My last "They didn't go moon trip".
09-05-2007, 10:40 AM
#92
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
Here is another example of the LR photographed without tracks in front or to the rear of the vehicle.The footprints in the area does not reflect a motion that would kick dirt and completely cover the tracks.
The flight plan would have them drive from station 6 to station 7 and then 8.
This is a photo of station 7 which means they had to drive from 6.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...90-12216HR.jpg
From this photo you can see the LM drove from left to right and stopped.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...90-12217HR.jpg
This is the photo same area but the front of the LR. See no tracks indicating that the LR moved fowrard.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5-90-12218.jpg
Another photo of station 7 same photo but better view of the front tire and no tracks to the rear.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...90-12219HR.jpg
The first photo deplicts that the LR was driven to the location and stopped. How do I know it stopped? Here is a image of a rover in motion, notice the dirt falling from the tires as it rolls forward.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...85-11471HR.jpg
Here is the final nail in the coffin.
This is a pan shot from back to front! That implied that the photos were taken consecutively.
Meaning drive up, stop, get out, photo from back to front in a series of photos. Everything matches in the footprints getting off of the LR but that small detail of the track behind the front tire. Not there. Which implies deceit, Why deceit?
Because the tire tracks to the rear of the LR had to be placed there manually not by the actual driving of the LR based on the lack of tracks leading to the front wheel.
This supports the argument that staging more so than the manual tire tracks.
The photos supports the notion that the LR was rolled the the location. The astronauts loaded onto the LR. The area raked and preped which inadvertely covered the tire tracks and finally the astronaut exiting the LR and taking the pan photos.
In either case these photo are not natural photos deplicting events that took place on the moon.
The flight plan would have them drive from station 6 to station 7 and then 8.
This is a photo of station 7 which means they had to drive from 6.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...90-12216HR.jpg
From this photo you can see the LM drove from left to right and stopped.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...90-12217HR.jpg
This is the photo same area but the front of the LR. See no tracks indicating that the LR moved fowrard.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...5-90-12218.jpg
Another photo of station 7 same photo but better view of the front tire and no tracks to the rear.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...90-12219HR.jpg
The first photo deplicts that the LR was driven to the location and stopped. How do I know it stopped? Here is a image of a rover in motion, notice the dirt falling from the tires as it rolls forward.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...85-11471HR.jpg
Here is the final nail in the coffin.
This is a pan shot from back to front! That implied that the photos were taken consecutively.
Meaning drive up, stop, get out, photo from back to front in a series of photos. Everything matches in the footprints getting off of the LR but that small detail of the track behind the front tire. Not there. Which implies deceit, Why deceit?
Because the tire tracks to the rear of the LR had to be placed there manually not by the actual driving of the LR based on the lack of tracks leading to the front wheel.
This supports the argument that staging more so than the manual tire tracks.
The photos supports the notion that the LR was rolled the the location. The astronauts loaded onto the LR. The area raked and preped which inadvertely covered the tire tracks and finally the astronaut exiting the LR and taking the pan photos.
In either case these photo are not natural photos deplicting events that took place on the moon.
Last edited by Ichinobu; 09-05-2007 at 10:49 AM.
09-05-2007, 11:04 AM
#94
VIP Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: running track
Posts: 3,018
Car Info: 2004 Wagon
09-05-2007, 11:13 AM
#96
they say no on the telescope because the moon equipment is too small they said hubble wont be able to see it because of how small it is
japan has a mission for a satlite to take pics of the moon it will hover around the moon so we will be able to see
but japan and the US are buddy buddy
09-05-2007, 11:27 AM
#99
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
why don't we go up to the moon now? because we wasted too much money on fixing and rebuilding the shuttle and the failure we call the ISS. We also wasted money on skylab and MIR. The LMs were one time use only while the shuttle is supposed to be used multiple times. To be honest i'm glad private companies are undertaking this independent of the govt. ie burt rutan and spaceX. If ppl don't want tax money going toward it, fine. It comes out of the private sector. NASA today (save the engineers) is just a big keg of fail.
09-05-2007, 11:31 AM
#101
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
I’m not just one of those blind skeptics. I try to use logic and reason in everything I do. Logic says today we can travel the speed of sound at a commercial level. Reason says that a specialized rocket pointed in the direction of mars is feasible and possible. Our ability to control things remotely at a consumer level is extremely vast. Reason says that JPL probably can achieve a level of control 3 fold compared to a consumer. These factors lead me to believe that today scientists are equipped with technology to explore the stars not only visual but physically.
but those guys didn't go to the moon.
Last edited by Ichinobu; 09-05-2007 at 11:35 AM.
09-05-2007, 11:34 AM
#102
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
I’m not just one of those blind skeptics. I try to use logic and reason in everything I do. Logic says today we can travel the speed of sound at a commercial level. Reason says that a specialized rocket pointed in the direction of mars is feasible and possible. Our ability to control things remotely at a consumer level is extremely vast. Reason says that JPL probably can achieve a level of control 3 fold compared to a consumer. These factors lead me to believe that today scientists are equipped with technology to explore the stars not only visual but physically.
EDIT - To match ichi's ninja edit. I believe those guys did. If we started the race to space again from scratch and without the cold war influence, it would take eons to get into space let alone the moon. A lot of ppl forget a good chunk of what they consider normal today was latest "high-tech space technology" back then. Again you also forgot that before the moon landings, there was a disaster during ground tests on the Mercury vehicle that would've killed NASA completely or at least would've set them back a decade or two if it weren't for the space race with the Soviets.
Last edited by samurai; 09-05-2007 at 11:49 AM.
09-05-2007, 11:38 AM
#103
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
ISS wouldn't be a failure if Russia kept to their part of the bargain and provided their modules on time. Japan and the US and the Euros kept their part of the bargain more or less. MIR was a Soviet era space station like skylab that the US kept up to study living conditions in space to set up for the ISS. But the craft was old and deteriorating and it was finally burned up in the atmosphere about a decade ago.