Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

Is there something factually wrong with this "Russian hoax/prank" -- did this really happen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClpbzHiY1DA

[najak]

@TimberWolfAU - you gave me a Gish Gallop of evidence, but as I dig into it -- each fails to be what you claim.

Here's an article that reference Koratev's findings:

https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/

Quote:
"Lunar mare basalts, as well as basaltic meteorites from Mars, bear a strong resemblance to basalts from Earth. In the absence of a fusion crust, there is little about a lunar mare basalt that would provoke much interest in a geologist who was handed the rock by someone asking, “What is this?” Careful examination under the microscope might reveal some suspicious features"

==
China's latest results, and these words here, etc...   don't seem to support your narrative of "it was impossible to fake Moon rocks".

[Grashtel]

@TimberWolfAU - you gave me a Gish Gallop of evidence, but as I dig into it -- each fails to be what you claim.

Here's an article that reference Koratev's findings:

https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/

Quote:
"Lunar mare basalts, as well as basaltic meteorites from Mars, bear a strong resemblance to basalts from Earth. In the absence of a fusion crust, there is little about a lunar mare basalt that would provoke much interest in a geologist who was handed the rock by someone asking, “What is this?” Careful examination under the microscope might reveal some suspicious features"

And here is the whole paragraph which you only quoted the first half of:
"Lunar mare basalts, as well as basaltic meteorites from Mars, bear a strong resemblance to basalts from Earth. In the absence of a fusion crust, there is little about a lunar mare basalt that would provoke much interest in a geologist who was handed the rock by someone asking, “What is this?” Careful examination under the microscope might reveal some suspicious features – the scarcity of certain minerals (quartz, orthoclase) and abundance of others (ilmenite) or the low sodium and potassium contents of the feldspar. The mineral grains would show signs of shock and fracturing from meteorite impacts. However, chemical tests would be required to prove a lunar or martian origin."

[Mag40]

@TimberWolfAU - you gave me a Gish Gallop of evidence, but as I dig into it -- each fails to be what you claim.

Here's an article that reference Koratev's findings:

https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/items/how-do-we-know-that-its-a-rock-from-the-moon/

Quote:
"Lunar mare basalts, as well as basaltic meteorites from Mars, bear a strong resemblance to basalts from Earth. In the absence of a fusion crust, there is little about a lunar mare basalt that would provoke much interest in a geologist who was handed the rock by someone asking, “What is this?” Careful examination under the microscope might reveal some suspicious features"

==
China's latest results, and these words here, etc...   don't seem to support your narrative of "it was impossible to fake Moon rocks".

You continue to post cherry-picked crap and ignore detailed posts (from me in particular). Why is this - rookie?

Lunar basalts frequently have glass spherules within them that show formation in low gravity.

[najak]

"....Careful examination under the microscope might reveal some suspicious features"

Key word here "might", and the generics of "chemical tests" - so point here is that "they are very much alike" -- even looking under the microscope often DOES NOT show any differences!...  so they look the same, even under a microscope -- but if you do "chemical tests" - then you can prove -- but on what basis?

It's not as NASA wants us to believe -- that there are "big differences" -- but only a chemist, using their standards, could find differences... so they claim.

"Slight differences" is NOT what NASA tells us to believe here.  They want us to believe the differences are major -- but they aren't.

[Zakalwe]

This article looks interesting:

https://min.news/en/science/a5eeff93e43b8e66ecdf0fadb70bf6eb.html

QUOTE:
"The first results of the Chang'e 5 lunar soil research have been released, which are very different from the samples donated by Apollo in the United States
2024-12-15 08:42"

So, let's be clear on this point, you do consider this article to be reliable and factual?

[najak]

So, let's be clear on this point, you do consider this article to be reliable and factual?

When it comes most of this stuff - not sure what is factual or to what degree.   Things aren't binary.

Except maybe Physics and Math -- in these contexts you can't break either one -- something is awry.

So when people use "written claims" as their "facts" - this doesn't hold as much weight for me, as when I see Physics being broken... or things that are physically near impossible, be done 6x in a row without significant issue.  Along with "holes in the story" - to indicate that the "story doesn't seem to have integrity".

[najak]

....

What do you think happened to the 500-page Baron report?  Why did it go missing, when he submitted it publicly to Congress just 6 days prior, which contained the names of more witnesses to corroborate the specifics contained in this report?

Does nothing smell fishy to you?

[najak]

More on the Chinese Findings -- that DO NOT MATCH APOLLO -- way different.

Reference article here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122001787

[najak]

@TimberWolfAU - thanks for the Korotev reference!
===
More from the Korotev article:

Quote:  "We have no reason to suspect, based on data obtained from orbit that any region of the moon is rich in types of rocks significantly different from those we that know about or postulate might exist. [...] It is highly unlikely that any yet-unfound lunar meteorite will differ substantially from the Apollo lunar rocks and known lunar meteorites in the minerals it contains or in its geochemical character."

===
Basically, if I was to go to the moon and collect a rock sample from the moon and send a probe up to either analyze it in situ or retrieve some more rocks for analysis, I'd expect to get the same results. Especially considering that the moon is atmosphereless and not geologically active.

…And yet, here we are. Chang'e 3 and 5 detected/retrieved rocks that differ in mineralogy.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

More on the Chinese Findings -- that DO NOT MATCH APOLLO -- way different.

Could you quantify how much different? I'm not understanding the value of "way different".

Do you believe I could credibly claim the Earth has been faked if I were able to show that rock samples from one part of the world are measurably different from rock samples taken hundreds of miles away?

[najak]

#1: Could you quantify how much different? I'm not understanding the value of "way different".
#2: Do you believe I could credibly claim the Earth has been faked if I were able to show that rock samples from one part of the world are measurably different from rock samples taken hundreds of miles away?

#1: Did you not see the pie graphs in the chart I posted from that Chinese paper? One is for Apollo, the other is for Chang'e 5.

#2: Apples-to-oranges. The Earth has a great diversity because it is both geologically active (plate tectonics and the like) and has an atmosphere that subjects everything to weathering and oxidation events. As said above, the moon is geologically inactive and lacks an atmosphere. On the moon, we should not expect such diversity. It is for the same reasons we should not expect to find rust in those Apollo samples, yet we do.

[najak]

The geology of the rocks/samples - deserves a thread here..    But it's too scary - because it doesn't support the Apollogy.

[Zakalwe]

So, let's be clear on this point, you do consider this article to be reliable and factual?

When it comes most of this stuff - not sure what is factual or to what degree.   Things aren't binary.

Except maybe Physics and Math -- in these contexts you can't break either one -- something is awry.

So when people use "written claims" as their "facts" - this doesn't hold as much weight for me, as when I see Physics being broken... or things that are physically near impossible, be done 6x in a row without significant issue.  Along with "holes in the story" - to indicate that the "story doesn't seem to have integrity".

So why link to the article and use it to prop up your claim if you are unable to verify the veracity of it?

[onebigmonkey]

More on the Chinese Findings -- that DO NOT MATCH APOLLO -- way different.

Reference article here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122001787

Things aren't binary.