Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: Ove38

And because the only reason they know it's a meteorite from the moon is because they have lunar samples with which to compare it. Collected by people. As the page you linked to clearly states:

This stone was found near Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain, the find location of the paired lunar meteorites NWA 4936 and NWA 5406. Preliminary studies show that NWA 6221 is another stone of that fascinating pairing grouplet which is compositionally similar to Apollo 16 soil. It may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
big muley is proof

100% proof

it's too big to pick up with a probe, it must have been a human

big muley

You don't think it could be from Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain in Northwest Africa ?

new.meteoris.de...

of course not, I posted a picture of charlie duke picking it up. it's all in the post

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

Maybe because it was displayed to the public in an art museum?? Just maybe??

The museum didn't even confirm it was a moon rock, the closest they got was that a moon rock could be in the country.

But anyway if it was a real moon rock it would probably be the best bargain moon rock in existence given its size, you still surprised that it wasn't insured for millions?? Or just want to ignore it?

I'm hardly the one ignoring this issue!!

You haven't answered any of my questions, as usual, so your act won't wash here...


They DID insure the 'rock' for a lot of money, that's my point...and you know it is, for sure.

So again, I'll ask you to address this specific question .


You go on spewing that there is no proof to support my claim, while you have no case at all, let alone any evidence for that imaginary case!!

What you suggest is this story is not factual. It was all made up for some reason(s). It has no proof, it has not a shred of evidence, then bleat on and on that I must show absolute smoking-gun evidence of it, as only that is 'proof', to you!!

Apollo-ites appoint themselves experts on 'proof', on 'evidence', of whether or not it IS actually evidence, or not, and is the 'truth'...


You have nothing to support your claim, which makes you an 'authority figure' on supporting a claim??!!??!


Nice try..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

Maybe because it was displayed to the public in an art museum?? Just maybe??

The museum didn't even confirm it was a moon rock, the closest they got was that a moon rock could be in the country.

But anyway if it was a real moon rock it would probably be the best bargain moon rock in existence given its size, you still surprised that it wasn't insured for millions?? Or just want to ignore it?

I'm hardly the one ignoring this issue!!

You haven't answered any of my questions, as usual, so your act won't wash here...


They DID insure the 'rock' for a lot of money, that's my point...and you know it is, for sure.

Was the rock insured before or after the art exhibit?

I could take something from my cat's litter tray, label it as gold and insure it for any sum I chose. An insurance company would happily take my money.

So again, I'll ask you to address this specific question .


You go on spewing that there is no proof to support my claim,

Because you don't have any for any of your claims despite being asked or it many many times.

while you have no case at all, let alone any evidence for that imaginary case!!

What you suggest is this story is not factual. It was all made up for some reason(s). It has no proof, it has not a shred of evidence, then bleat on and on that I must show absolute smoking-gun evidence of it, as only that is 'proof', to you!!

Apollo-ites appoint themselves experts on 'proof', on 'evidence', of whether or not it IS actually evidence, or not, and is the 'truth'...


You have nothing to support your claim, which makes you an 'authority figure' on supporting a claim??!!??!


Nice try..

There is plenty of evidence to support the case that the rock was simply an art exhibit and its nature either deliberately or accidentally misunderstood. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone other than the artists concerned claimed it was a moon rock. If you have some, present it.

originally posted by: turbonium1

They DID insure the 'rock' for a lot of money, that's my point...and you know it is, for sure.

your point was that it was insured for millions.. it was not at best it was only half a million.. and half a million for an art exhibition is not exactly excessive is it?

even you were expecting this exhibit to have been insured for millions you stated it yourself.. but it was not even close..

also any reason why the museum did not get an actual expert from NASA or even an actual geologist to confirm it before insuring it? would you buy a rock painted gold if someone told you it was gold or would you ask an expert that knows?

What you suggest is this story is not factual. It was all made up for some reason(s). It has no proof, it has not a shred of evidence, then bleat on and on that I must show absolute smoking-gun evidence of it, as only that is 'proof', to you!!

incorrect, im saying the story that is being spread around was based on the wrong/misleading/confused/assumed information. kind of like how you do things.

Apollo-ites appoint themselves experts on 'proof', on 'evidence', of whether or not it IS actually evidence, or not, and is the 'truth'...

theres so many unknowns in this story that it doesnt add up.. the only people that claim that this story is without any flaws are hoax believers hoping to believe that a priceless lunar rock was given to a ~80year old private individual citizen.

This document, hosted on the artists' website without comment by them (which again is telling) discussing the controversy has comments saying it was insured for 45000 Euros - based on a radio interview.

www.bikvanderpol.net...

What isn't clear is whether the entire contents of Drees' donation (including the rock) was covered by that.

originally posted by: syrinx high priest

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
big muley is proof

100% proof

it's too big to pick up with a probe, it must have been a human

big muley

You don't think it could be from Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain in Northwest Africa ?

new.meteoris.de...

of course not, I posted a picture of charlie duke picking it up. it's all in the post

Well, I posted a link saying that a stone found at Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain in Northwest Africa "may have originated from near the Apollo 16 landing site" Wouldn't that be Charlie Duke's flight ? What a marvelous coincidence !? You don't smell something fishy here do you ?

new.meteoris.de...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: Ove38
Lunar Shelter: Moon Caves Could Protect Astronauts......Radiation from the sun, galactic cosmic rays and constantly falling micrometeorites all present a threat to human explorers.....

www.space.com...

How come this wasn't a problem fifty years ago ?

Gee do you think this might just be for long stay missions, or permanent habitation, rather than the few days the Apollo missions were there?

So you're saying that it is perfectly safe for humans to stay on the lunar surface for up to a few days, but not stay on the moon for any longer than just a few days...right?

Could you show me where they excluded missions of a few days, or said that this applied only to missions longer than a few days?

I'll wait for your reply...


If they actually said this, I've never seen it before. You should be able to cite one of those source(s), right?

No?

We'll assume that you are right - and that in fact, they DO claim this is only applicable to longer missions, not to shorter stays, of up to a few days....

That would define the longer missions as more than a few days, or perhaps more than one week, or so...


What about 2 weeks, or a month, or 2 months, then?

They would all be considered 'longer' missions, as defined as missions longer than a few days, or so...right?


None of them say this, of course....and it makes no sense ...


They do not exclude ANY missions, in fact. Not a short mission, of a few days. Nor an hour, nor a minute, none are excluded by the duration of a mission.


It applies to ALL missions, as I've already explained, many times.


They will REFER to long-term missions, in the articles or documents, and not mention short-term missions, or very briefly, as a sidenote, at most...

I've explained why they do this, already

a reply to: Ove38

And again, because you seemed not to realise the importance of it: the only reason they know it is the same composition as Apollo 16 material is because they have a rock to compare it with, a rock collected by Charles Duke during Apollo 16. On the moon.

I've met him, he's no liar.

a reply to: turbonium1

You've explained nothing to anyone.

Could you say from that article that Apollo didn't land on the moon? Does it say anywhere that the Apollo missions didn't happen? That it is not safe for astronauts to be there for short stay missions?

Did any of the monitoring by NASA's space weather teams during the missions identify any dangers?

Have you any evidence from any source to say what level of radiation an astronaut would receive over a few days and whether Apollo astronauts received that

Have you any proof of anything ever?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

And again, because you seemed not to realise the importance of it: the only reason they know it is the same composition as Apollo 16 material is because they have a rock to compare it with, a rock collected by Charles Duke.

I've met him, he's no liar.

Don't you see it's the other way around ? The stone found at Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain in Northwest Africa, presumed to be "from near the Apollo 16 landing site" is not from "from near the Apollo 16 landing site". It's the stone presumed to be from the Apollo 16 landing site (big muley) that's from Galtat Zemmour, not far away from Siksou Mountain in Northwest Africa. That's why the two stones are similar.

a reply to: Ove38

And which was found first?

Which rock was documented and analysed first, do you think?

Do you think my original copies of the Proceedings of the 4th lunar science conference in 1973, or my original copy of the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report from 1972, or my original copy of the Geology report on the Descartes highlands from 1981 just might contain fully documented and publicly available analyses of the Apollo 16 sample in question?

Do you think?

e2a: More on Big Muley curator.jsc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

And which was found first?

Which rock was documented and analysed first, do you think?

Do you think my original copies of the Proceedings of the 4th lunar science conference in 1973, or my original copy of the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report from 1972, or my original copy of the Geology report on the Descartes highlands from 1981 just might contain fully documented and publicly available analyses of the Apollo 16 sample in question?

Do you think?

e2a: More on Big Muley curator.jsc.nasa.gov...

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

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Was the rock insured before or after the art exhibit?

I could take something from my cat's litter tray, label it as gold and insure it for any sum I chose. An insurance company would happily take my money.


There is plenty of evidence to support the case that the rock was simply an art exhibit and its nature either deliberately or accidentally misunderstood. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone other than the artists concerned claimed it was a moon rock. If you have some, present it.

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

How was it "misunderstood"?

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

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

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


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

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

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

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You've explained nothing to anyone.

Could you say from that article that Apollo didn't land on the moon? Does it say anywhere that the Apollo missions didn't happen? That it is not safe for astronauts to be there for short stay missions?

Did any of the monitoring by NASA's space weather teams during the missions identify any dangers?

Have you any evidence from any source to say what level of radiation an astronaut would receive over a few days and whether Apollo astronauts received that

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

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


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

They research how to protect humans against that radiation, years later, and Apollo's data is totally ignored.
Instead, they use data from LEO, and extrapolate it for an estimate of the radiation beyond LEO.

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

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

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

They had petrified wood for the non-scientists, since they wouldn't know better...

So a rock is found in Earth, and it looks much like the rocks from the moon.

The rock found on Earth must be from the moon, then!

How do they know the rocks are from the moon, and not found on Earth?


Because NASA said so, and they never lie about anything at all, it's 100% truth!!!

Sure, of course.

a reply to: Ove38

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

originally posted by: turbonium1

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

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

why??

if some individual like edward snowden was brave enough to do what he did and run and still be alive today why cant millions of experts?

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

They research how to protect humans against that radiation, years later, and Apollo's data is totally ignored.
Instead, they use data from LEO, and extrapolate it for an estimate of the radiation beyond LEO.

are you saying they use LEO radiation to work out how to protect astronauts against GCR's??

so in a sense you are saying that you acknowledge that GCR's regularly and easily penetrate well into the LEO (which they do) and penetrate into the the aluminum hull of the ISS??

you and your contradictions..

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

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

or you know, a long term mission like a mission to mars needs a thorough study and studying short term missions for a trip to mars is like one step forward two steps back sort of method.. but you are the expert here ofcourse no one should ever doubt your opinions.

originally posted by: turbonium1

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

They had petrified wood for the non-scientists, since they wouldn't know better...

lets put your theory to the test..

was the guy who notified the museum a non-scientists?

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

question..
would a well trained geologist be able to tell the difference between a rock that had to enter earths atmosphere and several thousand miles per hour unprotected and one that was brought back inside a craft?

you seem to believe that it is impossible to see evidence of scorch marks and oxidation.