Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

reply to post by theability

Well as for the LRV tracks sometimes the simplest answer tends to be the right one, no conspiracy there! They walked all over them. easy to figure out. As I tried to explain to you, we have been over this, already in the thread.

so your think all of the missing rover tracks are from the Astronauts "walking all over them" ? did you even bother to look at other images LunaCognita posted before arriving at that conclusion ? just wondering

reply to post by easynow

so your think all of the missing rover tracks are from the Astronauts "walking all over them" ? did you even bother to look at other images LunaCognita posted before arriving at that conclusion ? just wondering

Did it ever cross you mind that I knew about all the images that he posted before he brought them up in this thread?

He's not the only one with access to the Lunar and Planetary Website you know!



Why is it they everyone thinks they know everything? And no one else cannot possibly know a thing? :shk:

Again we have been through the ROVER TRACKS hence looking up rover tracks on the NASA website pages!

Ohh especially hi-res imagery.

reply to post by theability

He's not the only one with access to the Lunar and Planetary Website you know!

nobody said he was the only one silly



and there's a possible indication of a track from the right rear tire in this image but that's questionable and no visible tracks anywhere else. i think Astronauts walked all over the tracks and kicked up dust isn't the explanation for this image. you may disagree LOL


files.abovetopsecret.com...
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

reply to post by easynow

Look closely at the pan image immediately to the left of that one. At the left side of the frame you can see the tracks and you can see where the have become obliterated by the astronauts walking on them and kicking dust around. It's important to remember that the rover did drive backwards. (I think you mean the left front wheel)
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Another example of driving in reverse.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

It's always a good idea to look at other images in a series. Often the tracks become visible and the area where they become erased or fade away also becomes visible when more of the terrain is in view. Here are some more examples of "expanding" the point of view of some of the images presented as evidence of no tracks.

www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Looking at the high resolution images helps too. (Remember...reverse)
www.hq.nasa.gov...


www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 7/14/2010 by Phage]

[edit on 7/14/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by easynow

i think Astronauts walked all over the tracks and kicked up dust isn't the explanation for this image. You may disagree LOL

I do disagree I believe that is apparent. Again the most likely explanation was the busy bodied astronauts moving about, covered they LRV tracks.


Remember they had to get embark, disembark. Stow gear, remove gear from all sides of the LRV.

If you look at any of the images with the astronauts about the LRV they were right next to the thing.

I guess you can blame those bulky EVA suits for having no track etiquette.

reply to post by Phage

(I think you mean the left front wheel)

no, i said the right rear wheel


this one is interesting
apolloanomalies.com...

As we have seen, there are serious problems with the official explanation as to why no tracks lead to the rover's wheels at Station 5. This explanation, which is communicated to us via the Station 5 voice transcript, clearly contradicts the Station 5 photos. Whatever motivated the astronauts to actually pick up and transport the rover simply isn't visible in any of these photos. What's worse, the station 5 photos don't even agree with each other. Photo AS16-110-18006 shows that the rover was originally parked at such a location that the tracks left by its front wheels would have been clearly visible in photo AS16-110-18020 and yet, to our surprise, this latter photo not only fails to show these tracks but it also fails to disclose any other evidence that the rover had once been parked at that location--including footprints left by the astronauts as they hauled off with the rover! How can this be if the astronauts actually lifted the rover and swung it around to its pictured location? One explanation that doesn't require a complete breakdown in logic not to mention the laws of human nature, is that some or all of the evidence that NASA has provided regarding Station 5 was manufactured!

apolloanomalies.com...

more here...
apolloanomalies.com...

reply to post by theability

Why is it they everyone thinks they know everything? And no one else cannot possibly know a thing?

omg the irony in that statement is painful ! LOL

I guess you can blame those bulky EVA suits for having no track etiquette.

huh ?

[edit on 14-7-2010 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
i think Astronauts walked all over the tracks and kicked up dust isn't the explanation for this image. you may disagree

LOL

I keep wondering, what do you think is the most likely explanation?

Originally posted by easynow
i will have a look at the images you listed, this one from A15 is interesting

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Isn't that a rover track, from the right edge up to the farthest wheel to the right of the photo (to try to avoid confusion created by the direction of travel of the rover)?

reply to post by -PLB-

I keep wondering, what do you think is the most likely explanation?

is that a trick question ? yes i think so LOL

i don't like occams razor conclusions so therefore i can't answer your question. peace


reply to post by ArMaP


yes that's it , i'm glad you can see that too !

i spiked the image in my paint program and it was a little more noticeable but i was still skeptical about it because i couldn't say for sure what it was.

Originally posted by easynow

I keep wondering, what do you think is the most likely explanation?

is that a trick question ? yes i think so LOL

i don't like occams razor conclusions so therefore i can't answer your question. peace

Not at all, it just amazes me that all kind of so called discrepancies are put forward, without even pointing it what implications they have. Anything that looks slightly weird on one of the pictures is posted, without any theory behind it. Just "I don't get it", thats it. And when its explained, the answer is "No I don't accept that explanation". What is the point really? Why don't you post pictures of gardens and say "Look, the flowers in the middle grow strange, I don't understand it"?

[edit on 14-7-2010 by -PLB-]

Originally posted by -PLB-
Anything that looks slightly weird on one of the pictures is posted, without any theory behind it. Just "I don't get it", thats it.

It is good to see what other people think of anomalies without them being front-loaded with one's own theory.

And it (minimizing bias and front-loading) is a sound methodology for one who is after the truth.




[edit on 14-7-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by easynow

omg the irony in that statement is painful ! LOL

what is so ironic about a the question?

I guess you can blame those bulky EVA suits for having no track etiquette.
huh ?

Hmm maybe if I use the word respect in substitution for etiquette you might get what I mean.

Here:

"I guess you can blame those bulky EVA suits for having no (LRV) track respect."

We are talking about tracks right? And people seem to believe they don't exist and are missing. I simply state, this is case of no respect for the tracks on the lunar surface.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by -PLB-
Anything that looks slightly weird on one of the pictures is posted, without any theory behind it. Just "I don't get it", thats it.

It is good to see what other people think of anomalies without them being front-loaded with one's own theory.

And it (minimizing bias and front-loading) is a sound methodology for one who is after the truth.




[edit on 14-7-2010 by Exuberant1]

Amazing. I almost agree with you for once. Personally, whenever I see a photo online, I begin by saying to myself: "In my perceptual field is a glowing network of pixels that are creating the illusion of a coherent image defined by lines and shapes. This illusory "image" is flat, but by extrapolating stored sense data in a generalized form, and applying them to the current perceptual field, I can begin to perceive this field as having parallels to an actual, three dimensional percept...." It can take me a very long time to figure out what I'm looking at, but I've never been fooled by a cheesy UFO hoax.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
It is good to see what other people think of anomalies without them being front-loaded with one's own theory.

And it (minimizing bias and front-loading) is a sound methodology for one who is after the truth.

So these pictures are posted without any motivation? Why do you want to discuss these pictures if you don't have your own theory and reject any explanation without giving an argumentation?

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Exuberant1
It is good to see what other people think of anomalies without them being front-loaded with one's own theory.

And it (minimizing bias and front-loading) is a sound methodology for one who is after the truth.

So these pictures are posted without any motivation? Why do you want to discuss these pictures if you don't have your own theory and reject any explanation without giving an argumentation?

some people reject the "official" story (or parts of it) because the whole and complete story of the Apollo (military) missions has been kept from the public so there's nothing wrong with posting images for re-examination and discussion without preloaded theory's and if it upsets you, then in my opinion you have issues.

the general public has not been told everything about the Apollo missions (despite the fact we paid for it) and some possible evidence to substantiate that claim is Apollo 12's covert EVA.

NASA's "Off The Record" Operations Unveiled: Apollo 12's Undeclared EVA
easynowsmoonblog.blogspot.com...




i noticed while you were crying about people posting images you completely ignored the info i posted earlier . the website i linked to "apolloanomalies" has posted missing rover track images and offered theory's and reasons why they think the images are suspicious but you chose to ignore that and attack me instead. i wonder why ? hmmm...




apolloanomalies.com...

As we have seen, there are serious problems with the official explanation as to why no tracks lead to the rover's wheels at Station 5. This explanation, which is communicated to us via the Station 5 voice transcript, clearly contradicts the Station 5 photos. Whatever motivated the astronauts to actually pick up and transport the rover simply isn't visible in any of these photos. What's worse, the station 5 photos don't even agree with each other. Photo AS16-110-18006 shows that the rover was originally parked at such a location that the tracks left by its front wheels would have been clearly visible in photo AS16-110-18020 and yet, to our surprise, this latter photo not only fails to show these tracks but it also fails to disclose any other evidence that the rover had once been parked at that location--including footprints left by the astronauts as they hauled off with the rover! How can this be if the astronauts actually lifted the rover and swung it around to its pictured location? One explanation that doesn't require a complete breakdown in logic not to mention the laws of human nature, is that some or all of the evidence that NASA has provided regarding Station 5 was manufactured!

apolloanomalies.com...

more here...
apolloanomalies.com...

[edit on 15-7-2010 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow


By all means, continue what you are doing, it doesn't upset me nor make me cry. In fact it is often amusing. But at the same time I am tying to figure out whats going on in those minds, as this is an interesting phenomena.

Anyway, I don't see any explanation in the piece you quoted (only "its manufactured"), and I am not really interested in whatever site you link. Just write it in your own words, explain why it is a better explanation, and put a link to the site as source.

reply to post by -PLB-

I am not really interested in whatever site you link

if you want to ignore information i link to that's your prerogative but if you are not willing to discuss the information from that website then i will leave you with a quote from "HAL 9000" from the movie 2001 and bid you farewell.

"this conversation can serve no purpose anymore"

reply to post by easynow




WOW you really like to twist words to your agenda dont you, so SAD!

a) How was it covert when its mentioned in documentation
b) What does a standup eva actually mean easynow I know you will have a way out theory about that so lets hear it.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by easynow


I am sorry that you misunderstood me. What I want is you to write your thoughts in your own words, else discussion is very fruitless and totally uninteresting.