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: 165
29
<< 162  163  164    166  167  168 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


B-B, I try to avoid this thread, and your inane ramblings.....but as a line from a movie goes, "I try to get out, and they keep pulling me back in!"

I'm happy to see that you substituted your awkward word, 'swaggerers" with 'braggarts', as I suggested (my apologies to the ATS community....mea culpa) but, I still don't get a 'thank you'? A 'merci'? A 'danka?' Or a 'gracias?'.....still not sure of your native language, but I hope you updated your translation software to eliminate 'swaggerers' from the database.

I truly hope you were getting a good laugh out of it....because it is now over.

There is a child's game, when he or she first starts to understand language....the child will play this game....using the word 'why?'...or 'porquoi?'...or 'por que?'.....see how it works? No matter what anyone says, you just ask 'why?' and it demands more response, Eventually, the adults get tired of it, and attempt to further educate the child....because the child should be encouraged to ask questions, of course, but a simple 'why?', without context, is lazy and meaningless.

SO....in this 'conspiracy' nonsense, it is important to disabuse people of the bad science that exists, and is promulgated, by those who wish to promote this bad, inaccurate science, in order to profit from it....

WW




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

NASA braggarts did 900 films of LEM suspended from Langley crane, LLRVs did 200 flights.

Why can you show me only 2 or 3 ridiculous smallest fake videos?

Do you think all the people are gullible and stupid?


I refer you to your own previous goalpost:



"You must prove it flew very well. Find a video, at least one."


What you are now doing is engaging in a logical fallacy called moving the goalposts:



"Moving the Goalposts is a type of informal logical fallacy in which the arguer, presented with evidence against one of his claims, redefines his claim without acknowledging the validity of the evidence and counterargument."

skepticwiki.org...

You know that there are hundreds of flights of the LLR's and so even if I were to present a handful of digitized versions you can and will move the goalpost out a bit further saying "where are the other 100's of flights?" This does not prove your argument, this only proves your unwillingness to accept valid proof that counters your claims. You started off by asking for just one video, as indeed that's all it would really take to prove or disprove the claim that it's impossible to land vertically. That goal has been met so you now completely ignore the goal that you yourself set. As mentioned before, the original films are in 16mm format, not digital. They are only now being digitized, and it's not like NASA has tons of extra money in the budget to spare for taking the time to do this.

Let me make this clear, I am not posting the following video for your benefit BB, there's no point in posting more videos for your sake when you've proven time and time again that you will not accept any evidence that hurts your ego and proves you wrong, despite promises to the contrary. I'm posting this for the benefit of other Apollo fans here on the thread who take a genuine interest in the history of the program. Here's a nice long high-res video of an LLRV flight from takeoff to landing with several different views throughout, showing the landing from a camera on board the LLRV. I hear it has sound, though I don't have speakers on this computer so I can't vouch for its quality.

www.lunarlanding.info...

[edit on 30-4-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

What you are now doing is engaging in a logical fallacy called moving the goalposts:


"Moving the Goalposts is a type of informal logical fallacy in which the arguer, presented with evidence against one of his claims, redefines his claim without acknowledging the validity of the evidence and counterargument."





Originally posted by Big-Brain

I say you never tested LEM on the earth not even suspended from a crane because also in that case it was unstable, it rotated round pitch axis.

You must prove it flew very well. Find a video, at least one.



I ask for a video, at least one video of LEM not of LLRV.

I don't care of fake LLRV's videos.



[edit on 30-4-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


They didn't test the real LEM, we've told you a gazillion times now, full scale does not mean the "real thing," it means "same size as," that's all! The LLRV is no more fake than a harrier is fake. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. These videos are quite real and direct proof of vertical landings.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


ntrs.nasa.gov...



CONFIGURATION FEATURES
The basic structure for the vehicle is a box-like frame 4 feet (1.2 m) deep by 8 feet (2.4m) square to which are externally attached the four landing gear legs, the pilots' compartment, the gimbal suspension assemblies, and the propulsion system.
The research vehicle is somewhat smaller than the Apollo lunar module and the pilot is sitting down rather than standing up; however, the linear and angular accelerations produced by the main and the attitude rockets are comparable. Consequently the vehicle permits an accurate duplication of lunar module flight characteristics.


The research vehicle is somewhat smaller than the Apollo lunar module.
Consequently the vehicle permits an accurate duplication of lunar module flight characteristics.

Well, you can see very well that in this NASA swindlers’ document with photos, the LEM at Langley crane is absolutely different from Apollo lunar module.

In the other document I have found they talk about a “full scale LEM”.

It seems to me that there are somewhat big contradictions.

I still ask for a video of LEM flying and landing.


[Edited link of Langley Crane by Big-Brain]



[edit on 1-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
reply to post by ngchunter
 


ntrs.nasa.gov...
Well, you can see very well that in this NASA swindlers’ document with photos, the LEM at Langley crane is absolutely different from Apollo lunar module.

In the other document I have found they talk about a “full scale LEM”.

It seems to me that there are somewhat big contradictions.

I still ask for a video of LEM flying and landing.

First of all your link does not contain the paragraph you quoted. The title I see is "Low subsonic static and dynamic stability characteristics of two blunt 120 deg cone configurations," but it contains no information regarding the size of the LLRF. It doesn't matter because you still must show me proof that they tested the real LEM there, all you've shown is a park service document referring to a "full scale" mockup. Now I don't know if they meant that somewhat figuratively or literally, but in any case I've already pointed out that it's a park service document, not NASA. As I said before, they are not a primary source of information, they're more like museum curators. That it's actually "somewhat smaller than" the real LEM isn't much of a contradiction, and it certainly doesn't guarantee that they ever used a real LEM. Real LEMs use hydrazine and aerozine for fuel, both toxic. The LLRF and LLRVs used totally different engines that utilized non-toxic hydrogen peroxide, which funny enough, is also what your park service document, the one calling it "full scale," points to, indicating that it was talking about the LLRF vehicle, not a real LEM.
From your beloved park service document:


"The LEM was constructed using many pieces of off the shelf equipment such as the H-34 helicopter cabin and landing gear shock s t r u t s . Nitrogen gas was used to pressurize the fuel system which provided 90 percent hydrogen peroxide to the main l i f t i n g body rocket assembly and to the 20 a t t i t u d e rocket motors located around the periphery of the vehicle frame."

Off the shelf parts, such as a helicopter cabin, indicates that it was NOT a real LEM. It's no coincidence that the original version of the LLRF used a helicopter cabin, while the real LEM did not:

Both documents you quoted are referring to the same thing, and neither one is referring to a real LEM.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
How many times has he been told now that the real LEM could not fly and land in in an on earth test because of weight and structure issues? It was meant for a 1/6G environment.

I love how he totally ignored my post about the Harrier. Strip the wings and skins of the Harrier, and it is basically the same thing as the LLRV. That PROVES that craft can be controled and land vertically. Size and shape do not matter, it does not need to be aerodynamic, as the LLRV traveled at low speeds, and did not need to generate lift from wings.

It is not worth arguing with BB, even if he saw one in flight with his own eyes, he would calim some kind of deception. Sad.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by KnowMore
 


not to lend any credence to the inaproriately named " big brain`s " increasinly desperate arguments - but harrier could not VTOL without its wings

the port / starboard duct separation is insufficienrt to adequatly control roll by simply altering the thrust to each nozzle

the wings themselves help - both in area and mass . to dampen roll

in adition the harrier has ducted thrusters @ the wing tip [ puffer thrusters ] - they only supply a small thrust - but its enough to balance the aircraft



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
...the wings themselves help - both in area and mass . to dampen roll.
in adition the harrier has ducted thrusters @ the wing tip [ puffer thrusters ] - they only supply a small thrust - but its enough to balance the aircraft...

While I'm not doubting your post (in fact I didn't know that about the Harrier, but it makes sense), I would like to point out that the LEM also had 16 reaction control "puffer thrusters", and so did the Apollo command module -- and these reaction control thrusters is what kept the Command Module and the LEM "moving straight and level"

[edit on 5/1/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

It seems to me that there are somewhat big contradictions.



ntrs.nasa.gov...

Page 5



Over 150 flight-test operations have been performed to date with 9 research pilots and astronauts, who have all reported the sensations of actual free flight during the test operations.


Page 38



On the basis of nearly a hundred manned flight tests in which eight research pilots and astronauts have been used as pilot test subjects, the following general observations and comments relative to the facility operation can be made...


100 flight-test or 150?
8 research pilots and astronauts or 9?


www.nps.gov...

Here the research pilots and astronauts are increased to 24

Hey, Collins is absent. Where did Collins train? We are all anxious for him.

NASA swindlers made mistakes because couldn't remember all the lies they had said.


[edit on 1-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-BrainNASA swindlers made mistakes because couldn't remember all the lies they had said.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by Big-Brain]


I see. Too stupid to keep track of their lies, but clever enough to fool the world (including the Soviets and the PRC) into believeing they went to the moon.

Have I got it right?



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
ntrs.nasa.gov...

Page 5



Over 150 flight-test operations have been performed to date with 9 research pilots and astronauts, who have all reported the sensations of actual free flight during the test operations.


Page 38



On the basis of nearly a hundred manned flight tests in which eight research pilots and astronauts have been used as pilot test subjects, the following general observations and comments relative to the facility operation can be made...


100 flight-test or 150?
8 research pilots and astronauts or 9?


www.nps.gov...

Here the research pilots and astronauts are increased to 24

Hey, Collins is absent. Where did Collins train? We are all anxious for him.

NASA swindlers made mistakes because couldn't remember all the lies they had said.


[edit on 1-5-2008 by Big-Brain]


Command Module Pilot Michael Collins never landed on the moon or flew the LEM! Maybe you should spend more time studying Apollo before you shoot your mouth off, otherwise it might lead to the spread of disinformation among the gullible.

As for the number of flight tests versus manned flights: I already showed you a video of an unmanned test flight being performed at Langley, not all flights were manned, so naturally the "manned flight" number should be expected to be lower than the total number of flight tests.

As for your park service document's claim of 8 pilots versus 9, all you've done is further prove the unreliability of secondary sources of information. In fact your link shows 24 astronauts ultimately trained on the LLRF, not 8, not 9. Some of them may have only flown the LLRV/LLTV though, I don't know for sure. The NASA document, however, was written in 1967, 2 full years before the first landing and likewise before training of all the astronauts for all the later missions was completed.

Whatever the correct number of astronauts was, how would such a mistake (a "lie," as you call it) on the part of the park service benefit the "conspiracy" in any material way? It's becoming painfully obvious you're now just determined to find any contradictions and mistakes of any sort between NASA and other agencies talking about NASA activities. Ironically, this method hurts your argument even more as it not only makes you look desperate as you grasp for straws, but it expands the circle of people who must be in on the conspiracy, making it even more unlikely that there wouldn't be any insiders on their deathbeds spilling the story to the media.

Your post utterly failed to address any points raised against your argument previously. I take it then that you can't prove that the LLRV videos were faked or that your "full scale mockup" was, in fact, a real LEM with real hydrazine LEM engines. That is why you've now switched goalposts yet again in an attempt to divert the argument.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Command Module Pilot Michael Collins never landed on the moon or flew the LEM! Maybe you should spend more time studying Apollo before you shoot your mouth off, otherwise it might lead to the spread of disinformation among the gullible.



www.nps.gov...

Armstrong, Neil A.
Aldrin, Edwin E., Jr.
Anders, William A.
Bean, Alan L.
Borman, Frank
Carr, Gerald P.
Cernan, Eugene A.
Chaffee Roger
Cooper, L. Gordon, Jr.
Conrad, Charles
Duke, Charles M.
Engle, Joe N. Haise, Fred W., Jr.
Irwin, James R.
Lovell, James A., Jr.
McDivitt, James A.
Mitchell, Edgar D.
Schmitt, Harrison H.
Schweickart, Russell L.
Scott, David R.
Shepard, Allen B., Jr.
Stafford, Thomas P.
Williams, C. C.
Young, John W.

How many astronauts landed on the moon?

Also all the astronauts that orbited round the moon trained at Langley facility but Collins. Why, poor man?



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


*snip*

You DARE to put the name Chaffee on the list!!?!?

You DARE to dishonor his death ?!?!?

I'm sorry, the Mod Squad can come in and give me a warning penalty, but I WILL NOT STAND BY and allow some ignorant SOB come along and discount the contribution of someone who died in the service of his cause!!

*snip*

WW

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Announcement: Civility & Decorum are Expected

[edit on 1-5-2008 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


OK, fine....the FORUM STAFF decided I had gone too far.

Well, this 'big-brain' has gone way, way too far. OK, you want to 'warn' me, and deduct 500 points? Fine! Who cares?

What I care about is the BS that B-B is spouting....I got angry when he/she/it posted Roger Chaffee's name......it is disgusting that B-B can still come around, on ATS, and post BS....and demean the name of a dead astronaut!!!!

Sorry for being emotional, but it is the truth...it is disgusting. AND, I get knocked 500 points? Well, so be it, it's worth it. Someone has to stand up for the dead Astronauts....if not now, when?!?!?

Hey. why not give me another 1000 point hit....or how about bannishment?!?! Give me a reason....plese tell the ATS audience why I got a 500 point hit, when B-B gets off scott free????? Hmmmmm?????

WW



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


So...an anonymous MOD comes in....because I said 'SOB'?

Fine...dock me another 500 points....I stand by my original point....another poster DEMEANED the death of an astronaut!!!!!!

Roger Chaffe!!

This is a thread that has continued because of the GOOD GRACES of ATS staff.....and I get a penalty for speaking the truth!?!?!!!!

Someone will see the inequality of this, eventually....I would hope!

WW....Tim Duggan



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Waiting for an apology, from the STAFF.....

WW



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

www.nps.gov...

Armstrong, Neil A.
Aldrin, Edwin E., Jr.
Anders, William A.
Bean, Alan L.
Borman, Frank
Carr, Gerald P.
Cernan, Eugene A.
Chaffee Roger
Cooper, L. Gordon, Jr.
Conrad, Charles
Duke, Charles M.
Engle, Joe N. Haise, Fred W., Jr.
Irwin, James R.
Lovell, James A., Jr.
McDivitt, James A.
Mitchell, Edgar D.
Schmitt, Harrison H.
Schweickart, Russell L.
Scott, David R.
Shepard, Allen B., Jr.
Stafford, Thomas P.
Williams, C. C.
Young, John W.

How many astronauts landed on the moon?

Also all the astronauts that orbited round the moon trained at Langley facility but Collins. Why, poor man?

Collins, Armstrong, and Aldrin were assigned to the first to land on the moon and because of that it sacrificed their opportunity to participate in any future apollo missions. None of them would be assigned to the prime or backup crews of any apollo mission after 11. Before the Apollo 11 assignments were made, Collins was a backup for the lunar module pilot position on Apollo 2 (before the apollo 1 fire), but this mission was cancelled after the completion of project Gemini, before Collins had a chance to train in the LLRF (though he did receive training in a helicopter as a precursor to the LLRF). After Apollo 2 was canceled Collins was initially assigned to Apollo 8 as CMP until a medical condition bumped him to Apollo 11.

Other command module pilots of missions after 11 were assigned to the prime crews of future missions where they were slated to land with the LEM, but all missions after 17 were cancelled, killing their chance to land on the moon. One exception is Eugene Cernan, who became the last man on the moon after only orbiting it on Apollo 10. Other astronauts such as Rusty Schweickart were assigned to very early apollo missions and probably wanted to be assigned to a moon-landing mission later on, but didn't make the cut before the program was cancelled. Yet other astronauts such as Gerald Carr were only assigned to apollo missions that ended up being canceled; they neither orbited or landed on the moon, yet they were assigned to land with the LEM on missions that never happened.

This is why you cannot look at this list and say "well only 12 men landed on the moon," others were planning to do so but never got the chance, or served as backups to the ones who did. Roger Chaffee may have trained there as well since the facility was complete in 1966, a few months before his death in the Apollo 1 fire. Indeed, here is photographic evidence of Chaffee training in the first version of the LLRF:
dayton.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 2-5-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Interesting story but were 8, 9 or 24 astronauts training at Langley facility?

Irrelevant.

Well, now we will discuss about this incredible system invented by NASA swindlers to learn how to land LEM on the moon safely:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

Page 8


Simulation of the gravity field is achieved by employing an overhead suspension system, which provides a vertical lifting force equal to 5/6 of the vehicle weight by means of cables acting through the center of gravity of the vehicle so as to cancel effectively all but 1/6 of the gravitation force of the earth.
The cables are attached to the vehicle through a gimbal system which provides freedom of motion in pitch, roll, and yaw.


www.dhr.virginia.gov...

Page 2


Simulation of the gravity field is achieved by employing an overhead partial-suspension system, which provides a lifting force by means of cables acting through the vehicle's center of gravity so as to cancel effectively all but one-sixth of earth's gravitational force.
The cables are attached to the vehicle through a gimbal system which provides freedom of motion in pitch, roll, and yaw.


The full scale LEM used at Langley facility weighed 12,000 lb.
The counterweight weighed 10,000 lb (5/6 of 12,000 lb)

To keep all but 1/6 of earth's gravitational force, cables were always in traction to provide a vertical lifting force equal to 5/6 of the vehicle weight.

Therefore LEM kept its balance by means of cables.
That full scale LEM (or that somewhat smaller one) could not have freedom of motion in pitch, roll, and yaw.

NASA swindlers said: “The cable are attached to the vehicle through a gimbal system which provides freedom of motion in pitch, roll, and yaw”.

This is a physical ludicrous statement.
NASA swindlers should be ashamed of themselves because they said an incredible nonsense.

Things have gone this way: at the first flight LEM rotated round its pitch axis and pilots could not stop that troublesome movement.

NASA began to understand that it was impossible to land that damned LEM going backwards like helicopters.

NASA swindlers had reasoned badly when they thought to build a rocket similar to a helicopter to land on the moon. They built LEM with the H-34 helicopter cabin.

No video exists of 100 or 150 flights at Langley crane because NASA swindlers are still ashamed of themselves because all the damned LEMs they built didn't want to have anything to do with landing going backwards.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   
No replies? Not surprising.

Bigbrain has posted irrefutable evidence about the paid liars at NASA. BTW, I reviewed those 2 flight videos and they are also hoaxes. One is clearly suspended from cables, and the other omits the landing entirely. Laughable!

Why is it so painful to examine this and why do people get so angry about it? Because they've been DUPED their whole lives. They are suckers, fools, exposed as psuedo scientific nitwits who can't even make a rational argument without exploding in anger.

NASA is nothing but a bunch of liars. I know it hurts your ego to examine this but it's true. Maybe now you will bother to examine the gigantic hoax of evolution so that you can begin thinking for yourself and stop swallowing all the mind control that "science" foists off on you. Maybe one day you'll stop loving lies and be able to avoid the horrendous fate of all who do:

22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

22:14
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

22:15
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

King James Version of the Bible
Book of Revelation
Chapter 22



Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic– Review This Link.


[edit on 3-5-2008 by Jbird]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 162  163  164    166  167  168 >>

log in

join