[Pmb]

The construction:

It is often said that if astronauts could not even sit on a Lunar Rover here on Earth because the Rovers were built of such lightweight construction that they "would have collapsed in 1 g if the crew sat on it." (1), and that the " The vehicle could support its own weight on earth, but no more" (2).

You have to watch what you believe. This claim is bogus. See the two astronauts sitting inside one on Earth at http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-rover-everything-you-need-to-know.html

[RD]

... See the two astronauts sitting inside one on Earth at http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-rover-everything-you-need-to-know.html

That photo is on wikipedia ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle#Early_lunar_mobility_studies

[alancalverd]

For the lunar rovers, traction in 1/6g is a massive problem to overcome, the vehicles only have approx 250lbs weight on the ground an yet have to propel a 1500lb mass, and to make things more difficult it is a loose surface they have to do this on.

Makes you wonder how sled dogs manage to do anything useful, how a tiny tugboat can move a tanker, or indeed how I manage to push my car. Obviously, life on earth is a fake and Newton was a liar.

I doubt many of us would want to drive such an unbalanced vehicle over an uneven terrain

which is why it takes a lot of selection and several years of intensive training to produce an astronaut.

[CliffordK]

I doubt many of us would want to drive such an unbalanced vehicle over an uneven terrain

which is why it takes a lot of selection and several years of intensive training to produce an astronaut.

I have no doubt the astronauts were "adrenaline junkies" to some extent.  However, explain to them that a car crash might be fatal, or running out of power could mean a long and dangerous walk back to the lunar module, and I have no doubt that they would pay attention to driving.

A modern lunar rover could be designed with a turn limiter so that it couldn't do a sharp left hand turn with a left hand load, however, undoubtedly in the 60's, a lot was dependent on skill and training of the astronauts.

[alancalverd]

The astronaut selection process sought out professional pilots with an engineering background and many hours of incident-free flying, not barnstormers. Test flying is about attention to detail and cautious approaches to the design specification of the machine, not shaking it to bits and parachting out of the wreckage.  There was even a bias against bachelors on the grounds that married men were more interested in coming home than in impressing anyone with their bravado. Learning to drive half a ton of scientific equipment over rough and slippery ground is part of many expeditions on this planet.   

[starbuck1963]

It is obvious that you are not accepting the facts simply because you don't want to accept the facts.  Ignorance and stubbornness is a deadly combination.
I'm not sure what would motivate somebody to hold on to such silliness but that is your right.

Here's the reality:
We went to the Moon. PERIOD!
We sent rovers to the Moon. PERIOD!
The Russians sent a rover to the Moon.  PERIOD!
We sent and continue to send rovers to Mars. PERIOD!

While the theoretical possibility that the Moon landing were faked is not 100% impossible...but ask yourself three questions,
1.  Why would they fake it not once but 6 (almost 7) times?  If you get away with it once you don't keep going back to the well.  Especially if you have nothing to gain from it financially or politically.
2. Since there were over 400,000 people DIRECTLY involved in the Apollo program, do you actually believe that such a massive secret could be kept?!?!?!?!?!!?
3.  Surely the Soviets knew...do you also believe that they wouldn't have outed us if we faked even the smallest part of the Apollo program?

I'll also add that subsequent Lunar probes had actually photographed Apollo landing sites complete with footprints AND rover tire tracks.

Finally, having some knowledge of electric vehicles, I happen to know of a 3200 pound electric Corvette that can do over 100 mph with a 40hp motor!!!
Electric motors are instant torque, instant power and ultra efficient.
So yes, four 1/4 hp motors are more than sufficient to drive a fully loaded rover on the Lunar surface.

Your arguments are all easily and completely refutable.
And don't delude yourself into thinking you are simply being determined or resolute in your assertions; constantly arguing in the face of overwhelming facts is not just stubbornness, it is borderline mental illness.

[alancalverd]

How does a 1 hp, 2000 lb horse manage to swim? How does a 1/10 hp, 200 lb man walk on ice? How can I ski uphill? You can't ride a motorbike and sidecar with the sidecar empty.

All everyday life is a fake. Or just maybe there's less conflicting traffic on the moon.

constantly arguing in the face of overwhelming facts is not just stubbornness, it is borderline mental illness.

unless you are a priest or a politician, in which case it is called a profession.

[KubricksOdyssey]

Here's the reality:
We went to the Moon. PERIOD!
We sent rovers to the Moon. PERIOD!
The Russians sent a rover to the Moon.  PERIOD!
We sent and continue to send rovers to Mars. PERIOD!

Your arguments are all easily and completely refutable.
And don't delude yourself into thinking you are simply being determined or resolute in your assertions; constantly arguing in the face of overwhelming facts is not just stubbornness, it is borderline mental illness.

The vast majority of the Apollo moon footage was faked. It was faked with the help of Stanley Kubrick and the cinema techniques learned in "2001: A Space Odyssey'.

Researcher Jay Weidner has proven the case the footage is fake.

Start here:

[RD]

The vast majority of the Apollo moon footage was faked.

Why only fake "the vast majority" ? , either fake it all and don't bother going , or it's real ...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27912.msg293914#msg293914


 [ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

[KubricksOdyssey]

The vast majority of the Apollo moon footage was faked.

Why only fake "the vast majority" ? , either fake it all and don't bother going , or it's real ...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27912.msg293914#msg293914

The images that didnt need to be faked are the near earth images or inside capsule images.

All the moon landscape photos were staged. The most interesting fakes are from Apollo 15, 16, and 17.

Lets start with Apollo 17

Show me any Apollo 17 moon landscape photo from http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html that contains black sky and i'll show you how it was faked. Photo can be of anything just needs to contain black sky background to show the fake stage set.

[KubricksOdyssey]

I'm not saying NASA didnt go to the moon. I am saying the photos NASA released were faked.


How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Footage
http://www.realitysandwich.com/kubrick_apollo

[RD]

I'm not saying NASA didnt go to the moon. I am saying the photos NASA released were faked.

It's totally nonsensical to only fake some photos/ films. Logically they could avoid the expense and the risk of failure by faking it all , or do it for real, (it's the latter as shown by the before after photos you can find here ).

You're wasting your time regurgitating the "Kubrick" conspiracy-theory baloney in this forum ...

The Flat Earth Society was one of the first organizations to accuse NASA of faking the landings, arguing that they were staged by Hollywood with Walt Disney sponsorship, based on a script by Arthur C. Clarke and directed by Stanley Kubrick ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Origins

[KubricksOdyssey]

It's totally nonsensical to only fake some photos/ films.

All the moon landscape photos were faked, not some. I dont know why they were faked however.

Show me any Apollo 15, 16, 17 photo supposedly taken on the moon with black sky and I'll show you the Kubrick set/background division line. Its in every NASA photo that shows sky.

See for yourself:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

Every Apollo moon photo (that shows black sky) has two sectors. 1. The front stage and 2. the scotchlite background, just like 2001:Space Odyssey...

[KubricksOdyssey]

I've looked at hundreds of official NASA Apollo photos. They all have the fake Kubrick front screen 2 part signature.

Heres more fake rover pics...




Researcher Jay Weidner here adjusts the GAMMA of the photo exposing Kubricks large stitched scotchlite screen...

[KubricksOdyssey]

Here's another large archive of faked Kubrick Apollo photos...

See for yourself....
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?147

[KubricksOdyssey]

Another fake rover pic and anomalous background pic.

40 years ago they never envisioned an internet that would uncover careless mistakes such as re-using the same background slide...

[RD]

Another fake rover pic.

40 years ago they never envisioned an internet that would uncover careless mistakes such as re-using the same background slide...

You're shooting yourself in the foot : the hill in the background is lit differently between the two frames and the viewpoint is slightly different too, i.e. not "the same background slide".  Reducing the interval between the frames helps make it even more obvious they are not "the same" , if they were "the same" there wouldn't be any movement [or local changes in brightness due to the changing position of the sun ] ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Like I said you are wasting your time here (and generally) by repeating this guff .

[ BTW flooding this forum with many consecutive posts could get you banned]

[KubricksOdyssey]

[KubricksOdyssey]

You're shooting yourself in the foot : the hill in the background is lit differently between the two frames and the viewpoint is slightly different too, i.e. not "the same background slide".

Patallax issues aside, are you beginning to at least see the horizonal line Kubrick used in EVERY landscape photo to hide the background screen.

I dont expect Apollo apologists to admit seeing something so obviously fake, but there is always hope for growth. See if you can pick out in this photo where the set ends and rhe background screen begins...

[RD]

Patallax issues aside ...

Parallax shows the images were taken from two different viewpoints , the changes in lighting shows they were taken at different times. Your allegation that it is the same faked backdrop is evidently false.



And yet you waste your time posting yet more of this tripe ...

Case of the magically appearing rovers.

Looking for LRVs ? , here's a link to a picture of one on the moon taken in 2011 ...

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg
 [ the "parked" LRV is very close to the right edge of the image]

On that image you can also see the tyre tracks it has made when it was tootling about on the moon's surface.

End of story.