Kevin M. West

Here is what the tracks actually looked like, AS17-134-20436:

I ask because those don't look like rover tracks at all, the treads are way too deep and the wrong shape, and there are a variety of different shoeprints in the image. What mission was this image supposedly from?

Jack, what's the source of the image in this post?

Reply to a post from the debate thread: Actually, there is a very good reason to think it was backed into place. His "tracks should be here line" is in the wrong place, as you can clearly see the tracks coming in from the left of the scene (above the red arrow): ETA: Alternatively, rather than back into place, they could have just picked up one end of the rover and turned it after driving to the rim of that crater.

But was there any need for them to be far stronger?

Jack, if they are restored, they will be out of order and a couple pages back in this thread. In the interest of getting this damn show on the road, here are the images you and Jim refuse to take 5 minutes to post. This will be my only post in this thread.

Do you also think your house is held up by the wallpaper and paint on the walls? Or is it maybe possible that the outer coating has little to do with the structural integrity? I think Bill's post was made tongue-in-cheek. Ah, shucks, it's no fun if you have to stop and explain it Mike. BK My bad. I've heard people make the same argument (only they meant it) too many times.

Do you also think your house is held up by the wallpaper and paint on the walls? Or is it maybe possible that the outer coating has little to do with the structural integrity?

Hey Jack, this is a discussion forum. If you are just going to post your observations and never discuss, start a blog.

The north face of WTC1 looks poorly photoshopped in the 'full sun' picture. Can you share the source for that one?

How do you determine that there isn't enough debris without knowing the depth of the debris pile? All you can see in any of the photos is the top.

Jack, how many basement levels were there in WTC6?

Amazing that your 'lights' are the exact same color as the sky behind the object. Image compression tends to round out blurry objects, and you increasing the contrast only amplifies that effect. If you watch the video carefully, in it's original form, you can see the object change shape as it crosses the frame, like a bird flapping its wings.

PS. If you think your 'analysis' revealed more detail, just look at what it did to the TLC logo.

What species of bird is disk shaped without wings, and has FIVE LIGHTS around its oval rim? Jack What kind of ufo flaps its wings? In the second frame you posted you can see it's wings rising up. There are no lights on it in either. THREE lights are seen in the second frame. What bird has lights? What bird has no wings. You are avoiding replying. Non-sequiturs are not replies. Jack No Jack, there are no lights. 3 pixels that were slightly brighter than the rest were made even more so when you turned up the brightness and contrast. You are manufacturing your own delusion. The wings aren't obvious because the bird is too close, too fast, out of focus, and seen from the side, not below.

What species of bird is disk shaped without wings, and has FIVE LIGHTS around its oval rim? Jack What kind of ufo flaps its wings? In the second frame you posted you can see it's wings rising up. There are no lights on it in either.

No idea, pointing a handheld camera at a screen and then uploading the results to youtube doesn't exactly result in a clear image.

I have to disagree Len, watch the video, it's not debris: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksi-_3g_BGo It's clearly an object close to the camera, most likely a bird.

It was a lot more than just a platform Jack, it was the descent module. Among other things, it housed the engine and fuel tanks they used to land on the moon. <Offensive remark removed>

Jack, seriously, you should do at least a little bit of research before you speak. The 'base' that was left behind was over 10 feet tall. With the sun near the horizon like it is in these pics, how long of a shadow do you think it could make?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/mult...pollosites.html Can't wait to see pics once LRO is in a lower orbit.

Do you even own a camera? Go point it at the sun, see how big the sun looks in the resulting image.

It's hard to tell with so few pixels, but it appears to be in his right hand, held up near his visor. You know the cameras were not always chest mounted, they were detachable. I disagree with you on that one Kevin. See my explanation to Jack above. I think you're right.

A large light source like that first one would not produce shadows with sharp edges like those seen in the apollo photos, and a small one with a tight beam like the second one in your pic would only light a tiny area. The only way to get shadows like those seen in the apollo photos is with a single source very far away, like the sun.

It's hard to tell with so few pixels, but it appears to be in his right hand, held up near his visor. You know the cameras were not always chest mounted, they were detachable.