It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by golemina
I was stating that the evalutation/findings ABOUT the rocks are what could easily be faked.
> and there are may lunar rocks that have been found on earth that were blown off the moon and landed here as meteorites.
Blown off the moon? Anything you say.
Originally posted by Halfofone
The moon landing is perpetuated in mainstream society buy FOX news!
Originally posted by golemina
The kind of goofy conjecture 'logic' you would expect to find on BadAstronomy.com
Originally posted by goleminaI was stating that the evaluation/findings ABOUT the rocks are what could easily be faked.
So... Are you saying that if you're not a NASA true believer that you're not patriotic... Or even worse, (gulp) a terrorist?
Real false? And HOW confusing is that!
Blown off the moon? Anything you say.
An asteroid/meteor hits the Moon, that sends up smaller pieces and some of those land on Earth.
Where is your scientific evidence
Originally posted by HowardRoark
You do know that the Fox network didn't exist when the lunar missions took place, don't you?
[edit on 26-10-2006 by HowardRoark]
Originally posted by golemina
But you CONVIENTLY just happen to have some rocks on hand that got here from some kind of game of 'lunar' billiards...
If the so called assaying of these 'Moon' rocks were done on REAL SCIENTIFIC principles, we would do it using the old double blind method...
[edit on 26-10-2006 by golemina]
Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn’t know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that’s better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I’ve studied lunar rocks and soils for 30+ years and I couldn’t make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government” could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth. [After writing these words I learned that virtually the same sentiments had already been expressed by some of my lunar sample colleagues.]
Originally posted by swimmer
hehe, I was right. Nothing will change your opinion...
There are so many OBVIOUSLY FAKE photos "from the Moon", there is absolutely no credible evidence to support this myth, and your last hope is one "independent" scientist who claims that the rocks are not from Earth.
Originally posted by swimmer
How does the scientific process look, step by step, to prove that the rocks are FROM THE MOON (that is your task, not to prove that they are not from Earth). There are thousands of meteorites in the museums, to remind you.
If the composition of a rock does not plot along this line, the rock is almost certainly not a lunar rock. Meteorites such as ordinary chondrites do not plot on the line because some of the iron is in iron-nickel metal as well as pyroxene and olivine….(snip)Earth rocks contain many more different kinds of minerals than do lunar rocks and would only plot on the line by coincidence; most do not plot near the line at all.
Originally posted by swimmer
I have also read a few studies that question this "scientific" method this "independent" dude is talking about.
Originally posted by swimmer
And, for the "Big Bang" theory - this theory claims that it has proven that there was no Intelligent force involved in the creation of the universe. That is so remarkable, it makes it such a great scientific achievement, greater than Man walking on the Moon))))) How do they possibly know that?
Originally posted by swimmer
This is to summarize Big Bang: we do not know how anything is possible, but we know that nothing intelligent is involved.
By the way guys, official science is slowly leaving the "Big Bang" theory, so don't stick to it too much….
Originally posted by swimmer
hehe, I was right. Nothing will change your opinion...
There are so many OBVIOUSLY FAKE photos "from the Moon",
there is absolutely no credible evidence to support this myth, and your last hope is one "independent" scientist who claims that the rocks are not from Earth.
And, for the "Big Bang" theory...
Originally posted by swimmer
hehe, I was right. Nothing will change your opinion...
There are so many OBVIOUSLY FAKE photos "from the Moon", there is absolutely no credible evidence to support this myth, and your last hope is one "independent" scientist who claims that the rocks are not from Earth.
How does the scientific process look, step by step, to prove that the rocks are FROM THE MOON (that is your task, not to prove that they are not from Earth). There are thousands of meteorites in the museums, to remind you.
I have also read a few studies that question this "scientific" method this "independent" dude is talking about.
And, for the "Big Bang" theory - this theory claims that it has proven that there was no Intelligent force involved in the creation of the universe. That is so remarkable, it makes it such a great scientific achievement, greater than Man walking on the Moon))))) How do they possibly know that?
This is to summarize Big Bang: we do not know how anything is possible, but we know that nothing intelligent is involved.
By the way guys, official science is slowly leaving the "Big Bang" theory, so don't stick to it too much. They are finding other ways to "prove" that there is no scientific possibility of anything intelligent creating universe or anything else. IT IS ALL JUST A COINCIDENCE. Nature. Chaos. And very sophisticated laws that we find in this nature are coming from millions of years of COINCIDENCE. Nature just created itself, and it is there. How is that possible, we are still researching, we are changing our theories every day, but one thing we know without a doubt: nothing intelligent is involved. We are scientists, after all, we know what we are talking about.