And again, were they really on the MOON??

I was just google-ing for some sapce pictures when I've stumbled upon this:

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I know it was a long argued topic, but still, take a look at the picture!!

I can see the astronauts foot-prints (in the highest resolution picture - just click on the image), but what about the rover???

To me, it looks like it was just layed in there!! Then, why is it so dusty??

..of the critics of the government story about the moon missions, IMO, is the difficulty of human beings surviving the cosmic radiation beyond Earth's protective Van Allen belts. I have seen no article take that difficulty on successfully.

Also, it seems very suspicious that we haven't been back in over 30 years...Could it be that too many people have access to very sophisticated telescopetry and might not see the rocket land??

Originally posted by mepatriot
Could it be that too many people have access to very sophisticated telescopetry and might not see the rocket land??

telescopetry? no such word... I know what you're getting at but could it be that the lack of understanding / education on your part could have something to do with your inability to understand space travel concepts?

Originally posted by Solarix
telescopetry? no such word... I know what you're getting at but could it be that the lack of understanding / education on your part could have something to do with your inability to understand space travel concepts?

I also don't know the word telescopetry but I guess that on this one mepatriot is right!! I remember I saw in a newspaper or a magazine (or something) a picture took by an amateur shoing yhe first ever junction between the MIR station and a US space shuttle!!

What I don't get is what does this have to do with someone's understanding of space travel concepts??

That picture is from a rather close-call on the moon. A fender of the rover broke, and the astronauts were in a tough spot. It's dusty because the rover kicks up a lot of dust as it moves on the surface of the moon. With low gravity and no atmosphere, the dust doesn't settle quickly and gets on the rover and the astronauts... hence the importance of the fenders and wire-mesh tires. A fender broke, causing too much dust to kick up, and posing a real threat to a rover malfunction, leaving the astronauts stranded too far from the lander. The solution was to fabricate a make-shift fender using Duct Tape (or duck tape) that would be sufficient to get them back to the rover. The reason you don't see tire marks is because they just finished working on the fender and walked all over the trails from the tires. How do I know this? Well... it's an exceptionally important moment in adhesive "duck tape" history... and five years ago, I did this website: www.ducktapeclub.com...

SO...LOL. I'm a big fan of duct tape. In fact, I have different "classifications" for the various "colors" of duct tape.

For instance, the gray duct tape I refer to as "300 mile an hour" duct tape.

Why? Because back in the early 90's when the military budget was so lean they couldn't do proper maintainance, the leading edges of the attack choppers were delaminating...

the crew would duct tape the leading edges so they could keep flying.



Whatever it is...if duct tape won't fix it...you need a new one.

[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Valhall]

I know the story, myself...
I'm sorry I haven't got the time to look for other pictures from the Moon (working hours..), but as I recall, when Armstrong walked on the moon there was a lot of foot-prints, and still, you could see almost each one, even if it was steped again, and again. But to completly hide the rovers trails? I could hardly believe it!!

The everlasting debate can be settled with one trip to the moon during my lifetime.

Originally posted by Apass
I know it was a long argued topic, but still, take a look at the picture!!

I can see the astronauts foot-prints (in the highest resolution picture - just click on the image), but what about the rover???

To me, it looks like it was just layed in there!! Then, why is it so dusty??

Did you read the caption of the photo??

The rover kicked up a lot of dust when it moved. When dust gets kicked up and it drifts back down, it covers the tracks.

And Mepatriot, apparently you weren't aware that the only area of radiation they passed through (the Van Allen Belts) is not at a radiation level of "if you enter here, you fry instantly."

The radiation levels will indeed kill you if you go floating aorund in the Van Allen belts for weeks. But for a couple of hours -- no.

Originally posted by Bangin
The everlasting debate can be settled with one trip to the moon during my lifetime.

I've said something like that about the Mars pictures...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

check the end of the page

In my views they definitely got there on our moon. But I'm still not sure they didn't see anything weird, strange, alien, big and so on...

- Sir, those babies are huge!...

I know, only words... I dream about finding one person who lived then and who recorded it. That "historical" broadcast is so far not proven... It would just be mind-boggling!

There are many photos of the LRV having tracks behind them.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

161.115.184.211...

go here for more great images: www.apolloarchive.com...



mepatriot: It's not suspicious at all. NASA moved onto other things, they developed the shuttle, which can't even get up that high let alone leave Earth orbit. NASA has nothing to get back to the moon with, thus the reason why we haven't been back in so long. Not to mention the money involved which NASA has also been lacking these days.

Originally posted by Apass
I was just google-ing for some sapce pictures when I've stumbled upon this:

At this point I don't believe we actually landed on the moon. I think it was a perfectly staged cold war psy-op. I don't press it, though. Americans need their heroic moon landing story. It makes them feel good and I don't see the harm at this point.

Kinda off topic..but since we were talking about Duct Tape i remember this. My hometown of Wasilla, Alaska won Duct Tape Capital of the World in 2003!!! w00t!! w00t!!

Originally posted by Apass
I was just google-ing for some sapce pictures when I've stumbled upon this:

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I know it was a long argued topic, but still, take a look at the picture!!

I can see the astronauts foot-prints (in the highest resolution picture - just click on the image), but what about the rover???

To me, it looks like it was just layed in there!! Then, why is it so dusty??

it was driven around. duh. man, where did you come up with this. a hummer in the desert aint going to be exactly clean is it? no way in hell

there are many foot prints yet no buggy track......!!!

I don't think that the moon landing had anything to do with the search for other intelligent life.
At the time, I believe that it served 2 purposes:
1) To show the Soviets and the rest of the world our technological superiority.
2) To have a goal that while working towards it, would produce a ton of peripheral advances in technology as a by-product that would improve the quality of life in the U.S. and the world in general.

Reason #2 is still why I support heavy funding for NASA and even military reasearch in general.

I can't believe this topic is back again! Let's get over it -- THEY WERE THERE!

Yeah it is a well known FACT the moon landings were faked.
here are five reasons why I KNOW the moon landings were faked.

1.Who filmed Neil Armstrong getting out of the space craft.
Remember he was the first on the moon.

2. There was 3 shadows on the astronauts implying there is another light source other than the sun. Don't say it's the lander, because that is a stupid comeback.

3.The Lunar Car would not be able to fit in the apollo. I have seen the blueprints as well.

4. The speed of the astronauts defying gravity was inaccurate.

5.The Apollo missions could have not past through the radiation belt. It would have killed all of the astronauts abored.

Those are only 5 reasons. I have many more but I just want to make a point. That picture is yet just another piece of evidence that supports the moon landings being faked. Good evidence.

never mind, I really don't feel like arguing about this..

In short, do you have any back up for your ideas and beliefs on this ?



[Edited on 30-4-2004 by elevatedone]