Hi Najak, over the last couple of weeks I’ve asked you a number of questions. Some you’ve replied to. Others you haven’t. I’d like you to reply to these unanswered questions please. Some of these questions I'm going to paraphrase to save space. I've provided the thread reply #s so you can check the context or background of the questions.
Reply #33:this hoax required the work of a few hundred - military men who firmly understand the nature of Top Secret and Treason).
You suggest the LM was real but couldn't be made to land on the Moon. According to that hypothesis there must have been teams of engineers who couldn't make the component they were working on function as intended. Yet somehow they were able to interact with related teams of engineers as described in the preceding paragraph without arousing any suspicions. That sounds implausible. What is your evidence for the existence of such non-functional components?
Reply #80: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...I don't presume to "know" -- but instead admit "we don't really know".
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, where Von Braun went in 1967...to gather moon rocks.
Why would you send a rocket engineer to gather moon rocks?
Radiate them a bit, and poof, they "look like moon rocks" because they are.... How could you tell the difference?
Are you going to read the Taylor interview I linked for you (
https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025108/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/t/rt.html)? 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?
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.cfmThat's the website to use when you want to request a lunar sample for research. Where does it say that "the government" has any say in it, especially for non-USAnian scientists?
Reply #119: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.
The existence of the ideological conflict is undeniable, as it was argued out by people in many countries across the world, whether at the ballot box, in universities, or down the barrel of a gun. The same for the officers and men of the military forces of the USA and the USSR - fervently believing in the rightness of capitalism or communism.
Yet according to you the clique in charge of each country consisted of people who knew it was all for show. How did people promoted to that clique psychologically handle that transition?
Reply #127:#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.
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. Do you need instructions to navigate the site?
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.
The scientific papers written about the Apollo rocks are published in science journals, not by NASA. Do you accept I am correct when I say this?
Reply #139: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.
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?
Reply #140: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."
This alone seems like a smoking gun to me. This simply makes no sense that they'd have NO CLUE ABOUT THIS until 2012.
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?
Referring to your comment above:
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.
