26-11-2010, 11:40 AM
David, did you notice my earlier post on this thread (page 10 post 92) about the "missing rover tracks" issue?
From the photo at the link you can see that on the right surface the tyres seemed to work like a flour sieve, dusting immediately behind the tyre as they rolled along. You see how in lots of Apollo pics the boot prints and many tyre tracks seem to have a shiny surface to them? I think maybe that even if the rover tyre track is pushing a distinct channel into fairly soft ground as it rolls, the dusting that follows behind it might disperse the light hitting it and make the track quite hard to see. If something doesn't reflect much light, or reflects the light that hits it in a thousand different directions, it makes it harder to see.
Also, if you ever ride a push bike/motorbike/car on dirt tracks, you probably would have noticed that sometimes you leave an imprint behind you, but a lot of the time you don't.
Note: The pic from your first link doesn't seem to work for me, and your second link is the same as your third.
Quote:[size=12]The first claims Jack White presents are to do with the “missing” rover tyre tracks. Some pictures have tyre tracks, but a lot don’t. Burton shows a picture which suggests the mechanism by which the rover “covers its own tracks” – the mesh of the tyres picks up and then drops material behind it.
Do we believe it?
Well surely, if the landings were faked, there would have been a lot of thinking gone into “continuity” issues – making sure they don’t show things that couldn’t have happened if the missions were genuine, making sure one scene captured on film didn’t contradict any other scene. So you would think, if they were doing these scenes on some sound stage, that tracks for the rover would be high on the list of things to make sure were present in the images released to the public. You would think that every scene with the rover in it would have rover tracks, and astronaut footprints, and nothing else. You would think that it would be more than just one person’s job to make sure they didn’t mess up the details of the fakery. Is it believable that they could release so many photos which seem to be impossible given that they fail to have the tracks that any reasonable person would assume would be present?
To me this is another case of the “common sense” view being revealed to be hyperbole once the details of the situation are fully examined. (Common sense tells you that man can't withstand -180 to 250 degree temperature swings given only 1960s space suit technology!) Yes, the lunar rover should leave tyre tracks. No, not all pictures of the lunar rover show tyre tracks. Rash conclusion: The moon landings were faked!!! The actual truth once the details are taken into account: The tyres of the rover proved to be surprisingly suited to redistributing dust they picked up so that it effectively covered its tracks in many instances.
[/SIZE]
From the photo at the link you can see that on the right surface the tyres seemed to work like a flour sieve, dusting immediately behind the tyre as they rolled along. You see how in lots of Apollo pics the boot prints and many tyre tracks seem to have a shiny surface to them? I think maybe that even if the rover tyre track is pushing a distinct channel into fairly soft ground as it rolls, the dusting that follows behind it might disperse the light hitting it and make the track quite hard to see. If something doesn't reflect much light, or reflects the light that hits it in a thousand different directions, it makes it harder to see.
Also, if you ever ride a push bike/motorbike/car on dirt tracks, you probably would have noticed that sometimes you leave an imprint behind you, but a lot of the time you don't.
Note: The pic from your first link doesn't seem to work for me, and your second link is the same as your third.