|
Post by rodin on Aug 18, 2010 8:07:28 GMT -4
Of perhaps technology exists to fabricate 'Moon rocks' just as artificial diamonds are now admitted (though curiously the price has not yet collapsed) Snip Oh dear. OK, there is one glaringly obvious in front of your face so obvious bit you are missing. It is with us from birth to death. It was here before us and will be here for many many years after us. It is the atmosphere. It does things to us and does things to the planet and has been for a millennia or several. The planet also does things, it is geologically active. So, rocks that have never seen an atmosphere? These rocks have never had the protection of an atmosphere, never had the tender administrations of fluids, and can be shown as such. See where this is going? What is different about the Moon from Earth? It is a vacuum. It is exposed to radiation directly. Both conditions that can be created on Earth. Step one - to get material remove melted crust from meteorite. Step two - fashion the surface in vacuo (not that right now I have the exact recipe...)
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 18, 2010 8:12:38 GMT -4
Cold War was a hoax (this I know) therefore so must have been the Space Race (logical deduction) How so? In your estimation? So far the lack of any real research or evidence as demonstrated by the jump has convinced me to think that history as I know it is wrong. You should NEVER believe anything until after you have done your OWN research - and not then either www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/revolution_extends.htm
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 18, 2010 8:19:00 GMT -4
How so? In your estimation? So far the lack of any real research or evidence as demonstrated by the jump has convinced me to think that history as I know it is wrong. You should NEVER believe anything until after you have done your OWN research - and not then either I have. Lived through some of it. But by your own admission you should not believe your link? Do you know how much war effort was sent to the USSR during WWII?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 18, 2010 8:19:12 GMT -4
Why send the high profile Von Braun in particular to Antarctica? Right now I don't know. I thought the secret NAZI base was up the other end of the Earth.... But to Antarctica he went. For that matter why send him to study conditions there? He was a rocket scientist not a survival expert Because he was interested in taking a look for himself? For PR purposes as the whole trip was documented in National Geographic? It was in short the precise opposite of a secret mission. This is ridiculous. Now its pass as moon rocks?Geologists who have studied moon rocks have stated quite categorically that they contain structures that could not have formed on Earth, and indeed that could only have been created in a vacuum at 1/6g over simliar time periods to the formation of rocks on Earth. As pointed out above, wouldn't work. And the magic radiation ovens make their appearance! Show me the difference between a 'proponent' and a 'believer'; offer up a method by which such machines might work, or a photo, or a schematic, any shred of evidence that such a thing is actually physically possible. LCROSS and others were deliberately 'crashed' for scientific purposes and the rest is simply more 'if', 'maybe' and 'perhaps'. You think they could have used GPS, at the time of Apollo? Really?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 18, 2010 8:21:54 GMT -4
Rodin, why do you think that evidence of co-operation and assistance during the war means that the whole cold war afterwards was a hoax? During the war the US and USSR had a common enemy that had declared war independently on both of them. After the war they didn't, and their ideological differences became significant again. What exactly makes you place significance on events during the war when they were actually co-operating. Do you think every shifting alliance throughout history was a hoax as well?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 18, 2010 9:13:31 GMT -4
What is different about the Moon from Earth? It is a vacuum. It is exposed to radiation directly. Both conditions that can be created on Earth. No, sorry. You can create vacuum and radiation on Earth, but you cannot remove the evidence of millions or billions of years in a water-rich atmosphere just by removing the surface. So, in other words, you have absolutely no idea how it might be achieved, you just have to assume it can be because otherwise you could be wrong about them being faked.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 18, 2010 9:22:43 GMT -4
Sounds like a plot line from Star Trek. Reconfigure the confibrobulators and the micro wave will do the same as the moon has over 4 or so billion years.
Rodin, have you a concept of time?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 18, 2010 9:28:25 GMT -4
Why send the high profile Von Braun in particular to Antarctica? You left off the most important part: why send him if the goal was covert acquisition of material. His own interest and the possible PR are pretty good reasons for going if there is nothing suspect about the visit. They work very strongly against any kind of covert operation. Invention of magic meteorite detection machine noted. Do you know why Antractica is such a good place to find meteorites? It is nothing more complicated than the simple fact that lumps of rock are visible for a very long way when they are sitting on or partly embedded in a white ice field. That's it. With a 'magic meteorite finding system' as per your suggestion, the need to go to Antarctica at all pretty well disappears. Invetion of magic meteorite altering machine noted. You cannot (and I do mean cannot ) simply irradiate any material and make experts in the field believe they are something else entirely. Except they won't, because you've just proposed altering the original 'lunar' samples somehow, so they will no longer match the raw material found in Antarctica by later explorers. Invention of magic moon rock making machine noted. Do you actually have any evidence for any of this stuff? You seem to be starting from your conclusion that it was faked and handwaving magic machines out of the air just to support you. I can only assume that is because it is easier than learning about the reality of Apollo and admitting you might possibly be wrong about it all being faked. (And regarding artificial diamonds, the price for artificial diamond jewellery has not collapsed because the processes required to make those diamonds are scarcely any less expensive than actually digging them out of the ground: you still need large amounts of graphite, the machines are huge, the diamonds produced are still not as good as the best natural ones by any means, and the success rate is as yet nowhere near 100%. Artificial industrial diamonds (the kind used to coat drill bits and cutting implements), on the other hand, are pretty cheap, because they are relatively easy to make and no-one gives a damn about their appearance, cut, or sparkle. What the use of artificial methods of production of diamonds for jewellery has done is led to a similarly artificial 'demand' (read: marketing ploy) for coloured diamonds, the colour being due to impurities that previously used to be reason for throwing out natural diamonds in the selection for their use in jewellery.) If there is nothing like 800lb and it was all faked, why bother saying there was 800 lb in the first place? If it was faked they could have made their documented total amount match with whatever total amount they could fabricate. Since weight is a premium they have a ready-made excuse for not bringing back much material. Can you picture the planning meeting? 'How much rock should we tell them wehave?' 'Well, we managed to collect and fabricate about 50 lb in total.' 'OK, we'll say around 800 lb then' 'Why not say 50?' '800 sounds better' 'But we only have 50' What's your point?' The 'crashes' were deliberate impacts and, even though the Moon has been neglected in the soft landing stakes, we have soft-landed several things on Mars, one on Titan and one on an asteroid. Or is that all fake too?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 18, 2010 10:00:48 GMT -4
Why send the high profile Von Braun in particular to Antarctica? Right now I don't know. I thought the secret NAZI base was up the other end of the Earth.... Was that humour? Okay, good effort, but needs more work. He didn't go there to 'study conditions'. According to Wikipedia, "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. Von Braun was mainly interested in management of the scientific effort on Antarctic research stations, logistics, habitation and life support, and in using the barren Antarctic terrain like the glacial dry valleys to test the equipment that one day would be used to look for signs of life on Mars and other worlds." Yes, he was a rocket engineer, but that included understanding habitat and exploration "stuff" as well. Okay, with you so far (apart from the magic meteor-finding machine). Whoa! How do you 'bombard' a rock in such a way that these isotopes are distributed throughout the rock? The process of dating a rock involves a lot more than just its surface. That's like saying you can turn green plasticine blue by painting its surface - look underneath the surface and it'll still be green. And how the heck do you 'manipulate' these rocks into lunar rocks and core samples? With a magic wand? What? How would this work? You've just described extensive processes for altering the meteorites 'designated "lunar"'. Now you're saying people will pick up unaltered versions of this type of rock and be convinced they're just like the altered versions? So now you've got samples of green plasticine painted blue, and people will pick up other samples of green plasticine and say, "Oh, this looks just like that blue plasticine." Sorry, if there's logic behind this explanation, it's completely lost on me. Do you have any thoughts on how it's possible to manufacture a rock which shows evidence of having formed in a one-sixth gravity vacuum? Do you have any thoughts on how it's possible to bombard rocks with dust particles travelling at tens of kilometres per second (forming the dreaded zap pits)? A lot of it. Go to www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/ By my count there are over 350 samples which each have individual studies, listing among other things the weight of the sample, constituent minerals and elements, and, in some cases, the academic papers which have been written on them. How about you go through the samples and add up the weights. How about you count the academic papers referenced? Or perhaps you could read the Apollo 11 press kit for the list of scientific establishments which got to study just the Apollo 11 samples. Once again, you cast doubt on an aspect of Apollo while admitting you don't know much about it. Do you have any idea how silly that makes you look? Here's an idea - why don't you do some research and then come to a conclusion. So what? Apollo's reality isn't determined by what comes after it. There are no supersonic passenger aircraft in service in the world today. Does that mean Concorde wasn't real? So what? That was the intention of those missions.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 18, 2010 10:12:15 GMT -4
What is different about the Moon from Earth? It is a vacuum. It is exposed to radiation directly. Both conditions that can be created on Earth. Do you know what else is different about the Moon from the Earth? One-sixth gravity. That can be recreated here on Earth for about thirty seconds at a time in a Vomit Comet. (I'm assuming you know what that is.) And, once more, the dreaded zap pits. Step three - fake the appearance of the rock having formed in one-sixth gravity. How? You tell us. Step four - bombard the rocks wth microscopic dust particles at speeds of tens of kilometres per second. How? You tell us.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 18, 2010 10:16:16 GMT -4
"Could have been"? That's your evidence? Where did I use the word evidence? I said answers. Given this earlier exchange on this thread I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for evidence.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 18, 2010 10:17:11 GMT -4
Once again, you cast doubt on an aspect of Apollo while admitting you don't know much about it. Do you have any idea how silly that makes you look? Here's an idea - why don't you do some research and then come to a conclusion. rodin has been asked a number of times both on here and on DIF to do the ground work first then conclude but he prefers to jump straight to the conclusion. This will lead to failure but at least he is being polite about it.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 18, 2010 10:28:15 GMT -4
Once again, you cast doubt on an aspect of Apollo while admitting you don't know much about it. Do you have any idea how silly that makes you look? Here's an idea - why don't you do some research and then come to a conclusion. rodin has been asked a number of times both on here and on DIF to do the ground work first then conclude but he prefers to jump straight to the conclusion. This will lead to failure but at least he is being polite about it. Did his conclusion jump describe a perfect parabola? If not it was probably a fake.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 18, 2010 10:33:26 GMT -4
How so? In your estimation? So far the lack of any real research or evidence as demonstrated by the jump has convinced me to think that history as I know it is wrong. You should NEVER believe anything until after you have done your OWN research - and not then either Redux. OK, what is the provenance of Major Jordans claim now I have has time to look over this?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 18, 2010 10:54:31 GMT -4
Since "believer" is "someone who accepts a thing to be true without evidence," I think "believer" is the perfect word here.
|
|