Moon Rock a Fake

Firefox10

I know you conspiracy theory types like to think that the moon landings were faked so here's some fuel for you.:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm

meglome

Firefox10 wrote: »

I know you conspiracy theory types like to think that the moon landings were faked so here's some fuel for you.:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm

Very interesting one all right. Although since they gave moon rocks to 100 countries I'd imagine a lot or other people would have noticed if there was something amiss generally.

uprising

meglome wrote: »

Very interesting one all right. Although since they gave moon rocks to 100 countries I'd imagine a lot or other people would have noticed if there was something amiss generally.

Maybe only the dutch had the balls to actually say it....
So they didn't go to the moon, they just floated around earth orbit while somebody on the ground collected petrified wood, haha.

There goes the oul "Sure haven't they got moon rocks" out the window.:pac::pac::pac:

meglome

uprising wrote: »

Maybe only the dutch had the balls to actually say it....
So they didn't go to the moon, they just floated around earth orbit while somebody on the ground collected petrified wood, haha.

There goes the oul "Sure haven't they got moon rocks" out the window.:pac::pac::pac:

100 countries did this? Doesn't seem likely.

55chevy

If you have petrified wood you can't get your rocks off.

Mahatma coat

hey, if ya wanted togo a little more leftfield here, the most interestin theory would be that it is BOTH 'Moon Rock' & Petrified wood. now that wouldhave someserious ramifications

Captain Furball

Lol thats a funny comment if i ever seen one lol.

Stay off the beer mohatama gandi

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

hey, if ya wanted togo a little more leftfield here, the most interestin theory would be that it is BOTH 'Moon Rock' & Petrified wood. now that wouldhave someserious ramifications

Actually that would be very interesting.

thecommander

and somewhere in Holland there's a Dutch museum curator sitting with a nice lump of moonrock on his mantelpiece, after swapping it some years before.

jonbravo

Nasa have their own police type man, tryin to locate the missing moon rock....

abouttobebanned

What kind of sicko goes around petrifying wood?

Duff

abouttobebanned wrote: »

What kind of sicko goes around petrifying wood?

That damn Basilisk from Harry Potter. :mad:

So, one spurious rock results in the conclusion that the, let's face it, tonnes of other Moon-rocks, housed in museums and scientific institutions in over one hundred countries, are fake? I'm no logician, but I can spot flawed logical reasoning when I see it.

Boston

Theres some of these moon rocks in Trinity college, they been extensively tested and shown not to have originated on earth. If you'd like to see a moon rock, contact the geological department.

Kernel

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So, one spurious rock results in the conclusion that the, let's face it, tonnes of other Moon-rocks, housed in museums and scientific institutions in over one hundred countries, are fake? I'm no logician, but I can spot flawed logical reasoning when I see it.

If by tonnes you mean 382 kg (842 lb) of it then, yes.

There have also been samples collected from unmanned luna probes and meteorites collected from the polar region. Moon rocks, real or not, do not prove that the men of the Apollo 11 mission walked on the moon.

DublinWriter

There's also the piece that was on display in the old Dublin airport museum that has since 'gone missing'.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

If by tonnes you mean 382 kg (842 lb) of it then, yes.

There have also been samples collected from unmanned luna probes and meteorites collected from the polar region. Moon rocks, real or not, do not prove that the men of the Apollo 11 mission walked on the moon.

Do you remember that big thread we had about the moon landings where we were able to show that they really did go to the moon. Then for some reason you came back some while later convinced again that they didn't. Remember?

Kernel

Kernel wrote: »

If by tonnes you mean 382 kg (842 lb) of it then, yes.

There have also been samples collected from unmanned luna probes and meteorites collected from the polar region. Moon rocks, real or not, do not prove that the men of the Apollo 11 mission walked on the moon.

Except that meteorites are very easy to distinguish.
The amount of Lunar samples returned by probes is minuscule compared to the amount returned by the manned missions. .326 Kg compared to 382 Kg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

So maybe you can show the secret moon missions that returned the other samples?

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

Do you remember that big thread we had about the moon landings where we were able to show that they really did go to the moon. Then for some reason you came back some while later convinced again that they didn't. Remember?

I do remember the thread - whereby debunkers cited mythbusters as proof of their claims.... *shudder* And I'm still on the fence about it. It's Apollo 11 I have the problems with. No thread here, or anywhere else I have looked, has adequately proven the official apollo 11 story to me.

King Mob wrote:

Except that meteorites are very easy to distinguish.

How so? And I presume that your distinguishing characteristics are impossible to duplicate on Earth?

King Mob wrote:

The amount of Lunar samples returned by probes is minuscule compared to the amount returned by the manned missions. .326 Kg compared to 382 Kg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

That's irrelevant. The point being made is that lunar rock samples from unmanned probes were brought back to Earth, which proves to me that such a feat is possible. As a skeptic, I would suggest that it would be a damn sight more plausible to collect moon rocks from unmanned probes back in the 60's rather than shooting 3 men 250,000 miles to the moon and back to earth with the rocks. Out of interest, how much lunar rock was retrieved by apollo 11?

King Mob wrote:

So maybe you can show the secret moon missions that returned the other samples?

No, they're secret. Didn't Von Braun travel to the north pole just before apollo 11? I've never looked deeply into this, haven't the time with so many other conspiracies. There's your circumstantial evidence right there, if he did.

Kernel

Kernel wrote: »

I do remember the thread - whereby debunkers cited mythbusters as proof of their claims.... *shudder* And I'm still on the fence about it. It's Apollo 11 I have the problems with. No thread here, or anywhere else I have looked, has adequately proven the official apollo 11 story to me.

Really? I don't remember anyone claiming the Mythbusters evidence as proof.

Kernel wrote: »

How so? And I presume that your distinguishing characteristics are impossible to duplicate on Earth?

From what I gather they'd have an altered crust from entry into the atmosphere and exhibit weathering form processes on Earth.
Rocks from the moon would not have these features.

Kernel wrote: »

That's irrelevant. The point being made is that lunar rock samples from unmanned probes were brought back to Earth, which proves to me that such a feat is possible.

except that the samples brought back from the unmanned probes where grams.
You'd need to send 300 missions like the Luna one to match the amount brought back by one Apollo mission.

Kernel wrote: »

As a skeptic, I would suggest that it would be a damn sight more plausible to collect moon rocks from unmanned probes back in the 60's rather than shooting 3 men 250,000 miles to the moon and back to earth with the rocks.

SO not only would they have to conduct fake moon missions, they'd also have to build new probes to gather a large amount of samples launch and return several missions all in secret, and keep it a secret for 40 years?
That's more likely?

Kernel wrote: »

Out of interest, how much lunar rock was retrieved by apollo 11?

And if you read the Wikipeida page you'd see it returned 22 kg.
Much much much more than the entire Russian unmanned program.

Kernel wrote: »

No, they're secret.

So how exactly do you propose they get these samples and conduct an entirly secret space program without the Russians noticing?

Kernel wrote: »

Didn't Von Braun travel to the north pole just before apollo 11? I've never looked deeply into this, haven't the time with so many other conspiracies. There's your circumstantial evidence right there, if he did.

So why would they send a rocket engineer to do a geologists job?
Why send a well known rocket engineer?
Why let this information out at all?

And even then those samples would still be meteorites.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Really? I don't remember anyone claiming the Mythbusters evidence as proof.

Perhaps I'm referring to the thread before the thread before the thread before the other thread about the moon landings being hoaxed. Which one are you referring to?

King Mob wrote: »

From what I gather they'd have an altered crust from entry into the atmosphere and exhibit weathering form processes on Earth.
Rocks from the moon would not have these features.

I'm no geologist, but would this mean that it would be impossible to duplicate this on Earth using meteorites? ie. remove the crust or something?

King Mob wrote: »

except that the samples brought back from the unmanned probes where grams.
You'd need to send 300 missions like the Luna one to match the amount brought back by one Apollo mission.

Yes, but it's still more feasible to use an unmanned probe in terms of weight and life support etc. Again, perhaps I am simply too much of a skeptic.

King Mob wrote: »

SO not only would they have to conduct fake moon missions, they'd also have to build new probes to gather a large amount of samples launch and return several missions all in secret, and keep it a secret for 40 years?
That's more likely?

Maybe, it's still a possibility. Probably more likely that they used moon rock from meteorites though. In fairness, it's not like the Irish Skeptics Society could just pop up, get their own sample of moon rock and compare results.

King Mob wrote: »

And if you read the Wikipeida page you'd see it returned 22 kg.
Much much much more than the entire Russian unmanned program.

22kg is not a lot of rock though. Do you have any link to the fuel allowance/consumption of the lunar lander and the allowed weight of the rock samples?

King Mob wrote: »

So why would they send a rocket engineer to do a geologists job?
Why send a well known rocket engineer?
Why let this information out at all?

And even then those samples would still be meteorites.

You have to prove that it is not possible for me to take a lunar meteorite and pass it off as a lunar rock first of all mob, then we move to the next square. And as I say, I've always been interested in the space race and apollo missions and I'm on the fence vis-a-vis whether they happened or not. Just waiting for someone to prove it to my skeptical mind.

Kernel

Kernel wrote: »

Perhaps I'm referring to the thread before the thread before the thread before the other thread about the moon landings being hoaxed. Which one are you referring to?

Any of them.
No one claimed the Mythbusters as definitive.

Kernel wrote: »

I'm no geologist, but would this mean that it would be impossible to duplicate this on Earth using meteorites? ie. remove the crust or something?

And it would still have some signs of weathering and of course obvious evidence that a layer of the sample was removed by tools.

Kernel wrote: »

Yes, but it's still more feasible to use an unmanned probe in terms of weight and life support etc. Again, perhaps I am simply too much of a skeptic.

Really?
Even with the bulkiness of robotics in the 1960's?
And then how to you explain the variety of different samples from different regions?

Kernel wrote: »

Maybe, it's still a possibility. Probably more likely that they used moon rock from meteorites though. In fairness, it's not like the Irish Skeptics Society could just pop up, get their own sample of moon rock and compare results.

But a load of universities have tested these samples and haven't found anything amiss.
And there simply isn't that much meteorite.

But seriously? They were able to conduct a secret moon project and no one has ever been able to show a scrap of evidence of it's existence in 40 years?
And the Russians never said a thing?

Kernel wrote: »

22kg is not a lot of rock though. Do you have any link to the fuel allowance/consumption of the lunar lander and the allowed weight of the rock samples?

Compared to the amount brought back by the Luna missions it's a lot.

Go nuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module

Kernel wrote: »

You have to prove that it is not possible for me to take a lunar meteorite and pass it off as a lunar rock first of all mob, then we move to the next square.

That's not how logic works, Kernel. You can't prove a negative.
You have to prove that you can fake a moon rock.

Kernel wrote: »

And as I say, I've always been interested in the space race and apollo missions and I'm on the fence vis-a-vis whether they happened or not. Just waiting for someone to prove it to my skeptical mind.

You're on the fence, but you have to rely on a vast secret Lunar project that no one has ever heard of to explain away the lunar sample so you can stay on the fence.

And then there's the laser reflectors.
And the tracking of the module.

And the one question that's never been answered in a single thread here: Why didn't the Russians say anything?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

No thread here, or anywhere else I have looked, has adequately proven the official apollo 11 story to me.

Can you define what it would take to adequately prove it to you?

I ask because I have a suspicion that what you're really saying is "nothing can prove to me that the official Apollo 11 story is true, but I'm open to proof that its false".

star-pants

Boston wrote: »

Theres some of these moon rocks in Trinity college, they been extensively tested and shown not to have originated on earth. If you'd like to see a moon rock, contact the geological department.

Aye I did geology in NUIG and we got their samples down to look at under thin section, honestly looks so different to any rocks/minerals on earth, pretty cool to see actually, so many colours under the cross polars.
Not sure why they think it looks like petrified wood though, I've seen that and it's not the same.

(random word of the day corprolite... petrified poo)

Mahatma coat

it should be fairly easy to verify if it has been swapped out tho, surely the astronauts catalogued and photographed this rock on the moon, if the one in holland dosent look like the thing in armstrongs photo then its not the same rock

if it does look remarkably similar then thats a whole noter can o worms

gline

Kernel wrote: »

And I'm still on the fence about it. It's Apollo 11 I have the problems with. No thread here, or anywhere else I have looked, has adequately proven the official apollo 11 story to me.

Did you see the "documentary" called - "was it just a paper moon?" Some very good points disproving that they did land on the moon

squod

gline wrote: »

Did you see the "documentary" called - "was it just a paper moon?" Some very good points disproving that they did land on the moon

I'll have to watch that.

I loved watching the two aastronought dudes playing golf on the moon.
That just coils me up, every time.

Anyone now how much it costs to take stuff into space? Imagine approaching
your aastronought boss and telling him you wanna play at golf on the fuggin moon. For like science, or whatever.

Those guys who thought of than one must have been like really fuggin high at the time, like astronomic.

squod

squod wrote: »

I'll have to watch that.

I loved watching the two aastronought dudes playing golf on the moon.
That just coils me up, every time.

Anyone now how much it costs to take stuff into space? Imagine approaching
your aastronought boss and telling him you wanna play at golf on the fuggin moon. For like science, or whatever.

Those guys who thought of than one must have been like really fuggin high at the time, like astronomic.

It was a head from a golf club tied to a spare sample scoop.
Not exactly breaking any budgets there.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/attm/la.a14.html

gline

squod wrote: »

I'll have to watch that.

I loved watching the two aastronought dudes playing golf on the moon.
That just coils me up, every time.

Anyone now how much it costs to take stuff into space? Imagine approaching
your aastronought boss and telling him you wanna play at golf on the fuggin moon. For like science, or whatever.

Those guys who thought of than one must have been like really fuggin high at the time, like astronomic.

In the documentary, the presenter measured the landing module that the astronauts aparently landed on the moon, and it is not even big enough for 2 guys with full astronaut suits on to get out of (the door swings inwards) lol. To me that was concrete proof. And aparently the original plans for the module and the vehicle driven on the moon have "dissappeared" from NASA and boeing, you'd think for the first moon landing they would have kept all these documents and have them in a mueseum somewhere "showing off" their technical expertise. Thats just 2 points in the docu, its got a lot more :P

squod

Gotta watch that clip again.
Funny isn't the bluddy word, any experts wanna tell me how much it costs
to ship a golf 'head', a ball an' a couple of Js to the fuggin moon.

Purely for 'scientific research' of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdqBL5pdRT8

gline

gline wrote: »

In the documentary, the presenter measured the landing module that the astronauts aparently landed on the moon, and it is not even big enough for 2 guys with full astronaut suits on to get out of (the door swings inwards) lol. To me that was concrete proof. And aparently the original plans for the module and the vehicle driven on the moon have "dissappeared" from NASA and boeing, you'd think for the first moon landing they would have kept all these documents and have them in a mueseum somewhere "showing off" their technical expertise. Thats just 2 points in the docu, its got a lot more :P

Neither of those points are true.
The doors where wide enough for the astronauts to fit through.
A bit tight but nowhere near impossible.
http://www.clavius.org/lmdoors.html

Are you seriously suggesting that they planned the most elaborate hoax in the history of the world but forgot to make the doors big enough?

The actual original plans might be gone but there's tons of copies.

In fact they're releasing an Apollo owner's manual.
http://www.haynes.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=47367&langId=-1

Torakx

the doc gline talks about i also watched,
go watch that and then come back here and attempt to post that man has landed on the moon.
end of story really once you watch it.
its no longer categorized under conspiracy for me, just fact.

They did not put man on the moon

just a small example.
the investigators called up the guys who make the actual space suits for NASA.
they asked can they use the suits in places like chernobel for protection against radiation. the reply was no it would not be safe and would afford you no protection against radiation.

so how did they survive on the moon without dying from extreme exposure?
anyway watch the documentary and see for yourselves

gline

King Mob wrote: »

Neither of those points are true.
One the door where wide enough for the astronauts to fix through.
A bit tight but nowhere near impossible.
http://www.clavius.org/lmdoors.html

Are you seriously suggesting that they planned the most elaborate hoax in the history of the world but forgot to make the doors big enough?

The actual original plan might be gone but there's tons of copies.

In fact they're releasing an Apollo owner's manual.
http://www.haynes.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=47367&langId=-1

good points, which side to believe

gline

gline wrote: »

good points, which side to believe

I generally side with the guys who have the science and don't have to rely on increasing complex conspiracies.

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

just a small example.
the investigators called up the guys who make the actual space suits for NASA.
they asked can they use the suits in places like chernobel for protection against radiation. the reply was no it would not be safe and would afford you no protection against radiation.

so how did they survive on the moon without dying from extreme exposure?
anyway watch the documentary and see for yourselves

Because there wasn't enough radiation over the period of time the astronauts were there to do any damage.
They didn't need that much protection.

Do you know exactly how much radiation the astronaut where exposed to on the Moon? Or how much is needed to kill a man.

And of course they wouldn't protect you in Chernobyl that's not what they were designed for.

There's a slight difference between Chernobyl and the surface of the moon don't you think?

Torakx

i wouldnt think no.but how are we to know? NASA?
that was only a small point. they covers the actual footage of them on the moon jumping around.the landing footage.
i dont want to go into detail and give you half the info they had in a disorganised manor.but its definetly a good watch regardless wether you want to believe it

it just makes so much sense when you see the pressure NASA was under to keep the fund coming in.

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

i wouldnt think no.but how are we to know? NASA?
that was only a small point. they covers the actual footage of them on the moon jumping around.the landing footage.
i dont want to go into detail and give you half the info they had in a disorganised manor.but its definetly a good watch regardless wether you want to believe it

it just makes so much sense when you see the pressure NASA was under to keep the fund coming in.

http://www.clavius.org/

You really should look at this site here.
It debunks alot of the common myths.

The same myths about the moon landing have been recycled over and over again.
I doubt this documentary will have anything new.

4gun

One question how come the russians, who were ahead of the americans in the space race at the time, never actually went to Moon or even attempt their true goal of landing a cosmonaut on Mars aka the red planet
you go beyond the Ionospere and your completly bombarded by cosmic rays

Torakx

wow nice link thanks for that was interesting reading.
i dont think it covers everything.
im still trying to find a debunk for the paper moons examination of the footage shot.
i agree the door issue is a small one which i might have been possible but hard to tell for me id have to actually go there and measure it myself.

im still of the opinion it was faked.
the video covered alot of interesting angles and reasons why it would be faked.
will have another look at that link and see if i can prove myself to be wrong in my thinking.

squod

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.clavius.org/

You really should look at this site here.
It debunks alot of the common myths.

The same myths about the moon landing have been recycled over and over again.
I doubt this documentary will have anything new.

LRO is up ther about now, "debunking'' stuff as we speak.
Stuff like how much radiation is on the moons surface and whether a human could play golf on it in a space suit before they're minced by solar flares etc.


Also loads of LQ 2D pics on that site of the moon landers, even more HQ sterioscopic pics of moon craters.
A great site, well worth a look. Even if you're not a moon fanatic.

4gun

4gun wrote: »

One question how come the russians, who were ahead of the americans in the space race at the time, never actually went to Moon or even attempt their true goal of landing a cosmonaut on Mars aka the red planet

Might have something to do with the worse technology the smaller budget or the general collapse of Communism.

The Russians where never that far ahead. America launched their first astronaut only a few weeks after the Gagarin. The Americans weren't to first to hit the dramatic milestones first dog, fist man, first woman etc. but they were the first to hit some of the important milestone like first docking manoeuvre in space etc.

4gun wrote: »

you go beyond the Ionospere and your completly bombarded by cosmic rays

Not really.
They don't give enough rads to kill you in the time they were on the Moon.

squod

squod wrote: »

LRO is up ther about now, "debunking'' stuff as we speak.
Stuff like how much radiation is on the moons surface and whether a human could play golf on it in a space suit before they're minced by solar flares etc.


Also loads of LQ 2D pics on that site of the moon landers, even more HQ sterioscopic pics of moon craters.
A great site, well worth a look. Even if you're not a moon fanatic.

The LRO isn't debunking anything.
The images weren't mean to settle the conspiracy theories (no picture would regardless of the quality.)

Solar flares where a concern on the mission but they didn't make them impossible.
http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html

squod

King Mob wrote: »

The LRO isn't debunking anything.
The images weren't mean to settle the conspiracy theories (no picture would regardless of the quality.)

Solar flares where a concern on the mission but they didn't make them impossible.
http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html

LRO is the latest one, jaxa sent one and there was another previously sent.
The link hasn't proved jack. There'll be another probe sent before 2020,
send NASA the link if your so confident. Sure you'd save them billions.

squod

squod wrote: »

LRO is the latest one, jaxa sent one and there was another previously sent.
The link hasn't proved jack. There'll be another probe sent before 2020,
send NASA the link if your so confident. Sure you'd save them billions.

Ok the moon missions aren't to disprove the conspiracy theories.
Quite frankly NASA has better thing to do, like science.

The LRO has just been the first thing able to take those pictures.

And what exactly is wrong in the link?

squod

I'd imagine it was JAXA's kaguya that would've seen good images of the moon landers first.

The link is fine if you believe all that crap. Clearly NASA doesn't, or JAXA.
Me I'm not so bothered. I'm not going to the moon, all that radiation'll put me off my food.

4gun

comunisum didn't collapse untill the late 80's they had supierios technology in rocket terms to the americans and an inexhaustible budget in the late 60's Its never been truly explained why they didn't make the moon even if in second place their shuttle program was axed due to lack of funds but again that was in the 80's

4gun

4gun wrote: »

comunisum didn't collapse untill the late 80's they had supierios technology in rocket terms to the americans and an inexhaustible budget in the late 60's Its never been truly explained why they didn't make the moon even if in second place their shuttle program was axed due to lack of funds but again that was in the 80's

The Russian rocket technology wasn't necessarily better.

For one example the Jupiter 5 had five powerful engines.
The Russians rocket had twenty and was much more prone to failure.

The American's docking and tracking systems where just better.

Both space programme didn't have "inexhaustible budgets".
The American pumped more into theirs and had much better R+D.

Once America got the moon, Russia just couldn't have been bothered.

Torakx

hmm wasnt it after hitler was dispatched with his possible ufo technology that the russians and yanks started reaching seriously for the skies?

alot of german scientists went to the states after that war. i wouldnt be suprised if there wa sa fight for the technology they had also.

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

hmm wasnt it after hitler was dispatched with his possible ufo technology that the russians and yanks started reaching seriously for the skies?

alot of german scientists went to the states after that war. i wouldnt be suprised if there wa sa fight for the technology they had also.

The Germans where making a lot of guided rockets.
Namely the V1s and the V2.

No need to invoke UFO to explain it.

4gun

King Mob wrote: »

The Russian rocket technology wasn't necessarily better.

For one example the Jupiter 5 had five powerful engines.
The Russians rocket had twenty and was much more prone to failure.

The American's docking and tracking systems where just better.

Both space programme didn't have "inexhaustible budgets".
The American pumped more into theirs and had much better R+D.

Once America got the moon, Russia just couldn't have been bothered.

russian rocket tecnology was more fuel efficient they could carry bigger pay loads which is why their nuclear missles were bigger and more powerful than the us their engined were better consider the anatov aero plane is the biggest payload carrier in the world

saying that they just couldn't be bothered going thats just lame
if you spent money on building a car and then won one in the lottery would you still not take the one you made out for a drive

4gun

4gun wrote: »

russian rocket tecnology was more fuel efficient they could carry bigger pay loads which is why their nuclear missles were bigger and more powerful than the us their engined were better consider the anatov aero plane is the biggest payload carrier in the world

Now I may be wrong but Anatov is a Jet not a spacecraft.

And there where a ton of other advances the Americans had over the Russians, namely a working moon lander, and an actual plan to get to the moon.