|
Post by nomuse on Oct 3, 2005 15:15:52 GMT -4
If earthly rocks were identical, why would we bring back many kilograms of moon rocks? Well, because they aren't identical. They may look similar, but close examination sorts one from the other.
One point of simularity....if I grow a Hitler mustache, does that mean I'm dictator of Germany? No; I just have a Hitler mustache. The real guy is shorter, Austrian-born, and dead.
Even if we managed to find a set of rocks that was identical (not just vaguely similar) to one of the lunar photographs, we'd still have to find matches for the surrounding terrain, and a match for the lunar dust (Even the Tom Hanks film couldn't get that right). Then we'd have to match, close enough to get a time stamp on them, all our stills with video taken in something strongly resembling 1/6 gravity.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 3, 2005 16:00:53 GMT -4
One vague similarity does not make up for dozens upon dozens of easily discernible dissimilarities. The rocks are simply not similar. to you, but to me ,i find the curve shape the same. The pile of rocks outside my window - a good 2-1/2 meters high - has a profile very similar to that of the South Massif in the Apollo photograph and to that of the Anarctic mountain in the Mars-analog photograph. (Comparing the parts which each view has commonly visible.) By your reasoning, they must all be the same hill. My pile of rocks looks much more like the Apollo mountain than the rocks in the two photographs look like each other. Moreover, I have seen rocks with curves vaguely similar to one rock or the other in the two pictures all over - in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Maryland, and Alaska. By your reasoning, someone must be picking up the same set of rocks and moving them from state to state! I'm sorry, LOTR, but your claim is, frankly, absurd. They just don't alike. I don't know how to make it any plainer.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 3, 2005 18:07:31 GMT -4
LOTR,
Do you have anything other than a personal opinion to offer to support your assertion that the rocks are the same? If not then your argument has little to stand on. If the rocks are not identical, then the rest of your assertions as to what happened are just a made up story to fit your mistaken identification. If you could be more specific as to why you think your version of similarity means identical you might get further.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Oct 3, 2005 20:05:38 GMT -4
LordOfThe Rings: Come off it! Do you have no large rocks in your country? Observe them properly and in minute detail. The only similarity between the rocks in the two photos is that they are rocks. You could find thousands of groupings of rocks all over the world and on the moon that look as similar as these.
Look at the faces of any two people. They will have eyes, ears, noses etc., that is, many similarities but very few of them will be identical. There will be many minor differences in shapes and relationships between the parts.
It's the same with the rocks. They are not identical, they are not the same. If you really need convincing, print the photos to a large and similar size, then trace their outlines or cut the rocks out, cutting around their edges, and compare them, one over the other.
No, don't be lazy and ask us to do it for you -- do it yourself. Then you will learn what everyone is trying to tell you.
P.S.: You have already been asked to use bolding or the quotes function to identify other members' quotes in your posts, and you've been shown how to do it. Please do so. It's easy enough.
To do this bolding, I type the text, select "bolding" and press the B button at top left.
To do this:
I press the Insert Quote button (second from bottom right with paper symbol and blue arrow) and insert the text between the symbols.
To have an entire post quoted in your post, press its "Quote" button (top right in each post) instead of the "Reply" button at the bottom. You can edit the quote to delete superfluous bits if you want. Many of us do this.
As I said in another post to you, read each word here carefully and try out the instructions over and over until you understand.
P.P.S.: Don't misunderstand us. We are not picking on you or attacking you or being nasty or trying to upset you. We do strongly argue against your claims and attack them if we see faults in them, but that's what this board is for and it's not being offensive to do so. An attack on your ideas should never be taken as an attack on yourself. They are not the same thing.
We are instead spending our time trying to help you, which, if you think about it, is being kind. If everyone did that, the world would be a better place.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 4, 2005 5:24:35 GMT -4
In fact , the structures on earth that are the same on Mars make these moon photo similarities really laughable. raphaelonline.com/Marsface.htmScroll down to the last photo to the right to see the Freemasonic sign (NASA ppl are Freemasons, freemasons believe they have built the statues on earth since long ago) www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-hiddencolors.htmwww.aulis.com/mars.htmLook at the exact matching of Silburry hill, the pyramid near it, the crater and the pyramid on it and the wall. When they are scaled to the same size, they match perfectly. This is built long time ago by the Druids, which are said to have connection to Masonry. www.global-conspiracies.com/structures_on_mars.htmScroll down to Nefertiti face. Even the eyelashes match. Let alone other very similar things, animals,etc... Ppl out there reading this forum, wake up and break these statues worshipped. Deprogram your minds from the media suppression that wants you to believe everything in this world. The face of MARS has been changed, changed the lights to make it seem that it is a misconception. Just look at Nefertiti, and decide for yourselves: Are these structures possibly that similar to the Earth?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 4, 2005 5:57:24 GMT -4
*sigh*
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 4, 2005 6:10:40 GMT -4
Yes, I am the one who should sigh.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 4, 2005 6:35:49 GMT -4
LoTR, you linked to a page that has a heap of images that have been debunked time and time again. I spent about 2 months discussing the "Glass Worms" about 3 years back when I first started to get involved in all this, and the others have been beaten to death too. The short answer is that as humans we like to see recognisable shapes. Better images of the face from newer probes have shown that it's just a hill that looks cool when the light falls a certain way. The others are a collection of mountains, craters and landslides. If there was really some great conspriacy trying to hide these things, why would NASA have released them in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 4, 2005 6:48:25 GMT -4
LoTR, you linked to a page that has a heap of images that have been debunked time and time again. I spent about 2 months discussing the "Glass Worms" about 3 years back when I first started to get involved in all this, and the others have been beaten to death too. The short answer is that as humans we like to see recognisable shapes. Better images of the face from newer probes have shown that it's just a hill that looks cool when the light falls a certain way. The others are a collection of mountains, craters and landslides. If there was really some great conspriacy trying to hide these things, why would NASA have released them in the first place? www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread71802/pg7look at the photo of the tubes in this link posted by a member called shai. Listen Phantomwolf, you can go convincing yourself that everything can be explained "mathemagically", but anyone with the slightest gumption knows that Nefertiti with all her details, even the eyelashes, can't be coincidence. Not onlt that, but many Egyptian things are there too. You can convince yourself that a crater with a pyramid, a layered hill, and another pyramid match exactly by coincidence. You can say that the sign of the triangle with the circle in it is not artificial (a well-engraved perferct circle). I can not. These photos represent serious anomalies.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 4, 2005 7:24:36 GMT -4
LOTR, you've gone from telling us that two mountains which are clearly different are the same, and that two sets of rocks which are clearly different are the same, to presenting a mishmash of wild conspiracy claims from web sites which make idiot statements like this: The Great pyramid is set on the geographical center of all the land mass of the whole world, which can only be seen from spaceThat's nonsense. How can you expect us to take seriously sources which make such elementary mistakes? It's not nitpicking; it goes right to the credibility of your sources, just as Bart Sibrel's numerous idiotic mistakes (not to mention his outright lies) go directly against his credibility as a source in the other threads here. There is a very good explanation for the appearance of such features - pareidolia - but I doubt you will seriously consider it, nor the fact that that these people "enhance" images far beyond reality. Sorry about that, but I can't help you if you're determined to believe this stuff at all costs.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 4, 2005 8:01:44 GMT -4
One thing you would have to learn is not to take everything literally from everything you read. Just the most obvious ones that one can't ignore, and I think they are present, and NASA can't be taken seriously on them.
|
|
|
Post by jones on Oct 4, 2005 8:29:38 GMT -4
When did we start talking about Mars? Did I miss something? I thought we were talking about the apollo missions and the moon... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 4, 2005 8:40:38 GMT -4
One thing you would have to learn is not to take everything literally from everything you read. Just the most obvious ones that one can't ignore, and I think they are present, and NASA can't be taken seriously on them. ...but you seem to be taking seriously a lot of extremely dubious sources.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 4, 2005 9:20:21 GMT -4
One thing you would have to learn is not to take everything literally from everything you read.
Maybe there's a language difficulty here, but why shouldn't I take what your sources say "literally" when they claim this or that is an artificial structure?
When you claim a set of boulders in one Earth photograph is the same as a set in a Moon photograph, shouldn't I take you "literally", that is, believe that you meant exactly what you said?
Or did you mean something else?
Just the most obvious ones that one can't ignore, and I think they are present, and NASA can't be taken seriously on them.
You presented two "obvious" ones which weren't. Now you've moved on to the "Face" on Mars, pyramids, and conspiracy claims involving Freemasonry. Honestly, I can't take that stuff seriously, because such claims involve so much pareidolia, image manipulation, irrelevancies, handwaving, outright mistakes, appeals to pointless mathematical tricks, and just plain wishful thinking.
If you want to keep talking about it, I recommend that you keep your focus here on the Moon, and if you want to talk about the other stuff, start a thread on "Other Conspiracies". Just my suggestion to help keep your Apollo claims focused.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 4, 2005 9:24:18 GMT -4
Deprogram your minds from the media suppression that wants you to believe everything in this world.
Well, that pretty much does it for me. LotR, you won't convince anyone by telling them that they're blind or stupid or brainwashed for not believing you. You insist that we can't "see" these similarities because we're "programmed". Consider that we don't see them because they're just not similar.
|
|