TRUMP SCIENCE ADVISOR DENIES APOLLO MOON LANDINGS EVER HAPPENED

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by Destroyer of illusions, Aug 14, 2017.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Scott/Cosmored/Fatfreddy88/Drifty/Rocky refuses to deal with this issue because it has him checkmated and has him defeated. I'd better make the issue clear!

    Sharpened and contrast boosted:-

    [​IMG]

    CAN YOU SEE THE PRINTS?

    For the Spammer to ignore:-
    Since you take the word of geologists, what do they say about the samples brought back from the Moon by Apollo?

    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 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."
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2017
  2. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Says who? - And get my Nobel Prize ready... :trophy:
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Another troll post. Says one of the most renowned geologists on he planet.
     
  4. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Where did the moon come from?
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Reading between the lines you know the main theory is that it comes from an Earth collision. This leaves those who fumble and bumble around the internet to wonder how the rocks can be older.

    The Moon cooled quicker and developed volcanic activity far sooner. In addition the surface is bombarded by meteorites already formed.

    No cigar and no Nobel prize. The prize was for all the variations combined, not just the age issue. The rocks were brought back to Earth by Apollo astronauts.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2017
  6. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    So, a melted rock can't be as old as a solid one?
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    A "melted rock" is not a rock yet.

    https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/radiom.html

    "Radiometric clocks are "set" when each rock forms. "Forms" means the moment an igneous rock solidifies from magma, a sedimentary rock layer is deposited, or a rock heated by metamorphism cools off. It's this resetting process that gives us the ability to date rocks that formed at different times in earth history."
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017
  8. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    As we can see from the following table - moon rock dating is not an exact science - if we examine the 2nd column for the max and min tested ages for a rock sample - there is quite a difference.

    Minimum and Maximum Moon Rock Ages
    Sample____Age (billion)________Method___________Source

    10003____<1.0________40Ar/39Ar low temp_______3

    ________4.025________207Pb/206Pb______________1
    10017__< 0.25________40Ar/39Ar low temp_______3
    _________4.67________208Pb/232Th______________4
    10020___3.765________206Pb/238U_______________1
    ________3.996________207Pb/206Pb______________1
    10022__< 0.75________40Ar/39Ar low temp_______3
    ______3.59 ± 0.06____40Ar/39Ar high temp______3
    10024___< 0.2________40Ar/39Ar low temp_______3
    ______4.050 ± 0.7____87Sr/87Rb isochron_______5
    10044___< 0.8________40Ar/39Ar low temp_______3
    ______3.74 ± 0.05____40Ar/39Ar high temp______3
    10045____4.17________207Pb/206Pb______________4
    _________4.17________207Pb/206Pb______________4
    10047____4.21________207Pb/206Pb______________4
    _________4.95________208Pb/232Th______________4
    10050___3.680________208Pb/232Th______________1
    ________4.051________207Pb/206Pb______________1
    10057____2.27________40K-40Ar unspiked________9
    ________4.173________207Pb/206Pb______________1
    10060___3.365________208Pb/232Th______________4
    _________5.76________208Pb/232Th______________4
    10061___4.594________208Pb/232Th______________1
    ________4.710________206Pb/238U_______________1
    10062___< 1.0________40Ar/39Ar low temp_______3
    ______3.83 ± 0.06____40Ar/39Ar high temp______3
    10069____0.04________Cosmic ray exposure______2
    _______4.9 ± 0.4_____40K-40Ar feldspar glass__2
    10071___3.374________208Pb/232Th______________1
    ________3.826________207Pb/206Pb______________1
    10072___< 0.6________40Ar/39Ar low temp_______3
    _________4.13________207Pb/206Pb______________4
    10084____4.31________208Pb/232Th______________4
    __________8.2________208Pb/232Th______________9
    10085____4.44________87Sr/87Sr________________2


    References from Science, 30 January, 1970 “The Moon Issue” dedicated to the proceedings of the Apollo 11 Lunar Science Conference

    1. Mitsunobu Tatsumoto, et al., “Age of the Moon: An Isotopic Study of Uranium-Thorium-Lead Systematics of Lunar Samples” pages 461-463.
    2. A. L. Albee, et al., “Ages, Irradiation History, and Chemical Composition of Lunar Rocks from the Sea of Tranquillity” pages 463-466.
    3. Grenville Turner, “Argon-40/Argon-39 Dating of Lunar Rock Samples” pages 466-468.
    4. Leon T. Silver, “Uranium-Thorium-Lead Isotope Relations in Lunar Materials” pages 468-471.
    5. K. Gopalan, et al., “Rubidium-Strontium, Uranium, and Thorium-Lead Dating of Lunar Material” pages 471-473.
    6. P. M. Hurley, et al., “Rubidium-Strontium Relations in Tranquillity Base Samples” pages 473-474.
    7. William Compston, et al., “Rubidium-Strontium Chronology and Chemistry of Lunar Material” pages 474-476.
    8. V. Rama Murthy, et al., “Rubidium-Strontium Age and Elemental and Isotopic Abundances of Some Trace Elements in Lunar Samples” pages 476-479.
    9. R. K. Wanless, et al., “Age Determinations and Isotopic Abundance Measurements on Lunar Samples” pages 479-480.
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,280
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Translation:

    Jay Windley* and his fellow pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum** tried to obfuscate something that was too clear to obfuscate and just ended up looking silly. If I agree with them, I'll just end up looking silly too so I'd better try to change the subject and not address the issue directly.

    Tell us Betamax. Do you agree with what Jay Windley said, or not? Just say yes, or no.


    *
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html

    **
    http://www.clavius.org/
     
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    There needs no translation. You really ARE quite mad. I don't think I could be more specific and concise about this if I tried.

    Again:
    Listen up you pitiful spamming nobody. You have raised this issue about a dozen times just on this forum! It has nobody checkmated. You have been quite specifically given the opinion from an experienced engineer. You disregard his assessment without any education on the subject. To bolster your useless and very ignorant claim, you label the expert as a paid sophist. You have no proof of this other than once again, your totally ignorant opinion.

    It is a straw man of the most feeble kind. Even were it possible to create the vast areas we see on the Apollo video footage, that number in the thousand of variations, there remains not one iota of proof to show such an area being created. Nothing. No paper trails, no financial transactions, no drivers, set assemblers, nobody!

    It is you who is cornered. You make a claim and have nothing to support it, then bleat and spam it for 10 years. TEN YEARS! Get a life.

    Can you read mad man?

    Again:

    No spammer , both geology links are dead and the question posed to them was non specific. I have no trouble agreeing with several tons being dust free and being transported ok. It's the other hundred thousand tons, FULL vehicles needed, driving over the already deposited areas with their wheels grinding the grains. So pathetic are you that you haven't revised any of your numerous and other equally useless dead links.

    I did a whole thread on this. You cowardly tap dance around it. You continue to avoid it because it has you completely cornered. I have already toldyou about a dozen times. I completely agree with the experience of an engineer.

    Did you notice your links are dead? You avoided the follow up, no surprise! You rely on a geology expert to assess aggregate transportation, but ignore where every single one of them says the Apollo samples are authentic and not faked!

    Now we get repeat spam about how my credibility is gone again, because of your idiotic opinion about a straw man that is irrelevant anyway! You don't have a single original thought, your entire "hobby" is logging on to some internet cafe and typing the same crap over and over again.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You use a table made up of variable dating techniques that concludes the dates vary wildly? I would be amazed if they didn't. Earth rocks, as well as cooling at a slower rate, are subject to erosion and weathering, that remove traces of the more older formed rocks. The average age of Earth rocks is different to that of the Moon. If you want to jerk about trying to disprove the conclusion of the experts, do try to understand the issue propely!

    As for the age of the samples, that's not what the article refers to. It quite specifically refers to crystallization ages. This is a more accurate testing technique:

    https://www.sciencealert.com/we-fin...ge-of-the-moon-thanks-to-apollo-14-moon-rocks

    I told you that the line at the bottom is for the whole list of differences. You now want to concentrate on just one of them? Do you think any of those geologists think the samples can be faked?
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Cornered.
     
  13. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You have stated that moon rocks are older than earth rocks and that the average age of earth rocks are different than the moon rocks. Your implication is that moon rocks are somehow different than earth rocks and this proves that Apollo is legitimate. Are you talking about ALL samples taken? or are there just a few (or only one) ? What samples are you talking about? You have referenced the tests run on zircon crystals by Melanie Barboni and her team. Is your position that this one result has proved your point?

    Could you please provide some data to uphold your statements - because I think you are wrong...
     
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I stated the latter not the former. There has been bilions of years of erosion on the Earth rocks, resulting in the extremely oldest ones being completely perished to dust. This alters the average to a younger date than the lunar rocks which have had no such erosion.

    On Earth the oldest rocks found are not as old as the oldest lunar samples.

    https://www.livescience.com/32763-where-are-the-oldest-rocks-on-earth-found.html

    "Technically, the oldest known rocks existing on Earth are not from Earth at all, but are instead of extraterrestrial origin . Moon rock samples collected during the Apollo missions have been dated to about 4.5 billion years, besting our oldest terrestrial rocks by a few hundred million years."

    No, it is not an implication it is a confirmed fact. Confirmed by every geologist who has ever studied the Apollo rocks brought back from the Moon. The variation in ages and the older rocks are just one detail of these differences. I have no idea why you are arguing about it, given your ignorance on the subject.

    What are you even talking about here? The 842lbs of samples brought back from the Moon range in ages as one would expect.

    I don't need to prove my point. I cite expert testimony. You need to disprove it. Is it your position that your meaningless small table using variable dating techniques means the geologists are all mistaken?

    Statements plural? List the statements you think I need to backup. You night like to read this short article which even a stupid person can see shows that Earth rocks do not reflect its proposed age:-

    https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

    In all the arguments I have had with you, pretty much every time results in you being hopelessly wrong. In this case, nothing has changed. You don't seem to care at all and never remotely change your overall stance. You and the spammer are just a complete waste of anybody's time!
     
  15. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That is simply NOT TRUE! Point me to the actual data...
     
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Which statement is wrong? There are 3.

    If you are disputing this without data, you are full of it. If you have your own data to disprove that, provide it. I showed you an article at the end of my post, if you had read it, you would shut up.

    Read this, it is quite specific about how the Earth is dated. Not from terrestrial rocks which are nowhere near the age of Apollo rocks, but from meteorites found on Earth and the date postulated as the formation of the solar system!

    https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

    You have no idea what you are talking about, the University of Google gives data, but sadly for you, not understanding.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,280
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Betamax seems to be between a rock and a hard place. If he agrees with Jay Windley on this issue...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-ever-happened.512081/page-29#post-1068254989

    ...he'll look silly but he can't disagree with him so he gives answers to questions I haven't asked and insists he's answered my question.

    Jay Windley* and all of the other pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum** maintain that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would create enough erosion to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

    Are they right, or are they wrong? Just say yes, or no please. Don't try to muddy the waters and avoid answering as you're not fooling anybody.


    *
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html

    **
    http://www.clavius.org/
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You can't read properly and you claim to teach English?

    I have agreed with Mr Windley every one of the dozen times you have spammed this! I am not between a rock and a hard place. I am between an expert engineer and an ignorant SPAMMER! In the quoted passage above I quite obviously confirm this.
     
  19. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You are the one making the statement that moon rock samples collected during the Apollo missions have been dated to about 4.5 billion years, besting our oldest terrestrial rocks by a few hundred million years.

    Who did the radiometric age dating? What group? What university? When? Who came up with the 4.5 billion number? What methods did they use? - You made the statement; now defend it...
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18

    Do try to keep to the line of argument. You made a big claim, you quoted a 3 statement post and the response above was completely ignored. I am fed up being led around by ignorant people like you.

    Respond to the above. Then I'll respond to your next piece of crap!
     

Share This Page