the time of the astronauts visit, indeed he last held office in the 1950’s. It makes no sense.
NASA fought against Nixon to give out ANY samples but did finally relent. However the samples given out weighed a little over 0.05g and were encased in Lucite. It was only in 1970 that NASA relented and gave out the initial Apollo 11 “Goodwill Rocks!” And 1973 when the later Apollo 17 samples were given out. There certainly was no distribution of rocks to anyone by the Apollo 11 astronauts during their 1969 tour.
Both the Netherlands “Goodwill Rocks” are still on display and can be viewed. Additionally, according to research done by Phil Webb and noted in his videos, “The moonstone of the Netherlands pts 1 and 2” the discovery of the nature of the Moon Rock was pointed out by an incredulous NASA employee visiting the museum while on holiday. He questioned the fact that no large moon rock distribution had EVER been sanctioned by NASA.

[raven]

My apologies if this has been covered already, but why in heck would they use petrified wood to attempt to fake a moon rock?
That's literally a kind of rock that would be impossible to find on the moon.  It's a fossil! Remains of life! Evidence of liquid water!
 If you are going to fake a moon rock, that makes exactly zero sense to use. It's absolutely absurd.
 

[jfb]

It is not enough to imagine that something could happen- you have to show that it did happen. And if you can show that it did, your workings have to overcome the other vast mounds of independently verified corroborating evidence.

My approach is to show "what could NOT have happened."  If I prove enough IMPOSSIBILITIES - even the Mighty Apollo cannot Break Physics.   Once you show Physics being broken, it compels the physicists to open their minds to the likelihood that what they previously believed, may simply not be true.

You cannot prove a negative.

Here's the thing -- if you want to claim that lunar surface activities were filmed on a stage, that astronauts were suspended from wire rigs to fake lunar gravity, etc., then you have to provide positive evidence for those things -- pictures, drawings, invoices for materials and labor (there would have to be a paper trail), etc.  You need to show us pictures from "backstage" showing these rigs to fake surface activities (and no, I'm not talking about simulators or trainers, I'm talking about stuff used during the missions).

If you want to claim the lunar samples aren't genuine, then you have to supply positive evidence for that position -- who made them, where were they made, how were they made, how have they managed to fool several generations of planetary scientists from around the world, etc.  If you want to claim samples are genuine but were gathered by an unmanned system, again, you have to provide positive evidence for that unmanned system -- pictures, drawings, mission plans, etc. 

If you want to claim the telemetry is fake, then you have to supply positive evidence for that position.  What was the source, who programmed it, how was it transmitted in such a way that it appeared to come from the Moon, etc.

If you want to claim eyewitnesses lied about what they observed, then you have to supply positive evidence for that claim.  If they were paid off, show us the money. 

This is the kind of stuff you have to provide to make your case that the landings were faked.  Everything else is simply gainsaying the published record, which doesn't prove anything except that you don't believe (or understand) it. 

Otherwise this is just a waste of everyone's time. 

Any idiot can tweak curves in Photoshop (on a heavily compressed JPEG, no less); whole legions of skeptics and deniers have repeatedly demonstrated that they don't understand anything about photography, or physics, or orbital mechanics, or rocket propulsion, or radio, etc.  You're not "proving" anything; you're just regurgitating the same tired talking points which have been rebutted time and time and time and time again. 

Find some positive evidence for your position.