[Aladin]

Apollo A7L/A7LB Lunar Overboot

One of the most iconic images of the Apollo program is Buzz Aldrin's footprint on the lunar surface:



NASA photo AS11-40-5880.

The boot which left the footprint was simply called the lunar overboot or lunar boot, one of the few parts of the Apollo spacesuit which did not have a long name requiring an acronym for everyday use. This boot was worn over the main space suit (pressure garment assembly, or PGA) boot.

The lunar overboots were donned prior to lunar surface activity and provided thermal and abrasion protection for the PGA boots during lunar surface operations. The outer layer of the lunar overboot, except for the sole, was fabricated from a woven chromium steel fabric called Chromel-R. Chromel-R was a new fabric at the time and cost (depending upon the source of the information) $2,000 or $2,775 per yard. The Chromel-R was qualified to withstand temperatures up to 1,200° F and also provided a cut-resistant protective barrier between the PGA boot and potentially sharp rocks on the lunar surface.

http://heroicrelics.org/info/suits/a7l-l...rboot.html

0			0

[Lordy x2]

Where's the other foot?

Don't matter, the picture in and of itself is just more proof the Apollo Mission was fake. If you were in the dessert and were walking through sand you would leave foot prints but they would not be very well defined. Just an indent in the sand roughly the same shape and size as the bottom of your boot and its depth would be dependent on how fat your ass is. There would and could be no sign of the tread design on the bottom of your boot. The problem in the dessert is there is little moisture and mortar to hold the sand together for a well defined boot print. Mortar being organic in nature such as clay which is what is used in sand casting.

Sand is nothing other than the remnants of the erosion of its parent rock and its granular nature makes it impossible to lock together with itself and achieve well defined castings or prints. Not without adding the other mentioned constituents to it which the Moon is lacking. The only thing on the moon would be ground up parent rock minus water or mortar and the boot prints left in that strata wouldn't be anymore defined than boot prints left in dessert sand of Planet Earth.

Wait! BUT the sand seems to be ground up to the consistency of dust on the Moon wouldn't that make it more able to leave a defined boot print? Nope, just different size grains of sand without water or mortar will not make a well defined boot print.

If you think about it you have to wonder where did the dustified sand on the moon even come from? There is no wind or water to erode the parent rock. On Earth water rinsing down off of mountains grinds the parent rock to sand and caries it to the ocean and then storms and tidal action flings it up on the beaches. Not much of that happening on the Moon, so there you have it, the thought that there is anything to even leave a print in on the moon is unfathomable.

0			0

[Lordy x2]

uhm, nice pondering but still wrong
do you know how gummi bears are made? the molds are starch dust
did you ever actually make a footprint in dust from dry soil?
I have often done it, and it was well defined and stayed
also the moon has much less gravity and no wind
small particles like dust can be held together by electrostatic force

Starch is organic, Soil is organic and you will find some small percentage of water or oil in both. Nobody has ever made a highly detailed, highly defined casting out of 100% dry single constituent granular bits of rock and it doesn't matter how fine it is ground, it will forever be a nonmagnetic insulator type material incapable of accepting a static charge. That's probably why the moon is electrically dead, there is noting on it that conducts electricity.

For anyone who can reason, the picture is obviously not of the moon therefore most likely not on the moon. I mean why would they drag material to the moon that would accept a boot print when they could find it and do it right here on Earth no problem.

Once again, the mere fact dust blankets the moon in every crack and cranny except on top of other rocks and boulders (I guess the solar winds knocked it off) ought to be clue enough. There is no natural mechanism on the moon to create loads of sand or sand-dust. And even if there was, that material wouldn't be able to make a picture perfect print.

0			0

[Lordy x2]

minerals don't have electrostatic properties?
do you know what semiconductors are made of?
eons of asteroid impacts are sufficient to create a fair amount of dust
moon gravity is 0.166g btw, not much of a drag on tiny dust particles

I know exactly how and what semiconductors are made of and how they work, the whole smear. I also know the world is the way the world is, because of you. It should make me no never mind, you, trying to bolster obvious lies by piling your nonsense on to them. Unfortunately when you defend the bullshit of the bullshitters it makes them more brazen. Next thing you know they will be dropping buildings on the heads of 3,000 people or on a more personal matter you might have to wear a useless face-mask to go shopping and if you are dumb enough they'll have you feeling like a hero for doing so.

When a large portion of society can not only be manipulated into believing the absurd, but go out of the their way to defend it, the world is in a bad way. The only thing that can fix it is your education or your culling.

Make no mistake, there are powerful people who are trying to fix what they believe is wrong with the world and since the education they are providing is absurd and easy to disprove propaganda you really have to wonder how they intend to implement their fix.

0			0