At sceptimatic's request...

  • 678 Replies
  • 129164 Views
?

jtlondon83

  • 355
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #60 on: February 23, 2014, 04:51:45 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.
Yes! And take a look at the state of the actornauts legs. It's almost like they actually were on a  powdered cement moon.

It's also like they were on the Moon, which is crucial to remember when looking at these (non) 'issues'

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #61 on: February 23, 2014, 04:53:31 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.
Yes! And take a look at the state of the actornauts legs. It's almost like they actually were on a  powdered cement moon.

It's also like they were on the Moon, which is crucial to remember when looking at these (non) 'issues'
Yes, that's right...but considering I was asking for people to take a critical look and not to go into immediate debunk mode, I think you have just failed miserably.

?

jtlondon83

  • 355
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #62 on: February 23, 2014, 05:09:58 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.
Yes! And take a look at the state of the actornauts legs. It's almost like they actually were on a  powdered cement moon.

It's also like they were on the Moon, which is crucial to remember when looking at these (non) 'issues'
Yes, that's right...but considering I was asking for people to take a critical look and not to go into immediate debunk mode, I think you have just failed miserably.

yes because mentioning another possibility to go with your list is absolutely not the way to try and work towards some sort of resolution

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #63 on: February 23, 2014, 05:31:53 PM »
yes because mentioning another possibility to go with your list is absolutely not the way to try and work towards some sort of resolution
Well, here's how things work.

A conspiracy theory is exactly that when there is no real evidence.
To put any credence onto that theory, you need to look into anomalies, coincidence, potential human errors and many other little pieces of potential evidence to make something remotely credible.

Bearing in mind that the Apollo theatre ran from the early 60's and has brought up many weird coincidences, before anyone supposedly landed on this so called moon, it warrants further scrutinisation.
From the supposed space walks to the alleged moon orbits, down to the actual 6 so called successful landings and one abort of Apollo 13, they are riddled with lots of holes, so warrant further scrutinisation.

Regardless of the fact that answers are given as to why this and that happened, the answers do not adequately explain quite a lot of it, although some of it can be brushed aside as not worth the effort, as in shadows and a C on a rock or a waving flag, even though these are extremely dubious.

You see! The more anomalies and little pieces of evidence that are found, a conspiracy starts to hold some water and becomes a possibility.
The more evidence and coincidences that appear, the more it becomes a probability, until eventually it becomes a conspiracy FACT.

A guilty person in custody that has overwhelming evidence against them, if they're clever enough, can give reasons as to why it may look like they're guilty but they can answer all the questions, no matter how flimsy those answers are, as to why their guilt is mistaken.

Now, you can argue that the lack of tracks is me nit picking all you want to...but all it tells me is...you are in immdediate denial mode as you're not even attempting to debunk it, just simply jumping in and telling me that I'm wrong at it's all legit and you don't even know why you're doing it, unless you wish to hang on to it all being true in naivety and a love for the so called space program, or your goal is to simply to never believe in ANY conspiracy, because you've been trained to believe that all conspiracy theorists are wacko.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2014, 05:34:51 PM by sceptimatic »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #64 on: February 23, 2014, 05:50:11 PM »
Here's a few more to run your eyes over. Explain the possible causes of this if you can.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon = Hoax: Colette, No Tire Tracks

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #65 on: February 23, 2014, 05:56:25 PM »
I could hazard a couple more guesses, but that's all they'd be.

4. It was assembled in this position.
Ok but I think you would agree that it's highly unlikely considering it unfolds from a holding bay, right?
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)
Again, extremely unlikely and dangerous. We are talking about astronaut suits in a supposed moon vacuum. Do you seriously think they would risk picking something like that up with the very very possible likelyhood of causing a suit tear.

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)
Yes that's possible, except it's extremely unlikely to wipe out all the tyre tracks, right?

Like I said, I was only guessing.

Quote
Now given the fact that you have viewed this. Is it also extremely possible that this buggy is not on the moon and is in fact in a desert area or a designated staging area on Earth. Is is possible?

Sure, it's possible, but if that's the case... why no tracks?
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

SirSpankalot

  • 601
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #66 on: February 23, 2014, 06:17:14 PM »
Here's a few more to run your eyes over. Explain the possible causes of this if you can.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon = Hoax: Colette, No Tire Tracks

I'm not sure how to explain it in simple terms for you...

Do you understand what a footprint is?

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • +0/-0
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #67 on: February 23, 2014, 06:19:54 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?




Here is your answer.
See the fender there and how it's all jacked up and has what looks like duct tape wrapped around it? Well, that actually is duct tape. And it's there due to a well documented field repair the astronauts had to perform on the Apollo 17 mission. During which they had to pick up the rover. Again, not too difficult for 2 fit military test pilot astronauts to lift 70 pounds..... Well, on that particular mission Astronaut Schmitt was a geologist. Still...... If the photo wasn't so zoomed in you probably could see some of the other tracks. Especially the ones they hadn't walked all over. Look at some video of that weird hopping gait they had to use. You'll see that they kicked dust around all over the place. Which covered up everything. Care to guess why that photo was taken from that angle all zoomed in on the fender? Because it is a photo taken specifically to show the fender repair job..... Oh, and guess when that repair took place? Right after they set up the rover. So again, it hasn't even driven anywhere yet.....

Next item...

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #68 on: February 23, 2014, 06:37:30 PM »
Is the fender repair to stop mud flicking up?

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • +0/-0
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #69 on: February 23, 2014, 06:37:40 PM »
It is easy to take a photo and start making assumption on what you think does not make sense. The first thing that came to you is what is wrong with the picture. That is because you are always looking for errors so hard you make them up in your mind. It only took me 30 seconds to get the answer. You should have looked it up for yourself before you posted it. Change your mind set and you will view things differently. It is not what is wrong with the picture it is what is wrong with the people looking at it.

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • +0/-0
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #70 on: February 23, 2014, 06:38:42 PM »
Is the fender repair to stop mud flicking up?

Hehehe.. No mud on the moon.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #71 on: February 23, 2014, 06:58:23 PM »
Is the fender repair to stop mud flicking up?

Hehehe.. No mud on the moon.
I think you may be wrong. If you watch the video you will see "mud flaps" on that vehicle. Why would you have mud flaps on fenders if there is no mud. Mud flaps are not for dust. Therefore there must be mud on the moon.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #72 on: February 23, 2014, 07:04:59 PM »
Is the fender repair to stop mud flicking up?

Hehehe.. No mud on the moon.
I think you may be wrong. If you watch the video you will see "mud flaps" on that vehicle. Why would you have mud flaps on fenders if there is no mud. Mud flaps are not for dust. Therefore there must be mud on the moon.

They're probably there to catch stones thrown up by the wheels and prevent them from damaging some of the more delicate equipment on the LRV.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #73 on: February 23, 2014, 07:09:05 PM »
I am now going to ask you what speed this thing does. If you know please answer, If you do not I will stop being lazy and look for myself.

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • +0/-0
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #74 on: February 23, 2014, 07:11:54 PM »
Is the fender repair to stop mud flicking up?

Hehehe.. No mud on the moon.
I think you may be wrong. If you watch the video you will see "mud flaps" on that vehicle. Why would you have mud flaps on fen
ders if there is no mud. Mud flaps are not for dust. Therefore there must be mud on the moon.

You did it again. You saw a piece of metal over the wheel and assumed it was a mud guard. I hope you are kidding. With all due respect you could not be that stupid.

?

SirSpankalot

  • 601
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #75 on: February 23, 2014, 07:13:22 PM »
I am now going to ask you what speed this thing does. If you know please answer, If you do not I will stop being lazy and look for myself.

8 mph or 13kph... why?

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • +0/-0
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #76 on: February 23, 2014, 07:15:41 PM »
I am now going to ask you what speed this thing does. If you know please answer, If you do not I will stop being lazy and look for myself.

Eugene Cernan recorded a maximum speed of 11.2 mph (18.0 km/h), giving him the (unofficial) lunar land-speed record.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #77 on: February 23, 2014, 07:23:44 PM »
Is the fender repair to stop mud flicking up?

Hehehe.. No mud on the moon.
I think you may be wrong. If you watch the video you will see "mud flaps" on that vehicle. Why would you have mud flaps on fen
ders if there is no mud. Mud flaps are not for dust. Therefore there must be mud on the moon.

You did it again. You saw a piece of metal over the wheel and assumed it was a mud guard. I hope you are kidding. With all due respect you could not be that stupid.
Maybe I am that stupid.
It just looks to me that attached to the bottom of the fenders are mud flaps.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #78 on: February 23, 2014, 07:26:27 PM »
I am now going to ask you what speed this thing does. If you know please answer, If you do not I will stop being lazy and look for myself.

8 mph or 13kph... why?
Thanks just curious.

?

SirSpankalot

  • 601
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #79 on: February 23, 2014, 07:36:55 PM »
Is the fender repair to stop mud flicking up?

Hehehe.. No mud on the moon.
I think you may be wrong. If you watch the video you will see "mud flaps" on that vehicle. Why would you have mud flaps on fen
ders if there is no mud. Mud flaps are not for dust. Therefore there must be mud on the moon.

You did it again. You saw a piece of metal over the wheel and assumed it was a mud guard. I hope you are kidding. With all due respect you could not be that stupid.
Maybe I am that stupid.
It just looks to me that attached to the bottom of the fenders are mud flaps.

A mud flap is a term we use because they are most commonly used on earth - were there is mud - oddly enough.

So we use the same term for the lunar buggy.. although I have no doubt nasa would refer to it as a Lunar Dust Deflection Device (LDDD) or something like that anyway.. you know what they're like, they have to give everything these long drawn out technical names and all, if its not a 4 letter acronym, its not part of the space programme!

On the moon, there is no mud.. the reason for this is there is no water. In fact there's no actual atmosphere. So, no mud basically.... but there is dust and stones... and if that thing is a Lunar Dust Deflection Device (LDDD) as we suspect it might be, then it's job would be to deflect the dust, which is like talc powder from clogging up the bits and pieces on the buggy.. even though it only travels slowly, the is only a small amount of gravity up there (because the moon is less massive than the earth.. I forget how much though), stones and bits would be flung up much more readily than they would be here on earth..

make sense?

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #80 on: February 23, 2014, 07:42:40 PM »
Is the fender repair to stop mud flicking up?

Hehehe.. No mud on the moon.
I think you may be wrong. If you watch the video you will see "mud flaps" on that vehicle. Why would you have mud flaps on fen
ders if there is no mud. Mud flaps are not for dust. Therefore there must be mud on the moon.

You did it again. You saw a piece of metal over the wheel and assumed it was a mud guard. I hope you are kidding. With all due respect you could not be that stupid.
Maybe I am that stupid.
It just looks to me that attached to the bottom of the fenders are mud flaps.

A mud flap is a term we use because they are most commonly used on earth - were there is mud - oddly enough.

So we use the same term for the lunar buggy.. although I have no doubt nasa would refer to it as a Lunar Dust Deflection Device (LDDD) or something like that anyway.. you know what they're like, they have to give everything these long drawn out technical names and all, if its not a 4 letter acronym, its not part of the space programme!

On the moon, there is no mud.. the reason for this is there is no water. In fact there's no actual atmosphere. So, no mud basically.... but there is dust and stones... and if that thing is a Lunar Dust Deflection Device (LDDD) as we suspect it might be, then it's job would be to deflect the dust, which is like talc powder from clogging up the bits and pieces on the buggy.. even though it only travels slowly, the is only a small amount of gravity up there (because the moon is less massive than the earth.. I forget how much though), stones and bits would be flung up much more readily than they would be here on earth..

make sense?
Thanks for the response.

?

SirSpankalot

  • 601
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #81 on: February 23, 2014, 07:57:54 PM »
Is the fender repair to stop mud flicking up?

Hehehe.. No mud on the moon.
I think you may be wrong. If you watch the video you will see "mud flaps" on that vehicle. Why would you have mud flaps on fen
ders if there is no mud. Mud flaps are not for dust. Therefore there must be mud on the moon.

You did it again. You saw a piece of metal over the wheel and assumed it was a mud guard. I hope you are kidding. With all due respect you could not be that stupid.
Maybe I am that stupid.
It just looks to me that attached to the bottom of the fenders are mud flaps.

A mud flap is a term we use because they are most commonly used on earth - were there is mud - oddly enough.

So we use the same term for the lunar buggy.. although I have no doubt nasa would refer to it as a Lunar Dust Deflection Device (LDDD) or something like that anyway.. you know what they're like, they have to give everything these long drawn out technical names and all, if its not a 4 letter acronym, its not part of the space programme!

On the moon, there is no mud.. the reason for this is there is no water. In fact there's no actual atmosphere. So, no mud basically.... but there is dust and stones... and if that thing is a Lunar Dust Deflection Device (LDDD) as we suspect it might be, then it's job would be to deflect the dust, which is like talc powder from clogging up the bits and pieces on the buggy.. even though it only travels slowly, the is only a small amount of gravity up there (because the moon is less massive than the earth.. I forget how much though), stones and bits would be flung up much more readily than they would be here on earth..

make sense?
Thanks for the response.

My pleasure.. although I was hoping for a nutty rebuttal to keep the debate going..  ??? 

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #82 on: February 23, 2014, 08:19:45 PM »
I find it interesting how here on earth when I race cars on dirt It can take ten minutes for the dust to settle. And yet on the moon no dust floats. Is dust heavier on the moon?
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LRV on the Moon - Apollo 16 - HD Video Stabilized

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #83 on: February 23, 2014, 08:31:08 PM »
There is no atmosphere on the moon.  The dust is light and affected drastically by the dense atmosphere here on earth. Since there is no atmosphere, or very little, on the moon the dust will settle faster.

Same as why a feather will float slowly down in the atmosphere, yet drop like a rock in an evacuated chamber. 
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Feather and Coin in a Vacuum

?

SirSpankalot

  • 601
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #84 on: February 23, 2014, 08:36:12 PM »
These things aren't abstract and all of the conspiracy theories about the moon landings have been thoroughly debunked.. I struggle to understand why they seem to be brought up here a LOT....

?

QuQu

  • 231
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #85 on: February 23, 2014, 10:45:45 PM »
Me too, these images have been explained to death many years ago on many sites.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #86 on: February 23, 2014, 11:41:13 PM »
There is no atmosphere on the moon.  The dust is light and affected drastically by the dense atmosphere here on earth. Since there is no atmosphere, or very little, on the moon the dust will settle faster.

Same as why a feather will float slowly down in the atmosphere, yet drop like a rock in an evacuated chamber. 

So if somebody jumps up on the moon they will come down faster than they do on earth. I get it now, thanks.

?

SirSpankalot

  • 601
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #87 on: February 23, 2014, 11:43:56 PM »
There is no atmosphere on the moon.  The dust is light and affected drastically by the dense atmosphere here on earth. Since there is no atmosphere, or very little, on the moon the dust will settle faster.

Same as why a feather will float slowly down in the atmosphere, yet drop like a rock in an evacuated chamber. 

So if somebody jumps up on the moon they will come down faster than they do on earth. I get it now, thanks.

Actually its abundantly clear that you don't get it.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #88 on: February 23, 2014, 11:45:30 PM »
Exactly.

?

SirSpankalot

  • 601
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #89 on: February 23, 2014, 11:47:52 PM »
Exactly.

So we must agree to.......

agree.... ???

You confuse me.