Alien Footprints On The Moon?

I gave you a question and you answered it with another of your not so witty snide remarks. Nowhere did I say, all kinds of differences. Maybe you were hallucinating? I don't know. I'll say it again- there's a clear size difference and that, my silly little friend, is absolutely impossible. For there to be a size difference there has to be someone else wearing a different boot design. The part of the boot that left the print is an overshoe that is exactly the same size for all the astronauts. The only thing you have got right up to now is the fact that you do indeed seem to be confused!

If you can't see that there's a size difference between those two prints then you should have gone to spec savers! To me they are clearly different. I can't believe you can't see it.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

---

Yeah, that is nice, except we have proof that we went to the moon, and you have zero proof that we didn't. None, nada, zilch.

Go to the bad astronomy forums, they'd have a field day with you.

Do you have a source for that information?

It doesn't make much sense to me. I don't know the shoe sizes of the Apollo astronauts but assuming even a 2 shoe size difference, the lunar boot would be really big for a size 9 or small for a size 11. Most earthly overshoes have a 1-1/2 size range. They only had to make 14 pairs or so. I would think that comfort and sure footedness would be more important that standardization.

[edit on 12/11/2008 by Phage]

Sigh. I am sorry, did we leave English and nobody told me? How am I supposed to interpret this exactly?



NOT SIMILAR AT ALLL = VERY DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER

Doesn't it? Is that not what that means? Did you not say it?

Well I will not argue with you about this. I can see where clearly it failed to make a print so the boot is larger at the top than what you see there. But that is what I can see. I cannot argue over what you see and what I see.

However, I am still waiting for somene to explain to me just what the hell you are getting at??????? How many times do I have to ask this.

Ok, I will bite. The print is "not similar at all" and much smaller. Ok now what? What are you saying that means? What is that proof of? What does it imply? If you are right and it is a much smaller print, then where do we go from there? What do you suppose that means?

Such as....?

angel of lightangelo!! Good God Almighty! Did you ever take the trouble of reading the opening post? You are harping on the same tune that's kinda getting to be like a gramophone needle stuck in a groove!

The point in question is whether what looks to be a much smaller footprint is that of the astronauts Schmitt or Cernan or an aliens, which is a trifle far fetched, or an astronaut with a small boot who is already on the Moon as part of a top secret US Moon program, as it does not seem to belong to any of the astronauts as mentioned above. I've even given a link to that thread about a secret US space program too.

Let me know if you need any further clarification.

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh

---

No Mike, more likely a partial foot print of one of the US astronauts.
This was shown much earlier in the thread.

That's the problem Mint!! Some guys just don't want to see the obvious!! Sigh!

Cheers!

[edit on 12-12-2008 by mikesingh]

Hi NFC! I've explained earlier as to how it CANNOT be a partial footprint! Check out my posts regarding this. And by the way, after years of operating in the desert and dusty terrains on the trail of insurgents, I observe that it most likely isn't a partial footprint. The ENTIRE heel is CLEARLY defined. A partial footprint would result in a partial imprint.

Needless to say, I could be wrong as analyzing it in the photograph is different to doing it on ground!

Cheers!

Nope, this was all I was asking for. See, I read the OP but when I added logic and sense, I did not get it anymore. Let me see if I can explai why....

theory 1 - aliens
-ok so aliens have the exact same boot tread and shaped designer? Anyone here believe that?

theory 2 - secret nasa program consisting of an astronaut with smaller feet than the ones we know of.
-ok, and then they took a really good picture of the incriminating evidence and then published it?????

See why I am having an issue with this? It falls apart when you see it through. That is what I have been asking. Expand on these crazy theories and tell me where they go. Explain why aliens would copy our boots. Explain why Nasa would go to great pains to pretend that the program we see is real when they are really much much farther advanced and yet they cannot figure out not to take pictures of the proof and publish them?

Can you please flesh out your theories a little more. I hear what you are saying, I just dont get where they go after even a little thought.

I hope that clears that up.

P.S. it is the same size print.

You mean like the fact that that boot print is obviously from the same sized boot that failed to make a complete print? I know, we are this many pages deep and you two still cannot see that even when it has been shown over and over again.

Cannot!!!!!!! that seems pretty definitive.



Hmmmmm. Not as definitive. Rethinking things? Yes the entire heel is there and it matches exactly to the heel of the other boot.

I am really more concerned with one paragraph that says "cannot" and then says this.



"Cannot, but I could be wrong." OK, you don't really seem so sure yourself how you even feel about this. You are wrong and you just explained why. Image analysis is VERY VERY VERY different from real world analysis of a real 3 dimensional environment. You claim to be expert and spotting tracks in sand or whatever. Great but these are pictures of bootprints on "the moon." How about you correct people in the desert and listen to the people that know something about images here?

[edit on 12-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

[edit on 12-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

I’ve just looked into this thread and from what I can see there a two different footprints of different sizes but of the same design…..

So, what does that tell us? There are simply two astronauts walking about the moon, one has a smaller shoe size then the other. Is that so hard to grasp????????

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

---

"Sigh. I am sorry, did we leave English and nobody told me? How am I supposed to interpret this exactly? "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

reply to post by andre18

---

"So, what does that tell us? There are simply two astronauts walking about the moon, one has a smaller shoe size then the other. Is that so hard to grasp???????? "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it is hard to grasp as they shouldn't be! The astronauts over shoe's were a standard fit. One size fits all. For there to be two different size boot prints on the moon (if they are different and to me they clearly are) is a clear indicator that someone else was there, or, that they were testing new equipment. You can argue either point but to simply say the prints are the same size when they clearly aren't is to just take a ride to cloud cuckoo land.

Grasp? That's the point! Yes, simply two astronauts walking on the Moon! And it's got nothing to do with the design. But the story doesn't end there because the boot on the left seems to be a size 14 and the one beside it comparatively a size 9 or less! Like a woman astronaut's footprint! So either Cernan or Schmitt has feet the size of a woman's! Strange, what? Or is that the boot of a third astronaut?

Cheers!

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!