Please, get started… It could be interesting.

I also note you haven’t responded yet to the facts I gave you re. leaving footsteps in the sand…

I am not sure what your question is. You confirm that one can not leave a foot print in the sand,
or dust as on the Moon. Then you ask if one can? SO, be more specific.

The “joke” about the dry lake bed was “Groom Lake”. I guess that one went over someone’s
head ^_^

I approach all things with an open mind.

I look for the simplest explanation, not the most unlikely, but exciting.

Therefore I post an image.

Moggy

Forgive my ignorance, but, where was this image taken? What point you are trying to make in
this thread, and, is that you upfront ^_^

I look for the most LOGICAL and LIKELY explanation, and, I question EVERYTHING.

Don’t get me started on the Big Bang, Relativity, the Universe, Dark Matter, Black Holes etc……

Fragments thrown off the Moon by meteorite and asteroid impacts. Newton’s Third Law of Motion, and all that.

Nothing mysterious or conspiratorial about them whatsoever. Unless you don’t believe in lunar craters.

You do believe in lunar craters, don’t you?

By the way, type “Little Green Men” into Google and see how many hits you get.

That proves Little Green Men really exist, doesn’t it?

It’s on the Internet, so it must be true.

I didn’t understand what you were trying to say, or the point you were trying to make, except unwarranted sarcasms.

HMMMMMM nice
are you a yank?????? :rolleyes:

No, thankfully.

AND

What difference does that make?

Actually there was a wire running the length of the flag along the upper edge to keep it stiff and taut. Had nothing to do with the waving though, that was due to the pole being shaken when the astronaut planted it into the surface of the moon.

It was 1969. Have you ever seen a TV broadcast from that era? And the radiation issue you keep bringing up is a non-issue. Go investigate the Van Allen belts.

You don’t have to have moisture to make an impression, you just have to exert some amount of force. Otherwise, if what you’re saying was true, there would be absolutely no impact craters on the moon from asteroids and whatnot. The moon would have a perfectly smooth surface. Which it clearly doesn’t.

Which planet is that? Because it sure isn’t this one!

Speaking of wires, have you any explanation for the “hidden” wires attached to the astro-nots that at times flash a reflection, or pull the astro-not on his feet. Defying even the moon’s weak gravity, the laws of physics or the human anatomy? Just show me how you can get off the ground without bending your knees.

Isn’t there a misunderstanding here? I thought I was pretty clear that the Van Allen Belt was not a big issue? The radiation I keep referring to is what that can get through the camera and into the films, on the surface.

Certainly you are not comparing a crater formed by a supersonic meteor/asteroid, displacing tons of matter and rock, to an impression supposedly made by a shoe worn by a 30 pound man/equipment.

I have seen TV broadcast from the 60s and it is damn good. Like I said, even the broadcasts from the 30s were better than this.

ahem – 666

1) yes the flag WAS wired to make it appear as fluttering in a breeze – i remember that from tv programmes broadcast in the years after the moon landings – I have just checked and this is well referred to on other internet sites

2) cameras – as i have already said, they used Hasselblad roll-film cameras which were modified so as to be easily operated wearing thick gloves and were quickly adaptable to be either chest mounted or use a folding pistol grip and also extensively modified mechanically to be able to work in extreme heat and vacuums.

Hasselblad cameras have always been renowned for producing the very highest quality images available as they use large format roll-film and very expensive optics – hence the difference in quality between the video footage and the stills.

http://www.hasselblad.se/ goto sections “our company / hassleblad in space”

3) shadows DONT always go the same way. A single source of light give similar shadow direction, but the reality is that light is scattered and reflected before casting shadows and so they can and do sometimes point different directions.

4) I still firmly believe that they did go to the moon and do all those things

All I can tell you my friend, is that shift your hard-core belief into other areas of the numerous anomalies. Like the same background used in different missions, the same rock formations used for different backgrounds………

Intelligent mind requires proof.

hows about a lump of MOON rock i got it from a fella in the pub…

I am pretty sure you have not read any of the 1000 articles written about this subject at all, and are not
aware of the fact that you can find (Moon Rocks) in Antarctica.

Just type in (moon rock in antarctica) in your search, and see aaaalllll those articles about the
rocks, and the mission to find them purportedly funded by NASA a couple of years before the
“Moon Landings”.

Ho humm – conspiracy theorists, in my opinion, WANT to believe in conspiracies because it adds a little mystery,sparkle and a sense of importance to their otherwise dull lives.

After conspiracy theorys, these same people seem to progress to some theory which actually involves them, here and now, as that adds more excitement to their little lives.

So it goes from moon landings / JFK’s assasination to something like alien abduction / secret world order.

So tell me “SSS-666” – do you line your hats with tin-foil ??

Anyhoo, my tuppence worth on the moon landing thing:

1) fluttering flag – i seem to remember it was wired to appear as fluttering
2) pic quality – 1969 streaming video against roll-film slide pictures (hassleblad 500cm cameras)
3) footprints – you get them on the seabed where there is deff no air.
4) shadows – look around you on a sunny day – reflections will generally go one way, but not always.

Michael

For an intelligent post, you sure turned into a typical “shoot the messenger” type. As most of the
older (hopefully wiser) and more educated readers would know, attacking the person, instead of
the subject, is a sign of frustration and inability to challenge.

Be as it may, at least you placed a few tangible points of discussion. I must admit that mainly
because of the way SOC compels you to get your claims backed by facts, I have read most of the
sites he attached. And, before I was convinced about 90% about this thing being made up. Now
that I have read so much more, I am 100%, absolutely, positively and without a shadow of doubt
convinced the Moon landings were made up.

I am really baffled as to how it is possible for seemingly intelligent, and informed, individuals to
still believe in these stuff. And, I have no way of showing that how immensely anti conspiracy
theory I am.

Now, back to your points.
1- No it was not, and you are the 1st to suggest.
2- Are you really suggesting in 1969 that was the best we could do? And, I won’t get into the
Radiation, the Extreme Heat and the Extreme Cold effects on that 1969 camera. Or, that the
camera was attached to the Astro-not’s chest (without a view finder) and the Astro-nots were
wearing (supposedly) pressurised suits which would make it so damn difficult to even walk, let
alone operate a camera and even more “impossible” task of “changing lenses”. As it was
supposedly done.
3- The argument is misleading and is built on that diversion. To make an impression you need
MOISTURE. Just step out of your back door and into the Groom Lake, Ha hahahaha. No
really just to prove me wrong, step on some sort of sand, or even worse, powder without any
MOISTURE. See if you can make the same 100% picture perfect foot print. (Also, not to
mention a “foot print” that happened to be half covered by the lander’s pod)!!!!
4- Not sure what you mean by that, but, in the planet I live the shadow always go the same way.