Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Metz Moonflash

Uncomprehensible apollo photographs

190 posts in this topic

[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.

post-44086-1161149354.jpg

post-44086-1161149401.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[attachmentid=28947][attachmentid=28948]

[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.

post-44086-1161149815.jpg

post-44086-1161149845.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[attachmentid=28949]

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

post-44086-1161150479.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: , 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::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please provide the photo number - Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[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. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RabidCat Oct 18 2006, 07:58 PM

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?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :P

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

To a dust particle, air is very viscous (thick). This is also why a dandelion seed or a feather floats to the ground. Add in stray air currents and it is no wonder that dust kicked up on a dirt road on earth may take many minutes to settle.

With no air on the moon, the time it takes dust to fall is dependent only on its momentum and gravity. Kicked dust travels in ballistic arcs, such as you may see if you kicked a pile of BB shot. The dust stays in the "air" only as long as it takes to travel under lunar gravity - Which is longer than earth's gravity but not as long as it would be up if there was air supporting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To a dust particle, air is very viscous (thick). This is also why a dandelion seed or a feather floats to the ground. Add in stray air currents and it is no wonder that dust kicked up on a dirt road on earth may take many minutes to settle.

With no air on the moon, the time it takes dust to fall is dependent only on its momentum and gravity. Kicked dust travels in ballistic arcs, such as you may see if you kicked a pile of BB shot. The dust stays in the "air" only as long as it takes to travel under lunar gravity - Which is longer than earth's gravity but not as long as it would be up if there was air supporting it.

I know that the lack of any atmosphere, would give the dust no resistants in it's decent, but I would have thought the dirt being shot up and out by the tires would travel alot further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that the lack of any atmosphere, would give the dust no resistants in it's decent, but I would have thought the dirt being shot up and out by the tires would travel alot further.

The lack of atmosphere is demonstated here.

It's just the outword velocity of the dust from the tires not going all that far.

I remember watching one of the guys throw a hammer and it went forever :hmm:

EDIT:

Opps didn't mean to do this :blush:

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Double the speed of this clip:

Apollo 15 Dave Scott picking up and carrying a rock

Can you tell me that a double speed this clip looks like it could have been filmed on a sound stage?

And why, if you believe that Apollo went to the moon, that they would bother to fake footage rather than use the real stuff they undoubtledy shot?

And why would they repeat this fake photography for six missions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This dust business is like that old thing about which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold. Obviously, a pound of feathers.

So if dust is kicked up on a planet with no atmosphere, as was stated, it travels ballistically, and will go so far as the angle of the initial trajectory and the acceleration due to gravity will allow. As the particles decrease in size, there will be no visible or measurable difference in the trajectory, since there is no atmospheric impedance, as was stated.

However, if someone actually picked up one end of the vehicle, we would not look for slide marks of the tires still on the ground: we would look for the footprints of the person or persons doing the moving, and in the pictures at the beginning of this thread, there are none.

As to what we saw and/or didn't see, as in other threads, I state once again that there was technology used we were not allowed knowledge of, and once again I question the validity of the radio transmissions from the moon. If one goes back to the originals, the normal voice channels were cut off after some statements by the astronauts, one asking "what the hell is that?" and another stating that something makes ours look like a horse and buggy, or something similar to that. Communications between the nauts and Houston was then patched coded through the physical monitoring channels.

Some of the photography does not line up, which implies that it has been fooled with. Remember that in 1969 photoshop did not exist. I will not say that this indicates support for conspiracy that we didn't go: I will say that with my limited knowledge of photography, it appears that the photos were patched, perhaps to hide something that shouldn't be there.

I would also like to see the mathematics regarding the capability of the lunar lander rocketry, and whether it was in fact capable of liftoff, so I would ask the thrust of the rocketry and the total mass of the lander/cargo, and the fuel available to make such a liftoff. There does seem to be some question about that.

Now, understand that I do not make these statements in support of the theory that the landing was staged. I do make these statements to open the question of the technology available at the time. My entry into aerospace was a couple years later, but I guarantee that I worked on technology that was well in advance of the Apollo mission, and it would be very hard to convince me that such technology was not available for the mission. So I state that technology was used that was kept thoroughly secret (Cold War, remember), and some, if not all, of the anomalies are due to the necessity of the secrecy.

There is also the UFO question, but I won't get into that here, since it is off this subject.

So, just for kicks, how about if the tire tracks aren't there because some form of antigravity device was used? This would explain the lack thereof, and also would put to rest the question of how the lander actually was able to lift off, if in fact the rocketry was incapable of doing same.

That should throw a wrench into the gears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Simple question. do you have any evidence of an antigravity device? How does this explain the lack of tire tracks any better than the explanations given?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This dust business is like that old thing about which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold. Obviously, a pound of feathers.

Were you being ironic here, because I can find no sign of it if you were?

A pound of feathers and a pound of gold both weigh the same (and for that matter have the same mass). However the gold has a vastly higher density. The feathers occupy a vastly higher volume.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the antigravity question, there are numerous devices that could be considered antigravity. Find a book called "The Death of Rocketry" for one example. Other possibilities exist, though there is some question of these. If such a device existed, and was available, it could have been used to simply lift the machine up, set it down, and so on. Voila! No tire tracks.

As to the feathers/gold question, No. A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold, since feathers are weighed by conventional Av. measurements and gold is measured by Troy ounces. Av. measurements have 16 ounces/pound, Troy has 12. While the Troy ounce is heavier, slightly, than the A ounce, the difference is in the 4 extra ounces in the Av. system.

Sorry about that. I thought that was common knowledge. I promise I won't do it again.

Edited by RabidCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the feathers/gold question, No. A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold, since feathers are weighed by conventional Av. measurements and gold is measured by Troy ounces. Av. measurements have 16 ounces/pound, Troy has 12. While the Troy ounce is heavier, slightly, than the A ounce, the difference is in the 4 extra ounces in the Av. system.

Sorry about that. I thought that was common knowledge. I promise I won't do it again.

I walked into that didn't I? My excuse is I live in a country that has moved into the 21st century and gone metric.

However most of my chemistry lecturers would have deducted marks from your answer for mixing measuring systems without being specific. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the antigravity question, there are numerous devices that could be considered antigravity. Find a book called "The Death of Rocketry" for one example. Other possibilities exist, though there is some question of these. If such a device existed, and was available, it could have been used to simply lift the machine up, set it down, and so on. Voila! No tire tracks.

And if elves existed, they could have been used to simply lift the machine up, set it down, and so on.

If you are bringing antigravity into this discussion it is up to you to bring evidence of it. Sorry, mentioning a book title is not evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.