Merged: Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Patrick1000 has also come out as a 9/11 twoofer in the 9/11CT section.

Tell me Patrick/Fattydash... are their any unscientific anti-american conspiracy theories you don't believe in?

And if you hate your country that much... why don't you just leave?

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by DC

LOL why on earth would anyone belief that?

...and has a comic book based on his exploits.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Have you got an explanation for why the Soviets (people who hated America more than you do) never spilled the beans on NASA and the USA, Patrick?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

As best I can tell, the only person that seemed to be interacting with me directly was Nobby.

Then your reading and comprehension skills must be even worse than your poor grasp of optics. Several of us have been asking you real and pertinent questions that you are simply ignoring.

I pointed out to you how anyone with three radio receivers and an accurate clock would have been able to track the Apollo spacecraft all the way to the Moon and back.?

You do not have a response for this.

I asked you, why would the Soviet government which suffered a humiliating defeat in the space race, would stay silent, allowing their worst enemies 40 years of bragging and gloating?

Again, no response?

[Patrick1000]

Sword. I sincerely apologize. I obviously only have so much time. As you can see from above, I had given up on the telescope thing altogether. then, Nobby posted that he had actually asked a colleague about the subject and it seemed appropriate to address that issue first as Nobby had gone to the trouble of contacting the person not once, but now twice. I understand your point. will try and write more if/as/when I can. I am sure you understand my point about Nobby going out of his way. I did not want to say, "I don't care about this anymore now that you have asked your friend a much higher authority than me". Thanx!

[sts60]

fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/Sicilian/etc.,

I hate to interrupt you posting for the dozenth or so time that you're not posting anymore about the telescope thing, but a couple of pages ago I posted the following questions:

What do the numerous changes and contradictions in your claims, over the course of posting at BAUT, AH, and here, say about your honesty? After all, you keep telling us that there are contradictions in the A11 story and that this means it is a lie. Similarly, what about the numerous times you lied in accepting the TOSs of BAUT and AH when creating sock-puppets there? It's relevant because you're the one who started harping about honesty.

Also, in regard to "evaluating the narrative" - how many space missions have you personally worked?

Also, exactly what evidence do you have for your claim that the A11 LRRR was placed by anything other than the crew of Apollo 11? No handwaving. Just any actual evidence for this particular claim.

Oh, and please provide a description of Luna 15's ability to conclusively image the A11 landing site from orbit; it certainly didn't do so in proximity (despite your previous claim that it "hovered about"), as it landed a good fraction of the Moon's circumference away. I've worked on image tasking systems for high-resolution imaging satellites, so this ought to be good.

There are plenty of other questions that arise from your claims, but those will do for a start.

[ApolloGnomon]

So about those rocks. Somehow or another 800+ lbs of rocks and soil samples including soil cores over 3 meters long have ended up being curated using government money.

There are several possibilities here, patrick. Either:

a) they're all fake

b) they're all genuine items from the moon collected by humans as advertised

c) they're all genuine items, collected by telepresence

d) some number are fake, and some number are genuine but only the genuine have been studied.

You have claimed, falsely, that only a small percentage have been studied, the rest have been merely cataloged. Your claim is either based on false information or you're a friggin' liar.

You have claimed boldly that "obviously" they're all fake. This would require that all geologists, foreign and domestic, are either in on the hoax or are too stupid to notice that they're looking at earth rocks.

If the moon missions were all faked, as you claim, then which of the above options explains this sample, http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/14303.pdf chosen at random.

[Alareth]

I look at the plausibility of Apollo being a hoax by thinking about the numbers.

1. Thousands of people were in on it and not a single one has ever come forward in the last 40 years. Highly unlikely.

2. A small handfull of people were in on it and managed to pull the wool over the eyes of thousands of the smartest people of their day that designed, built, and operated the equipment of the Apollo program without anyone ever guessing. Again, not plausible.

The short version ... There were too many people involved at all levels for it to be faked. This doesn't even include the independent verification from individuals all over the world who watched through telescopes or tracked and listened via radio.

[matt.tansy]

400,000 people built parts for a rocket, tested those parts, assembled, tested the assemblies, installed, tested the installations, put it in a rocket, or tested the rocket. Not one of those 400,000 people has come forward and said, "the part I built, or assembled, or installed, or tested wouldn't have worked". In other words, they built a working rocket.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Sword. I sincerely apologize. I obviously only have so much time. As you can see from above, I had given up on the telescope thing altogether. then, Nobby posted that he had actually asked a colleague about the subject and it seemed appropriate to address that issue first as Nobby had gone to the trouble of contacting the person not once, but now twice. I understand your point. will try and write more if/as/when I can. I am sure you understand my point about Nobby going out of his way. I did not want to say, "I don't care about this anymore now that you have asked your friend a much higher authority than me". Thanx!

That's a lot of bandwidth you just wasted when you could have just said "I don't have an answer".

The Soviets tracked Apollo to the Moon and back. They knew it was legit. Which is why they have never backed you up.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You still haven't responded to my points. But that's ok.

We both know why.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by SezMe

To the OP, Patrick1000, I'd like to know a) how many people were in on the hoax, and b) who was the highest up the food chain who knew.

Patrick1000, I'd like a response to this.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Thank you Kid again for all of the detail with respect to your reasoning. Take a look at my post at #227 and the reference sited there. If you could take a glance at the reference by Preston and let me know what you think would be great.

Your nonsense is already debunked, as SoT pointed out, the Commis would have been the first to expose the US's hoax. But they knew it is real.

why do you ignore everything that is in conflict with your fantasy world view?
it is just insane to do so,

[sts60]

Fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/Sicilian/etc.,

What do the numerous changes and contradictions in your claims, over the course of posting at BAUT, AH, and here, say about your honesty? After all, you keep telling us that there are contradictions in the A11 story and that this means it is a lie. Similarly, what about the numerous times you lied in accepting the TOSs of BAUT and AH when creating sock-puppets there? It's relevant because you're the one who started harping about honesty.

Also, in regard to "evaluating the narrative" - how many space missions have you personally worked?

Also, exactly what evidence do you have for your claim that the A11 LRRR was placed by anything other than the crew of Apollo 11? No handwaving. Just any actual evidence for this particular claim.

Oh, and please provide a description of Luna 15's ability to conclusively image the A11 landing site from orbit; it certainly didn't do so in proximity (despite your previous claim that it "hovered about"), as it landed a good fraction of the Moon's circumference away. I've worked on image tasking systems for high-resolution imaging satellites, so this ought to be good.

There are plenty of other questions that arise from your claims, but those will do for a start.

[ApolloGnomon]

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

So about those rocks. Somehow or another 800+ lbs of rocks and soil samples including soil cores over 3 meters long have ended up being curated using government money.

There are several possibilities here, patrick. Either:

a) they're all fake

b) they're all genuine items from the moon collected by humans as advertised

c) they're all genuine items, collected by telepresence

d) some number are fake, and some number are genuine but only the genuine have been studied.

You have claimed, falsely, that only a small percentage have been studied, the rest have been merely cataloged. Your claim is either based on false information or you're a friggin' liar.

You have claimed boldly that "obviously" they're all fake. This would require that all geologists, foreign and domestic, are either in on the hoax or are too stupid to notice that they're looking at earth rocks.

If the moon missions were all faked, as you claim, then which of the above options explains this sample, http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/14303.pdf chosen at random.

bump, 'cuz this is relevant. You are willfully dodging this issue to pursue red herrings. The telescope thing is completely irrelevant. You don't understand the impact of light gathering power even with unity optics, it doesn't prove anything one way or another, nor does it provide a cogent explanation for the geological samples carefully chosen, archived and studied.

You yourself could study these rocks. Only you are stopping you. Finish high school and go to college, study geology and get a research position somewhere. Write your proposal and submit it to the curator http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/index.cfm and you can get your very own chunk of moon. Go ahead. Nobody can stop YOU from proving that moon rocks don't come from the moon.

Goofy speculation about 12 digit coordinates (where you proved yourself NOT to be a mathematician) does not prove the rocks don't exist.

Uninformed arm-flailing about optics, where again you PROVE you are not the mathematician you claim to be, does not prove the rocks are fake.

[ApolloGnomon]

Rocks, patrick. Please discuss. See posts on previous page if confused.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Went to U.C. Berkeley, double major; Mathematics/Biochemistry, studied maths at Cambridge and received doctorate(applications of Galois to epidemiological stats). Returned to the states and ultimately went to medical school. I work as a clinician. I see patients. Still crunch numbers when asked, but prefer math now as a "hobby". I speak Mandarin, Cantonese pretty well and Italian very well. I come from a musical family. Mom was an opera singer. Love chess, play poorly. I am a pianist(contemporary music(blues/jazz/rock/pop). Still active musically. I am in my 50s. Came to Apollo studies late, within last year. Began reading intensively 3 or 4 months ago. Yes the "fattydash" story is real. Hope this helps. No more personal questions will be entertained.

Two questions:

1. How's your work on the oscillation overthruster coming along?

2. Why do you not use the Quote button?

[sts60]

But of course, if one pauses, internal incoherence is precisely what one would expect from a bogus telling of an Apollo moon landing. Such would be a bogus telling's hallmark...
and
The narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent and therefore necessarily untrue... and so on.

1. Given the numerous contradictions in your claims across three different message boards now, e.g.

Originally Posted by fattydash,etc.

My claim as to why the lander could not perform a guided ascent is we have no evidence that Aldrin was able to determine lander coordinates for the Eagle

...I do not believe there was an ascent as I do not believe there was a landing.
-------------------
They did not have a LM that could land on the moon.

If one looks at the facts and concedes the lander works, and I do imagine the builders constructed the thing well. I am not trying to play games. I grant the lander works, fine.
-------------------
Yes we know there was most definitely no telemetric transmission of the coordinates.

This makes sense given the general features of Apollo guidance. It is for the most part telemetric.

what does that say about your story?

The only way one ever makes headway in coming to terms with any of this is to look at the narrative itself. Study the story.

I have studied various aspects of the story, and considered it as a whole, from the perspective of a practicing space engineer with an educational background in space physics. I also have spaceflight operations experience.

2. How many missions have you personally worked?

That said, retroreflector present or not, the exposure of of Apollo's fraudulence by LUNA's camera was nevertheless a major concern, retroreflector already "planted" at Tranquility Base or not. There were no astronauts for LUNA to photograph.

3. Exactly what evidence do you have for a retroreflector planted at the Apollo 11 landing site by anything other than the Apollo 11 crew?

4. Please describe, in reasonable detail, the ability of Luna 15 to conclusively image the A11 landing site from orbit. As it landed a considerable fraction of the Moon's circumeference away, we know it did not image the site in proximity.

5. Given your repeated criticisms of NASA and the astronauts and engineers for allegedly lying, what does it say about you that you have repeatedly lied in agreeing to the TOSs for various boards in order to register sock-puppets?

5a. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that your "fattydash" story was actually true. What does it say about you and this supposed group of people that they lied in agreeing to the TOS in order to post content disguised as being from one person?

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Two questions:

1. How's your work on the oscillation overthruster coming along?

2. Why do you not use the Quote button?

Heh. I see I'm not the only one to go there.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

I agree twinstead, I am holding firm, though I am prepared to give ground and all of it. Show me a reference, one. i am happy to concede any and everything if I am wrong. I honestly would welcome a strong reference from the other side as this has been discouraging for me. I feel as though we are not really engaged here. But surely you see my point. I am hoping Nobby's contact will settle this for us. Perhaps wishful thinking he'll side with me, but I actually have dealt with this particular concern from a practical standpoint for years as I play around with telescopes regularly. I am sure you can feel my confidence based on personal experience and my ability to readily produce references. Anyhoo, I really would love to be proven wrong. At least i would feel as though it were a real debate. But I will not accept as fact statements by my opponents now. These statements must be supported with references. Put yourself in my shoes twin, Nobby goes to an astronomer with my question and comes back with to paraphrase, "magnification doesn't increase the amount of light received by a scope". What does that have to do with anything? We all agree with that. What about my question. AND, I got this answer twice!

I indeed do NOT see your point. In my mind no rational person can objectively look at the whole of the Apollo program record and come to any other conclusion than they happened as advertised. That includes experts in the relevant sciences. There is, therefore, no "debate" to be had.

Since you claim that this fully-accepted event, one of the most documented endeavor in human history is faked, the onus is on YOU and you alone to be "supported".

You are not approaching this in any other way than a stereotypical irrational conspiracy theorist. You use the same techniques, the God of the Gaps, the shifting of burden of proof, your crafting your arguments in such a way to justify to yourself the ignoring of evidence contrary to your position...it's all there.

You are not being true to yourself when you say, "Show me a reference, one. i am happy to concede any and everything if I am wrong". Since I have seen reference after reference after fact after fact after expert opinion after expert opinion offered to you, I can only conclude that there is absolutely NOTHING that would ever convince you that you are wrong about the Apollo program.

Nothing good can come from debating somebody like that.

So, let's salvage this. What exactly it would take for you to start questioning your stance on the Apollo program?

[Patrick1000]

twinstead, for one, we could get Remington Stone from the Lick Observatory together with David Reed from Mission Control and see if THEY could make sense of the fact that Stone, the laser operator, knew what Reed, the FIDO, needed to know but didn't, or better said, had to figure out for himself. that would be a grand start.

[Greedo]

Okay... This is off topic, but I keep noticing this.

Why do CTers always double-, triple-, or even quadruple - post?
I mean, what's up with that?

[sts60]

fattydash/Patrick1000/etc.,

Please answer the following questions relating to your claims.

But of course, if one pauses, internal incoherence is precisely what one would expect from a bogus telling of an Apollo moon landing. Such would be a bogus telling's hallmark...

and

The narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent and therefore necessarily untrue...

and so on.

1. Given the numerous contradictions in your claims across three different message boards now, e.g.
My claim as to why the lander could not perform a guided ascent is we have no evidence that Aldrin was able to determine lander coordinates for the Eagle

...I do not believe there was an ascent as I do not believe there was a landing.
-------------------
They did not have a LM that could land on the moon.

If one looks at the facts and concedes the lander works, and I do imagine the builders constructed the thing well. I am not trying to play games. I grant the lander works, fine.
-------------------
Yes we know there was most definitely no telemetric transmission of the coordinates.

This makes sense given the general features of Apollo guidance. It is for the most part telemetric.

what does that say about your story?

The only way one ever makes headway in coming to terms with any of this is to look at the narrative itself. Study the story.

I have studied various aspects of the story, and considered it as a whole, from the perspective of a practicing space engineer with an educational background in space physics. I also have spaceflight operations experience.

2. How many missions have you personally worked?

That said, retroreflector present or not, the exposure of of Apollo's fraudulence by LUNA's camera was nevertheless a major concern, retroreflector already "planted" at Tranquility Base or not. There were no astronauts for LUNA to photograph.

3. Exactly what evidence do you have for a retroreflector planted at the Apollo 11 landing site by anything other than the Apollo 11 crew?

4. Please describe, in reasonable detail, the ability of Luna 15 to conclusively image the A11 landing site from orbit. This includes the type of camera, its resolution, and the targeting/tracking capability while in orbit. As Luna 15 landed a considerable fraction of the Moon's circumeference away from A11, we know it did not image the site in proximity.

5. Given your repeated criticisms of NASA and the astronauts and engineers for allegedly lying, what does it say about you that you have repeatedly lied in agreeing to the TOSs for various boards in order to register sock-puppets?

5a. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that your "fattydash" story was actually true. What does it say about the honesty of you and this supposed group of people - lying in agreeing to the TOS in order to post content disguised as being from one person?

[Chaos]

Patrick, when will you finally address sts60´s argument?

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by SezMe

To the OP, Patrick1000, I'd like to know a) how many people were in on the hoax, and b) who was the highest up the food chain who knew.

Originally Posted by SezMe

Patrick1000, I'd like a response to this.

I understand that your in depth research on telescopes must be quite time consuming but I'd still like a specific, detailed response to my questions.

[TheRedWorm]

Pat, not only are you not correct, you're not even wrong in the right direction. Now, how about you answer some questions and provide some cites, hmmm?

P.S. At least I learned something from the telescope discussion. Thank you to everyone not name Patrick100 for the info. That's why I love this forum.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by abaddon

I am not so sure it is pointless.

Look at how pat1k has been exposed for what he is.

You make a good point.

[R.A.F.]

double post

[sts60]

Now is as good a time as any to add

6. fattydash/Patrick1000/etc., you have previously said, if I recall correctly, that you believe all the Apollo missions were faked. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Does this mean only missions to/around the Moon, or does it include Earth orbit missions as well?

6a. What about Mercury and Gemini?

6b. What about Shuttle missions?

6c. What about Skylab, Salyut, Mir, and ISS?

6d. What about other Soviet/Russian and Chinese manned orbital missions?

7. You have already accepted the ability to fly vehicles to the Moon and soft-land them. What exactly prevented Apollo from going to the Moon as recorded? No handwaving, please.

7a. What exactly is different between Apollo lunar missions (and any other manned missions you may reject), and the manned missions cited above you accept (if any), which allows the latter to succeed but not the former?

[sts60]

(taps keyboard) Hello, hello, is this thing on?

[Patrick1000]

ApolloG, your point is very well taken. Ironically, because you never attacked my integrity as the others did, I wound up wasting my time debating a point i know to be correct as is now evident to all. But it was the debate per se that was a waste of time. My larger point is made. Here is a bold faced fact all must now accept as the experimental evidence as presented in Calrk's work supports my side and not the other. so I apologize. But i suspect you might have done the same to make a point were you challenged in such a way. i look forward to a meaningful debate with you about your rocks. Pat

[tsig]

Originally Posted by sts60

(taps keyboard) Hello, hello, is this thing on?

Well I can see your posts.

[Patrick1000]

About Gemini sts,

What is the story with that Michael Collins "spacewalking" photo that Ralph Rene' always claimed was fake. Has that ever been debunked? In all honestly, I have never read up on that myself, never really studied Gemini. But I do have 2 copies of "carrying the Fire" I have a first edition paperback that has the spacewalk photo, and then the more recent edition does not have it. I would think this is such old stuff there is some story explaining why Collins had that in the first book's publications, but not in the latter editions. Anyway, that is what I know about Gemini hoax stuff, the Collins photo, and really do not have an opinion on it. I never took the time to study it. I am a late comer to Apollo studies.

[ApolloGnomon]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

I am a late comer to Apollo studies.

Perhaps because the Apollo program had been finished for 23 years on the day you were born?


I honestly have no idea what you're flailing on about now. Collins spacewalked during the "gemini sts?" What the hell was that? Did they go time-traveling in the Endeavour?

You're ideas are beneath contempt. I'm gonna go watch some Futurama with my kids.

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

About Gemini sts,

What is the story with that Michael Collins "spacewalking" photo that Ralph Rene' always claimed was fake. Has that ever been debunked? In all honestly, I have never read up on that myself, never really studied Gemini. But I do have 2 copies of "carrying the Fire" I have a first edition paperback that has the spacewalk photo, and then the more recent edition does not have it. I would think this is such old stuff there is some story explaining why Collins had that in the first book's publications, but not in the latter editions. Anyway, that is what I know about Gemini hoax stuff, the Collins photo, and really do not have an opinion on it. I never took the time to study it. I am a late comer to Apollo studies.

Yes, it was a fake. So is the R.E.M. video, and the cover of one of Allen Steele's books. What of it? It was never claimed to be a part of the official record.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

I think it is behind us now. thanks for writing. Pat

OK, cool. So why do you think the landings were faked? I don't mean the reason why someone would do it (although that's an interesting topic in and of itself), I mean what persuades you to believe they were faked? I tried to read your earlier posts, but kind of got bogged down. Do you have one particular reason, something that can be articulated in a sentence or two? (Of if you have many reasons, can you pick what you think is the most compelling one?)

[Patrick1000]

Thanks for the question Stellafane. One of the main ideas I presented so far stella has to do with FIDO David Reed's account of what happened on the morning of 07/21/1969. He was set to determine the LM trajectory and was surprised to find as it turned out that they did not know within roughly 5 miles of where the LM was. Moreover, all of the methods for determining where the LM was were at great variance, the numbers for the coordinates as determined by the PNGS, AGS, maps, telemetry didn't agree, according to him, "not even close". So he discounted all of those numbers and found the LM using the rendezvous radar "in reverse".

I say, how can the Apollo 11 story as told be real if the above is true AND many hours before Reed even arrived on duty at Mission Control, the scientists at Lick Observatory targeting the LRRR were told the coordinates of Tranquility Base were 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east? The precise coordinates of Tranquility Base as it would turn out.

If Apollo is real, why didn't anyone think to tell Reed the coordinates? The astronauts lives were on the line. So they tell Lick Observatory and not the FIDO. It has to be fake.

Also, if you look at the Mission report, all of the coordinates there are consistent, and with the exception of the north coordinate as determined by the AOT, they are all close to 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. So either David Reed is making up his story about the coordinates being at great variance and not even close, or NASA is. Reed has no reason to lie. He is not psychotic, so NASA is lying. There is no middle ground solution.

Apollo must be fraudulent.

[Patrick1000]

The last point I made there stella to try and be more specific, is that I would argue the Mission Report is bogus, features forged coordinates. I say this because rReed was the FIDO, the coordinate guy. He says in real time, the coordinates as presented were at great variance. Now in the formal NASA Mission Report Publication they all match up. I say it is fake because I believe Reed and not NASA. Reed has no reason to lie. He is not psychotic. NASA has a jillion reasons to lie and apparently, lie they indeed do.

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Thanks for the question Stellafane. One of the main ideas I presented so far stella has to do with FIDO David Reed's account of what happened on the morning of 07/21/1969. He was set to determine the LM trajectory and was surprised to find as it turned out that they did not know within roughly 5 miles of where the LM was. Moreover, all of the methods for determining where the LM was were at great variance, the numbers for the coordinates as determined by the PNGS, AGS, maps, telemetry didn't agree, according to him, "not even close". So he discounted all of those numbers and found the LM using the rendezvous radar "in reverse".

I say, how can the Apollo 11 story as told be real if the above is true AND many hours before Reed even arrived on duty at Mission Control, the scientists at Lick Observatory targeting the LRRR were told the coordinates of Tranquility Base were 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east? The precise coordinates of Tranquility Base as it would turn out.

If Apollo is real, why didn't anyone think to tell Reed the coordinates? The astronauts lives were on the line. So they tell Lick Observatory and not the FIDO. It has to be fake.

Also, if you look at the Mission report, all of the coordinates there are consistent, and with the exception of the north coordinate as determined by the AOT, they are all close to 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. So either David Reed is making up his story about the coordinates being at great variance and not even close, or NASA is. Reed has no reason to lie. He is not psychotic, so NASA is lying. There is no middle ground solution.

Apollo must be fraudulent.

HOW were the astronaut's lives on the line?

You have been contending for several weeks in at least three forums that the LM required coordinates accurate to within some arbitrary and unstated standard or rendezvous would be impossible. You have entirely failed to show that any of the available estimates of the LM's position were not accurate enough for that task.

[ApolloGnomon]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Show me where i discussed aperture nomuse. I would like to see my post on that very much.

Does it really matter?

NO!

You've chosen to deflect the conversation from your initial claim that somehow the Apollo 11 landing position not being exactly known to within a quarter mile calls into question the entire space program from BumperWAC to "Moon, Mars and Beyond."

Aperture, smaperture. You wouldn't know aperture if it bit you on the ankle. Mr. so-called "clinician" that can't even spell or formulate an intelligent sentence, mr. so called "math" guy that doesn't even bother to post a simple calculation for positional error or f-number (neither of which, apparently, do you understand.)

So let's discuss rocks, already, dag nabbit! Where did they come from? How did they get here? How many of them have never even been cut in half? YOU claimed
a) they're all fake
b) most of them haven't been studied.

I've given you the friggin' link over and over, and here it is again: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm

Go to it, "doc." Prove your clams.