Kevin M. West

The date on that page is 07.17.09, prior to the LRO reaching its lowest orbit. Many more images have been taken since then, from a lower orbit, showing more detail: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/index.html

No kidding Sherlock.. How long did it take you to figure that one out? .. So subtle humor really does go right over your head. Yep, you never fail to disappoint. Sorry, but when dealing with your conspiracy theorist friends, they are usually serious when it seems like they must be kidding. Sorry, but when dealing with Apollogist trolls and their "one up", one liners, there's no reason for any of us to ever be serious. So wadda ya think of these tire treads, Kev? http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/ap15-S70-53283HR.jpg I think I like them much better than the "real" tires that went to the "real" moon on the "real" Rovers, yet rarely ever left any "real" tracks in the "real" lunar dust. Every post of mine has been serious, every one of yours has been a joke. Who's the xxxxx here?

Is there a map of the Apollo 16 moonset? .. I kinda doubt it. This photo was also taken with a Hassie, yet the background in the "distance" didn't lose it's definition, as we can clearly see the tiny rocks on the ground. Could be the difference between using front screen projection, compared to small scale models, for those "distance" shots. Or the difference could simply be distance.

No kidding Sherlock.. How long did it take you to figure that one out? .. So subtle humor really does go right over your head. Yep, you never fail to disappoint. Sorry, but when dealing with your conspiracy theorist friends, they are usually serious when it seems like they must be kidding.

Tread pattern on those tires doesn't match the tracks.

Is it odd that a photographer would want to double his profit on an image? What would be odd would be NASA trying to sell that single image when the rest of the collection is freely available at much higher resolution.

You tell us. You are the expert. None of them, it's clearly not an Apollo image. Have you been paying any attention to this thread so far?

It's also true when you have 4 wheel steering.

Which mission was that from Jack?

Duane never disappoints.

Ready for a laugh? Same artist on fotosearch. Title "Desert Tracks". http://www.fotosearch.com/CSP067/k0672584/ http://www.fotosearch.com/CSP067/k0673508/

Clearly not, since the tire tracks seen were not from the rover wheels. What background? You can only see ground in that picture, no sky, no mountains, nothing but sand and dirt.

You just don't get it. It's a random picture that anyone on earth could have taken at any time. I'm not claiming it's from some training mission, I'm suggesting that it has absolutely nothing to do with apollo or nasa or anything related. Of course it has no image number from nasa. Of course no one has ever seen it before. It's just some picture of sand with tracks in it that someone sold to a stock photo company as a moon image. Photoshop? 40 years ago? The missing tracks between the wheels are easy to explain. The astronauts had to stand between the wheels to get on and off the rover. They had to walk around the rover to use the equipment on it. They walked all over the tracks and destroyed them in the process. It's clear when you look at the other pictures from the same time, the soil around the rover, including between the wheels, is stirred up from the astronaut activity, but you can see the tracks in the areas they haven't walked yet. Like this one for example, notice how the tracks disappear right where the soil texture changes and the bootprints show up.

Seriously? You expect me to find out where an unattributed picture of some sand was taken in order to prove it wasn't from some hypothetical moon set? Hilarious. These are your points, let me know if I miss any. 1) It was called "mark of the moon rover" by an unknown source. 2) It's being sold for a significant amount of money 3) It's not labeled as a rendering My responses: 1) Did NASA label the image? Has NASA ever published it anywhere? Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that the image has anything to do with NASA? 2) That site sells lots of random images for obscene amounts of money. Look around the site a bit, the price has nothing to do with the source or the historical accuracy. 3) That's because it's a photo, not a rendering.

Well, at least it was in black and white until you added the green part.. The two pictures have more in common that just being in black and white.. The "moon" terrain looks very similar as well. Doesn't look that similar to me. The moon isn't covered in sand. Yes, maybe they built a different set just for that one picture, covered it in sand instead of lunar regolith, drove a crane through it, walked all over it in sneakers that didn't exist in the 60's, and then waited 40 years to release that single image through fotosearch.com. Perfectly logical.

This looks like a similar pattern: http://www.trellco.com/implementandfront/pirelliimplementsandmpt/gg1.htm

Besides the fact that the soil looks wrong and the footprints look wrong, the track in question has a tread pattern different than every single apollo rover picture or the tires themselves. Notice the repeating pattern down the middle of the tread (highlighted green) that doesn't exist in any apollo photo or on the rover wheel: The only thing that picture has in common with some apollo photos is that it's in black and white.

Hilariously ridiculous. The pics that say "artists rendering" are RENDERINGS not photos. Here, this one is from the same "artist" and doesn't say "artist's rendering" on it either, it must be authentic! Just look how much they're charging for it, it must be real! http://www.fotosearch.com/CSP183/k1838894/

Who accused you of faking it?

If you look at good quality scans rather than the crappy ones that Jack prefers, it looks more like a rock.

Hi Jack, From which NASA source did you get the image with the missing rock? We know you use images wherever google finds them, like the recent one from fotosearch that wasn't even from a moon mission. You must have found that on an official NASA site if you're claiming they photoshopped it, right? Here are better quality scans that are actually from NASA. No missing rock, timestamps in 2005. You can see that the rover was actually moving in the second one, with dirt falling from the wheels. Kinda makes the argument that it was lifted into place seem silly. This one has a timestamp in 2002 and isn't on a NASA site. No missing rock: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-85-11470 I bet if you went to a library and looked at some actual books, you could find much older reproductions of this image without any missing rock.

The wheels were wire mesh, so I don't see anything strange about that. If you look closely at the picture of one of the wheels that Evan posted here, you can see similar highlights.

They are where they are supposed to be. There is a pair of tracks leading towards the rover. The only place you can't see them is the soil that has been trampled by the astronauts working around the rover after it was parked. Notice how the area around the rover has a slightly darker texture and lots of footprints? You think those shallow rover tracks should still be visible after being walked all over?

Please give image numbers so we don't have to waste time tracking down what image you cropped that from. Two frames later in the same roll of film:

They are not too deep in that picture, the treadprints are too deep in the picture that Jack posted in the other thread. The treads on the LRV tires were almost completely flat. They were made of thin titanium strips, probably 1/16" thick. They just didn't leave a deep impression. Do these really look like they were made by the same wheel? There are also several sneaker prints in that image that are clearly not from a EVA boot. I'd be willing to bet that this image was taken on earth and is not in any way related to apollo.