At sceptimatic's request...

Take a look at the OP, it might give you a clue. Straight into denial mode without figuring out why. Typical. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 15, 2014, 12:46:41 PM

What do you mean by the first eva and the third?
Are you saying that they unpacked it on the first eva and then repacked it again?
Explain what you are sayin.

like i said, the lunar rover was already deployed on the first eva hence the tyre tracks. What the photo claims is the packaged lunar rover is actually the MESA. Look up Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly. You can see on these diagrams how it matches up with your photo, and how your photo points to the wrong location for the lunar rover. http://weebau.com/flightpics/apollo/lm_diagram.gif now compare this with your photo, you can use the ladder and tracking light to see your picture clearly doesnt show where the lunar rover is deployed from. And here is a picture of the MESA. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-31585.jpg

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 15, 2014, 01:08:53 PM

Take a look at the OP, it might give you a clue. Straight into denial mode without figuring out why. Typical. 

Ah, OK, just re-read the OP.  Fair enough.

I'm not denying just refusing to debate Apollo out of boredom with the subject.  As I said I'm here to debate flat earth, not the moon landings.

On that subject...I noticed your are ignoring my points about your first video...?

Quote from: glokta on February 15, 2014, 01:29:09 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 15, 2014, 12:46:41 PM

What do you mean by the first eva and the third?
Are you saying that they unpacked it on the first eva and then repacked it again?
Explain what you are sayin.

like i said, the lunar rover was already deployed on the first eva hence the tyre tracks. What the photo claims is the packaged lunar rover is actually the MESA. Look up Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly. You can see on these diagrams how it matches up with your photo, and how your photo points to the wrong location for the lunar rover. http://weebau.com/flightpics/apollo/lm_diagram.gif now compare this with your photo, you can use the ladder and tracking light to see your picture clearly doesnt show where the lunar rover is deployed from. And here is a picture of the MESA. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-31585.jpg

Oh, ok. You mean like this?

Ok, have a mull over those and see what you make of them.

Yep, the pictures of the ship show curvature.  The camera changed elevation.  It doesn't matter that ships aren't heading directly away.

And the rover was unpacked from the other side.  I almost recall these same moon pictures being discussed some time ago.

The mere fact that the ships are on a side view to you and not moving away,

You know for a fact that the higher elevation will allow a further view of a flat earth.

It would not allow you to bring a ship back into view over a curve from a height like that compared to distance.

There's a reason why elevation makes your view much better, because you are looking through the atmosphere and seeing more light reflecting off of the hull, bringing it back into focus.

One video proving flat earth.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Flat earth proof 4
Scepti I think have seen this occur when I spend the day at the beach but I never paid attention. This is something I will be checking out.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2014, 02:51:51 AM

The mere fact that the ships are on a side view to you and not moving away,

I'm not sure why this is relevant?

Quote

You know for a fact that the higher elevation will allow a further view of a flat earth.

And on most other shapes, including round.

Quote

It would not allow you to bring a ship back into view over a curve from a height like that compared to distance.

Yes, it would  - that is exactly what is predicted.  Flat earth says that the bottom portion of the ships shouldn't be hidden in the first place, as there is no curvature to hide them.

Quote

There's a reason why elevation makes your view much better, because you are looking through the atmosphere and seeing more light reflecting off of the hull, bringing it back into focus.

As you elevate yourself you are actually looking through slightly more atmosphere than at sea level, so I'm  not sure what you are getting at??  Where does the "more light" come from?  How come only the bottom portion of the ships are obscured by this lack of light?

Scepti, in your confusion you have posted evidence for a round earth.   

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Flat earth proof 4
Scepti I think have seen this occur when I spend the day at the beach but I never paid attention. This is something I will be checking out.

How can you be looking through more atmosphere? It's you that's confused.

Thinking it's because the ship is going down a curve is head scratching for why people would even dare think it, unless it was a water fall. Is it a water fall at the horizon? If not, then there's no curve.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2014, 04:06:10 AM

How can you be looking through more atmosphere? It's you that's confused.

Because the higher you are, the further to the object.  Have you not covered Pythagoras at school yet?

Are you suggesting it's because the atmosphere is thinner the higher you go?  That's hardly the case when you are stood on a cliff.  People don't take oxygen tanks on cliff side walks.

Quote

Thinking it's because the ship is going down a curve is head scratching for why people would even dare think it, unless it was a water fall. Is it a water fall at the horizon? If not, then there's no curve.

I've literally no idea what this means.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 16, 2014, 04:25:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2014, 04:06:10 AM

How can you be looking through more atmosphere? It's you that's confused.

Because the higher you are, the further to the object.  Have you not covered Pythagoras at school yet?

Are you suggesting it's because the atmosphere is thinner the higher you go?  That's hardly the case when you are stood on a cliff.  People don't take oxygen tanks on cliff side walks.

Quote

Thinking it's because the ship is going down a curve is head scratching for why people would even dare think it, unless it was a water fall. Is it a water fall at the horizon? If not, then there's no curve.

I've literally no idea what this means.

Well you stick to that. It's obvious you're not interested in even trying to think what anything means if it goes against your indoctrination.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 15, 2014, 11:21:57 AM

So when they alter a photo they tell everyone about it.  Sounds very honest to me, what is your problem?  NASA has certainly never admitted to faking photos of the earth.

Every time they get caught, they say something like, "Oh, well yeah, that photo is doctored in order to make it better for you to view."  They often use amateurs to doctor photos and often get caught, yet people just blindly believe everything they say. 

Well you stick to that. It's obvious you're not interested in even trying to think what anything means if it goes against your indoctrination.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 16, 2014, 03:23:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2014, 02:51:51 AM

The mere fact that the ships are on a side view to you and not moving away,

I'm not sure why this is relevant?

Quote

You know for a fact that the higher elevation will allow a further view of a flat earth.

And on most other shapes, including round.

Quote

It would not allow you to bring a ship back into view over a curve from a height like that compared to distance.

Yes, it would  - that is exactly what is predicted.  Flat earth says that the bottom portion of the ships shouldn't be hidden in the first place, as there is no curvature to hide them.

Quote

There's a reason why elevation makes your view much better, because you are looking through the atmosphere and seeing more light reflecting off of the hull, bringing it back into focus.

As you elevate yourself you are actually looking through slightly more atmosphere than at sea level, so I'm  not sure what you are getting at??  Where does the "more light" come from?  How come only the bottom portion of the ships are obscured by this lack of light?

Scepti, in your confusion you have posted evidence for a round earth.   

How can you be looking through more atmosphere? It's you that's confused. The higher your elevation, the less atmosphere you have to obstruct your light in the distance.
Thinking it's because the ship is going down a curve is head scratching for why people would even dare think it, unless it was a water fall. Is it a water fall at the horizon? If not, then there's no curve.

The mere fact that the ships are on a side view to you and not moving away, leaves only the lower versus the higher elevation.

You know for a fact that the higher elevation will allow a further view of a flat earth.

It would not allow you to bring a ship back into view over a curve from a height like that compared to distance.

There's a reason why elevation makes your view much better, because you are looking through the atmosphere and seeing more light reflecting off of the hull, bringing it back into focus.

One video proving flat earth.
[snip]
One picture proving N.A.S.A are fakers.
[snip]
Ok, have a mull over those and see what you make of them.

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 15, 2014, 06:12:33 PM

Yep, the pictures of the ship show curvature.  The camera changed elevation.  It doesn't matter that ships aren't heading directly away.

The mere fact that the ships are on a side view to you and not moving away, leaves only the lower versus the higher elevation.
You know for a fact that the higher elevation will allow a further view of a flat earth. It would not allow you to bring a ship back into view over a curve from a height like that compared to distance.
There's a reason why elevation makes your view much better, because you are looking through the atmosphere and seeing more light reflecting off of the hull, bringing it back into focus.
It's the same reason they have crows nests or even the simpler things like the life guard sitting on the tower.
Of course you can argue it. Everything can be argued. The reason for the OP, though, was about giving out some evidence on the basis that it would be looked at with an open mind and it hasn't. It's clearly been looked at with the sole intention of immediately debunking it.
I thought the purpose of this thread was to ALL have a look at potential discrepabcies more critically.

If people are genuine, then the very least I would expect is for them to say, "hmmm, yeah, I see what you mean, it's very plausible that something may not be right."
Obviously that's wishful thinking. 

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 15, 2014, 06:12:33 PM

And the rover was unpacked from the other side.  I almost recall these same moon pictures being discussed some time ago.

Yep, I recall them being discussed as well. The thing is though, the answers given were not really satisfactory answers when you view the evidence and that's just one of hundreds of potential discrepancies out of the whole thing.
Yes, yes, I know what your thoughts are on it all, so I'm under no illusions about you taking any other stance but to debunk.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 15, 2014, 11:43:20 AM

One video proving flat earth.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Flat earth proof 4


One picture proving N.A.S.A are fakers.



If you do more research you will discover that the package not opened was not the rover package. The fellow who discovered this corrected his statement that the rover was attached on the other side of the Lem. In either case the rover would not fit in that package.

Ok, have a mull over those and see what you make of them.

great thanks - will look through them

I have a few more observations for you lot, later. Now the question is. Are you going to look at them with a critical questioning eye and mind or are you going to go into full ob frenzied debunk mode.

Are you going to look at them with a critical questioning eye and mind ....

Let's start with something simple.
Now as we all know, vehicles leave tyre tracks and humans, even in big boots, leave boot prints. Having said that. Can anyone tell me how this vehicle got into this situation without leaving tyre tracks.

Here's my 3 guesses.

1. It was lowered into position via a crane, maybe some kind of arms attached to the tin foil clad lander.

2. It's a hover rover and it's wheels don;t actually touch the ground upon movement.

3. Every time it's moved, an astronaut sweeps the track marks away and that's why we just see boot prints.

If it's not any of these, can anyone give me another reason or two as to what could be happening here?

I could hazard a couple more guesses, but that's all they'd be.

4. It was assembled in this position.

5. It was picked up by the astronauts and placed there (no crane required, as even though it had a mass of 210kg, it only weighed about 35kg on the moon)

edit:
6. The astronauts had been walking around it recently and kicked a lot of dust about, covering the tracks (there does seem to be a lot of boot prints, some partially filled in with loose dust)

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 23, 2014, 03:48:14 PM

Let's start with something simple.
Now as we all know, vehicles leave tyre tracks and humans, even in big boots, leave boot prints. Having said that. Can anyone tell me how this vehicle got into this situation without leaving tyre tracks.

Here's my 3 guesses.

1. It was lowered into position via a crane, maybe some kind of arms attached to the tin foil clad lander.

2. It's a hover rover and it's wheels don;t actually touch the ground upon movement.

3. Every time it's moved, an astronaut sweeps the track marks away and that's why we just see boot prints.

If it's not any of these, can anyone give me another reason or two as to what could be happening here?

Looking at  that buggy, she's certainly done a few laps of the track.