An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 172
29
<< 169  170  171    173  174  175 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
www.harrier.org.uk...

Click on "Flying Controls"



To cater for jet-borne flight, where the aerodynamic forces on the conventional surfaces are reduced or eliminated, a system of air jet reaction control valves are utilised. These are placed in the extreme nose, tail and at the wingtips to provide pitch, roll and yaw control. The system uses air bled from the high-pressure compressor of the engine and the valves are opened using pilot commands from his normal controls. Indeed, the valves at the wingtips and in the tail are directly linked to the aileron, tailplane and rudder so that when each of these surfaces moves its corresponding valve also opens. This occurs during both wing and jet-borne flight, but as the engine bleed is only operative when the main engine nozzles are vectored below 20 degrees no jet reaction force is produced unless the aircraft is partially jet-borne. The interlinking of the aerodynamic and reaction controls, allied to the progressive increase in the amount of air bled from the engine with increasing nozzle vectoring above 20 degrees, ensures that the aircraft is fully controllable at all airspeeds and during transition.


But too many incidents have discouraged use of these planes.

Hey, but we are talking about Phoenix.

Show us a video of Phoenix tested on the earth.

Or do you think that Phoenix has been sent to Mars without testing its capabilities?






[edit on 27-5-2008 by Big-Brain]




posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


WHAT????

The Harrier still flies!!!!

big minus, you need a reality check....even your own stuff you import to the thread contradicts what you say!!!!!!

Go learn English....take a few months, then come back and debate with some intelligence.....in the mean time.....ATS is not going anywhere.....



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
NASA'S FRAUDS ANIMATION

youtube.com...

Ha, Ha, Ha


What a biggest buffoonery.

NASA's frauds can only make animations and simulations.

The new liar, the new biggest fraud is Barry Goldstein.

Will it be true his name? Ein - stein. Gold - stein. Ha, Ha, Ha, NASA's frauds have not big creativity.

This Goldstein doesn't look at the cine-camera, WHY?

Simple for my big brain: he is ashamed of himself to play the part of the biggest scientist.

NASA's frauds can swindle gullible people but not me and my readers.

There is an old fat actor in this video:

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

He plays the part of the OBS (old big scientist) but he exaggerates and looks like a caricature.
Many others actors look like caricatures.

My dear readers, it is not possible, it is not reasonable, it is not normal, it is not judicious, it is not logical, it is not admissible, it is not plausible that NASA's frauds have not tested Phoenix on the earth to see if it had capabilities to slow down velocity and to land going backwards without becoming a spinning ball.

I, Big-Brain - the man that forced NASA to rotate Tempel 1 image since I said it had the face of a bad animal - challenge NASA's frauds to show a video of Phoenix tested on the earth.

I will stay tuned.

NASA's frauds, throw off your mask or show us a video of Phoenix that slows down its velocity and lands going backwards like a leaf on the hard ground of our planet.

This is my challenge: BBC (Big Brain Challenge).








[edit on 28-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


I'll say this for you BB, you certainly make me laugh! You have a great sense of humor. Keep it up!



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Dear darkbluesky, I’m very pleased that you enjoy my posts.

My dear readers, look at this video:

phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu...

or go to: phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu... and to “Phoenix Lander Lift and Rotation”.

At Lockheed Martin I think they have tested Phoenix capabilities to slow down its velocity and to land going backwards suspending it from a crane as in this video.

They use the same system TOLSBMOC (take off and landing system by means of cables) used by NASA’s frauds to test LEM at Langley facility.

Lockheed Martin’s liars are right: it is the safer way to test a spacecraft.

I officially invite Lockheed Martin to my BBC (Big Brain Challenge). In order to win they must simply prove that Phoenix has been tested on the earth.

My dear readers close to Lockheed Martin, is there a stadium in which I could organize the BBC?

I could organize it at the same time of Lunar Lander Challenge.

It will be very astonishing to see all those probes that are sent towards the deep universe dropped from a helicopter that are able to land softly on the hard ground without crashing.




[edit on 29-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   


What is this Photoshop buffoonery?

My big brain always knows the answer: NASA's frauds use Photoshop to make their false images more interesting, more amazing, more astonishing.

Which is the real astonishing thing they could have done?

They could have filmed Mars while their rocket was going more and more close to the planet.

Imagine: from the nothing of the universe to the wonderful sight of Mars, that real one with its fantastic atmosphere full of amazing colours, nuances, gradations.

Instead NASA's frauds show us insigificant images, stones and land, land and stones.

Throw off your mask.




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
BB you have a valid point.

the colored images are "what we think" because they only sent back gray scale.

I could have mounted my canon camera and got better shots then that.

fuzzy out of focus low resolution images. Waste of bandwidth.


I agree that they should have filmed the whole landing it would have been quite the site.


oh well. maybe it was placed there. by the secret astronauts the US has.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Back to the LLRV. Not sure if anyone has pointed all these out, but you asked for videos of the LLRV, here they are. They are clearly NOT faked. Even today with computer animation, they could not create a fake that looked as good as these. Take them at face value, they are real.

I hate posting, but your absurd, and incoorect, assumptions, are driving me nuts, BB. Do a little real reasearch. You have put your foot in your mouth so many times already. How many times have you controdicted your own theroies?

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
LLRV 1
youtube.com...

LLRV 2
youtube.com...

In the two videos we see the same pilot, the same persons, the same UUUFO (Unidentified ugly unable to fly object) in the same flight, in the same moment.

Which is the real one? It seems to me that LLRV 1 or LLRV 2 is false? Which is real? Which is false? Either is false, either is real.

As the same flight can’t be different, we are forced to think both are false.

But my question is not about LLRVs.

I challenge NASA’s and Lockheed Martin’s frauds to show a video of Phoenix tested on the earth dropped from a helicopter.

As it can’t be controlled from the earth, it must be able to slow down its velocity and to land going backwards at 0 km/h following NASA’s frauds DIYS (Do it yourself system).

My dear readers, we are not gullible people. We believe only in what we see.

This is my challenge: BBC (Big Brain Challenge)

NASA’s frauds, show us Phoenix tested on the earth or throw off your mask.




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Sensational

phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu...




Scientists in the Norwegian island of Svalbard use sensitive instruments to detect simple life forms in a frigid and dry arctic environment. (Image credit: NASA)



These are images made by Phoenix:






And this is an image of the Norwegian island of Svalbard:



Observe it carefully: NASA's frauds have been inspired by the island of Svalbard to fake their images.





[edit on 30-5-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I'm not sure why you don't think the LLRV worked, Big Brain. You keep showing videos of Joe Walker successfully flying the LLRV. The YouTube videos showed edited compilations of footage from several different flights. Some footage of Walker entering the vehicle is duplicated on both videos. This material was transferred from several different reels of 16mm motion picture film.

Based on this footage it's obvious that the LLRV flew very well and that you don't know what you are talking about. You are using NASA film to prove yourself wrong. Keep up the good work.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 


Why do you continue to say that LLRVs were able to fly?

LLRVs have nothing to share with Phoenix.

Let your children see these images:





Ask them to say if those images have anything in common.

Those UUUFO (Unidentified ugly unable to fly object) share nothing.

The most important thing that differentiates them is that LLRV had a pilot that controlled it, instead Phoenix must slow down its velocity and land doing it itself.

It is so evident that NASA's frauds had to test Phoenix on the earth before sending it to Mars that only goats can refute this reasoning.


SENSATIONAL

An amazing, fantastic, astonishing, wonderful image directly from Mars:









[edit on 1-6-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


B- Brain, you truly are fancying yourself a comdian now, aren't you?

Two 'external images', the fisrt from the 1960s of an actual concept vehicle, then the second a frame from a computer simulation of the Phoenix lander!!!

The first pic, again....a PHOTOGRAPH!!! The other, of the Phoenix....CGI

Is it true that you actually cannot tell the difference?

Seriously,,,,can you not tell the difference?

Have you been to the movies lately? I mean, motion pictures, at your local cinema. They are doing some incredible CGI work....but not anytime before the 1990s. And certainly not in any way possiblity to render CGI in the 1960s!!!! Is that when you were born? The 1960s, or was it more like the 1990s?

Perhaps you grew up on modern films, and think that CGI has always been around...it has not.

Even 'Star Wars' (1977) did not use CGI....just actual models, filmed, with optical effects added in....animated, rotoscoped....CGI did not existed in 1977, except in the dreams of computer nerds. Actually, home computers didn't even exist in 1977....

So, your allegations that the LLRV was somehow faked just don't hold any water. It was not possible to render such incredibly photo-realistic images in the 1960s. Even the Phoenix simulation isn't photo-realistic!!!! It is conceptual, to describe the lander's operation, as it re-entered and landed. There was certainly no camera there, on Mars, to record the event.

Compare to the widely distributed video of Apollo 17's LM lift-off from the Moon. Filmed....(well, videoed, actually, and transmitted to Earth) as it happened.

If you wish to continue embarrassing yourself, then I'll make the popcorn, and we can all sit back and continued to be amused by nonsense as we watch your 'show'.

On the other hand, it would be incredibly satisfying if you did better investigative research and took the time to do some real learning....



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Big-Brain, rest assured if there was even a glimmer of truth that the moon shots were indeed faked, that ignorant folks such as yourself have covered it up with their complete stupidity.

The PTB want to thank you for helping to cover up the moon hoax, it couldn't have been done without folks like you than make points a grade school kid could refute, therefore rendering the argument pointless to pursue further.
[/sarcasm]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I have found this photo of Phoenix hooked to the crane, but I don't succeed in finding an image of Phoenix in flight.




www.lockheedmartin.com...

Yes, you are right. However there is not even a video in your site in which it is seen Phoenix that lands on the hard land of our planet.
Have not you ever tested Phoenix on the earth before sending it on Mars?
Where can we see videos in which we can observe Phoenix while it is landing on the hard ground of our planet?

Also at this Lockheed-Martin link:

www.lockheedmartin.com...

there is not some video or image of Phoenix that vertically flies and softly lands on the terrestrial ground.

My darlings readers, we keep on thinking that some tests of the abilities of flight of Phoenix don't have done, for which we are convinced that there is not any Phoenix that has gone to Mars.

If you write "Phoenix Mars Lander" in Lockheed Martin "SEARCH" at
www.lockheedmartin.com... you are redirected to Google.

Why?

YOU have built Phoenix, YOU have flown it, YOU must have images and videos of it flying.

Show us videos and images or throw off your mask.





posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Now....sorry, now I am just a little insulted....was amused for a while, but that is quickly fading.

B-B just called us 'his darlings (sic) readers'

First, I am not your 'darling'. (Nor, am I, or anyone else, your 'dear' or 'dearest'....)

Second, we who are able to read, can see that, so far, what has been brought to this thread, by B-B, is complete nonsense. No valid refutations, by B-B, of points raised by other posters. Nothing directly disputed, as should happen in a real debate.

Instead, valid arguments, by others.....simply ignored. A new post, by B-B, simply includes fallacious 'arguments', usually just repeats of something from a day or two earlier, with no direct bearing on the discussion offered by anyone else.

It has been said that patience is a virtue. I think that is a good philosophy to adhere to, if possible; certainly fits in well with the foundation of ATS... But, as I may have pointed out here (or was it somewhere else?) even a host of teachers....even twenty teachers...may not be able to teach the 'unteachable'.

(Or, to be charitable, those who wish not to be taught)

Rather than adopting an accusatory additude, towards an ATS member, I wish to say that, in my opinion, B-B can simply not be shown how wrong he/she is....at least, not on this Board. Meaning, it is impossible, via the Internet, to properly explain the misconceptions that seem to lie at the heart of why B-B just doesn't get it.

Heaven knows, many of us have tried, very hard, to explain. All commendable efforts.....

I started, as I began to write this post, with a little harshness, but instead of deleting it, I left it in. I think the adults in the 'thread' can read it, and judge for themselves.

This 'Moon Consipiracy' idea has legs......but not in the way this particular thread has been taken....'diverted', if you will, by B-B.

I think the OP wanted to promote the premise that Apollo was not 'faked'....not in the way some CTers wish to promote. Apollo landed 12 men on the Moon.

The 'conspiracy' begins to develop around what those 12 (well, 15...actually, 18, if you count Apollo 13{even though they were busy trying to stay alive}....well, 9 more, once you think about Apollos 8, 9 and 10).

edit to add....that was poorly written. 12 landed, in the LMs. I refer, in the paragraph above, to other Astronauts who travelled to the Moon, in addition to the 12 who landed, in the Apollo Program.

Point I am trying to make....Apollo sent men to the Moon. END of that 'conspiracy'. Where some of the confusion starts, and what probably contributes to this alleged CT theory in the first place, is.....what they saw, and could not talk about.

So, the OP calls it 'An End To The Moon Conspiracy'....but there are more than one 'conspiracies' to ponder....

Just food for thought.....either I am full of it, or someone will come along and add to what I just spent ten minutes typing!!

Like to hear from you! Comments are welcomed...


actually saw, while there on or in orbit around the Moon, but were told not to speak about.









[edit on 6/2/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   
error





[edit on 2-6-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Brain, I'm curious what level of schooling you have in life? I wonder because of your complete inability to understand basic Newtonian physics and elementary math.

Please, I might have missed it in one of your thousand useless posts on this board, enlighten me as to why you have the "brain" power to successfully argue your point? And, if you claim to have said "brain" power, why the hell haven't you used it yet? Your making an ass out of yourself, and are basically an embarrassment to all conspiracists in the world. It's fools like yourself that ensure no real conspiracy will ever be taken seriously.

If this was not a for profit site, really interested in reality, you would have been banned a long time ago, forced to live out your days at GLP, open minds, or some other outlandish site that specializes in the absolutely absurd (this place is getting there though, so stick around long enough and you will be right at home, as those of us with a real brain will eventually jump ship leaving fools such as yourself to pat each other on the back all day as you stand around and agree with each other on everything)

[edit on 2-6-2008 by IgnoreTheFacts]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


ITF....look for B-B's thread.....There is no Phoenix Lander on Mars

Or something like that. He trolled outside of his area, in my opinion.

But, I don't feed him, just the few that show up.....most of them are salvageable.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
video.google.com...

Lunar Landing

00:32 shows landing pad and the probe that touched down first.

I worked at the company that made the probe and micro switch and cables
for the flight computer hook up.

The company advertised, which is dumb for a DOD contract company, that
their product would be the first man made object to touch the Moon.

Well they were told to pull the ad.
I also heard the device was not used.

So is that a fake landing we were shown.
Any survey of landing sites from Illuminati telescopes yet.
Can we ever verify the Lunar Landings.





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 169  170  171    173  174  175 >>

log in

join