Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
straydog

Apollo Moon Rocks:NASA's Dirty Little Secrets

20 posts in this topic

If the moon rocks are NASA's only physical proof of landing men on the moon almost 40 years ago , then why are the Apollo rocks, which have been given to scientists by NASA to examine , completely tainted with earthly contamination , including evidence of entering Earth's atmosphere ? ... So far it would seem that NASA's Apollo rocks are no different from the 'moon' rocks which have been recovered in the Antarctic .... And it would also seem that we only have NASA's word for how many pounds of rocks were allegedly collected by the Apollo astronauts.... because the hundreds of pounds of "pristine" examples are convienantly locked safely away at NASA facilities where NO ONE OUTSIDE OF NASA HAS EVER EVEN LAID EYES ON THEM ! ... How about that ? ;)

Apollo Moon Rocks: NASA's Dirty Little Secrets

By Leonard David

Senior Space Writer

posted: 04:17 pm ET

26 March 2001

HOUSTON, Texas – For the Apollo astronauts, it was like bringing home the goods. Covered from helmet to toe with lunar dust, the "dirty dozen" Moonwalkers from 1969 through 1972 snagged, bagged and tagged 840 pounds (382 kilograms) of rock and other surface material.

Today, much like King Tutankhamen’s holdings, the "Apollo collection" is vaulted treasure.

30 Years Later, Moon Rocks Retain Secrets

Thirty years after they were picked up and hauled back to Earth by the Apollo astronauts, the 842 pounds (382 kilograms) of moon rocks still have not given up all their secrets.

Safely sequestered here at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), Moon specimens are protected from natural hazards such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Sealed for study in nitrogen-filled cabinets, the lunar sample inventory is also GUARDED AGAINST EARTH CONTAMINATION, preserving the history-telling tales they hold about the origins of our solar system.

But new studies of Apollo lunar materials are showing just how contaminated pristine samples can become. Those investigations are expected to help clean up NASA’s act in handling an assortment of Mars's rocks, or pieces of comet or asteroid returned to Earth in the future.

Snotty stuff

"It was quite alarming," said Andrew Steele, an astrobiologist at NASA’s JSC from the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom, who thought he was looking at hairs from an astronaut. But they turned out to be brush fibers, he said.

Working with lunar sample curators, Steele is part of a team using powerful instruments to eye the condition of select Moon materials. He not only found brush bristles, but bits of plastic, nylon and Teflon, as well as a few earthly organisms having a picnic within lunar samples.

"Some of them are pretty snotty," Steele told SPACE.com.

Steele looked at a cross-section of lunar samples known to be contaminated, as well as a pristine core of lunar regolith brought back by Apollo 15 astronauts. Brushings from astronaut suits, along with bits of lunar leftovers swept from cabinets and control panels were studied.

All of the specimens inspected by Steele, including a core sample, show evidence of contamination, mostly by plastics, he reported during the 32nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, held March 12-16 at the NASA center.

Contamination culprits

A major contamination factor resulted from the practice of stuffing lunar specimens into plastic bags. In the case of the core sample, the drilling equipment used on the Moon may be a possible culprit.

The actual chain of contamination, be it on the Moon by astronauts themselves, or within JSC’s lunar handling operations, is yet to be determined, Steele said. "WE'VE YET TO REALLY WORK OUT EXACTLLY WHERE ON EARTH IT'S (THE CONTAMINANTS) COMING FROM, " he said.

Steele is quick to point out that truly pristine lunar samples are LIKELY within the Apollo collection. "The curitorial people are working incredibly hard to make sure that Apollo samples are sealed up and have never seen the atmosphere. My hat is off to them. They’ve done a brilliant job," he said.

Judith Allton, a Lockheed Martin researcher and part of JSC’s advanced curation-planning team, said that several core tubes from the Apollo expeditions remain unopened. "You need to have something in reserve for future studies when techniques are better and ideas are better," she told SPACE.com.

~

A key lesson learned, Steele said, is that despite use of ultra-clean rooms, sterilization and careful handling procedures, it is extremely difficult to keep extraterrestrial samples free and clear of contamination.

There is one bit of lunar folklore that may be subject to reinterpretation due to contamination on Earth, Steele said.

Apollo 12 astronauts brought back to Earth the camera of the U.S. Surveyor 3 robotic Moon lander in November 1969. There was considerable ballyhoo when a terrestrial bacterium was discovered within the camera hardware after its inspection on Earth. Scientists reported that the biology survived the trek to the Moon, and then a two-and-a-half-year stay on the lunar surface.

"Somebody sneezed on it after the camera came back. I’ve heard both stories. I don’t know which to believe," Steele said.

Unavoidable incidents

Former Apollo 17 astronaut, Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, said his impression is that lunar samples have been taken care of well throughout the years.

"I am sure that there may have been exceptions, but reputable researchers cannot afford to work on contaminated samples," Schmitt said in a later interview. At the time, there were unavoidable incidents of contamination, he said, which everyone knows occurred during collection, transport, and handling prior to distribution.

Schmitt said that the lunar sample containers were unable to retain a vacuum and most samples came back in bags without sample box protection. Spacecraft atmosphere and EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE CONTAMINATED THE SAMPLES at that point, he said.

* ( Oh really? ... and I have alway been led to believe that the Apollo rocks were all pristine samples and showed absolutely no signs of having entered Earth's atmosphere or showed any signs of having possibly come from the Antarctic too ... How about that !! )

"Isotopic analysis and other techniques, however, can eliminate most if not all of these contamination signals. Good research must always examine the possibility of contamination and, if possible, subtract its effects," Schmitt told SPACE.com.

Cosmic sampling

NASA is now readying itself for an onslaught of out-of-this-world samples, said Kimberly Cyr, a JSC scientist involved with curation of extraterrestrial samples.

Cyr notes that NASA’s Stardust mission will return samples from a comet in February 2006. Even earlier, is the August 2004 return of solar wind ions and atoms via the soon-to-be-launched Genesis probe. Then there’s Japan’s MUSES C, slated to be the first asteroid sample-return mission. After launch in 2002, that craft is to return asteroid materials in 2007. Also, Mars return samples might be safe in Earth laboratories by 2014, she said.

Future sample-return missions from Jupiter’s enigmatic moon, Europa, as well as Venus and Mercury are possible too, Cyr said. In Apollo, and in readying for future sample-return projects, "the primary lesson is that curation starts at the beginning, during planning and mission design phases," she said.

Steele said that his work is meant to help plot out Mars sample-return missions. The techniques and tools being utilized, he said, can be applied to spotting evidence for Martian life versus contamination within samples.

"There’s a lot of new technology available, some of it from the silicon conductor industry," Steele said. "The flip side of our work in spotting contamination and terrestrial life in samples is also, ultimately, to find life in extraterrestrial materials," he said.

..................................................................

Yep ... That's nasa for you .... Not only incompetent , but filled with all kinds of "dirty little secrets" !

http://www.space.com./news/spaceagencies/a...cks_010326.html

Edited by straydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, more proof that you don't understand what you're reading. The article is about contamination during the 30+ years since apollo, all of which happened after the fact. The nature of the contamination also doesn't change the fact that the rocks are clearly not from earth.

Schmitt said that the lunar sample containers were unable to retain a vacuum and most samples came back in bags without sample box protection. Spacecraft atmosphere and EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE CONTAMINATED THE SAMPLES at that point, he said.

* ( Oh really? ... and I have alway been led to believe that the Apollo rocks were all pristine samples and showed absolutely no signs of having entered Earth's atmosphere or showed any signs of having possibly come from the Antarctic too ... How about that !! )

Atmospheric contamination is NOT what they are talking about when they say "no signs of having entered Earth's atmosphere". They are talking about the melting, ablating, and scorching that is inevitable when a meteor streaks through the atmosphere. Do you really think the contamination this article is talking about even remotely compares to reentry damage and sitting in arctic ice unprotected?

Despite the contamination mentioned, the rocks all still show PROOF that they formed in a low gravity, zero moisture environment, and spent eons exposed to the vacuum and micrometeor impacts.

Edited by phunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straydog, you do realize this article is completely contrary to position you take, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Straydog, you do realize this article is completely contrary to position you take, right?

Any one that can simultaneously argue that the technology to go to the moon didn't exist in 1969 AND that NASA may have got to the moon using advanced alien technology and claim isn't going to worry about a little contradiction here and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Straydog, you do realize this article is completely contrary to position you take, right?

LMAO :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to show how long a meteorite has been on Earth (and hence if it was not returned to Earth between 1969 and 1972 prove it).

Firstly there is weathering. If a meteorite has been sitting in a dessert or in Antarctica for many years (maybe menan thousands of years) it will be exposed to the effects of Earth's weather (something it will not be exposed to on the Moon).

From the Lunar and Planetary Institute, Universities Space Research Association:

Pairing: Terrestrial residence time is a common first approach to estimating pairings of meteorites. Lacking such data, we have taken another approach. Within a particular climatic terrain on Earth, it is to be expected that meteorites with different degrees of weathering would have different terrestrial ages. That is, their pairings would be highly improbable. Not unexpectedly, hot-desert weathering of meteorites is substantially different from that in the Antarctic. The weathering additions of Ba and Sr to the hot-desert meteorites is a ‘signature’ of this environment, but more importantly, can be used to estimate the degree of weathering that a given meteorite has experienced.
Source: LPI, USRA (PDF)

From the Washington University in St. Louis site:

For several reasons, we know that the lunar meteorites derive from many different impacts on the Moon. The textural and compositional variety spans, and in some ways exceeds, those of the rocks types collected on the 6 Apollo missions, so the meteorite must come from various locations. More importantly, it is often possible to determine how long ago a rock left the Moon using “cosmic-ray exposure ages.” Small rocks on the surface of the Moon and in orbit around the Sun or Earth are exposed to cosmic rays. The cosmic rays are so energetic that they cause nuclear reactions in the meteorites that change one nuclide (isotope) into another. Some of those nuclides produced are radioactive. As soon as they fall to Earth, production stops because the Earth’s atmosphere absorbs the cosmic rays. The radionuclides decay on Earth with no further production. The most well-know such isotope is 14C (carbon 14). In rocks, other important radionuclides produced by cosmic-ray exposure are 10Be, 26Al, 36Cl, and 41Ca. Because they all have different half-lives, it is often possible to tell how long a rock was exposed on or near the surface of the Moon, how long it took to travel to Earth, and how long ago it fell. For example, cosmic-ray exposure data for Kalahari 008/009 suggest that the meteorite left the Moon only a few hundred years ago. At the other extreme, Dhofar 025 took 13-20 million years (Nishiizumi & Caffee, 2001). Because there is a wide range in the Earth-Moon transit times, we know that many impacts on the Moon were required to launch all the lunar meteorites.
Source: WUSTL - Meteorites

There is also a difference in the composition of many of the lunar meteorites from the Apollo and Luna samples.

From the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona:

Even though the lunar meteorites sample different regions of the Moon than the Apollo and Luna programs, they have some similarities. One common type of lunar meteorite is an anorthositic breccia. The word "anorthositic" indicates the rock contains lots of bright white fragments of anorthosite, the type of rock found in the lunar highlands. A "breccia" is a rock that contains the broken fragments of older rocks. These breccias are usually produced by the impact processes, which crush rock, move it around the surface of the Moon, and mix it with broken fragments of other types of rock. There are different types of impact breccias, including fragmental breccias, polymict breccias, and regolith breccias.
Source: LPL - Arizona

From the Washington University in St. Louis site again:

The Apollo missions all landed in a small area on the lunar nearside, and some of those missions were deliberately sent to sites known to be geologically “interesting,” but atypical of the Moon - like Yellowstone National Park on Earth. The gamma-ray and neutron spectrometers on the Lunar Prospector mission (1998—1999) have shown that all of the Apollo sites were in or near a unique and anomalously radioactive “hot spot” on the lunar nearside in the vicinity of Mare Imbrium. This existence of this hot spot, sometimes known as the Procellarum KREEP Terrane or PKT, indicates that the mare-highlands distinction of the ancient astronomers is not adequate in a geochemical sense. Many rocks collected on the Apollo missions that likely originated from the PKT (especially those from Apollos 12, 14, and 15) are neither mare basalts nor feldspathic breccias. They are rocks (usually impact-melt breccias) of intermediate FeO concentration (~10%) with high concentrations of the naturally occurring radioactive elements: K (potassium), Th (thorium), and U (uranium). Such rocks are often called “KREEP” because, in addition to K, they have high concentrations of other elements that geochemists call incompatible elements such as the rare-earth elements (REE, like lanthanum and cerium) and phosphorous (P). Lunar meteorite, Sayh al Uhaymir 169 with a whopping 32 ppm Th, is a “KREEPy” meteorite. Almost certainly, it derives from the PKT. Other meteorites that have moderately high concentrations of Th, like Calcalong Creek, Dhofar 925/961, and Yamato 983885 may also have originated from in or near the PKT. Most of the rest of the lunar meteorites appear to have come from outside the PKT because they have low concentrations, typically <1 ppm, of Th. This distribution is reasonable in that we believe that the lunar meteorites are rocks from random locations on the lunar surface, and most locations on the lunar surface are not high in radioactivity.
Source: as above

There are other factors which will be present in a meteorite but not in a sample removed from the Lunar surface. A meteorite will have been partly ablated (burnt away) by it's passage through the Earth's atmosphere leading to a crust of heat affected material on the outer surface. This will not be present in an Apollo sample.

For a rock to have been blasted from the moon it has to have been exposed to a large explosion. This causes tell-tale "shocking" of the rock. This will often not be present in Apollo rocks.

So you see it would be extraordinarily difficult, more likely impossible to pass off a lunar meteorite as an Apollo sample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

Let's see if we can resolve this.

- The samples may show evidence of atomospheric contamination, but they do NOT show evidence of having entered the Earth's atmosphere as a meteor, such as the Antarctic samples do. Samples taken from the lunar surface have fine pitting on them, caused by micrometeorites and cosmic rays. This pitting is burned off when the sample in question falls to Earth through the atmosphere. That alone makes them significantly different from samples found in the Antarctic.

Lunar meteorites look a lot like some Earth rocks. We know that they came from space, however, because like asteroidal meteorites, lunar meteorites have fusion crusts from the melting that occurs as they enter the Earth’s atmosphere (the olive-green crusts on the photos above). Also, they contain certain isotopes that can only be produced by reactions with cosmic rays while outside the Earth’s atmosphere.

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm

- The first lunar meteorites were not found until 1979, and not recognised as such until 1982. That's after the lunar landing missions had been completed.

Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981—82 ANSMET collection season, on 18 January 1982. The three Yamato 79*** meteorites were collected earlier, but not recognized to be of lunar origin until after 1982. The first lunar meteorite to be found appears to be Yamato 791197, on 20 November 1979.
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm

- Lunar samples have unique chemical & compositional characteristics that cannot be replicated here on Earth. Contamination plays no part in this; it is the actual structure of the sample that confirms it's origin.

See http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm for full details of composition, structure, etc.

- There are samples which are being held "in reserve" but if you want to study a lunar sample, all you have to do is write a justification (exactly like scientists in many unrelated fields do all the time) and request a sample from NASA.

Most of the Apollo samples are at the lunar sample building at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, stored in dry nitrogen to keep them moisture-free. There they are sliced and diced with chisels or diamond-tipped saws to be sent to researchers around the world.

"The samples are so precious that we don't get to touch them at all," said Ryder, 51, who helped catalogue the rocks at JSC from 1978 to 1982. He has been at LPI since 1984.

"They can only be touched with aluminum, stainless steel or teflon to avoid contamination. Even the rubber gloves you use have to be covered with teflon," he said.

A smaller number of moon rocks also are stored in a vault at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio for permanent safekeeping.

About 40 or 50 scientists around the world still are investigating the moon rocks. They have to apply to the curators at JSC with a detailed explanation of how they plan to use the samples and what they hope to learn.

Researchers usually only request a few tens of milligrams at a time -- about the size of a cube of sugar or smaller. The samples typically arrive by registered mail packed in a teflon bag.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sola...000522_MB_.html

If you are so sure that they are faked or samples collected from here on Earth, why don't you contact some expert geologists (and perhaps a selenologist) and get them to back your claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the moon rocks are NASA's only physical proof of landing men on the moon almost 40 years ago , then why are the Apollo rocks, which have been given to scientists by NASA to examine , completely tainted with earthly contamination , including evidence of entering Earth's atmosphere ? ... So far it would seem that NASA's Apollo rocks are no different from the 'moon' rocks which have been recovered in the Antarctic .... And it would also seem that we only have NASA's word for how many pounds of rocks were allegedly collected by the Apollo astronauts.... because the hundreds of pounds of "pristine" examples are convienantly locked safely away at NASA facilities where NO ONE OUTSIDE OF NASA HAS EVER EVEN LAID EYES ON THEM ! ... How about that ?
Stray

I think the moon rocks issue was dealt with quite thoroughly in a thread you participated in over at the Education forum. I'll post some of the more pertinent stuff here in case you missed it.

From the website of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Washington University in St Louis:-

Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn’t know much about rocks.
The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that’s better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I’ve studied lunar rocks and soils for 30+ years and I couldn’t make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government” could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth. [After writing these words I learned that virtually the same sentiments had already been expressed by some of my lunar sample colleagues.]

Source:- http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

Here is a list of lunar samples on display in various countries throughout the world:-

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/displays/displays.cfm

And how you can apply to obtain a sample on loan:-

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/visitor/loan/lunar.html

(Credit to Evan Burton for the links)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Former Apollo 17 astronaut, Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, said his impression is that lunar samples have been taken care of well throughout the years.

"I am sure that there may have been exceptions, but reputable researchers cannot afford to work on contaminated samples," Schmitt said in a later interview. At the time, there were unavoidable incidents of contamination, he said, which everyone knows occurred during collection, transport, and handling prior to distribution.

Schmitt said that the lunar sample containers were unable to retain a vacuum and most samples came back in bags without sample box protection. Spacecraft atmosphere and EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE CONTAMINATED THE SAMPLES at that point, he said.

* ( Oh really? ... and I have alway been led to believe that the Apollo rocks were all pristine samples and showed absolutely no signs of having entered Earth's atmosphere or showed any signs of having possibly come from the Antarctic too ... How about that !! )

Stray:

C'mon...read the quote. You've stretched your rubber band beyond it's breaking point.

You're talking about a man who personally participated in the collection of about a quarter of the samples that Apollo returned from the lunar surface here...as if he's spilling the beans, or something!?

There is a decided difference between "atmospheric contamination" and "the effects of a sample entering the earth's atmosphere". Again, you're reading something into this statement that is not present.

How about getting one of Hawkins' "proofs" of Apollo being faked together and posting it for review, instead of stretching things out of proportion like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys but these two lines from NASA's Dirty Little Secrets article says it all !

"EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE CONTAMINATED THE SAMPLES "

"WE'VE YET TO REALLY WORK OUT EXACTLLY WHERE ON EARTH IT'S (THE CONTAMINANTS) COMING FROM, " he said. "

Think about it ... Moon rocks are being picked up today in the Antarctic which are an exact match for NASA's Apollo rocks .... So who's to say the Apollo rocks couldn't have come from the Antarctic in the first place ? .... Werner Von Braun went there two years before Apollo allegedy landed on the moon .... That was plenty of time for his and then later teams to gather up lots of moon rocks ...

Did you not read the article ? .... Of the 840 pounds of rocks which were allegedy picked up on the moon , only a handful of them have ever been seen by anyone outside of NASA , or ever been studied by scientists .... and those few rocks that have been studied are riddled with EARTHLY CONTAMINATION , including the properties of ENTERTING EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE ... Just like the rocks from the Antarctic !

Edited by straydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry guys but these two lines from NASA's Dirty Little Secrets article says it all !

"EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE CONTAMINATED THE SAMPLES "

"WE'VE YET TO REALLY WORK OUT EXACTLLY WHERE ON EARTH IT'S (THE CONTAMINANTS) COMING FROM, " he said. "

Think about it ... Moon rocks are being picked up today in the Antarctic which are an exact match for NASA's Apollo rocks .... So who's to say the Apollo rocks couldn't have come from the Antarctic in the first place ? .... Werner Von Braun went there two years before Apollo allegedy landed on the moon .... That was plenty of time for his and then later teams to gather up lots of moon rocks ...

Did you not read the article ? .... Of the 840 pounds of rocks which were allegedy picked up on the moon , only a handful of them have been studied by scientists .... and those few rocks that have been studied are riddled with EARTHLY CONTAMINATION , including the properties of ENTERTING EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE ... Just like the rocks from the Antarctic !

Straydog

Everything you have brought up here has been answered directly to you, either on this or other sites. You can keep on repeating the same tired old claims, but they cast no doubt whatsoever on the validity of the Apollo programme.

You still don't appear to understand the difference between a rock brought back by an Apollo mission, then subsequently being contaminated by the earth's atmosphere while in storage, and a lunar meteorite (lunite) having it's outer layer heated due to friction upon entering the earth's atmosphere. The two are completely and utterly different. It was obvious from the article that you linked to, and MID explained it to you previously.

You have been told previously, and given references on scientific non-NASA sites, that describe exactly what lunites are, how they differ from Apollo moon rocks, when they were first discovered (approximately ten years after Apollo), and how many have been found (approximately 100 kg - EDIT - it's actually approx 30kg).

Your previous claims about only a select few NASA scientists being able to study moon rocks has been shown to be false, with a link to a site showing where in several different countries around the world you can see Apollo lunar samples. You have even been directed to a website where you can apply to take a sample on loan.

You've also been given details of the many experiments performed on the Apollo samples by many geologists and scientists of different nationalities. You've been given information detailing the differences between earth rocks, lunites, and lunar samples.

I honestly don't know where you're going with this thread. Is it just to make NASA look silly because some of there Apollo samples have admittedly become contaminated? For that to work, you'd first have to admit that they are genuine samples in the first place. Is it so that you can claim they are lunites found in Antarctica? I've not seen a single credible article by a recognised Geologist who has studied lunites and Apollo samples, who can't tell the difference between the two. (Oh, the first lunite was discovered approx ten years after Apollo - only about 30kg has been retrieved in the past 20 years - most of them in Oman, not Antarctica). Or is it another reason?

380kg of moon rocks are the clincher, no matter how much you try to avoid it. Unless NASA has been paying hush money to the world's Geology fraternity for the last 37 years?

Edited by postbaguk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the moon rocks are NASA's only physical proof of landing men on the moon

What about the reflective laser beacons they placed on the moon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about the reflective laser beacons they placed on the moon?

straydogs stock answer: they could have been put there by an unmanned mission. He is big on the "could haves," not so hot on the "actually dids," though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
straydogs stock answer: they could have been put there by an unmanned mission. He is big on the "could haves," not so hot on the "actually dids," though.

Which, by the way, would be an admission that NASA had the technology to go to the Moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which, by the way, would be an admission that NASA had the technology to go to the Moon.

And which furthermore shows that the rocks could indeed have came from the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry guys but these two lines from NASA's Dirty Little Secrets article says it all !

"EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE CONTAMINATED THE SAMPLES "

"WE'VE YET TO REALLY WORK OUT EXACTLLY WHERE ON EARTH IT'S (THE CONTAMINANTS) COMING FROM, "

Sorry stray, but those two lines say nothing, save what posty, and obviousman, and myself, and others have told you and you have ignored.

This ignoring thing of yours, and the lack of understanding and research on your part, is now deemed to be deliberate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This ignoring thing of yours, and the lack of understanding and research on your part, is now deemed to be deliberate.

Which has been evident since day one of these horribly redundant threads, the same arguments again and again, explained thoroughly and ignored thoroughly.

There are a lot of things that seem odd about the space race and the moon mission. Until you research them and make an attempt to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many things that seem VERY ODD about the space race, the moon missions and the official Apollo record in general .... and these odd things have absolutely nothing to do with my deliberately ignoring any pro Apollo information ... I haven't ignored it .. I just flat don't believe it .... Big difference .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
including the properties of ENTERTING EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE ... Just like the rocks from the Antarctic !

The article says no such thing. What are you reading? It states that all the contamination comes from original handling and storage and subsequent storage and handling after their arrival on earth. It says nothing about them appearing as though they went THROUGH the earth's atmosphere as a meteor, which as has already been stated over and over leaves an absolute signature on the surface of the meteorite.

These rocks have been studied for 37 years now and are available to any researcher who can a viable request for them. Please, read the evidence you're putting forth because it doesn't support your conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are many things that seem VERY ODD about the space race, the moon missions and the official Apollo record in general .... and these odd things have absolutely nothing to do with my deliberately ignoring any pro Apollo information ... I haven't ignored it .. I just flat don't believe it .... Big difference .

And this is the crux of the matter.

These things "SEEM" VERY ODD...to you.

Also, you flat out don't believe it.

That is the point here.

Science has nothing to do with belief. I cannot understand why that concept is ignored by those of you who wish to discuss science matters in terms of beliefs. It has to do with understanding, which is a matter of effort, research, doing your homework.

If you did that, you would understand that which is absent in your current knowledge. You have no impediment to this process, I think, which leads to the conclusion that you deliberately do not want to do your homework. You keep posting already completely fleshed out matters as if you've never read anything.

You refuse to believe, which means you refuse to learn, because your beliefs are contradicted by the sciences and facts behind Apollo.

If that's your position, you're wasting your time in threads where there are people who can explain things, and who do so. You stubbornly refuse to listen and do any leg work on the matter, in favor of unsubstantiated and erroneous personal beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.