[Tom Bishop]

I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?

Real strong argument there.

[Gulliver]

I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?

Real strong argument there.

No, I am not saying, and have not said, that "this children's author" may have busted it. Are you saying that a text written at a child's level cannot show that you're wrong about some fact? Are you saying that if I refer to such an author that everything he (or she) has written is not a real strong argument? Do I need to remind you of the "ad hominem" fallacy yet again?

[Tom Bishop]

I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?

Real strong argument there.

No, I am not saying, and have not said, that "this children's author" may have busted it. Are you saying that a text written at a child's level cannot show that you're wrong about some fact? Are you saying that if I refer to such an author that everything he (or she) has written is not a real strong argument? Do I need to remind you of the "ad hominem" fallacy yet again?

Well, then if this subject has not been busted it looks like you have some work to do.

[Rama Set]

I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?

Real strong argument there.

No, I am not saying, and have not said, that "this children's author" may have busted it. Are you saying that a text written at a child's level cannot show that you're wrong about some fact? Are you saying that if I refer to such an author that everything he (or she) has written is not a real strong argument? Do I need to remind you of the "ad hominem" fallacy yet again?

Well, then if this subject has not been busted it looks like you have some work to do.

That is not what he said Tom.  You should address what is actually written. 

Technically I think Tom is committing the genetic fallacy by saying that information that comes from a "children's author" is not strong, but regardless, it is a fruitless comment to engage in since it is mostly content free.

[Tom Bishop]

In response to the subject of missing tracks it was stated that the children's author Phil Plat has destroyed all moon landing hoax allegations. It is implied "Phil Plat busted all of this already".

If so, then it should be easy to look at his work which addresses the subject of missing tracks.

If not, and his analysis was incomplete, the burden is on Gulliver and others to bust it.

[Gulliver]

I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?

Real strong argument there.

No, I am not saying, and have not said, that "this children's author" may have busted it. Are you saying that a text written at a child's level cannot show that you're wrong about some fact? Are you saying that if I refer to such an author that everything he (or she) has written is not a real strong argument? Do I need to remind you of the "ad hominem" fallacy yet again?

Well, then if this subject has not been busted it looks like you have some work to do.

When did I say that this subject has not been busted? If all you have to offer is more generalization errors, please stop posting. You fail miserably.

[Tom Bishop]

If you brought up his work in response you believe that this subject has, or may have, been busted.

Did you have some hope that you could provide definitive evidence of a conspiracy after Dr. Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy destroyed all previous attempts.

If so, document it, research whether Phil Plait or Myth Busters already busted it, and then submit it to both.

I looked, and didn't find where it was busted.

I can't find where this subject has been busted by children's book author Phil Plait. Kindly find a source for your nonsense.

No sources were given to my query. So it seems the burden to bust it is on you.

[Rama Set]

In response to the subject of missing tracks it was stated that the children's author Phil Plat has destroyed all moon landing hoax allegations. It is implied "Phil Plat busted all of this already".

If so, then it should be easy to look at his work which addresses the subject of missing tracks.

If not, and his analysis was incomplete, the burden is on Gulliver and others to bust it.

I can agree to that, but you keep mentioning "children's author" pejoratively, which is pretty weak.

[garygreen]

The 'missing tracks' argument is absurd.  In every photo you can see other rover tracks around the location of the rover.  And, we know from video evidence that NASA built a mobile, functioning rover.  So apparently NASA built both a mobile and immobile rover, drove the mobile rover around, then lifted it up and removed it to set the immobile rover down at or around the original location of the mobile rover; or, they drove the mobile rover just a few feet from where they wanted to park it, got out, lifted the rover with a crane, and then set the rover down just a few feet from where it had been parked.

That completely defies logic.  It just doesn't make any sense.



Notice how the dark rover tracks merge with the darker soil where the astronauts have been walking all around the rover, as if the soil was disturbed by boots and rover tracks.  Notice that there are partial tread marks in the soil leading up to the rover, as if the soil was disturbed by boots.  Notice that you can clearly see a cable that has been partially buried (bottom-left, and center-right) in the soil, as if the soil was disturbed by boots.

[Tom Bishop]

Except that when I zoom into the photo I can see soft foot prints in the dirt around the back of the rover, but no tire tracks leaving behind it. At no point in any of the Apollo recordings do they lift up the rover. The astronauts were only actually walking on the moon for a short time, and it is all well documented.

[Shmeggley]

I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?

Real strong argument there.

No, I am not saying, and have not said, that "this children's author" may have busted it. Are you saying that a text written at a child's level cannot show that you're wrong about some fact? Are you saying that if I refer to such an author that everything he (or she) has written is not a real strong argument? Do I need to remind you of the "ad hominem" fallacy yet again?

Well, then if this subject has not been busted it looks like you have some work to do.

That is not what he said Tom.  You should address what is actually written. 

Technically I think Tom is committing the genetic fallacy by saying that information that comes from a "children's author" is not strong, but regardless, it is a fruitless comment to engage in since it is mostly content free.

Tom is a genetic fallacy

In response to the subject of missing tracks it was stated that the children's author Phil Plat has destroyed all moon landing hoax allegations. It is implied "Phil Plat busted all of this already".

If so, then it should be easy to look at his work which addresses the subject of missing tracks.

If not, and his analysis was incomplete, the burden is on Gulliver and others to bust it.

I can agree to that, but you keep mentioning "children's author" pejoratively, which is pretty weak.

Agreed, and it is the genetic fallacy. It's like prefacing every mention of Richard Feynman with "bongo player" or "safe cracker" or "sketch artist".

[Ghost of V]

The 'missing tracks' argument is absurd.  In every photo you can see other rover tracks around the location of the rover.  And, we know from video evidence that NASA built a mobile, functioning rover.  So apparently NASA built both a mobile and immobile rover, drove the mobile rover around, then lifted it up and removed it to set the immobile rover down at or around the original location of the mobile rover; or, they drove the mobile rover just a few feet from where they wanted to park it, got out, lifted the rover with a crane, and then set the rover down just a few feet from where it had been parked.

That completely defies logic.  It just doesn't make any sense.



Notice how the dark rover tracks merge with the darker soil where the astronauts have been walking all around the rover, as if the soil was disturbed by boots and rover tracks.  Notice that there are partial tread marks in the soil leading up to the rover, as if the soil was disturbed by boots.  Notice that you can clearly see a cable that has been partially buried (bottom-left, and center-right) in the soil, as if the soil was disturbed by boots.

How come the rover doesn't float off into space? I know the moon has "gravity", but isn't it just a tad bit convenient that your moon has just enough "gravity" to hold a rover on the moon, yet an astronaut who jumps high enough floats away? How do you explain this discrepancy?

[Rama Set]

The escape velocity from the Moon is approximately 2.4km/s which translates to 8640 km/h which is much faster than a rover can travel.

[Shmeggley]

Vauxhall, are you saying there were astronauts that jumped off the Moon?

[Gulliver]

If you brought up his work in response you believe that this subject has, or may have, been busted.

Did you have some hope that you could provide definitive evidence of a conspiracy after Dr. Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy destroyed all previous attempts.

If so, document it, research whether Phil Plait or Myth Busters already busted it, and then submit it to both.

I looked, and didn't find where it was busted.

I can't find where this subject has been busted by children's book author Phil Plait. Kindly find a source for your nonsense.

No sources were given to my query. So it seems the burden to bust it is on you.

The blog Bad Astronomy does a great job of debunking the Moon Landing Hoax. I can't help you if you can't even figure out the that Dr. Plait is not a children's book author. I encourage you to present one good piece of evidence supporting your hoax theory that has not be reviewed and debunked by either source.

[markjo]

Except that when I zoom into the photo I can see soft foot prints in the dirt around the back of the rover, but no tire tracks leaving behind it. At no point in any of the Apollo recordings do they lift up the rover. The astronauts were only actually walking on the moon for a short time, and it is all well documented.

Tom, did you ever consider that maybe after the astronauts parked the rover, they got out and did stuff near the rover that kicked up some dust and obscured some of the tracks?

[garygreen]

Except that when I zoom into the photo I can see soft foot prints in the dirt around the back of the rover, but no tire tracks leaving behind it. At no point in any of the Apollo recordings do they lift up the rover. The astronauts were only actually walking on the moon for a short time, and it is all well documented.

What you're suggesting is asinine regardless of the authenticity of the Apollo missions.  It would mean that NASA drove its rover through the dirt, stopped, and lifted the rover into place mere feet from its destination.  It doesn't make sense.  You can believe that the moon landings were fake and also believe that the fake astronauts drove their rover to that spot and then walked all around it pretending to do astronaut things, disturbing the rover tracks in the process.  It's much simpler and more logical.

The astronauts of Apollo 17 spent over 21 total hours on EVA.  There were several experiments around the LM that they checked and maintained each day at the end of the EVA.  There was plenty of time and opportunity to walk around the rover and LM.  Even if for some reason that seems unreasonable to you, it's still more reasonable than your suggestion, even if Apollo was a hoax.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/surface_opp/

e: Also, I forgot to mention that I circled in red a partial tread mark behind the rover. Bottom left corner. It's difficult to imagine how such a tread would be left if they lifted the rover into place.

[J Gore J Singh Om]

With one of those heartbeat detectors and monitoring eye movement... It would be possible to discern if an individual is lying...  It makes the ability to discern conspiracies all the more...  Possible...

No more guesstimations, rigmarole, or namby pamby data management and preponderance...   

[J Gore J Singh Om]

Watch out for, well.... Mind Control...  There would be no way to perform a brain-wave analysis in cognito...  Of course, be just aware, I have never performed any of the before mentioned operations...  I just mention them...

[Thork]

Why does the small thing on top of the camera, cast such a large shadow? Its is a though its very close to the studio light. But of course there aren't any studio lights on the moon. Certainly not powerful enough to illuminate an entire lunarscape. And its the only source of light. Otherwise that shadow would be lighter if a sun was shining on the ground to show the contours of the moon and the boot marks etc. I don't understand the light source here at all.