GFY Conspiracy Theorists, Where are the Tracks?

[Max Potential]

Where are the rover's tracks???

Curious as to thoughts about this....

The page below has pictures of the moon rover from back in the day, some with the Astronauts, but one very odd thing missing in the photos are the tracks that should be there behind, or in front of, the rover vehicle. There are footprints aplenty, but no tracks from the vehicle. How is that possible? Did they drop the rover in via crane? Did it not leave tracks as it supposedly moved around?

I watched an interesting video tonight and this was mentioned and caught my ear so I did my super extensive 5 mins of research, and well, here I am at GFY with this question...

So, what do you think?

http://apolloanomalies.com/missing_tracks.htm

[SilentKnight]

They used the old trick of dragging a tree branch behind the rover to cover the tracks.

Seen it in the movies all the time.

[xXXtesy10]

Shopped out bro

[DBS.US]

My question is how did they protect the film flying through the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

[Max Potential]

Originally Posted by DBS.US

My question is how did they protect the film flying through the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

I had that same question. I've heard a couple of odd theories, one is lead box, the other is a nuclear bomb was set off to supposedly blow a hole in the belt to 'let things through'. lol.

[Max Potential]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

They used the old trick of dragging a tree branch behind the rover to cover the tracks.

Seen it in the movies all the time.

Explains all the missing trees in the photos, lol

[Max Potential]

[DBS.US]

[Max Potential]

Originally Posted by DBS.US

DBB...what is that?

[2012]

i don't know what this has to do with anything but ...

[DBS.US]

Originally Posted by Max Potential

DBB...what is that?

A nice clean Apollo spacecraft leg. Wouldn't that be covered in dust from the rocket motors?

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by DBS.US

My question is how did they protect the film flying through the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

Question is - does the Van Allen Belt have a high enough radiation count to destroy film in the length of time it takes to travel through the Belt?

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by DBS.US

A nice clean Apollo spacecraft leg. Wouldn't that be covered in dust from the rocket motors?

What if *some* of the moon photos were faked/staged in a studio (ones they couldn't actually take on the moon due to logistics) - and juxtaposed alongside the real ones?

[Max Potential]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

What if *some* of the moon photos were faked/staged in a studio (ones they couldn't actually take on the moon due to logistics) - and juxtaposed alongside the real ones?

That is certainly a theory has has been proposed a lot. One question then would be why lie about it to begin with?

[halfpint]

Originally Posted by Max Potential

That is certainly a theory has has been proposed a lot. One question then would be why lie about it to begin with?

They were in a space race with Russia at the time

[halfpint]

Originally Posted by DBS.US

lmao is that even real looks like tin foil wrapping

[AdultKing]

Originally Posted by halfpint

lmao is that even real looks like tin foil wrapping

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation

[onwebcam]

If the track doesn't fit you must acquit

[Captain Kawaii]

Originally Posted by 2012

i don't know what this has to do with anything but ...

it has everything to do with everything. FZ was brilliant guy. He called a lot of things for what they were and are. WS Burroughs did too, along with Timothy Leary.

[halfpint]

Originally Posted by AdultKing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation

ahh that explains it then Just looked like tin foil wrapping lol

[seeandsee]

Interesting how people that don't believable in any conspiracy theory don't come now and explain where are tracks?

I am curious where are they?

[CurrentlySober]

in my arm...

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by 2012

[MediaGuy]

I never believed (and still don't - and note since I did no research it IS plainly a "belief") that the moon landing was faked. But the first thing I thought to myself when I was a kid and saw Neil Armstrong saying taking his "one small step" as he got out of the lander was, "But who was holding the camera? That's the guy who took the first step, if you ask me..."

:D

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by Max Potential

That is certainly a theory has has been proposed a lot. One question then would be why lie about it to begin with?

Perhaps the thinking of the day was after spending a few billion on the space program the public expected to see moon shots - and without photos everyone would question whether man actually walked on the moon.

So while they *did* walk on the moon, maybe the logistics of taking photos didn't work...so they faked them. That way...at least a large percentage of the population was satisfied.

Who's to say - of course it's all conjecture.

I believe man's walked on the moon...numerous times. But I also believe the official version isn't the same as what actually took place.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

Interesting how people that don't believable in any conspiracy theory don't come now and explain where are tracks?

I am curious where are they?

We are ding real stuff but after 10 seconds on google -
http://www.squidoo.com/apollo-moon-l...tos-from-space

[DWB]

Little tidbit...

My high school sweetheart's grandpa designed the first moon rover. What a cunt she was. We were making out once in her basement and her mom walked in on us. My back was too the mom so I didn't see, but my GF pulled back and started hitting me saying "get off me, I said no!" Of course the mom saw what was going on and didn't believe it, but the fact she even pulled that stunt was enough for me. So I dumped her two weeks later on her 16th birthday.

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by DWB

Little tidbit...

My high school sweetheart's grandpa designed the first moon rover. What a cunt she was. We were making out once in her basement and her mom walked in on us. My back was too the mom so I didn't see, but my GF pulled back and started hitting me saying "get off me, I said no!" Of course the mom saw what was going on and didn't believe it, but the fact she even pulled that stunt was enough for me. So I dumped her two weeks later on her 16th birthday.

So, she didn't appreciate you were practicing your 'docking position'?

Photos...or we call fake on this one, too.

[Best-In-BC]

Originally Posted by DBS.US

My question is how did they protect the film flying through the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

Your a joke if you beleave in that bullshit

[freecartoonporn]

i guess it can fly.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

So, she didn't appreciate you were practicing your 'docking position'?

I almost spit my coffee out of my nose.

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

Perhaps the thinking of the day was after spending a few billion on the space program the public expected to see moon shots - and without photos everyone would question whether man actually walked on the moon.

So while they *did* walk on the moon, maybe the logistics of taking photos didn't work...so they faked them. That way...at least a large percentage of the population was satisfied.

Who's to say - of course it's all conjecture.

I believe man's walked on the moon...numerous times. But I also believe the official version isn't the same as what actually took place.

That's possible, after all the LRO images show "tracks" all over the place. However, even if the LRO images are not faked, they could have been made by unmanned rovers.

Nobody disputes unmanned missions, even the Soviets landed one or two rovers. But it seems the only evidence of man landing on the moon is the images and video. If you accept/believe they are faked, then there's no evidence man landed on the moon. So why believe it?

[buzzard]

[Dirty F]

You have to be pretty fucking mentally retarded to think the moon landing and the landings after that were faked. Fucking imbeciles.
Conspiracy theorists...fucking sad group of people.

[L-Pink]

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

Interesting how people that don't believable in any conspiracy theory don't come now and explain where are tracks?

I am curious where are they?

I'll take a stab. Outside of the Kennedy assassination, I rarely find any truth in conspiracy theories.

Keep in mind I'm just applying common sense here so don't shoot the messenger.

Why is there no tracks in the sand? It's simple - you are trying to apply earth rules and materials here on earth to a completely foreign and alien environment. You understand that a car on a beach leaves a track, but the differences are staggering. A car weighs thousands of pounds while the lunar roving vehicle only weight 300 llbs, and combined with the gravity on the moon it would barely leave a mark. Also, I don't believe the tires are tires as we understand them - the tires seem to be hollow with a screen mesh that would leave a lot less of an mark.

So the differences between the weight, the tires, and the material it's on is very differently from what we would have on earth.

But then why do we see foot prints in what looks like sand? Again, pretty simple. The rover more less nearly floated above the surface on hollow like wheels while when the astronauts walked, it was less like walking on a beach and more like taking large steps pushing off from the surface.

Also, keep in mind when you have such conspiracy theories, the side believing in the conspiracy theory itself only show you evidence to prove their point. There are pictures of moon rover tracks:



Is it not possible that int he pictures shown the moon rover had been stationary for some time and the tracks erased by solar wind, while the foot prints are fresh?

Dunno.

[2012]

[enovator]

gold digger lol

[helterskelter808]

If the rover is light enough, and it would presumably be lighter on the moon than on earth, it could have been picked up and moved by the astronauts themselves. After all, even if it was faked on earth, there'd be marks where it was pushed on to the set. What would be the point in covering them up?

Anyway here's an example LRO image showing the rover was capable of leaving track marks still visible to this day (if you believe it):

[Max Potential]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

If the rover is light enough, and it would presumably be lighter on the moon than on earth, it could have been picked up and moved by the astronauts themselves. After all, even if it was faked on earth, there'd be marks where it was pushed on to the set. What would be the point in covering them up?

Very interesting theory
Seems like if that was the case, they would just have said so though, as that would be pretty interesting in and of itself.

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

If the rover is light enough, and it would presumably be lighter on the moon than on earth, it could have been picked up and moved by the astronauts themselves. After all, even if it was faked on earth, there'd be marks where it was pushed on to the set. What would be the point in covering them up?

I'm no rocket scientist and don't know the physics behind it all - so I'm not ruling that out as plausible - but what would be the reason for the astronauts picking up and carrying the rover?

[Max Potential]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

I'm no rocket scientist and don't know the physics behind it all - so I'm not ruling that out as plausible - but what would be the reason for the astronauts picking up and carrying the rover?

Same here...the only thing I can think of would be that maybe they could walk faster carrying it than the rover could roll carrying them?

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by 2012

...

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

I'm no rocket scientist and don't know the physics behind it all - so I'm not ruling that out as plausible - but what would be the reason for the astronauts picking up and carrying the rover?

Perhaps to reach a place it couldn't traverse, like over rocks, or maybe it was quicker to turn it around that way when heading back, or maybe just to set up a nice shot (no joke, why not).

What would be reason to lift it into position on a movie set, rather than just push it or drive it?

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Perhaps to reach a place it couldn't traverse, like over rocks, or maybe it was quicker to turn it around that way when heading back, or maybe just to set up a nice shot (no joke, why not).

What would be reason to lift it into position on a movie set, rather than just push it or drive it?

Good points, too.

[helterskelter808]

Can't believe I ended up defending the moon landing. I don't necessarily disbelieve it, I just find the idea that it didn't happen, and the arguments and 'evidence' against it (including these no track pictures), quite interesting.

I don't necessarily believe they lifted the rover either, I just put that forward as a possibility.

[Helix]

The laser reflectors they left behind are still being used today.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...004/21jul_llr/

[VenusBlogger]

These are not conspiracy anymore, THEY ARE FACTS NOW.

1) JFK was killed by CIA+FBI

2) Man never landed on Moon, it was filmed in Hollywood Studios. That answers the question: "Why haven't we go back to the moon" -> You can't go "BACK" to a place where you have never been before.

3) World Trade Center was demolished by BUSH Administration, as clearly displayed on Oliver Stone movie.


Of course, to see the TRUTH, you need Let your USA Patriotic Sentiment on a side, otherwise, you would think that someone is trying to hit your reputation and you will react. Something that probably people like ROBBIE or Some Hippie from California, will never understand.

PAIRIOD.

[devilspost]

[devilspost]

50