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: 169
29
<< 166  167  168    170  171  172 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

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.



That very stupid rocket can fly thanks to special effects and computer graphics.

It's so ludicrous that you should be ashamed of yourself telling it is real.

GIMBAL ROCKET ENGINE can't work without a powerful computer.
Where have they put computer? On one of the two balloons?

And where are RCS? (Reaction Control Thrusters)?

But these are only irrelevant details.

In comparison with Lunar Excursion Modules, would that fire-2balloons be an innovation?

How could you land men on the Moon with that ludicrous children's toy?




[edit on 16-5-2008 by Big-Brain]




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

That very stupid rocket can fly thanks to special effects and computer graphics.

It's so ludicrous that you should be ashamed of yourself telling it is real.

GIMBAL ROCKET ENGINE can't work without a powerful computer.
Where have they put computer? On one of the two balloons?

Uh, proof? Unlike me, you don't have any of that pesky thing called proof. You should be ashamed of yourself for occusing people of lying without any proof to back up your claims. Computer graphics can't fool a crowd into seeing something that isn't there. You're dead wrong about gimbals needing "powerful" computers. Just because you need powerful computers to run computer graphics does not mean that there are large "power" requirements for avionics systems. The space shuttle also uses a engine gimbaling to steer itself during launch and the Saturn V also used gimbaling for control and stability on launch. By your logic, everyone who has ever claimed to have witnessed a space shuttle or saturn V launch is lying.


And where are RCS? (Reaction Control Thrusters)?

Doesn't need them. Most rockets use gimbaling for steering control, not thrusters. If you're going to be running at high levels of thrust for the entire time you need control it's more efficent to gimbal the engine.


But these are only irrelevant details.

In comparison with Lunar Excursion Modules, would that fire-2balloons be an innovation?

How could you land men on the Moon with that ludicrous children's toy?

It's called a prototype, it's not meant to be "pretty." Just because you lack the intellectual capacity to understand how it works, or understand what an advancement it is to be able to miniturize a craft to that size, does not mean that there's anything wrong with it.

You've failed to provide any evidence the video was faked, you've failed to provide proof it even could have been faked (there was a public CROWD watching it), you've failed to prove your claim.

*edit to add:
Here's what a completely independent blogger had to say about Armadillo aerospace. He was in the crowd taking the pictures that JRA showed, proving the presence of a public crowd.


carriedaway.blogs.com...
It was nice to see that the Armadillo Aerospace team was very outgoing with those who attended the Cup, even while in the midst of long days of competition to win the Lunar Lander Challenge. For several hours, the whole team gladhanded and answered questions from the crowd. It was a shame that I didn't have any good questions prepared for the occasion, because the team was tremendously open and honest.
...
The Challenge was one of the highlights of the Cup. Armadillo's run was great in filling the down time between events. The Lunar Lander Challenge flights were held in the far distance. I thought that the flights should have been more "front and center" and closer to the crowd.

He even has critiques about how the entire event was set up. He was definately there and he definately saw the thing fly. If you say he's lying, I want you to email him and tell it to his face rather than continue to make baseless unsupported accusations about people behind their backs. His email is available in the "about" section. You want to call people liars for no reason? Then at least have the courage to pull a Bart Sibrel and tell it to them to their faces.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

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


My dear friend ngchunter

Look carefully to this video:

youtube.com...

Observe the flame that comes from exhaust of the two rocket engines.

en.wikipedia.org...



Two hydrogen peroxide lift rockets with thrust that could be varied from 100 to 500 lbf (440 to 2,200 N) handled the vehicle's rate of descent and horizontal movement. Sixteen smaller hydrogen peroxide thrusters, mounted in pairs, gave the pilot control in pitch, yaw and roll.


The flame color of the two rocket engines and sixteen thrusters is different from the true color that the flame should have:

www.chemicalconnection.org.uk...

Therefore either are fake.

THIS IS A BIGGEST EVIDENCE YOU CAN’T REFUTE


[edit on 16-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB....are you familiar with the American idiom 'comparing apples to oranges'??

Your incredible ignorance is showing more and more....the LLRV used a different fuel mixture and different chemicals than the more recent test/proof-of-concept vehicle!!!

It's called.....advancing technology.

Again, I'll let ngc field this.....but I appeal to your sense of personal dignity, at least.....you are making quite the fool of yourself.

All of your readers are laughing at you, now. I know I am. Your posts are providing great amounts of amusement to MY readers! Thank you for being so funny!!!



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...
It's called.....advancing technology.
...


You are perfectly right.

This is a more agile and simpler manner to land on the fun-fair close to your house.




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

My dear friend ngchunter

Look carefully to this video:

youtube.com...

Observe the flame that comes from exhaust of the two rocket engines.

All I see is a big white puff of smoke... No surprise, the pre-start sequence on the Armadillo craft also generates white puffs of smoke. But you're comparing the thrust required to keep the vehicle aloft at the equivalent of 1/6th earth's gravity to the thrust of an engine that is supporting the entire earth weight of the vehicle... The LLRV's thrusters don't generate "flames." I'm amazed you don't even know what a flame actually looks like, because there's no flame in that video.


The flame color of the two rocket engines and sixteen thrusters is different from the true color that the flame should have:

White puffs of smoke are not flames. That's water vapor. Do you know what hydrogen peroxide breaks down into? Water and oxygen! Incidently though, looking at Armadillo's Pixel in more detail I find that they used a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and methanol. Here's a picture showing the different colors a single methanol flame can make at different pressures:

It may be that the methanol in the mixture accounts for the majority of the flame's bright color, which is simply not seen in the LLRV videos.


THIS IS A BIGGEST EVIDENCE YOU CAN’T REFUTE

Hmm, looks to me like I just refuted it. Any other objects to the video, or is that it?



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
My readers - this thread goes on thanks to me - have their head to decide if I'm right or not.

At first you said:


Originally posted by ngchunter

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


Now you say:


Originally posted by ngchunter

All I see is a big white puff of smoke, NO FLAME.



At first you say a thing, then you say the contrary. Conclusion: you are a swindler.

media.armadilloaerospace.com...

My dear readers, what you can see is not a white puff of smoke but a typical flame effect computer generated.

Ngchunter believes he can make fun of us, but we are not stupid but very smart.


[edit on 16-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB, and MY DEAR FRIENDS and readers.....

You have shown yourself to be a buffoon, a clown and a person who enjoys trolling a website that should not abide your type of shenanigans.

You are a charlatan. Do you know why I can say this? Because, when you first started out, back on April Fool's Day. I offered you an alternative to your horrible language translation matrix word, "swaggerers". But, then you came up with a new one....'Swindlers'....which you seem fond of, but likely have no idea what it means....very sad for a "Big Brain" like you to not know such things. No, not sad.....pathetic.....

ps.....do you remember the word I suggested instead of 'swaggerers'???

No, didn't think so...

pathetic....



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
If we didn't land on then moon, then what do you nonbelievers make of the lunar rocks which were returned to earth on several occasions and surveyed by hundreds of scientists who validated they are not from any location on earth? Nonbelievers are just that. Where are you going when you pass on? I hope you believe in something that will save your nonbelieving soul. Otherwise don't ask for forgiveness when its time to go.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Look carefully to this video:

youtube.com...

NASA's frauds will have been very pleased to see this big, powerful and capable rocket.

After some attempts at last it has been able to land vertically suspended from the crane.

My best compliments to John Carmack to whom I suggest to retrace his steps.

In my opinion it would be better for him to continue in developing computer games.

Vertical take-offs and landings going backwards give more satisfaction in computer games.

There is a nice LMCG (Lunar Module Computer Game) by which you can take-off and land vertical easily with a little practice.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Big-Brain, I'm going to try a new tactic here....I am going to weave some aspects from other threads, into this one...(anyone like my analogy? Thanks!)

I won't mention the other threads by name, but they all involve space flight.

From my studies of the people who wish to call 'HOAX' on Apollo, I see that they are picking up on as something else entirely.

When they intuit a 'cover-up', it's because something actually WAS covered up....but, not what they think.

The 'cover-up' isn't the ability of Apollo to get to the Moon....because, Apollo DID get to the Moon, and land. NO, the 'cover-up' is what they saw while there. This could be called the 'smoking gun', if you will.

Apollo got to the Moon, but was watched and escorted all the way.

We know that the Moon rotates about every 29 days, about its axis....which happens to coincide with its orbital period around the Earth, hence it only shows one hemisphere to us gazing up from the surface.

What a perfect, ready-made place to build a base!!! If you want to be covert, but nearby.....and those pesky humans keep developing technology to detect your orbiting platforms....well, the Earth's huge natural satellite is a perfect spot to make camp!!!

Don't be confused by the term 'Darkside of the Moon'.....high-fives to Pink Floyd, but that is a misconception. The Moon rotates, just as earth does...it's just, a 'day' on the Moon is about equal to 14 days on the Earth...

BUT, since one hemisphere is never shown, a space-faring species that wanted to come and observe, could build with impunity....until, again, those pesky Humans learned how to launch spacecraft and actually circumnavigate the Moon! Curses!!! Now, we (the aliens) either have to hide....or convince the Governments on that back-water planet to keep the secret from the population, lest there be panic!!! And riots!!! And general mayhem!!! (general mayhem....was he in the army? or, was it the air force...?)

Where was I....oh yes, I was regaling my 'dear readers'!

So, that is why the Apollo 'hoax' fantasy began to flourish....certain things were hidden, to keep secret the Government's knowledge of aliens, and the 'hoax' believers were led down the primrose path to inanity....and look foolish doing so.

The End

Thanks for watching....come again!!!



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   
What have aliens to do with moon landings?

It's possible that there are other living beings in the universe. I'm sure that there are other planets as the earth that have temperatures about - 50 C / + 50*C.

To come to us they should run fastest through the universe for many light-years by means of an incredible technology.

Why should they hide? Why should they be afraid of us? With their biggest technology they could destroy us in one second.

If they don't land on the earth to meet us, it means that aliens have the same poor technology or they have not passed yet close to us.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB....I explained quite clearly about the aliens, and the Moon. We went, they weren't happy about it. They watched all the way.

Then, you mention that they can 'destroy us in a second'. Why the heck would they want to do that??? They want our DNA.

Remember, it was an important milestone in Human history and technology, to successfully land humans on the Moon...not once, but SIX times. It was so incredibly expensive, and public support faded.....and there was this thing called 'Vietnam' that was draining the budget. The last three missions were cancelled....it's the "Been there, done that" mentality. A crying shame, in my view....because, if the program had continued as it was originally proposed, we wouldn't be sitting here having this silly discussion, since there would be a base on the Moon right now!!

(Some people think there actually is....but that's for the Skunkworks forum)

Ah, c'est la vie!

adding....you should come visit America, go the KSC in Florida, lots of museum exhibits. There is a Saturn V -- the entire vehicle, on its side in one building (it was built, never launched because of the cancellations).

AND, come up here to DC to see the (now two) Air and Space Museums....

[edit on 5/18/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...
BB....I explained quite clearly about the aliens, and the Moon. We went, they weren't happy about it. They watched all the way.

They want our DNA.
...


Have they told you these things in person?

If they want our DNA, why don't they take it?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
My readers - this thread goes on thanks to me - have their head to decide if I'm right or not.

Where are all these adoring fans of yours? I have yet to see a single person who agrees with your claim that no rocket can land backwards, let alone that the X prize competitions are fake and their witnesses are liars.


At first you said:


Originally posted by ngchunter

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


Now you say:

I guess you can't argue the points with me so you resort to taking me out of context to try and craft a "contradiction" out of thin air based on two unrelated responses to two separate claims. The first statement I made was in response to your claim that Pixel's flame shows obvious signs of forgery based on the color. Here's what you said:


"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. "


I was directly replying to this claim, which was clearly about Pixel, not the LLRV.





Originally posted by ngchunter

All I see is a big white puff of smoke, NO FLAME.



At first you say a thing, then you say the contrary. Conclusion: you are a swindler.


This second statement was in direct response to this claim:


"My dear friend ngchunter
Look carefully to this video:
youtube.com...
Observe the flame that comes from exhaust of the two rocket engines."


This claim is obviously about the LLRV, since the video you linked to was a youtube copy of EM-0019-01 (original here: www.dfrc.nasa.gov...).

I was not contradicting myself, I was replying to two completely separate topics and YOU decided to try and swindle us by making it seem as if I was replying to the same thing in two different ways. The fact is that the the first video is completely consistent, independently observed, and real. The flame color I initially believed was entirely derived from burning hydrogen peroxide but I later discovered that Pixel actually uses a 50% mix with methanol, whose flame color I also provided on this page. The second response was in reply to the LLRV video, which as I clearly stated, shows no flame at all, just a huge blast of white smoke, probably water vapor since that is one of the two byproducts of degrading H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide).



media.armadilloaerospace.com...

My dear readers, what you can see is not a white puff of smoke but a typical flame effect computer generated.


Here we go again with BB trying to apply a specific response to a separate claim to a claim with which the response does not belong. BB is a swindler and must think I am an idiot, because only an idiot would let him get away with this weak attempt at deception.

The one thing I will not stand for BB is lying. You lied about what I said. This is clearly against this forum's T&C's, where rule #1 is:
"1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate."



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
My dear readers,

vapour, steam, smoke or flame? We don’t care.

Look at this video in which the flame is in plain evidence computer generated:

media.armadilloaerospace.com...

The developer of computer games John Carmack has invented a good trick to fake flights
of Pixel and Texel.

Instead of normal cables he has used strips to show that his rockets (rockets?) can fly suspended in the air thanks to their gimballed engines.

But his rockets are too stable, they are not held in balance by means of their gimballed engines because you can’t see any little inevitable oscillation.

Therefore he has used an evident trick: those fire-balloons are suspended from the crane by means of thin nylon wires.

You can see the stripes but, with the right light, you can't see the wires to which stripes are attached.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
My dear readers,

vapour, steam, smoke or flame? We don’t care.

You did. You tried to make the argument that because the water vapor blast (which you incorrectly identified as a "flame") of the LLRV didn't match the flame of Pixel, at least one had to be a wholesale fabrication. I pointed out that the steam seen blasting out of the LLRV was not a flame at all, and therefore couldn't be expected to match any flame, and suddenly you don't care? Something else you obviously don't care about; integrity. You lost whatever was left of yours the moment you decided it was ok to flat out lie about what I was responding to in order to create a contradiction that didn't exist. Now you're trying the "tough guy I-don't-give-a-****" approach, which is a basically a coward's way of saying "I was wrong, then I lied about you to cover it up, but I'm not man enough to admit it." What you're really saying you don't care about is whether you're completely wrong or not.



Look at this video in which the flame is in plain evidence computer generated:

It's freaking amazing that in one breath you can claim that it's computer generated, and in the next breath you go on to describe it as a practical effect. Want to talk about "swindling contradictions"? You're full of them.



Instead of normal cables he has used strips to show that his rockets (rockets?) can fly suspended in the air thanks to their gimballed engines.

But his rockets are too stable, they are not held in balance by means of their gimballed engines because you can’t see any little inevitable oscillation.

Oh, because his system works so dang well, it must be fake? Logical fallacy called "putting the cart before the horse." His system works so well because your messed-up idea of how physics works is wrong - there is no "infinite gravity force causing it to fall off at 360 degrees." There are slight oscillations (probably compensating for slight vibrations being sent back and forth down the tether cables - untethered flights show much less gimbaling from moment to moment media.armadilloaerospace.com...) being constantly adjusted for as is evident just by watching the gimbaling angle of the engine. If those adjustments did not keep the craft perfectly stable, that is to say, if the only thing holding it up were those tether cables, then why didn't the constantly shifting thrust of the engine cause it to shake wildly on the end of the tether?



Therefore he has used an evident trick: those fire-balloons are suspended from the crane by means of thin nylon wires.

You can see the stripes but, with the right light, you can't see the wires to which stripes are attached.

Wrong, they performed tethered tests of the system to insure that if something went wrong (as happened with the texel crash) the vehicle would not impact the ground hard enough to damage the runway they were testing on. The presence of tethered tests does not prove that the all the other tests were somehow faked. Independent witnesses attested to seeing it fly untethered at the X prize competition. Futhermore, those tethers obviously have slack. Lastly, no crane and no tethers are visible in any of the later videos during the competition - there's no way to hide the giant crane when they do a tethered flight.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
I pointed out that the steam seen blasting out of the LLRV was not a flame at all, and therefore couldn't be expected to match any flame, and suddenly you don't care?


I don't care about IRRELEVANT details.

Steam, flame, smoke are IRRELEVANT details.

I'm still waiting to see one of the 900 videos made at Langley Crane.

There were 6 cine-cameras and NASA's frauds were testing FULL SCALE LEM suspended from the crane with cables always in traction.

It would be very funny to see LEM oscillating because of pendulous effect while rotating in all directions at 360 degrees like a fun-fair machine.


[edit on 19-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

I don't care about IRRELEVANT details.

Steam, flame, smoke are IRRELEVANT details.

Perhaps you weren't paying to attention; they were entirely relevant to you as recently as page 169. Suddenly they're not relevant to you after you're caught lying about me. Huh, wonder why...


I'm still waiting to see one of the 900 videos made at Langley Crane.

It's not our job to do your research for you. Go find the 16mm films yourself. We already disproved your claim with the much more riggorous videos of the LLRV and Pixel.


It would be very funny to see LEM oscillating because of pendulous effect while rotating in all directions at 360 degrees like a fun-fair machine.

I seem to recall that in my last post I asked you why this effect wasn't observed in Pixel while it was tethered... Your claim is an a priori assumption, it's up to you to provide proof of it. I have yet to see a single photo or video showing the mock LEM not working properly on the langley crane. I have yet to even see a single picture of the LEM operating on the langley crane at an odd angle not perpendicular to the ground indicating that it *might* be "rotating in all directions at 360 degrees" (whatever that's supposed to mean). You've provided no proof your claims are true, you've put the cart waaaay before the horse in asking for videos that it didn't happen the way you describe, having provided no evidence that it happened the way you describe. Instead all we have are videos of various VTOL rockets working marvelously, precisely the way they're supposed to, tethered AND untethered. For your claims to be true, every single one of these videos must be proven to be completely fake. You have yet to offer any standing proof that any of them were faked. Your own claim about how it was faked with tethers isn't even consistent with your claim that it's impossible for such a vehicle to stably operate with tethers, your own criticisms don't even match with your claims. I can not honestly believe that there is a single reasonable person reading this thread who believes that the LLRV and Pixel were faked in some grand conspiracy that continues to this day. Nonetheless, I'll be happy to continue showing you where your horse should go with your cart so that maybe one day you'll be motivated to actually do the work you expect everyone else to do for you.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


There is only one thing on this thread that is tethered.....and it's B-B.

Tethered to nonsense beliefs, tied down by a lack of understanding, or strapped into a strait-jacket so tight he simply cannot see reality right in front of him.....



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 166  167  168    170  171  172 >>

log in

join