Wearing Sneakers on the Moon

Okay, I'm on an actual computer now, and I looked at it again and just threw some Paint over it...



I guess I'm just having difficulty seeing the perspective?

Quote from: Nolhekh on April 18, 2011, 04:43:38 PM

You like to claim other people are not making sense, but you show no reasoning for it.  Either start backing up your insults, or shut up.

I'll take it as a "I have no support to my arguments".

So what kind of support are you looking for?  I supplied a diagram and a logical argument.

As for my part: Check the distance between each two strips.

Shorter.  Just as they would be if the foot print was angled away.  Again, it's a simple matter of perspective. 

I guess I'm just having difficulty seeing the perspective?

Your picture shows it nicely.  Also notice the difference in depth between one side of the print and the other.  There's a large drop on the right into which material has fallen.  While on the left, it's shallow.  This shows further evidence that the foot print is angled away.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on April 18, 2011, 05:10:57 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on April 18, 2011, 04:43:38 PM

You like to claim other people are not making sense, but you show no reasoning for it.  Either start backing up your insults, or shut up.

I'll take it as a "I have no support to my arguments".

So what kind of support are you looking for?  I supplied a diagram and a logical argument.

Quote

As for my part: Check the distance between each two strips.

Shorter.  Just as they would be if the foot print was angled away.  Again, it's a simple matter of perspective. 

Quote from: Around And About on April 18, 2011, 05:44:48 PM

I guess I'm just having difficulty seeing the perspective?

Your picture shows it nicely.  Also notice the difference in depth between one side of the print and the other.  There's a large drop on the right into which material has fallen.  While on the left, it's shallow.  This shows further evidence that the foot print is angled away.

im pretty sure someone could show it either or

idk, it looks differnt, but the shadow makes it look at a different angle, hence topography and perspective can alter it
also, i thik it could be tires? idk

idk, it looks differnt, but the shadow makes it look at a different angle, hence topography and perspective can alter it
also, i thik it could be tires? idk

Nope. definitely foot print.

Around and About showed that quite clearly.

I don't get why anyone else doesn't see this.

Hmm..I think that I can see it better now, I suppose I was misinterpreting the shape of the ground right there. But you have to admit, at first glance it does look a bit odd, or we wouldn't have this thread.

Additional images of the area:



http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11671HR.jpg



http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11673HR.jpg



http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11674HR.jpg


An image from another area to show a similar effect of multiple boot prints leading to distorted looking prints:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11876HR.jpg

Interesting. Well at any rate, I can't wait to see what Tom will cook up next in his Kooky Konspiracy Kitchen.

Interesting. Well at any rate, I can't wait to see what Tom will cook up next in his Kooky Konspiracy Kitchen.

His KKK?

Thanks, Horatio.

@Nolhekh:


Different point of view, same view. Goodbye, perspective doubt!

Thanks, Horatio.

@Nolhekh:


Different point of view, same view. Goodbye, perspective doubt!

?
what do you mean?
the boots clearly show that one is slanted away from the other, and that the prints are roughly the same size

Sometimes I wish I could take the roller coaster of a ride that is Tom's mind.

?
what do you mean?
the boots clearly show that one is slanted away from the other, and that the prints are roughly the same size

N-man implied that the sneaker print looks like a sneaker print due to an unfortunate perspective effect. Now that we have a picture of the same scene taken from another perspective, and the same effect prevails, we can safely dismiss this idea.

Quote from: vhu9644 on April 18, 2011, 08:08:55 PM

?
what do you mean?
the boots clearly show that one is slanted away from the other, and that the prints are roughly the same size

N-man implied that the sneaker print looks like a sneaker print due to an unfortunate perspective effect. Now that we have a picture of the same scene taken from another perspective, and the same effect prevails, we can safely dismiss this idea.

it is obvious from the picture that the lines look different in length, and from the picture, one can clearly see that the prints point in different directions
even that scene shows that the prints are slightly different, but different in a different way

Different point of view, same view. Goodbye, perspective doubt!

Actually the view is not the same.  The angling is more severe in the second picture, which only strengthens the perspective claim.  Now if there was an image from the opposite side of that pole, we'd know for sure.

Further backing up my claim:



The footprints of these astronauts seem to dip down all the time when they're "hopping," so the angled footprint makes even more sense.

The size of the print does appear to be about the same. Those sneakers would have to be huge.

horatio is ignoring me! its a shame that he is too brainwashed to see the SLANT in the prints!

*sigh*
If the astronaut were to twist his body a little, that would produce the slanted tread mark.  Back up a few inches and you have an overlapping boot mark.  There, mystery solved.

*sigh*
If the astronaut were to twist his body a little, that would produce the slanted tread mark.  Back up a few inches and you have an overlapping boot mark.  There, mystery solved.

i doubt that! look ive done construction work in sandy areas and let me tell you something: if you put your sole into the ground even if its twisted it will confrm to the real shape of your shoe. the way that slant is if the sole was MARKED that way!!!!

where is that doofus horatio now?

Quote from: markjo on April 19, 2011, 06:12:53 AM

*sigh*
If the astronaut were to twist his body a little, that would produce the slanted tread mark.  Back up a few inches and you have an overlapping boot mark.  There, mystery solved.

i doubt that! look ive done construction work in sandy areas and let me tell you something: if you put your sole into the ground even if its twisted it will confrm to the real shape of your shoe. the way that slant is if the sole was MARKED that way!!!!

where is that doofus horatio now?

And you've been ignoring me (and probably Markjo too). The way the astronauts walk causes the front of their footprints to slant into the dust.  The angle at which this footprint sits relative to the camera causes the sole to appear skewed.

You're right though.  "Twisting" a footprint will not cause the pattern to skew.  It is simply the angle at which that particular footprint is viewed from.

It is simply the angle at which that particular footprint is viewed from.

Only not really, since we've viewed it from three angles. Also, you have agreed that your claim is unsupported.

Quote from: markjo on April 19, 2011, 06:12:53 AM

*sigh*
If the astronaut were to twist his body a little, that would produce the slanted tread mark.  Back up a few inches and you have an overlapping boot mark.  There, mystery solved.

i doubt that! look ive done construction work in sandy areas and let me tell you something: if you put your sole into the ground even if its twisted it will confrm to the real shape of your shoe. the way that slant is if the sole was MARKED that way!!!!

I'm guessing that the soles of your work boots are much firmer than the soles of the moon boots.

where is that doofus horatio now?

Please watch the name calling in the upper forums.

Quote from: Nolhekh on April 19, 2011, 07:19:31 AM

It is simply the angle at which that particular footprint is viewed from.

Only not really, since we've viewed it from three angles. Also, you have agreed that your claim is unsupported.

No, I said it was strengthened:

The angling is more severe in the second picture, which only strengthens the perspective claim.

since we've viewed it from three angles.

I can only find two views.  Which one is the third?

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on April 19, 2011, 07:21:43 AM

since we've viewed it from three angles.

I can only find two views.  Which one is the third?

That depends on which two you can find. You can find the third one by subtracting the ones you know from these:

That depends on which two you can find. You can find the third one by subtracting the ones you know from these:

I see.  I've found that the footprint in question is barely in the third picture.  There's a tiny bit of the tip, but it's been obliterated by another foot print.

Hmm, you're right. I thought it was elsewhere. Oh well, let's go with two, then.