An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
I knew you wouldn't understand and that I would have reexplain my question, I said either those sites are 1. NASA DISinfo sites or 2. They are not nasa sites but other sites that are PRO-NASA "went to the moon" sites, thats what I was saying, now YOU will not be able to show everyone here on ATS.com that NASA tested Autopiloted/remotcontrolled L.M.'s thousands of times before putting 3 men in them back in 69, I challendge you to show us that NOW!!!!!

[edit on 13-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Why would NASA have to test the LM thousands of times? The only real way was to go up into space and test them. I believe Jehosephat already mentioned that Apollo 1 through 10 were basicly tests. Not to mention the earlier space capsules they tested before then (Mercury 1-10 and Gemini 1-12). No one has claimed that NASA had done thousands of tests in orbit (nor could they afford to), so why should we prove that they did? That makes no sense what so ever. Perhaps it is you that should show us why they would need to do thousands of tests before landing on the Moon? How exactly do you test that with out actually landing on the Moon? There is only so much they could do here on Earth.

Conspiracy theorist that say that we never made it to the moon will soon be silenced when NASA launches it's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter(LRO) in 2008. The LRO will orbit the moon for 1 year and is equipped with a 1/2 meter resolution camera that will be able to take snapshots of the equipment that was left behind from the Apollo missions over 30 years ago.

From ATSNN... Just 3 more years, and then it can be put to bed....
Of course, they can't even manage to get a shuttle up, so who knows....

Originally posted by Gazrok

Conspiracy theorist that say that we never made it to the moon will soon be silenced when NASA launches it's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter(LRO) in 2008. The LRO will orbit the moon for 1 year and is equipped with a 1/2 meter resolution camera that will be able to take snapshots of the equipment that was left behind from the Apollo missions over 30 years ago.

From ATSNN...

Just 3 more years, and then it can be put to bed....

Of course, they can't even manage to get a shuttle up, so who knows....

Yup, just another 3 years and this thread can die!!!
Link To The ATSNN Thread Mentioned By Gazrok!!!

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
I knew you wouldn't understand and that I would have reexplain my question, I said either those sites are 1. NASA DISinfo sites or 2. They are not nasa sites but other sites that are PRO-NASA "went to the moon" sites, thats what I was saying, now YOU will not be able to show everyone here on ATS.com that NASA tested Autopiloted/remotcontrolled L.M.'s thousands of times before putting 3 men in them back in 69, I challendge you to show us that NOW!!!!!

The only assumption you have made why the LM shoulld by remoted controleld thousands of times is drawing comparisions to military fighter jets, which serve a complelty differant purpose then what is done for the apollo moon landings. How many times does an apollo capsule get used? once, how many times is a military fighter jet used? definatly more then once. BIG DIFFERANCE

I allready gave you evidance of some testing that was done (more then you ever did) the LLRV video, and every single manned mission of NASA up to apollo 11 that built upon the other as far as complexity of the mission.

Do you honestly realise the cost involved in sedning up a LM to the moon and remote control it? and if you multiple that by a thousand you would probly get close to the GNP of the US by that point, or at the most a few industrial conuntries. That idea is not feasable, and should be totally dismissed because of it's implausability.

Now if you can give me some reasons why NASA and the US should spend the money and time to send 1000 LM on a remote control to the moon and back, then I would be glad to discuss it.

WOW you Americans realy need help analysing DIS-info , I feel so sorry for you, (I realy mean that with no pun intended) anyways NASA would need to Autopilot/Remote control the L.M. hundred if not a couple of thousands times because it's VERY dangerous flying a jet fighter or regular 747/757 etc. here on earth and Boeing and others realy do these hundreds of tests with these planes before U.S. Gov buys them, NOW it would be even more DANGEROUS to fly out side of earth 250k miles away so many many (hundreds if not thousands) of tests would have to be done in order for it to be safe for 3 Humans to go to the moon, if NASA did these tests they would have clearly video tapped ALL the hundreds if not thousands of times they remoted the L.M. to the moon, and they would make it avalible to the public, the links you show are NOT hundreds of times that the LM sucsessfully went to the moon and back it's just media trickery by NASA making it look like they tested it to and fro the moon here's a clue the shuttle was'nt designed to go to the moon, you wanna know why? cus NASA would use tech that is soo advanced doing building a moon capable shuttle that people would clearly see threw the Apoloo landings as a matter of fact I have put a site up with an astronut who accsidently slipped in her speech saying withe the shuttle's design it would take us 100 years to build a moon shuttle, if this staement is true (which it is) then the Apollo landings are fake.the leaders of the NWO thought they were going to start thier NWO back in the 80's but things didn't work for them, now in the last 10+ years so many people have been reviling NASA couldn't have went to the moon that NASA just resently "ALL of a sudden" wants to go back with a satilite and film every thing they supposedly left behind, if NASA had tech to go to the MOON they would have had tech now to take people to the moon, ALL they do is use sufisticated LIES to make people believe "we haven't gone back because we already know what the moon is about and it ain't realy interesting" Anyone how realy believes this needs to have major Pysocological help?

[edit on 13-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
WOW you Americans realy need help analysing DIS-info , I feel so sorry for you, (I realy mean that with no pun intended) anyways

why do you have to start your replies with insults?

NASA would need to Autopilot/Remote control the L.M. hundred if not a couple of thousands times because it's VERY dangerous flying a jet fighter or regular 747/757 etc. here on earth and Boeing and others realy do these hundreds of tests with these planes before U.S. Gov buys them, NOW it would be even more DANGEROUS to fly out side of earth 250k miles away so many many (hundreds if not thousands) of tests would have to be done in order for it to be safe for 3 Humans to go to the moon

Some people are willing to take risks, instead of spending time money and energy in further testing. In case you have forgotten, JFK made a promise (this was back when the US president's promises ment something) that by the end of the decade to land a man on the moon and return hims safley. so they didn't have the time to spend on testing. That is why the developed a plan that would take 9 years from the landing of ALan sheperd from his launch into space. Doing neccesary tests, and experimentation until the Apollo 11 landing. under a budget that withstood LBJs war on poverty, and the veitnam war, with a reasonable about of risk involved while focusing on making sure to keep the pilots alive.

You siberiantiger are really the only one that thinks the US space program should have been in a Test flight purgatory until the russians could eventually land a mission on the moon themselves.

here's a clue the shuttle was'nt designed to go to the moon, you wanna know why? cus NASA would use tech that is soo advanced doing building a moon capable shuttle that people would clearly see threw the Apoloo landings

Actaully the shuttle was mainly designed to be a multi-purpose heavy lift platform that could also service and retrieve objects orbiting earth. There was no reason to go beyond earth orbit. It wasn't designed to go beyond earth orbit. unless you strap a huge gas tank into the cargo bay there is no way for it to be able to get the required delta-V to break earth orbit and go translunar.

as a matter of fact I have put a site up with an astronut who accsidently slipped in her speech saying withe the shuttle's design it would take us 100 years to build a moon shuttle, if this staement is true (which it is) then the Apollo landings are fake.

*sarcasum Oh that must one of those anti-moon DIS-infomation sites that is even less credible than molly who is the 5 year old next door that wants to be a cosmonut. You must be really stupid to belive that stuff *sarcasum*

Why don't you just say that all you have to prove the moon landings are fakes are assumptions, and conjecture. taht only can be valid if you ignore any other shread of evidance out there taht is contray to it.

Here I'll show you the astronut that said it, and now that assumtion you said about "not wasting time doing tests" THAT is exsactly what the Gov-NASA wants Americans to believe stop and listen to your anology, not wasting time energy, that doesn't happen in the real world, in the real world you need tests, think very carefully, your not thinking carefully your still in (IT's not possible that NASA-U.S. Gov can deceave people with that type of MASSIVE cover up!) Mode What I was saying about the Shuttle is if the space shuttle is more advanced than the LM's the reason that it can't go to the moon is because they don't NASA's doesn't have a Space vecile that can go to the moon, for example have you seen the Appolo fottage were they took the Moon car, did nasa ever show the moon car being unloded on the moon, or did they just show when the moon car was riding along on the surface? look at any Encyclopedia there's no drag on the moon, a Baseball pitcher throwing 90 mph on earth would be able to throw at leas 250 mph on the moon, yea yea I already know that the reason the astronuts were moving slow was because thire space suites were slowing them down and they couldn't bend down, but that's the excuse NASA gives, look at the moon car a car on earth going 30 mhp on the moon would go faster when you look at the moon hoax films your looking at film that has been filmed in a studio and slowed down to a certian speed.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

NASA spacecraft will get clear pictures of Apollo relics on the Moon.

There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

Better pictures are coming. In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972.

The spacecraft's high-resolution camera, called "LROC," short for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, has a resolution of about half a meter. That means that a half-meter square on the Moon's surface would fill a single pixel in its digital images.

Apollo moon buggies are about 2 meters wide and 3 meters long. So in the LROC images, those abandoned vehicles will fill about 4 by 6 pixels.
.....

LROC's main mission is about the future. According to NASA's Vision for Space Exploration, astronauts are returning to the Moon no later than 2020. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is a scout. It will sample the Moon's radiation environment, search for patches of frozen water, make laser maps of lunar terrain and, using LROC, photograph the Moon's entire surface. By the time astronauts return, they'll know the best places to land and much of what awaits them.

An example of a half meter res picture



The hard core will of course claim "PHOTOSHOPED!" some ppl will never be convinced.

peace.

[edit on 14-7-2005 by Halfofone]

'The hard core will of course claim "PHOTOSHOPED!" some ppl will never be convinced.'

Nah, the 'hard core' are the folks who won't even look at the evidence against the 'Moon landings'. There are numerous defects with the official 'visual record'.

I've already talked about the 'crosshairs'. Someone in the ATSNN thread talked about the 'numbered rocks'.

'Numbered rocks'!

Since, it looks like we can finally and once for all prove that the 'visual record' is one pitiful hoax, let's list some of the other 'hard core' defects...

- The background seems to be exactly the same for several of the landing sites, despite supposedly being far far apart.
- The cartoon takeoff of the LM.
- Multiple light source origination points when the only light source was the sun.
- Ye ole blast crater under the LM. (the lack of)
- Starfields? (the lack of)
- Subjects are always composed (centered). Not bad for fixed cameras.
- Never once did the astronauts pan the entire scene horizon to horizon.
- Flag flapping. Wired sure! Look closely you can see the 'sail' ripple.

Please confine yourselves to presenting facts. Not some bogus webpage. Not generalizations. Not rationalizations.

As an aside, I have to confess it is supremely amusing and high entertainment to listen to the 'true believers' accounts/refutations...

Bring on the high entertainment!

Byrd, supermoderator, sir.

'Those of us who watched it live (yes, I was one of millions alive today who watched it) remember seeing the footage of the original step, which was taken from a camera mounted on the lander legs looked like this:'

(from an adjacent now closed thread)

Yes. You have to admit that is a just excellent historical picture. Yes, many people watched it live!

Just a couple of quick questions...

1)Have you ever camped on a mountain top at night, at altitude? And watched the big show? It is so crystal clear and you can see absolutely everything, even satellites go flying by.
2)Where are the stars? Not one single 'photo' from the 'Moon' shows any stars, any time! Not one single solitary star ever!

Look at your photo, supermoderator sir, where are the stars?

Can anyone in the entire world, provide even one single picture from the Moon landings which actually contains a single star anywhere in the picture?

Yes, millions and millions of people watched it live... The only real question is exactly what were they watching?

I still think your photo is great.


[edit on 14-7-2005 by golemina]

Forget all that stuff, I'll proove it remember the moon missin when the moon car was supposedly taken up does the film show the astroNUTS unlouding the moon car and driving it around or does the film just cut to the part when they are driving it aroud? I already know the answer but I'm just trying to show you that they NEVER unlouded it on film cuz THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by golemina
Nah, the 'hard core' are the folks who won't even look at the evidence against the 'Moon landings'. There are numerous defects with the official 'visual record'.

That's because the 'evidence' is a joke. I've asked you before and i'll ask you again. Show me some 'evidence' that can't easily be debunked.

- The background seems to be exactly the same for several of the landing sites, despite supposedly being far far apart.

I can take photos here on Earth that can be KM apart from one another and still have the same background. It's not hard at all. And not a good sign of the moon landings being fake. Quite a lame one actually.

- The cartoon takeoff of the LM.

Please explain how it looks like a cartoon. It does look differnt, but that's because it's on the moon with no atmosphere, thus you don't see a large flame or any smoke. If anything this is a good sign of it being real.

- Multiple light source origination points when the only light source was the sun.

I've seen this claim many times. I'd like for you to show me an example. Multiple lights should create multiple shadows. I have yet to see a photo that shows this.

- Ye ole blast crater under the LM. (the lack of)

Why should there be a blast crater? Just how powerful do you think it's rocket engines are? Dust was blown about, but with the lack of an atmosphere, the effect was minimal compaired to what you'd get on Earth. To get idea of how powerful these engines are, let's compair them to an F-15 engine.

A singe F-15 engine puts out 111.2kN (kilonewton) The main decent rocket puts out a maximum of 44.40kN throttleable down to 4.56kN. The LM accent rockets put out 15.6kN. So again, explain to me why there should be a blast crator

- Starfields? (the lack of)

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.

- Subjects are always composed (centered). Not bad for fixed cameras.

It's called practice. They did a lot of it on Earth befor going to the moon. It's not to hard to get an idea of where the camera is pointing without looking through a viewfinder.

- Never once did the astronauts pan the entire scene horizon to horizon.

Really? I've seen a fair number of panoramas, maybe you should actually try looking for some. Here's a good place to start www.apolloarchive.com... tons of great, high res photos there.

- Flag flapping. Wired sure! Look closely you can see the 'sail' ripple.

It was 'flapping' because the flag pole was being pushed and twisted into the ground. The pole moves side to side, which then makes the flag itself move. It's called cause and effect.

Please confine yourselves to presenting facts. Not some bogus webpage. Not generalizations. Not rationalizations.

heh... same to you buddy.

you know there is not point in trying to prove anything when you jsut say they are DIS-information sites

What evidance can I use to prove a point? should i just start lying and use generalizations while using ad homin attack until you give in? Why would I when you would end up beating me with experaince?

I can show you manuels on the LRV, pictures of practice deployments on earth, artist conceptions of thedelpoyment, and probly if I worked hard enough searching i could end up finding actaul audio of them delpoying them. Yet that will never be enough because they are are from so called dis-information sites and only further prove the consiracy of something that never happened.

I got two words for you: Occum's razor.

There, I proved you wrong, and how much more intelligent I am, neener neener neener

I'm like everybody else here. I can't (on this forum) prove or disprove anything I have my opinions and my opinion is that US astronauts successfully landed on the moon repeatedly and returned to earth. I base my opinions on a variety of things.

1. Photographic imagery. There must be multi-thousands of photos covering Yuri Gagarin to the present. I believe that man has been into space.

2. If man has been into space, he only has to travel 250, 000 miles (general) to get to the moon. Like Jim Lovell said in Apollo 13-nothing hard about going-just made the decision to go.

3. Apollo 8 claimed to have made it to the moon. There was no contesting this claim that I'm aware of. Surely the Soviets could radar track this flight just as we could. If Apollo 8 (or any other Apollo mission ) stayed in earth orbit, the CCCP would have let the world know! Any other nation with radar-tracking could have done the same. Apollo 8 took that famous picture of the earth rising over the surface of the moon. Incidently, I've not yet run across a space picture from a manned vehicle (including MIR, space shuttle and the ISS) that shows stars in the background. Pics taken from MIR SSTV didn't show star backgrounds that I've seen.

4. If Apollo 8 made it into moon orbit, what stopped Apollo 10 from doing the same? Apollo 10 claimed to have taken the LM to 50,000 ft of the lunar surface. They have photos from that too. Why have those photos not been discredited?

5. Apollo 11 certainly could drop 50,000 ft. The LM wasn't fiction. Grumman doesn't think so. It was designed to go to the moon and lift of again. That could easily be proved if you wanted to ask Grumman. LM brought to us by the same great aerospace company that brought the free world the Wildcat, Hellcat, Avenger, Bearcat, Tomcat ect. I don't think you can say that Grumman "covered " up building a real LM.

6. You must discredit the whole Apollo program, with thousands of employees, probably hundreds of sub-contractors who were issued legit government specs to build products designed to go to the moon. Those specs are probably public record and could be found if looked for. Those items were built, tested and used from 1963 to 1973. How many thousands of people would have to hushed, if not hundreds of thousands, for the whole of the Apollo program. Not to mention the smear on the character of the Astronauts who say that they risked their lives "for all of mankind". Many of the astronauts were test pilots, served their country in times of war. To discredit them is so dishonorable. They believe they landed on the moon.

The reason there is no public footage of it is because they never went, and because there was no way that moon car could have fit in the L.M., also on one of the Appolo missions on there way home they were out of thier space suites, there is/was no way for them to have changed out of thier suites in the LM even if the astroNUTS were to undress each other insted of undressing there ownselves, there is no room in the LM for them to do that, yet as a matter of fact there is no footage of them undressing after they leave the moon the next clip is them in the LM already "undressed, why is all the key "PARTS" that would show is they were REAL on the moon not AVAILABLE????????????? Take A Wild guess GUYS?? THE MOON missions were to get people to subliminaly support Socialism, here is a US NAVAL Intelegence Person I'm sure you've heard of him explaining. Read the whole thing but consintrate espesialy on the Apollo hoax part, www.hourofthetime.com... BTW In 1999 Douglas Cook, Director of the Exploration Office at Houston's Johnson Space Centre calculated that Man could go back to the Moon within 100 years.... I'm not holding my breath!!!



[edit on 14-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 14-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 14-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
The reason there is no public footage of it is because they never went, and because there was no way that moon car could have fit in the L.M.,

You do know that the LRV folds up don't you? Look at this Pic and here it is all folded up inside the LM in this pic

also on one of the Appolo missions on there way home they were out of thier space suites, there is/was no way for them to have changed out of thier suites in the LM even if the astroNUTS were to undress each other insted of undressing there ownselves, there is no room in the LM for them to do that, yet as a matter of fact there is no footage of them undressing after they leave the moon the next clip is them in the LM already "undressed, why is all the key "PARTS" that would show is they were REAL on the moon not AVAILABLE?????????????

Well firstly, why would they film themselves undressing? And how is that a 'key part' as you say? Are you sure they wern't in the main capsule by that time? And just how much room do they need to get dressed/undressed anyway? I'd like it if you could find out which apollo mission that was, thank you.

Take A Wild guess GUYS?? THE MOON missions were to get people to subliminaly support Socialism, here is a US NAVAL Intelegence Person I'm sure you've heard of him explaining. Read the whole thing but consintrate espesialy on the Apollo hoax part, www.hourofthetime.com... BTW In 1999 this estimate changed. Douglas Cook, Director of the Exploration Office at Houston's Johnson Space Centre calculated that Man could go back to the Moon within 100 years.... I'm not holding my breath!!!

Hahahaha... what? You can't seriously believe that now can you? That's the silliest thing i've ever read... wow... I loved this part.

Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound stages at the Atomic Energy Commissions Top Secret test site in the Nevada Desert and in a secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney Studios within which was a huge scale mock-up of the moon.

Filmed at Walt Disney Studios eh? Ah that's classic. hahaha thanks for that comical material.

LOL Disney? and he probly thinks the VW Beetle in the movie "The love bug" was converted into the LM for the conspiracy. LOL

Next thing you know he will be showing us evidance of animated woodland creatures dancing around the moon, singing songs

that just made my day

I asked for some 'high entertainment' and wouldn't you know it... good ole Jra is delivering the goods!

Jra ya sound just a little emotional there good buddy!

I'm sorry. I REALLY didn't mean to pop your little BS bubble (belief system).

You look and sound like you are hanging by a very thin thread the way you are desperately running up and down trying to plug the leaks in your little conspiracy dyke. Your excited utterances are quite strange... kinda of like those of 'a the bible is the word of God!' biblethumpers screams when you point out that English wasn't exactly a Middle Eastern language. You know what I mean?

golem: 'Nah, the 'hard core' are the folks who won't even look at the evidence against the 'Moon landings'. There are numerous defects with the official 'visual record'.
JRA: 'That's because the 'evidence' is a joke. I've asked you before and i'll ask you again. Show me some 'evidence' that can't easily be debunked.'

Au contraire. It's not a joke. If the evidence in question is such a joke, why would you possibly need to respond point by point? It just seems to me that if it was so transparent, there actually wouldn't be a need to say anything now would there?

Further... If guys like me were so flagrantly wrong... Lots of things would have occurred, especially on NASAs part, to preempt/prove what a bunch of goofballs we were, wouldn't it? And it would have occurred a long time ago.

And NASA would not need to mount this effort, this 'In Search of NASAs Crediblity' expedition, to view abandoned equipment on the Moon.

Hey you NASA geniuses... Save the Hubble telescope instead!

Now I said 'no generalizations' and 'no rationalizations' and yet you persist in doing exactly that, dismissing all of the evidence SIGHT UNSEEN when everyone reading this thread can plainly see that you are just a parrot and you have absolutely no idea of the significance of the 'information' contained in the 'list' you are so readily confusing with a valid analysis of the allegations/evidence being put forth in the docurama Fox special.

So...

Jra: 'Show me some 'evidence' that can't easily be debunked.'
golem: 'Please confine yourselves to presenting facts...'
Jra: 'heh... same to you buddy.'

If Galileo could discover the moons of Jupiter with just a crude home made telescope... If Michelson could so closely approximate the speed of light with hardly more than a few mirrors and a lot of imagination...

Well then, we can certainly! respond to your pleas to 'show me' the evidence...

and I accept your challenge!

Right here, starting right now, in this thread, we self-proclaimed absolute geniuses are REALLY going to put 'An End To The Moon Conspiracy!' once and for all!!!

Yes, that's right! We are going to lay our hands on a copy of the Fox special, going to catalog and document all of their so-called evidence, produce the list and make it all available right here and we are going to examine every offering of their 'proof', breaking it all down frame by frame, pixel by pixel, whatever it takes. We will not be denied! Further, we are going to construct whatever experiments necessary to extinguish any doubt of the truth and show that our analysis is irrefutably based in reality and real scientific knowledge...

The put 'An End To The Moon Conspiracy! once and for all!!!' project begins right here, right now... Feel free to join in, we need your help, we need to hear what you have got to say, what you see when you examine the evidence and make your decision, not to mention this is going to be a lot of fun... Some might even say... 'high entertainment'.

I'm pressing enter and going to go get the video right now... Well as soon as the store opens this morning.
----------------------------------------------
PS there Jra. You forgot to explain away the 'numbered rocks'! Using this highly innovative technique of yours... that looks a lot like closing your eyes and typing whatever random nonsense comes to mind scientific methodology.

The Lunar Rover was too large to fit in the Lunar Module.

If one takes the measurements of the Lunar Rover Vehicle (LRV) when it was fully deployed and assembled, then yes, it would not fit in the Lunar Module, however the Rover folded for stowage in the descent stage of the LM in a quadrant to the right of the ladder. The chassis was hinged in three places and the four wheels were pivoted nearly flat against the folded chassis occupying only 30 ft3. When the astronauts deployed the Lunar Rover, all they had to do was pull on two cords and the Rover popped right out of its berth and down to the lunar surface. As it did so, the wheels deployed outward and were then locked into position.

The only sure way to prove the moon landings really happened is to return to the Moon and see if the Apollo hardware is there.

Direct visual verification would certainly put an end to the issue, however there are at least three pieces of hardware on the Moon that are not in dispute. Apollos 11, 14 and 15 erected laser reflectors on the lunar surface. Laser beams are routinely fired at these reflectors through telescopes at McDonald Observatory in Texas and near Grasse in southern France. Timings of these reflected beams are used to measure the Earth-Moon distance to an accuracy of one inch. To explain the existence of these reflectors the hoax advocates have no choice but to claim they were placed on the Moon by robotic landers; a huge undertaking for which there is no supporting evidence. The simple answer: the Apollo astronauts placed them there. (More on robotic missions later.)

source

here is a pic of the laser reflectors being used


the reflecter itself



I'm sure these photo's are faked too....

History of Laser Ranging

according to golemina and siberiantiger, everything is faked except anyhting that supports thier anti-moon landing conspiracy.

the LRV was stored on the LM and it took two people to deploy it. if you do a google seach for "LRV Deployment" you can find all sorts of 'dis-information' goodies about how it was done. And even the 'unfolding' and minor assembly of the rover once it was on the surface. Heck you could prboly break into the smithsonian and attempt fold up the rover yourself to disprove the theoy that it couldn't have fit on the LM.

Probly don't even know the correct dimentions of the rover and LM becasue it is on discredible 'dis-information' sites that only babbons and retards would use to prove thier point.