Mention has been made of moon rocks a number of times in the main thread. I'm not starting a concerted argument in this post, just posting three vids to get the ball rolling. A lot of other evidence has been referenced in the main thread concerning Russian moon soil samples differing from Apollo samples but agreeing with other observations of moon soils including luminosity, the petrified wood problem, ESA spectrographic analysis of moon soil by unmanned probe disagreeing with Apollo samples, and so on. Jarrah White points out in his analysis that the rocks 'returned' by Apollo 'astronauts' match a number of types of earth rocks closely, and possibly some collected meteorites. Further, we know Wernher von Braun made a little junket trip to Antarctica for no good reason shortly before the first supposed moon landing mission, where meteorites are easier to harvest. While there are claims of bringing back 'over 800 lbs of moon rocks', NASA apparently releases tiny tiny samples to anyone who requests one for study, often carved into the shape and size of a sugar cube, or smaller. Reference to all these pieces of evidence, circumstantial and direct, can be made again as the thread develops.
Watching these videos, there seems to be, once again, a helluva lot of covering up going on. Love the shifting goalposts in the first video. Any pseudoscep worth its salt would be proud of NASA's backflipping, and can learn a lot of good pseudoscep techniques from studying their dissimulation!
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 03 Jan 2013, 17:08, edited 1 time in total.
Arouet wrote:While I appreciate you starting this thread - do you have a better source that White? Or is there a reason to consider this series to be better researched and coherent than the radiation series?
White appears to have done a lot of work looking at moon rocks, and is in an active debate with a number of pro-Apollo players. Surely this would be a good place to jump into the debate? Or are you playing the man and not the ball again, as a standard pseudoscep play? And you promised you wouldn't do that too, Arou.
Feel free to find info anywhere, I certainly will be. I may not contribute much to this thread -- as pointed out numerous times, the stereoscopic analysis method of supposed 'moon pictures' also provides strong evidence of fakery, and I note you studiously avoid that topic over and over. We've hardly scratched the surface of the moon pics yet, and there is a rich vein of evidence of fakery there.
You may not contribute much to this thread? I'm not going to go through the trouble of researching this topic only to have a discussion with myself. I'm willing to analyse White here in the same way I did in the other thread - but only if you're going to actually engage in some back and forth discussion on it.
Also, you've posted some clips in the middle of the series so its difficult to get the context. I listened to a bit of the first entry in the series, and it starts rather abruptly as well. if we're going to go through White's series on the moon rocks, should we start with the original series (which I'm assuming exists as this series is called Moon Rocks: Revisited.).
I'm going to make a little postdiction that I'll be delighted to be proven wrong on: I get the sense from the minute or so I watched that what White and Sydney label as backpeddling will actually be just the uncertain scientific process at work.
There's about a hundred youtube videos by JW on the moon rocks topic, they are at least numbered in order I suppose. Hard to know where to begin and end with them, because his later ones are an ongoing debate with pro-Apollo characters.
The 'C' rock is a bit intriguing, I don't necessarily buy the argument that it's a stamp on the rock and a corresponding mark on the ground for placement, but I suppose it's possible -- especially if it was literally an extruded stamp and it left an impression on the ground and was then moved slightly to expose both by accident. (It would have to be symmetrical and rotated to leave a 'C' impression in the same direction, of course.) Or by 'whistleblowers' as certain people keep insisting.
The 'C' seems too perfectly formed to be a hair on the film. Ditto for the corresponding ground impression. Worthy of some sort of analysis. But I've never been very convinced by that argument.
edit: looking briefly at the images, it doesn't seem to be an extrusion on a rock, more something on the film or print. I wouldn't spend too much time on the 'C' rock.
The astronauts 'kick' a very large rock around in some of the other Apollo footage, seems a rather dangerous thing to do on the surface of the moon in a pressurised space suit, but if they were faking it on earth of course it could not be a real rock, but must be some kind of weighted paper mache or resin or fibreglass model that is a good deal lighter but still has some mass. It would seem like a good idea to do something like that if you were faking footage on earth to give people an impression you were in a low G environment. Similar to the guy who supposedly took a bloody hammer and feather to the moon to make a point, I really don't buy that one. Then they use the excuse elsewhere they couldn't do certain other things because of weight considerations etc. I call BS.