|
Post by Czero 101 on Jul 16, 2010 1:25:53 GMT -4
Just sent an email to Adam Savage letting him know that Jarrah surreptitiously shot video footage of him and is using it to further propagate the Moon Landing hoax.... Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on May 30, 2010 4:57:41 GMT -4
I have the same diagram, and I also have the detail drawings of the individual panels: Image 1Image 2Image 3Image 4Image 5Image 6It seems to be the same image as you've linked, but cut into the individual panels and blown up a bit. You can see a bit more detail than in the full image. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 9, 2010 3:23:57 GMT -4
From what I can see on a couple of the LM blueprints I have, the object appears to be one of the two docking lights (Forward +Y) on the "front" of the LM Ascent Stage.
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 4, 2010 2:45:18 GMT -4
Found this today through one of my subscriptions on YT.
I predict that this video will be viewed my most CT as the single most convincing piece of evidence that the Moon landings were definitely faked...
;D
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Dec 6, 2009 14:24:16 GMT -4
That was awesome! ;D
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Nov 11, 2009 2:30:57 GMT -4
vimeo.com/7498903Not bad for a guy who never gives interviews, never makes public appearances and apparently has no sense of humor... To quote Mythbusters' Tori Bellaci " In your face, conspiracy theorists!" Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 10, 2009 0:50:04 GMT -4
Welsome to the board, Swank.
The link to the article you are referencing comes up with a "page cannot be found" error.
That said, what Nowhere Man has said above is correct in that it sounds like the article is discussing longer duration missions. The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17, clocking in at just over 12 1/2 days. On average, the other Lunar missions were roughly 9 days each. When passing through the Van Allen Belts, the trajectories used ensured that the spacecraft only passed through the weaker edges of the belts, limiting the astronaut's exposure to roughly an hour each way. Radiation exposure cannot be eliminated completely, but for Apollo, the spacecraft design and mission plan limited exposure to acceptable levels. In practice, the astronauts were generally exposed to less radiation than the designers had expected; a testament to the robustness of the spacecraft and spacesuit designs.
For longer missions, such as a Mars mission, radiation exposure will be a much bigger concern and therefore the Apollo design will not afford the astronauts sufficient protection. This is why NASA is conducting studies into radiation levels and new shielding designs. The conspiracy crowd look at this as a sign that, since Orion takes many design cues from Apollo, the earlier Apollo designs must not have provided the levels of protection that NASA claims they designed into them, but they seemingly ignore the fact that the Orion / Altair missions call for much longer stays than Apollo was ever designed for.
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 6, 2009 23:59:57 GMT -4
Not sure if this was brought up elsewhere, and if it wasn't, how it slipped past... Apollo 12 landing site imaged by LRO Aug 11 '09: Click image above for larger image.Full story: First Look: Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 6, 2009 21:06:16 GMT -4
He's the intellectual equivalent of a moon rock. That's an insult to the vast majority of Moon rocks, you know... Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 6, 2009 19:53:23 GMT -4
Koo koo kachoo... Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Sept 14, 2009 3:56:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Sept 8, 2009 1:27:08 GMT -4
I am not convinced that the USSR would have used television as a medium to communicate with the home planet in case of failure of the mission and international interception of the broadcasts . Why not? They had tv (of a sort) on board Vostok 1 when Gagarin flew. They wanted to world to know that "Soviet Superiority" had gotten them in to orbit first. I can't see why that attitude would have diminished at all if it were clear that they were going to get to the Moon first. I understand your point and, based on how they dealt with past failures, am willing to concede that its quite possible. Yes, we definitely are fortunate in that regard. I agree with LO on both his points - that there would most likely be more conspiracies, and also that it would be hard to hide a manned Moon mission. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Sept 6, 2009 19:01:36 GMT -4
CIA mole? Not true! I'm a Canadian CSIS mole! We don't use so many exclamation marks! Um, oops, disregard that. Ok Laurel, for that slip your back bacon allotment for the month is cut in half and you forfeit your dogsled privileges for 2 weeks. Be careful, because the next infraction may result in you having to move into a smaller igloo, eh? Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Aug 27, 2009 15:21:23 GMT -4
No, thats where Apollo 11 really landed, but the astronauts froze to death during those several hours when they supposedly were "resting" after landing on the moon. The Apollo 11 CM secretly rendezvoused with Apollo 10's LM (secretly left in lunar orbit) and then secretly landed and retrieved the bodies which were secretly reanimated using a formula from secret WWII nazi medical experiments. Thats why the Apollo 11 astronauts were in "quarantine" for so long. It took a while for them to sufficiently recover in order to appear normal. And since Apollo 11 really landed where Apollo 12 was supposed to land, since Apollo 10's LM descent stage also secretly landed next to the Apollo 11 LM to retrieve the frozen astronauts, and since Apollo 12 really secretly landed where Apollo 11 was supposed to land in the first place, this is why the Apollo 12 landing site has not and never will be photographed. Why? Because the LRO would show two LMs at the Apollo 12 landing site which really is where Apollo 11 landed. And of course the LRO photo of the Apollo 11 descent stage really is a photo of the Apollo 12 descent stage. But that photograph was okay to publish since it is impossible to tell the descent stages apart since they all look identical. What really scares me is that there are people out there who will actually believe this to be true. Fortunately for us here they seem to keep themselves relatively contained to other fora like UM and YouTube... Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Aug 25, 2009 3:46:43 GMT -4
Just a question of background - do objects ever "bounce" when striking an airless body at an oblique angle and orbital speed? It seems like pieces of the ascent stage could be spread out over a very large area. Surveyor 3 bounced when it landed on the Moon: From Wiki - Surveyor 3Granted Surveyor 3 wasn't coming in at orbital speeds, but I don't think that really makes a difference. Airless or not, there's no reason to assume that an object wouldn't bounce, assuming of course that anything was left after the initial impact. Cz
|
|