Kevin M. West

Do you have any proof of that or are you just making it up?

Wasn't this broadcast LIVE?

Actually the entire budget of NASA since it's inception in '57 has been about $419 billion. Amazingly enough, the 'defense' budget for last year alone was the same amount. NASA gets royally screwed in terms of budget.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-137-20982HR.jpg is a great example of just how shallow those tracks are. Why is it that you think they can't be disturbed by bootprints?

And then what, drove out backwards through the same tracks?

And the pic right before the one in question: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-137-21009HR.jpg

Yes, let's look at the high res, for example this is the very next photo from that magazine: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-137-21011HR.jpg No marks at all in the same spot, I stand by my original theory, it's an artifact from the film processing, not marks on the ground.

And yet every time you try to explain how you can tell the difference, you talk about 'depth perception' which is only possible with an atmosphere to produce haze with distance, or with objects of known size or distance so you can accurately judge scale. Neither exists for the background mountains in the apollo images.

Yes, if they ever plan on having kids. The cells in the ovaries that become eggs are carried around for life, they only have what they're born with, they don't generate new ones. Too much radiation exposure can create birth defects years after the exposure.

That 'donut' appears to be an error in the developing of the film. If you look closely, it's a complete circle and it passes over the rocks. It looks very much like something dripped on the film during processing.

You just don't seem to understand do you. All you will ever see is 'a few bootprints' because walking around destroys the old ones, leaving only the most recent. You can not claim that the 'few bootprints' aren't enough because the number of visible footprints is not a good indication of how long they were working in the area. They could be there 10 minutes or 10 hours and the ground would look pretty much the same. The fact that there aren't new tracks is not an indication that the photo is fake, it's an indication that he just started moving when the photo was snapped.

Well, if you can't see the dirt, it's going to be hard to see bootprints in it eh? And as I have said, there aren't necessarily any bootprints anyway, he's standing within a single step of the edge of the frame.

because there's 2 million or so square miles of lunar surface and they only have samples from 6 locations?

You're 'enhancement' is creating things that aren't there. All you can see in those shadows is the lense flare and the graininess of the scan. Do you ever plan on responding to the other thread Jack, or do you hope it'll go away if you pretend it's not there?

what are you talking about jack? They not only brought back 'dirt', they brought back 6 foot long cores.

I don't get it. How do you know there isn't a bootprint in the shadow? Why are the prints proof of a cable and not proof of him turning around in place?

I disagree. Given the fact that there is an area in shadow where you wouldn't be able to see bootprints, and the fact that you don't see bootprints, the most logical explanation is that they are in the shadow. It would only take a single bootprint to get him that far into the frame from the left side if he walked in that way.

And here we have some cameraphone images to show the effect. In both pics, the shadow runs directly under the camera (and my feet). But in the second one, it certainly doesn't run to the bottom center of the image. So Jack, how many examples do you need before you admit you're wrong? Have you tested this yourself yet?

I was just walking back from lunch and noticed my shadow, and it occured to me that a shadow isn't even necessary to test Jack's claims, all you need is a straight line on the ground. Stand on a curb, edge of a sidewalk, line in the road, any straight line that passes under your feet, and it will have the same effect of perspective that your shadow on the ground would, and no one can accuse you of twisting or contorting yourself to alter your shadow.

The dust was created by the billions of impacts since the moon was formed. Since there is no significant weathering on the moon, the dust particles are very jagged, unlike, for example, sand on earth which has smooth round particles. The dust holds a footprint so well because the jagged particles interlock easily and don't flow like dry sand would. I could be wrong, but I believe the surveyors didn't shut down their engines until they were on the ground, so the exhaust would have blown dust directly onto the pads. The apollo LM shut off its engines while it was still a few feet off the ground, too high for the footpads to be in the exhaust 'splash'. When they shut off the engine, the dust it had been blowing outwards would have settled before the footpads hit the ground. Examples?

I disagree, he's obviously in mid-hop, as his feet are off the ground with a dust kicked up under them. And how do you know there aren't footprints in the shadows? Or that he didn't just take a big step or a hop to that spot from the left, he's close enough to the edge of the frame to do either.

Yep, same old crap. Anyone that agrees with the 'official story' instead of the conspiracy theory is accused of being a government disinfo agent. See it in every forum I read.

Because they couldn't just pull it from offstage with a rope, to get tire tracks and no bootprints. Jeez, took me all of 5 seconds to figure that out, but all those engineers with 30 billion to spend couldn't get it right, they had to go get a crane.

No, you didn't prove anyone wrong, so I won't get over it. The fact that Jack claims to be a photographer and knows less about perspective than I do is just mind boggling. Here's a simple (but ugly) sketch I did in about 20 seconds that explains the whole thing. It's a top down view of the most basic aspects of this issue. In blue is the position of the photographer. In grey, his shadow. In red, the field of view of the camera. In green, where the field of view intersects the ground (the bottom edge of the photo). You'll see that the shadow runs right to his feet in reality. But due to the field of view not reaching his feet, the shadow will be offset from center at the bottom edge of the image (the green line). And due to perspective, the shadow will run nearly parallel to the right edge of the field of view, aka the right edge of the image. So you end up with a shadow that looks to be vertically aligned with the image, and offset from the center, just like those apollo photographs and all of the examples others have shown here. Plese, prove me wrong if you can. And saying my drawing is crude is not proof.

Jack, you're the one who wanted him to get his feet in the photos, which is not what we were seeing in the apollo photos. Here's a simple idea, I'd do it myself if i had a camera with me. Hold the camera at eye level next to a sign post or something straight that no one can accuse you of bending, and take a shot directly downsun with the shadow centered, and another with the shadow off to the side. Jack, you're a photographer, why don't you give it a try and show us the results.