Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence by ner0 is wrong about the supposed “fake moon rocks”.

>Just for the fun, and I stress that I did not verify any of the “facts” stated here

>As I said, did not verify any of this but it certainly would support hoaxers arguments if any true to it!

That’s the problem with moon hoax believers: they never try to contrast their sources with opposite sources in order to know what’s true and what’s false.

The supposed fake moon rock was given to former Dutch PM Willem Drees by the U.S. ambassador, it wasn’t given to him by the astronauts themselves or by the President.

It was never said that it was a legitimate moon rock and the gold-colored cardboard plaque does NOT describe it as a moon rock. It was fishy from the start.

So, the only thing this proves is that it wasn’t a fraud but a simple case of mislabeling petrified wood as a “moon rock”.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-09-14-moon-rock_N.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2009-08-27-rijksmuseum-moon-rock_N.htm

It also proves that moon hoax believers love to cherry-pick and take things out of context to “support” their ridiculous claims.

——

The rest of the citation is ridiculous. Notice how it doesn’t provide any sources, it just puts some strange-looking words in there and ta-da.

Lunar rocks are almost entirely composed of 4 minerals: plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, and ilmenite. The only article which sites any presence of mercury on the lunar samples is this one:

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

And it says that mercury appears rarely and is present in a very very low abundance!

There IS a paper on it but the abstract isn’t available:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979rhrm.conf..468B

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979lhls.book..468B

It also cites A. Dollfus (who worked with NASA on lunar soil) and E. Bowell (yes, it’s Bowell, not Bouell) but provides no citation again. So I decided to do my search that took quite some hours:

1) First, I searched for ner0’s quote on the Internet until I found a web that provided citations (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Moon_Landings_Hoax#Details) (jump to Lunar Samples) that redirected me to a book by Yuri Mukhin.

2) After more search, I was finally able to find his book (?????? ?????, ??? ??? ?? ???? ??????????) in a djvu format. So I downloaded the program, opened the file and decided to search through the pages given by the citation. I ended in page 216, which cited the work done by Dollfus and Bowell titled “Photo-polarization studies of lunar samples – Negative branch”(http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974lssf.book..517D) from the book “Lunar Soil from the Sea of Fertility” (?????? ????? ?? ???? ???????? in Russian).

3) Since it was only an abstract, I decided to search more for the pages where the original work was (477-485 and 517-523 in the original Russian book). I was able to find the English version here: http://archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19750003742/19750003742#page/n495/mode/2up

4) Since moon hoax believers could say the English version was mistranslated (I found it on NASA archives after all) I decided to compare the quotes of the study in Russian given by Mukhin in his book, translated with Google translate, with the English version. And they did match, not perfectly since I was using Google translate, but they matched.

5) After that, I decided to read through the study. I also found another work done by them, the same year (1974) I believe, which is here: (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974LPSC….5.1159E/0001159.000.html). Abstract: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974LPSC….5.1159E

It turns out that the breccia from Apollo 14 that was studied (breccia 14267) was composed of three surfaces: dust-covered exterior regions, glass-covered surfaces and a freshly-chipped surface.

The dust-covered regions closely resembled the Moon’s surface, the glass-covered surfaces not so much, while the freshly-chipped surface cannot entirely reproduce the overall nature of the lunar polarization, YET the albedo curve was still representative of the LUNAR HIGHLANDS.

So both the Apollo 14 and Luna 16 samples were legit.

The abstract regarding the history of this breccia also states the same. The dust-covered external regions and the freshly-chipped region are representative of the Moon because they come from the Moon. Period.

It shows, once again, that moon hoax believers cherry-pick data and completely take it out of context.

——

But the best part of all is the citation of the work of Minoru Ozima. It says “a possible explanation is that the Apollo’s soil was made on Earth” or “The explanation is simple—the Apollo’s soil was made on Earth” as if was the only actual explanation. Minoru Ozima’s paper can be found here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/full/nature03929.html#a1

And the ACTUAL explanation he provides is THIS:

“Here we propose that most of the nitrogen and some of the other volatile elements in lunar soils may actually have come from the Earth’s atmosphere rather than the solar wind. —We infer that this hypothesis is quantitatively reasonable if the escape of atmospheric gases, and implantation into lunar soil grains, occurred at a time when the Earth had essentially no geomagnetic field.—”

“Ozima’s team now argues that some of the nitrogen came from the Earth before it got its magnetic shield. Energetic cosmic particles would have whacked into the atmosphere, kicking some charged nitrogen atoms into space. Some of this nitrogen, which is richer in nitrogen-15 than the solar wind, would have wound up on the Moon.

The team used computer models to work out how much nitrogen would have flown from the pre-magnetic Earth to the Moon. Then, by calculating how long the soil must have been sucking up nitrogen to attain its current isotopic ratio, they speculate that the Earth’s magnetic field must have been either very weak or non-existent before about 3.9 billion years ago.”

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050803/full/news050801-8.html

So you also falsified the paper given by Ozima, indirectly putting words in his and his team’s mouths.

So I’d like to thank ner0 for proving that moon hoax believers are not only idiots and cherry-pickers, but that they are the actual LIARS here, not NASA or the Apollo astronauts.

More Comments on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence by ner0 is wrong about the supposed \”fake moon rocks\”


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence

Looks like the Russian alphabet doesn’t show up here. Mukhin’s book can be found here (not freely downloadable):

http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4607307/

By the way, he’s a metallurgist and newspaper editor who also denies Soviet responsibility for the Katyn massacre, possible anti-Semite and sentenced to …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence

Alex, Alex, Alex… You want to know why there wasn’t a visible exhaust when the Lunar Modules lifted off from the Moon? Very simple:

1) The fuel used to take off was composed of Aerozine 50 and dinitrogen tetroxide which ignited …


More Comments by ner0 is wrong about the supposed \”fake moon rocks\”


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence

Looks like the Russian alphabet doesn’t show up here. Mukhin’s book can be found here (not freely downloadable):

http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4607307/

By the way, he’s a metallurgist and newspaper editor who also denies Soviet responsibility for the Katyn massacre, possible anti-Semite and sentenced to …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax

Do people really still believe that the Van Allen belts are lethal for astronauts? That crap has been debunked innumerable times, even by James Van Allen himself.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

The temperature of the Moon is over 100°C on the damn surface. That’s correct, …


Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence

Alex, Alex, Alex… You want to know why there wasn’t a visible exhaust when the Lunar Modules lifted off from the Moon? Very simple:

1) The fuel used to take off was composed of Aerozine 50 and dinitrogen tetroxide which ignited …