Alien Footprints On The Moon?

reply to post by mikesingh


Is there a reason that you faied to address my post? I am seriously asking you a question. What are you saying is going on here? What are you actually contending?

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


I ain't contending anything. As I mentioned clearly in my opening post, I asked what you guys think. The bone of contention here is the (apparent) big difference in boot sizes which has been discussed at length in this thread.

Some have said it looks smaller because it is a partial footprint. Some say it is much farther and therefore looks smaller. There could be other reasons too.

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh


But we are now 8 pages deep and you have put up a fight here and there to defend something. What? So one astronaut has a bigger boot than the other one, so what? I got the OP but now, now I am lost. I do not understand what it is that you are fighting for. Had you been satisfied with something by say...page 5, I could buy curiosity.
You have not liked anyone's explanation yet and are still here arguing it so what is it that you think this picture is revealing to us?

With that small of a foot print perhaps Tom Cruise paid for a ride to the moon,wonder if you can tell if they are elevator moon boots?

All you need now is the Nike Tick in the middle of it.

Beautiful, Just Beautiful

Wow! What a great....nevermind.

The arguments have been fascinating.

The shoe size DOES look smaller as the shoe does not seem to make such a deep impression into the moon dirt as the larger one.

Softer dirt appears to leave a larger impression.

The harder dirt leaves a smaller one.

Just what I notice from the high-res pics.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo



Read before you attack. I was addressing the person that said we didn't land on the moon.

reply to post by rocksarerocks


I am sorry that you felt that was an attack. Your skin may be too thin for internet forums then. Aside from that, I also said we never landed on the moon so read before you attack!

It looks just like another astronauts foot print to me.

Dont you think if this was an Alien footprint, or even the footprint of someone working on "set," they simply wouldnt release the photo?

Come on guys, if this was a real cover up they would have huge teams sitting there making sure the photos are believable, and that is a pretty big goof up, and pretty obvious too, if it were a real goof up.

If it was a cover up, they'd have covered it up, not released the photos.

Maybe I am just asking my question all wrong. What does this "discovery" prove or tell or show or hint at?

Aside from "Look, proof astronauts have feet!" I feel like I am missing something.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


You can say it all you want, but I'll believe videos, images, scientists, and equipment on the moon before I'll believe you. Thanks and have a great day trying to figure out the moon landings.

Originally posted by rocksarerocks
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

You can say it all you want, but I'll believe videos, images, scientists, and equipment on the moon before I'll believe you. Thanks and have a great day trying to figure out the moon landings.

Well there is nothing to figure out. What does that even mean?

videos, images - you do realize how easily manipulated both are and have been as long as they have exsisted don't you?

Equipment - we have equipment on Mars as well, does that mean we have been there?

Scientists - really which ones specifically? You don't think I can dig up a scientits who claims there are lizard people in the middle of the earth or kingdoms on Mars?

You go on and believe what you like. That is what is so nice about being different people.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Maybe I am just asking my question all wrong. What does this "discovery" prove or tell or show or hint at?

Aside from "Look, proof astronauts have feet!" I feel like I am missing something.

Are you serious or are you purposefully trying to be as obnoxious as humanly possible?
If that boot print is of a different design and size when compared to the Apollo astronauts boots then the implication is only too clear. Someone else with a different design of spacesuit was also on the moon while the Apollo astronauts where there!
You say you feel you are missing something? I would agree with you. You are missing something - imagination. . .

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

If that boot print is of a different design and ...

Stop right there. Did you even look at this boot print? It is the exact same design. This is why I am having a problem understanding what this amazing discovery is. Are you claiming someone else designed their boots to be exact copies of our astronauts boots?

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

If that boot print is of a different design and ...

Stop right there. Did you even look at this boot print? It is the exact same design. This is why I am having a problem understanding what this amazing discovery is. Are you claiming someone else designed their boots to be exact copies of our astronauts boots?

I'm not stating that at all, and what's more, you know I'm not stating that. You're just trying, and I do mean trying, to be purposefully argumentitive and sarcastic. Those boot prints, to me, don't look similar at all, and there definitely is a size issue. So, if that's the case the implication seems clear to anyone with a modicum of sense... if Apollo astronauts left one type of boot print who is responsible for the other? This is the underlying question throughout this thread. It couldn't be clearer if it was tattooed on your forehead! I think you have every right to argue your point that you feel the boot prints are normally produced but don't keep going on about how you don't know what the poster is implying. Only a moron would do that and I would like to think there's none of those on ATS?

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


I am not just trying to argue with you. Could you please explain what is different about them? Aside from the size.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
reply to post by Mintwithahole.

 

I am not just trying to argue with you. Could you please explain what is different about them? Aside from the size.

Well lets just go with the size issue. Although the astronauts had different size feet, that's a given (I hope!) , the dimensions of the boots were exactly the same. The boots are huge! It's the inner lining which is customised to fit each individual astronaut. The inner sizes may have varied but the outer dimensions were the same. So lets Aldrin has size eight feet and Armstrong has size ten feet, from outside their boots would be exactly the same size. So, the sixty thousand dollar question is where did the small boot come from? Who was wearing it? Where did they come from?

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


So now you are retracting your statement that they are completely different designs? I am confused, I thought there were all kinds of differences besides the size that was supposed to convince me. Gonna even give that a try?

Thanks to nablator for this pic. Now can ya please show me completely different designs.

Do me a favor, measur that last four horizontal strips in each one. Pretty strange how when you factor in perspective, you can clearly see the bottoms half is the same size. Now imagine if that was nice flat dust, that print would extend out much farther, but it is not flat dust. Please, please please PLEASE tell me what I am missing here.

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

What do you see that is different?

Call me a moron all you like but my question is quite simple if you can stop pretending you found proof of something crazy you cannot even attempt to exlain.

They are the exact same design. What is the implication the OP is making? That aliens share our designers? That there was another astronaut no one told you about? What is it that you are getting at?