Moon Rock a Fake

Firefox10 · 29-08-2009 02:05AM #1

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 · 29-08-2009 03:04AM

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 · 29-08-2009 03:53AM

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 · 29-08-2009 04:45AM

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 · 29-08-2009 04:54AM

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

Mahatma coat · 29-08-2009 05:57AM

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 · 29-08-2009 06:07AM

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

Stay off the beer mohatama gandi

meglome · 29-08-2009 06:13AM

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 · 29-08-2009 10:33AM

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 · 29-08-2009 11:17AM

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

abouttobebanned · 29-08-2009 11:23AM

What kind of sicko goes around petrifying wood?

Duff · 29-08-2009 12:40PM

abouttobebanned wrote: »

What kind of sicko goes around petrifying wood?

That damn Basilisk from Harry Potter. :mad:

29-08-2009 02:44PM

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 · 29-08-2009 02:50PM

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 · 29-08-2009 09:21PM

-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 · 29-08-2009 09:27PM

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

meglome · 29-08-2009 09:28PM

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?

29-08-2009 09:35PM

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 · 29-08-2009 10:32PM

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.

29-08-2009 11:00PM

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 · 30-08-2009 12:11AM

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.

30-08-2009 12:28AM

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 · 30-08-2009 08:12AM

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 · 30-08-2009 08:35AM

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 · 31-08-2009 06:54AM

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 · 31-08-2009 11:29PM

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 · 31-08-2009 11:39PM

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.

31-08-2009 11:43PM

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 · 31-08-2009 11:47PM

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 · 31-08-2009 11:49PM

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

01-09-2009 12:06AM

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

Moon Rock a Fake

Comments