ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => Other Conspiracy Theories => Topic started by: Jockndoris on September 08, 2012, 04:29:12 AM
-
I simply can’t believe that NASA have used the same old Moon Rocks again for their latest photographs from MARS - but it looks very much like that.
I have been looking forward to receiving details of new elements and different compounds and even signs of life.
Still there is nothing from NASA. Could it be because the Rocks they are showing us are the same old rocks we have already seen on the Moon in the 1960’s or rather lot 171 in the Nevada desert.
One of them in fact looks to me suspiciously like that shown on the Wikipedia Moon Landings page
-
Do you actually ever plan to back up your posts with anything resembling evidence? Your repeated assertions that the Moon landings were shot in Nevada are getting boring. Show us the proof. Show us that these Mars pictures are faked. Hell, show us something or just clear off and troll some other board.
-
I simply can’t believe that NASA have used the same old Moon Rocks again for their latest photographs from MARS - but it looks very much like that.
Please show us your analysis of the photographs that have led you to this conclusion.
I have been looking forward to receiving details of new elements and different compounds and even signs of life.
I thought you were convinced the whole thing was a hoax?
Still there is nothing from NASA.
Actually, there is plenty of interesting stuff coming from NASA, but you have ignored it.
Could it be because the Rocks they are showing us are the same old rocks we have already seen on the Moon in the 1960’s
Again, analysis please.
or rather lot 171 in the Nevada desert.
You have been asked repeatedly to give your proof of this assertion and have failed to do so.
One of them in fact looks to me suspiciously like that shown on the Wikipedia Moon Landings page
WHICH one? Analysis please.
FYI, by analysis I mean something akin to fingerprint matching - exact matches with a statistically significant number of distinct features.
Also, you have unanswered questions in the other Mars thread you started.
-
I have been looking forward to receiving details of new elements and different compounds and even signs of life.
Why would you expect to hear news of 'new elements'? Your most basic chemcistry knowledge will tell you that we have a complete periodic table of chemical elements, and the only place there is room for more is on the end. And those elements are so heavy, unstable and transient we need particle accelerators and other huge bits of equipment to detect them before they decay into something else. You're not going to find new elements sitting on the surface of Mars.
As to new compounds, what would lead you to assume that any such new compounds would exist there?
in other words, why does your belief in the authenticity of these missions seem to hinge on an expectation of finding new chemicals there rather than on any actual knowledge of space flight and technology?
-
Good point, Jason. I completely missed that.
-
I didn't!
"new elements"? Bwahahahahaha!
-
Jockndoris, you have questions waiting for you in this thread (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=177.0). Answer them or I will restrict your ability to start new topics.
I simply can’t believe that NASA have used the same old Moon Rocks again for their latest photographs from MARS - but it looks very much like that.
Simply saying "they look like the same rocks" isn't good enough. Prove it.
I have been looking forward to receiving details of new elements and different compounds and even signs of life.
First of all, Curiosity has been on Mars for what, a little over a month? It's still testing it's systems, the real exploration hasn't even begun yet. Give it time before you write it off as a failure or a hoax.
Secondly, why would you expect to find "new elements and different compounds" on Mars? An apple pie made at one bakery is going to be almost identical to an apple pie made at a different bakery because both bakeries use the same ingredients. Earth and Mars are made from the same ingredients so we expect them to be very similar. In fact it's the similarity between Earth and Mars that interests us. We can see the potential for past life there because it is like Earth, not because it is drastically different.
Still there is nothing from NASA.
Because they haven't started doing science with Curiosity yet. Expecting immediate results is pretty unreasonable of you.
Could it be because the Rocks they are showing us are the same old rocks we have already seen on the Moon in the 1960’s or rather lot 171 in the Nevada desert.
Either prove to us that they are the same rocks or admit that you're speculating. Saying "it looks like" doesn't mean it is. Conspiracy theorists don't seem to understand that.
-
"new elements"? Bwahahahahaha!
Cue Mr. Lehrer:
-
I have been looking forward to receiving details of new elements and different compounds and even signs of life.
It is actually less likely that new chemical compounds will be found on Mars because there is no widespread active life. The martian atmosphere is near a chemical steady state that represents a near minimal energy level while earth's atmosphere positively brims with evidence of life because of the energetic states of its chemical compounds. You simply don't find oxygen as it is in our atmosphere without something living to resupply it as it combines with other chemicals.
Your expectations are misguided. I would say that leads you to a wrong conclusion about NASA and it Mars program except that I am quite sure that your expectations are a simple front to justify your preconceived and irrational distrust.
-
Secondly, why would you expect to find "new elements and different compounds" on Mars? An apple pie made at one bakery is going to be almost identical to an apple pie made at a different bakery because both bakeries use the same ingredients. Earth and Mars are made from the same ingredients so we expect them to be very similar.
While there certainly aren't any "new elements", I understand that the planets do differ not only in the abundance of elements, but in their isotopic ratios. Many elements have several stable isotopes, and their slight differences in mass caused them to be separated during the formation of the planets from the solar system nebula somewhat analogous to how we use centrifuges today to separate natural uranium isotopes. The difference is that the heavier isotopes tended to gravitate to the inner planets.
Also, radioactive decay preferentially produces certain isotopes. For example, while the most common isotope of argon in the universe is Ar-36, most of the argon in the earth's atmosphere is Ar-40 because it comes from the decay of potassium-40 in the earth.
When meteorites are confirmed as coming from another solar system body like Luna or Mars, one of the main pieces of evidence is the relative abundance of the isotopes because, in general, all the isotopes of a given element behave identically in chemical reactions so they'll tend to keep the same abundance ratios.
-
I have been looking forward to receiving details of new elements and different compounds and even signs of life.
Jock, I'm afraid you do not know what elements are, if you expect to find "new ones" on Mars.
If you disagree, please indicate what new elements you would expect, and how they would form on Mars but not on Earth. What new atomic numbers could be generated, and yet be stable, that we do not already see formed on Earth?
I wouldn't even expect many new compounds. Some, perhaps - but elements can only bond in certain ways, and without some sort of catalysis, such as done by living systems, you'd not likely find many complex ones that would not be produced on Earth as well.
And as for signs of life, have you considered that it is hardly NASA's fault if there is no life there to begin with?
-
Jockndoris, you have numerous outstanding rebuttals in the "Wonderful photographs" thread. When are you going to answer them? Or should I just write you off as a troll now?
-
And as for signs of life, have you considered that it is hardly NASA's fault if there is no life there to begin with?
And, if they were faking the mission anyway, surely it would be in NASA's long term funding interests to "find" signs of possible life on the red planet.
-
So the photos arrive too quickly, but the science arrives too slowly?
There's no pleasing some people.
-
And don't call us Shirley.
-
And as for signs of life, have you considered that it is hardly NASA's fault if there is no life there to begin with?
And, if they were faking the mission anyway, surely it would be in NASA's long term funding interests to "find" signs of possible life on the red planet.
Well, a good conspiracy theorist can always find some reason to explain it. THey're concealing it because people will panic. (Just like people who believe in alien spacecraft visiting Earth are ... oh, I guess they're NOT panicking. But other people would. Most definitely.) Or they want to terraform Mars, so can't admit there's indigenous life. Whatever.
But the whole thing basically comes down to "They must be faking, because their Mars isn't like the Mars I want. Where are the rock monsters? Where are the Catwomen? I WANT MY CATWOMEN, **** IT!"
-
Yes indeed I do plan to give you some proof.
When the first photos of the Moon's surface were shown in the early 70's I kept a file of photographs of all the rocks.
I will look them out for you and demonstate that the same rocks appear in different positions in different locations.
I think the stage managers were very slack and thought that if they jumbled them up a little no one would notice that they had seen them before. It is quite easy to do an analytical comparison and if no differences are found they must be the same rocks.
-
Yes indeed I do plan to give you some proof.
What is the delay? If you've already done the analysis on which you've based the conclusion you've already stated, then you should be able to show us the evidence now. If you haven't already done the analysis, on what have you based your conclusion?
When the first photos of the Moon's surface were shown in the early 70's
The first photos of the Moon's surface were shown in the late 60's.
-
Yes indeed I do plan to give you some proof.
So what's the delay? Your claims to have the evidence without actually showing it are getting old.
When the first photos of the Moon's surface were shown in the early 70's
The first photos were shown in the late 60s. The first landing was in july 1969, and they did not hang about releasing pictures from it.
I will look them out for you and demonstate that the same rocks appear in different positions in different locations.
Please do. I'd be interested to see what you can see in the pictrues that the rest of us can't.
It is quite easy to do an analytical comparison and if no differences are found they must be the same rocks.
This I must see...
-
Yes indeed I do plan to give you some proof.
When the first photos of the Moon's surface were shown in the early 70's I kept a file of photographs of all the rocks.
Really? You have high-fidelity copies of all the thousands of images of the surface taken during the EVAs?
I will look them out for you and demonstate that the same rocks appear in different positions in different locations.
This should be entertaining.
I think the stage managers were very slack and thought that if they jumbled them up a little no one would notice that they had seen them before. It is quite easy to do an analytical comparison and if no differences are found they must be the same rocks.
We look forward to a rigorous explanation of your methodology.
But first, you need to address the many rebuttals of your existing claims.
-
This makes no sense. Why be so lazy when you're trying to fool the world?
These conspiracy theories are based on interpretations that require the conspirators to be stupid.
-
Yes indeed I do plan to give you some proof.
Awesome - can't wait, dude!
When the first photos of the Moon's surface were shown in the early 70's I kept a file of photographs of all the rocks.
Well, I'm impressed - be more impressed when I see the 'critical' ones.. Are they somehow different from the very well-known entire Apollo photographic library, or just selected ones?
It is quite easy..
So it won't be very long before you post this, then?
to do an analytical comparison and if no differences are found they must be the same rocks.
What type of analysis have you done / will you do? If you need any help, let me know. Don't forget the old adage, that any analysis is only as good as its posted methodology so the results can be verified and repeated by others... I'm sure I'm preaching to the converted - I know you wouldn't just post some claims without all the 'workings'..
Like I said, can't wait... I'll pop back every week or so to check.
-
Yes indeed I do plan to give you some proof.
When the first photos of the Moon's surface were shown in the early 70's I kept a file of photographs of all the rocks.
I will look them out for you and demonstate that the same rocks appear in different positions in different locations.
I think the stage managers were very slack and thought that if they jumbled them up a little no one would notice that they had seen them before. It is quite easy to do an analytical comparison and if no differences are found they must be the same rocks.
So you have the data, but won't post it. I am agog.
-
This makes no sense. Why be so lazy when you're trying to fool the world?
These conspiracy theories are based on interpretations that require the conspirators to be stupid.
Because rocks are hard to find on Earth.
ermmm.
-
Yes indeed I do plan to give you some proof.
When the first photos of the Moon's surface were shown in the early 70's I kept a file of photographs of all the rocks.
I will look them out for you and demonstate that the same rocks appear in different positions in different locations.
I think the stage managers were very slack and thought that if they jumbled them up a little no one would notice that they had seen them before. It is quite easy to do an analytical comparison and if no differences are found they must be the same rocks.
. . . and likewise, if differences are found they are not the same rocks.
Pix? Proof? Or yet another thread of unsupported assertions?
-
The NASA stage managers must be thinking : "Damn! We knew that world shortage of rocks would come back to bite us in the ass!"
-
Congratulations--you have made it into the elite club of "people whose posts I had to share with my boyfriend to explain why I was laughing so loud." (He sighed and left the room, but you can't have everything!)
ETA--He returned and pointed out that NASA has sustained budget cuts over the years . . . .
-
Yes indeed I do plan to give you some proof.
When the first photos of the Moon's surface were shown in the early 70's I kept a file of photographs of all the rocks.
I will look them out for you and demonstate that the same rocks appear in different positions in different locations.
I think the stage managers were very slack and thought that if they jumbled them up a little no one would notice that they had seen them before. It is quite easy to do an analytical comparison and if no differences are found they must be the same rocks.
I love the phrase "Proof of the pudding is in the eating".
-
Surely this is not going to be a rehash of the panorama junk?
-
I'll just repeat myself, shall I?
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=192.msg6127#msg6127
-
Yes indeed I do plan to give you some proof.
(http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu328/zerosignal/popcorn.gif)
-
JackNorris, we're still waiting for your "proof".
-
Yes indeed I do plan to give you some proof.
When the first photos of the Moon's surface were shown in the early 70's I kept a file of photographs of all the rocks.
I will look them out for you and demonstate that the same rocks appear in different positions in different locations.
I think the stage managers were very slack and thought that if they jumbled them up a little no one would notice that they had seen them before. It is quite easy to do an analytical comparison and if no differences are found they must be the same rocks.
So, they spend BILLIONS to fake the entire space programme, yet they can't find a few dollars to make enough "fake" rocks so that they don't have any chance of duplicates?
Really?
-
Must be very hard to sort photos.
-
Yes indeed I do plan to give you some proof.
How many more years will we have to wait for that "proof"?
-
Yes indeed I do plan to give you some proof.
How many more years will we have to wait for that "proof"?
He prefers talking to dead people.
-
He prefers pretending to talk to dead people.
-
Or at least pretending that they talk back.
-
Or at least pretending that they talk back.
Yes....there is nothing wrong with talking to the departed...I talk to my Dad all the time, to chew his ass off for not taking his medication...which eventually led to his death...
...but he has never answered, nor am I ever expecting an answer.
If he ever did "answer", I would diagnose myself as having some form of psychosis, and would seek medical attention.
-
Just because I'm brushing up my Shakespeare:
"Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why so can I, or so can any man. But will they come when you do call for them?”
-
On this personal note, I get answers from my long dead mother all the time, and frequent unsolicited advice. I just don't make the attribution error of hearing them as coming from some supernatural being. Rather they are well recognized as her lasting influence on me. I mean, really, who could think a ghost is hanging around telling him to be charitable, don't say bad things about people and put your used dishes in the dishwasher?