• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

zooterkin said:
They are yet another item of evidence consistent with Apollo 11 actually visiting the Moon, for which you need to provide a convincing alternative explanation rather than just hand waving if you want to show a hoax.
Click to expand...
All they show is 'glassiness' (rather like the perlite discussion we once had about the effect of explosives on steel), plus, they are more basic than Earth's rocks, i.e., it won't be comprised of certain elements we expect on Earth. But the Earth and the Moon once used to be the same body, so all a rock can tell you is its inherent structure and what type of temperatures it might have been subjected to. So volcanic rock shows the type of 'glassiness' we see in Moon rock. Plus as I said, we have rocks hitting Earth (and the Moon) from outer space all the time. In addition, there is no need to collect these rocks by hand, just as there was no need to leave reflectors there by hand, either. That is a diversion.
 
Vixen said:
All they show is 'glassiness' (rather like the perlite discussion we once had about the effect of explosives on steel), plus, they are more basic than Earth's rocks, i.e., it won't be comprised of certain elements we expect on Earth. But the Earth and the Moon once used to be the same body, so all a rock can tell you is its inherent structure and what type of temperatures it might have been subjected to. So volcanic rock shows the type of 'glassiness' we see in Moon rock. Plus as I said, we have rocks hitting Earth (and the Moon) from outer space all the time.
Click to expand...

You're a geologist now? Laughable. Go back and read the previous posts which explain the differences. (You won't, and even if you do, you won't understand what you're reading. For example, the very post which sparked this sub-discussion was talking about micrometeorites, and the rock was an example showing the impacts of them on moon rock. I'm not a geologist, but it's obvious to me that you won't see that on rocks on the Earth because those micrometeorites would burn up in the Earth's atmosphere.)

Vixen said:
In addition, there is no need to collect these rocks by hand, just as there was no need to leave reflectors there by hand, either. That is a diversion.
Click to expand...
No, it is not. As I said, these are not things you can hand wave away.
 
Vixen said:
Again, the lunar rocks are rather like the reflectors, they don't actually prove the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
You could go through a vast list of every tiny little bit of evidence that the Apollo missions really happened, and say of each one "This alone does not prove Apollo really happened as described".

It would be stupid, but you could do it.
 
Vixen said:
66m Brits and 330m Americans believed Sadam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (= Iraq War). We now know that was completely false propaganda from Bush and Blair. So we have to reject the hypothesis that X no. of people believe it, therefore it happened.
Click to expand...
Well no. You left out the Irai Republican Guard, they also believed they had chemical weapons, and didn't find out the truth until ten days into the invasion. Their generals are on record. Everyone leaves this part out. The case for Irai WMDs was weak, but that's thanks to UNSCOM. I can't speak for the British, but most Americans didn't care if Ira had WMDs or not. We were tired of them shooting at our planes inforcing the No-Fly-Zone, and the weak responses from the Clinton Administration every time they did.

It's like you have no grasp of history, or basic facts.

Here's a fact: WikiLeaks dumped all of our classified OEF, OIF, and DoS cables into the public domain. Anybody who is motivated can dig through them. They show that in the run-up to the invasion our diplomats were told by other governments (Italy, Egypt, Turkey. etc) that Iraq had WMDs.

Another Fact: Plenty of military and CIA insidwers went public with their doubts about Irai WMDs before and after the invasion. So your claim that something as big as faking Apollo could be kept secret falls on its face...again...
 
Vixen said:
I didn't say that at all. I just don't think it is a relevant argument. It is like saying entire countries, 66m Brits and 330m Americans believed Sadam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (= Iraq War). We now know that was completely false propaganda from Bush and Blair. So we have to reject the hypothesis that X no. of people believe it, therefore it happened.
Click to expand...

The hypothesis that thousands of highly qualified experts in their field are far more likely to be correct about it than a few pig ignorant conspiracy theorists, however, remains unchallenged.
 
Vixen said:
All they show is 'glassiness' (rather like the perlite discussion we once had about the effect of explosives on steel), plus, they are more basic than Earth's rocks, i.e., it won't be comprised of certain elements we expect on Earth. But the Earth and the Moon once used to be the same body, so all a rock can tell you is its inherent structure and what type of temperatures it might have been subjected to. So volcanic rock shows the type of 'glassiness' we see in Moon rock. Plus as I said, we have rocks hitting Earth (and the Moon) from outer space all the time. In addition, there is no need to collect these rocks by hand, just as there was no need to leave reflectors there by hand, either. That is a diversion.
Click to expand...
The existence of one method does not invalidate the use of another. That is particularly true when one of the methods allows the collection of much larger volumes of material, precise documenting of local context, opportunistic sampling, and has the live broadcast of the entire process recorded by ground stations pointing their antennae at the sampling site. Manual placing of scientific equipment helps ensure you know exactly where it is, and don't lose it for half a century, and means it can be imaged by orbiting probes later.

Lunar material is not always the same as terrestrial material, and has been seen to contain minerals not found on Earth. Lower gravity gives a different physical structure durung its formation. Research by the world's scientists on the samples returned by Apollo have refined understanding of lunar geology, and in turn the process of the moon's formation.
 
Vixen said:
... In addition, there is no need to collect these rocks by hand, just as there was no need to leave reflectors there by hand, either. That is a diversion.
Click to expand...

There is however a need for something to collect the samples. Perhaps you would like to tell us: what missions did collect the Apollo moon rock samples, if it was not the people who exhaustively photographed themselves doing it?

Just before you don't answer, please take a moment to consider the mass of material Apollo collected, in contrast with the small amounts contemporaneous Soviet unmanned sample return missions collected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample-return_mission#First_missions

Luna 16 automatically collected 101 grammes of lunar material.
Luna 20 automatically collected 55 g.
Luna 24 automatically collected 170 g.

Apollo 11 crew collected 22,000 g.
Apollo 12 crew collected 34,000 g.
Apollo 14 crew collected 42,800 g.
Apollo 15 crew collected 76,700 g.
Apollo 16 crew collected 94,300 g.
Apollo 17 crew collected 110,400 g.

Do you notice the almost thousandfold difference in the mass of samples which could be selected and collected by human astronauts, compared to a robotic mission which grabs a sample of whatever it lands on? I do. How do you explain it?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I didn't say that at all. I just don't think it is a relevant argument. It is like saying entire countries, 66m Brits and 330m Americans believed Sadam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (= Iraq War). We now know that was completely false propaganda from Bush and Blair. So we have to reject the hypothesis that X no. of people believe it, therefore it happened.
Click to expand...
It isn't like saying that at all. It would indeed by wise to reject a hypothesis that was founded on a lack of information, or a distortion of information, and that is precisely what happened with the position on Iraq's WMD capability., very quickly. There are, just as a brief reminder, a large number of Iraqi Kurds who can testify to Saddam's possession and willingness to use chemical weapons, so WMD claims weren't entirely fabricated out of thin air like, for example, the claims made by moon hoax proponents.

The scientific community's examination of actual lunar evidence, with verifiable provenance, is not the same thing at all.
 
Vixen said:
All they show is 'glassiness' (rather like the perlite discussion we once had about the effect of explosives on steel), plus, they are more basic than Earth's rocks, i.e., it won't be comprised of certain elements we expect on Earth. But the Earth and the Moon once used to be the same body, so all a rock can tell you is its inherent structure and what type of temperatures it might have been subjected to. So volcanic rock shows the type of 'glassiness' we see in Moon rock. Plus as I said, we have rocks hitting Earth (and the Moon) from outer space all the time. In addition, there is no need to collect these rocks by hand, just as there was no need to leave reflectors there by hand, either. That is a diversion.
Click to expand...
I see we can add basic geology (and selenology) to the long list of subjects of which you have little knowledge but are willing to pontificate.
 
Vixen said:
All they show is 'glassiness' (rather like the perlite discussion we once had about the effect of explosives on steel), plus, they are more basic than Earth's rocks, i.e., it won't be comprised of certain elements we expect on Earth. But the Earth and the Moon once used to be the same body, so all a rock can tell you is its inherent structure and what type of temperatures it might have been subjected to. So volcanic rock shows the type of 'glassiness' we see in Moon rock. Plus as I said, we have rocks hitting Earth (and the Moon) from outer space all the time. In addition, there is no need to collect these rocks by hand, just as there was no need to leave reflectors there by hand, either. That is a diversion.
Click to expand...

Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied Apollo and Chang’e lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks that the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of a government conspiracy does not know much about rocks.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom