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: 84
29
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
You're hilarious...


This thread has really degraded in quality. I can see why it's been unpinned from the top of the page now.




posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
Wow...now there is a controled number of smilies we can use. Moderator, you should consider a prison guard career.

ATS has thousands of posts where people who speak the truth are mocked and insulted. No moderators counted any smilies there...

Nobody was on the Moon! Ever!

Sixty seven smilies for the armed and dangerous moderator!!!!!!!!!


No, there is no limit for smilies.
There is also no limit for intelligent exchanges of information.
It's up to you to decide which is the preferred method of getting your point across.



posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   
According to you, there are "intelligent" ways of communication and not-so-intelligent, which includes having three smilies instead of one.

That is a new theory of communication, I am sure...

Honestly: It looked VERY personal, like you REALLY DID NOT LIKE what bigbrain had to say, and you were just finding a way to cut him down. That can be seen easily from as far as the Moon if only we could get there, and you are not as clever as you think you are.



posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   
jra, you are a woldwide known authority on the quality of the discussion. Thanks for giving us your review for free...we are so happy to have you here. I am sure sir moderator is also happy to see that you did not forget the topic where you have written thousands of lines of apologetic text...for free....or is it for free?

[edit on 1-6-2007 by swimmer]



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
swimmer,

It's a conspiracy discussion board.
Doesn't really matter to me, what people believe.
My only wish is that people keep it civil.
My impression of a whole string of smilies, in a topic that is not humor related, is that one member is mocking, or laughing at another.
I could be wrong. Thats my take on it.

Let's get back on topic.
An End To The Moon Conspiracy!


[edit on 2-6-2007 by spacedoubt]



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigbrain

Originally posted by bigbrain


If I had wings, I could fly.

But I have no wings and nobody can give me them.

Then either I fake to be able to fly or I can't fly





Nobody could give NASA BSJ wings to fly in 1969 and not even today.

It's still longest the way to go to the moon.

Nobody went to the moon










This is the end: nobody went to the moon

[edit on 2-6-2007 by bigbrain]



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigbrain

This is the end: nobody went to the moon

[edit on 2-6-2007 by bigbrain]


if the case against apollo and NASA is indeed so overwhelmingly certain , why is it that neither your or any other hoax believer has been able to put forward a single compelling and meritous argument ?

not one !

my open challenge for a formal debate on this topic still stands - i will take the pro NASA position

any takers ?



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Guys, maybe you should google "The Moon Hoax Debate".



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZikhaN
Guys, maybe you should google "The Moon Hoax Debate".


and ?

i , and many others here have extensivly researched this subject - and more imprtantly understand the science and technology behind it

the negative position of the " debate " is composed almost enirely of charlatans and the ignorant - who fail to comprehend the arguments



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   

quote: Originally posted by bigbrain
quote: Originally posted by bigbrain


If I had wings, I could fly.

But I have no wings and nobody can give me them.

Then either I fake to be able to fly or I can't fly





Nobody could give NASA BSJ wings to fly in 1969 and not even today.

It's still longest the way to go to the moon.

Nobody went to the moon











This is the end: nobody went to the moon


No this is the end, say hello to my friend iggy.
IGNORED BIGBRAIN.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

Originally posted by ZikhaN
Guys, maybe you should google "The Moon Hoax Debate".


and ?

i , and many others here have extensivly researched this subject - and more imprtantly understand the science and technology behind it

the negative position of the " debate " is composed almost enirely of charlatans and the ignorant - who fail to comprehend the arguments


Why would you debate with charlatans and the ignorant...waisting your valid research on us? What do you get out of it? Money?



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
Why would you debate with charlatans and the ignorant


i challenge chalatans becauise i hate to see them bilking people into buying thier overpriced books , DVDs and other crap - which contain nothing but lies , ommissions , distortions and innuendo

i attempt to educate the ignorant - because i can , every one has thier areas of expertise . Engineering is one of mine .

many things SEEM counter intuitive - and when distorted by a charlatan - it is easy for people without the background to understand the fundamental science behind a principle to be duped into believing that what they are seing is strange

in almost all cases - a quick explaination of the science corrects these misconceptions

there are still people with a adgenda who refuse to accept - and either ignore the explaination or simply move on to another claim - as if nothing has happened

this is a pit fall of actually addressing charlatans - if you ignore their lies - they claim victory - trumpteting " no one can refute this - it must be true "

conversly - if you refute thier dishonesty - you get the wail " why are you doing this ... are you a paid debunker , OR .... look how they gang up on me ... i must be right "


...waisting your valid research on us?


valid research is never wasted

and frankly - you are not my target audence - i am more intrested in educating the casual reader who - might believe your lies if they were not refuted in public


What do you get out of it?


satisfaction mostly - that i have helped someone gain a better understanding of science and technology

PS - i must admit a cetrain perverse glee when charlatans howl


Money?


WTF ????

thats a typical response - because i do this i must be a " paid debunker "

what claptrap

the only people with a finanical interest in this are the charlatans selling books DVDs and seminars



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
...
why is it that neither your or any other hoax believer has been able to put forward a single compelling and meritous argument ?
...



Hey, how can you say such a thing?

Nobody would have gone to the moon with a spacecraft never tested on the earth.

Technology was poorest in 1969, computers were ridiculous and the system to keep vertical a rocket going backwards during landing was more and more ridiculous (gimbaled rocket engine, thrusters, hand controller).

Try to keep vertical a coke can on your finger.

In the reentry the aluminum Command Module would have boiled at 2800°C and those 3 poor men would have burned.

Not even today a rocket can land going backwards.

If these arguments are not enough for you, never mind, don't worry.

Perhaps imbeciles live better in this strange world.



jra

posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbrain
Nobody would have gone to the moon with a spacecraft never tested on the earth.


It was tested in Earth orbit. What do you think the Mercury and Gemini programs were for? The LM was also tested in Earth and Lunar orbit before landing on the Moon. And the only way to really test land an LM on the Moon is to land it on the Moon. Just like when you test a new aircraft, the only way to see if it will really fly is to take it out and fly it. This is why we have test pilots, this is also why they used test pilots on Apollo.


Technology was poorest in 1969


Yet we managed to make plenty of amazing things back in those days. SR-71 for example was flying around at the time (first flew in 1964). There is no known manned aircraft that flies as fast since then. The concord, which was the first and only supersonic passenger aircraft first flew in 1969.

Yes, clearly our technology was horrible at that time and we were unable to do anything significant or amazing.



computers were ridiculous


Ridiculous compared to our computers today, sure, but there computer was more than fine for what it needed to do.


and the system to keep vertical a rocket going backwards during landing was more and more ridiculous (gimbaled rocket engine, thrusters, hand controller).

Try to keep vertical a coke can on your finger.


That's so not what it's like. I've explained this already, but you obviously don't want to listen.


In the reentry the aluminum Command Module would have boiled at 2800°C and those 3 poor men would have burned.


As has been explained dozens of times. The heat shield was not aluminum, nor did the sides of the capsule get as hot as the bottom.


Not even today a rocket can land going backwards.


Do you mean rocket or capsule?

If capsule. The shuttle re-enters with the bottom side taking all the heat. All planetary landers and rovers travel in a capsule and enter the atmosphere with the bottom/backside taking all the heat. ICBM war heads also work in the same way too, which again, has been explained to you. Yet not surprisingly you refuse to listen.

If rocket. The DC-X is one such example. There are some private space companies out there developing similar craft. Also the Surveyor landers, landed on the Moon with rockets to slow there decent before Apollo went to the Moon. Viking's 1 and 2 landed on Mars with a parachute and rockets. So clearly it is possible.


If these arguments are not enough for you, never mind, don't worry.


But you don't debate or even argue your points. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over like a parrot. Unable to defend the points that you've made.

EDIT: Just thought i'd add this link for the Lunar Lander Challenge. Still think landing a rocket backwards is ridiculous?

[edit on 5-6-2007 by jra]



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigbrain

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
...
why is it that neither your or any other hoax believer has been able to put forward a single compelling and meritous argument ?
...



Hey, how can you say such a thing?


very easily - and your responses validate my opinion

ALL the points with you have re-hashed , have been asked and answered - several times

and most tellingly you never addressed the rebutals - or made any attempt to refute them - nor have you ever expanded on your claims

why are you attempting to posit these old canards ?

snip the re-cycled garbage

if you actually want to discuss this further - accept my challenge to a formal debate



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

EDIT: Just thought i'd add this link for the Lunar Lander Challenge. Still think landing a rocket backwards is ridiculous?


So, lol, why is this a challenge if it had already been done (orbital landing module) back in 1969?

BTW, note how the Pixel is basically symmetric, unlike the unwieldy LEM.




There a good reason for that, ya know.


At any rate, good post.


Here's the vid:
www.space.com...


.


[edit on 6-6-2007 by Badge01]



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
badge01 thye have had other challenges. The last one was making gloves for astronauts on spacewalks. Why would they do that if its been done before?

lots of reasons the main one being to tap into the invention & knowledge of all these engineers & scientists who dont work for nasa.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Dear Jra,

(Snip)

You say: “It was tested in Earth orbit. What do you think the Mercury and Gemini programs were for? The LM was also tested in Earth and Lunar orbit before landing on the Moon”.


How can you test the landing of a rocket that must land going backwards in orbit?

(Snip)

You say: “EDIT: Just thought i'd add this link for the Lunar Lander Challenge. Still think landing a rocket backwards is ridiculous?

Also this ridiculous rocket can't land going backwards (videos are fake) But if it could do it...

Doesn't it seem to you completely different from Lem?

What's that got to do with Lem?

(Snip)

Mod Edit: Please Review The Links Below.

Terms & Conditions Of Use
Courtesy Is Mandatory
ATS Discussion Etiquette

[edit on 6-6-2007 by chissler]



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Wow, "bigbrain," you must be the most evil and foolish troll on the Internet.

You wilfully ignore scientific and technical facts.

You don't back up your assertions with valid arguments.

You insult, not only people who disagree with you, but all the thousands of people who worked so hard for so many years to make the Apollo missions a triumph for the human race.

Several of us have explained how the LEM was tested (in space and with simulations and LLRV/LLTV flights). We have explained the nature of the the thermal protection systems and so many other things. You obviously don't care about truth. You just want to taunt people.

I think many of us would rather not waste our time feeding your ego by arguing with you, but we feel an obligation to the innocents who might be fooled by your bizarre claims.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
bigbrain,

The Lunar Lander Challenge was open to many spectators and many members of the press. So even if they felt like "faking the video" there would have been too many other witnesses.

And how is the DC-x and the LEM different? I don't see any difference in their basic working concept (which is, as you described it "a rocket landing backwards")

[edit on 6-6-2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

Mod Edit: Removed Quoted Text

[edit on 6-6-2007 by chissler]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join