Alien Footprints On The Moon? , page 10

andre18

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 08:50 AM

link

So either Cernan or Schmitt has feet the size of a woman's!
Strange, what? Or is that the boot of a third astronaut?

So he has small feet....big woop!

:

[edit on 12-12-2008 by andre18]

andre18

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 08:55 AM

link

Originally posted by Mintwithahole. The astronauts over shoe's were a standard fit. One size fits all.

So with all the money spent on the mission they couldn't afford different size shoes for the astronauts....

Now that’s a good joke if there ever was one.

Bob Down Under

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 09:00 AM

link

Reading this post! I have one muther head ache? lol

Ok I am a no one but? Tread size on the boot is consistant with manufacter, boot size is of a woman or other?

I am ducking for cover?

Bob Down Under

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 09:04 AM

link

Your turn Mike

nablator

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 09:30 AM

link

In this drawing the left overshoe is smaller than the right.

LunaCognita

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 09:41 AM

link

Just a bit of info regarding the Apollo lunar “overshoe” boot sizes that I think is relevant to the discussion.

The tread mark you are debating was left in the lunar surface by the astronaut’s outer boot, known as the “overshoe”. Now, to clarify, this overshoe is worn overtop of an integral inner boot that is a part of what they called the Torso and Limb Suit Assembly (TLSA).

To simplify, let’s think of the TLSA as the primary “pressure garment” part of the Apollo A7-L and A7-LB spacesuits. Overtop the TLSA is the white part of the spacesuit that you see in all the photos. This white oversuit was known as the ITMG - or Integrated Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment. Put the TLSA and the ITMG together (sorry about the acronyms, but hey, it is NASA!) and you get what they called the PGA - Pressure Garment Assembly - basically the complete spacesuit without the EVA accoutrements added.

Now, when the astronauts were initially measured for their spacesuits, those measurements were used to make the TLSA pressure garment. The inner boots were integrally attached to the TLSA garment, and were custom fit for each astronaut‘s individual foot.

Here is a decent photograph of the TLSA-portion of the Apollo A7-LB pressure suit used during Apollo 15, 16 and 17. This is what the suit looks like when you remove the white ITMG “top layer” of the suit. Notice the integral boots. (sorry, don’t know how to embed)
history.nasa.gov...

Ok, so the astronaut’s feet are fit specifically for the TLSA integral boot. Next, the suit tech’s attach the ITMG outer layer (the white part) to the spacesuit. This outer portion of the suit ALSO features integral boots built into it’s design. Here is a picture of Jack Schmitt’s PGA he wore during the Apollo 17 mission (also the A7-LB model - the suit is at the Smithsonian), and you can see the boot portion is in fact an integral part of the ITMG white outer layer of the suit.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

THEN, when they get to the Moon and are suiting up for the EVA, the astronauts finally pull on their non-integral “lunar overshoes”, which are going overtop both the TLSA and ITMG layers of the spacesuit.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Now, the “lunar overshoe” was designed to be a loose-fitting boot, with the ITMG layer beneath it being “puffy“ enough to expand and fill up any slight space in the toes of the overshoe once it was pulled over the foot and the suit was pressurized. The overshoes were absolutely NOT designed to fit snugly like a running shoe or hiking boot. Due to the Moon’s low gravity, mobility and traction requirements were easily met without having to provide the astronauts with better “foot feel” by tightening the lunar overshoe (indeed, the astronauts had no complaints about the overshoe-boot system at all).

To my knowledge, all the lunar overshoes worn on the Moon during the Apollo program were a standard 13x6 inches in tread size, one-size-fits-all, simple slip-on system made by ILC Dover. IF someone can come up with anything to suggest otherwise, I would be interested in hearing about it.

Cheers gang!

whitewave

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 09:44 AM

link

never mind. already addressed while i was typing my reply. carry on.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by whitewave]

Phage

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 09:46 AM

link

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

Yes it is hard to grasp as they shouldn't be! The astronauts over shoe's were a standard fit. One size fits all.

We need some backup on this. It is more reasonable that there were several sizes.

nablator

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 11:18 AM

link

Originally posted by Phage

You can't move and rotate the two prints like this for comparison. Perspective must be taken into account. Good luck...

Phage

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 11:26 AM

link

reply to post by nablator

The shot seems to be very nearly vertical but yes there would be a bit of perspective involved. Perspective would make the full print appear larger (being closer to the camera) than the partial print so could account for the slight difference in size shown on the overlay.

The prints could very well be the same size after all.

[edit on 12/12/2008 by Phage]

ziggystar60

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 12:10 PM

link

Regaring the size of the Apollo Lunar Overshoe, I have managed to find information about the boots that Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum has in their collection. It seems that overshoes worn both in Apollo 17 and Apollo 15 mission were identical, but there are some differences in size.

This is the left boot worn by Gene Cernan during the Apollo 17 mission:

These are the dimentions for the left boot:

Overall: 7 3/4 in. tall x 7 in. wide x 1 ft. 1 in. long (19.69 x 17.78 x 33.02cm)

Dimentions for Cernan's right boot:

Overall: 7 in. tall x 7 in. wide x 1 ft. 1 1/2 in. long (17.78 x 17.78 x 34.29cm)

If these measurments are excact, there is a slight difference between the left and the right boot. Perhaps the overshoes actually were made to fit each astronaut (and each of his foots!) spesifically?

This is also the left boot worn by astronaut John Young during training sessions prior to his Apollo 15 mission in July 1971. The training boots were identical in construction to the overshoes worn on the lunar surface:

These are the dimentions for both his left and his right boot, and they are different from Cernan's boots:

Overall (Approximately): 12 1/2 in. tall x 6 in. widevx 8 in. deep (31.8 x 15.2 x 20.3cm)

I am having trouble getting the link to work, but you can go to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum's website and search for "Apollo boot":
www.nasm.si.edu...

[edit on 12/12/08 by ziggystar60]

angel of lightangelo

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 08:24 PM

link

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to

WHAT! What type of gibberish is this? Did we leave English. . . You're argument is as flawed as your grammar. I'm through arguing with someone who can't see the obvious when it's suspended right under his nose. You seem incapable of grasping the point of this thread which centres around the differing sizes of the boot prints. Once you accept they are different then the question which immediately springs to mind is why are they different?

So does this mean you are not going to address the fact that you claim they "are not similar at all" or when you said that you never said that? I was really hoping you were man enough to either admit you lied or come up with an explanation. Go ahead and pick on my grammar on and internet forum if that makes you feel smart. It certainly makes you the coolest kind in your WoW clan, I am sure. Athe question and try your best to keep personal insults out of this.

angel of lightangelo

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link

Originally posted by mikesingh
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

Thanks for your very valuable scientific photographic analysis, but it doesn't impress at all!

But oh Master, since you claim to be an authority on the hows and the whys of analyzing footprints, and I'm an idiot (So what's new?
) and don't know the subtle differences between photographic footprints and the real ones, the case can be considered closed!
Thank you!

Cheers!

Feel free to produce your credentials and then analysis of the photo. We can all photoshop an arrow on something, what else have you done to make your point?

Mintwithahole.

posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to

WHAT! What type of gibberish is this? Did we leave English. . . You're argument is as flawed as your grammar. I'm through arguing with someone who can't see the obvious when it's suspended right under his nose. You seem incapable of grasping the point of this thread which centres around the differing sizes of the boot prints. Once you accept they are different then the question which immediately springs to mind is why are they different?

So does this mean you are not going to address the fact that you claim they "are not similar at all" or when you said that you never said that? I was really hoping you were man enough to either admit you lied or come up with an explanation. Go ahead and pick on my grammar on and internet forum if that makes you feel smart. It certainly makes you the coolest kind in your WoW clan, I am sure. Athe question and try your best to keep personal insults out of this.

I claimed they were not similar sized, or at least that's what I meant. I suppose to you it could literally mean anything you choose it to mean! And as for the personal insults and picking you up on your grammar. . . Take another look you moron as it was you who started it. My advice to you - get a life!

angel of lightangelo

posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
I claimed they were not similar sized,

No you did not.

or at least that's what I meant.

Did I tell you I was a mind reader? If so, sorry. I am not. I can read what you write but not see what you think you should have said to better convey what you meant.

I suppose to you it could literally mean anything you choose it to mean!

Not really. I just went with what the words you used mean in the context you put them in. "they are not similar at all." Sorry, was I supposed to add 'sized' myself? You never mentioned your posts were DIY.

And as for the personal insults and picking you up on your grammar. . . Take another look you moron as it was you who started it. My advice to you - get a life!

Hmmmm. Not sure what that means. Look, you said they were not similar and then backpeddled. You made an etire post on how they are not similar at all. Then you contradicted yourself. I am here to learn new things and if I have to wade through posters that contradict themselves, the least they could do is admit it when it is clearly written down.

Sorry I read your words the way you typed them.

They are actually similar in size as well though so...ya know. Or you can prove they are not, whatever. Anyone that cannot admit that they made a mistake that is such an obvious one, can babble all he likes from now on. I am all done listening there.

Mintwithahole.

posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
I claimed they were not similar sized,

No you did not.

or at least that's what I meant.

Did I tell you I was a mind reader? If so, sorry. I am not. I can read what you write but not see what you think you should have said to better convey what you meant.

I suppose to you it could literally mean anything you choose it to mean!

Not really. I just went with what the words you used mean in the context you put them in. "they are not similar at all." Sorry, was I supposed to add 'sized' myself? You never mentioned your posts were DIY.

And as for the personal insults and picking you up on your grammar. . . Take another look you moron as it was you who started it. My advice to you - get a life!

Hmmmm. Not sure what that means. Look, you said they were not similar and then backpeddled. You made an etire post on how they are not similar at all. Then you contradicted yourself. I am here to learn new things and if I have to wade through posters that contradict themselves, the least they could do is admit it when it is clearly written down.

Sorry I read your words the way you typed them.

They are actually similar in size as well though so...ya know. Or you can prove they are not, whatever. Anyone that cannot admit that they made a mistake that is such an obvious one, can babble all he likes from now on. I am all done listening there.

"WHAT?" Look, now you're just talking gibberish. You say something about DIY, I never mentioned DIY! The you say you're not a mind reader when I didn't say you were! Then, to finish (your post was a hard read) you say you're here to learn yet you can't see the obvious when it is placed under your nose. You come across as one of those know-it-all's, who would try and educate their teacher at school or would swear that 2+2 is in effect 5!!!
And then, amazingly, you say you can listen to my written prose! That's some talent you have there kid. Good job you're not a mind reader. . . you wouldn't like what I'm thinking now!!!

angel of lightangelo

posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

I claimed they were not similar sized

or at least that's what I meant

Those boot prints, to me, don't look similar at all

"WHAT?" Look, now you're just talking gibberish. You say something about DIY, I never mentioned DIY! The you say you're not a mind reader when I didn't say you were! Then, to finish (your post was a hard read) you say you're here to learn yet you can't see the obvious when it is placed under your nose.

LOL, ok. Don't admit you mis-spoke. Try insulting me instead. If that helps. I am going back to the topic now. You have fun pretending you did not say things you said and that as a result I am somehow talking gibberish. I think your words speak for themselves very very nicely.

Mintwithahole.

posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

I claimed they were not similar sized

or at least that's what I meant

Those boot prints, to me, don't look similar at all

"WHAT?" Look, now you're just talking gibberish. You say something about DIY, I never mentioned DIY! The you say you're not a mind reader when I didn't say you were! Then, to finish (your post was a hard read) you say you're here to learn yet you can't see the obvious when it is placed under your nose.

LOL, ok. Don't admit you mis-spoke. Try insulting me instead. If that helps. I am going back to the topic now. You have fun pretending you did not say things you said and that as a result I am somehow talking gibberish. I think your words speak for themselves very very nicely.

For the love of all that is holy, will someone make this nasty man go away! He keeps talking Swaheli to me, makes pointless remarks like he apparently Isn't a mindreader (Huh!) and seems obsessed with DIY!! Yes, my words do speak for themselves and if I could understand your language I'm sure yours would too. Now please do me a favour and go bury your head and leave it be.

operation mindcrime

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link

BaronVonGodzilla

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link

Originally posted by NavalFC
you are aware the hoaxed moon landing theory has been debunked several times

Nonsense, utter nonsense. bullocks.