The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Did we land on the moon?  (Read 202489 times)

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #300 on: 24/01/2009 10:01:39 »
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/moon_rock_analysis_000522_MB_.html

Those aren't the only pieces of the moon on Earth.



"Compared with terrestrial samples, all lunar rocks are oddballs becausethey are so dry."


Three robotic Soviet Luna probes returned about three quarters of a pound (301 grams) from three other lunar sites in the 1970s. Geologists also have found 19 fragments of lunar meteorites that were blasted off the surface by impacts and landed in parts of Antarctica, Australia, Morocco and Libya.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #301 on: 24/01/2009 16:28:37 »
Quote from: Andrew K Fletcher
Meteors must all show signs of heating. I agree with that. There must have been a pretty violent event to fragment so much space debris and this would have also added to the heat evidence on the rocks would you agree on that?
The point was that meteors look very different than moon rock because of the violent entry into earth's atmosphere. We have both. We can look at them.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #302 on: 25/01/2009 00:40:32 »
You'll have to do better than that to shake AKF's faith, Verne.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #303 on: 25/01/2009 10:33:53 »
My point is moon rocks have been bombarded by solar flares for many billions of years. This time ageing would also apply to meteors traveling through space, or indeed landing on Earth. The entry through the Earth's atmosphere would generate more heat, but can we be sure it will be any more heat than the explosion that cause the fragmentation in the first place? Point being we should not rely on the rocks as evidence for a journey to the moon. Most of the meteor debris scattered on the moons surface over such a long period of time would / should have found it's way into the samples "alledgedly" brought back down to Earth. We find them in deserts around the world, where environmental processes errode, bury or disguise them. So the moons surface should be littered with them. 
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #304 on: 25/01/2009 11:25:28 »
Quote
This time ageing would also apply to meteors traveling through space, or indeed landing on Earth.
And you know about all this in detail, do you? You could look at two rocks (and the slag from an iron works, no doubt) and know which was which? Face it- you believe it because you believe it and that's all there is to it.

It's a  wonder that you can bring yourself to use technology so readily when its been developed so successfully by the very 'experts' whose opinions you reject at random, when it suits you. They must have got telecomms, electronics and electrical power distribution all wrong so how can you trust them like you do?

Here's yet another example of where you have your own little private and selective world of Science and refuse to get involved with experts and numbers because 'you know best'.

I challenge you to take any one of your whacky theories and clothe it with some actual facts and figures. No stories, not hyperbole  (no "alleged"s etc.) - just some good, honest Science, backed up with 'workings' and values.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #305 on: 25/01/2009 12:35:27 »
Quite familiar with slag from ironworks, coming from the Blackcountry and spending many hours playing on the slag heaps. Also found pig iron there too. And as a child we learned all about tating and collecting non-ferrous metals to earn pocket money. We also used to go tip-picking and collect the swarf from the heavy Hessian bags by shacking them over a sheet of polythene. Our educations may not have been the same but the end result is we both have the ability to determine metals by sight and by using a magnet. Dad taught us well. He also taught us how to spot mushrooms and find pig nuts. Those were the days on the tip with a knife slashing open old settees and chairs and finding money down the backs of them. Might not have been the same school as yours Sophie but we did learn some very practical skills.

Inclined Bed Therapy (Proven Theory)
Fact:1 Heart rate decreases sleeping on an inclined bed by 10-12 beats per minute.
Fact: 2 Respiration rate decreases by 3-5 breaths per minute using same method.
Fact: 3 Pressures change inside vessels when a bed is titled. This alters the size of varicose veins and greatly reduces oedema in a few weeks avoiding flat bedrest. Photographs provided that reflect pilot study results accurately and the timescales followed as predicted based on previous results can be found in the varicose vein study thread.

And then there's that; "Water under normal atmospheric pressure will not travel up a single open ended tube suspended greater than 10 meters vertically problem. Something you still teach your students and something you now know to be false! How's that for honest science?

I am sure you can put together some formulas that can prove my experiments at Brixham do not work. Yet they clearly do work!
« Last Edit: 25/01/2009 12:37:29 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #306 on: 25/01/2009 15:15:18 »
Para 1. A story which proves nothing about your ability at recognising Moon rock. No figures quoted and no comment about the probable difference in the effects of brief, intense heating on atmospheric entry compared with being brought home in an Apollo capsule.
Para 2. A limited study which would probably suggest more work could be done. Not enough data to risk investing my money in yet. Not enough figures quoted to be worth considering. ( edit:btw, not 'proven theory'; it's some possible evidence - that's all.)
Para 3. Another limited study but it does demonstrate that the simple model doesn't work when adhesion and cohesion are great enough and for a limited time. No figures quoted here except the height achieved and nothing (absolutely nothing) to support your explanation.

How do you 'know' that's what I teach my students? As a matter of fact, it hasn't come into the syllabus for years (which shows how crap the present system is - but that's another issue). Actually, I would make it my very first priority to mention your particular results because it would be of interest. The last thing I would suggest to them would be your totally unsupported explanation because it would be misleading them. (That's called scientific integrity.)
« Last Edit: 25/01/2009 18:42:51 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #307 on: 25/01/2009 16:35:17 »
You'll have to do better than that to shake AKF's faith, Verne.

Yes; I see; AFK has the faith. What I don't understand is why it is that folks don't want to believe that the good ole USA actually went to the moon. The moon is not the same any more. It has evidence of the visits still on it. Maybe we should have put giant reflectors on the moon so they would be visible from earth.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #308 on: 25/01/2009 18:44:17 »
That would have spoiled their fun.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #309 on: 25/01/2009 19:28:16 »
If we put an unmanned craft in orbit around Jupiter and it drops a reflector on the surface does that mean we must have sent people there to install it? Or could it mean a motorised reflector is able to align itself correctly? Keep the faith Bruva.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #310 on: 25/01/2009 19:34:58 »
Faith vs evidence.
Which one constitutes the scientific approach?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #311 on: 25/01/2009 19:37:48 »
Sometimes it seems that faith has the upper hand, but I prefer evidence :)
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #312 on: 25/01/2009 20:15:25 »
Sometimes it seems that faith has the upper hand, but I prefer evidence :)
Not when you scratch the surface, my friend.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #313 on: 26/01/2009 10:30:40 »
Faith = Trust I don't trust a Government that has A Lousy Reputation for telling Porkeys.

You may feel it appropriate to accuse me of blind faith. I couldn't give two hoots about whether they landed on the moon or not. Just pointing out how the evidence either way could be flawed.

My reference to Keep The Faith Bruva was alas Satirical. In fact I have grown to understand how scientists often hang on to faith in their often erroneous literature. Such blind belief is hardly scientific. But there ya go.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #314 on: 26/01/2009 12:44:56 »
Quote from: Andrew K Fletcher
Faith = Trust I don't trust a Government that has A Lousy Reputation for telling Porkeys.
You pay too much attention to the opposition parties rhetoric.  Opposition is good to have; it keeps folks honest; but outsiders often only hear the opposition and think it represents reality when actually it is just politics.   
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #315 on: 26/01/2009 21:52:18 »
AKF
"Blind Faith"
You have demonstrated on so many occasions that you have not rejected the conventions of Science from an informed standpoint but because of a gut feeling against the establishment.
You quote 'famous names' in your objections - with no demonstration of any understanding of what they say. And yet, you complain and claim that 'the other faction' do just the same. But the difference is in the level of rigour involved. When I believe in a theory, it is because it stands upon a firm base of well founded data and, yes, this will offend you, MATHS. Your ideas all ad hoc, rigid and don't fit into the bigger picture.

You claim that governments lie but do you really think that the originators of conspiracy theories are totally truthful? Do you think it is not in the interests of an author to fabricate, bend and misrepresent data in the interest of money or self agrandisment You can't really be that naive, can you?
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #316 on: 30/01/2009 16:39:37 »
Quote


We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that
There's some interesting stuff about the rocks here.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #317 on: 01/02/2009 21:04:43 »
Cosmored,
Do you believe anything that "proves" the moon landing were faked? Are there any "evidences" you do not agree with?
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #318 on: 02/02/2009 18:25:26 »
Quote
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that
There's some interesting stuff about the rocks here.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A

I've watched some of those videos.
In "MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 4" the expositor makes a mistake. He claims that scientists lied when they said that rocks from the Moon are not "oxidized" as are rocks from Earth or meteorites. He claims this because it makes us notice that metals or other elements are combined with oxygen in the Moon rocks analysis. His mistake is not to have understood (he probably is not a chemist) that "oxidized" in chemistry jargon does not necessarily mean "there is oxygen combined with the metals or other elements" but that sometimes it means "those metals or other elements which can have more than one oxidation state are in an upper state of oxidation", so they probably should better have said "full oxidized" instead of simply "oxidized".

Example: Calcium metal can only be in the oxidation state +2 so you will find the only oxide CaO; Iron, instead, can be found oxidized in the +2 (ferrous state) or in the +3 state (ferric state); when is in the +3, is fully oxidized; so the first oxide is FeO (ferrous oxide), the second is Fe2O3 (ferric oxide).

Now, at ~ time 1:33  of that video, you can clearly read in the paper that it was written "Ferrous Oxide" as one of the constituents of Moon rocks (not "Ferric Oxide") and so this does not constitute a prove that the rock is "oxidized" (as claimed by the expositor), that is a prove that scientists lied.

Also, claiming that there should not be oxigen combined with other elements in the Moon rocks would be extremely weird: you should find in that case free Sodium, Calcium, Magnesium metals, free Silicon! It wouldn't be "The Moon", it would be "An incredible treasure of useful elements"!

Anyway, I don't understand why geologists would claim that even meteorites should be "oxidized": if a rock has a non oxidized metal (Iron, Nichel) in it before entering the athmosphere, then it shouldn't necessarily oxidize completely that metal when it reach the soil, infact meteorites can actually contain the non-oxidized metal.  ???
« Last Edit: 02/02/2009 18:33:59 by lightarrow »
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #319 on: 12/04/2009 16:42:25 »
On this thread below there's a debate going on between Jarrah White and Jay Windley.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/thread/133905495?p=1

Jay Windley is the main Apollo defender.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

He runs the Clavius site.

Jarrah White made this video series which pretty much proves the hoax.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker&aq=f

He's the main hoax defender.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #320 on: 12/04/2009 19:36:25 »
I think the conspiracy theorists need to explain actually how the conspiracy could have been constructed - and the numbers involved. It's all qualitative with them and doesn't actually involve quantities.
The notion that millions of people were involved in the conspiracy - and not one of them has 'cracked' since, is more unthinkable than any other.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #321 on: 18/07/2009 10:36:43 »
Houston, we have a problem: original moon walk footage erased
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #322 on: 18/07/2009 11:24:50 »
Quote
Jay Windley is the main Apollo defender.
Apollo doesn't need a "defender".
A 'non-conspiracy' needs no publicity - just the joint experiences of many thousands of technically competent participants and informed observers.
No one, so far, has explained how it would have been possible for the radio signals from the Lunar trip to have appeared to come from the Moon without the source of the signals actually having traveled there and been there during the mission.
"I'm sure they would have found a way" is no argument.
There has never been a conspiracy involving so many observers or so many participants which has lasted more than five minutes.

« Last Edit: 18/07/2009 11:33:50 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline MonikaS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #323 on: 18/07/2009 16:03:31 »
Awwww Sc, you can't expect conspiration theorists to be influenced by mere facts! Simply because they can't figure out how something highly technical has been done, they assume it wasn't done but faked. Makes you wonder why the use computers and acccept medication from their doctors, that is... most likely the believe in the Big Pharma conspiracy as well.
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #324 on: 18/07/2009 20:30:07 »
Have ewe checked this out..it's captivating stuff

http://wechoosethemoon.com/#
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #324 on: 18/07/2009 20:30:07 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums