Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Russia mission will 'verify US Moon landings'

78 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dark_Grey
14 hours ago, Peter B said:

What I meant (and perhaps you didn't understand my colourful euphemism) was that if America had attempted to fake Apollo, the Soviets would have been able to present clear evidence of that fakery. For one thing, the Soviets were receiving information about Project Apollo from people working on the program, so it's inconceivable that the Americans could have faked Apollo without the Soviets finding out about it.

If the Apollo program was highly compartmentalized, any embedded Soviets would only have small fragments of information to send back. It's not like each employee at NASA had the blueprints sitting in his or her desk drawer.

Quote

For another, if the Americans had faked Apollo there would have been clear evidence of fakery in the material the Americans made available to the world (such as scientific data, photography, video, telemetry or the Moon rocks themselves).

Depending on who you ask, there is "clear evidence" in the footage. Again, it depends on who you ask.

Open question for all:

When asked to prove the moon landings, one piece of evidence often cited is the mirrors we left behind. We can point lasers at the mirrors and have them bounce back, thus proving we went to the moon. The question I have is how can a lay-person conduct that experiment, if at all? Based on my 5 min Google search, no commercially available telescope is able to focus on an object that size, at that distance. You would need an incredibly high powered scope to clearly see an object several meters wide on the surface of the moon. If the same agencies supposedly responsible for the fakery are the only ones able to prove it's legitimacy, that's hardly proof in my book. How do you respond?

Spoiler

Disclaimer: I believe we landed on the moon. I'm just having fun here but with some genuine curiosity. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
28 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

If the Apollo program was highly compartmentalized, any embedded Soviets would only have small fragments of information to send back. It's not like each employee at NASA had the blueprints sitting in his or her desk drawer.

Depending on who you ask, there is "clear evidence" in the footage. Again, it depends on who you ask.

Open question for all:

When asked to prove the moon landings, one piece of evidence often cited is the mirrors we left behind. We can point lasers at the mirrors and have them bounce back, thus proving we went to the moon. The question I have is how can a lay-person conduct that experiment, if at all? Based on my 5 min Google search, no commercially available telescope is able to focus on an object that size, at that distance. You would need an incredibly high powered scope to clearly see an object several meters wide on the surface of the moon. If the same agencies supposedly responsible for the fakery are the only ones able to prove it's legitimacy, that's hardly proof in my book. How do you respond?

  Hide contents

Disclaimer: I believe we landed on the moon. I'm just having fun here but with some genuine curiosity. 

 

https://wtop.com/science/2019/07/the-experiment-still-running-on-the-moon-and-tv-re-runs-50-years-later/

 

Don't know how accurate this is but...

 

Quote

“You do need to have a high-powered laser, which is going to set you back about six figures, you have to have the right detector, which is 10 grand or more, the right computers, and of course a $10-to-14 million telescope, which aren’t just laying around,” Jaeger said. “You could rent one I suppose.”

“But it is so complex, that with as much light as you send out and getting just that single photon back, it would be like going to a beach that’s say 1,000 kilometers long, 30 kilometers or so wide, and 30-40 feet deep, and someone telling you exactly what grain of sand you need to pick out of that whole pile.”

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
1 hour ago, Robotic Jew said:

Thanks for that. It pretty much confirms that bouncing a laser off NASA's mirrors is definitely outside the capabilities of the average astronomer. It's so far out of reach, I'm not sure the "mirrors on the moon" argument can even be cited as proof we went there. To appease the moon hoax crowd, you need sources outside of NASA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
7 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

If the Apollo program was highly compartmentalized, any embedded Soviets would only have small fragments of information to send back. It's not like each employee at NASA had the blueprints sitting in his or her desk drawer.

Depending on who you ask, there is "clear evidence" in the footage. Again, it depends on who you ask.

Open question for all:

When asked to prove the moon landings, one piece of evidence often cited is the mirrors we left behind. We can point lasers at the mirrors and have them bounce back, thus proving we went to the moon. The question I have is how can a lay-person conduct that experiment, if at all? Based on my 5 min Google search, no commercially available telescope is able to focus on an object that size, at that distance. You would need an incredibly high powered scope to clearly see an object several meters wide on the surface of the moon. If the same agencies supposedly responsible for the fakery are the only ones able to prove it's legitimacy, that's hardly proof in my book. How do you respond?

  Reveal hidden contents

Disclaimer: I believe we landed on the moon. I'm just having fun here but with some genuine curiosity. 

 

Regarding the compartmentalisation, it's a good point...up to a point. Sure, the engineers were highly specialised in the work they did. But they also had to talk to each other to ensure their various systems integrated. So the team building the spacesuits had to talk to the environment control team to ensure the spacesuits could be plugged into the spacecraft's environment control system; the electrical systems team had to talk to the team producing the fuel cells; anyone designing a system that used electricity had to talk to the electrical systems team to ensure there was enough electricity available to run their system, and they also had to talk to the environment control team to measure the effect of the heat produced by their electrical system on the cabin temperature. And the people designing the stages of the Saturn V had to talk to each other and the people designing the Command Module, to ensure that signals sent by the astronauts could pass through one stage's electrical systems to reach the next stage.

The result was that if anyone wanted to make a change to their component of the spacecraft, it had to be approved by a Change Committee to ensure that there weren't any unexpected consequences somewhere else in the system. One example where this went wrong was in the design of the Service Module. The main contractor changed the voltage used by the spacecraft electrical system. They told the sub-contractors manufacturing the oxygen tanks of the change. But the subbies forgot to tell the sub-sub-contractors making the tanks' electrical systems. This contributed to the Apollo 13 accident.

Regarding the mirrors, thank you to Robotic Jew for explaining the process of using the mirrors. But the mirrors are largely irrelevant as evidence of Apollo anyway: the Soviets placed mirrors on the Moon using their unmanned missions, and they're also used for measuring the distance to the Moon.

Proving the reality of Apollo is hard to do for ordinary people if you mean starting from absolute basics. One of the main pieces of evidence of the reality of Apollo is the rocks brought back by the astronauts, but they're really only available to professional scientists working in academic institutions; and in any case I don't think there are any tests that ordinary people could perform on the rocks which would show they're from the Moon. There aren't any telescopes on Earth which can directly image the landing sites, let alone anything an amateur might own.

However, at the time of the missions, there were ordinary people who were able to listen in on the missions, using home built equipment. Swedish man Sven Grahn was one such, and you can look up what he did.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brian100
On 9/16/2019 at 8:56 PM, Peter B said:

??

What I meant (and perhaps you didn't understand my colourful euphemism) was that if America had attempted to fake Apollo, the Soviets would have been able to present clear evidence of that fakery. For one thing, the Soviets were receiving information about Project Apollo from people working on the program, so it's inconceivable that the Americans could have faked Apollo without the Soviets finding out about it. For another, if the Americans had faked Apollo there would have been clear evidence of fakery in the material the Americans made available to the world (such as scientific data, photography, video, telemetry or the Moon rocks themselves).

How can they present evidence when they can;t even send a man 50 years afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

I don't know what's worse, being dumb enough to credit the moon program was faked, or being bored enough to want to pretend to believe it. Either way, there isn't a lot of hope !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brian100
6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I don't know what's worse, being dumb enough to credit the moon program was faked, or being bored enough to want to pretend to believe it. Either way, there isn't a lot of hope !

We're juts too far ahead of the Soviets and Chinese. And even Terry Virts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brian100
On 11/26/2018 at 2:14 AM, Nzo said:

Who knows? Unless you were there, you don't really know. It could have been a successful propaganda campaign during the height of the cold war. I would like to believe we went there, but I get that logical/reasonable voice in my head saying 'Ha ha! you idiot'

 

We should send a train load of packages up there to start creating an permanent underground base. It should have started happening 40 years ago.

Yeah Space 1999 should of started by now.

 

 

Edited by brian100
add video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
2 hours ago, brian100 said:

How can they present evidence when they can;t even send a man 50 years afterwards.

??

What I mean is that if the Americans had faked Apollo somehow, the Soviets would have been able to demonstrate how that fakery had happened.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brian100
8 minutes ago, Peter B said:

??

What I mean is that if the Americans had faked Apollo somehow, the Soviets would have been able to demonstrate how that fakery had happened.

They would be called nuts like everyone else. So they keep quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard
3 hours ago, brian100 said:

They would be called nuts like everyone else. So they keep quiet.

There are lots of countries on this planet that would love nothing more than to expose the US as fakers and liers (bad guys) when it comes to lots of things. Dont you think that if they could prove that the moonlandings were faked they would have done so by now?

There is a very good reason that hasnt happened. Think about it.

 

Take your time.....

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brian100

How would they go about it?  They don't say anything. We shall see when China sends a man to the moon which will back up what the USA claims to have done. If they go then I might consider changing my mind.

Edited by brian100
add more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard
48 minutes ago, brian100 said:

How would they go about it?  They don't say anything. We shall see when China sends a man to the moon which will back up what the USA claims to have done. If they go then I might consider changing my mind.

Why would that change your mind? How can you be sure that they are not in on the conspiracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brian100
16 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

Why would that change your mind? How can you be sure that they are not in on the conspiracy?

For something to be true, you need two separate sources to check the work that has been claimed. We'll find out I hope before I die b/c China looks close.

Edited by brian100
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard
6 minutes ago, brian100 said:

For something to be true, you need two separate sources to check the work that has be claimed. We'll find out I hope before I die b/c China looks close.

How to See All Six Apollo Moon Landing Sites

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/ 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brian100

Well I'm waiting on the Russian or Chinese to get there before I make up my mind due to the controversy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, brian100 said:

Well I'm waiting on the Russian or Chinese to get there before I make up my mind due to the controversy.

I think I'll wait till they install flashing lights on the moon, and it looks like a disco mirror ball, though maybe that can be faked too ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
12 hours ago, Peter B said:

Regarding the compartmentalisation, it's a good point...up to a point. Sure, the engineers were highly specialised in the work they did. But they also had to talk to each other to ensure their various systems integrated. So the team building the spacesuits had to talk to the environment control team to ensure the spacesuits could be plugged into the spacecraft's environment control system; the electrical systems team had to talk to the team producing the fuel cells; anyone designing a system that used electricity had to talk to the electrical systems team to ensure there was enough electricity available to run their system, and they also had to talk to the environment control team to measure the effect of the heat produced by their electrical system on the cabin temperature. And the people designing the stages of the Saturn V had to talk to each other and the people designing the Command Module, to ensure that signals sent by the astronauts could pass through one stage's electrical systems to reach the next stage.The result was that if anyone wanted to make a change to their component of the spacecraft, it had to be approved by a Change Committee to ensure that there weren't any unexpected consequences somewhere else in the system. One example where this went wrong was in the design of the Service Module. The main contractor changed the voltage used by the spacecraft electrical system. They told the sub-contractors manufacturing the oxygen tanks of the change. But the subbies forgot to tell the sub-sub-contractors making the tanks' electrical systems. This contributed to the Apollo 13 accident.

I think you are on point here. From an engineering and production standpoint, a technically complex operation can only be so compartmentalized before the whole project ends in failure. However, there only needs to be enough red tape between departments to hide the overall goal of the project. You may go to work knowing what parts need to be installed that day while having no idea what the real purpose of any of it is or where it's going. 

Quote

Regarding the mirrors, thank you to Robotic Jew for explaining the process of using the mirrors. But the mirrors are largely irrelevant as evidence of Apollo anyway: the Soviets placed mirrors on the Moon using their unmanned missions, and they're also used for measuring the distance to the Moon.

But keeping within the bubble of the conspiracy, both NASA and the CCCP are insular sources that can't be trusted. Only they have the equipment and the coordinates to make use of the mirrors and they may be the only ones that can even prove the mirrors exist on the moon at all. That essentially makes the mirrors a moot point for the hoax crowd.

Quote

Proving the reality of Apollo is hard to do for ordinary people if you mean starting from absolute basics.

Agreed. Almost all big conspiracy theories grow because of a rudimentary understanding of the subject. There is enough knowledge to make theories or question the source material but not enough knowledge to prove or disprove those theories fully.

Quote

One of the main pieces of evidence of the reality of Apollo is the rocks brought back by the astronauts, but they're really only available to professional scientists working in academic institutions; and in any case I don't think there are any tests that ordinary people could perform on the rocks which would show they're from the Moon.

Now the moon rocks are interesting. I had to look in to it myself a year or two ago as reading about the moon landing hoax theory brought up false moon rocks as evidence we never landed.

Quote

The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.

Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.

"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."

+1 for the moon hoax crowd. I have to give them that one. That is a weird story.

Quote

There aren't any telescopes on Earth which can directly image the landing sites, let alone anything an amateur might own.

Basically, if we can't independently verify the mirrors and especially the landing site, the information we have on the whole event is coming from one source: NASA. That's the molten core the whole moon hoax conspiracy circles around. Start with the premise that NASA can't be trusted and try and prove the moon landing from there. It's harder than you might think but also a fun way to learn about the early space missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
3 hours ago, Hazzard said:

The only way to view the landing sites is via NASA's lunar orbiter. You can see how that spark ignites a tinder box of conspiracy questions. The article's author responds to a similar comment by basically saying it's a fact we went to the moon so there's no point in trying to verify it.

Quote

You’ve obviously given a lot of thought to this matter. Here are several things to take in:

1. There is no question we landed on the moon multiple times. It’s in the history books and really, truly happened despite the conspiracy theorists. For that reason alone, there’s no actual need to verify that the hardware, etc. is still up there.

2. We are still bouncing lasers from the ground off the retroreflectors the astronauts left on the surface to precisely measure the distance from Earth to the moon as well as measure the subtle movements of our planet’s tectonic plates.

3. NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter’s camera/telescope is the only instrument close enough to the moon (~31 miles) to clearly record the landing sites, hardware, shadows and even the thread-like tracks made by the astronauts and rovers during their explorations of the lunar surface.

4. Since all of this is proven and photographed, there’s no reason professional astronomers would take the time (and money it would require) to keep trying to verify that we went to the moon even if we had a telescope big enough to see the hardware. I know Hubble can’t do it (all the Apollo hardware, landing stage, etc. is below its resolution limit of its optics.), but even if the twin 10-meter Keck telescopes might be able to (I can’t verify this at this moment), there’s simply no need to do so. Keep in mind that those instruments are being used for important, groundbreaking research by astronomers around the world.

I get what this guy is saying, but he seems to be taking all of this for granted.

Richard Branson or Elon Musk needs to dip in to their coffee money and build a scope capable of looking at individual grains of sand on the moon. Then take super HD pics of the landing site and release the photos for free. That's the only way to satisfy this conspiracy once and for all. NASA has faked photos and even footage in the past so their credibility is on the line to some degree. Just saying "NASA said so" isn't an argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
4 hours ago, brian100 said:

We shall see when China sends a man to the moon which will back up what the USA claims to have done.

That comment sums up pretty well that your understanding of the matter is below zero. FYI, the Moon`s surface is much bigger than a basketball court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard
5 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

.Richard Branson or Elon Musk needs to dip in to their coffee money and build a scope capable of looking at individual grains of sand on the moon. Then take super HD pics of the landing site and release the photos for free. That's the only way to satisfy this conspiracy once and for all. NASA has faked photos and even footage in the past so their credibility is on the line to some degree. Just saying "NASA said so" isn't an argument. 

Im afraid that wont make the slightest difference. These woo woos will just claim that he is in on the conspiracy for whatever reason. Also, Im never posting to  change the No Moonies minds or try to prove them wrong,... Im posting for the silent readers and for those still on the fence. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bknight
22 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

The only way to view the landing sites is via NASA's lunar orbiter. You can see how that spark ignites a tinder box of conspiracy questions. The article's author responds to a similar comment by basically saying it's a fact we went to the moon so there's no point in trying to verify it.

I get what this guy is saying, but he seems to be taking all of this for granted.

Richard Branson or Elon Musk needs to dip in to their coffee money and build a scope capable of looking at individual grains of sand on the moon. Then take super HD pics of the landing site and release the photos for free. That's the only way to satisfy this conspiracy once and for all. NASA has faked photos and even footage in the past so their credibility is on the line to some degree. Just saying "NASA said so" isn't an argument. 

"Richard Branson or Elon Musk needs to dip in to their coffee money and build a scope capable of looking at individual grains of sand on the moon" Do you realize how absurd this statement is?  Currently the largest optical telescope on Earth(Keck in Hawaii) has a mirror diameter of 10 m.  "Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters in diameter."  From: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/45-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-landings/122-are-there-telescopes-that-can-see-the-flag-and-lunar-rover-on-the-moon-beginner

So looking at sand grains would require an enormous sized telescope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
1 hour ago, bknight said:

"Richard Branson or Elon Musk needs to dip in to their coffee money and build a scope capable of looking at individual grains of sand on the moon" Do you realize how absurd this statement is?  Currently the largest optical telescope on Earth(Keck in Hawaii) has a mirror diameter of 10 m.  "Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters in diameter."  From: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/45-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-landings/122-are-there-telescopes-that-can-see-the-flag-and-lunar-rover-on-the-moon-beginner

So looking at sand grains would require an enormous sized telescope. 

Hence the need for a billionaire's pocket book 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B

Dark_Grey said:

I think you are on point here. From an engineering and production standpoint, a technically complex operation can only be so compartmentalized before the whole project ends in failure. However, there only needs to be enough red tape between departments to hide the overall goal of the project.

You may go to work knowing what parts need to be installed that day while having no idea what the real purpose of any of it is or where it's going.

That may be true to a point, but it goes against what the engineers say who worked on various parts of the Apollo project. According to accounts I've read, engineers were expected to know everything about the component they were working on - not just how it worked but what components it relied on and what components relied on it. Sure, that's still not the same as every employee and contractor having the complete blueprints in their desks, but it points to a high level of connectivity rather than compartmentalisation.

But keeping within the bubble of the conspiracy, both NASA and the CCCP are insular sources that can't be trusted. Only they have the equipment and the coordinates to make use of the mirrors and they may be the only ones that can even prove the mirrors exist on the moon at all. That essentially makes the mirrors a moot point for the hoax crowd.

Yep. I don't have a problem with not using the mirrors as any sort of evidence for the reality of Apollo. There are plenty of other threads of evidence, all pointing in the one direction.

[Proving the reality of Apollo is hard to do for ordinary people if you mean starting from absolute basics.]

Agreed. Almost all big conspiracy theories grow because of a rudimentary understanding of the subject. There is enough knowledge to make theories or question the source material but not enough knowledge to prove or disprove those theories fully.

However it should be understood that at no time during the existence of Project Apollo was make it possible for ordinary people to prove the reality of Apollo a goal of the project. Project Apollo existed in the context of the Cold War, in order to showcase American technology and industrial capability, and so the only people who had to be convinced of its reality were the Soviets, and the leaders of countries around the world who might be swayed to "join" the USA or the USSR.

Now the moon rocks are interesting. I had to look in to it myself a year or two ago as reading about the moon landing hoax theory brought up false moon rocks as evidence we never landed.

The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.

Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.

"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."

+1 for the moon hoax crowd. I have to give them that one. That is a weird story.

Yes, it's a weird story. But once you look into it, it's possible to tease out a reasonably straightforward explanation.

What it seems to come down to is a relative of a deceased Dutch ex-PM going through his desk, finding a rock and a commemoration card next to each other, and assuming they were associated with each other, when in fact they weren't. This was then followed by an employee of the Rijksmuseum with no background knowledge of moon rocks contacting NASA about a possible Dutch moon rock, and the person at NASA misinterpreting what rock the Rijksmuseum employee was asking about.

The key to the story is that, at the time the ex-PM received the rock in question, NASA had less than 80 kilograms of Moon rock from two missions. Scientists from around the world were being sent samples of a few grams to do their experiments upon, and nations friendly to the USA received gifts of fragments of Moon rock around the size of a grain of rice. In that context, the idea that a nearly deaf and blind ex-PM of a country that contributed virtually nothing to Project Apollo would be given a Moon rock weighing a couple of hundred grams just makes no sense.

Basically, if we can't independently verify the mirrors and especially the landing site, the information we have on the whole event is coming from one source: NASA. That's the molten core the whole moon hoax conspiracy circles around.

Start with the premise that NASA can't be trusted and try and prove the moon landing from there. It's harder than you might think but also a fun way to learn about the early space missions.

Well, there are those Moon rocks. They've been examined by scientists from around the world, including the USSR. The first thing that's clear is that the rocks aren't from Earth - they have characteristics unlike any terrestrial rocks and which can't be faked in any way. The second thing is that there's simply too much material of too much variety to have been collected by unmanned spacecraft. Sure, the Soviets brought back samples with unmanned spacecraft, but the Apollo missions brought back literally a thousand times as much material as the three Soviet sample return missions.

When people try to dismiss the reality of the Moon rocks I simply invite them to go to the geology department of their local university and ask any professional geologist about the Moon rocks. The odds are pretty good that someone in the department knows some other geologist who's worked on them. If you go to the Lunar and Planetary Institute website you can look at the lists of dozens of academic articles written about each one of hundreds of Apollo samples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B

Oh hang it, what's going on...look, just ignore the quote boxes below, I messed up the formatting somehow...

Agreed (that proving the reality of Apollo is hard to do for ordinary people if you mean starting from absolute basics). Almost all big conspiracy theories grow because of a rudimentary understanding of the subject. There is enough knowledge to make theories or question the source material but not enough knowledge to prove or disprove those theories fully.

However it should be understood that at no time during the existence of Project Apollo was make it possible for ordinary people to prove the reality of Apollo a goal of the project. Project Apollo existed in the context of the Cold War, in order to showcase American technology and industrial capability, and so the only people who had to be convinced of its reality were the Soviets, and the leaders of countries around the world who might be swayed to "join" the USA or the USSR.

This is not to dismiss the idea of ordinary people testing scientific concepts for themselves. It's just that a lot of 20th century science requires equipment and knowledge that's simply not available to ordinary people, and Apollo fits largely into that category.

Having said that, people with good ham radio set-ups were able to listen in to parts of the Apollo missions. One such person was Swedish man Sven Grahn.

Now the moon rocks are interesting. I had to look in to it myself a year or two ago as reading about the moon landing hoax theory brought up false moon rocks as evidence we never landed.

The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.

Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.

"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."

+1 for the moon hoax crowd. I have to give them that one. That is a weird story.

Yes, it's a weird story. But once you look into it, it's possible to tease out a reasonably straightforward explanation.

What it seems to come down to is a relative of a deceased Dutch ex-PM going through his desk, finding a rock and a commemoration card next to each other, and assuming they were associated with each other, when in fact they weren't. This was then followed by an employee of the Rijksmuseum with no background knowledge of moon rocks contacting NASA about a possible Dutch moon rock, and the person at NASA misinterpreting what rock the Rijksmuseum employee was asking about.

The key to the story is that, at the time the ex-PM received the rock in question, NASA had less than 80 kilograms of Moon rock from two missions. Scientists from around the world were being sent samples of a few grams to do their experiments upon, and nations friendly to the USA received gifts of fragments of Moon rock around the size of a grain of rice. In that context, the idea that a nearly deaf and blind ex-PM of a country that contributed virtually nothing to Project Apollo would be given a Moon rock weighing a couple of hundred grams just makes no sense.

Basically, if we can't independently verify the mirrors and especially the landing site, the information we have on the whole event is coming from one source: NASA. That's the molten core the whole moon hoax conspiracy circles around. Start with the premise that NASA can't be trusted and try and prove the moon landing from there. It's harder than you might think but also a fun way to learn about the early space missions.

Well, there are those Moon rocks. They've been examined by scientists from around the world, including the USSR. The first thing that's clear is that the rocks aren't from Earth - they have characteristics unlike any terrestrial rocks and which can't be faked in any way. The second thing is that there's simply too much material of too much variety to have been collected by unmanned spacecraft. Sure, the Soviets brought back samples with unmanned spacecraft, but the Apollo missions brought back literally a thousand times as much material as the three Soviet sample return missions.

When people try to dismiss the reality of the Moon rocks I simply invite them to go to the geology department of their local university and ask any professional geologist about the Moon rocks. The odds are pretty good that someone in the department knows some other geologist who's worked on them. If you go to the Lunar and Planetary Institute website you can look at the lists of dozens of academic articles written about each one of hundreds of Apollo samples.

ETA: The moon rocks are one of the most thoroughly studied packages of material on the Earth. It's worth noting they've been subjected to tests which hadn't even been thought of when they were first retrieved. The idea that somehow the thousands of geologists who've studied the Moon rocks are either (a) all completely mistaken or (b) all conspiring to lie about them again makes no sense.

So, we have a package of ~380 kilograms of Moon rocks, and they're sitting here on Earth. How did they get here? The simplest explanation is that a bunch of astronauts travelled to the Moon in a noisy gigantic rocket, collected the rocks and photographed the process of doing so, and then brought said rocks back to the Earth.

 

Quote

 

Yes, it's a weird story. But once you look into it, it's possible to tease out a reasonably straightforward explanation.

What it seems to come down to is a relative of a deceased Dutch ex-PM going through his desk, finding a rock and a commemoration card next to each other, and assuming they were associated with each other, when in fact they weren't. This was then followed by an employee of the Rijksmuseum with no background knowledge of moon rocks contacting NASA about a possible Dutch moon rock, and the person at NASA misinterpreting what rock the Rijksmuseum employee was asking about.

The key to the story is that, at the time the ex-PM received the rock in question, NASA had less than 80 kilograms of Moon rock from two missions. Scientists from around the world were being sent samples of a few grams to do their experiments upon, and nations friendly to the USA received gifts of fragments of Moon rock around the size of a grain of rice. In that context, the idea that a nearly deaf and blind ex-PM of a country that contributed virtually nothing to Project Apollo would be given a Moon rock weighing a couple of hundred grams just makes no sense.

 

Basically, if we can't independently verify the mirrors and especially the landing site, the information we have on the whole event is coming from one source: NASA. That's the molten core the whole moon hoax conspiracy circles around.

Start with the premise that NASA can't be trusted and try and prove the moon landing from there. It's harder than you might think but also a fun way to learn about the early space missions.

Well, there are those Moon rocks. They've been examined by scientists from around the world, including the USSR. The first thing that's clear is that the rocks aren't from Earth - they have characteristics unlike any terrestrial rocks and which can't be faked in any way. The second thing is that there's simply too much material of too much variety to have been collected by unmanned spacecraft. Sure, the Soviets brought back samples with unmanned spacecraft, but the Apollo missions brought back literally a thousand times as much material as the three Soviet sample return missions.

When people try to dismiss the reality of the Moon rocks I simply invite them to go to the geology department of their local university and ask any professional geologist about the Moon rocks. The odds are pretty good that someone in the department knows some other geologist who's worked on them. If you go to the Lunar and Planetary Institute website you can look at the lists of literally dozens of academic articles written about each one of hundreds of Apollo samples.

ETA: The Moon rocks are one of the most thoroughly studied packages of material on the Earth. It's worth noting they've been subjected to tests which hadn't been thought of when they were first retrieved. The ideas that somehow the thousands of geologists who've studied the Moon rocks are either (a) all completely mistaken or (b) all conspiring to lie about them again makes no sense.

So, we have a package of ~380 kilograms of Moon rocks, and they're sitting here on Earth. How did they get here? The simplest explanation is that a bunch of astronauts travelled to the Moon in a noisy gigantic rocket, collected the rocks and photographed the process of doing so, and then brought said rocks back to the Earth.

A second process for proving the reality of Apollo is the Soviet one I tried on Brian100 before: the Soviets knew a lot about Apollo, and it would have been a propaganda coup of the first order to be able to demonstrate to the world that the Americans had attempted to fake Apollo.

Edited by Peter B
Stupid formatting...stupid me...one or the other

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.