So there can be no doubt about the Rover stowage and deployment, take a look at this...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi..._deployment.rm

You may have to right click and 'Save Target as...' or something.

Great Video – Thanks John.

I especially liked the part at 1 minute into the video when the wheels suddenly pop out!

Also – This clip has a very clear section demonstrating the communication time delay. At about 2:08 into the clip Dave Scott mentions that the walking hinges are unlocked and ground control answers that they are supposed to be. You hear both loops so you hear ground control answer (on the ground loop) then you can hear the answer again on the Astronaut loop (several seconds later)!

On 2002-04-23 06:55, SpacedOut wrote: To:
Great John.2/3
9 CHICCHAN 19 POP
CHICCHAN 5 12 6 13 7 1 8 _2 _9 _3_10 _4_11 serpant
oking up http://www.hq.nasa.gov.
ead 4009092 of 12974541 bytes of data.
ead 11660380 of 12974541 bytes of data.
(p1 of 10382)
yep? CHIC.chan' thats the SirPant {dont you see it} there in the Earthshine shadow in yellow spray paint

Awesome video!

A quick question: At just over 1:00 minute, right after the front wheels pop out dramatically, the guy holding the cord lets it drop. It appears that it kicks up some dust as it hits the ground, and this dust can be seen shooting up quite high behind the lander. Have I interpreted this moment correctly?

This is just one outstanding piece of video! Thanks, John.

I watched the part where the cord hits the dust and it looks to me like the dust travels more horizontally toward the LM. If you visualize what would happen when the tension in the cord is released and it springs back toward the LM, the dust would be expected to move just as it appears to.

Absolutely. I was referring to a plume of lightish material (I assume) that can be seen moving vertically up behind the lander on the right side of the screen.

It goes all the way up to the top of the ascent stage too. Clearly, a very small amount of dust has been catapulted a long way into the 'air' where it hits sunlight as it reaches the top portions of the LM.

Here are a couple of nice photos of the rover folded up

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS15/10075693.jpg

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL...000-001858.jpg

It's too bad the photos don't do a very good job of showing the concavity in the side of the LM into which the wheels fit. The faceted insulation makes it hard to discern the contour.

There are dozens upon dozens of photos showing the process of folding and stowing the rover, and video of it being deployed and outfitted. I simply can't imagine (a) how hoax believers say it's impossible for it to fit, and (b) that there's no evidence for how it was supposedly done. At this point they'd have to be deliberately obtuse.

Well Jay, most 'evidence' are either misconceptions, or lack of research. Just like the guy at apollohoax.com who recently said there was no footage or photographs of astronauts on the moon who had their gold visors up, thus if you couldnt see their faces, they would be actors while the 'real' astronauts were hidden on the north pole.

Johnno

<a name="20020424.2:27"> page 20020424.2:27 aka A.gig
On 2002-04-24 01:34, Johnno wrote: To: 2-4-24
My whole problem with the Moon Missions are
1: that the Rovers do not operate
without a driver present.
{ i mean Radio Control is Old kid stuff }
2. the only "acvtive" data from the Moon
{that i know of} is the Laser data
http://almagest.as.utexas.edu/~rlr/mlrs.html
and how meaning less can it be.. {oh well}

Well Jay, most 'evidence' are either misconceptions, or lack of research.

Of course. In the latter case we must be prepared to allow for the difficulty of some of the research. Even the most conscientious researcher misses things.

However, "There is no X" should be reworded, "I have found no X". The former implies an exhaustive search that fails to produce X. The latter allows for someone else to find X by doing more meticulous research. But of course when X turns up after cursory research, you have to wonder just how conscientious the original research was.

"There is no X" is a staple of hoax believers because the only way it can be disproven is by the exhaustive search the hoax believer didn't do. The h.b. knows that 95% of his audience either wouldn't want to do that survey because they wouldn't question an argument they agreed with, wouldn't want to expend so much effort doing it, or wouldn't know how to carry out such a survey.

And we've seen what some of the hoax believers do when they're found out: they either change the subject (David Percy) or they launch into a lengthy invective harangue on how we "disinformationists" are so devious and so eager to push the government's line off on people (Lisa Guliani), or any number of other diversions.

But with the rover stowage and deployment argument there can be very little margin given for innocently deficient research. The rover's ability to fold and unfold is one of its best known features. There is ample documentation, easily and cheaply available, for how it was done. You cannot, in fact, do much research at all on the J-missions and their preparations without encountering lots of photos and descriptions of the rover's stowage.

This cannot be a case of simply having missed an obscure but important point. This has to be a case of deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, or else of having done practically no research whatsoever.

To draw a parallel, this would be like me claiming that no pictures were taken of Abraham Zapruder shooting his infamous footage of Kennedy's death, either not knowing or not caring to mention that Mary Moorman's photo captures Zapruder poised with his camera, and that this photo is one of the most important documents in the investigation of the Kennedy assassination.

Unfortunately the "no significant research" hypothesis suits Mr. Collier's modus operandi to a tee. Collier makes a big show of having measured this or that piece of hardware (or more likely, the wrong piece of hardware). But then the failure of his argument has more to do with his not having the faintest idea how that equipment was intended to be used, and of apparently having failed high school physics.

And subsequent hoax believers are happy just to parrot Collier's conclusions without doing any investigation whatsoever. This is the hallmark of the hoax believer mindset. The basis of moon hoax "evidence" is the notion that the appearance of expertise can be maintained without acquiring any real expertise.

Thus your example of Znurk on Apollohoax is salient once again: he tried to hand-wave his way through the analysis of shadow directions on the pretense that he had some amount of education or expertise in the relevant science. And then when he was asked to employ some rudimentary concepts of that discipline, he suddenly decided the hoax debate was too "time-consuming" for him and he left.

At least David Percy has the presence of mind to change the subject when he's caught with his pants down.

There can be no leeway on the rover stowage point. The documentation is far too obvious.

Here's a nice article about the Rover deployment, including some dimensions.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...LunarRover.pdf

Ah well, they've had over 30 years to rewrite history and FINALLY come up with the "proof" of the Rover deployment. So how many clever digital "enhancements" and computer grahics did they use and why has it taken so long to finally turn up with it?

When are we finally going to get the full films from all the Apollo missions? I suppose when NASA have finally finished tinkering with them to get them the way they claim it all happened. Isn't it amazing what technology can concoct these days?

__________________
Behind every conspiracy is another conspiracy.

Mr. Lander,

Are you serious?!!!!

Did you actually go to the website listed and download the file?!!!

If you did, you should have noticed that the file was actually a scanned in Boeing promotional magazine, much like you get when you buy a new car. This one was given to members of the press for the last moon mission. Oh, that's right, the thousands upon thousands of press correspondants and their staffs were involved too. And of course NASA screened every single one of them to make sure that they were on the team.

This little flyer pops up every once in awhile of ebay, so its not some digitally created fraud.

I've got an idea, if this flyer so easy to create, make one youself, and post it somewhere, where we can all down load it and see the wonders on modern technology.

What about the Real Media file at the top? That fake too?
I don't know why you bother with this argument. It's just some stupid theory concocted by Collier.

Isn't it typical of the HBs to try and incorporate their own research inadequacies into their theories? "Never mind the fact that I never bothered to *look* for the rover's information for 30 years, I'll just say say it wasn't there and just now appeared and the NASA must be hiding something." Sadly, I'll bet on most HB forums that kind of sily thinking goes unquestioned.

Ah well, they've had over 30 years to rewrite history and FINALLY come up with the "proof" of the Rover deployment.

Nonsense. My materials are 30 years old. They contain photographs of the stowage procedure, scale drawings of the LRV pallet on Quad 1, and a very detailed checklist -- complete with diagrams -- giving the deployment procedure.

Lots and lots and lots of people have authentic material from NASA, which it freely gave out in the 1960s and 1970s and which many of us collected. Why would NASA be so incredibly foolish as to try to revise history that is so well documented, and whose documentation is held by so many private hands?

You make the mistake of assuming the rover storage and deployment procedure was ever in general doubt. It was not. It was only a mystery to Collier, and by extension to those who rely upon him to instruct them in space science.

When are we finally going to get the full films from all the Apollo missions?

They've been available for inspection at the Johnson Space Center since the mid 1970s. History isn't just about what can be overnighted to your doorstep, you know.

The fact is that Jim Colllier couldn't research his way out of a wet paper bag. The number of things he got factually wrong is simply colossal. He shows no appreciable knowledge of physics. He shows no appreciable understanding of how many items of Apollo equipment were intended to be used. And his "official NASA footage" is the half-hour PR reel put together by a third party.

Collier could have read the press kit. It's not as if it's hard to get, nor does it take long to read. He could have gone to JSC and asked to see the footage of the rover deployment. He could have gone to Boeing and asked them to show him how the rover was stowed and deployed. He could have asked any one of thousands of Apollo historians and enthusiasts who already knew how the rover was deployed.

The problem is not so much that Collier got things wrong. The problem is that the things he got wrong are easily research. Heavens, I know 13-year-olds who can find the answers to Colliers "unanswerable" questions in the space of minutes.

So why wasn't Collier able to find the answers to his questions? A simple examination of his life's work points out that Collier probably wasn't well motivated to defend NASA. He was probably much more motivated to make a case for a hoax, regardless of how weak that case had to be. Collier was in the business of nipping at government's heels, stirring up controversy where none likely actually existed.

But we need not delve into speculation over his motives. The fact that Collier got many things factually incorrect is evidence enough that his "research" -- whatever its motivation -- could not have been much shoddier.

Isn't it amazing what technology can concoct these days?

No, I find it even more amazing that people will scrape at whatever farfetched belief will appear to support their preconceptions.

Tell you what. You say NASA has revised its story of how the rover was deployed. If that's true the you should have no problem finding a clear and substantial discrepancy between the amply available historical material regarding the rover, and that which is being made available today. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Thanks for the link!

I had completely forgotten (if I ever knew) that the LRV had 4-wheel steering. The pamphlet states there were separate circuit breakers to control the front and rear steering motors. Did the crews always use the 4-wheel steering or only on occasion? Am I correct in my assumption that the rear wheels steered “opposite” to the front to shorten turn radius instead of the “same direction” (crabbing)?

[Arrrg - spelling!]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-05-23 12:37 ]</font>

The front and rear wheels steer in contrary directions to narrow the turn radius. At first the rear steering on Apollo 15's LRV didn't work, but by the next EVA it had corrected itself. So the craft was perfectly steerable with only one set of wheels doing the steering.