Apollo XIII-inconsistences

[bknight]

...and they are the ones who proclaim loudest that everyone else is going on blind faith.

Or they are the critical thinkers.

[BertieSlack]

moonstones, which could come from fallen meteorites on Earth

Here are some points you should bear in mind:

1. Apollo brought back 381kg of samples from the Moon. The total amount of lunar material ever found on Earth is less than 50kg.

2. The first identification of a lunar meteorite was made in 1982 from a rock found in 1979. No rocks found before the Apollo landings have been confirmed as being of lunar origin, and any rocks found since that have been confirmed as lunar have only been identified as such by comparison with the Apollo sample collection.

3. An attentive middle-school geography pupil could instantly tell the difference between a rock found on Earth and one brought back from the Moon. It is part of the English 'O' level geography syllabus to visually recognise the mechanical and chemical weathering on rocks that take place in the presence of water and oxygen.

Additionally, meteorites show clear evidence of their high-velocity journey through the Earth's atmosphere in the form of their fusion crust. Apollo samples do not exhibit either mechanical/chemical weathering in a wet/oxygen environment or a fusion crust, but they do show signs of prolonged exposure to an environment completely unlike Earth's - for example surface crystal damage from cosmic rays and 'zap pits' from high-velocity micro-meteoroid bombardment in a vacuum, neither of which could occur within Earth's atmosphere but which would be obliterated if those rocks had arrived on Earth as meteorites (and would be replaced by the type of weathering already mentioned).

There are many other indications which demonstrate that the Apollo sample collection could only have been obtained by trained hands from the surface of the Moon, and no qualified geologist has ever doubted their authenticity. Why not find out more about it?

[Luke Pemberton]

Sure, it takes years of study and experience to understand how Apollo worked at th detailed level.

Or alternatively, one can acquire a basic level of knowledge, understand that that most hoax arguments fail at a basic level and therefore CTs talk utter arse (I don't often use profanity at these boards).

Let's face it, parallel shadows, waving flags, C-rocks, multiple light sources, blast craters and sped up film (is it 67% or 50% slowed down?) aren't the most sophisticated arguments to debunk.

In fairness, fattydash and the lost Eagle required a lot more expertise than I have to debunk, but eh? I learned something there. Sadly, this thread is dull, and I am really not learning anything new from Tarkus. Why? Because there is nothing to be seen. (I say that with due respect to the regular members).

[Luke Pemberton]

Hilarious, isn't it? The ones that keep banging on about having an "open mind" are the very same ones that deny all attempts to learn something new.

Open mind is a euphemism for 'I can't be bothered to use my own so I'll just believe what I read and immerse myself in fantasy because that makes me different, and then I can claim no one else thinks in the way I do.'

It's like the accusation of sheeple, that grates considerably.

[Luke Pemberton]

Or they are the critical thinkers.

People proclaimed that Ralph Rene was a critical thinker. He was certainly critical, but not in the sense that he could affix critical with thinking.

[bknight]

Or they are the critical thinkers.

People proclaimed that Ralph Rene was a critical thinker. He was certainly critical, but not in the sense that he could affix critical with thinking.

Indeed, he was nothing more than the ideas and observations which were wrong if one looks at his propositions with critical thinking.

[Zakalwe]

Tarkus,

You have made a number of posts since I asked you these direct questions. Could you please answer them?
Thank you in advance.

1. What quantity of Martian meteorites do we posses?
2. What traces of a high-speed transition through Earth's atmosphere would be left on a rock that originated from the Moon or Mars?
3. Do you think that these traces are present or absent in the Apollo samples?
4. Do you know if we are in possession of "Moon meteorites" (that is, rocks that originated from the Moon and have been found on Earth)?
5. Do you think that those Moon meteorites will be the same as the Apollo samples?

[bknight]

Tarkus,

You have made a number of posts since I asked you these direct questions. Could you please answer them?
Thank you in advance.

1. What quantity of Martian meteorites do we posses?
2. What traces of a high-speed transition through Earth's atmosphere would be left on a rock that originated from the Moon or Mars?
3. Do you think that these traces are present or absent in the Apollo samples?
4. Do you know if we are in possession of "Moon meteorites" (that is, rocks that originated from the Moon and have been found on Earth)?
5. Do you think that those Moon meteorites will be the same as the Apollo samples?

He is still looking for a web site to copy.

[tarkus]

Apollo 14, and still on the floor but it keeps blowing and blowing ...

The answers are all out there; you only have to find it and read it. Quoting from the Pilot's Report in the Apollo 14 Mission Report:

To provide a soft landing, a delay of about 2 seconds was allowed between acquisition of the contact lights and activation of the engine stop button. Touchdown occurred at shutdown with some small dust-blowing action continuing during engine thrust tailoff or decay. 

So there you have it. The descent engine was shut off relatively late, and even after it was shut down it took a few moments for all the hot gas to leave the engine; it can't get out instantly. This is quite normal and expected with this type of rocket engine.

Then you need to explain the absence of dust in the legs, the absence of visible marks on the floor and the absence of radial dispersion of dust under the LM.

[JayUtah]

Then you need to explain the absence of dust in the legs, the absence of visible marks on the floor and the absence of radial dispersion of dust under the LM.

No.  You need to explain why you haven't seen the rather copious evidence of those things in the photographic record, with the possible exception of dust on the legs.  The latter is an expectation that doesn't follow well from the physics of how the engine works, and the materials covering the legs.

[tarkus]

Tarkus,

You have made a number of posts since I asked you these direct questions. Could you please answer them?
Thank you in advance.

1. What quantity of Martian meteorites do we posses?
2. What traces of a high-speed transition through Earth's atmosphere would be left on a rock that originated from the Moon or Mars?
3. Do you think that these traces are present or absent in the Apollo samples?
4. Do you know if we are in possession of "Moon meteorites" (that is, rocks that originated from the Moon and have been found on Earth)?
5. Do you think that those Moon meteorites will be the same as the Apollo samples?

1) I do not know
2) Those traces would surface, lunar samples are only small pebbles, enough to break a lunar meteorite.
3) idem
4) For that traveled to Antarctica Von Braun & Co years before Apollo 11.
5) Yes.

[JayUtah]

2) Those traces would surface, lunar samples are only small pebbles

No they aren't.

4) For that traveled to Antarctica Von Braun & Co years before Apollo 11.

You have evidence only that Von Braun went to Antarctica.  Where is your evidence that he went there to recover lunar meteorites to stand in as samples?  Further, why would that make sense?  Why would NASA send one of its most prominent scientists to do what would have to be a very secret thing?  Why would NASA publicize the trip?  Further, why would Von Braun be an expert on lunar meteorites?  He was an engineer, not a geologist.  Your scenario doesn't make sense, and is not supported by evidence.

5) Yes.

How do you explain that the world's geologists can tell the difference between Apollo samples and lunar meteorites?

[onebigmonkey]

The subsidiary question you need to answer, tarkus, is:

How do you think they know that lunar meteorites are from the moon?

[tarkus]

Then you need to explain the absence of dust in the legs, the absence of visible marks on the floor and the absence of radial dispersion of dust under the LM.

No.  You need to explain why you haven't seen the rather copious evidence of those things in the photographic record, with the possible exception of dust on the legs.  The latter is an expectation that doesn't follow well from the physics of how the engine works, and the materials covering the legs.

You must explain ... if you want, but can be quiet, nobody forces you.
It does not explain why there is no trace of dust in the legs.
It does not show anything that says, if I ask for landing signals is because I have not seen any so far ... again with the "go and look"? I can guess that has nothing of value to show, then distracted as usual, "do not understand the physics" ... bullshit.

[sts60]

No, of course the lunar samples aren't only just "small pebbles".  You can't even get the most basic facts right.  And the rest is simply question-begging and your own demonstrably ignorant opinion.

Tarkus, you keep getting just about everything wrong.  Doesn't that ever embarrass you?  Doesn't it ever make you reconsider your claims?

If not, you are simply ineducable - simply unwilling and/or unable to learn.  In that case, why should anyone waste more time trying to educate you?