When will the Lunar landings be accepted?

King Mob

kidneyfan wrote: »

I always wonder 'what's the real story here?'
If it was so easy to go to the moon in the '70s why can't we go there now etc.

This inane point has been addressed before.
Lack of funding and political will.

We had a supersonic airliner in the 70s. We don't have one now.
Therefore Concorde never existed, right?

Can you explain what exactly made it impossible to go to the moon in 1969?

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

Y
However, it is much simpler to accept how ridiculous the conspiracy would have to be for them to only fake some of the rock, but then also build a secret robot to collect other rocks and also pay off the thousands of geologists in their employ to prevent them from blabbing...
And all based on the idea that Apollo 11 might have not been able to land for some unknown reason.

And even then, there was nothing stopping the Russians from getting their hands on the samples that Nasa somehow lost track off in the midst of their masterful decades long deception...

Every single aspect of the conspiracy just gets more and more ridiculous the more scrutiny you put on it.
There is no reasonable or rational version of the conspiracy that's worth giving any serious consideration.

You argue like a child, you make statements much like a child and quantify it with "prove me wrong".....

My argument was never that all these conspiracy theories add up, my original comment was around how reasonable questions are met with "Oh you're one of these conspiracy lot"....
I point out that due to political and economic pressure a plan to fake the moon landing may very well have been considered.

I would say most of what you have posted on here is just opinion backed up with very little with the exception of the moon rocks.

The moon rocks as I already stated are probably the best physical proof of a manned moon landed despite the fact that unmanned samples have been retrieved by other lunar landers.

The question around how much unmanned samples logistically could of been retrieved before you really would have had to send a manned mission is still a vague.

I will look at the link, most of the links whereby I see independent study of lunar samples are of lunar soil and not the rock.
But we know a manned mission was not necessary to retrieve soil samples.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I point out that due to political and economic pressure a plan to fake the moon landing may very well have been considered.

And the point you are missing is that any version of the plan to fake the landing you can suggest would either be too politically risky or too ridiculously expensive and resource intensive to attempt.
Especially given that they had more launches only a few months away so they could try again if they needed to, and the Russians were years away.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I would say most of what you have posted on here is just opinion backed up with very little with the exception of the moon rocks.

You keep claiming this, yet ironically have problems pointing out which of my opinions require any support...

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The moon rocks as I already stated are probably the best physical proof of a manned moon landed despite the fact that unmanned samples have been retrieved by other lunar landers.

Ok. Which unmanned lunar landers were able to retrieve several different intact lunar rocks?
How were they able to retrieve and stow and return such rocks?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The question around how much unmanned samples logistically could of been retrieved before you really would have had to send a manned mission is still a vague.

Not really. The question is only vague if you keep pretending that a few grams of soil samples from one spot is somehow the same as several kilograms of samples that include several intact rocks.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I will look at the link, most of the links whereby I see independent study of lunar samples are of lunar soil and not the rock.
But we know a manned mission was not necessary to retrieve soil samples.

The paper I linked to specifically refers to intact rock samples.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

Here is one example:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB076i023p05770/abstract

.

This link requires a paid subscription, did you read the full article or are you just take little bits of information?

I know some rocks have been examined. I think I already mentioned Dr Michio Kaku talking on a broadcast where he says he actually examined a moon rock sample.

You made a statements that there is no way an unmanned mission could retrieve the X kilo of moon rock taken back by the apollo 11 mission, even if I accept that to be true which I don't, posting a link which gives half a page on 7 rocks does not support that all the samples are genuine nor does it support that NASA retrieved the amount stated. It just shows these 7 rocks look to be genuine.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Which unmanned lunar landers were able to retrieve several different intact lunar rocks?
How were they able to retrieve and stow and return such rocks?

So in one hand the Americans where years ahead of the Russians who brought back soil samples, but despite being years ahead of the Russians bringing back rocks is just a step to far.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This link requires a paid subscription, did you read the full article or are you just take little bits of information?

The abstract and the fact it was published is enough to prove my point.
Independent scientists studied Moon rocks.
What more information do you need? Or are you just looking for an excuse to disregard that fact?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You made a statements that there is no way an unmanned mission could retrieve the X kilo of moon rock taken back by the apollo 11 mission, even if I accept that to be true which I don't, posting a link which gives half a page on 7 rocks does not support that all the samples are genuine nor does it support that NASA retrieved the amount stated. It just shows these 7 rocks look to be genuine.

It shows that independent scientists studied moon rocks.
No unmanned probe at that time would have been able to retrieve those particular samples.

So what are you suggesting now? That these scientists were somehow duped by fakes? Or are they, and every geologist for the past 40 years has been bribed by Nasa?

But this is the evidence you asked for and said didn't exist. Now you are blatantly moving the goalposts.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So in one hand the Americans where years ahead of the Russians who brought back soil samples, but despite being years ahead of the Russians bringing back rocks is just a step to far.

The Americans were years ahead in the project to land humans on the Moon.
The Russians were ahead on unmanned landers.
Neither had the technology needed to retrieve intact lunar rocks.
They could have perhaps developed this technology, but there is no evidence they did and such a project would have been very very difficult to develop in secret.

Please stop misrepresenting my arguments.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

The abstract and the fact it was published is enough to prove my point.
Independent scientists studied Moon rocks.
What more information do you need? Or are you just looking for an excuse to disregard that fact?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I already mentioned pages ago that I know some moon samples have been examined by independent scientists.

Let me break this down for you.
Examining some samples does not demonstrate that all samples are genuine.

King Mob wrote: »

It shows that independent scientists studied moon rocks.

I already said this.

King Mob wrote: »

No unmanned probe at that time would have been able to retrieve those particular samples.

Says you, which goes back to my previous point, just an opinion backed up by very little.

King Mob wrote: »

So what are you suggesting now? That these scientists were somehow duped by fakes? Or are they, and every geologist for the past 40 years has been bribed by Nasa?

No, please read what I am saying before jumping to your own CT.

King Mob wrote: »

The Americans were years ahead in the project to land humans on the Moon.
The Russians were ahead on unmanned landers.
Neither had the technology needed to retrieve intact lunar rocks.

Again not fact just your opinion.

King Mob wrote: »

They could have perhaps developed this technology, but there is no evidence they did and such a project would have been very very difficult to develop in secret.

Perhaps, I don't know enough about what the NASA engineering teams had thought up in the late 1960s

King Mob wrote: »

Please stop misrepresenting my arguments.

Stop trying to pass off what you think as some kind of fact.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I already mentioned pages ago that I know some moon samples have been examined by independent scientists.

Let me break this down for you.
Examining some samples does not demonstrate that all samples are genuine.

What would demonstrate that all of the samples are genuine?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I already said this.

You have also said:

I will look at the link, most of the links whereby I see independent study of lunar samples are of lunar soil and not the rock.

And you have also said:

What I also read was anyone applying to examine the moon rocks had to be vetted and access to the samples by independent parties was to borrow a phrase near impossible.

So do you agree now that independent scientists have studied genuine moon rocks supplied by Nasa?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Says you, which goes back to my previous point, just an opinion backed up by very little.

No this is a fact.
The only probe that had returned samples at that time did so using a stationary drill. This cannot be used to collect an intact rock.

No probe at that time or now has the ability to collect an intact rock and return it to Earth.
This is a fact.

If such a probe existed now or then, it must have been developed in secret, adding an extra layer of ridiculousness to the conspiracy.

Which part of this statement is an opinion? Which part of this statement is wrong?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Again not fact just your opinion.

Perhaps, I don't know enough about what the NASA engineering teams had thought up in the late 1960s

Can you point to any technology at the time that would have allowed a probe to collect an intact moon rock? Yes or no?

If no, then either my statement stands or you are relying on another ridiculous layer to the conspiracy.

kidneyfan

We can't say for sure that there was a moon landing and we won't be able to until some other country goes back there.

Overheal

My original comment was around how reasonable questions are met with "Oh you're one of these conspiracy lot"....

I'm not seeing anyone in this thread making such remarks, which are against the charter and should be reported if seen. Nobody is dismissing the conspiracy out of hand because it is a conspiracy, just as nobody would be allowed into the 9/11 forum just to proclaim everyone posting there were 'just a bunch of truthers.'

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

What would demonstrate that all of the samples are genuine?

Probably not an easy ask, but the Russians this summer asked for access to all the samples so maybe then it can be put to bed.

King Mob wrote: »

You have also said:

That still stands true most of the studies i've read refer to soil samples, I did say most not all.

King Mob wrote: »

And you have also said:

So Geologists where not vetted? Also what point are you making?
Getting access to the lunar samples was not easy, I never said that no one got to examine them.

King Mob wrote: »

So do you agree now that independent scientists have studied genuine moon rocks supplied by Nasa?

At no point did I ever say they didn't.

King Mob wrote: »

No this is a fact.
The only probe that had returned samples at that time did so using a stationary drill. This cannot be used to collect an intact rock.

Before you go off on your next rant about technology answer me this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16

What is this?

Looking at the "technology" it equates to a cup on the end of a stick...
You keep harping on about the technology but really all that is required is something just a little more sophisticated than a scope on the end of a stick to lift samples from the moons surface.

ShowMeTheCash

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not seeing anyone in this thread making such remarks, which are against the charter and should be reported if seen. Nobody is dismissing the conspiracy out of hand because it is a conspiracy, just as nobody would be allowed into the 9/11 forum just to proclaim everyone posting there were 'just a bunch of truthers.'

No they defer to "mind rays"!

Overheal

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Before you go off on your next rant about technology answer me this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16

What is this?

"Less than an hour after landing, at 06:03 UT, an automatic drill penetrated the lunar surface to collect a soil sample. After drilling for 7 minutes, the drill reached a stop at 35 centimeters depth and then withdrew its sample and lifted it in an arc to the top of the spacecraft, depositing the lunar material in a small spherical capsule mounted on the main spacecraft bus. The column of regolith in the drill tube was then transferred to the soil sample container.
Finally, after 26 hours and 25 minutes on the lunar surface at 07:43 UT on 21 September, the spacecraft's upper stage lifted off from the Moon. The lower stage of Luna 16 remained on the lunar surface and continued transmission of lunar temperature and radiation data. Three days later on 24 September, after a direct ascent traverse with no mid-course corrections, the capsule, with its 101 grams of lunar soil, reentered Earth's atmosphere at a velocity of 11 kilometers per second. The capsule parachuted down 80 kilometers "

100g of soil equivalent:

ShowMeTheCash

Overheal wrote: »

"Less than an hour after landing, at 06:03 UT, an automatic drill penetrated the lunar surface to collect a soil sample. After drilling for 7 minutes, the drill reached a stop at 35 centimeters depth and then withdrew its sample and lifted it in an arc to the top of the spacecraft, depositing the lunar material in a small spherical capsule mounted on the main spacecraft bus. The column of regolith in the drill tube was then transferred to the soil sample container.
Finally, after 26 hours and 25 minutes on the lunar surface at 07:43 UT on 21 September, the spacecraft's upper stage lifted off from the Moon. The lower stage of Luna 16 remained on the lunar surface and continued transmission of lunar temperature and radiation data. Three days later on 24 September, after a direct ascent traverse with no mid-course corrections, the capsule, with its 101 grams of lunar soil, reentered Earth's atmosphere at a velocity of 11 kilometers per second. The capsule parachuted down 80 kilometers "

100g of soil equivalent:

And?

ShowMeTheCash

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No they defer to "mind rays"!

You have to be the most biased Mod I have met on boards yet.
You say on one hand that no one is making these types of remarks but at least half a dozen times I have been met with the "mind ray" comment.
I now highlight in demonstration of what you say has not happened and you hit me with a warning for pointing out exactly what you tell me to report?

I'm not seeing anyone in this thread making such remarks, which are against the charter and should be reported if seen.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Probably not an easy ask, but the Russians this summer asked for access to all the samples so maybe then it can be put to bed.

So leaving aside asking for a source for this and how it's probably a cheap political move and how all sample have been accessible to actual scientists.

Are you saying that the only possible way to prove that the samples are genuine is to test 100% of every single one specifically to ensure they are genuine?
And until then, the idea of a conspiracy is a viable possibility?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So Geologists where not vetted? Also what point are you making?
Getting access to the lunar samples was not easy, I never said that no one got to examine them.

You said that it was "near impossible". I assumed, that given how you've been a stickler for how that word is used, that you actually meant near impossible.

But you agree that it is not near impossible.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

At no point did I ever say they didn't.

Great, so we can exclude fake rocks as a possibility.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Before you go off on your next rant about technology answer me this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16

What is this?

A probe that was radio controlled from Earth that collected a few grams worth of soil samples using a stationary drill.
The probe did not have the ability to retrieve an intact rock.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Looking at the "technology" it equates to a cup on the end of a stick...
You keep harping on about the technology but really all that is required is something just a little more sophisticated than a scope on the end of a stick to lift samples from the moons surface.

But I've detailed exactly why the technology must be more than a cup on the end of a stick in a previous post.
I explained all of the capabilities that a probe would require to retrieve the samples returned by Apollo. They were extensive and a bit more elaborate than a scoop and a stick.

But lets think on it a bit more:
First and foremost, a scoop on the end of a stick requires that a rock that can fit into the scoop is within reach of the lander and loose so that it can be scooped up. That's a bit risk to take if a vast and ridiculous conspiracy hinges on it.

Second even if we assume they get lucky and there are an abundance of such rocks in reach, how would the arm actually get them?
Even the collection arm on the Luna probes were remote controlled.

Would these scoops have been remote controlled?
Could they move autonomously?
Or was it a really simple one that only scooped out one area and the Nasa guys just got really really lucky?

Overheal

And?

And it's not this:



So to your point, Luna 16 does not satisfy the argument being proposed - that an unmanned was capable of collecting such large samples.

kidneyfan

Overheal wrote: »

And it's not this:
So to your point, Luna 16 does not satisfy the argument being proposed - that an unmanned was capable of collecting such large samples.

On the contrary ; you may (or may not) have demonstrated that Luna 16 did not collect such large samples but you have not demonstrated that an unmanned probe could not collect them. Perhaps they were collected by a different unmanned probe.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

So leaving aside asking for a source for this and how it's probably a cheap political move and how all sample have been accessible to actual scientists.

Are you saying that the only possible way to prove that the samples are genuine is to test 100% of every single one specifically to ensure they are genuine?
And until then, the idea of a conspiracy is a viable possibility?

Not all conspiracies have merit some more than others, but in terms of possible it has to be allowed perhaps not very probable.

King Mob wrote: »

You said that it was "near impossible". I assumed, that given how you've been a stickler for how that word is used, that you actually meant near impossible.

But you agree that it is not near impossible.

I was making fun of you when I made this statement, I even said "to borrow a phrase."

Overheal

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You have to be the most biased Mod I have met on boards yet.
You say on one hand that no one is making these types of remarks but at least half a dozen times I have been met with the "mind ray" comment.
I now highlight in demonstration of what you say has not happened and you hit me with a warning for pointing out exactly what you tell me to report?

I'm not seeing anyone in this thread making such remarks, which are against
the charter and should be reported if seen.

You must have completely missed your last ban and the multitude of warnings related to arguing on thread with the moderation. PM me if you wish to complain about the moderation, you are banned until you do so, or for 30 days, your choice.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Not all conspiracies have merit some more than others, but in terms of possible it has to be allowed perhaps not very probable.

And this brings me back to the point I've been trying to make for the last dozen or so pages.
Possible does not equal worthy of consideration.

At what point does it stop being necessary to examine the moon rocks that are already quite freely available and extensively studied for you to conclude that the conspiracy is not worth considering?

King Mob

kidneyfan wrote: »

Perhaps they were collected by a different unmanned probe.

Ok. Where did this probe get developed? When and how was it launched? How was it kept secret from the Russians?
How was it able to collect large, intact lunar rocks, something no probe past or present is capable of doing?

DamagedTrax

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Where did this probe get developed? When and how was it launched? How was it kept secret from the Russians?
How was it able to collect large, intact lunar rocks, something no probe past or present is capable of doing?

i dont know much about this whole theory but i just wanted to point out that the unmanned russian luna probe collected moon rock in the 70s. ive no idea on size or anything else.

sorry, if its been mentioned all ready, its hard to read and keep up with this thread at the same time!

kidneyfan

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Where did this probe get developed? When and how was it launched? How was it kept secret from the Russians?
How was it able to collect large, intact lunar rocks, something no probe past or present is capable of doing?

Good questions!

kidneyfan

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i dont know much about this whole theory but i just wanted to point out that the unmanned russian luna probe collected moon rock in the 70s. ive no idea on size or anything else.

sorry, if its been mentioned all ready, its hard to read and keep up with this thread at the same time!

so far as we know Luna only collected small pellety rocks and nothing like as many rocks or the type of rocks that were collected either by human astronauts on the moon's surface or by an as yet unidentified unmanned probe.

DamagedTrax

kidneyfan wrote: »

so far as we know Luna only collected small pellety rocks and nothing like as many rocks or the type of rocks that were collected either by human astronauts on the moon's surface or by an as yet unidentified unmanned probe.

i can find the total weight returned (320g) but nothing on size.

King Mob

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i dont know much about this whole theory but i just wanted to point out that the unmanned russian luna probe collected moon rock in the 70s. ive no idea on size or anything else.

sorry, if its been mentioned all ready, its hard to read and keep up with this thread at the same time!

Yes, it has been mentioned several times.

The Russian probes were only able to collect a few hundred grams of soil drilled out of a single spot.

The Apollo 11 samples totaled over 20 Kilograms including several large intact rocks of various different types.

The Russian probes or comparable probes are not capable of retrieving samples like this. No modern probes are capable of this either.

King Mob

kidneyfan wrote: »

Good questions!

That you can't answer I assume?

So the possibilities are either
A) we went to the moon
or
Nasa somehow developed a probe more advanced and capable than any probe we have today, did so and launched a series of them to the Moon totally in secret, then never once used that technology ever again... because we couldn't go to the moon for... some reason.

These possibilities are not equally likely.

kidneyfan

King Mob wrote: »

That you can't answer I assume?

So the possibilities are either
A) we went to the moon
or
Nasa somehow developed a probe more advanced and capable than any probe we have today, did so and launched a series of them to the Moon totally in secret, then never once used that technology ever again... because we couldn't go to the moon for... some reason.

These possibilities are not equally likely.

I would suggest that the first should be rewritten:
The Americans went to the moon about five or six times then gave it up as a bad job and never went back and the technology to get to the moon was never used again; but they did bring a cine camera and an American flag.

Overheal

What were the specs of Luna's drill? that would communicate what the largest size fragment it could collect was; which is a fraction of the total drill size (it is limited to traveling up and around the corkscrew groove of the drill).