Any questions about "rover ops" can be answered by reading Boeing
LRV systems engineering manual entitled "Lunar Rover Operations Handbook. Lunar Rover brought to the world courtesy of that great aerospace company who brought the free world the 700 series of airliners, used in major quantities around the globe. I have seen pictures of them and I'm not aware of any being doctored.
Realistically, how close were the Soviets to a moon landing? They thought it was possible, didn't they? I think that their space program was struggling with tech issues but not with insurmountable problems. I read that the CCCP spent $4.5 billion on their manned lunar program but NASA spent $24 billion. Didn't CCCP build a lunar lander? They evidently didn't think radiation was going to instantly kill their cosmonauts. Of all the issues raised by the "anti-moon landers", I think the Soviets thought those issues were manageable. That CCCP had problems overcoming them is something different (no insult to them, I have a great respect for what they accomplished). Apollo brought back some 800 odd pounds of moon material that can be examined by many scientists world-wide. NASA has a "moon rock" lending program! Soviet unmanned landers brought back some material as well. There has not been any cries of fakery from them about comparison of material. To the nay-sayers, I would ask you "What proof would you accept".

But I have just GOT to ask the question...

When the 'proof' so many of you are advocating as ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY proving that the NASA/Apollo missions 'visual record' is real is shown in your 'here is a pic of the laser reflectors being used' pictures...

isn't it normal to at least PRETEND to be aiming the laser at the Moon?

If CCCP was controlled by the Illuminati-then the Illuminati sure had a burning desire to get into space and to the moon!
Bro. 'Tiger, do you even believe that man (and women) have been into space at all?
I understand what you're saying about the rover. You are trying to make a point that you haven't seen Apollo 16 unload their rover from the LM. Therefore you believe that it proves Apollo 16 was a faked landing, right?

Here's what I TRULY Believe 1. CCCP/USA went to other planets but the tech they used is different from Apollo, 2. I believe Apollo was fake, I believe exactly what Mr.Copper your American Citezen says in his article.

or you got it on cruise control?

'did you look at my links, here i'll post som of it for your ease.'
Swing and a miss!

Go back and read my stuff just a little more carefully... No one is saying that we didn't go to the Moon. I'm saying what is offered as the official 'visual record' is SO bad it is 911-LOL funny! = Hoax!

golemina... ok...
Number 1: Everything you have cited as evidence that the visual record is false has been proven to be purely incorrect and based solely on a lack of understanding for the facts.

Number 2: You are correct in one specific perspective... it is entirely possible, as I have stated in the past, that certain aspects of the recorded segments were redone on a sound stage to compensate for errors in the original shot... they didnt have viewfinders so for all we know half the pictures were chopping their bodies in half. However, much of the footage we know, without any doubt in any shape or form, is authentic. You can ramble on all you want about this anomaly or that anomaly but time and time again you just show that you simply dont understand.

by SiberianTiger
[edit on 15-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 15-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 15-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 15-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

SiberianTiger... are you high?

HAHAHAHAAHAHHAHA I Like that HAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!!!!

>' Everything you have cited'... 'has been proven to be purely incorrect'...

> 'I have stated in the past, that certain aspects of the recorded segments were redone on a sound stage to compensate for errors'...

Can you see the slight difference in the way these two statements lean?

Why do I get the impression that you sound a little worried...

You see it's kind of like one of those circle of life kind of deals, having what some might say is a slightly better attention to detail than some others... well... it sometimes allows you to help bring a little perspective to those that some say might benefit from it.

I said "POSSIBLE."
Not "all of you are fools because all of the footage is clearly false and theyre all lying to us. There is no doubt about this. Because of this photographic anomaly and this strange train of logic, I know this for fact..." etc etc etc

Big difference between basing a very incorrect judgement on misinterpretation of the data, and allowing for a possibility to exist, however slim.

You say the entire visual record is false, yet time and time again it is your reasoning that is indeed false.

golemina

upon looking back on the thread again I've noyiced that you will refute answers to the questions brought up in the fox special(which seems to be your only source of evidence), with the ever clever "get real, wrong answer"
This shows you are incapable of logical debate.

As for your "no stars", it is known by anyone with a limited knowledge of star/night photography that it takes long exposure times and large apertures to take adiquite pictures of stars.
On the moon in full dirct sunlight you cannot have such long exposures or large apertures without overexposing the subject matter.
If in fact this was a Hoax, then I'm sure there WOULD have been stars in the pictures, becuase the sheeple don't know enough to question it.

I'm sure as with all logical answers you will respond with a "get real"

It's kind of fun watching you guys manuver yourself into some pretty interesting positions seemingly just to bolster some point at a given moment in the discussion.

BTW. The movie was out!

Hopefully, that will solve itself in the next couple of days.

Halfofone: 'On the moon in full dirct sunlight you cannot have such long exposures or large apertures without overexposing the subject matter.'

Of course! And ditto on the 'black' of the Moon day...

However... It must just be some kind of weird coincidence that NOT ONE SINGLE photo anywhere in the 'visual record' contains ONE SINGLE star...

Not even when our guys went by the dark side of the Moon?

Good thing this limitation doesn't seem to impact Hubble.

>'Not "all of you are fools because all of the footage is clearly false and theyre all lying to us. There is no doubt about this. Because of this photographic anomaly and this strange train of logic, I know this for fact..." etc etc etc'

Are you attributing this quote to me Apc?

My take on it would be similar, yet different enough to need some clarification. 'All of the footage', imo, is too sweeping a statement. My problem with the official 'visual record' would be that it has been significantly altered to make it false in its totality.

>'Big difference between basing a very incorrect judgement on misinterpretation of the data, and allowing for a possibility to exist, however slim.'

True. However, in this context, the position I'm pushing is that for whatever reason, NASA, has served up what is promoted as the 'visual record' of the Moon landings. It supposedly 'documents' NASA/the Apollo programs efforts about the 'Moon landings'.

One of the absolute hardest things to do is falsify a video clip, especially one of any real duration. Even the very best 'special effect' scenes contain defects. Quite frankly, many of these defects go largely unnoticed by the casual observer. However, in the case of the 'Moon landings' 'visual record' it has been subjected to some more thorough scrutiny.

>'You say the entire visual record is false, yet time and time again it is your reasoning that is indeed false.'

I just love discussions dealing with 'logic' and 'reasoning'!

The problem with that statement, Apc, is one of context. The point of view I am advancing is STRICTLY within that of dealing within the 'defects' advanced by Fox.

Much like 'the Church' didn't even look at Galileos 'evidence' to support his position of the Copernican model before dismissing him as a heretic since he seemingly dared, in their opinion, to advance a 'scientific viewpoint' that conflicted with the sanctity of 'the Scriptures'...

So too most of you REFUSE to even look at the 'evidence' of defects in the 'visual record' advanced by the Fox special.

Instead, you pepper me with accusations of...

> 'your reasoning that is indeed false.'

> 'you are incapable of logical debate.'

Gentlemen, I AM honored!

Please review my previous posted link regarding the FOX special in question...
Although I doubt you will.

Also, please take into account the network you are speaking of: FOX. Think about that very very carefully... this is a network that is more than happy to come to the lowest level in order to attract an audience... any audience...
If there is any media agency as corrupt as corrupt gets... it's FOX.

I think I caught bits of the special here and there, but if you so could kindly, in plain english, list out the problems this FOX special put forth?
Is there any of this nonsense you're holding on to that has not already been explained in the forementioned link? In the countless other Moon Hoax threads and discussions for the past 30 years?! They all seem the be the same old same old "waaaaaa I dont know anything about what Im talking about and I say the Moon landings were faked!!!" rhetoric.

Heh... You believe that much in that silly Fox 'documentary'? I've looked that that evidence countless times. But it's so easy and simple to explain. I don't get how you can believe what comes out of Fox. They pretty much play anything on there network that will make them money, they could hardly care about the truth. As long as it's somewhat entertaining and going to attract viewers, that's all they care about (and just about every other tv network).

However... It must just be some kind of weird coincidence that NOT ONE SINGLE photo anywhere in the 'visual record' contains ONE SINGLE star...

Why should it? You don't seem to understand that it takes a while for stars to expose on film. Here on Earth at night you'd want a minimum of 5 to 10 seconds, just to get them to start to appear on film.

not even when our guys went by the dark side of the Moon?

When did they do this? I honestly don't know. The Apollo space craft circled around the Moon, but as far as I know, the never landed in an area that was at night on the Moon.

Please show us more defects that you believe in that show the visual record to be false.

Originally posted by golemina

Of course! And ditto on the 'black' of the Moon day...

However... It must just be some kind of weird coincidence that NOT ONE SINGLE photo anywhere in the 'visual record' contains ONE SINGLE star...

Not even when our guys went by the dark side of the Moon?

Do you have a specific example of a photograph of the "dark side of the Moon" in mind?

i would like to see it.

Why can Hubble show stars but Apollo Fottage Doesn't,???????????????

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Why can Hubble show stars but Apollo Fottage Doesn't,???????????????

Because the Hubble isn't a regular camera. Also read what I wrote.

Originally posted by jra
This has to do with exposure and light on film. Now in the photos we see a black sky. In our minds, that tends to register as night, but really it is day time on the moon in those photos. The ground is a very light grey dust and the sun light isn't being filtered by any atmosphere. So there is going to be a lot of light reflecting off the ground. You'd need to have a fast shutter speed to take the photos. You'd have to over expose the photos a lot in order to get the stars to appear in them.

Siberian Tiger, it is spelled photage

Tho there is a big differance betwean taking pictures of the scenery of the moon with a 70mm camera, and the hubble space telescope