Holy Ghost

**

yup. last time i checked, the US hadn't been tasked with feeding the entire planet. despite that, they still contributed $21.75 billion to overseas aid in 2007, the largest single aid spend of any country on the planet and 20% of all aid from the G8 nations (even if their pro rata percentage of national income donated is the lowest in the G8). their money, their decision i'd say.

anyway, if a man's reach cannot exceed his grasp, then what's life for?

TelBoy

Because people hate Americans, and more precisely the American political machine. It's not rocket science, pardon the pun.

TelBoy

Peter, i think you're getting confused with technological advances. Nobody is suggesting that those weren't a direct result of the moon programme. Very few people are suggesting the Saturn V rockets weren't real etc etc! The main thrust (i'm on a roll) is that men never walked on the moon. And that's it. All the other benefits were tangible, they just faked the moon walks. For which they needed a story to cover the moon rock of course. Get a meteorite, say it's moon rock, Bob's your uncle.

angrynorth

The Apollo missions brought back 382kgs of lunar samples back, so that would have to be one huge meteorite to make up for all that.

Samples were distributed to most of the US's friendly nations and laboratories and they have been stringently analysed for many years, some even alongside their Russian "probe obtained" samples which would be a pretty good certificate of authenticity.

OllyK

Clavius: Environment - rocks

Ahh - see it's been covered above.

TelBoy

Go on Olly, go and find out how much has been released for general scientific research. Do you see a problem with your theory yet?

TelBoy

No it hasn't been covered, lol, if you were so fekkin clever the conspiracists would have been well and truly silenced well before your Scoobynet trial, lol!!


To repeat, the ONLY thing that will prove this either way is the existence of the lunar craft on the moon. It really is that simple.

angrynorth

There's 295 kilos still in NASA's vault, so just under 90 kilos has been released to independent, global laboratories. Consider that geologists tend to use a tiny 0.2mm slice for analysis or at the most a sugar cube sized sample (weighs about 10-20 milligrams) and that 90 kilos all of a sudden looks like a hefty amount of samples in circulation.

There are several samples on public display throughout America also.

In fact, if you don't believe it why not request one yourself:

From the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council
Lunar and Meteorite Samples Loan Scheme

Or direct from NASA
How to Request Lunar Samples

Seeing as you appear to be all seeing and all knowing about Apollo lunar samples I'm sure you already have the required qualifications to apply for such a loan and that you will instantly be able to disprove the moon landings in a couple of hours.

PeteBrant

Will prove it to you, you mean. Different people have different levels of proof they are willing to accept.


And even then, I am willing to bet body parts that if man went back to the moon and showed footage of the Apollo landing sites, they would be accused of being fake.

Simple fact is a few people do not, and never will, believe man has walked on the moon until they themselves are physically there.

OllyK

You can loan out sample of lunar roack from here - Lunar and Meteorite Samples Loan Scheme

Oh and also from the Natural History museum.

As covered above, large amounts have been distributed around the world and verified in numerous labs.

Next question.

angrynorth

Why would that prove anything? If you believe that the Ruskies could land a probe on the moon, or that we could land a probe on Mars or that the moon reflector plates which the astronauts left behind were put there by a probe, then surely just landing an unmanned craft on the moon would be a piece of cake.

The funny thing is, there is much more real, compelling evidence out there than the landing craft, but it is the one that the theorists always cling to despite the fact it would be the weakest form of any evidence offered up.

Have any of you conspiracy believers actually read any of the evidence FOR the landings or do you just spend all of your time on the internet?

OllyK

Like the flat earthers have been?

Tel there are some people out there that will not change their minds no matter what evidence you show them. The CTers have to make up more and more conveluted explanations and excuses as everytime they come up with something it gets shot down in flames.

And you know as well as I do, that when / if we do return and show footage of the lunar modules etc on the moon, the CT'ers will just claim the new footage / landings have been faked as well.

TelBoy

Mr North, you can link here, link there, link wherever, but you can't PROVE that rock came from the moon!! I'm not saying i pray at the conspiracists' altar, BUT they haven't been completely revoked yet. If only it were that simple. I'd also like to know for sure one way or another, but i don't lose sleep about it!! I have an open mind about it, but unlike most doubters on here it seems, i can see wHY they'd have done it, something that in 2008 just seems like a trivial point, but it wasn't, it was a critical time in international politics, you cannot overlook that.

TelBoy

True, but few people would look at an American flag poking out of the Moon's surface and claim a robot did it. Those people are beyond help, granted. For 99.99% recurring of the population, that would be proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

PeteBrant

I think we are that level already to be fair.

TelBoy

Believe me, i have more Apollo stuff than you can shake a stick at, including a nice original Apollo 11 press kit if you've got pockets deep enough?! The evidence FOR the landings is the surviving astronauts, and "moon rock". Everything else is fakable, like it or not (and i don't think you do).

angrynorth

Well actually you can prove that they came from the moon, as we also have found moon samples here on earth (a massive 19 kilo's in entire human history) which they can be compared to.

Essentially, what you are saying is that hundreds of thousands of independent scientists, scholars and geologists are all mistaken and these rocks which they have been studying are actually of terrestrial origin and that a couple of hundred internet weirdos and their legion of gullible ill-educated followers were right all along.

The fact it was at a critical time in international politics only supports that they actually happened as everything the US did was closely monitored by its enemies.

TelBoy

Oh i bet i can find you a few million Russians who still need a bit of convincing!! You see you're taking this from a Western stance, unavoidable i suppose, but not everybody is as convinced by the American propaganda machine as you might imagine.

PeteBrant

I think it's probably mostly Westerners with internet connections that are skeptical!

I think it's also possibly a little unfair to call the Apollo mission part of the American propganda machine, no doubt it was a display of massive technological superiority, but it was also portrayed as being done in the name of "man" rather than America.

I don't have an overly high opinion of the States, but I think the Moon landings stand as one of the greatest achievements in human endeavour.

TelBoy

See, it all comes down to being "ill-educated" doesn't it. Losing interest now. The conspiracists have unanswered questions about the validity and origin of the moon rock, as well you know. I point blank refuse to get into a linking war, i never have and i never will. You believe the moon landings happened, that's great. I'm sceptical, and can find reasons to be so.

For the third time i think, the only way this will be proved one way or the other is the existence of the lunar craft on the moon. It really is (still) that simple.

angrynorth

I guess it does come down to that when you are not offering up any evidence to contradict these thousands of independent experts.

This is really where your argument falls to pieces in my opinion, how could something which would be relatively simple to do (land an automated craft on a celestial body) be more compelling evidence than the analysis of vast amounts of rock by hundreds of independent scientific bodies (including Russians)?

That simply does not make any sense.

OllyK

As far as you can prove anything, yup, it has been proved. The CTers just seem convinced that every geologist in the world is either dumb or part of the conspiracy.

There are none so blind as those that will not see. I have yet to see a credible CT claim that hasn't been countered, in spades.

I can see why they would have done it, but the scale of the conspiracy is more complex than actually doing what they claim.

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

Couldn't agree more.

TelBoy

I'm not, because it's been done to death by thousands of other people before me, surely you can see that? Scoobynet "discussions" which rely on the strength of the links are farcical. You believe the links in favour of moon landings, i'm not so sure, and vice versa. I'm not going to waste my life linking to articles that you're just going to dismiss.


Does THAT make sense to you??

TelBoy

No, it would make no sense NOT to believe a moonscape complete with instruments, burnt out lunar modules, footprints, tyre tracks from 15 onwards etc etc. Anybody who doesn't believe it actually happened faced with that evidence deserves to be ignored, permanently. Moon rock i'm not dwelling on, not until you prove it actually came from the moon.

OllyK

The problem is, that the CTers are not presenting evidence, what they are doing is coming up with wild statements about why they think the evidence available is not valid. When those wild statements are shown to be false, the original evidence is strengthened. There isn't a single CTer statement that hasn't been refuted, and I do mean refuted not just dismissed. Rather than respond to that refutation, the CTers just move on to the trying to pick holes in something else.

If I'm looking to acertain the validy of the Lunar samples, I'll check with a geologist rather than some guy locked up in an apartment wearing a tin foil hat. If on the otherhand you can find a respected geologist that has inspected the lunar rocks and claims they are not genuine, then you'd have something. Can you actually cite experts in a given appropriate field refuting the lunar landing evidence?

angrynorth

Again, no it doesn't. You are arguing one side without offering up anything to reinforce what you are saying other than simply stating "the evidence is out there, but I'm not going to show you where it is or tell you what it is".

Perhaps you should link something, or quote something or at least offer something to substantiate your argument.

PS I think you will find that I have only posted 2 links throughout this discussion, both of which were to pages where you could request a moon rock sample, I'm hardly posting random links.

Again, it has been proven several hundred times that these rocks originate from the moon, and they haven't suffered the damage associated with meteorite samples. Nor do they show any evidence of being exposed to the earths environment (such as evidence of oxidisation etc).

They have been analysed side by side with the Russian (probe gathered) samples the origin of which nobody disputes and have been proven to be the same. By the way, the Russians only managed to get 396 grams back in their probe.

So far not one single geologist or scientist who has analysed them has questioned their origin and there hasn't been a single article in any scientific journal that questions their authenticity. So how these conspiracy theorists can claim they are fake is unbelievable.

OllyK

What would you consider to be adequate proof?

Holy Ghost

here's a question and it may sound silly. i'm no astonomer but why doesn't someone just point a docking great super-duper powerful optical telescope at the surface of the moon and search the surface until they find the apollo module base station? i would have thought NASA knows exactly where it touched down back in 1969 and it won't have rotted away. bingo!

if satellites can photograph the earth so finely a military camera in orbit can read newsprint, then ....

or do we not possess anything powerful enough to zoom in from the earth's surface because of atmospheric distortion etc?

any star-watchers who can clarify?

i loved capricorn one but that's just watergate-era paranoia.

OllyK

Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia