My last "They didn't go moon trip".
09-06-2007, 02:11 AM
#181
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
hehe. either way, they have instances where they kick up dirt and don't leave tracks. Sometimes they do. Ok i'll use something else that would be comparable and maybe something you'll recognize. 1/10 R/C buggies. Dry/dusty track. pin spike rears Pro-line rears, ribbed pro-line or losi fronts..
09-06-2007, 10:53 AM
#182
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
No. Again you misunderstand. I keep mentioning the gravitational field. I didn't say anything about the vacuum environment which has different effects all together. I was using instances that occur on earth as an example. You repeatedly don't understand that different things have different effects. Take a dynamics class sometime. It will be a good supplement to what you already claim to understand, but don't. You try not to understand the science but you always try to point out anomalies in my posts. Running out of ideas? Or are you realizing that crackpots aren't really engineeers?
How the LR rolling forward; can roll to a stop without leaving tracks behind the front wheel. This is a pan shot that starts from left to right
The photo description states that it is a pan shot. The foot print reflect that the passenger exited the LR and is taking the photo.
The tracks to the rear indicates that the rover was moving forward and without going to dynamic classes that a fast moving vehicle has to slow down in order to stop.
with that said please explain to me and others that might be reading how did the situation (no tracks behind front wheel) occur in these photo.
Please do not go into another topic or retoric about crackpots just explain how and why the tracks are not there. I have my theory and I will post it, but I would like your educated opinion on these photos.
09-06-2007, 12:00 PM
#187
VIP Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: running track
Posts: 3,018
Car Info: 2004 Wagon
Seriously.
Samauri believes in engineering.
Ichinobu believes in what he sees in the photos and his common sense (no joke intended).
The only way to find out is if we can spot any manmade object from the moon. Didn't NASA left a piece of minor on moon so we can caculate the speed of light or something? If we can find something like that, then we can finally settle it right?
The NASA going to the moon thing again thing can be BS. Let's say they didn't land on the moon the first time around, this time they can bring all the stuff up and go... see... the rover is still operational. This will be another long debate.
Like I said many time, let's just forget about it and eat fried chicken... or korean bbq =)
Samauri believes in engineering.
Ichinobu believes in what he sees in the photos and his common sense (no joke intended).
The only way to find out is if we can spot any manmade object from the moon. Didn't NASA left a piece of minor on moon so we can caculate the speed of light or something? If we can find something like that, then we can finally settle it right?
The NASA going to the moon thing again thing can be BS. Let's say they didn't land on the moon the first time around, this time they can bring all the stuff up and go... see... the rover is still operational. This will be another long debate.
Like I said many time, let's just forget about it and eat fried chicken... or korean bbq =)
09-06-2007, 12:11 PM
#188
hehe. either way, they have instances where they kick up dirt and don't leave tracks. Sometimes they do. Ok i'll use something else that would be comparable and maybe something you'll recognize. 1/10 R/C buggies. Dry/dusty track. pin spike rears Pro-line rears, ribbed pro-line or losi fronts..
but going slow they leave tracks
09-06-2007, 01:11 PM
#189
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
hmm.. Ok if you want my best opinion, here it is. I'm going photo by photo and don't know if they can be panorama'ed together.
photo one: The tracks are a single line which means that it probably was taking a cautious approach. Slow and steady looks like. the shadow covers up the line the tracks would be in front of the rear wheels.
Photo 2: no obvious tracks behind the front wheels though i think they are there, but faint. Again, it can be a number of factors. How fast they were going, how cautious they were driving, did the wheels skid a bit?, how much loose dirt is underneath the tire compared to rock?, environmental conditions (weaker grav field, vacuum), what material were the tires made of? (apparently titanium chevrons for traction and the rest of it were woven steel strands) That'll probably explain the lack of tracks in some areas because metal tires won't make obvious tracks in shallow dirt.
Photo three: same.
While we are on the topic of faking:
If you claim not to be smart already, why not try to take a dynamics course or read a vehicle dynamics book? Enlighten yourself instead of forcing upon all of us that the men didn't go to the moon that is derived from crackpot theory. The guy who started it all is a conspiracy theorist that also claims that the US paid Japan to attack pearl harbor in order for them to purposely enter WW2. Would you believe this guy if he said the Mars Rover was faked? They have better equipment now a days and anybody can photochop fake naked bodies onto real movie stars and make it look like a nude photo. I would think it would be so much easier to fake that. Any of these NASA photos could have been digitally photochopped and touched up professionally by eager ppl deep in NASA and released to the public and we wouldn't know the better.
Unless new evidence comes to light or if the Euro explorer snaps a tell-all picture that says otherwise, there is no clear evidence that the moon landing was faked.
photo one: The tracks are a single line which means that it probably was taking a cautious approach. Slow and steady looks like. the shadow covers up the line the tracks would be in front of the rear wheels.
Photo 2: no obvious tracks behind the front wheels though i think they are there, but faint. Again, it can be a number of factors. How fast they were going, how cautious they were driving, did the wheels skid a bit?, how much loose dirt is underneath the tire compared to rock?, environmental conditions (weaker grav field, vacuum), what material were the tires made of? (apparently titanium chevrons for traction and the rest of it were woven steel strands) That'll probably explain the lack of tracks in some areas because metal tires won't make obvious tracks in shallow dirt.
Photo three: same.
While we are on the topic of faking:
If you claim not to be smart already, why not try to take a dynamics course or read a vehicle dynamics book? Enlighten yourself instead of forcing upon all of us that the men didn't go to the moon that is derived from crackpot theory. The guy who started it all is a conspiracy theorist that also claims that the US paid Japan to attack pearl harbor in order for them to purposely enter WW2. Would you believe this guy if he said the Mars Rover was faked? They have better equipment now a days and anybody can photochop fake naked bodies onto real movie stars and make it look like a nude photo. I would think it would be so much easier to fake that. Any of these NASA photos could have been digitally photochopped and touched up professionally by eager ppl deep in NASA and released to the public and we wouldn't know the better.
Unless new evidence comes to light or if the Euro explorer snaps a tell-all picture that says otherwise, there is no clear evidence that the moon landing was faked.
09-06-2007, 01:25 PM
#191
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
Upon reviewing the images I come to the conclusion that the photos show signs of staging.
The LR is rolled or driven to the photo area. We can validate this action by the tracks descending from what appears to be a higher elevation.
In the next photo we can see the foot prints of the passenger suppose ably exiting the rover. Doubt comes to mine in that the exit footprints should be pointing outward from the LR not inward. The mobility of the astronaut is limited and open dexterity of their limbs would limit them in their foot placement upon exiting the LR.
The third image reveals how difficult it would be to exit the LR. The right foot would exit first then the body must shift to plant the left foot or the body rotates to the right and both feet would be planted on the ground. One can see the difficulty in achieving this movement based on the design of the seats, the backpack and the Astronauts seating position. This limitation also limits the way the astronaut’s footprints will be positioned.
Each one of these scenarios should produce a significant amount of ground disturbance. The placement should be slightly to the front of the seat but we see most of the activity to the rear of the seat and limited dirt disturbance.
The contention is that the rover was driven to the spot but not by the astronauts but by a staging crew. They exited the LR and their tracks were covered by another layer of dirt and the astronaut position for their movements.
This theory is supported by the observation that the depth of the tracks appears to increase in the areas being photographed.
The belief is that the ground is layered to cover the staging crews print. In this case the layering inadvertently covered the tracks of the front tire. Due to the positioning of the dirt around the front tire dirt depth is noted. This depth of dirt should reinforce the issues that track should be visible to the rear of the tire.
The thought is also supported by the discoloration of the dirt in the immediate area compared to the astronaut area of movement.
These finding starts the question of this and other moon mission. The observation does not require professional experience or in-depth knowledge of physical image transfer.
The LR is rolled or driven to the photo area. We can validate this action by the tracks descending from what appears to be a higher elevation.
In the next photo we can see the foot prints of the passenger suppose ably exiting the rover. Doubt comes to mine in that the exit footprints should be pointing outward from the LR not inward. The mobility of the astronaut is limited and open dexterity of their limbs would limit them in their foot placement upon exiting the LR.
The third image reveals how difficult it would be to exit the LR. The right foot would exit first then the body must shift to plant the left foot or the body rotates to the right and both feet would be planted on the ground. One can see the difficulty in achieving this movement based on the design of the seats, the backpack and the Astronauts seating position. This limitation also limits the way the astronaut’s footprints will be positioned.
Each one of these scenarios should produce a significant amount of ground disturbance. The placement should be slightly to the front of the seat but we see most of the activity to the rear of the seat and limited dirt disturbance.
The contention is that the rover was driven to the spot but not by the astronauts but by a staging crew. They exited the LR and their tracks were covered by another layer of dirt and the astronaut position for their movements.
This theory is supported by the observation that the depth of the tracks appears to increase in the areas being photographed.
The belief is that the ground is layered to cover the staging crews print. In this case the layering inadvertently covered the tracks of the front tire. Due to the positioning of the dirt around the front tire dirt depth is noted. This depth of dirt should reinforce the issues that track should be visible to the rear of the tire.
The thought is also supported by the discoloration of the dirt in the immediate area compared to the astronaut area of movement.
These finding starts the question of this and other moon mission. The observation does not require professional experience or in-depth knowledge of physical image transfer.
09-06-2007, 01:42 PM
#193
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
hmm.. Ok if you want my best opinion, here it is. I'm going photo by photo and don't know if they can be panorama'ed together.
photo one: The tracks are a single line which means that it probably was taking a cautious approach. Slow and steady looks like. the shadow covers up the line the tracks would be in front of the rear wheels.
Photo 2: no obvious tracks behind the front wheels though i think they are there, but faint. Again, it can be a number of factors. How fast they were going, how cautious they were driving, did the wheels skid a bit?, how much loose dirt is underneath the tire compared to rock?, environmental conditions (weaker grav field, vacuum), what material were the tires made of? (apparently titanium chevrons for traction and the rest of it were woven steel strands) That'll probably explain the lack of tracks in some areas because metal tires won't make obvious tracks in shallow dirt.
Photo three: same.
While we are on the topic of faking:
If you claim not to be smart already, why not try to take a dynamics course or read a vehicle dynamics book? Enlighten yourself instead of forcing upon all of us that the men didn't go to the moon that is derived from crackpot theory. The guy who started it all is a conspiracy theorist that also claims that the US paid Japan to attack pearl harbor in order for them to purposely enter WW2. Would you believe this guy if he said the Mars Rover was faked? They have better equipment now a days and anybody can photochop fake naked bodies onto real movie stars and make it look like a nude photo. I would think it would be so much easier to fake that. Any of these NASA photos could have been digitally photochopped and touched up professionally by eager ppl deep in NASA and released to the public and we wouldn't know the better.
Unless new evidence comes to light or if the Euro explorer snaps a tell-all picture that says otherwise, there is no clear evidence that the moon landing was faked.
photo one: The tracks are a single line which means that it probably was taking a cautious approach. Slow and steady looks like. the shadow covers up the line the tracks would be in front of the rear wheels.
Photo 2: no obvious tracks behind the front wheels though i think they are there, but faint. Again, it can be a number of factors. How fast they were going, how cautious they were driving, did the wheels skid a bit?, how much loose dirt is underneath the tire compared to rock?, environmental conditions (weaker grav field, vacuum), what material were the tires made of? (apparently titanium chevrons for traction and the rest of it were woven steel strands) That'll probably explain the lack of tracks in some areas because metal tires won't make obvious tracks in shallow dirt.
Photo three: same.
While we are on the topic of faking:
If you claim not to be smart already, why not try to take a dynamics course or read a vehicle dynamics book? Enlighten yourself instead of forcing upon all of us that the men didn't go to the moon that is derived from crackpot theory. The guy who started it all is a conspiracy theorist that also claims that the US paid Japan to attack pearl harbor in order for them to purposely enter WW2. Would you believe this guy if he said the Mars Rover was faked? They have better equipment now a days and anybody can photochop fake naked bodies onto real movie stars and make it look like a nude photo. I would think it would be so much easier to fake that. Any of these NASA photos could have been digitally photochopped and touched up professionally by eager ppl deep in NASA and released to the public and we wouldn't know the better.
Unless new evidence comes to light or if the Euro explorer snaps a tell-all picture that says otherwise, there is no clear evidence that the moon landing was faked.
Photo 1: The tracks are a single line which means that it probably was taking a cautious approach. Slow and steady looks like. the shadow covers up the line the tracks would be in front of the rear wheels.
You say slow and steady and cautious approach which removes your theory of dirt being kicked up.
In 2. you said
Photo 2: no obvious tracks behind the front wheels though i think they are there, but faint. Again, it can be a number of factors. How fast they were going, how cautious they were driving, did the wheels skid a bit?, how much loose dirt is underneath the tire compared to rock?, environmental conditions (weaker grav field, vacuum), what material were the tires made of? (apparently titanium chevrons for traction and the rest of it were woven steel strands) That'll probably explain the lack of tracks in some areas because metal tires won't make obvious tracks in shallow dirt.
You think they are faint and you bring up how fast they were going.
In 1. you said slow and cautions ???
weaker grav field, vacuum, oh the grav field changed?
what material were the tires made of? it's the same tire as before
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.
While we are on the topic of faking:
If you claim not to be smart already, why not try to take a dynamics course or read a vehicle dynamics book? Enlighten y....... and here you go off topic and bantering.
after reading through this I have no comment.
09-06-2007, 02:24 PM
#195
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
This reason I'm so hell bent on this is that we (American) have to be a lot smarter in the way we think and live to survive. Don't let people trade you 2 bags of $#17for one bag of wheat.
There are a lot of things going on today that effect us greatly. We need to open our eyes and believe what is real and not what someone wants you to believe.
There are 2.5 million homes up for foreclosure because someone said there is no bubble. People went so wild that the median home cost $600k. In order for you to buy a $600k home your household income should be $194k. How many out there makes that kind of money. The median income in about $70k you don't have a chance.
I'm just trying to tell you to be smart and don't let anyone fool you.
There are a lot of things going on today that effect us greatly. We need to open our eyes and believe what is real and not what someone wants you to believe.
There are 2.5 million homes up for foreclosure because someone said there is no bubble. People went so wild that the median home cost $600k. In order for you to buy a $600k home your household income should be $194k. How many out there makes that kind of money. The median income in about $70k you don't have a chance.
I'm just trying to tell you to be smart and don't let anyone fool you.
