Alien Footprints On The Moon?

So then who is the camera shy spaceman or woman? The suits are differenthands down....

reply to post by mikesingh


I'm sure in one those links there's some link to a book somewhere.
But I'm not going rumage through all of them to find it.

This has all the hall marks of more bull plop from Hoagland. Trying to
make a case for something out of absolutly nothing.

It looks like a partial print to me Mike. Perhaps from walking briefly on the outer edge of the boot.

IRM

Originally posted by CeltAngel
reply to post by makkerskilap

 

The picture intrigued me, so I took a look through the article. In regards to Jack Schmitt's suit, it appears there are 2 sets of boots.

The first set, which seem to match your picture, can be seen at different angles here: history.nasa.gov...
and here: history.nasa.gov...

Then there's references to the Lunar boot here:history.nasa.gov...
With the soles shown here: history.nasa.gov...

The last picture matches Mike's 9 cleat picture.

Darn, and I thought we were on to something there.

damn, thought i had it.. should have done some more research
subject still exiting though!

So there's no one else out there on the Moon? Even a secret Moon base?

Here’s someone who has been captured on the surface of the Moon as seen in the official NASA footage of Apollo 16. Note the faint black object or shadow between the horizon and the astronaut that is seen moving first from right of the frame to the left, and then back again towards the end of the film. The resolution sucks, but that’s all we’ve got. This has been taken from the official NASA website.

Notice, in the first part of the vid, there's something, at about 60 secs, on the frame's right. It is seen again after approx 45 secs. The second part has that shadow/object as described above.



The official footage:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here you can hear Duke telling John Young to be careful left of the crater! Why? So what was on the left of the crater that he should be careful about?

So then, this whole thing stinks of a conspiracy, what?

Cheers!


[edit on 5-12-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh


Why do you keep ignoring the tread? It has been pointed out more than once that the tread is exactly the same. Same shape, size, and proportion on all the footprints no matter the size of the print. Why can't you acknowledge that?

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by mikesingh

 

to the two posters so far in this thread:

Nonsense, utter nonsense. bullocks.

Its obvious to me from the photos that thesecond smaller print isnt really print at all of a seperate person but an area where the person stepped on their heel, and maybe do to the soil composition rocks, etc full pressure from the front part of the foot on that particular step may not have been pressured onto the ground


to the second poster, you are aware the hoaxed moon landing theory has been debunked several times

Has it? Where? I've seen many programs about hoaxes or not but the "or not" sides main argument is that we just went to the moon....full stop. The only anomolies that are debunked are the ones that, quite frankly, should never have been put on the table by keen think conspiracists. Anyone with an open mind can debunk them!

This is why I plead with folks here, please stop bringing up evidence which requires an almost religious conviction to believe in them. Otherwise they become the focus of attention leading to the claim above "moon landing hoax has been debunked".

There is a case in point right here: the footprints can indeed be partial and that was my first impression (sorry ). As for the suit, well, my first reaction was that the suit on the left was Apollo 17 wheres the suit on the right was from an earlier mission.....they changed the style!

If you want evidence of Apollo17 tampering look at the photos from the different locations and note how miraculous the moon landscape is in having exactly the same distant hills with a perfect horizontal split between foreground and background. A pre-photoshop badly cut and paste job if ever I saw one.

Mike most of your work is great, but I am afraid this has failed. I know for certain that the space suite has been proven long before now to be the same with the visor flipped up. I thought it had been beat to death actually.

I think the fellas here have given sufficient evidence to assume the hypothesis of the boot being a partial is correct. With your low res pics its easy to confuse them, but the hi res just don't leave a shadow of doubt.

I am really surprised you did not research the space suite better Mike. Either way keep up the good work bringing these things to attention.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
reply to post by mikesingh

 

Why do you keep ignoring the tread? It has been pointed out more than once that the tread is exactly the same. Same shape, size, and proportion on all the footprints no matter the size of the print. Why can't you acknowledge that?

Opinions, much like assholes, everyone has.
Unfortunately, not many people will always like the 'smell' of yours, and will tell you that theirs is better.
I like my own brew.



I believe the OP originally asked others what they thought.
Not, as you seem to think, asking others to tell him what to think.
Your post is about as lame as that 'skeptic' user claiming this thread was an effort to sell a book... furthermore saying 'i won't check the link, because i bet you there is a link to a book somewhere on that page'... Gee... I wonder if that lump even read anything IN this thread, besides looking at the pictures.

Hell. Some of you people should learn how to LISTEN to others, and generate your own opinion. NOT FORCE your opinion on others.

Kudos to the OP. A good find, although I personally, unfortunately agree with others that two of those three prints do look a little too similar. I don't have any 'Expert' opinion on the subject, just commenting on what I see, to be honest. Judging from Internos' links to the NASA site, as well, I'd assume that they were the same boot to make the two first prints. Thanks again for expanding on your OP, and adding more info as you find it.

Keep up your work in searching for more anomalies, and good luck in finding more to bring to others attention, should they wish to find out about them.

Another last input:

I've noticed of late that most of the 'skeptics' on this board are not true skeptics. They simply will not believe in some things, no matter what is presented to them, or how it is presented. These people have already reached their conclusion, and won't be swayed. Don't waste your time on them. Lets try to get back to the OP, and discuss this rationally. There's no need to force your opinion on anyone.

Cheers,

J

Hey Mike, this thread smells of conspiracy. Ive become 90% certain that you are a disinfo agent. Come on posting those crappy photos and painting over them to make your claims more believable, and why would you repeatedly ignore members posting valid answers? This thread makes me second guess your validity as a true truth seeker. It all looks fabricated by you to try and mislead members here. Im sorry to say but thats my perspective on all this.

they filmed those moon landings in a film studio
so that other print was from the kiddo who is a helper
setting stuff up

the real moon program didnt see the light of the lamp

[edit on 5-12-2008 by GRANDWORLDDRAMA]

IT WAS FILMED IN A FILM STUDIO
the guy walking on was an extra that was out of place
a goof up
thats why it had to be edit for "general consumption"

i has been proven THAT LANDER: the technology wouldnt have even worked getting them to the moon and back
its utterly rediculious
WE WENT TO the MOON
BUT NOT WITH THAT CRAP
and not in those shots

Stop ya trolling!

One post is enough to get your point across don't you think?

Originally posted by Waldy
Hey Mike, this thread smells of conspiracy. Ive become 90% certain that you are a disinfo agent.

Disinfo agent?? Meaning? For the motion or against? Hmmm...90% is a trifle uncomfortable. I'll have to try and get that down to about 50% in my next thread! Or I'm gonna be screwed!

Cheers!

Originally posted by jephers0n

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Why do you keep ignoring the tread? It has been pointed out more than once that the tread is exactly the same. Same shape, size, and proportion on all the footprints no matter the size of the print. Why can't you acknowledge that?

I believe the OP originally asked others what they thought.
Not, as you seem to think, asking others to tell him what to think.
Your post is about as lame as that 'skeptic' user claiming this thread was an effort to sell a book... Lets try to get back to the OP, and discuss this rationally. There's no need to force your opinion on anyone.

Cheers,

J

Thanks J!! Couldn't have said that better! If everyone had all the answers and incontrovertible evidence, then why have an alternative discussion site like ATS at all? In any case no one can be 100% sure of anything, except of course, death and taxes!!

Cheers!

Hi everyone,

As I see it, the OP is a pro-consp and these people (I generalize) will use their own ignorance and people's ignorance to make statements. (and even make money sometimes)

You guys are the true disinformation agents sort of speak.

And one should not be proud of presenting such crap here on ATS, specially being a subject matter expert.

Just the title said it all "Aliens footprints On The Moon ?"


What about "alien tampons found on Mars" for the next thread ?

The problem gets even worth, people here have given the OP simple explanations but he does not seem to give them any credit.

I call this a lack of intellectual honesty.

I am sorry Mike but next time that I see one of your thread, I won't even read it since I do not trust you & your approach to things in life.

Sorry to sound a bit harsh but it is the truth from my POV and the truth is ugly sometimes but it had to be said.

Grow up !!


Europa aka Buck



[edit on 5-12-2008 by Europa733]

Originally posted by Europa733
Just the title said it all "Aliens footprints On The Moon ?"

Of course they are alien footprints. On the Moon humans are aliens.

Grow up !!

My friend, don't be angry. This is good entertainment. Don't bash the OP, he followed all the basic rules for spinning a good Moon/Mars conspiracy:
- trust only low resolution images, cropped/filtered/highlighted to death,
- never consider reasonable alternatives, the most preposterous explanation MUST be true,
- ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Congratulations Mike, you do know how to play this game. I always enjoy reading your threads.

Originally posted by Europa733
The problem gets even worth, people here have given the OP simple explanations but he does not seem to give them any credit.
Europa aka Buck

So what's your problem Europa aka Buck? This is a darn discussion with a lot of posters having different opinions for chrissake. Is it blue murder to wait for more opinions before calling it a day? I know you are imbibed with a lot of intellectual honesty that I lack, but heck, is it a requirement here on ATS that the OP has to give credit after 'x' number of posts? Can this be done after some more inputs?

There have been very good and cogent explanations from posters that I appreciate. But you seem to be in a tearing hurry, what?

Take some effort to read the opening post which asks, "So what do you guys think?" They are giving their opinions, their thinking. I didn't ask for any explanations or proof, to convince me or anyone else that these are alien footprints or otherwise, did I? It's just opinions! Plain English, I thought, Dr Watson!

And oh yes! Talking of intellectual honesty, could you please explain WHY in this post, www.abovetopsecret.com...
when you made a translation from French to English you deliberately "forgot" to mention that the hypothesis of a bird passing close to the camera was "perfectly acceptable"? And you also deliberately "forgot" to mention that there's a colony of pigeons in the clock of the photo? And you conveniently "forgot" that they concluded that the bird explanation was the one to favor since it was the most likely?

You translated the article mentioning only the part that you wanted to translate, omitting DELIBERATELY the parts that were supporting the contrary!

Wow! I thought people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones, what? You must've heard that song by Madonna, "Papa don't preach". Get your house in order buddy before talking of intellectual honesty!

Jeez! The self styled preachers we have to put up with!

Cheers!




[edit on 5-12-2008 by mikesingh]