http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHJ_7FtiCBE
He states the probe performed a soil analysis?? See the description of the equipment on board to see that this is more baloney:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART-1
Assertion 13 - Smart-1 agree with soviet samples and both are different to NASA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwikhjO93Ec
Evidently, either the Russian moon rocks were never identical to their American counterparts in the first place, or ESA is covering for mother Russia, and forgot to cover for NASA." Actually, what happened was that SMART-1's D-CIXS (x-ray spectrometer) found calcium in the same area that the Soviets collected their Luna 16 and 20 samples. Calcium? This happens to be what? Only the fourth most common element in the Apollo moon rocks? Jarrah even states that as he reads two different lists of lunar materials. Talk about your anomalies and contradictory statements. Jarrah seems to have a hard time keeping his conspiracy theories straight."
Let me restate that one again:-
Jarrah White "So it seems the actual Moon rocks are different to the Apollo Moon samples, but not the Soviet samples"
Jarrah White "The Soviets could have used the Apollo samples and scraped off grains to fake their own samples"
You just cannot make up this level of ignorance and contradiction.
Some SMART-1 information:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMWX03VRRE_index_0.html
Assertion 14 - An Apollo photograph shows a "C" on it as used by stage props
Entry level hoax belief, and one of the easiest of them all to disprove. The "C" is a hair or piece of lint on the lens, as a copy was made of the picture. No such markings appear on the original picture, or more importantly, the frame before on the same magazine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEygpL7r6Pk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxwL4DCzUN4
Conclusion:
There simply is no case to defend with the Apollo Moon rocks. There are so many reasons why they were not possible to fake, yet still hoax believers cling to this idea that somehow, magic rock manipulating machines, fooled the entire geology community!
We have no explanation at all for the Apollo core samples of 2-3 metres in length.
ADDENDUM
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."
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..."
"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"...]"
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".
The
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...
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)
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).
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).
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).
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).
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".
[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].
12 July 1970
"SU": Start of the "lunar probe" "Luna 16" with the aim of a landing "on the moon"
(Wisnewski, p.211)
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).
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: www.clavius.org; Wisnewski, p.211).
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).
1972
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...]
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...
[Earth stones become "moonstones" by special storing...]
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).
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; www.space.com, 23.7.2002; Wisnewski, p.213)
So: Earth stones were brought "from the moon"
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...
