Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[little grey rabbit]

I read a wonderful tongue in check article from the Journal of Irreproducible Results back in 70s, written in dead pan way as when these are done best.

Basically, it compared some slag deposits of some industrial plant and compared it with moon rock and concluded it was virtually identical - except for one characteristic - the Fe was in the 2+ form and not the 3+ form (or is it vice versa). The authors then concluded that the moon must have been originally covered in industrial slag plants.

Does gravity play a big effect in rock density formation? How would that effect meteorite formation?

It is well known that the ancient peoples of the Middle East would construct sacred knives and powerful weapons from ion that had fallen in the form of meteors. This material was highly prized, not only because it was a source of iron which could be forged, but also because meteorites were often described in the ancient world as thunderbolts, probably because of the observed phenomena when a meteor descends from the skies and impacts the earth....
The Egyptian god Horus himself wielded a blade of meteoritic iorn in his legendary clash with the god Seth, in which Horus defeated Seth in revenge for the death of his father Osiris.
The Ancient Egyptians also believed that the vault of heaven itself was consturcted from bja (meteoritic iron) and upon death the limbs of the deceased wre themselves turned into bja. The bja was also used to mean 'a miracle' and 'to depart from'.
From this, we come to understand that iron that fell to earth was not just iron from the heavens, it was actually seen as being heaven itself, nothing less than the very same material from which heven was constructed.
The Muslims later held a belief that Allah's angels used meteors to drive away Satan and to fight djinns, who were seen as supernatural beings

Said Alladin, a trifle comic, if you're Djinn then where's the tonic.

 

[MG1962]

Oddly enough the rocks the Russians brought back from the Moon are exactly like the Rocks the Americans did

Perhaps of greater curiosity, the Soviet mission also abounds with egends of conspiracy

 

[likelystory]

Oddly enough the rocks the Russians brought back from the Moon are exactly like the Rocks the Americans did

Perhaps of greater curiosity, the Soviet mission also abounds with egends of conspiracy

Ah, the local Moon Shop. World wide franchise.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Oddly enough the rocks the Russians brought back from the Moon are exactly like the Rocks the Americans did

Perhaps of greater curiosity, the Soviet mission also abounds with egends of conspiracy

Now you point it out it is a bit odd. Is all the Moon of exactly the same type of rock?

 

[PhantomWolf]

When a religous guy responded to Richard's idea how some science taught back in his school days could now be laughed at, Richard was very defensive in asking such as ?

The Religious said about the Moon coming from the Earth's Ocean.......... Dawkins says it's a strong theory...

So if the Moon came from the Earth,then the Moon Rocks are really Earth Rocks, which means NASA could has easily got the rocks from Earth and claimed them to came from the Moon. That's Show Biz

Pre-Apollo there were three major hypothesi of Lunar formation.

1) That the moon had ripped from the Earth creating the Pacific Ocean.
2) That the moon had formed in the same way as the Earth in a joint orbit
3) That the moon had been formed elsewhere and eas captured by the Earth.

Post Apollo we ended up with a new hypothesis that while it still had elements of the others, was quite different.

That the moon had been formed from the debris expelled from the Earth when it was hit by a Mars sized planetoid that shared an orbit shortly after they both formed.

The obvious question here. If NASA faked the rocks or produced them in any way other than they claimed, why would they do so in a way that resulted in scientists having to revaluate all of their original hythoptesi?

Had NASA produced rocks that supported one of the original three hypothesi then mostof the geologists looking at the rocks would have looked at them with a lot less depth. Instead by having rocks that didn't agree with any of the then current positions, they were forced to look deeper into the rocks to figure out why, putting them under more scrutiny and investigation that could have been avoided.

Why would NASA risk this?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Oddly enough the rocks the Russians brought back from the Moon are exactly like the Rocks the Americans did

Perhaps of greater curiosity, the Soviet mission also abounds with egends of conspiracy

Actually they aren't. They are similar and show the same characteristics, but just as rocks on earth aren't all the same, nor are those of the moon.

One of the major differences between the Soviet samples and the American ones is that the Soviet samples are just what was there, like going down to the beach and grabbing a bucket full of sand and stones without really bothering what you got.

The US samples are quite different, they are all selected samples, often unusual rocks for the areas they were in. This is quite deliberate and in fact they were trained to do it, to be able to look at a rock and determine if it would be of interest to the geologists back on the ground. At times the geologists were also fundamental in determining what was sampled with them telling Capcom to inform the Astronuats what rock to pick up. Looking through the hours of footage of 15-17 it is amazing how much of the TV coverage is looking at rocks for the guys in the backroom.

They also show differences based on their KREEP nature, 12, 14, and 15 all landing in an area that was high in K (potassium), Th (thorium), and U (uranium). What wasn't known until the data was received by the Lunar Prospector mission (1998—1999) is that this only occurs in a single large area, the Procellarum KREEP Terrane, one that those three missons landed in and none of the others, nor any of the Soviet sample return missions. As a result, only the samples recovered by Apollos 12, 14 and 15 display the KREEP nature in the rocks collected.

Another issue is that Apollo deliberately when to areas that were at the time considered to be geologically of interest. Again this resulted in the rocks and samples being brought back not being the average moonrock that was just lying about the place, but rather interesting looking samples, from interesting looking sites. It's a lot like comparing a bunch of random rocks you find in your garden with those that have been hand selected by a geologist on a trip to the Grand Caynon. There will certainly be similarities between them, but they won't be the same by a long shot.

This is similar for those lunar meteors that have been found. They come from all over the moon, and in fact there are few from areas near the landing sites which means that scientists get to see a bigger picture of the moon. It should be noted that the first lunar meteor was not found until 1979, a decade after the landings, and the first to be identified (not the same rock) was not until 1982, something that was done by noting the similarities to both the Apollo and Soviet samples. Geologists can also very easily determine the difference between a Meteor that has been on Earth for a long time, and a pristine moonrock. For them it is as easy as distingushing obsidian and quartz.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Pre-Apollo there were three major hypothesi of Lunar formation.

1) That the moon had ripped from the Earth creating the Pacific Ocean.
2) That the moon had formed in the same way as the Earth in a joint orbit
3) That the moon had been formed elsewhere and eas captured by the Earth.

Post Apollo we ended up with a new hypothesis that while it still had elements of the others, was quite different.

That the moon had been formed from the debris expelled from the Earth when it was hit by a Mars sized planetoid that shared an orbit shortly after they both formed.

The obvious question here. If NASA faked the rocks or produced them in any way other than they claimed, why would they do so in a way that resulted in scientists having to revaluate all of their original hythoptesi?

Had NASA produced rocks that supported one of the original three hypothesi then mostof the geologists looking at the rocks would have looked at them with a lot less depth. Instead by having rocks that didn't agree with any of the then current positions, they were forced to look deeper into the rocks to figure out why, putting them under more scrutiny and investigation that could have been avoided.

Why would NASA risk this?

That is so cute! Formed by collision with a Mars sized planatoid? Marvellous.

How NASA's arsenic based life-forms coming along?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Does gravity play a big effect in rock density formation? How would that effect meteorite formation?

Actually for one things it diffinately does, the gas bubbles in glass beads.

When a meteor hits a rock surface, or a volcano erupts, you get tiny glass beads forming. These beads have little bubbles of gas. The lower the gravity, the bigger the bubbles.

On Earth these beads erode very quickly, within a few thousand years, as glass is very suseptiable to erosion and disolving, so out weather wears them down and destroys them.

Without weather on the moon the soils are filled with these beads (in fact this is what gives the lunar regolith is unusual reflective properties.) The soil samples from Apollo had vast numbers of these beads and they have been dated at not just thousands of years old, but hundreds of millions, something that would be impossible on Earth. They also show the signs of having formed in lower gravity having much larger bubbles that those found on Earth.

By the age and formation of the beads, it's clear they weren't found on Earth, and it's not the sort of thing you can just look for in Antarctica. The evidence points firmly to the many soil samples having been recovered from the moon.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That is so cute! Formed by collision with a Mars sized planatoid? Marvellous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

Enjoy.

How NASA's arsenic based life-forms coming along?

I'm sure it is surviving.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So I guess all the worlds Geologists are in on the hoax now.

I have somewhere a list of the experiments and requests for samples for the Apollo 11 mission. I will search it out.

Funny how NASA can fool the entire Academic community but not Internet Warriors.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So I guess all the worlds Geologists are in on the hoax now.

I have somewhere a list of the experiments and requests for samples for the Apollo 11 mission. I will search it out.

Funny how NASA can fool the entire Academic community but not Internet Warriors.

These are some of the papers, thanks to Kiwi of AH for the reseach.

Abdel-Rassoul, A.A.; Herpers, U. and Herr, W. (1971)
Improved techniques for separation and determination of rare-earth elements in extra-terrestrial material.
In Activation Analysis in Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry (editors A.O. Brunfelt and E. Steinnes)
pp. 219-226. Universitetsforlaget.

Adler, I.; Walter, L.S.; Lowman, P.D.; Glass, B.P.; French, B.M. and Philpotts, J.A. (1970)
Electron microprobe analysis of Apollo 11 lunar samples.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 1. pp. 87-92. Pergamon.

Agrell, S.O.; Scoon, J.H.; Muir, I.D.; Long, J.V.P.; McConnell, J.D. and Peckett, A. (1970)
Observations on the chemistry, mineralogy and petrology of some Apollo 11 lunar samples.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 1. pp. 135-158. Pergamon.

Albee, A.L. and Chodos, A.A. (1970)
Microprobe investigation on Apollo 11 samples.
Pro. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 1. pp. 135-157. Pergamon.

Anders, E.; Ganapathy, R.; Keays R.R.; Laul, J.C. and Morgan, J.W. (1971)
Volatile and siderophile elements in lunar rocks - Comparison with terrestrial and meteoritic basalts.
Proc. Second Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1021-1036. Pergamon.

Annell, C.S. and Helz, A.W. (1970)
Emission Spectrographic determination of trace elements in lunar samples from Apollo 11.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2 pp. 991-994. Pergamon.

Armstrong, T.W. and Alsmiller, R.G., Jr. (1971)
Calculation of cosmogenic radionuclides in the moon and comparison with Apollo measurements.
Apollo 12 Conf.

...

Bouchet, M.; Kaplan, G.; Voudon, A. and Bertoletti, M.J. (1971)
Spark mass spectrometric analysis of major and minor elements in six lunar samples.
Proc. Second Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1247-1252. Pergamon.

Boynten, W.V.; Baedecker, P.A.; Chou, C.L.; Robinson, K.L. and Wasson, J.T. (1975)
Mixing and transport of lunar surface materials; Evidence obtained by the determination of lithophile, siderophile, and volatile elements.
Proc. Sixth Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 2241-2260. Pergamon.

Brown, G.M.; Emeleus, C.H.; Holland, J.G. and Phillips, R.J.(1970)
Mineralogical, chemical and petrological features of Apollo 11 rocks and their relationship to igneous process.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 1. pp. 195-220. Pergamon.

...

Eberhardt, P.; Geiss, J.; Grogler, N.; Krahenbuhl, U.; Morgeli, M. and Stettler, A. (1971b)
Potassium-Argon age of Apollo 11 rock 10003.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
Vol. 11. p. 245.

Eberhardt, P.; Geiss, J.; Graf, H.; Grogler, N.; Krahenbuhl, U.; Schnaller, H. and Stettler, A. (1974)
Noble-gas investigations of lunar rocks 10017 and 10071.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 38(1). pp. 79-95.

Ehmann, W.D. and Morgan, J.W. (1970)
Oxygen, silicon and aluminum in Apollo 11 rocks and fines by 14 mev neutron activation.
Proc. Apollo 11 Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1071-1079. Pergamon.

Ehmann, W.D.; Gillum, D.E. and Morgan, J.W. (1972)
Oxygen and bulk element composition studies of Apollo 14 and other lunar rocks and soils.
Proc. Third Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 11. pp. 1149-1161. Pergamon.

Ehmann, W.D.; Chyi, L.L.; Garg, A.N.; Hawke, B.R.; Ma, M.S.; Miller, M.D.; James, W.D., Jr. and Pacer, R.A. (1975)
Chemical studies of the lunar regolith with emphasis on zirconium and hafnium.
Proc. Sixth Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1351-1362. Pergamon.

...

Hurley, P.M. and Pinson, W.H., Jr. (1970)
Whole-rock Rb-Sr isotopic age relationships in Apollo 11 lunar samples.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1311-1316. Pergamon.

Kaplan, I.R.; Smith, J.W. and Ruth, E. (1970)
Carbon and sulphur concentration and isotopic composition in Apollo 11 lunar samples.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1317-1330. Pergamon.

Keil, K.; Bunch, T.E. and Prinz, M. (1970)
Mineralogy and composition of Apollo 11 lunar samples.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 1. pp. 561-598. Pergamon.

Kharkar, D.P. and Turekian, K.K. (1971)
Analyses of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 rocks and soils by neutron activation.
Proc. Second Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1301-1306. Pergamon.

Kim, Y.K.; Lee, S.M.; Yang, J.H.; Kum, J.H. and Kim, C.K. (1971)
Mineralogical and chemical studies of lunar fines 18084,148 and 12070,98.
Proc. Second Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 1. pp. 747-754. Pergamon.

...

Mason, B. and Melson, W.G. (1970)
Comparison of lunar rocks with basalts and stony meteorites.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 1. pp. 661-671. Pergamon.

...

Murphy, M.E.; Modzeleski, V.E.; Nagy, B.; Scott, W.M.; Young, M.; Drew, C.M.; Hamilton, P.B. and Urey, H.C. (1970)
Analysis of Apollo 11 lunar samples by chromatography and mass spectrometry, pyrolysis products, hydrocarbons, sulfur amino acids.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1879-1890. Pergamon.

Murthy, V.R.; Evensen, N.M. and Coscio, M.R., Jr. (1970)
Distribution of K, Rb, Sr and Ba and Rb-Sr isotopic relations in Apollo 11 lunar samples.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1393-1406. Pergamon.

Murthy, V.R.; Evensen, N.M. and Coscio, M.R., Jr. (1973)
Episodi lunacy - IV; Ages, trace elements and delphic speculations.
Lunar Science IV
p. 549.

O'Hara, M.J.; Biggar, G.M.; Hill, P.G.; Jefferies, B. and Humphries, D.J. (1974)
Plagioclase saturation in lunar high titanium basalt.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
Vol. 21(3). pp. 253-268.

O'Kelly, G.D.; Eldridge, J.S.; Schonfeld, E. and Bell, P.R. (1970)
Primordial radionuclide abundances, solar proton and cosmic ray effects and ages of Apollo 11 lunar samples by non-destructive gamma-ray spectrometry.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1407-1424. Pergamon.

...

Shoemaker, E.M.; Hart, M.H.; Swenn, G.A.; Schleicher, D.L.; Scherber, G.G.; Sutton, R.L.; Dahlem, D.H.; Goddard, E.N. and Waters, A.C. (1970)
Origin of the lunar regolith at Tranquillity Base.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 3. pp. 2399-2412. Pergamon.

Silver, L.T. (1970)
Uranium-thorium-lead isotopes in some Tranquillity Base samples and their implications for lunar history.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1533-1574. Pergamon.

...

Wood, J.A.; Dickey, J.S.; Marvin, U.B. and Powell, B.N. (1970)
Lunar anorthosites and a geophysical model of the moon.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 1. pp. 965-988. Pergamon.

Wrigley, R.C.and Quaide, W.L. (1970)
A126 and Na22 in lunar surface materials; implications for depth distribution studies.
Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1751-1756. Pergamon.

Wrigley, R.C. (1971)
Some cosmogenic and primordial radionuclides in Apollo 12 lunar surface materials.
Proc. Second Lunar Sci. Conf. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
Vol. 2. pp. 1791-1796. Pergamon.


NASA-JSC

 

[Sledge]

How's that explanation of the faked radio transmissions coming along, likelystory?

 

[little grey rabbit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

Enjoy.

I don't need you to tell me where the moon comes from

I'm sure it is surviving.

And there, in a nutshell, is our problem. If Nasa was to issue a press release: "ARSENIC BASED LIFE: BOY DID WE SCREW UP" - then maybe, just maybe, we could have some confidence in their research.

But they will never make such an admission and the scientific community will never pressure them to make such an admission and therein lies a great mystery - NASA is our misfortune.

 

[SanityGap]

These are some of the papers, thanks to Kiwi of AH for the reseach.

No youtube evidence then
[/sarcasm]

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I don't need you to tell me where the moon comes from




And there, in a nutshell, is our problem. If Nasa was to issue a press release: "ARSENIC BASED LIFE: BOY DID WE SCREW UP" - then maybe, just maybe, we could have some confidence in their research.

But they will never make such an admission and the scientific community will never pressure them to make such an admission and therein lies a great mystery - NASA is our misfortune.

You only have confidence in another's research if they say they were wrong about other things?

 

[little grey rabbit]

You only have confidence in another's research if they say they were wrong about other things?

Not as silly as it might seem to you.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Does gravity play a big effect in rock density formation? How would that effect meteorite formation?

No one said anything about gravity's affecting the density of a material. Fail.

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

I don't need you to tell me where the moon comes from

If Apollo is an hoax you don't know where the Moon comes from.

And there, in a nutshell, is our problem. If Nasa was to issue a press release: "ARSENIC BASED LIFE: BOY DID WE SCREW UP" - then maybe, just maybe, we could have some confidence in their research.

It's been less then 2 months, let the process take its course.
The cells and DNA samples are now being studied by others.

And you can't blame Wolfe-Simon et al. for an overly enthusiastic NASA PR machine.
NASA has a hard time justifying its existence against the current anti-science, anti-government political climate.
Finding alien life is their in-house wet dream, it would be one of the greatest discoveries ever.

But they will never make such an admission and the scientific community will never pressure them to make such an admission and therein lies a great mystery - NASA is our misfortune.

Now I'm confused, did you or did you not follow the arsenic lifeforms news story?
It was scientists that started the wave of critique over this study.

You're all rhetoric and innuendo, but very short on facts.
That won't wash in a debate on Apollo.
Twelve men walking on the Moon is about physical facts occurring in the physical universe.
The whole thing stands or falls exclusively on hard verifiable physical facts.

 

[Gypseagirl]

I'm on the fence on this one. I don't know if we went to the moon or not.

 

[Spindrift]

I'm on the fence on this one. I don't know if we went to the moon or not.

Why don't you know? What do you have doubts about?

The moon landings are one of the most, if not the most, documented endeavors in human history. Everything is available to answer your questions if you just look.