[KubricksOdyssey]

Here's two more Apollo 17 rovers where paint schemes on the trays do not match.

Notice one rover has white paint around the screws while the other does not...

[KubricksOdyssey]

Only really two possible explanations for all the different rover continuity errors in Apollo 17.

Incompetence , or better answer is likely an inside whistleblower hoping someone at a later time would see all this obvious fakery.

The question posed by OP "Were the Lunar Rovers faked?" has been answered....

[dlorde]

The LRV fenders had retractable (and breakable) sections. The different paint schemes belong to separate interchangeable stowage units. For additional info see Boeing's LRV information press release.

If you actually tried verifying some of these fakery claims, you might learn something.

[RD]

Here's two more Apollo 17 rovers where paint schemes on the trays do not match.

Notice one rover has white paint around the screws while the other does not...

Using different types of black&White film , e.g. normal panchromatic Vs infra-red , is a possible explanation.

Is there a record of the film-types used ? 

If the film used was the same in both cases then a colour filter added to the lens can explain different renditions of the same object if it is coloured ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=60

Apparently NASA had some camera lens filters ...

In addition to the Hasselblad cameras, Apollo 8 carried a black and white television camera,
a 16mm motion picture camera, exposure meters, several types of filters, and other camera accessories.

http://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/apollo_photo.html

[Aemilius]

This is interesting.... Could you field a question Dr. Calverd?

[alancalverd]

Yes, if I found the subject matter the least bit interesting.

[Aemilius]

Oops, never mind. I found the answer.... thanks though.

[KubricksOdyssey]

[KubricksOdyssey]

This is interesting...

Its extremely interesting.

Watching 97-99% of the worlds top name scientists succumb to the greatest hoax in the history of mankind is an incredible sight to witness.

Not to mention the billions of people that were hoaxed...

[RD]

Have you never heard of Godwin's "law" ? ...

... whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[KubricksOdyssey]

Have I heard of Godwins Law? Yes.

I'm not playing the "Hitler card" here or trying to equate anyone with "Nazi's" to "posion the well." 

It just happens to be an amazing quote. Here is the important part of the quote.....


 "Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."

[KubricksOdyssey]

Click Image to Play


Its called Cognitive Dissonance. R.D.,

Cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who  is confronted by new information that conflicts with with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

[Aemilius]

Hey KubricksOdyssey (nice to meet you)....

So I've been looking at this now for a while. There are certainly some very curious aspects to it. This has undoubtedly been discussed extensively but I have a few questions for anyone who can provide me with the currently accepted explanation. I'll start with a question about the sun. Maybe if Dr. Calverd stumbles accross this thread he could help.

While looking into it, I came across research by one Jack White, a seemingly credible professional/expert photographer. His observation that the sun is too large by eight or nine diameters is odd enough by itself....

…. but the computer analysis he did that accompanies it showing an easily recognizable high intensity light bulb as the actual light source....

….really got my attention.

Is there some currently accepted logical explanation that debunks his observation and analysis? 

[RD]

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Below is a gif animation of the frames at 2:14 & 2:23 of the YouTube above ( 5oIzBUMVT7o ) showing the background moving behind the "large rock",  (due to parallax),  contrary to what is written on the YouTube screen : "[the large rock] does not hide things behind it at all ..." 

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[RD]

Jack White, a seemingly credible professional/expert photographer ...
Is there some currently accepted logical explanation that debunks his observation and analysis?

Lens flare . e.g. ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare

[ BTW it's worth mentioning old-Jack claimed the Zapruder film was also faked :
paranoid conspiracy-theorists rarely confine themselves to one conspiracy ].

[Aemilius]

Thanks RD.... And the computer analysis?

What's your opinion about that RD?

[RD]

Thanks RD.... And the computer analysis?

What's your opinion about that RD?

It looks like a pineapple.
If the green bit is supposed to be the bulb (screw?) fitting, that would be behind the bulb, rather than to one side , so not visible when looking at a spot-lamp reflector head-on.

The outer ring and diagonal features are lens flare , e.g. ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare

If the outer-circle was a spot-lamp-reflector, part of it would be blocked by the space-craft which is between the camera and the alleged spotlight.
It's a complete circle, so it's not the rim of a spot-lamp-reflector.

[Aemilius]

So, your opinion RD is that lens flare accounts for the Sun appearing almost ten times larger than it should and that the result of rhe computer analysis resembles a pineapple.... and we mustn't forget to mention the Kennedy assasination! Is this what passes for critical thinking these days?

Doesn't look like a pineapple to me....

[RD]

No amount of evidence or refutation , (six pages of it in this thread) , will alter the views of conspiracy theorists : they are delusional and not susceptible to reason.

The ones that believe in multiple large-scale conspiracies are clearly suffering from a degree of paranoid psychosis : everywhere they look they believe hundreds of people are conspiring against them.

[Aemilius]

If the green bit is supposed to be the bulb (screw?) fitting, that would be behind the bulb, rather than to one side, so not visible when looking at a spot-lamp reflector head-on.

No, it's very common for high intensity discharge and other bulbs (both single and double ended) to be mounted that way (below), so your assertion above about all lamp fittings/sockets being invariably hidden behind the bulb when looking at the reflector head on is easily proven false and lends no credibility to your explanation.... 

Moving on, it's the image below that was examined....

….not the image below that you posted from Wikipedia. That's not the photograph that was examined and so is useless for the purpose of answering the questions I posed about the abnormally large size of the Sun as photographed from the lunar surface and the computer analysis of it....

The computer analysis is of the solid white circular portion of the photograph I posted that's supposed to represent the Sun itself, and nobody said anything about the outer ring of the lense flare being the outer edge of a reflector. This effectively renders your assertion about the outer ring of the lense flare (in a different photograph) showing up between the LEM and the camera being proof it couldn't be an artificial light source meaningless.

BTW  it's worth mentioning old-Jack White claimed the Zapruder film was also faked....

Bringing up JFK to discredit Jack White? Go ahead.... it doesn't change the information conveyed by the photograph showing the Sun as being abnormally large or the computer analysis showing anomolous solar characteristics.... it contributes nothing to your explanation.

….paranoid conspiracy theorists rarely confine themselves to one conspiacy.

Implying that anyone who asks questions is a paranoid conspiracy theorist? Go ahead.... I'm just asking straightforward science questions.   

No amount of evidence or refutation , (six pages of it in this thread) , will alter the views of conspiracy theorists : they are delusional and not susceptible to reason.

The ones that believe in multiple large-scale conspiracies are clearly suffering from a degree of paranoid psychosis : everywhere they look they believe hundreds of people are conspiring against them.

So, I don't know about the rest of the thread, but at least when it comes to this exchange between us about these two particular questions (the abnormal size of the Sun and the computer analysis), your “explanation” provably consists of nothing more than false, useless, meaningless assumptive assertions and conclusions arrived at through misinterpreted data from a photograph that's not even under consideration, all highlighted by a bunch of infantile stereotyping nonsense generally directed at anyone who asks questions.

In view of the above it can't by any definition be called an explanation because you didn't answer, prove, refute or provide evidence of anything. Maybe someone else (Are you there Dr. Calverd?) can provide me with a more coherent explanation without all the disturbing derisive nonsense, misinterpretation and inaccuracy.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.