|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 2, 2011 21:28:31 GMT -4
I don't know to what extent the media is controlled, but certain government do censor certain things. I heard that the government did exert some control during the Iraq war, perhaps it was not the case, who knows? This is all I will say Of course the government exerted control during the Iraq war. What were they supposed to do, tell CNN where the 1st MEF were heading, and that the 101st would be dropping into Mosul. Oh by the way, now you have that information, pass it onto Saddam, as that will blow our OPSEC. For the record, I'm not big on war, but I understand why governments control information during times of conflict. That's the business of war and how it is conducted, whether we agree with it or not. You can find those ideas in Sun Tzu. Remind me how much mass media control there was in ancient China? Now, I thought you asked me not to deviate. Let's talk about moon rocks. Are you going to explain what it is about the analysis of the moon rocks that casts doubt on their origin, and I really want some specific science here. The samples have been tested in labs all over the world. What is it about the results from those labs that you doubt. Let's start with the genesis rock. Not much sodium in that one... what does that mean to you in terms of its formation?
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 2, 2011 21:30:15 GMT -4
Did you even read what I said earlier?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 2, 2011 21:30:54 GMT -4
I don't doubt any of the scientific conclusions. However, their conclusions has very limited implications, and for that reason do not by themselves prove that we sent men on the moon. If all the researches were done on a small quantity of rocks, then all we can say is that the rocks they have analyzed indeed come from the moon. We should not extrapolate beyond that. NASA says those rocks were brought back by the Apollo astronauts. If you want to argue that they were in fact brought back by probes you're creating a new problem... where did the probes come from? Who built them? How were they launched without anyone noticing? NASA's story makes sense. Until an alternative story that makes more sense is presented what reason do I have to doubt NASA?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 2, 2011 21:32:44 GMT -4
Did you even read what I said earlier? Yes I did. Are you going to start discussing why you do not believe the analysis of the moon rocks. Let's start with the Genesis Rock. Not much sodium in that one. What does that tell you about its formation?
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 2, 2011 21:32:51 GMT -4
I don't doubt any of the scientific conclusions. However, their conclusions has very limited implications, and for that reason do not by themselves prove that we sent men on the moon. If all the researches were done on a small quantity of rocks, then all we can say is that the rocks they have analyzed indeed come from the moon. We should not extrapolate beyond that. NASA says those rocks were brought back by the Apollo astronauts. If you want to argue that they were in fact brought back by probes you're creating a new problem... where did the probes come from? Who built them? How were they launched without anyone noticing? NASA's story makes sense. Until an alternative story that makes more sense is presented what reason do I have to doubt NASA? That's not rational at all.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 2, 2011 21:33:55 GMT -4
Why not?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 2, 2011 21:35:35 GMT -4
That's not rational at all. You're on thin ice when it comes to discussing what is rational and what is not. So, the Genesis rock. Not much sodium in that one. What does that tell you about its formation? Do you understand enough basic mineralogy to understand the importance/context of that question?
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 2, 2011 21:36:06 GMT -4
Did you even read what I said earlier? Yes I did. Are you going to start discussing why you do not believe the analysis of the moon rocks. Let's start with the Genesis Rock. Not much sodium in that one. What does that tell you about its formation? I only asked to prove that a large quantity of rocks were analyzed by any independent scientist not working for NASA. A quantity so large that it would prove that we wouldn't have been able to bring them back on earth using other means.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 2, 2011 21:46:30 GMT -4
I only asked to prove that a large quantity of rocks were analyzed by any independent scientist not working for NASA. A quantity so large that it would prove that we wouldn't have been able to bring them back on earth using other means. And I'm asking you: what other means were there? If you're going to argue that probes could have been used then prove it. Until you do then these probes are just theoretical at best. You can't discard all of the recorded history of Apollo based on imaginary probes... you need proof.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 2, 2011 21:49:21 GMT -4
I only asked to prove that a large quantity of rocks were analyzed by any independent scientist not working for NASA. A quantity so large that it would prove that we wouldn't have been able to bring them back on earth using other means. And I'm asking you: what other means were there? If you're going to argue that probes could have been used then prove it. Until you do then these probes are just theoretical at best. You can't discard all of the recorded history of Apollo based on imaginary probes... you need proof. The Soviets did it.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 2, 2011 21:51:14 GMT -4
Yes I did. Are you going to start discussing why you do not believe the analysis of the moon rocks. Let's start with the Genesis Rock. Not much sodium in that one. What does that tell you about its formation? I only asked to prove that a large quantity of rocks were analyzed by any independent scientist not working for NASA. A quantity so large that it would prove that we wouldn't have been able to bring them back on earth using other means. The rocks have been analysed by many indepedent scientists not working for NASA. (1) Particularities of rare element distribution in high-aluminium basalts from mare and highland regions of the Moon (based on SR-XFA data) L.S. Tarasov, A.F. Kudryashova, A.A. Ulyanov V.B. Baryshev, K.V. Zolotarev, V.I. Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences Geological Department of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University Institute of Nuclear Physics, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (2) Feldspathic lunar meteorites and their implications for compositional remote sensing of the lunar surface and the composition of the lunar crust. RANDY L. KOROTEV,BRADLEY L. JOLLIFF, RYAN A. ZEIGLER, JEFFREY J. GILLIS, and LARRY A. HASKIN Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences, Washington University (3) Iron isotope differences between Earth, Moon, Mars and Vesta as possible records of contrasted accretion mechanisms Franck Poitrassona, Alexander N. Hallidaya, Der-Chuen Leea, Sylvain Levasseura, Nadya Teutscha, Do you want me to carry on giving examples? I have hundreds of papers on the subject, most of them written by non-NASA scientists. Do you think NASA have invested millions on labs, when it is cheaper for universities to do the work? Which option do you think NASA choose. Invest in labs or pay universities that already have the facilities?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 2, 2011 21:52:44 GMT -4
And I'm asking you: what other means were there? If you're going to argue that probes could have been used then prove it. Until you do then these probes are just theoretical at best. You can't discard all of the recorded history of Apollo based on imaginary probes... you need proof. The Soviets did it. For 300 grams. NASA brought back over 800lbs. Quite a difference there.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 2, 2011 21:56:29 GMT -4
For 300 grams. NASA brought back over 800lbs. Quite a difference there. I'd add it was soil too, not rocks that have thrown up a whole host of science that shows they could have only come from somewhere other than Earth.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 2, 2011 22:07:21 GMT -4
I only asked to prove that a large quantity of rocks were analyzed by any independent scientist not working for NASA. A quantity so large that it would prove that we wouldn't have been able to bring them back on earth using other means. The rocks have been analysed by many indepedent scientists not working for NASA. (1) Particularities of rare element distribution in high-aluminium basalts from mare and highland regions of the Moon (based on SR-XFA data) L.S. Tarasov, A.F. Kudryashova, A.A. Ulyanov V.B. Baryshev, K.V. Zolotarev, V.I. Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences Geological Department of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University Institute of Nuclear Physics, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (2) Feldspathic lunar meteorites and their implications for compositional remote sensing of the lunar surface and the composition of the lunar crust. RANDY L. KOROTEV,BRADLEY L. JOLLIFF, RYAN A. ZEIGLER, JEFFREY J. GILLIS, and LARRY A. HASKIN Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences, Washington University (3) Iron isotope differences between Earth, Moon, Mars and Vesta as possible records of contrasted accretion mechanisms Franck Poitrassona, Alexander N. Hallidaya, Der-Chuen Leea, Sylvain Levasseura, Nadya Teutscha, Do you want me to carry on giving examples? I have hundreds of papers on the subject, most of them written by non-NASA scientists. Do you think NASA have invested millions on labs, when it is cheaper for universities to do the work? Which option do you think NASA choose. Invest in labs or pay universities that already have the facilities? I said "a quantity so large that it would prove that we wouldn't have been able to bring them back on earth using other means." You only quoted some research papers.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 2, 2011 22:10:06 GMT -4
Maybe he's suggesting you do some research. He isn't going to do all the work for you.
|
|