Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

[bknight]

A controversial statement, to say the least.
...
Tell me, wogoga, if NASA- or any other space agency- succesfully repeats these missions, will you accept this and stop claiming hoaxes?

Quite unlikely as GB's think critically and can't be wrong.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Quite unlikely as GB's think critically and can't be wrong.

"Gb's"?

 

[smartcooky]

"Gb's"?

I think he means HBs - (Moon) Hoax Believers.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Quite unlikely as GB's think critically and can't be wrong.

"Gb's"?

I think he means HBs - (Moon) Hoax Believers.

Oh, I see.
I hate those people.
They give me the heebie-geebies.

 

[Belz...]

There are also a number of other reasons why we KNOW that the rocks and materials brought back by the Apollo missions actually did come from the moon and not the Earth.

The Lunar samples show evidence of having been formed in a very dry environment, in low gravity (but not zero gravity) and with almost no surrounding oxygen. They have are also been found to contain trapped gases from their exposure to the solar wind at the time they were formed. These properties are not observed in any rock samples found in the Earth.

Don't they also exhibit signs of being bombarded by cosmic rays more than you'd expect if they came from an atmospheric environment?

 

[bknight]

"Gb's"?

My bad HB's, sorry for the confusion.

 

[bknight]

I think he means HBs - (Moon) Hoax Believers.

Fat finger and not reviewing prior to submission.

But you knew that.

 

[Belz...]

Fat finger and not reviewing prior to submission.

But you knew that.

"The fingers you have used to dial are too fat."

 

[smartcooky]

Don't they also exhibit signs of being bombarded by cosmic rays more than you'd expect if they came from an atmospheric environment?

Yep, and some even show impact craters from micrometeorites, something that simply cannot happen on Earth because micrometeorites rarely make it intact through the atmosphere, and when they do, they do not arrive at the surface with anywhere near enough velocity to make an impact crater.

Here is an interesting article on moon rock from a scientist who has been studying them for almost 50 years. Dr. Randy Korotev is a lunar geochemist at the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis.

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

On claims that the Apollo Lunar samples were faked in a Government Laboratory, Dr Korotev has this to say (your point emphasized);

"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 45+ 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 than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth."

 

[bknight]

Yep, and some even show impact craters from micrometeorites, something that simply cannot happen on Earth because micrometeorites rarely make it intact through the atmosphere, and when they do, they do not arrive at the surface with anywhere near enough velocity to make an impact crater.

Here is an interesting article on moon rock from a scientist who has been studying them for almost 50 years. Dr. Randy Korotev is a lunar geochemist at the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis.

...

On claims that the Apollo Lunar samples were faked in a Government Laboratory, Dr Korotev has this to say (your point emphasized);

"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 45+ 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 than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth."

Excellent, I hadn't read that one.

 

[Foster Zygote]

"The fingers you have used to dial are too fat."

"To obtain a special dialing wand, please mash the keypad with your palm, now."

 

[bknight]

"To obtain a special dialing wand, please mash the keypad with your palm, now."

That would indeed be a bigger fat finger.

 

[Reality Check]

Donald Trump as a genuinely skeptical person ...

We have:
A fantasy about Trump who seems to be a climate change denier!
A fantasy that anyone with common sense would know that the Apollo missions were not faked. It is people who have replaced common sense with paranoia that believe that the missions were faked.

But worse is an implied delusion that the Apollo missions will be duplicated using 1960's technology thus confirming that the Apollo missions happened !
Missions such as Exploration Mission 1 (planned for September 30, 2018 but see sts60's comment) will use modern technology.

 

[Reality Check]

From How Earth got its moon, 2017:..

Then delusions about no rocks returned from the Moon . There have been multiple missions that have returned rocks from the Moon.

The similarity between isotopic signatures of lunar rocks and terrestrial rocks is an argument against a simple giant impact but more complex scenarios work (Origin of the Moon).

 

[wogoga]

It is rather unlikely that NASA will be able to repeat the alleged Apollo 8 achievements by 2018 (half a century after Apollo 8).
Even much more unrealistic is repetition of the alleged Apollo 11 achievements of 1969 by 2019.

But worse is an implied delusion that the Apollo missions will be duplicated using 1960's technology thus confirming that the Apollo missions happened !
Missions such as Exploration Mission 1 (planned for September 30, 2018 but see sts60's comment) will use modern technology.

From the Wikipedia article:

Exploration Mission 1 or EM-1 is the first planned flight of the Space Launch System and the second flight of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. The launch is planned for September 30, 2018. The Orion spacecraft is planned to spend approximately 3 weeks in space, with 6 days of this in a retrograde orbit around the Moon.

At this moment the mission will be unmanned, however NASA has initiated a study to investigate a crewed version of the mission. A crewed version of EM-1 would be composed of a crew of 2 astronauts, and will be much shorter than the unmanned version due to safety reasons.​

The "safety reasons" probably stem from solar radiation. Even in the absence of solar storms, the sun is comparable to an open nuclear reactor. Apollo spacesuits "protected the astronaut from thermal solar radiation and micrometeoroids". The problem of nuclear radiation from the sun seems to have been simply ignored during all these Apollo missions.

By the way, in post The Triple-Ring Nebula around Supernova 1987A I wrote:

The belief in the commonness of spiraling in and out of moons, planets and stars is also a result of the belief in the Apollo "moon rock" samples, some or most of which stem from the Earth's crust. Part of the solution to the problem "Earth crust brought back by Apollo from the Moon" became the "fact" that our moon spiraled out from an orbit very close to the Earth.​

Cheers, Wolfgang
pandualism.com

 

[threadworm]

Excessively self-referential and over use of the word "probably".

Next.

 

[JayUtah]

The "safety reasons" probably stem from solar radiation.

Pure speculation.

Even in the absence of solar storms, the sun is comparable to an open nuclear reactor.

Nonsense. For quiescent solar activity we need only about 7 g cm^-2 shielding to attenuate everything down to roughly Earth-surface normal. Nuclear fission reactions produce an entirely different species of radiation than the Sun.

The problem of nuclear radiation from the sun seems to have been simply ignored during all these Apollo missions.

Or maybe you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to radiation.

Let's test your knowledge. What is the baseline neutron flux at two lunar diameters away from the Moon's sun-facing surface, at energies of 100 MeV and higher?

 

[threadworm]

I exposed myself to that open nuclear reactor today. It's been lovely here. I used minimal shielding, which just happened on this occasion to be a NASA T-shirt.

 

[Hans]

Let's test your knowledge. What is the baseline neutron flux at two lunar diameters away from the Moon's sun-facing surface, at energies of 100 MeV and higher?

aaaahhhhhh, porridge with sparkles?

I answered as W isn't going to and I suspect my answer will be better than any he might have come up with - if he could have been bothered to try.

 

[bknight]

From the ...
The "safety reasons" probably stem from solar radiation. Even in the absence of solar storms, the sun is comparable to an open nuclear reactor. "protected the astronaut from thermal solar radiation and micrometeoroids". The problem of nuclear radiation from the sun seems to have been simply ignored during all these Apollo missions.

...

Utter nonsense, the sun is powered by nuclear FUSION not fission as reactors here on Terra Firma. They generate a totally different kind of radiation.
Learn some physics before posting nonsense. BTW don't argues with JayUtah, as he has forgotten more about the Apollo program than you know.