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
1…456810

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    King Mob wrote: »
    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.


    http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/Lunar/index.cfm
    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?

    None of these have been shown to be fake?
    Who verified this? And what samples specifically where verified?

    It is easy to say this, here are 500 gold bars they are all made of gold here look at these 5 you will see they are genuine!

    What I have read is this, a number of scientist that have talked about looking at the moon rocks and verifying they are genuine or at least saying the composition of the microscopic creators on the rock could not have happened on earth, I take their word on this and accept it to be true.
    I also read that Russia got to compare the samples they collected with the Apollo 11 mission and confirmed they were genuine.

    But what I cannot find is independent verification of all the samples, and which samples specifically the Russians got to examine vrs the samples that scientist and geologists got to look at.

    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.

    For this reason, albeit I believe the moon rocks to be genuine it weakens the argument that all the moon rocks have been proven to be genuine.


  • Options
    #213
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,815 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

    Also the authenticity of the moon rocks themselves are being questioned and not without cause so it could be argued the alleged 22 Kilos.

    Surely the authenticity of the moon rocks returned from the first mission have been confirmed many times over by the experts, specialists and geologists from all over the world, including Russia, who received and studied them

    Instances of lost samples or a bogus rocks relate to individual theft and forgery

    It'd be like questioning the existence of Monet because a few of his paintings were forged and some went missing. Clutching at straws a bit.


  • Options
    #214
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Surely the authenticity of the moon rocks returned from the first mission have been confirmed many times over by the experts, specialists and geologists from all over the world, including Russia, who received and studied them

    I mention this in the post above.
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Instances of lost samples or a bogus rocks relate to individual theft and forgery

    It'd be like questioning the existence of Monet because a few of his paintings were forged and some went missing. Clutching at straws a bit.

    I believe the moon rock are genuine, my argument is can I prove they are genuine?
    Or can I show independent verification on the catalog provided the samples have been verified?
    If there is such a report I cannot find it.


  • Options
    #215
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    None of these have been shown to be fake?
    Who verified this? And what samples specifically where verified?
    Yes. None of these have been shown to be fake.
    If one has, show it. If you can't show it my statement stands.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    But what I cannot find is independent verification of all the samples, and which samples specifically the Russians got to examine vrs the samples that scientist and geologists got to look at.
    The catalogue you've been given details which samples have been tested.

    Why do you need verification of all the samples?
    What does it show if some of them aren't verified and how does it support the conspiracy theory?

    What point are you getting at? It's getting tedious having you hint at some accusation or stance only to move the goalposts when you're challenged on it.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    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.
    .
    Not true.
    So far what you've "read" and what's reality have not exactly matched up.

    So please provide some evidence for this.


  • Options
    #216
    dlouth15
    Registered Users Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭dlouth15


    At the end of the day both ShowMeTheCash and the people arguing with him agree that the moon landings were not faked. They actually went to the moon.

    I think this thread has come to a sort of logical impasse. An argument that something is possible (though perhaps unlikely) can be sustained indefinitely given sufficient time and imagination.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,815 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I believe the moon rock are genuine, my argument is can I prove they are genuine?
    Or can I show independent verification on the catalog provided the samples have been verified?
    If there is such a report I cannot find it.

    "Prove" is another contentious word

    Not everything can be proved, because it can be subjective

    Occam's Razor works best, but since this is a hypothesis with no given counter-theory - then really it's not a fair debate


  • Options
    #218
    SNAKEDOC
    Registered Users Posts: 943 ✭✭✭SNAKEDOC


    Isnt the entire agruement kinda pointless is there not a telescope on the planet that can see the rover the amwricans left up there. It was a spring loaded design so it folded out sprang into shape and was unretrievable. If you can see that feom this planet then surely that would silence the nah sayers


  • Options
    #219
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    "Prove" is another contentious word

    Not everything can be proved, because it can be subjective

    Occam's Razor works best, but since this is a hypothesis with no given counter-theory - then really it's not a fair debate


    I really wish that approach was used more often by people dismissing CT's from the get go


  • Options
    #220
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,131 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    isn't the counter-theory 'the conventional history of events is true?'


  • Options
    #221
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    isn't the counter-theory 'the conventional history of events is true?'

    I think I should have left out the counter theory part :P

    I was more referring to the two first lines


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    pfurey101
    Registered Users Posts: 687 ✭✭✭pfurey101


    FWIW my claim to fame is that I worked in the Aeronautical Exhibition in Dublin Airport from Sep 1975 to Jan 1977 and during that period this sample of moon rock was on display.

    ireland01.jpg


    It had it's own display unit with a slide show (that never worked). And it was returned to airport security (in the old link building) every evening - in an Aer Rianta duty free bag!

    It must have been on display for 6-9 months.

    Anyway......carry on!
    File:New_Hampshire_Apollo_17_Moon_Rock.jpg


  • Options
    #223
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    "Prove" is another contentious word

    Not everything can be proved, because it can be subjective

    Occam's Razor works best, but since this is a hypothesis with no given counter-theory - then really it's not a fair debate

    No counter theory needs to be given, just doubt cast on evidence already presented.

    The moon rocks are probably the best physical evidence of the moon landing being manned.

    However this evidence is not beyond reproach, the fact that some of the samples are missing and one sample regardless if it was an original gifted rock or not was proven to be fake.

    This I feel swings the burden of proof back to NASA to demonstrate that all the samples are authentic and this is probably best served by some independent body not NASA themselves.

    If no doubt was ever cast on the moon rocks then perhaps a heuristic approach is acceptable.


  • Options
    #224
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    weisses wrote: »
    I really wish that approach was used more often by people dismissing CT's from the get go

    I doubt a geologist with a microscope and the samples would need to resort to using some kind of refutability principle.

    But I see on boards it is getting used to hide assertions made by posters on subject matters they know nothing about....


  • Options
    #225
    MJI
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 89 ✭✭MJI


    I don't think we've been to the Moon


  • Options
    #226
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    However this evidence is not beyond reproach, the fact that some of the samples are missing and one sample regardless if it was an original gifted rock or not was proven to be fake.
    How do either of these things cast doubt on the lunar samples?

    The missing samples are only missing because NASA loaned them out to researchers in the first place. (This is excluding the moon rocks given as gifts.)
    Why does them going missing indicate they might be fake or otherwise cast doubt on them?

    And why would a rock that was mistakenly called a moon rock by others being shown to be a fake cast doubt on anything?
    Nasa never presented it as a moon rock and it doesn't make a lick of sense for them to have presented it as a moon rock. It's not a question of "whether or not."


  • Options
    #227
    shanered
    Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭shanered


    Simple enough question brewing which would stop this moon rock debacle,
    If the rocks are genuine, where is the scientific papers/reports on the findings from these rocks detailing the geologist reports on the make up on the rocks and how they differ from all earth rocks or meteorites on earth.
    For such a major discovery and finding and effort put into getting these rocks you would imagine extensive analysis was carried out on the samples and published.
    Since the rocks are from the moon, and their is no other comparison to their chemical and elemental make up, what is their to cross-check their authenticity?
    For me its a dead end arguement which leaves us no closer to proving/disproving the landings..

    Point to note, funny how the majority of sesrch results that come back from google is drug related when you search "report on moon rocks".


  • Options
    #228
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    shanered wrote: »
    Since the rocks are from the moon, and their is no other comparison to their chemical and elemental make up, what is their to cross-check their authenticity?
    .
    The Russians had a very small amount of lunar soil samples.

    Also lunar rocks would have very unique features that couldn't be replicated on Earth (At least not without a major research and development programme that would be nigh impossible to keep secret from spies.)
    For example lunar samples have tiny impact marks from micrometeorites dotting their surfaces.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB076i023p05770/abstract


  • Options
    #229
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    King Mob wrote: »
    How do either of these things cast doubt on the lunar samples?

    The missing samples are only missing because NASA loaned them out to researchers in the first place. (This is excluding the moon rocks given as gifts.)
    Why does them going missing indicate they might be fake or otherwise cast doubt on them?

    And why would a rock that was mistakenly called a moon rock by others being shown to be a fake cast doubt on anything?
    Nasa never presented it as a moon rock and it doesn't make a lick of sense for them to have presented it as a moon rock. It's not a question of "whether or not."

    The gifted moon rocks we where told are moon rocks. - We accept that.
    The moon rock gifted by the Apollo 11 crew and the the American ambassador turned out to be fake...

    Your argument is that as it was not an original gifted by NASA therefore this does not cast any doubt on the rest of the rocks....

    The fact still remains that the crew and the American ambassador thought it was a moon rock, how this mistake came about is uncertain.

    This does not prove the other moon rocks are fake but it does raise the question are we sure they are all authentic.

    The fact that some are also lost adds a little weight to why someone may question the exact amount of moon rock retrieved by Apollo 11.

    I get you will not want to accept anything, I find your blinkered view through-out this thread quite remarkable.


  • Options
    #230
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    The fact still remains that the crew and the American ambassador thought it was a moon rock, how this mistake came about is uncertain.
    No this is not a fact.
    I posted two videos that show that it is not a fact.

    If I'm wrong, please provide the evidence to show for a fact that the Apollo 11 crew and/or the Ambassador presented that rock as a genuine moon rock.

    It is not reasonable to think that they would hand over such a rock by mistake considering how vastly different it was to the other gift rocks and their dsplays, how huge it was in comparison to all of the other gift rocks, and how it looked nothing like a moon rock.

    The idea that the Apollo astronauts would mistakenly hand over a lump of moon rock bigger than all of the other gift rocks combined to some random, retired Dutch Prime Minister is far from the most likely explanation and it's far from a fact.


  • Options
    #231
    shanered
    Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭shanered


    King Mob wrote: »
    The Russians had a very small amount of lunar soil samples.

    Also lunar rocks would have very unique features that couldn't be replicated on Earth (At least not without a major research and development programme that would be nigh impossible to keep secret from spies.)
    For example lunar samples have tiny impact marks from micrometeorites dotting their surfaces.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB076i023p05770/abstract

    As you said the Russians had soil not rocks. So nothing to compare them to..

    The above does no more than describe the impacts on the rocks.

    Which in sofar as I can see may have been caused by impacts which weren't on the surface of the moon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    shanered wrote: »
    As you said the Russians had soil not rocks. So nothing to compare them to..
    But the soil would be more then enough for them to identify and compare the composition.
    shanered wrote: »
    The above does no more than describe the impacts on the rocks.

    Which in sofar as I can see may have been caused by impacts which weren't on the surface of the moon.
    No they could not have been caused anywhere with an atmosphere.
    If there was an atmosphere micrometeors wouldn't have been able to reach those rocks and impact them in the first place, they would either burn up first or slow down before impacting.

    The paper I linked to describes this, and also the time scales of these impacts indicated by the rocks.
    The amount impacts shows that the pitting on these rocks is millions of years old at least.

    It's practically impossible for them to fake these features and get away with it.


  • Options
    #233
    shanered
    Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭shanered


    Could they not be meoteorites?


  • Options
    #234
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,131 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Meteorites would be geologically different, exposed to high pressure and heat, and impact on atmospheric entry, and would perhaps be exposed to a larger array of cosmic effects, radiation, etc.


  • Options
    #235
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    shanered wrote: »
    Could they not be meoteorites?
    No, because as Overheal said, they would be very geologically different.
    In addition they would lack the zap pitting I described and they would have a surface that would have obviously been through entry into the atmosphere, or else they would show signs of having their surfaces removed.

    Then on top of that there simply isn't enough samples in the world.
    Now there are 46 kg of them in total. And that's from decades of searching.
    Apollo 11 brought back about half of that number, The Apollo Program as a whole brought back maybe 10 times that. So unless NASA somehow was able to find a amazingly huge cache of lunar meteorites totally in secret and without any geologists letting on, then it's impossible for them to be lunar meteorites.

    Also it's worth noting that the first Lunar Meteorite was only identified in 1982.


  • Options
    #236
    shanered
    Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭shanered


    What is zap pitting?
    And just had a quick google there to see pics of meteorite then the rocks from the lunar missions and there is virtually no difference in appearence although the metoerites came through our atmosphere...
    For me the rocks from the missions could have been meteorites after visually comparing them there...thats just me though....


  • Options
    #237
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    shanered wrote: »
    What is zap pitting?
    Zap pitting is the tiny impact marks left by micrometeorites as I've been talking about.
    shanered wrote: »
    And just had a quick google there to see pics of meteorite then the rocks from the lunar missions and there is virtually no difference in appearence although the metoerites came through our atmosphere...
    For me the rocks from the missions could have been meteorites after visually comparing them there...thats just me though....
    The differences would be subtle and require closer and more thorough examination than a google search.
    Regardless they would be apparent to any trained geologist who knew what they are looking at.

    This is again shown by the paper I linked to.


  • Options
    #238
    kidneyfan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭kidneyfan


    Could be from anywhere with no atmosphere. Could be from one of the asteroids , Phobos or Deimos etc.
    Moon rocks could be samples taken by the crew of the extrasolar ship that landed at Roswell.


  • Options
    #239
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    King Mob wrote: »
    No this is not a fact.
    I posted two videos that show that it is not a fact.

    If I'm wrong, please provide the evidence to show for a fact that the Apollo 11 crew and/or the Ambassador presented that rock as a genuine moon rock.

    It is not reasonable to think that they would hand over such a rock by mistake considering how vastly different it was to the other gift rocks and their dsplays, how huge it was in comparison to all of the other gift rocks, and how it looked nothing like a moon rock.

    The idea that the Apollo astronauts would mistakenly hand over a lump of moon rock bigger than all of the other gift rocks combined to some random, retired Dutch Prime Minister is far from the most likely explanation and it's far from a fact.

    You are correct this is not a fact, a better way to word it would be a rock believed to be that of a moon rock gifted by the above turned out to be a fake.

    The video gives a good explanation assuming everything he says checks out which I can give the benefit of the doubt as does it makes sense.

    But the fact still remains that there was a mix up, we are now arguing history and who made the mistake.

    This still does not prove all the cataloged samples are genuine it only provides a reasonable explanation around the mix-up of how the fake rock came to be.

    If any doubt is cast on evidence the easiest way to debunk is to show the evidence some independent study of geologists not employed by NASA.
    Maybe this has actually happened, I just cannot find information regarding this.


  • Options
    #240
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    But the fact still remains that there was a mix up, we are now arguing history and who made the mistake.
    Yes, a mix up made decades later by people unconnected to NASA, making the entire affair irrelevant.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    This still does not prove all the cataloged samples are genuine it only provides a reasonable explanation around the mix-up of how the fake rock came to be.
    No it doesn't. But it's also not a rational reason to assume doubt on the actual samples, contrary to what you've been implying.

    If I'm wrong, then please explain why some Dutch museum employees mistakenly identifying a rock casts any doubt on anything aside from their ability to identify moon rocks?
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    If any doubt is cast on evidence the easiest way to debunk is to show the evidence some independent study of geologists not employed by NASA.
    Maybe this has actually happened, I just cannot find information regarding this.
    No there is no doubt in the first place.
    And then there is hundreds of geologists not employed by Nasa who have studied the rocks. It is easy to find this information.
    Here is one example:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB076i023p05770/abstract

    The database site I linked you to also contains a comprehensive list of the samples. This is an excellent place for you to start all the verification you need.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    kidneyfan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭kidneyfan


    King Mob wrote: »
    There is no reasonable or rational version of the conspiracy that's worth giving any serious consideration.
    Kaiser_Soze wrote:
    The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
    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.


Advertisement