It is quite hilarious that the best argument NASA can make for the "moon landings" is their "moon rocks." Any discerning scientist or engineer who has read the scholarly papers on the "moon rocks" should notice one glaring problem:
All such papers assume
the lunar provenance of the "moon rocks," and then work to explain away all the anomalies found in them. This is the exact opposite of genuine science, which is supposed to start with the evidence and come to a conclusion rather than starting with a conclusion and fudging the evidence.
Here is but one example of such backward thinking, now acknowledged as such by the mainstream media:
[link to www.newscientist.com
The Apollo samples contained water, so why were the signs disregarded?
Indeed, early isotopic studies revealed suspicious similarities between the water in some lunar soils and on Earth.
And reports of what appeared to be a water-bearing mineral called amphibole in several lunar samples simply "never caught on", says Apollo scientist Larry Taylor of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.
Despite the uncertainties, these hints may have been dismissed too quickly due to "group think
", says Apollo veteran David McKay of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. "These [reports] were discounted very early
because most lunar rocks showed no sign of water," he says. "It was almost taboo
," adds Roger Clark of the US Geological Survey. "It really showed a bias
in the science community."