Alien Footprints On The Moon?

Are you serious man? You think that's an alien footprint? Wow!

it's Stanly Kubricks' footprint.

i win.


[edit on 12/6/2008 by JPhish]

Nah man, everyone knows Kubrick was not willing to play along. Either he did not like the idea or knew he would be as worthless as JFK in a convertable to them when he finished. My vote for the next moon landing is Uwe Bowle.

Actually I think your response is the only one on here really worth reading so far as it at least made me laugh in this thread full of the most inane arguments I have ever read.

Perhaps, but he would certainly fit the part . . . He was a recluse of sorts . . . made space odyssey, and he strikes me as a man who sought unforeseen immortality through his work . . . who knows . . .


glad someone shares my sense of humor. Cheers

sorry, i'm derailing this thread . . . it really looks like a normal print to me guys.

reply to post by jra

---

jra, you may like to read the reply to mintwithahole which is self explanatory. However, to save you the agony of looking for it, I'm reproducing it:



That said, Let’s forget about that astronaut near that rock which would be Shmitt. Here’s his lunar boot tread. No central ridge.


Courtesy: NASA

Now check out this footprint with a central ridge. Two prints overlapping? Most llikely. Probably it is. Case closed!



Now for the bone of contention, what this thread is all about:

As I’ve mentioned, notice the clear impression of the heel that ’seems’ smaller than the heel of the boot on the left. (Now did the bashers here notice I have put the words ‘seems’ in inverted comas? Duh! )



'Smaller' footprint enlarged:





If it was a ‘partial’ footprint, then a part would have been smudged out by the dust. It’s not, as it is clearly defined throughout the curve. And the curve does seem to be smaller than the other print that we can see. I've outlined the heels of both boots in red after extrapolating the size with the boot posted by internos and reproduced here in the photograph above.

But of course, I must be blind. Need to change my lenses, what?

Cheers!


history.nasa.gov...

This grey dot?



No, it's not pixelation, and nobody said it was. If you look at the video you will see that the grey dot is not the only thing that moves, everything moves at the same rate when the zoom is used, as usual.

If you follow the spot and the slight hill in the background in the same direction you can see that both things move at the same speed.



Not only that happens when the image is zoomed out, it moves back at the same speed as the hill when the image is zoomed in again.




I don't know, I don't see any signs of tampering in the video on the NASA page, and I am not one of those people that say that all NASA images were changed.

Really? I did not saw that in any post, who said that?

YouTube is not a NASA site, and all people that said the video had some added interference (if you look at the videos on the NASA site you will see that the interference was added to join the two videos together to make it look like one continuous shooting and not a re-use of available videos) were talking about the YouTube video, not the one on the NASA site, at least in my interpretation of what they said.

Nobody said that, re-read the thread or point where is that (or those) post(s) that say it, please.

reply to post by mikesingh

---

Please clear this up for me. What is your contention here? That we are looking at a full, yet much smaller boot print that contains the exact same shape, size, and proportion tread as the larger one next to it? ok....and? Where are we going with this, without ignoring the tread for a change.

Why are you using this horrible image? You'd have answered half your questions regarding these footprints if you used decent images to begin with. Everythings so blurred and the .jpg compression is ridiculous. Seriously, use this one.



And how exactly was this accomplished? Your red ouline on the lower boot print doesn't even line up very well. And about 1/3 of the boot print is out of the frame. Too me it looks like you're making it larger than it actually would be, but it's rather impossible to say either way.

reply to post by jra

---

OK, so here's the hi-res crop:



Did you notice that there is no caving in or other deformation of the heel imprint? If you possess knowledge of engineering drawing which fortunately or unfortunately I have, then you'll notice that the heel is clearly defined. Now connect this with my post above which you have replied to, then you'll see what I'm getting at.

Thanks and cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh

---

Did you notice that there is not another heel imprint in the photo to compare this one with? Your sketch on the other print really doesn't amount to much. It clearly goes "out of bounds".

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Phage]

As I said, extrapolation (Tried Matlab?) Never mind! Even a little knowledge of engineering drawing will do!

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh

---

I took the "full" print and overlayed it on the heel print. The full print is larger. Unreasonably so? I don't think so. Well within the range of normal human feet. Each Apollo EVA suit was custom built for the astronaut that wore it.


[edit on 12/7/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

---

Well put. But unfortunately, it doesn't match at all! Check out the ribs, starting second from left. They don't match at all! So the superimposed footprint is MUCH larger than the smaller one! That's what I've been saying all along!!

Cheers!



[edit on 7-12-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh

---

Shorter boot, same number of ribs. Guess what? They have to be narrower and closer together.

They ain't Adidas.

[edit on 12/7/2008 by Phage]

[edit on 12/7/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

---

The difference in sizes could be up to 3-4. That astronaut must have been a midget, or with feet the size of a small woman's!! Now who's is it? Cernan or Schmitt?

Cheers!

[edit on 7-12-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh

---

Well now you're just guessing. Consider that this is an outer boot. If the inner boot was a size larger it stands to reason that the outer boot would be proportionately larger.

It's a damn Apollo boot print Mike. Get over it.

reply to post by Phage

---

OK, if you say so!!

Nobody is saying it Isn't an Apollo boot! I think Mike, and I, would just like to know which one of the Apollo astronauts had such ridiculously small feet?

reply to post by Mintwithahole.

---

no one had " rediculously small feet " the mechanic by which a boot can leave different footprints in different conditions has been demonstrated - its very easy to understand - hey yu can even reporoduce it yourself - if you go out side

mr singh is attempting to compare partial prints to complete ones - and using photographs taken from different distances as evidence of differences in dimension

in short - utter twaddle

Oh darn! Not again! I thought I have already shown and explained that the smaller HEEL print does NOT look like it is partial as the outline of the ENTIRE heel is CLEARLY defined. If it was partial, then only part of the heel would have been clearly defined.

Secondly, the distance between the bigger print and the smaller one is just a couple of feet if not less. Would this distance cause the difference in boot size? I'm sure you've heard of perspective?

Utter twaddle too. While I subscribe to the valid arguments brought out by phage and others, yours seem illogical to say the least!

Cheers!