|
Post by Daggerstab on Nov 16, 2010 8:13:27 GMT -4
Fetzer now has resorted to citing Metapedia's "Moon Hoax" article. I'd love to see someone point out to him the following: - Metapedia is a neo-Nazi site- their Moon Hoax article itself is the creation of "Lucho", former Wikipedia user Luchezar, who inflicts it on every open-access wiki on the Internet that will allow this kind of junk to go unchallenged. A brief glimpse at Lucho's Wikipedia user page will make clear the root reason for his doubt in the Apollo landings. (Hint: Bulgaria's flags no longer feature a prominent red star...) Of course, this doesn't say much the validity of the claims in the article (the generic fallacy, argument ad hominem, etc.), but it's another example of how clueless is Fetzer and how uncritically he will accept a source if it fits his preconceptions.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Nov 3, 2010 16:22:39 GMT -4
And about the "tidal lock", may be I would know what it is about if I was knowing the correspondence in French, for I am french. " verrouillage de marée" Or you can read the article in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_lockingAs it was pointed to you, "the natural tendency" of a body in orbit would be to point its long axis towards the nadir, due to the gravity gradient. This is the way gravity gradient stabilization works for satellites. (Note that they need a very long boom or tether in order for this to be somewhat effective.) And this means that, if gravity was a significant factor in the case of the Apollo CSM, it would point its long axis perpendicular to the lunar surface, not parallel to it as you claim. It would float "nose down" or "main engine nozzle down". See pages 9-12 of these lecture slides: www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/courses/aoe4140/intro2adcs.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Nov 3, 2010 13:48:17 GMT -4
I say that the natural orientation of the CSM is not far from horizontal. (...) The CSM may not be perfectly horizontal, but it's closer to horizontal than vertical. No. Look up "gravity gradient stabilization". Even if gravity's influence was strong enough on Apollo's time frame, the gravity gradient would orient the CSM vertically, with its long axis pointing towards the Moon - nose down or engine nozzle down. Speaking of satellite stabilization, please look up the number of methods used in it and think hard why they are needed...
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Oct 25, 2010 8:32:27 GMT -4
That has to be a joke and the smily forgot? No one is.... Here's Jack White posting a link to "Dark Side of the Moon" ("Operation lune"), without apparently being aware that it is a satire: educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15024He either is "....", or a fan of the "throw as much mud as possible, something will stick" tactic.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Oct 24, 2010 5:48:03 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Oct 16, 2010 15:00:11 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Oct 16, 2010 14:31:29 GMT -4
All I know is that the A16 sample in the Science Natural History Museum in London is huge, relative to the dust samples from A11, about the size of my fist, and possibly amongst the most valuable pieces in the collection. At first I thought you might be talking about the UK's Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rock, but it seems that you are right - there is an Apollo 16 rock on display: www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/space/planets-solar-system/moon/samples/(There is a photo. It's encased in a pyramid, not a ball like the other rocks.) Is it a gift, or is it loaned to the museum?
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Oct 16, 2010 12:10:27 GMT -4
It was supposed to be a rock from the moon. So this is a clear proof of fake. Like it or not. No, it was not supposed to be a moon rock. It was mislabeled later by someone who misinterpreted the label. Moon dust samples that were given away after Apollo 11 look like this: www.collectspace.com/resources/moonrocks_apollo11.htmlNote that they are all very small pieces (0.05 grams), encased in plastic. At the time there was a very small amount of moon rock samples. So, why would someone present a much bigger sample to only one country?
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Oct 16, 2010 11:54:25 GMT -4
Here is the original blog post in Russian, with more pictures: russos.livejournal.com/742445.htmlGoogle Translate makes a passable job on it. The author seems to be an engineering student.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Sept 29, 2010 9:04:52 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Jul 17, 2010 16:02:55 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Jun 20, 2010 4:27:15 GMT -4
Everyone already got hang up on 1 thing and jumped on it. So far i am not impressed with the way people act..and what they post. Almost as bad as the people who still beleive the 9/11 official story. I take it that you are the same ULTIMA1 as the one on JREF's forums? forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125479
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Jun 20, 2010 4:02:14 GMT -4
Well i was quoted this and was wanting to know how true it was. (I can pretty much guarantee you that at least three people here have far exceeded the level of work you've put into researching Apollo, and probably more.) JayUtah is Jay Windley, the author of clavius.orgBob B. is Robert Braeunig, the author of www.braeunig.us/space/index.htmI'm not sure who is the third one. Anyway, could someone please lock the thread for the sake of my sanity?
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Mar 24, 2010 6:06:45 GMT -4
Also, why didn't the Russians fake a moon landing first? *puts on his "Devil's advocate" hat* Because Russians sucked at making movies. Hollywood, Stanley Kubrick's special effects, etc. I've actually seen this in an argument. I wonder how many HBs know about Road to the Stars. (I hadn't heard about it before I came upon it on astronautix.com.) I think few HBs are even aware of Apollo 9 and 10. If they were aware of those missions we wouldn't see the "the lunar module was never tested" claim so often. The last time I mentioned those missions as an answer to the "the lunar module was never tested", I got "but landing it on the moon was never tested." *facepalm*
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Mar 21, 2010 11:00:06 GMT -4
hagbard, because of your last paragraph I doubt that anything I write will have any effect on you, but it has been a slow day, so, for the benefit of the random observer, Blades out!In loving memory of Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, two men who weren’t afraid to turn the thoughts of many into words. I don't know how it is called, but I'm pretty sure declaring someone (especially oneself) as the speaker for the silent thoughts of many is some kind of fallacy. Svector also quotes the statement denouncing the Fox TV pro-hoax production made by Dr James van Allen, discoverer of the radiation belts that surround the Earth which bear his name. What Svector doesn’t refer to is an earlier statement made by van Allen in which he says words along the lines of: “There exists around the Earth a region of intense radioactive particles against which astronauts will need to be protected”. How dangerous were these radioactive particles? Did they know at the time Apollo was being planned? These two quotes seem contradictory to me. You know, if "moon hoax hypothesists" really did care about the truth, they would check when the earlier quote was made, what was the state of the scientific knowledge then, and what advances in it were made between the original comment and the Apollo flights. Anyway, the Van Allen belts and the trajectory the Apollo flights took to avoid the worst parts of them are described in detail here: www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htmThe Russian Zond 5 sent a biological payload, including a pair of tortoises, on a lunar fly-by. The critters suffered no sign of radiation damage. Actually, do you even know that the USSR had a competing lunar program? www.astronautix.com/articles/sovjects.htm
|
|