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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 210
377
<< 207  208  209    211  212  213 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Blew Moon






The first idea of exploding a bomb on the lunar surface seems to be in Robert Goddard's "A Method for reaching extreme altitudes". Goddard
investigated the possibility of reaching the Moon with a rocket loaded with photographer magnesium powder, in order to record the explosion made by the impact
Goddard himself noted that "the plan of sending a mass of flash powder to the surface of the moon, although a matter of much general interest, is not of obvious scientific importance". This was however the first idea of an interplanetary mission to do without of the presence of humans: the first "space probe".





Commentary: The planned October 9, 2009 bombing of the moon by a NASA orbiter that will bomb the moon with a 2-ton kinetic weapon to create a 5 mile wide deep crater as an alleged water-seeking and lunar colonization experiment, is contrary to space law prohibiting environmental modification of celestial bodies.


So what put the bug up NASA's butt to look for water on the Moon? And why wasn't this important prior to Apollo?


The possibility of ice in the floors of polar lunar craters was first suggested in 1961 by Caltech researchers Kenneth Watson, Bruce C. Murray, and Harrison Brown.







Later, in the Forties, the German born popular science writer Willy Ley further perfected the Goddard idea. He noted in fact that if the terrestrial observers able to observe the lunar impact of the magnesium laden probe were incapacitated by bad weather, the impact may happen without any witness. To counter this problem Ley proposed the impact on the Moon of 0.5 kg of high explosive and 4.5 kg of white powder, possibly powdered glass that, once dispersed on the surface, would have formed a patch of surface more brilliant than the surroundings.



In 1945 US astronomer H. H. Nininger suggested the use of two new technologies developed during the most recent war, guided missiles and atomic weapons, to dislodge lunar soil samples and to carry them toward the Earth, thus providing an artificial imitation of what astronomers believed had happened during the formation of the larger craters or during the eruption of the lunar volcanoes, creating a class of natural glasses called tektites.



In 1957 Kraft Ehricke, an Atlas missile designer and Nobel prize George Gamow proposed a small probe called Cow (after a nursery rhyme) that was to fly by the Moon before returning to Earth one week after launch. A follow-on version was to be preceded by an atomic bomb that was to raise a cloud of vaporized rock. The second probe was then to fly through the cloud, thus returning lunar surface samples to Earth.


Atomic bomb... it just gets worse and worse



In October of the same year, JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) presented its idea of a lunar program that would overshadow Sputnik. The program was called Red Socks and it could include the detonation of an atom bomb on our natural satellite's surface, in order to collect, as Nininger had proposed, any lunar rock that would be hurled to our planet by the explosion and to produce, in the words of JPL's director Pickering to produce "beneficial psychological results". As the first race to the Moon unfolded, both the USA and the USSR had plans to nuke the Moon.


Key: "psychological results"

Something so outrageous as bombing the moon... or landing men on the moon?


In parallel with the Able probes' development, the US Air Force started a top secret project, called A119, described euphemistically as a "study of lunar research flights" and only revealed 42 years after its conception. It was probably based on a still secret RAND Corporation study, started in 1956, aimed at putting a nuclear warhead on the Moon. The same idea was shared by Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb who in February 1957 proposed exploding an atomic bomb at some distance from the lunar surface to observe the fluorescence induced in it or even directly on the surface to observe what kind of disturbance it might cause.



Moreover, after being mentioned in project ``Red Socks'', the idea of the emphatically called ISBM (InterSpatial Ballistic Missile) was analyzed in some detail by engineers of Lockheed Space and Missiles Division who determined that a 11 kTon bomb carried by an Agena rocket would have had enough time to explode before being crushed in the impact with the Moon.


12 years before landing man on the moon, the best people were coming up with was bombing it. That was the possible extent of technology at that time.


Project A119 was thus started by the US Air Force Special (i.e. nuclear) Weapons Center, its main aim being of sending to the Moon without any warning a fission atomic bomb to impress the Soviets and their allies. Very few details of the project have been revealed, and the few ones mostly concern the scientific side.



To the project in fact participated from the spring of 1958 a small group of scientists of the Armour Research Fondation of the Illinois Institute of Technology, providing scientifical consultancy on the mission. This group included many well known scientists such as Leonard Reiffel, project chief scientist and later to be the manned Apollo lunar missions scientific instrumentation manager, Gerard P. Kuiper, a Dutch born planetlogist and his doctorate student Carl Sagan, the future famous planetary astronomer, scientist popularizer and author of the science fiction novel Contact.



In contrast to the similar Soviet project of which more later, the American project never reached the mission hardware stage. We thus ignore the chosen launcher, probably an uprated version of the Atlas or Titan ICBM and the characteristics of the bomb. The final scientific report on the mission, signed by Reiffel and recently made public through the Freedom Of Information Act, envisages the possibility of usign weapons yelding as much as a megaton (one million tons of TNT) but the most probable choice, because of mass limitations, would have been a bomb at least as powerful as the one dropped on Hiroshima (some twenty kilotons).



Alas, many documents on project A119 were destroyed during the Eighties by the Illinois Institute of Technology and it is thus unlikely that other informations may surface in the future.



The Soviet project was called E-4 and was to detonate an atom bomb on the visible hemisphere to provide a dramatic visual confirmation of the impact and to perform a remote chemical analysis of the soil vaporized in the explosion.


Ever notice the USSR and US always seem to be working on the same things the same time for the same reasons? Im sure there is a thread on ATS about how the USSR was established and run by the US.

The claim is that six Apollo missions brought back pounds of lunar dirt and regolith, took photography, ran experiments, made first hand observations, for scientists to understand the geology of the Moon. Yet recently NASA, for some reason, felt compelled to "bomb" the moon? I thought manned missions would have made bombing the moon unnecessary? What about just using those robotic probes sent to Mars? Why cant they also be sent to the moon? Wouldn't they be able to travel the landscape, run experiments, take close-up photography and provide evidence for the Apollo missions? Not only that, if there is so much still to study on the Moon, why not send men back? Send men back, for more moon rocks, LOL.



www.catchafallingstar.com...
geology.com...
history.msfc.nasa.gov...
www.inconstantmoon.com...
www.msnbc.msn.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.examiner.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Can I ask something?

What does this post about Sputnik have to do with anything?



All you did was post a video and cite a source quote with no link [as usual]. Again somethings haven't changed.

So what is the point of this post?



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

The claim is that six Apollo missions brought back pounds of lunar dirt and regolith, took photography, ran experiments, made first hand observations, for scientists to understand the geology of the Moon. Yet recently NASA, for some reason, felt compelled to "bomb" the moon? I thought manned missions would have made bombing the moon unnecessary? What about just using those robotic probes sent to Mars? Why cant they also be sent to the moon? Wouldn't they be able to travel the landscape, run experiments, take close-up photography and provide evidence for the Apollo missions? Not only that, if there is so much still to study on the Moon, why not send men back? Send men back, for more moon rocks, LOL.


Once again a largely irrelevant post.

Firstly, your discussion of the ideas pre-Apollo has no link whatsoever to Apollo itself. Again trying to establish links where there are none. You seem to think that technological progress cannot be made in the space of a decade, yet history shows us time and time again that technological leaps occur in short timeframes. I dont know why you keep flogging this dead horse, i'd be embarrassed if i were you.

As to why NASA would want to "bomb" the moon, if they were keen to cheaply examine what the composition of deeper rock was then the way to do it would be use a bomb/impactor and analyse the rock and debris thrown up. It would give you a pretty good idea of deeper moon composition without needing a very much more expensive mission to conduct drilling or similar.

A manned mission could not accomplish this.

Seriously, a bit of thought before you post...


jra

posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So what put the bug up NASA's butt to look for water on the Moon? And why wasn't this important prior to Apollo?


Remember that Constellation Program that was canceled? One of the objectives was to setup a Lunar outpost for long duration missions, so finding out if the Moon had sufficient quantities of water was important. If there is water and it's easy and practical to extract from the Moon, then that means less water is needed to be transported from Earth.

This wasn't important to the Apollo missions because the missions were short and they brought all the water they needed.


What about just using those robotic probes sent to Mars? Why cant they also be sent to the moon?


As zvezdar pointed out. If your mission goal is to find out whats below the Lunar surface, then sending an impactor is the cheapest and simplest solution. The LCROSS mission cost $75 million. Compare that to the cost of any other Rover mission.


Not only that, if there is so much still to study on the Moon, why not send men back? Send men back, for more moon rocks, LOL.


Again, I remind you about the Constellation Program. But going to the Moon is very expensive and requires a lot of political and public support, if there isn't much, then it simply won't happen.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM
 


Can I ask something?

What does this post about Sputnik have to do with anything?



All you did was post a video and cite a source quote with no link [as usual]. Again somethings haven't changed.

So what is the point of this post?


He does every time he's cornered and needs to change the subject.

BTW Foos, Apollo 12 awaits....



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Another pointless string of out of context plagiarism. No-one is "bombing" the Moon. Goddard proposed sending flash powder because he was doing his research before radio was practical. As for the recent intentional crash, which did not involve explosives, it was designed to churn up deeper strata of the lunar surface than the manned landings were capable of exploring directly. You parrot a ridiculous claim that the experiment violated international law. Let's see what the law says:


The U.N. Outer Space Treaty, which the U.S. has ratified, requires that “ The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.”


From your own "source."

In what way was there a military base established? Is an unarmed probe a weapon? Of course, the Examiner "reporter" you quote was concerned that it might lead to a conflict with Moon-men, but then, obviously, he's an idiot.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
What is the problem with these people? There was a (brief) time quite a long time ago I questioned the Moon Landings. It was brief because it didn't take long to realise the 'evidence' suggesting it was fake was either fake itself or flawed and that the evidence proving we did go was too clear to deny.
I learnt that I was misguided and moved on, people like Foos have a strange and unhealthy obsession with just wanting to find something wrong, or more correctly to prove to everyone else how inferior they are because they (Foos and co) are the only ones enlightened and clever enough to 'see through the lies' all us stupid clever people fall for. Either that or their hatred of the US is so great that all they care about is trying to discredit in some way.
Here's a another fun fact, to dispel any confusion, I'm not American and I've only ever been there when flying through. I don't even like American foreign policy and I don't like their Government, I'm sick of my country being called the US's lapdog. But that doesn't mean I start going round acting like an idiot and trying to discredit them on grounds where they haven't done anything wrong.
The Americans flew to the Moon, several times. Get over it, if you're so intent on twisting the knife why don't you pick on something they actually have lied about.. Your insulting thousands and thousands of intelligent, dedicated and passionate people in your little vendetta who frankly don't deserve it, wherever it's the people who were involved or just people who are interested in this incredible point in human history.
Times are moving on, the Chinese will be visiting the moon in a few years and the US will be visiting an Asteroid and Mars with 20 years. These are exciting times, sorry if it contradicts your belief that anyone more intelligent than you doesn't exist, or if it angers you that a country you hate so much is the one to accomplish a lot of these things and sorry if it challenges your religious beliefs in some way.
In Jarrah's case, I'm glad that you've found such an effective way to get little muppets to PayPal you money and to get revenue from ad-clicks, shame you're not talented enough to put your 'skills' to more honest use though.
Whatever your problem, grow up and stop being such a moron.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Blew Moon II






Every year many meteoroids enter Earth's atmosphere (the bright trail marking them as meteors), fall to the ground (changing their designation to 'meteorites' in the process) and are immediately lost among the water, rocks and vegetation of our world. Only in large empty spaces such as the Sahara and Atacama deserts and Antarctica can they readily be found and separated from indigenous Earth rocks.



In recent years thousands of these meteorites have been found, many of them originating from the Moon or Mars where, millions of years ago, they were blasted into space by volcanic eruptions or crater impacts.

After their epic journeys they lie, dark and conspicuous against their surroundings, until teams of explorers such as this one near the transantarctic Mountain Range find and recover them.




Moon rock found in Antarctica
Meteorite-hunting team makes rare discovery



ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — University of New Mexico researcher Barbara Cohen now knows for certain that the rock she found while trolling the barren Antarctic landscape is special.
She and a team of geologists picked up a chunk of the moon — one of only about 30 ever found on Earth.



She and a team of eight geologists collected the fist-sized meteorite on a six-week trip during the Antarctic summer, in December and January. They were trolling the La Paz ice sheet on snowmobiles when they found it.
Finding a meteorite is like finding a puzzle piece to the universe because each chunk tells scientists more about how other planets and asteroids developed, Cohen said.



"It's a real primal thrill of discovery, because no one has ever seen that rock before you," she said. "If you know the rock you found is unusual, your mind just goes crazy wondering what it could be. It could be the first meteorite ever found from Venus, or it could be from the moon or Mars."



Cohen's Antarctica trip was part of a National Science Foundation program to collect meteorites. Scientists from all over the world are chosen each year to search Antarctic ice sheets for new meteorites, which fall on the ice and stick out in the snowy surroundings.




Exploring Antarctica (1967)



Intrigued by exploration in space and on Earth, Dr. Von Braun participated in an expedition to Antarctica. This photo was made on or about January 7, 1967.


"Intrigued by" ?


oh wait

Should happen more on this thread, lol.


The moon stones come from Chile


The professor for geology John L. Parker examined and analized the "moon stones" at Maine University. In this institute also scientist Nelly Wason was researching. During her research work in Atacama desert in the North of Chile she detected a strange sort of stone. Later she found out that the composition was exactly corresponding to the "moon stones" which John L. Parker had examined.

Paker already had died when Nelly Wason was detecting this. She became mistrustful and examined Parker's estate. In his remarks she found the proof that Parker and a PR man from NASA Mark Lecoq always knew well that the "moon stones" never had been from the moon but from Atacama desert from Chile.


Would like to get supporting evidence for this!




The first discovery of Yamato Meteorites by an inland survey team of the Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition (JARE) in 1969 was reported by Yoshida et al. (1971). However, there are important events, issues, and data related to this discovery that have so far not been published. Prior to the author's departure for Antarctica, M. Gorai suggested the author to consider collecting meteorites during the trip. On 21 December 1969, when geodetic measurements for the 250 km span of a triangulation chain were approaching its completion, members of the inland survey team collected three stones on the surface of the ice sheet in the southeastern marginal area of the Yamato Mountains


Why did it take so long for it to be reported?



Prior to 1969, however, when nine meteorites were found almost by accident, by the Japanese in the Yamato Mountains near their Syowa Base, only six meteorites had been found in Antarctica the first in 1912. In fact, prior to 1969, only about 2100 distinct (individual, not fragments) meteorites were known worldwide, with only five to ten new ones being recovered annually from the rest of the Earth.



The point is, NASA, von Braun, etc would have known about this. They would have known that meteorites could be found preserved in Antarctica. Furthermore, they could have launched additional expeditions to find rocks during the Apollo missions. As you can see, after 1969 efforts to find lunar rocks ramped up.



Stone Meteorites from Moon and Mars

Do we really find lunar and martian rocks on the surface of our own planet? The answer is yes, but they are extremely rare. About one hundred different lunar meteorites (lunaites) and approximately thirty Martian meteorites (SNCs) have been discovered on earth, and they all belong to the achondrite group. Impacts on the lunar and Martian surfaces by other meteorites fired fragments into space and some of those fragments eventually fell on earth. In financial terms lunar and Martian specimens are among the most valuable meteorites, often selling on the collectors' market for up to $1,000 per gram, making them worth many times their weight in gold.



GITCHA MOON ROCKS! GIDDEM RIGHT HERE!



Extensive selection of Lunar and Martain meteorites. Large inventory of high quality Sikhote-alin iron meteorites available.



What we got here:

Basalt-bearing feldspathic regolith breccia
Freshest and only oriented Lunar meteorite ever found
Olivine gabbro
Feldspathic breccia

and a wonderful
Lunar Meteorite Gift Box!


All six of the Apollo missions on which samples were collected landed in the central nearside of the Moon, an area that has subsequently been shown to be geochemically anomalous by the Lunar Prospector mission. In contrast, the numerous lunar meteorites are random samples of the Moon and consequently provide a more representative sampling of the lunar surface than the Apollo samples. Half the lunar meteorites, for example, likely sample material from the farside of the Moon.





How Do We Know That They Come From the Moon?


Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, minerals, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions. Taken together, these various characteristics are different from those of any other type of meteorite or terrestrial rock.


Bit of a
circular argument there... So Apollo rocks are used to validate rocks found on Earth as coming from the moon? LOL.



Google Video Link


Here is the thing.
Even if one could argue that Von Braun and the expedition team were not looking for meteorites, and especially those from the moon, how could they have not
discovered any? The whole trip is suspicious and too convenient in the timing leading to the first flight and landing men on the moon.
One more point, why wouldnt they want to find lunar rocks?
Wouldnt that aid them in understanding what they were about to land and walk on?

5:17 Gerald Wasserburg proves the Apollo rocks were brought directly from the moon by astronauts:

Convincing right?

Conclusion, samples, claimed to have come from Apollo missions, themselves do not prove that they came from men who landed on the moon. These samples could have came from various parts of the world in the form of meteorites.



www.collectspace.com...
www.sciencedirect.com... rch&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1486231868&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cf82ce9071e72a6347 dadc5e59db8027&searchtype=a
meteorites.wustl.edu...
www.catchafallingstar.com...
geology.com...
history.msfc.nasa.gov...
www.inconstantmoon.com...
www.msnbc.msn.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.examiner.com...
www.antarcticconnection.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Foos, quit spamming the thread and answer the question about Apollo 12.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Foos, quit spamming the thread and answer the question about Apollo 12.


Excuse me, but how can you accuse someone of spamming if you didn't take the time to read the post and watch the videos. You posted this reply just 30 minutes after the initial post. The videos alone run at least 1 hour.
So in a nutshell, you've carried on about something you haven't even taken the time to read / watch.

I would suggest Tomblvd you read the full post and watch the videos before claiming somone is 'spamming'. Extremely rude and poor form.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   
engforum.pravda.ru.../page415&highlight=radioactivity

The following is one of the posts from FoosM on another forum:



Quote Originally Posted by Ghostwriter View Post The idea that atom bombs are hoaxes does not flabbergast me That would be par for the course as far as jewish shennanigans are concerned. Why don't you share with us the elements of the atom bomb you find most compelling to your belief that they exist anywhere outside the fertile judaic imagination

I think you guys got me figured out wrong.
Flabbergasted as in I never came across that one.
Never expected it. I felt the same way when I heard that
the moon-landing was faked. So Im now open to the idea that
Nukes are not real. That book that was recommended would be a good start.

By the way, what is your issues with Jews? Are you referring to a select few people or all person who follow the religion?


Just from another moon moax thread on another forum. Some interesting stuff there. I find it interesting that FoosM also doesn't believe in nukes perhaps? Or is at least considering the idea. I wouldn't mind seeing a thread on this. I've never heard this theory before. I'd hoenstly be interested in whats being said about it, but if there's no thread I'll go off and google.

And I echo Tom ... Questions on the table should be ironed out. Though ideally I think its time FoosM made a new thread and this one was closed off. It hasn't been about Jarrah White for some time.


edit on 6-10-2010 by Pinke because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
It hasn't been about Jarrah White for some time.


So you too Pinke didn't look at the videos posted above regarding Jarrah White's moon rock questions?

I think Foos post shows quite clearly it was possible to collect 'moon rocks' right here on planet earth.

In fact, if you wanted 'mars rocks' you could get them as well.

What is going on ... people posting and not looking at what was just posted above.

How can you Pinke argue something, when you didn't even watch the videos ?

If you Pinke took the time to watch... You will see how easy it was to obtain rocks from the moon and from mars in Antarctica. Yes, Antarctica, on earth.
edit on 6-10-2010 by ppk55 because: Added Pinke to clarify response + finding moon rocks on earth added



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by Pinke
It hasn't been about Jarrah White for some time.


So you too didn't look at the videos posted above regarding Jarrah White's moon rock questions?
What is going on ... people posting and not looking at what was just posted above.

How can you argue something, when you didn't even watch the videos ?

If you took the time to watch...
You will see how easy it was to obtain rocks from the moon and from mars in Antarctica. Yes, Antarctica, on earth.



I see two events being intertwined with nothing but conjecture in an attempt to lure this abomination of a thread in to busying with activity once more so it can continue rolling down the never ending hill of nothingness.

It even says in FoosM's quotes that the samples taken from Earth are a wider set of samples because the moon landing samples were all taken from the one area. There's no information here really. It's just two somewhat related events being jammed together like broke jigsaw pieces from what I see. How about some geology information? Information from an expert about where the Apollo rocks came from? Perhaps some comparisons between rocks found on Earth and rocks found here? What would have happened to the rocks coming to Earth? Wouldn't there be evidence of them coming into our atmosphere? Burning and such like? I don't want to have to waste my bandwith on hour long youtube videos, thanks.

(Note: I'm not even arguing the above point and won't respond to rebuttals at this stage ... that would be against the point am trying to make)

Blah blah blah ... It's never ending. FoosM should answer the questions already on the table rather than being a professional troll. I'd also suggest starting a new thread also since this is no longer about Jarrah White.

Just to clarify ... just because FoosM's points contain Jarrah White videos does not make this about Jarrah White ... it's not like every post contains Jarrah White information ... it just kind of goes all over the place. It will be much cleaner for everyone if each new topic could be in a new thread for quick reference rather than this juggernaut of thing.

I think even PPK would agree with that unless there is actually some other reason to keep this going?


edit on 6-10-2010 by Pinke because: Clarifying the Jarrah White statement



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
I don't want to have to waste my bandwith on hour long youtube videos, thanks.


And that ladies and gentlemen, is how Apollo believers respond to the proof posted above of how Moon AND Mars rocks land on earth, and how they can be found today (and in the 60's) in Antarctica.

The full post is above.


Originally posted by Pinke
Blah blah blah ... I'd also suggest starting a new thread also since this is no longer about Jarrah White.


Did you not watch? The first 2 videos concern JW directly. Off you go then ... start your new thread.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
And that ladies and gentlemen, is how Apollo believers respond to the proof posted above of how Moon AND Mars rocks land on earth, and how they can be found today (and in the 60's) in Antarctica.


I already stated in my post I wasn't interesting in debating it. FoosM has too many points left open and just because this thread doesn't have any solid topic it lets people go over the same junk over and over and over again ...

You really think this thread is useful?

Just to make a point ... here are all threads which already discuss FoosM's 'new' theory which is essentially just regurgitating the same old stuffs:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There were many other threads I could have added to this list, but I got busy making a cup of tea.

Thanks to Rigel Kent for the following:


Some Moon rocks have been found on Earth, but they are all scorched and oxidised from their entry into the Earth’s atmosphere as asteroids. Geologists have confirmed with complete certainty that the Apollo rocks must have been brought from the Moon by man.


Thanks to jra for the following:


Did you know that the Lunites found in Antarctica were found after the Apollo missions? And that they didn't know they were Lunites until they were compared to the Apollo samples? And yes there are some difference between them. Most notably that they have signs of having entered through the atmosphere also lots of weathering and other chemical interactions due to being on Earth for so long. They are fairly easy to tell apart.


That's almost the exact same conclusion I came to without watching hours of FoosM's youtube and quote mining.

FoosM could have commented on any of the above threads or used any of them for research to rebutt points or whatever ... Instead we're meant to all sit and watch *hours* of youtube videos?

And likely we'll be circulating the same toilet bowl of information in a few weeks time when this information is presented again.


edit on 6-10-2010 by Pinke because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-10-2010 by Pinke because: Added threads to make point

edit on 6-10-2010 by Pinke because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
I already stated in my post I wasn't interesting in debating it.


If you're not interested in debating how they can and have found Moon and Mars rocks on earth, Antarctica specifically, then you really shouldn't be participating on ATS. Why don't you take the time to read the full post above and watch the videos. It won't hurt you.


Originally posted by Pinke
we're meant to all sit and watch *hours* of youtube videos?


When they're from researchers in Antarctica studying the very topic under discussion, YES!


edit on 6-10-2010 by ppk55 because: added you should watch the videos from the researchers in antarctica[



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
PPK, moon hoaxie stuff aside for a second ...

If people really wanted to educate people this mess of a thread isn't any way to do it. It's repetitive, and all over the place. As for the topic ...

Are we deciding chronologically? No. We're not. Date of video: 24 May 2010

So it's not chronological.

Are we deciding by topic? No. We're not. We have several regurgitated topics and will continue to see them spiraling the toilet bowl over and over again.

Are we deciding by the questions asked? No. We're not. FoosM has already said he refused to be held to questions in his own debate and likes to 'hit from every angle'.

Opinions aside ... you have to know this isn't helping anyone, or a useful form of debate. Maybe the mods will be willing to have a seperate FoosM moon discussion forum. Maybe they will let one of us maintain a table of contents so we can have some organisation. Maybe FoosM could just start making new and seperate threads ... but honestly this is going nowhere and it's impossible to follow.

I'd at least like a definitive collection of information topic by topic I could refer to if this epic battle is going to continue.

At least we can agree on that?



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Why are you trying to deflect attention from the initial post...

How it's possible to find Moon and Mars rocks on earth. Specifically in Antarctica.

I don't know why you don't want people to watch the professors video from Antarctica above validating it.
www.physics.sjsu.edu...

In one hour you've posted the following, perhaps you could have used that time to watch the videos above.


Originally posted by Pinke
I don't want to have to waste my bandwith on hour long youtube videos, thanks.


Originally posted by Pinke
Blah blah blah ... I'd also suggest starting a new thread also since this is no longer about Jarrah White.
(the first two videos are directly related to JW)

Originally posted by Pinke
I already stated in my post I wasn't interesting in debating it.


Originally posted by Pinke
we're meant to all sit and watch *hours* of youtube videos?


In that hour, you could have watched the researcher's video of how they find, and have found moon and mars rocks in antarctica.

In case you missed it...


Google Video Link


www.physics.sjsu.edu...
featured in video...
Dr Monica Kress
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
College of Science
San Jose State University
San Jose, California 95192

edit on 6-10-2010 by ppk55 because: added video above reference + formatting + Dr Monica Kress reference.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
I see where you're going ... deflecting ... don't see why I wouldn't want people watching videos ...

You got me! I'm a disinfo agent living in my NASA base having my cookies.


Alternatively I just don't like information that would qualify as plagerized if presented in a university essay presented in a messy way. Kill this thread. Make one specifically about moon rocks, or dig up an old thread about it and I'll be right on that.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 207  208  209    211  212  213 >>

log in

join