189 replies to this topic

[Metz Moonflash]

[attachmentid=28944][attachmentid=28945]Hi!

Здравствуйте!

I am new here, but I`ve read your forum threads for quite a while.

Loads of fascinating material to indulge through here!

I have some pictures of the lunar rover without any slightest signs of tracks on the moon surface.

This escapes me.

Any experts that want to dive into this?

Photos 2 is a close up of the original. Try to compare with the two last photos(I will post the separately under in a new post) where tracks are clearly visible.

Attached Files

•  AS17_133_20342HR_copy_copy.jpg   56.47K   576 downloads
•  AS17_133_20342HR_c_copy_copy.jpg   127.93K   610 downloads

[Metz Moonflash]

[attachmentid=28947][attachmentid=28948]

Quote

[attachmentid=28944][attachmentid=28945]Hi!

Здравствуйте!

I am new here, but I`ve read your forum threads for quite a while.

Loads of fascinating material to indulge through here!

I have some pictures of the lunar rover without any slightest signs of tracks on the moon surface.

This escapes me.

Any experts that want to dive into this?

Photos 2 is a close up of the original. Try to compare with the two last photos(I will post the separately under in a new post) where tracks are clearly visible.

Attached Files

•  as17_147_22526HR_c2_copy_copy.jpg   90.27K   222 downloads
•  as17_147_22526HR_c_copy_copy.jpg   122.99K   327 downloads

[Metz Moonflash]

[attachmentid=28949]

Quote

And here is a close up of the right side of the original...

Attached Files

•  AS17_133_20342HR_c_2_copy_copy.jpg   110.82K   228 downloads

[artymoon]

Welcome to UM.
Lets say it was a staged event, would they roll the vehicle on to the set or just crane it in and lower it down and lift it up without making a mark? But, they did drive it around as we all know, on the moon 'lunar set', either way there would be tracks around. Unless , the lunar set workers cleaned around it and erased the tracks, maybe those footprints are from them instead of the 'astronauts'. We're not even sure if those were the real astronauts either. Lot's of questions, still no answers.  

[Krynoid]

Please provide the photo number - Thanks.

[flyingswan]

Well, the picture is looking away from the sun, which does tend to wash out the surface detail as the shadows are invisible.  Tracks are most prominent looking towards the sun.  In addition, there are a few footprints visible, so the astonauts could have kicked dust over the tracks, the dust kicked up by the wheels could have fallen on the tracks, the tracks could be hidden by a slight ridge in the ground, not itself noticable because of the sun angle, the astronauts could have manhandled the rover after driving into a position where it was difficult to turn.

In other words, plenty of possible explanations, nothing suspicious.

[flyingswan]

Just noticed that Metz started the same topic over on BAUT.  The picture is AS17-133-20342.  Someone has pointed out that in the previous picture, AS17-133-20341, which is centred to the left, to the rear of the rover, the tracks are visible.

[AtomicDog]

Being that the rover could be driven onto the "moon set" easier than it could be craned or carried onto it, how is the presence or absence of tracks evidence of a hoax?

[QueenOftheCramped]

Quote

[attachmentid=28944][attachmentid=28945]Hi!

Здравствуйте!

I am new here, but I`ve read your forum threads for quite a while.

Loads of fascinating material to indulge through here!

I have some pictures of the lunar rover without any slightest signs of tracks on the moon surface.

This escapes me.

Any experts that want to dive into this?

Photos 2 is a close up of the original. Try to compare with the two last photos(I will post the separately under in a new post) where tracks are clearly visible.

On another "moon landing real or not?"-thread there's this website here that  excellently & comprehensively debunks conspiracy theorist's arguments.  

Quote:"The conspiracists argue that the rover may have been lifted into place as a prop. They may be half right. In lunar gravity the rover is not especially heavy. An astronaut can lift one end of it with little difficulty. And since the rover's turn radius, like that of any four-wheeled vehicle, is limited, the astronauts sometimes found it easier to lift one end of the rover and turn it so it pointed in the direction they wanted to go, rather than maneuvering through a three-point turn. When this occurred, there would obviously be no track leading up to the wheels."

And:"Keeping in mind that dust flies great distances when the astronauts shuffle about, it is reasonable to believe that the tracks have simply been obliterated by the astronauts' feet during the hour of activity at Station 2.

In the full version of the long-distance photo available from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal the rover tracks can be seen faintly on the right side of the image. Part of the problem with the conspiracist reasoning is the expectation that rover tracks ought always to be prominently visible. Even when there is no plausible reason for them being erased by subsequent activity, the tracks are simply not as visible to start with as people expect."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.     

[RabidCat]

Quote

On another "moon landing real or not?"-thread there's this website here that  excellently & comprehensively debunks conspiracy theorist's arguments.  

Quote:"The conspiracists argue that the rover may have been lifted into place as a prop. They may be half right. In lunar gravity the rover is not especially heavy. An astronaut can lift one end of it with little difficulty. And since the rover's turn radius, like that of any four-wheeled vehicle, is limited, the astronauts sometimes found it easier to lift one end of the rover and turn it so it pointed in the direction they wanted to go, rather than maneuvering through a three-point turn. When this occurred, there would obviously be no track leading up to the wheels."

And:"Keeping in mind that dust flies great distances when the astronauts shuffle about, it is reasonable to believe that the tracks have simply been obliterated by the astronauts' feet during the hour of activity at Station 2.

In the full version of the long-distance photo available from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal the rover tracks can be seen faintly on the right side of the image. Part of the problem with the conspiracist reasoning is the expectation that rover tracks ought always to be prominently visible. Even when there is no plausible reason for them being erased by subsequent activity, the tracks are simply not as visible to start with as people expect."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.  

However, lifting one or both ends of the vehicle would leave evidence that this had been done, unless the lifters wished to hide the fact they had done so.  Also, I might ask who says the astronauts did this?
Dust flies great distances on the moon?  First, whoever wrote that should look over the films again.  But then with all that wind up there, it must fly all over the place.
My point is this: those people who wish to debunk at times (many times) come up with reasoning that is pretty stupid, even though they make claims of expertise.  So when I see debunkers come up with their arguments, I find I must take those claims with as much question as the CT statements.  If convincing arguments, provable by either side, eventually make themselves evident, I may change my opinion; that will remain that visitation to the moon was made, but inconcistencies imply that we were not allowed to see all that went on, nor were we told the full story.

[QueenOftheCramped]

RabidCat Oct 18 2006, 07:58 PM

Quote

However, lifting one or both ends of the vehicle would leave evidence that this had been done

Depends from which side the photograph has been taken. Lifting and turning a vehicle a few degrees will create a fan shaped trace in the dust on the "side" that has been turned. But only on one side of the wheels; if the photo was taken from the other side, no tracks would be visible, no?

Quote

Dust flies great distances on the moon?  First, whoever wrote that should look over the films again.  But then with all that wind up there, it must fly all over the place.

Dust gets kicked up/is set into motion by the physical force of the Astronaut's feet, no wind involved, simple vector forces. And if I remeber correctly, moon's gravity is much smaller thab earth's, so dust will take longer to settle again, & therefore will drift further, no?

[The Silver Thong]

Every time I see this clip, I notice that the dust settles very quickly.  The fine dust should be kick up a big cloud of dust.  Ever drive behind someone on a dry dirt road? It takes a min or 2 for the dust to settle here on earth. It should take alot longer to settle on the moon, but it doesn't,  Why is that ????


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0

[QueenOftheCramped]

Quote

Every time I see this clip, I notice that the dust settles very quickly.  The fine dust should be kick up a big cloud of dust.  Ever drive behind someone on a dry dirt road? It takes a min or 2 for the dust to settle here on earth. It should take alot longer to settle on the moon, but it doesn't,  Why is that ????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0

Ummh...It does say double speed though...

And the clip is pretty grainy; maybe the finer particles can't be seen properly & actually do take longer to settle? Evidently,  I'm no specialist on lunar surface environments, but surely dust on the moon must have diffeent properties than terrestrial dust?

[AtomicDog]

Quote

  If convincing arguments, provable by either side, eventually make themselves evident, I may change my opinion; that will remain that visitation to the moon was made, but inconcistencies imply that we were not allowed to see all that went on, nor were we told the full story.

What inconcistencies do you see in the Apollo record?

[The Silver Thong]

Quote

Ummh...It does say double speed though...

And the clip is pretty grainy; maybe the finer particles can't be seen properly & actually do take longer to settle? Evidently,  I'm no specialist on lunar surface environments, but surely dust on the moon must have diffeent properties than terrestrial dust?

The reference to the speed being doubled is to show that the footage was shot on earh and that it was slowed down for public view to enhance the look of the lesser gravity on the moon. Still does not explain why the dust settled so quickly. The dust is discribed as a fine powder, There shoud be alot more dust being kicked then we see IMO.   Watch the slowed down virsion created for us  

When you double the speed of them walking on the moon, that to looks like it could have been filmed on a sound stage and what we saw or have seen is the slowed down virsion to yet again enhance the 1/6 earths gravity.  

I'm not saying man didn't go to the moon, just that some things don't quit fit