Merged: Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

[sts60]

Originally Posted by wogoga

We could also speculate why "skeptics" believe so strongly in the truth of the Apollo program,

Because I've worked in this field for over a quarter-century. Because I have degrees and practical experience in physics and education. Because my job has taken me to Hangar S where Mercury was prepared and to Chamber B where the LM was tested and to pads 39 A and B where Apollo flights left for the Moon and to the FCRs and backrooms where the missions were controlled. Because I've worked for guys like Caldwell Johnson and Max Faget and talked a lot with regulars here and on other forums who have studied Apollo in great detail - way more than me - but I've looked at some of the record too and, unlike you, have some idea what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by wogoga

despite all the evidence to the contrary.

You pointing at things you don't understand isn't evidence.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by wogoga

We could also speculate why "skeptics" believe so strongly in the truth of the Apollo program, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Because the bolded is an outright lie, there is no evidence the Apollo program was faked, in fact there isn't even a credible theory for how it could have been faked. On the other hand there is a mountain of evidence that the landings were real. You clearly don't understand the concept of scientific skepticism.

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by wogoga

<snip for focus>
We could also speculate why "skeptics" believe so strongly in the truth of the Apollo program, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
<snip for focus>

I, for one, do not "believe" in the truth of the Apollo Program; I am, instead, convinced of the accuracy of the claims by the sufficiency (even supersufficiency) of the evidence.

Your errors have been pointed out to you. Pretending they have not does not make them magically true...

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

I, for one, do not "believe" in the truth of the Apollo Program; I am, instead, convinced of the accuracy of the claims by the sufficiency (even supersufficiency) of the evidence.

Your errors have been pointed out to you. Pretending they have not does not make them magically true...

[wogoga]

Donald Trump as a genuinely skeptical person with common sense surely wants to know whether the Apollo missions were real or faked. It is obvious that Trump is kept away from the crucial state secrets (the crimes and hoaxes committed by the Deep State of the United States, the biggest criminal organization of the last decades on Earth). One way to find out the truth of Apollo is pressuring NASA to repeat it.

Quote from Washington Post, 2017-02-15:

"Bob Walker, an adviser to the Trump transition team and a former congressman who chaired the House Science Committee, said Tuesday: 'What I hear being discussed is the potential for sometime within the first Trump term being able to go and do an Apollo 8 mission' -- meaning a lunar orbit mission like the one performed by Apollo 8 in December 1968."

It is rather unlikely that NASA will be able to repeat the alleged Apollo 8 achievements by 2018 (half a century after Apollo 8).

Even much more unrealistic is repetition of the alleged Apollo 11 achievements of 1969 by 2019.

Cheers, Wolfgang

The Apollo Space Program – A gigantic conspiracy?

[sts60]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Donald Trump as a genuinely skeptical person....

Ah hahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You've said a lot of funny things here. That was probably the funniest.

Originally Posted by wogoga

... with common sense surely wants to know whether the Apollo missions were real or faked. It is obvious that Trump is kept away from the crucial state secrets (the crimes and hoaxes committed by the Deep State of the United States, the biggest criminal organization of the last decades on Earth). One way to find out the truth of Apollo is pressuring NASA to repeat it.

Quote from Washington Post, 2017-02-15:

"Bob Walker, an adviser to the Trump transition team and a former congressman who chaired the House Science Committee, said Tuesday: 'What I hear being discussed is the potential for sometime within the first Trump term being able to go and do an Apollo 8 mission' -- meaning a lunar orbit mission like the one performed by Apollo 8 in December 1968."

It is rather unlikely that NASA will be able to repeat the alleged Apollo 8 achievements by 2018 (half a century after Apollo 8).

Even much more unrealistic is repetition of the alleged Apollo 11 achievements of 1969 by 2019.

It is unlikely that EM-1 will repeat the lunar-orbit mission originally executed by Apollo 8 next year. I know why, because I work on this program, and unlike you I know what I'm talking about. If you be ever bothered to learn something, rather than simply regurgitating context-free factoids and plugging your ears when people try to educate you, you could know as well. But then you'd also have to give up your ignorant delusions about "faked" missions, and you're clearly unwilling to grow up enough to do that.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Donald Trump as a genuinely skeptical person...

Nope.

Quote:

It is rather unlikely that NASA will be able to repeat...

Unlikely according to what facts and computation? I certainly don't accept your personal judgment, as you've demonstrated no correct knowledge of space engineering.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Donald Trump as a genuinely skeptical person with common sense...

Now I'm sure that you're just trolling us for attention.

[smartcooky]

You have a big problem wogoga if you think you can some here, to this forum, and get away with spouting the same baseless, ignorant claims, which have been debunked numerous times over the last 30+ years, and which failed to get you any traction at apollohoax.net.

This is because the people who handed you your arse on a plate there are the same people who will embarrass you with another hiding here.... and for the removal of doubt, they are people who are either very knowledgeable about these programs, or who actually work in them. These are aerospace and aeronautical engineers and technicians as well as physicists and other people with real expertise and a lifetime of experience in these areas; areas by the way that you clearly demonstrate that you are totally ignorant in.

[sts60]

When was he on apollohoax? I don't remember that.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by sts60

When was he on apollohoax? I don't remember that.

tarkus, IMO

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Donald Trump as a genuinely skeptical person with common sense surely wants to know whether the Apollo missions were real or faked. It is obvious that Trump is kept away from the crucial state secrets (the crimes and hoaxes committed by the Deep State of the United States, the biggest criminal organization of the last decades on Earth). One way to find out the truth of Apollo is pressuring NASA to repeat it.

Quote from Washington Post, 2017-02-15:

"Bob Walker, an adviser to the Trump transition team and a former congressman who chaired the House Science Committee, said Tuesday: 'What I hear being discussed is the potential for sometime within the first Trump term being able to go and do an Apollo 8 mission' -- meaning a lunar orbit mission like the one performed by Apollo 8 in December 1968."

It is rather unlikely that NASA will be able to repeat the alleged Apollo 8 achievements by 2018 (half a century after Apollo 8).

Even much more unrealistic is repetition of the alleged Apollo 11 achievements of 1969 by 2019.

Cheers, Wolfgang

The Apollo Space Program – A gigantic conspiracy?

Depends on how Trump decides to fund NASA doesn't it?
Military spending will be up but most other government agencies will see cuts.

Just like da wall, nothing will be built, or accomplished, if there isn't money to do it.
GWB wanted to go to Mars, iirc. Did not happen,,,,, no money allocated.

[wogoga]

From How Earth got its moon, 2017:

And here's why some astronomers have come to doubt Theia was real: If it smashed into Earth and helped form the moon, then the moon should look like a hybrid of Earth and Theia. Yet studies of lunar rocks show that the chemical composition of Earth and its moon are exactly the same. So that planet-on-planet impact story appears to have some holes in it.

Maybe this "planet-on-planet impact story" simply stems from a wrong premise, namely the premise that "Apollo lunar samples" are genuine lunar rocks.

Cheers, Wolfgang

The Apollo Space Program – A gigantic conspiracy?
Age and Origin of our Planetary System as a Supernova-Remnant

[Hans]

Originally Posted by wogoga

From How Earth got its moon, 2017:

And here's why some astronomers have come to doubt Theia was real: If it smashed into Earth and helped form the moon, then the moon should look like a hybrid of Earth and Theia. Yet studies of lunar rocks show that the chemical composition of Earth and its moon are exactly the same. So that planet-on-planet impact story appears to have some holes in it.

Maybe this "planet-on-planet impact story" simply stems from a wrong premise, namely the premise that "Apollo lunar samples" are genuine lunar rocks.

Cheers, Wolfgang

The Apollo Space Program – A gigantic conspiracy?
Age and Origin of our Planetary System as a Supernova-Remnant

How do you explain the Soviet sample return missions Luna 16, 20 & 24 and what they brought back?

[bknight]

If one reads the entire article, Apollo missions happened and brought back samples, the origin of which may or may not have been a collision with Thiea. Quit cherry picking exerts to bolster your hoax beliefs.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Maybe this "planet-on-planet impact story" simply stems from a wrong premise, namely the premise that "Apollo lunar samples" are genuine lunar rocks.

From the article you quoted

"If Theia formed at around the same distance from the sun as Earth, it would therefore contain mostly the same material, (says Nicolas Dauphas, a planetary scientist at the University of Chicago in Illinois). So if the moon formed largely from a Theia collision with Earth, it makes sense that moon rocks today would have a similar recipe to Earth. "

Just because two rocks have the same chemical composition does not automatically make them the same. Graphite and diamond have the same chemical composition... they are pure carbon... but they are obviously not the same... their properties are vastly different.

There are also a number of other reasons why we KNOW that the rocks and materials brought back by the Apollo missions actually did come from the moon and not the Earth.

The Lunar samples show evidence of having been formed in a very dry environment, in low gravity (but not zero gravity) and with almost no surrounding oxygen. They have are also been found to contain trapped gases from their exposure to the solar wind at the time they were formed. These properties are not observed in any rock samples found in the Earth.

So, once again, you exhibit all the usual traits of the typical moon hoax nut. You have 0.1% of the story and you think this means you can just extrapolate that as the other 99.9% to give you the whole story.

Science doesn't work like that, only ignorance does.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Donald Trump as a genuinely skeptical person with common sense surely wants to know whether the Apollo missions were real or faked. ... One way to find out the truth of Apollo is pressuring NASA to repeat it.

I think Donald Trump merely yearns to be perceived as big-dicked as JFK.
Heck, he'll propose to win a war against the Southern USA next to become Abe's equal.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Donald Trump as a genuinely skeptical person with common sense surely wants to know whether the Apollo missions were real or faked. It is obvious that Trump is kept away from the crucial state secrets (the crimes and hoaxes committed by the Deep State of the United States, the biggest criminal organization of the last decades on Earth). One way to find out the truth of Apollo is pressuring NASA to repeat it.

Quote from Washington Post, 2017-02-15:

"Bob Walker, an adviser to the Trump transition team and a former congressman who chaired the House Science Committee, said Tuesday: 'What I hear being discussed is the potential for sometime within the first Trump term being able to go and do an Apollo 8 mission' -- meaning a lunar orbit mission like the one performed by Apollo 8 in December 1968."

It is rather unlikely that NASA will be able to repeat the alleged Apollo 8 achievements by 2018 (half a century after Apollo 8).

Even much more unrealistic is repetition of the alleged Apollo 11 achievements of 1969 by 2019.

Cheers, Wolfgang

The Apollo Space Program – A gigantic conspiracy?

Good for him. What mission is he sending to check? None? OK then.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Donald Trump as a genuinely skeptical person with common sense surely wants to know whether the Apollo missions were real or faked. It is obvious that Trump is kept away from the crucial state secrets (the crimes and hoaxes committed by the Deep State of the United States, the biggest criminal organization of the last decades on Earth). One way to find out the truth of Apollo is pressuring NASA to repeat it. ...

You might be right, Trump thinks Obama was tapping his phones, why not go full insane and deny the moon landings, in a super tweet.

The Deep State, is that the one at 120 feet in the ocean? Where do you get this woo?

If Donald denies the moon missions, he will be declared insane, and we might be stuck with Pence, and no more super presidential tweets. One the most insane anti-science conspiracy theories is denial of the moon missions.

LOL, yes, pressure NASA to repeat the moon missions with? It takes a whole lot of money. That is funny. Like asking me to repeat my 4:52 mile, or my 9:47 two mile, except NASA can do it with the right amount of money. I am not sure money can get me back up to a 7:30 mile and a half.

Do you really believe the silly moon landing/mission denial act? What do your relatives say? Friends? Dog? Cat? wow

"common sense" playing the card of woo... "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Donald Trump as a genuinely skeptical person with common sense

A controversial statement, to say the least.

Originally Posted by wogoga

[who] surely wants to know whether the Apollo missions were real or faked. It is obvious that Trump is kept away from the crucial state secrets (the crimes and hoaxes committed by the Deep State of the United States, the biggest criminal organization of the last decades on Earth). One way to find out the truth of Apollo is pressuring NASA to repeat it.

If the POTUS and all his appointees cannot put pressure on NASA, why on earth (pun intended) do you think that a few posts on an obscure internet forum wlll achieve anything? Or, if by 'pressure', you mean Trump's mulling of a repetition of those missions, the same still stands: if the Evil Them won't tell him "what really happened", then there is zero chance they will expose themselves and their Dastardly Plot by agreeing to lauch a mission that they know cannot succeed.
Then there is the consideration that, if NASA faked it once, there is nothing to stop them faking it again- or, if they actually are successful, to stop conspiracy theorists claiming it was faked.
Tell me, wogoga, if NASA- or any other space agency- succesfully repeats these missions, will you accept this and stop claiming hoaxes?

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

A controversial statement, to say the least.
...
Tell me, wogoga, if NASA- or any other space agency- succesfully repeats these missions, will you accept this and stop claiming hoaxes?

Quite unlikely as GB's think critically and can't be wrong.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by bknight

Quite unlikely as GB's think critically and can't be wrong.

"Gb's"?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

"Gb's"?

I think he means HBs - (Moon) Hoax Believers.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by bknight

Quite unlikely as GB's think critically and can't be wrong.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

"Gb's"?

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I think he means HBs - (Moon) Hoax Believers.

Oh, I see.
I hate those people.
They give me the heebie-geebies.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

There are also a number of other reasons why we KNOW that the rocks and materials brought back by the Apollo missions actually did come from the moon and not the Earth.

The Lunar samples show evidence of having been formed in a very dry environment, in low gravity (but not zero gravity) and with almost no surrounding oxygen. They have are also been found to contain trapped gases from their exposure to the solar wind at the time they were formed. These properties are not observed in any rock samples found in the Earth.

Don't they also exhibit signs of being bombarded by cosmic rays more than you'd expect if they came from an atmospheric environment?

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

"Gb's"?

My bad HB's, sorry for the confusion.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I think he means HBs - (Moon) Hoax Believers.

Fat finger and not reviewing prior to submission.

But you knew that.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by bknight

Fat finger and not reviewing prior to submission.

But you knew that.

"The fingers you have used to dial are too fat."

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Don't they also exhibit signs of being bombarded by cosmic rays more than you'd expect if they came from an atmospheric environment?

Yep, and some even show impact craters from micrometeorites, something that simply cannot happen on Earth because micrometeorites rarely make it intact through the atmosphere, and when they do, they do not arrive at the surface with anywhere near enough velocity to make an impact crater.

Here is an interesting article on moon rock from a scientist who has been studying them for almost 50 years. Dr. Randy Korotev is a lunar geochemist at the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis.

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

On claims that the Apollo Lunar samples were faked in a Government Laboratory, Dr Korotev has this to say (your point emphasized);

"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 45+ 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 than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth."

[bknight]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Yep, and some even show impact craters from micrometeorites, something that simply cannot happen on Earth because micrometeorites rarely make it intact through the atmosphere, and when they do, they do not arrive at the surface with anywhere near enough velocity to make an impact crater.

Here is an interesting article on moon rock from a scientist who has been studying them for almost 50 years. Dr. Randy Korotev is a lunar geochemist at the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis.

...

On claims that the Apollo Lunar samples were faked in a Government Laboratory, Dr Korotev has this to say (your point emphasized);

"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 45+ 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 than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth."

Excellent, I hadn't read that one.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

"The fingers you have used to dial are too fat."

"To obtain a special dialing wand, please mash the keypad with your palm, now."

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

"To obtain a special dialing wand, please mash the keypad with your palm, now."

That would indeed be a bigger fat finger.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Donald Trump as a genuinely skeptical person ...

We have:
A fantasy about Trump who seems to be a climate change denier!
A fantasy that anyone with common sense would know that the Apollo missions were not faked. It is people who have replaced common sense with paranoia that believe that the missions were faked.

But worse is an implied delusion that the Apollo missions will be duplicated using 1960's technology thus confirming that the Apollo missions happened !
Missions such as Exploration Mission 1 (planned for September 30, 2018 but see sts60's comment) will use modern technology.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by wogoga

From How Earth got its moon, 2017:..

Then delusions about no rocks returned from the Moon . There have been multiple missions that have returned rocks from the Moon.

The similarity between isotopic signatures of lunar rocks and terrestrial rocks is an argument against a simple giant impact but more complex scenarios work (Origin of the Moon).

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by wogoga in #1845

It is rather unlikely that NASA will be able to repeat the alleged Apollo 8 achievements by 2018 (half a century after Apollo 8).

Even much more unrealistic is repetition of the alleged Apollo 11 achievements of 1969 by 2019.

Originally Posted by Reality Check in #1873

But worse is an implied delusion that the Apollo missions will be duplicated using 1960's technology thus confirming that the Apollo missions happened !
Missions such as Exploration Mission 1 (planned for September 30, 2018 but see sts60's comment) will use modern technology.

From the Wikipedia article:

Exploration Mission 1 or EM-1 is the first planned flight of the Space Launch System and the second flight of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. The launch is planned for September 30, 2018. The Orion spacecraft is planned to spend approximately 3 weeks in space, with 6 days of this in a retrograde orbit around the Moon.

At this moment the mission will be unmanned, however NASA has initiated a study to investigate a crewed version of the mission. A crewed version of EM-1 would be composed of a crew of 2 astronauts, and will be much shorter than the unmanned version due to safety reasons.

The "safety reasons" probably stem from solar radiation. Even in the absence of solar storms, the sun is comparable to an open nuclear reactor. Apollo spacesuits "protected the astronaut from thermal solar radiation and micrometeoroids". The problem of nuclear radiation from the sun seems to have been simply ignored during all these Apollo missions.

By the way, in post The Triple-Ring Nebula around Supernova 1987A I wrote:

The belief in the commonness of spiraling in and out of moons, planets and stars is also a result of the belief in the Apollo "moon rock" samples, some or most of which stem from the Earth's crust. Part of the solution to the problem "Earth crust brought back by Apollo from the Moon" became the "fact" that our moon spiraled out from an orbit very close to the Earth.

Cheers, Wolfgang
pandualism.com

[threadworm]

Excessively self-referential and over use of the word "probably".

Next.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by wogoga

The "safety reasons" probably stem from solar radiation.

Pure speculation.

Quote:

Even in the absence of solar storms, the sun is comparable to an open nuclear reactor.

Nonsense. For quiescent solar activity we need only about 7 g cm^-2 shielding to attenuate everything down to roughly Earth-surface normal. Nuclear fission reactions produce an entirely different species of radiation than the Sun.

Quote:

The problem of nuclear radiation from the sun seems to have been simply ignored during all these Apollo missions.

Or maybe you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to radiation.

Let's test your knowledge. What is the baseline neutron flux at two lunar diameters away from the Moon's sun-facing surface, at energies of 100 MeV and higher?

[threadworm]

I exposed myself to that open nuclear reactor today. It's been lovely here. I used minimal shielding, which just happened on this occasion to be a NASA T-shirt.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Let's test your knowledge. What is the baseline neutron flux at two lunar diameters away from the Moon's sun-facing surface, at energies of 100 MeV and higher?

aaaahhhhhh, porridge with sparkles?

I answered as W isn't going to and I suspect my answer will be better than any he might have come up with - if he could have been bothered to try.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by wogoga

From the ...
The "safety reasons" probably stem from solar radiation. Even in the absence of solar storms, the sun is comparable to an open nuclear reactor. "protected the astronaut from thermal solar radiation and micrometeoroids". The problem of nuclear radiation from the sun seems to have been simply ignored during all these Apollo missions.

...

Utter nonsense, the sun is powered by nuclear FUSION not fission as reactors here on Terra Firma. They generate a totally different kind of radiation.
Learn some physics before posting nonsense. BTW don't argues with JayUtah, as he has forgotten more about the Apollo program than you know.