Originally Posted by sigma pi

get back on topic timmay dont try to do this look over here crap

Originally Posted by Ichinobu

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.

Originally Posted by Ichinobu

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.

Originally Posted by samurai

read my ninja edit to match ichi's. Also, I was answering seri's question. Lawson also asked a resulting question and I obliged.

Originally Posted by shim022

hi ichi!

Originally Posted by MVWRX

If everyone read the links in this thread, most of the questions would be answered. The lack of stars? Because of the sensitivity range of film...the difference in depth of footprints vs. tracks? Pressure per area is what's important, not total weight...

Originally Posted by Ichinobu

How about the lack of tire tracks behind the front wheel of a vehicle that has move forward in soft moon dust?

Originally Posted by MVWRX

If everyone read the links in this thread, most of the questions would be answered. The lack of stars? Because of the sensitivity range of film...the difference in depth of footprints vs. tracks? Pressure per area is what's important, not total weight...

Originally Posted by shim022

i don't know anything about space and how stuff shows up, but how come the background it pitch black? there are shadows on the people/equipment, so i assume it was bright out, but shouldn't at least one star or planet show up in the background? just wondering.

also, why are all of the footprints much deeper than the tire marks? was the rover that much lighter than the people?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (3 members and 0 guests)
shim022, Ichinobu

hi ichi!

Originally Posted by MVWRX

They're there, just not very deep. The reason the rear tires leave tracks and the fronts don't is simply a matter of weight distribution...look where the guys sit. It doesn't matter though, nothing I say will change your mind. You really should look into the psychology of people who believe in massive conspiracies such as the one you're proposing...it's very interesting stuff.

Originally Posted by shim022

i can't read all of the links; i'm at work!

i agree with pressure per area being important, but even with all four tires, the total contact area isn't much bigger than the two big footprints of the astronauts. so... is the rover that much lighter than the person? and with the pic of the dude riding in it, there aren't any tire marks.

i'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, i'm just asking questions from what i saw in the pictures.

Originally Posted by samurai

The force of the astronaut is concentrated straight down from his CG to 2 legs into the ground. The CG of that rover is not at the wheels and (depending on the weight distribution) the force of the astronauts and the car is distributed to 4 wheels.

W=mg/2 (human for 2 legs)

W=mg/4 (for 4 wheels and assuming equal weight distribution)

and note that g is not 9.81m/s^2. On the moon its... 1.63m/s^2 about 7x less.

Assuming sigma pi weighs 300lb, he'd be ~50lb on the moon. that translates to approximately 12lb per wheel. Thats like a nudge on the shoulder. And the astronauts, i'm safely assuming, weighed less than sigma pi.