Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Uncomprehensible apollo photographs


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

#1    Metz Moonflash

Metz Moonflash

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Joined:18 Oct 2006

Posted 18 October 2006 - 05:35 AM

[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



#2    Metz Moonflash

Metz Moonflash

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Joined:18 Oct 2006

Posted 18 October 2006 - 05:38 AM

[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



#3    Metz Moonflash

Metz Moonflash

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Joined:18 Oct 2006

Posted 18 October 2006 - 05:48 AM

[attachmentid=28949]

Quote





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

Attached Files



#4    artymoon

artymoon

    Human

  • Member
  • 2,551 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

Posted 18 October 2006 - 05:51 AM

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 ph34r.gif , 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.  ph34r.gif rolleyes.gif


#5    Krynoid

Krynoid

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Joined:06 Oct 2006

Posted 18 October 2006 - 06:52 AM

Please provide the photo number - Thanks.


#6    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,848 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:19 AM

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.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#7    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,848 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 October 2006 - 09:30 AM

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.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#8    AtomicDog

AtomicDog

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 672 posts
  • Joined:11 Aug 2006

  • NASA Disinfo Agent

Posted 18 October 2006 - 03:41 PM

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?


#9    QueenOftheCramped

QueenOftheCramped

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 228 posts
  • Joined:21 Aug 2006

  • "Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio"

Posted 18 October 2006 - 05:59 PM

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.   happy.gif  




The wise man says: "The universe is but the dream of a Godhead."

I says: "Godhead been eating too many cheese toasties before bedtime again..."

#10    RabidCat

RabidCat

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 October 2006 - 06:58 PM

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.   happy.gif

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.



#11    QueenOftheCramped

QueenOftheCramped

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 228 posts
  • Joined:21 Aug 2006

  • "Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio"

Posted 18 October 2006 - 07:38 PM


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 wise man says: "The universe is but the dream of a Godhead."

I says: "Godhead been eating too many cheese toasties before bedtime again..."

#12    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,167 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:01 PM


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 ???? ph34r.gif


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

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#13    QueenOftheCramped

QueenOftheCramped

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 228 posts
  • Joined:21 Aug 2006

  • "Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio"

Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:16 PM

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 ???? ph34r.gif
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?

The wise man says: "The universe is but the dream of a Godhead."

I says: "Godhead been eating too many cheese toasties before bedtime again..."

#14    AtomicDog

AtomicDog

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 672 posts
  • Joined:11 Aug 2006

  • NASA Disinfo Agent

Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:26 PM

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?


#15    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,167 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:37 PM

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  tongue.gif

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 hmm.gif


Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users