Dave Greer Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Of course you're not going to try to explain the missing tire tracks in the lunar buggy photos ... and the reason why you're not going to explain it is because you can't . ... That is unless you want to alter some more photos to back up your lies . No - the reason is that I have already done so, several times. I've also described to you in detail how you can recreate this on your own pc, thus proving to yourself I did not manipulate the images in the way you are suggesting. Then at least you can argue whether the detail this brings out are likely to be tyre marks, or something else. I'd argue that they are likely to be tyre marks since they look like tyre marks, and are exactly where you would expect to see tyre marks. What is the point of discussing the last photo of yours if you're not willing to have a sensible discussion about the others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 The only ludricrous one here would be you lamson ... Being a professional photographer you should know that the Apollo photos are crude studio fakes ... Yet you continue to pretend that they were really taken on the moon . So what that makes you is either a CRACKPOT PHOTOGRAPHER or worse , a xxxx .... Or possibly both . Are you going to pretend to see tire tracks in the phony moon set photos too ? ... Or have you skipped trying to defend those silly looking photos because you know you can't ? .... Not without being made to look like the fools that Dave and Kevin are anyway . No Duane, I'm not going to pretend anything. I've offered my explaination as to why no tracks are seen. Either you accept it or not, your choice. I'm comfortable with my position and my position is well supported with evidence. Yours on the other hand is simply based on unsupported conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 8, 2007 Author Share Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) "What is the point of discussing the last photo of yours if you're not willing to have a sensible discussion about the others? " Dave ...... For the simple reason that the other photos you posted as distraction tactics have NOTHING to do with the three photos I posted in high resolution , which show no tire tracks anywhere in the photo ... Not behind the buggy and not underneath the buggy between the front and rear tires . "I'm comfortable with my position and my position is well supported with evidence. Yours on the other hand is simply based on unsupported conjecture. " Lamson .... Your position is based on your bias concerning the Apollo Program and nasa , and not on any proper evidence ... There is absolutely no evidence of tire tracks in the three photos I posted ... Therefore your position is WRONG . On the other hand , my position is based on the EVIDENCE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH .... There are no tire tracks in the photos because there never were any tire tracks in these photos to begin with ... And the reason why there are no tracks is because the photos were STAGED ..... Kevin's and Dave's explanations as to why the photos don't show tire tracks are absurd .... Kevin claims they were either trampled over by bootprints or covered over by the astronots kicking up dust around the buggy ...and Dave claims they really are there because they can be seen in DIFFERENT photos ... I'm not sure what your claims are about these three photos because I don't remember you making any .... But then I don't pay much attention to your posts because of your constant insults directed to me ( calling me either ignornant , illerterate , or a crackpot ) so maybe I missed your 'evidence'. If you would like to post it again , I will pay more attention as to why you believe there are no tire tracks behind or underneath the buggy in these three photos . Edited February 8, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) "What is the point of discussing the last photo of yours if you're not willing to have a sensible discussion about the others? " Dave ...... For the simple reason that the other photos you posted as distraction tactics have NOTHING to do with the three photos I posted in high resolution , which show no tire tracks anywhere in the photo ... Not behind the buggy and not underneath the buggy between the front and rear tires . "I'm comfortable with my position and my position is well supported with evidence. Yours on the other hand is simply based on unsupported conjecture. " Lamson .... Your position is based on your bias concerning the Apollo Program and nasa , and not on any proper evidence ... There is absolutely no evidence of tire tracks in the three photos I posted ... Therefore your position is WRONG . On the other hand , my opinion and posistion is based on the EVIDENCE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH .... There are no tire tracks in the photos because there never were any tire tracks in these photos to begin with ... And the reason why there are no tracks is because the photos were STAGED ..... Kevin's and Dave's explanations as to why the photos don't show tire tracks are absurd .... Kevin claims they were either trampled over by bootprints or covered over by the astronots kicking up dust around the buggy ...and Dave claims they really are there because they can be seen in DIFFERENT photos ... I'm not sure what your claims are about these three photos because I don't remember you making any .... But then I don't pay much attention to your posts because of your constant insults directed to me ( calling me either ignornant , illerterate , or a crackpot ) so maybe I missed your 'evidence'. If you would like to post it again , I will pay more attention as to why you believe there are no tire tracks behind or underneath the buggy in these three photos . Well Duane you are spewing the stuff over a couple of thread so I'm not surpised you mised it. It appears you are using the "lets throw a whole bunch of crap against the wall and see if anything sticks method" In any case my reply was post 119 inthis thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...9235&st=105 I'm not using ANY bias, that would be you. I've simply reviewed the photographs and the videos, and they tell the story. The tire tracks were obscured by disturbed soil caused by the Astronauts kicking it as the worked around the back, sides and front of the LRV. Most of the photos you have posted may not show tracks around the rover but they DO SHOW quite a few tracks all over the rest of the frame. It is a given that the astronauts kicked around a lot of soil as they walked. It is a given that the frames you posted (as well as quite a few frames taken just before and just after the frames you posted show tracks made by the rover in the surrounding areas of the photograph. So we are left with only a few possible explainations for the track being gone from around the rover. 1. That the astronauts simply covered the tracks near the rover by stomping on them and kicking lunar soil, as evidenced in many stills and videos. OR 2. Some unknown stagehands placed the rover in position ( a vehicle with WHEELS) in some unproven studio set. The did this after moving the rover ALL OVER THE SET by rolling it, making an abundance of tracks. Then this MAJOR break in continuity was MISSED by those responsible for quality checking the supposed "studio photographs" Based on the options listed above the only RATIONAL conclusion is number 1. Edited February 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 There are no tire tracks in the photos because there never were any tire tracks in these photos to begin with Either you misspoke or I don't know what you're point is. There's no tracks in the photos because there were never tracks in the photos, could you get more circular? Did you mean because there were never tracks on the ground? Either way, you can't conclusively state that, because it's not the only explanation. It is undisputable that tire tracks are not permanant features, and they will be eroded and covered over with time. The only way you can disprove my theory is to show that the picture was taken before they had walked around enough to destroy the tracks. Do you know how long after parking the rover that they took the picure? Kevin's and Dave's explanations as to why the photos don't show tire tracks are absurd .... Kevin claims they were either trampled over by bootprints or covered over by the astronots kicking up dust around the buggyWhat exactly is absurd about that?...and Dave claims they really are there because they can be seen in DIFFERENT photos ... You photo only shows a tiny area behind the wheels. Photos of the same scene showing a larger area are relevant, you can see the tracks are only missing very close to the wheels, where the astronauts were walking around. Or do you believe they created a new moon set for every individual photo, so that 2 shots of the same scene aren't related? What is the point of this whole argument anyway? Do you think they lowered the rover in with a crane or something, instead of just rolling it in? Or do you think the wheels were faked too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 8, 2007 Author Share Posted February 8, 2007 No wonder I missed Lamson's opinion about the missing buggy tracks the first time around ... It's the same exact lame explanation as Kevin's is ... Do you boys all copy the same misinformation from Bad Astronomy , or do you find this stupidity on clavius also ? I don't know why the tracks are not there , as I was not on the moon set at the time , or taking the moon set photos . It could have been dropped in by a crane , like the LM's were ... Or the photographer in charge of placing the tracks in these particular photos , simply forgot to put them in the picture ... Or they could have been left out on purpose by one of the whistle blowers and quality control missed the fact that they were missing . It could be any of these reasons or possibly others ... but the bottom line is this ...The buggy tire tracks are NOT in these photos ... and no lame excuses or explanations that any of you manage to come with is going to change that fact . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Or, maybe it's the same explanation because it's common sense and it's right. Seriously, explain what's wrong with my explanation. By the way, I don't read clavius, and I certainly don't copy ideas from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) No wonder I missed Lamson's opinion about the missing buggy tracks the first time around ... It's the same exact lame explanation as Kevin's is ... Do you boys all copy the same misinformation from Bad Astronomy , or do you find this stupidity on clavius also ? I don't know why the tracks are not there , as I was not on the moon set at the time , or taking the moon set photos . It could have been dropped in by a crane , like the LM's were ... Or the photographer in charge of placing the tracks in these particular photos , simply forgot to put them in the picture ... Or they could have been left out on purpose by one of the whistle blowers and quality control missed the fact that they were missing . It could be any of these reasons or possibly others ... but the bottom line is this ...The buggy tire tracks are NOT in these photos ... and no lame excuses or explanations that any of you manage to come with is going to change that fact . What's the problem here Duane? There is NO problem with these images NOT showing tracks. You have offered direct evidence that there were no tracks NEAR the rover in the pictures you posted. And with this evidence you claim the photos are proof that the images were faked in a studio. You can't offer any evidence to support ANY faking situation, though you supply many unsupported claims as to how and why the tracks are missing. Not much of a case on your side. We on the other hand show in at least ONE on the images you claim has no tracks, that there are tracks that can be shown when the image is enhanced (a process you support via Jack Whites work) We also provide a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence ( and we know by your prior posts you also support such evidence) that shows tracks all over the outer portions of the frames you claim show no tracks, still photos taken before and after your posted frames showing tracks leading up to the rover, videos showing Astronauts grossly disturbing the lunar soil when they walk and still photos showing the same. The CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE is far superior to your direct evidence. Again given the two arguments the RATIONAL choice is OUR argument. Now if you want to challenge our case, feel free. But to do so you MUST SHOW that disturbing the lunar soil WILL NOT CAUSE THE TRACK TO BE COVERED. Your standard tactics will not be accepted. I await your attempt. Good luck, Edited February 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 8, 2007 Author Share Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) Look at the photos again ... The soil is NOT disturbed behind or underneath the tires ... If anything it is pristine looking in these three photos , except for a few bootprints to the sides of the buggys .... If the soil had been disturbed enough to completely cover up all of the tire tracks , it would look disturbed and trampled upon ... and this is clearly not the case . The fact that other photos from the same photo shoot show tire tracks either means that the photo editors remembered to put them in the photos , or the buggys actually rolled up to the position to where the other photos were taken ... But this is not the case in the three photos being discussed .... There is no indication that any tire tracks are in the photos , even when enhancing the details , changing the constrast , or praying that they will somehow miraculously appear . Edited February 8, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) "What is the point of discussing the last photo of yours if you're not willing to have a sensible discussion about the others? " <BR><BR>Dave ...... For the simple reason that the other photos you posted as distraction tactics have NOTHING to do with the three photos I posted in high resolution , which show no tire tracks anywhere in the photo ... Not behind the buggy and not underneath the buggy between the front and rear tires . How many times do I have to repeat myself over this issue? Distraction tactics indeed - of which you are completely guilty. YET AGAIN - I have only discussed TWO of the lunar rover photos you posted. The first photo I merely commented on. The second photo, 11901, is part of a pan. I posted a study (which I made some weeks ago) of 11902 - WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THE SAME AREA SHOWN IN 11901, AND EVEN MORE DETAIL to the right of the image. You constructed a strawman argument saying I was being dishonest by using image 11902 (which I clearly wasn't, since I stated that was the image I used, and it's totally clear that there is a large amount of overlap in the two images). I then performed the study again, USING 11901 and posted the results. I also gave you instructions on how to perform the same study yourself, so you could be satisfied I hadn't "air-brushed" the tyre tracks into the image I posted.I then had to re-post a defence of everything I'd done, as you continued inferring I was being dishonest for posting the wrong images. And here we are again, I'm still having to defend myself against your false accusations of dishonesty. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry92844 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry92939 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry93060 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry93066 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry93081 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=93209 See how may times I have to repeatedly defend myself against THE SAME false accusations of dishonesty you make? And you have the gall to play victim in the Moderating Committee thread? This is the photo you referenced in your second post re the lunar rover and alleged missing tracks - here a low resolution version. Here is a link to the high resolution version you posted. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...-88-11901HR.jpg And here is the study I gave you instructions on how to do for yourself - This is a crop of the highest resolution version of 11901 I can find on the internet. Kevin's and Dave's explanations as to why the photos don't show tire tracks are absurd .... Kevin claims they were either trampled over by bootprints or covered over by the astronots kicking up dust around the buggy ...and Dave claims they really are there because they can be seen in DIFFERENT photos ... Please withdraw your comment as I've re-done my 11902 study on 11901 and pointed that fact out to you MANY times, AND given you instructions on how to prove my honesty on this matter to yourself. Edited February 9, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 9, 2007 Author Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) Would you please stop with the "strawman" comments ... That is so typically Bad Astronomy and clavius tactics .. and sooooo overdone by all of you who defend Apollo . Even the photos you posted above don't have any tire tracks in them , can't you see that ? The fact that you can NEVER admit when you're wrong ... The fact that you post DIFFERENT photos as distraction tactics ... and the fact that you ALTER photos by stretching and bending shadows , is what makes you dishonest about this . So no , I'm very sorry , but I will not withdraw those claims .... and this is not a personal insult but just a fact ... When people misrepresent my evidence by replacing it with their own and then alter the evidence I do post , I consider that to be playing games and being dishonest . Edited February 9, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 (edited) Edit - dbl post. Edited February 10, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 (edited) Would you please stop with the "strawman" comments ... That is so typically Bad Astronomy and clavius tactics .. and sooooo overdone by all of you who defend Apollo . Do you actually understand what a strawman argument is? Tell you what - you stop presenting strawmen arguments, I'll stop outing you for doing so. Fair enough? Even the photos you posted above don't have any tire tracks in them , can't you see that ?Well, in the enhanced version I see what looks like tyre tracks, exactly where you would expect to see them. It may be something else. If you believe it's more likely to be something else other than tyre tracks, please present some evidence supporting your claim. The fact that you can NEVER admit when you're wrong ... I've told you several times when I've done this, it's quite unfortunate for your credibility that you insist on repeating this tired claim. The fact that you post DIFFERENT photos as distraction tactics ... and the fact that you ALTER photos by stretching and bending shadows , is what makes you dishonest about this .Wrong again. I've explained all this to you several times over. I can't be held accountable for your poor comprehension skills. All the open- and fair-minded people who have been following these threads will, I'm sure, see this for themselves. I feel sorry that you can't.So no , I'm very sorry , but I will not withdraw those claims .... and this is not a personal insult but just a fact ... When people misrepresent my evidence by replacing it with their own and then alter the evidence I do post , I consider that to be playing games and being dishonest . Your evidence has never been mis-represented by me. You don't appear to possess the requisite skills to be able to interpret images objectively - that's hardly my fault. I may of course be wrong - in which case, please feel free to demonstrate it to me. Edited February 10, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 10, 2007 Author Share Posted February 10, 2007 Strawman is a ridiculous Bad Astronomy term which is overused to attack the opposition . Regardless of what you think of my requisite skills to be able to interpret images objectively , I can see when tire tracks are in a photograph and when they're not . And to keep this very simple and ignore your typical games , all you need to do is to look at the three photos I posted showing the missing tire tracks to see the truth ... They are simply NOT THERE ....and if you really believe they are , then you are obviously the one who is lacking in the requisite skills to be able to interpret images objectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Strawman is a ridiculous Bad Astronomy term which is overused to attack the opposition . Cobblers. Please investigate for yourself exactly what the term means. Regardless of what you think of my requisite skills to be able to interpret images objectively , I can see when tire tracks are in a photograph and when they're not .Look at image 11901. Look at my study. Repeat it for yourself - like I've requested umpteen times. Why do you refuse to do so?And to keep this very simple and ignore your typical games , all you need to do is to look at the three photos I posted showing the missing tire tracks to see the truth ... They are simply NOT THERE ....and if you really believe they are , then you are obviously the one who is lacking in the requisite skills to be able to interpret images objectively. Look at image 11901. Look at my study. Repeat it for yourself - like I've requested umpteen times. Why do you refuse to do so? Personally, I think you're afraid of the answer. 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