Similarities on Earth

[Al Johnston]

One difference is enough to show they aren't.

[jones]

This is the worst argument I've heard yet from a hoax believer.

NASA must not have had enough money in their fake moon rock production budget to be able to make enough rocks for the sound stage AND the fake training grounds. So they had to use the same rocks for each...

[sts60]

Oh, how borgoisic are the astronauts.

Sorry, that's not a word in English. Did you mean "bourgeois"? "boric"?

NASA created rocks for them that two of them are soooooooo much similar that anyone unbiased can say they are the same.

NASA worked fairly hard, in conjunction with universities, to create training sites that bore some resemblance to the landing areas. They are not "so similar" that they look the same. Evidently, your idea of "the same" is much lower than the usual defintion, as you thought the Mars analog picture in your OP was "the same" as a lunar mountain. No, it wasn't; there are lots of mountains and hills that are kind of flat on top to be found in this solar system.

You can continue thinking they are different, I find that reallt weird.

The problem is that you can't simply assert something is "obvious" (to use margamatix's word) when it is manifestly not obvious, in the sense that almost everyone else here thinks differently. You might also want to consider that a number of people around here have spent considerable amounts of time looking at such imagery and investigating such claims.

[lordoftherings]

jones said:

This is the worst argument I've heard yet from a hoax believer.

NASA must not have had enough money in their fake moon rock production budget to be able to make enough rocks for the sound stage AND the fake training grounds. So they had to use the same rocks for each...

The problem is that NASA thought that no one would look for them. It thought it is easier to put the same rocks since they are basalt. Why to bother and bring other rocks? who would go searching if the rocks match?

[lordoftherings]

sts60 said:

Oh, how borgoisic are the astronauts.

Sorry, that's not a word in English. Did you mean "bourgeois"? "boric"?

NASA created rocks for them that two of them are soooooooo much similar that anyone unbiased can say they are the same.

NASA worked fairly hard, in conjunction with universities, to create training sites that bore some resemblance to the landing areas. They are not "so similar" that they look the same. Evidently, your idea of "the same" is much lower than the usual defintion, as you thought the Mars analog picture in your OP was "the same" as a lunar mountain. No, it wasn't; there are lots of mountains and hills that are kind of flat on top to be found in this solar system.

You can continue thinking they are different, I find that reallt weird.

The problem is that you can't simply assert something is "obvious" (to use margamatix's word) when it is manifestly not obvious, in the sense that almost everyone else here thinks differently. You might also want to consider that a number of people around here have spent considerable amounts of time looking at such imagery and investigating such claims.

Anyone UNBIASED can see that the curve in the rock is THE SAME in the moonpic. The other one also is so similar to be different, in other words it is the SAME. There can be no TWO rocks present in the SAME place of training and look soooooo much like the TWO rocks in the SAME "moon" setting. The big rock has attracting features and definitive features in BOTH photos.

[Al Johnston]

An unbiased observer is surely wondering when you last had your eyes tested: the slightest difference means they're different rocks

[sts60]

The problem is that NASA thought that no one would look for them. It thought it is easier to put the same rocks since they are basalt. Why to bother and bring other rocks? who would go searching if the rocks match?

Are you saying NASA was just too lazy to make things look "different enough" because they thought no one would scrutinize the pictures that carefully?

You have to understand that it was the scientists most familiar with geology and minerology on the Earth and Moon who set up the training in the first place. They would not only make certain the training was as high-fidelity as reasonably possible, but would also notice immediately if something represented to be the Moon was actually a place on Earth. There's no way such a deception would go unnoticed.

Moreover, NASA put out a great deal of publicity material explaining and showing their training. If they didn't think or want anybody to check it out, why would they publish pictures, for crying out loud? Your argument makes no sense.

[sts60]

Anyone UNBIASED can see that the curve in the rock is THE SAME in the moonpic. The other one also is so similar to be different, in other words it is the SAME. There can be no TWO rocks present in the SAME place of training and look soooooo much like the TWO rocks in the SAME "moon" setting. The big rock has attracting features and definitive features in BOTH photos.

As far as I can tell, you're talking about two different things:
1. The South Massif (shown in the "Figures 19 and 20" thread) and the hill behind the man in the "Mars Analog" photograph to which you linked in your original post on this thread. The problem here is that they are clearly different hills; the lunar mountain has a profile which humps up irregularly to the left in a fashion quite different than that of the "Mars analog" hill. There are color, textural, and smaller features noticeably different between the two, even just looking at the tiny photograph to which you linked. So, no, they are definitely not the same hills.

2. You are apparently saying that a set of boulders is identical between a "training" site and a "lunar" site. Can you provide links to the exact pictures you are comparing?

[JayUtah]

We disagree that the rocks are identical not because we're biased, but precisely because we are not biased. We are looking at details that are different in each photograph. If there are differences then they are merely similar, not identical. If you wish to argue that the degree of similarity is too great to be by chance, then that is a subjective determination: what is your criteria for "sameness" and why is it appropriate?

Perhaps this discussion would go better if we understood better what the alleged significance of this similarity is. Why is it noteworthy that two photographs appear to depict similar mountains? How does that help prove Apollo photography or the missions themselves were fake?

[lordoftherings]

sts60,
I can agree that the mountain is not the same, but not the rocks. The photo of rocks is posted by one of the users on page 1.
JayUtah,
I have explained why these rocks can't be different. First they are TWO rocks, presented together in BOTH pics. If you compare the curve and imagine the physical apparent sides of the big rock, it is the Same in the lunar photo. The second smooth rock is also the same. This can't be coincidence.

[LunarOrbit]

These are the rocks we're talking about, right?





Maybe the animation in the original image is playing tricks with your brain because I don't see any similarity at all.

[sts60]

I have to agree. LordOfTheRings, these sets of rocks don't look anything at all like each other either. The shapes are different, the geometry of the layout is different, the texture and shading are completely different. I sincerely doubt that even margamatix would claim these sets of rocks as identical. You were better off claiming the mountains were the same - at least they had the same general profile. (It so happens I can see a big pile of small rocks out my window with the same profile, too!)

The fact that Colby actually claims too clearly different sets of rocks as the same speaks clearly to his lack of competence - or perhaps lack of grip on reality. Of course, he also claims this little gem:

In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine.

Priceless.

[lordoftherings]

Look at the curve on that big boulder and you will see what I mean.

[JayUtah]

One vague similarity does not make up for dozens upon dozens of easily discernible dissimilarities. The rocks are simply not similar.

[lordoftherings]

jayutah said:

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.