|
Um...
Apr 20, 2006 22:31:51 GMT -4
Post by PeterB on Apr 20, 2006 22:31:51 GMT -4
Moon Man said:
The Apollo rocks came from landing locations which were scattered across the Moon, locations with geology different from each other.
Uh, no. Most of the Apollo rocks are solidified lava, and a range of other minerals.
You're correct that scientists now believe there's water on the Moon, as a result of comet impacts.
But the point is that you don't seem to understand the difference between water which is part of the chemical make-up of a rock, and water which happens to be in the same location as a rock.
The Apollo rocks contain no water. That wasn't expected before the rocks were retrieved.
The astronauts picked up rocks. They put them in boxes. The boxes were given to geologists. The geologists looked at the rocks. They discovered the rocks contained no water. They discovered they contained convection currents from when they were liquid which showed they were liquid in 1/6th Earth gravity.
Geologists also found the rocks contained isotopes in different proportions to rocks found on Earth. They also saw the outside of the rocks were marked with microscopic craters from the impact of dust motes travelling at tens of kilometres per second.
Give that sort of evidence to a geologist, and s/he will tell you that rock can't be from Earth.
Rocks at Sudbury contain water in their chemical make-up. Their convection patterns show they were liquid at Earth gravity. They have isotopic patterns typical of Earth. They contain no zap pits. In these four factors, Sudbury rocks are different from Apollo rocks. Any professional geologist could tell the difference.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 20, 2006 22:37:46 GMT -4
Post by sts60 on Apr 20, 2006 22:37:46 GMT -4
I don't buy the signal crappola line.
In other words, you have nothing but reflexive disbelief. OK, fine; we accept that you have no counter-argument whatsoever to the tracking evidence.
BTW, only one 'p' in "crapola".
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 20, 2006 22:43:04 GMT -4
Post by sts60 on Apr 20, 2006 22:43:04 GMT -4
One other thing - others have already considered and refuted your claims that lunar samples (which you completely mischaracterized) could have come from a terrestrial location like Sudbury. I'll simply remind you that a while back you claimed Sudbury was some sort of secret NASA site, when in fact training activities there were publicized like everything else to do with the Apollo astronauts, and in fact information about training activities there can be obtained today on NASA's own web servers. You never acknowledged this, either.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Um...
Apr 21, 2006 2:48:59 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 21, 2006 2:48:59 GMT -4
Moon Man must have something wrong in his brain that we keep having to explain the same things over and over to him. He seems to completely forget that all this stuff has been explained to him before multiple times.
Your comment about the buffallo is pretty ironic coming from you. Where exactly is all this research that you claim to have done? I also like your "reverse onus" comment. You actually think that we have the burden of proving Apollo was real? No problem, we've already thrown a heap of evidence at you. Solid, direct evidence. All you can do is speculate. There's not a shred of direct evidence that Apollo was hoaxed.
Moon Man, every claim you make falls into some order of scientific observation. Do you agree with this? Whether it be the moon rocks or the radiation or the docking prodecures or the rocket/craft design or the photographs or the telemetry or any of that, it falls under some degree of scientific observation, right? My simple question is: what makes you experienced enough in any of the scientific fields related to Apollo that your claims are viable? Are you a photoanalyst, an engineer, a rocket scientist, a physicist, a geologist, an astronomer, or a chemist? I didn't think so. So why are your claims correct when every real scientist that works in a field that Apollo influenced vouches for its authenticity? Do you think you know more about these sciences than the scientists that spend their whole lives honing their crafts? What is your deal?
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 21, 2006 4:16:08 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on Apr 21, 2006 4:16:08 GMT -4
[There has also not be a geo-man on the moon until Apollo 17, I think, so no geo-man would know one rock from another. The Apollo 17 mission is the mission that the Sudbury rocks took part in. Sudbury's in the pet moon rock history books. The astronauts on the earlier missions did spend some of their training time learning geology from professional geologists. The Apollo 15 episode of "From the earth to the Moon" covers this aspect. I would back Dave Scott's knowledge of geology against yours any day.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Um...
Apr 21, 2006 4:32:14 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 21, 2006 4:32:14 GMT -4
That's a great episode. And a great series. I wish I could afford the box set...
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 21, 2006 5:27:29 GMT -4
Post by twinstead on Apr 21, 2006 5:27:29 GMT -4
That's a great episode. And a great series. I wish I could afford the box set... you'd think we'd all be able to afford it on our government debunker's salary...
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 21, 2006 5:30:52 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on Apr 21, 2006 5:30:52 GMT -4
That's a great episode. And a great series. I wish I could afford the box set... you'd think we'd all be able to afford it on our government debunker's salary... You'd think they'd supply us with the set, plus Apollo 13, the Right Stuff and the complete Spacecraft Films collection, purely as research aids of course.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 21, 2006 7:55:30 GMT -4
Post by kevb on Apr 21, 2006 7:55:30 GMT -4
Pity we cant get some pictures. Photographic film is too grainy. One day soon we will have multi gage pixel Cameras So we may be able to see a moon rover
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Um...
Apr 21, 2006 8:08:34 GMT -4
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 21, 2006 8:08:34 GMT -4
you'd think we'd all be able to afford it on our government debunker's salary... You'd think they'd supply us with the set, plus Apollo 13, the Right Stuff and the complete Spacecraft Films collection, purely as research aids of course. You didn't get yours? Send a complaint to management via your usual dead-drop trashcan ;D
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 21, 2006 9:06:18 GMT -4
Post by sts60 on Apr 21, 2006 9:06:18 GMT -4
Too slow. Use the shoe-phone.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Um...
Apr 21, 2006 9:58:47 GMT -4
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 21, 2006 9:58:47 GMT -4
But make sure your respondent employs the cone of silence ;D
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 21, 2006 12:21:17 GMT -4
Post by Fnord Fred on Apr 21, 2006 12:21:17 GMT -4
Ah jeez, not the cone of silence. I only use that for when I'm working with the NASA death squads and sniping whistle-blowers.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 21, 2006 12:42:27 GMT -4
Post by dwight on Apr 21, 2006 12:42:27 GMT -4
I don't buy the signal crappola line. The pet moon rocks come from earth. Surf my thread on the other board, I've posted links to prove moon rocks that NASA claims came from the moon are also found on earth. In Sudbury and in South Africa. You dont buy the signal crapola line'? I dont buy the you are a sensient being crapola while we are discussing it. Come on Moon Man. I triple double dare you, (are you a coward or what...you cant even respond to my insert VHS tape and watch it get chewed info) come out here and put your warm hands on the satellite dish controls and watch how that crapola actually really does work. That's standard TV basics you are once again denying you. I guess its good having complete idiots talk about TV because it eliminates just that one extra person from an already competitive industry. In case all those here have forgotten: MOON MAN WAS OFFERED ALOT OF MONEY TO COME TO A TV STUDIO AND PROVE HIS THEORIES FALSIFYING TRACKING PHYSICS CORRECT. HE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY REFUSED OUT OF COWARDICE (I GUESS) TO DO SO. By the way buddy, pal, have you ever seen a VHS tape get chewed up by a VCR? FYI: A VHS is a 3/4" tape format encased in a plastic cartidge. A VCR is the machine that plays the tapes back on a standard monitor. A monitor is commonly known as a TV set. Can someone please put the signal crappola in the MM tribute?
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Um...
Apr 21, 2006 15:35:59 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 21, 2006 15:35:59 GMT -4
Duh! I forgot about the debunker salary! I haven't checked the ol' dropoff spot in weeks! It's three blocks down, past the homeless junkies, behind a dumpster disguised as dirty needles. I'll have to put on my transvestite hooker disguise and remember to recite the codewords if necessary: You want some action? That'll be $19.69. I sure wish they'd change the codewords. A couple times things got hairy when I spoke the codewords to the wrong guys. Boy was my face red!
|
|