Friday, April 30, 2021

The Apollo Moon Rocks - Idiotic Website

A ridiculous and thoroughly ignorant website:

The following website is used by the serial forum spammer because he thinks it actually offers tangible arguments. All excerpts from the website will be in italics and grey background.

"The proof that the "moon landing" was in the moon hall: sand and dust are the same

It seems strange, but sand and dust in the "training" have the same graining size as in the "moon landing". And this is impossible (Wisnewski, p.174)

So this is another proof that the "moon landings" all were in the halls.

This is NO conspiracy theory, but these are the facts, you stupid Wikipedia."

From the tone of the dialog it can quickly be deduced that we are not dealing with an intelligent argument. He claims the soil grain size in testing is the same as the soil samples, from a bare assertion reference and then concludes it is impossible. Then from this insane circular logic it becomes "proof".

He then refers to Wikipedia, which is obviously the limit of his actual research capabilities.

"Examples of "moonstones": Stones should give an impression

When you are asking for "moonstone" in the Internet (in German: "Mondgestein"), then you should have the searching word "moonstone", "moon stone" or surprisingly the best searching word is "lunar sample".

Funnily enough the research almost always knows what kind of stone it is and can compare the stones with stones from the Earth, or the stones are almost identical.

And there are mad indications that "moonstones" would be worth more than gold. So, there exist fantasies that there are things on the moon more worth than gold..."

There appears to be no substance to any of that garbage. Gold is deemed as some unsurpassable element by this person, clearly the rarity of lunar samples is what makes them valuable. There then follows some pictures that offer no arguments just meaningless observations.

"Generally: "Moonstones" cannot be proved

"Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).

[All in all all shown "moonstones" could be also from the Earth. The indications that "moonstones" would eventually be more worth than "gold" lets rise the fantasy for the greedy, capitalistic society at the same time. When the "moonstones" would be from the Earth so one had lost more than "gold"...]"

Absolutely absurd speculative and very ignorant statements. Summarizing this involves pointing out the samples contain ZERO evidence of terrestrial weathering, contain numerous solar isotopes including helium-3 on outer skin from solar wind, show evidence of formation in low gravity, contain many tiny impact craters from micro-meteorites and collectively cannot be from Earth or meteorites. The author presumes once again to quote as reference, a rather uninformed individual "Wisnewski" who is given to numerous bare assertions with no evidence to support them!

The idea that these samples are more valuable than gold is hardly an economical goal considering the cost of retrieving the damn things.

"The stage-managed race for "moonstones"

According to the access into the falsification practice with the planet machinery "LOLA" at Langley and according to the possibilities of radio communication not over some 100 km all flights of the "moon probes" are a lie. And because the transport of "moonstones" was not a neutral, controllable procedure, and because according to the technical data of the little aberration of the landings from the landing points and because of the cosmic radiation (sun storms with many sunspots) the Apollo flights cannot have been performed, the official data about "moonstones" do not seem very reliable. By the "moonstones" one lie supports the other one, in case of the "moonstones" in cooperation with the "Soviet Union".

There is no substance in that paragraph at all - conspiracy garbage and bare assertion. He basically says radio communication over 100km is impossible. Just plain stupid.

With the secrecy and with the term "conspiracy theory" against all critics the cock-and-bull story of the moonstones is defended successfully in the propaganda and in the media...

Bare assertion nonsense.

13 July 1969 Start of the "SU" "lunar probe" Luna 15 with the aim of a landing "on the moon" on 21st July  (Wisnewski, p.210)

No claim - just a reference.

16 July 1969 
Start of Apollo 11 with the aim of a landing "on the moon" on 21st July
(Wisnewski, p.210) 
But until now the "USA" have not even brought one single "lunar probe" to the moon and brought back (Wisnewski, p.210).

No claim - just a reference.

21 July 1969 
"SU": The "lunar probe" is said have crashed "on the moon"
The reasons for the crash are "not known" (Wisnewski, p.210-211).

No claim - just a reference.

24 July 1969 
Apollo 11 claims they had brought "moonstones" (soil samples) "from the moon" all in all 20 kg "moonstones" (Wisnewski, p.209,210).

No claim - just a reference.

since 24 July 1969 
The research on the "moonstones" is only for "elected people"
Research with the "moonstones" is only possible with a proposal and with a detailed justification of the project. Then some milligram "moonstone" are released (Wisnewski, p.211).

No claim - just a reference. But quite rightly NASA only allows qualified people to examine the samples.

14 to 24 November 1969 
Apollo 12 claims having brought back parts of "lunar probe" "Surveyor 3" "from the moon" Astronauts from Apollo 12 claim they had brought back parts of the "lunar probe" Surveyor 3, among others the little camera. But according to indications of NASA the camera shall have contained a terrestrial bacterium which had survived the "stay on the moon".

Nonsense claim - what is "terrestrial bacterium"? If NASA faked bringing back Surveyor parts then it can easily fake bullshit bacterium.

(In: David, Leonard: Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets;; 26.3.2001; (August 2006); Wisnewski, S.216)

No claim - just a reference.

[Then there is the proof that the "lunar probe" Surveyor 3 had never been "on the moon", and that is - again - NO conspiracy theory, but this is logic, you stupid Wikipedia].

No claim - just idiotic bare assertion.

12 July 1970 
"SU": Start of the "lunar probe" "Luna 16" with the aim of a landing "on the moon" (Wisnewski, p.211)

No claim - just a reference.

24 July 1970 
"SU": Flight back of the "lunar probe" "Luna 16" "from the moon" and landing on Earth with ca. 100 gr "moonstone" This is the official data (Wisnewski, p.211).

No claim - just a reference.

since 1970 
The superpowers comparing their "moonstones" Now funnily enough the officially hostile superpowers are comparing their "moonstones" and "accept the authenticity of the Apollo material" of each other. (In:; Wisnewski, p.211).

No claim - just a reference. A hint of sarcasm and stupid implied bare assertion.

The "SU" legalizes the "American" "moon landings" and gets wheat for it All in all the "Soviet Union" legalizes the "moon landings" of the "USA" by the declaration that the "moonstones" are the same. At the same time "SU" suffers bad harvests and is depends on wheat deliveries from the West. The "Soviet" regime has no other choice than to do the favour to the "USA" to recognize the "moonstones" and with it the "moon landings" (Wisnewski, p.212).

This is the bullshit "wheat" claim - occurring AFTER Apollo had concluded!

Great Grain Robbery - Wikipedia

Researchers claim having found "moon meteorites" in the Antarctic
But the claim for moon meteorites is impossible because until now (2006) nobody can go on the moon and control what "moonstones" really are. The claim is another lie which should support the lie having brought "moonstones" to the Earth (Wisnewski, p.209).

[And the media, greedy for sensations, report the moon meteorites as true fact and rise the number of copies with it...]

This is the ignorant claim that geologists lack the skill to deduce that a sample is from the Moon and not a meteorite. With no terrestrial weathering, solar isotopes, significant exterior(and interior)helioum-3, zap pits, evidence of formation in low gravity and with no heat damage from entry to Earth!

since 1972 
NASA has stored officially 382 kg "moonstones"
The storing of the 382 kg "moonstones" at the NASA is in boxes filled with nitrogen (Wisnewski, p.214). Nobody has an access, and all is kept "secret" (Wisnewski, p.215).

The "moonstones" are protected from all events, storms and tornadoes...

(In: David, Leonard: Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets;; 26.3.2001; (August 2006); Wisnewski, S.216)

No claim - just a reference.

[Earth stones become "moonstones" by special storing...]

No claim - just a stupid inference.

The new theory about the formation of the moon: The collision theory

Up to the "moon landings" there are different theories for the formation of the moon. Now the "research" detects that the "moonstones" would be pretty "similar" to the Earth stones.

Since this claim there is only one single theory about the formation of the moon: the collision theory. A little planet is said have hit the Earth and sunk in the Earth. Then a big part of the Earth shall have split and shall have formed a moon in space (Wisnewski, p.213).

No claim - just a reference.

Add to this there shall be lots of Earth stones on the moon surface: When asteroids hit the Earth some Earth stones shall have been shot to the moon always again. This stones shot to the moon shall be on the moon's surface in peaces. John Armstrong from the University of Washington at Seattle claims having calculated that by this on a square mile of moon surface 5 tons of Earth stones are lying around .(In: Britt, Robert Roy: Moon Holds Earth's Ancient Secrets;, 23.7.2002; Wisnewski, p.213)

No claim - just a reference - the chances of an asteroid of Earth material striking the Moon are very high in early formation.

So: Earth stones were brought "from the moon"

An idiotic conclusion. 

The "moon astronauts" shall have collected Earth stones on the moon? When this is true it's not necessary to fly to the moon to find "moonstones". But this conclusion is not allowed officially until today (August 2006) in the media. But the collision theory should explain the similarity of Earth stones and moonstones. The articles in the encyclopedias must all be adapted to this NASA theory...

Basically this fool is offering his ignorant claim again that Moon rocks are from Earth. With no terrestrial weathering, solar isotopes, significant exterior(and interior)helioum-3, zap pits, evidence of formation in low gravity and with no heat damage from entry to Earth!

(In: Heck, Philipp: Der Mond - unser geheimnisvoller Nachbar. Entstehung, Missionen, Aufbau [The moon - our mysterious neighbour. Building, missions, construction]; 7.6.2002; Wisnewski, S.213)"

No claim - just a reference.

Indexing of the "moonstones" - the "moonstones" are living...


But Andrew Steele, an astro biologist at the University of Portsmouth in England, detects with his microscopic research that there is terrestrial life in the "moonstones" to be found:
-- brush hairs /-- plastic parts /-- nylon parts /-- Teflon parts
-- terrestrial little animals, some of them "pretty snotty".
So, there is the question how the ultra cleaned storage at the NASA looks like. Because the many terrestrial contaminations can only come from the Earth from a time after the building of the moon. The website indicates such events as "dirty little secrets".

This is hearsay and the conclusion from the article is really stupid. If any such contamination were found on the sample in question, there is nothing to discount local recent contamination.

The question if the "moonstones" come from the Earth is not allowed of course...
(In:-- Wisnewski, p.215-216) The contradiction: "moonstones" are not "similar"
According to the indications of this article "moonstones" are not at all similar to the Earth stones:
-- "moonstones" shall be very dry
-- "moonstones" shall contain no water molecules
-- "moonstones" shall have no oxidation
-- "moonstones" shall not contain any iron
-- "moonstones" shall be easy to distinguish from Earth stones.
Original text: "Compared with terrestrial samples, all lunar rocks are oddballs because they are so dry," Ryder said. "They contain no molecules of water, they're not oxidized and they contain no ferric iron. They're easy to distinguish from rocks on Earth."(Hoversten, Paul: 30 Years Later, Moon Rocks Retain Their Secrets; 23.7.2002; Wisnewski, p.213)

No claim - just a reference.

Conclusion: All thesis about "moonstones" are worthless
By this any thesis about "moonstones" is invalid because the statements are absolutely controversial that no thesis is reliable any more. But the media reported all as a sensation to rise their number of copies and to rise their number of viewers, and the "research" has opened a new researching field "moonstones" which is paid by the tax payer again with millions of $ and Euros... for nothing.
(Conclusion Palomino)
This is NO conspiracy theory, stupid journalist, but these are facts.
-- David, Leonard: Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets;; 26.3.2001;

No claim - just bare assertion gibberish. That webpage appears to have been written by a very stupid person.