Jack White Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 (edited) Here is an odd object in an Apollo 17 moon photo. It appears to be a small rectangular "frame" about 4x5, with an opening. It definitely is not a lunar object. What is it? This image is greatly enlarged and cropped, with added sharpness, contrast, and pseudocolor. The file number is not necessary to study the object. Opinions invited; insults will be ignored or brought to the attention of moderators. Jack Image failed to attach. Will try again. Edited March 20, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 (edited) Here is an odd object in an Apollo 17 moon photo. It appears to bea small rectangular "frame" about 4x5, with an opening. It definitely is not a lunar object. What is it? This image is greatly enlarged and cropped, with added sharpness, contrast, and pseudocolor. The file number is not necessary to study the object. Opinions invited; insults will be ignored or brought to the attention of moderators. Jack Image failed to attach. Will try again. Instead of posting more "research" how about admitting your gross error here: Jacks failure to understand how a simple shadow works... Edited March 20, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 I'm not sure what it is; it could be a throwoff from one of the lunar experiments, etc. The image number would help to identify what was going on at that location and therefore the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 The file number is not necessary tostudy the object. Opinions invited; insults will be ignored or brought to the attention of moderators. Instead of posting more "research" how about admitting your gross error here: Jacks failure to understand how a simple shadow works... Craig - The link doesn't work Jack - Obviously being able to see the entire image and knowing the context and location in which it was taken are important for identifing the object. Odd that a member who has called his opponents murderers, goverment agents and "assholes" would make such a comment about insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 I'm not sure what it is; it could be a throwoff from one of the lunar experiments, etc.The image number would help to identify what was going on at that location and therefore the context. Looking at the full image will not help. You may not even find the object I posted. But it is there. Take a look: AS17-145-22169 The object is not of lunar origin. I simply asked for opinions about what it is. All I get is insults from Lamson and Colby. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 (edited) Here is an odd object in an Apollo 17 moon photo. It appears to bea small rectangular "frame" about 4x5, with an opening. It definitely is not a lunar object. What is it? This image is greatly enlarged and cropped, with added sharpness, contrast, and pseudocolor. The file number is not necessary to study the object. Opinions invited; insults will be ignored or brought to the attention of moderators. Jack Image failed to attach. Will try again. Total guessing game without knowing the image itself, but since you invited opinions, I would guess it's a partial bootprint. It appears to have the same strucutre as other partial bootprints, and there are similar features at the bottom of the crop. EDIT Just saw the ref number in your last post. I'm still going with partial bootprint. Will try and find some better resolution images though. Edited March 21, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I've found some pretty conclusive evidence supporting the "partial bootprint" theory of mine. There's a photo apparently taken at the same time the bootprint was made. The toe area of the astronauts left boot is exactly where the "artefact" identified by Jack is. This is why we always need the mission/roll/frame number Jack - so we can examine all the evidence, not just a small crop. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22158HR.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I've found some pretty conclusive evidence supporting the "partial bootprint" theory of mine. There's a photo apparently taken at the same time the bootprint was made.The toe area of the astronauts left boot is exactly where the "artefact" identified by Jack is. This is why we always need the mission/roll/frame number Jack - so we can examine all the evidence, not just a small crop. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22158HR.jpg Jack sez: "The object is not of lunar origin." I'm with you Dave, it is sure appears to be a simple impression in the lunar soil. Which would make it "of lunar origin". This is a great object lesson showing how claims based on poor research and leaps of logic are not to be trusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Perhaps Jack can indicate where I insulted him? Does he consider pointing out that he insults people and insult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Please - keep it civil, gentlemen. Jack simply asked a question; his comment about "not a lunar object" I believe was based on the belief that the subject is an actual object. IMO, that is a fair call. I think Dave is on the right track. It certainly could be a partial bootprint. It is roughly about the same size and shape as others in the full image. Dave - you think 22158 shows the imprint being made? Could you show identifiable rocks, etc, in each of the images so we can confirm it is in the same location? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Please - keep it civil, gentlemen. Jack simply asked a question; his comment about "not a lunar object" I believe was based on the belief that the subject is an actual object. IMO, that is a fair call.I think Dave is on the right track. It certainly could be a partial bootprint. It is roughly about the same size and shape as others in the full image. Dave - you think 22158 shows the imprint being made? Could you show identifiable rocks, etc, in each of the images so we can confirm it is in the same location? I can indeeed. Will post again later today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) Dave - you think 22158 shows the imprint being made? Could you show identifiable rocks, etc, in each of the images so we can confirm it is in the same location? The photo in Jack's initial post is a crop of AS17-145-22169. The very next photo in the sequence is AS17-145-22170. The astronaut taking the photo (Gene Cernan) has turned slightly to his right to take this second photo - but we can still see the "object" Jack is asking about in this photo. See the comparison below. I've circled the same features on each crop with the same colour. The feature we're discussing is circled in pink along with the rock it's next to, top left in each crop. Notice I've also highlighted two distinctive rocks visible in AS17-145-22170, labelled A and B. Now, lets look at an earlier photo - AS17-145-22154. This was taken before Schmitt had walked into the scene (no bootprints visible). Cernan is standing slightly further back, and the camera is angled further downwards. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22154HR.jpg Comparing 22154 with 22170, we can see the A and B rock I identified previously (there are many other features available for comparison too - I'm trying to keep it simple). I've kept the same colouring convention. Note, two of the features I highlighted from 22169 are now obscured by the large rock that the gnomon is resting on. You can see the A and B rocks in the picture. Here's a crop of the feature Jack initially highlighted, taken from a high-resolution version of AS17-145-22169, compared to crops of the same region from 22154 and 22155. Although these two are slightly out of focus, the feature Jack mentions in 22169 doesn't seem to be present in these two slightly earlier photos. So where did this feature come from? Look at this sequence of photos. They show Schmitt moving into the area being photographed. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22156HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22157HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22158HR.jpg Pay particular attention to the last photo - 22158. Here's a comparison of 22158 with 22169. I've established that the photos in question show the same scene. In image 22154 (and 22155) Jack's feature is missing, and there are no other visible bootprints. 22156 and 22158, Schmitt is visible, along with several bootprints. In 22158 we have a photo taken as the toe end of Schmitt's left boot touches the exact area where Jack's "feature" in question is located. 22169 and 22170 show the feature, exactly where Schmitt's toe-end was in 22158 (along with more bootprints). QED. Edited March 22, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) Interesting theories, but in no way conclusive. The "object" does not resemble a bootprint. There are no "other bootprints" leading to and from it. Bootprints do not have a "right angle edge" on one side. Nice try. No cigar. Jack QED? I don't think so unless you mean Quod Ego Dico. Edited March 22, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) Interesting theories, but in no way conclusive.The "object" does not resemble a bootprint. There are no "other bootprints" leading to and from it. Bootprints do not have a "right angle edge" on one side. Nice try. No cigar. Jack QED? I don't think so unless you mean Quod Ego Dico. No cigar required since I don't smoke! Firstly, it isn't an entire bootprint - it's from the toe-end of Schmitt's boot, as demonstrated below. Secondly, there are plenty of bootprints leading both to and from it. See the following pictures:- Schmitt moves towards the toe-print sideways (bootprints coming in from lower/middle left). http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22156HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22157HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22158HR.jpg Schmitt moving away from the toe-print (more bootpirnts not visible in previous frames). http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22169HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22170HR.jpg You can view the rover TV sequence of all this from here. As viewed from the rover, Schmitt is on the left, Cernan on the right. Thirdly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. The bottom of the tread pattern of the Apollo boots seems pretty much at right angles to me, i.e. the tread pattern is straight across the boot. Jack, you stand by your studies, and I stand by mine, so if you still think this can't be a bootprint, we'll have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think the issue is a no-brainer: it looks like a partial bootprint; we have a photo showing the feature isn't there before Schmitt stands there; we have a photo of Schmitt's toe end exactly where the feature is; once he's moved away, we can now see the feature. Any chance of defending your photographic claims on the other thread? Edited March 22, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) Interesting theories, but in no way conclusive.The "object" does not resemble a bootprint. There are no "other bootprints" leading to and from it. Bootprints do not have a "right angle edge" on one side. Nice try. No cigar. Jack QED? I don't think so unless you mean Quod Ego Dico. No cigar required since I don't smoke! Firstly, it isn't an entire bootprint - it's from the toe-end of Schmitt's boot, as demonstrated below. Secondly, there are plenty of bootprints leading both to and from it. See the following pictures:- Schmitt moves towards the toe-print sideways (bootprints coming in from lower/middle left). http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22156HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22157HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22158HR.jpg Schmitt moving away from the toe-print (more bootpirnts not visible in previous frames). http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22169HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22170HR.jpg You can view the rover TV sequence of all this from here. As viewed from the rover, Schmitt is on the left, Cernan on the right. Thirdly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. The bottom of the tread pattern of the Apollo boots seems pretty much at right angles to me, i.e. the tread pattern is straight across the boot. Jack, you stand by your studies, and I stand by mine, so if you still think this can't be a bootprint, we'll have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think the issue is a no-brainer: it looks like a partial bootprint; we have a photo showing the feature isn't there before Schmitt stands there; we have a photo of Schmitt's toe end exactly where the feature is; once he's moved away, we can now see the feature. Any chance of defending your photographic claims on the other thread? I will give Mr. Greer the benefit of the doubt and not accuse him of purposely trying to mislead the reader...but: 1. There are three consecutive poses of the astronaut standing in the same position. In two of the poses he is standing FLAT FOOTED, but Greer chose the third pose, in which the astronaut has his left foot raised, to fit his theory of TOE-PRINT. Since he was standing FLAT FOOTED, there should be a full boot print, not just a toe print. 2. In the other two poses, the right foot is BESIDE THE LEFT FOOT, yet in the photo with the mystery artifact, there is NO OTHER BOOTPRINT THERE for the right foot. 3. In Greer's photo, the astronaut is facing the camera, yet THERE ARE NO BOOTPRINTS BEHIND HIM, nor are there any BOOTPRINTS IN THE FOREGROUND leading to where he is standing...not even if he WALKED BACKWARD TO THAT POSITION. So how did he manage to get to that location WITHOUT LEAVING A TRAIL OF PRINTS? 4. As an avid Apollogist, Greer certainly must know that the boots have a ROUNDED TOE, and all TOEPRINTS ARE ROUNDED...so the mystery artifact CANNOT BE A TOEPRINT. Therefore it is NOT QED (not demonstrated) that Mr. Greer is correct. In fact the above demonstrates (QED) THAT MR. GREER IS INCORRECT in his toeprint theory. Jack Edited March 22, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now