Space Commander Travis Posted January 2, 2008 #3201 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Well, I must say some evidence for a hoax, as opposed to the usual endless "it couldn't possibly be" kind of arguments, does make something of a change... what that thing in the picture, if indeed it is anything at all, might be, and why it should be evidence for a hoax, I don't know, but nevertheless, it does, I have to say, make something of a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted January 2, 2008 #3202 Share Posted January 2, 2008 (edited) Has anybody seen this? http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/as17-145-22169.jpg Here's close-up of the circled object. http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/%20a17moonsquare.jpg It's obviously some kind of plate. It's close to the footprints so the possibility that it fell off of the astronaut's backpack has to be considered. If it can be shown that the object is not part of the astronaut's equipment, we have some pretty good evidence of a hoax here. It has been argued that it's not an object, but a partial boot print. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22158HR.jpg It's obviously not a boot print because it's elevated off of the ground. The bottom left hand corner of the object is resting on a rock and the shadow is visible under it. You'll find some other discussions on the topic on these two threads. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9570 http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...=19386&st=0 After reading the first thread you linked to, it's pretty obvious that the "object" is actually a partial boot print. On the first page Dave Greer posted a very good analysis of the picture in question and showed evidence that it was actually a boot print. The next 12 or 13 pages of that thread was just a bunch of mindless rantings by Duane and a total avoidance by Jack White of the fact that he had been - yet again - proven wrong. Cz EDITED to remove a non-essential observation Edited January 2, 2008 by Czero 101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David C Posted January 2, 2008 #3203 Share Posted January 2, 2008 So you're insisting that this is a boot print. http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/%20a17moonsquare.jpg I think you might as well insist that a picture of a tiger is really a picture of an elephant but the viewers can judge for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belial Posted January 2, 2008 #3204 Share Posted January 2, 2008 At last something for even me to respond to, 'must be the new year'. The boot print is what it is people, a BOOT PRINT. I have looked very closely at the evidance put forward from this site and the links away to other sites, and i can see where the confusion would be, i have no real doubt it is a boot print in 'lunar soil', as you can see from the pictures below, it could be easily seen as NOT being a boot print the way it as appeard, but if you look at all the facts then it does really become obvious that it is a moon boot print. AND TO SAVE ANY CONFUSION... or links found here and of course HERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capeo Posted January 2, 2008 #3205 Share Posted January 2, 2008 So you're insisting that this is a boot print. http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/%20a17moonsquare.jpg I think you might as well insist that a picture of a tiger is really a picture of an elephant but the viewers can judge for themselves. That very much looks like a partial bootprint to me or the print left by some type of equipment. It's quite clearly not an object. The area highlighted has also had it's contrast upped which gives the effect of making it look more pronounced than the other prints around it which is rather underhanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcman Posted January 2, 2008 #3206 Share Posted January 2, 2008 That very much looks like a partial bootprint to me or the print left by some type of equipment. It's quite clearly not an object. The area highlighted has also had it's contrast upped which gives the effect of making it look more pronounced than the other prints around it which is rather underhanded. I would really like to know what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinitrotoluene Posted January 2, 2008 #3207 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Good work, Belial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted January 2, 2008 #3208 Share Posted January 2, 2008 I would really like to know what it is. At last something for even me to respond to, 'must be the new year'. The boot print is what it is people, a BOOT PRINT. I have looked very closely at the evidance put forward from this site and the links away to other sites, and i can see where the confusion would be, i have no real doubt it is a boot print in 'lunar soil', as you can see from the pictures below, it could be easily seen as NOT being a boot print the way it as appeard, but if you look at all the facts then it does really become obvious that it is a moon boot print. links found here and of course HERE that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David C Posted January 2, 2008 #3209 Share Posted January 2, 2008 The boot you showd couldn't have made a print like this one. http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/%20a17moonsquare.jpg The rectangular shapes on the soles of the boots are concave. In the bootprints made by the astronauts the rectangular shapes rise. The object you say is a partial boot print has a depression--not a rise. The angles on the boot are not ninety degree angles and the angles on the object are ninety degree angles. Also the space can be seen between the object and the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capeo Posted January 2, 2008 #3210 Share Posted January 2, 2008 The boot you showd couldn't have made a print like this one. http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/%20a17moonsquare.jpg The rectangular shapes on the soles of the boots are concave. In the bootprints made by the astronauts the rectangular shapes rise. The object you say is a partial boot print has a depression--not a rise. The angles on the boot are not ninety degree angles and the angles on the object are ninety degree angles. Also the space can be seen between the object and the ground. No they're not. Look at the boots closely. The rectangular shapes protrude. Perfectly fitting the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belial Posted January 2, 2008 #3211 Share Posted January 2, 2008 (edited) Not saying anyone did this to there image but if you 'invert' a section you get this effect. Besides it didn't need me to do this as it's SOOOOOOO obvious that its the correct way around anyway, isn't it? Edited for legal reasons - ie image didn't load first time. Edited January 2, 2008 by belial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicDog Posted January 2, 2008 #3212 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Not saying anyone did this to there image but if you 'invert' a section you get this effect. Besides it didn't need me to do this as it's SOOOOOOO obvious that its the correct way around anyway, isn't it? Edited for legal reasons - ie image didn't load first time. Maybe it's me, but I'm not getting your point. What are you trying to show us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David C Posted January 2, 2008 #3213 Share Posted January 2, 2008 I took a closer look. You're right--they do protrude. Look at the picture though. http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/%20a17moonsquare.jpg The line that marks the bottom of the object is longer than the line that marks the inside of the plate-like object. Also, the left side of the object is not a depression in the ground as a boot print would be. It is elevated above the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicDog Posted January 2, 2008 #3214 Share Posted January 2, 2008 I took a closer look. You're right--they do protrude. Look at the picture though. http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/%20a17moonsquare.jpg The line that marks the bottom of the object is longer than the line that marks the inside of the plate-like object. Also, the left side of the object is not a depression in the ground as a boot print would be. It is elevated above the ground. You've never seen a tread of a shoeprint pushed up and out of the surrounding soil? When I was a kid I did it all of the time with my sneakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinitrotoluene Posted January 2, 2008 #3215 Share Posted January 2, 2008 (edited) Gif I just made: Edited January 2, 2008 by Trinitrotoluene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted January 2, 2008 #3216 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Yes,I misunderstood about the polar orbit.I didn´t think it was an orbit from pole to pole.But I keep saying that other excuses will come from NASA for not showing apollo hardware on the moon,even in a low polar orbit.And when this day of NASA excuses comes,then you will remember that I had already told you that this would happen.And then all the propagandists will come here defending NASA and the show will keep going on and on.... Well, there really aren't any excuses for not imaging Apollo landing sites. There are, however, logical reasons, which I have repeatedly outlined. 1mt resolution will not be optimum,but we will be able to see some hardware and tracks of the lunar roover on the moon. Mid,aren´t you curious to see the untouched scenario of the first landing on the moon 40 years ago?My God! It is just me that is curious about that? All the propagandists are not curious about that? For me ,it is like a mummy buried in Egypt to be discovered... An honest answer? Absolutely, I'd love to see some images of it. Hell, I'd love to stand there on the Moon and look at it myself. Now, 1) I am not a propagandist, and 2) I would be moved beyond moved to be able to see it in an image... There is an emotional value to it, certainly. It would be like someone visiting a place where something happened that they knew all about, that they'd seen old pictures of time and again, and they had a deep emotional attachment to. They'd studied the history of it, felt the impact of it at the time it occured, etc. And then, actually going to the place and seeing it today...for the first time. I am reminded of someone I know who was a devoted John Kennedy fan, and suffered, as many Americans did, the terrible impact of his murder. One day, he went to Dallas, Texas and found himself standing right there along the side of Elm street, staring at the place where it all happened. He knew it happened. But just seeing it up close and personal, although having no particular scientific or historical value in and of itself, had a profound emotional value. That's what the value of seeing an Apollo landing site would be. But that has nothing to do with proving that it happened. We know it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenat Posted January 2, 2008 #3217 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Gif I just made: Beautiful! Absolutely Beautiful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted January 2, 2008 #3218 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Hey Mid,I have a question that I always forget to send to you ,but now I remember... Is it true that the control mission director of apollo program (sorry,I don´t remember his name) asked to go out of his job 1 or 2 weeks before the apollo 11 launch after working all those years on apollo program?People say that he refused to take part on fake apollo missions at the same moment that he was told by NASA about all the fakery that it would be.If that was true,this must be a real great man! And I would like to know more about him. Hat, So would I like to know something about him. I have no idea who you might be talking about. Perhaps you're talking about a Flight Director. I'm not sure, but there were four of them on Apollo 11, Gene Kranz, Cliff Charlesworth, Glynn Lunney, and Milt Windler, and all four of them might box your ears if you suggested such a thing about one of them. Another person who at the time held the title of Director of Flight Operations ("Mission Control's Boss") was Chris Kraft. Mr. Kraft invented the concept of Mission Control, was about as dedicated and competent as a human being can be, and remained a high level NASA Manager until 1982. It sure as hell wasn't him (and if you think the other guys would bite your head of for suggesting it might have been one of them, and encounter with Mr. Kraft would result in your imminent demise). Perhaps it's Apollo Program Manager Jim McDivitt, who served in that capacity for Apollo 12 though 16, but he was an astronaut, who had flown two missions previously...no way. I don't really know who the person is you're referring to. It sounds like a load of baloney, honestly. No one involved with that program resigned because they knew it was a fake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted January 2, 2008 #3219 Share Posted January 2, 2008 So you're insisting that this is a boot print. I'm not insisting anything. You're free to believe what you want to believe. But belief is not proof. What I am saying is that the posts in which Greer shows how such a boot print could be and was made show convincing evidence - including the sequence of images before the image in question - that what is seen in the cropped, highlighted, contrast enhanced and colourized Aulis image is, in fact, a partial boot print made in the lunar soil. No proof of any other process by which such an impression could have been made or by which such an "artifact" could have been left in the lunar soil was presented because there is no other proof, merely idle speculation and misinterpretation. Greer stated and proved his case. It is a partial boot print. I think you might as well insist that a picture of a tiger is really a picture of an elephant but the viewers can judge for themselves. Again, you are free to think whatever you like, and you are correct that the viewers will and have judged for themselves. They have judged it to be a partial boot print in the lunar soil as well. Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted January 2, 2008 #3220 Share Posted January 2, 2008 This is absolutely amazing... A tiny blow up of what is obviously a partial cleat impression from a lunar overshoe in a single photo of an Apollo 17 panorama becomes evidence of a hoax??? We're digging mighty deep here... Personally, I thought that what that magnificent panorama actually showed was much more impressive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted January 3, 2008 #3221 Share Posted January 3, 2008 A tiny blow up of what is obviously a partial cleat impression from a lunar overshoe in a single photo of an Apollo 17 panorama becomes evidence of a hoax??? We're digging mighty deep here... Well it's originally from Jack White, what did you expect, a rational, intelligent argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDER THE HAT Posted January 3, 2008 #3222 Share Posted January 3, 2008 UnderTheHat I'll ask again, why would you trust new photos supplied by a NASA mission when you think previous photos were faked? Such as this photo taken by the Apollo 17 CSM showing the landing site (LM and shadow visible). Apollo 17 landing site Thanks for the link,Post. Well,if the LM is real on this picture,then we have another LM on STENO ,at 5 o`clock. Sorry Post,but this picture is not clear to show evidences that men went to the moon. Which was the resolution used to take this picture? Where is the moon roover ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDER THE HAT Posted January 3, 2008 #3223 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Hat, So would I like to know something about him. I have no idea who you might be talking about. Perhaps you're talking about a Flight Director. I'm not sure, but there were four of them on Apollo 11, Gene Kranz, Cliff Charlesworth, Glynn Lunney, and Milt Windler, and all four of them might box your ears if you suggested such a thing about one of them. Another person who at the time held the title of Director of Flight Operations ("Mission Control's Boss") was Chris Kraft. Mr. Kraft invented the concept of Mission Control, was about as dedicated and competent as a human being can be, and remained a high level NASA Manager until 1982. It sure as hell wasn't him (and if you think the other guys would bite your head of for suggesting it might have been one of them, and encounter with Mr. Kraft would result in your imminent demise). Perhaps it's Apollo Program Manager Jim McDivitt, who served in that capacity for Apollo 12 though 16, but he was an astronaut, who had flown two missions previously...no way. I don't really know who the person is you're referring to. It sounds like a load of baloney, honestly. No one involved with that program resigned because they knew it was a fake... Thanks again Mid... I have his name on a video... When I find it,I will let you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted January 3, 2008 #3224 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Well it's originally from Jack White, what did you expect, a rational, intelligent argument? Oh, that's Jack White? OK. Completely understood. I saw the "Aulis" label...that's bad enough, but White? 'nuff said, Waspie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted January 3, 2008 #3225 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Thanks again Mid... I have his name on a video... When I find it,I will let you know. Please do, Hat. A name would be a big help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts