This report is about the Apollo program manned landing missions to the Moon and the question of why some of the images of the Lunar Rovers do not show any tire tracks in the soil while traversing the Moon’s fine powdery regolith terrain. Since there are so many other questions and issues relating to whether the Apollo manned landings were real or not that would take far too much evidence and reporting to cover, this report of necessity confines itself to just the rover tire track evidence ignoring other issues.
The above 1st image is from the Apollo 17 mission data image number AS17-147-22523. It shows a single astronaut driving the rover and all are in motion. He is suppose to be testing the rover prior to loading it with equipment and that’s the reason the rover has a sort of stripped down clean look to it.
Note that the rover underway in this manner would be at its lightest weight with only one occupant and no loaded equipment and yet is still leaving a very clear linear track in the soft, fine, powdery regolith soil as pointed out by the two bracketing yellow arrows in the area behind by the left front tire. Note that the tires are clearly raining down plenty of the fine powder regolith soil as the rover moves forward and note that this is not covering up the track behind the right front tire.
A point I’m making here is that the vehicle in motion at its lightest weight leaves a well defined track in the soil and a slightly more well defined track could logically be expected from a rover loaded with equipment. Further, although the right front tire with its metal mesh and strap covering is picking up and raining down quite a bit of soil, it isn’t enough to come even close to covering up the tire tracks being left in the soil behind the right front tire.
So later in this reporting, don’t get to thinking in terms of soil kicked by the tires covering tracks. Further, it should also be noted that nice sharp clear rover tracks otherwise left in the terrain in many of the Lunar mission images (but not imaged here) defining rover passage should also negate such an argument right away.
The above 2nd image from AS17-147-22526 is another view of the rover stripped down before loading with equipment, at its lightest weight, and in motion. Note again the tracks left in the soil by the front tires as pointed out by the yellow arrows and note again that the visible tracks are well defined in the soil and not being covered up by the soil kicked up by and raining down from the passing tire.
On the other hand, the above 3rd and 4th images taken from the Apollo 15 mission image AS15-85-11471 demonstrates a rover also in motion but now loaded with equipment and heavier in weight relative to a stripped version. That logically means that the rover should be leaving slightly deeper more pronounced tire tracks even in the Moon’s lower gravity. However, in this image note that the rover is leaving absolutely no tracks at all either to the rear or front of the tires on the right side of the vehicle.
As you can see, this is a well known example of the “It can’t be” no tracks evidence. An obvious logical question that soon comes to mind, and has been espoused by others, is whether this 3rd and 4th image scene is one actually on the distant Moon or one here on Earth on some covert movie making set where the rover was simply lowered down by a lift and placed in this position without rolling forwards or backwards? Look closer in the image and note the soil raining down on the rear end of both the front and rear tires indicating the rover is in motion in this scene.
Because the rover is clearly in motion kicking up soil, this type of evidence negates the consideration that the rover was simply lowered into position even though it does not actually answer the question of whether the scene is on Earth or the Moon. One thing is absolutely certain here, since an equipment loaded rover in motion but not leaving tire tracks on soft, fine, powdery soil is quite impossible, then something is obviously very wrong here.
Worse, what are we suppose to think of well educated scientists around the world who cannot seem to recognize or admit to their selves must less you and I in the public that visual material like this is a problem? Are they dead between the ears? Even worse, what are we suppose to think of the people and agencies responsible for presenting this kind of “impossible” information and asking the public to believe in it and trust? In fact, what kind of agency supposedly serving the public interest would even want their public and audience to trust unquestioning in such “impossible” material?
Logically the vehicle is clearly in motion and we can assume it is laying down tire tracks. So where are the tracks? The problem is that we just can’t see the tracks that must be there and so the question becomes why? In my opinion, they are no longer visible because someone has not just sanitized them from the scene, they’ve substituted a sandy gravely landscape texture in its place. That is a very intentional act and it clearly defines the intent to obfuscate and deceive.
Now, I repeat, this does not conclusively reveal to us whether this scene was on the Moon or on Earth and does not answer that question even as it does reveal intentional deception. If taken at face value, in my mind this kind of evidence tends to support it actually being on the Moon. On the other hand, that Moon “regolith” looks an awful lot like and even behaves like gray dry concrete ready mix in an environment where humidity is present to me.
In the above 5th, 6th and 7th images from the Apollo 15 AS15-88-11901 strip, you see the entire equipment loaded rover and its immediate surroundings. Here again there are no tracks on either end of the rover left front and rear tires and this evidence is used by those that argue the Apollo manned Moon were fakes made on a movie set here on Earth. However, note in the background beyond the rover and to its rear in some distant faintly seen linear lines evidence pointed out with yellow arrows.
Although I might be wrong, I strongly suspect this to be distantly seen rover tracks crossing to our right and then behind the rover in the rover’s original earlier path and beginning to loop around to the rear of the rover going off the right edge of the image strip and would have normally come up right behind the rover. However, likely image tampering with the soil texture look has removed the tire track evidence closer to the rover.
Of course the impossibility of the missing tire tracks closer to the rover fuels the debate over whether this evidence came about via a landing on the Moon or at a movie set here on Earth. Again, this type of evidence can’t conclusively answer that question. Still, look carefully at the rover left rear wheel/hub in the above 7th image and the considerable soil adhering to it. Sure looks an awful like and even behaves like gray dry concrete ready mix in an environment where differential temperature humidity is present on metal to me. This is not what one would expect on an airless super dry Moon surface.
In the above 8th image, now we’re back to the Apollo 17 evidence in the AS17-146o-22367 strip. Here the rover is loaded with its equipment and slightly heavier than in the initial stripped test stage. Note how at this sunlight angle the astronaut footprints at various angles disturbing the soil shows up as a pronounced shiny surface within each footprint. We should then be able to anticipate that any tire track disturbed soil here would behave the same way, yet there are no such tracks.
On the other hand, the lone yellow arrow I’ve added on the right behind the left rear tire points out a short shallow linear depression course that is likely part of the left rear tire track. If it is, note how it is not sunlight reflective as the many footprints are and it is not very long. This again suggests that the tire track that logically has to be there has been either eliminated or partially eliminated by likely image texture tampering covering in the background areas that was not completely successful in visually eliminating the rover track.
The above 9th image is again from the Apollo 17 data image number AS17-137-21011. It’s a bit blurry because the original is blurry. This scene is actually a distant view showing a lot of terrain surrounding the small distant rover. Even so and as you can clearly see, the rover is sitting there with no tire tracks leading to or from it. Further, even though at least one astronaut is clearly on the ground tromping around beside the rover, there are no footprints.
I am satisfied that this is because most of this terrain is covered with a grainy smudge (not landscape texture) treatment that has eliminated both the rover tire tracks and any astronaut footprints. Now understand that I do not believe that the tire tracks and footprints were the target of the tampering field. Almost certainly the general terrain in this wide context scene surrounding the rover and stretching off into the distant background of hills was the true target with the goal of eliminating any visual truth there. Covering over the tire tracks and footprints was just incidental to that and a mistake in not replacing them.
In the above 10th and last image from the Apollo 17 data image number AS17-137-20979 we’re back to a very crisp sharp close image of the rover’s right rear wheel and tire. Again, even though there is an astronaut onboard and the rover is loaded with equipment and weighs a bit more than in its stripped version in the Moon’s minimal gravity, there are no right rear tire tracks. Note that here again the tracks are not just eliminated, they are replaced with soil mimicking textures demonstrating intent to deceive.
This 10th image and the 5th image further above are ones often used by those questioning whether there was a manned landing at all on the Moon during the Apollo missions. They advocate that the missions were faked and produced on set here on Earth during the height of the space race between the USA and the USSR. Some arguments suggest that the rover was simply lowered down on the raw ground of the prepared set and they just forgot to move the rover to develop some tire tracks before filming.
I can’t say one way or the other with any confidence whether the above collection of evidence was produced on the Moon or Earth. What I can say is that the incentive was certainly there back in those days to take short cuts and deliver the perception of manned landing mission success if not the fact. However, the above evidence, especially the rover in motion evidence, from the Apollo 15 and 17 missions tends to negate the extrapolation that the rovers were simply lowered down on a set.
What is more likely in a lot of this Apollo evidence is that someone was trying to either fake and/or hide large areas of terrain in this imaging via graphics work and eliminating smaller evidence like rover tire tracks was only an incidental mistake inherent in this process as practiced at that time. However, note that this does not necessarily answer the question of what was there about the terrain that required such covert administrations? Were they trying to create a suitable Moon looking landscape via graphics work from scratch in an Earth set scenario and/or were they trying to hide landscape evidence that may have been too Earth like or trying to hide Moon evidence that may have been objectionable from secrecy’s point of view?
Remember that this reporting is only a small limited slice of the body of information that is available on this subject. For more go to this LINK. The intention of this reporting is only to add some more insight into the lack of rover tracks issue and demonstrate that a graphics image tampering process is a strong candidate for consideration. That was the purpose of the first half of my reporting in Report #191 on the coiled cable to prepare the way and show you just how careful one must be on the issue of successful image tampering and the dangers of accepting too much at face value just because the source may be trusted by preference.
I acknowledge that the purpose of the covert activity in the Apollo data, as best exampled by the rovers in motion evidence such as in the above 3rd and 4th images, may have been to obfuscated something on the Moon suggesting that we did go there and there was something there to hide from the public. On the other hand, I also have to admit that the soil adhering to the metal wheel of the rovers in images 7 and 10 just as would dry gray concrete ready mix spread over the ground to metal in a humid environment is also very suggestive. As always, you must decide for yourself.
One thing is for sure on the bottom line here, secrecy derived covert obfuscation evidence is too plentiful in the official Moon science data to the point that the data cannot be trusted to represent truth and what we think we in the public know about the Moon is not truth. The real truth has been hijacked into secrecy by a hidden few. Why?