Not those same old Rocks again - surely !

[twik]

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!"

[Jockndoris]

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.

[DataCable]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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...

[sts60]

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.

[Glom]

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.

[ChrLz]

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.

[Abaddon]

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.

[Drewid]

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.

[ApolloGnomon]

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?

[darren r]

The NASA stage managers must be thinking : "Damn! We knew that world shortage of rocks would come back to bite us in the ass!"

[gillianren]

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 . . . .

[Tedward]

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".

[Abaddon]

Surely this is not going to be a rehash of the panorama junk?

[Andromeda]

I'll just repeat myself, shall I?

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=192.msg6127#msg6127