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: 97
29
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
At this moment 99% of scientists of the world know that there was not "Moon Landing".


I don't think so my friend. I like to see you find even a small handfull of qualified scientists that thinks the Apollo missions were fake.


The fact is, probably 50% of ordinary people figured it out.


Fact? So you've done/seen a servey? Could I see it too please? Or are you just making stuff up to support your argument?




posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
How do you explain that NASA says it's impossible for human to travel outside of the Van Allen Belt?
click on the link srcoll down to "Program 25" listen for yourself.
video.csupomona.edu...


jra

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
How do you explain that NASA says it's impossible for human to travel outside of the Van Allen Belt?


Either you didn't watch the video or you didn't understand it at all. No where did they say it's impossible to travel outside the Van Allen belts. I don't even recall hearing the word "impossible" ever mentioned at all in the entire video.

What they talked about are the challenges of extended, long term missions outside of low Earth orbit. By spending months to years out in space, one is exposed to a lot more radiation which can be very harmful. NASA plans for the up coming lunar missions to stay on the Moon for months, unlike the Apollo missions which only stayed for a number of days. So their exposure levels were a lot less than what one would get staying out there for months. But nowhere did anyone say it was impossible to travel outside the Belts.

I highly recommend you watch that video again.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   
yasky wrote,

Now MoonBelievers are so desperate their starting to say YOUTUBE is unreliable just like Wikipedia ANYWAYS in this link you'll read the author saying Nasa once again says "Radiation is to much for Human to go to moon" apollofryup.bravehost.com...
NOW here's the direct NASA link, scroll down to "Program 25" listen and weep once again NASA slipping up and letting us know Radiation is too high for humans to go out to space
video.csupomona.edu...


1. Youtube may or may not be accurate. ANYONE can post almost whatever they want on youtube and videos are not check for factual content unless complaints are received.

2. I watched the NASA video #25 which was very interesting. AT NO TIME, did they say ANYTHING about "Radiation is too high for humans to go out to space". It only said that radiation is a chief concern.

Before you present something, you may want to look at it and understand it yourself.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Dear friends Swimmer and Yasky,

jra is in the pay of NASA jokers and with his argumentations he shows himself very ridiculous.

For intelligent people these news sound strangest:

www.daviddarling.info...


"Lunar lander is NASA's biggest 'challenge'
(May 8, 2006)

NASA will sponsor its largest ever competition – with prizes totalling $2.5 million – to develop rockets capable of landing on the Moon, agency officials announced on Friday. The "Lunar Lander Challenge" is the latest in the agency's Centennial Challenges programme, which aims to spur technological advances through prize competitions. But the top prizes in previous challenges – which include developing astronaut gloves – have been limited to $250,000.


Source: New Scientist

Hey, jra

I've found a nice game for you:

www.thepcmanwebsite.com...

Then look at this ridiculous test. You wrote to see Armadillo, let's see:

www.space.com...

HA, HA, HA.

I like above all the enthusiasm, excitement, euphoria of THE 3 HEROES OF THE MOON:

www.youtube.com...

I LOVE SO MUCH ALDRIN'S EUPHORIA.

How many sedatives did they give to Aldrin?
Why is Armstrong so sad?
Is Collins doing Buddhism meditation?








[edit on 16-8-2007 by skepticfriend]

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Jbird]


jra

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by skepticfriend
Hey, jra

I've found a nice game for you:

www.thepcmanwebsite.com...


Played it before. It's fun.


Then look at this ridiculous test. You wrote to see Armadillo, let's see:

www.space.com...

HA, HA, HA.


Congratulations, you found one video of it not working properly. Not everything works perfectly all the time. Now here's a video of it working.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 16-8-2007 by jra]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jraCongratulations, you found one video of it not working properly. Not everything works perfectly all the time. Now here's a video of it working.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 16-8-2007 by jra]


And another video:

media.armadilloaerospace.com...

And another:

media.armadilloaerospace.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
space.newscientist.com...

"Lunar lander challenge ends with a crash
22:35 21 October 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Kelly Young, Las Cruces


Armadillo Aerospace's third attempt to win the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge ended with a crash, dashing its hopes of winning the $350,000 prize.
The team's rocket had 2.5 hours to lift off at one launch pad and hover for 90 seconds at an altitude of 50 metres as it moved to a second launch pad 100 metres away, then do the same thing in reverse.
The rocket, called Pixel, landed with only minor damage after the first leg of the trip. But roughly 2 seconds into its return flight, it started to veer off course, prompting an engine shutdown. Pixel landed on its side and crashed near the launch pad.
It had tried for the prize twice before but had landing problems both times after the first flight segment. On the first attempt on Friday, it landed too hard, snapping its legs off and frying some wiring. After team members made some overnight repairs, they made a second try on Saturday morning, but Pixel tipped over after landing.
On Saturday afternoon, they tried again. As it was landing from the first flight segment, one of Pixel's four legs was damaged. So before its return trip, technicians propped up the leg.
Quick fixBut the quick fix did not work and the leg fell off. Pixel then tipped a little in flight, so its engines automatically shut down and it fell back to Earth.
The crash started a small fire. When firefighters put it out, the surrounding sand got wet and froze to the rocket's chilled oxygen tank. As a result, Pixel will probably become scrap parts for Armadillo. "It's probably not going to fly again," says Armadillo team leader John Carmack, creator of the video game Doom".


"John Carmack, creator of the video game Doom". Ha, ha, ha.
Carmach faked those videos too, rocket smoke is fake, look carefully at its colour. Pixel flyes thanks to photoshop.

But, let's suppose those 4 big balloons can fly.
Have Armadillo solved the problem of building a rocket that can take off and land vertically with astronauts inside?

NO.

Armadillo Aerospace is a little firm. On Yahoo.com-Finance you can't find it.

Why don't big space industries partecipate in that Lunar Lander Challenge?

The 4 big balloons would have been able to win that challenge.

Incredible.

NASA jokers have the big technology to go, land on the Moon and to come back and they give $350,000 to 4 flying balloons.

NASA jokers are incredibly stupid.




[edit on 16-8-2007 by skepticfriend]


Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 17-8-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   
skepticalfriend,
are you saying, "if nasa had a working lander, why would small firms not be able to duplicate the technology and make it successful?".

Well what about the XPRIZE?

The Ansari X Prize (formerly the X Prize) was a US$10,000,000 prize, offered by the X PRIZE Foundation, for the first non-government organization to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space and repeat the feat within two weeks in the same spacecraft. It was modelled after early 20th century aviation prizes, and aimed to spur development of low-cost spaceflight.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


What is the point of offering this?

or

$50 Million 'America’s Space Prize'

Anyone who wants to follow in the shoes of Burt Rutan and win the next big space prize will have to build a spacecraft capable of taking a crew of no fewer than five people to an altitude of 400 kilometers and complete two orbits of the Earth at that altitude. Then they have to repeat that accomplishment within 60 days.

While the first flight must demonstrate only the ability to carry five crew members, the winner will have to take at least five people up on the second flight.

And one more thing. They have to do it by Jan. 10, 2010.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

follow link for complete article
www.space.com...

There are alot of reasons to "farm it out"
For example,
Let the other guy take the expense of research.
Let the other guy take the risks.
Let the other guy assemble the teams of scientists.
Once all the hard work is done, you buy it and use it.
You have your pick of vehicles, styles, types, etc. Some things one organization may not think of.
ETC...

Just because some private firms are having a difficult time with a technology that may in part exist, doesn't mean the Apollo program wasn't real. Your logic is VERY flawed.

I'm still waiting for your response regarding the NASA video that says we can't go into space because of radiation. You know, the one that never says that at any point in the video???


jra

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by skepticfriend
"John Carmack, creator of the video game Doom". Ha, ha, ha.
Carmach faked those videos too, rocket smoke is fake, look carefully at its colour. Pixel flyes thanks to photoshop.


So because he's head of a famous video game company, that makes it fake? That's a really silly argument.

I believe that smoke is mostly dust actually. You'll note that its colour is similar to that of the dirt on the ground.

Pixel does not fly due to video editing. The Lunar Landing compitions are done infront of crowds of people. Are all these people in on it? That video I posted before was taken when they were getting there FAA-AST experimental permit. So is the FAA in on it too then?


But, let's suppose those 4 big balloons can fly. Have Armadillo solved the problem of building a rocket that can take off and land vertically with astronauts inside?


Right now it's small scale tests. They're taking it one step at a time. Scalling it up and the addition of people shouldn't affect things drastically. Nothing changes as to how the basic concept works.


Armadillo Aerospace is a little firm.


Yes, it is. Your point?


Why don't big space industries partecipate in that Lunar Lander Challenge?


What big space industries? Whole point of the X-Prize and similar compitions is to jump start the space industry and to get the commercial space industry going, so that we don't have to rely only on Government run space agencies. As they aren't always the most efficient with money. One of the main goals of these compitions is to bring the costs down for going into space. Seeing as how, as you pointed out, that these companies are small. They can't afford to have billion dollar budgets.


NASA jokers have the big technology to go, land on the Moon and to come back and they give $350,000 to 4 flying balloons.


It costs a lot of money to develop and launch missions to the Moon. NASA hasn't had that kind of money in a long while. The US Government won't dish out that kind of money to NASA any time soon. And NASA only has so much money that can dish out to help fund other projects. Their $16billion gets spread pretty thin to maintain a bunch of different programs and projects.


NASA jokers are incredibly stupid.


Or perhaps you are just not that well informed on this subject...



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

...

Right now it's small scale tests. They're taking it one step at a time. Scalling it up and the addition of people shouldn't affect things drastically. Nothing changes as to how the basic concept works.
...



People that read this thread have understood you are in the pay of NASA.

You write, write, write. How many acronyms and explanations have you invented for NASA jokers?

You say: “Scalling it up and the addition of people shouldn't affect things drastically”.

Look at this video:

www.youtube.com...

It’s easy with much practice to keep in hovering that type of radio controlled planes.
Attention: they have the thrust on the top.

But nobody can keep in hovering a real plane because seated inside things change drastically, nobody can react against continuous changes of the plane attitude as they don’t see changes that can be seen staying outside.

Armadillo is a radio controlled model with thrust on the bottom and it is impossible even today to keep it vertical even if it is radio controlled.

A Real Lunar Lander MUST BE PILOTED by a person SEATED INSIDE.

Can NASA jokers land on the moon with a radio controlled Lunar Lander?

Only rockets piloted by a person or some persons seated inside should partecipate at a real Lunar Lander Challenge.

That Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is a Crap Challenge System (LLCCS).


[edit on 17-8-2007 by skepticfriend]


jra

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by skepticfriend
People that read this thread have understood you are in the pay of NASA.


I am not, and the fact that you and others continue to make those kinds of claims is pathetic. It really shows you have a weak argument that you can't support, so you resort to trying to villify the person you're debating.


You say: “Scalling it up and the addition of people shouldn't affect things drastically”.

Look at this video:

www.youtube.com...

It’s easy with much practice to keep in hovering that type of radio controlled planes. Attention: they have the thrust on the top.

But nobody can keep in hovering a real plane because seated inside things change drastically, nobody can react against continuous changes of the plane attitude as they don’t see changes that can be seen staying outside.


I said the basic concept doesn't change. As in the basic principals of how it works. An RC planes propeller generates thrust and the wings create lift. A full scale plane works the same way. This is what I mean. Not little stunts one can do with RC planes.


Armadillo is a radio controlled model with thrust on the bottom and it is impossible even today to keep it vertical even if it is radio controlled.


Even though people have witnessed it live durring the LLC competitions? And you have yet to go into detail why a VTOL rocket can't work. I want some details, some math, showing it can't work. You constantly avoid doing so. Why?


Can NASA jokers land on the moon with a radio controlled Lunar Lander?


They can and they have. The Surveyor probes soft landed on the Moon before Apollo. They were remote controled. The Russians also had there Luna probes, but I'm sure you'll just deny those ever happened with out anything to back up your claim right?


Only rockets piloted by a person or some persons seated inside should partecipate at a real Lunar Lander Challenge.


Why? Thats not what the competition calls for at this time. You should try reading about it, so you can understand what it's about.


That Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is a Crap Challenge System (LLCCS).





posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
skepticfriend,
Why do you insist on calling nasa personnel JOKERS, and accusing board members of being involved in a conspiracy???

If you can PROVE someone is on NASA's payroll here to spread disinformation, PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop making baseless slanderous claims and actually answer questions and present some kind of proof for a change.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by skepticfriend

People that read this thread have understood you are in the pay of NASA.

You write, write, write. How many acronyms and explanations have you invented for NASA jokers?



Actually, when I read this thread I can firmly see that you're best attempt is an ad-hom attack with nothing to back it up. The moment people start making claims such as: "People that read this thread have understood you are in the pay of NASA", it's an obvious indicator for the rest of us.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
...
Surveyor probes soft landed on the Moon before Apollo. They were remote controled.
...


You say Surveyor probes soft landed on the moon before Apollo:





This image is very strange, it seems that the probe is on Mars and not on the moon.

Look at this video:

www.youtube.com...

Another NASA jokers 3D animated cartoon made by Softimage, Maya, 3d Studio Max ...

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER real videos, real images.

Before sending Surveyors to the moon, it is normal, logic to think they tested the probes on the Earth.

NASA jokers have never tested Surveyors on the Earth. You can't see any video of their vertical landing test.

Why? Because it's the same story of Lunar Lander: NASA jokers did not - and don't - have technology to land vertically their probes.

In 1966-68 computers were more ridiculous than those of 1969.
But it is not only a problem of powerful computers as I said in my previous posts.

No probe has never landed on the moon. It would have fallen off in all directions at 360 degrees and it would have crashed like Lunar Lander.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
As usual, skepticfriend, you demonstrate your ignorance. The image you posted is a publicity photo of a Surveyor probe on Earth.

Here is a photo of Surveyor III on the surface of the Moon. This picture was taken by the Apollo 12 astronauts.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Based on your previous posts, I don't believe you understand the nature of spacecraft development and testing.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
jra is not paid by NASA - I don't think they have a service like that internally. He is paid by a low-level "secret" agency that has very cheap and half-educated agents. There are thousands of these, and they are all over internet, newspapers, media, everwhere.
Level of expertise of "agents" like jra is not higher than an average journalist, or less. He would be doing this for free, just to feel important.

These people are there to make it harder, more time consuming for all of us to discuss anything. Also to make it harder for an average person to see through the fog of redundant, fake data.

He is doing a good job, I can say. Of course, he is not so skilled (he wouldn't be doing this if he were), so it is easy to see who he is.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
ok so let me get this straight, are you saying anyone but you who talks intelligently about a subject must be a conspirator??? COME ON!

skepticalfriend,
I don't understand why you think it's ok to call people jokers and conspirators with ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF?!?!??!

Why won't you answer questions people ask you????

You want everyone else to provide evidence but you refuse to do it yourself. Why are you even here if the truth doesn't even matter to you?????

SERIOUSLY??? are you just trying to be rude to have some childish fun???

Does anyone seriously believe that NASA agents would bother coming to this unimportant board to try and spread disinformation??? If you really believe that, I would recommend checking your home for a gas leak.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I have no proof. Everyone should use their own analytic skills. Either I am correct, or I am not.

I am comfortable with what I have said. I really do not take this forum so seriously, as ANYONE can write WHATEVER they want. That is not a scientific discussion, is it?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   
In the new movie "The Invasion" the NASA officials say that Space is cold, why did the producers of that movie make such a basic mistake if it is a simple knowledge that Space is not cold?




top topics



 
29
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join