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.

 

[FARCE]There Is Not Any Phoenix On Mars[FARCE]

page: 15
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Can we slap a farce on this subject line. Cause I, as many others, have all yet to see one shred of actual proof. Beyond conjecture and blatant ignorance, I see nothing to show the phoenix did anything but LAND on mars.




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by apex
Similarly, those 'flames' can also be plasma produced by the large heat.

Do you think plasma can be produced by friction of CO2 with cork?


Actually, yes. That's exactly what's happening.


The ablator itself is a unique blend of cork wood, binder and many tiny silica glass spheres. It was invented for the heat shields flown on the Viking Mars lander missions 25 years ago. A similar technology was used in the first US manned space missions Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. It is specially formulated to react chemically with the Martian atmosphere during entry and essentially take heat away, leaving a hot wake of gas behind the vehicle. (Normal friction without an ablator would cause the heat shield to burn up.) The heat loss to the Martian atmosphere lowers the kinetic energy of the entry vehicle, thereby it slowing it down .... a lot.....fast! The vehicle will slow from 10,000 mph to about 1000 mph in about a minute, producing about 10 "Earth gees" of acceleration on the lander and rover.


LINK

Now, in the interest of ending this farce, why don't you go and do some research. So far, all I've seen are wacky claims out of you with absolutely nothing to back it up. You've chosen to ignore and/or ridicule any evidence that does not fit your hypothesis. This does nothing to improve your credibility. If you are trying to develop a theory here, you should be trying to convince me that you are correct. This is done by providing me with evidence that supports your claim. "You am dumb for to belief in that" is not evidence. What I have provided above, is evidence. See the difference? Provide me with evidence that supports your claim, or that at least refutes the evidence that I have provided. This is how it works. Thank you. Lesson over.

Note to Mods: Hopefully this is polite enough. If not, please let me know.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by PsychoHazard
 


Id say psycho wrapped that up nicely. Star.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
If I tell you that I was on M. Everest, riding my bicycle, you would ask for proof. I could show you a picture of me in snow, with my bicycle, and say - you are ignorant! I have travelled the whole world, everyone knows me!

Prove that I have not been on M. Everest, you ignorant fool!!!!!!!!!

Landing on Mars requires evidence! I don't trust NASA, and a lot of people don't!!!!!

E V I D E N C E!!!!!!!!!!!!!

None shown so far.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain


essentially cork on the front of it, which is our heat shield. Now this is really special cork, and this cork is what's going to protect us from the violent atmospheric entry that we're about to experience.


Ha, Ha, Ha, NASA's frauds have used cork to protect Phoenix. Therefore I was right.


No, you're wrong. You used a transcript of a presentation geared towards simpletons.....and still got it wrong.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


No dear sir, the burden rests with you. Nasa has provided evidence beyond evidence. The international space station it self is proof enough that we have technology. You really think every country in the world has some vast conspiracy to make people believe we can use space travel for the betterment of man? What do they gain? Nothing.

You have not demonstrated one thing to prove we havent landed on mars. You dont think communist china would love to show that the capitalist americans have been lying the whole time? All they would have to do is use current technology to view mars and prove theres nothing there. But they dont, because they cant, because this isnt another conspiracy involving hundreds of people to shut their mouths.

Bush cant even keep quiet his affairs with Scooter Libby, but all of NASA can trick the world for decades? PUUH-LLEASSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Hey, I've got a conspiracy theory for you:

Big-Brain and greshnik are the same person. It's all part of a conspiracy to lend credibility to the claim that the Phoenix lander is fake. This whole thread is a conspiracy to perpetrate a fake hoax! Have you noticed that they are never on at the same time? Always just one or the other. They both signed up around the same time, and "greshnik" only ever appears when "Big-Brain" needs reinforcements. "Big-Brain" needs to prove that he's not the only one who sees the "truth", and *poof* there's "greshnik" to back him up. "See? I'm not just a lone wacko!" "Yeah, I agree with me... er... him!" Think about it. It makes sense, doesn't it?


Thank you for tuning in. We now return you to your regularly scheduled comedy routine.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by greshnik
If I tell you that I was on M. Everest, riding my bicycle, you would ask for proof. I could show you a picture of me in snow, with my bicycle, and say - you are ignorant! I have travelled the whole world, everyone knows me!

Prove that I have not been on M. Everest, you ignorant fool!!!!!!!!!

Landing on Mars requires evidence! I don't trust NASA, and a lot of people don't!!!!!

E V I D E N C E!!!!!!!!!!!!!

None shown so far.


We've shown you evidence. NASA has shown you evidence. I've shown you evidence. If you don't trust it, it is your responsibility to provide evidence that refutes ours. For example, to use your Mount Everest scenario, once you provided me with pictures, it would be up to me to provide evidence to the contrary, or provide evidence that they were fake. Simply saying "They am fake" does not refute them. I would have to provide evidence that they were faked. Much like you must now provide evidence that what we have provided you is fake. Pointing, sneering and chanting "You dummy. Them is not true." does not refute our evidence, it simply reinforces that you have no evidence to support your claims. Again, I refer you to my previous post on how this works. You may now begin your counterclaim.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychoHazard
Hey, I've got a conspiracy theory for you:

Big-Brain and greshnik are the same person. It's all part of a conspiracy to lend credibility to the claim that the Phoenix lander is fake. This whole thread is a conspiracy to perpetrate a fake hoax! Have you noticed that they are never on at the same time? Always just one or the other. They both signed up around the same time, and "greshnik" only ever appears when "Big-Brain" needs reinforcements. "Big-Brain" needs to prove that he's not the only one who sees the "truth", and *poof* there's "greshnik" to back him up. "See? I'm not just a lone wacko!" "Yeah, I agree with me... er... him!" Think about it. It makes sense, doesn't it?


Thank you for tuning in. We now return you to your regularly scheduled comedy routine.


And the prosecution rests your honor.

Nothingmore needs to be done except label this is with farce.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
To the random reader: that is how it works. They will try hard to make it hard for the author - and any communication with them ("them" is "skeptics", and at least some of them are paid to do this) will turn ugly.
The only way to really have a good communication is to go private somewhere, and really discuss this. There are so many interesting questions - I would like to ask people like BB: how do you recognize which public "scientific" information is true (some of them are true, of course) and which are just a manipulation by NASA and similar agencies? After I have become certain that no one ever walked on the Moon, I realized that the world is now far more complicated. Simple information, simple science, has to be checked and double-checked from different angles. I don't really have that much time to do that.
There are a lot of other interesting questions, and I really don't have time to waste on WW, apex and the rest "readily available skeptics". I simply do not have any interest in talking with them. I only replied a couple of times, since they were insulting BB, whose topics I like. His logic is simple, and correct.
BB, no offense, but it wasn't really hard to find out that NASA is a bunch of fraud artists, right? It is too obvious.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by greshnik]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by greshnik
Simple information, simple science, has to be checked and double-checked from different angles. I don't really have that much time to do that.


It's painfully obvious you haven't spent any time at all looking at the evidence from different angles. Clearly, you've decided on a view of the world you like, a view that excites you--and you're going to stick with it absent of any contemplation and reasoning skills.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by MrPenny]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by apex
...
Similarly, those 'flames' can also be plasma produced by the large heat.


Do you think plasma can be produced by friction of CO2 with cork?

What rubbish are you saying?


Congratulations. Wikipedia disagrees with you:


The area in front of a spacecraft's heat shield during reentry into the atmosphere


And high temperatures are generated, but since it's reinforced carbon let me guess it must not work. Just because they describe it as being like cork doesn't mean it is.


Originally posted by greshnik
I would like to ask people like BB: how do you recognize which public "scientific" information is true (some of them are true, of course) and which are just a manipulation by NASA and similar agencies?


Simple. If it agrees with him, it's legitimate. If it doesn't, NASA FRAUD!!!

[edit on 19-6-2008 by apex]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
apex,

I haven't asked you anything, nor will I. Your opinion I know, and it is of no value to me. So, when I ask BB, please let him answer.
It is rude to interrupt other people's conversation.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


Uh dude? Nothing's impeding Big-Brain from posting. And, this is not a private thread....*clue phone rings*.....it's public.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Boys, Boys. Play nice, please.

Civility and Decorum are Required



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by greshnik
apex,

I haven't asked you anything, nor will I. Your opinion I know, and it is of no value to me. So, when I ask BB, please let him answer.
It is rude to interrupt other people's conversation.


As already stated, it's not just you and him on here. Considering the u2u system, you must want others to see it or you would use that.

And why ask the least credible poster in the thread for who is a credible source? Thats just silly.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
And why ask the least credible poster in the thread for who is a credible source? Thats just silly.


I agree. Very silly. On the other hand, it's right in line with their method of debate.

In any case, I did some research last night. I was trying to play the devil's advocate and went in search of evidence that might support claims that Big-Brain and greshnik have made. I figured that someone had to do the research, since they obviously weren't. So I searched for any credible evidence that the Phoenix landing might be fake. I have come to the conclusion that there is none, most likely because it isn't fake.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by PsychoHazard
 


Actually, I pretty much gave him what BB would say anyway:

Simple. If it agrees with him, it's legitimate. If it doesn't, NASA FRAUD!!!


Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've never seen proof the Moon landings are fake and I think they might have had actual scientists trying to prove it. And in addition, why don't we ask the Russians? They must have some means of verifying whether Phoenix is there or not, and last I looked aren't being paid by NASA.

In fact, last I looked they're doing most of the work for the ISS, not NASA.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
"It is not snowing to cover the hills, it is snowing so that the beasts would leave their tracks"

I tried to translate that old saying.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


Cute saying. So you're saying that the claims you've laid are a snow job?


I'll agree with that.


I see your saying and I raise you two.


Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.
-Confucius



Ignorance is the night of the mind, but a night without moon and star.
-Confucius


Now, I ask again, do you have a point to make? Are you willing to back up your claims or refute ours? You've got your snow, now show us the tracks. If you can't back up your claims at all, I suggest you walk away with what little credibility that you and Big-Brain have left. Either that, or change your user id to Chicken Little.

[edit on 6/19/2008 by PsychoHazard]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join