Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 30664 times)

Offline nweber

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #240 on: May 22, 2018, 11:34:23 PM »
And anyway, are you sure hobbits aren't real?...

Have you ever seen the president of Ireland?

Offline Von_Smith

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #241 on: May 23, 2018, 07:39:23 AM »
If they were from existing collections, didn't museums notice lunar meteorites disappearing? (They were in on it; pay them - forever)

And not just the institution.  Any and all employees, former employees, student interns, major private donors, colleagues from other institutions with similar collections, etc. who might know something about the collections.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1829
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #242 on: May 23, 2018, 12:34:25 PM »
And correct me if I'm wrong, here, but don't we only have a very small amount of meteorites known to have come from the Moon, and didn't we identify them as such because of their similarity to Apollo samples, meaning they couldn't possibly be the source anyway?
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Dalhousie

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #243 on: May 24, 2018, 12:13:32 AM »
And correct me if I'm wrong, here, but don't we only have a very small amount of meteorites known to have come from the Moon, and didn't we identify them as such because of their similarity to Apollo samples, meaning they couldn't possibly be the source anyway?

No lunar meteorites were identified as such before the Apollo and Luna.  Indeed it as their similarity to Apollo and Luna samples that led them to be identified as such and identifiability distinct from other achondritic meteorites such as SNCs (Mars) and HEDs (Vesta).  The first lunar meteorite was not discovered until 1979 and the first recognised in 1982.

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #244 on: May 24, 2018, 12:39:29 AM »
And correct me if I'm wrong, here, but don't we only have a very small amount of meteorites known to have come from the Moon, and didn't we identify them as such because of their similarity to Apollo samples, meaning they couldn't possibly be the source anyway?

No lunar meteorites were identified as such before the Apollo and Luna.  Indeed it as their similarity to Apollo and Luna samples that led them to be identified as such and identifiability distinct from other achondritic meteorites such as SNCs (Mars) and HEDs (Vesta).  The first lunar meteorite was not discovered until 1979 and the first recognised in 1982.
I'm curious though. Since we don't have any Martian samples, how do we know those meteorites are from Mars then? One of those things I've always been curious about.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #245 on: May 24, 2018, 12:58:51 AM »
And correct me if I'm wrong, here, but don't we only have a very small amount of meteorites known to have come from the Moon, and didn't we identify them as such because of their similarity to Apollo samples, meaning they couldn't possibly be the source anyway?

No lunar meteorites were identified as such before the Apollo and Luna.  Indeed it as their similarity to Apollo and Luna samples that led them to be identified as such and identifiability distinct from other achondritic meteorites such as SNCs (Mars) and HEDs (Vesta).  The first lunar meteorite was not discovered until 1979 and the first recognised in 1982.
I'm curious though. Since we don't have any Martian samples, how do we know those meteorites are from Mars then? One of those things I've always been curious about.

Classic case of inductive reasons and a process of elimination.

The SNC meteorites are a family of achondritic meteorites (they are essentially mafic rocks similar to terrestrial examples.)  with specific geochemical characteristicscommon to all.

The SNCs have undergone melting.  So they have to have come from a silicate body with volcanism. This means Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Vesta, and Io. 

Earth, Moon, and Vesta are eliminated by stable isotope data.

Venus and Io are delineated by unreason energy requirements to be sent on Earth intersecting orbits.  Mercury isn not quite ruled out, but is unlikely.

The Viking landers measured the noble gas isotopes in the martian atmosphere. The noble gas isotopes in the SNCs match these. 

So Mars is the obvious choice.

This is the argument used by the initial researcher Or you can use the following argument from me:

The parent body had to be one that is of silicate composition.  That rules out all but the terrestrial planets and Io.

The parent body has to have had a long history of volcanic activity (from four billion years ago to a few hundred million years ago.  This rules out Mercury, the Moon, Vesta.

The parent body had to have free water on its surface (there is aqueous alternation in most SNCs. This rules out Venus and Io.

The great age of some SNCs rules out Earth.

Mars is the only one left.  If it did not exist it would have to be invented.

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #246 on: May 24, 2018, 02:52:18 AM »
Ooh, OK! Super cool that! ;D And thank you, I never had it explained half so well before, Dalhousie, much thanks.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #247 on: May 24, 2018, 07:52:45 AM »
Glad to help!

Offline Drewid

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 42
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #248 on: May 24, 2018, 08:54:45 AM »
That sort of answer is why I still lurk here even if I'm not active.    Nicely done :)

Offline Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 860
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #249 on: May 24, 2018, 10:15:23 AM »
Cambo, as a non-expert but with access to the world's largest interconnected source of information at my fingertips, let's say you managed to get off the fusion crust on a metric buttload of  lunar meteorites without leaving detectable traces of what was used (no mean feat given how intensely studied moon rocks have been) and let's say you find a way to re-add the zip pits and helium 3 to the outer layers, well, you still got problems. See, those meteorites didn't just fall yesterday. They've been  exposed air and water and other sources of weathering, leading to changes in their structure and composition compared to the practically pristine Apollo  and Soviet Luna samples. Oh, and their cosmic ray exposure ages tell us how long they've been on the surface.
There's also the issue of where do you find a metric buttload (is that more or less than a metric f---tonne?) of lunar meteorites - i.e. nearly 400 Kg of material (after processing) without anyone noticing it being collected, identified, processed and transported to the launches.

The story gets more and more nonsensical at every turn, and now we need teams of people scouring the planet for meteorites (in secret) plus loads of geologists to process them into "samples" - all of whom now need paying to ensure their life-long silence...

Can I suggest it gets even better?

Sure, there are lunar meteorites which have been found on Earth. But the Apollo samples consist of more than just rocks. They include soil samples and core samples. Now, okay, I suppose you could make soil samples from grinding up lunar meteorites (and watch the faces of geologists as you do it!).

But where are you going to get 2.5 metre long core samples from? From a lunar meteorite 2.5 metres across? Seriously?

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1503
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #250 on: May 24, 2018, 03:16:35 PM »
Now, okay, I suppose you could make soil samples from grinding up lunar meteorites (and watch the faces of geologists as you do it!).

And good luck doing that without leaving evidence of whatever was used to grind it up. A similar problem the magic machine that 'removes the fusion layer' of a meteorite and adds back the zap pits would have.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #251 on: May 24, 2018, 03:53:30 PM »
Now, okay, I suppose you could make soil samples from grinding up lunar meteorites (and watch the faces of geologists as you do it!).

And good luck doing that without leaving evidence of whatever was used to grind it up. A similar problem the magic machine that 'removes the fusion layer' of a meteorite and adds back the zap pits would have.


... and can create those zap pits without leaving behind a residue that has an origin from Earth.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Dalhousie

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #252 on: May 24, 2018, 09:09:29 PM »
Now, okay, I suppose you could make soil samples from grinding up lunar meteorites (and watch the faces of geologists as you do it!).

And good luck doing that without leaving evidence of whatever was used to grind it up. A similar problem the magic machine that 'removes the fusion layer' of a meteorite and adds back the zap pits would have.


... and can create those zap pits without leaving behind a residue that has an origin from Earth.

You'd also have to manufacture the aggulinates and add in the solar wind and meteoritic iron components (as both spherules and fragments).  You would also have to arrange the zero time cosmic ray exposure ages.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2018, 09:11:30 PM by Dalhousie »

Offline Northern Lurker

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #253 on: May 25, 2018, 12:50:20 PM »
I have understood that there were several reasons for Apollo program:
-to beat the Soviets in Space Race after Soviet wins of first satellite, first animal in orbit and first human in orbit and safely back to Earth
-to boost the popularity of JFK
-to advance science (origin of Moon, composition of solar wind etc)
-to boost US scientific, technological and industrial capacity

Without Apollo program, would US had the advantage it had in 70's and 80's in fields like microchips and computers, metallurgy, mega project management? Also if space flight is fake, why there are technologies which were developed for space flight but are on everyday use back on Earth?

Lurky

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #254 on: May 25, 2018, 02:27:08 PM »
But where are you going to get 2.5 metre long core samples from? From a lunar meteorite 2.5 metres across? Seriously?
And you'd need several separate massive moon meteorites, so scientists don't get sneaking suspicions from similarities.