|
Post by PeterB on Aug 10, 2010 10:38:24 GMT -4
Rodin said:
Blackstar replied:
Blackstar summarised the Apollo Moon rock evidence very well.
Rodin, I'd be very interested to see your arguments regarding the Apollo Moon rocks, especially as you think we'll be surprised.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 10, 2010 18:59:58 GMT -4
Blackstar summarised the Apollo Moon rock evidence very well. Where is that summary. It would be interesting to read. I really enjoy lunar geology, it's right up my street. It would be nice to learn new things. It's an amazing subject. PhilWebb59 produced a rebuttal to the 'fake rocks' argument at YouTube. His channel is PhilWebb59. Each video is titled so you can dip into the part of interest. It's worth a look.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 10, 2010 19:54:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 11, 2010 8:31:28 GMT -4
Blackstar summarised the Apollo Moon rock evidence very well. Where is that summary. It would be interesting to read. I really enjoy lunar geology, it's right up my street. It would be nice to learn new things. It's an amazing subject. Er, it's the quote block immediately above the words "Blackstar summarised the Apollo Moon rock evidence very well" in my original post in this thread. Just to be clear, I didn't mean that it was a summary of all of the findings based on the Apollo rocks. Instead, I meant that Blackstar neatly summarised the issues any Hoax Believer has to overcome to prove Apollo was faked.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 18:17:51 GMT -4
Well I have been baited into this thread. I will not be able to reply as intensively as I ahve on other threads here and elsewhere due to time constraints but I will do my best Quote: During the local summer of 1966/67, von Braun participated in a field trip to Antarctica, organized for him and several other members of top NASA management.[53] The goal of the field trip was to determine whether the experience gained by US scientific and technological community during the exploration of Antarctic wastelands would be useful for the manned exploration of space en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_BraunThat could have been a cover story Antarctica is where to look for Moon Rocks that have fallen to Earth as meteorites. Quote: Astronauts collected hundreds of pounds of moon rocks during the Apollo missions of the 1960s and 1970s, but lunar meteorites are important because they give scientists samples from other parts of the moon, Cohen said www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370/Now it is true that meteorites have surfaces that melted due to friction with the atmosphere. But inside these meteorites structure may be unchanged I think in the same way astronauts survive a return to Earth intact. Looks that way in the image. That would then present the problem of recreating a credible surface. How to do this? I am not privy to that information. I think I can anticipate the first challenge
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 18:22:42 GMT -4
BTW I did not choose the title, How can I provide evidence of Moon Rock fakery? For a start I am never going to get a sample, Perhaps I can however suggest a credible method for how it could have been done
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 16, 2010 18:26:04 GMT -4
I moved my post to this more appropriate thread.
No rocks from Antarctica were identified as lunar meteorites until 1982. Are you saying that Von Braun could somehow identify them more than ten years before anyone else could?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 18:30:34 GMT -4
I moved my post to this more appropriate thread. No rocks from Antarctica were identified as lunar meteorites until 1982. Are you saying that Von Braun could somehow identify them more than ten years before anyone else could? Well now - how do we know that some meteorites in Antarctica come from the Moon. Is it because they match the Moon Rocks? Without the Moon Rocks as comparison could we tell if these meteorites were indeed Lunar?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 16, 2010 18:31:50 GMT -4
More to the point, are you suggesting von Braun could identify anything lunar at all? He was a rocket scientist, not a geologist. What's more he was one of the most high-profile figures at NASA. If you wanted to secretly collect lunar meteorites with the aim of pulling off a hoax, would you send an anonymous geologist no-one had ever heard of, or one of the most recognised men in the world who had no expertise in geology at all?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 16, 2010 18:33:36 GMT -4
"Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, minerals, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions. Taken together, these various characteristics are different from those of any other type of meteorite or terrestrial rock." www.meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 16, 2010 18:35:21 GMT -4
"Could have been"? That's your evidence?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 16, 2010 18:40:27 GMT -4
Well I have been baited into this thread. I will not be able to reply as intensively as I ahve on other threads here and elsewhere due to time constraints but I will do my best Quote: During the local summer of 1966/67, von Braun participated in a field trip to Antarctica, organized for him and several other members of top NASA management.[53] The goal of the field trip was to determine whether the experience gained by US scientific and technological community during the exploration of Antarctic wastelands would be useful for the manned exploration of space en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_BraunThat could have been a cover story Antarctica is where to look for Moon Rocks that have fallen to Earth as meteorites. Quote: Astronauts collected hundreds of pounds of moon rocks during the Apollo missions of the 1960s and 1970s, but lunar meteorites are important because they give scientists samples from other parts of the moon, Cohen said www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370/Well since you don't seem to have read it I'll just repost what I said earlier: If you have any actual evidence to answer those points please present it. Here's the thing, no one on Earth has ever come up with a method of recreating the surface of the moon rocks because it involves the surface of the rock being bombarded by microscopic particles travelling at around 20m/s, and not by one or two but by thousands of particles. No CT has ever demonstrated such a technology, or even offered up a design for such a device, or a photograph of one; it is exactly the same as the mythical radiation ovens in that respect. If your argument here is going to be 'I think the rocks were faked but I've no clue how' then what possible basis do you have for rejecting the hypothesis that best fits the available facts; that men did indeed travel to the moon and return with rock samples? On a side note frankly it's rather odd for someone claiming Apollo was a hoax to use astronauts returning to earth as an analogy...
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 18:41:18 GMT -4
"Could have been"? That's your evidence? Where did I use the word evidence? I said answers.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 16, 2010 18:43:52 GMT -4
More to the point, are you suggesting von Braun could identify anything lunar at all? He was a rocket scientist, not a geologist. What's more he was one of the most high-profile figures at NASA. If you wanted to secretly collect lunar meteorites with the aim of pulling off a hoax, would you send an anonymous geologist no-one had ever heard of, or one of the most recognised men in the world who had no expertise in geology at all? Well, someone at NASA could be interested in geology even if it wasn't technically part of their job description. Gene Kranz said in Failure Is Not An Option that he and Gerry Griffin went on a geology field trip with some of the Apollo astronauts and some geologists including Lee Silver, and Kranz said it was interesting and he learned a lot. Just a thought. I do agree with the rest of the statement. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just bored.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 16, 2010 18:44:40 GMT -4
"Could have been"? That's your evidence? Where did I use the word evidence? I said answers. If you have no evidence then your answers are worthless. So are you saying what you have is nothing but your own personal conjecture? Or more likely something you've read on some CT site?
|
|