It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 162
29
<< 159  160  161    163  164  165 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB, are that 13-year-old German kid who re-calculated the asteroid "Apophis' " orbit and impact date to correct NASA?

You must be since you'e so smart. Now, take a moment and use your bigbrain to invent a craft that can make a controlled vertical-descent soft landing and then show NASA how to do it.

BTW, there is no 'backwards' in space. There is momentum, velocity, thrust and orientation of the spacecraft possible in a 360 degree 'sphere' of possible attitudes...there is no 'backwards'.

AND, please stop ducking the direct question I asked you, oh, weeks ago now. Get over the cables and the crane for a minute, you are sounding like you're parroting the same thing over and over, and answer my question: HOW did the USSR and the USA managed to vertically soft-land (unmanned) spacecraft on the Moon?

Please try to answer it this time, lest we just lose all patience with you....

WW

(oops! I misspelled 'ducking'....surprised the auto-censor didn't catch it!!)



[edit on 4/17/0808 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 4/18/0808 by weedwhacker]




posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
The cables were just one way to simulate 1/6th earth's gravity, they did not interfere with the ability to simulate the craft's descent rate, in fact, they made such simulation possible.
...
"You keep ignoring my video, pretending like it doesn't exist. How conveinent for you because this video shows them landing a craft "backwards" without cables...


"... to simulate the craft's descent rate"?
Hey, but they had to learn landings going backwards, not descent rate.

"You keep ignoring my video, pretending like it doesn't exist"...

No, but I have found a more interesting video that shows in plain evidence that LLRV, without computer, without gyroscopes, could fly in an amazing way:

youtube.com...



[edit on 18-4-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
The cables were just one way to simulate 1/6th earth's gravity, they did not interfere with the ability to simulate the craft's descent rate, in fact, they made such simulation possible.
...
"You keep ignoring my video, pretending like it doesn't exist. How conveinent for you because this video shows them landing a craft "backwards" without cables...


"... to simulate the craft's descent rate"?
Hey, but they had to learn landings going backwards, not descent rate.

Oh really? That's quite an ignorant assertion. How in the heck are you supposed to safely land ANYTHING if you don't have a feel for what your descent rate is? The langely facility gave them that feel as well as the basics for controlling the craft in a safe environment.



"You keep ignoring my video, pretending like it doesn't exist"...

No, but I have found a more interesting video that shows in plain evidence that LLRV, without computer, without gyroscopes, could fly in an amazing way:

youtube.com...

A microsoft flight sim video is supposed to prove what, exactly? I half expected to see the infamous armstrong crash, as if to suggest that because a craft CAN crash it must NOT be capable of flying safely. Instead I get... this? Ok, well if we're going to take computer simulations as evidence here's one for you: Apollo 11 flown safely start to finish in NASSP (Apollo Project for Orbiter):

www.youtube.com...

Incidently though, I think you should go back and watch my previous video again. It completely invalidates any notion that it's impossible to "land going backwards."

[edit on 18-4-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 

ngchunter --

That's a good film, but I personally like these (very similar, but with a bit more deatil into the actual flight):

To the Moon and Back, Part 1

To the Moon and Back, Part 2



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Thanks for that, good find. I'd film a mission myself except I'm not that great at video editing and I don't have the harddrive space for the movie files right now.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Let me see if I understand this correctly. A 162-page thread, for all I know the longest on ATS, is being sustained only by the adamantine singlemindedness of one individual and the earnest efforts of three or four others to make him back down?

That's all right, I was just checking. Do go on, please, and pardon me for interrupting.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Asty...LOL!

Well....if we can save one person, it may mean that ten others won't be exposed to, and possibly convinced by, non-scientific nonsense!

Or, we may just be pushing a a rope uphill, who knows?

WW



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

I somewhat agree with weedwhacker. I tried ignoring 'Big Brain' in the past and let him go on posting his nonsense, but once we stopped rebutting his claims, others people began to believe in his uninformed rhetoric -- such as that it is impossible to control the LEM while landing, or that the Apollo capsule should boil on re-entry because parts of it were made of aluminum.

He's like a parasitic infection -- unles you stop it completely, it will continue to spread.

But Astyanax you are right, too. I'm going to make a conscious effort not to respond to him unless he has new evidence or if someone else starts believing his drivel. I promise.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Before all: Soylent Green Is People said I am a "parasitic infection". I'm very sorry.


Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Oh really? That's quite an ignorant assertion. How in the heck are you supposed to safely land ANYTHING if you don't have a feel for what your descent rate is? The langely facility gave them that feel as well as the basics for controlling the craft in a safe environment.
...
Incidently though, I think you should go back and watch my previous video again. It completely invalidates any notion that it's impossible to "land going backwards."



“The langley facility gave them that feel as well as the basics for controlling the craft in a safe environment”.

Absolutely not. If they had been suspended from Langley crane this way:

youtube.com...

with stronger cables, well yes they would have been able to learn to safely land the LEM - if it had been possible.

By the way “How to learn to safely land a LEM on the Moon” with Beatles “Penny Lane” music could be a finest song.


“I think you should go back and watch my previous video again. It completely invalidates any notion that it's impossible to "land going backwards”.

Well, did you enjoy my video? youtube.com...

Unfortunately, we must return to the real world. I know it’s a sad thing but this is the real video:

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

It’s just an act: you can see many cine-cameras that NASA’s braggarts have put in the video to make people to think LLRV’s take off and landing would be seen from all the world.
It’s just an act: LLRV had no computers and no gyroscopes. How could that carpentry vehicle similar to a T-rex keep its balance controlled only with one or two control-sticks?

You have said:


Originally posted by ngchunter
...
You don't need "complicated skills" to "balance" in space when you have a gyroscope.
...


Hey, I didn’t know that to balance in space you need a simple gyroscope. But this T-rex had no gyroscopes:



It can fly only in 3D animated cartoon:

youtube.com...





[edit on 19-4-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB, you've completely ignored a question I hae asked you twice before.

This is the third time, and you know, three strikes, you're out!

How did the USSR and USA manage to soft land, going down vertically (not 'backwards'...) unmanned space craft on the Moon?

How, if they could do it unmanned, could they not do it with men onboard???

Anxiously awaiting your most intelligent response.

Thanks much for your continued cogent posts....



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


youtube.com...

It is simple: USA and USSR never landed probes on the moon.

How would have they been able to radio-control a probe that they could not see?



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB, you have now crossed the line.

There is a term called 'rick-rolling'...it is a terrible violation of the T&C.

I think you just violated it. You may think you're funny....you are not.

You are simply being annoying, now.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

with stronger cables, well yes they would have been able to learn to safely land the LEM - if it had been possible.

A) You cannot properly simulate pitch using the langley crane, that would require a gimbled engine pointing through the center of gravity offsetting 5/6ths of earth's gravity... like, oh say, the LLRV/LLTV!
B) Hydrazine is extremely toxic, you can not safely fire hydrazine based engines in an atmospheric environment with people around, including the pilot himself. The LEMs engines are all hydrozine based, the simulator used hydrogen peroxide engines instead.

I just love how you ignore 90% of what I say and then return with a comment that was completely refuted by what I had said in the complete post that you were responding to.


By the way “How to learn to safely land a LEM on the Moon” with Beatles “Penny Lane” music could be a finest song.

Well, did you enjoy my video? youtube.com...

You didn't answer my question, what is it supposed to prove? We provided equally valid videos of a simulator showing the LEM working properly.


Unfortunately, we must return to the real world. I know it’s a sad thing but this is the real video:

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

I've already seen this video as well, but it's not even a crash, so how is it supposed to prove anything?


It’s just an act: you can see many cine-cameras that NASA’s braggarts have put in the video to make people to think LLRV’s take off and landing would be seen from all the world.
It’s just an act: LLRV had no computers and no gyroscopes. How could that carpentry vehicle similar to a T-rex keep its balance controlled only with one or two control-sticks?

Oh so because they publicized their successes they must be lying, even though there's no possible way that they could have faked those videos in the 60's...


You have said:


Originally posted by ngchunter
...
You don't need "complicated skills" to "balance" in space when you have a gyroscope.
...


Hey, I didn’t know that to balance in space you need a simple gyroscope. But this T-rex had no gyroscopes:



It can fly only in 3D animated cartoon:

Wrong. You're either intentionally ignorant or you're lying. The LLRV was equipped with a sophisticated array of sensors attached to a computer control system, one of the most advanced of the time. From wikipedia:

"Besides the weird appearance, the LLRV was equipped with an astonishingly sophisticated array of early sensoric and computational hardware. It had no specific name, but the effect it produced was called 'Lunar Mode'."

It used doppler radar and accelerometers to measure its location and speed. The vehicle had a complicated system of computers and circuits controlling every aspect of the vehicle's control:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

By the way, this picture showing the control panel clearly has an "eight ball" in it, indicating the presence of a gyroscope aboard:


As for your "3d cartoon" comment, 3d graphics and animation were impossible at that point in history! There was not enough computer power in the world at that point to even create a simple animatic of the LLRV, let alone a photorealistic rendered movie. The fact that you had to resort to this excuse shows that it could not have been faked; you can't even handwave to a "plausible sounding" alternative.

In short, every assertion made in your post was wrong.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


You said:



Oh so because they publicized their successes they must be lying, even though there's no possible way that they could have faked those videos in the 60's...


In the 50's they could already fake pictures and films.

Do you think this video of 1954 is real?

www.youtube.com...

I hope for you that you don't believe it is real. You can see very well the tubular structure above it where they fastened the cable to hold a little model of that horrible flying cow in order to make a fake video.

Or they have used the full scale flying bedstead suspended from a crane:
have you noticed that at the end of the video clouds hide the tubular structure and the cable".

How is it that they have flown it in a day so cloudy?

As regard to NASA's braggarts flying bedstead, well, things are simple to understand. I will try to make them clear:

You can put even 100 gyroscopes in your tubular horrible T-rex and you can observe their signals on the control panel. But you will never able to react so fastly - by means of one or two control-sticks - to oppose to the infinite gravity forces that make "the flying bedstead" TO FALL DOWN IN ALL DIRECTIONS AT 360 DEGREES".

As for the original "flying bedstead" NASA's braggarts built a little model of T-rex or a full scale one suspended from a crane and made fake videos.

Pure and simple, but not for you.




[edit on 20-4-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB, it's been pointed out to you about two dozen times, so far, that the youtube link you showed from 1954, in England, was part of what led to the development of the Harrier jet, in the 1970s....by English aerospace companies!!!

Really....I thought I was done with you, but this is one I just couldn't let go, because it's a load of junk, what you claim, and it will always be, because it seems that you don't want to learn. Intead, it appears that you think it's funny, in some sick, twisted way.

Go back to class, and find a new hobby.

I appeal to Forum Staff....end this...now please!

WW



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Oh right, because a crane can properly "simulate" the pitching maneuvers of the LLRV/LLTV... not. The craft does not have to react to "infinite gravity forces" because NO SUCH FORCE EXISTS! You're in utter denial and I'm tired of chasing your circular reasoning. The NASA video I showed you is clearly not faked or even fake-able. There is no harness there for a wire or cable, it's a crystal clear day and there's no crane present. Weedwacker has told you that the video you showed isn't fake, it's a prototype that led to the Harrier. Haven't researched the history of the harrier myself, but I've seen the harrier land vertically in person. You're clearly just upset that I called your bluff about the presence of gyroscopes and computers on the LLRV. Now suddenly none of that matters to you... nice backpeddling, very convienent for you.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by ngchunter]


jra

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   



Originally posted by Big-Brain
In the 50's they could already fake pictures and films.

Do you think this video of 1954 is real?

www.youtube.com...


Yes it's most definately real.

I too am getting tired of this back and forth nonsense with Big Brain. It's going nowhere. I don't know if it's a language barrier issue or if he's just trolling or what, but this thread is becoming a joke either way.

We've presented more then enough evidence and examples that rockets can "land backwards". Big Brain has not provided any evidence that they can't. Just his personal opinion that it would tip over or that it's like balancing a coke can on ones finger. Those are horribly inacurate examples and we've explained to him dozens of times that they are bad examples, but he refuses to listen.

He's been given a fair chance to show his evidence to backup his claims (he's been given many chances). He's failed to do so. He refuses to listen to what we say. I'm done "debating" with him.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I will not have just a single poster orating at the end of a long thread such as this one. If all comments are in, and no one responds to the thread, then naturally this thread will be dead.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Hey, things don’t stay this way:

I have found an old document NASA’s braggarts have forgotten to “lose”.

www.dhr.virginia.gov...

If you have read that document carefully, you will have seen that they talk about levers and foot pedals to fly the “full scale LEM”



The cab of the LEM can accomodate two persons at the same time. A common instrument panel is mounted between the two pilots. Attitude controls at the right hand seat consist of a set of standard foot pedals for yaw control and a two-axis side-arm controller used for pitch and roll control. The left hand seat is provided with a three-axis side arm controller. Thrust of the main engine is controlled by either pilot with his left hand using the collective pitch levers.
Weight of the vehicle is 12,000 pounds, of which 3300 pounds was hydrogen peroxide fuel, giving a flight duration of slightly less than three minutes.


They never talk about gyroscopes, sensors, computers, accelerometers, doppler effect special radars (DESR), laser vertical attitude markers (LVAM), piezoelectric vertical attitude signals (PVAS), roll down oppositing photonic special devices (RDOPSD), pitch down oppositing laser special devices (PDO'___'), yaw round oppositing neutronic special devices (YRONSD).

That full scale LEM flew only with levers and pedals like helicopters.

Computer and gyroscopes were added later by NASA’s braggarts that, this way, tried to make credible that that nice carpentry hold crock could fly.

That LEM at Langley crane was full scale and NASA’s braggarts, at the beginning, thought to land on the moon with it. With that “2 control-sticks and foot pedals vehicle”.

www.nasa.gov...

You can’t change the truth, that was a real full scale LEM that should have landed on the moon.

That vehicle was changed when NASA’s braggarts realized that in that cabin astronauts could not enter with the survival box on their shoulders.

Well, we have discovered that old document that proves ultimately LLRV and LLTV were able to fly only with sticks and pedals like helicopters.
DESR system, LVAM system, PVAS system, RDOPSD system, PDO'___' system, YRONSD system were added later by NASA's braggarts.



Thrust of the main engine is controlled by either pilot with his left hand using the collective pitch levers.


en.wikipedia.org...

COLLECTIVE PITCH is a very important control of HELICOPTERS

How could NASA's braggarts talk about collective pitch as regard to that full scale absurd spacecraft coming out of science fiction?

Were they so ignorant?

Were they the most ignorant braggarts of the world?

[edit on 21-4-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
The article quoted from by BB also had this to say...

While this was a bold plan that held out the promise of achieving a lunar landing by 1969 it presented many technical difficulties . The LOR plan was based on the premise that NASA trained astronauts could master the techniques of landing the LEM on the lunar surface and returning to or- bit and docking with the mother ship. The Lunar Landing Research Facility was designed to solve one part of t h i s problem, that is, how to land men on the surface of the Moon. The need for such a f a c i l i t y arose from the fact that there was no direct parallel between the unique piloting problems of the LEM and normal aircraft operating
in Earth's atmosphere. Conditions encountered by the LEM were different due to the Moon's lack of an atmosphere and low gravitational force. For example, a vehicle operating in the vicinity of the Moon requires the use of control rockets which are operated in an on-off manner, thereby producing abrupt changes in control torques rather than the smoothly modulated controlled torques of a helicopter. Furthermore, inasmuch as the LEM hovers with a thrust equal to its weight, the lunar vehicle hovers with only one-sixth of the thrust required to hover the same vehicle in Earth's gravity. As a result , the control system characteristics in translation are markedly different from those of an Earth vehicle, thus precluding the extrapolation of results in Earth conditions to
lunar conditions.


Here are a couple pictures of the facility:






BB, one other question that was first asked by the OP of this thread....If the moon landings were faked, why didn't the nasa "braggarts" ever fake a Mars landing?



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 159  160  161    163  164  165 >>

log in

join