Jump to content
The Education Forum

Anomalous object in A17 moonscape


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

I will give Mr. Green the benefit of the doubt and not accuse him of purposely

trying to mislead the reader...but:

1. There are three consecutive poses of the astronaut standing in the same position. In

two of the poses he is standing FLAT FOOTED, but Greer chose the third pose, in which

the astronaut has his left foot raised, to fit his theory of TOE-PRINT. Since he was

standing FLAT FOOTED, there should be a full boot print, not just a toe print.

Sorry Jack, but look closer. In the first two, he's about 2 feet to the left of where he's standing in the third.

2. In the other two poses, the right foot is BESIDE THE LEFT FOOT, yet in the photo

with the mystery artifact, there is NO OTHER BOOTPRINT THERE for the right foot.

In the other two he's in a different spot, which is clearly full of bootprints in the third.
3. In Greer's photo, the astronaut is facing the camera, yet THERE ARE NO BOOTPRINTS

BEHIND HIM, nor are there any BOOTPRINTS IN THE FOREGROUND leading to where

he is standing...not even if he WALKED BACKWARD TO THAT POSITION. So how

did he manage to get to that location WITHOUT LEAVING A TRAIL OF PRINTS?

You're looking in the wrong place again. The trail of footprints is very clear directly to the astronaut's right. All he did was step to his left with one foot and then back to his right, which is why there's a lone partial footprint (your artifact) in that spot.

4. As an avid Apollogist, Greer certainly must know that the boots have a ROUNDED

TOE, and all TOEPRINTS ARE ROUNDED...so the mystery artifact CANNOT BE A

TOEPRINT.

But would you be able to see the curved front edge if it was sunken into the soil and pushed up a ridge of soil in front of it? Keep in mind this isn't a top-down shot we're looking at, it was taken from a relatively low angle from the front. Since he stepped toe-first down into the soil, the footprint would be deep at the toe and rise back to the level of the rest of the soil somewhere mid foot, where those perfectly straight lines would be left by the tread of the boot... exactly where your so-called anomalous object is in every frame after that, and no frames before that.
Therefore it is NOT QED (not demonstrated) that Mr. Greer is correct. In fact the above

demonstrates (QED) THAT MR. GREER IS INCORRECT in his toeprint theory.

Jack

I think you've only demonstrated that you aren't taking the time to consider any posibility other than your own strange theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I will give Mr. Green the benefit of the doubt and not accuse him of purposely

trying to mislead the reader...but:

1. There are three consecutive poses of the astronaut standing in the same position. In

two of the poses he is standing FLAT FOOTED, but Greer chose the third pose, in which

the astronaut has his left foot raised, to fit his theory of TOE-PRINT. Since he was

standing FLAT FOOTED, there should be a full boot print, not just a toe print.

Sorry Jack, but look closer. In the first two, he's about 2 feet to the left of where he's standing in the third.

2. In the other two poses, the right foot is BESIDE THE LEFT FOOT, yet in the photo

with the mystery artifact, there is NO OTHER BOOTPRINT THERE for the right foot.

In the other two he's in a different spot, which is clearly full of bootprints in the third.
3. In Greer's photo, the astronaut is facing the camera, yet THERE ARE NO BOOTPRINTS

BEHIND HIM, nor are there any BOOTPRINTS IN THE FOREGROUND leading to where

he is standing...not even if he WALKED BACKWARD TO THAT POSITION. So how

did he manage to get to that location WITHOUT LEAVING A TRAIL OF PRINTS?

You're looking in the wrong place again. The trail of footprints is very clear directly to the astronaut's right. All he did was step to his left with one foot and then back to his right, which is why there's a lone partial footprint (your artifact) in that spot.

4. As an avid Apollogist, Greer certainly must know that the boots have a ROUNDED

TOE, and all TOEPRINTS ARE ROUNDED...so the mystery artifact CANNOT BE A

TOEPRINT.

But would you be able to see the curved front edge if it was sunken into the soil and pushed up a ridge of soil in front of it? Keep in mind this isn't a top-down shot we're looking at, it was taken from a relatively low angle from the front. Since he stepped toe-first down into the soil, the footprint would be deep at the toe and rise back to the level of the rest of the soil somewhere mid foot, where those perfectly straight lines would be left by the tread of the boot... exactly where your so-called anomalous object is in every frame after that, and no frames before that.
Therefore it is NOT QED (not demonstrated) that Mr. Greer is correct. In fact the above

demonstrates (QED) THAT MR. GREER IS INCORRECT in his toeprint theory.

Jack

I think you've only demonstrated that you aren't taking the time to consider any posibility other than your own strange theories.

OOOPs...I thought I was responding to Mr. Greer...but I see that Mr. West has

interjected himself into the discussion. So the following was written in response

to West, not Greer.

So......

OK...NOW I CAN NO LONGER GIVE YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. You ARE trying

to deceive! I am sitting at my computer LOOKING AT ALL FOUR PHOTOS. They are not

as you describe them. The TOEPRINT POSE has his foot BEHIND THE ROCK. The mystery

artifact is BESIDE THE ROCK. In the next two poses, he has moved about two steps to

his right and is in exactly the same place in both. BUT IN THE PHOTO WITH THE MYSTERY

OBJECT, THERE ARE NO FOOTPRINTS BETWEEN THE TWO LOCATIONS. How did he get

from one location to the other without leaving ANY footprints? I was hoping you were

different from Lamson, Colby and Burton...but ain't so. Lying and name calling will

not change the facts.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will give Mr. Green the benefit of the doubt and not accuse him of purposely

trying to mislead the reader...but:

1. There are three consecutive poses of the astronaut standing in the same position. In

two of the poses he is standing FLAT FOOTED, but Greer chose the third pose, in which

the astronaut has his left foot raised, to fit his theory of TOE-PRINT. Since he was

standing FLAT FOOTED, there should be a full boot print, not just a toe print.

Jack - that's because the photo showing the left foot slightly raised is the one where the "feature" is!!! It would be silly to pretend otherwise. Just to make it even clearer, so there is no doubt:-

fifth.jpg

2. In the other two poses, the right foot is BESIDE THE LEFT FOOT, yet in the photo

with the mystery artifact, there is NO OTHER BOOTPRINT THERE for the right foot.

Wrong - you're not looking closely enough.

sixth.jpg

3. In Greer's photo, the astronaut is facing the camera, yet THERE ARE NO BOOTPRINTS

BEHIND HIM, nor are there any BOOTPRINTS IN THE FOREGROUND leading to where

he is standing...not even if he WALKED BACKWARD TO THAT POSITION. So how

did he manage to get to that location WITHOUT LEAVING A TRAIL OF PRINTS?

You can't have read my above post correctly. The astronaut clearly side-stepped into position - you can easily see the bootprints in the three links I gave in the previous post. You can also see him doing this in the video I linked to. You can see some of the bootprints in the crops, but use the links to high-resolution images to see them all.

4. As an avid Apollogist, Greer certainly must know that the boots have a ROUNDED

TOE, and all TOEPRINTS ARE ROUNDED...so the mystery artifact CANNOT BE A

TOEPRINT.

We can see Schmitt's toe-end touching the lunar surface exactly where the "feature" is - it's not a huge leap of faith to assume this could have dug slightly into the regolith, with the rounded end of the print becoming obscured by loose soil in front of the toe-end.
Therefore it is NOT QED (not demonstrated) that Mr. Greer is correct. In fact the above

demonstrates (QED) THAT MR. GREER IS INCORRECT in his toeprint theory.

Well, I've demonstrated where you are wrong in your first three points with actual evidence. The last point is open to debate - so you've hardly proven the toeprint theory incorrect.

I'm happy to agree to disagree with you though Jack, but feel free to try and refute my arguments if you find fault with them.

EDIT Just to be pedantically accurate, Schmitt doesn't immediately sidestep to the left after 22156 and 22157 - Cernan approaches him to help take a soil sample (you can see this in the TV segment linked earlier, and it's documented in the ALSJ). Cernan then moves away again, Schmitt sidesteps to the right left (edit), and Cernan takes 22158. Schmitt moves back to the rover, while Cernan does a pan starting with 22159.

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seldom have I seen a group of such dishonest people.

The photo which has the anomalous rectangular object HAS NO BOOTPRINTS

WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED during the three earlier photos, as

claimed. NONE. REPEAT NONE. Not a one. NONE. They say there are bootprints,

but there ARE NONE.

Those who claim that there are footprints are blind or lying. I don't know

why I bother, but tomorrow I will post evidence of this. Tonight I do not

have access to the computer from which I can post images.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why am I not surprised of such a reply from Jack. You just can't ever admit when you're wrong can you Jack?

Of course he can't...just look at his actions when proven wrong beyond all doubt by unimpeachable emperical evidence...the Armstrong shadow claim.

BTW, where are our mods when Jack calls posters outright liars?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

I can hardly warn people for attacking you when you accuse them of being dishonest / blind / lying. Civility is a two-way street.

To ALL parties - I suggest you take note of how Dave has phrased his replies. He states his case, and when a consensus cannot be reached, he 'agrees to disagree'... without accusations and name calling.

I'm far from innocent in previously being loose with the insults, but as a Mod I have had to clean up my act. That means that like a reformed smoker, I'll be intolerant of further infractions. Take note, because I have been wondering how to use these Mod functions on the Board.

I think Dave has done an excellent job of supporting his viewpoint, and I am convinced that he is correct. Jack can post further evidence as to why he believes Dave is wrong, and people can make up their own minds. Let each person's evidence stand or fall on its own merits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seldom have I seen a group of such dishonest people.

The photo which has the anomalous rectangular object HAS NO BOOTPRINTS

WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED during the three earlier photos, as

claimed. NONE. REPEAT NONE. Not a one. NONE. They say there are bootprints,

but there ARE NONE.

Those who claim that there are footprints are blind or lying. I don't know

why I bother, but tomorrow I will post evidence of this. Tonight I do not

have access to the computer from which I can post images.

Jack

Jack, this is the image from your first post in the thread, are you claiming that those aren't footprints?

prints.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin - please.

Jack - Kevin has clearly shown you were mistaken about the bootprints; will you correct yourself?

No. He has done no such thing. The bootprints are in the wrong location and pointing

the wrong way, and the mystery object is NOT a toeprint.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. He has done no such thing. The bootprints are in the wrong location and pointing

the wrong way, and the mystery object is NOT a toeprint.

Jack

Why are the bootprints in the "wrong location"? Where should they be, and why? What leads you to state they are pointing in the wrong direction?

I know you don't want to accept the feature as a toe-print, but all the evidence I've seen points to it being a toe-print. I've not even heard a competing theory, let alone evidence to support that theory. There is plenty of direct evidence for it being a toe-print - including a photo of Schmitt's toe-end exactly where the feature is seen in later photos.

The bizarre thing is Jack, even if you accept the feature as a toe-print, it doesn't negate your position that the moon-landings (or at least the photographic record) were faked. While I'm not stating that the evidence I've presented in this thread "proves" the moon-landings were real (although the photos themselves form part of that body of evidence), I'd say I'm more than 99% convinced after studying the photos in depth that the feature is indeed a mundane toe-print, not some anomalous object - regardless of whether this photo was taken on the moon or in a studio.

I may be wrong, but no-one has really ventured a credible alternative explanation... so I'll stick with the toe-print as being the most likely explanation that fits the available data. That's the good thing about this particular photo that we don't always have with other "anomalies" - there is plenty of related evidence to look at. I was convinced that the photo of Schmitt making the toe-print would even convince an Apollo CT stalwart like yourself Jack - thanks for proving me wrong and keeping me on my toes :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin - please.

Jack - Kevin has clearly shown you were mistaken about the bootprints; will you correct yourself?

No. He has done no such thing. The bootprints are in the wrong location and pointing

the wrong way, and the mystery object is NOT a toeprint.

Jack

Jack,

Kevin and Dave clearly DID show you were wrong about bootprints being not being in the picture. Let me remind you about what you said:

The photo which has the anomalous rectangular object HAS NO BOOTPRINTS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED during the three earlier photos, as claimed. NONE. REPEAT NONE. Not a one. NONE. They say there are bootprints, but there ARE NONE.

There are - without any doubt whatsoever - bootprints in the full version of the image.

Dave has clearly shown there was activity around the area which - without doubt - accounts for the bootprints in the image/s.

That is NOT to say the section in question is a partial bootprint (though IMO it is) but there is nothing anomalous about other bootprints in the general vicinity, and members should not be insulted if they draw a different conclusion about what the item in the image is.

That is why I asked you about correcting yourself with regard to other bootprints in the area; it was not a request to say you were wrong in your opinion about what the section in question is or is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

It's from a boot.

You can't tell what kind of dust was kicked up around that particular rectangle but the indentations from the other boot print clearly match the single one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...