Duane Daman Posted February 10, 2007 Author Share Posted February 10, 2007 Dave ... The only thing I'm afraid of at this point is your Bad Astronomy mentality and your inability to see that there are NO TIRE TRACKS in any of these photos ... Not even the one's you posted to do a "test" on . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Dave ... The only thing I'm afraid of at this point is your Bad Astronomy mentality and your inability to see that there are NO TIRE TRACKS in any of these photos ... Not even the one's you posted to do a "test" on . Well, I don't want this thread to win an award for the longest rally ever, so we'll just have to agree disagree. Anyone interested enough in the subject matter can pore over the evidence we've both presented and make their own judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Right you are Dave ... We will always have to agree to disagree about the faked Apollo photos .... When I look at photos that are missing lunar buggy tire tracks , I think ... wow , they forgot to put the tracks in these photos ... When you see these photos you say ... wow , those astronots sure did kick up a boat load of dust ... and every time they did , they somehow managed to cover up ALL of the tire tracks in the process ! ... How about that ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 ... wow , those astronots sure did kick up a boat load of dust ... and every time they did , they somehow managed to cover up ALL of the tire tracks in the process ! ... How about that ! No, there are some images where the tracks are covered, and there are some (the majority? I'd have to check) where they are visible. So, if we are to believe your take on events, why did they roll the LRV onto the "set" in some cases but "lower it with a crane" or some such on other occasions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 Two different props .... One could drive , as we all have seen in the faked on Earth Apollo videos .. and then the one's that couldn't run on batteries , and were just dummy props that didn't cost as much to manufacture. And this would be one of the main reasons why the tracks didn't show up in some buggy photos and did in others ... Tracks when using the one that drove ... and no tracks when using the one that didn't , and was lowered into place ... The reason it wasn't rolled into place was because that would have created too many bootprints in the moon set dirt , showing even more anomalies than there already were , in these faked photos... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 This thread is basically investigating how the photos might have been faked. No evidence whatsover that they can not possibly be genuine. Unfortunately, this applies to much of the discussion about photographs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Two different props .... One could drive , as we all have seen in the faked on Earth Apollo videos .. and then the one's that couldn't run on batteries , and were just dummy props that didn't cost as much to manufacture. Why wouldn't they use the one that could run on batteries in the "faked" images? Why develop two LRVs, according to your hypothesis? Why not simply use one? The "faked video" LRV could do everything it was supposed to have done; why spend additional money on a "fake" LRV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Two different props .... One could drive , as we all have seen in the faked on Earth Apollo videos .. and then the one's that couldn't run on batteries , and were just dummy props that didn't cost as much to manufacture.And this would be one of the main reasons why the tracks didn't show up in some buggy photos and did in others ... Tracks when using the one that drove ... and no tracks when using the one that didn't , and was lowered into place ... The reason it wasn't rolled into place was because that would have created too many bootprints in the moon set dirt , showing even more anomalies than there already were , in these faked photos... Let's examine a photo you yourself posted as evidence of fakery to see whether this argument holds water. The image itself is AS15-85-11471. The hi-res version is here - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...-85-11471HR.jpg Checking the image we can clearly see tracks criss-crossing the lunar surface in the mid-distance - good evidence that the lunar rover does indeed leave tracks (this can be verified with other photos and DAC footage). Duane is claiming that it is impossible for the tracks near this rover to have been covered up with bootprints and dust (despite this being obvious in many other Apollo photos). The assertion is that they had to lower the rover into position because it's a dummy prop that couldn't drive. The problem is, of course, that the rover has quite clearly just started moving - as you can see by the dust thrown up behind both wheels. Which leaves the explanation for fakery on decidedly thin ice. We know they had a rover that worked... we can see rover tracks in the mid-ground in this photo... we know the rover in this photo worked as it is moving. The claim that the rover must have been lowered onto the set by a crane has no supporting evidence, and is merely speculation. There is, however, evidence that the rover left tracks, was capable of moving, that tyre tracks can be covered up by bootprints, and that there is a lot of astronaut activity around the rover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 "Checking the image we can clearly see tracks criss-crossing the lunar surface in the mid-distance - good evidence that the lunar rover does indeed leave tracks (this can be verified with other photos and DAC footage)." Dave .... The fact that tracks show up in this photo BEHIND the buggy is not proof that this particular buggy made them .... If this buggy made those tracks , then we would be able to see tracks behind the rear tires and between the front and rear tires also , where the buggy has been positioned for this particular photo shoot .... The tracks very easily could have been put in the photos at a later time , or the buggy with the batteries could have made them . I know I don't have any proof that there were dummy prop buggies being used on the moon sets ... but it would explain why the tire tracks are missing in so many of the bogus Apollo photos . And using unflyable LM props would explain why there is no blast crater underneath any of the LM's in the Apollo photos , very little or no dust on the footpads and no dust disturbed in the immediate area around the LM , where the astronots left many clearly defined bootprints ... It is obvious that the LM's didn't fly and then land on these moon sets ... but were only props made for the Apollo TV Program and the Apollo still photo shoots . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 So does the buggy above have batteries or not? If not, why is it moving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 If it's moving , then where are the tire tracks ? I do believe you just made your case even worse . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Two different props .... One could drive , as we all have seen in the faked on Earth Apollo videos .. and then the one's that couldn't run on batteries , and were just dummy props that didn't cost as much to manufacture.And this would be one of the main reasons why the tracks didn't show up in some buggy photos and did in others ... Tracks when using the one that drove ... and no tracks when using the one that didn't , and was lowered into place ... The reason it wasn't rolled into place was because that would have created too many bootprints in the moon set dirt , showing even more anomalies than there already were , in these faked photos... Let's examine a photo you yourself posted as evidence of fakery to see whether this argument holds water. The image itself is AS15-85-11471. The hi-res version is here - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...-85-11471HR.jpg Checking the image we can clearly see tracks criss-crossing the lunar surface in the mid-distance - good evidence that the lunar rover does indeed leave tracks (this can be verified with other photos and DAC footage). Duane is claiming that it is impossible for the tracks near this rover to have been covered up with bootprints and dust (despite this being obvious in many other Apollo photos). The assertion is that they had to lower the rover into position because it's a dummy prop that couldn't drive. The problem is, of course, that the rover has quite clearly just started moving - as you can see by the dust thrown up behind both wheels. Which leaves the explanation for fakery on decidedly thin ice. We know they had a rover that worked... we can see rover tracks in the mid-ground in this photo... we know the rover in this photo worked as it is moving. The claim that the rover must have been lowered onto the set by a crane has no supporting evidence, and is merely speculation. There is, however, evidence that the rover left tracks, was capable of moving, that tyre tracks can be covered up by bootprints, and that there is a lot of astronaut activity around the rover. Thanks for posting one of my favorite NO ROVER TRACK PHOTOS. To drive to this location, there would be tracks left behind both the front and back wheels. As for boots obscuring the tracks, THERE IS ONE BOOT PRINT, which would have stepped right on a track if there had been a track. THERE ARE NO OTHER BOOT PRINTS OVER THE TRACK AREA. This is one of the best photos for showing that the rover did not drive to this location and tracks were not obscured by footprints. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) As for boots obscuring the tracks, THERE IS ONE BOOT PRINT, which would have steppedright on a track if there had been a track. THERE ARE NO OTHER BOOT PRINTS OVER THE TRACK AREA. This is one of the best photos for showing that the rover did not drive to this location and tracks were not obscured by footprints. Jack You using "new math' to count the bootprints in the area between the wheels Jack? ONLY ONE BOOTPRINT?????? And lets take a careful look at that piece of white debris that is on the lunar surface near the rear wheel. The astronauts did not drop it COVERED IN SOIL, but it sure ended up that way...by the astronauts KICKING the soil as they walked????? Sorry Jack but you are wrong once again. Edited February 17, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 If it's moving , then where are the tire tracks ? I do believe you just made your case even worse . Sorry, I thought it was very clear from the photo. The tyre tracks are covered with kicked up dust and boot prints. More importantly, why was this rover lowered into position on a cable if it was capable of moving, as we can see quite clearly from the photo? This is the point you have failed to address. Regardless of how you want to twist things to say how the photo may have been faked - please describe how it must have been faked. After all, that's the salient point in these photo discussions - not how they could have been faked, but how they prove the landings were false. I ain't seen no proof yet I'm afraid. 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