My last "They didn't go moon trip".
09-10-2007, 05:07 PM
#241
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
It seems silly and coincidental but they totally could have been. A small fluctuation in the grav field can totally be ignored on earth though the fluctuations are there. Go to the mystery spot in Santa Cruz because thats as close to wierd gravity as you'll see on Earth. On the moon its pretty much magnified and can be unpredictable. Some parts can have stronger positive gravity and some parts have weaker positive grav. They measured this later according to instruments left on the moon. Anything is a possibility in a place such as that when you are on it for the first time. You have to understand that it can be a whole variety of conditions, variables and conditions leading to multiple outcomes and really not too much can be explained away with simplicity.
Last edited by samurai; 09-10-2007 at 05:12 PM.
09-10-2007, 05:27 PM
#243
09-10-2007, 10:37 PM
#245
It seems silly and coincidental but they totally could have been. A small fluctuation in the grav field can totally be ignored on earth though the fluctuations are there. Go to the mystery spot in Santa Cruz because thats as close to wierd gravity as you'll see on Earth. On the moon its pretty much magnified and can be unpredictable. Some parts can have stronger positive gravity and some parts have weaker positive grav. They measured this later according to instruments left on the moon. Anything is a possibility in a place such as that when you are on it for the first time. You have to understand that it can be a whole variety of conditions, variables and conditions leading to multiple outcomes and really not too much can be explained away with simplicity.
yeah either there is no gravity right were the front tracks but two feet in either direction its AOK and normal by the tracks and foot prints
or
we didnt go
09-10-2007, 11:26 PM
#248
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
You start the convo saying not to believe in it saying its pretty much a flat-out laughable hoax, produce pictures from NASA saying the tracks are inconsistent, then you say it is a POS, and I oblige. Then you say you aren't smart and trying to learn so I oblige and go off topic and banter again.. I did say that I'm treating the pictures as different from the start of my analysis so I'm approaching every pic as a fresh approach. Thats why i'm giving different responses. Do you have a timestamp on those pics? The only thing you are doing is looking at my responses and just pointing out differences which is obvious because i'm treating the pics as different.
As for density of dirt or dirtpack, how do you know just by looking? Also Grav fields are not constant especially on the moon. It makes sense too since the moon is almost like an extra-large asteroid in orbit with the earth. Less mass = less gravity & crazy grav field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_field_of_the_Moon
http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/forefront/20...ta/index.shtml
We assume that it is constant usually for ease of calculations.
As for density of dirt or dirtpack, how do you know just by looking? Also Grav fields are not constant especially on the moon. It makes sense too since the moon is almost like an extra-large asteroid in orbit with the earth. Less mass = less gravity & crazy grav field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_field_of_the_Moon
http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/forefront/20...ta/index.shtml
We assume that it is constant usually for ease of calculations.
I will correct you on your statements.
If we were to put is in conic logical order. I started off saying that the LM looked like a POS and questioned its functionality. Then I took the evidence that NASA presented to the world as proof of their landing on the moon and started to evaluate it. (The cliché goes a picture show a 1000 words.)
I found one instance where the dust should have been disrupted during the landing of the LM (area in front of the start landing pad). Then I found another questionable anomaly in the missing tire tracks, which you still cannot give a logical response to.
Your off topic bantering is a method to divert from the point at hand (Missing tire tracks)
The reason you want to look at the pictures on an individual basis is that it will support your defense. The truth is that NASA has stated that those photos are a panoramic shot of the LR at station number 7 the photo title is as follows:
AS15-90-12216 scan STA 7 / pan / edge of Spur Crater / LRV
AS15-90-12217 scan STA 7 / pan / LRV / Spur Crater
AS15-90-12218 scan STA 7 / pan / LRV / Spur Crater / Irwin
AS15-90-12219 scan STA 7 / pan / S / Irwin
So stop trying to look at these photos as individual photos and realize that NASA states this is a panoramic shot. This means that it is ONE SCENE taken in a series of 4 shots.
This means that the tire track should be there. The exit foot prints indicates that the dirt is imprint able which puts to questions missing tire tracks.
Here is your response to me. “As for density of dirt or dirtpack, how do you know just by looking?”
Look at how evasive you are to the points I bring up. Your pryor response shows that you can see the difference in the density in the dirt.
I quote you from a previous rebuttal “That'll probably explain the lack of tracks in some areas because metal tires won't make obvious tracks in shallow dirt. the image shows the tracks in the lighter area and no tracks in the dense area of dirt.”
This means that you can make a visual observation to refute my points but when I do the same you ask me “how do you know just by looking?”.
Your defense gets weaker and weaker as time goes by. You have no explanation for the missing tire tracks. I give the most reasonable response in that the tracks were covered up. Which creates the next question, by whom? This drives the point back to the missions being staged.
Your point to the deviation of gravity: If you look at the imaging it is based on miles of deviation be are talking feet.
I go back to the simple point of, where are the tracks? They show up everywhere but behind the tires of a parked LR.
It is funny I’m basing my argument on what I see and you are basing yours on what they said.
Somebody needs
09-11-2007, 12:24 AM
#249
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
Hey Ichinobo, those people, the 3 + astronauts, that you can watch walk into the rocket (my dad has with his own eyes), where do they go? Does their rocket just go into space, then secretly land in the middle of Nevada where no one can see them. They all unload, film a short movie of them in a bunker, then RE-TAKE OFF, go back in to space (this time unnoticed) then disappear into orbit then "come back" from the moon in their module and land in the ocean?
Oh I know, they don't Re-take off, they are launched with HUGE bungee cords so there is less to notice. That's it.
You have to cover all basis with your conspiracy theory. So tell me, where do they disappear to before they land in the ocean?
Oh I know, they don't Re-take off, they are launched with HUGE bungee cords so there is less to notice. That's it.
You have to cover all basis with your conspiracy theory. So tell me, where do they disappear to before they land in the ocean?
As for the CM re-entry they were doing this with the X-15 in the 60's
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-15/Small/E-4942.jpg[/IMG]
drop the CM from 50,000 feet who would know.
This is just a guess of what could be done but no proof
09-11-2007, 10:03 AM
#250
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
OK,
I will correct you on your statements.
If we were to put is in conic logical order. I started off saying that the LM looked like a POS and questioned its functionality. Then I took the evidence that NASA presented to the world as proof of their landing on the moon and started to evaluate it. (The cliché goes a picture show a 1000 words.)
I found one instance where the dust should have been disrupted during the landing of the LM (area in front of the start landing pad). Then I found another questionable anomaly in the missing tire tracks, which you still cannot give a logical response to.
Your off topic bantering is a method to divert from the point at hand (Missing tire tracks)
The reason you want to look at the pictures on an individual basis is that it will support your defense. The truth is that NASA has stated that those photos are a panoramic shot of the LR at station number 7 the photo title is as follows:
AS15-90-12216 scan STA 7 / pan / edge of Spur Crater / LRV
AS15-90-12217 scan STA 7 / pan / LRV / Spur Crater
AS15-90-12218 scan STA 7 / pan / LRV / Spur Crater / Irwin
AS15-90-12219 scan STA 7 / pan / S / Irwin
So stop trying to look at these photos as individual photos and realize that NASA states this is a panoramic shot. This means that it is ONE SCENE taken in a series of 4 shots.
This means that the tire track should be there. The exit foot prints indicates that the dirt is imprint able which puts to questions missing tire tracks.
Here is your response to me. “As for density of dirt or dirtpack, how do you know just by looking?”
Look at how evasive you are to the points I bring up. Your pryor response shows that you can see the difference in the density in the dirt.
I quote you from a previous rebuttal “That'll probably explain the lack of tracks in some areas because metal tires won't make obvious tracks in shallow dirt. the image shows the tracks in the lighter area and no tracks in the dense area of dirt.”
This means that you can make a visual observation to refute my points but when I do the same you ask me “how do you know just by looking?”.
Your defense gets weaker and weaker as time goes by. You have no explanation for the missing tire tracks. I give the most reasonable response in that the tracks were covered up. Which creates the next question, by whom? This drives the point back to the missions being staged.
Your point to the deviation of gravity: If you look at the imaging it is based on miles of deviation be are talking feet.
I go back to the simple point of, where are the tracks? They show up everywhere but behind the tires of a parked LR.
It is funny I’m basing my argument on what I see and you are basing yours on what they said.
Somebody needs
I will correct you on your statements.
If we were to put is in conic logical order. I started off saying that the LM looked like a POS and questioned its functionality. Then I took the evidence that NASA presented to the world as proof of their landing on the moon and started to evaluate it. (The cliché goes a picture show a 1000 words.)
I found one instance where the dust should have been disrupted during the landing of the LM (area in front of the start landing pad). Then I found another questionable anomaly in the missing tire tracks, which you still cannot give a logical response to.
Your off topic bantering is a method to divert from the point at hand (Missing tire tracks)
The reason you want to look at the pictures on an individual basis is that it will support your defense. The truth is that NASA has stated that those photos are a panoramic shot of the LR at station number 7 the photo title is as follows:
AS15-90-12216 scan STA 7 / pan / edge of Spur Crater / LRV
AS15-90-12217 scan STA 7 / pan / LRV / Spur Crater
AS15-90-12218 scan STA 7 / pan / LRV / Spur Crater / Irwin
AS15-90-12219 scan STA 7 / pan / S / Irwin
So stop trying to look at these photos as individual photos and realize that NASA states this is a panoramic shot. This means that it is ONE SCENE taken in a series of 4 shots.
This means that the tire track should be there. The exit foot prints indicates that the dirt is imprint able which puts to questions missing tire tracks.
Here is your response to me. “As for density of dirt or dirtpack, how do you know just by looking?”
Look at how evasive you are to the points I bring up. Your pryor response shows that you can see the difference in the density in the dirt.
I quote you from a previous rebuttal “That'll probably explain the lack of tracks in some areas because metal tires won't make obvious tracks in shallow dirt. the image shows the tracks in the lighter area and no tracks in the dense area of dirt.”
This means that you can make a visual observation to refute my points but when I do the same you ask me “how do you know just by looking?”.
Your defense gets weaker and weaker as time goes by. You have no explanation for the missing tire tracks. I give the most reasonable response in that the tracks were covered up. Which creates the next question, by whom? This drives the point back to the missions being staged.
Your point to the deviation of gravity: If you look at the imaging it is based on miles of deviation be are talking feet.
I go back to the simple point of, where are the tracks? They show up everywhere but behind the tires of a parked LR.
It is funny I’m basing my argument on what I see and you are basing yours on what they said.
Somebody needs
Next possibility I point out is it could've been the tires and the dirt pack. I should've pointed out that its not just the area the rover went through, but the area around it. How do you know that the dirt pack is deep in those areas just by looking at the picture and just assuming that since the tracks are deep, the whole area must be deep? If the tracks are shallow or almost non-existent, that means that the dirpack was shallow and in combination with the tires wouldn't produce tracks. If the dirt pack was thick enough, the tires will produce the tracks as you can see in the pics. You just can't assume that since the tracks go through an area that has a deep dirt pack, that the whole area in the pic has a deep dirt pack.
You combine all that is mentioned above with how fast (or slow) they were going, how they were driving, how much weight the rover was carrying (did they have rocks or not) and a whole different set of explanations are possible to one simple question: Why are there no tracks in some places and why are there deep tracks in others?
Last edited by samurai; 09-11-2007 at 10:07 AM.
09-11-2007, 10:42 AM
#251
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: chico cali.
Posts: 184
Car Info: bugeye cobb stage 2
if they did go to the moon in 1969 how come the NASA never went back??? i mean its 2007 we have better technology. i don't think the money is no issue because NASA sent satellite to mars, jupiter. the moon is alot closer to the earth than mars, and jupiter. i honetly believe the NASA didn't go to the moon.
09-11-2007, 10:44 AM
#252
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
I'm reading the book "secret weapons of the cold war" right now and even in there (which is a pretty comprehensive book), there is no mention of any autonomous rover because the US was developing more advanced aerospace vehicles. I don't think they were hiding anything IMHO, they just had more ambitious projects that they were interested in doing.
09-11-2007, 11:16 AM
#253
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
Ok, so it can be placed in a panorama, but i still hold to my claim and its not being evasive. I don't know just by looking unless i've been to that spot and you don't know just by looking unless you've been to that spot. You can't assume, especially to a place we've never been before, that things will happen a certain way because they won't on the moon. The moon's grav field is so different in areas that sometimes it can be a difference of feet. You can definitely say what you say about earth, but I don't think you can say about the moon. The astronauts could've been on an area where the gradients occur and that could've made a difference.
Next possibility I point out is it could've been the tires and the dirt pack. I should've pointed out that its not just the area the rover went through, but the area around it. How do you know that the dirt pack is deep in those areas just by looking at the picture and just assuming that since the tracks are deep, the whole area must be deep? If the tracks are shallow or almost non-existent, that means that the dirpack was shallow and in combination with the tires wouldn't produce tracks. If the dirt pack was thick enough, the tires will produce the tracks as you can see in the pics. You just can't assume that since the tracks go through an area that has a deep dirt pack, that the whole area in the pic has a deep dirt pack.
You combine all that is mentioned above with how fast (or slow) they were going, how they were driving, how much weight the rover was carrying (did they have rocks or not) and a whole different set of explanations are possible to one simple question: Why are there no tracks in some places and why are there deep tracks in others?
Next possibility I point out is it could've been the tires and the dirt pack. I should've pointed out that its not just the area the rover went through, but the area around it. How do you know that the dirt pack is deep in those areas just by looking at the picture and just assuming that since the tracks are deep, the whole area must be deep? If the tracks are shallow or almost non-existent, that means that the dirpack was shallow and in combination with the tires wouldn't produce tracks. If the dirt pack was thick enough, the tires will produce the tracks as you can see in the pics. You just can't assume that since the tracks go through an area that has a deep dirt pack, that the whole area in the pic has a deep dirt pack.
You combine all that is mentioned above with how fast (or slow) they were going, how they were driving, how much weight the rover was carrying (did they have rocks or not) and a whole different set of explanations are possible to one simple question: Why are there no tracks in some places and why are there deep tracks in others?
"I don't know just by looking unless i've been to that spot and you don't know just by looking unless you've been to that spot."
Books are the main conduit of learning and provide a written and visual guide to obtaining knowledge.
You are negating the very principles of learning. You do not have to travel to Maui to see that the white sands or to Italy to see the black sand beaches.
In that you cannot give a logical reason for the lack of tire tracks behind the wheel of a vehicle that traveled forward.
samurai I think it is better that you avoid this thread.
Let this be a lesson of how one can hold on so dearly to a principle that is not of fact but merely "they said they did it".
Last edited by Ichinobu; 09-11-2007 at 11:25 AM.
09-11-2007, 12:16 PM
#254
if they did go to the moon in 1969 how come the NASA never went back??? i mean its 2007 we have better technology. i don't think the money is no issue because NASA sent satellite to mars, jupiter. the moon is alot closer to the earth than mars, and jupiter. i honetly believe the NASA didn't go to the moon.
we know better haha
but yeah looking at the pics it makes me question
09-11-2007, 12:17 PM
#255
that doesn't make sense because as competitive as we were with the soviets, if we produced and used a new autonomous rover quicker than the russians in 1965, we would've advertised it greatly. And the thing that would be a knockout blow would be the 1st manned lunar landing.
I'm reading the book "secret weapons of the cold war" right now and even in there (which is a pretty comprehensive book), there is no mention of any autonomous rover because the US was developing more advanced aerospace vehicles. I don't think they were hiding anything IMHO, they just had more ambitious projects that they were interested in doing.
I'm reading the book "secret weapons of the cold war" right now and even in there (which is a pretty comprehensive book), there is no mention of any autonomous rover because the US was developing more advanced aerospace vehicles. I don't think they were hiding anything IMHO, they just had more ambitious projects that they were interested in doing.
they kept that a good secret we didnt know about that