Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

a reply to: Ove38

I can kinda see what you're saying. He's barely on the edge of the seat, and because (as another poster noted) that his backpack won't allow it. Now, what kind of NASA contractor would design that uncomfortable of a seat? LOL.

Contractor: We came up with the best seat possible. Wait, what's a PLSS? Well, too bad -we're out of time. You've got a mission to fake!

I mean, we've all seen vids - those rovers be rollin' over dem hills. How would you like to have an additional 150+ lbs of gear on and have a seat you can barely get your anus over?

a reply to: bobbypurify
Go on!

as much as I'd like too, I must refrain for now ,until more evidence is acquired to support the hypothesis, otherwise I run the risk of providing the propagandists with a concept they would have never thought of otherwise & will undoubtedly run down too the ALSJ and claim credit for it....

a reply to: Misinformation

Well there's no shame in asking! I wonder what it could be...

a reply to: bobbypurify

So we're still using "it kinda looks funny" as your main argument? I have sat on buses and in cars wearing a rucksack. It is not impossible.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Yep. It looks funny so we discuss it. We have you guys around just in case we need some dust particles calculated properly to gravitational circumstances

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Okay, I go outside all the time, I realize that's part of you trying to win the argument but I'm trying to have a discussion. So, let's get this straight - there's FOOTPRINTS right next to the rover. I think that tells me enough about the substrate/regolith to believe that it should have left tracks. In fact, you can freaking see the tracks from the LRO.

Are you hear to say that there's more force from an astro's boot than the tire of a rover with an astronaut on top of it?

So you don't think it is remotely possible that all the scuffing around at the side of the rover could remotely cover up any evidence of the rover's tracks? The fact that there are footprints there (which was earlier denied by someone else) shows there has been disturbance.

And yes, you can see the tracks from the LRO. How about that.

I don't care how the vehicle got there, maybe it was shopped in the photo for all I know. I wasn't there.

No, you weren't, but clearly you do care otherwise you wouldn't have made your reply. I'll tell you how it got there, it was driven there. Any other explanation is stupid.

What examples on google can you give me if there's plenty? And so a still of a vehicle in sand with no tracks (couldn't find plenty) on Earth could have a plethora of reasons as there are weather factors at play.

Or it could also be a factor of the substrate and the forces involved acting on that substrate. Sometimes a track will be left, sometimes not. There's no big conspiracy there, and anyone who wants to hang their hat on that being the clincher is just being idiotic. And no, I'm not spending my evening googling for something you could quite easily do yourself.

You're at a conundrum - trust the journal which states they didn't move it there or twist the realities of physics to fit your story. Again, footprints right next to the rover indicate that not much force is needed to leave a half inch imprint in the regolith.

No, I'm really not, because all the evidence points to Apollo 15 being at Hadley Rille, right down to the details captured in images that are matched by Chandrayaan and the tracks you are happy to say are visible in LRO images. Taking a fragment of information and obsessing about a pointless detail in no way defeats the mountain of evidence that supports the mission.

The tracks next to the rover, which in the image people like to use is stationary, not moving, indicate a lot of activity next to it.

The dirt falling from the wire mesh wheels indicates that when the rover does move, dirt can fall back and fill in any tracks that have been made.

This isn't rocket science, it's basic soil physics.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Misinformation

Well there's no shame in asking! I wonder what it could be...

He has nothing. Don't build your hopes up.

The photograph of the rover under discussion was taken a few minutes before leaving the LM at the start of EVA 2.

Here are some photographs taken at the end of EVA-1 with the LRV back at the LM.

Tracks, disturbed ground.

This one is a composite of AS15-86-11600 to 11602 (originals are colour)

www.hq.nasa.gov...

This was also taken at the very end of EVA-1

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I'd also point out that behind AS14-85-11470 you can see the ALSEP, and tracks leading to it, that are visible in the images taken by the LRO.

a reply to: onebigmonkey
I'd also point out that behind AS14-85-11470 you can see the ALSEP

why ,does spring come early if the ALSEP doesn't see its shadow...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ManFromEurope

They only saw about 3Gs during launch. You have to remember that these were pilots trained to deal with G forces. They saw much more than 3Gs during training, and knew exactly how to tighten their body to deal with them.

"the Saturn 5 peaked at 4g. However, the Apollo capsules returning from the Moon re-entered the atmosphere at over 6g."
quest.nasa.gov...

Your 3g refers to the spaceshuttle not the Saturn V.

"In the case of the Space Shuttle, this acceleration is around 3 times the force of gravity - 3g "
quest.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: TheWhisper

Your 3g refers to the spaceshuttle not the Saturn V.

maybe want to check out what he was replying to before pointing out the obvious?

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Yep. It looks funny so we discuss it. We have you guys around just in case we need some dust particles calculated properly to gravitational circumstances

you realise if dust particles didnt fall according to lunar gravity, it would give the hoax argument ALOT more credibility.. it would most likely convince even me..

but for some reason all hoax theorists even the ones portraying themselves as quite intelligent seem to avoid it.. im ok with using it, so a hoax theorist should be able to use it also and try to prove it isnt lunar gravity..

a common excuse is that they cant detect a single, individual particle.. yet they dont realise that gravity acts on all of the particles equally, one particle doesnt get more "gravity" than the one next to it..

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Ove38

I can kinda see what you're saying. He's barely on the edge of the seat, and because (as another poster noted) that his backpack won't allow it. Now, what kind of NASA contractor would design that uncomfortable of a seat? LOL.

who says its uncomfortable???

a reply to: Misinformation

Oh my aching sides.

You claimed to have some damning information about the LRV wheel design.

If your next post doesn't contain it it will be safe to assume you don't have it.

And just a little thought experiment about the forces acting on the LRV wheel.

Unladen the LRV has a mass of 210 Kg,

A suited astronaut would weigh around the same.

When on one foot (eg walking), gravity is acting on the entire mass of the astronaut through one foot. When standing, half of the mass (105 Kg) is being pulled by gravity through each foot.

On the rover, the 420 Kg total mass is evenly distributed over the 4 wheels: 105 Kg per wheel. The force being exerted through one wheel is therefore less than that being exerted by one astronaut foot when he is walking.

So technically the LRV does actually have less ability to disturb lunar soil than an astronaut boot.

Very much oversimplified, but I'm sure you get the idea.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Ove38

I can kinda see what you're saying. He's barely on the edge of the seat, and because (as another poster noted) that his backpack won't allow it. Now, what kind of NASA contractor would design that uncomfortable of a seat? LOL.

who says its uncomfortable???

Me I wouldn't like not being able to bend my knees while driving.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
edit on 4/30/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Come on, Zaphod. Tell us what you really think. Have you read Logsdon's "After Apollo?" yet? Perhaps you have yet to catch up to the new Nixon-Apollo narrative where Richard Nixon is the villain who cancelled Apollo through budgetary puppet strings, causing NASA to cancel Saturn V production, approved the shuttle that set a course for Low Earth Orbit for 50 years.

Logsdon's book doesn't approach Apollo as a hoax (that was never the Logsdon's purpose) and conspiracy theories are discouraged on page 16. What Logsdon's book does is set a new narrative for Nixon's Apollo.

I am half way through Logsdon's book. I am also half way through Jack Anderson's "Fiasco" which is an account of Richard Nixon's inability to deal with an impending oil/energy crisis during his first term.

The Logsdon book will show you how Nixon's administration was keyed toward diminishing NASA's dreams by using the very complex federal budgetary process to strangle out any voices that suggested manned Mars mission in the 1980's.

As you well know, very credible people supported a manned Mars mission in the 1980's. Thomas Paine. Wernher von Braun. They said it could be done! Spiro Agnew was also sold on the idea.

And what happened to those credible sources who advocated, in 1969, for a manned Mars mission in the 1980's?

Thomas Paine. NASA administrator, acting from October 8, 1968 - September 15, 1970.
* notice the word "acting" in official parlance is someone who is fulfilling a role.

Wernher von Braun. Died June 16, 1977 of pancreatic cancer. en.wikipedia.org...

Spiro Agnew, removed from office.

In 1973, Agnew was investigated by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland on charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy. He was charged with having accepted bribes totaling more than $100,000 while holding office as Baltimore County Executive, Governor of Maryland, and Vice President. On October 10 that same year, Agnew was allowed to plead no contest to a single charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967, with the condition that he resign the office of Vice President.

That is the real Apollo Narrative. The Apollo Defenders can't defend against it.... they can only accept it.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Nothing to defend against but I figured your ears would perk up when someone mentioned Nixon lol. Yes Nixon killed the Apollo program he wanted to use the money to pay for his war. And it was hard for him to justify cutting NASA'S budget on the heels of successful manned missions to the moon. Had NASA failed ot would have been much easier and no political infighting.Nasa hated Nixon because he wss constantly trying to undercut them.