Kevin M. West Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 And the pic right before the one in question: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-137-21009HR.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Plus , the buggy could have come to a stop and the tire tracks ended in your photo .... There is no way of knowing by looking at that photo what the situation was ... That is unless the ALSJ has some silly dialogue about how the boys jumped out of the buggy and covered over the tire tracks with their dusty boots before taking off again . And then what, drove out backwards through the same tracks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Let's have a close look at some of the other images taken of that scene that Duane has shown us (AS17-137-21010). It was part of a pan sequence taken at Station 4, otherwise known as Shorty Crater. The shots immediately after that moved from right to left (anticlockwise). The following are crops from the hi-resolution scans of AS17-137-21011, AS17-137-21012, and AS17-137-21013. The crops are generally from the left hand middle of the image. In each case, I'll show a crop with no alterations, and then the same crop with levels altered to highlight the detail. You can use the unaltered versions to be sure that nothing was added to the image because of the level changes. Crop of AS17-137-21011 Crop of AS17-137-21011 with levels altered Crop of AS17-137-21012 Crop of AS17-137-21012 with levels altered Crop of AS17-137-21013 Crop of AS17-137-21013 with levels altered In each case you can see tyre tracks leading towards the LRV position. In each case you cannot see any tyre tracks directly behind the LRV. If they "lowered" the LRV into position for the images, why are there tyre tracks leading towards that very same position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Duane-You keep on saying that the Astronouts could not have kicked up enough dust to cover the LRV tracks and other boot-prints. Oops again... Take a look at the Hi-Res version of AS17-137-20982 of the Station 3 drive tube. Low-Res: Note the the covering of the LRV tracks and the obliterated boot-prints. Another one of Duane's myths exposed. Great find. Very clear, close up photo of a rover track, with bootprints and kicked up dust covering it up completely. Yeah it would be a great find if there were any tire tracks to be covered over in the buggy photos ... but sadly , there were none ... Neither were there enough bootprints where the buggy tires should have been to have completely covered them ... Plus , the buggy could have come to a stop and the tire tracks ended in your photo .... There is no way of knowing by looking at that photo what the situation was ... That is unless the ALSJ has some silly dialogue about how the boys jumped out of the buggy and covered over the tire tracks with their dusty boots before taking off again . In other words , this photo can't explain away the missing tire tracks in literally dozens of buggy photos ... Sorry boys , but "Duane's myth has not been exposed " .... because there is no myth to expose , ... I'm afraid the only thing to expose, is a boat load of buggy photos with no tire tracks in them .... Even the donut tire track photo above doesn't show any tracks behind the buggy , where they belong .... but somebody sure did have some fun doing a wheelie around those rocks !!! I cannot believe that any remotely fair-minded person would actually make such an astounding claim, that clearly flies in the face of what is right there in the photo. I've had to read what you wrote about five times to make sure I didn't mis-interpret what you said. No tyre tracks??? NO TYRE TRACKS??? You'll be telling me next you can see herds of wildebeest gallivanting across the lunar plains next . One of us is going blind or mad. If what I see isn't tyre tracks partially covered up by bootprints, I heartily swear I'll video myself drinking a pint of my own 'pee' and will post it on Youtube. Apologies to the mods if that goes beyond the terms and conditions but my flabber is completely ghasted. Such a claim is simply beyond my comprehension. Utterly shocking. Words have finally failed me. I'll have to withdraw from posting for a couple of days while I consider what happened here and whether in all honesty it's actually worthwhile continuing to post in the face of such intellectual dishonesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 (edited) Evan ... Just because they remembered to put the tire tracks in photos AS17-137-21012, AS17-137-21013 and AS17-137-21011 , does not mean that they remembered to put tracks in AS17-137-21010 ... because they obviously didn't .... I noticed you used DIFFERENT photos to try prove a point about the photo in question ....So who is being intellectualy dishonest ? AS17-137-21010 has no tire tracks in the photo behind the buggy for the simple reason that the one's faking these photos forgot to put them in the picture ... But instead , probably jokingly , put a single track around that pile of rocks instead ... It's a whistle blower photo if there ever was one ... and you posting different photos does not put tire tracks in the photo being discussed .... That is the oldest trick in the book with you nasa defenders ... Posting DIFFERENT photos as distraction tactics to get away from the one that is anomalous . Dave .. You mis-read my post ... I didn't mean there were no tracks in the photo you posted ... I meant there were no tire tracks in the one I posted .... Except for the single track around the rocks , which had to be a joke by one of the whistle blower photo fakers . Don't get so bent out of shape over one phony photo and one guy who believes Apollo was a hoax ... It's really not that big of a deal ... I've pretty much gotten to the point where I think this entire endeaver is a big waste of my time anyway .... Not only am I in the minority , but I have had to read complete BS on every forum I ever posted on about this ... I really thought this forum would be different but it isn't ... It's the same stupid game wherever I go with this information . Until I see definitive proof that these photos were really taken on the moon , I will believe that they are fake .... No one can honestly answer any of the photographic hoax evidence I post without playing games ... I posted a photo that has no tire tracks behind the buggy but does have one single silly looking track around a pile of rocks ...Then you post a photo which is completely irrelevant to the photo in question and Evan posts a few photos from the same photo shoot which do show tire tracks .... So what ?? ... The photo I posted has no tracks where they should be ...so other photos which do show tracks are completely irrelevant . And no one has even tried to address the most important question , which is why does this photo and the few others from the same shoot show distance from the foreground to the background , when so many other mountain photos don't ? .... And why is there a definate dividing line between the foreground and the background which looks like artist brushstrokes ? These photos are partly drawn with phony mountain backdrop scenery ... and why you and your friends refuse to see this is because you have made up your mind that Apollo really went to the moon and really took these photos there .... but guess what Dave ?...They didn't take them there because they are all fake ! nasa even lied about the real color of Mars for godsakes ! ... and lied about being a civilain organization engaging in the friendly exploration of space .... Well , if they are so honest , then why did they screw with the Mars photos ?... and if they're really a civilian organization , then why are they planning military dominance of space by wanting to set up military bases on the moon to control the entire world ?? ... and why did they detonate a nuclear bomb in the Van Allen belts during operation Starfish Prime ? ... They thought they could blow a corridor thorugh the belts to get off of this planet ? ... but all they did was to create a third artificial belt which was even more radioactive than the two natural belts which were already bad enough ! Wake up people ... You are all defending an illusion .... An organization that has passed it's prime , has wasted billions of tax payers dollars and is so incompetant now that they not only killed 14 shuttle astronauts , but can't even send a manned mission higher than LEO ! .... We have all been duped and it's time you guys woke up to that fact and stop wasting your valuable time defending something which has no more value to it ... If you want me to stop posting here, that's fine with me ... I have much more important things to do with my time anyway , than to argue with a bunch of closed minded people who fell for the biggest hoax in the history of the world . Edited February 25, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Evan ... Just because they remembered to put the tire tracks in photos AS17-137-21012, AS17-137-21013 and AS17-137-21011 , does not mean that they remembered to put tracks in AS17-137-21010 ... because they obviously didn't .... I noticed you used DIFFERENT photos to try prove a point about the photo in question ....So who is being intellectualy dishonest ? Sorry Duane, I probably didn't make myself clear & you misunderstood the question. That series of images are part of a pan sequence, moving from right to left. In 21010, the area with the tracks I'm talking about is not in frame. In 21011 to 21013 (the examples I have used), they do show tracks leading towards the LRV position. In those same examples, they do NOT show any tracks DIRECTLY behind the LRV; only tracks a small- to far- distance away from it. So why would there be tracks leading to the LRV position in those images, but no tracks directly behind the LRV in those very same images? You might argue they lowered the LRV into position for those images - but then why are there tracks leading to the LRV position but not behind it? Why have tracks leading to that position but then nothing behind it... in all those images? Could the answer be the tracks directly behind the LRV are not visible to the camera? That the sun angle makes them difficult (if not impossible) to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Dave .. You mis-read my post ... I didn't mean there were no tracks in the photo you posted ... I meant there were no tire tracks in the one I posted .... Except for the single track around the rocks , which had to be a joke by one of the whistle blower photo fakers .Don't get so bent out of shape over one phony photo and one guy who believes Apollo was a hoax ... It's really not that big of a deal ... I've pretty much gotten to the point where I think this entire endeaver is a big waste of my time anyway .... Not only am I in the minority , but I have had to read complete BS on every forum I ever posted on about this ... I really thought this forum would be different but it isn't ... It's the same stupid game wherever I go with this information . You're right, there are more important things to get worked up over. I'll accept your explanation that you were referring to a different photo to the one I was talking about. Until I see definitive proof that these photos were really taken on the moon , I will believe that they are fake .... No one can honestly answer any of the photographic hoax evidence I post without playing games ... I posted a photo that has no tire tracks behind the buggy but does have one single silly looking track around a pile of rocks ...Then you post a photo which is completely irrelevant to the photo in question and Evan posts a few photos from the same photo shoot which do show tire tracks .... So what ?? ... The photo I posted has no tracks where they should be ...so other photos which do show tracks are completely irrelevant .What would you accept as definitive proof though? You've already ruled out a huge long list of evidence in favour of Apollo, though you seem quite happy to accept circumstantial evidence, however weak, in support of your theory.Looking at the other photos taken either side of the one in question provides further evidence, which is why Evan posted them. It shows that the reason you don't see tracks in the photo you posted is probably twofold - the sun-angle, and the angle of the terrain (the rover appears to have just driven up a small slope). The angle provided by the location of the astronaut taking the photograph means that the tracks behind the rover simply can't be seen from that location. Kevin posted the picture of a track partially obscured by bootpints and kicked up dust not as a distraction tactic, but as proof of concept that bootprints can indeed cover up lunar tracks. There are many more photos that show this. And no one has even tried to address the most important question , which is why does this photo and the few others from the same shoot show distance from the foreground to the background , when so many other mountain photos don't ? .... And why is there a definate dividing line between the foreground and the background which looks like artist brushstrokes ? Again, this is down to subjective opinion. You are saying that these photos DO show distance - are you saying you don't see painted mountain backdrops in these ones? All the Apollo photos I see show a sense of scale, although it is more apparent in certain mission, i.e. Apollos 15 through 17, since they landed in mountainous regions. These photos are partly drawn with phony mountain backdrop scenery ... and why you and your friends refuse to see this is because you have made up your mind that Apollo really went to the moon and really took these photos there .... but guess what Dave ?...They didn't take them there because they are all fake !This is the meaningless level of discussion I don't want to participate in. If you could provide empirical evidence to support your position as to why you believe the photos to be fake, then we have a discussion. Simply stating them to be fake and calling anyone who disagrees with you're opinion "closed minded" is tantamount to playground name calling. <snip> Wake up people ... You are all defending an illusion .... An organization that has passed it's prime , has wasted billions of tax payers dollars and is so incompetant now that they not only killed 14 shuttle astronauts , but can't even send a manned mission higher than LEO ! .... We have all been duped and it's time you guys woke up to that fact and stop wasting your valuable time defending something which has no more value to it ... If you want me to stop posting here, that's fine with me ... I have much more important things to do with my time anyway , than to argue with a bunch of closed minded people who fell for the biggest hoax in the history of the world . If that's the gist you got from my post a few days ago, then you mis-interpreted my intentions. I was considering withdrawing from the debate myself - not requesting that anyone else should do so. No-one has a privilege to post here over and above anyone else just because of their opinion (providing they keep to the T&Cs). So, if at some point I decide I'm neither getting anything from the debate, nor contributing to it, I'll simply stop posting myself, not request anyone else to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 26, 2007 Author Share Posted February 26, 2007 The point I was making is that the original photo I posted here shows no tire tracks behind the buggy ( which it doesn't ) ... that it shows a a donut shaped tire track around a pile of rocks ( which it does ) ... that the mountain backdrop appears to be some distance from the foreground for a change ( better artist for this photo perhaps , or the use of small scale models to achieve more depth perception maybe ? ) and that the dividing line between the forground and the backdrop is clearly a few painted lines drawn by an artist .... Can I prove this ? ... No ... but can you prove it's a real photo taken on the moon ? I doubt it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 The point I was making is that the original photo I posted here shows no tire tracks behind the buggy ( which it doesn't ) ... that it shows a a donut shaped tire track around a pile of rocks ( which it does ) ... No it shows WHAT YOU CLAIM is a rover track. Upon close inpsection it appears to be a scanning flaw, since other online images fail to show this artifact. Two possible explanations, one clear out in left field ( a single tire track...that goes OVER the rock) the other far more reasonable. You take your choice, I'll take the reasonable one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 26, 2007 Author Share Posted February 26, 2007 A scanning flaw ? .... Oh that one's a beaut !! You can take whatever explanation you want to but it's clearly a single tire track placed in the photo as a joke . You know what a joke is don't you Craig ? ... That would be you , defending nasa's bogus , painted moon photos . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 A scanning flaw ? .... Oh that one's a beaut !! You can take whatever explanation you want to but it's clearly a single tire track placed in the photo as a joke . You know what a joke is don't you Craig ? ... That would be you , defending nasa's bogus , painted moon photos . Well, the artefact in question isn't visible in the very next photo in the pan, AS17-137-21011 which shows the same area of the lunar surface. So, we have two competing hypotheses: 1. The artefact is caused by something mundane - such as a fault on the film negative, or a flaw in the scanning process. 2. It's a single tyre track placed in the photo as a joke. If hypothesis 1 is correct, then we shouldn't necessarily expect to see the same artefact in the next frame (unless there was some fault with the scanner that re-produced the same artefact, in which case this could happen). Well, in the very next photo, the artefact is missing. This supports the first hypothesis. If hypothesis 2 is correct, then we should expect to see the same artefact in any subsequent photos that show the same area. Clearly this isn't the case. So, the subsequent image provides solid empirical evidence that contradicts the 2nd hypothesis. Now, we can try and think of things that might explain why the track could be visible in one frame, and missing in the next. Perhaps stage-hands were lowered on ropes and raked over the joke tyre tread. It's difficult to provide direct evidence to prove that this is impossible, so end up reverting to Occam's razor to see which hypothesis is more likely. Hypothesis 1 - flaw on film or with scanning/developing process. Hypothesis 2 - a whistle blower deliberately put a tyre track on a moonset, then somehow erased it before taking the next photo. I leave it to you, dear lurker, to make up your own mind. Incidentally, I haven't even touched on how each hypothesis fares when we ask why the artefact appears to go over moon rocks. Personally I don't think there's any need. It's a no-brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 26, 2007 Author Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) The answer is obviously number 2 . 2. It's a single tyre track placed in the photo as a joke. It's NOT an artefact that was mistakingly created in the moon set dirt ... It was put in the photo later, during the editing process as a JOKE ! You know what a joke is don't you Dave ? ... That would be you , defending nasa's bogus , painted moon photos . Edited February 26, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 The answer is obviously number 2 .2. It's a single tyre track placed in the photo as a joke. It's NOT an artefact that was mistakingly created in the moon set dirt ... It was put in the photo later, during the editing process as a JOKE ! You know what a joke is don't you Dave ? ... That would be you , defending nasa's bogus , painted moon photos . Do you have any evidence favouring this theory instead of the "mundane artefact" theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 The answer is obviously number 2 .2. It's a single tyre track placed in the photo as a joke. It's NOT an artefact that was mistakingly created in the moon set dirt ... It was put in the photo later, during the editing process as a JOKE ! You know what a joke is don't you Dave ? ... That would be you , defending nasa's bogus , painted moon photos . Do you have any evidence favouring this theory instead of the "mundane artefact" theory? I think not: ... that it shows a a donut shaped tire track around a pile of rocks ( which it does ).... <snip> Can I prove this ? ... No ... 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