Below are some extracts from an article by Dr. Tony Phillips, that falls back on Moon rocks as the "undeniable proof" that NASA put men on the Moon in 1969. Yet we know full well that numerous UNMANNED PROBES collected various samples from the Lunar surface - so it would not be unreasonable to expect REAL Moon rocks to have been examined by various laboratories. The article was used as a retort to the airing of a tv show.

Some extracts from the attempted debunking of the suggestion that the Apollo missions were set-up and filmed in a studio.

ALL THE BUZZ ABOUT THE MOON BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 15TH when Fox television aired a program called Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?

WRONG - THE CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME (KDP)

Guests on the show argued that NASA technology in the 1960's wasn't up to the task of a real Moon landing. Instead, anxious to win the Space Race any way it could, NASA acted out the Apollo program in movie studios. Neil Armstrong's historic first steps on another world, the rollicking Moon Buggy rides, even Al Shepard's arcing golf shot over Fra Mauro-- it was all a fake! FORTUNATELY THE SOVIETS DIDN'T THINK OF THE GAG FIRST. THEY COULD HAVE FILMED THEIR OWN FAKE MOON LANDINGS AND REALLY EMBARRASSED THE FREE WORLD. (well at least this part is true, but as the Soviets were far in advance of the US they had no need to fake it did they KDP.)

Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do COSMIC RAYS, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too.

"THERE ARE ISOTOPES IN MOON ROCKS, ISOTOPES WE DON'T NORMALLY FIND ON EARTH, THAT WERE CREATED BY NUCLEAR REACTIONS WITH THE HIGHEST-ENERGY COSMIC RAYS," says McKay.

EARTH IS SPARED FROM SUCH RADIATION BY OUR PROTECTIVE ATMOSPHERE AND MAGNETOSPHERE. (Here we see another admission that there are indeed high levels of radiation on the Lunar surface, radiation strong enough to fingerprint solid rock - how about flesh and blood KDP)

Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. EARTH'S MOST POWERFUL PARTICLE ACCELERATORS CAN'T ENERGIZE PARTICLES TO MATCH THE MOST POTENT COSMIC RAYS, WHICH ARE THEMSELVES ACCELERATED IN SUPERNOVA BLASTWAVES AND IN THE VIOLENT CORES OF GALAXIES. (And without an atmosphere the Lunar surface is directly exposed to the full blast. KDP)

Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped.(Why would they need to "fake" moon rocks - they had plenty from robot probes. KDP)

http://spacescience.com/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

Another common argument put up in defence of the missions is this gem:-

"For instance, Russia, China, East Germany and other cold-war enemies of the USA closely monitored the lunar missions. It was easy to tell whether the Apollo radio signals were coming from the direction of the Moon, and whether the time delays in conversation matched the distance the signals had to travel. If anything had seemed wrong, surely these unfriendly countries would have loudly shouted to the world that the USA was pulling a hoax! Yet none of them ever questioned NASA's accomplishment. When even your enemy gives you credit for something, it's pretty convincing!"

As any person familiar with radio and the use of signal repeaters knows, it is easy to make a signal appear to come from a totally different direction to where the originating station is transmitting from, the use of duplex signals ie. using what is commonly called an "uplink" and a "down link" through an unmanned orbitter fitted up with transmitters and receivers to do just that would make it appear that the signal was indeed being transmitted from the direction of the Moon, but the whole transcript could have been "uplinked" to a satellite and rebroadcast on the "downlink" without a great deal of effort, certainly much less effort than putting men up there. And we all know it is not hard to fool your enemies into thinking you are doing something that you are in fact not doing, or fool them into thinking you are not doing something, when in fact you are. There are mountains of books on the subject telling us how the allies "fooled" the enemy or how they were "fooled" by the enemy, during the various conflicts we have been involved in. "Hocus Pocus" , you bet, let's shorten it down to "hoax".