Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "Real Stories" channel.

  1. What don't you understand here? Why are you asking me new questions, when you refuse to address any of the original topics? I told you about a dozen times that I will not take new questions from you, while you continue to duck/dodge/avoid all of the other questions I asked you about your own original statements. Yet, here you are, new questions again?
    1
  2. First of all, what do you mean "not questions"? You clearly linked a video, and asked me a question about it!!! Now, you're pretending you didn't ask me a question?? I told you a million times I wasn't going to take on new questions until/unless you answered the million questions you were avoiding. You refuse to address your own topics, that YOU brought up, and all you do is shift topics constantly to duck and dodge any return questions. Why would I want to play your Gish Gallop game? But, fine, I'll answer your one additional question now, since you seem all bothered by it. And, the answer is that you need to understand where they were. That video was taken on a very steep slope. Go look at the entire mission. That clip is from the Lee-Lincoln scarp and the base of the South Massif mountain. The reason why it's difficult to understand it is because the rover (and its camera) is parked on that exact same steep slope. So, the ground looks "level" (so to speak) because the camera is also on the same slope, but, it's not actually level ground. It's a very steep angle. All of this is charted out in the mission logs, and you can map out each station stop along the rover traverses. That one was from EVA 2 on Apollo 17. But, conspiracy videos will never tell you that, and will never show you the topographical map of where they were. I mean, don't you think it's suspicious at all that they just talk over the audio? In that clip, you don't hear what the astronauts are saying. You only hear what the hoax nuts are saying. If you go watch the entire original clip, you will hear the astronauts talk about how steep the slope is, and how difficult it is to keep their footing. If you look at all of the Hasselblad photos from the Lee-Lincoln scarp area, and from the base of the South Massif, you'll see the slope they were on. But, I don't think you're capable of any of that simple stuff. So, let's make this easier: "Top 10 Places on Earth Where Gravity Appears Broken." That's exactly the same thing that's going on in the video clip you're complaining about. It's basically like an optical illusion, because the camera is angled with the hill that it's on, and this makes it look like gravity isn't working correctly. You should be angry at the makers of the conspiracy video for editing out the audio, and presenting a dishonest picture of what's going on. Go watch the original Apollo videos, not the edited clips from dishonest video makers. Listen to the astronauts talking about the steep slope. Go look at the photos from that same location. Look at the topography at that station stop. Stop just blindly accepting nonsense that the conspiracy videos feed you. Fact check them.
    1
  3. Dewdrop, why did you ask me to explain what's going on in the video clip, if you didn't actually want the explanation? It's been like a whopping 10 minutes since I posted my reply. And, already, you are rejecting it. You clearly didn't go watch the video showing how camera angles can trick you into thinking gravity is sideways or diagonal. You clearly didn't go hunt down all of the Apollo 17 videos from the 2nd EVA to see the terrain and listen to what the astronauts were saying about it. You clearly didn't go look at the archive photos from the Apollo 17 mission at the Lee-Lincoln scarp and the base of the South Massif mountain. You only had about 10 minutes. And, in that amazingly short amount of time, you didn't do a single thing I said, which would prove you wrong. Nope. Instead, you stuck with the dishonest presentation from a conspiracy video that won't explain this stuff. You have made it 100% clear that you don't want answers to your own questions. Your mind is SO closed to input, that you have discarded whatever was left of any of your thinking faculties (if you ever had any), and you have decided to ask questions (then deny you even asked them), and reject the answers before even getting them. Any honest person would want to explore the answers to their own questions. Not you, though. I told you to watch the videos in their entirety, not the edited clips from a conspiracy video that talk over what the astronauts are saying. I told you to look at the photo archives to see the slope they were on. I told you to look at the topographical maps of the lunar surface, so you can see the slopes that way also. And, I pointed you to a 10 minute video showing you other examples of how the camera angles can make it seem like people are leaning in impossible ways, defying gravity, just as seen in the Apollo video you're talking about. And, instead, you looked at NONE of that. NONE. Clearly, you do not want answers to your own questions. I probably shouldn't have even bothered answering your new question in the first place. You've refused to address a single challenge or question about anything you wrote prior. In one ear, out the other. Stick your head in the sand. Change topics. Duck and dodge. Change topics again. Duck and dodge again. It's ridiculous. I guess I should know better than to engage a high school dropout who has severe addiction problems.
    1
  4. So, like usual, you ignore my return questions/challenges, and you just change the topic. I kept telling you that I will not answer new questions when you refuse to address old ones. I made one exception, and answered about the astronauts standing on a steep slope. You ignored that answer, and didn't do a single thing I said which would confirm that you were wrong. And, now you're back to your original habits of asking more questions. No. You scroll up, and go back and answer all of the questions you have refused to answer. I made an exception once. I'm not doing it again. I will not answer new questions while you continue to avoid the old ones.
    1
  5. And, that's an answer to any of my questions, how?
    1
  6. Are you even reading a single thing I wrote at this point? Or, is your mind so clouded by substance abuse that you are incapable of even comprehending anything?
    1
  7. Apace better yea. 60s happened bass. Technology to what?
    1
  8.  @kathy888  YOU SAID: "NASA had the schematics of the rover online and they matched perfectly to a Jeep (forget which one)" == Ridiculous dribble. That's what your favorite conspiracy videos claim. But, you obviously have never looked at the rover schematics for yourself. You simply regurgitate what conspiracy videos tell you. YOU SAID: "It was on the youtube site Lift the Veil." == Sorry, conspiracy sites aren't rover schematics. It's even funnier because GM and Boeing designed and built the rovers. Yet, you think they'd use a Jeep? Tell me, dummy, which jeeps use wire mesh wheels, four electric motors (one on each wheel), and fold up to fit into a tiny compartment on the lunar module? Funny you'd "forget which one" (your words) - yeah, because what you're claiming is insanity. YOU SAID: "Six million for each Rover." == $38 million each. YOU SAID: "We were screwed!" == You sure were. But, not by NASA. You were screwed by the lousy education you've received, and you were screwed by your parents when they lied and said you were a smart child.
    1
  9.  @kathy888  So, your reply was to repeat your earlier stupidity??
    1
  10.  @kathy888  Fine, in the meantime, how about explaining which Jeep fits those criteria: has wire mesh wheels, and 4 electric motors, and a flat folding chassis? Why can't you do so? A video told you this was a Jeep, so it's a Jeep? Hey, don't pray for your god to wake me up... pray for your god to grant you a new brain. Yours is defective.
    1
  11.  @kathy888  YOU SAID: "Stupidity if answering a fool. Opps, just broke my own rule! == But, dummy, you're NOT even answering. You're refusing to answer. You always have, and you always will. Your stupid conspiracy videos are wrong, therefore you're wrong (because those videos are your only source of "education"). And, when challenged, you crumble, EVERY SINGLE TIME. You've never been able to answer ANY questions or challenges.
    1
  12. Wow, how convincing!
    1
  13.  J Calhoun  Apollo placed three reflectors on the moon. The Soviets placed two (unmanned landers). But, one of the Soviet ones was lost for decades, because it was on a rover that drove around, and wasn't returning a good bounce-back. They suspected it either turned over, or was covered with too much dust. But, they re-acquired it a few years ago with better lasers, and has the location pinpointed. The bounce-back isn't great, but good enough.
    1
  14. Well, yes and no. I mean, I would never want to take away from the contributions made by the Germans. But, the Soviets got their fair share of German engineers also. And, the truth is that the USA would have gone to the moon with or without the Germans helping them. I fully realize that there's plenty of "we couldn't do it without you" comments out there. But, boiling away the nice comments, the raw truth is that the USA's engineers were not too shabby, and would have done the job.
    1
  15. I feel badly for people who fail to understand simple concepts like remote control.
    1
  16. So, let me get this straight... you believe the moon is below cloud level?? You don't think that is just an optical effect of a bright moon through thin clouds?? No? You think the moon is below cloud level?? And, none of the millions of high altitude flights over the last century have ever accidentally stumbled across it?? No?? Somehow, every flight in human history has managed to avoid hitting the moon, and every pilot has simply not noticed that he/she was flying above the moon... rather than the simple conclusion that the video you're linking was overexposed??? Good gods, what a moron.
    1
  17.  @robertpunu7624  What a total moron. I'm certainly not answering your parade of idiocy when you fail completely to answer my challenge about airplanes and the moon. If you believe the moon is below cloud level, then explain why no flight in history has ever hit the moon, or no pilot/passenger has ever seen the moon below. What IS wrong with you? What drugs did this to you?
    1
  18.  @robertpunu7624  YOU SAID: "you just come off as an insulting jerk." == Oh, the irony. You're accusing millions of people of committing fraud upon the entire world population for centuries, oh, but everyone ELSE is an insulting jerk?? Hey, dumbass, has it occurred to you that maybe YouTube isn't actually an education?? Is there any scam you do NOT fall for?? Seriously, you're as dumb as they come, and it's quite clear that you've never set foot into a single university classroom on any relevant topic. I'm with Maynard also in doubting you even graduated high school. The moon isn't solid??? What a goddamned idiot.
    1
  19. Huh? It would have been fake if you could see stars.
    1
  20. Why couldn't a man step on the moon? What makes you say such a silly thing?
    1
  21.  @russellmckernan  So, your position is that the entire world's experts are wrong, and you're right, and you think the SANE people are the ones with this phenomenal mental condition, and you're not? Good gods, the irony.
    1
  22.  @leecattell6548  No, Lee. The pity is that you're a grown adult who cannot kick your addiction/habit. As you've proven time and time again, you have zero education to speak of, you believe utter claptrap, and you feel badly about this. But, rather than bettering yourself, rather than finishing your high school education, rather than getting gainful employment and an actual career, you have chosen to try to drag others down to your level, by accusing the most accomplished people in human history of failing just as badly as you have.
    1
  23.  @pasisovi  "Enough is enough"? Yeah, then stop accusing thousands of people of being criminals, based on your entire lack of education and warped delusions.
    1
  24. Alice, they always landed early in the lunar morning, long before the temperatures got that high. Most of the missions landed when the surface temperatures were about 40 degrees (F). The surface temperatures don't get up to 250-260 degrees (F) until late into the lunar afternoon.
    1
  25. Oh, and about the size of the Earth in the photos, same thing, you simply don't even understand what you're looking at. But, you can do that math also. Look up the lens used for each photo you have in question, the focal length to the 70mm film, look at the original photo (not the cropped version in this video), and do the math. Why are you on YouTube??? You can mathematically prove Apollo was fake by simply doing the math about these photos!!! Publish your results in science journals!!! Such a discovery would result in 7-8 figure book deals, prime speaking engagements at $70K per week on the lecture circuits, being a paid witness in congressional hearings that would result in shutting NASA down permanently, being a paid witness in international fraud trials from allied countries that spent billions to support Apollo. You'll be on all of the talk shows (paid). You'll never work another day in your life. I fail to understand why you amazing geniuses think that YouTube comments is the correct forum to publish your amazing findings, when you'd easily make about $35 million over the next 5 years by publishing your math in actual science journals.
    1
  26.  @stevegagnon1539  Where did I get 40 degrees? Where'd you get 20 degrees? Where'd you get 30 degrees? First, you opened the thread by not even knowing the coordinates. You just blindly asserted the angle without even knowing it. That's how dishonest you are. Then, when told the coordinates were 30° 44' 58.3" east longitude by 20° 9' 50.5" north latitude, what did you do? You ignored the bigger number, and stuck with the smaller one, and just said it needed "correction" from the bigger number, but still asserting that, somehow, magically, the smaller number was the one that mattered (which is backward, illustrating your level of dishonesty... need to protect that delusion at all costs). Then, once corrected again, you increased the angle to the bigger of the two numbers (how generous of you), and ignored the smaller number, and actually thought that somehow it was more like an average between the two numbers or something like that (which is wrong), or that only the bigger number mattered (which is wrong). Now, you're coming here with your "lol" comments, as if you know things I don't know?? What? Not that it matters, the facts stand as they are with or without me telling you anything, but, yes, one of my degrees is in mathematics (highest honors, all kinds of awards, nobody cares, including me, that's long in my past, and even though I probably could call myself a mathematician because I have the degree for it, I have never called myself one). Anyway, I know how to calculate angles. You do not. And, you have already revealed quite well that you don't even understand basic geometry. Like, you're basically saying that if you go 30 degrees east... ok, that angle is 30... now, if you add on going 20 degrees north on top of the 30 degrees east, you somehow think that the net number is LESS??? I mean, you certainly don't add the two numbers together. But, any thinking person should know that if you go 30 east, and then 20 north, the net degree is MORE than 30. I need to dumb this down, apparently. So, forget the sphere, and start by just thinking of it like a simple rectangle. If the top/bottom sides of a rectangle are 30, and the left/right sides of a rectangle are 20, do you think magically that the diagonal is LESS than 30? No, of course not. The diagonal is A^2 + B^2 = C^2. C is bigger than either A or B. Well, a sphere is not the exact same formula as a rectangle, and requires some trig to calculate it, but, yes, when you have 30 east and 20 north, the net number is LARGER than either of those two. So, how did I calculate it? At first, in the earlier postings, I just spitballed, knowing that the angle had to be almost 40 because the two angles that fed it were 30 and 20. But, later, after a couple of messages, I wanted more accuracy, but, I was too lazy to do the actual trig, so, instead, I used a mathematical shortcut. I simply used a Haversine calculator to get the diagonal distance for the same dynamic on Earth, then divided for the circumference of the moon instead of Earth, and converted that back to degrees. That came out to about 36.5 degrees. Then, I, again, was too lazy to adjust for the fact that such an answer focuses on infinity from the "central" moon coordinates (0 degrees by 0 degrees), and that I'd need to add a bit more for the fact that the Earth isn't an infinite distance, it's only 238,000 miles, thus, we'd need a bit extra to accommodate. But, I didn't feel like making that exact calculation. So, I just figured the total is around 37-38 degrees, which was close enough to 40 to just say "almost 40." So, yes, subtracting from 90 (the only thing you did correctly), the moon to Earth angle in the sky was around 52 degrees (give or take a degree). But, now we have to deal with the 10 degree wobble (which I originally said was 8 degrees, and was wrong about). Well, you can only use half of that, because it wobbles in both directions from the "center" point. So, the maximum wobble from the 0/0 coordinate is 5 degrees. Thus, if the moon happened to wobble away from Apollo 17 during this mission, this easily puts the angle at around 43 degrees (or, in other words, 47 degrees from vertical once you subtract from 90). This is nowhere near the 70 degrees you opened by insisting. Anyway, you're a lost cause. Go publish. I cannot help you any further. You clearly have come to your conclusions without doing the math... or... frankly... before even *understanding* the math. You are deluded beyond hope.
    1
  27. And, again, for some reason, it blocked one of my messages telling you where to get this information. So, I'll just ask, did you go look at the original uncropped photo, to discover that the entire bottom half is missing from this video (thus giving you the wrong impression about the angle)? Did you go watch the TV video of Cernan taking this exact photo (and see he's bent way over, tilting the camera at an upward angle toward Schmitt and the flag, to get the Earth in frame)?
    1
  28. I will try one more time to tell you where to see this exact photo being taken, and if it blocks me again, I'm just going to give up. "Apollo 17 - 114 40 - 122 40" Three hours, forty six minutes, 9 seconds. That exact photo was taken.
    1
  29. AS17-134-20384 = that uncropped photo. AS17-134-20455 = the correct angle to Earth (the dish is aimed at Earth).
    1
  30.  @stevegagnon1539  Steve, let me honestly thank you for saying this. (Not joking.) 99.9% of the conspiracy nuts on YouTube will NEVER admit being wrong, even about a single aspect, no matter how much evidence you throw at them. Frankly, I shouldn't be shocked when finding someone on YouTube who admits being wrong, but, I am shocked anyway. So, thanks for the pleasant shock that you're admitting being wrong. Beyond that, remember, we have to also accommodate for the moon's wobble of 10 degrees (which is up to 5 degrees off-center). Again, I didn't try to hunt down where the moon was in the wobble cycle during Apollo 17. But, yes, this can mean that you might have to add up to 5 degrees more to your calculations, depending on the wobble cycle. Did you view the TV video I pointed out, showing Cernan taking the exact photo you're talking about? It clearly shows Cernan bending over really low, angling the camera upward. And, did you view the uncropped photo?
    1
  31. "Moon Phase and Libration" - watch a couple videos showing the time-lapse of this wobble. You will understand why the angles change significantly enough to include them in the calculations, and why the 0/0 longitude/latitude moon coordinate doesn't always look 90 degrees upward toward Earth.
    1
  32. It has blocked my reply (yet again, for the 49587398573498th time). So, again, I need to trim my response, and avoid stating anything about where/how to find things. You need to look at three hours, forty six minutes, nine seconds, into the video. That's the very second this photo was snapped. You will see Cernan bending way down, pointing the camera on an upward angle, to get Schmitt, the flag, and the Earth, all in frame. I hope this puts an end to any issues you have with that photo. A photo of Apollo 17 with the Earth and a boulder... catalog number or timestamp?
    1
  33.  @stevegagnon1539  It must be blocking your postings as much as it blocks mine. I don't see a link.
    1
  34. Note: one of the issues is that sometimes you can see your own postings, but other people cannot see them. I have made it a habit to keep one browser window open that's signed in, and another window open that's not signed in. That way, I can check the window that's signed in to see if the rest of the world can see the same messages that my signed-in window can see. My signed-in window thinks this message string is like 100 messages long (containing all of the messages that I attempted to post, but nobody else can see). But, the window that's not signed in can only see 22 messages. Anyway, I have been going through the photo archives, and I think I might know the one you're talking about. I'll post a catalog number shortly.
    1
  35. Is this the one you're talking about? AS17-137-20910 If so, yes, the angles are deceptive there too. And, what you need to understand is that the entire ground there was really slanted. The entire wide surface in that area was fairly steeply sloped (for something that wide/big). That's the Lee Lincoln Scarp area of the moon. You think you're looking on a "flat" surface behind, but, it's not flat. It's like, if you're on Earth, and you're standing on a massive sloped hill, and you take a photo up the hill. The photo might look like a typical "flat" horizon line, but, no, it's actually uphill. Go research the Lee Lincoln Scarp slope. And, if that's not enough, look at a photo taken in the opposite direction. And, this "problem" is magnified by the cratering and meandering of the surface. Let me give you an example: AS17-137-20900 That's looking in the "downward" direction. Look at where the astronaut is in the photo, relative to the one taking the photo. Note: that's not the same exact boulder, but, it gives you an idea of the type of terrain they were dealing with, and really emphasizes the overall slope. Bottom line: the Earth is still at around 45 or 50 degrees (whatever we agreed upon), but, the photo itself is being taken "uphill" to begin with. Let me make this clear: they took that photo BECAUSE it was weird. They took the photo BECAUSE it looks amazing from those weird angles on the weird slope with the weird terrain. Go look up the Lee Lincoln Scarp, and then you'll see what I mean. These sorts of amazing geographic features are why they landed in Taurus Littrow in the first place.
    1
  36.  @stevegagnon1539  Hence why, on the moon, most photos don't include the Earth... only photos that are taken from an upward slanted angle.
    1
  37.  @stevegagnon1539  I gave you the catalog numbers. Did you not see that posting?
    1
  38. Here if you want to understand why the Earth looks so low in the sky in the boulder photo you're talking about, this picture will explain it. a17pan22382-90ic This photo (pan) was taken from across the valley from that boulder/Earth photo you're undoubtedly worried about. See that huge wide flat massif (mountain) that is dead center in the pan? OK, well, that's where they went on EVA3, over to that huge wide flat massif you see in the distance of this pan photo I'm providing. Huge. Wide. Flat-faced mountain. And, your boulder picture was taken from there, looking up the flat/wide mountain. That's why it looks like a flat horizon line. But, it's not. It's a very steep angle. That's undoubtedly the photo you're worried about, because you think the Earth is low in the sky. But, it's not low in the sky in reality. It's just that the photo is being taken from that wide wide wide huge massif, that is quite "flat" looking on that side. Get it?
    1
  39. If you don't know how to find catalog numbers: Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Enter. Apollo 17. Image Library.
    1
  40. And, sorry, but the image ID catalog number I gave you will apparently not be found on the Journal in the format I specified. Unfortunately, I just referred to my own library catalog on my personal NAS, and not the Journal. But, just for the sake of being thorough, I just checked the Journal, and they don't identify the photo the same way. Ugh. So, you won't find it under the name I gave. You'll find it under: Quote: "Ian Cossor has assembled a high-resolution, partial pan ( 1.9 Mb ) showing Bear Mountain, the South Massif and (West) Family Mountain. The frames are 22382 to 22390." If you look at that photo, you will see the wide/flat massif (in the distance) that they were looking upward in the boulder photo you're worried about. The wide flat face of that massif is the reason it appears to be "flat" toward a horizon line. But, in reality, they were at that massif/mountain, looking upward toward Earth, when they took the boulder/Earth photo. And, the massif is so wide and flat, it looks like a regular flat ground... but it's not. It's super steep.
    1
  41. It's all about the bass the bass the bass, no trouble.
    1
  42. @Andre YOU SAID: "You made this just up." == Sadly, no, he didn't make it up. In some of the conspiracy videos, some of the "evidence" they present is the testimony of an old woman in Australia who claimed she saw a Coke can/bottle on the surface of the moon on the TV broadcast. No, she didn't have any special television connection to out-of-band broadcasting. No, she didn't have access to any behind-the-scenes stuff. Her actual claim was that she was watching the very same TV broadcast as millions of others were watching, and she saw a Coke can/bottle. And, conspiracy believers will attach themselves to any viewpoint that supports their delusions, no matter how ridiculous, and this is merely one of those examples. One old woman out of millions of viewers (watching the same exact thing) said she saw a Coke can/bottle, therefore Apollo was fake. Tangible evidence? No, of course not. Because an old woman in Australia thought she saw a Coke can/bottle, it's a conspiracy.
    1
  43.  @devilsoffspring5519  Yes, you and I understand the same thing. It doesn't change the fact that astronaut Don Pettit said the technology was "lost" and "destroyed" in the exact context I outlined. And, it doesn't change the fact that the conspiratards now use Don Pettit's words against NASA. They intentionally infer the wrong definitions of the words they are hearing, just to fuel their delusions.
    1
  44. Pareidolia.
    1
  45. A) How is that an answer to anything I asked? Have you looked for the telemetry? Which telemetry? Where have you looked so far? B) Like all hoax nuts, you are clueless. In 2006, NASA said they wanted to find two backup video tapes from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. Those two tapes had never been watched, not even once. They never even built a device capable of playing those two tapes. Those two tapes were from the pre-NTSC conversion. They made those two tapes in the event that the NTSC conversion didn't work. So, if the NTSC conversion failed, they would construct a machine capable of reading the tapes. But, the NTSC conversion worked, so, there was no need for those two tapes. Decades later, someone wanted to take a look at those two backup tapes, and intended on building a machine capable of reading them. But, he discovered they were missing. They searched for a year or two, to no avail. Their best guess is that the tapes were somehow mixed in with a bunch of similar tapes, and were recorded over. But, nobody really knows for sure. Over the years since then, you hoax nuts have decided that those two tapes are somehow important. None of you people wanted to watch those two backup tapes before, and, as I said, those two backup tapes had never even been viewed by ANYBODY. But, now, oh, they mean something to you? Why? What makes them important to you? How does this mean Apollo was fake? Over the years, the hoax nut videos keep increasing what was actually lost. First, they decided that the primary copies were missing, rather than the truth that they were backup copies. Then, magically, they concluded it was the data, and not just the video. This is because the hoax nuts don't realize that the word "telemetry" also applies to video, and, they blindly assumed that if "telemetry is missing," this means data. But, the hoax nuts are wrong. No data is missing. Why would you blindly trust a conspiracy video? What possible reason would you have to think any of that claptrap is actually true?
    1
  46.  @AshutoshSrivastavaTimetraveler  First of all, I don't know who subscribes to my channel, nor why. I have never once posted a video. I would venture the guess that when some people see my posted comments, they subscribe whether there are videos or not. But, I cannot speak for the 47 people that I know nothing about. Secondly, how far out of the dock has your ship sailed (without you on it) if you would think anybody would pay me to answer questions on YouTube? That's just silly, and riddled with ridiculous paranoia. But, hey, if you know of someone who wants to pay me, I'm all ears.
    1
  47. Esthersar, let me guess... you watched all of Bart Sibrel's movies, and not once did he show you the rover fitting into the lander, right? As I said to you before, you're not actually studying Apollo. You're just watching anti-Apollo videos, and believing every single word, no questions asked, never once fact-checking any of them. And, now you come here, first declaring the rover wouldn't fit, and then asking questions second. Ironically, you are correct. The rover didn't fit. But, they still got it to the moon, with the rover hanging off the side of the descent stage, some of it sticking out, because, yeah, it didn't fit all the way. There are a million photos and videos. But, sorry, you're not going to find them in any of Sibrel's videos. ap15-KSC-71PC-415 is a fine example. See those gold colored wheel fenders sticking out?
    1
  48.  @lorichet  Sorry, you don't get to pretend you know ANYTHING. I mean, how far gone are you when you think that the rover didn't fit? I mean, yeah, it didn't fit, as I illustrated. It couldn't tuck all the way in (exactly as I said). How would that even happen? Don't you think any of the the thousands of engineers and technicians might notice if they never made a mechanism to bring the rover to the moon? And, given the amount of gibberish you've quoted from Bart Sibrel (in other threads of yours), yeah, it's 100% clear that you're just going to swallow anything you see, that aligns with your predetermined conclusions. His nonsense has been debunked a million times over, and, as I pointed out in the other thread, debunks ITSELF. Yet, you buy it, hook line and sinker. So, don't sit here and pretend you know anything. The rover almost fit into the lander, and the bits that didn't fit, simply hung off the side. If you can't figure this out after 50 years, your credibility is zero.
    1
  49.  @lorichet  Repeat the same incorrect garbage all you want. Rocketdyne themselves said Keysing wasn't an engineer. Who said he was? Himself?
    1
  50. A service engineer isn't an engineer. That's a glorified repairman. That's like when the guy who fixes the toilets in a company is called a "building engineer." And, Kaysing (thanks for the spelling correction) left Rocketdyne long before a single Apollo rocket even lifted off the ground. Once again, you don't know anything. You've come here to reply that he was a repairman? And, you think you know stuff because an ex-repairman who left the company before Apollo even got going told you it was fake? Bravo. You're a real genius. None of this changes the fact that your opening comment in this thread said the rover wouldn't fit, remember? And, you said you never saw anything showing you that it fit. And, since those comments demonstrated how little you know, you've now continued to try to deflect and dodge and change topics.
    1