And? We all know it was built to unfold, but I need the plans to show how it was constructed, in order to fold and unfold. Not just a set of diagrams showing where all the bits went, you get that sort of thing in a flat pack from a furniture store.
OK Here
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_LunarRover2.pdfAnd here
Now what?
“The engines were the only thing worth salvaging”
They are hardly going to tell you they’ve salvaged something which shouldn’t be there.
Why attempt any salvage at all? If it were all a "hoax", why carry out an extra hoax 50 years later and risk exposing the "hoax"? In any event the salvage operation was not a NASA operation at all. It was a private venture. NASA or "they" as you like to refer to them, had no control at all over it.
“there is evidence of some disturbance. They even intentionally took pictures of under the LM descend stage to record it, as linked.”
What proof is a close-up? That would be a very small area to fake. Zoom in and you’ll see all those tiny little rocks that should have been blown away.
By what? The engine was cut off before reaching the surface.
“Not a cardboard box”
Ok, several cardboard boxes taped together. Would you like to explain why they would be confident of landing it?
That "cardboard" you refer to is simply the outer thermal blankets. Know what was under those? This...
“No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon”
“Didn't happen. The claim is false.”
It’s not a claim, you blind little soul, it’s a fact. What else could it be? We are talking official Apollo footage here, and although there are different edited versions, it’s all allegedly genuine footage from the journey to the moon.
Here it’s at 33:40
You need to either give your own explanation to what you see through that window, which points to them being genuinely on their way to the moon, or explain why you think it is not genuine footage.
Look out the window, see Earth. Point camera out window, film Earth. All of this is moot in any event given the transmission at 30:28.
“How you would react and how people trained to land on the moon would react are not the same thing.”
I disagree, we are all human, and what these men were allegedly part of was just incredible, even by your standards, surely. It was the greatest achievement by mankind to date, and I and the rest of the world’s population in possession of their own faculties, would be buzzing our frigging nuts off. I’d turn up to that press conference in t-shirt and jeans, I’m a superstar after all. I’d be lying back on my chair with my hands clasped behind my head and my feet on the table with a joint hanging from my mouth, it was the sixties after all. My smug grin would be so wide, I’d get into the Guinness book of records. But you would be slouched there, looking down at the table, nervously fiddling with your pen, hoping no one would realise you were repeating the words you were hearing through your earpiece, As you knew nothing of what you did, because you never done it.
Are you a military test pilot? Do you even know what that entails?
“Anyone who claims there wasn't noticeable disturbance is either lying or ignorant of the subject matter.”
Show me.
Again?
“Science doesn't need to explain budget constraints”
Just once, as opposed to nine?
Nine what?
“But you do need to understand dishonest editing and that Bean knows more about the VAB than you ever will”
Has he been educated since, because he knew naff all, at the time of the interview.
Only one person knows "naff all" in this discussion.
“How do you propose to test land a vehicle designed for use in space and a 1/6G (airless) environment?”
Either remotely, or just scrap the idea.
Who flew the very first Boeing 747? How did they know it would work? Why didn't they do it remotely?
“No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon”
“I suggest you do some research, this question has been answered time and time again.”
So answer it.
Asked and answered. The transmission at 30:28 destroys your claims.
“A mission to go where exactly? Actually the Russians tried to emulate (or even beat the Americans) with a lunar landing, unfortunately their N1 rocket failed.”
Around the moon of course, and the Russians failed because it was impossible at the time, and still is.
The Russians failed because their N1 exploded every time they attempted a launch. It never got even close to LEO.
“Can you prove that Sibrel did not edit this interview? He has been guilty of it before”
He delivers one sentence in the clip, how could that sentence possibly be taken out of context?
What came before? What came after? Taking a sentence in isolation is exactly out of context.
“Try listening to the cockpit recording Chesley Sullenberger, Captain of US Airways 1549 as he attempts something no-one has ever managed to do successfully before... land a jet airliner (suffering a double engine failure) and full of passengers, on a river.”
He’s nervous, we can hear the croak in his voice, although I’m sure he was confident of making a successful landing, as he will have known how his aeroplane would work under those circumstances, due to his training.
Like the Apollo astronauts knew how their spacecraft worked and were confident of making a successful landing due to their training. Let us know when your foot recovers from the gunshot wound.
“I seem to recall that you were the one who made the claim that the footage en-route, and on the Moon, was filmed on a large non-vacuum sound stage”
Only the moon walks.
Explain the parabolic arcs of the dust. How would that be achieved in an atmosphere?
“and that all the effects of vacuum and low gravity were added as effects later”
I never said that, unless you mean slowing it down for playback? And what are these vacuum effects I keep hearing about, could anybody be more specific?
No billowing dust, no blowing flag, parabolic trajectories, hammer and feather.
“implies that you believe there are people living the high life on their ill-gotten gains from Apollo (and other programmes”
As they aren’t building functional hardware, apart from the odd empty rocket, they have billions left over from the tax money they receive for the stuff they’re not actually doing.
Now your problem is even bigger. All of the engineers etc. would have to knowingly build non-functional hardware. All of them. All 400,000 of them. Your hush-money fund now has to pay all of them for life.
“If you're sure these people exist, why has nobody tracked them down to expose the hoax?”
Like Bart Sibrel? Not an easy job when one gets punched in the face by a man so terrified of being found out, that he resorts to violence.
Watch the whole clip. Afterward Sibrel sued and got laughed out of court.
“it's been pointed out many times that your ideas just don't work, and there would be, at a minimum, tens of thousands of people who could expose it.”
Where the hell are you getting your figures from, one hundred for Apollo, and another couple of hundred for other projects, and an extra few dozen since the emergence of CGI (The ISS).
Oops, now you are contradicting yourself. If it was only so few, then all the scientists and engineers built actual working hardware.
“Well there was live TV of the rover being unpacked”
What’s your point?
That you are hobbled by subject matter ignorance.
“The physics of landing a rocket-powered vehicle on the Moon were well known and tested by the time of Apollo 11”
You mean these?
https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/edn-moments/4427834/Luna-9-makes-first-lunar-soft-landing--February-3--1966
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_1
https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_13#/media/File:Luna-13_lander.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3#/media/File:Surveyor_3_on_Moon.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_5#/media/File:Surveyor_NASA_lunar_lander.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_6#/media/File:Surveyor_NASA_lunar_lander.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_7#/media/File:Surveyor_NASA_lunar_lander.jpg
If I didn’t know you people better, I’d think you were pulling my leg, the usually excuse is that those astronauts were a bunch of hard b#@t?rds.
They were. They were military test pilots.
“I never once saw a crater under a landed Harrier”
Nor would I expect to see a crater under a Lunar Lander.
Then you concede all of your claims in that regard. Great.
“whereas the Lunar Module is operating in a vacuum and the exhaust will be more diffuse. An effect that can be seen during a rocket launch, as the rocket gets higher the exhaust is seen to spread out as the atmospheric pressure reduces”
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.
Super. More progress.
“Lander had no "trunk". The rover was packed externally as you would well know if you were capable of operating google”
Another example of your inability to understand humour and sarcasm.
Another example of you getting caught out and trying to backpedal.
“For anyone who hasn't seen the excellent Moon Machines series, here's the segment on the LRV:”
Thanks, I actually downloaded this video and watched it on my TV. Very interesting, and I enjoyed it immensely, and I actually think it would work. It’s just a shame, they couldn’t get it to the moon to test it. I then watched the Lunar Module episode, which was a massive disappointment, lots of information, without actually explaining anything.
Your inability to understand is not our problem.
“Anyone who claims that there is "no noticeable disturbance" isn't looking at the pictures closely enough”
So post a picture and point it out.
Again?
“Here is a video of the same sequence but edited far differently, perhaps cambo can rethink the mission debriefing”
Edited differently? The full version is unedited, and in these carefully chosen segments, they still don’t look comfortable. Maybe if they shortened it to two minutes, they might find something.
It is the CT twits who use editing dishonestly.
