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

#61    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,450 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 20 October 2006 - 06:13 AM

Quote


You are accusing me of "hijacking" this thread when NOBODY ELSE WAS ON TOPIC ? ... Unbelievable !


straydog, this has already been dealt with, let it drop.

Quote

and not the long winded fantasies of someone who "knows that Apollo went to the moon " ... no.gif  


And please leave out the little digs while you are at it, thank you. What is the point of me asking people not to insult you if, in your very next post, you are going to throw insults at someone else?


"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#62    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,796 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 October 2006 - 08:16 AM

Quote


GETTING BACK ON TOPIC THEN .. AND SPEAKING OF "UNCOMPREHENSIBLE APOLLO PHOTOGRAPHS"

CHECK THESE OUT ....  CAN ANYONE SAY FAKE ?   yes.gif

Do we really need another re-posted example of Jack White's incompetance?  120 degree difference?  More like half that, hardly surprising a long arm is still on the same side.  And as for the lower pair of photos, why shouldn't a near-by object get larger relative to a distant one as you approach?  Park you car two hundred metres from a background building and walk away.  The car will look twice as large from ten metres away as it does from twenty, but with the comparable distances to the background building 210 and 220 metres, it will look much the same.  Why can't Jack recognise such an everyday phenomenon?

"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- )

#63    phunk

phunk

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2006

Posted 20 October 2006 - 03:12 PM

Quote


Do we really need another re-posted example of Jack White's incompetance?  120 degree difference?  More like half that, hardly surprising a long arm is still on the same side.  And as for the lower pair of photos, why shouldn't a near-by object get larger relative to a distant one as you approach?  Park you car two hundred metres from a background building and walk away.  The car will look twice as large from ten metres away as it does from twenty, but with the comparable distances to the background building 210 and 220 metres, it will look much the same.  Why can't Jack recognise such an everyday phenomenon?


Not to mention the obvious difference in angle between the camera and the 2 objects.  Do the same experiment with the car and building, only this time walk away from the car to the side.  Now the car looks half the size and you're still the same distance from the building!


#64    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,757 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside Voyager 1.

  • Being skeptical of the paranormal is a good thing.

Posted 20 October 2006 - 03:38 PM

I just cant believe that some people still believe in this silly CT. Didnt MID start a thread a wile back were everyone could ask any question they wanted about the Apollo moonlandings...?

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

#65    straydog

straydog

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2006

Posted 20 October 2006 - 05:10 PM

Quote


My appologies Staydog, Waspie.
Thank you Atomic, for the explanation as to why there ARE NO TRACKS IN THAT PHOTO provided last in the series by Straydog.


DogsHead  ....  Apology accepted .. thanks .. and I apologize also for my unnecessary post comments ....  but AtomicDog's high resolution photo of the bottom photo I posted only explains the lack of tire tracks in that ONE photo of Apollo 17 , NOT the top two photos above of the trackless buggy from Apollo 15 .... So your comment about explaining the lack of tire tracks in the last "series" of pictures I posted is incorrect .

Wanna give the Apollo 15 photo a high resolution shot too fellow Dog ?  

DogsHead ... AtomicDog  ... straydog  ....  unsure.gif   Very weird dog stuff going on here .

I would rather be in the minority and know the truth , than to be in the majority and be in denial of the truth .

#66    RabidCat

RabidCat

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 20 October 2006 - 05:12 PM

Quote


Saying, "read the book" is not presenting evidence.

Present your evidence.

Read the book.  Design a test model.  Run the test model.  Make a decision whether it works based on the test results.
I cannot justify spoon-feeding any more.  I don't get paid for it.  Moreover, all that happens is that arguments ensue, attempting to prove/disprove the theory/operation of any such devices.
If you can't do more than argue about it without reading the book/reading the patent, then crawl back to your hole.


#67    AtomicDog

AtomicDog

    Astral Projection

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

  • NASA Disinfo Agent

Posted 20 October 2006 - 05:23 PM

Quote


Read the book.  Design a test model.  Run the test model.  Make a decision whether it works based on the test results.
I cannot justify spoon-feeding any more.  I don't get paid for it.  Moreover, all that happens is that arguments ensue, attempting to prove/disprove the theory/operation of any such devices.
If you can't do more than argue about it without reading the book/reading the patent, then crawl back to your hole.


You are the one bringing antigravity in to explain the lack of tracks from a wheeled vehicle in a photograph, and are advancing this theory over than the far more ordinary one of astronauts kicking dirt over them. There is plenty of evidence for astronauts kicking dirt; it is up to you to present some for antigravity, which, so far, you have refused to do. If you can't be bothered, well, that just illustrates the quality of your argument.



#68    straydog

straydog

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2006

Posted 20 October 2006 - 06:32 PM

Quote


user posted image

AS17-137-20979
Just thought that folks would like to see a nice high quality version of that last photo.

Here is the caption from the ALSJ:

"Picture of the replacement fender taken at about 143:46:34 by Gene Cernan, just before driving off from Station 2. Jack Schmitt is already seated. The dust-coated- originally-blue Traverse Gravimeter is mounted on the back of the Rover just above the replacement fender. Gene took this photo, in part, to document its condition after the 9.1 kilometer drive out from the LM and, in part, to document his handiwork. At the end of EVA-3 Gene decided to bring the fender back to Earth and, as of the late 1990s, it was still on display at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington D.C. Ron Creel has provided a summary ( 1.3 Mb PDF ) of the fender extension losses that occurred on all three Rover missions. Scan by Kipp Teague."

Just a shadetree mechanic, (oops - no shade) kicking dust around his buggy and admiring his repair job.  thumbsup.gif



On second thought ... Wouldn't the lunar buggy have had to have DRIVEN UP to the place where the fender was repaired , thus leaving TIRE TRACKS in the dirt behind it ? ...

Here is nasa's quote .."Gene took this photo, in part, to document its condition AFTER THE  9.1 KILOMETER DRIVE OUT FROM THE LM and, in part, to document his handiwork ."

And then with all of that fender "repair" activity taking place , don't you think there would have been more bootprints in the dirt around the tire with the broken fender ? ... So if they were at STATION 2 , then that means they DROVE there from STATION ONE one .... RIGHT ?

Like my daddy aways used to say ;  "If you want to expose a lie , you can't go to the SOURCE of that lie and expect to find an honest answer"  ... or an honest explaination either . .... wink2.gif

I would rather be in the minority and know the truth , than to be in the majority and be in denial of the truth .

#69    phunk

phunk

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2006

Posted 20 October 2006 - 06:38 PM

I can see at least 8 or 9 partial prints in that pic.  The problem is you'll only see the last few because each step that kicks up dust is going to disturb the previous ones.


#70    AtomicDog

AtomicDog

    Astral Projection

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

  • NASA Disinfo Agent

Posted 20 October 2006 - 06:52 PM

Yeah. If boots can kick over tire tracks, why can't they kick over other bootprints?  wink2.gif


#71    RabidCat

RabidCat

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 20 October 2006 - 07:43 PM

Quote


You are the one bringing antigravity in to explain the lack of tracks from a wheeled vehicle in a photograph, and are advancing this theory over than the far more ordinary one of astronauts kicking dirt over them. There is plenty of evidence for astronauts kicking dirt; it is up to you to present some for antigravity, which, so far, you have refused to do. If you can't be bothered, well, that just illustrates the quality of your argument.

And the quality of your argument is nil.  Since you are unwilling to advance your knowledge of this, why should I make the attempt?  Further, why should I care what you think.  If, in fact, you are willing to do some of your own research, then it might be worthwhile to continue this; since you are not, and wish to remain completely ignorant of the subject, it is a waste of time.


#72    AtomicDog

AtomicDog

    Astral Projection

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

  • NASA Disinfo Agent

Posted 20 October 2006 - 08:14 PM

Quote


And the quality of your argument is nil.  Since you are unwilling to advance your knowledge of this, why should I make the attempt?  Further, why should I care what you think.  If, in fact, you are willing to do some of your own research, then it might be worthwhile to continue this; since you are not, and wish to remain completely ignorant of the subject, it is a waste of time.



You make the claim, you bring the evidence. I brought mine; where's yours?
"Wishing to remain completely ignorant of the subject" is a definition of asking you to present your argument  that is novel to me.

Edited by AtomicDog, 20 October 2006 - 08:56 PM.


#73    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 20 October 2006 - 09:23 PM

Quote


I just cant believe that some people still believe in this silly CT. Didnt MID start a thread a wile back were everyone could ask any question they wanted about the Apollo moonlandings...?




Yes, he did, haz... original.gif

But that is in the Space and Astronomy section.
HBs tend to avoid such places.  And besides, the issues brought up in places like this, generally...don't exactly constitute scientific questions.

Upon providing a detailed explanation, I then to get certain replies which avoid anything said and charactarize me as a "master of NASA disinformation", or perhaps a "high level" comment about my long winded fantasies... grin2.gif


I'm rather doubting that I would get "questions" from these types.... thumbsup.gif




#74    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 20 October 2006 - 09:46 PM

Quote


Like my daddy aways used to say ;  "If you want to expose a lie , you can't go to the SOURCE of that lie and expect to find an honest answer"  ... or an honest explaination either . .... wink2.gif


Unfortunately, that rationale only applies when certain criteria are met by the party attempting to expose the alleged lie:

If you want to expose a lie, you must prove that a lie has taken place...
One cannot know the source of a lie unless one knows there is a lie.   Proving it is thus exposing it.  In the absence of that, one is merely speculating.

You see, the one attempting to expose a lie must have enough knowledge concerning the subject of the alleged lie to go to the suspected source, and prove them a liar...by proving that their statements are in fact deliberately false.

If one is not possessed of the requisite expertise that will allow them to expose such a lie, one generally finds oneself exposing him or herself...not as a liar, per-se, but as one who is ill-prepared and unknowledgable.  The accuser then tends to look silly.

This is especially true when one attempts to prove a lie in a case there never was one, and in which substantiation to the contrary of the supposed lie is spectacularly voluminous and confirmed by authorites with requisite knowledge the world over.

In other words, you can't go to the source of a suspected lie and do anything at all unless you're prepapred to prove them liars.  If you know there is a lie, you wouldn't be going to the liars for honest answers or explanations anyway.   You'd go to them to show them how they were liars...and that of course, is not something you can do.




#75    straydog

straydog

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2006

Posted 21 October 2006 - 06:07 AM

Quote


Yeah. If boots can kick over tire tracks, why can't they kick over other bootprints?  wink2.gif


My fellow Dog .. If that's the best you can come with for trying to explain away the absence of the lunar buggy tracks in these faked Apollo photos , then maybe you need to do some more research at clavius .... I'm sure they must have a few good excuses for this very strange anomaly ... but if not , you can always go the Space and Astronomy forum here and ask the master some questions about how NASA managed to design lunar buggys that make tracks in 'moon' dust , only when the photoshop artists remembered to put them in the phony Apollo photos .  original.gif

Speaking of which , I see that instead of staying on topic here and answering the question of why the lunar buggy tire tracks are missing from these faked Apollo photos  , the master decided to give a long winded lecture on my inability to expose the liars at NASA instead .  wink2.gif

I would rather be in the minority and know the truth , than to be in the majority and be in denial of the truth .




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users