|
|
Post by porphyry on Feb 11, 2010 18:22:12 GMT -4
Hello there, While y'all have been posting page after page of criticisms & complaints about me (some justified, some not), I've been having a very pleasant conversation with a poster named marvin1 at that other board. We've been talking about the moon rocks. He is suggesting that they're the best proof available, that the manned apollo missions actually took place. The line of evidence is: many of the samples were photographed in their original places on the moon, along with the astronauts. Those same samples were then brought back to earth and photographed again. Then the samples were cut apart and sent to labs all over the planet, each of which would have been in an excellent position to detect any fraud. Some features of the samples would be clearly different from any materials that could have been gathered by the Von Braun expedition, or any terrestrial rocks. This makes perfectly good sense to me, and I'm just about ready to throw in the towel on this whole "moon hoax" thing -- and getting back to my old friend McGowan with the recommendation that it's time to pull his article down. Before I talk to him again, I'd appreciate your assistance to make this as ironclad as possible. At Marvin1's suggestion, I went to the NASA lunar samples compendium curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compen... Took a "tour" of the site, and quickly found Big Muley (61016) which marvin1 recommended as an interesting example. In addition to 61016, I also looked at the posted information about two other rocks chosen at random, samples 66075 and 74275. In each case, NASA provided a review paper written by C. Meyer. In general, the openness of the process appeared at first glance to be very impressive. Each rock was photographed as a whole, then sectioned into small pieces which were also documented in photographs. A series of citations to peer-reviewed literature documented each of the research teams that received samples of the rock, and summarized their conclusions. However, the information provided did not include the detail of which sample was sent to which lab. Big Muley's existence on the moon was said to be visible only in a television sequence. I find that a little surprising, with the largest sample ever taken, that they wouldn't have also made a photograph. Sample 74275 was said to be visible in photo AS17-137-20990, but I couldn't verify this. Sample 74275 looked rather roundish in shape, while the circled rock in the photograph was more cigar-shaped. There wasn't enough detail in the highest resolution copy of 20990 I could find, to say any more than the general shape. I know that 3D shapes can appear very different depending on the viewpoint, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions based on my inability to match the images. In both cases (61016 and 74275), the reader was referred to "USGS Professional Papers" for further information about the lunar photographic record. I doubt if that's a peer reviewed journal. University of Oregon doesn't have it in their catalog, although I could probably eventually get copies through interlibrary loan. I also noticed on my tour of the site, that there was a research project entitled "lunar regolith simulant" in which NASA's advanced technology for building simulated moon rocks is discussed. According to these pages the challenges of making fake moon rock are indeed daunting, but they are doing their best. Based on this brief sojourn into the literature, it's hard for me to imagine that a successful hoax could be perpetrated in such open conditions. I was impressed by the sheer volume of information available about the samples, as well as the abundance of the lunar photographic record. In the process of taking this random sample, I could see that a person could spend years investigating this literature and still be in the position of sampling a small percentage. Personally I have absolutely no training in minerology or geology, so I would be very slow out of the starting gate in terms of really critically evaluating all of this. On the other hand I was frustrated that my little bit of reading was so inconclusive, especially in terms of mapping the rock samples onto the photographic record. And the argument that the samples couldn't be faked, was somewhat challenged by NASA's own progress at making "simulants". If you folks could suggest any better examples of moon rocks whose presence is visible in both the NASA lunar photographs and in lab photographs, which have then been parceled out to labs around the world -- I would be much obliged. As I see it, the value in a board such as this is the opportunity to quickly exchange views and to obtain information. Thank you for the information you've provided, and for your patience. |
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Feb 11, 2010 19:36:44 GMT -4
Big Muley's existence on the moon was said to be visible only in a television sequence. I find that a little surprising, with the largest sample ever taken, that they wouldn't have also made a photograph. A quick search of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal finds at least one picture showing Big Muley AS16-109-17789 with Big Muley being the big rock just near the head of John Young's shadow (it is labled in this picture but the picture is of much lower resolution), there may well be more but I didn't bother searching further. A) After 40 years of trying NASA still hasn't figured out how to make a perfect stimulant, yet the HBs claim that they managed to do so in a matter of years for the hoax. B) You need to consider just what they are trying to simulate and why. They are trying to simulate the regolith ie dust rather than the general rocks, and they are doing it for things like studying construction using lunar materials and rover wheels, for which purposes fine details like zap pits and the slow crystallisation are pretty much irrelevant so aren't being bothered with until they can get the bulk properties right. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 11, 2010 19:42:16 GMT -4
He is suggesting that they're the best proof available...There is general agreement here that the Apollo samples are the best evidence of the authenticity of the missions, for most of the reasons you cite. ...sent to labs all over the planet, each of which would have been in an excellent position to detect any fraud.Indeed. The extent to which the world has participated in the study of the Apollo samples clearly precludes any collusion, obfuscation, or coercion. It is common for conspiracy theorists to claim that the Apollo samples are jealously guarded and made available only to loyal researchers, but the facts do not bear this out. Some features of the samples would be clearly different from any materials that could have been gathered by the Von Braun expedition...The Antarctica theory for the origin of the Apollo samples has never received any traction among knowledgeable proponents. You never actually made the claim in your thread that this was where we got the samples, so I did not feel justified in holding you accountable for it. However other posters obviously suspected that was the argument you considered making. To argue that the Apollo samples came from Antarctica requires ignoring a great deal about how meteorites are hunted and studied in Antarctica, and the curious external properties of the Apollo samples. As such no geologist entertains the notion that the Apollo samples came from Antarctica. There is no suspicion among geologists that the Apollo samples are anything other than what they are claimed to be. This makes perfectly good sense to me, and I'm just about ready to throw in the towel on this whole "moon hoax" thing -- Good news, if true. Here's the proper link to your site -- apparently the board software cut it off. Apollo Lunar Sample CompendiumHowever, the information provided did not include the detail of which sample was sent to which lab.I have seen lists of permanent loans, since my planetarium has an Apollo 15 sample on permanent loan. I have not seen any web-accessible comprehensive list of temporary disbursements. As I'm sure you've seen, each compendium document lists the authority responsible for the initial petrology and mineralogy examinations. These would be the "labs" responsible for the validation and analysis of each sample. Big Muley's existence on the moon was said to be visible only in a television sequence. I find that a little surprising, with the largest sample ever taken, that they wouldn't have also made a photograph.It does seem surprising given the extent to which 70 mm still photography was employed. But you may be unaware of the modus operandi of the geology "back room" during the lengthier J-type missions (Apollos 15-17). In these cases qualified geologists watched the television coverage of the EVA live in a room and made recommendations through the CAPCOM which samples they wanted collected. The ongoing television coverage is considered sufficient to provide the context for the sample. I know that 3D shapes can appear very different depending on the viewpoint, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions based on my inability to match the images.And this may be the case for most of the photographically documented samples. The samples in most cases were broken off of larger rocks, and photographic documentation exists only for the large rock. Photographs and television documentation of the sample are meant to provide geological context for researchers. While they can be used for verification purposes such as you're doing, I don't think that was the intent. Hence what may suffice for establishing scientific context does not meet the standard of forensic verification. The major pitfall there is in reading too much into the absence of documentation -- it may be suspicious from a forensic point of view in some cases, but not suspicious from a geology point of view. In both cases (61016 and 74275), the reader was referred to "USGS Professional Papers" for further information about the lunar photographic record. I doubt if that's a peer reviewed journal.Likely not; it's a U.S. government publication. Typical citations include Wolfe E.W., et al. "The geologic investigation of the Taurus-Littrow Valley: Apollo 17 landing site." U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1080 (1981). USGS papers typically are produced by large committees of writers and seem to be cited in contexts that suggest they are considered as reliable as refereed publications. University of Oregon doesn't have it in their catalog, although I could probably eventually get copies through interlibrary loan.They are considered GPO documents and should be available from any library that is designated a government document depository. I also noticed on my tour of the site, that there was a research project entitled "lunar regolith simulant" in which NASA's advanced technology for building simulated moon rocks is discussed.Yes; this is considered a mechanical simulant only. It mimics the mechanical (and to a certain degree, the chemical) behavior of the loose lunar regolith. We considered this for the Mythbusters photography segment, but our tests proved that the JSC simulant was completely unsuitable as an optical simulant. In order to produce the proper mechanical behavior, JSC scientists must use materials that are considerably lighter in color. Hence our optical simulant was created from materials chosen solely for their optical properties. According to these pages the challenges of making fake moon rock are indeed daunting, but they are doing their best.Indeed. Despite ten years of requests and prodding, no conspiracy theorist has yet been able to propose and validate a method for duplicating the Apollo samples synthetically or by altering existing materials. The few geologists I have consulted personally agree that according to their knowledge, doing that is impossible. Based on this brief sojourn into the literature, it's hard for me to imagine that a successful hoax could be perpetrated in such open conditions.This is the impression arrived at by most serious researchers. There is simply too much widespread examination of the samples to argue that the they have not been examined in a way that is likely to reveal any forgery. Personally I have absolutely no training in minerology or geology, so I would be very slow out of the starting gate in terms of really critically evaluating all of this.My training in those sciences is limited to that which is taught to engineers. However the university at which I attended graduate school and at which I briefly taught resides in a region of very interesting geology and hence has a very well developed and knowledgeable geology faculty. If you folks could suggest any better examples of moon rocks whose presence is visible in both the NASA lunar photographs and in lab photographs...Some quick research shows 72355 depicted in AS17-137-20912 76255 depicted in AS17-140-21443 78235-78238 depicted in AS17-146-22370 I don't think there exists a simple mapping of samples to photograph ID numbers. My impression is that geology researchers do not need that particular summary habitually; that they express interest in certain individual samples or sample classes and then may expand their understanding of its documentation from there. Thank you for the information you've provided, and for your patience.You're welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Feb 11, 2010 20:16:16 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 11, 2010 20:38:31 GMT -4
porphyry, perhaps you'd be interested in this web page : The Digital Petrographic Slide Collection which has a collection of thousands of slides of moon rock including about 100 slides of Big Muley. There are slides not only of the Apollo Missions but also Luna 16 and Luna 20. ser.sese.asu.edu/cgi-bin/DPSC_Browse.plSample:  |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 11, 2010 21:13:57 GMT -4
porphyry, You may be interested in reading up on this. The site is the department of earth science from the Washington University in St Louis. Primarily they are discussing meterorites, but this particular page is discussing Lunarites and how they compare to the Apollo rocks and hiow Moon rocks differ to Earth rocks. I think that you'll find it an interesting read.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 11, 2010 22:19:45 GMT -4
porphyry, You may be interested in reading up on this. The site is the department of earth science from the Washington University in St Louis. Primarily they are discussing meterorites, but this particular page is discussing Lunarites and how they compare to the Apollo rocks and hiow Moon rocks differ to Earth rocks. I think that you'll find it an interesting read. I certainly did. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 12, 2010 5:36:35 GMT -4
Nice work, porphyry. I just have one comment: And the argument that the samples couldn't be faked, was somewhat challenged by NASA's own progress at making "simulants". There is a big difference between creating a simulant intended to duplicate certain properties of lunar regolith and creating a fake intended to convince the world that the material really came from the Moon. The simulant only has to match certain properties, whereas the fake has to stand up to every physical and chemical test that would be performed on a rock or soil sample. I doubt that anyone who subjected a lunar regolith simulant to some simple chemical analysis would be fooled into thinking it actually came from the Moon. |
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Feb 12, 2010 10:35:23 GMT -4
While I don't want to derail the thread it's worth noting that with a little digging there is a similar breadth and depth of material for pretty much any aspect of the Apollo missions. So much is easily available.
edited for random spelling
|
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Feb 12, 2010 10:51:28 GMT -4
Talking of moon rocks, one thing I've never seen any hard-core HB address (at all, never mind satisfactorily) is how much the samples returned by Apollo changed our theories about the formation of both the Earth-Moon system and the Solar System as a whole.
Seriously, if you were faking a sample of rock, would you not fake it to match the expected result based on current knowledge? Why would you go to the trouble of creating a bunch of rocks that match none of the established possibilities?
Surely that would lead to increased scrutiny of your hoax by interested parties (such as the authors and/or proponents of existing theory) as they attempt to figure out if you made a mistake and what it means for their theories if you didn't? That is the last thing a fledgling conspiracy needs; someone rocking up and going "hang on, that can't be right, let me have a closer look."
Especially if your conspiracy is predicated, as some HBs claim the Apollo landings were, on a false sense of openness to misdirect suspicion - as soon as someone starts asking awkward questions you either have to answer them or drop the "openness" façade, leading to further inquiry.
So, given that it would be infinitely more sensible for a fake moon rock to look like what the learned few expect a moon rock to look like, why then did this hypothetical conspiracy come up with the wrong sort of rocks?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 12, 2010 11:05:37 GMT -4
Big Muley's existence on the moon was said to be visible only in a television sequence. I find that a little surprising, with the largest sample ever taken, that they wouldn't have also made a photograph. Did you go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and read all about how Big Muley was collected? The reason it wasn't photographed is that was a grab sample at the request of the geologists. Ed Fendall had trained the TV camera on it a few times. The detail at the ALSJ is in the section Station 1 at Plum Crater. I don't have the link right now as I'm looking at the DVD version of the ALSJ. Once you're on that page, search for "muley". From the ALSJ -- As you can see following the first entry where Capcom Tony England speaks, there's a link to a small copy of the TV clip of Charlie Duke struggling to pick up Big Muley. Naturally, a far better-quality full-screen clip is on Spacecraft Films' Apollo 16 DVD set. There are a few seconds of the clip at about 14 minutes 20 seconds into the movie "Apollo 16: Nothing So Hidden" which can be bought on many low-priced DVDs of NASA films. The movie also has many clips of Dr Willam R. (Bill) Muehlberger, after whom the rock was named. He's the one who cracks the joke, "And as our crew slowly..." at 0:22:22. Through the laughter, Jack Schmitt (Apollo 17) can be seen finishing it with, "...disappears into the sunset." From the western movies of the time. This post from July 2005 will give you an idea of the scientists who wanted to investigate Apollo 11 rocks and soil and the tests they proposed. |
|
|
|
Post by porphyry on Feb 12, 2010 14:01:37 GMT -4
Everyone, thanks for your answers. Here's my view:
(1) Among the many mistakes McGowan made, is that he seriously misrepresented the status of NASA's moon rock collection. Based on a report from AP about the small percentage of rocks that were handed out to foreign governments as gifts, McGowan wrote: "nearly 90% of the alleged Moon rocks that we would want to test don’t seem to be around any more." But actually NASA claims that the vast majority of their moon rock collection is in secure storage at Johnson Center in Houston. That was a pretty big mistake on McGowan's part, sorry it took me so long to catch it.
(2) As to the argument that the moon rocks are genuine, what's been presented here (logically speaking) is basically an argument from incredulity (the moon rocks couldn't possibly have been faked) plus an argument from authority (geology professors from all over the planet have reviewed these samples and certified them as genuine.)
But, I share the incredulity, and I respect the authority! With the caveat that the vast majority of scientists would accept the authenticity of the moon rocks from NASA without question, and they would design their experiments not with authentication as the primary goal, but rather some other scientific question. And in the unlikely event that any graduate students entertained serious doubts about authenticity, it wouldn't be so easy for them to get those doubts past peer review.
Having said all that, perhaps I'm not "100% certain" about the moon landings, but I don't think I have any reasonable doubt. And personally I'm done with this issue, because if there's a case to be made that the Apollo moon rock collection is fake, I'm not the man to make it. A geologist will have to take up that baton.
People here have been asking questions about my biases and the reasoning behind my initial approach here, and I'd like to briefly address that.
One of the first questions I asked here was about that thread where they said that Pilots for 911 Truth are idiots, liars, bigots, and their mothers have facial hair. In case you didn't guess, I'm a skeptic about the 911 Official Story, and I'm also a pilot (Cessna 152, long expired ticket.) So I was inclined to take all that personally. Which is why I didn't expect a fair hearing from the moderator -- and why I made it an agenda of mine, to get a side discussion going elsewhere. Which turned out to be a productive effort! Thanks Marvin1.
Also, conspiracy theories are like potato chips... Most skeptics believe more than one. And similarly I've noticed that when people spit one out because they don't like the taste, they're reluctant to go anywhere near that bag of potato chips again. I like to know which are the tasty morsels, and which are the turds.
I suspected that McGowan was "committing credibility hiri kiri" (as another skeptic put it) and now I'm sure of it. It sucks to see another skeptic bite the dust.
A week ago I had a nice long phone conversation with McGowan and I think I succeeded in explaining to him about the concepts of orbital momentum, and escape velocity, and why once you're in orbit it only takes a little bit of extra energy to get to the moon. He said he'd always been wondering about that.
Now I'll have to talk to him again, I hope we're still friends when I'm done.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 12, 2010 14:39:53 GMT -4
I suspected that McGowan was "committing credibility hiri kiri" (as another skeptic put it) and now I'm sure of it. It sucks to see another skeptic bite the dust. He's not a skeptic. A skeptic looks at the evidence and makes a reasoned conclusion. When presented with new evidence, the person considers changing their opinion. If you can get Dave McGowan to acknowledge he's wrong, I'll change my opinion. However, he's been presented with a lot of the same evidence you have. |
|
|
|
Post by porphyry on Feb 12, 2010 15:47:27 GMT -4
If you can get Dave McGowan to acknowledge he's wrong, I'll change my opinion. However, he's been presented with a lot of the same evidence you have. Gillianren, It's not always sufficient just to present evidence. The evidence has to be presented in a way that the person can understand it, and it also helps to be respectful in conveying the information. Dave has much less patience than I do, with people who start the discussion by calling him an idiot, liar, bigot etc. |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Feb 12, 2010 16:12:19 GMT -4
So Dave doesn't like people calling him names but it's okay for him to call Jay and Phil Plait and BAUT posters names? Sounds like a double standard to me.
|
|
