A leap was made by me that maybe it is still influencing it today. I was wrong.

That sounds like a retraction of the claim, which satisfies me on that point. You admitted on a number of occasions that you had no evidence to support that claim, and this retraction is, I believe, the logical outcome of that admission.

The name of this thread contains my position as NASA being a conspiracy generator because they did not investigate the anomaly in post 1.

But you haven't demonstrated that it's an anomaly. An anomaly is a departure from expectation. And the preceding lengthy thread has determined that your expectation is simply your own opinion, offered against improbable circumstances. That's not strong enough evidence to warrant others' changing their behavior.

When they failed to take a closer look they gave fuel to speculation.

Only informed speculation need be considered, because there is no end of uninformed speculation and if NASA were obligated to investigate all of it, they would have little time left over for actual science. That is why the thread is mis-named. NASA is not a generator of conspiracies: the uninformed noisy public is.

No matter what happens to this thread I will always wonder why.

And that's fine. Nothing said here requires you to change your personal opinions.

Why didn’t they just drive over there and poke around?

Because it's not a small deal to redirect the rover. There are many interests in where the rover goes and what it does. There is no such thing as an inconsequential detour. That's why a decision to redirect must be made on strong evidence, not a long shot.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base