Astronauts gone wild !

[magnetar]

I feel the participants the hoax video are all actors. They employ simple tricks.

Hats off to MID.

[MID]

I feel the participants the hoax video are all actors. They employ simple tricks.

Hats off to MID.

Many thanks, magnetar....much appreciated.

[MID]

DID ANYONE WATCH THIS? After watching this, I can sort of understand WHY some things were faked because they could NOT get the photos and footage properly from the moon.. hence why other things were done.

Cinders:

I made it through about 20 minutes of this film prior to having to stop.

It is utter B.S. (excuse my abbreviation).

I am often astounded by British documentaries and the unknowledgable innacuracies presented in them regarding this stuff. Why they do this, and how they make up their stories amazes me to no end. The effect of taking people's comments out of context, and adding other people's fantasies to them to create some sort of sinister fairy tale is utterly astounding.

No offense to you, but have you actually listened to some of the stuff they put forth, spinning a tale of mystery and sinister intent around it? If you were aware of some of the things they say, and the facts of the matter, I don't think you would be entertaining this film as anything but crap.

It is filled with glaring innacurracies, and fabrications that are almost comical.

___________________________________________________________________________

The mysterious "top-secret" Zeiss lens....

Zeiss has been innovating the highest quality optics for over 150 years. Their lenses were in use by NASA since 1962, when Wally Shirra on MA-8 used one during his Mercury mission. All subsequent manned missions used these spectacularly accurate Zeiss lenses. There was nothing "top-secret" about them. One could purchase the Zeiss lenses, were he or she capable of affording them, just like hospitals were using the surgical microscopes (invented by Zeiss) and many scientists were using the highly advanced electron microscopes with auto exposure control (also availabvle and invented by Zeiss).

The film makers never get to the connection between this supposedly "top-secret" lens and the Apollo fakery they claim...at least in 20 minutes. Perhaps they eventually do, but the content of that 20 minutes is so filled with silliness, fabrication, false claims, and conversations taken ouit of their actual context that it renders the rest a rather moot point.

To wit:

A whole littany of deaths discussed which apparently have some sinister intent behind them, but which are not connected in any way. And a glaring, but common mis-statement about the Apollo 1 crew.

They did not "burn to death". They died from carbon monoxide poisoning.

A claim that on July 3, 1967, the Soviet moon rocket exploded on the pad during fueling...

Sorry, that was 2 years later, on July 4, 1969, just about two weeks prior to the Apollo 11 launch.

Attempting to make some convoluted conncection between Presidents and this hoax, they state that Presidents Johnson and Nixon served as Governors of Texas and California respectively (2 states where major space facilities were located) prior to their ascendency to the Presidency.

American history buffs they are not. Neither man was ever a Governor.

"On July 17, 1969, Nixon gave the go-ahead for the launch of Apollo 11."

Unfortuately, Nixon gave no go ahead at all ( the "GOs" were NASA orders which were based upon technical and safety requirements being satisfied. The President had no working knowledge of these things and was a little too busy to get involved), and even if he were in a position to do so, he wouldn't have given that go ahead a day after the crew lifted off for the Moon. He'd have been looking a little silly, as on July 17, 1969, Apollo 11 was 100,000 miles out in space on their way to the Moon.

....The launch of Apollo 11 occurred at 09:32 EDT on July 16, 1969.

It is no mystery that Apollo was (among other things), an exercise in missile superiority over the Soviets. These people present this fact as if it's an unknown.

Given the fact that commonly known historical facts and dates escape the producers of this film, it's a little difficult to entertain their premise seriously.

___________________________________________________________________________

How about these outlandish stories about Kubrtick's movie, "2001: A Space Oddysey"?

This film's "accuracy" was because of the input of the author of the book of the same name, Arthur C. Clarke, who was in fact a space scientist (the inventor of the communications sattelite, among other things). However, there are several aspects of this film's visual presentation that are technically innaccurate. I'd be happy to go through them with you if you wish, but it must be understood that this was a Hollywood movie, and a bit of artistic licence was taken in order to enhance its visual appeal (and Clarke had nothing to say about that...just as the technical advisors to "Apollo 13" had nothing to say when Ron Howard went over the edge in portraying some things about that mission inaccurately for visual and emotional impact).

And no one in NASA made any negative comments about this film because it was a film. It was not reality, and NASA was a little busy in January of 1968, when this film came out. It was indeed a great piece of film, perhaps the finest science fiction movie ever made, but NASA was in the midst of a very tough time in January of 1968. They were re-designing the Apollo spacecraft and struggling to get the program back on track in the wake of the AS-204 fire. It was 24/7 at the time, and most people didn't have time to see a movie, let alone care to make any comments to anyone in the media about it. No man had flown in space for 14 months, and Apollo 7 wouldn't fly for another 10 months. It was a very stressful and busy time for NASA in January of 1968.

But the unfounded and completely absurd claims that NASA employed film technicians to revamp the entire NASA launch complex for visual effect, and the equally absurd notion that they actually made changes in the Apollo EMU because of this movie are beyond the point of comprehension. This is entirely made-up baloney.

Because, the Apollo launch complex was already built before 2001 came out, as were the Apollo suits.

Equally wierd is the claim of this fellow, "Dave Bowman" that he was in "constant communication with Neil Armstrong" throughout the Apollo 11 mission. No such person ever communicated with Neil Armstrong during the flight of Apollo 11. There were only six men who spoke with Apollo 11 from Mission Control: Bruce McCandless, Ron Evans, Charlie Duke, Owen Garriot (the shift capcoms), and on one occassion each (as best I recall), Jim Lovell (backup Commander of the Apollo 11 mission, and Deke Slayton (the astronauts boss).

This supposed "Dave Bowman" said that "200 of us were sitting in the "mission station" hearing every word they said".

It should be noted that there is no one involved with the program who would've used the phrase "mission station" (they would've called it Mission Control, or more probably, the MOCR (Manned Operations Control Room), and there were no more than about 25 people in that room at any given time.

This story is utter B.S, and it made my mouth hang open when I heard this yahhoo's name....Dave Bowman

Know who Dave Bowman was? Dave Bowman was the main character in Kubrick and Clarke's movie....

Now, who are these people trying to fool here?

Unfortunately, Cinders, as someone who actually knows about these things, I can tell you up front that this film is a piece of trash, produced, edited, and craftily created by the unknowedgable, for the unknowedgable. There is no need for me to go beyond the 20 minutes I put into it to realize that it is a piece of trash.

It's typical Hollywood stuff.

And this stuff!

Michael Collins never got over the fact that he didn't walk on the moon and disappeared from sight.

...Really? Mike Collins never disappeared from sight. He has appeared numerous times, written two excellent books on the subject of space flight, served as the director of the Smithsonian Air and Space museum for a time, worked for the Federal Government under president Nixon for a time, and has been the most articulate spokesman of the Apollo 11 crew.

Neil Armstroing withdrew to a monestery...(?)

... Neil Armstrong did no such thing. He went to work for NASA HQ in Washington, then left to become a Professor of Aeronautics in Ohio, and has done quite well for himself as a lecturer and businessman in the years following Apollo 11.

I'm not sure what the von Braun connection with Nazi germany has to do with anything, but the sinister implication here is that he was a Nazi and was hell bent on creating missiles to destroy people.

Unfortunately, it is well known what von Braun's story was. He was a genius who was employed by Nazi Germany to build rockets. He dreamt of men flying to the moon long before the idea became a realistic notion in anyone's mind.

In fact, von Braun was arrested by the Gestapo for publishing papers concerning the topic during WWII, because the Nazi authorities thought he was wasting his time while he should've been working on destroying cities with his missiles (freedom of the press wasn't favorable to Hitler).

He defected by surrendering to the Americans shortly thereafter...an action which found the SS attempting to kill him and his corps of engineeers in an effort to prevent it.

Fortunately for us, they did not succeed, and von Braun was put to work...sucessfully launching the first American satellite, developing the successful Saturn series of boosters, which of course allowed the Apollo program to come to it's sucessful culmination, and was an articulate spokesman for human spaceflight, capable of simplifying the technology for the common man to understand...a skill afforded him by virtue of the freedom he attained in America.

Look, this film is a crock for the first 20 minutes. It establishes itself as silly, irresponsible tabloid journalism before a point is actually put forth. Based upon this fact, it is really rather pointless to entertain it anymore.

I will, however, be happy to discuss any given aspect of the film you wish. But unless you really want me to, I'm not going to go through the reamaining half hour or so. I already know what's coming.

[Cinders]

No offence taken at all MID...

I do wished you had heard what Nixon's secretary said though.. but no matter.. it's all politics.. something I really dread getting into (and probably what many gamble on) Politics, sex, and religion is such a difficult controversial subject to discuss at home, at work, and on the interent.

BTW, My husband is a Brit.. 100% English. We met up (finally) , and married in May 2001 and live here in my home state.

He has more faith in our government than I do! Ironic isn't it?

But thank you for giving it a semi-look at.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Cinders

[Bogeyman]

MID

Once again thanks for your detailed response....you make an lengthy argument that appears to have substance to it.....I will freely admit that i'm no expert on gravity.....But i still have my suspicions.

You told me in a previous post that it's natural for sand from the moon buggy's wheels falls in an almost identical manner to the sand on earth,but then you say it's perfectly natural for an Astronaut to hover and float in the moon atmoshere....Hmmmm........Sorry but i'm afraid i'm not convinced....Can you tell me where you sourced your information from ?

Thanks

Bogey

[MID]

No offence taken at all MID...

I do wished you had heard what Nixon's secretary said though.. but no matter.. it's all politics.. something I really dread getting into (and probably what many gamble on) Politics, sex, and religion is such a difficult controversial subject to discuss at home, at work, and on the interent.

BTW, My husband is a Brit.. 100% English. We met up (finally) , and married in May 2001 and live here in my home state.

He has more faith in our government than I do! Ironic isn't it?

But thank you for giving it a semi-look at.

Good!

No offense to our British brothers intended, and especially not to your Husband (and...congratulations on finally meeting and "tying-the-knot")!!!

It's just rather curious that I've seen several of these documentary films made concerning this thing that feature British narrators and production companies. It's sort of wierd.

I did take a look at what Eve Kendall said in that section where all the former Nixon advisors were sitting around having a few laughs and telling stories.

I think the production values exhibited in that section substantiate my initial ideas about the entire film. One has to take a critical and detaiuled look at the sequence to discern whether anything is actually being said at all...

Ms. Kendall makes mention of one of the Presidential advisors making a suggestion that they could film the first steps on the moon in a studio in case the lunar landing effort failed...but it cuts from her before she can conclude her statement, and introduces small edits of all the other people talking about something...but you don't know what they're actually talking about, or if they're actually even talking about the same thing. There is nothing any of the others said that has any indication that they're speaking of this idea, but the edits are put together to suggest they are. One would think that an expose would include references to the idea in all of those statements. The men could've been talking about a covert Viet Nam operation for all we know. There's no context prssented from which we can associate their comments to the lunar film idea. The edits just make one think they are.

The producers do not include any references to Ms. Kendall's statement in the comments they carefully edited from the other's conversations. The narrator is the only person to suggest that they chose Stanley Kubrick to put together a fake lunar film, without any evidence put forth to indicate that these men were discusing this idea at all, or even serious entertained the notion. This is a fairly common tabloid technique to paint a picture that never really existed.

And the narrator makes a mis-statement again when he says that at the time "the filming of 2001 was drawing to a close in a suburb of London" .

The time ("shortly after Nixon entered office") was early in 1969. Apollo 8 had already circled the moon and sent TV pictures back to Earth (before Nixon took office...he was President-elect in December of 1968...Johnson was still the President), and Apollo 9 was being made ready for its earth orbital shakedown of the Apollo package, a flight which would fly in March of that year (we were in no position to say we were ready to launch Apollo 11, and in fact were in no position to say that Apollo 11 would be the first landing attempt, in early 1969. Apollos 9 and 10 (scheduled for May, 1969), would have to be successful for Apollo 11 to get the nod in July of that year.

But the filming of 2001: A Space Oddysey was long since completed by that time (around two years earlier, in fact), and the movie had already been in theatres for about a year when Nixon took office (it was released a year prior to Nixon's assuming office). Thus, Kubrick had long since finished his movie.

One may also note that Kubrick, nor anyone else, had any idea what the lunar surface looked like up close, since no one had been there yet and actually taken pictures of the Moon. His movie is inaccurate in it's portrayal of angular mountains, dust clouds being kicked up by rocket engine exhaust, and such, so it's a bit untenable to think that he would've created a lunar surface completely in contrast to his movie's portrayals to make a fake Apollo landing film.

But that is straying from the point.

I think the producers of this documentary cheated, and painted a false picture for public consumption. Their modus-operandi is rather obvious, as is their lack of knowledge of essential historical timelines and facts.

Kindest regards...to you and your "Brit" husband!

[MID]

MID

Once again thanks for your detailed response....you make an lengthy argument that appears to have substance to it.....I will freely admit that i'm no expert on gravity.....But i still have my suspicions.

You told me in a previous post that it's natural for sand from the moon buggy's wheels falls in an almost identical manner to the sand on earth,but then you say it's perfectly natural for an Astronaut to hover and float in the moon atmoshere....Hmmmm........Sorry but i'm afraid i'm not convinced....Can you tell me where you sourced your information from ?

Thanks

Bogey

You're welcome, Bogey.

Regarding "sand" from the LRV's wheels, it should be stated that regolith is completely different from sand. It is an extremely fine powdered substance, like powdered pencil lead, almost.

To clarify regarding this natural behavior...

It is natural for this material to fall from an upward moment imparted to it by the LRV 'tires" exactly as it would fall in any tangible gravity field...that meaning downward. But lunar soil on the Moon falls at a rate that is 1/6 of that of the Earth, and it falls in a vacuum, which means it falls slower, and it makes no dust clouds. This is obvious from the lunar films of the LRV in motion (16 MM films, not video, as the video camera was not on when the LRV was in motion).

It is completely natural for the lunar soil to behave just as it does in the lunar films...but that is not as it would behave on Earth.

But astronauts "appear" to float. They do not "hover", as hover implies suspension in "mid-air" (or mid-vacuum, as-it-were). What astronauts do is ascend upward, and descend downward, at a much slower rate than they do on Earth. This provides an unusual appearance of floating, only because our eyes are used to seeing things happen at 1 G, not at 1/6 G, or 17% of Earth's gravity (again, I cannot stress it enough...alien world, alien looking stuff).

My information comes from my formal education and experience, and can be referenced by the voluminous NASA technical reports concerning all aspects of Project Apollo, and by detailed transcriptions of every word uttered by every Apollo astronuat during the lunar landing and EVA phases of the mission (an incredible undertaking), that are now available to the general public, largely by virtue of the astounding efforts of Mr. Eric Jones, who put together the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. You can find it here:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/

There are also many links provided to some things that are really fantastic as reference and educational material.

If you want a great source of images (other than the high resolution scans included at "the Journal"), you can see every Apollo photograph taken at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo

Happy wandering!

[Bogeyman]

Thanks MID

I'm not a big NASA fan ....they're hardly going to call themselves liars so i dont really rate them as good source material.......sad aint it ,that no one really trusts them anymore.

I saw a documentary about the Moon landings last night on one of the digital channels....and again they raised some very good questions and had shedloads of "experts" all arguing that it wasn't done ...including Russian Scientists ....Gus Grissoms wife claims that NASA murdered him because he was going to spill the beans about the safety of the Apollo missions.....They never found out the cause of the fire that killed him in the capsule......whats that about ?

Also the guy that carried out the safety Audit at NASA before the Apollo missions (cant think of his name) anyhoo ,he claimed they couldnt get to the Moon in the last century under the conditions /circumstances they were operating.....he was also mysteriously killed and his report never surfaced.....call me cynical if you like .....I AM.

Naieve ...i aint !

even if your arguments were bringing me round ...this documentary raised all the doubts again.

A lot of photographic experts on there also that claim NASA's explanation of the crosshairs being out of place and half covered is bulls*** and anyone that believes it is doing an ostrich on it.

So in all in all i still carry my doubts.....

Edited April 19, 2006 by Bogeyman

[isis-999]

I kinda have my doubt's we went to the moon when they said we did..what blow's my mind is, If we could go there and land have astronauts walk around, why have we not gone back.. To be sure there must be something we could learn. Why do we spend so much money on Mar's and other planets, when we have yet to really explore the one place we can reach and move around on...

Now maybe i am looking at this the wrong way, But i still have to wonder why...?

[Bogeyman]

I kinda have my doubt's we went to the moon when they said we did..what blow's my mind is, If we could go there and land have astronauts walk around, why have we not gone back.. To be sure there must be something we could learn. Why do we spend so much money on Mar's and other planets, when we have yet to really explore the one place we can reach and move around on...

Now maybe i am looking at this the wrong way, But i still have to wonder why...?

Whens the Japanese orbiter due to arrive at the moon ?

That should answer some questions.

[Al Bundy]

They cannot swear on the bible nor couran because they were not on the moon...

Realy sad....and realy sad for the big money spend.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Vernes

[Blazar]

I used to think it was a hoax... However, I believe they really did land!

Here read some of theseHoax explanations You may think other wise?

BL

[Bella-Angelique]

In my book "Alien Agenda" (which no one admits to having moved so I cannot find it), there was a really good story about the NASA being frightened of aliens on the moon.

It is as good as any reason not to hang out there I suppose.

Maybe China will build a moonbase and surprise us all, however.

[MID]

Thanks MID

I'm not a big NASA fan ....they're hardly going to call themselves liars so i dont really rate them as good source material.......sad aint it ,that no one really trusts them anymore.

I saw a documentary about the Moon landings last night on one of the digital channels....and again they raised some very good questions and had shedloads of "experts" all arguing that it wasn't done ...including Russian Scientists ....Gus Grissoms wife claims that NASA murdered him because he was going to spill the beans about the safety of the Apollo missions.....They never found out the cause of the fire that killed him in the capsule......whats that about ?

Also the guy that carried out the safety Audit at NASA before the Apollo missions (cant think of his name) anyhoo ,he claimed they couldnt get to the Moon in the last century under the conditions /circumstances they were operating.....he was also mysteriously killed and his report never surfaced.....call me cynical if you like .....I AM.

Naieve ...i aint !

even if your arguments were bringing me round ...this documentary raised all the doubts again.

A lot of photographic experts on there also that claim NASA's explanation of the crosshairs being out of place and half covered is bulls*** and anyone that believes it is doing an ostrich on it.

So in all in all i still carry my doubts.....

To be honest with you, I haven't been a big fan of NASA since around January 28, 1986.

However, they do still employ the best and brightest, as they did back in my day. It's just that they haven't the mandate, nor the funding, nor the management to execute the way they did before.

Maybe now they actually will do some exploration...but we'll see.

If one has doubts, no amount of explanation is going to satisfy those doubts. There are plenty of so-called documentaries out there espousing the same or similar pieces of evidentiary material, designed to create and stimulate doubt. These are targeting people who do not have the experience or knowledge in the subject matter.

As I said, my hope is to stimulate people to do their own research, learn the fundamentals of the sciences involved themselves, and reason out the facts from the fiction.

"Experts" are utilized in these documentaries to fortify the positions taken, of course, but only to the extent that they're getting something out of it. And I too am not naive. It's obvious what people like the photographic experts are doing and whom they are trying to appeal to...because any real photgraphic expert will tell you that the Reseau marks seeming to disappear is common in extreme brights and dark darks.

Again, you'll need to research that yourself to see what the real story is.

Doubt should ideally be a spark for such research.

[MID]

They cannot swear on the bible nor couran because they were not on the moon...

Realy sad....and realy sad for the big money spend.

That would be "Kuran", and no one asked them to swear on that particular document.

No one said they "couldn't". In fact, a couple of them did, just to see what Sibrel would do. But for the most part, they wouldn't, because to do so would dignify the childish conduct of an upstart tabloid journbalist who knows nothing about what he's speaking of and who's motive is to affect a generation without real knowledge, and of course, make a dollar in the process.

What's really sad are comments like yours. It's as if you haven't read anything written here. Of course, the lack of spelling says something as well.

[captain pish]

MID you can explain away all the debunk theories and a million more will come up. Fact is the debunks and the explainations both sound believable. Scientific facts are scientific facts and you do know your stuff, but it still doesnt prove the theories wrong. People will still belive what they want to belive.

I think that everybody has overlooked a simple fact of life that we all have come to understand. The americans are the most underhand nation in the modern world and will stop at nothing to achieve their alpha male status in world nations. Many many times in the past america has used any means possible to get their way. They couldnt be seen as second best to a poor nation like russia. I do belive that some missions did in fact reach the moon but definatly not in 1969.

The space race was not just a scientific competition it was a matter of national pride which the americans could not lose. They have an over inflated ego as a nation, ask most americans about ww2 and theyll tell you with pride that they won every battle and saw off the evil germans in true hollwood style.Most american ww2 films are yank regiments winning the battles when it was in fact english, polish, french and other nations regiments doing the heroics. READ YOUR HISTORY BOOKS!!! Hell, most americans deny being wiped out in vietnam!! Another case of wading into somebody else business and getting themselves in too deep. Look at iraq. They just wont admit that theyre there for the oil! Yeah 9/11 happened (some argue it was done by american military, watch loose change lets roll) but we all know that its underlying theme was oil oil oil.

My point being that america is too proud to admit defeat or that it will use any tactics to get what it wants. Is this self adulating nation really capable of pulling off this stunt?? of course it is. Alls it takes is a few cameras a set and some dumb ass astronauts to swear allegance to the flag (as and military person does) and to follow the orders of the government. In the words of zack dela rocha "THEY SAY JUMP, YOU SAY HOW HIGH, YOURE BRAIN DEAD, YOU GOT A FU%*IN BULLET IN YOUR HEAD"

Wake up and realise that not everything you see is true. Poloticians are the most corrupt and untruthful human beings around. They lie and cheat to achive their goals and so do the nations they run.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Captain Pish, your anti-American rant does you no credit. If you would bother to actually read the post you will see that the majority of people in this thread that do not believe (<note the spelling) in the moon landings are American. Where does that fit in with your anti-American feelings?

Clearly you won't let little things like facts and the truth get in the way of your xenophobic tendencies.

May I suggest that you go and read your history books. Russia was not a nation in 1969, it was the Soviet Union. England didn't fight in World War II, Great Britain did.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Bogeyman]

To be honest with you, I haven't been a big fan of NASA since around January 28, 1986.

However, they do still employ the best and brightest, as they did back in my day. It's just that they haven't the mandate, nor the funding, nor the management to execute the way they did before.

Maybe now they actually will do some exploration...but we'll see.

If one has doubts, no amount of explanation is going to satisfy those doubts. There are plenty of so-called documentaries out there espousing the same or similar pieces of evidentiary material, designed to create and stimulate doubt. These are targeting people who do not have the experience or knowledge in the subject matter.

As I said, my hope is to stimulate people to do their own research, learn the fundamentals of the sciences involved themselves, and reason out the facts from the fiction.

"Experts" are utilized in these documentaries to fortify the positions taken, of course, but only to the extent that they're getting something out of it. And I too am not naive. It's obvious what people like the photographic experts are doing and whom they are trying to appeal to...because any real photgraphic expert will tell you that the Reseau marks seeming to disappear is common in extreme brights and dark darks.

Again, you'll need to research that yourself to see what the real story is.

Doubt should ideally be a spark for such research.

Well thats what i'm doing. I am not convinced one way or the other which leaves me with doubts.

Also with the photo analysis ...it wasn't carried out by people with vested interests in the documentary...The photo's were brought by the program makers to Photographic specialists.....The makers of the camera were interviewed ...there was no special protection built into the camera .....eh ?

The guy who was vice president of Kodak at the time was interviewed and said that there was no "special" film developed for the moon landings.....because Kodak were not even allowed to advertise that their film was to be used.....if people knew it was just ordinary film it could have blown it .....do these issues not raise any questions with you MID ?

or do you feel it's not even worth questioning ?

Edited April 20, 2006 by Bogeyman

[magnetar]

Bogeyman-

Film makes a good dosimeter...besides, nobody has demonstrated an experiment to illustrate, per known records, their suppositions about radiation. They point to one solar flare, between missions. Good planning and their good fortune gave the results.

[magnetar]

04-12-06

Media Release

New Lunar Rock Ages Indicate Cataclysmic Meteorite Bombardment of Moon, Earth

CORVALLIS, Ore. – New age measurements of lunar rocks returned by the Apollo space missions have revealed that a surprising number of the rocks show signs of melting about 3.9 billion years ago, suggesting that the moon – and its nearby neighbor Earth – were bombarded by a series of large meteorites at that time.

The idea that meteorites have hammered the moon's surface isn't news to scientists. The lunar surface is pock-marked with large craters carved out by the impact of crashing asteroids and meteorites, said Robert Duncan, a professor and associate dean in the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University.

But the narrow range of the impact dates suggests to researchers that a large spike in meteorite activity took place during a 100-million year interval – possibly the result of collisions in the asteroid belt with comets coming from just beyond our solar system.

Results of the study are being published in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, the journal of the international Meteoritical Society. Co-authors with Duncan are Marc Norman of the Australian National University and John Huard, also an oceanographer at OSU. The study was funded by NASA.

Tiny melted fragments from the lunar rocks were dated at the noble gas geochronology laboratory at Oregon State. Duncan and Huard were able to use radiometric dating techniques to determine when the rocks had melted after being struck by meteorites. What is particularly intriguing, Duncan says, is that this apparent spike in meteorite activity took place about 3.8 to 4 billion years ago – an era that roughly coincides with when scientists believe life first began on Earth, as evidenced by the fossil record of primitive one-cell bacteria.

It is possible that life was introduced to Earth from one of these meteorites, Duncan said. Or it could have developed spontaneously once the bombardment subsided, or developed beneath the ocean near life-nurturing hydrothermal vents. The lack of evidence on Earth makes the analysis of moon rocks much more compelling. The meteorite activity that bombarded the moon likely struck our planet as well.

"Unfortunately, we haven't found many very old rocks on Earth because of our planet's surface is constantly renewed by plate tectonics, coupled with erosion," Duncan said. "By comparison, the moon is dead, has no atmosphere and provides a record of meteorite bombardment that we can only assume is similar to that on Earth."

When the solar system was formed, scientists say, it spun away from the sun like a huge, hot disk that subsequently condensed into planets. At least nine planets survived, sucking in loose space matter from around them. Those planets closer to the sun were more solid, while those farther away were comprised primarily of gases.

Over time, the space debris has lessened, either being gravitationally collected into the planets, or smashed into cosmic dust through collisions with other objects. The discovery of this apparent spike in meteorite activity suggests to the authors that a major event took place.

"We may have had a 10th and 11th planet that collided," Duncan said, "or it's possible that the outward migration of Neptune may have scattered comets and small planet bodies, inducing collisions in the asteroid belt. The close passing of a neighboring star could have had a similar effect."

Duncan and his colleagues examined about 50 different rock samples scooped up by astronauts on the Apollo missions. All but a few of them produced ages close to 3.9 billion years and they exhibited different chemical "fingerprints," indicating that they had melted from different meteorites and lunar surface rocks.

"The evidence is clear that there was repeated bombardment by meteorites," Duncan said.

When meteorites collide with the moon, the surface rock and the meteorites partially melt, and then turn to glass. After the glasses quenched, they slowly began to accumulate argon gas that scientists can measure and calculate from the known isotopic decay rate (from potassium) to determine age.

"The formation of glass from the melting is like starting a clock," Duncan said. "It resets the time for us to determine billions of years later."

Duncan and his colleagues say the intense bombardment ended about 3.85 billion years ago, and there has been a slowly declining pattern of meteorite activity since. Many of the prominent craters found on the moon date back to that era, including Imbrium, at 3.84 billion years; Serenitatis, 3.89 billion years; and Nectaris, 3.92 billion years.

Many of the moon's craters are 10 to 100 kilometers across and scientists say that meteorites of that size or larger may have struck the Earth in the past. Such meteorites impacts may have been responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, and a mass extinction that wiped out an estimated 75 percent of the Earth's plant and animal species 250 million years ago.

However, Duncan said, these mass extinctions could also be linked to climate, disease and volcanism – or a combination of such factors.

"It is clear that there was a spike of meteorite activity on the moon about 3.9 billion years ago, and that it lasted for roughly 100 million years," Duncan said. "The moon provides important information about the early history of our solar system that is missing from the Earth's geologic record."

[captain pish]

Captain Pish, your anti-American rant does you no credit. If you would bother to actually read the post you will see that the majority of people in this thread that do not believe (<note the spelling) in the moon landings are American. Where does that fit in with your anti-American feelings?

Clearly you won't let little things like facts and the truth get in the way of your xenophobic tendencies.

May I suggest that you go and read your history books. Russia was not a nation in 1969, it was the Soviet Union. England didn't fight in World War II, Great Britain did.

They aint anti american feelings you ignoramus!! they are truthful facts and i take it you are american to take such offense. The simple fact is that america has no noteworthy history and wanted to create some in the moon landings. It is a country that has only been around for a couple of hundred years and apart from the pioneers destroying the native indians homeland and calling it their own they have no history. Thats what the moon landings were, a front page headline and a proud boast for them. Pity they cheated!!I know that most people debunking the landing theory are americans but that does not change the fact that they faked it to get what they want. and actually im right, i didnt say english army i said english regiments. Incase you are ignorant to the fact, the british army is made up of regiments and are predominantly regiments from each seperate country. So if i said english army you would have been correct but you are wrong because i said english regiments. And just for the record ww2 didnt start in 1945 like you americans think! and as for the russia soviet union thing, who cares? simple mistake, everybody knows what i mean and thanks for the nit picking i enjoyed it. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

Edited April 20, 2006 by captain pish

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Try reading captain pish, you can learn a lot that way, my nationallity for example, which is clearly visible for all to see.

Incidentally as history seems to be right up there with you reading on your list of major achievements most Americans would accept 7th December, 1941 as the start of their participation in WWII not 1945.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Cinders]

Dear Captain Pish.. Waspie Dwarf is from the UK

I am American, but I am part English, Norwegion, German and Cherokee Indian.

Sorry to see you have such anger against America (so what's new?*sigh*)

Anyway, MAGNETAR! Thank you for the excellent and interesting article

That was a fascinating read!

[RabidCat]

Guess I can't let this go by unanswered, Captain Fish (no typo).

As a US citizen, I recognize our formal entry into WWII as 1941. Informal entry was a couple years before that as we aided in supply and began a war footing in production, which attained full levels after Pearl. Anyone even semi-educated will know this.

No, we don't claim we won every battle as you state. Hollywood may, but we do not. We are well aware that many allied lives were lost, from all allied countries. The main credit we wish to have is that a very large portion of WWII was both financed and supplied by our nation. No one can argue that fact. Simply look at the records.

As to Vietnam, you )*&%&^%, don't make statements you can't back up. You weren't there; I was, for 3 tours as a door gunner/CSAR crewman. If you think we lost the war because we couldn't win it, I direct your attention to the statement made by Lyndon Baines Johnson, President of the US, perpetrator of the war in Vietnam: "Nobody, I mean NOBODY, in Vietnam can take a p*** without my permission." The lack of victory in Vietnam was due to the fact that it was a political and economic action, nothing else. This is what happens when a) a politician is allowed to dictate actions of any country; the people of the country have misplaced faith in the ability of those politicians; c) those politicians are allowed to maintain control of the armed forces of the country, rather than the military personnel who should be directing the war; and d) economic (to wit, the military industrial complex) is allowed to exert enough pressure on the politicians to get any country into a war. Vietnam was a weapons test bed. See the weaponry developed and utilized at the time, and note that places like Hamburger Hill existed, where fully half the dead were found with weapons disassembled (the M-16). Note also that history shows that one of the major "defeats" of US forces was Tet '68: note also that the NVA were in fact pushed back across the DMZ within a matter of weeks. Don't tell me different, I was there. Heard of My Lai? OK, how about the horrors perpetrated on the civilian population of Hue by the NVA? Didn't know about that, or do you simply choose to ignore it?

As to the asinine (if you even know what that means) statements about what Americans want, that is pure BS. If, for instance, we wanted Iraq to be a colony, there would have been and would still be pressure here from the population to make it so; instead, the most people favor withdrawal as quickly as possible. You see, the vast majority of Americans value their freedom, but are relatively unaware that it is economic and political powers that make the decisions. The middle easterners are, in a real sense, correct in laying the blame for much on the intelligence community and the state department... When those two are backed by an idiotic president and congress, all that can be done is to remove them in the succeeding election, unless there is enough support to impeach.

Without question, I refuse to accept blame for the actions of the political hierarchy. As to wars, the next war I will fight in is the one where the enemy is seen marching up my street.

It would, however, behoove you to learn whereof you speak, before you go running off at the mouth.

[MID]

MID you can explain away all the debunk theories and a million more will come up. Fact is the debunks and the explainations both sound believable. Scientific facts are scientific facts and you do know your stuff, but it still doesnt prove the theories wrong. People will still belive what they want to belive.

Actually, the same theories will tend to come up. Knowledge in the subject matter will clearly indicate that the debunks sound plausiuble because they are factual, and the theories sound plausible because of lack of knowledge in the listener--those who put together the theories play upon the ignorance of their intended audience.

It proves that the theories are just that, theories. And any theory is fine. But if it is not researched and substantiated, it gets relegated to the discard bin.

But the fact is that Apollo is the most documented accomplishment in human history, and there is actually nothing that can be done to deny the fact that it happened just as we said it did.

Understanding and knowledge makes this clear. "Believing" without doing one's homework is intellectual laziness, and does nothing to contribute to discussion. At the same time, an opinion is an opinion, and everyone is entitled to his or hers, but it loses weight without some discrimination attached.

I think that everybody has overlooked a simple fact of life that we all have come to understand. The americans are the most underhand nation in the modern world and will stop at nothing to achieve their alpha male status in world nations. Many many times in the past america has used any means possible to get their way. They couldnt be seen as second best to a poor nation like russia. I do belive that some missions did in fact reach the moon but definatly not in 1969.

Now that is absolute opinion without substantiation.

The fact is that America was never second best to the Soviet Union. Totalitarian regimes and nations with a modicum of freedom are completely different entities. Capitalism, democracy or federal republicanism, with their inherent freedoms, are a completely different situation, and one that resonates with human beings, no matter their individual shortcomings, whereas totalitarianism does not.

The U.S.S.R. and China are essentially third world countries with first world militaries. The U.S. has always been a first world country with a first world military. The U.S. places it's might with the people...for the most part, and distributes its resources into the capitalist system, enlisting the people of the country to accomplish its ends. Totalitarian regimes do no such thing. They throw their money to their militaries and enlist no private sector capitalist help. They deprive their people, and attempt to control them overtly.

That is why we won the race to the Moon, and the U.S.S.R. lost. And ultimately, it is why countries like China, who are now introducing a capitalist aspect into their totalitarianism (Boeing deal, Wal Mart deal, etc.), will eventually fall. Once freedom enters in to the mix, it is only a matter of time before the people rise up, and things change.

The space race was not just a scientific competition it was a matter of national pride which the americans could not lose.

You...are...correct.

And we did win, in convincing fashion, largely because we were not the Soviet Union.

The private sector was enlisted, their help was sought, things weren't hidden, they were listened to, a totalitarian leadership wasn't pressing the limited number of government scientists and engineers beyond the limits of reasonable risk and safety, and the entire process was open to changes from all quarters.

And, it should be obvious that since the Soviet Union does not exist anymore...we won the cold war as well. There is a simple reason for that. People like freedom. Our system, despite its flaws, works. The totalitarian communist regime of Communist U.S.S.R. did not.

My point being that america is too proud to admit defeat or that it will use any tactics to get what it wants. Is this self adulating nation really capable of pulling off this stunt?? of course it is. Alls it takes is a few cameras a set and some dumb ass astronauts to swear allegance to the flag (as and military person does) and to follow the orders of the government. In the words of zack dela rocha "THEY SAY JUMP, YOU SAY HOW HIGH, YOURE BRAIN DEAD, YOU GOT A FU%*IN BULLET IN YOUR HEAD"

Wake up and realise that not everything you see is true. Poloticians are the most corrupt and untruthful human beings around. They lie and cheat to achive their goals and so do the nations they run.

Again, an opinion...an uneducated and emotionally charged one...accurate to an extent, but innaccurate in the extreme as well, but you're entitled to it.

Everything you see is not true. You're correct.

Like the moon hoax rubbish, for instance. All that is necessary is that you research, and learn a little bit. Emotional diatribes don't do much except p*** peoiple off, and they certainly don't contribute to discussion at all.