Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by bansheegirl


Care to weigh in on the July 21 NLSI agenda?
lunarscience2011.arc.nasa.gov...

This is cutting edge of LRO science.

Nearly all of these seminars have videos but there are few which do not have accompanying videos... and there are some tantalizing insights to the lunar science community in the Q&A sections

Harlan Spence, Latest Results from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) Science Investigation
(the principal investigator nearly gets heckled in his Q&A.. are his published results off by an order of magnitude? you decide! )

Barbara Cohen, NASA’s Robotic Lunar Lander Development Project: An Update
(she's showing us pictures of how they are building a new lunar lander for doing science... but I thought we had conquered this technical challenge over 40 years ago )

Barbara Cohen, Recent Improvements to Selenochronology by Samples and Missions
(after her official presentation is over the Q&A section is where we discover that there is an implicit understanding amongst the attendees that THERE ARE SERIOUS ISSUES CONCERNING THE PROVENANCE OF APOLLO MOON ROCK SAMPLES)

See my post here www.abovetopsecret.com...
where I transcribed (to the best of my ability) Barbara Cohen's Q&A

Barbara Cohen at NASA Lunar Science Institute conference July 2011.

we take all our sub-systems they all have specific risk reductions tasks ... in lander stability and motion thrusters... and then in parallel we have these lander test beds or prototypes... they're not flightlike ... they are platforms... cancel out earth gravity, get you into the lunar gravity environment, give you some time to particularly test the descent phase the last minute of descent... which is kind of the thing we have the least experience with.

NASA landed 6 Apollo landers on the moon under Richard Nixon's administration 1969-1972. NASA is now trying to build a lunar lander from scratch

40 years later.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the united states loaned moon rock samples to dozens of countries and they have been examined in thousands of labs independent of NASA or the USA.

Is anyone here seriously suggesting they are fake, and the only person to figure it out is an innerweb poster 40 years later ?

the innerwebs make me lol

Im glad you brought it up, because I wanted to bring up the following challenge:

Which institutions or individuals have claimed to have actually studied the moon rocks and soils while not under the pretense that NASA retrieved their samples from a manned moon landing?

FoosM, NASA knows little to n o t h i n g about the space radiation environment outside low earth orbit. That's why in 2009 NASA nearly approved this study for the irradiation of more monkeys .. recent headlines

NASA TO START IRRADIATING MONKEYS

By Irene Klotz Discover News
Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:05 AM ET
Spider monkeys will be exposed to regular, low dose radiation as NASA invesgitates the effects of long term space travel.

PCRM | NASA's Monkey Radiation Experiments Violate Federal Law

www.pcrm.org/.../nasas-monkey-radiation-experiments-violate-fede... - CachedFederal inspectors charged with enforcing the Animal Welfare Act will investigate unlawful treatment of squirrel monkeys being used in NASA-funded radiation ...

PETA Protests NASA Monkey Radiation Experiment

by Andrea Thompson, Senior WriterDate: 19 November 2009 Time: 04:27 PM ET
NASA spokesman Morrie Goodman said that NASA considers the research necessary to their mission and their responsibility to ensure the health of their astronauts. For possible future long-term missions, "space radiation is one of our most important problems," he told SPACE.com.

Local NASA engineer resigns over monkey experiments - Houston ...

www.chron.com/.../Local-NASA-engineer-resigns-over-monkey-17... - CachedJul 29, 2010 – This isn't rocket science. April Evans' dream - working for NASA - came true, but she couldn't condone its radiation experiments on monkeys ...

NASA's Monkey Radiation Experiment Faces Unclear Future

by Wynne ParryDate: 19 October 2010 Time: 06:27 PM ET
www.space.com/9361-nasa-monkey-radiation-experiment-faces-unc... - CachedOct 19, 2010 – PETA has obtained heavily redacted documents discussing plans to expose monkeys to radiation to study its potential effects on astronauts.

NASA monkey radiation experiment halted

Carolyn Y. Johnson December 13, 2010 04:44 PM
www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2010/.../nasa_monkey_rad.html - CachedDec 13, 2010 – By Carolyn Y. Johnson, Globe Staff A controversial experiment proposed by a McLean Hospital researcher to measure the effects of radiation ...

Department of Energy Blocks NASA's Planned Monkey Radiation

pcrm.info/.../department-of-energy-blocks-nasas-planned-monkey - CachedDec 15, 2010 – NASA's plan to expose live squirrel monkeys to radiation has been canceled, according to a statement just released by Brookhaven National ...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
FoosM, NASA knows little to n o t h i n g about the space radiation environment outside low earth orbit. That's why in 2009 NASA nearly approved this study for the irradiation of more monkeys .. recent headlines

Department of Energy Blocks NASA's Planned Monkey Radiation

pcrm.info/.../department-of-energy-blocks-nasas-planned-monkey - CachedDec 15, 2010 – NASA's plan to expose live squirrel monkeys to radiation has been canceled, according to a statement just released by Brookhaven National ...

edit on 9/24/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add the bloody truth

edit on 9/24/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: colors

So I guess this means we are not going back to the moon

I believe this was actually brought up awhile ago in this thread. I cant recall how the NASA defenders defended this. Probably the comment was, "yeah but its for long term moon trips". Even so, I guess this means we wont get to do that either. Cause who wants to volunteer to be first in line? Well... who wants to be 28th in line?



Buts its crazy when you think about it. All evidence shows that NASA in the 21st century has to begin at square one when it comes to getting people past the VABs! When they have claimed they did it nine times without a loss of life 40 years ago! What a failure in science and technology.

Check this out:

Instruments onboard MARS I interplanetary probe confirmed exist- ence of a third radiation belt, Soviet news agency Tass announced. Third radiation belt had been cliscorered in 1959 by Soviet rockets which had gathered particles at 50,000-mi. altitude, Tass said, and its existence was verified when MARS I recorded stream of charged particles far beyond the second radiation belt. Number of particles in this outermost belt greatly exceeded that in first two belts, according to Tass. (AP , Wash. Post, 2/17/63)

A third more dangerous belt? OK, thats what the Soviets claimed. Did the US confirm this third belt? Or did they just bury their heads in the sand?

Report by three-man NASA advisory committee concluded that “shielding [against radiation] of the crew for Project Apollo is not possible within the time and weight limitations on the project.” The crew “will simply have to accept the relatively low probability of encountering a major solar flare during their relatively brief excursion to the moon.” Report estimated 10,000 lbs. of polyethylene shielding would be required to ‘protect men in 10-ft.- diameter spacecraft for a week. For flights to Mars or Venus, more than 20,000 lbs. of polyethylene would be required. “The accomplishment of manned flights to the vicinity of Mars and

So, JW was right, Apollo was not shielded !

And where have we heard that word before... "polyethylene"?

Oh yeah, from Square One NASA!

"To solve this complex radiation challenge, we have assembled a team of experts from multiple private, public and educational institutions," said Ed Semmes, who manages the Radiation Shielding Program at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. "Our team includes engineers, materials scientists and physicists from the Marshall Center and from Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va."

The team is examining new shielding materials that not only block and/or fragment more radiation than aluminum -- the material currently used to build most spacecraft structures -- but also are lighter than aluminum. Spacecraft designers have to be able to shape shielding materials to make various parts of the spacecraft. The material must protect the crew from radiation, and it must also deflect dangerous micrometeoroids. The shielding must be durable and long lasting -- able to stand up to the harsh space environment.

Polyethylene is a good shielding material because it has high hydrogen content, and hydrogen atoms are good at absorbing and dispersing radiation. In fact, researchers have been studying the use of polyethylene as a shielding material for some time. One of several novel material developments that the team is testing is reinforced polyethylene. Raj Kaul, a scientist in the Marshall Center's Engineering Directorate, previously has worked with this material on protective armor for helicopters.

Gee NASA, 50 years is quite a long time! And you still have the guts to call it new


history.nasa.gov...
www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by FoosM

Report by three-man NASA advisory committee concluded that “shielding [against radiation] of the crew for Project Apollo is not possible within the time and weight limitations on the project.” The crew “will simply have to accept the relatively low probability of encountering a major solar flare during their relatively brief excursion to the moon.” Report estimated 10,000 lbs. of polyethylene shielding would be required to ‘protect men in 10-ft.- diameter spacecraft for a week. For flights to Mars or Venus, more than 20,000 lbs. of polyethylene would be required. “The accomplishment of manned flights to the vicinity of Mars and

Right... trust us sez NASA.

Well Senator Anderson did not buy it. That man had some common sense!

Senator Clinton P. Anderson (D.-N.Mex.) ,Chairman of Senate Commit-tee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, addressed National Capital Sec-tion of AIAA and questioned whether hazard of intense solar radiation in the 1968-70 period might postpone Project Apollo lunar flight. He pointed out that 1968-70 is period of maximum solar activity in the 11-year solar cycle, and radiation intensity might require “very substantial shielding for the Apollo capsule.” This raised question of whether heavy shielding imposes too great a weight penalty on Apollo. Citing recent scientific recommendation that there was “relatively low probability” of Apollo crew’s encountering solar flare, he questioned whether maintaining the schedule would be worth such a gamble. (Finney, NYT, 1/16/M, 1; SBD, 1/16/a, 8 0 4 1 )

Now you wont believe the scientific response from NASA.

George M. Low, MSC Deputy Director and NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, said in Space Business Daily interview

wait for it

that crew “aboard the Apollo spacecraft will be more than adequately shielded from solar flare radiation.” Low cited National Academy of Sciences’ opinion that solar radiation dosages to Apollo astronauts would be five to 10 times less than maximum tolerable dosage, and “the astronauts would be safe on their trip to the Moon if it is made during its presently scheduled time.” He pointed out that special solar-radiation advisory committee (see Dec. 9,1963) did not take into account the NAS information and the GSFC tables which show that solar flares during 1969-70 would not be as dangerous as heretofore thought.

What!?




I mean, who do you want to believe? What can you beleive?

At press conference, the NRL scientists said that astronauts on lunar flight would be under no more radiation danger during maximum period of solar cycle than during minimum period. Friedman explained: “All available evidence indicatesthat solar minimum is as bad as solar maximum for superflare eruption.” To date, superflares occur at random and cannot be predicted. (NAS-NRC Release; USN Background State- ment; Simons, Wash. Post, 2/5/64)

NASA scientist John M. Eggleston told space medicine conference at Brooks AFB that astronauts on lunar flight would face less danger from space radiation than was once thought. “If the Apollo spacecraft as it is now designed were exposed to the largest solar flare seen in the latest solar cycle, the astronaut would be exposed to only one tenth of the criticaldosedesignatedforspaceflight.
“An exposure to the critical dose would probably make an astronaut sick within a few days. . . . But it would not prevent him from finish- ing the mission and returning to lead a normal life.” (AP, Homton Post, 2/5/64)

Now I want you to consider something... the reason for the turn around regarding radiation is simple.
MONEY.
You went from "death belts & deadly super flares" to "oh, its nothing really". NASA didnt want their budget to be cut:

House Committee on Science and Astronautics began hearings on NASA authorization for FY 1965. NASA Administrator James E. Webb testified :

“In the tight budget situation faced by the President for Fiscal Year 1965 it was necessary to stress with him and the Bureau of the Budget that unless the full $5.3 billion authorization requested for FY 1965, and the supplemental appropriation of $141 million requested for FY 1964 are approved, the manned space flight program will encounter further delays, It will then not be possible to achieve the national goal of ex- ploring the moon with men within this decade.

Its another reason why "Failure was not an option" People's careers were on the line. Businesses were thriving off the subsidies and contracts. Keep the money spigot open.









history.nasa.gov...

MELTDOWN

Yes everyone is speculating, 'whats going on with NASA?'
Arguably the best funded space agency on this planet.
The agency with the "Right Stuff", that got "stuff" done, and brought "stuff" back.
Now their "stuff" is grounded.

Does NASA have something up their sleeves,
like some kind of mysterious technology they are not willing to reveal yet?
Have they been threatened by aliens?
These are some of the many speculations being bandied about.

But there is that elephant in the room that people are not willing to acknowledge.
NASA ain't all that, because NASA has been lying about their accomplishments.
And this is the main one:
NASA did not land men on the moon, and thats why NASA has been going around and around in circles coming up with excuses to getting anybody back there. Just waisting money on something they know they cant accomplish. But hoping, by some miracle, that after 40 years, technology would be at a point that it would have been possible.

The problem is, as long as NASA lies about the moon landing, they are holding everyone back.
Because everyone will continue to work with faulty information. Information that will be disastrous if put to use.

NASA is dependent on the USSR.
But back in the day, like Kennedy, the USSR had said that maybe a manned landing should be a cooperative effort:

Mstislav Keldysh, president of Soviet Academy of Sciences; Alexander Lebedinsky, .professor; and Alexander Vinogradov, geochemist, held 2%-hr. televised press conference in Moscow on the LUNA IX mission. KeIdysh said U.S.S.R. had mastered the soft-landing technique and was planning more soft-landing missions in 1966 to obtain information on physical conditions on the moon, composition of lunar rock, and variations in lunar temperature. He said the next major challenge would be designing a spacecraft capable of returning men to earth from the moon and called for US. “cooperation not competition” in a program for manned lunar landing. LUNA IX’S mission was “only to photograph the surface of the moon and measure cosmic radiation,”

Lebedinsky said LUNA IX had measured rate of radiation in outer space at 30 millirads a day and that the spacecraft had detected additional radiation on lunar surface apparently produced by nuclear reactions from cosmic rays hitting moon's upper layers-but he did not disclose amount. Vinogradov reported that lunar surface was hard, porous, volcanic cracked rock, but acknowledged that other areas might be different. Keldysh announced that VENUS XI and VENUS 111 spacecraft, launched Nov. 12 and Nov. 16, 1965, respectively, were scheduled to approach Venus March 1. (Wmh. Post, 2/11/66; Balt. Sun, 2/11/66; Sullivan, NYT, 2/11/66, 17)

Yep, that old show stopper, radiation.
No wonder cold war enemies were asking for each other's help!

April 9: LUNA x had detected electrons with energies higher than cosmic radiation, Tass reported: “Data have been obtained which may be interpreted as evidence of the existence in the near-lunar space of fluxes of electrons with energies of tens of thousands of electron volts. These fluxes are 70 to 100 times more intense than the cosmic ray background. Possibly, this phenomenon is due to the earth’s magnetic ‘tail.’ Later measurements will permit more positive conclusions on the radiation conditions near the moon.” In addition, preliminary data analysis showed that intensity of the moon’s magnetic field was “somewhat above the level of magnetic fields in free interplanetary space” and that meteorite “particle density” near the moon was higher than in “inter-planetary space.”

In response

UPI reported that US. scientists, including Dr. James A. Van Allen, State Univ. of Iowa, believed radiation observed by LUNA x was either the earth’s comet tail or a similar feature produced by the moon itself. Reported level of radiation would be no threat to manned operations near the moon, they said. (Tass, 4/9/66; UPI, NYT, 4/10/66, 79; AP, Wash. Sun. Star, 4/10/66, A6)

NASA Manned Spacecraft Center analysis showed that radiation shielding offered by the Apollo Lunar Excursion Module (Lem) was negligible:

a particle flux producing a 1-rem dose in the Apollo command module would produce a 17-rem dose in the Lem. The Apollo space radiation warning system would provide advance indication of need for astro- nauts to return from the Lem to the command-service modules. (M&R, 3/22/65, 23)

Thats right.




history.nasa.gov...

Now we know why the Apollo telemetry tapes (700~ boxes) had to be lost forever/destroyed.

Combine this with the fact that Lunar Modules could be configured for autonomous landings...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

NASA could conceivably have landed ALL of the Apollo LM by remote control... NASA owns all the LRO source data...so the recent "pictures" presented from LRO would reveal these remote controlled landers in situ.

Then NASA works closely with Hollywood (Industrial Light & Magic or Lowry Digital) to digitally reconstruct fuzzy images of the Apollo landing sites using existing reference material (the films, photos and television archives)....

... adding the astronaut footpaths ...
... dropping little white dots for the ALSEPs ....
... drawing the LRV tracks to and fro ....

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

NASA could conceivably have landed ALL of the Apollo LM by remote control... NASA owns all the LRO source data...so the recent "pictures" presented from LRO would reveal these remote controlled landers in situ.

One minute you say they can't design a LM to land even with todays technology and next you are saying they did it on auto back in Apollo days??

Which is it.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the united states loaned moon rock samples to dozens of countries and they have been examined in thousands of labs independent of NASA or the USA.

Is anyone here seriously suggesting they are fake, and the only person to figure it out is an innerweb poster 40 years later ?

the innerwebs make me lol

Im glad you brought it up, because I wanted to bring up the following challenge:

Which institutions or individuals have claimed to have actually studied the moon rocks and soils while not under the pretense that NASA retrieved their samples from a manned moon landing?

irrelevant

which ones have come forward with tangible physical evidence the samples are not from the moon ?

that is relevant

Let's play a game called landing on the moon. It will cost a looooooooooooooooooooooot of money.

reply to post by syrinx high priest

irrelevant
which ones have come forward with tangible physical evidence the samples are not from the moon ?
that is relevant

How would they know when the only information they have on moon rock formation comes from NASA.

Bit of a dilemma huh...

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the united states loaned moon rock samples to dozens of countries and they have been examined in thousands of labs independent of NASA or the USA.

Is anyone here seriously suggesting they are fake, and the only person to figure it out is an innerweb poster 40 years later ?

the innerwebs make me lol

Im glad you brought it up, because I wanted to bring up the following challenge:

Which institutions or individuals have claimed to have actually studied the moon rocks and soils while not under the pretense that NASA retrieved their samples from a manned moon landing?

irrelevant

Of course its relevant.
Its the basis for validating science and discoveries!

If you cant provide one institution or person that took lunar samples on the premise to see if they were valid or not, then you cant claim the lunar samples were validated. All you can claim is that they were studied by sheeple scientists.

Originally posted by backinblack
One minute you say they can't design a LM to land even with todays technology and next you are saying they did it on auto back in Apollo days??

Which is it.

NASA made their claims between 1969-1972. According to these claims NASA has mastered every technique of space navigation and bragged far and wide how US technology made it happen. Based on the evidence available we can also say that the Russians had mastered these techniques, eg, Lunokhod, by the early 1970's.

Fast forward to 2011... NASA and other countries today are now actively engaged in the study of (what 50 years later should be an elementary task) -- landing a small science project on the moon.

Why has NASA suddenly gained new interest in landing on the moon? Because foreign countries now pose a grave threat to the NASA Apollo Mythology?

A NEW RACE TO THE MOON

Here are some what if's:
What if NASA was able to accomplish the remote controlled Apollo lunar landings 1969-1972 but all of the "man on the moon" stuff was a Hollywood hoax?

What if NASA perpetrated this hoax for 40+ years but now there is a serious chance that other countries might stumble upon evidence that contradicts or refutes NASA's "man on the moon" mythology?

What if DoD has a swarm of moon satellites equipped with lazer weapons that could protect and defend the "Apollo Heritage Sites" from foreign or commercial inspection?

What if the "Keepout Zones" were made public to scare off any projects that could potentially refute NASA's 50year old claims?

Any of these what if's could reasonably justify NASA's new RACE TO THE MOON

SJ and FoosM are using their patented spamming tactic, I see. Lovely.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by 000063

Do you think the astronauts liars, or trustworthy?

Feel free to ignore it, of course. It just makes it more and more transparent that you're intellectually dishonest.

edit on 2011/9/22 by 000063 because: +

I'll follow Phage's prime example by providing this non answer.

I have to say, you succeeded admirably at not-answering.

Originally posted by FoosM
Wow... talk about quote mining.
You completely focused on defending yourself on a "black" issue without relating it to Apollo.

You mean the issue you bought up, that I have called irrelevant, and you continue to bring up?

[sarcasm]
Yes, it's clear I'm the one trying to divert from the issue.
[/sarcasm]

What are you trying to defend? I dont care if you are a bigot or not, Im debating Apollo on this thread. You asked me a question and I gave you an answer. You didnt acknowledge that the media used old people and blacks as a negative association for anyone who didn't believe in the moon hoax. Thats the important point. Either you agree with this or you dont.

Um, I don't think the article mentioned whether the lady in question was black. Not that it's relevant, because old people and black people and green people and purple people can be just as wrong as anyone else. I'm not responding to any posts on the matter anymore, FoosM.

Originally posted by FoosM
SJ is discussing meat in the context of Apollo.
Just like SJ was discussing animal torture in the context of Apollo.
Whats your problem with that?

And DJ was discussing animal torture in the context of Apollo, yet you called him out.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Your time would be better spent watching Jarrah White's latest Moon Rock video series.

You must have an absurdly high DEX score; you're excellent at dodging.

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Actually, the HBs tend to handwave some poor answer and change the subject as fast as possible.

reply to post by backinblack


He's saying that NASA could've landed the landers remotely.

Which is odd, because there is over a second's tape-delay from Earth. Three seconds or so round-trip. To put this in perspective, NASA did some experiments with a remote control plane in the 80s. It crashed. Imagine trying to drive a car at a precise speed and angle over a spot on the road, with a three-second lag. Flying a plane is harder than that. The lander would be, literally, rocket science.

Yeah.

reply to post by backinblack


USSR bought back moon rocks by probe. Much, much, less than NASA's mind you.

Also, the moon rocks have several features that simply cannot be found or simulated on Earth. Full stop.

reply to post by 000063

He's saying that NASA could've landed the landers remotely.
Which is odd, because there is over a second's tape-delay from Earth. Three seconds or so round-trip. To put this in perspective, NASA did some experiments with a remote control plane in the 80s. It crashed. Imagine trying to drive a car at a precise speed and angle over a spot on the road, with a three-second lag. Flying a plane is harder than that. The lander would be, literally, rocket science.
Yeah.
reply to post by backinblack

USSR bought back moon rocks by probe. Much, much, less than NASA's mind you.
Also, the moon rocks have several features that simply cannot be found or simulated on Earth. Full stop.

Are you on drugs??
Firstly you argue that NASA could not have auto landed on the moon due to the time lag and then you go on to tell us how the USSR did EXACTLY that to bring back moon rocks..

Which is it mate??
Can it be done automatically or not.

BTW, have any scientists examined both the USSR and US samples for a comparison.??

Also, what's so special in moon rocks that can't be found on earth??

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the united states loaned moon rock samples to dozens of countries and they have been examined in thousands of labs independent of NASA or the USA.

Is anyone here seriously suggesting they are fake, and the only person to figure it out is an innerweb poster 40 years later ?

the innerwebs make me lol

Im glad you brought it up, because I wanted to bring up the following challenge:

Which institutions or individuals have claimed to have actually studied the moon rocks and soils while not under the pretense that NASA retrieved their samples from a manned moon landing?

irrelevant

Of course its relevant.
Its the basis for validating science and discoveries!

If you cant provide one institution or person that took lunar samples on the premise to see if they were valid or not, then you cant claim the lunar samples were validated. All you can claim is that they were studied by sheeple scientists.

edit on 24-9-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

what premise do you think they were examined under ? I'd really like to know

you know big muley is the proof the apollo missions were real, you just like arguing on the innerwebs

oh, and emoticons are usually the sign of a poster running out of ideas

Originally posted by 000063
SJ and FoosM are using their patented spamming tactic, I see. Lovely.

Wrong. We are providing the hard facts which you ultimately ignored.

FoosM is posting some extraordinary material dated from the 1960's which casts strong doubt upon NASA's claims about space radiation measurements and radiation shielding methods. FoosM is also posting quotes from the Soviet Academy of Sciences and other Russian science sources which illustrated that Russia had mastered soft landing techniques and the Russian scientists stunning statements about cosmic radiation levels which are inconsistent with NASA's claims, namely, the existence of a 3rd Earth Radiation Belt that was thought to be even more extreme than the first two!

My recent posts are highlighting fresh material from the NLSI conference July 2011 which casts doubt on the provenance of moon rocks, NASA's enduring failure to land anything on the moon (even a small science payload) since 1972 and the fact there is a new RACE TO THE MOON going on.

What we are discussing are these *exceptional claims* and contradictory conclusions of science which don't fit neatly within the Apollo Propaganda Project. That's why you are wrong.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Gulags!!!! Concentration camps!!! Imperialist running dogs!!! All this is fresh information... from 1963.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, may I interrupt this "spamfest" to ask you a simple question: which do you you dread more? Me countering your latest barrage of nonsense, or me demolishing Jarrah's ridiculous "Moon Rocks Revisited" series? Your call.