Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

page: 28
240
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Have some fun, see how much you would weigh on the moon, and other planets.

What would really look strange, is if the astronauts in those hugh bulky motion restrictive spacesuits would move around like they would on earth, kind of like they did in the movie Space Odyssey, now that would be strange.




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Sigh.....not this again?


......and for example, footage or photos showing the Rover but no tracks in front or behind as if it was dropped on the spot. Or when one of astronauts has his photo taken while jumping near the flag and the photo showing him in the "air" you can see that his "backpack" has a flat top but the view from behind him during the same photo shows the "backpack's" flap is up and not flat.


That specific example of the LRV is over-used, and is a pathetic single example that people with way, way too much time on their hands found after what must have been hundreds of hours of searching...JUST so they could point to ONE out-of-context photo and cry "Ah Ha!!"

Tracks in the Lunar regolith will be difficult to see in some photos depending on the ANGLE of the view, in the photograph, as well as the SLOPE of the ground. This is not difficult to understand.


The photo of the "jump Salute" merely indicates that physics were in effect....the "flap" on top of the PLSS was the radio antenna storage flap.....if it was unsecured, then it would move as the Astronaut jumped....just as a matter of the physics of inertia and momentum will dictate.

PLSS image diagram



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Sigh.....not this again?


......and for example, footage or photos showing the Rover but no tracks in front or behind as if it was dropped on the spot. Or when one of astronauts has his photo taken while jumping near the flag and the photo showing him in the "air" you can see that his "backpack" has a flat top but the view from behind him during the same photo shows the "backpack's" flap is up and not flat.


That specific example of the LRV is over-used, and is a pathetic single example that people with way, way too much time on their hands found after what must have been hundreds of hours of searching...JUST so they could point to ONE out-of-context photo and cry "Ah Ha!!"

Tracks in the Lunar regolith will be difficult to see in some photos depending on the ANGLE of the view, in the photograph, as well as the SLOPE of the ground. This is not difficult to understand.

The photo of the "jump Salute" merely indicates that physics were in effect....the "flap" on top of the PLSS was the radio antenna storage flap.....if it was unsecured, then it would move as the Astronaut jumped....just as a matter of the physics of inertia and momentum will dictate.

PLSS image diagram


Regarding the Lunar Rover here are four photos. The top image is the overall view and below it a closeup of the space between the wheels showing no tire tracks but showing footprints. As to the "jump salute", the photos showing both astronauts, one jumping while the other takes his photo, both images should show the same thing. The photo or footage contained in the DVD shows the view from the photographer's POV and the same thing from behind the jumping astronaut. You should NOT be able to see the flap up in either photo if both photos represent the same view. You'll need better arguments to support your comments. We really need someone such as James Oberg to shed some light on this controversy since if he cannot answer himself he can get a NASA expert's explanation.

To see an analysis of the jump salute go here: www.clavius.org...

en.wikipedia.org...:Apollo15LunarRover.jpg

Closeup:


w/astronaut
classicsichuan.com...

Closeup:

edit on 7-2-2012 by The Shrike because: Correct erroneous spelling.
edit on 7-2-2012 by The Shrike because: To add source.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Your link to "Clavious.org" is a good one.

Now.....the four images of the :LRV?

Again, as I described....look VERY closely.

Compare to any image of photos from, say.....the "Dukes of Hazard". as just one example.

And note the "angle of the dangle" .....(Yeah, was being funny.....just note the angle of the photography).....



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


JUST WATCH THIS DOCUMENTARY!!!!!!

[











TRY to learn the facts.....



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Your link to "Clavious.org" is a good one.

Now.....the four images of the :LRV?

Again, as I described....look VERY closely.

Compare to any image of photos from, say.....the "Dukes of Hazard". as just one example.

And note the "angle of the dangle" .....(Yeah, was being funny.....just note the angle of the photography).....


You missed an important clue in the top or first photo best seen in the closeup. There are little mounds of dirt behind the wheels. See the shadows curve over them? The wheels should have flattened them! There are no visible tire tracks in either overall photo. There are many similar photos that also do not show tire tracks. Yes, there are photos showing tire tracks so one has a point of reference on what the scene should look like. It is an impossibility for a driven vehicle to not show tracks. Perhaps you'll find the original photos on Google Images and post higher definition closeups but I don't think that we'll see the tracks.

The angle of the photos is almost straight on, not angled and everything is clearly visible. If there were tracks they would have shown in either photo. Read the above and look at the photo again.
edit on 7-2-2012 by The Shrike because: Add comments.
edit on 7-2-2012 by The Shrike because: Add comments.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


It was easier in the low lunar gravity for the astronauts to just pick up the rover and turn it to their next destination instead of driving it around in a big circle.

Next...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by The Shrike
 


It was easier in the low lunar gravity for the astronauts to just pick up the rover and turn it to their next destination instead of driving it around in a big circle.

Next...


It would be preferable if you were to supply a source and possibly photos.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


If you would analyze the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals as much as you do the imagery which you obviously find foreign to your sensory perception, then maybe you could piece together the operations on the surface as they happened, and then have more local color to what was photographed. I hear they don't shoot when they are lifting things, common sense.

Google any Apollo Surface Journal. Vast amounts of information. 1,100 pounds on the moon is only 183 pounds and they aren't bench pressing that, just picking up one axel, which would be much less than that.

This isn't underwater viscosity, its real gravity, 1,100 pounds is less than 183 pounds on the moon.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
The LRV was not a very large vehicle. It was designed to be lightweight and strong. It would relatively easy for them to move the thing whenever it was needed.

These are y images of the Boeing test article, the very unit that all subsequent LRV's were based upon.







The rover had to be unloaded from the LM with out damaging either of them:

www.hq.nasa.gov...
The NASA step-by-step:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Fascinating 1972 Operators Manuel:
www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
After understanding the technology...I ask the question:

Why fake a couple of photos? Why bother with even including such amateur work (if thats the case)?

It's stupid.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
After understanding the technology...I ask the question:

Why fake a couple of photos? Why bother with even including such amateur work (if thats the case)?

It's stupid.


Another point of view (yes, a pun!): apolloanomalies.com... Includes "Trackless".



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


So, I took one of the "anomalous" photos and did a little bit of image enhancement. Nothing too fancy, some gamma correction, contrast etc.

AS15-88-11902:



Now that looks like disturbed lunar soil-almost like tire tracks! I could go through all of these examples and find a logical reason for any of these supposed issues. It's not hard.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


You have had a close look at the LRV wheels.



Not quite the same as your car are they so do you think that in the fine dust of the surface they would always leave a clear tread mark


Can dust pass through the tread of your tyre and then drop back out at a different point due to rotation?
edit on 8-2-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
reply to post by The Shrike
 


So, I took one of the "anomalous" photos and did a little bit of image enhancement. Nothing too fancy, some gamma correction, contrast etc.

AS15-88-11902:



Now that looks like disturbed lunar soil-almost like tire tracks! I could go through all of these examples and find a logical reason for any of these supposed issues. It's not hard.


I could show you a ton of photos showing tire tracks in the distance without any manipulation. And post Apollo photos from orbit show tire tracks. But I'm not questioning those photos, I'm questioning photos as I showed you that show no tire tracks and you came back with the flimsy reason that the astronauts picked up the vehicle or rotated it when they have the whole surface of the moon to make a U-turn or to simply put it in reverse.

Mystery still not explained.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


AS17-143-21857:



AS17-143-21858:



I see plenty of evidence of tire tracks in both the first image (which the anomaly site uses as a "trackless" proof). The second image is the next one in the sequence...again, tracks are totally visible.

I am beginning to think these 'anomalists' are lazy.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
My question would be, why should the lunar rover always make highly visible tracks? Is every square inch of the lunar surface exactly the same? Has anyone examined if every single footprint of the astronauts are visible?

But lets break this down a little more scientifically. Lunar rover is 457 pounds, both astronauts complete with their life support was about 800 pounds, it carried about 100 pounds of communication equipment, 120 more pounds of scientific and photography equipment, and at most hauled another 60 pounds of lunar rock samples, so even fully loaded, (which we clearly see it always is not), we have a grand total 1,537 pounds. Divided by 4 rover tires thats 384 1/4 pounds on each tire, less than that of one astronaut foot walking, as one would assume a foot would hit the ground one at a time while walking and not only applying more weight per footprint that each tire, we have to add the downforce momentum of the act of walking, while the tires are always in contact in a slower roll, so additional downforce would be minimized making the astronauts footprint applying more pounds per square inch of downforce than the rover tires rolling.

Not good enough yet? What is the actual boot print area compared to the tire footprint? Well I don't study such things but the tires are 9 inches wide and I doubt the boots are anywhere near that. It goes to the old high school thought exercise, that a 120 pound woman wearing high heels is applying more downforce per square inch to the pavement each step than an 80,000 pound 18 wheel tractor trailer. No I'm not going to present the calculations for that. It's why we use hammers to drive nails and not flexible mesh doughnuts.

Observing the very design of the wheels we also see a mesh, and I assume at certain slower speeds in travel the fine regolith would also be sent in a ballistic trajectory through the mesh right back over the path laid down, I'm sure adding to some of the track diffusion. But I can't look at every singe image an analyze what went on that's ludicrous! I wasn't there to peer at the ground measuring lunar tire tracks. Some photos I have taken I can't explain some unusual looking things upon close examination but I know I took them and survived the anomaly, as me typing is evidence.

I just find it silly that someone looks so closely at every singe photograph from the Apollo missions from his armchair and is going to tell me that something is wrong or missing and that person likely never did any off road quad running. If they did, did they backtrack to see if every tire tracks were always apparent? Its just silly for people to analyze such things in my opinion, especially from photographs, especially on a light diffused lunar surface.

So for instance when the astronauts before they loaded the 60 pounds of lunar samples on to the rover, taken their combined 800 pounds of themselves off, the additional 120 pounds of scientific and photography equipment off, and slowly rolled the now about 547 pound rover, distributed to 4 wheels, at lunar gravity, with negligible downforce of the rolling wheels, in an undefined tire footprint we know at least is 9 inches wide, we have about 27 real pounds of weight supported per tire footprint that I'm sure at 9 inches wide even if only 3 inches long is 27 square inches so we have a realistic ONE POUND PER SQARE INCH to leave an impression.


To me that's not very impressive. I'm not that impressionable to concern myself over such trivia. Tire track photographic analysis is to me a very flimsy 'smoking gun' to blow any regolith on the Apollo moon hoax theories. In fact I find it childish.

Encyclopedia Astronautica Lunar Rover specs.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I bow to your logic good sir.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Here is a tire footprint inflated to 35 pounds of pressure.



This is a hydroplane test photo from Michelin of course from a car with considerable more weight but on an inflated stiff rubberized tire so with everything in mind I don't think the length I used in my illustration of 3 inches for a LRV tire footprint is very far off for the purpose of the illustration given.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 


This is a very promising premise and I'm wondering if there are any members who have friends at NASA to ask their opinion about what could be found in other NASA footage.




new topics
top topics
 
240
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join