Craig Lamson Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) Bump for Jack...wanna count those footprints again? Edited February 18, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 Wow ... For being photographed in a vacuum , thoses astronots sure did kick up an awful lot of dust ! It doesn't matter if there is one bootprint or twenty between the front and rear tires , because the point is there are NO TIRE TRACKS in this photo ... Not between the tires or behind the buggy either . Dave once again has refuted his own claims ... He stated that the buggy was moving ... but if the buggy was moving , then it would have been creating tracks in that thick , soft moon dirt as it moved ... Yet we can clearly see that there are no tire tracks in the dust and that the few bootprints between the front and rear tires could not possibly have kicked up enough dust to have completely erased and covered over all of the tracks ... especially since the buggy was allegedly moving and creating more tracks . You keep asking me to prove my arguments , but I don't see any of you who defend these bogus photos , proving yours .... You can't explain away Conrad dangling from his fly system leaving little sideways hopping bootprints and you can't explain away why so many of the photos taken of the lunar buggys have NO TIRE TRACKS in them . And "dust and bootprints covering over the tracks" has to be one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen coming from the pro Apollo side of this debate ..... But then I guess there isn't really any other plausable explanation is there ? ... Except for the simple truth , which none of you would ever admit to .... Which is this ... There are no tire tracks in these photos because there never were any tire tracks in these photos and the reason why there never were any tire tracks in these photos is because these photos were STAGED on a moon set . Look ma ... NO TIRE TRACKS !! Oops again . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) It doesn't matter if there is one bootprint or twenty between the front and rear tires , because the point is there are NO TIRE TRACKS in this photo ... Not between the tires or behind the buggy either . OF COURSE it matters if there are bootprints between the tyres! It means the tyre tracks will be obscured! Maybe things work differently in your ocrner of the world, but where I live, if I spend a few seconds walking over and around tyre tracks on my local beach, they have a habit of getting covered up with sand and footprints. Strange that! Of course, on the moon, with 1/6th g, clumps of lunar dust get kicked even higher and further. Dave once again has refuted his own claims ... He stated that the buggy was moving ... but if the buggy was moving , then it would have been creating tracks in that thick , soft moon dirt as it moved ...Lunar dust falling from the two tyres, but there are footprints between the tyres - this is evidence that the rover has just started moving. How far has it moved? Maybe six inches? So it's difficult to make out a clear imprint of a tyre track due to falling dirt and shadows - why would that be anomalous or proof of a faked image??Yet we can clearly see that there are no tire tracks in the dust and that the few bootprints between the front and rear tires could not possibly have kicked up enough dust to have completely erased and covered over all of the tracks ... especially since the buggy was allegedly moving and creating more tracks . I can see evidence of a tyre track in between the two tyres. I can also see evidence of bootprints, kicked up dust, and also dust that has been deposited from the fenders when the rover initially stopped. In the cropped photo below (which has also had the levels and contrast enhanced - good enough for Jack, good enough for me), red arrows indicate where there are clear bootprints, green arrows show where dirt from the fenders fell when the rover stopped (guess what - this could have obscured the tracks immediately in front and behind the tyres), the blue arrow shows a feature that to me resembles part of a tyre track. Can I prove it's a partial tyre track? Nope - but it looks like a tyre track, and it's right where you would expect to see a tyre track. Can you prove it isn't a tyre track? I mean evidence, not "it's obvious to me it's not a tyre track". You keep asking me to prove my arguments , but I don't see any of you who defend these bogus photos , proving yours ....You can't explain away Conrad dangling from his fly system leaving little sideways hopping bootprints and you can't explain away why so many of the photos taken of the lunar buggys have NO TIRE TRACKS in them . It has been explained to you - you just don't accept the explanation. Which is fair enough, you're entitled to your beliefs. But credible expanations have been offered.And "dust and bootprints covering over the tracks" has to be one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen coming from the pro Apollo side of this debate ..... But then I guess there isn't really any other plausable explanation is there ? ... Except for the simple truth , which none of you would ever admit to .... Which is this ... There are no tire tracks in these photos because there never were any tire tracks in these photos and the reason why there never were any tire tracks in these photos is because these photos were STAGED on a moon set . You can call it "lame", but it's also correct. There are countless photos showing this happening. And many hours of TV footage. I remember showing you DAC footage taken from inside the Apollo 11 LM, showing how much the surface changed during the very first lunar EVA - you may have forgotten it, though at the time you admitted there was a lot of kicked up dust. Here is the GIF made using the frames from the start and end of the DAC footage. I can see small craters getting covered up by bootprints, so I don't find it surprising that tyre tracks can be. Edited February 22, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 There are no tire tracks in this photo and there are no tire tracks covered over by dust either . Now you claim this ... "Of course, on the moon, with 1/6th g, clumps of lunar dust get kicked even higher and further." I'm sorry but didn't you just show me a video clip of the way dust behaves in a vacuum opposed to the way dust behaves on Earth ? ... It seemed to me that the dust that got kicked up by the dune buggy on Earth got kicked up higher and further than the dust that got kicked up by the lunar buggy allegedy in a vacuum on the moon .... So which is it now ? ... You keep contradicting yourself to justify each argument .... If dust drops immediately , like a rock in a vacuum , then it could not be kicked up higher and further and therefore could not have been kicked up enough to cover over every tire track in dozens of buggy photos .... Let's get real here ... There are no tire tracks in this photo because the set decorators and the photo fakers forgot to put them in the photo ...It was staged ... Just like everything else about Apollo . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 Speaking of missing tire tracks ... The tracks are missing behind the buggy in this faked Apollo 17 photo also .... but guess where they are ? ...Well, one of them at least .... Doing a donut around the pile of rocks to the lower right of the buggy position .... What is a single buggy tire track doing circling that pile of rocks ? ... Did the photo faker forget there were suppossed to be two tracks side by side , like behind the buggy ? Check out the painted mountains in the background too .... How fake looking can you get ? ... Some of these photos are pathetically ridiculous . Wanna do a donut on the moon set ? ... Well then just rip off one of them there buggy tires , head for that pile a rocks and let her rip ! But at least this one does have some depth perception to it .... Small scale models perhaps ? .. and just look at those painted lines between the foreground and the fake mountain backdrop .... Great art work , don't you think ? .... It's just soooooooo realistic looking . AS17-137-21010HR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I'll quickly add some points before returning to Duane's latest post. Duane, Your assertion seems to be that the images were faked because there are no tyre tracks from the LRV visible in some of the images. You would seem to claim that either NASA "forgot" to put in the tyre tracks. Your claim would further seem to be that the reason that there are no tyre tracks is because the LRV was "lower" into position for the images. I previously asked, why would there not be a 'functional' LRV to drive onto the "moon sets"? IIRC, you said because there were non-functional (for still images) and functional (for video footage) LRVs, based on cost grounds. Again - why would they not use a functional LRV in the "fake" images? Especially ones where we see the LRV beginning to move? (As in this image from your post)? If NASA had unlimited budgets for this "fakery", why would cost enter into it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 (edited) If a funtional buggy had been used for all of the photos then there would be tire tracks behind the buggys and between the front and rear tires in all of the photos ... but there isn't ... So the only explanation I can think of for this error , is that dummy buggys might have been used and instead of pushing them into place , causing obvious bootprints along the way next to the buggy , they dropped the buggy props in by cable , so as not to disturb the moon set dirt . Edited February 23, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 If a funtional buggy had been used for all of the photos then there would be tire tracks behind the buggys and between the front and rear tires in all of the photos ... but there isn't ... So the only explanation I can think of for this error , is that dummy buggys might have been used and instead of pushing them into place , causing obvious bootprints along the way next to the buggy , they dropped the buggy props in by cable , so as not to disturb the moon set dirt . So if there were tyre tracks in the LRV images where there appear to be no tyre tracks, this would negate your argument - correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Wow ... For being photographed in a vacuum , thoses astronots sure did kick up an awful lot of dust !It doesn't matter if there is one bootprint or twenty between the front and rear tires , because the point is there are NO TIRE TRACKS in this photo ... Not between the tires or behind the buggy either . Dave once again has refuted his own claims ... He stated that the buggy was moving ... but if the buggy was moving , then it would have been creating tracks in that thick , soft moon dirt as it moved ... Yet we can clearly see that there are no tire tracks in the dust and that the few bootprints between the front and rear tires could not possibly have kicked up enough dust to have completely erased and covered over all of the tracks ... especially since the buggy was allegedly moving and creating more tracks . You keep asking me to prove my arguments , but I don't see any of you who defend these bogus photos , proving yours .... You can't explain away Conrad dangling from his fly system leaving little sideways hopping bootprints and you can't explain away why so many of the photos taken of the lunar buggys have NO TIRE TRACKS in them . And "dust and bootprints covering over the tracks" has to be one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen coming from the pro Apollo side of this debate ..... But then I guess there isn't really any other plausable explanation is there ? ... Except for the simple truth , which none of you would ever admit to .... Which is this ... There are no tire tracks in these photos because there never were any tire tracks in these photos and the reason why there never were any tire tracks in these photos is because these photos were STAGED on a moon set . <snip photo> Look ma ... NO TIRE TRACKS !! Oops again . 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 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. Something dripped on the film alright ... A tire track ... Look at it in high resolution and you will see the tread marks ... It was obviously placed there by a whistle blower with a great sense of humor .... Something definately lacking in most of the replies on this forum . So what were you saying on another thread about no depth perception showing up in the Apollo photos because they were taken in a vacuum on the moon ? .... Take a look at the donut track photo again ... You can see plenty of depth perception can't you ? ... See how far away those painted backdrop mountains seem to be ? .... So why is it that only some Apollo photos show how far away the mountains are , while others seem to have the mountain backdrops , allegedly located miles away in the distance , look as though they are only a few feet away from the foreground ? The Apollo mountains are suppossedly huge , yet they only look like little hills in most of the Apollo photos . Please explain why some photos, like the one above , show distance , while other don't ? ... the typical excuse for no distance perspective is the curious explanation that distance can't be perceived in a vacuum ... Yet in the donut tire photo above , it can be perceived . You might want to get one of the professional photographers to answer this one Kevin .... My explanation is the use of small scale models on a moon set ... Anyone have any other good ideas for this discrepancy in the Apollo photos ? ... Oh , and when the photographer took the tire donut photo , do you think he might have been standing on one of those huge moon mountains to get that shot ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 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 !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 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. 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