The moon landing: ridiculous

I just found out that BCC Meteorites stands for... Boggy Creek Collection of Meteorite Finds. I'm beginning to wonder if this is an actual credible scientific organization...

 

It's not.

 

That's what I thought. I'm by no means an expert in lunar exploration, but that site seems to be poorly laid out and at times highly subjective, calling professors "racist" and the likes. This is where I begin to question its credibility.

 

Yeah, I can't find anything that supports his claim that "BCC data is used for almost all meteorite analysis by the USGS and the US State Department" either. I'm pretty sure it was a complete fabrication. It sure is strange that he bases his opinions and arguments on what he presumably realizes is total bullshit, though.

 

@Void: Yeah, that's basically what I said.

 

My claim is not a case of fabrication.
I have made an ignorant error in my understanding of data supplied by BCC to the USGS and OES/SAT. Sadly I passed this misunderstanding onto the good members of RomUlation before checking the veracity of my claims. I wholeheartedly appologise specifically to those involved in this debate and to the wider RomUlation community. It was not my intention to deceive any readers, I deceived myself by misunderstanding the activity of BCC and the previous activity of some of its members. I am sorry.

As to the data supplied by BCC regarding the lunar landings I would like to clarify my thoughts. I have never suggested that the BCC data is any better than the data from NASA. I am a skeptic and as such I do enjoy verifiable data, BCC and NASA lack such verification. I do not consider NASA any better or worse than any other commercial scientific enterprise, I treat all scientific claims as they should be treated, as challenges to the wider scientific community to test and measure.
I did not present the BCC claims as a statement of my belief in them, I presented them as a means to offer some data that opposed the unchallenged NASA claims. BCC claims that all of the samples collected after the first Apollo mission do not match known lunar material, and those later samples do match known terrestrial material. Why do the later Apollo samples differ so much from the previous? questions like this interest me.
I have taken some time on this debate to challenge some of the claims of NASA, if this debate was on the claims of BCC I imagine that I could also contribute.

I do not subscribe to any claim based on authorship nor will I deride any claim on authorship alone. To those that imagine a name should carry weight in argument is to ignore argument.

Most importantly I wish to appologise for my misrepresentation of BCC's contact with U.S. of American federal agencies and departments. Deception was never my intention.

@void, you're a good bastard but you assume too much. I still love ya, though I doubt the feeling is mutual.

Edit: I forgot to mention Suiseiseki's wonderful long post. @Suiseiseki, great post but sad you had to resort to pre-enlightenment language to make your points, and how silly of you to assume my thoughts where represented by BCC documents.

 

Thank you for clarifying your position on the matter. Your post regarding BCC data was left ambiguous and the general feeling was that you supported the claims made by them. Perhaps in future you should clarify your stance on material at the same time as presenting it.

As for the BCC's claims of dissimilar lunar materials, how exactly could they know? Also note that there are only a finite number of elements, and a vast number of them should theoretically be found on both the moon and Earth considering scientific opinion states that they were one body at a point. Unless there are organic compounds in the lunar samples, the question is still up in the air.

You didn't answer my question before I attacked your argument, by the way. If the samples are fake, does it not follow that all subsequent lunar missions have been faked? It is my belieft that this is your implication, and if so, why go to all the effort to build Saturn Vs and proven-to-be-functional Lunar Modules??

Oh, by the way - don't you dare patronise me. You didn't clarify anything, but gave us evidence and left it open to interpretation how you see it. My arguments were well within reason, and the general feeling among those on IRC watching this topic is not dissimilar. Attacking the manner in which I made my argument is arrogant and childish, and definitely doesn't help your argument any.

 

Getting too bored to keep reading this, however...

You know I don't take these things nearly as seriously as I appear to. No hard feelings, babe.

 

the moon landing was real, the suit itself does not inflate, there are pockets manufatured to inflate (like in G-suits)
the waving you see from the flag was because of the wire on top of the flag to keep it upright, the wire was moving left and right causing moving the flag.

the radiation was a factor... scientists estimated about 3-4 hours, anymore and you risk radiation sickness, besides, the moon walks were placed in parts... phase one placing flag, phase 2 getting rock samples

 

it was real... cause i was there

 

^^^^^^ whatever you say buzz lightyear

 

You mean Buzz Aldrin?

 

... you ruined it, nice going lisa

 

I'm Bart, not Lisa

 

... you didn't get that did you?

ok, i hate explaining things...
... it was a joke in which you use something related (yet completely different in every way), as a substitute. it's sarcasm

 

My faked hurt feelings were lost in the text.

 

but anyway, the moon landing was real. but to settle everything down nasa should go back to the moon

 

How many times should they go back, I mean they've already done it half a dozen times.

 

It will not matter how many times a commercial scientific group do anything. Commercial science is not trusted.

 

The moon landing was faked! They they filmed it on Mars, but because they only had black and white it looks like the moon!