NASA SWAT TEAM

This is really great.


http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/why-does-nasa-need-a-swat-team-to-steal-moon-dust-from-retirees/

That is pretty messed up.  What does this have to do with FET?

That is pretty messed up.  What does this have to do with FET?

Why was NASA so desperate to get their hands on that moon dust?  Maybe they were afraid of who Davis might have managed to sell it to.  Maybe someone with a more discriminating eye.  Maybe someone who might have been able to figure out that the moon dust wasn't really from the moon at all!

This is a good find, brother hoppy.  I only wish we had heard about it when it happened.

Allegedly 842 pounds of moon rocks were brought back from the Apollo missions, and only a very small fraction of this was given away as gifts. It's not as if they have a lack of material to study.

My guess is that they are using military force to prevent another embarrassment occurring, like this fake moon rock scandal which happened a few years ago. One report can be ignored or written off as a hoax, but if multiple people come out and say their Apollo moon rocks are fake it could result in hard questions and a congressional investigation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-20124650/nasa-moon-rock-sting-nabs-terrified-granny/

Davis claims Armstrong gave the items to her husband, though the affidavit says the first man on the moon has previously told investigators he never gave or sold lunar material to anyone. In follow-up phone conversations with a NASA agent, Davis acknowledged the rock was not sellable on the open market and fretted about an agent knocking on her door and taking the material, which she was willing to sell for "big money underground."

"She must know that this is a questionable transaction because she used the term `black market,"' Agent Conley states in the search warrant.

She knew she was doing something illegal.

Also, using a SWAT team to harass an elderly woman is old hat at this point.  Try a google search for 'old lady swat team' and see how many unique results you get. 

Could it be that there is no moon dust, given that nobody has successfully landed at the moon?

Could it be that there is no moon dust, given that nobody has successfully landed at the moon?

Of course if nobody has landed there then there would be no moon dust.. But thus far nobody has been able to prove that man has never been on the moon while there is a plethora of proof provided saying that we have.

Could it be that there is no moon dust, given that nobody has successfully landed at the moon?

I don't think they would react like that if the dust was real. They have already been found giving away petrified wood and calling it moon rocks. Too many of those incidence and more people would become suspiciou of their hoax.

Quote from: odes on September 26, 2013, 03:23:34 PM

Could it be that there is no moon dust, given that nobody has successfully landed at the moon?

I don't think they would react like that if the dust was real. They have already been found giving away petrified wood and calling it moon rocks. Too many of those incidence and more people would become suspiciou of their hoax.

Perhaps but that isn't really evidence is it. Its just accusations about motives. Evidence would be something like a study to determine where the rocks are from.

Quote from: hoppy on September 26, 2013, 05:35:49 PM

Quote from: odes on September 26, 2013, 03:23:34 PM

Could it be that there is no moon dust, given that nobody has successfully landed at the moon?

I don't think they would react like that if the dust was real. They have already been found giving away petrified wood and calling it moon rocks. Too many of those incidence and more people would become suspiciou of their hoax.

Perhaps but that isn't really evidence is it. Its just accusations about motives. Evidence would be something like a study to determine where the rocks are from.

The moon rock Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin gave to the Dutch prime minister in 1969 was passed on to the Dutch National Museum after his death, who studied it and determined it to be fake, causing great embarrassment to NASA.

First of all, not gifted by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Second, its an embarrassment to the museum, not NASA. Finally, the genuine rock is in a different museum in the Netherlands.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks

Drees received it as a private gift on October 9, 1969 from then-US ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their ‘Giant Leap’ goodwill tour after the first moon landing." The museum acknowledged that though they did vet the moon rock they failed to double check it.[74] The museum was under the incorrect belief that this moon rock was one of the 135 Apollo 11 moon rocks that were presented to the nations of the world by the Nixon Administration.[75] "It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.[76] The genuine Apollo 11 moon rock given to the Dutch is in the inventory of a different museum in the Netherlands, which is, in fact, one of the very few countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known.

The national moon rock at the National Museum of the History of Science and Medicine in Leiden is not in question here, and was not studied for authenticity. I'm talking about Moon Rock which was gifted to the Dutch Prime Minister and has been on display at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam since 1992.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays --

While other "goodwill moon rocks" commemorative plaque displays were reported lost or missing by many recipient countries,[1][2][3] both the Netherlands Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 "goodwill moon rocks" commemorative plaque displays are in the country and accounted for.[1][2][4] However, in 2009 the Rijksmuseum of the Netherlands declared that the "goodwill moon rock" it had received in 1992 from the estate of Netherlands Prime Minister Willem Drees was bogus. This "moon rock", which had been exhibited for more than decade on a gold-colored piece of cardboard, weighs 89 grams (3.1 ounces) – far larger than the 1 gram piece of lunar basalt 70017 affixed to the Netherlands Apollo 17 lunar sample display. Testing of the Rijksmuseum "moon rock" in 2009 showed it to be a piece of petrified wood, likely from Arizona. The Rijksmuseum had insured this "moon rock" for ƒ100,000 (€50,000 [$85,000] in 2012 currency) upon its receipt.[4][5][6][7][8]

An investigation showed that United States Ambassador J. William Middendorf II had presented Drees with the "moon rock" on October 9, 1969. The Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting the Netherlands at that time on a goodwill tour. Drees' grandson speculates that his grandfather formed the mistaken impression that the "moon rock" he received was from the Apollo 11 mission. When Drees' "moon rock" was received by the Rijksmuseum in 1992, the museum phoned NASA to verify its provenance and was told over the phone, without seeing the piece, that it was "possible" it was a Moon rock.[4] USA Today says the discovery of a bogus "moon rock" at the Rijksmuseum should serve as a wake-up call for all the countries of the world and all the states of the United States that received the Apollo 11 and 17 lunar plaque displays from the Nixon administration to locate the displays and fully secure them.[4][5][6][7]

According to Moon rock researcher Robert Pearlman, both the Netherlands Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 lunar sample displays are in the National Museum of the History of Science and Medicine in Leiden, Netherlands.[1][2]

The former prime minister's grandson theorizes that was just "mistaken" to what he had actually received, but why would the astronauts and the US Ambassador visit the Dutch Prime Minister and give him a piece of petrified wood with a cardboard plaque?

I'm not sure but from my experiences in any museum, I take the authenticity of whatever is on display with a grain of salt and chalk it up to a mere educational experience. Most museums have, what seems to me, sample displays that only replicate the real thing. There is supposedly 184 missing moon rocks that went up missing during the goodwill moon rock giveaway by Nixon. Because of that fiasco an opportunity to make black market cash on counterfeits started. Considering how widespread the dispersion of authentic ones is, along with the presumed high number of both innocent sample displays and possible counterfeits, it follows that at this point its all a big mess. However many counterfeits there are,  your accusations could be swept away with just one example of an authentic moon rock. Here is an official list of unaccounted for and ACCOUNTED for moon rocks and their locations.

http://www.collectspace.com/resources/moonrocks_goodwill.html

This story is interesting not because it says anything about whether we really landed on the moon, but because there is black market of counterfeits out there. You see NASA trying to fix this mess and presume it means that they are lying but to me it looks like they have a responsibility to fix Nixon's mess. It is highly illegal to sell moon rocks, real or fake.

Accounted for != Authentic. The Prime Minister's moon rock at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam was on display since 1992 , and was only recently discovered as fake. No one had bothered to study the matter in all that time, taking the astronauts at their word. Pointing me at other moon rocks which have likely not gone under study or scrutiny does nothing to erase the fact that this moon rock is a proven fake.

Also, some of those samples may indeed be from the moon. The NASA director Wernher von Braun, a former Nazi war criminal, led an expedition to visit Antarctica in 1966 to collect Lunar meteorites.

See:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 1

You can find parts 2 through 5 of this segment on youtube.

Accounted for != Authentic. The Prime Minister's moon rock at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam was on display since 1992 , and was only recently discovered as fake. No one had bothered to study the matter in all that time, taking the astronauts at their word. Pointing me at other moon rocks which have likely not gone under study or scrutiny does nothing to erase the fact that this moon rock is a proven fake.

Also, some of those samples may indeed be from the moon. The NASA director Wernher von Braun, a former Nazi war criminal, led an expedition to visit Antarctica in 1966 to collect Lunar meteorites.

See: #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 1

Your points are noted but this is all pure speculation on both ends. We are not in the know and the black market, in my view, justifies the security measurements that have been instated.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 27, 2013, 05:49:58 AM

Accounted for != Authentic. The Prime Minister's moon rock at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam was on display since 1992 , and was only recently discovered as fake. No one had bothered to study the matter in all that time, taking the astronauts at their word. Pointing me at other moon rocks which have likely not gone under study or scrutiny does nothing to erase the fact that this moon rock is a proven fake.

Also, some of those samples may indeed be from the moon. The NASA director Wernher von Braun, a former Nazi war criminal, led an expedition to visit Antarctica in 1966 to collect Lunar meteorites.

See: #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 1

Your points are noted but this is all pure speculation on both ends. We are not in the know and the black market, in my view, justifies the security measurements that have been instated.

Not really. Why does NASA need its own SWAT team to handle matters like this? Why don't they just call the FBI or the DOJ like any other government organization reporting grand theft?

As we've seen in this incident in the article in the OP, NASA set up a sting and took the lady's moon rock without charging her or pursuing prosecution. The moon rock was not sealed as evidence. The composition of the rock was never studied in discovery, as crack cocaine would be studied in a major drug case to determine legitimacy.

Selling a fake drug (or moon rock, in this case) would have different legal consequences than selling a real drug, and NASA knew that there was a chance that if the moon rock were in the hands of a real court they might put it to the test. Any other government organization would call the FBI, not form their own.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 27, 2013, 06:29:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 27, 2013, 05:49:58 AM

Accounted for != Authentic. The Prime Minister's moon rock at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam was on display since 1992 , and was only recently discovered as fake. No one had bothered to study the matter in all that time, taking the astronauts at their word. Pointing me at other moon rocks which have likely not gone under study or scrutiny does nothing to erase the fact that this moon rock is a proven fake.

Also, some of those samples may indeed be from the moon. The NASA director Wernher von Braun, a former Nazi war criminal, led an expedition to visit Antarctica in 1966 to collect Lunar meteorites.

See: #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 1

Your points are noted but this is all pure speculation on both ends. We are not in the know and the black market, in my view, justifies the security measurements that have been instated.

Not really. Why does NASA need its own SWAT team to handle matters like this? Why don't they just call the FBI or the DOJ like any other government organization reporting grand theft?

As we've seen in this incident in the article in the OP, NASA set up a sting and took the lady's moon rock without charging her or pursuing prosecution. The moon rock was not sealed as evidence. The composition of the rock was never studied in discovery, as crack cocaine would be studied in a major drug case to determine legitimacy.

Selling a fake drug (or moon rock, in this case) would have different legal consequences than selling a real drug, and NASA knew that there was a chance that if the moon rock were in the hands of a real court they might put it to the test. Any other government organization would call the FBI, not form their own.

As I said, this is pure speculation. I don't find it surprising that a large institution has it's own security (or SWAT team as you put it). This is not uncommon for an institution or corporation as large as this, especially when there are plenty of people more militant than those on the FES that would likely like to do harm to NASA.

They likely did not prosecute the granny because of the outcry unleashed in the media. Not on the accusations of fakery but merely the poor old granny deal. This is about acquiring property, and while illegal, it is most likely in NASA's discretion to press charges or not. The same goes in any theft or robbery case.

This is not the same as other controlled substances like narcotics. It is not illegal for the same reasons. It's just a precious item because of how rare it is on earth.

You are welcome to think that this is questionable but it's highly pointless speculation until you can provide anything concrete.

Accounted for != Authentic. The Prime Minister's moon rock at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam was on display since 1992 , and was only recently discovered as fake. No one had bothered to study the matter in all that time, taking the astronauts at their word. Pointing me at other moon rocks which have likely not gone under study or scrutiny does nothing to erase the fact that this moon rock is a proven fake.

Also, some of those samples may indeed be from the moon. The NASA director Wernher von Braun, a former Nazi war criminal, led an expedition to visit Antarctica in 1966 to collect Lunar meteorites.

You're an idiot.

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn't know much about rocks.  The Apollo samples are just too good.  They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that's better than any story any conspirator could have conceived.  I've studied lunar rocks and soils for 40+ years and I couldn't make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab.  And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in "the Government" could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like.  Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity.  Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts.  Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases.  They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays.  Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.)  It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth.

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/

"For example," explains Dr. Marc Norman, a lunar geologist at the University of Tasmania, "lunar samples have almost no water trapped in their crystal structure, and common substances such as clay minerals that are ubiquitous on Earth are totally absent in Moon rocks."

"We've found particles of fresh glass in Moon rocks that were produced by explosive volcanic activity and by meteorite impacts over 3 billion years ago," added Norman. "The presence of water on Earth rapidly breaks down such volcanic glass in only a few million years. These rocks must have come from the Moon!"

http://www.virtualmicroscope.org/content/moon-rocks
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/lmc/index.cfm
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm
http://artscilabs.case.edu/ansmet/

There is a surfeit of research on lunar rocks.  They've been studied extensively by thousands of geologists.  None of them agree with your unwarranted assertions.

Btw, The FBI and the DOJ don't have a monopoly on SWAT teams.  Even the NOAA has one.  It's almost as if our nation is ultra obsessed with security these days...

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/in-the-federal-government-even-the-weather-forecasters-have-swat-teams/

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 27, 2013, 05:49:58 AM

Accounted for != Authentic. The Prime Minister's moon rock at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam was on display since 1992 , and was only recently discovered as fake. No one had bothered to study the matter in all that time, taking the astronauts at their word. Pointing me at other moon rocks which have likely not gone under study or scrutiny does nothing to erase the fact that this moon rock is a proven fake.

Also, some of those samples may indeed be from the moon. The NASA director Wernher von Braun, a former Nazi war criminal, led an expedition to visit Antarctica in 1966 to collect Lunar meteorites.

You're an idiot.

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

Quote

Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn't know much about rocks.  The Apollo samples are just too good.  They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that's better than any story any conspirator could have conceived.  I've studied lunar rocks and soils for 40+ years and I couldn't make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab.  And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in "the Government" could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like.  Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity.  Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts.  Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases.  They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays.  Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.)  It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth.

You would do well to proof read and double check yourself before calling anyone names. What you quoted of me and the article you quoted have nothing to do with each other. I made no claim that the moon rocks were artificially made. I presented sources that NASA made excursions to Antarctica to collect fallen moon rocks. That you would take this as an assertion NASA artificially created moon rocks in a lab is incredibly poor reading comprehension.

How embarrassing for you. Even a child of five could understand what was written.

Btw, The FBI and the DOJ don't have a monopoly on SWAT teams.  Even the NOAA has one.  It's almost as if our nation is ultra obsessed with security these days...

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/in-the-federal-government-even-the-weather-forecasters-have-swat-teams/

Are you actually arguing that two wrongs make a right?

In that article we read that the NOAA sent in armed guards to kick down a woman's door for a misdemeanor paperwork violation, something traditional enforcing agencies like the FBI would not do. Sounds to me like they are sidestepping the law to push their agenda, similar to what NASA is doing. Two wrongs do not make a right. How anyone can cast it in that light is despicable.

Quote from: garygreen on September 27, 2013, 09:45:48 AM

Btw, The FBI and the DOJ don't have a monopoly on SWAT teams.  Even the NOAA has one.  It's almost as if our nation is ultra obsessed with security these days...

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/in-the-federal-government-even-the-weather-forecasters-have-swat-teams/

Are you actually arguing that two wrongs make a right?

In that article we read that the NOAA sent in armed guards to apprehend a woman for a misdemeanor paperwork violation, something traditional enforcing agencies like the FBI would not do. Sounds to me like they are sidestepping the law to push their agenda, similar to what NASA is doing. Two wrongs do not make a right. How anyone can cast it in that light is despicable.

Its not an example of two wrongs make a right, at least in my view. Its an observation that the USA is security crazed. It doesn't mean anything specific about NASA while it does say a lot about the general zeitgeist or spirit of our times.

You would do well to proof read and double check yourself before calling anyone names. What you quoted of me and the article you quoted have nothing to do with each other. I made no claim that the moon rocks were artificially made. I presented sources that NASA made excursions to Antarctica to collect fallen moon rocks. That you would take this as an assertion NASA artificially created moon rocks in a lab is incredibly poor reading comprehension.

How embarrassing for you. Even a child of five could understand what was written.

1.  You first said that it was impossible to distinguish lunar rocks from terrestrial rocks, and you also implied that the scrutiny on/authenticity of the Amsterdam rock was typical of all Apollo lunar rocks.  My evidence directly refutes that claim.

Also, the Amsterdam rock can be just as easily explained by either Drees or Middendorf at some point pocketing the rock for their own pleasure and replacing it with the petrified wood in the hopes that by the time anyone notices it will be too late to do anything about it.  That's way more plausible and less complicated than a conspiracy that goes around handing out evidence of its forgery to everyone.  Especially since, to my knowledge, there are lots and lots of other diplomats, political leaders, and museums out there who have verified that their rocks are genuine.

2.  You did not present evidence that NASA made excursions to Antarctica to collect fallen moon rocks.  You simply asserted that it happened and provided a Youtube video as evidence of your conclusion.  That is the sort of stupidity that I'm talking about.  Here is a Popular Science article from 1967 written by a journalist who accompanied Von Braun to Antarctica.  It doesn't mention anything about collecting lunar meteorites.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kCEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you had read any of the material I'd presented, you'd have found the answer to your question: http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm

Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA 81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982.  The three Yamato 79xxx meteorites were collected earlier, but not recognized to be of lunar origin until after 1982.  The first lunar meteorite to be found appears to be Yamato 791197, on 20 November 1979. However, it is not known when Calcalong Creek was found. The Meteoritical Bulletin says "after 1960," but it was not recognized to be of lunar origin until 1990, so it may well have been collected earlier than Yamato 791197.

That you think Von Braun returned from his trip to Antarctica with over 800 pounds of lunar meteorites is idiotic.

Quote from: garygreen on September 27, 2013, 09:45:48 AM

Btw, The FBI and the DOJ don't have a monopoly on SWAT teams.  Even the NOAA has one.  It's almost as if our nation is ultra obsessed with security these days...

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/in-the-federal-government-even-the-weather-forecasters-have-swat-teams/

Are you actually arguing that two wrongs make a right?

I didn't say anything even vaguely resembling that.  I argued that it isn't at all out of the ordinary for NASA to have its own SWAT team.  Even the NOAA has one.  Nothing about that suggests nefarious motives.  It suggests a modern obsession with security.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 27, 2013, 10:05:30 AM

You would do well to proof read and double check yourself before calling anyone names. What you quoted of me and the article you quoted have nothing to do with each other. I made no claim that the moon rocks were artificially made. I presented sources that NASA made excursions to Antarctica to collect fallen moon rocks. That you would take this as an assertion NASA artificially created moon rocks in a lab is incredibly poor reading comprehension.

How embarrassing for you. Even a child of five could understand what was written.

1.  You first said that it was impossible to distinguish lunar rocks from terrestrial rocks, and you also implied that the scrutiny on/authenticity of the Amsterdam rock was typical of all Apollo lunar rocks.  My evidence directly refutes that claim.

Also, the Amsterdam rock can be just as easily explained by either Drees or Middendorf at some point pocketing the rock for their own pleasure and replacing it with the petrified wood in the hopes that by the time anyone notices it will be too late to do anything about it.  That's way more plausible and less complicated than a conspiracy that goes around handing out evidence of its forgery to everyone.

I'm sorry, come again? I said nothing about artificial moon rocks anywhere in this thread, so why would you quote me a section about artificial and call me an idiot?

I assume that you are hoping to change the subject to detract from your public embarrassment, which would be a wise course of action for you.

Especially since, to my knowledge, there are lots and lots of other diplomats, political leaders, and museums out there who have verified that their rocks are genuine.

Name the ones which have been verified. This Dutch rock sat on display in a museum for two decades before it was studied. And the only reason it was ever questioned is because it looks like an obvious piece of petrified wood. If it was an actual rock it would have likely stayed undetected for unknown decades more.
 

2.  You did not present evidence that NASA made excursions to Antarctica to collect fallen moon rocks.  You simply asserted that it happened and provided a Youtube video as evidence of your conclusion.  That is the sort of stupidity that I'm talking about.  Here is a Popular Science article from 1967 written by a journalist who accompanied Von Braun to Antarctica.  It doesn't mention anything about collecting lunar meteorites.

The Youtube videos showcase a number of sources and evidence that the Antarctica trip was to collect lunar meteorites. How many of the five videos on the subject did you watch?

It says right here on Wherner Von Braun's New World Encyclopedia bio that the excursion involved with searching for meteors:

"During the local summer of 1966/67, von Braun participated in a U.S. government expedition to Antarctica. The expedition was one of the first to systematically search the ice surface for meteorites believed to originate from the moon, for later use as a reference material."

If you had read any of the material I'd presented, you'd have found the answer to your question: http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm

Quote

Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA 81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982.  The three Yamato 79xxx meteorites were collected earlier, but not recognized to be of lunar origin until after 1982.  The first lunar meteorite to be found appears to be Yamato 791197, on 20 November 1979. However, it is not known when Calcalong Creek was found. The Meteoritical Bulletin says "after 1960," but it was not recognized to be of lunar origin until 1990, so it may well have been collected earlier than Yamato 791197.

And if you had watched the videos I linked you would know that the quote is false. The first lunar meteorites in Antarctica was found in 1912 and geologists have recognized the Antarctic meteorites as being from the moon through many scientific journals long before 1982.

That you think Von Braun returned from his trip to Antarctica with over 800 pounds of lunar meteorites is idiotic.

Actually, it seems that only idiot here is you. It is well known that the total amount of lunar surface material studied was less than 10% of the 842 lbs total that NASA claims has been recovered from the Moon by the Apollo astronauts. The rest have been "sealed for posterity".

See the following quote from  http://www.windows2universe.org/teacher_resources/new_on_moon.html

Less than 10 percent of the lunar sample material has yet been studied in detail

Furthermore, the majority of that lunar material studied was studied by NASA itself. An undisclosed fraction of that 10% studied was made available for independent scientific study outside of NASA institutions. Midway though video 3 in the Whernher von Braun videos I linked we hear a quote that that only 6 or 7 pounds have been pulverized through the scientific process.

I didn't say anything even vaguely resembling that.  I argued that it isn't at all out of the ordinary for NASA to have its own SWAT team.  Even the NOAA has one.  Nothing about that suggests nefarious motives.  It suggests a modern obsession with security.

You are justifying NASA's bad behavior by pointing your finger at another organization who is also engaging in the same bad behavior. You are suggesting that because the NOAA maintains an assault force to sidestep the law, it's okay for NASA to do the same, using terminology such as "isn't at all out of the ordinary" and "nothing about that suggests nefarious motives". There is no other reason to bring NOAA's assault force up, and the wrongs they are committing, other than to suggest that two wrongs make a right. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 27, 2013, 10:05:30 AM

You would do well to proof read and double check yourself before calling anyone names. What you quoted of me and the article you quoted have nothing to do with each other. I made no claim that the moon rocks were artificially made. I presented sources that NASA made excursions to Antarctica to collect fallen moon rocks. That you would take this as an assertion NASA artificially created moon rocks in a lab is incredibly poor reading comprehension.

How embarrassing for you. Even a child of five could understand what was written.

1.  You first said that it was impossible to distinguish lunar rocks from terrestrial rocks, and you also implied that the scrutiny on/authenticity of the Amsterdam rock was typical of all Apollo lunar rocks.  My evidence directly refutes that claim.

Also, the Amsterdam rock can be just as easily explained by either Drees or Middendorf at some point pocketing the rock for their own pleasure and replacing it with the petrified wood in the hopes that by the time anyone notices it will be too late to do anything about it.  That's way more plausible and less complicated than a conspiracy that goes around handing out evidence of its forgery to everyone.

I'm sorry, come again? You have not provide a proper explanation for why would you quote me a section about artificial moon rocks, when I had asserted no such thing, and call me an idiot.

I assume that you are hoping to change the subject to detract from your public embarrassment, which would be a wise course of action for you.

Especially since, to my knowledge, there are lots and lots of other diplomats, political leaders, and museums out there who have verified that their rocks are genuine.

Name the ones which have been verified. This Dutch rock sat on display in a museum for two decades before it was studied. And the only reason it was ever questioned is because it looks like an obvious piece of petrified wood. If it was an actual rock it would have likely stayed undetected for unknown decades more.
 

2.  You did not present evidence that NASA made excursions to Antarctica to collect fallen moon rocks.  You simply asserted that it happened and provided a Youtube video as evidence of your conclusion.  That is the sort of stupidity that I'm talking about.  Here is a Popular Science article from 1967 written by a journalist who accompanied Von Braun to Antarctica.  It doesn't mention anything about collecting lunar meteorites.

The Youtube videos showcase a number of sources and evidence that the Antarctica trip was to collect lunar meteorites. How many of the five videos on the subject did you watch?

It says right here on Wherner Von Braun's New World Encyclopedia bio that the excursion involved with searching for meteors:

"During the local summer of 1966/67, von Braun participated in a U.S. government expedition to Antarctica. The expedition was one of the first to systematically search the ice surface for meteorites believed to originate from the moon, for later use as a reference material."

If you had read any of the material I'd presented, you'd have found the answer to your question: http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm

Quote

Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA 81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982.  The three Yamato 79xxx meteorites were collected earlier, but not recognized to be of lunar origin until after 1982.  The first lunar meteorite to be found appears to be Yamato 791197, on 20 November 1979. However, it is not known when Calcalong Creek was found. The Meteoritical Bulletin says "after 1960," but it was not recognized to be of lunar origin until 1990, so it may well have been collected earlier than Yamato 791197.

In Part 3 of the Werner von Braun in Antarctica videos (#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 3) we see this particular Ansmet and Yamato claim of the first lunar meteorite was debunked. At the at the 13:10 mark in the video we see that that the date of the first lunar meteorite discovery was more like 1960.

That you think Von Braun returned from his trip to Antarctica with over 800 pounds of lunar meteorites is idiotic.

Actually, it seems that only idiot here is you. It is well known that the total amount of lunar surface material studied was less than 10% of the 842 lbs total that NASA claims has been recovered from the Moon by the Apollo astronauts. The rest have been "sealed for posterity".

See the following quote from  http://www.windows2universe.org/teacher_resources/new_on_moon.html

Less than 10 percent of the lunar sample material has yet been studied in detail

Furthermore, the majority of that lunar material studied was studied by NASA itself. An undisclosed fraction of that 10% studied was made available for independent scientific study outside of NASA institutions. Midway though part 3 (#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 3) at the 5:53 mark in the Whernher von Braun videos we hear a quote that that only 6 or 7 pounds have been pulverized through the scientific process.

I didn't say anything even vaguely resembling that.  I argued that it isn't at all out of the ordinary for NASA to have its own SWAT team.  Even the NOAA has one.  Nothing about that suggests nefarious motives.  It suggests a modern obsession with security.

You are justifying NASA's bad behavior by pointing your finger at another organization who is also engaging in the same bad behavior. You are suggesting that because the NOAA maintains an assault force to sidestep the law, it's okay for NASA to do the same, using terminology such as "isn't at all out of the ordinary" and "nothing about that suggests nefarious motives". There is no other reason to bring NOAA's assault force up, and the wrongs they are committing, other than to suggest that two wrongs make a right. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that.

An analysis of a similar lunar meteor histogram, and of Antarctic meteorites are provided in Part 4 (#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 4) and continues into Part 5 (#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 5).

I'm sorry, come again? You have not provide a proper explanation for why would you quote me a section about artificial moon rocks, when I had asserted no such thing, and call me an idiot.

I assume that you are hoping to change the subject to detract from your public embarrassment, which would be a wise course of action for you.

Again, you first said that it was impossible to distinguish lunar rocks from terrestrial rocks (before editing it out, apparently), and you also implied that the scrutiny on/authenticity of the Amsterdam rock was typical of all Apollo lunar rocks.  My evidence directly refutes those claims.  My quote talked about artificial rocks, and it also talked about the intense scrutiny to which the lunar samples have been subjected.  So you agree that the NASA has given rock samples to geologists who have confirmed that the samples are from the Moon, yes?

Name the ones which have been verified. This Dutch rock sat on display in a museum for two decades before it was studied. And the only reason it was ever questioned is because it looks like an obvious piece of petrified wood. If it was an actual rock it would have likely stayed undetected for unknown decades more.

Here is a compendium of peer-reviewed, academic research of Apollo lunar samples: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/LSCREF45.pdf

This is the point I've been making the whole time.  That one lunar rock was poorly studied does not mean that all lunar rocks are poorly studied.
 

The Youtube videos showcase a number of sources and evidence that the Antarctica trip was to collect lunar meteorites. How many of the five videos on the subject did you watch?

It says right here on Wherner Von Braun's New World Encyclopedia bio that the excursion involved with searching for meteors:

"During the local summer of 1966/67, von Braun participated in a U.S. government expedition to Antarctica. The expedition was one of the first to systematically search the ice surface for meteorites believed to originate from the moon, for later use as a reference material."

New World Encyclopedia?  Are you seriously submitting that as evidence of your claims?  Let's take a look at the citation they provide for that quote:  Popular Science, Space Man's Look at Antarctica 190 (5): 114-116.  You mean, the very same article that I actually provided you that doesn't mention a thing about lunar meteorites?  Maybe it's in the embedded link: http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/photo/13.html  Oh look, a photo of Von Braun!  Great stuff.  Compelling and rich.

Are there transcripts for the Jarrah White Youtube videos?  I don't really want to spend an hour of my life listening to his awful voice.  I will if there are no other options, but can't you find a better citation than a Youtube video?  Something with references that I can read would be nice.

In Part 3 of the Werner von Braun in Antarctica videos we see this particular Ansmet and Yamato claim of the first lunar meteorite was debunked. At the at the 13:10 mark in the video we see that that the date of the first lunar meteorite discovery was more like 1960.

Do some research.  I found the original paper that described the meteorite: http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1991Metic..26..255W  On page two, under Calcalong Creek, it says, "Found after 1960."  It was originally discovered by an indigenous Australian, and it wasn't found and cataloged by geologists until 1990, and that's why no one is too certain of the original discovery date.  Maybe an indigenous Australian really did find it in 1960.  What would that prove? 

There were no lunar meteorites to give out prior to 1981.  See for yourself: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?sea=&sfor=names&ants=&falls=&valids=&stype=contains&lrec=50&map=ge&browse=&country=All&srt=name&categ=Lunar+meteorites&mblist=All&rect=&phot=&snew=0&pnt=Normal%20table&dr=&page=1

Actually, it seems that only idiot here is you. It is well known that the total amount of lunar surface material studied was less than 10% of the 842 lbs total that NASA claims has been recovered from the Moon by the Apollo astronauts. The rest have been "sealed for posterity".

See the following quote from  http://www.windows2universe.org/teacher_resources/new_on_moon.html

Quote

Less than 10 percent of the lunar sample material has yet been studied in detail

Furthermore, the majority of that lunar material studied was studied by NASA itself. An undisclosed fraction of that 10% studied was made available for independent scientific study outside of NASA institutions. Midway though part 3 (#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica. PART 3) at the 5:53 mark in the Whernher von Braun videos we hear a quote that that only 6 or 7 pounds have been pulverized through the scientific process.

So you agree that the 10% of the rocks that have been studied have been proven to be of lunar origin, yes?

You're not making an argument.  You're just saying that not all of the rocks have been studied, therefore the remaining rocks must be fake?  There were no lunar meteorites found anywhere in the world until the 1980s.  I don't get how you're not seeing this.  They didn't have lunar meteorites with which to trick scientists.  Also I found a Youtube video that says that your Youtube video is wrong.  Which Youtube video should we trust the most?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #05: Helium-3 & Fusion Crust

You are justifying NASA's bad behavior by pointing your finger at another organization who is also engaging in the same bad behavior. You are suggesting that because the NOAA maintains an assault force to sidestep the law, it's okay for NASA to do the same, using terminology such as "isn't at all out of the ordinary" and "nothing about that suggests nefarious motives". There is no other reason to bring NOAA's assault force up, and the wrongs they are committing, other than to suggest that two wrongs make a right. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that.

I haven't made any kind of normative judgement about the use of a SWAT team to harass an old lady.  At all.  Anywhere.  I don't use the words 'should' or 'shouldn't' or 'good' or 'bad' or anything else.  I am responding to your claim that it's unusual for NASA to have a SWAT team.  I'm saying that it isn't unusual.  The NOAA has a SWAT team.  The IRS has one.  A bunch of government organizations have one.  The state is obsessed with security.  Having a SWAT team doesn't imply a conspiracy.

And neither does using a SWAT team to harass an old lady.  That happens all the time.

Name the ones which have been verified. This Dutch rock sat on display in a museum for two decades before it was studied. And the only reason it was ever questioned is because it looks like an obvious piece of petrified wood. If it was an actual rock it would have likely stayed undetected for unknown decades more.

Here is a list of ~70 lunar samples that are currently on display in various museums, each with a link to the peer-reviewed, published academic works related to each specific sample.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/index.cfm

If you click on the 'Display" tab you can then click on each individual sample and see the research associated with it.

So there you have it.  Where would you like to move the goal posts to now?

Perhaps this sample was a shoddy one in comparison to the others.