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: 163
29
<< 160  161  162    164  165  166 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
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”

If you had read my posts carefully you would have seen how the first model of this simulator used a helicopter cab as you pointed out, but that part of it was replaced with a standing version for greater similiarity to the REAL LEM, which this was not. Full scale means it was the same size, and of course a "genius" like you must know what a full-scale mockup is...





The cab of the LEM can accomodate two persons at the same time...


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.

Good job noticing that this was referring to the earliest version of the crane-based simulator, not the LLRV or LLTV. Yeah, you really picked up on that, and how it has no bearing on the complicated LLRV and LLTV control system I talked about before, didn't you? That's good because if you didn't notice how what you're talking about is completely different from what I talked about I'd have to question your expertise in this area... Interesting that I didn't see anything in that document that said that all of the simulators ever flown only flew with levers and pedals... And frankly I don't see why you would need anything fancy to operate a crane. Funny that's it not a technical brief from NASA either but a petition for a historical site, I mean, surely you wouldn't be so naive to assume that a petition would be exhaustive of every control system ever used on every simulator ever flown there? Surely you wouldn't be so naive to assume that this document is somehow more imporant than actual photographs showing later versions of simulators with standing-room only cabs and only room for 1 person on board...

Oh wait, maybe you are that naive...


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.

Nice speculation, how about proving it? Prove it! Any evidence? Not even a shred? Didn't think so... Meanwhile there are documents from 1965 proving that NASA always intended for the LLRV to have an electronic control fly-by-wire system:
ntrs.nasa.gov...
You provide no proof for idle speculation while I provide proof that utterly refutes said unsupported idle speculation. That's how we do business here I guess.


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”.

Wrong again.
"An electronicfly-by-wire flight control system linked to a controlstick was originally used for pitch and roll control,while rudder pedals provided yaw control. The controls were later incorporated into a single three-axis side-arm controller similar to the actual LM."
www.nasa.gov...


www.nasa.gov...

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

Full scale only means that it was the same size, not the real thing.
"Full-scale: adj. Of actual or full size; not reduced: a full-scale model."
www.answers.com...
You should try mastering the english language before making such ignorant claims.


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

Where does it say that? I don't see any proof of that anywhere! They never intended that the real lem would have seats or use a helicopter cabin! Try actually backing up your speculations with PROOF sometime.


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.

This document wasn't even talking about the LLRV or LLTV.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by ngchunter]




posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


ngchunter....valiant try, but we are still wating our time against a troll.

NGC2736 said it all.

The straw that finally broke the camel's back, in my mind, was B-B's claim that the PLSS could not fit through the LM hatch. THIS, the penultimate of YouTube nonsense, puts this entire thread into that realm.

jra, and ngchunter, you have offered more info than I could have...in fact, I've learned more from you guys here, in this thread...than i could have by researching on my own.

For NGC, the Mod....my hat's off to you, and other Forum moderators, for allowing B-B to come back, even with the 'baggage'...it just seems to be a failed experiment -- or it is further proof that this same individual, with all of the multiple identities, just wishes to 'troll'...I hate that term...perhaps a better term is to 'get one's rocks off'(?)

I tried to end this with a joke....not sure if I have one....except this, which is very off-topic:

Know the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenberg?

One is a flaming gas bag....and the other is a dirigible.

Peace...WW



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

ngchunter....valiant try, but we are still wasting our time against a troll.



Dear WW, instead of saying nothing interesting, instead of saying I am a troll, why don’t you try to refute my reasoning?



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.

What do you think about the fact that NASA braggarts have told about collective pitch as regard to this absurd science fiction vehicle?



Were they so ignorant to think that science fiction vehicle could fly like helicopters?

You, who are a great pilot, try to say something intelligent about this fact.





The cables are attached to the vehicle by means of a gimbal system which provides freedom of motion in pitch, roll and yaw. This system consists of a swiveled truss assembly directly over the cab and two vertical struts attached to the vehicle on its pitch axis.


Dear WW, cables attached to that absurd science fiction vehicle on its pitch axis is a big nonsense because without fixed wings like airplanes or rotating wings like helicopters, that cubic piece of metal has infinite pitches, infinite rolls, infinite yaws.

Without the help of your friends, try to say something intelligent about this other fact.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB, collective pitch is a helicopter term, yes. It's not to be confused with the cyclic. In simple terms (I don't fly helicopters, just R/C models) the collective controls the helicopter in the vertical axis, while the cyclic controls pitch and roll.

SO...using the term 'collective' was probably to give the training astronauts a frame of reference, based on their flying experience in conventional aircraft.

As to the second queston: Are you kidding us? They were practicing the LANDING!!! They are not going to roll inverted 100 feet off the Lunar surface! See, now when you ask a question like that you are either intentionally playing dumb to get a laugh, or you just didn't stop to think about it very hard.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

BB, collective pitch is a helicopter term, yes. It's not to be confused with the cyclic. In simple terms (I don't fly helicopters, just R/C models) the collective controls the helicopter in the vertical axis, while the cyclic controls pitch and roll.



Nobody will have been able to understand your explanation of "collective pitch".

www.helis.com...



Flight of a helicopter is governed by the pitch or angle of its rotor blades as regards a horizontal plane as they sweep through the air. For climbing and descending, the pitch of all the blades is changed at the same time and in the same degree.
To climb, the angle ot pitch of the blades is increased. To descend, the pitch of the blades is decreased. Because all blades are acting simultaneously, or collectively, this is known as collective pitch.


This is a clearest explanation. I have only added: "as regards a horizontal plane".

Collective pitch, that is the angle of all the blades as regards a horizontal plane has nothing to share with a rocket engine.

Therefore NASA braggarts are tremendously ignorant and say mountains of nonsense.



As to the second queston: Are you kidding us? They were practicing the LANDING!!! They are not going to roll inverted 100 feet off the Lunar surface! See, now when you ask a question like that you are either intentionally playing dumb to get a laugh, or you just didn't stop to think about it very hard.


"The cables are attached to the vehicle by means of a gimbal system which provides freedom of motion in pitch, roll and yaw. This system consists of a swiveled truss assembly directly over the cab and two vertical struts attached to the vehicle on its pitch axis".

Cables fastened to 3 points of this truss spacecraft - one above and two on its sides - make impossible freedom of motion in pitch, roll and yaw.

Therefore NASA braggarts are more and more tremendously ignorant and say mountains of nonsense.

And you say if I am kidding you? NASA braggarts are making a cat laugh.



[edit on 22-4-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB, even though a helicopter is nothing like a spaceship, I will explain to you how a helicopter works.

(I have a case of peripherial neuoropathy in my left hand, and it is difficult to type normally, so I will make mistakes)

A helicopter uses its Rotor as a 'wing'....the blades move through the air, and that 'relative wind', combined with an angle of attack, produces lift.

A helicopter, hovering, will have all blades at about the same angle of attack, assuming a zero-wind condition.

The 'cyclic' control is used to move forward, aft, left, right....this is accomplished by tilting the 'swash plate', thus affecting the blades as they rotate, and changing the various angle of attack of each blade as it sweeps through its range of motion.

NOW, imagine looking down on the helicopter....and the Rotor is truning clockwise. IF you wish to move forward, the advancing blade (on the left) will have its forward motion added to the 'relative wind' of the entire vehicles' motion, so it needs less angle of attack to produse the same lift it did when hovering. Likewise, the blade, as it 'retreats' on the right side, neds more angle of attack to produce equal lift, to maintain level flight.

This, in essence, is how the 'CYCLIC' works on a helicopter. That is the stick between the pilots knees, that is the CYCLIC control. It is responsible for pitch and roll.

The 'COLLECTIVE' is the lever down by the pilot's side....it is a VERTICAL control....the term collective means that each blade is uniformly changed in pitch to provide the vertical control aspect.

Hint....the 'throttle' is built into the collective pitch lever, kinda like a motorcycle throttle is built into the handlebar. The feet are busy on the tail rotor....which is really just a counter-rotation control....

NOW....to the LEM simulator....the term 'collective' was probably used so the test pilots/astronauts would understand what it was meant to do.

See, to a pilot....'THRUST' is a force we usually associate as working through the longitudinal axis of the airplane. The LEM had a thrust vector 90 degrees from what a pilot is used to....hence, the concept of 'collective' to help them think in the right way, as they learned to fly the thing.

BB....I've said it once, I'll say it again....go back to school, stop making a fool of yourself, really.

WW



[edit on 4/22/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...
NOW....to the LEM simulator....the term 'collective' was probably used so the test pilots/astronauts would understand what it was meant to do.



Hey, was Armstrong so stupid that he could not understand the word "throttle"?

The truth is that NASA braggarts wanted that people could believe that truss space craft (TSC) was simple to fly like a helicopter.

Common people don't reason enough.

All have believed 500,000 ton Twin Towers - 500,000 ton each - crashed because of 2 150 ton ridiculous planes.

Hou, Hou gullible people. How much gullible you are.



[edit on 22-4-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Let's keep it impersonal folks. Discuss the topic, not the members.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB...instead of attempting to de-rail this thread into a 9/11 conspiracy 'theory', why not focus on what I just wrote?

We are discussing one topic, and one topic only: Moon Landings, specifically, Manned Moon Landings.

Of course, as I and others have pointed out, you refuse to understand that prior to the Manned Moon Landings, there were several un-manned Moon landings, using robotics, both by the USSR and the USA...actually, the USSR had many more successfull un-manned missions than the US.

WW

'darned left hand!!!'

edit to correct text....mostly from the left side of the keyboard!!!

[edit on 4/22/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...
NOW....to the LEM simulator....the term 'collective' was probably used so the test pilots/astronauts would understand what it was meant to do.



Hey, was Armstrong so stupid that he could not understand the word "throttle"?

Hate to cut in here, but where are you seeing the word collective? All I've seen you reference lately in regards to this statement is a wikipedia article about cyclic throttles. Which NASA document uses this terminology? Are you talking about that stupid park service petition for the historical site and suggesting that means that armstrong was trained using the exact same layman's terms? Please tell me you're not trying to assume that into existence...



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Thanks, hunter, but I think I have this one well in hand!

(appreciate your help, and your contributions, as always....)

But, I'd like to reel this one in on my own!!! (easy prey)

And, one hand tied behind my back, so to speak....the left one has the neuropathy.....

WW



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


All yours then, I'll grab the popcorn.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


OK, ngc.....I'm dragging the bait.....trolling, trolling....just waiting for a nibble.........shhhhh! I'm huntin' wabbits.....hehehehehe!

WW



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Hate to cut in here, but where are you seeing the word collective? All I've seen you reference lately in regards to this statement is a wikipedia article about cyclic throttles. Which NASA document uses this terminology? Are you talking about that stupid park service petition for the historical site and suggesting that means that armstrong was trained using the exact same layman's terms? Please tell me you're not trying to assume that into existence...


That document is not a petition but an inventory.

Well, you say that document has been made by a layman, but you are wrong.

In my opinion the terminology used to show the manner in which the facility is utilized comes from a person with a good technical knowledge.

You say: “ Please tell me you're not trying to assume that into existence”.

You are trying to minimize the importance of the document I have found because there are many informations that you don't like.

You must read carefully these words:



Experiences gained by the Apollo astronauts on the Lunar Landing Research Facility indicated that it was possible to successfully master the complicated skills that were required to land the LEM on the Moon. Both Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin trained there FOR MANY HOURS. Only when they successfully mastered skills necessary TO FLY THE LEM would NASA approve plans for their historic first landing on the Moon in July 1969.


Why don't exist videos about that heap of flights Armstrong and Aldrin did?


Originally posted by ngchunter
...
You don't need "complicated skills" to "balance" in space when you have a gyroscope. The key thing to learn in that simulator is how to land the craft manually. The trick is to know how to control your final descent rate to land safely but quickly in a safe location.


www.nps.gov...



Experiences gained by the Apollo astronauts at the Lunar Landing Research Facility showed that it was possible to successfully master the necessary skills needed to land the LEM on the moon. Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin trained here for many hours, mastering the complex skills before NASA approved plans for their historic moon landing in July 1969.


[edit on 23-4-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Ummm....BB.....

You just shot yourself in the foot, so to speak

Did you bother to read and 'understand' what you embedded, at the end of your last post?!?

Sorta blows your whole argument to shreds, dontcha think???

One last time, your last chance.....SHOW US proof that the USSR and USA did not soft-land on the Moon....un-manned robotic craft, soft landed on the Moon.

THEN, show us, your ATS audience, how it was thusly impossible for a Manned flight to soft-land on the Moon!

While you're at it, please explain why 'heavier-than-air' flights are also impossible. Since, the 'science' seems to support that claim!

Or...BB....just 'fess up, and admit you are just a kid who has access to a computer, with way too much time on your hands!!!

You are not funny, and you are definately NOT intelligent.

If your goal was to attract attention....then guess what!! You succeeded!!!

Congratulations!!!!

You managed to waste the time of many people, ands I'm sure you're laughing to yourself right now, while contemplating your next move.

Oh, sorry for using big words...be sure to have your 'online' dictionary ready...

The PTB have given you a lot of rope....IMO you have used it all up. You, BB, aka....well, we already know you have been on ATS with almost two dozen different monikers....

This is nothing more, nothing less than a term we affectionately call 'trolling'.

When you 'rick-rolled', I thought it was the end...but, you're still here.

Guess the Mods are being very nice to you....enjoy it while it lasts.

WW







[edit on 4/23/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Everybody check out this thread I started "The Moon Landing Hoax"

www.abovetopsecret.com...


jra

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by freight tomsen
Everybody check out this thread I started "The Moon Landing Hoax"

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Why start a new one when you could just post here?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Hate to cut in here, but where are you seeing the word collective? All I've seen you reference lately in regards to this statement is a wikipedia article about cyclic throttles. Which NASA document uses this terminology? Are you talking about that stupid park service petition for the historical site and suggesting that means that armstrong was trained using the exact same layman's terms? Please tell me you're not trying to assume that into existence...


That document is not a petition but an inventory.

NPS = national park service... I was right then, interesting...



Well, you say that document has been made by a layman, but you are wrong.

In my opinion the terminology used to show the manner in which the facility is utilized comes from a person with a good technical knowledge.

No, it comes from the national park service, at best, glorified museum curators. Having worked at a science museum myself and done their "fact-checking quality control" myself I'm fully qualified to say that such secondary sources of info are anything but reliable, let alone the "final say" in technical accuracy...


You say: “ Please tell me you're not trying to assume that into existence”.

You are trying to minimize the importance of the document I have found because there are many informations that you don't like.

The only thing I don't like is how you jump to conclusions based on ambiguous or incomplete statements rather than go to the original definitive source of the info. Why are you relying on secondary sources if you're so sure of your "facts"?



Why don't exist videos about that heap of flights Armstrong and Aldrin did?

Well gee, we didn't have anything in the way of digital cameras back then. Filming was not cheap, but I already provided a video of the LLRV/LLTV landing for you, you didn't care. Why on earth should I believe showing you an entire DVD's worth would change your mind when one didn't? I'm not going to waste my time searching through archives to digitize evidence for your lazy convienence when I already know perfectly well you'll just ignore it.



Originally posted by ngchunter
...
You don't need "complicated skills" to "balance" in space when you have a gyroscope. The key thing to learn in that simulator is how to land the craft manually. The trick is to know how to control your final descent rate to land safely but quickly in a safe location.


www.nps.gov...



Experiences gained by the Apollo astronauts at the Lunar Landing Research Facility showed that it was possible to successfully master the necessary skills needed to land the LEM on the moon. Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin trained here for many hours, mastering the complex skills before NASA approved plans for their historic moon landing in July 1969.


I don't see anything here about needing to balance against "infinite rotation forces." Other skills were necessary, sure, I'd like to see you fly a full LEM simulator. Nonetheless, the kind of "skills" you were talking about do not apply. As I said, you don't need "complicated skills" to "balance" in space - this says nothing to contradict that. It says complex skills, not complex BALANCING skills. I think you're imagining words that just aren't there.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Seems there are only three or four of us who post on this thread, who make any sense at all....and ONE who continues to post nonsense.

Not patting myself on the back, here, nor anyone else (shout out to jra!!!)....oops, well I'm patting everyone but me on the back!!!! (ngc, go get 'em!)

Slightly off, a pig-rant here....as I peruse the various threads on ATS that interest me, I see that we are a select few individuals.

Maybe two dozen regular contributors??? Maybe three dozen???

This, out of thousands of members?!?

Why can't we all just get along???? (wiping a tear from my eye...)

I guess we should all agree to meet, over beers, and have a group hug. Because, that seems to be where we're at right now.....n'est pas?

WW



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Sorry to pop back in unannounced, lol. I've been stopping by every now and again to get my weekly dose of comedy from those that are trying (rather poorly) to convince us all the moon stuff is fake.

Personally, I would say there is no point in arguing with them. They do a good job of making themselves look ignorant and foolish without your help you know, lol.

Anyway, I found this vid on youtube (gasp) of some dude playing with dust in a vacuum jar and thought it belonged on record in this thread.

www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 160  161  162    164  165  166 >>

log in

join