Were the Lunar Rovers faked?

[Zakalwe]

Anywho, can you please explain what's going on in this video? A 2 wheel drive vehicle getting traction (and not sinking!) in water.

[Jason Thompson]

The question is not worthy of a reply

Wrong. A reply is common courtesy, and everyone is worthy of that.

maybe you all need a sticky where the mods can explain to you that someone who thinks the apollo landings were a hoax implicitly believes the footage is faked.

So if the footage is faked how do you justify using it to judge the properties of the real lunar surface? What you see there is a vehicle with the 'dumbest tire design ever' manifestly not having trouble on a loose surface, and some pretty good indications of vacuum and low gravity. So how was that shot produced?
 
Now you will answer my question: do you agree that if you accept F = ma you must also accept that a = F/m? Forget the details, we're talking about the basics here. Do you agree that the acceleration of any mass is proportional to the net force on it?

[smartcooky]

Anywho, can you please explain what's going on in this video? A 2 wheel drive vehicle getting traction (and not sinking!) in water.

Well patently this was not shot anywhere on the Earth, because we all know that a vehicle such as a quad-bike is designed to operate on LAND will not get any traction on water.

Perhaps it was faked on a planet where there are oceans of sodium hydroxide (has twice the density of water)

Don't agree? Well my suggestion certainly makes as much sense as anything anywho has contributed so far.

[karrde]

Anywho, if you know physics, you can make you own calculation and see than on the moon the rover could reach 10-11km/h with maximum load - very rough estimate i made a couple of minutes ago. And around 15-16 km/h with one person load.

[Tedward]

The question is not worthy of a reply, maybe you all need a sticky where the mods can explain to you that someone who thinks the apollo landings were a hoax implicitly believes the footage is faked.

As I have already sad, there is no contradiction in using the fake apollo footage, as presented, to demonstrate the apollo landng could not have taken place, as presented.

I think it is. You propose something you have not backed up. The alternative to actually doing it will need some explaining. Of course if you are unable to do that then your stance is in error.

Still waiting to follow your claims on page one.

[Andromeda]

The question is not worthy of a reply,

Because you cannot answer it?  Or maybe you think I am unworthy of reply?

maybe you all need a sticky where the mods can explain to you that someone who thinks the apollo landings were a hoax implicitly believes the footage is faked.

We are well acquainted with what HBs think.  What we want to know is how you think it was done.  Maybe you need a sticky to explain to you what "burden of proof" means.

As I have already sad, there is no contradiction in using the fake apollo footage, as presented, to demonstrate the apollo landng could not have taken place, as presented.

Except there is - in fact, there are three.

Contradiction 1: You say that rover could not be sat on in Earth gravity.  You also say that the rover didn't go to the moon.  The video clearly shows the rover driving around.  That means, in your mind, that the film could not have been made on Earth or the moon!  Where do you claim it was filmed, and how?

Contradiction 2: You claim the video shows the surface is too loose to move on based on your interpretation of the way it moves under the rover.  How do you resolve the contradiction that the rover is clearly moving on a surface you declare it cannot move on?

Contradiction 3: You claim that the "lunar surface" has particular features, based on that film.  But wait!  You don't think the rover went to the moon at all!  So how can you declare what the lunar surface is like by using what you believe to be a fake video to back you up?

This is a message board that invites people to put hoax theories forward, do you all really need it explained that a hoax believer is someone who thinks it was all faked?

We also expect contributors to explain how they think the "hoax" was done.  Out position here is that the Apollo missions happened in accordance with the historical record.  We are not here to bat about silly ideas about a hoax with no basis in physics, engineering, political plausibility or indeed any basis in reality.  Do you really need that explained? If so read this

The goal of the website is to use factual information to counter the claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked

from www.apollohoax.net

[Echnaton]

As I have already sad, there is no contradiction in using the fake apollo footage, as presented, to demonstrate the apollo landng could not have taken place, as presented.

Early in this thread you were using the video to hypothesize  the properties of the lunar surface.  Then using the hypothesized properties to support the idea that the rover could not drive on the moon.  That is a contradiction because if the video was made somewhere else then the properties of the surface could not be attributed to the moon.

[Zakalwe]

Anywho, I don't think that you have answered or explained as to what is actually happening in the videos of the LRV*
Clearly something that looks like the LRV IS being driven on a surface that looks a lot like the Moon. And there are lots of clues that this took place in a low gravity vacuum. So what exactly is happening?

No need to strain at maths and physics that you clearly have a weak grasp on. Just tell us what you think is happening in the videos and how you came to the conclusions.

That'd be super. Thanks in advance.










*along with a load of other questions...

[Echnaton]

The question is not worthy of a reply, maybe you all need a sticky where the mods can explain to you that someone who thinks the apollo landings were a hoax implicitly believes the footage is faked.

Well Andromeda, you got your answer.  Pesky and persistent questions that require an alternative scenario that is consistent with a hoax theory are too difficult to answer and must be ignored.

So once again this proves that Anywho is just another anonymous beggar of questions that is trapped in the underperforming logic of his argument.

[anywho]

As I have already sad, there is no contradiction in using the fake apollo footage, as presented, to demonstrate the apollo landng could not have taken place, as presented.

Except there is - in fact, there are three.

Contradiction 1: You say that rover could not be sat on in Earth gravity.  You also say that the rover didn't go to the moon.  The video clearly shows the rover driving around.  That means, in your mind, that the film could not have been made on Earth or the moon!  Where do you claim it was filmed, and how?

I did not say the rover could not be sat on in earth gravity, NASA did, I say that if you make a vehicle so weak it cannot be sat on then it cannot be driven over a bumpy surface on either the moon or the earth ERGO, IT IS NOT THE COMPLETE BS SUPERLIGHT SUPERWEAK ROVER SEEN ON THE VIDEO, THEY MADE A STRONGER VERSION SO THE MOST OBVIOUS ANSWER TO YOUR INANE QUESTION IS THAT THE USED A STRONGER VERSION HERE ON EARTH

Contradiction 2: You claim the video shows the surface is too loose to move on based on your interpretation of the way it moves under the rover.  How do you resolve the contradiction that the rover is clearly moving on a surface you declare it cannot move on?

IT IS NOT MOVING ON A LOOSE SURFACE IN 1/6g, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FILMED ON THE MOON, ERGO IT WAS FILMED ON EARTH SOMEWHERE

Contradiction 3: You claim that the "lunar surface" has particular features, based on that film.  But wait!  You don't think the rover went to the moon at all!  So how can you declare what the lunar surface is like by using what you believe to be a fake video to back you up?[/b]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MOON SURFACE IS LIKE, THERE COULD BE A 2M LAYER OF DUST FOR ALL I KNOW, BUT EVEN USING THE FAKE SURFACE PRESENTED IN THE FAKE APOLLO FOOTAGE IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT 4WDRIVNG ON A LOOSE SURFACE IN 1/6G WITH THE WORLDS DUMBEST TYRES IS IMPOSSIBLE.

[Jason Thompson]

IT IS NOT THE COMPLETE BS SUPERLIGHT SUPERWEAK ROVER SEEN ON THE VIDEO, THEY MADE A STRONGER VERSION SO THE MOST OBVIOUS ANSWER TO YOUR INANE QUESTION IS THAT THE USED A STRONGER VERSION HERE ON EARTH

Leave the shouting and the insults at home. All you had to do was say that outright at the start when you were first asked. Don't start shouting at us after days of refusing to answer our questions simply.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MOON SURFACE IS LIKE

Then you can't use that video to judge the properties of the lunar surface, as you have done.

THERE COULD BE A 2M LAYER OF DUST FOR ALL I KNOW, BUT EVEN USING THE FAKE SURFACE PRESENTED IN THE FAKE APOLLO FOOTAGE IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT 4WDRIVNG ON A LOOSE SURFACE IN 1/6G WITH THE WORLDS DUMBEST TYRES IS IMPOSSIBLE.

No, it can't. If that thing can drive on that surface on Earth it can drive on that surface on the Moon. Your inability to grasp the physics of that is the problem.

Now, how about answering my question about the physics: is acceleration of a mass proportional to the net force on it?

[BazBear]

This is a message board that invites people to put hoax theories forward, do you all really need it explained that a hoax believer is someone who thinks it was all faked?

That's all well and good, but you can't simply handwave away the video and 16mm film documentation of the rover in operation...in what to all appearances is a gravity field 1/6th of Earth's...as well as what to all appearances is a vacuum...in what appears to be broad daylight, with a black sky...with some of the continuous 16mm footage demonstrating the rover covering relatively long distances. You'll have to explain how all the environmental and physical things we see in the footage could be faked, and faked using the technology available in the early 1970s.

[Andromeda]

Don't insult me, and do not shout at me.  That behaviour is not tolerated here.

[anywho]

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/PerfBoeingLRVWheelsRpt2.pdf

This is the second set of tests the army did, I apologise that it is nothing to do with locomotves, tugboats, and hydroplaning quads. All it represents is an actual physical test of the laughable rover wheel together with a simulated soil based on the previous fake apollo missions.

What it shows is that on page 21 (Fig. 8. influence of wheel speed on pull coefficient) there are results showing the drawbar pull at different acceleration rates with 20% slip (20% slip is their safe limit), these show that the rover wheel accelerating in a lunar soil can only muster a drawbar pull coefficient of approx 0.4

Once again, to accelerate the rover wheel needs enough traction to pull 6 times the weight on it in total (a drawbar coeffciient of 5), so how would this thing accelerate n 1/6g on such a loose surface if the most it can safely accelerate with the available traction is just 40% more than its weight? 

[onebigmonkey]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MOON SURFACE IS LIKE, THERE COULD BE A 2M LAYER OF DUST FOR ALL I KNOW

That's all we needed.

You have no idea what the surface is like. The only idea of what the lunar surface is like that you have is the Apollo photos and film footage you claim wasn't shot there. If we have no evidence as to what it is like because we didn't go, then you have no evidence that it is impossible to drive on.

Your argument is totally contradictory.