Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

Originally posted by ArMaP
the dust was easily dispersed by the astronauts.

I'm not disagreeing the dust is easily dispersed. The problem I have is the uniformity in this case of the alleged dispersal.

The ground texture between the rover's wheels is so perfect. Unlike their footprints. I highly doubt astronauts kicking around the place could cause the re-covering of the tracks in such a uniform manner.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/759263761bec.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5878c433f313.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0efbd3027638.jpg[/atsimg]

original photo history.nasa.gov...

edit: add other wheel photo + wide view

[edit on 27-6-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


Think of the regolith as a liquid. See how it "splashes" as the astronauts bounce around in it. It tends to spread out evenly as it lands, and works its way into cracks. It's as though you're wondering why a car didn't leave a track in water.

Originally posted by ppk55
I'm not disagreeing the dust is easily dispersed. The problem I have is the uniformity in this case of the alleged dispersal.

A very fine dust acts in the same way as a fine spray of liquid, as you can try for yourself with Portland cement or even some flour.

And as you can see in the photo taken after that one, the rover tracks are always hard to spot because the rover wheels spread the dust over the tracks, partially covering the already little noticeable tracks. That's probably why the tracks seen from a distance are only noticed as darker areas, because of the moved dust and not because of the wheel prints.



Edit: some photos showing the wheel tracks, where you can see how shallow those tracks really are and how the tracks made by the front wheels easily disappear.

AS15-82-11201


AS15-90-12217


AS15-90-12218


[edit on 27/6/2010 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by ppk55
I'm not disagreeing the dust is easily dispersed. The problem I have is the uniformity in this case of the alleged dispersal.

A very fine dust acts in the same way as a fine spray of liquid, as you can try for yourself with Portland cement or even some flour.

We will have to choose to disagree on this based upon all the above pictures.

Another problem photo has emerged...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/79e90151ec3a.jpg[/atsimg]

Here the alleged astronaut is pointing the camera directly at the sun. Why ?

If this is the case, why is everything in the picture still visible ? (B)
How is it possible to even make out the smallest of details in the rock when the sun is striking the camera dead on ?

The shadow (C) looks ridiculous. How could you even see a shadow like that with the sun right in the middle of the lens ?

This is a photographic impossibility.

edit again: shouldn't the shadow at least run 180 degrees to the sun ?

ie. the shadow should hit us dead on .. not off to the right
I don't see any terrain abnormality that should cause this.

source: www.lpi.usra.edu...

What lighting is hitting (B) ? This is crazy, you have direct sun hitting the lens, and fill lighting hitting (B) .. even in a studio environment this is a hard task.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


files.abovetopsecret.com...



Its visible but very LOW contrast you do know what that means

What smallest detail I take it you mean the texture of the surface and the small stones their shadows help!


You better have a closer look, look at the pad at the bottom of the leg
its obvious the shadow goes into a slight depression and then at your
letter C you can see a slight mound YOU really do know NOTHING about photography

Also you do realise that leg is angled just in case you missed that obvious point!

[edit on 12-7-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 12-7-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by ppk55

The shadow (C) looks ridiculous. How could you even see a shadow like that with the sun right in the middle of the lens ?

This is a photographic impossibility.

edit again: shouldn't the shadow at least run 180 degrees to the sun ?

If you look at the terrain, its obvious that the surface where the shadow is cast is not level, there by changing the direction of the shadows.

How many times does this need to be covered?

I thought you were a video professional?

Originally posted by ppk55
We will have to choose to disagree on this based upon all the above pictures.

OK.

But I strongly suggest that you get some Portland cement to understand what I mean, you will see that most of the "problems" people see on Moon photos related to the dust (that the dust acts like mud, for example) are cleared when working with such a fine and dry dust as Portland cement.
(I swear I don't have any shares on Portland cement companies. )

Here the alleged astronaut is pointing the camera directly at the sun. Why ?

Because it's part of a panorama, they did one of those for any site they went.

If this is the case, why is everything in the picture still visible ? (B)

How is it possible to even make out the smallest of details in the rock when the sun is striking the camera dead on ?

Because they used good cameras.

The shadow (C) looks ridiculous. How could you even see a shadow like that with the sun right in the middle of the lens ?

This is a photographic impossibility.

edit again: shouldn't the shadow at least run 180 degrees to the sun ?

ie. the shadow should hit us dead on .. not off to the right
I don't see any terrain abnormality that should cause this.

The ground doesn't look flat and it doesn't look horizontal either. The object projecting the shadow isn't perpendicular to the ground or to the Sun, so the shadow is not a simple projection.

For anyone that studied technical drawing or descriptive geometry that's a simple scene.

Hi gang,
Very interesting thread. I noticed you were talking about LRV wheel tracks not being visible in the regolith in several Apollo lunar surface Hasselblad images, so here are a few more frame#'s that also show this same thing - no tracks visible emanating from the wheels - almost as if the LRV was just placed there, rather than being driven up to the site.

I apologize that I havent linked to any of these frames directly, but I am just copying this list over from notes I made about these missing tracks awhile ago. All these frames are readily available in NASA's online archives.

I personally do not buy the argument that the lack of visible tracks emanating from the LRV wheels in all these examples (examples from all three J missions that we are told employed the LRV - A15, 16 and 17), are ALL explainable due to astronaut footstep activity kicking up and scattering regolith over the tracks and accidentally obscuring them entirely. I think there is more to these missing rover tracks than that.

AS15-82-11061 - No LRV tracks seen leading from front or rear wheels
AS15-82-11062 - No LRV tracks seen leading from front or rear wheels
AS15-82-11063 - No LRV tracks seen leading from front or rear wheels

AS15-85-11411 - left rear wheel facing head-on shows no track emanating from the wheel.

AS15-85-11470 - right side profile of LRV shows no tracks behind front or rear wheels

AS15-85-11471 - same as above - no tracks visible. Also note that although the wheels are apparently rotating/spinning when this image was taken (note the dust), the mesh of the wheels is still in perfect focus.

AS15-86-11603 - no tracks visible emanating from the wheels

AS15-88-11901 - side profile of LRV, no tracks emanating from the wheels.
AS15-88-11902 - side profile of LRV, no tracks emanating from the wheels
AS15-88-11903 - side profile of LRV, no tracks emanating from the wheels

AS15-90-12218 - front right wheel - no track behind wheel
AS15-90-12219 - front right wheel - no track behind wheel

AS16-107-17510 - rear wheels with tailgate open - no tracks

AS16-107-17511 - side profile of LRV left side - no tracks between front and rear wheels

AS16-110-17869 - rear fender closeup looking down, no track visible

AS16-110-17947 - rear of LRV, no tracks
AS16-110-17948 - rear of LRV, no tracks

AS16-110-17960 - side profile, no tracks leading to wheels
AS16-110-17961 - side profile, no tracks leading to wheels
AS16-110-17962 - side profile, no tracks leading to wheels

AS16-110-18006 - pan series, showing LRV and old tracks in front but no new tracks off rear wheel
AS16-110-18007 - pan - same
AS16-110-18008 - pan - same
AS16-110-18009 - pan - same

AS16-114-18433 - rear tailgate and wheels, no tracks
AS16-114-18434 - high crop just misses showing tracks

AS16-116-18708 - left rear wheel, no tracks

AS17-133-20249 - side profile, no rover tracks and no CDR "dismounting the LRV" footprints although it appears to be very a soft regolith surface.

AS17-133-20341 - pan series, showing side profile with no rearward tracks visible.
AS17-133-20342 - pan - same
AS17-133-20343 - pan - same

AS17-134-20420 - pan series, side profile showing no LRV tracks
AS17-134-20421 - pan - same
AS17-134-20422 - pan - same
AS17-134-20423 - pan - same

AS17-137-20979 - no LRV tracks visible behind rear wheel or between front and rear wheels on right side

AS17-140-21352 - LM window series showing LRV, no tracks, lots of footprints
AS17-140-21353 - same
AS17-140-21354 - same

AS17-143-21931 - rear view series of LRV at VIP stop, no tracks visible
AS17-143-21932 - same series
AS17-143-21933 - same series
AS17-143-21934 - same series

Cheers gang,
LC

reply to post by LunaCognita


I think if you read the whole thread instead of performing a drive by, you'd see that we have already discussed and gone over the reasons why no tracks are seen.

:shk:

reply to post by theability


I did read the thread, and you have done nothing but offer possible explanations, and I am certainly not convinced. I don't agree with those explanations being applied to explain away the missing wheel tracks in all these images, and I am merely pointing out some more of the evidence relating to these LRV wheel tracks not being visible. Are all these images already being discussed in this thread? No? Well, sorry for trying to add some more entirely relevant evidence to that part of the discussion. I didn't realize that everyone's mind had been made up yet, and that your explanations were already considered fact. Just because you are convinced by something, doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you and fall in line.

Cheers,
LC

reply to post by LunaCognita

I did read the thread, and you have done nothing but offer possible explanations, and I am certainly not convinced.

By all means don't take my word for it. I mean Occams Razor is on my side of explanation.


BTW I thought you for the longest time was Against Apollo being a hoax? Now your changing your mind? Hm so much for all your past theories.

Anyway back to your post:

I don't agree with those explanations being applied to explain away the missing wheel tracks in all these images, and I am merely pointing out some more of the evidence relating to these LRV wheel tracks not being visible. Are all these images already being discussed in this thread? No?

Again as I had offered earlier in the thread, the tracks have been covered up by the astronauts moving about the lunar surface.

It is that simple Lunacognita. No huge conspiracy to loose yourself in, when it can be explain in less that 30 seconds. Moving on:

Well, sorry for trying to add some more entirely relevant evidence to that part of the discussion. I didn't realize that everyone's mind had been made up yet, and that your explanations were already considered fact. Just because you are convinced by something, doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you and fall in line.

Wow, when did you falling in line ever come up?

And next, the discussion has already been covered about missing tracks, no matter how many more images you try to come up with, still the explanation REMAINS THE SAME!

Anyway what side of the fence you on now??

Did you find some burdern of proof that makes you believe Apollo was a hoax?

:shk:

Make your mind up!

reply to post by theability


Wow. The very fact that you immediately imply that because I question the authenticity of the Apollo lunar surface hasselblad imagery that I therefore must believe Apollo was a total hoax demonstrates a rather short-sighted leap of faith on your part. I absolutely believe they went to the Moon, and I absolutely believe they lied to the world about what is really up there. I believe that establishing and maintaining that coverup required the alteration, obfuscation and even fakery of audio and visual evidence supposedly documenting the events that was to be made available for the public to scrutinize, ensuring that said evidence was sanitized and would adhere to the basic fundamentals of the Dead Moon Dictum. I haven't wavered from that belief.

If you wish to maintain a simplistic argument that forces you to consider the Apollo conspiracy as having only one of two options - either "yes they went and it is all true" or "no they didn't go and it was all a hoax" - well, you are certainly entitled to hold that opinion, as myopic as I consider it to be. Of course, that means you are simply evading the other option entirely - that yes, they went to the Moon, and yes, they lied to the public about it in order to hide what they really found and did up there. I have always been pretty clear about that being where my opinions on this subject matter lie. I don't see how what I presented and said in those above posts can appear to alter where I stand on the subject at all. Sorry for interrupting the thread. Won't happen again.

Cheers,
LC

Originally posted by LunaCognita
reply to post by theability

 

Wow. The very fact that you immediately imply that because I question the authenticity of the Apollo lunar surface hasselblad imagery that I therefore must believe Apollo was a total hoax demonstrates a rather short-sighted leap of faith on your part. I absolutely believe they went to the Moon, and I absolutely believe they lied to the world about what is really up there. I believe that establishing and maintaining that coverup required the alteration, obfuscation and even fakery of audio and visual evidence supposedly documenting the events that was to be made available for the public to scrutinize, ensuring that said evidence was sanitized and would adhere to the basic fundamentals of the Dead Moon Dictum. I haven't wavered from that belief.

If you wish to maintain a simplistic argument that forces you to consider the Apollo conspiracy as having only one of two options - either "yes they went and it is all true" or "no they didn't go and it was all a hoax" - well, you are certainly entitled to hold that opinion, as myopic as I consider it to be. Of course, that means you are simply evading the other option entirely - that yes, they went to the Moon, and yes, they lied to the public about it in order to hide what they really found and did up there. I have always been pretty clear about that being where my opinions on this subject matter lie. I don't see how what I presented and said in those above posts can appear to alter where I stand on the subject at all. Sorry for interrupting the thread. Won't happen again.

Cheers,
LC

A fair point. But why cover up the tracks? What dark secret did they reveal? By the way, if you'd read the thread you would realize that there several reasons why the tracks are sometimes not visible, depending on the photograph. They include patches of bare rock face (no dust, no track) angle of illumination, obfuscation by rises in terrain (or is that lunain?), losing contact with the surface as the rover bounces, etc.

Edit to correct formatting.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by LunaCognita

AS16-107-17510 - rear wheels with tailgate open - no tracks

AS16-107-17511 - side profile of LRV left side - no tracks between front and rear wheels

(...)

AS16-110-18006 - pan series, showing LRV and old tracks in front but no new tracks off rear wheel
AS16-110-18007 - pan - same
AS16-110-18008 - pan - same
AS16-110-18009 - pan - same

Regarding the spesific images listed above, the Lunar Rover tracks are missing in them because the astronauts (Young and Duke) actually lifted the Rover and moved it to another spot.

This is from the Apollo 16 audio transcript:

145:11:26 Young: No, I don't mean that. I mean let's bring the Rover back up here.

145:11:23 Duke: Well, I'm out. I'm not getting out again, and getting back in.

145:11:26 Young: No, I don't mean that. I mean let's bring the Rover back up here.

145:11:29 Duke: Oh, you want to pick it up, huh?

145:11:30 Young: Yeah.

145:11:31 Duke: Okay. (Pause)

145:11:36 Young: Okay, now. We've got to swing it around. (Pause) There we go.

145:11:50 Duke: Okay.

145:11:51 Young: That's more like it. (Long Pause)

[As indicated above John parked on a heading of 174. Frame AS16-110-18010 suggests that they may have put it on a somewhat easterly heading. Because they don't re-initialize the Rover Nav system before the leave for Station 6, the indicated Rover heading and the bearing to the LM will be off by the difference between the initial heading of 174 and whatever the heading was after they moved the Rover.]
[Duke - "Like I always say, 'If you don't like your parking place, you just pick it up and walk off with it.' It was easy to pick up. I don't remember the details. I'm trying to picture it in my mind; but, apparently, we parked and it was pointed down a slope and there was a little bench behind us, so we just picked it up and hauled it back."]

[Jones - "One at either side at the midpoint?"]

[Duke - "Yeah. You just get out, right where your seat was, and there was a handle on the frame."]

[AS16-107- 17511 shows the handle on John's side of the Rover. The Rover has a terrestrial weight of about 230 kg (500 pounds) and a lunar weight of about 40 kg (88 pounds).]

[Jones - "Both hands on the handle?"]

[Duke - "I don't remember exactly, but I think both hands on the handle. It was sort of like you could reach up and...There was a handle down there and, also, you could reach up under the chassis and pick it up - spread your hands apart a little bit, that gave you a little balance on the thing. It was easy to do."]

history.nasa.gov...

In this cropped version of image (AS16-107-17511) you can see the handle on the Rover:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/36a6a22e97a3.jpg[/atsimg]
Full image here:
history.nasa.gov...

reply to post by DJW001

A fair point. But why cover up the tracks? What dark secret did they reveal? By the way, if you'd read the thread you would realize that there several reasons why the tracks are sometimes not visible, depending on the photograph. They include patches of bare rock face (no dust, no track) angle of illumination, obfuscation by rises in terrain (or is that lunain?), losing contact with the surface as the rover bounces, etc.

I tried to bring this up and for some reason I got an ear full!

reply to post by LunaCognita

Wow. The very fact that you immediately imply that because I question the authenticity of the Apollo lunar surface hasselblad imagery that I therefore must believe Apollo was a total hoax demonstrates a rather short-sighted leap of faith on your part.

Wow take a breath and relax. That is one long sentence!

A leap of shorted sighted faith? Come on!

I absolutely believe they went to the Moon, and I absolutely believe they lied to the world about what is really up there.

Not everything about Apollo has to be explained by conspiracy. Be rational.

I believe that establishing and maintaining that coverup required the alteration, obfuscation and even fakery of audio and visual evidence supposedly documenting the events that was to be made available for the public to scrutinize, ensuring that said evidence was sanitized and would adhere to the basic fundamentals of the Dead Moon Dictum. I haven't wavered from that belief.

As I said about, not everything is complex, with the darkest of sinister secrets at the helm.

If you wish to maintain a simplistic argument that forces you to consider the Apollo conspiracy as having only one of two options - either "yes they went and it is all true" or "no they didn't go and it was all a hoax" - well, you are certainly entitled to hold that opinion, as myopic as I consider it to be.

LunaCongita, when have you and I ever talked about Apollo ever? You have no idea what I think about Apollo or understand about Apollo. You statement is foolish to state such things about my beliefs as a whole. Before you jump for judgment why don't you research things first ?

Of course, that means you are simply evading the other option entirely - that yes, they went to the Moon, and yes, they lied to the public about it in order to hide what they really found and did up there.

Again, you haven't the slightest about my beliefs of Apollo or the time spent researching the subject.

You aren't the only person on the planet that thinks they know something about Apollo.

I have always been pretty clear about that being where my opinions on this subject matter lie.

Well as for the LRV tracks sometimes the simplest answer tends to be the right one, no conspiracy there! They walked all over them. easy to figure out. As I tried to explain to you, we have been over this, already in the thread.

I don't see how what I presented and said in those above posts can appear to alter where I stand on the subject at all.

Well as for my previous statement: I was under the assumption that like others in here that claim the tracks are not there, because they were in a darn studio, that you were implying the same thing. That is in fact what the thread is about, you should know that if your read the thread.

Sorry for interrupting the thread. Won't happen again.

I think you need to lighten up a bit. If you had read the thread you'd understood the position of the thread is that Apollo NEVER HAPPENED.

That is why I asked if your position had changed.

:shk:





[edit on 13-7-2010 by theability]

Originally posted by LunaCognita
I personally do not buy the argument that the lack of visible tracks emanating from the LRV wheels in all these examples (examples from all three J missions that we are told employed the LRV - A15, 16 and 17), are ALL explainable due to astronaut footstep activity kicking up and scattering regolith over the tracks and accidentally obscuring them entirely. I think there is more to these missing rover tracks than that.

So, what do you think was the real reason for the supposedly missing tracks?

AS15-85-11471 - same as above - no tracks visible. Also note that although the wheels are apparently rotating/spinning when this image was taken (note the dust), the mesh of the wheels is still in perfect focus.

That photo shows one of the reasons why the tracks are not visible or just barely visible when compared with the astronauts footprints, the wire mesh "sprinkled" the dust over the newly made tracks, covering them a little from the beginning.

The mesh is perfectly visible because of the shutter speed used, that's basic photography knowledge (if I know it then it's basic ).

Edit: I think you should revise that list, in some of the photos there isn't any possibility of seeing any tracks, even if they were well marked.

[edit on 13/7/2010 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by LunaCognita
- no tracks visible emanating from the wheels - almost as if the LRV was just placed there, rather than being driven up to the site.

Why would an alleged stage-hand lift a wheeled vehicle into place when he could just roll it? The whole no-tracks = fake photo argument is based on a totally silly assumption. It makes no sense.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Saint Exupery]

reply to post by Saint Exupery

Why would an alleged stage-hand lift a wheeled vehicle into place when he could just roll it?

Not to mention (has anyone mentioned the illogic?)....

...did these alleged "stage-hands" have antigravity boots? Could they float around, do their so-called "staging job", and leave no footprints??

I say to ALL WHO CLAIM it was a "movie set", or any such nonsense...take a moment to actually research what goes into film production, on set.

Plenty of "behind-the-scenes" sources are available as research sources to compare. Even weekly TV show production, such as a Star Trek weekly series, has at LEAST a hundred people as technicians, gaffers, best boys, etc, etc, ... and it take hours and hours to set up each and every shot, and those takes are VERY short in duration, and edited together later, in post-production.

It is the height of fantastical ignorance to imagine any possiblity, as suggested by the "hoax believers"....of some sort of "film" or other sort of "fake" activity, and false "production".

People who take the time to understand the complexities involved (and bother to learn) will see this immediately.

reply to post by LunaCognita


thanks LunaCognita for the image list


it seems there are quite a few images that do not show rover tracks and even if there is a mundane explanation for a few of them, all of them should be examined and the list you provided is a good investigative starting point. i guess the question is , can the Astronauts picking up the rover and moving it, the rover bouncing while traversing, dust being kicked up (LOL), or oblique perspectives explain all of the images that show no tracks ?

i will have a look at the images you listed, this one from A15 is interesting


spaceflight.nasa.gov...

[edit on 13-7-2010 by easynow]