Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Zakalwe]

Weasel words.
You cherry-picked the little bits that appeals to your fallacious narrative but conveniently ignored the bita where the author said that the landings were not on doubt or questioned.
Why is that?

I see it like this, he said "I showed up and saw the him holding the smoking gun looking at the dead man lying on the floor, but I'm not saying he killed him."

So I shared the first part - "he was holding a smoking gun standing in front of a man freshly shot and bleeding out."  And shout "cherry-picking".   I'm sharing the pertinent evidence of the article.

More weaselly than a weasel that's just graduated from the University of Weaselling.
You shared the article because you thought it supported your daft claims. Now you are trying to walk it back because part of the article says

we do not doubt the authenticity of the US moon landing,

and

the United States has successfully landed on the moon 6 times, and the landing sites are all over the moon, bringing back a total of 381.7 kg of lunar soil and Moon rock

.
Cherry-picking words is a very common hoax-believers trait. Your ilk has been seen here before and contrary to your exaggerated opinion of your abilities you really are nothing that hasn't been seen a hundred times before.

"Sharing the pertinent parts of the article" is nothing more than saying "I liked these bits but let's not talk about those bits". A common trait amongst the religiously inclined too, I might add.

[Mag40]

Correct.  But this one looks pretty CLEAR.

It drastically undermines the emphasis Apollogist argument that "We couldn't have faked Moon Rocks!"

I explained this to you and you cowardly didn't reply to it.

In fact - this Chinese evidence makes it look pretty obvious that "We DID fake moon rocks, and we did it wrongly."
The Moon Rock argument has now become a fairly strong MLH claim.   This graph shows it.

Your ignorance on this matter is showing badly. Your trolling has leapt up a gear. On a subject you clearly have no idea about, you post a pretty picture and suddenly out of your ignorance you conclude that the hoax theory is now "fairly strong"?

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 40 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?

As I said in bold.

[BertieSlack]

Grissom's last words -- "Jesus Christ, if we can't even talk between 3 buildings, how are we going to get to the moon?"

What do you think is the significance of those words?
You know Grissom had already been to space twice and communicated adequately with mission control on both occasions, right? NASA was developing a completely new unified S-band comms system for Apollo.
Your hoaxnut bingo card is surely nearing completion.

[onebigmonkey]

Derrrr - no it wouldn't. The Input signal feeding the lunar response has to be fed in by someone from Earth.

That's now how the Russian prank worked.   They used the satellite as a "relay".  Similar trick could help NASA in their faking efforts, if they would dare to fake it.

No, they did not, and no, it would not.

[TimberWolfAu]

Wow, turning into quite the polymath now, aren't you?

Thomas Baron is a hero.

What happened to his report? It was taken up;
"Mr. WYDLER. Could I suggest that if Mr. Baron has some concluding remarks, or if he would like to submit a statement for the record, that he may be afforded an opportunity? I see you have something before you, and perhaps you would like to put it in.

Mr. BARON. I think I have covered most of it. I have the report that I would like to be submitted as a part of the record, the 500-page report.

Mr. WYDLER. That means printing it. That is something we should leave to the committee, something of that length, whether we want to print it as part of the public documents. We can take it as an exhibit. Whether we will print it as part of the public record is something we should decide after we see it. Is that all right with you?

Mr. BARON. Yes."

It's more than likely in a box somewhere.

As for his witness' that didn't come forward, how about the one he named during his testimony?

"Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Holmburg, are you in the room? (Whereupon, Mervin Holmurg was called before the committee, and, being first duly sworn, was examined and replied as follows:)

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Holmburg, did you come here of your own free will?

Mr. HOLMBURG. Yes, sir.

...

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Holmburg, Mr. Baron has testified, as I am sure you know, that you told him that you knew what caused the accident and all about it. Did you ever tell in anything of that nature?

Mr. Holmburg. no, sir.

...

Mr. TEAGUE. Did you ever discuss the cause of the accident in a drugstore with Mr. Baron?

Mr. HOLMBURG. No. I talked to him many times in the drugstore, but that is about it.

Mr. TEAGUE. But you did not say that you and other people know what caused the fire?

Mr. HOLMBURG. No, sir.

Mr. DADDARIO. What was the nature of your conversation with him on those occasions in the drugstore?

Mr. HOLMBURG. Well, Most of them was about his report, why he wrote it and when he wrote it and so forth. Whether he was making progress on it.

Mr. DADDARIO. Did you in any instance while he was relating this to you agree with him as to the difficulties which the Apollo spacecraft had run into and the tragedy that had occurred which would give him any indication that you did have the answer to the problem which caused the fire?

Mr. HOLMBURG. Never.

Mr. DADDARIO. Can you say that with as clear a recollection as possible of the conversation you had with Mr. Baron?

Mr. HOLMBURG. Yes, sir. I bumped into him accidentally almost every time I met him. I told him I shouldn't even be talking with him because of the report he is writing, and he is probably being watched.  He gets all his information from anonymous phone calls, people calling him and people dropping him a word here and there. That is what he tells me.

Mr. DADDARIO. What caused you to come here today? We had not scheduled you as a witness. I had no idea; in fact, I can't recall that I ever heard your name before today. What brought you here?

Mr. HOLMBURG. Well, I work right outside the door here, and it is my time to come to work now.

Mr. DADDARIO. Why would you have asked that you might be allowed to testify?

Mr. HOLMBURG. Well, Mr. Baron had brought my name up a couple of times in here, and I thought I should come in here to defend it.

Mr. DADDARIO. You come here for that purpose?

Mr. HOLMBURG. Yes, sir.

Mr. WYDEN. Who told you that?

Mr. HOLMBURG. I can't recall who that was now.

Mr. WYDLER. You mean you can't recall who told you that?

Mr. HOLMBURG. There were several people right outside the door and I overheard it being mentioned.

Mr. SMART. I am Mr. Robert Smart, Assistant to the President of North American Aviation. When Mr. Holmburg's name was injected into this testimony in the manner in which all of you know, I did not feel that we could leave it unanswered at this time, if there was an answer to it, therefore I asked one of our employees here to see if he could find him. He did find him. He asked him to come out in the hall. I told him the accusations which had been made by Mr. Baron. If he wanted to appear and testify under oath, to tell the truth, that he would have an opportunity, and I then came in -- and he said he did want to so testify -- I came in, and I sent that word to Mr. Teague, and you know what has happened from that point to now.

Mr. WYDLER. I do.

...

Mr. WYDLER. Did you ever speak with Mr. Baron about the 012 fire?

Mr. HOLMBURG. Casually, yes.

Mr. WYDLER. What does that mean, "casually?"

Mr. HOLMBURG. He has ideas of what caused the fire. He did most of the talking about it and I listened to speculations on that thing. I never made any comments about what caused it or I never told him exactly what caused it. I was never near the accident when it happened.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman

Mr. TEAGUE. One question.

Mr. FULTON. You are certain at no time you gave any statement that you had knowledge of the cause of the Apollo 204 accident that killed three astronauts, that you at no time said that they were in the capsule for 5 minutes without getting out, nor that there had been 9 minutes' noticed of a fire and nothing was done about it?

Mr. HOLMBURG. No, sir.

Mr. FULTON. You are absolutely sure?

Mr. HOLMBURG. Yes, sir.

Mr. FULTON. Thank you.

That is all."

Seems like Baron wasn't such a reliable person after all.

China....

Stop listening to Rasa.

Rocks...

Seems like you're an expert on stellar and planetary formation now? I find it amusing that so many of your comments are peppered with 'it doesn't make sense to me' and that your automatic response is 'it must have been a hoax' rather than, what I would expect to be a reasonable response of, 'I guess I don't know everything about everything'.

And as for Professor Korotev, he doesn't agree that we can't tell lunar surface samples from lunar meteorites, for example (source is my personal communication with Professor Korotev);
"The meteorite will also contain some "cosmogenic radionuclides" consistent with being a small body in space that interacted with cosmic rays."
"Cosmic ray people talk about "2-pi" and "4-pi" irradiation. Samples at the surface of a planet experience 2-pi irradiation because it's all from the top down. A small rock in space experiences 4-pi irradiation because it comes from all directions. They can often tell the difference."

[najak]

"Sharing the pertinent parts of the article" is nothing more than saying "I liked these bits but let's not talk about those bits". A common trait amongst the religiously inclined too, I might add.

Shared the facts, but omitted the unsupported opinion.  Nothing in that article indicated USA landed; if anything this evidence indicates the opposite.

[Zakalwe]

"Sharing the pertinent parts of the article" is nothing more than saying "I liked these bits but let's not talk about those bits". A common trait amongst the religiously inclined too, I might add.

Shared the facts, but omitted the unsupported opinion.  Nothing in that article indicated USA landed; if anything this evidence indicates the opposite.

And, of course, you have decided what bits are facts.and what bits aren't ( the bits that don't support your pre-concieced position).
You, Sir, are an intellectual coward

[najak]

What do you think is the significance of those words?

Indicates that as of 1967, we couldn't even do simple things for Apollo.  Things had changed.   Grissom knew it.   Baron knew it.   Both said it.   Both died.   NASA accelerated development by 50% after that, cutting corners and flight tests -- and magically it all worked after that, while they were reducing budget.   James Webb and Seamans - two very dominant figures of Apollo, both resigned just before Apollo 8....  they didn't want to be a part of this... stunning that you don't smell any fish here.

[najak]

No, they did not, and no, it would not.

There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.   How do you think they could tell the difference?

[najak]

Seems like Baron wasn't such a reliable person after all.

Can you smell this damage control.  Here is NASA's summation of Baron now.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html

Quote: "When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report."

This is NASA's Summary.  They act like this report had not ever been created.  Clearly a lie, as it doesn't match the testimony.

And you don't smell anything fishy...

[Peter B]

...What is your evidence for the existence of such non-functional components?

Familiar with Theranos?  They pulled off a CRIMINAL scam, where the employees had no idea that their product didn't work... for years..  And this was as criminals, with "Need to Know"/NDA's that were only enforceable by Criminals as Civil lawsuits.   NASAX employees, military men, Patriots - conducting an operation of deception to BENEFIT the USA.  Non-Criminals.  Licensed for this type of lie... and their only end deliverable was Perception...   A religion.   Example:  Perception of Heaven is a win for religion.  It doesn't have to be real.

So yes, employees doing their best to make something work, hand it off to Integration testing, also real, then onto Systems work -- also real -- but then in the end, those doing "Acceptance testing" just fudge it..   change the "expected results to match the actual results" where they couldn't get it right.  Do some recycle -- TRY to get it right.... in the end... it wasn't going to be used for Landing.  Doesn't mean they didn't try, and 99% think they succeeded.

I worked for Lockheed-Martin on Sonar detection algorithms -- I have NO IDEA who did System/Acceptance testing... none.   Why?  Because I didn't have a "Need to Know".. if the entire Seawolf Submarine was faulty -- we didn't know.   For Military -- "perception" is key -- and deception is their tool.

So you don't actually have any evidence, you just assert it so your theory can work. Or have you provided evidence in another thread about what was deficient in the LM?

Anyway, according to you the Apollo spacecraft orbited the Moon and never landed. Yet the telemetry indicates they did. Do you know how telemetry determined that the Command Module and Lunar Module weren't together?

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?

We know half-truths, and details -- they didn't just "make it up" - they use "evidence" -- but the end narrative is easily spun.  Having "an enemy for a nation" fosters citizen loyalty, and reduces criticisms of govt' spending.  So, the "perception of danger/war" is even BETTER than the real deal.... because govt gets the benefits without the real risks.

To presume that the narratives we're told are accurate -- is presumptuous.

Would you call 50,000 dead American soldiers in the Vietnam War merely a "perception of danger/war"? Or is the government lying about that too?

Why would you send a rocket engineer to gather moon rocks?

He went to get rocks... this is known.

You know the deal: evidence please.

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?

If you don't have a real sample, how will you know a real specimen?  It's just "different".  And Moon Rock scientists have no commercial value - their paychecks come from govt.  I don't even buy the fact that world leaders from "antagonizing nations" are necessarily enemies...   We only know what they "present".   To presume you know what's going on behind closed doors at the tippy top, is presumptuous.   So I don't lend this much weight as considering the stuff they feed us as "fact".

If you read the Ross Taylor interview I've pointed you towards several times now, you'd be able to answer your own first question (as well as the other question I've asked you from that interview).

I might as well ask another question here: pre-1950, what were the three main hypotheses for the origin of the Moon?

Unfortunately, our only source of information is from govt' funded scientists, possibly hand-selected by NASA.

Government leaders may collude, just as CEO's of competitor companies also try to price-collude...   But they are competitors... yet discussions happen behind closed doors.

You're quoting yourself here, not my question. Please answer my question: Evidence please that non-USAnian scientists are funded by the US government.

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?

Can you show me where to look?  I'd like to see names and institutions.   When I looked at the catalog, I wasn't seeing any evidence of "this rock was studied and catalogued by {this 3rd party}."  If I'm missing something, please do show.

I've already provided you the link to the Lunar and Planetary Institute website. Very well, here it is:

Go to www.lpi.usra.edu/ > Menu > Resources > Lunar Science and Exploration > Lunar Sample Atlas; scroll down and click on any of the five digit sample numbers; scroll down, and under "Other Information", click on "Lunar Sample Compendium, XXXXX.pdf" (if it's present, not all samples have such a document); open the PDF; scroll down to the end of the PDF where it says "References for XXXXX" to see the scientific articles relating to that sample.

Now, just to be sure, I checked 11 separate samples from all landing missions, and 10 of them had compendiums. I checked the compendiums, and they had between 12 and 30 scientific papers listed on them. Notably, all the compendiums dated between 2009 and 2012, and obviously the papers all pre-date the compendiums. You said: "The signs I see show that there was a huge surge of Regolith samples given out recently, around 2019 and later.   Prior to that, not seeing them distributed much to 3rd party labs". Well, read the reference list, and it shows you who the authors were (so you can check where they were working at the time) and where the papers were published.

Do you stand by the claim that I just quoted above? Or do you accept that (a) Apollo samples were tested outside of NASA, (b) Apollo samples were studied in large amounts prior to 2019, and (c) scientific papers relating to the samples were published in journals that were nothing to do with NASA?

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?

1. Rocket science is good.  Also relates to military.  Maybe they wanted to see if they could succeed, where we had only faked it.  (for example, today's largest rocket, SLS, with more umpf than the SaturnV can only lift 59,000 lbs out of earth's orbit...  maybe the N1 theoretically was CAPABLE of doing more than our rockets can today - but failed)

Can you pick a hoax hypothesis and stick to it, please? Your hypothesis up to now was that Apollo could do everything except land on the Moon. Are you now saying the Saturn V was incapable of putting a manned spacecraft into lunar orbit?

2. Not sure the ACTUAL dynamics between Soviets and USA -- or if there was any puppets in USSR.   We only know "what they presented" -- the truth can be something else. But we DID validate their rocks -- so that Luna missions were declared a success... that's a small win.

Now how about you answer my actual question: If it was all faked, why didn't the Soviets fake a landing before the Americans?

3. If we really did Land and USSR knew it -- what did they gain from Acknowledgement?   They control their OWN MEDIA (Not free press there) - so they could have easily told all of their own citizens "The Americans are Liars" --  Instead they publish America's Apollo victory, via govt controlled press.

This is NOT how you respond to enemies in a war.

You haven't accurately described how the USSR reacted to Apollo 11. First, they acknowledged the success of Apollo 11. Second, they pointed out that manned lunar missions were more expensive and dangerous compared to the USSR's own unmanned sample retriever missions. Third, they said that they didn't have a manned lunar landing program of their own, so the USA was only racing against itself.

The second statement is accurate - manned lunar landings are more expensive and dangerous than unmanned sample retriever missions. However the third statement is inaccurate - the Soviets had a manned lunar landing program, but they couldn't get it to work; and its existence has been public knowledge since the days of Glasnost...if you're old enough to remember that.

In other words, the Soviets knew they couldn't claim Apollo 11 was fake, so they did the next best thing: they used a mixture of truth and lies to downplay the American accomplishment. Propaganda 101.

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?

The signs I see show that there was a huge surge of Regolith samples given out recently, around 2019 and later.   Prior to that, not seeing them distributed much to 3rd party labs ... where is this evidence?

What signs do you see? Come on, you know how this works: when you make a claim you provide the supporting evidence.

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%.
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.

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.

When Bush announced "We're going back to the moon" this started an "oh shit campaign" of trying to figure out how to reconcile "Apollo reports" with the more modern studies and conclusions.

I believe the real regolith average size is 35 micron, not 80..  So they can now measure them and say "it's 35! not sure what happened".

So why do you think the original report said 80 microns? Where do you think they got that figure from?

As you seem to believe that samples/rocks have been studied each decade-- why on earth didn't we see this "degradation process" at all?  Instead we have 1/5th sized particles! (by mass) -- all in one fell swoop.

I already answered that question in reply #140. Here it is again:

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.)

[onebigmonkey]

For a start, the delay in transmission. Conversations coming from Earth go twice as far and take twice as long as conversations originating from the moon.

How about you give everyone a precise methodology for the process. My methodology involves launching astronauts to the moon, for which there is a large amount of evidence. You have...?

[Peter B]

What do you think is the significance of those words?

Indicates that as of 1967, we couldn't even do simple things for Apollo.  Things had changed.   Grissom knew it.   Baron knew it.   Both said it.   Both died.   NASA accelerated development by 50% after that, cutting corners and flight tests -- and magically it all worked after that, while they were reducing budget.   James Webb and Seamans - two very dominant figures of Apollo, both resigned just before Apollo 8....  they didn't want to be a part of this... stunning that you don't smell any fish here.

Seamans resigned because (a) he was seven years into a job he intended to take for two years, and (b) his working relationship with Jim Webb broke down in the months after the Apollo 1 fire. You'd know that if you read his biography instead of watching that ridiculous Italian "documentary".

Webb resigned because he was a close associate of Lyndon Johnson, and Johnson wasn't standing in the 1968 election. Neither Humphrey or Nixon would have wanted Webb as NASA Administrator. Again, you'd know this if you paid the slightest attention to actual evidence.

[Peter B]

No, they did not, and no, it would not.

There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.   How do you think they could tell the difference?

You seriously reckon the people at Honeysuckle Creek had no idea where the signals came from that they picked up and sent on to Houston? You're going to claim that with a straight face?

[TimberWolfAu]

No, they did not, and no, it would not.

There's no way for those on the ground listening to moon to tell that it's not a relay.   How do you think they could tell the difference?

"...as I was the Australian citizen employed by the Australian government responsible for running the operations at the prime Australian tracking site here near Canberra I can vouch for the scientific/engineering fact that we pointed our antenna at the trajectory to, at and from the moon and transmitted and received radio signals containing commands, telemetry, television together with navigation info from antenna angles, Doppler frequencies and two way range delays. Impossible to fake."
– interview with Mike Dinn by Steven Dutch

Tell us all again how you know better than the people doing the actual work.