Najak, could you please respond to these questions (originally Reply #370). Thank you.
...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.)
