This topic is in the Space Exploration discussion forum.  (rss)


An End To The Moon Conspiracy!


<<  166    167    168    169  >>



reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 04:31 PM by Big-Brain



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]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 07:41 AM by ngchunter



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]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 02:03 PM by Big-Brain



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]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 02:12 PM by weedwhacker


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!!!



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 02:52 PM by Big-Brain



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.

external image



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 03:08 PM by ngchunter



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:
external image
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?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 03:45 PM by Big-Brain


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]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 04:02 PM by weedwhacker


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....



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 05:10 PM by Anonymous ATS


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.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


<<  166    167    168    169  >>







Find More:





Top Topics Right Now:






Active Topics Right Now:






ATS MIX Podcasts:


Recently Added Videos







Newest Topics:












ATS Thread Tag System
Members can add a custom descriptive tag to any thread on ATS. Thread Tags will help categorize our site content, help to cross-reference similar threads, and improve the searchability of all ATS threads. This thread is currently defined by these tags:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


















ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Powered by AboveTop:Board v2.3
Header data processed in 0.005 seconds
Page processed in 0.173 seconds
8 total database queries (2)









The Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

thread