|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 2, 2005 7:56:04 GMT -4
www.scu.edu.au/schools/edu/student_pages/2000/dchapman/analog.html go down to the picture of the astronaut with the orange tent and mountain behind. It looks to similar to one of the Apollo mountains (the one of big mountain small lm vs big lm small mountain) The boulders layout in one of Sam Colby's site look also too similar to moon rocks (sure you have seen them before), how is that?
|
|
|
Post by drjohn on Oct 2, 2005 8:36:29 GMT -4
It looks similar except for the snow around the base. Didn't see any snow in the Apollo photos. It also looks like the Capulin volcanic cone. sangres.com/features/capulin.htmIt other words, it looks like a dormant or extinct volcano. Why would or should a lunar volcano look any different?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 2, 2005 9:21:50 GMT -4
If you'll excuse the pun, boulderdash. I could go down to the local beach and take a photo of four boulders that look a better match than those ones. About the only similarity to each other is that there are about four main boulders in the picture.
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Oct 2, 2005 11:02:28 GMT -4
What does too similar mean anyway? I have a twin brother who looks a bit like me. People would have a hard time telling us apart at a distance, but as we get closer, it is easy. Are you saying that earth rocks and moon rocks are too similar to note differences?
I'm sure that people who set up training sites for astronauts like to have a geometry that is remotely similar to the moon, but there sure is no way they can make it with the same geology.
Ranb
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 2, 2005 14:02:33 GMT -4
No. There are two boulders that look very, very similar. Lots of ppl who are not biased will agree on that.
About the mountain, you can remove snow by color correction , I guess
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Oct 2, 2005 14:20:56 GMT -4
Then why does it matter that a rock here and a rock there are similar? Things can look relatively (or very) similar in photos, but have much differant appearances up close and personal.
Ranb
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 2, 2005 14:50:29 GMT -4
The rocks , to me, are too similar to be different. You can keep your own interpretation, but the there can possibly not be two rocks that appeared on a same place of training that appear on the same place, together, on the moon. this is total absurdity.
|
|
|
Post by jones on Oct 2, 2005 17:26:54 GMT -4
So are you saying they are similar, or identical? They do look similar but they are certainly not identical. Similar by definition means that they are different......
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 2, 2005 19:02:06 GMT -4
This whole thread misses an important point: When training the astonauts, they went to great lengths to accurately simulate the terrain where the mission was landing.
If they observed boulders in the landing area on Lunar Orbiter photos, then they would train the astronauts to drive in an area where there were similar-sized boulders. If you read the astronaut mission debriefs (which are all available), you will see that they often compare training conditions with conditions found on the mission, and make recommendations to make training more accurate.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 2, 2005 19:53:44 GMT -4
...there can possibly not be two rocks that appeared on a same place of training that appear on the same place, together, on the moon. this is total absurdity.
How so? It's a simple shape. Should I be worried that the mountains east of my house look "suspiciously" like the Swiss Alps? Since those are complex shapes, it would seem a better match.
Context is important too. The massifs bordering the Taurus Littrow valley sit in a complex of mountains. Is the Earth mountain in the same context?
These and other issues bear on the notion of "sameness". The human mind wants to find similarities. It tends to ignore differences -- often salient and important differences.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 2, 2005 20:59:53 GMT -4
Sillyness. The claim rests on a substantial simularity. The rebuttal only requires one discrepency.
And I laugh at the idea that snow could be removed with a simple color correction. Ah, if only Hollywood knew this -- how much easier location shooting would be!
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 3, 2005 2:36:20 GMT -4
And I laugh at the idea that snow could be removed with a simple color correction. Ah, if only Hollywood knew this -- how much easier location shooting would be! Totally off topic, but hey it's got some relevance to things. The night before PJ and his crew were to film one of the scenes for Two Towers in National Park, it snowed, quite heavily. They had the fire brigade come out and spray the area with fire hoses to melt and wash away the snow so they could film. Unforuntately for Andy Serkis this was the scene were Golum goes sliding down the river after a fish and the water was -freezing-. I'm sure they would have loved to have been able to just paint out the snow. A second scene that had snow troubles was the "Stopping for Breakfast" scene in Fellowship. It strted snwing as they were filming, then stopped, so they had to refilm the scene with snow. As they were packing up they were hit by a blizzard and almost trapped in the area by the snow. The fun of making a film over here, lol.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 3, 2005 3:51:56 GMT -4
Oh, how borgoisic are the astronauts. NASA created rocks for them that two of them are soooooooo much similar that anyone unbiased can say they are the same. You can continue thinking they are different, I find that reallt weird.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 3, 2005 4:08:27 GMT -4
For the rocks to be the same rocks, the images would have to be identical, not just similar.
That's why the words are different in English...
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 3, 2005 4:30:56 GMT -4
for these too many similarities btwn the rocks, two rocks, they should be the same.
|
|