When will the Lunar landings be accepted?

ShowMeTheCash

Overheal wrote: »

You then proceeded to say "the Russians put something on the moon" and also offered no citation. Further you didn't even provide enough of a reference in that statement for one to know off hand which mission or some-thing you are referring to. How is that at all academic? How is that not a double standard in the same manner as you criticizing another user's semantics?

You are talking about the moon landings.
There was I think around 11 or 12 successful missions before Apollo 11 that landed landers and impactors on the moon.

I thought I was stating the obvious but I then later provided you the link.

Overheal wrote: »

Fact is if you aren't going to support the theory, and all you want to do is continue soapboxing the theory while trying to criticize anyone who offers a rebuttal, you are going to be asked to leave this thread permanently. Do you actually want to defend, research, and constructively discuss the theory that a remote/unmanned probe was used in a fake moon landing (or for that matter anything else to say the landing(s) were faked), or are you genuinely just wasting everyone's time? Think carefully. We will not waste any more time here entertaining 'this is a theory, I can't prove it I can't deny it and anything you try to say against it is invalid'

I think your frustration has made you a irrational, I do not think the moon landing was fake, my contention was always that I think it possible NASA could of faked it.

I have submitted political reasons for faking the moon landing, possible reasons to why the US government would fake it if they could not achieve it.

I was met with "Why would they fake it if they knew they could do it" and "If they faked it the Russian's would know".

These are hardly conclusive but are being argued as if they are.

Now we come to the "technology" on one hand it is being argued that we had the technology to send men to the moon but not an unmanned craft to the moon.

As I pointed out many crafts had already been sent to the moon unmanned.

The next argument was that if the Apollo 11 was unammned it would need to have been controlled remotely from earth and "the Russians would know"...

Would they?

To make grandiose statement like "The Russians would know..." The facts are, we do not know what the Russians knew or anything about what they where doing but the OP wants to keep saying that. Equally I could just say "The Russians could never of found out"

Next we move to the moon rocks.

I point out that the Luna 16 did bring back samples, small amount yet but we did have the technology to do it.

OP argues we do not have the technology to do it.
An argument emerges that nothing could lift 11Kilo the larges rock taken back which I think was apollo 16 but none the less, I point out that 11Kilo is only 2kilo on the moon why do they think a rover or a device like the one on luna 16 could not lift 2kilo from the surface of the moon?

Next I point out that a lot of the 22Kilo taken back is either uncounted for still in the possession of NASA and some has even been found to be fake.

Links where provided for all of this already but here it is again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks

This also outlines the ones that turned out to be fake, I see that King Mob was demanding the source earlier in the thread but this is the second time I have provided this link I suggest he read it this time.

I like a good debate, yes I can come across a little strong but I enjoy the back and forth, King Mob albeit frustrates me but he has given me some stuff to think about.

Before you pulled me on my use of language which I accept, now you trying to kick me because you are presenting a weak argument and trying to use charter rules to justify it.

Dohnjoe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Are you saying we cannot and could not develop a machine to lift the weight of 3 bags of sugar from the moon?? Is that what you are saying?

I said we don't have the tech. Want to send an unmmanned mission to the moon to collect kg's of rocks and return? needs to be designed and tested from scratch

Probably relative easier and quicker to send a manned mission up considering that's been done before several times

I would agree yes it was difficult and yes it would be difficult to fake.
But I am also weighing that against how difficult the moon landing was in the first place combined with the budget NASA had.

I get what you are saying but the argument is in a strange realm

It was technically difficult to go to the moon therefore (insert difficult hypothetical theory with no evidence here) could be plausible

I'm not sure that type of debate works

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks

This also outlines the ones that turned out to be fake, I see that King Mob was demanding the source earlier in the thread but this is the second time I have provided this link I suggest he read it this time.

None of those fake moon rocks were ever presented as actual moon samples by anyone at NASA.
I have read it and it does not say what you claim it says.

ShowMeTheCash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I said we don't have the tech. Want to send an unmmanned mission to the moon to collect kg's of rocks and return? needs to be designed and tested from scratch

Probably relative easier and quicker to send a manned mission up considering that's been done before several times



I get what you are saying but the argument is in a strange realm

It was technically difficult to go to the moon therefore (insert difficult hypothetical theory with no evidence here) could be plausible

I'm not sure that type of debate works

No not hypothetical theory with no evidence, soviets did return samples, we are talking about doing something on a larger scale than what was accomplished in 1970 by a country with a fraction of the budget of NASA.

Also discrepancies have been outlined already with missing moon rock and moon rock that turned out to be fake, at very least people could understandably question and authenticity of the 22 kilos.

Also the idea we don't have the tech I do not think is a fair assessment this is an engineering question, it's not that we don't have the tech it more that to our knowledge an engineering solution has never been built or revealed.

In terms of tech today I think the absence of a solution is more due to not needing a solution not that a solution could not be delivered.

I don't have a flame thrower on my car doesn't mean one couldn't be added.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

None of those fake moon rocks were ever presented as actual moon samples by anyone at NASA.
I have read it and it does not say what you claim it says.

What was believed to be a moon rock was proven to be fake.

You really are getting into semantics now:

"The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on October 9, 1969 from then-US ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their ‘Giant Leap’ goodwill tour after the first moon landing."

So this was presented by the US ambassador and the astronauts of the Apollo 11...

This was not something bought of ebay!

Why are they handing out fake rocks? Sure they had kilos of the stuff!

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

What was believed to be a moon rock was proven to be fake.

You really are getting into semantics now:

"The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on October 9, 1969 from then-US ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their ‘Giant Leap’ goodwill tour after the first moon landing."

So this was presented by the US ambassador and the astronauts of the Apollo 11...

This was not something bought of ebay!

So what leads you to believe that the rock was presented by either J. William Middendorf or the Apollo astronauts in the first place?
What have you done to actually confirm this?

After all you are using the words "Proven fake", so I assume you are holding yourself to the same standards you are demanding of everyone else?

I posted two videos that details how no one at NASA actually present that rock as a moon sample.
I assume you have not watched them?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Why are they handed out fake rocks? Sure they had kilos of the stuff!

You tell me. What is the conspiracy explaination for this?
Why did they hand out an obviously fake rock, completely different from and much larger than the ones given to other countries, to a former Dutch prime minister who had been retired for 10 years before they visited?
Why, if you are accusing them of hording all of the samples to presumably prevent them from being outed as fake or non-existent would they allow one of these rocks out of their hands, put on display to the public, then actually be tested, then allow the news story to break?

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

So what leads you to believe that the rock was presented by either J. William Middendorf or the Apollo astronauts in the first place?
What have you done to actually confirm this?

After all you are using the words "Proven fake"

No these are not my words this is the title on the wiki page
Dutch moon rock proven fake

Here is the BBC report if you like:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8226075.stm

They say "Fake Dutch 'moon rock' revealed"

King Mob wrote: »

so I assume you are holding yourself to the same standards you are demanding of everyone else?

This is not my opinion something you tend give a lot of, this is simply what I have read. It is a source and is widely accepted.

King Mob wrote: »

I posted two videos that details how no one at NASA actually present that rock as a moon sample.
I assume you have not watched them?

What difference does it make? I am saying the thought to be moon rock was fake and it was fake.

King Mob wrote: »

You tell me. What is the conspiracy explaination for this?
Why did they hand out an obviously fake rock, completely different from and much larger than the ones given to other countries, to a former Dutch prime minister who had been retired for 10 years before they visited?
Why, if you are accusing them of hording all of the samples to presumably prevent them from being outed as fake or non-existent would they allow one of these rocks out of their hands, put on display to the public, then actually be tested, then allow the news story to break?

I have not accused them of anything, you seem to let yourself get carried away with your own conspiracy theories!

I am saying some are missing some turned out to be fake and the rest NASA still has.
I am trying to verify the quantity of moon rock and whether it is genuine....

As I am unable to do this and because some are missing and some even turned out to be fake I can understand why on one side of an argument someone might say:

"Moon rocks there you go proof on a manned mission"

and someone else going

"Hmm did we confirm they are moon rocks? Are we sure? None of them turned out to be fake? Oh they did, some or missing NASA has the rest......"

OK

Dohnjoe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No not hypothetical theory with no evidence, soviets did return samples, we are talking about doing something on a larger scale than what was accomplished in 1970 by a country with a fraction of the budget of NASA.

A secretly designed rover which could robotically and remotely chip off and collect 22 kg's of rock and soil samples in 20 odd hours and return to earth is very different from those Soviet craft

And for the same to happen again 4 months later also ups the difficulty

Plus this would be just one component of a much larger and flawless hoax, each part exponentially increasing the difficulty level to near impossible

Which is why the argument often seems to end up on a semantics debate on the definition of "impossible"

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is not my opinion something you tend give a lot of, this is simply what I have read. It is a source and is widely accepted.

What difference does it make? I am saying the thought to be moon rock was fake and it was fake.

The videos show that the source is a very badly researched article and it explains why people believe that it was a moon rock when NASA never actually presented it to anyone and no one at NASA actually presented it as a moon rock.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am saying some are missing some turned out to be fake and the rest NASA still has.
I am trying to verify the quantity of moon rock and whether it is genuine....

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/Lunar/index.cfm
Here you go again. There is a catalogue of the lunar samples from all missions
None of these have been shown to be fake. Only a tiny fraction of these are missing and they are labeled as such.

So what point are you trying to make?

ShowMeTheCash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A secretly designed rover which could robotically and remotely chip off and collect 22 kg's of rock and soil samples in 20 odd hours and return to earth is very different from those Soviet craft

Most designs are secret calling them a secretly designed does not add any weight to the statement.

I would say they would need to be very different to the soviet craft was built on half the budget of the Americans.

Also the authenticity of the moon rocks themselves are being questioned and not without cause so it could be argued the alleged 22 Kilos.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And for the same to happen again 4 months later also ups the difficulty
Plus this would be just one component of a much larger and flawless hoax, each part exponentially increasing the difficulty level to near impossible

My original argument was solely around the Apollo 11 mission however, albeit I agree the hoax is unlikely and it would of been by no means easy the fact remains we really do not know how easy or hard it would have been to fake unless it was actually faked and we are provided with information to how it was faked only then could we ascertain the "exponentially increasing difficultly level" and deliberate that it was near impossible.

Your opinion maybe that it was near impossible I am saying we cannot say it was impossible.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which is why the argument often seems to end up on a semantics debate on the definition of "impossible"

Perhaps but the word impossible leaves no room for error, it's like someone saying "This is a fact" when it's not a fact it just an opinion.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

The videos show that the source is a very badly researched article and it explains why people believe that it was a moon rock when NASA never actually presented it to anyone and no one at NASA actually presented it as a moon rock.


http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/Lunar/index.cfm
Here you go again. There is a catalogue of the lunar samples from all missions
None of these have been shown to be fake. Only a tiny fraction of these are missing and they are labeled as such.

So what point are you trying to make?

None of these have been shown to be fake?
Who verified this? And what samples specifically where verified?

It is easy to say this, here are 500 gold bars they are all made of gold here look at these 5 you will see they are genuine!

What I have read is this, a number of scientist that have talked about looking at the moon rocks and verifying they are genuine or at least saying the composition of the microscopic creators on the rock could not have happened on earth, I take their word on this and accept it to be true.
I also read that Russia got to compare the samples they collected with the Apollo 11 mission and confirmed they were genuine.

But what I cannot find is independent verification of all the samples, and which samples specifically the Russians got to examine vrs the samples that scientist and geologists got to look at.

What I also read was anyone applying to examine the moon rocks had to be vetted and access to the samples by independent parties was to borrow a phrase near impossible.

For this reason, albeit I believe the moon rocks to be genuine it weakens the argument that all the moon rocks have been proven to be genuine.

Dohnjoe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Also the authenticity of the moon rocks themselves are being questioned and not without cause so it could be argued the alleged 22 Kilos.

Surely the authenticity of the moon rocks returned from the first mission have been confirmed many times over by the experts, specialists and geologists from all over the world, including Russia, who received and studied them

Instances of lost samples or a bogus rocks relate to individual theft and forgery

It'd be like questioning the existence of Monet because a few of his paintings were forged and some went missing. Clutching at straws a bit.

ShowMeTheCash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Surely the authenticity of the moon rocks returned from the first mission have been confirmed many times over by the experts, specialists and geologists from all over the world, including Russia, who received and studied them

I mention this in the post above.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Instances of lost samples or a bogus rocks relate to individual theft and forgery

It'd be like questioning the existence of Monet because a few of his paintings were forged and some went missing. Clutching at straws a bit.

I believe the moon rock are genuine, my argument is can I prove they are genuine?
Or can I show independent verification on the catalog provided the samples have been verified?
If there is such a report I cannot find it.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

None of these have been shown to be fake?
Who verified this? And what samples specifically where verified?

Yes. None of these have been shown to be fake.
If one has, show it. If you can't show it my statement stands.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But what I cannot find is independent verification of all the samples, and which samples specifically the Russians got to examine vrs the samples that scientist and geologists got to look at.

The catalogue you've been given details which samples have been tested.

Why do you need verification of all the samples?
What does it show if some of them aren't verified and how does it support the conspiracy theory?

What point are you getting at? It's getting tedious having you hint at some accusation or stance only to move the goalposts when you're challenged on it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

What I also read was anyone applying to examine the moon rocks had to be vetted and access to the samples by independent parties was to borrow a phrase near impossible.
.

Not true.
So far what you've "read" and what's reality have not exactly matched up.

So please provide some evidence for this.

dlouth15

At the end of the day both ShowMeTheCash and the people arguing with him agree that the moon landings were not faked. They actually went to the moon.

I think this thread has come to a sort of logical impasse. An argument that something is possible (though perhaps unlikely) can be sustained indefinitely given sufficient time and imagination.

Dohnjoe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I believe the moon rock are genuine, my argument is can I prove they are genuine?
Or can I show independent verification on the catalog provided the samples have been verified?
If there is such a report I cannot find it.

"Prove" is another contentious word

Not everything can be proved, because it can be subjective

Occam's Razor works best, but since this is a hypothesis with no given counter-theory - then really it's not a fair debate

SNAKEDOC

Isnt the entire agruement kinda pointless is there not a telescope on the planet that can see the rover the amwricans left up there. It was a spring loaded design so it folded out sprang into shape and was unretrievable. If you can see that feom this planet then surely that would silence the nah sayers

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Prove" is another contentious word

Not everything can be proved, because it can be subjective

Occam's Razor works best, but since this is a hypothesis with no given counter-theory - then really it's not a fair debate

I really wish that approach was used more often by people dismissing CT's from the get go

Overheal

isn't the counter-theory 'the conventional history of events is true?'

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

isn't the counter-theory 'the conventional history of events is true?'

I think I should have left out the counter theory part :P

I was more referring to the two first lines

pfurey101

FWIW my claim to fame is that I worked in the Aeronautical Exhibition in Dublin Airport from Sep 1975 to Jan 1977 and during that period this sample of moon rock was on display.




It had it's own display unit with a slide show (that never worked). And it was returned to airport security (in the old link building) every evening - in an Aer Rianta duty free bag!

It must have been on display for 6-9 months.

Anyway......carry on!

ShowMeTheCash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Prove" is another contentious word

Not everything can be proved, because it can be subjective

Occam's Razor works best, but since this is a hypothesis with no given counter-theory - then really it's not a fair debate

No counter theory needs to be given, just doubt cast on evidence already presented.

The moon rocks are probably the best physical evidence of the moon landing being manned.

However this evidence is not beyond reproach, the fact that some of the samples are missing and one sample regardless if it was an original gifted rock or not was proven to be fake.

This I feel swings the burden of proof back to NASA to demonstrate that all the samples are authentic and this is probably best served by some independent body not NASA themselves.

If no doubt was ever cast on the moon rocks then perhaps a heuristic approach is acceptable.

ShowMeTheCash

weisses wrote: »

I really wish that approach was used more often by people dismissing CT's from the get go

I doubt a geologist with a microscope and the samples would need to resort to using some kind of refutability principle.

But I see on boards it is getting used to hide assertions made by posters on subject matters they know nothing about....

MJI

I don't think we've been to the Moon

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

However this evidence is not beyond reproach, the fact that some of the samples are missing and one sample regardless if it was an original gifted rock or not was proven to be fake.

How do either of these things cast doubt on the lunar samples?

The missing samples are only missing because NASA loaned them out to researchers in the first place. (This is excluding the moon rocks given as gifts.)
Why does them going missing indicate they might be fake or otherwise cast doubt on them?

And why would a rock that was mistakenly called a moon rock by others being shown to be a fake cast doubt on anything?
Nasa never presented it as a moon rock and it doesn't make a lick of sense for them to have presented it as a moon rock. It's not a question of "whether or not."

shanered

Simple enough question brewing which would stop this moon rock debacle,
If the rocks are genuine, where is the scientific papers/reports on the findings from these rocks detailing the geologist reports on the make up on the rocks and how they differ from all earth rocks or meteorites on earth.
For such a major discovery and finding and effort put into getting these rocks you would imagine extensive analysis was carried out on the samples and published.
Since the rocks are from the moon, and their is no other comparison to their chemical and elemental make up, what is their to cross-check their authenticity?
For me its a dead end arguement which leaves us no closer to proving/disproving the landings..

Point to note, funny how the majority of sesrch results that come back from google is drug related when you search "report on moon rocks".

King Mob

shanered wrote: »

Since the rocks are from the moon, and their is no other comparison to their chemical and elemental make up, what is their to cross-check their authenticity?
.

The Russians had a very small amount of lunar soil samples.

Also lunar rocks would have very unique features that couldn't be replicated on Earth (At least not without a major research and development programme that would be nigh impossible to keep secret from spies.)
For example lunar samples have tiny impact marks from micrometeorites dotting their surfaces.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB076i023p05770/abstract

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

How do either of these things cast doubt on the lunar samples?

The missing samples are only missing because NASA loaned them out to researchers in the first place. (This is excluding the moon rocks given as gifts.)
Why does them going missing indicate they might be fake or otherwise cast doubt on them?

And why would a rock that was mistakenly called a moon rock by others being shown to be a fake cast doubt on anything?
Nasa never presented it as a moon rock and it doesn't make a lick of sense for them to have presented it as a moon rock. It's not a question of "whether or not."

The gifted moon rocks we where told are moon rocks. - We accept that.
The moon rock gifted by the Apollo 11 crew and the the American ambassador turned out to be fake...

Your argument is that as it was not an original gifted by NASA therefore this does not cast any doubt on the rest of the rocks....

The fact still remains that the crew and the American ambassador thought it was a moon rock, how this mistake came about is uncertain.

This does not prove the other moon rocks are fake but it does raise the question are we sure they are all authentic.

The fact that some are also lost adds a little weight to why someone may question the exact amount of moon rock retrieved by Apollo 11.

I get you will not want to accept anything, I find your blinkered view through-out this thread quite remarkable.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The fact still remains that the crew and the American ambassador thought it was a moon rock, how this mistake came about is uncertain.

No this is not a fact.
I posted two videos that show that it is not a fact.

If I'm wrong, please provide the evidence to show for a fact that the Apollo 11 crew and/or the Ambassador presented that rock as a genuine moon rock.

It is not reasonable to think that they would hand over such a rock by mistake considering how vastly different it was to the other gift rocks and their dsplays, how huge it was in comparison to all of the other gift rocks, and how it looked nothing like a moon rock.

The idea that the Apollo astronauts would mistakenly hand over a lump of moon rock bigger than all of the other gift rocks combined to some random, retired Dutch Prime Minister is far from the most likely explanation and it's far from a fact.

shanered

King Mob wrote: »

The Russians had a very small amount of lunar soil samples.

Also lunar rocks would have very unique features that couldn't be replicated on Earth (At least not without a major research and development programme that would be nigh impossible to keep secret from spies.)
For example lunar samples have tiny impact marks from micrometeorites dotting their surfaces.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB076i023p05770/abstract

As you said the Russians had soil not rocks. So nothing to compare them to..

The above does no more than describe the impacts on the rocks.

Which in sofar as I can see may have been caused by impacts which weren't on the surface of the moon.

King Mob

shanered wrote: »

As you said the Russians had soil not rocks. So nothing to compare them to..

But the soil would be more then enough for them to identify and compare the composition.

shanered wrote: »

The above does no more than describe the impacts on the rocks.

Which in sofar as I can see may have been caused by impacts which weren't on the surface of the moon.

No they could not have been caused anywhere with an atmosphere.
If there was an atmosphere micrometeors wouldn't have been able to reach those rocks and impact them in the first place, they would either burn up first or slow down before impacting.

The paper I linked to describes this, and also the time scales of these impacts indicated by the rocks.
The amount impacts shows that the pitting on these rocks is millions of years old at least.

It's practically impossible for them to fake these features and get away with it.

shanered

Could they not be meoteorites?

Overheal

Meteorites would be geologically different, exposed to high pressure and heat, and impact on atmospheric entry, and would perhaps be exposed to a larger array of cosmic effects, radiation, etc.

King Mob

shanered wrote: »

Could they not be meoteorites?

No, because as Overheal said, they would be very geologically different.
In addition they would lack the zap pitting I described and they would have a surface that would have obviously been through entry into the atmosphere, or else they would show signs of having their surfaces removed.

Then on top of that there simply isn't enough samples in the world.
Now there are 46 kg of them in total. And that's from decades of searching.
Apollo 11 brought back about half of that number, The Apollo Program as a whole brought back maybe 10 times that. So unless NASA somehow was able to find a amazingly huge cache of lunar meteorites totally in secret and without any geologists letting on, then it's impossible for them to be lunar meteorites.

Also it's worth noting that the first Lunar Meteorite was only identified in 1982.

shanered

What is zap pitting?
And just had a quick google there to see pics of meteorite then the rocks from the lunar missions and there is virtually no difference in appearence although the metoerites came through our atmosphere...
For me the rocks from the missions could have been meteorites after visually comparing them there...thats just me though....

King Mob

shanered wrote: »

What is zap pitting?

Zap pitting is the tiny impact marks left by micrometeorites as I've been talking about.

shanered wrote: »

And just had a quick google there to see pics of meteorite then the rocks from the lunar missions and there is virtually no difference in appearence although the metoerites came through our atmosphere...
For me the rocks from the missions could have been meteorites after visually comparing them there...thats just me though....

The differences would be subtle and require closer and more thorough examination than a google search.
Regardless they would be apparent to any trained geologist who knew what they are looking at.

This is again shown by the paper I linked to.

kidneyfan

Could be from anywhere with no atmosphere. Could be from one of the asteroids , Phobos or Deimos etc.
Moon rocks could be samples taken by the crew of the extrasolar ship that landed at Roswell.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

No this is not a fact.
I posted two videos that show that it is not a fact.

If I'm wrong, please provide the evidence to show for a fact that the Apollo 11 crew and/or the Ambassador presented that rock as a genuine moon rock.

It is not reasonable to think that they would hand over such a rock by mistake considering how vastly different it was to the other gift rocks and their dsplays, how huge it was in comparison to all of the other gift rocks, and how it looked nothing like a moon rock.

The idea that the Apollo astronauts would mistakenly hand over a lump of moon rock bigger than all of the other gift rocks combined to some random, retired Dutch Prime Minister is far from the most likely explanation and it's far from a fact.

You are correct this is not a fact, a better way to word it would be a rock believed to be that of a moon rock gifted by the above turned out to be a fake.

The video gives a good explanation assuming everything he says checks out which I can give the benefit of the doubt as does it makes sense.

But the fact still remains that there was a mix up, we are now arguing history and who made the mistake.

This still does not prove all the cataloged samples are genuine it only provides a reasonable explanation around the mix-up of how the fake rock came to be.

If any doubt is cast on evidence the easiest way to debunk is to show the evidence some independent study of geologists not employed by NASA.
Maybe this has actually happened, I just cannot find information regarding this.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But the fact still remains that there was a mix up, we are now arguing history and who made the mistake.

Yes, a mix up made decades later by people unconnected to NASA, making the entire affair irrelevant.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This still does not prove all the cataloged samples are genuine it only provides a reasonable explanation around the mix-up of how the fake rock came to be.

No it doesn't. But it's also not a rational reason to assume doubt on the actual samples, contrary to what you've been implying.

If I'm wrong, then please explain why some Dutch museum employees mistakenly identifying a rock casts any doubt on anything aside from their ability to identify moon rocks?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If any doubt is cast on evidence the easiest way to debunk is to show the evidence some independent study of geologists not employed by NASA.
Maybe this has actually happened, I just cannot find information regarding this.

No there is no doubt in the first place.
And then there is hundreds of geologists not employed by Nasa who have studied the rocks. It is easy to find this information.
Here is one example:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB076i023p05770/abstract

The database site I linked you to also contains a comprehensive list of the samples. This is an excellent place for you to start all the verification you need.

However, it is much simpler to accept how ridiculous the conspiracy would have to be for them to only fake some of the rock, but then also build a secret robot to collect other rocks and also pay off the thousands of geologists in their employ to prevent them from blabbing...
And all based on the idea that Apollo 11 might have not been able to land for some unknown reason.

And even then, there was nothing stopping the Russians from getting their hands on the samples that Nasa somehow lost track off in the midst of their masterful decades long deception...

Every single aspect of the conspiracy just gets more and more ridiculous the more scrutiny you put on it.
There is no reasonable or rational version of the conspiracy that's worth giving any serious consideration.

kidneyfan

King Mob wrote: »

There is no reasonable or rational version of the conspiracy that's worth giving any serious consideration.

Kaiser_Soze wrote:

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

I always wonder 'what's the real story here?'
If it was so easy to go to the moon in the '70s why can't we go there now etc.

King Mob

kidneyfan wrote: »

I always wonder 'what's the real story here?'
If it was so easy to go to the moon in the '70s why can't we go there now etc.

This inane point has been addressed before.
Lack of funding and political will.

We had a supersonic airliner in the 70s. We don't have one now.
Therefore Concorde never existed, right?

Can you explain what exactly made it impossible to go to the moon in 1969?

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

Y
However, it is much simpler to accept how ridiculous the conspiracy would have to be for them to only fake some of the rock, but then also build a secret robot to collect other rocks and also pay off the thousands of geologists in their employ to prevent them from blabbing...
And all based on the idea that Apollo 11 might have not been able to land for some unknown reason.

And even then, there was nothing stopping the Russians from getting their hands on the samples that Nasa somehow lost track off in the midst of their masterful decades long deception...

Every single aspect of the conspiracy just gets more and more ridiculous the more scrutiny you put on it.
There is no reasonable or rational version of the conspiracy that's worth giving any serious consideration.

You argue like a child, you make statements much like a child and quantify it with "prove me wrong".....

My argument was never that all these conspiracy theories add up, my original comment was around how reasonable questions are met with "Oh you're one of these conspiracy lot"....
I point out that due to political and economic pressure a plan to fake the moon landing may very well have been considered.

I would say most of what you have posted on here is just opinion backed up with very little with the exception of the moon rocks.

The moon rocks as I already stated are probably the best physical proof of a manned moon landed despite the fact that unmanned samples have been retrieved by other lunar landers.

The question around how much unmanned samples logistically could of been retrieved before you really would have had to send a manned mission is still a vague.

I will look at the link, most of the links whereby I see independent study of lunar samples are of lunar soil and not the rock.
But we know a manned mission was not necessary to retrieve soil samples.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I point out that due to political and economic pressure a plan to fake the moon landing may very well have been considered.

And the point you are missing is that any version of the plan to fake the landing you can suggest would either be too politically risky or too ridiculously expensive and resource intensive to attempt.
Especially given that they had more launches only a few months away so they could try again if they needed to, and the Russians were years away.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I would say most of what you have posted on here is just opinion backed up with very little with the exception of the moon rocks.

You keep claiming this, yet ironically have problems pointing out which of my opinions require any support...

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The moon rocks as I already stated are probably the best physical proof of a manned moon landed despite the fact that unmanned samples have been retrieved by other lunar landers.

Ok. Which unmanned lunar landers were able to retrieve several different intact lunar rocks?
How were they able to retrieve and stow and return such rocks?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The question around how much unmanned samples logistically could of been retrieved before you really would have had to send a manned mission is still a vague.

Not really. The question is only vague if you keep pretending that a few grams of soil samples from one spot is somehow the same as several kilograms of samples that include several intact rocks.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I will look at the link, most of the links whereby I see independent study of lunar samples are of lunar soil and not the rock.
But we know a manned mission was not necessary to retrieve soil samples.

The paper I linked to specifically refers to intact rock samples.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

Here is one example:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB076i023p05770/abstract

.

This link requires a paid subscription, did you read the full article or are you just take little bits of information?

I know some rocks have been examined. I think I already mentioned Dr Michio Kaku talking on a broadcast where he says he actually examined a moon rock sample.

You made a statements that there is no way an unmanned mission could retrieve the X kilo of moon rock taken back by the apollo 11 mission, even if I accept that to be true which I don't, posting a link which gives half a page on 7 rocks does not support that all the samples are genuine nor does it support that NASA retrieved the amount stated. It just shows these 7 rocks look to be genuine.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Which unmanned lunar landers were able to retrieve several different intact lunar rocks?
How were they able to retrieve and stow and return such rocks?

So in one hand the Americans where years ahead of the Russians who brought back soil samples, but despite being years ahead of the Russians bringing back rocks is just a step to far.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This link requires a paid subscription, did you read the full article or are you just take little bits of information?

The abstract and the fact it was published is enough to prove my point.
Independent scientists studied Moon rocks.
What more information do you need? Or are you just looking for an excuse to disregard that fact?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You made a statements that there is no way an unmanned mission could retrieve the X kilo of moon rock taken back by the apollo 11 mission, even if I accept that to be true which I don't, posting a link which gives half a page on 7 rocks does not support that all the samples are genuine nor does it support that NASA retrieved the amount stated. It just shows these 7 rocks look to be genuine.

It shows that independent scientists studied moon rocks.
No unmanned probe at that time would have been able to retrieve those particular samples.

So what are you suggesting now? That these scientists were somehow duped by fakes? Or are they, and every geologist for the past 40 years has been bribed by Nasa?

But this is the evidence you asked for and said didn't exist. Now you are blatantly moving the goalposts.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So in one hand the Americans where years ahead of the Russians who brought back soil samples, but despite being years ahead of the Russians bringing back rocks is just a step to far.

The Americans were years ahead in the project to land humans on the Moon.
The Russians were ahead on unmanned landers.
Neither had the technology needed to retrieve intact lunar rocks.
They could have perhaps developed this technology, but there is no evidence they did and such a project would have been very very difficult to develop in secret.

Please stop misrepresenting my arguments.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

The abstract and the fact it was published is enough to prove my point.
Independent scientists studied Moon rocks.
What more information do you need? Or are you just looking for an excuse to disregard that fact?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I already mentioned pages ago that I know some moon samples have been examined by independent scientists.

Let me break this down for you.
Examining some samples does not demonstrate that all samples are genuine.

King Mob wrote: »

It shows that independent scientists studied moon rocks.

I already said this.

King Mob wrote: »

No unmanned probe at that time would have been able to retrieve those particular samples.

Says you, which goes back to my previous point, just an opinion backed up by very little.

King Mob wrote: »

So what are you suggesting now? That these scientists were somehow duped by fakes? Or are they, and every geologist for the past 40 years has been bribed by Nasa?

No, please read what I am saying before jumping to your own CT.

King Mob wrote: »

The Americans were years ahead in the project to land humans on the Moon.
The Russians were ahead on unmanned landers.
Neither had the technology needed to retrieve intact lunar rocks.

Again not fact just your opinion.

King Mob wrote: »

They could have perhaps developed this technology, but there is no evidence they did and such a project would have been very very difficult to develop in secret.

Perhaps, I don't know enough about what the NASA engineering teams had thought up in the late 1960s

King Mob wrote: »

Please stop misrepresenting my arguments.

Stop trying to pass off what you think as some kind of fact.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I already mentioned pages ago that I know some moon samples have been examined by independent scientists.

Let me break this down for you.
Examining some samples does not demonstrate that all samples are genuine.

What would demonstrate that all of the samples are genuine?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I already said this.

You have also said:

I will look at the link, most of the links whereby I see independent study of lunar samples are of lunar soil and not the rock.

And you have also said:

What I also read was anyone applying to examine the moon rocks had to be vetted and access to the samples by independent parties was to borrow a phrase near impossible.

So do you agree now that independent scientists have studied genuine moon rocks supplied by Nasa?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Says you, which goes back to my previous point, just an opinion backed up by very little.

No this is a fact.
The only probe that had returned samples at that time did so using a stationary drill. This cannot be used to collect an intact rock.

No probe at that time or now has the ability to collect an intact rock and return it to Earth.
This is a fact.

If such a probe existed now or then, it must have been developed in secret, adding an extra layer of ridiculousness to the conspiracy.

Which part of this statement is an opinion? Which part of this statement is wrong?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Again not fact just your opinion.

Perhaps, I don't know enough about what the NASA engineering teams had thought up in the late 1960s

Can you point to any technology at the time that would have allowed a probe to collect an intact moon rock? Yes or no?

If no, then either my statement stands or you are relying on another ridiculous layer to the conspiracy.

kidneyfan

We can't say for sure that there was a moon landing and we won't be able to until some other country goes back there.

Overheal

My original comment was around how reasonable questions are met with "Oh you're one of these conspiracy lot"....

I'm not seeing anyone in this thread making such remarks, which are against the charter and should be reported if seen. Nobody is dismissing the conspiracy out of hand because it is a conspiracy, just as nobody would be allowed into the 9/11 forum just to proclaim everyone posting there were 'just a bunch of truthers.'