Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch

[gillianren]

To go back to the government thing, the thing history teaches us is that humans are lousy at covering things up and keeping secrets.  So while there are all sorts of examples of terrible things done by the people in government, there are those examples because the people couldn't keep it secret.  Watch the current news and see how long the current administration has hidden its wrongdoing--what, forty-five minutes on average?  Both Watergate and Iran-Contra were only about a couple of years from start to finish.  Yes, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment went longer, but there are several things that explain that, not least the lack of interest.  There is no corresponding lack of public interest in Apollo.  Every aspect of the Apollo missions has been examined and reexamined by people from around the world.  People, too, from countries with no friendship for the United States.  And yet the evidence holds up.  There are no deathbed confessions, no tell-all books, no whistleblowers.  Just evidence.  From a historical perspective, that alone means that the weight of evidence supports that the missions happened as described.

[JayUtah]

Okay, I'll bite. How IS it possible?

Indeed, I'm trying to imagine two guys in the scenery shop.  "Hey, Jerry," says one to the other.  "Know what would be funny?  Let's make one of these wheels, like, a whole lot bigger than the other."  How would a vehicle built with one wheel bigger than the others contribute in any way to a convincing hoax?

If the wheel actually isn't bigger, then it just looks bigger.  And there are well-understood reasons why something might just look bigger in a photograph.  I love watching novice "photographers" show up to shoot headshots or portraits with the little short lenses that came in a kit with their DSLR body.  Do they want their model's noses to look like Mt. Etna?  I don't shoot a portrait with anything shorter than 60 mm.  I'll bet Jr Knowing can't tell us why that's advisable.  The Zeiss Biogon lens has a field of view that's something like 50 degrees wide.  If the LRV is that big in the frame, the photographer is not standing very far away.

[Luke Pemberton]

Indeed, I'm trying to imagine two guys in the scenery shop.  "Hey, Jerry," says one to the other.  "Know what would be funny?  Let's make one of these wheels, like, a whole lot bigger than the other."  How would a vehicle built with one wheel bigger than the others contribute in any way to a convincing hoax?

Are these the same two guys that labelled the rocks with letters, but ran out of serials after they reached Z? 

[JayUtah]

Are these the same two guys that labelled the rocks with letters, but ran out of serial numbers after they reached Z? 

Probably.  I never figured out some of these claims.  "This doesn't look like I expect it to, and somehow vaguely that means it was hoaxed."  Okay, I get that a person can't immediately figure out whats going on there, but how does what you think it looks like make sense according to how someone would create a hoax?  Not making sense in one context doesn't automatically make it make sense in some other arbitrary context.  In the broader sense, "I'm just curious and have these vague doubts and suspicions" somehow always goes first to "It must have been a hoax."  No, it's not reasonable or sensible that this is the first place a person goes, and the place he keeps returning to.  One simply might not know some obscure, relevant fact, or might not understand something he can easily be taught.  "Will someone please tell me?" sounds sensible at first glance, but then when the rejoinder is "No, I'm going to stick with my original doubts and fears" or "You can't back that up" (i.e., "I could easily verify this, but I won't") then the disguise just isn't convincing anymore.  The people who attempt these stealth approaches always seem to think it's working.

[Luke Pemberton]

I like to stick to the meat and potatoes of things and have a fruitful dialectic dialogue with others.

That's quite a culinary mixture. Don't suppose you'd answer my question please. Where do you sit with the reason for hoaxing the moon landings. From your posts it seems that you propose the payload would not withstand the forces during flight. Is this your conjecture? I seek clarification. What other nagging doubts do you have? Why do you not want to reveal those cards?

For may latter equation, I'd edge my best that you are another hoax proponent that thought they could arrive here with damning evidence, and has firmly been rebutted by experts in their field, and is now entering the normal phase of the debate we have seen so many times - obfuscation before the gish gallop.

[bknight]

Are these the same two guys that labelled the rocks with letters, but ran out of serial numbers after they reached Z? 

Probably.  I never figured out some of these claims.  "This doesn't look like I expect it to, and somehow vaguely that means it was hoaxed."  Okay, I get that a person can't immediately figure out whats going on there, but how does what you think it looks like make sense according to how someone would create a hoax?  Not making sense in one context doesn't automatically make it make sense in some other arbitrary context.  In the broader sense, "I'm just curious and have these vague doubts and suspicions" somehow always goes first to "It must have been a hoax."  No, it's not reasonable or sensible that this is the first place a person goes, and the place he keeps returning to.  One simply might not know some obscure, relevant fact, or might not understand something he can easily be taught.  "Will someone please tell me?" sounds sensible at first glance, but then when the rejoinder is "No, I'm going to stick with my original doubts and fears" or "You can't back that up" (i.e., "I could easily verify this, but I won't") then the disguise just isn't convincing anymore.  The people who attempt these stealth approaches always seem to think it's working.

Wouldn't another aspect be:  If you don't believe in the hoax, why are you looking/searching for possible "anamolies"?

[Bryanpoprobson]

Are these the same two guys that labelled the rocks with letters, but ran out of serials after they reached Z? 

 Not to mention lifting a vehicle with wheels all over the set rather than push it around, after all wouldn’t want to leave any tracks.

[nomuse]

Heh. Those 25 letters left after you labeled the "C" rock would fall even shorter if you followed the ways many have adopted to reduce confusion. No "Z" or "N" because those can be confused with each other. No "O" or "D" unless your handwriting is very good. And so forth.

Back in my earlier theater days the tradition was numbered lighting cues and lettered sound cues. Sound being the new kid, it wasn't allowed to use "O" or "I" because they might be confused with numbers, "L" because it looked like "I," and "M" or "N" because they sounded too much alike. And "Q" was right out. No Stage Manager their right mind would call "Cue Q."

Yeah. The "C" rock is a non-starter. If it doesn't have at least a three-digit identifier I'm unconvinced.

[JayUtah]

Not to mention lifting a vehicle with wheels all over the set rather than push it around...

Well, if Jerry hadn't built that one wheel too big...

[jfb]

Hi jfb,

The third picture I attached shows the footpad (in a small crater) about 2-3 feet from the ridge of the much larger crater not 5-8 meters as you suggest.

The unsettling conclusions have nothing to do with the LM landing. It has to do with everything you see in those pics versus other photos from A17. (my recent posts give some direction on where to start to look.)

This thread has moved quite a bit since I last checked.

Jr, it's far from obvious what your point is, so in order to help move things along I've provided a handy list of options for you to choose from:

1.  The landings were faked;
2.  The landings were not faked, but the imagery was;
3.  The landings were not faked, nor was the imagery, but the imagery was extensively retouched/edited for publicity purposes;
4.  The landings were not faked, nor was the imagery, but I don't understand why some of the imagery looks the way it does;

Please pick the one that most closely matches what you're actually trying to say.  It will vastly simplify discussion from here on out. 

[Jason Thompson]

If the wheel actually isn't bigger, then it just looks bigger.  And there are well-understood reasons why something might just look bigger in a photograph.

[Mag40]

If the wheel actually isn't bigger, then it just looks bigger.  And there are well-understood reasons why something might just look bigger in a photograph.

That's funny. I wonder whether JR would kindly click this link and explain why the Mercedes has one light bigger than the other:

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-an-old-mercedes-car-with-a-wide-angle-lens-7589051.html

[Zakalwe]

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?

It takes some belief in your own position to seriously postulate that someone would build a Rover (even for a hoax scenario) with one wheel bigger than the other.

Did you not stop at any point and think "Do you know what, perhaps I am wrong here" or "My perception is telling me something that makes no sense. Perhaps I need to think about this"?

[Allan F]

It's weird - he has the exact same problems with perspective as hunchbacked, but doesn't have the same spelling mistakes as him. I wonder why?

[Zakalwe]

It's weird - he has the exact same problems with perspective as hunchbacked, but doesn't have the same spelling mistakes as him. I wonder why?

A better spell-checker?