Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[Echnaton]

^^^^

That has been the ask from page one. The reply is a dodge, always a dodge in its many forms.

He/she also claimed the motors were not up to it and there is no reply to that yet. Page one. I think it is ahuge chain yank to see how long he/she can keep going.

That is a possibility.  But its also possible that Anywho really believes this.  Either way, the question dodging is getting old.  Anywho has had an opportunity to make a point and failed to do so.  It is becoming the time when he should be held to an elevated standard of responsiveness.

[gillianren]

And when you see someone sink into it, is that not then satisfactory to "see" that the ground is boggy?

Well, you do get to watch them sink, but unless you know how much they weigh, you can't know how much it takes to sink.

Therefore, when I or anyone else who cares to look can see the surface of the moon* is easily disturbed and freely moving  under the feet of the astronauts*, is that not then satisfactory to "see" by eye that the surface is loose*?

But they don't sink, do they?  Which makes it obvious that it's only the very top layer that moves easily.  They move aside the stuff that moves easily, and they, the rover, and the LM are all fine.

*As presented by the apollo footage... (do I really have to keep explaining this?)

Well, you could start by explaining why, if it's so obvious, people who deal in traction for a living don't have a problem with it.  Why your "common sense" about Apollo beats their in some cases decades of expertise.  Why the only people who ever seem to deny Apollo are ignorant in all the relevant issues.  You might explain what you think happened, how you think the footage was filmed, something using actual evidence.  Not "this is what it looks like to me," because your eye is wrong.

[nomuse]

the human eye is easily fooled, especially in situations--such as the Moon--out of our usual expectations. 

And I mean, heck, the eye is fooled all the time even by situations that we should be accustomed to; I can't tell you how many times around here people assume that the ground is solid and safe to walk across when in fact it's boggy.  You can tell get across it, probably, but it's slick and oozing.  But to the eye, it's fine!

And when you see someone sink into it, is that not then satisfactory to "see" that the ground is boggy?

Therefore, when I or anyone else who cares to look can see the surface of the moon* is easily disturbed and freely moving  under the feet of the astronauts*, is that not then satisfactory to "see" by eye that the surface is loose*?

*As presented by the apollo footage... (do I really have to keep explaining this?)

Is an inch of standing water a lake?  If you can't see down into it, you don't know how deep it is.

Yes, the lunar SURFACE is loose, fine, easily disturbed.  But you can't tell from that how far down solid surface is. 

Oh, except by minor clues such as these; the LM didn't sink in.  The bootprints around a cm deep.  When using the penetrometer, or when setting up the flag, the astronauts had to use hammers after the first few cm into the soil.

Ah, but here we get REALLY interesting.  You are using imagery from the lunar surface to describe what you think the lunar surface is like and why you think that does not support the narrative of the landings.

Do you not see the conflict here?

[nomuse]

^^^^

That has been the ask from page one. The reply is a dodge, always a dodge in its many forms.

He/she also claimed the motors were not up to it and there is no reply to that yet. Page one. I think it is ahuge chain yank to see how long he/she can keep going.

That is a possibility.  But its also possible that Anywho really believes this.  Either way, the question dodging is getting old.  Anywho has had an opportunity to make a point and failed to do so.  It is becoming the time when he should be held to an elevated standard of responsiveness.

It's a fishing expedition.  The only thing he is interested in doing here is keeping conversation going...because he is gleaning it for technical-sounding terms he can then take to a different board and show off with.

[Tedward]

^^^^

That has been the ask from page one. The reply is a dodge, always a dodge in its many forms.

He/she also claimed the motors were not up to it and there is no reply to that yet. Page one. I think it is ahuge chain yank to see how long he/she can keep going.

That is a possibility.  But its also possible that Anywho really believes this.  Either way, the question dodging is getting old.  Anywho has had an opportunity to make a point and failed to do so.  It is becoming the time when he should be held to an elevated standard of responsiveness.

Whether he/she believes it or not, I think there has been enough prompting, information and certainly a challenge to the idea that should have produced the info that backs up the claim. The entity known as anywho side steps all the time. For example the lack of info and avoiding the motor power. That way has some requirement to produce the figures that can be checked where as wafty replies can dance around tyre performance. So motors are off the agenda. But I do not have the goal posts anywho does, we shall see.

For what it is worth I have once again gained more knowledge by the replies to the questions, none has been gained from anywho directly.

[nomuse]

Bah.  I need to move to the East Coast or start working graveyard shift.  If I didn't hit "reply" before reading all of the existing posts, I'd never post at all.

[Luckmeister]

To reiterate what Donnie B said:

According to you Anywho, they faked going to the Moon which would mean that any videos or images of the rover driving could not have been taken on the Moon.

But you use the same videos and images to show how loose and slippery the lunar surface is.

Do you not see a problem there? Please directly address this in your next post.

I am saying 4WDrivng, as presented n the appolo footage is faked, and part of the evidence is that the surface of the moon, as presented in the apollo footage, is loose and therefore combined with 1/6g presents an unassailable traction problem for the rovers, as presented.

There is no contradiction in using apollo footage, as presented, to prove the apollo footage, as presented, is fake.

Does this really have to be explained? This message board invites people to put hoax theories forward so it should not make your head explode that proponents of the hoax theory use the apollo footage to support their claims.

I've grown dizzy from watching all the spinning you've been doing. Your dancing, waffling and resistance to proper addressing of your logical inconsistancies now prompts me to ask these questions:

Do you believe any of the Apollo lunar footage is real? Yes or no!

If so, then do you accept that Apollo missions did land men on the Moon? Yes or no!

If not, then (one more time) how do you reconcile using any of the footage, including footsteps, as an example of actual lunar ground conditions?

[Abaddon]

I am saying 4WDrivng, as presented n the appolo footage is faked, and part of the evidence is that the surface of the moon, as presented in the apollo footage, is loose and therefore combined with 1/6g presents an unassailable traction problem for the rovers, as presented.

I will attempt to show you your contradiction.

1. The LRV footage is fake.

2. This is demonstrated by the behaviour of the LRV on the faked Moon surface.

3. There is no way due to the behaviour of the LRV, that this was on the Moon.

4. Therefore, your conclusion on how the Moon surface actually works is based on a fake video.

5. Given that, you have no idea what the Moon surface is really like, and have further no idea how it may or may not react to anything.

6. So how do you know how the surface of the Moon operates? Your only evidence is videos you claim were faked on Earth. If true, then you can make no claim as to the behaviour of the Lunar surface, since your claim of fakery means that these videos happened on Earth.

There is no contradiction in using apollo footage, as presented, to prove the apollo footage, as presented, is fake.

Oh yes there is. See above.

Does this really have to be explained? This message board invites people to put hoax theories forward so it should not make your head explode that proponents of the hoax theory use the apollo footage to support their claims.

There really is a comprehension issue here. If the videos are evidence of how the Lunar surface behaves, then they are equally evidence of the Rover on the Lunar surface. OTOH, if the videos are fake, then the surface is also fake and you have nothing.

The wheel with 57lbs of weight on the moon has to move the equivalent of 342lbs of mass horizontally on the moon, and the testing shows it can't be done.

I am not saying they should have put 342lbs of weight on the wheels, I m saying the wheels have to get enough traction to be able to pull 342lbs horizontally in order for the rovers to move on the moon, and not only does the testing show that the wheels slip well before that, but the equipment is not even sufficient to test it fully.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/PerfBoeingLRVWheelsRpt1.pdf

The weight is 1/6 on the moon, but the mass that has to be propelled horizontally is the same as on earth. This is where the traction problems are.

It is pointless to go here. You have already demonstrated that you don't do physics. Deal with the contradiction first, please.

[smartcooky]

There is no contradiction in using apollo footage, as presented, to prove the apollo footage, as presented, is fake.

I disagree with Jason Thomson here

I think you are right in that using something that is fake to prove its fake is valid (e.g. you look at a candidate counterfeit banknote, and point out that it is missing its watermark; you have used an aspect of the candidate fake item to prove that it is in fact a fake)

However, your problem lies in the conclusions you draw. What you are doing is using the claimed fake video to ascertain aspects, not about the video itself, but about the conditions under which the video was filmed, then using those conditions to prove the video was faked.

You claim that the video was faked, therefore, you must also claim that the video was not filmed on the moon, therefore, you cannot deduce anything about the lunar surface from the way the surface in the video behaves.

If you claim that the way the surface behaves shows that it is the lunar surface, then you cannot claim that the video was not filmed on the moon, ergo, it was not faked.

You can't have it both ways... choose one!!! 

[grmcdorman]

Another point that occurred to me: anywho is claiming that the (real) Moon surface is "as slippery as ice". If this is true, why aren't the astronauts themselves sliding around? Their boots are no more effective at traction on ice than the LRV's wheels.

ETA: At least, I would expect them to be as effective as the LRV's wheels on ice. They have treads, yes, but so do the LRV wheels; I would expect the wire mesh in the wheels to act like the grooves in the boot treads.

[Luckmeister]

Anywho, I know the logic you're attempting to use in this thread. If the lunar conditions were as shown in the footage you claim was faked, then driving in 1/6g would have been impossible, thereby proving that the footage was faked. This is the crux of your rationale, right?

The problem is that you have failed miserably in your attempt to convince any of us that it would have been impossible. Your appeal to common sense and visual interpretation is inadequate and your conclusions have been shown to be flawed regarding mass, inertia and weight (see Posts #411 and #412 and there are many other answers you have not addressed).

[Glom]

Indeed this may be one of the more incoherent arguments we've had. What then are we watching if not some kind of vehicle operating in some kind of environment?

[grmcdorman]

Yeah, as pointed out - and s/he doesn't properly address this - s/he's basically saying "this video showing the LRV driving on the Moon shows that the LRV can't drive on the Moon." Basic internal contradiction.

[inconceivable]

Some hoaxers believe that they used a set completely filled with an artificial dust\mixture.  It can all be somed up in three words.    "MAGIC SAND!"

Also, known as moon sand.

[RAF]

It can all be somed up in three words.    "MAGIC SAND!"

Is this supposed to be some sort of a joke?...or can't you count?