Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Validation Boy, Mar 18, 2015.
No viewers are coming to help you so address the facts which prove you wrong
The astronauts weren't moving fast enough to cause a 'breeze' <eyeroll>
Some conspiracies were not just theory but fact.
Some conspiracy minded people, still maintain their logic, reason, rationality.
Some conspiracy minded people never had enough logic, reason, rationality. The moon hoax camp falls into this category.
Conspiracy theorists who have made up their ego mind, have made it impossible for them to ever change their minds, no matter how much evidence and fact negates their deeply held beliefs. They will always pull another conspiracy theory out of their hats, instead of accepting what the facts and evidence shows.
Some conspiracy theorists can change their minds, back to a view supported by logic, reason, rationality, but those numbers are so few. The reason they are so few is due to the power of human nature, over our actions, but even in how we think. For a man to be shown to be wrong, pulls the ego into the mix, and the ego never wants to be wrong, for it hurts the self image of the ego. Being wrong is not the kind of image the ego demands of itself. So, this human nature is very powerful, and its forte is providing for idiocy to continue on.
With this said, there are indeed very credible conspiracy theories, but the moon landing hoax is not one of them. These hoaxes are created by those minds that come to the table with a deficit of logic, reason, rationality. So, their minds are in concrete and its a waste of time to attempt to use evidence, fact, and then logic, reason, and rationality with them, for they are aliens in that paradigm, and cannot operate coherently in it. These like children, should be seen, but not heard, unless you are inviting more incoherence into your life. Or have a need for a dose of cosmic comedy.
And admit it, these conspiracy guys can be quite comedic and entertaining. A good chuckle is always called for.
My reason for not changing my mind is that there is a ton of proof that the footage NASA showed to the world was all taken in a studio...
...and no proof that the footage was taken on the moon.
There is absolutely NO proof the moon landings were done in a studio,NONE.
your whole premise for thinking so is 'it could have been faked' Major fail.
There is no proof it was faked no matter how many times you post links to what has already been debunked.
Each and every one of your videos links and claims have been debunked shredded and destroyed
You're misrepresenting my postition to mislead the viewers. My position is that the anomalies in the footage prove that the footage that NASA made public was taken in a studio.
There are no 'anomolies'....one would think billions spent on the space program would see that there wasn't-------------
They prove no such thing
You quote your wall of spam so often, it must be like a little pacifier for you. It's such a shame that your spam has been taken apart completely. Bizarrely, you seem completely unable to read any of the responses to it.
There are thousands of examples of direct proof - all you demonstrate is a talent for placing your head in the sand. The footage consistently conforms to visible lunar gravity. I made several videos demonstrating this with full analyses. Then there are the peer reviewed lunar samples that cannot possibly be faked.
This is where you post your idiotic links without understanding why they are so, and studiously avoiding any direct debate on the matter. Your claim from the links you provide, is that they are Earth rocks.
How can they be Earth rocks when they show no signs of Earth weathering and have very distinct and strong solar isotopic radiation?
There are plausible expanations. Anyway, the rocks don't make the anomalies in the footage go away.
The flag and the backdrops close the whole case by themselves. Rocks aren't going to make that go away. Viewers - go to post #12 of the thread on the flag movement.
How can they be Earth rocks when they show no signs of Earth weathering and have very distinct and strong solar isotopic radiation?
Your inability to understand simple explanations doesn't make nearly 400 kilograms of Lunar samples, peer reviewed, examined by the world's finest geologists go away. Geologists who laugh at the suggestion that they are faked!
The flag isn't air, that is impossible. The backdrops are distant mountains examined by a fictional character with no photogrammetry skills whatsoever.
There is nothing to make go away. The rocks are genuine and your "plausible" explanations are nothing more than hyperbole. You are quite the ridiculous spammer if you think anyone is taking any notice of your posts.
You seem to think that what we read about the rocks is simply the truth. How are we supposed to know that what we read about them reflects reality?
I posted some info on the rocks in post #1 of this thread.
There's more here.
How were the moon rocks faked?
A: Apollo samples have a chemistry that can be matched fairly closely with terrestrial basalts and eucrites, a basaltic meteorite [Fig-4]. The same is true for the mineralogy: The minerals found in JSC-1 (lunar regolith simulant), plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, ilmenite, and chromite, are also characteristic of many lunar basalts and mare soils (Figure 5). The compositional ranges of these lunar minerals generally overlap the ranges of their terrestrial counterparts. Apollo samples and earth rocks have oxygen18 to oxygen17 ratios of around 5:3 per mil. Although Eucrites are generally slightly less than this, there have been exceptions in which their oxygen isotope ratios are the same as earth (DaG 872 being a good example [Fig-5, 6]).
The three groups of rock are as identical as three of a kind.
Additionally, some scientists such as John OKeefe have also noticed similarities between lunar glasses and tektites, leading to theories that tektites are lunar in origin, not terrestrial13 (Table 3 & 4).
Because of the similarities in age, chemistry, mineralogy and oxygen isotope ratios, as well as the alleged lack of water in Apollo samples, this has led William Hartman to believe that the moon was formed when a mars-sized planet collided with the earth. All water was vaporized in the impact and the moon formed out of the terrestrial debris knocked off into space. To account for the similarities between Apollo samples and eucrites, some such as Ruzicka et al have proposed that the mars-sized planet had a eucritic composition14.
Clearly, NASAs Apollo samples are a combination of terrestrial basalts, eucrites and tektites. Terrestrial basalts are plentiful, but the advantage of Eucrites is that they show signs of solar and cosmic radiation, which is absent in earth rocks. Things like zap pits (micrometeoroid impacts) can be added by firing projectiles from high-speed multi-stage gas guns which existed at the time. To hide the fact that these Eucrites fell through the atmosphere, the first millimetre was chipped away to remove the fusion crust (the outer burned layer due to atmospheric entry). Contrary to what propagandists claim, removing of this layer will not subsequently remove a large portion of helium3 or other solar wind induced isotopes, because solar wind penetrates a few millimetres into the rock not 1 micrometre as the propagandists claim. And while chipping away the fusion crust may leave traces of themselves in the rock, these tools are little different to the tools used by NASA to chip the samples into the tiny sugar-cubed pieces that they send to geologists. In short, if a geologist found traces of these tools, he/she would be unable to tell whether they got there through chipping off fusion crust or by chipping free the sub-sample from its parent body.
Q: How do you know the moon rocks are fake?
A: If Jarrah picks up a rock from the moon to analyse in a lab and then send up a probe to the moon to kick up plumes of dust for analysis via radio telescope, he expects to find the same chemical signatures and mineralogy. This assertion is supported by the lunar maria samples from Apollos 11, 12 and 17 being virtually the same above and below ground, the fact that NASA claims their Lunar Prospectors and Clementine spacecrafts indicated that the lunar geology is the same as Apollo throughout, and the fact that the vast majority of official lunar meteorites are the same as NASAs samples. Yet when the European Space Agencys SMART-1 probe crashed into the Lake Of Excellence, a lunar maria region, it was reported that the minerals kicked up were different to the Apollo rocks.
Likewise, although most lunar meteorites can be closely matched with Eucrites, there are known exceptions in which the meteorites have gone on the record as being distinct from or unlike any basalt from Apollo or Luna ( Yamato 793169, Asuka 881757, Miller Range 05035, Dhofar 287, NWA 773). These include differences in chemistry and even oxygen isotope ratios. One such meteorite, Dhofar 280 [Fig-7], contains an iron silicide mineral Hapkeite [Fig-8, 9]. Which is believed to be formed through micrometeorite impacts with the moon [Fig-10], and due to billions of years of such bombardment, the mineral is believed to be common on the lunar surface. Yet Hapkeite has never been found in any of the Apollo samples.
Further evidence that the samples are faked can be found even without comparing them to the real stuff. Contrary to what NASA and propagandists claim, the rocks contain water within the same ranges as their terrestrial cousins [Fig-11, 12]. * Any water deposited in the equatorial region of moon by comets or solar wind, or any water not vaporised by the alleged giant impact, should have been vaporised in the vacuum of space and >100C daylight temperatures. They also contain water or air induced minerals and secondary oxides that would only have been present if the samples were exposed to an atmosphere [Fig-13]. These include ferric iron oxides [Fig-14]. Sample 66095 is only one notorious example of such oxidation. The majority of Apollo 16 rocks also contain abundant rust. Other samples show ferric iron to total iron ratios that are comparable to terrestrial rocks that underwent two days of heat treatment in evacuated quartz tubes [Fig-15]. Some geologists acknowledge this ferric iron, yet others dismiss it attributing it and the water to terrestrial contamination!
* The range for water in terrestrial basalts is between 150-10,000ppm (see 13 & 15), Fig-11 & Fig-12 together clearly illustrate water contents for lunar rocks within those ranges. Alberto Saal recently confirmed the presence of around 46ppm of water in lunar glass spherules, and estimated that they contain contents within the terrestrial rane of 240-750ppm.
Scientists can be bribed and threatened. The government can find large numbers of scientists who will sell out and lie. If you really believe what you're saying, you have a naive willingness to believe mainstream infomation.
Here's some info on that.
At about the 30 minute mark of this video a scientist says that science fraud is common.
Scientists at the Rand Corporation say that depleted uranium is safe.
There are other scientists who say the opposite.
Here's a scientists who say that it's impossible to get something published in a science journal if it goes against the official version.
(00:16 time mark)
Here's another case of official mainstream journals publishing untrue information.
(1:36:40 time mark)
Things seem to happen to whistle-blowers.
Another wall of useless spam...Don't you get tired of getting your rear end handed to you here on a daily basis?...or are you too dense to see that it's happening?
The entire geology community of the world say so. Esteemed colleagues of mine in that field say so! You are not only an uneducated layman, you have no capacity to accept any evidence that contradicts your spamming operation.
To which I responded. The consensus is that they are forged Earth rocks, hence my question and as per usual you avoid it.
Jarrah White, a complete non expert on geology attempts to give his wacky theories to the world. But, strangely he is using the same reports of the samples that you are only too willing to believe.
In short he is claiming that similarities in the samples means they are from the same source, the Earth. What he deliberately and deceptively fails to point out is that the samples contain no solar isotopes. They have in particular, no He3 content on their interiors forged from exposure to solar particle emissions, nor an even stronger very narrow layer on the outside created by billions of years of solar wind. He fails to mention that the water found in Apollo samples is almost exclusively found within the volcanic spheres and has been tested with a totally different signature to terrestrial water. He also fails to mention, probably from total ignorance, a complete absence of chemical alteration from atmospheric and water exposure.
He also attempts to offer an alternative by way of suggesting the samples could be meteorites. This is even more absurd than Earth rocks, since these rocks are melted on the outside and lose most of their mass when passing into the atmosphere. There is a complete absence of He3, they have different solar isotopes to Apollo rocks due to the decay of those isotopes, they have been exposed to earth elements and show signs of such.
You are always eager to believe in any crap so long as it isn't peer reviewed science.
The rest of your post about a scientist who you found to lie is called generalisation and is just pure deception on your part. Nobody I know is like that and I have never met anyone who would sell out like that. Perhaps it is because you yourself would do such a thing that makes it so "plausible"!
The brevity of your stalker troll posts pretty much tell anyone with even half a brain everything they need to know about you, dude.
Could you be any more obvious?
You know nothing.
All you ever do is mock people.
That is why you are never taken seriously.
That is why you are shunned to the Troll list, little man.
And btw, Texas is lame.
Ahh the flat earther troll chimes in!
Mommy and daddy leave you alone with the computer again?
Separate names with a comma.