|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 28, 2007 1:41:39 GMT -4
Funny. I didn't feel like I was talking big.
You rendered the opinion that we did not "fully understand" the accusations made against NASA regarding the Apollo missions. That means you think you understand more about that issue than we did.
Prove it.
Do you believe the Apollo missions were faked? And if so, why?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 28, 2007 1:47:00 GMT -4
I'm back to talk about missing rover tracks. Explain to me if you will why the rover is missing its tire tracks in photo AS17-137-20979...Yawn. www.clavius.org/rover2.html Short version; the astronauts kicked dirt over the rover tracks. Their footprints are plainly visible.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 28, 2007 4:31:52 GMT -4
Count Zero, you got one right! I'm back to talk about missing rover tracks. Actually, that was Count Zero quoting Phantomwolf. Explain to us, if you will, why this is indicative of a hoax. (And, just to pre-empt gillian, you improperly placed a question mark at the end of a sentence which, clearly, was not a question.)
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 28, 2007 4:32:26 GMT -4
Count Zero, you got one right! I'm back to talk about missing rover tracks.
That was PhantomWolf, not me. He, like anyone who has spent time watching the Moonwalks, knows that the astronauts were kicking dust with nearly every step, and that in low-g vacuum the dust traveled several inches. Given that, after several minutes of working around the rover I'd be surprised if the tire tracks were not obscurred.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 28, 2007 4:35:39 GMT -4
Explain to us, if you will, why this is indicative of a hoax.
Yeah, that's always mystified me. Is the hoax believer actually suggesting that a wheeled vehicle was lifted onto the set, instead of just rolled (or driven)?
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 28, 2007 5:11:55 GMT -4
IIRC there is even video from A15 where one can observe the astronauts kicking dust over the area near the rover. This was when the RCA camera was still on the tripod showing the rover being loaded.
Didn't we go over this in a very long thread with lionking? I can't recall the thread title though.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 28, 2007 5:37:59 GMT -4
Explain to me if you will why the rover is missing its tire tracks in photo AS17-137-20979 after having traveled 9km across the moon's surface? Explain to us, if you will, exactly what you propose was done with the rover to get it to the position in the picture, and why that was done when it is quite clearly capable of being driven there. And then explain why you would not expect the tracks to be obscured by kicked up dust, which is quite evident on every shot of the astronauts' feet on any mission as they walk around.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Nov 28, 2007 6:38:11 GMT -4
If there's no legitimate question, then what's the purpose of this forum? The purpose of this forum is to counter the works of those who insist that there is a legitimate question, and to try and minimise the number of people taken in by the fraudsters and liars out to make a quick buck by rubbishing the achievements of others. I do not use the term 'fraudsters and liars' lightly either. I have personal experience of some of these people that makes it inescapable that they are liars. Contrary to the oversimplifications of those who wish to read some subversive meaning into the existence of such forums as these, Apollo is not intuitively obvious to everyone. It was a highly technical project in a field not everyone out there is au fait with. Many people do not immediately understand that dark sky does not equate to night-time in space; that stars are intrinsically much dimmer than they seem to be; that seeing a photographing are two very different problems; that orbital mechanics is so couterintuitive that you have to slow down to speed up; that radiation exists in different types and these require different shielding techniques; that the outer skin of the LM that looks so flimsy is not the pressure vessel of the craft; that dust behaves very differently in a vacuum than might be expected at first glance; and so on. The truth of Apollo is categorically NOT a common sense problem with an obvious answer unless you have some knowledge of the science and technology involved. If everyone had that, NASA wouldn't need to assemble a team of specialists and anyone could go to the Moon. Forums such as this exist to provide that knowledge to those who don't have it so they may better understand the ignorant claims of conspiracy theorists. Jason, well said!
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 28, 2007 9:51:56 GMT -4
ah jeez, not this again. I don't suspect this will end well. Or soon.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 28, 2007 11:13:49 GMT -4
Is the hoax believer actually suggesting that a wheeled vehicle was lifted onto the set, instead of just rolled (or driven)?
I doubt he knows what he means to suggest. Most of conspiracist photo "analysis" is just a knee-jerk reaction without much thought attached to the story the photo is alleged to fit into.
Stagehands never lift what can be rolled. And in fact a good scenery shop (which I happen to have) can put hidden wheels on things not normally meant to have wheels precisely so it can be rolled and not lifted.
And let's say that in the very worst case a vehicle demonstrably capable of being driven or pushed on wheels is instead lifted into a place where it's going to be purported to have stopped after having been driven. Why would they then take closeup photos showing the absence of tracks?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 28, 2007 15:51:14 GMT -4
I'm back to talk about missing rover tracks. Do I win Randi's Million?
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Nov 28, 2007 23:29:03 GMT -4
Because of the limited space inside the hanger certain areas had to be resurfaced with the overhead blower fans. This inadvertantly erased many foot prints and also caused the flag to blow many times.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 28, 2007 23:38:25 GMT -4
Because of the limited space inside the hanger certain areas had to be resurfaced with the overhead blower fans. This inadvertantly erased many foot prints and also caused the flag to blow many times. Are you being serious? Why would they run the fans while the cameras were rolling (especially when the flag is in the shot)? And wouldn't the fans kick up a lot of dust that would be obvious in the footage?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 29, 2007 0:29:57 GMT -4
Because of the limited space inside the hanger certain areas had to be resurfaced with the overhead blower fans. This inadvertantly erased many foot prints and also caused the flag to blow many times. And your evidence for this is, what?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 29, 2007 0:38:16 GMT -4
I don't think inconceivable is being serious.
|
|