In another thread, Karamoon said: " If solid irrefutable proof was presented to me of Apollo's authenticity tomorrow -- evidence that I accepted -- I wouldn't just shrug my shoulders, pack up my bags, and start sifting through alt.conspiracy for another controversial topic."

Okay Karamoon. The rocks from the Moon.

Are they Earth rocks? No, because their structure is different from other Earth rocks. They were formed in the complete absence of water and air, which is not possible on the Earth.

Are they Earth rocks with the water baked out of them? No, this isn't possible. The evidence would still point to them as Earth rocks.

Are they maunfactured in a NASA lab? No, because they contain crystals which take millions of years to form. NASA would've had to start making those rocks millions of years ago to create those crystals.

Are they genuine Moon rocks retrieved by a robot mission? No, because the sheer volume of rocks, regolith and core samples represents too much to have been collected by robot probes. The best the Soviets could do was scoop up a small amount of soil adjacent to their landers. Any NASA robot mission would've required robots with the dexterity of C-3PO to collect the rocks, then a return vehicle on the scale of the lunar module to return the rocks, all remotely controlled from Earth. Not impossible, but certainly more tricky than just sending humans to the Moon.

Are the rocks all subject to a conspiracy of the world's geologists? No, the vast majority of these geologists aren't employees of NASA, and thus not under their control.

So how do you explain the Moon rocks?

To me, they're irrefutable proof. What are they to you?

Please, not another moon rock debate.

Nooooooooooooo!

Why not another moon rock debate?

Try this site.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/...ototheMoon.htm

Actually, Scottie transported them to the Enterprise and then crew time wrapped back to 1969 and gave them to NASA.

Okay, Karamoon, you've obviously had this discussion before, while I haven't.

Would you prefer to point me to a BB with a previous debate, so I can see the pros and cons?

There ought to be a standing challenge to the HB side; put up or shut up. The only acceptable proof that we never went...an independently supervised mission to the moon, robotic or manned (paid for by the HB's) which fails to find any physical evidence of descent stages, rovers, flags and so forth at the places where NASA claims it landed. A few hundred million bucks should cover it. I imagine side bets could go that high, easily. Surely there are at least a million HBs? Surely they're so convinced of their positions they'd be willing to cough up a few hundred bucks a piece to put all the gullible dupes in their place? I'm sure the Russians would love the business; ESA or the Japanese could handle it too. Get somebody neutral to supervise the mission and make sure no funny stuff is going on...that might be a show-stopper, come to think of it. Of course, the HBs would claim, upon seeing incontrovertible evidence of hardware at an Apollo landing site, that it was a hastily-assembled robotic mission thrown together to fake a manned landing. So, you'd almost have to land and examine the stage left on the surface to determine if it had an autonomous guidance system or not. It might be necessary to do a complete inventory of all artifacts at the site. That might clinch it. Much more expensive though. But, if they're as smart as they think they are, they can recoup the cost of the mission from selling the TV rights, and if they are ultimately vindicated (as they surely must be!), they'll garner incredible politcal and commercial clout. How can they miss?

So, let's hear no more cavils from the HB gang...put your nickels together and fly or put a sock in it.

There's this one.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...ic=472&forum=3

but it started before Karamoon joined.

Roidspop, I've tried that. There was a gentleman here who was claiming all sorts of things. Murder and coverup was the least of it.
I challenged him on this. I even offered to do the legwork. Heck, I'm retired military, I can at least fly cheap. All I wanted from this gentleman was names. He's making all these accusations, why not get a response form the accused? This wasn't going to cost him a cent, I was willing to foot the whole bill.
After this challenge, he started off on another tangent. For some reason, he didn't want to talk to me anymore.
What does this tell you?
Lisa
(Edited - people with long fingernails shouldn't type at 0130)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lisa on 2002-05-03 03:27 ]</font>

You're absolutely correct: you can always tell an HB, but you can't tell him much.

I have been corresponding with one who has bizarre ideas about gravitation, and is fixated on the notion that NASA discovered anomalous gravitation at Eros during the NEAR mission. I suggested he do some calculations and see what they had to say. He couldn't because he didn't know the math. I provided him with it. He never got through the first equation. All our 'exchanges' have been like this.

I've thought that an in-your-face bet along the lines I suggested might have some effect, but I don't seriously believe it. As you point out, these folks slip off to the side and continue ranting, and only a tiny fraction of the other side can devote the time and resources to debunking and probably don't care enough to make a wager. Eventually the Chinese will make their own visit to the moon...then there will be a "vast Sino-American hoax".

How about a site that reveals that they're the ones at the bottom of it all? HB (who are actually dupes of the Illuminati) worrying about return trips to the moon discovering their alien masters' hidden lunar bases, so they attempt to discredit NASA so there will never be return flights? That's one I'd love to see! I'm pretty sure they're behind chemtrails too. They make people dumber (so they won't be a threat to the World Order)by releasing 'paranodium' within the brain when the subject is exposed to the mere sight of a contrail. That's pretty effective stuff!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: roidspop on 2002-05-03 12:41 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: roidspop on 2002-05-03 12:46 ]</font>

Karamoon

I repeat my request. If you don't want to discuss this issue, point me to somewhere where you HAVE discussed this.

I wouldn't want to get the impression that you're trying to avoid the topic.

Karamoon's response is typical. Just silence. Maybe we will go away.

Let's see some facts or even attempted facts.

Not necessarily. Karamoon takes long breaks away from online forums, not necessarily to lick his wounds but because he is actually doing a fair amount of reading. Just remind him when he returns, and he'll answer your questions.

Well, that's good to here. I never have a problem with people who a different point of view as long as it is well researched.

Karamoon's research doesn't usually have much to do with the questions at hand. He's on a long-term project to research the possibility that NASA and the contractors did not recover quickly enough from the Apollo 1 fire, and so all the early Apollo missions were fake and Apollo 14 or 15 was the first authentic mission.

He does tend to do more research than the average hoax believer, and frequently from respectable sources. Of all the hoax believers I've met, he's the one with the most chance of researching his way out of superstition.

Karamoon

While you're here, would you like to respond to this thread, please.

Here's the problem that I see with the whole moon hoax idea. With the Internet, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to find a site that promotes your viewpoint. I couldn't find anything that supports that statement that the Moon Rocks are fakes. The only thing I found is an interview with Bill Kaysing where he says that they are fakes and that some unnamed geologist in Seattle says that they are fakes. Yet I can find all kinds of information proving that they come from the moon.

FYI, here's a nice site.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/lunar/lunar.htm

If you read a little this site says that over a 1000 samples are sent out each year for research, yet we haven't heard much about those rocks being fakes.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-05-18 09:46 ]</font>

Peter B: While you're here, would you like to respond to this thread, please.

Um, I respond tomorrow, if you don't mind, as I have to leave for work shortly.

Hmmm...I suppose if we go with this hypothesis we could conjecture that the Apollo 13 was the first real attempt to have a moon landing and that's why there were problems because there were still things to be nutted out in practical application that weren't discovered in the sumulations.

__________________
Behind every conspiracy is another conspiracy.

I suppose if we go with this hypothesis we could conjecture that the Apollo 13 was the first real attempt to have a moon landing and that's why there were problems because there were still things to be nutted out in practical application that weren't discovered in the sumulations.

There weren't "so many" problems on Apollo 13. There was only one problem: the rupture of a cryogenic oxygen tank.

The problem with your hypothesis is that Apollo was already a program designed carefully to build on the success of each prior mission and to learn from what it taught.

Apollo 11 (landing) wasn't possible until Apollo 10 (powered descent and abort test) had succeeded, and Apollo 10 wasn't possible until Apollo 8 (translunar trajectory and lunar orbit insertion) had succeeded.

Apollo 12 (pinpoint landing, extended stay) wasn't possible until Apollo 11 had succeeded. Apollo 13 didn't succeed, so Apollo 14 was assigned its mission (hybrid trajectory, pinpoint landing in difficult terrain), which was not possible without Apollo 12.

It's actually less credible to believe that everything up to Apollo 13 or 14 was fake, and that Apollo 14 was real and fulfilled a very long and daunting list of mission objectives with no prior successes to build upon. That's like saying a football team up and won the Superbowl without playing any prior games and without practicing together as a team first.

Well, the problem with that hypothesis is that the fault that led to the Apollo 13 explosion had nothing at all to do with the LM, lunar landing/surface equipment, or the mission's lunar trajectory. It was a damaged oxygen tank in the SM that exploded. Similar tanks were present in every Apollo spacecraft, both lunar and Earth-orbital. It could have happened on any of the missions.

You're not suggesting that the earlier missions weren't launched at all, are you? Just that they stayed in Earth orbit? (Never mind that it would be impossible to conceal that fact from the many people around the world who were tracking the missions.)

That reminds me. Here is that post I promised in defense of my theory.

You don't have to respond to it, Jay (it was mostly written some time ago). If you feel the need to respond then I won't bother following it up.

While I am at it, here is the Baron reply I didn't bother posting as well. The same applies to that also.

I am largely withdrawing from debate but will still follow matters from behind the curtain.

Karamoon

Would you be willing to find the time to comment on the question I originally asked about the rocks, please. Even if it's only to link to another posting you made somewhere on the topic.

Thanks.

You don't have to respond to it, Jay (it was mostly written some time ago). If you feel the need to respond then I won't bother following it up.

That's okay. I won't expect a response, and I won't interpret lack of same to be a concession. However, since there's nothing good on TV tonight, I'll answer it.

The reason I groaned at the rock issue was because I had earlier made some comments to the AULIS guest book (you will have to scroll down) and was later embroiled over at Apollo Hoax in further discussion. I'm not sure that particular thread survived (after the discussion board was almost wiped clean) but the original comment made over at AULIS still does.

The same is pretty much true for every thing else I have discussed and what I believe may be true. I decided to collate everything together in an essay entitled "Learning to run before you can walk", and had intended to direct people to that for the information they seek, but that has now been placed on the back burner.

Thanks Karamoon.

So would someone be able to explain the differences between a lunar meteorite recovered in Antarctica and a rock recovered from the Moon?

Would the inner part of the meteorite be discernable from a genuine Moon rock?

There is nothing on the Aulis board that brings any closure to this issue. Squirm made some comments about Antarctica being a particularly rich source of meteoritic material. The issue of how 843 pounds of lunar rock would have suddenly materialized in order to support a hoax isn't addressed, nor are the sources of the opinion that moon rock collected in Antarctica is indistinguishable from lunar rock brought back during the Apollo missions.

No, Karamoon, this issue hasn't, as you implied been discussed in any depth, and there is certainly no evidence at Aulis, or anywhere else that I've looked, that provides even a mote of science to the theory that the moon rocks could have been faked. I think we're all tired of unidentified sources being hauled out by HB's in support of their pet theories. If you or Squirm can't identify the experts that say the moon rocks could be faked, and how that could be done, it's pretty clear that the experts cited are simply a figment of someone's imagination. I don't buy the repeated argument that if they identify themselves they'd be killed by NASA. That's just a B.S. copout designed to hide the fact that the story is fabricated.

To avoid any confusion, can I just point out that Karamoon and Squirm are the same person.

When comparing a moon rock returned by Apollo and a moon rock fallen to a dry part of earth, it depends on how closely you examine them.

The exteriors are absolutely and totally different. A rock on the surface of the moon is exposed to the solar wind (which includes elements that are very rare on earth) and has been blasted by millions of years of tiny meteorites producing a glassy, pitted surface. Very unique to the moon (or any airless body in space). Meteorites have a melted exterior that is usually very smooth and undulating. During infall, most of a space rock falling to earth is ablated away, only about 10 to 30% of the original rock remains to land on the earth. All that unique pitted surface is gone.

The interiors would be difficult to tell which is which. There will be some minor differences because the Apollo rock has been protected from water and air while the meteorite has been sitting in it for years. (If the meteorite is on the surface of the earth for too long it becomes terrestrialized and we may never know it came from space.) You'd have to go deep inside the meteorite to find an area not touched by water and most meteorites are not very big.

In fact, if you put an Apollo lunar basalt, a meteoric lunar basalt, and an earth basalt (all showing just fresh interiors) in my hand, I'd have a tough time telling them apart. Give me a 10-power hand lens and I'd do better. Give me a microscope and I'd have a fair chance. Give me a typical university geology lab and there's no problem. Or let me see the exteriors with just a hand lens...

Actually, Apollo brought back a lot of rocks but a small variety (only six sites) and geologists are using lunar meteorites to fill in some of the gaps.

Dave, as Ian has just pointed out, Squirm was my alias before I changed it to Karamoon. We are one and the same.

My initial suggestion was that they may have recovered ample surface material from Antarctica without reporting their findings, something that you need to be well prepared for in order to do. You may even be able to remember the thread I mentioned a moment ago-- if I recall correctly I think you may have even started it?

I am not trying to say, nor am I implying, that this has been discussed at "great length". I hadn't previously said that the rock was manufactured, either. In fact, I actually remember withdrawing from the initial thread because I hadn't looked at the issue too closely.

I would say it was discussed at length at Apollohoax. At least I think I remember participating in such a discussion.

Thanks, Ian. I suspected that, based on the similar writing styles and beliefs, but hadn't found anything acknowledging it. It seems to be common among HBs to use two or more different pseudonyms on the same board.

I did ask Squirm on the Apollohoax forum to identify the geologist(s) who see no diffence between meteorites gathered in Antarctica and moon rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts. He's never done that, so I assume he either fabricated the story or accepted some hearsay information without question. It always amazes me how these "urban legends" rapidly develop the same status as truth.

I still remember the excitement among the faculty at the University of Toronto when they got their sample of moon rock for study. Unfortunately, I was in engineering, not geology, so I didn't get to actually see the rocks - but there were prints of lunar rock micrographs up on the wall in the geology lab for years (they may still be there). It seemed clear that the rocks were unlike anything that anyone there had ever seen. Pretty compelling argument that the rock didn't come from a terrestrial location.

The Antarctic collection scenario just doesn't wash - even if there is any truth to the allegation that von Braun went to Antarctica in the 60's

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-05-24 12:33 ]</font>