|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 11:15:47 GMT -4
1) we fake moon rocks
2) they are then indistinguishable from the real thing because there IS no real thing with which to compare
simples
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 10, 2010 11:17:15 GMT -4
Furthermore the effect of micrometeorites had already been detected by 1) meteorites which fall to Earth at high frequency Meteorites specifically do not show these zap pits, because the outer layers containing them are burned off in the passage through the atmosphere. That's not the same as a zap pit. The surprise about zap pits was the scale on which they existed. Even sub-millimetre sized particles showed zap pits under electron microscopy. That scale was not looked at prior to Apollo because it does not constitute sigificant damage. See above. The scale is the big surprise here. Why don't you do some of your own research and tell us the answer to that one?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 10, 2010 11:19:17 GMT -4
What is so far-fetched about suggesting using particle acceleration technology to zap rocks? The idea that you can use it to accelerate things on the macro scale as opposed to the atomic and subatomic scale it is actually used for.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 10, 2010 11:20:56 GMT -4
1) we fake moon rocks 2) they are then indistinguishable from the real thing because there IS no real thing with which to compare simples Ah, the old 'geologists know nothing unless they have a sample to compare with' argument. As a scientist I find that incredibly insulting, frankly. It also fails on another level: what happens when there IS a real thing with which to compare? Isn't it lucky that the Apollo samples match up with later analyses of lunar material performed by other probes in later years, or is it all faked?
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Sept 10, 2010 11:21:27 GMT -4
Zap pits were, it was discovered, relatively easy to fake, thanks to the development of high speed firing systems. Oh, puh-leeze. It hasn't been "discovered", it's been claimed by you with no attempt to prove it was really possible via non-pixie means, and no attempt to prove it was actually used to fake the Apollo results. Seriously, are you just trolling now?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 10, 2010 11:22:45 GMT -4
Seriously, are you just trolling now? I wager yes.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Sept 10, 2010 11:23:03 GMT -4
1) we fake moon rocks 2) they are then indistinguishable from the real thing because there IS no real thing with which to compare simples 1) Who is "we" and where is the evidence? 2) Ask any geologist if they find this highly amusing and ill informed.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 10, 2010 11:24:48 GMT -4
One would have to ask, why, if NASA was going to fake moon rocks, would it fake them in such a way that they didn't support either of the then current major theories of the Moon's formation, but rather do it in such a way that resulted in Geologists coming up with a brand new theory.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 10, 2010 11:27:46 GMT -4
Indeed. Why do so much of this faking in ways that people were not expecting? Why make a fake lunar lander that didn't 'look like' a real spacecraft? Why make Moon rocks so different from what anyone was expecting, and in such quantity? Why fake more than just the one mission to beat the USSR there?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 10, 2010 11:29:36 GMT -4
they are then indistinguishable from the real thing because there IS no real thing with which to compare And if geology were comparative only and not analytical, this would mean something. Again, your solution is "simple" only in the little alternate reality you've constructed for yourself. Have a few qualified geologists sign off on your ideas and then maybe we'll talk. Until then I'm just going to chalk up "geology" on the long list of items you've demonstrated you know nothing about, but won't stop shooting your mouth off on them.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 10, 2010 11:35:23 GMT -4
Explain is not proveEquivocation. You said you had answers. Unfortunately all you have is speculation, which isn't worth anything. What is so far-fetched about suggesting using particle acceleration technology to zap rocks?1. It wasn't around when the samples were created. 2. It isn't applicable to the kind of bombardment that creates zap pits. 3. You've acknowledged (2) but haven't explained why then it's still relevant. In short, you're grasping at straws. That's what makes it farfetched.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 11:38:15 GMT -4
Rodin asked: Things like the size of gas bubbles in rocks and solidified evidence of convection currents in basalts.
And we've already explained to you that lunar meteorites would be contaminated by the Earth's water and atmosphere, so can't be used as you propose.
Diamonds would be much easier than other crystals seeing as they consist only of carbon. How would your process work to create a rock of, say, anorthosite, consisting as it does of mostly plagioclase feldspar (NaAlSi3O8 to CaAl2Si2O8)? How do you create all those atomic bonds?
Incidentally, I note the Wikipedia article you link to about synthetic diamonds describes the existence of a process to tell synthetic diamonds from natural diamonds. Presumably a similar process could tell your fake rock crystals from real rock crystals.
Please provide evidence that particle accelerators can accelerate objects as large as dust grains.
We're not looking for no chemical signature. We're looking for the chemical signature of uncontaminated interplanetary dust particles. Where are scientists going to get them from?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 11:48:58 GMT -4
Apollo stands on many pillars - show one is false and the whole edifice comes down. I would not choose to base the case for the prosecution on the Moon Rock evidence because I cannot verify it for myself. I choose to analyse what evidence IS available to me - video and still images mainly. On that evidence I would base my case. The problem with that is that if the evidence is that the Apollo rocks were collected by people walking on the Moon, your video evidence doesn't prove Apollo was hoaxed. If you want to prove Apollo was faked, you have to address all the evidence. If you don't have the knowledge to cover all the evidence, you either have to concede you can't prove your case, or you have to acquire that knowledge. How about you contact the Geology department of your nearest university and ask the professors there about the Apollo rocks? The odds are pretty good that someone there either worked on them, or has worked with someone who did. We already have. For example, how do you explain photos of rocks sitting on the ground in which astronauts appear. If the photos were faked on Earth, how were the "Moon sets" created without contaminating the Moon rocks? For another example, how did NASA create footage of things like the Apollo 16 astronauts' walk to House Rock, or where the astronauts approach the TV camera from a distance?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 11:54:49 GMT -4
To give correct date? Dope with isotopes. What process is involved in "doping with isotopes"? How do the isotopes permeate the whole rock? How do these processes give consistent results across multiple rocks? The geologists (from many countries around the world) who studied the rocks and noted the differences and similarities between Earth rocks and Moon rocks, and the things they expected and didn't expect. Are you saying geologists from many countries beyond the USA are all part of a vast conspiracy of scientists?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 11:57:14 GMT -4
This Moon Rock thread was set up as a stumbling block i was supposed to fall over. I do rather enjoy dodging the bullets though. It was? What makes you think you can read my mind? I set the thread up because you made an off-hand comment in another thread about the Moon rocks were faked and I wanted to find out what your evidence was.
|
|