Did Men Really Walk on the Moon?

[phrased eyebrow]

Shiva wears sunglasses? Wipe his butt, TG.

[bertl]

Buddha wears sunglasses?

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by phrased eyebrow

Shiva wears sunglasses? Wipe his butt, TG.

I'm sure you consider yourself to be an expert on Hindu imagery (what with "instantly" recognizing Shiva but confusing him for the Buddha nearly 2 years after MF started using the avatar...) so let me help you fill a few gaps in your nearly infinite and boundless knowledge.

MF's avatar is from this image of Shiva:


There's a somewhat brief and obscure trend, not quite a meme, of photoshopping other faces into that image. For example, this one with the face of Shia LaBouef (also note the snarky expression on the tiger).



Just at a guess, I'd say the face with the sunglasses belongs to some guy named Paul.

[phrased eyebrow]

Butt wie accepted.

[tomt]

Originally Posted by truegroup

looks like you've summed up all your posting with that one photo ...

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by tomt

looks like you've summed up all your posting with that one photo ...

Wow irony embodied. A seagull drops in with a troll comment and says nothing on topic.

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by moving finger

So it's the Apollo volcanic samples, collected by Apollo, on the moon, that got your vicar all excited because he thinks it proves God made the moon. That's his privilege, but it doesn't help your argument one iota.

If doesn't bode well for your argument when you're forced to create an argument for me as well as mischaracterize my argument. Spike Psarris is merely sourcing the research of James A. Van Orman Associate Professor Department of Geological Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, who I believe obtained his PhD from MIT.

Dr. Van Orman's research was based upon what they knew about terrestrial rocks:

http://www.cleveland.com/science/ind...hat_parts.html

The team believed their surprising lunar water predictions were solid, but to be sure, they went back to work with more of the Apollo 17 sample. They wanted to directly measure the lunar water concentration rather than estimating it. "There's nothing like a direct measurement to prove yourself right," said team member and lead author Erik Hauri, a Carnegie geochemist.

The scientists knew that volcanic glass beads on Earth sometimes contain mineral crystals that can trap a magma droplet. The dense crystals block most water and other volatiles in the magma from escaping. If the Apollo 17 samples had such trapped magma "melt inclusions," the researchers should be able to measure their water content. But first they had to find them.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

If doesn't bode well for your argument when you're forced to create an argument for me as well as mischaracterize my argument. Spike Psarris is merely sourcing the research of James A. Van Orman Associate Professor Department of Geological Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, who I believe obtained his PhD from MIT.

Dr. Van Orman's research was based upon what they knew about terrestrial rocks:

http://www.cleveland.com/science/ind...hat_parts.html

You quoted a god-botherer as part of your evidence. I did not imply you were a god botherer. I implied that it was a strange choice of source.

He in turn is quoting people who analysed Apollo samples collected by Apollo astronauts on the moon. He is concluding that the Apollo samples prove a divine hand behind the creation of the moon. He does not conclude that the Apollo samples were fake. Neither do the people whose evidence he quoted, who are more than happy that the samples were collected on the moon by Apollo astronauts.

Using their understanding of the Earth's vulcanism, they were able to infer the existence of lunar equivalents to a particular type of volcanic material found on earth. They found them in the Apollo samples. This does not mean, nor should it be implied, that the Apollo samples are terrestrial. What it means is that similar processes were at work in the active lunar volcanic environment as can be found on Earth. They do not comment on the water chemistry of either sets of sample.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

If doesn't bode well for your argument when......

You just ignore everything presented to you!

1. The water signature for terrestrial rocks is different to lunar rocks.
2. Terrestrial rocks show weathering.
3. Terrestrial rocks do not have solar isotopes.
4. Terrestrial rocks do not have zap pits or exterior stronger He-3.

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

"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 40+ years and I couldn't make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in "the Government" could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth. [After writing these words I learned that virtually the same sentiments had already been expressed by some of my lunar sample colleagues.]"

[mandelbrot]

Moving finger,

The premise of my post was not that Dr. Van Orman thought the lunar rocks were fake, but only to demonstrate that the method his research team was comparable to that used upon terrestrial rocks.

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by truegroup

You just ignore everything presented to you!

1. The water signature for terrestrial rocks is different to lunar rocks.
2. Terrestrial rocks show weathering.
3. Terrestrial rocks do not have solar isotopes.
4. Terrestrial rocks do not have zap pits or exterior stronger He-3.

1. We've been over this already. You linked an article that stated the signature was different in the lunar samples due to the hypothesis that comets were the impetus for bring water to the Moon. I follwed up with a research paper from the same year that claimed comets were the impetus for bring water to the Earth.
   
   
2. Two things misleading in your observation. a). The researchers receive samples that may or may not show signs of weathering due to the small sample size. b). We were also discussing the impact of lunar meteorites found in the Antarctic, so we're not just discussing terrestrial rocks.
   
   
3. Lunar meteorties found in the Antartic are distinguished as being of lunar origin due to the noble gases trapped inside. I'm fairly certain that in Isotope Geochemistry identifying noble gases due to solar wind is used to identify Antarctic meteorites as being of lunar origin.
   
   
4. Not sure what you're trying to conclude here - or imply - NASA was performing meteorite simulations evern prior to the Ranger missions. As for 3He, I already posted a research paper that showed how the team took a meteortie found on Earth and extrapolated how much 3He it contained.

As for Apollo lunar rocks being "too good" - as in - when in doubt resort to hyperbole - Apollo and Luna mission lunar rocks only pertain to 17% of the lunar surface, and it took and unmanned mission, i.e., SMART 1 to determine that the area where the Apollo mission supposedly landed contain a different composition than those alleged Apollo rocks.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

We've been over this already. You linked an article that stated the signature was different in the lunar samples due to the hypothesis that comets were the impetus for bring water to the Moon. I follwed up with a research paper from the same year that claimed comets were the impetus for bring water to the Earth.

We have not been over this already, you ignored it already and your answer above is just nonsense.

The water from lunar samples has a different water signature to terrestrial rocks. There are numerous analyses performed of samples, where the water locked within the beads and crystals has been shown to be consistently different to Earth. Your comment is both irrelevant and using a strawman to disprove nothing. So what if the water DOES come from comets. So what.

The water has a different water signature, which part of that don't you get

Two things misleading in your observation. a). The researchers receive samples that may or may not show signs of weathering due to the small sample size. b). We were also discussing the impact of lunar meteorites found in the Antarctic, so we're not just discussing terrestrial rocks.

Nothing is misleading in my observation. Who are you to conclude that small samples will not show weathering? Nobody - you have no credentials and your observation is incorrect. Samples handed out can be any size, but more pertinently, when several people examine the same rock the same absence of minerals is found and the same absence of any oxidation is found - NO terrestrial weathering. Rock exposed to atmospheric gases or terrestrial water will show weathering - period.

You can obfuscate and wriggle about this all you like but it matters not a damn. Lunar meteorites/ Earth rocks - the same. They spend any time on the surface they become weathered.

Lunar meteorties found in the Antartic are distinguished as being of lunar origin due to the noble gases trapped inside. I'm fairly certain that in Isotope Geochemistry identifying noble gases due to solar wind is used to identify Antarctic meteorites as being of lunar origin.

They have the same oxygen isotope ratios as Earth rocks, similar minerals and similar solar isotopes. Similar but different and to a geologist as quoted, noticeably different.

Not sure what you're trying to conclude here - or imply - NASA was performing meteorite simulations evern prior to the Ranger missions. As for 3He, I already posted a research paper that showed how the team took a meteortie found on Earth and extrapolated how much 3He it contained.

That's right, you're not sure are you. You post some link to where they used small aluminium pellets to mimic micrometeorites then all of a sudden come up with a ludicrous assertion that they used this machine to accelerate tiny dust particles to 60,000mph to simulate what the Apollo rocks actually show.

So what about extrapolating what He-3 content a meteorite contains? SO WHAT!

The lunar rocks from Apollo have stronger He-3 found on the outer edges, and where there are zap pits, around that area too. Lunar meteorites lose most of their mass upon entry, have an exterior fusion crust and often break into bits - making them even more susceptible to weathering.

As for Apollo lunar rocks being "too good" - as in - when in doubt resort to hyperbole - Apollo and Luna mission lunar rocks only pertain to 17% of the lunar surface, and it took and unmanned mission, i.e., SMART 1 to determine that the area where the Apollo mission supposedly landed contain a different composition than those alleged Apollo rocks.

Irrelevant and you have been shown why. Variation in minerals across regions is perfectly normal, your use of SMART-1 to assert this, whoopy-doo. So what.

A whole lot of nothing by you as usual, adherence to the words of Jawwah and a total lack of critical thinking - my "hyperbole" comes form a top geologist!

[mandelbrot]

Truegroup,

Here is the link and quote from the article you provided as to why the water signatures are supposedly different:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0111133019.htm

Scientists believe the moon formed by a giant impact of the nascent Earth with a Mars-sized object called Theia, which caused a great explosion throwing materials outward to aggregate and create the moon. Taylor's article theorizes that at this time, there was a great flux of comets, or "dirty icebergs," hitting both the Earth and moon systems. The Earth already having lots of water and other volatiles did not change much. However, the moon, being bone-dry, acquired much of its water supply from these comets.

Your article is dated Jan 11, 2011. However, I linked and quoted a follow up article from Oct 5, 2011 - and here is what it stated:

http://www.space.com/13185-comets-wa...ns-source.html

Now researchers find that water seen in Comet Hartley 2 is very close to Earth's, with about 1,610 deuterium atoms per 10 million regular hydrogen atoms.

"With our finding it may be that more than 10 percent and perhaps all water on Earth possibly stems from comets," Hartogh told SPACE.com.

It may be that all bodies in the inner solar system get their water from these comets. Sampling a larger number of comets for their deuterium-hydrogen ratios could shed light on the matter, Hartogh said.

The scientists detailed their findings online Oct. 5 in the journal Nature.

Those two research papers do not correlate with each other. On top of all that, it doesn't prove that the sample is from Apollo, only that it might be a lunar sample that could have been obtained in another way.

I suspect we are going to see another burn and slash posting from you as a follow up to this one that will be convoluted and long in an attempt to distract from the issue, so I reserve the right to repost this one in case of that event.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Truegroup,

Here is the link and quote from the article you provided as to why the water signatures are supposedly different:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0111133019.htm



Your article is dated Jan 11, 2011. However, I linked and quoted a follow up article from Oct 5, 2011 - and here is what it stated:

http://www.space.com/13185-comets-wa...ns-source.html



Those two research papers do not correlate with each other. On top of all that, it doesn't prove that the sample is from Apollo, only that it might be a lunar sample that could have been obtained in another way.

I suspect we are going to see another burn and slash posting from you as a follow up to this one that will be convoluted and long in an attempt to distract from the issue, so I reserve the right to repost this one in case of that event.

Why don't they relate to each other?

One says 10% of Earth's water is possibly cometary in origin, the other that almost all the moon's water is of cometary origin. Other researchers suggest that some lunar water is volcanic in origin. These are what we scientists call "theories" that are tested with empirical evidence. That evidence comes from samples. Some of those samples come from the Apollo missions. None of the papers you cite disprove the Apollo missions, and none of them contradict the evidence supplied by the Apollo samples. None of them question the missions, and it only helps to demonstrate that many many researches have had access to them, used them, and found no inconsistencies in them.

You should also be aware that just because one piece of research was published in a popular journal before another, this does not mean that a) the results pre-date the other or b) one set of results supersedes the other. Results take time to come out and different ideas can run in parallel until a consensus is reached.

You have become obsessed with proving people wrong, rather than proving Apollo wrong. You are continually posting evidence provided by Apollo samples without once demonstrating any proof that doubts their provenance.

The Apollo samples are lunar in origin, and were collected by astronauts.

[metida]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/con...ong-moon,2796/

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by metida

http://www.theonion.com/articles/con...ong-moon,2796/

I expect more than a few people will read that and believe it.

[metida]

Hahahahah, true true.

[jamesc]

Originally Posted by metida

http://www.theonion.com/articles/con...ong-moon,2796/

Witty indeed.

[frenat]

Originally Posted by truegroup

I expect more than a few people will read that and believe it.

If I recall correctly, Jack White did.

[apollo_gnomon]

I wish you were joking.