|
Post by blackstar on Sept 9, 2010 14:19:45 GMT -4
1) We could have all analyses controlled. heck if we can keep the lid on the obvious demolition of WTC we can easily make up Moon Rock stories2) We could fake Moon Rocks (and Cores). The claim is that the crystalline surface structure must have formed in a vacuum. How about we grab a rocky meteorite. Blast off the outer layer - that would reveal a rough interior essentially similar to the final Moon rock specification with perhaps one difference - the surface layer would not have sharp edges. So how to make sharp edges? Grow fresh crystals on top would be first thought - in vacuo of course. 3) Alternatively just make rocks from scratch in vacuo to match one of the 'Lunar' meteorites found by Von Braun. Now if you could just get a few respected geologists to sign off on your theory as something that would fool them, then maybe we could start to take you seriously. In the meantime it is just a bunch of technobabble not worthy of discussion. For some reason he's posted about the moon rocks in the 'Jump' thread, and he appears to admit that the zap pits couldn't have been made at the time of Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 9, 2010 14:24:02 GMT -4
Rodin, what will it take for you to admit that a blank statement that we could have done something is not evidence that we did? Indeed, with statements of the level you're making, it's not even evidence that we could.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Sept 9, 2010 15:45:25 GMT -4
Rodin,
Stick to the topic (the moon rocks, in case you've forgotten). Your thoughts on the cold war can be discussed in the following thread started specifically for you:
Rodin's Cold War fakery evidence
Do no post about any conspiracy theories unrelated to the Apollo hoax theory in this section of the forum. This is not the place for 9/11 discussions, and I will not tolerate any anti-semitic bigotry. I think that given the quality of his posts he is trolling for fun. But the jew-hating has to stop. rodin - There is a thread on the jump (which you seem to have forgotten). There is a thread about faked moon rock. Both these threads are there for you to post your evidence and answer challenges. On the other hand why don't you just stay over on DIF with your crop-circle pals. You will get much more support over there. Mods - I'd suggest that if rodin continues to avoid a real discussion then ban him. He will go crying over on Icke that he has "won" but there are plenty of posters over there who will point out the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Sept 9, 2010 17:23:50 GMT -4
and I will not tolerate any anti-semitic bigotry. And any other form of bigotry, I hope.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 9, 2010 18:57:17 GMT -4
and I will not tolerate any anti-semitic bigotry. And any other form of bigotry, I hope. No, of course. But Rodin has demonstrated the anti-semitic variety.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 9, 2010 18:59:07 GMT -4
Personally I prefer anti-Symantic....
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Sept 9, 2010 19:19:27 GMT -4
And any other form of bigotry, I hope. No, of course. But Rodin has demonstrated the anti-semitic variety. rodin has clearly revealed his anti-semitic agenda. His arguing the moon hoax is simply the tip of his conspiracy iceberg. He seems to believe that this is a viable method to gain acceptance for his other ideas.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Sept 10, 2010 0:46:34 GMT -4
Pathetic arguments about a big bad ebil jewish conspiracy pretty much sum up what Rodin's arguments are all about. Full of merda. The results of such bigotry can still be felt in europe 60+ years after the fact and rodins bs suggestion that jews are trying to rule the world only fuel the flames of that same hatred. The best is to simply expose those childish and moronic claims for the absolute garbabge that they are.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Sept 10, 2010 1:08:43 GMT -4
Amen.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 10, 2010 4:33:39 GMT -4
1) We could have all analyses controlled. Appeal to abstract possibility noted. NASA obviously has a lot more power than we all thought, stretching right around the globe to geologists in hostile countries. Have you ever even seen any of the lunar smaples, rodin. I have. Appeal to irrelevant (and unproven) other conspiracy noted. Amazing how the US can keep a lid on the really huge things, but little things like a President stealing money gets blown wide open by two blokes with a tape recorder.... Appeal to abstract possibility noted. Right, so no geologist anywhere in the world will notice evidence of blasting of the outer layer, or the difference between the fresh crystals on the outer layer and the rest of the rock? Love it. 'Just make rocks from scratch'. You must think geology is a total crock if you think professional geologists could be fooled so easily. All you have ever offered is suggestions. I will ask this until I am blue in the face if necessary: do you have evidence for any of them? All you are doing so far is inventing suggestions (with no thought as to their practicality) in order to bolster your predetermined belief that the Moon landings were faked. That's the exact opposite of being a researcher, which is what you claimed to be in an earlier post. You could be a man. You could be a woman. You could be a quadruplegic who types with his or her nose. You could be a bank robber, murderer or rapist. I assume that you would at least expect me to have evidence for at least that last claim before I made a public show of accusing you of it, however.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 8:11:38 GMT -4
Someone questioned whether I knew what 'cores' were. I do from my interest in mining companies. Good for you, sir. You should probably know more geology than me. Others have pointed out "could have" is not the same as "did". Uh-huh. And how about the evidence that the rocks formed in a one-sixth gravity environment? How was that done? If you're knowledgeable about geology, please explain how you "just make rocks from scratch"? Well, let's discuss it here, rather than the other irrelevant topics you've raised.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 8:31:00 GMT -4
I forgot about the fact someone had started another thread on my behalf for me to show cold war fakery - I was responding to posts made in this thread. If possible please move all relevant posts onto that thread and I will continue posting there on that subject Now - just to make sure we understand each other - I do not have to prove every aspect of Apollo was faked. I have to prove some of it was faked and you have to show how it couldn't be. Then you provide evidence that you say proves Apollo and I have to show how it could have been faked. Those zap pits - answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081122181521AApzvPpMach 1 is around 1000 FPS I very much doubt it was beyond the capabilities of NASA or another lab to fire pellets into rock fast enough to cause the melting and shock effects of zap pits What would they use? There are a number of candidates. For a complete sublimation of the impacting material solid CO2 might fit the bill
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 10, 2010 8:34:25 GMT -4
I have to prove some of it was faked and you have to show how it couldn't be. Then you provide evidence that you say proves Apollo and I have to show how it could have been faked. Nope. You just have to prove it was faked. All we have to do is rebut your evidence.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 10, 2010 8:36:34 GMT -4
I very much doubt it was beyond the capabilities of NASA or another lab to fire pellets into rock fast enough to cause the melting and shock effects of zap pits What would they use? There are a number of candidates. For a complete sublimation of the impacting material solid CO2 might fit the bill Supposition. Still waiting for evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 10, 2010 8:40:58 GMT -4
Now - just to make sure we understand each other - I do not have to prove every aspect of Apollo was faked. We're not asking you to. No, you have to provide evidence it was faked and we have to analyse that evidence and accept or reject it based on its merits. It is NOT our burden of proof to should it could not be faked, because that is an impossible standard to maintain. Proving a negative is impossible. All we can say is there is no evidence it was faked. If you have some then get on with actually presenting it, will you? The evidence is on the table already, provided by NASA. Of course, because to concede that it was requires admitting your conclusion might be wrong. Once again you fail to grasp the basic premise that you have to provide EVIDENCE. Not say 'this could be done' , but show that this WAS done. How hard is that to understand? Does solid CO2 have the required density? You're just guessing based on a common material that everyone knows sublimates right from solid to gas.
|
|