December 20, 2018 at 2:14 pm #856684
Since nobody went to the moon and returned to earth in those intriguing tinfoil and crepe paper landing modules, then any scientific paper on “moon rocks”, “lunar dusts” and so on, must be fake. Either the psientists are all in on it, or they’re being duped.
Here they come, back in the day, a white box hoax
And we continue to be bamboozled in the MSM with tales of ‘moon rocks’
scroll down for the latest piece of moon rock populism as reported in Metro
Headline – December 20 2018 Toxic rocks show the dark side of moon dust LOL!
“due to the limited supply of lunar dust, the study used similar rocks from Earth containing a similar concentratgion of reactivei minerals [olivine and augite] LOL!
I think they’re giving the game away here.
Leader – Donald Hendrix from Stony Brook University, NY.
The wind cries hoax….
Apparently there’s something called the The lunar rock and mineral characterization consortium (LRMCC)
has conducted careful, integrated measurements of lunar materials with the goal of extending the library of well-characterized lunar materials available as ground truth.
The LRMCC builds on the work of the lunar soil characterization consortium (LSCC), which conducted coordinated mineralogy ? petrography ?spectroscopy analyses of a suite of lunar soils of different
composition and maturity
[Isaacson et al 2010]
which seems to be a “safe hands” consortium which unlike ol’ Hendrix, seems to have no trouble getting its hands on samples from NASA, such as
“70035 is 3.7 b.y. old and has been exposed on the lunar surface for ~ 100 m.y. It is typical of the high Ti basalts from the moon and has been used for several public displays “
suuuuuuure it has
which were used in the 2010 paper
And less than 3 months ago, Oct 2 2018, it was reported that unspecified moon rocks had been sent to Harwell UK [obviously another safe set of hands] a resin enclosed basalt.
Our psientist has to go “off-planet” to learn how rocks form and the moon is the best place to do it…
What are they studying?
Add your favourite moon rock stores below….
January 27, 2019 at 4:25 pm #856960
- This topic was modified 3 months ago by xileffilex.
It’s time for another moon rock “release” from the psientists, but it’s worth bookmarking this great comment at Fakeologist.com in 2013, when the blog was filled with research, from Carole Thomas
NASA scientist David McKay explains that “There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don’t normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays.” The article went on to explain how “Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere. Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn’t. Earth’s most powerful particle accelerators can’t energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.”
So one of the reasons that we know the Moon rocks are real, you see, is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our astronauts, one would assume, would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation,. So how did they survive?
I’ll also link my own previous comment in 2017 on another 2013 thread
Here’s the latest episode of the moon rocks hoax
Scientists may have just found the oldest intact Earth rock—on the moon. A study published Thursday in Earth and Planetary Science Letters makes the case that one of the rocks collected by Apollo 14 astronauts in 1971 contains a fragment of Earth’s ancient crust, dating back more than 4.011 billion years.
It’s possible that the fragment formed in a weirdly water-rich pocket of magma deep within the ancient moon. But the study authors think it’s likelier that the rock formed within our planet’s crust and got jettisoned to the moon by one of the many meteor impacts that bombarded early Earth
It’s thought that up to 0.5 percent of the schmutz on the lunar surface first formed on Earth, and bits and pieces of other rocky planets, such as Venus or Mars, probably litter the moon, too.
And here’s where rock 14321 was collected….[copyright photo in above link – laughable!]
The basketball-size stone weighs almost 20 pounds.
Allegedly the Zircon mineral content is unrelated to other “moon rocks'” zircon and is similar to earthly zircons.
China’s upcoming Chang’e-5 lunar mission is expected to return samples
oh goodeee– more fake moon rocks for the psientists to analyse.
Why did the “earth Rock” end up on the moon?
Because the Moon was much closer to Earth at that point – about three times closer than it is now – it was in a better position for pieces of this debris to end up there.
February 10, 2019 at 4:08 pm #857044
- This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by xileffilex.
HaHa looks like the big Icke gatekeepers have been sent in to damp down the fake moon rock thread at David Icke forums…
4pp of abuse so far…
Take home message, as usual – the official narrative is the official truth, as per all DIF gatekeeping.
LOL!February 10, 2019 at 7:44 pm #857045
Scientists found “with astonishment” the composition of “moon rocks” was exactly the same as rocks found at the 1.86 mile level below the earth’s surface. [in 1970….] Neat. Just in time. The Kola peninsula super bore hole was sealed. [a bit like going to the moon….perhaps the technology was lost,lol!] everything having been discovered.
@8.35 in this video which was added to the above DIF thread.
or is Kola [and others] just a hole-o-hoax.
note – the Lone Star borehole in Oklahoma was already at SIX miles deep in 1974, i.e. way beyond 1.86 miles…. The Kola hole reached, allegedly, almost 7.62 miles.
- This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by xileffilex.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.