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: 170
29
<< 167  168  169    171  172  173 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter


Originally posted by Big-Brain
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.


Above all, I’m not a liar. I have misunderstood your reasoning.

You can’t understand simple physics. The cables attached to Pixel are not in traction to eliminate 5/6 of earth’s gravity.

Therefore Pixel could fly free avoiding pendulous effect.

But we all smart people see that Pixel is held vertical by means of thin nylon wires while stripe-cables are waving in the wind to simulate that it is not tethered.

Instead its perfect stability shows that it is perfectly tethered by means of nylon invisible cables.
Put your forefinger under a glass and try to balance it. You can see that the top part oscillates tremendously.

Look carefully at this video at 02:05 (2 minutes and 5 seconds)

youtube.com...

The rocket oscillates like a pendulous. It means that it suspended from the crane by means of thin nylon invisible wires. Instead strip-cables waving in the wind make you think the rocket is not suspended at all from the crane.

John Carmack doesn’t cheat me and my readers because we are smarter than him.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by Big-Brain]




posted on May, 20 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


LOL!!!! 'thin invisible nylon wires'!!!!!

'pendulous' effects!!!!


B-B....you are trying, aren't you, to be funny just to be a pain in the side of REAL people who can see reality for themselves??

Dear (B-B) "readers"...
...please chime in, and help your dear friend, B-B.

A 'pendulum' is what you find in a grandfather clock....think of a metronome....

In the Utoobe you posted, it is clearly evident that the vehicle is supporting itself, since the safety tethers are completely slack.

Then....
..."invisible nylon wires" ???

Thanks for giving me one of the best laughs I've had in a while!!



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

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?


Hey, aliens believer, answer my question instead of laughing.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Your questions?

OK....no, not one alien has spoken directly to me....but there are hundreds and hundreds of cases of abductions....other people experience this....and their DNA is taken.

Prove it wrong! You're so good at fake 'proof'!!

Also, please prove wrong the testimonies of abductees (females) who have been impregnated whist abducted, only to be abducted again, to have the embryo removed, then re-abducted (years later) to be shown their hybrid child....

BUT....this belongs on another thread....I mentioned it in the first place, because I have seen many references to Apollo, and possible ET influences. Continuing on this tack is diverting THIS thread...and we must stop now.

The real point of this OP is....there is no 'scientific' evidence to show that the Apollo space project was faked. End.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain


You can’t understand simple physics. The cables attached to Pixel are not in traction to eliminate 5/6 of earth’s gravity.

Therefore Pixel could fly free avoiding pendulous effect.

According to your previous claim, they were using cables to fake Pixel's flight. How then were they able to keep it stable with a rocket motor blasting away? If physics worked the way you pretend it does, then that rocket should cause it to "swing like a pendulum." The presence of a tether would neither cause nor negate this effect if it exists.


But we all smart people see that Pixel is held vertical by means of thin nylon wires while stripe-cables are waving in the wind to simulate that it is not tethered.

Now suddenly you swap back to the position that "nylon wires" are holding it in order to fake the flight, ignoring the fact that cables would not make it more stable, and in direct contradiction to your previous statement in THIS VERY POST where you said they are not being used to lessen the effect of gravity.


Instead its perfect stability shows that it is perfectly tethered by means of nylon invisible cables.

LMFAO! Cables would do nothing to stabilize the rocket if it were naturally unstable. Your lack of understanding of this simple fact is profound. If the tether were responsible for stabilizing an unstable rocket, it would simply start swinging in a circle and eventually impact the crane.


Put your forefinger under a glass and try to balance it. You can see that the top part oscillates tremendously.

Your forefinger is not rigidly attached to the glass the way the rocket engine is. Invalid analogy.


Look carefully at this video at 02:05 (2 minutes and 5 seconds)

youtube.com...

For the love of pete, stop posting youtube videos. I can't view them on this computer so I have to go figure out which original video it corresponds to. All the armadillo videos on youtube are available at a higher quality on the armadillo website. Please use the original source when possible. It's just good research ettiquette anyway. Not that I would expect you to know anything about that.


The rocket oscillates like a pendulous. It means that it suspended from the crane by means of thin nylon invisible wires. Instead strip-cables waving in the wind make you think the rocket is not suspended at all from the crane.

Where's the crane in the video?! Where's the evidence of wires?! Where are the witnesses telling us how it was faked?! They're NOT THERE! The motion at 2:05 is during takeoff, it could be the result of the rocket finding its initial stability, or it could be due to slight control inputs from the pilot, it is NOT proof of tethers, in fact the distance the craft transverses between platforms proves that it couldn't have been a crane! It should be swinging WILDLY back and forth once it reaches a hover position over the new platform (THAT would be an example of a "pendulus effect", not the slight forward tilting present during the second liftoff), but that doesn't happen. The slight oscillations are entirely consistent with the motions of a gimbaling engine. You have a severe lack of understand with regards to basic physics. I know this concept seems impossible for the youtube generation to understand, but your ignorance-based opinion is not proof or evidence of anything.


John Carmack doesn’t cheat me and my readers because we are smarter than him.

Your post's contradictions and ignorance proves just the opposite.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


ngchunter.....not to continue, nor intending to deflect this thread.....I think you deserve 'applause' for the term 'youtube generation'!!!!

I believe you just hit the nail on the head!!!!

Great contributions...I have learned a lot from you!! Thanks!!

WW



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...
Also, please prove wrong the testimonies of abductees (females) who have been impregnated whist abducted, only to be abducted again, to have the embryo removed, then re-abducted (years later) to be shown their hybrid child....
...


Now I understand many things about your strange answers.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


B-B.....I responded to your question, and attempted to bring the discussion back on topic.

Please do not continue to attack/divert!!

Your one-line comment was passive-aggressive, deceptive, and entirely unclear. AND, entirely off-topic, even though I have tried to steer this thing back on the rails....

If you can't understand that simple concept, then it's no wonder you can't understand the point of this thread...



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


BB, here is yet another blogger who personally witnessed Armadillo's attempts at the 2007 lunar lander challenge.
www.livescience.com...
Please prove he's lying about seeing the vehicle fly untethered.

Another one:
popsci.typepad.com...
Prove Seth Fletcher has a motive (and is willing) to put his career at risk for someone else's lie.

In order for this to be a conspiracy, the media would have to be in on it too, only expanding the unlikelyhood that everyone would stay silent, that no one would scream, "they tried to pay me to shut up!" Worse yet, why would journalists lie about what they saw when there'd be such a bigger story in saying "it didn't happen!" And lastly, if it were physically impossible, every physics teacher and professor out there should be crying foul. They don't, so every physics teacher in the world must be in on it too.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Now suddenly you swap back to the position that "nylon wires" are holding it in order to fake the flight, ignoring the fact that cables would not make it more stable, and in direct contradiction to your previous statement in THIS VERY POST where you said they are not being used to lessen the effect of gravity.
...


"ignoring the fact that cables would not make it more stable ?"



If you lift an object with a crane, why shouldn't it be stable?

"and in direct contradiction to your previous statement in THIS VERY POST where you said they are not being used to lessen the effect of gravity"

Hey, what are you saying? Here we are not at Langley crane and the cables would be used for safety.
But we see thet they are used to hide the real thin nylon invisible cables that hold the rocket like in the previous image.

The flame, or colored smoke, computer generated has no thrust.
The rocket couldn't be so stable if it had a real oscillating rocket engine.

It would be better that you reason, instead of saying nonsense





[edit on 20-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

"ignoring the fact that cables would not make it more stable ?"



If you lift an object with a crane, why shouldn't it be stable?

I don't see a rocket engine blasting away on that cargo, do you?! Once again, INVALID analogy.



Hey, what are you saying? Here we are not at Langley crane and the cables would be used for safety.
But we see thet they are used to hide the real thin nylon invisible cables that hold the rocket like in the previous image.

Nonsensical statement. They don't hide ANYTHING, in fact it's a dead giveaway that there's a crane attached, almost as much of a dead giveaway as the presence of the crane and wires themselves. Why would they post a video showing it tethered if they planned to fake it later using tethers? Holding the rocket with wires will not increase the stability of an unstable rocket. You yourself already admitted that by claiming it as the reason that there are no LLRF videos on youtube. In one case you believe an unstable rocket attached to a crane will still be completely unstable, and in this case you believe it will be magically stable because of the presence of cables. Your switch your claims around at will to fit whatever the situation is.



The flame, or colored smoke, computer generated has no thrust.
The rocket couldn't be so stable if it had a real oscillating rocket engine.

You need to prove it was computer generated if you're going to make that claim. Considering how it affects the environment around it when it's turned on, that's impossible unless the entire scene is computer generated, which it obviously isn't.


It would be better that you reason, instead of saying nonsense

LOL! Try following your own advice.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Holding the rocket with wires will not increase the stability of an unstable rocket. You yourself already admitted that by claiming it as the reason that there are no LLRF videos on youtube. In one case you believe an unstable rocket attached to a crane will still be completely unstable, and in this case you believe it will be magically stable because of the presence of cables. Your switch your claims around at will to fit whatever the situation is.
...


No, you don't understand simple phisics yet.

I said the "full scale (or "somewhat smaller") LEM" at Langley Crane was unstable because cables were attached to its center of gravity:



Invisible nylon cables instead are attached to the top of Armadillo Pixel and Texel like in this image:



Have you seen how much stable is that tank?



...
You need to prove it was computer generated if you're going to make that claim. Considering how it affects the environment around it when it's turned on, that's impossible unless the entire scene is computer generated, which it obviously isn't.
...


youtube.com...

At 1 minute and 21 seconds they have exaggerated with dust effect computer generated or perhaps the dust is produced by a helicopter.
On that background our funny John Carmack has developed his computer rocket game. NASA's frauds call them CRG.

The rocket is suspended from a truck crane with invisible nylon cables attached to its top or is moved on that background thanks to Softimage or Maya 3D softwares.

youtube.com...

The rocket is too stable, it's held in the same position by invisible cables.
The flame or colored smoke is computer generated.

I'm sorry but this is the truth.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


B-B.....please tell us, exactly how strong is an invisible nylon 'wire'??

What is the tensile strength?? How much did the vehicle weigh, and how many nylon wires would be needed to support that wheight?? Four? Eight? Sixteen? Thirty-two??? When will that many 'invisible' nylon wires start to become 'visible'?? Hmmm????

AND....where was the support for these alleged 'invisible' nylon wires?? Not in those pictures.

So....let's break down your inconsistencies, for your enlightened audience (who don't exist)....the vehicle is supported by nylon wires....but, of course, there is nothing for the wires to be supported by, up above the vehicle. THEN, you switch, mid-stream, and claim CGI effects....patently false, plainly obviously false, but an act of desperation.

I'm finding this thread very entertaining, I just wish more people would grab some popcorn, pull up a chair and enjoy it with the rest of us, because B-B is getting wiped out!!!



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

No, you don't understand simple phisics yet.

You mean I don't understand how you're making crap up on the fly. Yeah.


I said the "full scale (or "somewhat smaller") LEM" at Langley Crane was unstable because cables were attached to its center of gravity:



Invisible nylon cables instead are attached to the top of Armadillo Pixel and Texel like in this image:



Have you seen how much stable is that tank?

The last sentence is so broken that I can't understand it. And you're wrong, during pixel's tethered tests, it was attached at 4 points, not two:
media.armadilloaerospace.com...
media.armadilloaerospace.com...
At some angles it may appear to be only two points, but that's only because the front wires obscure the rear wires from certain angles:
media.armadilloaerospace.com...
In any case, whether it's 4 wires attached at cardinal points, or one attachement in the center, neither will stabilize an unstable rocket, especially when the wires are slack.

Note, of course, that the tethers are all slack after liftoff... they are not being used to lift the craft. And before you come back at me with that nylon garbage, you can clearly see in these images how the tethers are all routed through a "pole" that bundles them together before they reach each of the 4 attachment points: if the thinner "nylon" wires (which as seen in the videos, are threaded along the bungie strips to keep them from tangling) were taut, then they should be pulling the attachment bundle into a straight angle pointing straight back to the crane - in other words they should all be pointing at the same point straight above the craft. They don't.


youtube.com...

Stop posting youtube videos, post the original source. The only people who use youtube as a form of research, let alone their sole source when there are better alternatives, are fools.


At 1 minute and 21 seconds they have exaggerated with dust effect computer generated or perhaps the dust is produced by a helicopter.

LMFAO, you just proposed two mutually exclusive claims and you expect your contradicting opinions to serve as proof? You've got to be joking me. Prove it's exagerated. Show me proof that a rocket engine could not kick up dust. Ironic that you hoax believers complain about the lack of a crater formed by the LEM's engine, yet you complain now when a rocket merely blows dirt around. Changing standards to fit the evidence.


On that background our funny John Carmack has developed his computer rocket game. NASA's frauds call them CRG.

None of his computers games ever approached the kind of realism that would be necessary to fake this. Worse yet, it's impossible to fake it with witnesses present, which you still haven't proved to be liars.


The rocket is suspended from a truck crane with invisible nylon cables attached to its top or is moved on that background thanks to Softimage or Maya 3D

Once again your claims are mutually exclusive. Which is it? It can't be both, and you still have yet to prove either to be true. It can't be a truck crane because no truck crane could possibly lift it that high, no crane is visible even from the wide angle shots, and no crane could move it over to another platform in a straight line like that without causing it to swing wildly when reaching the new hover position. It can't be "maya 3d" because independent people saw it happen with their own eyes and reported on it! On top of all of this there is NO evidence for either being true. So not only is it impossible that it's fake, there's no evidence for it being fake, just your ignorant opinion that it is. You're just stubbornly ignorant and will toss out any claim you can, rather than accept the obviousness of the inescapable truth. You lack any intellectual honesty whatsoever, something your "readers" can now see for themselves.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
space.xprize.org...

space.xprize.org...

"Teams competing in the two level NG-LLC include:"


Acuity Technologies


www.acuitytx.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armadillo Aerospace


media.armadilloaerospace.com...

media.armadilloaerospace.com...

True Armadillo flights:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BonNova


www.wirefly.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Masten Space Systems


www.youtube.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micro-Space


www.entrespace.org...



The Micro-Space suborbital vehicle is assembled from the modular propulsion units which are used in our other designs. It uses a cockpit core much like a bobsled into which three pressure suited men can squeeze. Various configurations of propulsion strap-ons are possible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragon labs


www.paragonspace.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SpeedUp


images.townnews.com...

www.youtube.com...




SpeedUp's Laramie Rose continues to move toward hover testing. The thrust-vectoring vanes have been installed, and the vehicle is mounted on a set of 3-axis load cells. We measured thrust vs. throttle position in the first test, and the effectiveness of the thrust-vectoring vanes on the second test. Sharp eyes will see one of the vanes moving near the end of the test, and some peroxide dripping from a fitting that is easily replaced.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unreasonable rocket


www.rasdoc.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations.


NASA's frauds will be pleased to see all these extraordinary brains.



[edit on 22-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
We all know that anyone's can't trust anything those "swindlers" and "braggarts" at NASA can say or show but there is some good faked movie on this site:

LLRV archives



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


I guess you're no longer going to actually respond to any points I make about how ridiculous your argument is. You've gone from ignoring most of my post, to completely ignoring the entire post. This is no longer a debate or a discussion, it's degenerated into something else akin to watching a person lose their mind.

At first I thought you were just a troll trying to goad a response out of us that would get us banned the way you were banned a short time ago. Now I really do think that you believe the things you say, but I think having all your points debunked pushed you over the edge. Do you REALLY think that all these teams are hoaxers (and what proof do you actually have, they haven't even competed yet!)? If so, why haven't they actually produced anything that works? If they're faking it to win 2 million dollars, then where's the faked successful trial? And what's with all the
faces on every single line? In all seriousness, it sounds like the train has gone clear off the tracks. Please, seek help for your own sake.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


darkblue....I have to repeat myself....it was my fault for offering the word 'braggarts' to B-B....he used the terribly awkward term 'swaggerers' so many times, it made my brain bleed.....

So, I throw myself on the mercy of the court...mea culpa....for suggesting that word...guess it fit well in his translation program?........

As to the rest of his posts?? Pfffft!!



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I hope you will be abducted by an alien, because you can only say nonsense.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Please, seek help for your own sake.



Please, seek help for your brain in order to reason in more intelligent manner.

NG-LLC (I love these NASA's frauds' acronyms) or rather
Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is a real tomfoolery.

en.wikipedia.org...



Grumman were also the chief contractor on the Apollo Lunar Module that landed men on the moon. They received the contract on 7 November 1962, and ultimately built 13 lunar modules (LMs). As the Apollo program neared its end, Grumman was one of the chief competitors for the contract to design and build the Space Shuttle, but lost to Rockwell International.

Meanwhile, in 1969, the company changed its name to Grumman Aerospace Corporation, and in 1978 it sold the Grumman-American Division to Gulfstream Aerospace. Grumman built the Grumman Long Life Vehicle (LLV), a light transport mail truck designed for and used by the United States Postal Service. The LLV entered service in 1986.


How is that the extraordinary BGG (Biggest Grumman Group) that built from 1962 to 1971 13 LMs (I love NASA's frauds' acronyms) or rather Lunar Modules and that landed on the Moon 6 LMs and 12 astronauts
ask on 2008 to poor people (an ex developer of computer games, an ex fierworks specialist and so on) to invent a new Lunar Lander?

This is very strange.

Why did BGG (Biggest Grumman Group) stop its researches about probes and Lunar Modules and began to produce these LLVs (yes, you have understood well: LLVs not LLRVs or LLTVs) ?



From space to postal service?



Has BBG (Biggest Grumman Group) lost its extraordinary technology able to lift and land a rocket holding it in vertical position like a helicopter?

How could have they lost that incredible technology?

If they had been really so extraordinary in 1960-1970, today their technology would be astonishing after almost 40 years.

Conclusion: their technology was false, in fact no video exists about LEMs tested at Langley Crane and shot by means of 6 cine-cameras during 150 test flights.

My dear readers, it's evident even for gouts.









[edit on 23-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 167  168  169    171  172  173 >>

log in

join