Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch

[JayUtah]

Wheels in different directions (All four LRV wheels were independently steered)

All four independently powered, yes.  Steering was pairwise, front and back.  Front and rear pairs could be independently enabled, though.

[jr Knowing]

Hi Everyone,

A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.

With regards to the government. If everyone feels that governments are not capable of duping the people and getting away with it. I will leave you with just one quote from a former President. And you can debate it with him. From his autobiography, he states

 "Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon...The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time “ Bill Clinton 2004.

Now I am not suggesting here Clinton is saying that the Landings were fake but it is clear, given his time in Washington, he believes the wool is being pulled over people's faces with regards to government actions. And it is also unclear why he would use the Moon Landings to make this point. It is 2004, he would know full well of the debate around this topic and this would only muddy the waters more particularly since he doesn't qualify the Carpenters statement about the Landings were dubious as being wrong but his thoughts on Government/media as being right.  It doesn't make a lot of sense. Can you imagine if he used JFK assignation to make his point? Anyways I have no interest in debating this. Just trying to point out governments can literally get away with murder.

With regards to the Lunar Rover pic. Again, all I was trying to show is the shape of the fender and how it is very similar to the "object" seen in the background of LM site. But everyone has ignored this and has instead decided to focus on suggesting I am a buffoon to suggest the photo appears odd. I made a simple comment. I also suggested that given where the photo appears to have taken from, it could not be foreshortening. I did not say it could not be foreshortening. But I am suggesting that photo had to be taken close and from the rear left end of the Rover. And to support this, I said one only has to look at the rear right "antenna". It has a profile that can only be seen from below. A normal pic will show a horizontal ie flat part near the top. (I have attached a pic from the same mission showing how the antenna looks if the photo is taken normally. Notice how you cannot see how the design of the flat part is constructed. On the foreshortened photo, you can see it clearly.) So if it is a foreshortened photo, the place where the photo seems to have be taken from seems wrong. So the photo could be a composite and not as Jay satirically it was created by a couple of guys sitting around building a Rover with a bigger tire. In any event, I don't really care about this. If I am wrong, I am wrong. No biggie. My main point was to show what the shape of a rover fender looks like. I believe I have done this. (I have reattached the photos again to hopefully ignite a more fruitful discussion.)

I am not quite sure what the purpose of this forum is? Forums should be about debate. I realize we all have our beliefs. I believe one of the posters asked me where I fall in my beliefs. I'll be honest, it is the photos which have brought me here. I believe many of the photos/films display things that make feel the visuals are less than authentic. Does that make the landings fake? Not necessarily but more likely. And that's why I am here. To bounce thoughts off you guys. Not to get belittled. I can do that for you up front. Odds are, probability wise, I am completely out to lunch. I already know that. But I still have questions.

To that point, I don't think anyone has address my contention the LM site and the EVA site maybe the same location other than OneBigMonkey. (his post I will address separately) Why is it so easy to ignore the "meat and potatoes" and rather question character and mock others who thoughts may not be same as your own? I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve. I have asked why the flag changed orientation. That's reasonable. I asked why the LM inserted into the Saturn stage looked different. Again reasonable. I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable. I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me. I have asked why certain A17 site locations seem similar. Reasonable (but so far no response). I am just literally looking for answers. If they don't fit with my way of thinking. So be it. It won't be the first time I am wrong.

 

[AtomicDog]

You tapdance pretty good, son.

[JayUtah]

And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.

Because you behave suspiciously, and until that's resolved we don't know if we're having a discussion or a debate.  You've been told what about your behavior makes it suspicious, but instead of fixing it you just double down on it and try to shame everyone away from noticing it.  Instead of complaining about how badly you're allegedly being treated, why don't you just take the advice you've been given?

A normal pic will show a horizontal ie flat part near the top.

No, there's no such thing as a "normal" picture of the antenna, or of any subject.  The line of sight in each case will either be aligned with the antenna or it will not be, and that will vary with conditions.  There's no canonically correct way that it should appear in all true photographs.  Your knowledge of photography is severely limited, as is your knowledge of engineering and science.  All your arguments simply foist your uninformed expectations on the evidence.

So the photo could be a composite and not as Jay satirically it was created by a couple of guys sitting around building a Rover with a bigger tire.

Since you forced your opponents to guess at what you were trying to argue, it's disingenuous of you to complain when they do.  Don't like it?  Fix the way you argue.

...In any event, I don't really care about this.

Then why bring it up at all?  You did care about it until your ignorance of the circumstances of the photograph was exposed, just as you seem to have stopped caring about the plume deflectors and RCS jets after your ignorance of engineering was exposed.  This is why we remark on your behavior.  It's suspicious.  A normal person just looking for answers would say things like, "Gee, that's interesting, I didn't know that before.  I can see the mistake I made.  Thanks for clearing that up."  Instead you try to sneak away from embarrassing failures.  Your behavior is more consistent with saving face than with learning how space missions work.

I am not quite sure what the purpose of this forum is? Forums should be about debate.

This one is, but you don't want to debate honestly.  You're playing all the usual passive-aggressive games that people play when they don't really have a good argument.  As long as you keep debating dishonestly, your dishonesty will remain a topic of debate.

...that make feel the visuals are less than authentic.

How many times do you have to have your head handed to you before you start questioning your ability to form correct assumptions, and considering that -- not some giant hoax -- to be the explanation?

To bounce thoughts off you guys. Not to get belittled.

Quit whining.  If you don't want your irrational behavior to be noticed and commented upon, stop behaving irrationally.

Why is it so easy to ignore the "meat and potatoes" and rather question character and mock others who thoughts may not be same as your own?

The problem is not that your thoughts aren't like ours.  The problem is that your thoughts are so poorly thought out, and you don't seem to want to face up to that.  People are giving you exactly what you say you want -- meaningful feedback about your ideas.  But you largely ignore it.  Instead of thinking of the question as one of conformity, try thinking of it as one of correctness.  Maybe nine out of ten people think a certain way about something because there really are such things as facts, and they really do know them.

I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve.

We talked about this.  There are questions and then there are questions.  What you initially posture as innocent requests for information quickly turn rhetorical.  Your behavior after you get the answers is certainly not reasonable.  Yes, your questions are naive because they lack a proper foundation in the facts.  That can be forgiven until you are told the facts.  After that, continuing to foist your layman's misconceptions goes from naivete to willful ignorance.

I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable.

No, it's not reasonable because you provided no reason except your vague, ignorant suppositions.  You insisted they would make the LM unstable.  Then when the answer was given to you at length, you rejected it and stuck with your irrational fears.  You even went so far as to say the explanation you were given was somehow inadequate.  That's the part where you became irrational and your motives became suspicious.

I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me.

And once again your question was based on an ignorant supposition.  And again when you were told what the answer was, you dismissed it and decided to cling to your old beliefs.  And again you insinuated you had not been given a complete response.  Hence we now have a pattern of irrational behavior, which makes your "just asking questions" disguise pretty thin.

Every single hoax claimant does what you're doing, and every single one thinks it's original and convincing.  You stick your neck out just enough to get the hoax claims on the table, but not so far away that you can't dash back to the safety of "I'm only asking questions!" once you get in over your head.  It's a shameful ploy to defuse a failed argument via ham-fisted social engineering.

I am just literally looking for answers.

No, you're trying to argue the missions were fake, using the same passive-aggressive nonsense almost every hoax claimant does at this forum.  It's not fooling anyone.

It won't be the first time I am wrong.

You have assiduously avoided admitting you are wrong on anything, even when it has been made abundantly obvious that you are.

[Northern Lurker]

For a debate to happen, you should say what you believe and discuss one point at a time. Instead you raise a point, get rebuffed and instead of discussing it, you just rise another point.

Regarding similar backgrounds, the Moon is dead airless body. It means there are no distance cues we are used to. Like haze, vegetation and such. If those hills are farther away than you think, the background doesn't change as much as you expect.

One more thing is that science is not a court of law. In court the beef is whether there is a reasonable suspicion or not. In science the goal is to understand how the world and universe works. You are using oratorical tricks with intent of winning a debate or court case instead of honest search of objective truth.

I and many others think and feel that smearing one of humanity's great engineering achievement for your own gain and to feel better about yourself is just pathetic and wrong.

Lurky

[JayUtah]

You tapdance pretty good, son.

Yeah, you have to hand it to a guy who can't decide within the span of a single post whether this is a debate or whether he's "just asking questions."

[jr Knowing]

Hi NorthernLurker,

You make some good points. Yes, this thread seems to have bounced all over the place. Not my intention. Bunch of time wasted on many minor side issues especially.

You also mention that questioning the moon landings is akin to "smearing one of humanity's great engineering achievement". I get that. That is why I try to tread lightly. I know this means a lot to many people. I have two close buddies which fall into that category. We have good natured debates all the time but nobody takes anything personally.   

[JayUtah]

I know this means a lot to many people.

In the sense that honest people care about facts.  Can you demonstrate as strong a devotion to fact as they?

We have good natured debates all the time but nobody takes anything personally.

I'm guessing you don't play the same games with them as you play here.  If you're committed to not making this a personal issue, then you shouldn't have any problem conceding that you were mistaken about the plume deflectors and the RCS jets.  Will you do that?

[Von_Smith]

Hi Everyone,

A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.

It may have something to do with the fact that you do this yourself.  You began this discussion with observations and questions about the plume deflectors and RCS thrusters on the LM.  If you review this thread I suspect you will find that, as long as you stayed on that topic, so did your interlocutors.  *You* were the one who introduced new, unrelated topics such as windows and rover tires.  And when you did, those "meaningless side topics" got addressed, too.

May I suggest that you not keep introducing such side topics into the discussion, since you seem to think they are meaningless and apparently do not want them dwelt upon.  For example, don't wander into such meaningless side topics as comments Bill Clinton made in his memoirs, and then at the end of two long paragraphs on this topic suddenly out of nowhere suggest that governments "can literally get away with murder".

If you want your interlocutors to focus, you must commit to focus yourself.


ETA:  May I also point out that all this complaining about your treatment and other posters' misplaced focus is itself a meaningless side topic?

[jr Knowing]

Hi Von_Smith,

At the risk of adding one more meaningless post. My first post tonight was in response to a few days of posts aimed at me talking about the government and the foreshortened Rover. I made it clear in that post that we are off topic and need to get back on track. And the posts since then (including yours)? All off topic. I get it. If you want me to admit I am guilty of introducing side topics. I guess I am. And if Jay wants me to admit that people have given plausible explanations for some of the questions I have asked. Sure.

Can we just move on? Lets focus on the topics and I will do my best to keep on topic.

[JayUtah]

If you want me to admit I am guilty of introducing side topics. I guess I am.

If you want to defuse the tension, actually apologizing to those whom you disingenuously accused would help.

And if Jay wants me to admit that people have given plausible explanations for some of the questions I have asked. Sure.

That's not what I asked.  I asked you to concede that you were mistaken about the plume deflectors and the RCS.  In your version, you get to acknowledge that your critics are "plausible" without your having to change your beliefs or admit error.  I told you this was about honesty.  You're still not being honest.

Can we just move on?

Just as soon as you stop trying to save face.

[molesworth]

A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.

As already mentioned by others, it's because you keep introducing them (and do so again below).  Personally, I'm still not sure what your main topic is.  What your main question or perceived problem is.  Maybe if you could state clearly and concisely exactly what point you would like people to explain or discuss, it would stop the off-topic ramblings.

I'd add that you perhaps need to put in some effort to learn and understand the subjects you're trying to discuss :

… all I was trying to show is the shape of the fender and how it is very similar to...

It has a profile that can only be seen from below. A normal pic will show...

...the place where the photo seems to have be taken from seems wrong.

I believe many of the photos/films display things that make feel the visuals are less than authentic.

"Feelings" and "beliefs" (and what exactly is a "normal picture"?) have been shown time and again to be very poor guides to what is real and what is imagined.  This applies in all walks of life, not just when discussing the Apollo landings.

I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve. I have asked why the flag changed orientation. That's reasonable. I asked why the LM inserted into the Saturn stage looked different. Again reasonable. I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable. I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me. I have asked why certain A17 site locations seem similar. Reasonable (but so far no response). I am just literally looking for answers. If they don't fit with my way of thinking. So be it. It won't be the first time I am wrong.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions - even stupid questions can be worthwhile.  The problem arises when, having had the questions answered extensively, with supporting evidence, and with references, the questioner dismisses the answer and moves on to yet another vague supposition...

[nomuse]

Hi Everyone,

A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.

For the same reason Karl Popper wrote a book. Or why David Dunning phoned up his friend Justin. Knowing is not a simple thing. Understanding how you know and how to know what you know is useful to, well, know.

I hold to Feyman's Dictum myself. In a simplified and more pungent form; "Assume you made a mistake." No matter how smart you are, how skilled you are, how careful you are, you made a mistake. Now find it before someone gets hurt.

At the very least, the inability of Hoax Believers to apply that kind of sanity check on their own work serves as a vivid object lesson for the rest of us.

With regards to the government. If everyone feels that governments are not capable of duping the people and getting away with it. I will leave you with just one quote from a former President. And you can debate it with him. From his autobiography, he states

Absolutism. A Cretan once told a lie. Does that mean all Cretans lie? What if the person that told me about that lie was himself a Cretan? Do I then implode from the strange loop like a computer on Star Trek TOS?

That's the problem with pretending to do logic with word-pictures. Or even picture-pictures. Words are fuzzy. They occupy zones of meaning-space. It doesn't take a lot of work to make apparent contradictions appear.

Especially if you trim off all those words which were there to narrow the meaning. No person on this board ever stated that governments do not lie, or can not lie. They stated that the conspiracy (notice the difference!) required to fake Apollo (notice the specificity!) is implausible (again, notice the precision.)

"Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon...The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time “ Bill Clinton 2004.

Oh dog not this one again. I can't believe this one isn't on the Bingo card already. Maybe because it is so damned stupid even most hoaxies turn their noses up at it?

Now I am not suggesting here Clinton is saying that the Landings were fake but it is clear, given his time in Washington, he believes the wool is being pulled over people's faces with regards to government actions. And it is also unclear why he would use the Moon Landings to make this point. It is 2004, he would know full well of the debate around this topic and this would only muddy the waters more particularly since he doesn't qualify the Carpenters statement about the Landings were dubious as being wrong but his thoughts on Government/media as being right.  It doesn't make a lot of sense. Can you imagine if he used JFK assignation to make his point? Anyways I have no interest in debating this. Just trying to point out governments can literally get away with murder.

This being the same Clinton who couldn't extra-curricular with someone in his own office without certain descriptive phrases about a certain garment being repeated on nationwide television more often than many parents would have preferred. And he was actually (though briefly) kicked out of office for it!

With regards to the Lunar Rover pic. Again, all I was trying to show is the shape of the fender and how it is very similar to the "object" seen in the background of LM site. But everyone has ignored this and has instead decided to focus on suggesting I am a buffoon to suggest the photo appears odd. I made a simple comment.

First time I ever heard the horse complain about the Gish Gallop. You could have stayed with the fender until everyone was satisfied.

I also suggested that given where the photo appears to have taken from, it could not be foreshortening. I did not say it could not be foreshortening. But I am suggesting that photo had to be taken close and from the rear left end of the Rover. And to support this, I said one only has to look at the rear right "antenna". It has a profile that can only be seen from below. A normal pic will show a horizontal ie flat part near the top. (I have attached a pic from the same mission showing how the antenna looks if the photo is taken normally. Notice how you cannot see how the design of the flat part is constructed. On the foreshortened photo, you can see it clearly.) So if it is a foreshortened photo, the place where the photo seems to have be taken from seems wrong.

Learn geometry.

So the photo could be a composite and not as Jay satirically it was created by a couple of guys sitting around building a Rover with a bigger tire.

And why would it be a composite? Because they only built half a rover?

And if it is a composite, why isn't THAT in correct perspective? You do realize this is a known field, right? The rules of artistic perspective were worked out in a previous century. People were painting trompe-l'œil with brushes and rulers back before cameras even existed.

It isn't enough to say the accepted answer must be wrong; you have to come up with one that has superior explanatory power. Having the billion-dollar multi-decade top-level conspiracy hire a one-eyed man with a paste pot to go amuck with their carefully faked footage is NOT a better crafted explanation.

In any event, I don't really care about this. If I am wrong, I am wrong. No biggie.

Then why bring it up?

My main point was to show what the shape of a rover fender looks like. I believe I have done this. (I have reattached the photos again to hopefully ignite a more fruitful discussion.)

I shouldn't have to belabor this point, but this is a board of Apollo fans who have spent years familiarizing themselves with every aspect of the program. You seriously think you have to tell them what a fender looks like?

I mean...why would we be asking the guy who doesn't even know what the vehicle is called?

(Or how big the wheels are).

I am not quite sure what the purpose of this forum is? Forums should be about debate. I realize we all have our beliefs. I believe one of the posters asked me where I fall in my beliefs. I'll be honest, it is the photos which have brought me here. I believe many of the photos/films display things that make feel the visuals are less than authentic. Does that make the landings fake? Not necessarily but more likely. And that's why I am here. To bounce thoughts off you guys. Not to get belittled. I can do that for you up front. Odds are, probability wise, I am completely out to lunch. I already know that. But I still have questions.

Or you have the same trouble Khan had; thinking in three dimensions. No shame there. Some people are color blind. Some can't carry a tune in a bucket. Find the tools to develop your eye, to work out of or work around your weakness.

Like I said earlier, perspective is a known thing. Photogrammatic analysis, the bigger, white-collar, brother, is also a thing. You don't have to squint until your eyes bleed hoping that eyeball and brain can do the chore all on their own.

To that point, I don't think anyone has address my contention the LM site and the EVA site maybe the same location other than OneBigMonkey.

I did. I said the backgrounds were only consistent with three dimensions. No matt painting ever created simulates sculptural dimension in that manner.

(his post I will address separately) Why is it so easy to ignore the "meat and potatoes" and rather question character and mock others who thoughts may not be same as your own? I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve. I have asked why the flag changed orientation. That's reasonable. I asked why the LM inserted into the Saturn stage looked different. Again reasonable. I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable. I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me. I have asked why certain A17 site locations seem similar. Reasonable (but so far no response). I am just literally looking for answers. If they don't fit with my way of thinking. So be it. It won't be the first time I am wrong.

You'd get a better class of reply if you actually did as you are complaining above; clearly and concisely state your claim or problem, wait until discussion is complete, then and only then move on.

Instead you produce photographs and wave vaguely at them and tell other people there's something "wrong" with them. And you hop from question to question as if...exactly as if...winning a debate by throwing as much possible in as little time as possible is the way to go.

It does not seem like discussion. It does not seem like honest enquiry.

[Jason Thompson]

Hi Everyone,

A couple of things. And again I am not sure why everyone response's revolve around side topics that are somewhat meaningless.

If you do not want people's responses to include 'side topics' then stop bringing them up. The responses have only been to things you bring to the discussion, so quit whining about it and own your agency in this discussion instead of dancing around it and casting it off when it becomes inconvenient to you to admit you were wrong.

With regards to the government. If everyone feels that governments are not capable of duping the people and getting away with it. I will leave you with just one quote from a former President.

Irrelevant. No-one disputes that people can be fooled. And in any case you are disputing that they can 'get away with it' because somehow you have seen things that give it away. Do you honestly think that 50 years on you're the only one with special insight?

Just trying to point out governments can literally get away with murder.

Again irrelevant. What they can and can't get away with as a general notion has nothing to do with this specific instance. I assume you have got away with a few untruths in your time. DO we need to treat everything you say with suspicion because of that, or is it just possible you can lie about some things and tell the truth about others?

So the photo could be a composite and not as Jay satirically it was created by a couple of guys sitting around building a Rover with a bigger tire.

Your gaming is too obvious. You didn't present any argument for the apparent discrepancy in size, so don't complain when people point out that the alternatives to simple photograhic effects fail due to absurdity. There is no sensible reason why it should be a composite either.

In any event, I don't really care about this.

Then why even mention it? If you want this discussion to avoid 'meaningless side topics' then don't bring them up in the first place. You're still doing it now.

If I am wrong, I am wrong. No biggie.

Are you conceding you were wrong about the picture, or about anything else you have brought up?

I believe many of the photos/films display things that make feel the visuals are less than authentic. Does that make the landings fake? Not necessarily but more likely. And that's why I am here. To bounce thoughts off you guys. Not to get belittled. I can do that for you up front. Odds are, probability wise, I am completely out to lunch. I already know that. But I still have questions.

Questions are fine. However, if you acknowledge the answers you have been given and answer ours simply and concisely you'll get the debate you claim you want. Instead you double down on your 'feelings' and refuse to acknowledge the clear responses you've been given. For one example, you asked a question about a vehicle that thrusts back on its own body and were given an example of such a vehicle by me, but have yet to acknowledge that. You have ignored the lengthy epxlanations for why the plume deflectors do not introduce instability, and you have failed to produce the MIT paper you claimed as evidence that the RCS was easily knocked into an unstable positive feedback loop. Where is it?

To that point, I don't think anyone has address my contention the LM site and the EVA site maybe the same location other than OneBigMonkey. (his post I will address separately) Why is it so easy to ignore the "meat and potatoes" and rather question character and mock others who thoughts may not be same as your own?

I asked you to give a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether that was your contention and you refused. Now you whine about people not addressing it.

I think the questions I have asked in this thread have been reasonable and nor naïve.

The questions themselves would be reasonable if you didnt follow them up with rhetoric and absurdity. There's a world of difference between 'just asking questions' and what you are doing.

I have asked why the flag changed orientation. That's reasonable.

And you were given plenty of explanations and have not acknowledged them. Do you accept the answer that the flag was moved by outgassing from the LM during cabin depress and/or from the RCS test firing?

I asked why the LM inserted into the Saturn stage looked different. Again reasonable.

And you were given plenty of explanations and have not acknowledged them. Do you accept the answer that work on the LM continued after stacking. You were even given a diagram of the work platform layout inside the SLA and shown a picture of the mobile service structure for working on the vehicle at the pad.

I asked why the engines thrusted back into the craft and if the deflectors would cause stability issues. Again reasonable.

And you were given plenty of explanations and have not acknowledged them. Do you accept the answer that the plume deflectors introduce minimal instability due to their design and the miminal thrust from the exhaust that would impinge on them when compared to the thrust generated at the engine itself? Do you also acknowledge that another kind of vehcle thrust back on itself all the time and still fies?

I have asked why NASA would expose a small engine nozzle to the forces of liftoff. That seems reasonable to me.

And you were given plenty of explanations and have not acknowledged them. Do you accept the answer that in that location the forces are not as strong as you imagine, and that if they were they would simply have covered them with a fairing like every other thing that sticks out of the vehicle?

I have asked why certain A17 site locations seem similar. Reasonable (but so far no response).

Why would you expect sites on the moon that are covered in craters and boudlers not to look similar? Why do you imagine that the background should not look similar?

I am just literally looking for answers.

You're getting them. The next step is for you to acknowledge them, not brush them under the carpet as 'no biggie'.

Once again, you are playing a big part in how this discussion progresses. You've had this explained to you several times now, so if you want to have a debate then have a debate. Engage with the answers, don't dismiss them and say 'well it still doesn't look right to me'. How much would be required for you to admit your ideas about how it 'should' look are wrong, and that this might just mean your entire conclusion is also wrong?

[gillianren]

Why should we care if Bill Clinton says it was possible to fake the Apollo missions?  (Note, he doesn't believe they were fake.)  Unless he can provide actual evidence that they were, it remains opinion.  And he's many things, but he is not, in fact, a rocket scientist.  Or a special effects expert.  Or a geologist.  Or any number of the literally dozens of other fields that would have an informed opinion.  He's saying "governments lie."  Well, duh.  But "literally get away with murder"?

. . . Yeah, sometimes.  Unfortunate but true.  However, in most cases, it's not because no one knows but because no one holds them accountable.  The secrets aren't hidden.  Look how long it took to reveal that a journalist was killed by a leader of a foreign power.  Now, nothing's happening about that, but that is again because of lack of interest in accountability.

However, Apollo was primarily planned and carried out in the administrations of Kennedy and Johnson.  Their successor, Richard Nixon, hated them both and would have loved to show them as lying to the American people and the world, especially if it made him look good in some way.  He didn't have the motivation to keep that secret.  So where did the buck stop?  Who ordered the secret kept?  And why haven't all sorts of scientists uninvolved with Apollo revealed the "truth"?