The question is: Why would you expect to see them?

Solid proof and what you find acceptable seem to be two very different things.

Personally, I think you need to crank that self-righteousness down quite a few notches. It's no one's responsibility to prove anything to you. It's your responsibility to prove your claims to us. You have done nothing of the sort. There are quite a few direct answers you've completely ignored (at what resolution would you expect to see the tracks from the rover?).

Give it up, he hasn't got any interest in looking at the evidence. I don't know why people bother, when a thread like this pops up don't fall for it.!!!

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The Apollo 17 LM is visible as a bright dot which casts a shadow to the left. If you think the rover tracks should be visible, please explain why wheel tracks should be clearer than a 4 metre metal object. Also, I checked when the picture was taken, rev 15, just at the start of the first EVA, so you wouldn't expect tracks anyway.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

No, the problem is that you are ignoring or misinterpreting evidence.

LRV tracks are not detectable at the levels of resolution available in any of the images taken from lunar orbit. That's not a matter of opinion.

Didn't the Russians bring back rock samples from the moon way back in the 1960-70's? thought so!

Once again: Soviet automated lunar sample returns scraped up and brought back a few ounces of topsoil. That was the peak of automated sample recovery capability. The Apollo missions brought back several hundred kilograms of differentiated lunar samples, including intact rocks and core samples, all of which were extensively documented in the imagery record. The worldwide geological community agrees that the Apollo samples were retrieved in situ on the Moon. There was (and is) no capability to gather such a sample collection robotically.

And yes, using a non-manned space craft with relays is the most plausible scenario.

No, it isn't. The time delays would be all wrong. And it has been explained before multiple times in this forum that "no-delay" recordings are a normal and expected result of where the recordings are made.

Do you really think that if such obvious flaws existed in a giant lunar hoax, nobody would have been smart enough to figure this out before? What a curious form of unwarranted intellectual arrogance.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

Excuse me, but the time delay would be in both directions.

Example: if the word "Hello" took 0.5 seconds to speak
Again, it takes 1.35 seconds to send a message to the moon from planet earth and vis versa.

Earth time 1:00:00.00 pm EST: says "Hello"
Moon time 1:00:01.35 starts to hear "Hello", takes 0.5 seconds to hear word
Moon time 1:00:01.85 replies with "Hello"
Earth time 1:00:03.20 starts to hear "Hello", takes 0.5 seconds to hear word
Earth time 1:00:03.70 hears total reply

Total round trip time = 3.7 seconds with the word "hello", therefore all round trip messages between the earth and moon must have a mimimum of 2.7 second time delay between them in order to communicate using the current laws of physics.

You do realise that you just agreed with gwiz? Remeber that the recordings were taking place at Mission Control so you hear the total delay from travel time between Mission Control's message and the reply from the Moon.

So let's listen to the transmissions between NASA and LM's and see if the laws of physics were indeed broken. I'll try and find a link and I suggest you do the same if you really want the truth.

I just want to throw this out there.

You do realise that the pause in the recordings will only happen before the Moon responds right?

Mission control: Hello?
Pause
Lunar Modue: We're here.
MC: bring back a Coke.
Pause
LM: You got it.

Becasue the recording device is on the Earth

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

2006 - 1969 = 37. Nowhere near 45+ years, yet.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Correct. Note that the pause is 2 times the travel time, as it goes from earth to moon and back.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

And he(?) wants to argue physics and numbers.

Incorrect. Transmissions in Australia were routed straight of the recievers at Parkes and Honeysuckle creek.

Hint on the moon rover tracks: some molecules would be long enough to be visible with the naked eye, yet we can't see them becasue they're too thin.

Erm, no. There's a pile of evidence, only you don't want that and demand evidence that isn't existing. Whole different story!

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Well, I give you credit Softearth for trying a new approach to the Moon Hoax thing by trying to draw us in to the fact that you believed the Moon landings when in actual fact you didn't and are a bonefide Hoax Believer.

However, there are just the two flaws in your argument thus far. You can't count (an essential ability for calculations especially when discussing the delays in responses from the orbiters and mission control) and you've yet to come up with anything that the likes of Sibrel and his numptys haven't tried so far.

One question though. How did NASA fake the landings with the co-operation of the (at the time extremely hostile) Soviet Union? Did they magically get a signal to the Soviet's (and rest of the worlds') tracking facilities or were the Russians in on it too? All available evidence so far is that the Russians knew full well that the US landed on the moon.

I think you may be a little out of your depth.....

__________________
Of all the things I've ever lost, I miss my mind the most!

Strangely enough, this is a tactic that the conspiracists accuse the debunkers of using, but it is the conspiracists themselves who seem to me to be the major offenders. See tactic 19 here:
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums...pic.php?t=1222

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

And occasionally you'll get this:

Mission control: Hello?
Pause
Lunar Modue: We're here.
MC: bring back a Coke.
Pause
LM: I'll check my loose change.
MC: Thanks a lot guys.
CM: Get me one too
LM: You...
Pause while listening
LM: You got it. We'll make sure we have enough for you too Houston.
MC: Roger that.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Of course, but let's not forget the time delay of 1.35 seconds per direction since this is the main issue at hand.

The bottom line is that the LM could not have responded faster then 1.35 seconds to a question or statement from NASA. If the recordings show a response time from the LM faster than 1.35 seconds, then there is no way they could have been on the moon.

I hope we can find a link to the NASA recordings so that everyone can hear the transmissions for themselves.

I noticed no one really took this one to task, so I'm going to.

All the current evidence can be underminded, like the pictures, rocks and even the radio transmissions.

Only by those that have no idea of science, no alternative way of doing any of these things actually stands up to real scientific scrutiny, they just sound good to laymen with no knowledge to base their beliefs off.

The picture negitives taken from the moon

What picture negatives?

show no radiation exposer as one would expect to happen

What type of radiation? What is the flux? The energy? How much affect should we see from it?

since the camera had no protective lead shielding and was exposed to open space for nearly 10+ days.

Show that it needed it, otherwise you are merely begging the question.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

How about you go to the NASA site and type in a search for Hmmmmmmmm........ 'Apollo recordings' maybe, or would you like us to do your shopping for you too??????

__________________
Of all the things I've ever lost, I miss my mind the most!

I'm not sure what you mean by the evidence could be "underminded"? Do mean faked? If so, how were they faked? Remember, 1969 is before Photoshop existed, let alone the PC to run it on. How were all the still photos (thousands of them), movies and video faked? If they were filmed in some studio, how did they fake the lower gravity and vacuum of the moon, not only for the astronauts, but for the lunar dust?

I have a PhD in solid state chemistry and essentially make artificial "rocks" for a living, yet I don't know how to make a fake moon rock that would convince every geologist that examined it, let along hundreds of kilograms of such fake rocks. And not just rocks, but core samples of the lunar soil, that no current robots could take.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Wasn't that software a declassified black project that used to run at area 51 on a supercomputer?

Sssshhhhhh! Don't tell everyone, I thought it was supposed to be our little secret NEO. You'll be letting on about the non-breakable alloy next.......

__________________
Of all the things I've ever lost, I miss my mind the most!

You are of course under the assumption that no one here has ever actually listened to the recordings, when in fact a large portion have.

Don't get me wrong, there are some press kit materials where the pauses were intentionally removed. It just doesn't make for good journalism to have dead air, so those were produced. The original recordings do have the pauses as expected. The HBers love to find a chopped up press kit recording and say "Look!" as if that is evidence.

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

they TELL you its a chopped up press kit! but they would wouldn't they?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Jim, the point is that the Hoax Believers love to find anything that they either don't understand, or can't be bothered looking into then expect others to explain it to them.

__________________
Of all the things I've ever lost, I miss my mind the most!

Yep then they could graft the pauses in to make it sound like a delay......

__________________
Of all the things I've ever lost, I miss my mind the most!

Gotta love the mentality!

BTW: Where's JayUtah been lately? I haven't seen him here for quite a while! He'd probably love this thread...

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

Oh, I know... Just trying to head off the next rebuttal by the OP, if he finds a press recording.

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

Please provide the math that you used to make the determination that, "you should be able to see the tracks at this resolution." I want to see you calculate this:

1. here is the resolution of the image.
2. the tracks were X meters wide
3. at this resolution, the tracks would be Y pixels wide.

I'm not holding my breath - I know that you didn't do any calculations. We all know the truth softearth, you made up your mind to reject the images before you even clicked on the link!

Here's what you've contributed to this thread so far.
you: why haven't we gone back and taken pictures?
others: money
you: no, it's not money. here is a private company that wants to do it.
others: yeah, and they ran out of money
you: that's because NASA sabatoged them!!! why hasn't anyone taken pictures?
others: well, apollo 17 did.
you: PROVE IT! SHOW ME THE PICTURES!
others: here's a link
you: HA! THAT IS FAKE! I CAN'T SEE THE TRACKS!!

My response to this thread: *yawn*

There are loads of threads like this, the OP will keep switching from question to question and detail to detail as the questions are answered and links are given. He has no intention of looking at this objectively and no intention of following any of the links you give.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►