My last "They didn't go moon trip".
09-04-2007, 03:26 PM
#32
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
You can only reason that foot step correspond to each other. If we are seeing half foot steps, what happen to the other foot prints. If you pan back out you can see that the dirt is smooth over in some areas and some of the foot prints are left intact.
If just reinforces thoughts of staging.
If just reinforces thoughts of staging.
09-04-2007, 03:33 PM
#33
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
just does not add up.
09-04-2007, 03:39 PM
#35
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Posts: 47,585
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
The conspiracists argue that the rover may have been lifted into place as a prop. They may be half right. In lunar gravity the rover is not especially heavy. An astronaut can lift one end of it with little difficulty. And since the rover's turn radius, like that of any four-wheeled vehicle, is limited, the astronauts sometimes found it easier to lift one end of the rover and turn it so it pointed in the direction they wanted to go, rather than maneuvering through a three-point turn. When this occurred, there would obviously be no track leading up to the wheels.
09-04-2007, 03:41 PM
#36
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
No, it reinforces thoughts that the surface of the moon is irregular (the depth of the dust, the consistancy of the dust, etc, is uneven). Go walk on some sand, then look at your footprints. Are they all the same? Oh! Some are half prints? Some are deeper than others? No WAY.
Also the link that you posted is not the same mission or same terrain.
09-04-2007, 03:43 PM
#37
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
What doesn't add up are all the hoax theories. Really, I don't care what you think about the issue. If you choose to disbelieve that anyone has been to the moon because of a psychological inclination to want to know 'truths' that other people don't 'see' because you're an amazingly free and smart thinker...then go for it. I just want to make sure that whoever reads this thread can see how there is an ***-ton of evidence that people went to the moon, and a few very sketchy pieces of 'evidence' that hoax theorists use to say we didn't.
09-04-2007, 03:47 PM
#39
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
Look at this image that deplict them driving to the final parking place of the rover. You can clearly see the tracks leaving and going to the final parking space
This removes the need to reposition the rover.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...88-11930HR.jpg
This removes the need to reposition the rover.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...88-11930HR.jpg
09-04-2007, 03:48 PM
#40
No, it reinforces thoughts that the surface of the moon is irregular (the depth of the dust, the consistancy of the dust, etc, is uneven). Go walk on some sand, then look at your footprints. Are they all the same? Oh! Some are half prints? Some are deeper than others? No WAY.
and if you are suppose to be so light that you may jump off the surface of the moon why are tehy sooooo deep?
09-04-2007, 03:56 PM
#42
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
What doesn't add up are all the hoax theories. Really, I don't care what you think about the issue. If you choose to disbelieve that anyone has been to the moon because of a psychological inclination to want to know 'truths' that other people don't 'see' because you're an amazingly free and smart thinker...then go for it. I just want to make sure that whoever reads this thread can see how there is an ***-ton of evidence that people went to the moon, and a few very sketchy pieces of 'evidence' that hoax theorists use to say we didn't.
It is the smallest of detail that is missed during deception and that is what one has to look for. If you read my original post I saw a simple formation of dust that should not be there based on the mission report of the said landing. Remember the LM was kicking up dust 100 ft above the ground. How could that patch of dust stay intact. Without air the smooth pattern could not exist. That we stated by the pros in one of their rebuttals yet it was there .
check it out again.
09-04-2007, 04:30 PM
#45
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
https://www.i-club.com/forums/showth...=169737&page=3
here's my response to the no tire tracks and the pics you posted up. You essentially theorized that the photo on page 3 of the thread was a "tell-tale" sign that it was staged because of the lack of tire tracks.
The last post was in response to you theorizing that the lunar lander couldn't have gone to the moon because it looked like it couldn't go. You also went the extra mile calling it a POS which gave me more than happy to oblige. That line of reasoning throws us back into the early 20th century when ppl assumed that the Flight at Kitty Hawk wouldn't happen because the plane didn't look like it would fly.
Edit - Btw, back then in the wright bros days, things traveled quicker by word of mouth and not pictures. Imagine how many conspiracies were cooking back then when ppl started to make claims that teh wright flyer flew. Again, Mr Kaysing is the starter of the hoopla and he wasn't even an engineer. He was a librarian/technical writer at Raytheon before all the moon talk happened. If you want to talk about trust, I would probably trust the ppl who actually made the LM (some of the ppl at TRW) compared to somebody who just sat on the sidelines in a library collecting information 5-6 years before the moon landing happened and then left the company at about the same time.
here's my response to the no tire tracks and the pics you posted up. You essentially theorized that the photo on page 3 of the thread was a "tell-tale" sign that it was staged because of the lack of tire tracks.
The last post was in response to you theorizing that the lunar lander couldn't have gone to the moon because it looked like it couldn't go. You also went the extra mile calling it a POS which gave me more than happy to oblige. That line of reasoning throws us back into the early 20th century when ppl assumed that the Flight at Kitty Hawk wouldn't happen because the plane didn't look like it would fly.
Edit - Btw, back then in the wright bros days, things traveled quicker by word of mouth and not pictures. Imagine how many conspiracies were cooking back then when ppl started to make claims that teh wright flyer flew. Again, Mr Kaysing is the starter of the hoopla and he wasn't even an engineer. He was a librarian/technical writer at Raytheon before all the moon talk happened. If you want to talk about trust, I would probably trust the ppl who actually made the LM (some of the ppl at TRW) compared to somebody who just sat on the sidelines in a library collecting information 5-6 years before the moon landing happened and then left the company at about the same time.
Last edited by samurai; 09-04-2007 at 04:45 PM.