Alien Footprints On The Moon?

maybe it was one of the kids they had working on the movie set

Originally posted by mikesingh

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?

My problem is that people like you are not here to deny ignorance but to embrace it and spread stupid stories like this one.

Why, because if you were a truth seeker, you should have said, "ok guys, I get it now, sounds logical" which is not a shame, all of us make mistakes sometimes and admitting an error is a proof of intellectual integrity and I really do respect that.

Now, I did not see any of that but rather the contrary, so I leave you with your little stories...have fun...

Cheers,
Europa aka pseudo-pro-consp buster

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Europa733]

So, lets get this right.NASA have airbrushed out tiny specks on moon photographs so that we don't realise that there are structures on the moon, but then they go and photograph an astronaut, who shouldn't be there!, and release the said picture to the world? Seriously, that doesn't make any sense. . . does it?
I'm a keen believer on there being artificial structures on the moon, etc, but I think you may be barking up the wrong tree on this one. Couldn't it simply be a test of a new spacesuit?

reply to post by Europa733


Please re-read my post you referred to. Thanks!

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


You are absolutely correct Mint! This could be a slightly modified space suit and of course those footprints are most likely those of the astronauts themselves. But the issue I was looking at for someone to point out was that the particular 'smaller' footprint has a heel imprint that seems smaller than the others. I was looking at the rounded portion/curve of the heel which looks to be much smaller than what it should be.

It may be an optical illusion, but have a look at it again. A 'part' imprint as many have contended, would not have produced a complete curve. It would have been smudged out in part. But this imprint is clear and well defined throughout its curve.

That's the issue I have been looking for, that few seem to have noticed. Needless to say, I may be wrong but it was worth analyzing!

Cheers!




[edit on 5-12-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh


www.abovetopsecret.com...


It seems you are implying that are mysterious astronaut may be from some secret moon base! If you look directly above the astronaut you can see an object which may be that very base. It's easy to believe it's part of the astronauts suit but look carefully and it could very well be something artificial and far off in the distance. And once you come to that conclusion , with a little bit of imagination ,granted, you can see what looks like banks of long thin windows and perhaps a radar dish!

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


Did you mean this?



Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh


That youtube video is clearly full of ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED interference, i.e. added in post production by effects. Completely and totally fake.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


I guess we dropped a vehicle on the moon too right. Of course we did. You can't keep believing this farce forever.

reply to post by NavalFC


And you realise that attacking people in replies is not only frowned upon around this forum, but is out ans out against forum policy?

Just one word matey: Manners.

Basically saying that posters post nonsense and bollocks (we know what you are saying, even if it is spelt such to get away from auto-correction) is rude, disrespectfull, and counterproductive to ATS members, who actually posess an open mind.

While you've got me at it, how exactly have you come by your 'beyond any reasonable doubt', fully conclusive evidence that 'moon landings' (as purported to have taken place) actually happened as described? I'd be very interested in learning of it. If it's 'evidence' in the form of " Because i saw it on TV, in a book, in photo's etc." Then you may as well forget any credibility you arrived with.

FYI. A hell of a lot of people (from what i've read here and elsewhere) DO think the official RECORD of the 'moon landings' were faked, rather than a black and white " We have never gone to the moon". It's a hugely complex subject that is not as simple as you appear to imagine.

There are a couple of main scenarios:

1.) We DID, in fact travel to the moon, but the official RECORD (video, photo, transcripts, press pack, tape etc) WERE faked.
Again, opinion varies as to the reason(s) for this to be so.

Popular hypothesis include:

The film in the cameras were mostly spoiled due to harsh environmental conditions, or badly framed/focusing led to some creative artwork in a studio/filmset back on earth, after the mission(s).

The luar surface is riddled with ancient technological artifacts, and structures left behind by an alien race/ancient humans, who had an outpost situated on the moon. The RECORD was then faked/altered/edited to cover this knowledge up.

This is the hypothesis i subscribe to. There is a HUGE amount of EVIDENCE to prove this fact despite NASA's efforts to hide this. IF you are genuinely interested, you can navigate to any OFFICIAL NASA Apollo photo archive and see the blatently obvious tampering and airbrushing and other editing techniques, that are trying to cover these technological remnants.

As above, but the artifacts are from a HUMAN civilisation that existed in antiquity, and attained a very high degree of technological capability, but was subsequently 'regressed' (perhaps over and over) to a pre-technological state, following an extinction level event of some kind (war, virus, asteroid, pole shift, nibiru etc) We are their descendants.

There are more of course, but these are the main hypothesis floating about.

In conclusion, while you may not agree with the viewpoint of a poster, perhaps you could refrain from insulting them twice. Once by reducing someone's view and substantial reasearch time investment as nonsense and bullocks, and twice by saying what you said, without offering ANY information help uphold your point.

It's a bit like a TV programme, if you don't like what you see, don't look. If you don't like what you read, read something else!
Simple really isn't it?

If you need to be pointed to a specific photo or set of for 'proof', then there are hundreds of people here that can point you in the right direction.

Spikey.

reply to post by mikesingh


Easy way to tell if it is or isn't a print from one of the regular astronaut boot prints.

Go back to apollo photo's. Find a close up of a clear boot print, compare the grip patterns of the boot heel sections. Do the tread patterns line / match up?

If yes, mystery pretty much solved (Razor).
If no, mystery deepens.

Simple to do...hang on a minute or two, i'll go and do it myself.

spikey.

reply to post by spikey


OK...Not as easy as i though.

Gonna take some time.

The standard NASA Moon boot has a tread impression pattern that has nine straight 'bars' running along the width, ten if you count the very rear of the tread, which is shaped like a semi circle.

All i have to do now, is find just one footprint that doesn't have the same tread pattern....

Anyone have any photos of a clean moonboot tread (the underside of the actual boot, not the print)?

spikey

[edit on 5-12-2008 by spikey]

Originally posted by mikesingh
The official footage:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

If this is the official footage, is the previou, YouTube footage, also official? The way you wrote it, it made me think that the YouTube footage was taken from the official footage, but it's not.

And the figure that appears on the right on the YouTube video should appear on the next video, not the one you posted, this video.

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?

A nasty fall?

Mike... that video you posted on page 5 is fake. Or at least the guy who steps into frame is. I'm affraid you've been dupped yet again. Here's the original.

You should also really learn to use sites like Project Apollo Archive and Apollo Lunar Surface Journal if you're going to be analiyzing images. The ones you provided in your original post are absolute garbage. The astronauts used high quality 70mm film on those missions. Take advantage of it. You can clearly see that those footprints are just the same as the others, but just damaged or imperfect prints.

Originally posted by rocksarerocks
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

I guess we dropped a vehicle on the moon too right. Of course we did. You can't keep believing this farce forever.

What are you even talking about? What vehicle? You mean the one that put the mirrors in place? Why is that so farcical? Are the ones we are driving around mars farcical as well?

reply to post by angel of lightangelo
test

Originally posted by mikesingh

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!

So I am being berated for taking a look at what you offered as evidence and pointing out something that I see in it? The tread is identical and that seems to be proof of something. Instead, I am a jerk for noticing that?

P.S. I was not trying to force anyone to believe or think anything. I was just trying to get you to notice how much your evidence looks exactly as if it were made by the exact same machine that NASA used to makes its boots. Sorry, I guess that was rude. Does this help? - Hey aliens on the moons, look proof, they have shoes like us and suits like us but with raisable visors. WOW OP great find, a flag and a star.

There does lying to you seem less rude than pointing out the tread is a dead giveaway that this is no alien track?

[edit on 5-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

reply to post by ArMaP


What about the official NASA footage? Here....

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

Notice the gray dot moving from the right to left and back near the horizon? Oh yeah, it's pixelation of course - moving pixels! Just one pixel moving whilst the rest are stationary!

So is this also tampered with? Someone said this could not be official NASA footage as it is blurred!! Heck! This IS from the NASA web site, for Chrissake! Blurred means NOT from NASA! Pretty corny logic, what?

Cheers!

Originally posted by Monger
So the Moon People wear boots with identical tread patterns to the Apollo astronauts? Wow, talk about coincidence!

moon people?? what if they designed boot design in the first place?



wake up wittle won.

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by spikey

 

All i have to do now, is find just one footprint that doesn't have the same tread pattern....

Anyone have any photos of a clean moonboot tread (the underside of the actual boot, not the print)?

spikey

Jack Schmitt's Right Lunar Boot Sole
View from the lefthand side. The darker areas are the cleats

history.nasa.gov...