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: 168
29
<< 165  166  167    169  170  171 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MirrorImage
 


LOL!!!!!

Thanks, Mirror!!!

I especially like the link to 'bunk'....since I'm Irish, I liked the 'Irish bull' idea....

(of course....we're discussing cattle in Ireland, right?? See, the bull is the male, and the female is the cow.....)



WW




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain


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

says the person who talks about "infinite gradual forces" LOL. And readers? What readers? The only people dense enough to believe a word you say would not be experts on the subject. Your ability to deceive the willingly deceived does not equate to truth. I would ask your "readers" to come on here and explain in their own words what validity they see in your claims, but that would be inviting more sock puppet antics. There's probably a rule against inviting rule-breaking behavior, so I won't ask for them to "appear."


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.

This nonsense is exactly why it's not necessary for me to show NASA testing the "real LEM" on the ground - which as stated before is a strawman since no apollo expert claims such a test happened. But your argument does not require me to produce such a test to disprove your claim; you've boldly claimed that even today we lack the capability to pull it off because it's somehow impossible to land a rocket powered craft vertically because of balance issues. The unfortunate part for you is that no such problem exists; the test you showed us did not fail because of balance issues, it clearly failed because the engine failed to shut down properly after it safely touched the ground the first time. It shot up and then finally shut off - at no time was the failure attributal to this illusive "infinite force" you speak of, which by definition, could not be "gradual."


Several readers are beginning to understand I'm right.

Perhaps your readers (and you, for that matter) should consider that your argument contains quite the contradiction; you've acknowledged Armstrong's near-fatal crash of the LLRV/LLTV in 1968, yet you claim it was only a tiny model on a string shot in a studio somewhere. If your un-proven studio claim were true, armstrong's crash wouldn't prove anything as it wasn't even the first time the vehicle flew (the first flight was made by test pilot Joe Walker in 1964). Furthermore, if it was faked, why fake not just one accident, but three? You seemed to insinuate that they stopped using the vehicle after the crash (again, why would they do that if it's totally fake?), but actually they continued to use the vehicles to the point that 3 of 5 of them were eventually destroyed. You're trying to imply that the armstrong crash, which happened because he lost helium pressure, caused nasa to rethink the idea of being able to make a moon landing with barely a year to go until the first landing attempt, but that doesn't square with your other assertion that the LLRV was fake - your claims aren't even self-consistent. If any of your "readers" can't understand that, then I have to wonder what they can understand.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Read carefully: LLRV and LLTV programs were stopped because they were too dangerous.

On 6 May 1968 Armstrong ejected safely from LLRV.


This is wrong, they crashed not once, but twice in 1968, and once in 1971. In other words they were not stopped by crashes that were caused by mechanical problems, as was the case with armstrong - his fuel's helium pressure dropped out. Furthermore, since the LLRV began flying in 1964, you've just admitted that they had successful flights until the armstrong crash, which is mutually incompatible with your claim that such a machine cannot work in principle. If it worked from 1964-1968 as you indirectly admitted, then your claim is wrong.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
My dear readers, deny ignorance and nonsense.

www.geocities.com...

NASA's swindlers say LLRTVs made 591 flights.

How is that we can see only 2 or 3 shortest videos?

If it had been true that ludicrous science fiction steam-engine rocket truss with that funny toilet-shaped cabin was able to fly, it would have been really amazing, astonishing, stunning.

All the people in the world would have been enchanted as in the time of steam locomotive:

youtube.com...

But, wait a moment, look at this video:

youtube.com...

It's the same video but ... our steam-rocket has remained without water.
No water, no vapour.

How is it possible?

591 flights and no television, no amateur filmed that amazing, astonishing, surprising flying steam locomotives.

Why NASA's swindlers should have had to keep secret that extraordinary, uncommon, unusual, exceptional, singular, remarkable toilet-shaped cabin truss rocket (T-SCTR)?

You can make fun of gullible people but YOU WILL NEVER ABLE TO MAKE FUN OF ME AND MY INTELLIGENT READERS

591 flights of LLRTVs at Beverly Hills
150 flights of full scale LEM at Langley crane

and we can see nothing. We are not stupid at all.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
You ask for videos, get some, and now you want all the videos?

Plus you want others to find them?







Which one is you , again BB ?


[edit on 13-5-2008 by Jbird]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Maybe the reason why there is a Moon conspiracy is that because they weren't able to repeat it with all the advancement in our technology. They also say that the technology back then was not advanced enough to be able to achieve such a feat and that NASA already new that BUT could not risk losing face against the Soviet during the cold war so they faked it.

Science and space exploration demands consistency. If NASA couldn't put another batch on the moon after a couple of failed attempts then it would make you wonder if it really did happen the first time.

Americans would never accept that the moon landing was faked because they would never believe that their government could screw them.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Fresh meat, finally.


Originally posted by epiquestions
Maybe the reason why there is a Moon conspiracy is that because they weren't able to repeat it with all the advancement in our technology.

Why would "advancement" prevent them from repeating it? Indeed the missions did get upgraded to the J series, but it didn't stop it, it enhanced it for the final missions.


They also say that the technology back then was not advanced enough to be able to achieve such a feat and that NASA already new that BUT could not risk losing face against the Soviet during the cold war so they faked it.

Prove that the technology back then was not advanced enough. That's the biggest load of nonsense and a personal insult to family members of mine who created the technology that got us there. You can calculate the orbit needed to reach the moon with a slide rule, patience, and a lot of mathmatical skill. The trajectories were computed on the ground, all the computer on board need to do was to impliment the instructions given to it to reach a pre-determined speed at a pre-determined time on a pre-determined vector. Just because you can use a GPS to navigate the atlantic doesn't mean that the early explorations that occured with a sextant and compass were a "hoax." John Glenn orbited the earth without any onboard computer at all, so are you going to be consistent and claim that Mercury was a hoax as well? By the way, you can use this simulator which runs the actual apollo guidance computer software and actually emulates the actual apollo guidance hardware to see for yourself if such a landing was possible with the technology. Short answer? Yes.
nassp.sourceforge.net...



Science and space exploration demands consistency. If NASA couldn't put another batch on the moon after a couple of failed attempts then it would make you wonder if it really did happen the first time.

Failed attempts would mean dead american astronauts, who are these dead american astronauts? The first two moon landings as well as the first lunar orbit worked, followed by one successful failure, followed by four more completely successful landings. Apollo was full of consistency.


Americans would never accept that the moon landing was faked because they would never believe that their government could screw them.

Ah, the logical fallacy of "No true scotsman" in reverse. Nice, but in case you haven't noticed many of the most famous Apollo deniers are Americans. Bart Sibrel ring any bells? How about Bill Kaysing? The latter is the grandfather of the moon hoax claims and was an american. So how can you sit there and say americans would never accept it when it was an american who started it and an american who is continuing it!



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
My dear readers, deny ignorance and nonsense.

www.geocities.com...

NASA's swindlers say LLRTVs made 591 flights.

How is that we can see only 2 or 3 shortest videos?

Fitting that the image below this post is of two players moving the goal... Since when does something have to be on youtube for it to exist BB? Hell, since when does something have to be in digital format for it to exist? I have more footage of the LLRV on DVD, but it's part of a commercial product and I don't feel like uploading it to get my youtube account banned. If you want to see it for yourself just watch "In the Shadow of the Moon." Great film and there's a clip in there of the LLRV not found online where the LLRV flies nearly right over the camera. Surprise, surprise, no wires, and no overhead crane or harness are visible - impossible to fake in the 60s.

Question BB, why can't you conclusively disprove 2 or 3 short videos that show the LLRV flying successfully? The burden of proof is on YOU to disprove ANY instance of a craft landing vertically safely. Not throw accusations around without proof or evidence, it's up to YOU to PROVE IT. I've already told you how you could prove it if you had the skill and intelligence to do so. You've failed.



If it had been true that ludicrous science fiction steam-engine rocket truss with that funny toilet-shaped cabin was able to fly, it would have been really amazing, astonishing, stunning.

Steam-engine? Strawman, no one ever claimed it was powered by a steam engine. The LLRV was hardly a major accomplishment worthy of the same attention as the real lunar landings themselves. One is just a simulator for the astronauts, a new application of technology already started by the harrier project. Considering what they went on to do, you can't honestly sit there with ANY intellectual honesty and claim that it deserves the same or equal treatment as the apollo missions themselves.



All the people in the world would have been enchanted as in the time of steam locomotive:

LMFAO, right, because it had a personal application to everyone's everyday life... not. Completely irrelevant and unequal comparison.



591 flights and no television, no amateur filmed that amazing, astonishing, surprising flying steam locomotives.

Amateur? What, they're supposed to let rubes like YOU in there to film and just ignore the safety and security concerns? LOL!


Why NASA's swindlers should have had to keep secret that extraordinary, uncommon, unusual, exceptional, singular, remarkable toilet-shaped cabin truss rocket (T-SCTR)?

Stop it with the pointless insulting acronymns, you're wasting everyone's time. It is NOT a secret, I've shown you multiple videos. It's time for you to conclusively prove them to be faked videos or admit you were wrong.


591 flights of LLRTVs at Beverly Hills
150 flights of full scale LEM at Langley crane

and we can see nothing. We are not stupid at all.

Maybe if you got up off your lazy rear and did real research you could find the original archival footage in 16mm film format and view it for yourself. We all know that will never happen though. You started out claiming no videos existed at all, despite the fact that simple google searches turn up several hits. The fact is you never bothered to look and then spoke a lie. Now again you've done nothing to look for the original footage and here again you've spoken a lie. If there was no original footage that we haven't seen already, then there would be no new LLRV clips present in the shadow of the moon documentary. Yet the clip present in the film is new and consistent with all the other footage.

The fact is that those filmmakers are far superior at real research methods than you and they were able to digitize more of the original footage for their film, which is a fact they proudly advertise, as they should. They took the time to do the work that you should be doing before making such bold and blatently wrong claims. You don't get to claim something doesn't exist just because you're too lazy to do what would actually be required to search for it.

And nothing at all? Lie. I've shown multiple videos. Prove them fake or continue to make false claims.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by ngchunter]


jra

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by epiquestions
Maybe the reason why there is a Moon conspiracy is that because they weren't able to repeat it with all the advancement in our technology.


That doesn't really make too much sense. The only reason why there is a Moon conspiracy is due to a lack of understanding as to how it all works.


They also say that the technology back then was not advanced enough to be able to achieve such a feat and that NASA already new that BUT could not risk losing face against the Soviet during the cold war so they faked it.


Firstly, who are "they"? And where did "they" say that the technology wasn't advanced enough?

Secondly, Russia would have noticed it being fake, they were watching closely. And they too were also trying to go to the Moon and failed. Why didn't they try to fake it to save face?

There really is no way that they could have faked it without the Russians noticing. With all the spying and espionage between the two countries and with the Apollo program, being an open and public program, it would be hard (if not impossible) to keep something like faking 9 missions to the Moon, with 6 of them landing, a secret.


If NASA couldn't put another batch on the moon after a couple of failed attempts then it would make you wonder if it really did happen the first time.


What failed attempts are you talking about?


Americans would never accept that the moon landing was faked because they would never believe that their government could screw them.


Like ngchunter pointed out, there are American's that believe that no one landed on the Moon. And pleanty of people feel that the Goverment tries to "screw them", regardless of it being about Apollo or not. I don't know anyone who fully trusts there Government. So your point doesn't hold up at all.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Prove that the technology back then was not advanced enough. That's the biggest load of nonsense and a personal insult to family members of mine who created the technology that got us there.
...


Prove that you and family members of yours are able to win the POMFC (Pieces Of Metal Flying Challenge). You have a biggest technological baggage, it should be easy for you to win that challenge.

Very important people (VIP) call it LLC (Lunar Lander Challenge).

For my new readers: if LEM has landed 6 times on the Moon with powerful and fastest science fiction devices what is the sense of this challenge?

youtube.com...

Even if this piece of metal had won the POMFC (LLC), what has it got to do with a Lunar Lander that must land men on the Moon?

Where could they put men to land on the MOON? Seated on the BALLOONS?

www.geocities.com...

“On The MOON With BALLOONS” could be a finest song.

For a long time I haven't looked at those enthusiastic faces of THE HEROES OF THE SPACE:

youtube.com...

I love their childish enthusiasm.

For my new readers I will explain their feelings:

They are ashamed of themselves because they didn't go to the moon.

They are feeling guilty because they have swindled all the world.

They are frightened, nervous, worried, troubled, anxious, demoralized because in front of all those people even a little mistake could unmask their swindle.

It would be a biggest woe, the end of their life.


[edit on 13-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB, your infantile attempts at humor are pathetic.

BB, you troll the internet, the 'youtube', (finding a video of a Private company, without anywhere near the resources of NASA, and they had one failed test...do you even KNOW what a 'test' is?!?!?) You even found a photo on geocities, modified it yourself, then posted it!!

BB, you are not a comedian, though you try to be. Maybe you and your teenage buddies think it's funny....but it is not.

BB, off-topic, but there are kids who think spraying grafitti is funny....it's like, a gang thing....is this what you're doing, in a more high-tech form??

which brings me to something BB said himself....he mentioned his 'readers'....is it possible a bunch of juvenile delinquents think this is funny?? Baiting the adults??

I say, here and now, to all the moderators: You've given this kid MORE than the benefit of the doubt, you have been patient and lenient.

I'm not complaining, because I have learned a hell of a lot, from ngc and jra, and hope to learn more.

But, it is plainly evident that this BB person has no intent to learn; instead, based on the posts over the last weeks, this person is intentionally instigating, trying to get a rise out of others.....likely, just to get a laugh.

I used to think it was important to educate people, lest their ignorance rubbed off on others, furthering ignorance.

However, the juvenile antics of BB have shown that it is not about learning....it is about 'trolling'. And, if trolling doesn't violate the T&C, then maybe I'm not reading them correctly.

What I am most concerned about is the ability of this same person to come back, post-banning, over the last few months, with at least two dozen different screen-names....one banned after another....

Internet cafe, perhaps??

As I said, the ATS management provided a lot of leeway, this time. Has this person finally used up that good will???

WW



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Prove that you and family members of yours are able to win the POMFC (Pieces Of Metal Flying Challenge). You have a biggest technological baggage, it should be easy for you to win that challenge.

A) NASA is a team, of which my family was a part. It is not up to my family to single-handedly design or build anything.

B)The burden of proof is on you to show that ANY and EVERY image of a vehicle landing vertically was faked, particularly if it's a NASA training craft. If you can not pass this test, then your theory is refuted by the evidence. Nothing else matters. Videos of failures by private groups do not prove anything, and they certainly do nothing to rule out success by a larger organization.



Very important people (VIP) call it LLC (Lunar Lander Challenge).

For my new readers: if LEM has landed 6 times on the Moon with powerful and fastest science fiction devices what is the sense of this challenge?

youtube.com...

For BB's "readers," (man, what an ego, he thinks this thread is all about him) why did this test fail? Was it because the craft became unstable, or was it because the engine did not shut off upon landing and finally shut off moments after bouncing? Armadillo Aerospace details the real reason for the failure here, and surprise, it has nothing to do with "infinite forces"


For the second flight we were going to do a ground liftoff (still tethered for runaway protection) to test the automatic ground contact engine shutoff code...

Liftoff and hover was fine, and at the 45 second mark (no sense pushing it on a ground liftoff), I had it come in for a landing. It hit the ground, and I saw it bounce back up. My first thought was "That didn't seem to help at all". My second thought was "Uh, that looks like it is accelerating upwards, not bouncing." My third thought was "How the heck did the ground contact code cause that?" My fourth thought was "Crap, its going to fly into the crane, I need to kill it".

After I terminated thrust, the vehicle coasted to an apogee of about 20 feet, and fell to the concrete...

It didn't take long to find out exactly what had happened.

On touchdown, the ground contact logic failed to activate at all. The IMU in Pixel is an older model Crossbow that was rated for +/-10 Gs, but reads to +/-14 Gs. That particular model was discontinued, and the newer IMU in Texel was only rated for +/-4 Gs. I had set the ground contact trigger value to 5 Gs, which I had some recollection that the IMU read to, but it turns out that it was maxed out at 4.5Gs.

www.armadilloaerospace.com...


Even if this piece of metal had won the POMFC (LLC), what has it got to do with a Lunar Lander that must land men on the Moon?

It's called 'innovation' BB. There's more than one way to do things, and we're looking for safer, more efficient ways to land more people on the moon than before.


Where could they put men to land on the MOON? Seated on the BALLOONS?

www.geocities.com...

“On The MOON With BALLOONS” could be a finest song.

Ok, the MS Paint job is stupid, irrelevant, and wasted my time. As Weedwacker said, juvenile, that's the only way to sum it up. Obviously you're not an engineer or very good with geometry, so let me inform you that those spheres hold the fuel. A sphere encloses the most volume for a given surface area, so it's the most efficient shape to use for fuel storage. Space and mass are especially important for a small unmanned vehicle like this. You can taunt it all you want BB, it only hurts your case when you do so.

I noticed that you didn't mention to your "new readers" that your video shows the astronauts after three straight weeks of quarantine confinement. We already informed BB about this, he's now showing that he refuses to present the whole truth. Why would he do that if he's so confident that his interpretation of another person's emotions is right? Where's the intellectual honesty BB? Here's a photo of the astronauts greeting their wives through a window shortly after returning to earth, just as quarantine was beginning.
history.nasa.gov...
Doesn't fit with BB's interpretation at all... I wonder why.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
...
www.armadilloaerospace.com...
Even if this piece of metal had won the POMFC (LLC), what has it got to do with a Lunar Lander that must land men on the Moon?

Where could they put men to land on the MOON? Seated on the BALLOONS?
www.geocities.com...
“On The MOON With BALLOONS” could be a finest song.



Originally posted by ngchunter
It's called 'innovation' BB. There's more than one way to do things, and we're looking for safer, more efficient ways to land more people on the moon than before.



What innovation?

You would have landed on the Moon with this dustbin:



and you call innovation this remote controlled fire-balloon?



(Observe the impressive realism of this image)


It is as if you call innovation this race car:



as regards to this:



By what warped manner do you reason?



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


I am officially calling "TROLL" on this one.

NOTHING constructive nor useful has ever been contributed by this member, not now, nor in his other 24 iterations of screennames.

Same ole' BS every time.

Nor more 'feeding' this one, please. It's a lost cause...because, as I've noted before, either there is a defined effort to intentionally divert with nonsense for some sick sense of 'humor', or....well, fill in the blank


WW



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by epiquestions
Maybe the reason why there is a Moon conspiracy is that because they weren't able to repeat it with all the advancement in our technology. They also say that the technology back then was not advanced enough to be able to achieve such a feat and that NASA already new that BUT could not risk losing face against the Soviet during the cold war so they faked it.

Science and space exploration demands consistency. If NASA couldn't put another batch on the moon after a couple of failed attempts then it would make you wonder if it really did happen the first time.

Americans would never accept that the moon landing was faked because they would never believe that their government could screw them.


Huh?



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

and you call innovation this remote controlled fire-balloon?



(Observe the impressive realism of this image)


Talk about a lack of intellectual honesty... I said this before, I'll say it again, a sphere is the most mass-efficient way to hold a given volume of fuel. Taunting the design only makes you look like an uninformed fool. Armadillo's site clearly states that the image you're referring to is an ARTIST'S CONCEPTION of what the craft will look like in flight! Personally I don't think anyone would ever mistake that for a real image. Are you trying to insinuate that Armadillo faked their crash and they never actually built anything, they just made a video with CG? Because other than the most general features, the video of the crash looks nothing like the CG concept image. There's nothing impressive about the realism of that image. However, forcing me to go back to the site has brought us to our end game BB. Here is a beautiful video of the improved quad vehicle (Pixel, not to be confused with Texel, which crashed because of a bad landing sensor as discussed previously) taking off, flying, and landing vertically! It demonstrates nothing but perfect stability, disproving your claim once and for all.

media.armadilloaerospace.com...

Checkmate.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am officially calling "TROLL" on this one.


Please, don't use an acronym of NASA's swindlers: TROLL means True Rolling Off Lunar Lander.

Dear friend ngchunter,
I'm sorry but you offer me the reply on a silver plate.

en.wikipedia.org...



Armadillo is headed and has been largely funded by John Carmack, a developer of computer games including the Doom and Quake series.


Look carefully to that video you have googled.

Real life is inaccurate but John Carmack is a developer of computer games and doesn't understand the shading off, the gradation.

That fire-balloon is too stable to be true.

Where are RCT (Reaction control thrusters)?

The exhaust flames have a false colour typical of computer animated cartoons.

When the fire-balloon lands the blaze is computer generated.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


For ngc, jra and the mods.....

One Mod has a great saying....'Threads are like teeth....ignore them, and they will go away'

In mythology, trolls live under bridges, and feed on garbage and scraps, and the occasional unfortunate child that passes by.

However, I believe the term 'trolling' the internet refers more to a fishing analogy.

What we have here, though, in BB is a Charlatan and a swindler who twists other's words, and lies in the process.

By 'twisting' I refer directly to the Wikipedia reference about the people who, because they made a fortune in game design, decided to use that money to create an aerospace company. It is blantantly misleading.

Sir Richard Branson, who is a self-made billionaire, and CEO of Virgin Records and Virgin Atlantic Airlines is also keen on aerospace endeavours, he is providing some considerable funding to promote a tourist version of a sub-orbital flight concept...does the fact that he started in the record business mean that all of his airplanes are made of vinyl???

Really, it's time to shut this down.

Check.....Checkmate!

"My Dear Friends".....


jra

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Real life is inaccurate but John Carmack is a developer of computer games and doesn't understand the shading off, the gradation.

That fire-balloon is too stable to be true.

Where are RCT (Reaction control thrusters)?

The exhaust flames have a false colour typical of computer animated cartoons.

When the fire-balloon lands the blaze is computer generated.


I don't even know why I'm replying to this but...

Firstly, half your post comes off as rambling gibberish which doesn't make any sense. Secondly, people saw these things fly in person durring the Lunar Lander challenge (Photo here and here ), so it can't be CG. To claim it as such is just plain stupid. I'm sorry, but it is.

John Carmack is a great programmer, but his games are no where near realistic looking.

EDIT: Sorry weedwhacker. I didn't see your post till after I posted. I try not to feed the trolls. But I couldn't help it.


[edit on 15-5-2008 by jra]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Please, don't use an acronym of NASA's swindlers: TROLL means True Rolling Off Lunar Lander.

How many hours did you take to think that one up?


Dear friend ngchunter,
I'm sorry but you offer me the reply on a silver plate.

en.wikipedia.org...



Armadillo is headed and has been largely funded by John Carmack, a developer of computer games including the Doom and Quake series.


So what? He has deep pockets and wanted to start an aerospace company. Big deal, many people who bankroll an aerospace company are not themselves aerospace engineers. Paul Allen bankrolled SpaceShipOne. Does that mean SpaceShipOne was a hoax? No. In Carmack's case he's a self-taught engineer. If you're saying Doom gave him the graphics skills to pull off this kind of elaborate hoax, even fooling the ansari X competition judges into believing they were witnessing such a craft before their very eyes... well, i'd have to think you foolish.



Look carefully to that video you have googled.

Real life is inaccurate but John Carmack is a developer of computer games and doesn't understand the shading off, the gradation.

Real life is inaccurate? What the bleep are you talking about? Carmack is a businessman and a programmer, both important aspects of aerospace. He taught himself engineering, good for him. That's what people with ambition do.


That fire-balloon is too stable to be true.

Where are RCT (Reaction control thrusters)?

The design doesn't need RCTs, it uses gimbled thrust for control.


The exhaust flames have a false colour typical of computer animated cartoons.

Uh, proof that it's false? Oh wait, you don't need to provide proof, it's assumed that every word that spills out of your mouth is gold-plated truth. Ever hear of dogma?

Here's what a flame with hydrogen peroxide looks like, the flame seen in the video is the right color.
www.chemicalconnection.org.uk...

When the fire-balloon lands the blaze is computer generated.
Prove it.

I'm actually glad you're calling hoax on this. It's just more proof that you would never accept ANY level of proof that you're wrong. There was never any need to provide you with 100 or even 1000 videos of the LLRV/LLRF working properly; you simply cannot wrap your mind around the idea of being wrong about anything.

The fact is that Armadillo has performed their feat in front of the X prize judges, and though they haven't yet met all the requirements to claim the prize during an actual competition, they have shown their vehicle doing exactly what you claim it can't do in front of INDEPENDENT WITNESSES who stand to lose 2 million if they lie about it working. Why would the X prize foundation be in on some stupid "hoax" to the tune of 2 million? Why would witnesses to the event who have no association with either group lie about seeing it fly as well? You're calling average citizens liars without a motive. And worst of all, you have absolutely no proof, just stupid accusations based on this:
www.mythicalireland.com...
And you're suggesting that that taught them enough to fake THIS!:
media.armadilloaerospace.com...
Prove it was faked. You're still in checkmate. That video is too detailed to have been faked. Even with modern computers the level of detail in the craft, the way the parts vibrate in the onboard shots, the way the engine exhaust affects the ground, the lighting, everything is COMPLETELY consistent. Not only is there NO evidence of forgery, there's no way it could have been forged to this degree of accuracy.


*thanks JRA for those crowd shots. Beat me to it, completely independent observers saw it happen live.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by ngchunter]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 165  166  167    169  170  171 >>

log in

join