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. Where does it say that "the government" has any say in it, especially for non-USAnian scientists?
This is the request form. Where do you see the database/evidence of SATISFIED REQUESTS? This is the only thing that matters.
How requests are approved -- where are the docs for this process? NASA is govt' owned -- so they effectively ARE the USA govt.
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?
[/quote]
I don't believe the "elected figureheads" are the ones really running the show. The unelected unknowns are likely pulling more powerful strings. The "figureheads" is who they want us to look at... Who pulls the strings at CIA? DIA? DoD? I think more power resides in these organizations. Much of what we see in Congress/etc - is a charade.
This is above my pay grade. So I'm speculating on a narrative... which makes more sense to me.
But if YOU think you KNOW truth at this much higher level and behind the veils/curtains, because it's how it's presented to us -- then I believe you are way way over confident.
It's why I tend to rely on "the basics" for truth... and look for the "holes in their story" to realize "things aren't what they are telling us here."
#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.
I think many govt's have collaborations. I think we may more leverage on certain nation's leaders than we'll ever announce. It's almost in no one's best interest to "reveal dirt" when you can more smartly "use that dirt for leverage". .. reveal it, and the leverage is gone. And we're all-in-this-together, to a point... so if you cause damage, it can cut both ways with backlash.
So "govt" is enough. USA govt has influence in many places.
Since there is no "private profitable commercial value to moon rocks or studies" - this gets funded by govt. If the USA wanted to establish validation from another nation, it wouldn't take much money to do so - nor obvious corruption. "Hey we'd like you to take a look at our rocks." Answer: "Why? What's in it for us? Expense without benefit?" -- USA -- "here's some money for your troubles to pay those salaries to do this work"... the hand that feeds them is USA. Not much, not corrupt.
Or if not direct -- then indirect. Either way, these guys aren't hired to "call USA liars"... their findings were pre-determined, mostly. It's moon studies -- so they may have been fed suggested methodologies, known to produce the results we wanted.
Without commercial profits - and only a small select set of people involved -- ultimately funded by govt (USA as the source, in some fashion) -- I don't hold this form of "Scientific Consensus" at the same level as I would for most other concepts. Follow the money -- and it leads back to govt's -- which are influenced by the USA, motivated to do right by them.
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.
Please provide me your best link(s) for this claim. I'll will check it out in more detail.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?
My use of quotes is for clarity of a term to group words together more clearly. Since we aren't speaking, it's hard to convey inflection. If I'm making a real quote, I'll put it on a separate line with a ":" to clarify, "this is an actual quote".
I've already given you place to look: the Lunar and Planetary Institute website. Do you need instructions to navigate the site?
Sure give me a lowdown. And show me an example of rocks that were studied by non-govt-funded entities, or other nations. I believe the vast majority were simply inspected and catalogued by NASA... not others. Please show me some evidence that my conclusions here are notably wrong, and I'll investigate it further.
As a rookie, my focus hasn't been on the "rocks/samples" so I've only spent a few hours on this topic so far. I tried searches to figure out "who got and studied these rocks/samples?"...etc... and only got a few obscure hits... But MOST of the hits came back were for 2019 and more recent... there was a sudden surge of samples released. Prior to 2019 -- not seeing the evidence of this.
2012 - finding the "particle size by weight to be 1/8th of what they were in 1970's" -- discovered all-of-a-sudden (not gradual) -- seems to me like a gaping hole-in-their-story - indicating that things are not what we've been told.
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?[/quote]
https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/events/centennials/nixon/exhibit/nixon-online-exhibit-agreement.html#:~:text=On%20May%2024%2C%201972%2C%20President,with%20a%20Soyuz%20command%20module.
How long was this in-the-works, prior to May 1972? (did they know they were planning to have it play out like this as of 1969?)
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?
Nope. But particle weight dropped to under 1/8th, without anyone noticing degradation of size in the prior decades - is a highly suspect occurrence.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?
Yes, because it was decades later with 1000x+ the electronic/sensor capabilities. Not done in a rush, and NOT carrying humans. We don't know it's true, but it's 100x more believable than the feats claimed by Apollo.
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?
I don't think I'm familiar with the claim. Please state it, give a reference, and we'll go from there.
