Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
When will the Lunar landings be accepted?
Options
Comments
-
If you had read what I wrote, then you would see I addressed this.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I am not going to read all of this because I just want you to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
The first paragraph
Moon rocks on Earth come from three sources: those collected by the US Apollo manned lunar landings from 1969 to 1972; samples returned by three Soviet Luna unmanned probes in the 1970s; and rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface by cratering events and subsequently fell to Earth as lunar meteorites.
If this was so impossible how did the Russians do it?
The Russian probes retrieved samples on the order of hundreds of grams.
Apollo 11 returned 22 Killgrams.
The Russian probes returned drilled out soil and dust samples.
Apollo 11 returned large, complete rocks chiseled from the surface of the Moon
A Probe like the russian ones would not be able to return samples like the ones returned by Apollo. I detail why in my posts you have not read.
No. Two Thirds of the rock from Apollo 11 are not missing. You have misunderstood the articles you have just posted.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »It's worth noting of the 22 Kilos of moon rock there was 270 rocks.
180 are missing.
So as well as the original footage being destroyed two thirds of the rock from the Apollo 11 mission is also missing.
What are missing are these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_lunar_sample_display
These are dust particles front other rocks that had been already used in experiments and were contaminated.
180 x 50mg = 9 grams.The Apollo 11 lunar sample display is a commemorative podium style plaque display consisting of four rice-size dust particle specimens.
...
The rice-sized particles were four small pieces of Moon soil weighing about 50 mg total and were enveloped in a clear acrylic button about as big as a United States half dollar coin.
Not an expert, but 9 grams is not two thirds of 22 kilograms.
Fun fact: They sent one of these samples to the Soviet Union.
Double fun fact: Ireland had one from Apollo 11, but it got damaged in a fire and got tossed out. It's probably in a dump somewhere in Dublin still.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_lunar_sample_displays0 -
If you had read what I wrote, then you would see I addressed this.
The Russian probes retrieved samples on the order of hundreds of grams.
Apollo 11 returned 22 Killgrams.
The Russian probes returned drilled out soil and dust samples.
Apollo 11 returned large, complete rocks chiseled from the surface of the Moon
A Probe like the russian ones would not be able to return samples like the ones returned by Apollo. I detail why in my posts you have not read.
No. Two Thirds of the rock from Apollo 11 are not missing. You have misunderstood the articles you have just posted.
What are missing are these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_lunar_sample_display
These are dust particles front other rocks that had been already used in experiments and were contaminated.
180 x 50mg = 9 grams.
Not an expert, but 9 grams is not two thirds of 22 kilograms.
Fun fact: They sent one of these samples to the Soviet Union.
Double fun fact: Ireland had one from Apollo 11, but it got damaged in a fire and got tossed out. It's probably in a dump somewhere in Dublin still.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_lunar_sample_displays
How much of the 22Kilo was rocks? How much of it was soil?
They did not return with 22Kilo of rocks they returned with 22Kilo of material.
I think on apollo 11 only 50 rocks where collected, I am not sure how the rocks where given out, did they break them up?
Where are all the samples now?
A lot of the gifts are unaccounted for and this year Russia has asked to get access to the rest.....
How much of the 22Kilo is left? Where is it?0 -
Here you go. All of your questions are answered here:ShowMeTheCash wrote: »How much of the 22Kilo was rocks? How much of it was soil?
They did not return with 22Kilo of rocks they returned with 22Kilo of material.
I think on apollo 11 only 50 rocks where collected, I am not sure how the rocks where given out, did they break them up?
Where are all the samples now?
A lot of the gifts are unaccounted for and this year Russia has asked to get access to the rest.....
How much of the 22Kilo is left? Where is it?
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/samplecatalog/index.cfm#view=missionsamples;mission=Apollo11
The gift rocks were from these rocks and were from samples that were used for experiments.
They were not the entirety of the samples, unlike you claimed and two thirds of the samples returned by Apollo missions are not missing, unlike you claimed.
Again. They returned with 22 kilos of samples. No unmanned probe past or present is capable of doing this.
They returned with large, intact rock samples. No unmanned probe past or present is capable of doing this.
Are you going to read my posts now?0 -
As I feel it's relevant, the sample weights returned on all missions
1969
Apollo 11
21.55 kg (47.51 lb)
1969
Apollo 12
34.30 kg (75.62 lb)
1969
Apollo 14
42.80 kg (94.35 lb)
1971
Apollo 15
76.70 kg (169.10 lb)
1971
Apollo 16
95.20 kg (209.89 lb)
1972
Apollo 17
110.40 kg (243.40 lb)0 -
Here you go. All of your questions are answered here:
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/samplecatalog/index.cfm#view=missionsamples;mission=Apollo11
The gift rocks were from these rocks and were from samples that were used for experiments.
They were not the entirety of the samples, unlike you claimed and two thirds of the samples returned by Apollo missions are not missing, unlike you claimed.
Again. They returned with 22 kilos of samples. No unmanned probe past or present is capable of doing this.
They returned with large, intact rock samples. No unmanned probe past or present is capable of doing this.
Are you going to read my posts now?
I read all of your previous post I just wasn't going to comment on the same thing over and over and over again.
The crux of your argument is not that samples could not be taken back but appears to be with the volume and size of material taken back.
Which was not really clear in your initial statement.
So it's not that they did not have the technology you think they did not have it on the scale required for the amount taken back and to collect the rocks.
I think you still fail understand that:No unmanned probe past or present is capable of doing this.
This just your opinion not a fact and albeit in the 1960s/ 1970s you may have a reasonable argument that yes it would of been difficult to do I would not go as far to say it was impossible.
I think the argument that even today they could not do it I would consider a lesser argument.0 -
Advertisement
-
Here you go. All of your questions are answered here:
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/samplecatalog/index.cfm#view=missionsamples;mission=Apollo11
This is a catalog of the samples, I asked where are they?0 -
This is not the crux of my argument and it's not a matter of scale. You are misrepresenting my position or you did not read my post.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »The crux of your argument is not that samples could not be taken back but appears to be with the volume and size of material taken back.
So it's not that they did not have the technology you think they did not have it on the scale required for the amount taken back and to collect the rocks.
As I detailed extensively, the fact that no probe past or present has been able to retrieve that amount of samples is just one issue.
No probe past or present is capable of retrieving large, intact rocks.
No surface rover past or present is capable of working independently of control from a human.
For your conspiracy theory to work, the probe would have to do all of these things.
The technology does not exist now. It could not exist in the 60s.
If I am wrong, just dismissing it as my "opinion" without actually addressing my points does not prove this.
So then can you provide a reasonable suggestion for how it might have been possible?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »This just your opinion not a fact and albeit in the 1960s/ 1970s you may have a reasonable argument that yes it would of been difficult to do I would not go as far to say it was impossible.
Or would you agree that it is so difficult and improbable to the point where it's not worth considering seriously?
If not, why not?
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lun-fac.cfmShowMeTheCash wrote: »This is a catalog of the samples, I asked where are they?
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/laboratory_tour.cfm
What is the point of your question?0 -
This is not the crux of my argument and it's not a matter of scale. You are misrepresenting my position or you did not read my post.
As I detailed extensively, the fact that no probe past or present has been able to retrieve that amount of samples is just one issue.
No probe past or present is capable of retrieving large, intact rocks.
This is what I saidNo surface rover past or present is capable of working independently of control from a human.
So the Russians did not get soil from the moon unmanned?For your conspiracy theory to work, the probe would have to do all of these things.
No it doesn't as already stated your argument is solely on the size of the rocks and the volume of material as the Russian where able to do the same unmanned.The technology does not exist now. It could not exist in the 60s.
Again your opinion, and as for it not existing now, I think you are on your own with that assumption
Your logic if completely flawed.
Just because something was designed to do a specific task does mean an alternative solution does not exist or the technology did not exist.
My car cannot fly but that does not mean we do not have the technology to make a plane!
If the mars rover was designed to take photos this does not mean we cannot design a rover to do something else.
If I am wrong, just dismissing it as my "opinion" without actually addressing my points does not prove this.
You do not prove this, it is your opinion valid opinion or not it is still just your opinion.So then can you provide a reasonable suggestion for how it might have been possible?
Or would you agree that it is so difficult and improbable to the point where it's not worth considering seriously?
If not, why not?
What is the point of your question?
We could flip back and fourth to what you think the capabilities where in 1969 on assembling a machine that could retrieve rocks. In 1969 it would have been difficult, I think today however they would have literally no trouble doing it.
Which leads me to the main alternative theory, they didn't bring back 22Kilo of material and or rocks.
As pointed out NASA still have the majority of the samples, of the samples sent as gifts a lot are unaccounted for and as you already pointed out they only made up a very small portion of the alleged 22Kilo.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Your logic if completely flawed.
Just because something was designed to do a specific task does mean an alternative solution does not exist or the technology did not exist.
The tech to remotely get moon rocks up to 11kg in mass back to earth does not currently exist. It's therefore extremely unlikely it existed in 1969 - 1971
Also the below..Which leads me to the main alternative theory, they didn't bring back 22Kilo of material and or rocks.
is surely answered by what you say nextthe samples sent as gifts a lot are unaccounted for
i.e. they did bring back 22 kilos, but as explained, over the decades, samples have gone missing
"According to the Office of Inspector General, out of the 26,000 samples NASA has on loan, it has lost just 517," "That's not to excuse the space agency and its curators, but with so many samples spread across the globe, some losses are probably to be expected."
http://www.space.com/13878-nasa-apollo-moon-rocks-misplaced-lost-report.html0 -
You are misrepresenting my point because you can't address it.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »So the Russians did not get soil from the moon unmanned?
The Russian Probes were not independent. They were being controlled by humans back on Earth.
In your scenario this is not possible because any transmissions that were controlling the probe would have been picked up by the Russians.
So the probe in your scenario has to have been independent of human control. No surface rover has been able to do this. It is impossible for 1960s technology because even our best technology today is only just starting to be able to do this.
No it's not. I have given you several points beyond that. You obviously have not read them.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »No it doesn't as already stated your argument is solely on the size of the rocks and the volume of material as the Russian where able to do the same unmanned.
Again misrepresenting my point.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Your logic if completely flawed.
Just because something was designed to do a specific task does mean an alternative solution does not exist or the technology did not exist.
My car cannot fly but that does not mean we do not have the technology to make a plane!
If the mars rover was designed to take photos this does not mean we cannot design a rover to do something else.
First I am saying it's the combination of issues and improbabilities.
I listed all of the things that the hypothetical rover would have had to be able to do. If the technology existed since the 60s to make such a rover work, then we would be using this type of rover all the time for everything since it would be superior to every single rover we've ever put anywhere.
So we aren't we using this type of rover now?
How come none of the rovers we've used have been able to do any of the stuff the hypothetical rover must have been able to do?
Also, I stated that it might be possible to make such a rover in the 60s given enough time and money. But I pointed out that it would be impossible to hide such a project.
Nasa still have the samples. But as the site (which I am sure you looked over after you asked for it) shows they give these samples out to research institutions all the time.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Which leads me to the main alternative theory, they didn't bring back 22Kilo of material and or rocks.
As pointed out NASA still have the majority of the samples, of the samples sent as gifts a lot are unaccounted for and as you already pointed out they only made up a very small portion of the alleged 22Kilo.
The Goodwill rocks are irrelevant frankly.0 -
Advertisement
-
The tech to remotely get moon rocks up to 11kg in mass back to earth does not currently exist. It's therefore extremely unlikely it existed in 1969 - 1971
I am not sure where you are getting this data?
So what are you saying a lander could not do multiple recoveries or rock?
Or it cannot lift more than 11kilo in one sitting?
Please explain what you mean by this?
Have you ever seen the the Luna 16? it was sent up in 1970 by the Russian's it was essentially a large hook and a cup on the end of stick with a video camera.
Also the below..is surely answered by what you say next
i.e. they did bring back 22 kilos, but as explained, over the decades, samples have gone missing
"According to the Office of Inspector General, out of the 26,000 samples NASA has on loan, it has lost just 517," "That's not to excuse the space agency and its curators, but with so many samples spread across the globe, some losses are probably to be expected."
http://www.space.com/13878-nasa-apollo-moon-rocks-misplaced-lost-report.html
We have established it was possible to bring back samples unmanned the question is how much could of been brought back unmanned?
I am not sure where you get the figure max 11Kilos and 11Kilos where? Considering 11Kilo on the moon would be around 66kilo on earth.
The argument put forward was that the volume and size of the samples would have been impossible to do without a manned mission.
Let's say that is the case, it would now need to be established.
1. All the moon rock is authentic
2. And the volume alleged can be verified?
The gifted moon rock was only a marginal amount.
As for the moon rock on loan some has went missing and some of it has been found to be fake.
The larger moon rocks we have where not collected but fell as meteorites so we need to also rule them out.
Whatever we have left would still need to be an amount here you could say.
No way could we have gather that without putting someone up there!0 -
Simply not true. No moon rocks were found to be fake.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »The gifted moon rock was only a marginal amount.
As for the moon rock on loan some has went missing and some of it has been found to be fake.
If this is not the case, please provide a source.
Not possible. Because 1. lunar rocks have a different structure and features for meteorites and meteorites have different structure and and features from lunar rocks. One cannot pass off for the other to a trained geologist.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »The larger moon rocks we have where not collected but fell as meteorites so we need to also rule them out.
2. There isn't even enough meteorite samples to cover the amount returned by Apollo.0 -
Simply not true. No moon rocks were found to be fake.
If this is not the case, please provide a source.
Not possible. Because 1. lunar rocks have a different structure and features for meteorites and meteorites have different structure and and features from lunar rocks. One cannot pass off for the other to a trained geologist.
2. There isn't even enough meteorite samples to cover the amount returned by Apollo.
I know the moon rock gifted to the Dutch prime minister by Aldrin and Armstrong turned out to be fake ... Embarrassing story0 -
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I am not sure where you are getting this data?
So what are you saying a lander could not do multiple recoveries or rock?
Or it cannot lift more than 11kilo in one sitting?
Please explain what you mean by this?
Data? we don't have any craft capable of doing the above. It would have to be researched, designed, developed, etc.We have established it was possible to bring back samples unmanned the question is how much could of been brought back unmanned?
I am not sure where you get the figure max 11Kilos and 11Kilos where? Considering 11Kilo on the moon would be around 66kilo on earth.
One single large rock - 11.7 kg "Big Muley"The argument put forward was that the volume and size of the samples would have been impossible to do without a manned mission.
Let's say that is the case, it would now need to be established.
1. All the moon rock is authentic
2. And the volume alleged can be verified?
The gifted moon rock was only a marginal amount.
As for the moon rock on loan some has went missing and some of it has been found to be fake.
The larger moon rocks we have where not collected but fell as meteorites so we need to also rule them out.
Whatever we have left would still need to be an amount here you could say.
No way could we have gather that without putting someone up there!
You entire argument hinges on the word "impossible", and countering it with hypothetical possibilities no matter how implausible
If I said right now, it was "very very very very difficult" (or next to impossible) to fake a manned mission to the moon and instead land a craft that was specifically designed and capable of bringing back 22kg/380kg of material, without any of this being leaked in any way - then you'd probably agree0 -
Can you provide a source for this? Picture of the rock?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
There are more sources .. I googled it because I knew about this from a few years back0 -
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01471/rock_1471511c.jpghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
There are more sources .. I googled it because I knew about this from a few years back
This is the supposed moon rock.
No such rocks like that were ever given out by NASA and no rock matching that one appears on any catalog of samples.
These are the rocks gifted to the Netherlands:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Netherlands_Apollo_11_display.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Netherlands_Apollo_17_display.jpg
There is absolutely nothing at all to think that fake rock was ever presented to anyone as a genuine moon rock.
Here are some good videos detailing the story with a lot more depth that explains why it was falsely believed to be a moon rock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGQhArtFqIM0 -
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01471/rock_1471511c.jpg
This is the supposed moon rock.
No such rocks like that were ever given out by NASA and no rock matching that one appears on any catalog of samples.
These are the rocks gifted to the Netherlands:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Netherlands_Apollo_11_display.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Netherlands_Apollo_17_display.jpg
There is absolutely nothing at all to think that fake rock was ever presented to anyone as a genuine moon rock.
Here are some good videos detailing the story with a lot more depth that explains why it was falsely believed to be a moon rock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGQhArtFqIM
Like I said an embarrassing story ... It created quite a stir and was discussed in various news programs .... How the two got linked is still something no one knows ... But thanks for the related info0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »A theory is just a guess the better the foundation for the guess the more probable and credible the guess is.
When making a guess you need to be careful with assumptions specifically assumptions around certainty.
My theory being if they had the ability to actually send a man to the moon, the expertise and money then they equally had the ability to fake it and make it convincing.
Mine is an opinion I've never tried to pass it off as fact, I've never pretended to be an expert in the fields necessary to confirm the theory or to rebuke it.
The other OP however tries to disprove it by saying it is impossible, well now not impossible but "impossible for practical purposes"...
To prove or disprove a theory requires actual hard knowledge in a sphere which I am pretty sure no one here really has.
I can state the theory, I am not trying to prove it simply that no one here can disprove it.
Does that make any sense to you?
Here's what I'm seeing:I can state the theory, I am not trying to prove it simply that no one here
can disprove it.
You're arguing against the conventional facts of the Apollo case, based on the semantics of another person, arguing quantum-physics level uncertainty principles, and you don't even support the conspiracy-theory necessary to even have this discussion?I agree it being faked is unlikely, but I do not think it is not worth any consideration.
Well, you see there, you spent a lot of electrons and time arguing with someone's use of the word "impossible" rather than yourself do any research. Let's recap:The OP is making assertions about engineering capabilities that only a trained engineer could possible if he is not a trained engineer then as I already stated it is just an opinion, the OP is claiming he is posting "facts".
I made the assumption that we are talking about the apollo 11 landing people would have educated themselves in the missions running up to the apollo 11 but here is the wiki link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon
It gives you all the dates and details of the failed missions and successful missions
I see... :rolleyes:
I could argue that I annoy you and even though you are a mod your bias is more to try and score points because you find me objectionable.
Also your opinion which you are entitled too like the OP is just opinion but I need to question anyone who criticizes scientific method who show no aptitude to do any real research, providing the missions to the moon took me all of I dunno 3 seconds to google.
You then proceeded to say "the Russians put something on the moon" and also offered no citation. Further you didn't even provide enough of a reference in that statement for one to know off hand which mission or some-thing you are referring to. How is that at all academic? How is that not a double standard in the same manner as you criticizing another user's semantics?I am taking this from an acedemic perspective if was to write "impossible" in any scientific paper I ever submitted I would need to back it up with nothing less than concrete 100% proof and even then saying impossible would be a dubious choice of words.
Fact is if you aren't going to support the theory, and all you want to do is continue soapboxing the theory while trying to criticize anyone who offers a rebuttal, you are going to be asked to leave this thread permanently. Do you actually want to defend, research, and constructively discuss the theory that a remote/unmanned probe was used in a fake moon landing (or for that matter anything else to say the landing(s) were faked), or are you genuinely just wasting everyone's time? Think carefully. We will not waste any more time here entertaining 'this is a theory, I can't prove it I can't deny it and anything you try to say against it is invalid'0 -
Data? we don't have any craft capable of doing the above. It would have to be researched, designed, developed, etc.
One single large rock - 11.7 kg "Big Muley"
Firstly Big Muley was not taken back by the apollo 11 mission it was a later mission so was not part of the 22Kilo we are talking about.
Also 11KG on earth is just under 2Kilo on the moon so about the weight of 2 liters of Milk.
And I need to be clear on this, 22 Kilo on the moon is 3.65 kilo.
Are you saying we cannot and could not develop a machine to lift the weight of 3 bags of sugar from the moon?? Is that what you are saying?
Are you saying an arm like the one Lune 16 would not of been capable of handling the weight?You entire argument hinges on the word "impossible", and countering it with hypothetical possibilities no matter how implausible
If I said right now, it was "very very very very difficult" (or next to impossible) to fake a manned mission to the moon and instead land a craft that was specifically designed and capable of bringing back 22kg/380kg of material, without any of this being leaked in any way - then you'd probably agree
I would agree yes it was difficult and yes it would be difficult to fake.
But I am also weighing that against how difficult the moon landing was in the first place combined with the budget NASA had.0 -
Advertisement
-
You then proceeded to say "the Russians put something on the moon" and also offered no citation. Further you didn't even provide enough of a reference in that statement for one to know off hand which mission or some-thing you are referring to. How is that at all academic? How is that not a double standard in the same manner as you criticizing another user's semantics?
You are talking about the moon landings.
There was I think around 11 or 12 successful missions before Apollo 11 that landed landers and impactors on the moon.
I thought I was stating the obvious but I then later provided you the link.Fact is if you aren't going to support the theory, and all you want to do is continue soapboxing the theory while trying to criticize anyone who offers a rebuttal, you are going to be asked to leave this thread permanently. Do you actually want to defend, research, and constructively discuss the theory that a remote/unmanned probe was used in a fake moon landing (or for that matter anything else to say the landing(s) were faked), or are you genuinely just wasting everyone's time? Think carefully. We will not waste any more time here entertaining 'this is a theory, I can't prove it I can't deny it and anything you try to say against it is invalid'
I think your frustration has made you a irrational, I do not think the moon landing was fake, my contention was always that I think it possible NASA could of faked it.
I have submitted political reasons for faking the moon landing, possible reasons to why the US government would fake it if they could not achieve it.
I was met with "Why would they fake it if they knew they could do it" and "If they faked it the Russian's would know".
These are hardly conclusive but are being argued as if they are.
Now we come to the "technology" on one hand it is being argued that we had the technology to send men to the moon but not an unmanned craft to the moon.
As I pointed out many crafts had already been sent to the moon unmanned.
The next argument was that if the Apollo 11 was unammned it would need to have been controlled remotely from earth and "the Russians would know"...
Would they?
To make grandiose statement like "The Russians would know..." The facts are, we do not know what the Russians knew or anything about what they where doing but the OP wants to keep saying that. Equally I could just say "The Russians could never of found out"
Next we move to the moon rocks.
I point out that the Luna 16 did bring back samples, small amount yet but we did have the technology to do it.
OP argues we do not have the technology to do it.
An argument emerges that nothing could lift 11Kilo the larges rock taken back which I think was apollo 16 but none the less, I point out that 11Kilo is only 2kilo on the moon why do they think a rover or a device like the one on luna 16 could not lift 2kilo from the surface of the moon?
Next I point out that a lot of the 22Kilo taken back is either uncounted for still in the possession of NASA and some has even been found to be fake.
Links where provided for all of this already but here it is again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks
This also outlines the ones that turned out to be fake, I see that King Mob was demanding the source earlier in the thread but this is the second time I have provided this link I suggest he read it this time.
I like a good debate, yes I can come across a little strong but I enjoy the back and forth, King Mob albeit frustrates me but he has given me some stuff to think about.
Before you pulled me on my use of language which I accept, now you trying to kick me because you are presenting a weak argument and trying to use charter rules to justify it.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Are you saying we cannot and could not develop a machine to lift the weight of 3 bags of sugar from the moon?? Is that what you are saying?
I said we don't have the tech. Want to send an unmmanned mission to the moon to collect kg's of rocks and return? needs to be designed and tested from scratch
Probably relative easier and quicker to send a manned mission up considering that's been done before several timesI would agree yes it was difficult and yes it would be difficult to fake.
But I am also weighing that against how difficult the moon landing was in the first place combined with the budget NASA had.
I get what you are saying but the argument is in a strange realm
It was technically difficult to go to the moon therefore (insert difficult hypothetical theory with no evidence here) could be plausible
I'm not sure that type of debate works0 -
None of those fake moon rocks were ever presented as actual moon samples by anyone at NASA.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks
This also outlines the ones that turned out to be fake, I see that King Mob was demanding the source earlier in the thread but this is the second time I have provided this link I suggest he read it this time.
I have read it and it does not say what you claim it says.0 -
I said we don't have the tech. Want to send an unmmanned mission to the moon to collect kg's of rocks and return? needs to be designed and tested from scratch
Probably relative easier and quicker to send a manned mission up considering that's been done before several times
I get what you are saying but the argument is in a strange realm
It was technically difficult to go to the moon therefore (insert difficult hypothetical theory with no evidence here) could be plausible
I'm not sure that type of debate works
No not hypothetical theory with no evidence, soviets did return samples, we are talking about doing something on a larger scale than what was accomplished in 1970 by a country with a fraction of the budget of NASA.
Also discrepancies have been outlined already with missing moon rock and moon rock that turned out to be fake, at very least people could understandably question and authenticity of the 22 kilos.
Also the idea we don't have the tech I do not think is a fair assessment this is an engineering question, it's not that we don't have the tech it more that to our knowledge an engineering solution has never been built or revealed.
In terms of tech today I think the absence of a solution is more due to not needing a solution not that a solution could not be delivered.
I don't have a flame thrower on my car doesn't mean one couldn't be added.0 -
None of those fake moon rocks were ever presented as actual moon samples by anyone at NASA.
I have read it and it does not say what you claim it says.
What was believed to be a moon rock was proven to be fake.
You really are getting into semantics now:
"The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on October 9, 1969 from then-US ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their ‘Giant Leap’ goodwill tour after the first moon landing."
So this was presented by the US ambassador and the astronauts of the Apollo 11...
This was not something bought of ebay!
Why are they handing out fake rocks? Sure they had kilos of the stuff!0 -
So what leads you to believe that the rock was presented by either J. William Middendorf or the Apollo astronauts in the first place?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »What was believed to be a moon rock was proven to be fake.
You really are getting into semantics now:
"The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on October 9, 1969 from then-US ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their ‘Giant Leap’ goodwill tour after the first moon landing."
So this was presented by the US ambassador and the astronauts of the Apollo 11...
This was not something bought of ebay!
What have you done to actually confirm this?
After all you are using the words "Proven fake", so I assume you are holding yourself to the same standards you are demanding of everyone else?
I posted two videos that details how no one at NASA actually present that rock as a moon sample.
I assume you have not watched them?
You tell me. What is the conspiracy explaination for this?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Why are they handed out fake rocks? Sure they had kilos of the stuff!
Why did they hand out an obviously fake rock, completely different from and much larger than the ones given to other countries, to a former Dutch prime minister who had been retired for 10 years before they visited?
Why, if you are accusing them of hording all of the samples to presumably prevent them from being outed as fake or non-existent would they allow one of these rocks out of their hands, put on display to the public, then actually be tested, then allow the news story to break?0 -
So what leads you to believe that the rock was presented by either J. William Middendorf or the Apollo astronauts in the first place?
What have you done to actually confirm this?
After all you are using the words "Proven fake"
No these are not my words this is the title on the wiki page
Dutch moon rock proven fake
Here is the BBC report if you like:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8226075.stm
They say "Fake Dutch 'moon rock' revealed"so I assume you are holding yourself to the same standards you are demanding of everyone else?
This is not my opinion something you tend give a lot of, this is simply what I have read. It is a source and is widely accepted.I posted two videos that details how no one at NASA actually present that rock as a moon sample.
I assume you have not watched them?
What difference does it make? I am saying the thought to be moon rock was fake and it was fake.You tell me. What is the conspiracy explaination for this?
Why did they hand out an obviously fake rock, completely different from and much larger than the ones given to other countries, to a former Dutch prime minister who had been retired for 10 years before they visited?
Why, if you are accusing them of hording all of the samples to presumably prevent them from being outed as fake or non-existent would they allow one of these rocks out of their hands, put on display to the public, then actually be tested, then allow the news story to break?
I have not accused them of anything, you seem to let yourself get carried away with your own conspiracy theories!
I am saying some are missing some turned out to be fake and the rest NASA still has.
I am trying to verify the quantity of moon rock and whether it is genuine....
As I am unable to do this and because some are missing and some even turned out to be fake I can understand why on one side of an argument someone might say:
"Moon rocks there you go proof on a manned mission"
and someone else going
"Hmm did we confirm they are moon rocks? Are we sure? None of them turned out to be fake? Oh they did, some or missing NASA has the rest......"
OK0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »No not hypothetical theory with no evidence, soviets did return samples, we are talking about doing something on a larger scale than what was accomplished in 1970 by a country with a fraction of the budget of NASA.
A secretly designed rover which could robotically and remotely chip off and collect 22 kg's of rock and soil samples in 20 odd hours and return to earth is very different from those Soviet craft
And for the same to happen again 4 months later also ups the difficulty
Plus this would be just one component of a much larger and flawless hoax, each part exponentially increasing the difficulty level to near impossible
Which is why the argument often seems to end up on a semantics debate on the definition of "impossible"0 -
The videos show that the source is a very badly researched article and it explains why people believe that it was a moon rock when NASA never actually presented it to anyone and no one at NASA actually presented it as a moon rock.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »This is not my opinion something you tend give a lot of, this is simply what I have read. It is a source and is widely accepted.
What difference does it make? I am saying the thought to be moon rock was fake and it was fake.
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/Lunar/index.cfmShowMeTheCash wrote: »I am saying some are missing some turned out to be fake and the rest NASA still has.
I am trying to verify the quantity of moon rock and whether it is genuine....
Here you go again. There is a catalogue of the lunar samples from all missions
None of these have been shown to be fake. Only a tiny fraction of these are missing and they are labeled as such.
So what point are you trying to make?0 -
Advertisement
-
A secretly designed rover which could robotically and remotely chip off and collect 22 kg's of rock and soil samples in 20 odd hours and return to earth is very different from those Soviet craft
Most designs are secret calling them a secretly designed does not add any weight to the statement.
I would say they would need to be very different to the soviet craft was built on half the budget of the Americans.
Also the authenticity of the moon rocks themselves are being questioned and not without cause so it could be argued the alleged 22 Kilos.And for the same to happen again 4 months later also ups the difficulty
Plus this would be just one component of a much larger and flawless hoax, each part exponentially increasing the difficulty level to near impossible
My original argument was solely around the Apollo 11 mission however, albeit I agree the hoax is unlikely and it would of been by no means easy the fact remains we really do not know how easy or hard it would have been to fake unless it was actually faked and we are provided with information to how it was faked only then could we ascertain the "exponentially increasing difficultly level" and deliberate that it was near impossible.
Your opinion maybe that it was near impossible I am saying we cannot say it was impossible.Which is why the argument often seems to end up on a semantics debate on the definition of "impossible"
Perhaps but the word impossible leaves no room for error, it's like someone saying "This is a fact" when it's not a fact it just an opinion.0
Advertisement