Jump to content

We Never Went to the Moon


Duane Daman
 Share

Recommended Posts

The moon rocks are in question by some of the scientists who have asked for samples to study .

The scientists have only been privy to slivers , sand and rocks the size of sugar cubes ... and ALL of these rocks showed contamination of Earthly properties .

So far , no one has been allowed to study or even see the other alleged massive amounts of clean rocks which are suppossedly stored in nasa's sealed , locked vaults , and guarded by armed soldiers .

So once again , we only have nasa's word that these 840 pounds of pristine moon rocks even exist .

Dave .... I don't have time to check out the video you posted but I will take a look later ... If it's the lunar buggy though , it has already been proven to have been video taped in Earth's atmosphere .... and if it's the feather and hammer drop , that has already been explained how it was faked in Earth's gravity also .. and it didn't take a vacuum to do the trick .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The moon rocks are in question by some of the scientists who have asked for samples to study .

The scientists have only been privy to slivers , sand and rocks the size of sugar cubes ... and ALL of these rocks showed contamination of Earthly properties .

So far , no one has been allowed to study or even see the other alleged massive amounts of clean rocks which are suppossedly stored in nasa's sealed , locked vaults , and guarded by armed soldiers .

So once again , we only have nasa's word that these 840 pounds of pristine moon rocks even exist .

Would you like to provide a link to these scientists who dispute lunar origin? I haven't heard of anyone with the required expertise making that claim.

You are quite wrong about the size of the samples given out; one example is Sample 76055, which was collected during the Apollo 17 mission, and weighed 6412 grams.

This page gives details of what samples were collected, on what mission, what type, and if they are on display or not.

This page, in particular, gives you locations of various samples around the world that are on display.

This page tells you how you can request a sample for scientific research or public display.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article I posted here by Dr. Neville Jones is one example of a scientist only receiving a sugar cube sample of a moon rock and his unhappy opinion about it ... I read another article where it claimed the scientists only received slivers and sand in envelopes , but I haven't been able to relocate it yet .

Here is a link to another article which I posted here before but can't seem to find again after looking through the back pages ... weird .

This article explains how this scientist was appalled by the amount of earthy contamination on all of the moon rocks that he has studied ...

Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets

http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/ap...cks_010326.html

There are also several other articles suggesting that the Apollo moon rocks are no different from the moon rocks picked up in Antarctia .... In fact , they are a perfect match in every respect .

I believe I posted this article information here before under the thread 'Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets' , which now seems to have disappeared ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article I posted here by Dr. Neville Jones is one example of a scientist only receiving a sugar cube sample of a moon rock and his unhappy opinion about it ... I read another article where it claimed the scientists only received slivers and sand in envelopes , but I haven't been able to relocate it yet .

Here is a link to another article which I posted here before but can't seem to find again after looking through the back pages ... weird .

This article explains how this scientist was appalled by the amount of earthy contamination on all of the moon rocks that he has studied ...

Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets

http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/ap...cks_010326.html

There are also several other articles suggesting that the Apollo moon rocks are no different from the moon rocks picked up in Antarctia .... In fact , they are a perfect match in every respect .

I believe I posted this article information here before under the thread 'Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets' , which now seems to have disappeared ....

Actually the article you posted here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9167

By Neville Jones says nothing about the lunar rocks other than to say he has nothing to say about them. Now unless you have posted a DIFFERENT article by Neville Jones, (and I am more than happy to be proven wrong) then this is simply another case of Duane Daman mis quoting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My knowledge on this topic is far from informed so I just thought that I would throw in an Irish connection to the moon landings. Richard Nixon sent pieces of moon rock to many nations of the world. Ireland's is housed at Dunsink observatory, not too far from my home.

I have been to the observatory, but have not seen the rock, which is a shame, given its proximity.

Just to cool the conversation a bit!

http://www.dias.ie

DunsinkObservatory.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was a direct quote .... So "quite alarming" and "apalling" are pretty close in their meaning ... especially in the context of nasa's DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS . ;) .

Was it Neville's brother Nathan who received the sugar cube sized Apollo 'moon' rock perhaps ? ... Or did he say bubble gum size ? :unsure: .... I just never can get these important quotes quite right . :rolleyes:

Ya know , I'm beginning to get the feeling that you don't really like me .... and that just breaks my heart . :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was a direct quote .... So "quite alarming" and "apalling" are pretty close in their meaning ... especially in the context of nasa's DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS . ;) .

Was it Neville's brother Nathan who received the sugar cube sized Apollo 'moon' rock perhaps ? ... Or did he say bubble gum size ? :unsure: .... I just never can get these important quotes quite right . :rolleyes:

Ya know , I'm beginning to get the feeling that you don't really like me .... and that just breaks my heart . :(

You are wrong again..in the context of the entire article the phrase "appalling" is not even close.

Its pretty simple to see you cannot be trusted to paraphrase nor quote with any accuracy.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it Neville's brother Nathan who received the sugar cube sized Apollo 'moon' rock perhaps ? ... Or did he say bubble gum size ? :unsure: .... I just never can get these important quotes quite right . :rolleyes:

Once again a claim made by DUANE DAMAN that is simply untrue. If you actually took the time to READ what NATHAN (whoever that is) Jones wrote you will see he actually recieved NOTHING...not a sugar cube sized moon rock, not a bubble gum sized piece of moon rock...not any moon rock at all.

So both your statement above and this one from a post upthread are devoid of truth and fact....your words are simply not trustworthy.

The article I posted here by Dr. Neville Jones is one example of a scientist only receiving a sugar cube sample of a moon rock and his unhappy opinion about it ...
Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's pretty simple to see that no matter what I post here you are going to go out of your way to find fault with it .

I bet you're really ticked off now that you aren't allowed to call me an "ignorant ignoramous " anymore .

But look at this on the bright side .... Now that you can no longer insult me with the same old redundant words , maybe you will finally be able to stretch your vocabulary a bit ... Or better yet , post something relevant to the discussion for a change , that isn't an insult in disguise ...

* ah , edited your post I see ... but it's just as insulting as the first one ... Actually worse .

So who was it that received that contaminated sugar cubed size 'moon' rock then ? ... I could have sworn it was one of the Jones'.

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's pretty simple to see that no matter what I post here you are going to go out of your way to find fault with it .

I bet you're really ticked off now that you aren't allowed to call me an "ignorant ignoramous " anymore .

But look at this on the bright side .... Now that you can no longer insult me with the same old redundant words , maybe you will finally be able to stretch your vocabulary a bit ... Or better yet , post something relevant to the discussion for a change , that isn't an insult in disguise ...

When you post things that are incorrect and untrue expect to be called on it. Thats the way debate works.

And btw, your ignorance in the subject of photography is self admitted. Why not post a fact that you yourself have stipulated?

If you want relevant postings how about you deal with my trashing of Neville Jones photographic knowlege in the threads, Debunking Duane parts one and two. Do you have the knowlege to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* ah , edited your post I see ... but it's just as insulting as the first one ... Actually worse .

So who was it that received that contaminated sugar cubed size 'moon' rock then ? ... I could have sworn it was one of the Jones'.

Well Duane YOU posted the FAQ and YOU stated YOU stood by it. How can that be if, as it appears, you have not read it or if you have you did not understand what you read?

Why not READ IT AGAIN and YOU correct your posting errors.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correcting my posting errors ...

It was not Dr. Neville Jones who received the sugar cube size moon rock to study , it was the curator at JSC ... and Dr. Jones discussed this in his Apollo FAQ article.

"The curator at JSC claims that sample sizes are of the order of a few tens of milligrams. That's sugar lump size. There's no need to manufacture "hundred pound lots at once or in single pieces. I'd think the manufacture of small sample sizes is easier and faster than large ones. "All I did to get the Moon rock specimens (on loan) was write in and sign an agreement to keep the materials secure when not in use. NASA had no control over any non-destructive tests I might do when I had the specimens. I could have, for example, zapped the rock with X-rays to get its chemical composition. So the faked specimens would have to stand up to any kind of scrutiny that researchers might give them". Researchers had to supply a protocol to the curator at JSC that described exactly their intentions. If anything "funny" happened or showed in undisclosed testing then they broke protocol. "Whoever came up with the faked specimens would have to have devised a story of Lunar evolution to fit the samples"."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correcting my posting errors ...

It was not Dr. Neville Jones who received the sugar cube size moon rock to study , it was the curator at JSC ... and Dr. Jones discussed this in his Apollo FAQ article.

"The curator at JSC claims that sample sizes are of the order of a few tens of milligrams. That's sugar lump size. There's no need to manufacture "hundred pound lots at once or in single pieces. I'd think the manufacture of small sample sizes is easier and faster than large ones. "All I did to get the Moon rock specimens (on loan) was write in and sign an agreement to keep the materials secure when not in use. NASA had no control over any non-destructive tests I might do when I had the specimens. I could have, for example, zapped the rock with X-rays to get its chemical composition. So the faked specimens would have to stand up to any kind of scrutiny that researchers might give them". Researchers had to supply a protocol to the curator at JSC that described exactly their intentions. If anything "funny" happened or showed in undisclosed testing then they broke protocol. "Whoever came up with the faked specimens would have to have devised a story of Lunar evolution to fit the samples"."

Thanks so much for your effort Duane, but you simply failed once again. First lets fix this part. There is NO INDICATION that author of the FAQ you posted was a PhD. In fact we don't have a clue who really wrote the dang thing.

Next lets look at the part of the FAQ you just quoted here and see if it says what you say it does, and that is: "It was not Dr. Neville Jones who received the sugar cube size moon rock to study , it was the curator at JSC ... and Dr. Jones discussed this in his Apollo FAQ article"

First off the passage you quote says nothing about the curator "receiving" anything. In fact if you check you will find that its the curator that SENDS OUT THE SAMPLES. SO you are wrong again.

Next your Mr. Jones mixed in a quote from the link referenced at the top of section 27 to give the apperance that he was doing the testing, or who knows what because his use of this quote in this manner is very misleading. The author of the quote that is used in a very misleading fashion , Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay, believes the samples are genuine!

Here is the portion of the article he wrote, that deals with the Lunar samples:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm

The Rocks

Below is a photo of a terrestrial rock called olivine gabbro. The bland, mostly featureless areas are made mostly of plagioclase feldspar, a calcium-aluminum silicate. The fractured grains that appear to stand out in relief are olivine, a magnesium-iron silicate. The greenish material along the cracks and the brownish material on the edges of the olivine are water-bearing minerals derived from the alteration of the olivine. The feldspar looks slightly dusty, peppered with tiny inclusions, also the result of alteration.

Below is a very similar lunar rock - at least that's what NASA claimed it was. I personally took both of these pictures. The clear areas are plagioclase feldspar and the very light yellow areas are olivine. The dark brown material is a titanium silicate mineral called titanite.

What leaps out in comparing the two pictures is the complete absence of water-bearing minerals, and the total absence of alteration in the lunar rock. Water is ubiquitous on earth - it's present in magma, rocks deep in the crust are changed by hot fluids, and rocks near the surface are altered by surface water. Olivine in particular is easily altered. In the second picture, the olivine is fractured but the fractures are absolutely clean. You simply do not see unaltered olivine on earth.

This could not have been faked. These rocks have grains easily visible to the unaided eye, which means they cooled slowly. To have made these materials synthetically would have required keeping the rocks at 1100 C for years, cooling them slowly at thousands of pounds per square inch pressure. It would have taken years to create the apparatus, years more to get the hang of making the materials, and then years more to create the final result. Starting from Sputnik I in 1957, there would not have been enough time to do it. And, you'd have to synthesize several different types of rock in hundred-pound lots.

And, the results would have to be convincing. All I did to get the moon rock specimens (on loan) was write in and sign an agreement to keep the materials secure when not in use. NASA had no control over any non-destructive tests I might do when I had the specimens. I could have, for example, zapped the rock with X-rays to get its chemical composition. So the faked specimens would have to stand up to any kind of scrutiny that researchers might give them. Whoever came up with the faked specimens would have to have devised a story of lunar evolution to fit the samples. The story would have to have checked out in every detail, for example rare-earth element abundances and evidence of meteor impact. Why create absolutely water-free rocks? Nobody was expecting that - it would have been much easier to fake rocks with water in them (for one thing, you could use terrestrial rocks) and nobody would have been suspicious. And you'd have to put in exactly the right amounts of radioactive elements and daughter products to get the rocks to date radiometrically at 4 billion years old - older than any terrestrial rocks. And you'd have to anticipate the development of new dating methods not in use in 1969 and make sure those elements are present in the correct abundance. And it's not like adding carrots to a stew, either. To mimic the results of potassium-argon dating, you'd have to add inert argon gas and trap it just in the potassium-bearing minerals, and in exact proportion to the amount of potassium.

Then the story has to stand up to scrutiny for decades, even in the face of new research methods not in existence in 1969. For example, when lunar meteorites are discovered in Antarctica, they have to match the Apollo samples.

If you believe NASA has the technical ability to pull all this off, going to the Moon is a piece of cake in comparison.

In other words, your vaunted "Dr." Nathan Jones has just taken you for a ride and you are none the wiser.

Please correct your postings...once again.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...