Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Jason Thompson]

And? Do you know what a feedback system is?

Yep, programmed several.  One mechanical.  They require fast/accurate feedback with the capability to respond quickly and precisely with the needed response.

And so you are now also presuming that the systems in the spacecraft could not handle such things? Again with no more evidence than you don't believe it.

[najak]

You know the Surveyor unmanned landers slowed down from 6,000mph to soft-land on the Moon, right?

Surveyors weighed 4% as much (650 lbs, vs 18,000 lbs), and was able to be bottom heavy (as they didn't have to carry 11,000 lbs on TOP of it).

The LM was 18,000 lbs at landing--  11,000 lbs was the AM + crew.

And being only 650 lbs with no crew, they could fall a lot faster without issue.   
25x lighter, bottom heavy, and could land much harder without breaking.

Surveyor 3 shows a bounce...

[najak]

And so you are now also presuming that the systems in the spacecraft could not handle such things? Again with no more evidence than you don't believe it.

Effective feedback loops required accurate/fast/precise INPUT as well as a very predictable output response.

The sensors they had and computing power were much lower fidelity and weak.  And "made in a hurry, by a fully schedule driven NASA work plan."

The fact that it was never Tested/calibrated to get-it-right - is the main part I find non-credible.

The fact that they didn't even try (or were unable) to create a similar vehicle to fly on earth, to demonstrate that this theoretical algorithm would work...  is non-credible to me.

It's the stacking up of "fishy things", "non-credible things", "a fully schedule-driven corner cutting process" along with some "impossibilities" - -that provide me with a foundation for giving credence to MLH.

[Jason Thompson]

Effective feedback loops required accurate/fast/precise INPUT as well as a very predictable output response.

That is not in dispute.

The sensors they had and computing power were much lower fidelity and weak.

Meaningless waffle. What computing power was required to operate such a system? I don't believe you actually know, nor have any idea how it was designed.

The fact that it was never Tested/calibrated to get-it-right - is the main part I find non-credible.

And that is pure ignorance. It was tested, it's just that you don't know how and have applied your epxectations to the design process of actual experts in the field.

The fact that they didn't even try (or were unable) to create a similar vehicle to fly on earth, to demonstrate that this theoretical algorithm would work...  is non-credible to me.

You're credulity is not evidence of foul play.

[najak]

I have said this before, I am not one of the Apollo-related experts on this forum and I do not mind making errors and getting them corrected. Having said that, how is this comedian still spouting his Bart Sibrel claim when he's had it corrected a few times? The LM was designed by a huge team of fantastic engineers at Grumman and is highly regarded in engineering circles.
https://moonhoaxdebunked.blogspot.com/2017/07/712-how-could-lunar-module-be-so-stable.html

Thanks for the addition.  It's when I see articles like this with known deception, that adds to my wonder -- "Why lie if truth is on your side?"

This article says: "its main masses were located at or below the center of thrust of the motor and therefore its center of mass was quite low."

This is blatantly FALSE, for the landing, as he had to slow it down from 45 mph to 0 mph.

Descent Engine, Center of Thrust - was 9' above the landing pads.

Base weight, 4500 lbs + a little fuel left..   6,000 lbs max.  Center of Mass - 7' above landing pads.

So far -- so good, but just barely.  The thrust COM is 2' ABOVE the lander's center of mass (MAX)

Now pile on top of this 11,000 more lbs... starting at 2' ABOVE the Thrust's COM! (center of mass)

For the AM, it has 5000 lbs of fuel centered at 2' above it's floor-- so this 5,000 lbs is 4' ABOVE the Thrust's COM.

Now add on the rest of the 6000 lbs of fuel - centered at 4'+ above it's floor --    6,000 lbs 6' ABOVE the Thrust's COM.

VERY TOP HEAVY.   The overall COM of mass for the above is:
6000 at 7'  + 5000 at 11'   + 6000 at 13'  => 10.9' COM -- which is 2' above the Thrust's COM - minimum.

So this article attempting to "educate people" - has to Lie to make their point, and prevent people from asking questions.

This is how NASA education typically goes --  claims that are NOT cross-examined... and the cross-examination is classified as "flat earth stupid" so no one ever sees it.

Truth is easy to control for the govt' for things like this.  All of Society SUPPORTS IT.  Confirmation bias isn't conspiracy -- it's how things work.   Society now has this confirmation bias to not even question the things told to them.

That's how I see it.

[bknight]

Because you didn't read this or more than likely ignored it

The lunar module started shedding forward velocity the moment the DPS engine started powered descent. That's around 11 minutes before landing. The braking phase reduced the velocity to around 430 feet per second. Ground speed at pitchover (controlled by the autopilot) was therefore not "very fast". Forward velocity when Armstrong took over manual control was around 70 feet per second.

Thanks for the details!

That's about 45 mph.   So they should be practicing this.

And the DPS - how did they validate it's operation ahead of time?  As it's slowing down... keeping balance is difficult...  why?  The RCS thrusters are NOT at the center of mass vertically.  They are above it.   Slowing down was an intricate process -- but where was this process ever flight tested before they went on the mission?

This is covered by in your words "incomplete code", The thrusters were coded to compensate any rotational thrust to keep the LM flying straight and narrow.  If you look back in the thread you will find a question that I asked the group about mission problems and you will find Jay's answer that A12 had lateral movements, that were code corrected after that flight.  Those dumb old programmers at MIT sure knew there coding way better than you.

[Mag40]

Apparently only najak has a problem understanding the weight distribution on the LM designed by expert engineers. It seems like he doesn't understand even basic rocket design!

From that link:
"This is a far more stable configuration than a conventional rocket, in which the tanks (and therefore their great masses) are located above the engines. Placing these tanks laterally and at opposite ends actually helped to stabilize the vehicle, somewhat like the pole of a tightrope walker."

This bloke is a complete waste of time.

[najak]

Apparently only najak has a problem understanding the weight distribution on the LM designed by expert engineers. It seems like he doesn't understand even basic rocket design!

Sure - that's a good idea for stability - at least for 1 of the 2 directions.

But this article you shared talks about VERTICAL center-of-mass -- ABOVE vs.  BELOW... and declared it to be BELOW...   Instead it's 2' ABOVE.

So stopping a 45 mph vehicle that is top heavy - is a bigger deal.

But they PURPOSEFULLY made the LLTV "easier to control" than the LM... why?   Why not make them "more similar" to provide "more valid practice?"

Why not practice the harder maneuvers?

And you don't smell any fish.

[Mag40]

But this article you shared talks about VERTICAL center-of-mass -- ABOVE vs.  BELOW... and declared it to be BELOW...   Instead it's 2' ABOVE.

Alrighty, you go and fetch me the phrase that says that.

So stopping a 45 mph vehicle that is top heavy - is a bigger deal.

Bollocks.

But they PURPOSEFULLY made the LLTV "easier to control" than the LM... why?

More bollocks.

Why not make them "more similar" to provide "more valid practice?"

If I Ran the Local Lavatory Service. The zoo is too refined for this.

Why not practice the harder maneuvers?

They did on simulators.

And you don't smell any fish.

I smell total ignorance.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

...I find non-credible.

... is non-credible to me.

It's the stacking up of "fishy things", "non-credible things", "a fully schedule-driven corner cutting process" along with some "impossibilities" - -that provide me with a foundation for giving credence to MLH.

As many of us have pointed out many times now and in many different ways, what you find credible or not credible isn't relevant. Your assumption that what you believe is plausible is some kind of gold standard is laughably arrogant. You don't know nearly enough about any of this to weigh in on credible or non credible.

Why do you think professional test pilots and engineers should have consulted you for the best way to test their hardware for a lunar landing? You know nothing about anything they did or the reasons they did it. Go do some actual research and see what questions you have remaining when you've put in even an ounce of work.

Or just admit that you like living in your fantasy of being the main character in a Dan Brown novel, unraveling massive conspiracies one detail at a time, and stop wasting everyone's time.

[najak]

But this article you shared talks about VERTICAL center-of-mass -- ABOVE vs.  BELOW... and declared it to be BELOW...   Instead it's 2' ABOVE.

Alrighty, you go and fetch me the phrase that says that.

From your article, it concludes:
"because its main masses were located at or below the center of thrust of the motor and therefore its center of mass was quite low."

This is an Apollogist's Lie.  One which you digested as truth.  The MAJORITY OF THE MASS was ABOVE the center of thrust for this descent engine.

[najak]

As many of us have pointed out many times now and in many different ways, what you find credible or not credible isn't relevant. Your assumption that what you believe is plausible is some kind of gold standard is laughably arrogant. You don't know nearly enough about any of this to weigh in on credible or non credible.

Correct.  My finding something "non credible" doesn't make it false, and itself is not evidence.  It's simply my reaction to the facts we're looking at.  I'm not stating this as "proof" of anything other than "how I perceive the evidence/facts".

Part of what I'm doing here is establishing integrity for all MLH evidence.  Often I start with a set of facts for MLH... which are flawed or have omissions, etc.   They are bad beliefs.

So I come here state these "Facts", where they are most likely to be disputed, if they can be disputed. 

This is the place to be, to establish if there is any integrity in MLH claims -- one at a time.  BUT, only for the ones where I cannot find an existing debunk.  Most are dumb (or non-compelling) or debunked already.

[Peter B]

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.

So, once again, rather than take things at face value, you invent a scenario for which there's no evidence but which aligns with your predetermined conclusion that Apollo is fake.

In the meantime, I'll assume from other comments you've made that non-USAnian scientists can study the Apollo rocks, or rather, "study" them, as long as they write scientific papers which align with the mainstream view. Would that be an accurate characterisation of your view?

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?

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."

Okay, so when you were a fundamentalist Christian you believed in an all-powerful God. Now, in your post-Christian life, you instead believe in the all-powerful "unelected unknowns". You took God on faith. How is "speculating on a narrative" any different from faith?

But let's go back to the example I provided before: Colin Powell. Here is a man who grew up the child of Jamaican immigrants, went to the local government schools, and served as a Captain and Major in the US Army in the Vietnam War. Obviously, at those ranks, and with his background, he wasn't one of the people who "pull the strings". Yet 20 years later he held the most senior position in the US military, and another 15 years later was George W Bush's Secretary of State. Would you consider that position senior enough to be one of the string pullers? Or are you going to now say the entire US government consists of people who don't realise they're being controlled by these "unelected unknowns"?

#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.

So please explain, exactly what power does the US government have? How many decisions they make are their own, and how many are made by the "unelected unknowns"? On the one hand they have the power to make the world's scientific community maintain a lie about Apollo (and a remarkably self-consistent lie too), yet they're somehow under the thrall of these "unelected unknowns"?

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?

Please provide me your best link(s) for this claim.   I'll will check it out in more detail.

As I said, Mag40 has explained some of those differences. Use some of those terms in a search engine. Or just ask your AI friend to list the differences. Or I suppose you can just assume they're all lying anyway.

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".

Fine...whatever. Let's see if you live up to that, because you're quickly building a reputation of someone who quickly forgets what he promises.

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.

Yes, the rocks were cataloged by NASA, because they hold them. It's sort of like the way a library catalogs its own books, then lends them out to people to read.

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.

Well, in another of my posts I've given you the website address and the menu options to select to find the compendium for each sample. I assume you realise it's on you to actually go there and do the research, not us.

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.

I've already explained your faulty logic here.

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?

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?)

So, the document you linked was the "Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes". In other words, it's an agreement, not an alliance. Prove me wrong.

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.

Well, no. As I've explained elsewhere, this exact type of test appears to have been conducted twice - once in 1969 and once in 2012. Conducting a test twice gives us two data points, and two data points don't tell us anything about the shape of the curve between them. Prove me wrong.

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.

Okay, so you don't know it's true. Thank you.

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.

I've provided the link. All you have to do is read the interview.

[najak]

#1: In the meantime, I'll assume from other comments you've made that non-USAnian scientists can study the Apollo rocks, or rather, "study" them, as long as they write scientific papers which align with the mainstream view. Would that be an accurate characterization of your view?

It's a general notion currently.  I also don't think things are clear cut.  I don't think they sat anyone down and specifically told them what their findings needed to be.   When I looked for "who did the research", I didn't see any good proof of much being done outside of Johnson Space Center ...  so if you have some links, I'll mark them and read them.   And learn more.  And then have a better assessment.

#2: The existence of the ideological conflict is undeniable, as it was argued out by people in many countries across the world, ...

Thing is - the media (driven by govt at times?) - drives the narrative, which people latch onto, then it becomes REAL - at the ground level.   People are told this/that with fear motives - and poof, they start believing it.  So sure, it all seemed real to the masses of people - but was it based upon truth?

For example, close to half of Americans believe the 2020 election was rigged; and half don't.   Depending upon who you ask - you'll get a different story.

In 1969 - it was easier for gov't to control the narrative.  Walter Cronkite was generally regarded as fully honest- if he said it, people trusted it.  Just as half of Americans in 2020 were 100% fooled into believing a lie, and to them, their beliefs were "real" -- the same dynamic was active in 1969 - except back then, it was easier to have a more singular unified narrative... such as with Communism (told to fear it - and so we did) ... and Apollo.

#3: Now, in your post-Christian life, you instead believe in the all-powerful "unelected unknowns". You took God on faith. How is "speculating on a narrative" any different from faith?

All-Powerful is an absolute.  I rarely think in absolutes.  I think the "elected unknowns" have power, and that it's out of the public view, and something rarely acknowledged.

#4: Or are you going to now say the entire US government consists of people who don't realize they're being controlled by these "unelected unknowns"?

One set of "unelected unknowns" are Lobbyists - controlling govt' via legal bribery called "Campaign donations".   In 1969, who knows what type of money kickbacks were set up, with the profitable NASA contracts.   I think Webb's hand was twisted into making Apollo 8 "go around the moon" - He resigned a month later, and didn't attend anymore launches...  total loss of interest, it seems.

So those "making decisions" have strings being pulled on them that they do not talk about or admit.

#5: So please explain, exactly what power does the US government have? How many decisions they make are their own, and how many are made by the "unelected unknowns"?

I believe JFK assassination was a conspiracy of an institution.  This institution was never found out... dropped.  Papers STILL sealed.   I think JFK was being eliminated ... possibly for one or more reasons... as he opposed some powerful (unelected) institutions -- Fed Bank, CIA, DIA, Vietnam War Machine...  and instead of feigning the Red Scare/Cold War -- in 1963 he asked the Russian to partner with them on the Moon Landing!...  oops, this breaks the charade of a "nasty scary Cold War".   Who benefitted from the Cold War??  Contractors...  Military, etc.  Follow the money...

#6: 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.

Here's a counter reference, where a champion Geologist Apollogist, contradicts your claims:
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?”

#7: Yes, the rocks were cataloged by NASA, because they hold them.

And my concern is - if these are rocks from Antarctica - their manner of study and qualifications can be such that it produces results that show "these are from the moon".   Without motivated skeptics, paid to be skeptics, rewarded for being skeptics --  I do find the "results" suspect, in an industry where all people paid to do this stuff - are funded by the govt.... not the commercial world.

Similar to "Polls" - the manner in which questions are asked (or to whom they are asked) - can produce an erroneous result - often intended to favor one side to begin with.  The same concept can apply to "moon rock studies" ---   so I take results with a grain of salt.

The recent HUGE difference in composition/size of Chinese regolith vs. Apollo -- is more fuel to support MLH.

#8: "2012 - particle size by weight to be 1/8th of what they were in 1970's"
I've already explained your faulty logic here.

Explain it again please.   This is a DRASTIC change.  If they are reducing to 1/8th size -- this is DRASTIC -- but they didn't notice?  Their excuse was "water degradation?" -- in which case there would be OTHER changes -- not JUST SIZE.   This explanation has no names attached to it -- no real explanation.   I'd like to see some skeptic geologists paid to find out "what's wrong with this picture"... but this isn't how this industry works.  People serve those who pay them.  And if they don't, they get fired and discredited...  Same as was the case for Thomas Baron, RIP.

#9: "Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes". In other words, it's an agreement, not an alliance. Prove me wrong.

"Cooperation" is a form of Alliance.  Agreed to hold hands and cooperate.   Within a few years, our astronauts were hugging it out in orbit!   This was a refreshing "win".

#10: Well, no. As I've explained elsewhere, this exact type of test appears to have been conducted twice - once in 1969 and once in 2012. Conducting a test twice gives us two data points, and two data points don't tell us anything about the shape of the curve between them. Prove me wrong.

See above.  You won't get "unbothered breakdown of particle size from atmospheric problems" (as though they couldn't keep it in a vacuum)  THIS dramatic without other changes ALSO happening... all of which would have been noticed.   Big hole in their story, IMO.

If it were just a smaller change -- sure.  But not when each particle is essentially being divided into 8 parts!  THIS IS HUGE -- a bigger deal and investigation should be made from this...  but NASA wouldn't fund that.  So it'll never get done.   It costs money to do this stuff - and there is no money in Atheism.

#11: Ross Taylor interview - I've provided the link. All you have to do is read the interview.

Found your link, and it's on my list to check out.  Thank you.

UPDATE:
Skimming it -- very long.  I get it -- "lots of qualifications", but also "You remained a consultant for NASA for 20 years, didn't you?"...
Paid by NASA, and probably is best paying client/boss.    If he was "inept" they'd find someone else to earn this good money.
Before taking the job, probably had to sign away a few Rights (NDA stuff, etc) -- so that if he decided to "choose honesty over very good money" - he couldn't legally be honest...  He'd be breaking the law against NASA (not just a normal commercial company).

So you are correct -- these type results that can only be proclaimed by "those working for NASA" -- are not so compelling to me either way.  To me - it's "just words" - predictable words.

I look for the "actions", and holes in the story, and the unlikeliness of certain events, or in some cases, seeming impossibilities.

I also Follow the Money - and do not trust "political/world narratives" -- I think to a large degree they are manufactured, and "turned into reality" via media/propaganda -- telling everyone how to think... and they do.   Making it look easy, IMO.

EDIT#2 - if you have specific things he said in mind that you want to highlight -- please do.  I'd be happy to discuss various points -- I am not suggesting he's "just outright lying about everything" - I do not believe this.   I simply believe that he's apply a subject-pro-nasa filter to his views, where this pertains.

[onebigmonkey]

It's a general notion currently.  I also don't think things are clear cut.  I don't think they sat anyone down and specifically told them what their findings needed to be.   When I looked for "who did the research", I didn't see any good proof of much being done outside of Johnson Space Center ...  so if you have some links, I'll mark them and read them.   And learn more.  And then have a better assessment.

I already gave you a list of papers from the first lunar science conferences. You can check the insititutions for whom the authors work. There are many, many of thgem outside NASA. I've already pointe you towards Google Scholar, where - if you search properly, you can find research papers from scientists around the world looking at Apollo samples.

Thing is - the media (driven by govt at times?) - drives the narrative, which people latch onto, then it becomes REAL - at the ground level.   People are told this/that with fear motives - and poof, they start believing it.  So sure, it all seemed real to the masses of people - but was it based upon truth?

For example, close to half of Americans believe the 2020 election was rigged; and half don't.   Depending upon who you ask - you'll get a different story.

And only one of those answers will be correct.

#4: Or are you going to now say the entire US government consists of people who don't realize they're being controlled by these "unelected unknowns"?

One set of "unelected unknowns" are Lobbyists - controlling govt' via legal bribery called "Campaign donations".   In 1969, who knows what type of money kickbacks were set up, with the profitable NASA contracts.   I think Webb's hand was twisted into making Apollo 8 "go around the moon" - He resigned a month later, and didn't attend anymore launches...  total loss of interest, it seems.[/quote]

Webb's arm was twisted by a belief they were about to be beaten by the Soviets. I've already given you a link where he clerarly states why he didn't go to launches.

#5: So please explain, exactly what power does the US government have? How many decisions they make are their own, and how many are made by the "unelected unknowns"?

I believe JFK assassination was a conspiracy of an institution.  This institution was never found out... dropped.  Papers STILL sealed.   I think JFK was being eliminated ... possibly for one or more reasons... as he opposed some powerful (unelected) institutions -- Fed Bank, CIA, DIA, Vietnam War Machine...  and instead of feigning the Red Scare/Cold War -- in 1963 he asked the Russian to partner with them on the Moon Landing!...  oops, this breaks the charade of a "nasty scary Cold War".   Who benefitted from the Cold War??  Contractors...  Military, etc.  Follow the money... [/quote]

"Think"..."believe"...

Here's a counter reference, where a champion Geologist Apollogist, contradicts your claims:
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?”

You missed a bit from the same paragraph: " However, chemical tests would be required to prove a lunar or martian origin."  So there is a way of testing to show a meteorite's origin. There's a lot more of that page you're ignoring. You're also ignoring the fact that the samples were collected on live TV and photographed in situ. No-one just turned up with a baggie and said "oh yeah this is from the moon".

And my concern is - if these are rocks from Antarctica - their manner of study and qualifications can be such that it produces results that show "these are from the moon".   Without motivated skeptics, paid to be skeptics, rewarded for being skeptics --  I do find the "results" suspect, in an industry where all people paid to do this stuff - are funded by the govt.... not the commercial world.

Science is a process of scepticism. Your suspicion over results is entirely based on your opinion. That's not how it works. Not all scientifica analysis is paid for by Government. Not all governments are American, government can't dictate the outcome of experimental work.

Similar to "Polls" - the manner in which questions are asked (or to whom they are asked) - can produce an erroneous result - often intended to favor one side to begin with.  The same concept can apply to "moon rock studies" ---   so I take results with a grain of salt.

Phyisical and chemical analyses of material is a very different process to the composition of a poll question. In either case, anyone worth their salt can look at how these things were done and pick holes in them.

Explain it again please.   This is a DRASTIC change.  If they are reducing to 1/8th size -- this is DRASTIC -- but they didn't notice?  Their excuse was "water degradation?" -- in which case there would be OTHER changes -- not JUST SIZE.   This explanation has no names attached to it -- no real explanation.   I'd like to see some skeptic geologists paid to find out "what's wrong with this picture"... but this isn't how this industry works.  People serve those who pay them.  And if they don't, they get fired and discredited...  Same as was the case for Thomas Baron, RIP.

Or you could go read it again.

Baron was fired because he breached company policy and leaked information to the press.

"Cooperation" is a form of Alliance.  Agreed to hold hands and cooperate.   Within a few years, our astronauts were hugging it out in orbit!   This was a refreshing "win".

Yes, it was. I've met one of the people who did the hand shaking and heard his testimony. There may have been handshakes in space, but the missiles were still very much beng pointed.

See above.  You won't get "unbothered breakdown of particle size from atmospheric problems" (as though they couldn't keep it in a vacuum)  THIS dramatic without other changes ALSO happening... all of which would have been noticed.   Big hole in their story, IMO.

If it were just a smaller change -- sure.  But not when each particle is essentially being divided into 8 parts!  THIS IS HUGE -- a bigger deal and investigation should be made from this...  but NASA wouldn't fund that.  So it'll never get done.   It costs money to do this stuff - and there is no money in Atheism.

You store them in a vacuum but you still get contamination when you remove samples form vacuum, no matter how careful you are. YOu've also had it explained to you, at least twice, that the degradation of samples was not replicated by other researchers, and that the degradatiuon was not occuring on samples still in storage - only those already released for analysis.

"divided into 8 parts"? Tell me you know nothing about particle size analysis without saying you know nothing about it...

Skimming it -- very long.  I get it -- "lots of qualifications", but also "You remained a consultant for NASA for 20 years, didn't you?"...
Paid by NASA, and probably is best paying client/boss.    If he was "inept" they'd find someone else to earn this good money.
Before taking the job, probably had to sign away a few Rights (NDA stuff, etc) -- so that if he decided to "choose honesty over very good money" - he couldn't legally be honest...  He'd be breaking the law against NASA (not just a normal commercial company).

So you are correct -- these type results that can only be proclaimed by "those working for NASA" -- are not so compelling to me either way.  To me - it's "just words" - predictable words.

I look for the "actions", and holes in the story, and the unlikeliness of certain events, or in some cases, seeming impossibilities.

I also Follow the Money - and do not trust "political/world narratives" -- I think to a large degree they are manufactured, and "turned into reality" via media/propaganda -- telling everyone how to think... and they do.   Making it look easy, IMO.

"Probably"..."IMO".."I think"...

You might follow money, but you don't follow science, facts, data, logical argument and deduction and engineering. You might skim read a paper but you don't take in the nuances of it. Genuine research looks for holes in its own arguments. You don't do that.