"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.

The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.

Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into the
earth's curst--and hit water!

ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project

Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277

Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?

No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?

No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena! Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

HJ










Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."