Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Peter B]

• 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.

Maybe we should get Dave McKeegan to do it while he's down in Antarctica for The Final Experiment (it's explained on YouTube if you'd like to know more).

[najak]

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

MLH theory is that we simply shared our samples with them, so that "they'd match" - that was part of the "homerun" verification - "they matched!"  Surely they weren't in cahoots.

Then May 1972, our alliance with Russia was signed.  For how long before that was this alliance planned?

As far as the evidence of "who all validated the rocks" - I looked once, and seemed like most were done in-house... until 2019 - where NASA has started sending out "stored samples" (so they say), in mass-- but NOW these samples show average particle size of 35 microns instead of 80!!!...  Hmmm,....    maybe it's because China's samples that are real showed this...   Next we'll just claim that our measurement process in 1970's was flawed... off by 55%.

[najak]

...

Peter, were you aware of this recent finding:
https://www.space.com/30450-apollo-moon-soil-samples-disintegrating.html

"The differences between the two datasets are stark. For example, the median particle diameter has decreased from 78 microns (0.0031 inches) to 33 microns (0.0013 inches). And in the original sieve data, 44 percent of soil particles were between 90 and 1,000 microns (0.0035 to 0.039 inches) wide; today, just 17 percent of the particles are that large."

===
What's so odd about this MAJOR DEGRADATION is the nature of it changing so SUDDENLY.  I thought we'd been studying samples throughout the decades?  Why wasn't ANY degradation noted earlier?

This alone seems like a smoking gun to me.   This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.

[TimberWolfAu]

Why wasn't ANY degradation noted earlier?

This alone seems like a smoking gun to me.   This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.

Why wasn't it noted earlier? The five year study you have linked to ran from 2007 to 2012, so it finished twelve years ago as it is. Do you think they are just measuring and remeasuring the samples everyday, to see if they have changed size? The study was specifically performed on samples that have been repeatedly exposed to an environment in which they did not form, and you're surprised this has had an effect on them? At this point, I can only ask that if your post is going to include the line 'I haven't looked into this yet' then it would be a good idea to just not make the post in the first place.

[Peter B]

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

MLH theory is that we simply shared our samples with them, so that "they'd match" - that was part of the "homerun" verification - "they matched!"  Surely they weren't in cahoots.

So, despite positive evidence that the Luna sample retriever missions actually happened, you think they didn't?

Okay, a couple of questions then:

1. What was the purpose of the N-1 rocket the Soviets designed and attempted to launch four times?

2. If it was all faked, why didn't the Soviets fake a landing before the Americans?

3. If the Space Race was agreed to be faked by the USA and the USSR, what did the USSR gain from it?

Then May 1972, our alliance with Russia was signed.  For how long before that was this alliance planned?

What was the name of the alliance as described in the document the two countries signed?

As far as the evidence of "who all validated the rocks" - I looked once,

Only once? Where did you look?

and seemed like most were done in-house... until 2019

Just to clarify, because on the face of it this statement is so stupidly wrong that I have to assume you made a mistake, are you claiming that up to 2019, most analysis of the Apollo rocks was performed by NASA staff?

- where NASA has started sending out "stored samples" (so they say), in mass--

So who say? Please provide a source.

but NOW these samples show average particle size of 35 microns instead of 80!!!...  Hmmm,....    maybe it's because China's samples that are real showed this...   Next we'll just claim that our measurement process in 1970's was flawed... off by 55%.

Okay, just to clarify again, are you saying that the only analysis performed on the Apollo rocks was to measure average particle size?

And also, how did you ascertain that the Chinese samples are real? What problems did the Chinese solve that the Yanks and Russkies couldn't?

[Peter B]

...

Peter, were you aware of this recent finding:
https://www.space.com/30450-apollo-moon-soil-samples-disintegrating.html

"The differences between the two datasets are stark. For example, the median particle diameter has decreased from 78 microns (0.0031 inches) to 33 microns (0.0013 inches). And in the original sieve data, 44 percent of soil particles were between 90 and 1,000 microns (0.0035 to 0.039 inches) wide; today, just 17 percent of the particles are that large."

===
What's so odd about this MAJOR DEGRADATION is the nature of it changing so SUDDENLY.  I thought we'd been studying samples throughout the decades?  Why wasn't ANY degradation noted earlier?

Yes, scientists have been studying the Apollo samples through the decades. Of course, most of the Apollo samples are rocks, and this particular test is a study of soil samples. Do you understand the difference?

Second, just because scientists study samples doesn't mean that every sample is subjected to every possible scientific test. Scientists are specialists, so the tests they conduct on a sample are going to be related to their specialisation. Then they send the sample back to NASA so other scientists can conduct other tests related to their specialisation. If no scientists are interested in performing a certain test on any lunar samples, then that test doesn't get performed.

Therefore, we have two data points for average soil particle size - one collected in 1969 and one in 2012. And that means we have no idea of the shape of the curve between those two years. Therefore, your assertion that the "DEGRADATION" happened "SUDDENLY" isn't supported. (And sorry, but putting those words in caps doesn't give any additional strength to your assertion.)

This alone seems like a smoking gun to me.   This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.

Well of course you'd consider it a smoking gun.

The average researcher would dig up the scientific paper the linked article was based on, learn some context and conduct further research based on that. But not you - instead of researching, you leap straight to the conspiratorial conclusion in the expectation that because we also don't know the context you're somehow right. I don't think you'll bother to look for the paper, but here's your chance to prove me wrong.

And as a test of that, here's a question based on something said in the Ross Taylor interview: what significant finding did scientists make about the lack of a particular group of metals in the Apollo rock samples?

As I said, if no scientists are interested in performing a certain test, then that test doesn't get performed. It's as simple as that. Presumably in the years between 1969 and 2007 no scientists were interested in testing average soil particle size.

But in the meantime here are some questions:

1. What is it a smoking gun of? In other words, according to you, what does it prove?

2. What is your logic process to back this up? And I don't mean (a) the samples degraded, therefore (b) the samples are fake. I'd like you to explain how the degradation is a smoking gun of whatever you think it's a smoking gun of.

[onebigmonkey]

Naturally he's ignored two things: the suggested cause of the change and the different methodologies.

[onebigmonkey]

And when you look carefully at the study you get to the truth of it.

The implication of the study cited by Najak was that samples already released from storage for experimentation were deteriorating thanks to exposure to Earth's atmosphere.

Studies by other workers showed no such change.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/maps.13060

[raven]

The SMART-1 spacecraft, an ESA, not NASA, probe, was able to see some of the chemical composition of lunar material from lunar orbit, thanks to them measuring the X-ray emissions after a massive solar event. X-ray spectrometers work broadly the same way, just with a local supply of x-rays. They were able to compare ground truth of the sites of both the Apollo  and Russian Luna sample sites and elsewhere. This being over a decade before the Chinese sample return mission.
 Even if NASA was able to doctor lunar meteorites to the point they would pass muster to be being from the moon, a massive 'if',  there's no way they could have them come from specific spots on the moon, and things would simply not match up, especially when compared the USSR's efforts and elsewhere on the moon.
 I don't have the expertise of many of the fine folks here. I do not deny that, I am not a rocket scientist, an engineer or a scientist, I'm just a space geek with a passion for learning stuff about a special interest.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/SMART-1/SMART-1_on_the_trail_of_the_Moon_s_beginnings

[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?

Why won't he answer?

[najak]

Why won't he answer?

I'm an admitted rookie on all of this.   Although I've covered a breadth of things, my deeper focus has been mostly on Newtonian physics, because this is an area of professional experience for me, as well as they seem to break this Physics many times -- provably.   So when I hear Apollogists say "We've debunked ALL MLH Claims" -- I'm simply challenging that statement.  And for me, when they Break Physics - this is very meaningful.

===
Here's my response to the above:

This ESA reference only mentions cross-comparing SMART-1's D-CIXS data with the Soviet samples, not the Apollo samples.

When SMART-1 crashed into the lunar surface and kicked up dust plumes for analysis with ground-based radio telescopes, ABC News in Hobart who were covering Mt Pleasant Observatory's observation of the crash reported that "the probe has uncovered minerals different to the rocks gathered on the surface during moon rocks."

It should also be noted that the Soviet lunar samples differ from the Apollo samples. Whereas the Apollo samples contain up to 6,000ppm of water and ferric iron oxide associated with that water (the Apollo 16 rocks contain the most ferric iron), the Luna 16 and 20 contain none of this. Only Luna 24 contains 1,000ppm of water and it was found by drilling ~1.5meters under the lunar surface.

===
At this point, I'm working on the physics parts in depth, creating a 3D real-time Physics simulation as we speak..  so I will be engaging less rampantly here for a while as I do this work.

[raven]

A space probe crashing into the lunar surface would uncover minerals deeper than the surface samples and regolith samples Apollo astronauts could collect. Are you really that surprised things in different conditions  are different?
Also! So try again.
https://spaceref.com/status-report/smart-1-birthday-postcard-of-apollo-11-landing-site/

[Mag40]

Although I've covered a breadth of things, my deeper focus has been mostly on Newtonian physics, because this is an area of professional experience for me

Clearly it isn't.

Here's my response to the above:

Are you serious?

That ignores every single line written in "the above" that you quoted. If you are a bloody rookie, you've no business even coming out with the  bilge you've so far posted on the subject.

[onebigmonkey]

Why won't he answer?

I'm an admitted rookie on all of this.   Although I've covered a breadth of things, my deeper focus has been mostly on Newtonian physics, because this is an area of professional experience for me, as well as they seem to break this Physics many times -- provably.   So when I hear Apollogists say "We've debunked ALL MLH Claims" -- I'm simply challenging that statement.  And for me, when they Break Physics - this is very meaningful.

===
Here's my response to the above:

This ESA reference only mentions cross-comparing SMART-1's D-CIXS data with the Soviet samples, not the Apollo samples.

When SMART-1 crashed into the lunar surface and kicked up dust plumes for analysis with ground-based radio telescopes, ABC News in Hobart who were covering Mt Pleasant Observatory's observation of the crash reported that "the probe has uncovered minerals different to the rocks gathered on the surface during moon rocks."

It should also be noted that the Soviet lunar samples differ from the Apollo samples. Whereas the Apollo samples contain up to 6,000ppm of water and ferric iron oxide associated with that water (the Apollo 16 rocks contain the most ferric iron), the Luna 16 and 20 contain none of this. Only Luna 24 contains 1,000ppm of water and it was found by drilling ~1.5meters under the lunar surface.

===
At this point, I'm working on the physics parts in depth, creating a 3D real-time Physics simulation as we speak..  so I will be engaging less rampantly here for a while as I do this work.

If you're going to copy Jarrah, at least provide the source for it:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/15/moon-rock-mineralogy-qedirt/

Otherwise it would look like you're jsut parroting other people's work without any understanding of it, and that would never do now, would it.

[najak]

A space probe crashing into the lunar surface would uncover minerals deeper than the surface samples and regolith samples Apollo astronauts could collect. Are you really that surprised things in different conditions  are different?  Also! So try again.
https://spaceref.com/status-report/smart-1-birthday-postcard-of-apollo-11-landing-site/

Didn't one of you argue earlier that the astronauts collected drill samples from underground? To my knowledge, the deepest Apollo samples were attributed to depths of 3meters. ESA estimated the SMART-1 crater depth to be only 1m deep. So shallower than the Apollo drill samples. Therefore, there should be no discrepancy in mineralogy.

And your spaceref article concerns a photo of the Apollo 11 landing site taken by SMART-1 at 159m/pixel. The only mentions of remote sensing are vague and in passing. It says nothing specifically about SMART-1 confirming Apollo 11. The Bernard Foing quote therein is literally his same statements regarding the SMART-1's January 2006 cross comparison of their D-CIXS data with Luna 20 and 24.