Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Thousands of scientists, engineers, and others work, or once worked, within various fields related to space, and the exploration of space, planets, solar systems, and so forth.

In over 40 years, not even one of them, afaik, has ever expressed the least interest or curiosity on how the lunar environment would have interacted with items (supposedly) left at the 'amazing' Apollo landing sites.

It has untold scientific value, nothing compares to it. Unique, untouched, in a vastly unknown environment, like a time capsule of items ...

Not one of them speaks a word about it, in all those years.....


I'd say it speaks volumes about the veracity of Apollo's landing sites, and how!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
I never liked the Dutch Fake Moon Rock (DFMR) conspiracy. I think it is a weak argument for the conspiracy side. We all know that the Nixon administration gave out moon rocks encased in clear plastic lucite something like this.

How did the Dutch get a moon rock that wasn't encased in plastic?

Did NASA or other US ambassadors hand out plain moon rocks to other countries? It was my understanding that all the Nixon "gift rocks" were embedded in clear plastic spheres or hocky pucks.

I really don't think the DFMR conspiracy can prove that the moon landings were faked. The DFMR is a distraction.

I agree much better evidence exists, in proving it was hoaxed. By that, I can see why you'd think of it as a distraction, when much stronger evidence exists, left aside.


However, I think it still helps the hoax argument, and weakens the Apollo-ites case.

A fake 'Apollo moon rock' is now known to exist, as a result..

do you not see the degree that hoax believers will goto in order to try to prove their moon hoax theories??

even sayonara calls it a distraction.. yet even prominent hoax theorists will try their very best to keep it relevent ie jarrah.. everybody knows how weak of an argument the fake dutch moon rock is and yet you are still trying to parade it around.
you and jarrah are making up very far fetched excuses to shoehorn it into your theories.. just like your infinite strings on a rotating plastic bag following a ballistic path..

i wonder why when someone like sayonara calls it a distraction that you and jarrah seems to think its legit proof of the hoax..
one possible reason is that you and jarrah are purposefully trying to distract hoax believers from ever reaching the truth.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The small percentage of people who do know about it, who have researched it properly, who have put the time in to read original documents and not those on the web, who have made the effort to meet and listen to the actual participants, know that the Apollo missions happened as described in the history books.

I saw it on TV, most of the idiots who claim it was faked weren't even born when that happened.

There is no glass ceiling, it's a straw man of your own invention.

a reply to: turbonium1

You need to learn how to use google.

The Apollo sites are still researched actively by many scientists, as are the lunar samples and the data returned by the ALSEP installations.

Even the LRRR are still in use.

a reply to: turbonium1

It wasn't given by NASA, it wasn't sourced by NASA, nobody from NASA or even the person who donated it ever claimed it was a lunar rock.

originally posted by: turbonium1

To me, it makes perfect sense...

Manned LEO missions were being done, by that time.

perhaps you misread the quote wrong??

bill kaysing is saying that "all, well nearly all, prossibly all soviet missions were faked" including john glenn's venture into space..

this means that bill kaysing believes that nearly all soviet manned missions were faked, and therefore NOT being done as you said..

The next step was manned missions beyond LEO - could NOT be done (and still cannot be done, today)

bill kaysing doesnt even need to consider manned missions beyond LEO when he believes that they were having enough trouble getting INTO LEO in the first place..

We had a main goal, at that point, which was to land a man on the moon, (as we still do, today).

no its not, we want to capture an asteroid

Since the real mission was impossible, the choices were - to admit to the truth, or to fake the missions.

so you are arguing that bill kaysing believes getting man into LEO was nearly impossible since they had to fake it??

A fake mission would need to be very convincing, of course.

indeed, now if they were capable of getting man into LEO, why do they need to fake it?? the only reason to fake it is because they didnt have the capabilities to do it.. this is what bill kaysing most likely believes..

That's where a fake LEO mission would make sense, to me..

because you are willing to believe anything and make up anything to suit your belief's..

like i said, if they had the capability to get man into LEO, why do they need to fake it nearly every single time??

If they know what a real manned mission in LEO looks like, as they did, they could try and simulate it, with a fake LEO mission.

makes no sense.. why risk faking it when it can be done for real??

Not only that - they can all be 'perfect' missions, and yet so much cheaper than real missions..

And it all leads up to the main goal - faking the manned moon missions.

it wont be cheaper because they are still building real working rockets.. but instead of saving costs from filming the fake one, they have to pay for everything that follows having to fake it.. your reasoning makes zero sense..

all i see you doing is making anything up to fit your agenda.. regardless of how silly, unreasonable and difficult it is..

originally posted by: turbonium1
Thousands of scientists, engineers, and others work, or once worked, within various fields related to space, and the exploration of space, planets, solar systems, and so forth.

In over 40 years, not even one of them, afaik, has ever expressed the least interest or curiosity on how the lunar environment would have interacted with items (supposedly) left at the 'amazing' Apollo landing sites.

It has untold scientific value, nothing compares to it. Unique, untouched, in a vastly unknown environment, like a time capsule of items ...

Not one of them speaks a word about it, in all those years.....


I'd say it speaks volumes about the veracity of Apollo's landing sites, and how!

you really going to resort to this type of argument???

this is the type of argument the flat earth believers would use..

just because you chose to ignore it must mean you are correct??

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
Thousands of scientists, engineers, and others work, or once worked, within various fields related to space, and the exploration of space, planets, solar systems, and so forth.

In over 40 years, not even one of them, afaik, has ever expressed the least interest or curiosity on how the lunar environment would have interacted with items (supposedly) left at the 'amazing' Apollo landing sites.

It has untold scientific value, nothing compares to it. Unique, untouched, in a vastly unknown environment, like a time capsule of items ...

Not one of them speaks a word about it, in all those years.....


I'd say it speaks volumes about the veracity of Apollo's landing sites, and how!

you really going to resort to this type of argument???

this is the type of argument the flat earth believers would use..

just because you chose to ignore it must mean you are correct??

It's a pretty lame reworking of the lazy "Well they haven't been back in all this time so yeah, just asking questions know what I'm saying huh? Huh?" version.

3 separate probes have image the landing sites directly, and every probe up there uses Apollo sample data as a reference. Even the co-ordinate systems used are based on mapping data by Apollo.

Here are just three articles in recent years I found very quickly by using this crazy internet system:

www.currentscience.ac.in...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

phys.org...

I guess if we're going to claim that you need to return to look at equipment to see how it has changed over time then Apollo 12 must have been genuine.

originally posted by: AgentSmith
The 'fake moon rock' concerns an unofficial artifact allegedly presented to the since deceased prime minister by a US ambassador. It has no audit trail and is something that was passed to the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum by the PMs estate. Who knows where any lies started, assuming it was something presented even if it was real it was probably swapped out long ago.

However the OFFICIAL encased Apollo 11 and 17 samples are on display in the Leiden Boerhaave Museum. I can't help but wonder if we're once again witnessing hoax believer dishonesty or another demonstration of their lacking research skills..

You keep on claiming they weren't passing it off as a 'genuine moon rock'.

The US Ambassador knew nothing of it NOT being genuine - or 'that it's not real'.

In fact, he called it a little "stone". It is not a stone, it is wood. A stone is a rock, so he obviously thought it was a moon rock.

You have no evidence that shows it was not passed off as a genuine moon rock. You have no alternative explanation - nothing else would even make any sense, as you surely realize.

They've been caught passing off a fake 'moon rock', without a doubt. None of your excuses hold up.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AgentSmith
The 'fake moon rock' concerns an unofficial artifact allegedly presented to the since deceased prime minister by a US ambassador. It has no audit trail and is something that was passed to the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum by the PMs estate. Who knows where any lies started, assuming it was something presented even if it was real it was probably swapped out long ago.

However the OFFICIAL encased Apollo 11 and 17 samples are on display in the Leiden Boerhaave Museum. I can't help but wonder if we're once again witnessing hoax believer dishonesty or another demonstration of their lacking research skills..

You keep on claiming they weren't passing it off as a 'genuine moon rock'.

The US Ambassador knew nothing of it NOT being genuine - or 'that it's not real'.

How do you know?

In fact, he called it a little "stone". It is not a stone, it is wood. A stone is a rock, so he obviously thought it was a moon rock.

It's petrified wood. Look up 'petrified'.

You have no evidence that shows it was not passed off as a genuine moon rock. You have no alternative explanation - nothing else would even make any sense, as you surely realize.

Apart from the interviews with the US ambassador that says he never claimed it was a moon rock. The alternative explanation is perfectly simple a misunderstanding. You have absolutely nothing that shows it was claimed to be a lunar sample by anyone connected with it.

They've been caught passing off a fake 'moon rock', without a doubt. None of your excuses hold up.

No-one from NASA, or even the US, ever claimed it was a moon rock. Unless you can prove otherwise, which you can't.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AgentSmith
The 'fake moon rock' concerns an unofficial artifact allegedly presented to the since deceased prime minister by a US ambassador. It has no audit trail and is something that was passed to the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum by the PMs estate. Who knows where any lies started, assuming it was something presented even if it was real it was probably swapped out long ago.

However the OFFICIAL encased Apollo 11 and 17 samples are on display in the Leiden Boerhaave Museum. I can't help but wonder if we're once again witnessing hoax believer dishonesty or another demonstration of their lacking research skills..

You keep on claiming they weren't passing it off as a 'genuine moon rock'.

The US Ambassador knew nothing of it NOT being genuine - or 'that it's not real'.

In fact, he called it a little "stone". It is not a stone, it is wood. A stone is a rock, so he obviously thought it was a moon rock.

You have no evidence that shows it was not passed off as a genuine moon rock. You have no alternative explanation - nothing else would even make any sense, as you surely realize.

They've been caught passing off a fake 'moon rock', without a doubt. None of your excuses hold up.

I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding.. and who are "they"?
Do you have access to an audit trail only you are privy to?
Why are you ignoring the fact the OFFICIAL, repeat OFFICIAL Apollo 11 and 17 rocks are on display and accounted for?
Why do you keep clinging to such weak arguments?

Do you have an explanation for why USSR radio astronomers received signals from and confirmed the presence of lunar experiments distributed by the Apollo missions? I brought it up a few posts back but you and all the other hoaxies seem to be avoiding it like the plague.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
Thousands of scientists, engineers, and others work, or once worked, within various fields related to space, and the exploration of space, planets, solar systems, and so forth.

In over 40 years, not even one of them, afaik, has ever expressed the least interest or curiosity on how the lunar environment would have interacted with items (supposedly) left at the 'amazing' Apollo landing sites.

It has untold scientific value, nothing compares to it. Unique, untouched, in a vastly unknown environment, like a time capsule of items ...

Not one of them speaks a word about it, in all those years.....


I'd say it speaks volumes about the veracity of Apollo's landing sites, and how!

you really going to resort to this type of argument???

this is the type of argument the flat earth believers would use..

just because you chose to ignore it must mean you are correct??

It's a pretty lame reworking of the lazy "Well they haven't been back in all this time so yeah, just asking questions know what I'm saying huh? Huh?" version.

3 separate probes have image the landing sites directly, and every probe up there uses Apollo sample data as a reference. Even the co-ordinate systems used are based on mapping data by Apollo.

Here are just three articles in recent years I found very quickly by using this crazy internet system:

www.currentscience.ac.in...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

phys.org...

I guess if we're going to claim that you need to return to look at equipment to see how it has changed over time then Apollo 12 must have been genuine.

Have you any idea what American flags (supposedly) planted on the moon would look like now?

No idea, right?

Are you the least bit curious about it?

Why would no scientist, among many thousands , ever bring it up, in over 4 decades?


Don't talk about things that don't exist, it's a perfect example..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
Thousands of scientists, engineers, and others work, or once worked, within various fields related to space, and the exploration of space, planets, solar systems, and so forth.

In over 40 years, not even one of them, afaik, has ever expressed the least interest or curiosity on how the lunar environment would have interacted with items (supposedly) left at the 'amazing' Apollo landing sites.

It has untold scientific value, nothing compares to it. Unique, untouched, in a vastly unknown environment, like a time capsule of items ...

Not one of them speaks a word about it, in all those years.....


I'd say it speaks volumes about the veracity of Apollo's landing sites, and how!

you really going to resort to this type of argument???

this is the type of argument the flat earth believers would use..

just because you chose to ignore it must mean you are correct??

It's a pretty lame reworking of the lazy "Well they haven't been back in all this time so yeah, just asking questions know what I'm saying huh? Huh?" version.

3 separate probes have image the landing sites directly, and every probe up there uses Apollo sample data as a reference. Even the co-ordinate systems used are based on mapping data by Apollo.

Here are just three articles in recent years I found very quickly by using this crazy internet system:

www.currentscience.ac.in...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

phys.org...

I guess if we're going to claim that you need to return to look at equipment to see how it has changed over time then Apollo 12 must have been genuine.

Have you any idea what American flags (supposedly) planted on the moon would look like now?

No idea, right?

Are you the least bit curious about it?

Why would no scientist, among many thousands , ever bring it up, in over 4 decades?


Don't talk about things that don't exist, it's a perfect example..

Research just doesn't appear to be your bag baby...

Six Flags on the Moon:
What is Their Current Condition? - Sampling of various discussions over the years

In 1992, I gave a paper at the NAVA meeting in San Antonio entitled "Where No Flag Has Gone Before: Political and Technical Aspects of Placing a Flag on the Moon" [pff94a]. NASA has since published the paper as a contractor report (NASA CR-188251) [pff92b]. The NASA version of the paper includes some of the engineering drawings for the lunar flag assembly. A shortened version of this paper was published on an American space magazine called "Final Frontier," July/August 1994 issue, pages 94-95 [pff94].
Annie Platoff

www.crwflags.com...

Apollo Moon Landing Flags Still Standing, Photos Reveal

The list could go on... But I'm just trying to fathom wherever we're looking at blatant lies or just evidence of an inability to perform even rudimentary research..

originally posted by: AgentSmith

I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding.. and who are "they"?
Do you have access to an audit trail only you are privy to?
Why are you ignoring the fact the OFFICIAL, repeat OFFICIAL Apollo 11 and 17 rocks are on display and accounted for?
Why do you keep clinging to such weak arguments?

Do you have an explanation for why USSR radio astronomers received signals from and confirmed the presence of lunar experiments distributed by the Apollo missions? I brought it up a few posts back but you and all the other hoaxies seem to be avoiding it like the plague.

The US and USSR both had hoaxes, and were in cahoots.

OFFICIAL? So what? It's not relevant to this case, even when you put it in CAPS!!


The fake moon rock event was confirmed by the US Ambassador who was actually there at the time, presenting it to the ex-PM. The Dutch got the 'rock' from the ex-PM's estate, as the ex-PM got it from the US Ambassador, who confirmed what took place.

That's my proof...

So now, tell me, exactly what evidence do you have?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AgentSmith

I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding.. and who are "they"?
Do you have access to an audit trail only you are privy to?
Why are you ignoring the fact the OFFICIAL, repeat OFFICIAL Apollo 11 and 17 rocks are on display and accounted for?
Why do you keep clinging to such weak arguments?

Do you have an explanation for why USSR radio astronomers received signals from and confirmed the presence of lunar experiments distributed by the Apollo missions? I brought it up a few posts back but you and all the other hoaxies seem to be avoiding it like the plague.

The US and USSR both had hoaxes, and were in cahoots.

OFFICIAL? So what? It's not relevant to this case, even when you put it in CAPS!!

It's not relevant? OK.... LOL..

The fake moon rock event was confirmed by the US Ambassador who was actually there at the time, presenting it to the ex-PM. The Dutch got the 'rock' from the ex-PM's estate, as the ex-PM got it from the US Ambassador, who confirmed what took place.

That's my proof...

So now, tell me, exactly what evidence do you have?

The original Dutch reports...

Xandra van Gelder van het Rijks - ze kent de geschiedenis van de steen inmiddels op haar duimpje - denkt dat nu wel, maar alleen maar met de kennis van nu. Met diezelfde kennis en close reading van bijgeleverde teksten bij het cadeau aan Drees blijkt ook dat nergens stond 'dit is een maansteen'. ''Het was vooral 'ter herinnering aan'.''

Badly translated:

Xandra van Gelder of the Reiks - they know the history of the stone now of her hand - think now, but only with the knowledge of today. With the same knowledge and close reading of texts enclosed in a gift to Drees also shows that nowhere was 'this is a moonstone'. ''It was 'especially remembering'. ''

www.parool.nl...

Show me where it says it's from the Moon? :



And when you've finished stamping and crying you can then address the other points you keep ignoring.

Like your lies that there is no discussion of the condition of the flags. And you can address the point about the independent USSR scientists receiving the signals from the Apollo experiments, instead of embarrassing yourself by resorting to 'they were in cahoots together'.

The more you look at it, the more it looks like it's just commemoration card anyway. Is it even anything to do with the rock? Why are we discussing such BS? Let's see your science if you want to discuss things instead of this garbage again.
I'm looking forward to seeing the math for SJ's "glass ceiling" he's become obsessed with.

a reply to: turbonium1

Uh-huh.

www.space.com...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

gizmodo.com...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AgentSmith

I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding.. and who are "they"?
Do you have access to an audit trail only you are privy to?
Why are you ignoring the fact the OFFICIAL, repeat OFFICIAL Apollo 11 and 17 rocks are on display and accounted for?
Why do you keep clinging to such weak arguments?

Do you have an explanation for why USSR radio astronomers received signals from and confirmed the presence of lunar experiments distributed by the Apollo missions? I brought it up a few posts back but you and all the other hoaxies seem to be avoiding it like the plague.

The US and USSR both had hoaxes, and were in cahoots.

Evidence? No?

OK...

The fake moon rock event was confirmed by the US Ambassador who was actually there at the time, presenting it to the ex-PM. The Dutch got the 'rock' from the ex-PM's estate, as the ex-PM got it from the US Ambassador, who confirmed what took place.

That's my proof...

So now, tell me, exactly what evidence do you have?

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the US Ambassador at the time gave the ex-Dutch president the petrified wood (have you worked out what 'petrified' means yet?).

The lie is where it is claimed that it was given as a lunar sample. This never happened. If you have any proof that anyone from NASA, or the US, ever claimed it was a lunar sample, then put up or shut up.

And to return to the "how come no-one is interested in looking at the landing sites" garbage, try this:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

which was presented as a poster at this 2014 conference:

www.hou.usra.edu...

Just for fun, see how many times Apollo samples or data are referenced in all the papers and posters discussing the moon.

a reply to: AgentSmith

Do you have access to an audit trail only you are privy to?

Speaking of audit trails, there is an incomplete audit trail for the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes which got lost when they were transferred to Goddard. The people responsible for Apollo telemetry data don't really know what happened and they say "probably" the tapes were used for weather data. "Probably" is nothing more than wishful thinking.



Here is another audit trail that shows "Moon rocks lost, NASA audit says" "..extreme disagreements.."