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: 167
29
<< 164  165  166    168  169  170 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Infinite pitch, roll, and yaw axes huh? No such thing exists BB.
...


Airplanes and helicopters have a fuselage with a front part and a back part. Usually they fly forward. They can pitch, roll and yaw round the 3 axes.

But a piece of metal (LEM) has infinite attitudes in 3D space. It has a front part and a back part (where there is the rocket engine) but has not right and left, has not top and bottom. It has infinite right parts and infinite left parts, infinite top parts and infinite bottom parts.

Therefore it has infinite pitch, roll, yaw axes.

Due to this big confusion, it doesn't know what attitude must keep during flight and therefore it can't fly.

For this reason there is no video of NASA's swindlers showing the 150 flights made by that full scale LEM at Langley crane.

It did not know how to fly.

In their ingenuousness, NASA's swindlers thought in the first that it could be sufficient to put a rocket engine under a piece of metal to make it able to fly.

Biggest error, they understood it was impossible and therefore they swindled all the world with the help of Kubrick.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Big-Brain]




posted on May, 8 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB...you either do not understand, or you refuse to undertand.

Your last post...is so full of BS, I Don't know where to begin.......

I have pointed out only two students, who I attempted to teach to fly.

One guy, was so arrogant, I knew he was dangerous.

The other person, a woman, could not understand how to taxi, let alone, flyng straight-and-level....

Folks, if you can't taxi a Cessna, and can't understand what 'straight and level' means....you don't have any business flying an airplane!!!!!!

WW



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...
Folks, if you can't taxi a Cessna, and can't understand what 'straight and level' means....you don't have any business flying an airplane!!!!!!


You did not land on the moon with an airplane. How is that you continue to talk about airplanes?

Airplanes have nothing to do with moon landings.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

But a piece of metal (LEM) has infinite attitudes in 3D space. It has a front part and a back part (where there is the rocket engine) but has not right and left, has not top and bottom. It has infinite right parts and infinite left parts, infinite top parts and infinite bottom parts.

Therefore it has infinite pitch, roll, yaw axes.

This little rant is completely devoid of fact or reality. Show me a schematic of a spacecraft with "infinite top parts" lol. I suspect you're confusing there not being an "absolute" orientation in space with the ability to define an axis on a spacecraft, but at this point I really don't care to explain it to someone who habitually ignores 90% of everything I or any one else types. Furthermore, there are absolute directions when you take a reference frame, whether it be the earth or the moon.



Due to this big confusion, it doesn't know what attitude must keep during flight and therefore it can't fly.

Therefore the shuttle must be a fake too... except for that pesky thing called modern telescopes, cameras, and observational testing of that hypothesis, which is why you are forced to continually reject that idea, despite the fact that it naturally flows from your own hypothesis. Because it flows naturally from your hypothesis, and because it can be directly refuted, it disproves your hypothesis.


For this reason there is no video of NASA's swindlers showing the 150 flights made by that full scale LEM at Langley crane.

Wrong, it exists in 16mm format. It's not my job to digitize it for you. Just because it isn't on youtube doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



Biggest error, they understood it was impossible and therefore they swindled all the world with the help of Kubrick.

LOL Kubrick couldn't have faked the vacuum dependent non-billowing motion of moon dust in the apollo videos.
www.empusa.co.uk...

Honestly BB, three days and this is all you reply to? You completely ignored my response to your accusations of fakery in the LLRV video, I'll take that as a concession. What you don't seem to understand is that the burden of proof is not on us to provide 150 videos of the LLRF at langley, the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove any evidence that refutes your theory that vertical landings are impossible.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
What you don't seem to understand is that the burden of proof is not on us to provide 150 videos of the LLRF at langley, the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove any evidence that refutes your theory that vertical landings are impossible.
...


You must prove that you are able to land going backwards with a rocket.

WITH TRUE VIDEOS TELECASTED FROM ALL THE TELEVISIONS OF ALL COUNTRIES.

Instead you continue to show us 3D animated cartoons:

youtube.com...

youtube.com...

With 3D cartoons you are able to do fantastic enterprises.

Congratulations.



[edit on 9-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
LOL Kubrick couldn't have faked the vacuum dependent non-billowing motion of moon dust in the apollo videos.

Yes, in "2001 A Space Odyssey" the level of realism is very far away from perfection. Even recent movies like "IMAX - Magnificent Desolation", where they added Moon dust with CGI, are still unconvincing. There is something wrong with the simulated particles - maybe not enough of them to simulate real dust.


..., the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove any evidence that refutes your theory that vertical landings are impossible.

No way to refute this. Every Newtonian mechanics problem is time-reversible. If a rocket can lift-off, it can also land "backwards" by applying the same forces. Rocket chemistry is not reversible, but it doesn't matter as we are only considering the problem of stability of the LEM regardless of how thrust is generated. So going up or down is just the same. The LEM was actually more stable while landing IMO because the landing gear that stayed on the Moon lowered its center of gravity.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

You must prove that you are able to land going backwards with a rocket.

WITH TRUE VIDEOS TELECASTED FROM ALL THE TELEVISIONS OF ALL COUNTRIES.

Whoo, I think BB has gone off the deep end here... So now the goal post has been moved to video that was telecast "from" (to?) every television in every nation? Why? I got news for you BB, the validity, veracity, and integrity of a video is not determined by the number of hits it gets on youtube or by how many televisions it's seen on; those are completely unrelated, independent facts.


Instead you continue to show us 3D animated cartoons:

Ok, you have gone off the deep end - I didn't show you any "animated cartoons," you just showed me animations of hypothetical space missions... big whoop. They didn't have CG in the 60's BB, there was no way to fake these videos beyond detection (not that the animations you showed were photorealistic anyway):

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...
www.lunarlanding.info...

If these were faked you should be able to actually prove it, rather than just make blind accusations of fakery without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Take a look at this high resolution image of the LLRV in flight BB. There are no wires holding it up, not even any harnesses where wires could be attached to hold the weight of the craft. The only thing keeping it from falling at 9.8m/s/s is the visible blast of one lone jet engine positioned in the center of the craft gimbled straight down. There is no way they could have faked this at this kind of detailed resolution in 1964.
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Thanks, ngchunter for your tireless efforts.

Since I have examined the original negatives of many of the LLRV photos at NASA Dryden I can tell you definitively that they have not been tampered with in any way. One of the actual vehicles is also available for examination and a number of the pilots and engineers involved with the project are always more than happy to talk about their experiences. You can also find some wonderful documentation here:

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 


You can't believe anything said by NASA's swindlers and braggarts!



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 

Thanks for that document, it looks like a really fascinating and detailed read. I'll definately save that for perusal. I haven't had the opportunity to visit Dryden (yet), but my brother had the chance to see it briefly while on assingment at Edwards a couple of summers ago. I think I recall him mentioning one of the training vehicles from Apollo sitting in a hangar, so he may have been talking about the LLRV. I'll have to ask him about that again sometime.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


darkblue, mea culpa from me.....a certain poster kept using the word 'swaggerers'....and I thought it was such an awkward word, that he needed a new 'translation' matrix....so, I cleverly (stupidly) provided an alternative word, free of charge!!

So, I am the one responsible for the word 'braggarts'. In hind sight, I should have suggested 'blowhards'.....at least it would have leant a less-intellectual appearance to the posts....see, I was nice, and look where it got us!! Going backwards (!!!) in the effort to educate some in dire need of further education....

I feel as if I've contributed to a FrankenStein's Monster, and I feel really bad about it....part of the reason I am drawn, repeatedly, to this thread....hoping, beyond hope to get through to at least ONE person!!!!

I'm exhausted....the final straw may have been, when I explained, admittedly slightly off-topic, about teaching people to fly.....it was a way I tried to explain that some people just are unable/unwilling to learn....and what did I get for my efforts?? "You can't land an airplane on the Moon".....or something to that effect. My entire point was lost, and completely mis-understood.

Nobody is that obtuse (sorry, not accusing any one individual, it is a general statment of fact....)



WW



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Thanks for that document, it looks like a really fascinating and detailed read. I'll definately save that for perusal.
...


www.hq.nasa.gov...

"Unconventional, contrary and Ugly"

NASA's swindlers have forgotten an important word:

The correct title is:

"Unconventional, Contrary, Ugly and Unable to Fly"

242 pages to repeat the same concepts.

5 pages would have been sufficient to explain the poor and ludicrous history of that science fiction non-rocket truss with that funny toilet-shaped cabin.

Read carefully: LLRV and LLTV programs were stopped because they were too dangerous.

On 6 May 1968 Armstrong ejected safely from LLRV.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Well, BB, if you read the book then you know the LLRV did fly and was a highly successful and useful too for training the Apollo astronauts to land on the Moon. If you interview the pilots and engineers, as I have you can learn exactly how the vehicle flew.

There are also original photos (and neagtives) and film that show the LLRV in flight. If you wish, you can examine one of the actual vehicles. It's on display at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center in California.

Your continued insistence that the LLRV/LLTV couldn't fly is ludicrous. It was demonstrated in front of the news media and numerous non-NASA personnel at Edwards and Houston. The fact that some of them crashed has no bearing on their success or usefulness. Cars and airplanes crash all the time but that doesn't mean they don't work. With a complex research vehicle like the LLRV, it would be surprising not to have mishaps.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
...
Your continued insistence that the LLRV/LLTV couldn't fly is ludicrous.
...


It's more ludicrous to observe carefully these images:

www.geocities.com...

www.geocities.com...

www.geocities.com...

www.geocities.com...

If those pieces of metal flew, fun-fairs would be full of them.

Suspended with safety-cables also children could fly them.

Instead the sad reality is this:

On september 2007 at the POMFC (Pieces Of Metal Flying Challenge)
the only one competitor cut a finest figure


www.armadilloaerospace.com...

youtube.com...

But you have not yet understood that you must prove that NASA's swindlers have tested Lunar Excursion Module Eagle on the Earth before sending it on the Moon.


[edit on 10-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB....I have long-ago decided that this thread is dead.

Moderators leave it open....perhaps they come back, every so often, to see your posts, and get a chuckle! I know I do!

BUT, I've also learned a lot (not from you, of course) but from other contributors....I've learned things to build my knowledge of spceflight mechanics.

Actually....BB....I DID learn something from you....I learned that not everyone on this planet is capable of learning. I learned that there is a point, in a discussion, when you just have to cry "foul!".....

I therefore thank you, BB, for helping me to remember that my intellect is intact.....and that I, and others, indeed have a much larger intelligence than you do....(and that is not meant as a disrespect....just an observation....)

May you continue to indulge in your apparent lack of understanding to your heart's content!! It is your right, after all!!

I prefer to Deny Ignorance!

Good day!

WW



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I like insults since it means you can't refute my reasonings.

Another reasoning is this:

At page 119 you can read:

www.geocities.com...

Therefore LLRVTs and LEMs could fly without computers, could be piloted manually.

In that document they never talk about the importance of the computer to fly LLRVTs.

Very strange.

Incredible.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 

Big-Brain --

This has been explained to you before, but you seem to keep ignoring this fact:

The computer that Armstrong 'shut off' was the Automated Landing Computer. It's was a computer that could automatically land the LEM. This computer was getting overloaded with altitude data, so it could not be used.

The System the helped keep the LEM in level flight -- the one that fires the 16 reaction control thrusters as needed to keep flying level -- THAT system was NOT shut down.

They are two different things


Originally posted by Big-Brain
Therefore LLRVTs and LEMs could fly without computers, could be piloted manually.

In that document they never talk about the importance of the computer to fly LLRVTs.

Very strange.

Incredible.

The entire last half of Chapter 1 (pages 43 to 56, going by the page number printed in the book) discusses the attitide control system. It doesn't talk a lot about computers because much of the system was "electro-mechanical", not "electronic", and was mainly controlled by simple information given by the gyros. The automatic Attitude control system is not terribly complicated and does not require the use of advanced computers.

The system is quite simple: If the gyros detect the craft is tilited, it tells one of the attitude control thrusters to fire until the gyro says the craft is no longer tilted...it's that simple.

The LLRV could not be flown without this attitude/reaction control system, but it could be landed "manually" meaning without the use of the Automatic Landing Computer. Again, these are two different things.



[edit on 5/11/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
The entire last half of Chapter 1 (pages 43 to 56, going by the page number printed in the book) discusses the attitide control system. It doesn't talk a lot about computers because much of the system was "electro-mechanical", not "electronic", and was mainly controlled by simple information given by the gyros.
...


You can say what you want but my readers are able to understand you are saying a lot of nonsense.

Without a powerful computer (that not even today exists) able to elaborate
in millisecond the infinite changes of the rocket attitude in order to give the right informations to the mechanical devices by means of a suitable software (that not even today exists), NASA's swindlers will never be able to balance a piece of metal in 3D space.

It is moreover obviously fake that to balance a piece of metal that must fly forward and backwards, up and down, fastly and slowly, you can use reaction forces in on-off mode.

On-off mode is not a suitable manner to react to infinite forces that act gradually.

Several readers are beginning to understand I'm right.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB....Hahahahahah!!!! Your 'readers'!?!????!!!!

Here's how your claims about computers are refuted.....you have NO IDEA what you're talking about!

Do you not realize that, for decades, the USA has had satellites in orbit, that are under control....they can be rotated to target what they need to...these are a by-product of the Cold War, of course....and their capabilites are heavily classified....the specifics, I mean.....but their existence is well-known....and, not just the USA. Chinese and Russians too....

BB....you read the same NASA documents everyone else does....many, many people have attempted to educate you, to hopefully encourage you to further comprehend them.....yet, you continue to mock the ATS audience at large.

There can only be two conclusions to be drawn from your behavior:

A).....since you're smart, you somehow think this is funny, and get a laugh out of it or, B)....you really are very dense, and just will never fully understand anything about science, aerospace, aviation, or Newtonian physics.....or ANY physics, for that matter.

I'm tending towards the 'A)' hypothesis....

You're smart enough to know where the T&C boundaries are....so getting banned again is not really an option, since you'll just come back anyway.....AND, I realize I'm feeding the troll just by wasting my time to write this post.....but believe me when I say this, I don't write for your pleasure, I write for others to read and see you for what you seem to be....

Someone, a while ago, asked why I bothered on this thread. It's because, I am afraid that smeone will come along, read your nonsense, and be lost in a cycle of un-informed, bad 'pseudo-science' claptrap.

I think, the smart people, like SGIP and ngc and nra-h need to keep posting, as long as this thread stays open (at the mercy of the Mod-Squad) to continue to deny ignorance. Because, BB, igorance is what you bring, and it must continually be denied.....

WW






[edit on 5/11/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Holy Crap, you guys.


You have more patience than a monk on morphine.
Kudos.

As for a certain skeptic-friendooooyou , and his endless mono-railing


Originally posted by Big-Brain

Several readers are beginning to understand I'm right.




Are you referring to your ' Fortress of Solitude ' bunk-mates?

A Bizarro-world superhero comes to mind

Unupentium -

Thicker than a uranium slurry ,
More stubborn than a teenager-laden mule ,
Able to Leap tall buildings of evidence without a single scratch.


Man, I can't wait for Phoenix to ' land going backwards ' on Mars, in 2 weeks.

You'll be here to comment , right? You Know we can't keep this thread going without you.

- ciao




top topics



 
29
<< 164  165  166    168  169  170 >>

log in

join