Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: turbonium1


The experts must know that Apollo was a fake, but none would ever dare to come forth and say it in public .

False. The experts know that they went to the moon. The experts are the people writing the text books and the scientific papers. Find an expert who says they didn't.

Not that I can prove it, but I'm sure it is known as fake to the experts...

You can't prove it because there is nothing to prove. You can't prove it because you lack the expertise in the subject. If you had expertise in the subject you would agree that Apollo happened as described in the history books.

Apollo is sending humans to the moon, and back, safely. We have all the radiation data, the immediate and long-term effects on humans to that radiation.

Yep.

They research how to protect humans against that radiation, years later, and Apollo's data is totally ignored.

Nope.

Instead, they use data from LEO, and extrapolate it for an estimate of the radiation beyond LEO.

Nope. There is a wealth of data from beyond LEO, including the Apollo data, but also including Soviet probes, pre-Apollo probes and probes from many other countries since Apollo. Your lack of ability to find any of it that supports your argument is where you fail.

That's the reason they refer to 'long-term' missions, because short-term missions have to bring up the Apollo data, which is not genuine, so it can't be discussed at all. It's not.

No. Circular logic. They refer to long term missions because getting to Mars takes, you know, a long time. Permanent or long term settlement on the moon involves 'a long time'. No-one is interested in the kind of hit and run missions of the Apollo type any more. Had NASA's budget not been cut, they would be doing long term missions there now.

They have to talk about long-term missions, in future, to avoid the fact we have not yet done any short-term missions, as Apollo was 'doing' so magically with 40-year-old technologies

No. Wrong. False.

Still waiting for your evidence.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Please show us your so-called 'evidence', if it really exists!

Buy your own copy

www.sternberg-press.com...

Watch videos.

How was it "misunderstood"?

You're about to answer your own question...

The Dutch museum did not think it was simply an 'art' piece, on exhibit .....don't be ridiculous.

That's how it was misunderstood.. you go on to confirm it below..

Why did the Dutch museum put it on display, and insure it as a precious valuable? Any idea?

Because they believed the conceptual artists who used it as a centrepiece for an art exhition. Which bit of this is difficult for you?

Why would the Dutch museum be so stunned by the eventual discovery of their 'art' being just a chunk of petrified wood? What did they think it was, all along, to be capable of a stunning discovery?

Because some conceptual artists put a label on it. Art historians are not the best people to judge science.

Petrified wood was given to Drees, under the false belief that it was a genuine 'moon rock'.

You have no proof of that. No-one has.

Stating 'genuine moon rock' on a plaque is not required to prove it was a deliberate fraud. There would be no basis to have thought it was anything other than a genuine moon rock. Nothing else would make any sense, and you know it..

What I know is that this was never given as a moon rock, never claimed to be one by anyone other than two artists who stuck a business card on it. Prove otherwirse. Don't presume to tell me what I know or think.

They faked a moon rock, and caught them dead to rights. Not any excuse for it. So deal with the reality...

BS.

The only people who faked a moon rock were the artists making an art exhibit out of it.

No moon rock was given out during the Apollo 11 tour. No-one even remotely related to that tour ever gave this rock out, or claimed it was a moon rock. Prove otherwise.

originally posted by: Ove38
You really don't get it to you ? Scientists were given stones back in 1969-72, and told they are from the moon. When scientists later found similar stones on earth, they thought the stones found on earth came from the moon. Or even worse, came from Apollo landing sites, on the moon.

You don't get it do you?

Scientists were given stones to look at and analyse - stones that were photographed on the moon and shown on live TV. Photos and TV that show details not available before the mission.

Analysis of those stones by people who actually know what they're talking about (as opposed to you) were published and made available. That is how people who find lunar meteorites know they are from the moon.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: Ove38
You really don't get it to you ? Scientists were given stones back in 1969-72, and told they are from the moon. When scientists later found similar stones on earth, they thought the stones found on earth came from the moon. Or even worse, came from Apollo landing sites, on the moon.

You don't get it do you?

Scientists were given stones to look at and analyse - stones that were photographed on the moon and shown on live TV. Photos and TV that show details not available before the mission.

Analysis of those stones by people who actually know what they're talking about (as opposed to you) were published and made available. That is how people who find lunar meteorites know they are from the moon.

Ok, OneBigMonkeyToo

Do you believe that the stone found "near Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain" in Northwest Africa "originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" on the moon ?

new.meteoris.de...

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: Ove38

Are you saying that the Russian sample return missions were fake, too, and that dust is really not from the moon as the Russian's claim?

I have no idea, why ?

a reply to: Ove38

Do you believe that the stone found "near Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain" in Northwest Africa "originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" on the moon ?

Why not provide the full quote?

Preliminary studies show that NWA 6221 is another stone of that fascinating pairing grouplet which is compositionally similar to Apollo 16 soil. It may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ove38

Do you believe that the stone found "near Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain" in Northwest Africa "originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" on the moon ?

Why not provide the full quote?

Preliminary studies show that NWA 6221 is another stone of that fascinating pairing grouplet which is compositionally similar to Apollo 16 soil. It may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site.

Because if they/he/she included the full quote it wouldn't fit to their story.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ove38

Do you believe that the stone found "near Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain" in Northwest Africa "originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" on the moon ?

Why not provide the full quote?

Preliminary studies show that NWA 6221 is another stone of that fascinating pairing grouplet which is compositionally similar to Apollo 16 soil. It may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site.

Ok, do you believe that the stone "may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" ?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: Ove38

Are you saying that the Russian sample return missions were fake, too, and that dust is really not from the moon as the Russian's claim?

I have no idea, why ?

Ooooooh.

So the moon is just one big kitty litter planet?

Now THAT makes sense.

a reply to: Ove38

Given that its mineralogical and petrological make up bears a strong similarity to samples collected by Apollo 16 astronauts it is one possible conclusion.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ove38

Do you believe that the stone found "near Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain" in Northwest Africa "originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" on the moon ?

Why not provide the full quote?

Preliminary studies show that NWA 6221 is another stone of that fascinating pairing grouplet which is compositionally similar to Apollo 16 soil. It may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site.

Ok, do you believe that the stone "may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" ?

I don't see why it couldn't be. Nor do I have much reason to doubt the analysis.

A little light reading for Ove

adsabs.harvard.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ove38

Do you believe that the stone found "near Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain" in Northwest Africa "originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" on the moon ?

Why not provide the full quote?

Preliminary studies show that NWA 6221 is another stone of that fascinating pairing grouplet which is compositionally similar to Apollo 16 soil. It may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site.

Ok, do you believe that the stone "may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" ?

I don't see why it couldn't be. Nor do I have much reason to doubt the analysis.

I think the probability for that is 0. The reason why the Apollo 16 stone is similar, is that it to originated from Northwest Africa

a reply to: Ove38

The reason why the Apollo 16 stone is similar, is that it to originated from Northwest Africa

Ah.
What explains the meteoric characteristics? Or is your point that an impact in northwest Africa threw ejecta into space and it re-entered in the same region from which it originated?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ove38

Do you believe that the stone found "near Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain" in Northwest Africa "originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" on the moon ?

Why not provide the full quote?

Preliminary studies show that NWA 6221 is another stone of that fascinating pairing grouplet which is compositionally similar to Apollo 16 soil. It may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site.

Ok, do you believe that the stone "may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" ?

I don't see why it couldn't be. Nor do I have much reason to doubt the analysis.

I think the probability for that is 0. The reason why the Apollo 16 stone is similar, is that it to originated from Northwest Africa

Can you prove that it didn't come from the moon or is this internet speculation?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

Given that its mineralogical and petrological make up bears a strong similarity to samples collected by Apollo 16 astronauts it is one possible conclusion.

No its a very bad explanation for the two stones similarity

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

Given that its mineralogical and petrological make up bears a strong similarity to samples collected by Apollo 16 astronauts it is one possible conclusion.

No its a very bad explanation for the two stones similarity

How so?
Are most (any) rocks found in northwest Africa of similar composition?

a reply to: Ove38

Did you read the papers I linked to?

(Stupid question I know but we can live in hope)

Have another one

www.virtualmicroscope.org...

Have a video of it being collected



Have some more information:

www.open.ac.uk...

Big Muley was collected during EVA-1, live TV. A couple of hours later, still on EVA-1, Earth was broadcast on live TV, complete with identifiable cloud patterns and with a visible portion shaped exactly as it should be for the time of the broadcast.

Now, what research have you done to prove your ludicrous point?

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

Given that its mineralogical and petrological make up bears a strong similarity to samples collected by Apollo 16 astronauts it is one possible conclusion.

No its a very bad explanation for the two stones similarity

How so?
Are most (any) rocks found in northwest Africa of similar composition?

It's silly explanations like this (and you buying into them) that creates disbelief in the Apollo story. Of course the stone found in northwest Africa didn't "originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" A more believable explanation would be, that both stones originated from somewhere else, one fell on Earth the other one on the Moon.

Another Apollo 16 thing. To me the LM at 8:15 in this video looks like a small plastic model, not like the big LM in the picture below. And also some aluminium foil is missing on the plastic model.