|
|
Post by fiveonit on Feb 17, 2009 17:28:33 GMT -4
Just like raven has stated many times, I too am not a Hoax Believer, but unlike many of you I have little experience with the science of it all. I am a programmer, graphic designer and systems administrator, not a scientist.
Like raven, I do tend to get frustrated when a Hoax Pusher asks a question that I don't have an answer to and don't know where to look. One question that seems to pop up all the time is the Authenticity of the moon samples. Some hoaxers have gone so far as to say that some "scientists" (and I use the term loosely) have had their doubts about the samples, which I already know is a crock of BS! I know they have been looked at by geologist in labs from around the world but I don't have a list.
Does anyone here have a list of labs, geologists and the countries they are located? When they were looked at? Findings? Preferably those not directly associated with NASA.
I'm also writing a term paper on the whole Moon Hoax silliness and any help would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Feb 17, 2009 17:55:43 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 17, 2009 19:53:10 GMT -4
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Feb 18, 2009 8:39:27 GMT -4
Thanks for that link, Laurel, very interesting. It also makes an interesting resource for the geology-based part of my Open University course  |
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Feb 18, 2009 9:46:07 GMT -4
One question that seems to pop up all the time is the Authenticity of the moon samples. Some hoaxers have gone so far as to say that some "scientists" (and I use the term loosely) have had their doubts about the samples, which I already know is a crock of BS! As a general advice, don't accept any second-hand claims by Hoaxers. Ask for the names, where and in what context those "scientists" expressed their doubts. This will not convince any Hoaxproponent, but it will give the lurkers something to think about... |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 18, 2009 10:36:44 GMT -4
Somewhere on this site is a long list of geologists who have studied the lunar samples (I believe Kiwi posted it). I tried to search for it but haven't been able to locate it. Perhaps someone else can find it or Kiwi can post it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 18, 2009 12:03:09 GMT -4
Rocks from the Moon.Some papers mentioned in BAUT, and some more. This BABB thread has (I think) the same list as above, but also a list of countries that received samples. fiveonit, don't forget that the Soviets also recovered samples with robotic missions - an impressive feat in itself, though they collected three orders of magnitude less by mass, and their samples lacked the variety and depth of those obtained by the Apollo crews. The U.S. and USSR provided samples to each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Feb 19, 2009 0:16:54 GMT -4
COOL BEANS!!!! You Guys ROCK!!! (Pardon the pun!)  |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 19, 2009 2:50:05 GMT -4
One of the things that strikes me when it comes to if the moon rocks are real is that they were a surprise to the scientists of the day. If NASA was to have fabricated them then they would have do so in such a way to have supported one of the two major theories that were then the leaders in the creation of the moon. The fact that the rocks told a completely new story that resulted in geologists tossing out both theories and writing a totally new one shows that the rocks are real because no hoaxster in there right mind would introduce a aspect into the hoax that was so unexpected by those they were trying to fool. All that does is make people look closer at the situation and try and figure it out which is more likely to reveal the hoax.
|
|
|
|
Post by iws on Feb 19, 2009 16:15:50 GMT -4
I am one of the fortunate few who owns two tiny samples of Lunar dust from Apollo 11 and 15. These are Spaceflori samples and yes, NASA knows about them but haven't arrested me yet!
(probably because they are in Scotland).
The striking feature that can be seen under a microscope is the large number of glass spherules of many colours caused by rock melted either by ancient volcanic action or by meteorite bombardment. These spherules would not form or survive on the Earth because air and water would make them disintegrate.
(and no - they could not be made artificially),
The Lunar dust has a very high proportion of these tiny glass beads.
That, and such things as isotope concentrations have convinced
laboratories around the world (including Russian and Chinese)
that the moon rocks are genuine. So the hoax must have involved most of the technologically competent countries in the world!
|
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 19, 2009 16:24:52 GMT -4
NASA knows about them but haven't arrested me yet!
(probably because they are in Scotland).
NASA's in Scotland?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
This goes right to the heart of one of the most obvious and fundamental deficiencies of the entire "hoax" claim. In order to pull of this super-duper airtight hoax, NASA would have not only had to fool all the scientists and engineers of the time, but also would have had to have anticipated the science and engineering achievements of the future. How exactly is that supposed to work, especially given their track record of clumsily forging pictures of "distant" Earth with bits of cellophane and cardboard, littering their sets with Coke bottles, forgetting to make the LM hatch wide enough to climb through,...?
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Feb 28, 2009 5:22:08 GMT -4
Not to mention: - Making a toy computer so laughably crude that it couldn't calculate its way out of a wet paper bag
- Airbrushing over reseau marks
- Leaving prop letters on moon rocks
- Not realising it was actually impossible to go to the moon...
The list is endless. And yet books and films STILL go on toeing the NASA line. And yet it's supposed to be so bleedin' obvious a drooling imbecile chimpanzee could see the truth: or even Bart Sibrel. |
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Mar 1, 2009 3:13:06 GMT -4
And yet it's supposed to be so bleedin' obvious a drooling imbecile chimpanzee could see the truth: or even Bart Sibrel. C'mon... comparing Bart Sibrel to drooling imbecile monkeys...? I mean really.... what did those monkeys ever do to you.   Cz |
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Mar 1, 2009 7:36:20 GMT -4
Only the most slobbering, brain-dead, addled chimpanzees with terminal brain-rot can measure down to Bart's level, you understand.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Mar 2, 2009 0:44:42 GMT -4
OK, now we're been rude. I don't like the man myself, and I especially don't like the videos he does. But come on, are we not on the side truth? What needs the truth to stoop to such levels?
I know this sounds snooty, hells, it is snooty. But do we really need talk like this? Does it really help matters? Let's imagine some person had watched a few videos, it got them pondering, and started looking for more info. I don't think comments like that are exactly going to convince them on the matter.
I am just saying. . .
|
|
