New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

Find the tracks.


Well, I tried. I used every different exposure and contrast to try to bring out any hidden details in what originally appears to be an overexposed photo. There are no tire tracks to be seen nor are there any footprints showing that they have carried the LRV. ??? ( I do see the footprint in extreme foreground which isn't close enough to the LRV to matter)
So how did it get there?
I don't need any further evidence than this to convince me that this picture was not taken on the moon. In a studio perhaps but not 280,000 miles away from Earth.
If we did go to the moon why would NASA feel the need to create fake photos?

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by trig_grl
What ive been asking for years and no one has given a solid answer is WHY? Why did they fake the moon landing? Ive seen enough evidence to believe it was a hoax but im still confused as to why?

simple answer to that is that they didn't fake it.

I bet they actually went to the Moon but the movies and pictures we saw down here on Earth were the studio version. They could censor it and give us a sanitized version, but they actually did go. How else do you think they confirmed the existence of the ancient alien Moon bases?

reply to post by Dustytoad

Why would the Russians expose it?
If they play along like they believe it too, then they can keep building up their technology while pretending they already lost the game.

Considering we were in the middle of the cold war, if the Russians had had proof that the moon landing was a hoax they would certainly have presented that fact to the American public.....can you imagine how damaging that would have been to the then government?


There isn't a prayer that the US would have attempted to fool the world with a hoax moon landing......America isn't and wasn't the only country in the world to have clever scientists!.....they would have been rumbled and exposed in a heart beat!

Everyone stop panicking.... The Chinese will get to the bottom of this in the next decade or so

reply to post by WWu777


Well what do you know another Apollo Hoax thread hope you stick around longer that you have on others

Well lets have a REAL CLOSE LOOK at one of the images#

WWu777 posted a link to this image (below) we will use that as an example of how DISINGENUOUS some Moon Hoax believers are.



That is not the best copy of that image that image is 1,100px × 1,100px in size.

How about looking at this version of the image!!! (click on it for full size)



Now that image is 3000 × 3000 px in size easily found by a quick search so ask yourself this why use a smaller image when a far larger one in easy to find and link to

Now in the background of both images are what looks like tracks left by the rover you can also clearly see between the front and back wheels of the rover the track left by the front wheel.
Now lets take that closer look around the area of the back wheel .



If you look at the area in red in the image above on the 3000x3000 px image you can see track marks!

All these claims have been debunked on here many many times a lot of claims are due to a lack of understanding of photography and science in general whats more extreme is that fact of the deliberate use of misleading images like I have shown above by using smaller images to try and back a BS claim!!!

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Find the tracks.
....
So how did it get there?
I don't need any further evidence than this to convince me that this picture was not taken on the moon. In a studio perhaps but not 280,000 miles away from Earth.
If we did go to the moon why would NASA feel the need to create fake photos?

Ssoooo.... if it was done in a studio, why aren't there any tracks? Was it lowered from a gantry? Why on earth would they do that? If they're faking a moon shot, then there's no need to magically not disturb the soil, is there?

I would just say that they can't quite be seen in that photo. Also, dumb question I know, but is it facing forward or backward?


Edit. Since this is from Apollo 17, then how do you explain the study that compared pictures of cloud patterns on earth taken from the moon that were exact matches for actual weather conditions on earth at the time?
www.scribd.com...

Lets knock this "mutiple light sources" crap on it's head shall we?

Have a look at the picture below.

Multiple light sources mean multiple shadows, even a person with very limited intelligence can understand this.

All the photographs the astronauts brought back from the surface of the moon have ONE light source....the sun.



Anybody saying there was more than one light source for the Apollo moon shots is either lying or severely lacking in the brain department.

reply to post by Kr0nZ

The rover tires were made out of a mesh so moon dust would fall back to where the tracks should be

Can't have it both ways kronz, either the tracks are covered due to dust falling onto/into and covering and filling in the tracks, thus explaining the lack of tracks in some of the images, or it doesn't.

If it did cover the tracks as you theorise, and is an explanation of why some of the rover images on the surface lack tracks...how does this theory explain the many images that DO have clear and crisp rover tracks plainly visible?

Either the rover leaves visible tracks, tracks as shown in many images, or it covers it's own tracks according to your theory of dust falling through the mesh wheels...It can't be both.

reply to post by WWu777


Good job! The edge of the cloth canvas is easy to see, no tire tracks for the rover, spotlight on Armstrong....................people are deluded if they think this is actually the moon.

Let's see who comes out to defend this obvious lie.

Many lies have been promoted and truths hidden, but the charade is ending.

Imagine what will happen to those found to be lying to the whole human race about these important issues for a paycheque.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Find the tracks.

Well, I tried. I used every different exposure and contrast to try to bring out any hidden details in what originally appears to be an overexposed photo. There are no tire tracks to be seen nor are there any footprints showing that they have carried the LRV. ??? ( I do see the footprint in extreme foreground which isn't close enough to the LRV to matter)
So how did it get there?
I don't need any further evidence than this to convince me that this picture was not taken on the moon. In a studio perhaps but not 280,000 miles away from Earth.
If we did go to the moon why would NASA feel the need to create fake photos?

edit on 28-11-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)

Well may be you should look at this image instead of the HB ALTERED ONE!!!!!!!!!! (click on it for full size)



As you look at the picture at the back left wheel of the rover look to the right of it as you look at your screen next to the reseau mark you see a print there is also one clearly seen next to the front wheel!!!



Another shining example of what HB will do to prove there point alter pictures and claim they are originals!!!!!

Plenty of other footprints can be seen!!!!!

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by Kr0nZ

 

The rover tires were made out of a mesh so moon dust would fall back to where the tracks should be

Can't have it both ways kronz, either the tracks are covered due to dust falling onto/into and covering and filling in the tracks, thus explaining the lack of tracks in some of the images, or it doesn't.

If it did cover the tracks as you theorise, and is an explanation of why some of the rover images on the surface lack tracks...how does this theory explain the many images that DO have clear and crisp rover tracks plainly visible?

Either the rover leaves visible tracks, tracks as shown in many images, or it covers it's own tracks according to your theory of dust falling through the mesh wheels...It can't be both.

Well 2 simple reasons one the depth of the dust at that area and also the exposure of the photograph if you look at my post before this I have shown that HB believers alter NASA picks to hide things!

reply to post by Argyll


What would be in it for the Soviets to reveal NASA corruption?

Surely, a clever Soviet would instead use such intel to their advantage and gain something tangible from the Americans, rather than just a yes you did / no we didn't propaganda war.

Backroom diplomatic deals could easily have been made to offer the Soviets something for their compliance and silence...such as the bulk of Soviet grain imports coming from the USA...at well below the then grain market value.

Why would the USA, supposedly a bitter enemy of the Soviet Union, engaged in a decades long and very costly cold war..essentially help the Soviets out by helping them to feed their people?

Why wouldn't the USA have capitalised on the fact that 'the poor starving Soviets need capitalist American grain to feed them'..and they have to have it cheaper than the USA could normally sell it on any other international market?

If it was the late 60's / early 70's all over again, and i were in charge of propaganda for the USA...i'd have had an absolute field day rubbing the Soviets noses in it!

It would be a major propaganda coup...unless the Soviets knew something the Americans wanted to keep quiet...this is how backroom deals are done, and always have been.

They scratch our back...we supply their people with below market value grain.

That's at least ONE reason why the Soviets might have decided the propaganda value of exposing a plot to defraud the world by NASA, was worth significantly less than being able to feed their large population.

Look, do i think America went to the moon?

Yes, i do actually, but i believe there is MUCH more to the whole affair than the most of the world knows, and the sooner NASA and the US government finally comes clean and fills in the why's and wherefor's, there is always going to be legitamate reasons for people to doubt the official record as being 100% genuine.

Hi there, my take on this is as follows: moon landing and 'studio fakes' both happened. As a plan 'B', they made these elobarate pictures and decided to use them both, so everyone is correct in here?

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
There are no tire tracks to be seen nor are there any footprints showing that they have carried the LRV. ???

I see a lot of tracks in front of it and down the side. The side ones look just lighter in color, but it is disturb dust, there could be a bunch in the back and on the other side we can't see, but I see some on the other side too in between the wheels….

People like you grasp at anything that they can look sideways at with one eye close and make a point to their hoax beliefs, but fail to also take into account the mountain of facts that support the moon landings.

I posted a a few posts ago about the two famous pictures that show the Lander in one and not in the other. I'm curious what you think of that one too.

reply to post by wmd_2008


I too saw the tracks around the back of the rover in that last image...they're difficult to see, as the rover appears to have turned sharply to it's left before stopping for the shot, thus hiding the tracks behind itself.

I can see how some people (especially if they weren't looking hard enough) might think there were no tracks visible in that particular image.

As for the fine dust, it is fairly uniform in depth, at a couple of centimeters deep.

The larger grains of regolith below the surface centimeter or so of fine, micrometer sized dust is around 5 meters thick in the 'seas', rising to about 10 meters or so thick on the highland areas.

This is a firm surface, not at all like a pile of loose gravel here on Earth...the astronauts had to use hammers to get at this regolith, and found it very difficult to drive anything deeply into the ground (like a core sample or erecting the flags etc)

I don't think it's likey that some tracks remained and some didn't due to different depths of dust..in fact it almost seems illogical to suggest that as a reason...think about it..deeper dust being used to explain why those tracks remain visible, and other don't isn't as straightforward as it seems.

Wouldn't more, deeper dust produce more dust to infill the freshly made tracks and hide them more effectively than a shallower dust level?

Looking at the footprints around the rover in the images that show no tracks, the footprints are just as deep as those on images that do show tracks clearly. If the different dust depths was the reason, the footprints would be very deep near the rover tracks and very shallow in the images with no tracks...they are virtually the same depth of print.

Perhaps the reason for the majority of rover tracks appearing to not be present is just a simple matter of perspective, rather than different dust depths, especially over the small distances travelled on the surface.

A simply explanation for no tracks could just be due to the track being obscured behind a small lip or ridge a couple of inches high in the surface...that would effectively hide a track.

Originally posted by MysterX
A simply explanation for no tracks could just be due to the track being obscured behind a small lip or ridge a couple of inches high in the surface...that would effectively hide a track.

Also I'm sure things would look different as to how fast they traveled....traveling very slow might leave tracks and a few miles per hour might be enough for the dust to fill back in. Kind of hard for ANYONE to say with the tires being totally different to what we would see as tires.

*looks at size of astronaut...
*looks at size of lander
lolz.

Never A Straight Answer...yup

enhanced first image (the canvas thing)


and showing some more nasa expert background removal skills (lol)

derp

derp 2

OK... I'm not involved in this debate one way or the other but have always been curious about why there are no stars, or anything for that matter, in the black sky on the mission tapes?

It was called a "space race" at the time and that alone gives reason to suspect that cheating might have been a considered option because the US needed a "win" over those evil rooskies and NASA needed more money.

The US was just getting warmed up in Vietnam in 69 and available technology at the time would be considered dark age compared to present.