Dave Greer

This is a shocking abuse of power, as well as indirect evidence of CIA culpability over failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks. I despair to hear that the UK looks to be going down a similar route. Freedoms that have been centuries in the making are being silently taken away, under the guise of national security. Sadly very true.

The link doesn't work. Try this. http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/the-46-drills-of-911-by-webster-tarpley/

Please can you demonstrate how you calibrated the size of the superimposed plane in this image. Please can you also demonstrate how you took into consideration how the angle of incidence of the plane's approach relative to the Pentagon would affect it's appearance and relative length as seen from the security camera. (Hint below).

This discussion seems to have been manoeuvred away from Jack's original claim (in his attachment), which is clearly false, on to something completely irrelevant to anything. This demand to see a Hasselblad image of the rover being unloaded is just a smokescreen to hide the moving goalposts. (Who cares? What does it prove, other than what we already know, that unloading the rover was a 2 man job, they probably weren't wearing the cameras yet, and the whole thing was being recorded on TV anyway?) For once Jack, do the right thing and admit you made a simple mistake in your original study, and withdraw it. Please, just this once.

That's patently absurd. If I accuse you of beating your wife, anything you say to defend yourself is self-serving and must be disregarded. You cannot prove my assertion wrong, ergo, you are a wife-beater. Jack This has been proven to be wrong. The rover has clearly been unstowed from Quad 1 (to the right of the ladder as seen in the photo). Evidence has been provided that clearly supports that. If you still insist that the rover hasn't been unloaded, please provide proof. (You're going to struggle with that one, since we've all seen the video of it actually being unloaded). Looking at the 'study' you presented:- Do you accept that you are wrong about the LRV being lowered but not unpacked? If you don't accept it, can you please explain why you insist that the yellow arrow on your 'study' points to a partially unstowed LRV, when all the supporting literature, photos and video shows that the LRV was stowed on the opposite side?

I'm curious as to what extent the lawn should be "blemished", and in what manner. As far as I'm aware, the plane allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, not the lawn itself. Watch from 3:30.

http://www.circlemakers.org/

BECAUSE the crosshairs cast shadows, they CANNOT be in the camera film plane. They have to be on an overlay over a photocopy print. IF in the camera, the crosshairs ARE THE SHADOWS (keeping light from the film) and cannot cast an ADDITIONAL shadow. Jack You missed my point. I'll try to be clearer. For argument's sake, let's assume you're right about the crosshairs not being in the camera. How does the overlay of cross-hairs on the images (yet somehow missing out the brighter/over-exposed areas of white) prove that the photos must have been taken on Earth? Why can't they have been taken on the moon, and the cross-hairs added later? (They weren't added later, I'm just playing Devil's advocate). A reasonable question. Here is the reasonable answer. According to all I have read about the Hasselblad Apollo cameras, they had a clear glass plate between the lens and the film. I think it was called a Rousseau plate or something like that (immaterial). The clear glass allowed the image photographed to pass through it with no loss in quality. The light passed through when the shutter was operated to take a photo. It passed through ONLY ONCE (ONCE ONLY) when the shutter was snapped. Etched into the glass plate, however was a series of small black+ marks evenly spaced over its surface, with a larger central + mark. These were variously called fidicials, reticules, reticles or crosshairs. They were placed there for photogrammetric purposes. Photogrammetry is a fancy word for taking measurements on a photograph. When the light came through the shutter when it was opened the ONE TIME it was opened for each photo, the BLACK CROSSHAIRS BLOCKED THE LIGHT FROM REACHING THE FILM BEYOND IT! On b/w film, this produced a CLEAR area on the film, which printed as BLACK +s. On color film, this blocked light, so nothing was exposed, leaving the color film with BLACK + marks. Now if you understand from this explanation how the + marks got onto the film, then you have to understand that SINCE THE LIGHT CAME THROUGH THE LENS AND THE GLASS PLATE ONLY ONCE, IT COULD CAST ONLY A SINGLE SHADOW (+) ON THE FILM WHERE EACH CROSSHAIR WAS ETCHED IN THE GLASS. Since each reticle cross could have only ONE SHADOW, it CANNOT have TWO SHADOWS. Therefore anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed, practicing disinformation, or lying. It is quite elementary and simple to understand. Jack I understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to get you to explain is, why is the existence of these shadow marks proof that the images must have been taken on Earth, rather than the moon? Secondly, on a slightly different issue, take a closer look at the image you were investigating - AS14-66-9304 Pay particular attention to the four reticles surrounding the very bright light-source in the top right of the image. Can you explain why each of these has a shadow, which when tracing a straight line through the corresponding reticle, intersects at the light-source? Can you also explain why the displacement of the shadow from its reticle is directly proportionate to the distance of the reticle to the centre of the light-source? This seems to confirm the theory that the shadow is formed by some kind of internal reflection

BECAUSE the crosshairs cast shadows, they CANNOT be in the camera film plane. They have to be on an overlay over a photocopy print. IF in the camera, the crosshairs ARE THE SHADOWS (keeping light from the film) and cannot cast an ADDITIONAL shadow. Jack You missed my point. I'll try to be clearer. For argument's sake, let's assume you're right about the crosshairs not being in the camera. How does the overlay of cross-hairs on the images (yet somehow missing out the brighter/over-exposed areas of white) prove that the photos must have been taken on Earth? Why can't they have been taken on the moon, and the cross-hairs added later? (They weren't added later, I'm just playing Devil's advocate).

It might take a minute to read through the list, but it would take many weeks of research to thoroughly investigate each patent, to see whether it backs up the assertion that "persistent spreading contrails" as seen in some of the photos you've posted are actually "chemtrails". I looked at a few of them. 1. Self-focussing antenna system - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3174150.pdf I couldn't figure out why a patent for such a device would help prove the existence of "chemtrails" as I characterised them above, so I looked at the patent. I'm still none the wiser. Please explain how this device proves that "persistent spreading contrails" are actually "chemtrails". 2. Atomizing Attachment for Airplane Engine Exhausts - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/1892132.pdf Judging the title alone, this one sounds more promising. The patent is from 1932, so how it proves anything relating to "chemtrails" being caused by high altitude jets in the 1990's I'm not sure. Regardless, the patent is basically for a "crop duster". Again, I ask what the existence of a patent for a crop-dusting device proves "chemtrails" over "persistent spreading contrails". 3. Method of Suppressing Formation of Contrails and Solution Therefor - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4766725.pdf As per the title, this patent relates to a proposal to stop contrails forming. I find it hard to see how such a patent proves the existence of "chemtrails", which persist much longer than Jack claims contrails can last for. 4. Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5003186.pdf This one sounds more promising. It refers to the addition of Aluminium Oxide to aviation fuel to absorb infra-red radiation, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Of course, the existence of a patent isn't proof that the method is in use, either on a small scale, or the large scale being proposed. I couldn't find any reference to the actual use of such additives in jet fuel. Neither is there any explanation as to why the use of such additives would cause the visible appearance of "chemtrails" resembling "persistent spreading contrails". There's also the difficulty of explaining why this technology has been in use in secret since the 1990's to combat global warming. Why not just fess up and claim the glory for saving the planet? If governments can fluoridise drinking water to save out teeth and convince most people it's safe, wouldn't aluminium oxide in jet fuel to reduce global warming be an easy sell? Why hide it?

Very succinctly put.

That's a frustrating, worrying, and not entirely unexpected direction for this whole saga to take. The entire media focus has switched from the leaks themselves, onto Assange. The US Government will be mightily relieved that in Sweden, the legal classification of "chatting up a bird" seems analagous to "demanding sex with menaces". As John has pointed out, it may well work in Assange's favour if he is deported and claims political asylum. He really should consider grasping the nettle and handing himself over voluntarily to the Swedish authorities.

Finally had chance to have a quick look into this one. Didn't take long to find out that the engine bell on the descent stage was increased in length by 10" for the J-class missions - leaving just 12" ground clearance. I suspect that's why there was a requirement for those missions to shut the engines off before landing. Makes sense that there would be an increased danger of the "blowback" that Cernan referred to. Look at the ground clearance in this Apollo 11 image - AS11-40-5915 and compare it to the the ground clearance on this Apollo 17 image - AS17-147-22517

Thanks for the extra IP addresses John. Let's hope it doesn't result in EF getting more DOS attacks. I appreciate concerns that some leaks may put some people at risk, but I think there's a bigger picture here. If we'd been privy to some of this kind of information prior to the phoney war against Iraq, maybe it could have been avoided - and 100,000+ lives saved.

Whoever it was must have been a member of this forum since they knew the password format, which I hadn't changed (my mistake). They likely had a grudge to bear against me re Apollo. Their IP address was traced to Savannah, Georgia. Join the dots. Why don't you contact the owner of the site and ask him why he took the site down? It's back up minus the forum apparently. http://www.worldofthestrange.com/form_contact.htm Oh, I wasn't impolite to you, it was someone from Scotland. Nothing wrong with being Scottish of course. Well, my subjective experience says exactly the opposite, such as your and Jack White's comments on this very forum about people who disagree with you. Looking at it objectively, there's plenty coming from both sides. Insisting otherwise is just playing the victim.

The Apollo hoax theories do have an uncanny ability to polarize opinion, and sadly some people on either side take it too far. Jarrah White's obsession with Jay Windley for example. Or SVector's personal attack on Sibrel in the opening sequences to his otherwise excellent series debuning his claims re Apollo TV fakery. Incredibly, a hoax believer hacked my EF account and posted messages under my name saying I believed Jack White was right after all! Amazing the depths some people will stoop to to try and discredit someone who has a different opinion to them. The point I'm making is, the kind of behaviour you're referring to isn't exactly one-sided, is it? Well, it may be a lie, or there may be a mundane explanation. I've done some quick digging, this is what I've found so far. When Armstrong was on his final approach, the LM was drifting to the left about 1.5 feet/second. Because of that, he didn't want to cut the engine until after touchdown. All the other missions cut their engines after contact (i.e. the probe had touched the surface), but before the landing pads themselves had touched the surface. According to Cernan, one of the reasons they cut the engine above the surface was to prevent the possibility of some kind of blow-back into the engine bell. Whether that was a consideration during Apollo 11 or not I don't know. I'll do some research and try and find out.

I have to pull you up on the "no evidence at all of landing on the lunar surface" claim. There are plenty of photos taken under the LM after landing on most of the Apollo missions which clearly show evidence of scouring, as shown by the radial striations. Take a look at AS11-40-5921 for example. There are similar images from most of the other missions. The issue of when the descent engine was switched off is an interesting one, I'll have a look at it when I get some free time next week.

That statement is not only the height of hypocrisy, but almost too funny for words, considering the type of constant character assassination, ridicule and lies Windley and his apollogist pals spew about Jarrah White (among other conspiracy researchers ) on forums like BAUT and apollohoax.net. Here's an e-mail reply from Jarrah, hopefully clearing up any misunderstanding about who lied about what. Well, that certainly cleared up what Jarrah White thinks, but I don't think it clears up any possible misunderstandings about who lied about what. Jarrah White says I'm clutching at straws claiming that the interview was conducted under false pretences. Surely the one thing that can't be open to debate is whether the interview was conducted under false pretences or not? Regardless of whether the Japanese TV was fake, or whether they were a real TV company, the interview with Aldrin clearly went beyond the bounds of why he thought he was there (to discuss bona fide space subjects). He didn't know he was going to be shown the TV segment about hoaxes and asked to comment on it. Neither did he know that Bart Sibrel was going to be brought on as a "mystery guest". Come on! This wasn't some long-lost brother was being brought on for a tearful reunion. It was a man who was prepared to publicly call Aldrin a xxxx, coward and thief. Do you really think Aldrin would have agreed to the interview on those terms? I sincerely doubt it. Look at this comment by Jarrah. That's a possibility. However, the "Japanese" TV company were outside the building, which raises the interesting question of how they managed to follow Aldrin out of the room without him seeing them (or at least commenting on it in his book), and rushing down the staircase and going outside to get ready for the encounter with Sibrel. Unlikely, but not impossible. What of Sibrel's motivation for being there? He wanted to accuse Aldrin of theft for taking $2000 for talking about landing on the moon when he hadn't (more evidence of Sibrel's involvement since he knew Aldrin's fee). Also from Jarrah. I'm not clear where Jarrah gets the information to support the last sentence in this quote, maybe you can help me out, or get him to clear this up? He shows Windley's statement that he has seen documents from the LA prosecutors office, which stated that Sibrel's intent was to conduct an ambush interview. That bit seems to make sense, since it refers to Sibrel's motivation for being there, which is quite clear from the video footage in and outside the hotel, and also in his radio interview of 2004. I can't see where he (Windley) has stated that he has seen documents from the LA Prosecutors office that confirm there never was a Japanese film crew: that seems to be Windley's opinion based on the evidence. This whole episode seems to boil down to a semantic battle over whether Windley was correct in saying Bart Sibrel posed as a Japanese TV crew, or whether should have said Sibrel conspired with them (as I stated earlier). In either case, it seems bit churlish to make making a three-part video to try and brand Windley a xxxx over such a semantic point. I think we need to clear up Jarrah's confusion over this question he posed to Windley in the video:- (First, look at what Jarrah says. "Aldrin explicitly states that he did indeed give an interview to a Japanese production company". Aldrin didn't say that. He said it was a "Far Eastern TV Network". Does this mean Jarrah is guilty of lying? Of course not. It just means that he got his quote wrong, even though he charcterised it by saying Aldrin was explicit. Why, then, make so much out of Windley saying "Sibrel posed as", rather than "Sibrel conspired with"?) Back to the question (above) itself. It should be quite clear the two things are not mutually incompatible. It's basically Scenario 2 from my previous post. If true, it shows that the deception worked, because Aldrin didn't rumble the fact that Sibrel had set the whole thing up. Maybe he had other things on his mind, like trying to cross the road while Sibrel was blocking his way and hurling accusations at him. Seriously, I'm at a loss as to why Jarrah is making such an issue over this.

Maybe the viewers would like to see the real reason Buzz Aldrin punched out Bart Sibrel and how Sibrel feels about that unfortunate encounter.. They might also be interested in the fact that one of the leading Apollo defenders, Jay Windley, lied about how and why this encounter took place between Aldrin and Sibrel, in an attempt to further slander Bart Sibrel. To quote conspiracy researcher Jarrah White; "Previously we have exposed Clavius webmaster Jay Windley as a promoter of deliberate false charges against Bill Kaysing and Ralph René. Now we can conclusively and unequivocally prove he is a promoter of false charges against Bart Sibrel. Let's get one thing clear: I do not endorse Bart Sibrel's actions, nor do I support Buzz Aldrin's violent reaction. Regardless of what you think of either side, you have no need to lie about them. Because certain propagandists can't be bothered to watch my videos the whole way through, I might as well spell it out for them. According to Bart Sibrel, Aldrin had just finished giving an interview to a Japanese production company before the two encountered each other. But Jay Windley has alleged that Sibrel pretended to represent a Japanese TV network to lure Aldrin to the motel. As he wrote on the Internet Movie Data Base forum: "Bart Sibrel posed as a Japanese film crew to solicit an interview with Aldrin under false pretenses. Sibrel had been stalking astronauts for years, so many of them knew who he was and would not grant him interviews directly. According to documents I viewed from the L.A. prosecutor's office, Sibrel told them his intent was to conduct an ambush interview with Aldrin in which he planned to accuse Aldrin of dishonestly taking the honorarium for the interview, and then catching his reaction on camera." I guess Windley never counted on Buzz Aldrin telling us his side of the story. On pages282-284 of his new book, MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION, you'll find Buzz Aldrin's testimony that not only confirms what Sibrel said, but also absolutely demolishes ANY claim of honesty made by Jay Windley. I challenge anyone who trusts Jay Windley to answer the million dollar question that Windley is terrified to answer: How can you allege that Sibrel lured Aldrin to the motel pretending to be a Japanese company, when in fact Aldrin explicitly states in his new book that he did in fact give an interview to a Japanese production company and met up with Sibrel on his way out?" I remember trying to discuss this with Jarrah White in the comments section (my pseudonym is HeadLikeARock). Matters become a lot clearer if you listen to what Sibrel says to the doorman when he (the doorman) gets involved in the altercation. Timestamps refer to "Part 1" of the videos. 9:34 Aldrin "Will you tell him to get out of here?" Doorman "This is a hotel..." Sibrel "We paid" 9:48 Sibrel "We just paid, we're at the Penthouse suite (?) up there" Let's just reiterate that. Sibrel admits on camera, to the Doorman (who is intervening on Aldrin's behalf), that he ( or his production company, not an unreasonable inference to draw from his statement at 9:48), paid for the penthouse suite (which is where the interview had just taken place). If Sibrel paid for the room as he claims, then is it unreasonable to assume that he knew who was in there, since he must have invited them (if indeed they were a genuine Japanese TV crew)? Is it unreasonable to assume that either he was in cahoots with them, or he set the whole thing up in order to lure Aldrin there under false pretences, knowing he would never be granted an interview himself? Is it unreasonable to assume that this duplicity eluded Aldrin, who didn't know the Japanese TV company and Sibrel were in cahoots? Jarrah White himself makes a surprising admission in the comments section. As I see it, we have two plausible scenarios that fit the evidence I've seen. Scenario 1 The Japanese TV company was real. Sibrel was working with them on an ambush interview of Aldrin, and paid for the room. He was planning to go in part way through the interview, and ask Aldrin to swear on the Bible that he really went to the moon (or make some such reference as the moon landings being faked). Scenario 2 Sibrel paid for the room, and hired a crew to pose as a Japanese TV company to get Aldrin there under false pretences. He was planning to go in part way through the interview and ask Aldrin to swear on the Bible that he really went to the moon (or make some such reference as the moon landings being faked). Either way, Sibrel's plan failed when Aldrin figured there was something wrong with the direction the interview was taking, and left early. This forced Sibrel's hand, hence the confrontation in the lobby. Do either of the above scenarios contradict Aldrin's comment that he gave an interview with a Japanese TV company and met up with Sibrel on the way out? It certainly fits with Scenario 1. It also fits with Scenario 2, given that Aldrin wouldn't necessarily have known that the Japanese TV company were paid for by Sibrel. How about Windley's claim? It fits very well with Scenario 2. How about Scenario 1? Well, it seems to me to be a matter of semantics arguing about whether Sibrel posed as a Japanese TV company, or conspired with them to invite Aldrin to an interview in a room Sibrel paid for, without letting Aldrin know that Sibrel had paid for the room and would be making an appearance. The deceit was all on Sibrel's part. If you have a different scenario to either of the ones I've postulated above (that fits the available evidence), please bring it to the thread. I'd appreciate your comments on the 2 scenarios I've posited above, and what specific points about either of them is contradicted by the evidence.

I don't know for sure whether Von Braun is responsible for the quote, or whether it is completely accurate. The 1953 impression shows three authors and one editor: Wernher Von Braun (Author), Fred L. Whipple (Author), Willy Ley (Author), Cornelius Ryan (Editor). Apparently there is a copy at a library about an hour's drive from where I live: I'll be passing it in a couple of weeks, I'll see if it's open on a weekend and see if I can get a copy of the relevant passage for the sake of accuracy. That said, I'm prepared to accept that the quote is indeed from Von Braun for the purpose of discussion. The impression I get is that Von Braun is talking about a method of flying to the moon called Direct Ascent. This would involve flying a rocket directly from the Earth to the moon, landing the entire thing tail-first on the lunar surface, then the whole thing taking off again and returning to Earth. This would indeed require a huge rocket. There are plenty of references to "direct ascent" in the literature. For example:- Direct ascent was basically the method that had been pictured in science fiction novels and Hollywood movies. A massive rocket the size of a battleship would be fired directly to the moon, land and then blast off for home directly from the lunar surface. The trip would be like that of a chartered bus, moving from point A to point B and back to A again in one brute of a vehicle. Strong feelings existed within NASA in favor of direct ascent, largely because it meant the development of a proposed giant booster named the Nova. After the engineers made their calculations, however, NASA realized that any single big rocket that had to carry and lift all the fuel necessary for leaving the Earth's gravity, braking against the moon's gravity as well as leaving it, and braking back down into the Earth's gravity again, was clearly not a realistic option-especially if the mission was to be accomplished anywhere close to President Kennedy's timetable. The development of a rocket that mammoth would just take too long, and the expense would be enormous. Source Direct Ascent was ruled out as a method of getting to moon early in the Apollo programme. It would simply have been too expensive, and would have taken too long a time to develop such a rocket, if indeed it was feasible. Other options were considered, Earth Orbit Rendezvous, Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, and Lunar Surface Rendezvous. Each mode has benefits and drawbacks. During the early Apollo programme, Von Braun espoused Earth Orbit Rendezvous, but even he ceded that Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was the best option for achieving the stated goal before the decade was out, also with an acceptable performance margin. Source Now, look at the wording in the quote attributed to Von Braun. "It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility." It sounds to me as if, in 1953, Von Braun is saying that this launch mode would be economically impossible. He isn't saying it would be impossible to fly to the moon: he's saying it would be uneconomical to fly directly from the earth to the moon (direct ascent mode). It's also likely that the size of rocket demanded by that particular mode in 1953 may have been different to Saturn-V, powered by F1 rockets, that the Apollo moon landing used 1969-1972. Why? Without having access to the rest of the book it's difficult to be certain, so I'll speculate based on know facts. Von Braun was involved in the development of the Redstone rocket in 1953. Its engine was a Rocketdyne North American Aviation 75-110 A-7, capable of generating 78,000 pounds of thrust at sea-level for 121 seconds (source). Compare this to the capability of the Saturn-V with 5 x F1 engines. Each F1 engine was capable of generating 1,522,000 pounds of thrust for 165 seconds. That's a total thrust of around 7,500,000 pounds of thrust, approximately 100 times the thrust of the rocket Von Braun was working on in 1953, when he wrote his book. (Source) Is it possible that Von Braun based his (then) hypothetical "direct ascent" rocket on the capabilities of the rocket he was working on at the time (Redstone)? Would that account for the large size, and the economical unfeasibility, of such a rocket designed using that technology? I can't say for certain: I'm no rocket scientist. Neither can I rule it out. It seems entirely plausible, even likely, that he based his hypothetical rocket on available technology. I hope I can track down the book so I can shed some more light.

Thanks Jim, I always appreciate a good laugh! I'll give you some clues Jim. The "fuel" referred to is for the RTG, NOT the rover. That's the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. Generated electricity for the ALSEP. The object that the author of the video (ArcAngel4Myke) is trying to fool you into believing is a "fuel can" is the TGE - Traverse Gravimeter Experiment. Here we have two horns of a dilemma! Either you accept that the old fox guarding the hen-house (nasty NASA), actually DID have such technology (how boringly plausible!); or you accept that they decided to build a fake rover with a petrol engine, and slosh some fuel into it, on set, while their antics were being shown on TV, then preserve it for posterity decades later on the good old World Wide Web. If you choose the first option (NASA told the truth and you got fooled by some random Youtuber), then you must sacrifice a small puppy to appease your new Masters, the Great God NASA. If you choose the second option, then readers of this thread will actually become more stupid. That's your dilemma. Kill the puppy, or increase people's stupidity. The choice, my fine funny friend, is yours. (If I were you, I'd go for option A. Kill the puppy. OK, you have to put up with people accusing you of shilling for NASA, but on the plus side, the health and pension benefits are literally out of this world!)

Really? Let's take a look at what you said yesterday shall we? I'm sorry Jim, but once again your own words prove you wrong. That's not what you said Jim! Neither is it factually correct. But hey, you're on a roll - why let your own words and actuals facts get in the way of a good conspiracy? For example, as posted before - the abstract from one of YOUR sources that showed many similarities between Apollo and Luna samples. 1300 microprobe analyses of glasses, pyroxenes, feldspars, oxides, olivines, troilite and metal in two 0.025 g samples of the Luna 16 return were made in order to characterize the Mare Fecunditatis regolith. Pyroxenes display a very wide compositional range, extreme fractionation, and metastable crystallization. Solid solution of Ti, Al, and Cr is appreciable and most pyroxenes plot along an Al:Ti line 2:1, similar to Apollo 11 clinopyroxenes. Orthopyroxenes are very rare. Zoning in plagioclase is varied but not extensive; compositions from An 75 to An 100 are dominant. The compositional distribution is indistinguishable from Apollo 12 and 11 low-K basaltic plagioclases. No potassic feldspars were found. Ilmenite is the dominant oxide phase, with minor ulvospinel, rare chrome spinel and spinel. The latter resemble Apollo 14 pink spinels. Olivines range from Fo 75 to Fo 11 but the majority range from Fo 60 to Fo 70 thus more iron-rich than olivines from other maria. On the basis of preferred compositions, a tentative classification of glasses has been made. Twenty-three percent of the glasses are Al-rich, Fe, Cr-poor, have Ca/Al ratios similar to many Apollo 14 glasses and are considered to have a non-mare origin. Their compositions are essentially the same as that of the high Al component at all Apollo landing sites. Glasses equivalent in composition to Fra Mauro basalts (KREEP) and to granite are extremely rare. The majority of glasses, mare-derived, are substantially higher in Fe, Ti, and Cr and lower in Ca and Al. They are divisible into a major group, Fecunditatis type A basaltic glasses, with less than 5% TiO 2 , and a smaller group, Fecunditatis type B basaltic glasses, with more than 5% TiO 2 . The type A glasses are richer in Al, and lower in Fe than glasses at the Apollo 11 or 12 sites. Type B glasses are similar to the high Fe basaltic glasses from the Apollo 11 regolith. If the type A glasses reflect the characteristic basalts at the Mare Fecunditatis site, then these are intermediate in major element chemistry between Apollo 11 and 12 basalts and the aluminous non-mare basaltic rocks. It's been nice knowing you Jim. Now, jump on to your petrol-filled rover and off you scoot! (PLEASE tell me that one was a joke!)

Thanks Jim, I always appreciate a good laugh!

The bizarre thing is, I expected a lot more from Jim. I didn't really know much about him previously, other than he's a scholar, well educated, and clearly an intelligent man. I actually thought that he might be approaching this with a view to analysing how people respond to poorly researched, parroted arguments, drenched in a sea of rhetoric and mangled logic. One such example. (Paraphrasing) The Russian samples came from the moon. They exhibit differences to Apollo samples. Therefore, the Apollo samples are fake. He makes two assumptions here to "prove" his case. Firstly, that the Russian samples definitely came from the moon. What proof does he have of this? Secondly, he is inferring that some differences in the samples proves that they can't both have come from the same planet/moon. Does this apply to Earth samples? Do all Earth rock and soil samples exhibit exactly the same properties and chemical composition? Let's narrow this down to Russian samples, which he agrees are from the Moon (at least we agree on that much!) Here's just one example relating to a Luna-20 sample. Major element compositions of Luna 20 glass particles Abstract Major element analyses of nineteen Luna 20 glass particles indicate that most of the Luna 20 glasses have Al2O3 contents greater than 21 wt.% and compositions similar to Apollo 10 and Luna 20 rocks and soils. Three of the glass particles have low Al2O3 (< 13 wt.%) and high FeO (> 18 wt.%) contents and were probably derived from one of the adjacent maria. The low glass content of the Luna 20 soil indicates that it is relatively young or less mature than most mare soils that have been studied. What's this? Three glass particles from the very same Luna-20 sample are low in Aluminium Oxide, and high in Iron Oxide, compared to other glass particles in the very same sample! Jim would have people believe that differences in composition between Luna and Apollo samples prove that the Apollo samples are fake, yet individual particles from the SAME Luna-20 samples show a large variation in their composition. How then, can he use the argument that a difference in composition proves the Apollo samples are fake? It's a completely specious argument, that will fool no-one who actually investigates the claim in detail.

Ah well. I guess the questions got a little too tough. You're right about one thing: it's certainly been surreal!