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: 16
11
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

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?
...


I am doubtful about everyone and everything.

The Latins said: “Omnis homo mendax”, every man is a liar. How can we recognize what is true from what is false?

We can't do it. Also scientists are liars. Truths and lies mix continuously in our life, they mix in ourselves too.

If somebody tells you a story, many things will be true but others will be false. A scientist has proved that in all media (magazines, newspapers, books, televisions) 1/3 is true, 1/3 is false, 1/3 is a mixture of truths and lies.


Originally posted by apex
...
Just because they describe it as being like cork doesn't mean it is.
...


Hey, are you doubtful about Ben Cichy?

ai.jpl.nasa.gov...



(Ben Cichy)
And on the front of it is this heat shield -- this saucer-looking thing that has about a half inch of what's 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.


Don't you believe in NASA's engineers?

If they said cork, it is cork. Special cork.





posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-BrainI am doubtful about everyone and everything.

The Latins said: “Omnis homo mendax”, every man is a liar. How can we recognize what is true from what is false?

We can't do it. Also scientists are liars. Truths and lies mix continuously in our life, they mix in ourselves too.


Well, that includes you too then.


If somebody tells you a story, many things will be true but others will be false. A scientist has proved that in all media (magazines, newspapers, books, televisions) 1/3 is true, 1/3 is false, 1/3 is a mixture of truths and lies.


those same, lying scientists, presumably. And where is that exactly?




(Ben Cichy)
And on the front of it is this heat shield -- this saucer-looking thing that has about a half inch of what's 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.


Don't you believe in NASA's engineers?

If they said cork, it is cork. Special cork.


Are they not liars when you don't want them to be?

And it says special cork. Not exactly normal is it? And considering those used Apollo modules lying around in museums, there is evidence they did it, too.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by apex]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





[edit on 6/19/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Please remain on topic.

The discussion is weather or not Phoenix is on Mars.

Not eacht other or anything else.

Thanks,



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
Please remain on topic.

The discussion is weather or not Phoenix is on Mars.

Not eacht other or anything else.

Thanks,


I agree.

I am still eagerly awaiting evidence to back the claim that there is no Phoenix on Mars. I'm willing to accept any actual credible evidence. Anything at all.

Please Note: Misrepresentation of facts, personal opinion, and pointing and laughing is neither credible nor is it evidence.

Please proceed to present your case, Big-Brain and greshnik.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I, for one, think it is absolutely fabulous that this lander, the Phoenix, was successfullly landed!

We still have Spirit and Opportunity, well-outliving their originally expected operating lifespans. Then, there were the several spectacular failures....so it's great to see Phoenix doing its thing.

So, looks like I choose to disagree with the OP.

I state this for one reason, mostly: The thread title is provocative, but completely unsubstantiated. Perhaps this thread, rather than being allowed to die, should instigate more thorough civil debates???

Reason, sorry if it seems off, but I'm in my fifties. I grew up in the 'Space Age'....and have been a keen follower ever since.

It has seemed, to me, that the 'deniers', such as the OP, (I'm assuming) are mostly of the younger generation, those who have grown up on Hollywood depictions of 'Space Flight'... and therein lies the problem.

Let's see if we can attract more scientists, to this thread. Whilst I am just a layman in space flight, I think my background of over 30 years in aviation means that I can see something when it's bogus.....



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PsychoHazard
 


Yes, Psycho....so, how about this? This may be a new idea for ATS, let's float the balloon and see if it pops....

Shall we try to take a poll?

Is it at all a good idea, to keep this thread alive, (guess the correct term would be "open") and invite a lot more scholarly discussion, or is it better to close it down??

Is this idea of a poll a 'good' idea, or a 'bad' idea??

Thanks for your inputs



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


i vote for a farce label, but not to close it down



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I'd go for a poll. I've got no problem with the topic, and I invite scholarly discussion, but until/unless scholarly discussion occurs I'm still for the farce label.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by PsychoHazard
 


For Psycho, and apple....I vote for 'farce' as well.

That makes three votes, so far.

The very premise of the thread title...."There Is Not Any Phoenix On Mars"

Well, let's see. It is true, there is a city in Arizona called 'Phoenix', and I'm pretty sure it's not on Mars.

There is a mythical bird called a Phoenix....well, it's a mythical bird, and in myths and fantasies anything is possible, so I'll set that one aside for the moment.

Then, we have the subject of a spacecraft, launched about two years ago, a joint effort involving many International agencies, all over the World, a spacecraft dubbed 'Phoenix'. A spacecraft destined to land in the Polar regions of Mars, and successfully landed, against many odds, including some earlier failures.

So, a collaborative effort....a joint effort, involving a myriad of scientists, designers, from many countries. And, as I've mentioned, a huge success....well, not huge....the 'claw' didn't work exactly right, at first, but they're getting samples now.....

...and there is still a lot of science to be discovered, as Spirit and Opportunity, the two Rovers, are still doing.

Some people seem to think that this is a fiction, a fiction of such magnitude that it would fool thousands of scientists and PhDs, experts in their respective fields.....from all over the World.

So, dear readers, which is the farce????

Please vote now, the cost to text is.....zero!!!



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Ratio BB:Flat Earth Society 1:4. On this topic, for every BB message, at least four messages were posted by the group (or is it a group) of "skeptics". That is not a natural ratio. Real skeptics would not even bother to answer that many times to somebody who is, as they claim, so ignorant and has not clue what science is. It is just not a normal reaction. It is a type of PLANNED action.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by greshnik
Ratio BB:Flat Earth Society 1:4.


Addendum to previous note: Namecalling is also neither credible nor evidence.


Originally posted by greshnik
On this topic, for every BB message, at least four messages were posted by the group (or is it a group) of "skeptics". That is not a natural ratio.


You're right! In most threads, the OP:Skeptic ratio is much higher on the skeptic side.


Originally posted by greshnik
Real skeptics would not even bother to answer that many times to somebody who is, as they claim, so ignorant and has not clue what science is. It is just not a normal reaction.


Have you actually looked around the forums at all? Around here, it's pretty common. It's built into the system. "Deny ignorance" is not just a motto, it's more than a battle cry, it's a sacred responsibility that folks around here take pretty seriously. When we see ignorance at work, we rush in to deny it a hold. We seek to banish it in all it's forms. How else could this be done but to respond to the ignorant and show them the path to knowledge?


Originally posted by greshnik
It is a type of PLANNED action.


Oops. You caught us. It's all part of the plan. We are all part of the secret conspiracy to keep the world from wallowing in ignorance.

Now, I ask yet again, are you or BB intending to provide any evidence whatsoever to back your claims, or is it your intention to continue the escalation of a farce? We are more than willing to entertain any and all credible evidence. (Please see previous notes on what is and is not evidence)



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
There is no evidence that anything ever landed on Mars. That is what this topic is about.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by greshnik
There is no evidence that anything ever landed on Mars. That is what this topic is about.


I beg to differ. There is an abundance of evidence that many things have landed on Mars. We have provided you with evidence on multiple occasions. The ball is now in your court. Either show evidence that substantiates your claim, or show how the evidence we have provided is false. Simply claiming that there is no evidence does not make the evidence disappear. Now is the time for you to, as they say in the vernacular, put up or shut up.

Present your case as though you were before a judge, for I assure you, you are. Many of them. Provide evidence or acknowledge your claims for the farce that they are.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PsychoHazard
 


Read this previous post of mine:



















I have not found a real picture of Phoenix tested on the earth.

My dear readers, if NASA’s frauds had to send a probe on Mars with 12 rocket engines pushing from the bottom that has to land going backwards, which was the first thing to do?

To test Phoenix landing on the earth, since they must verify if its ALS (Automatic landing system) works.

As usually, it doesn't exist any video showing Phoenix landing on the earth.

WHY?

Because USA have not technology to fly a probe that has to land going backwards.
A probe is a piece of metal thrust from the bottom, it's incredibly different from a helicopter.

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.

At the end of 2007 these were the competitors at LUNAR LANDER CHALLENGE:

space.xprize.org...



The Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is designed to accelerate commercial technological developments supporting the birth of a new generation of Lunar Landers capable of ferrying payloads or humans back and forth between lunar orbit and the lunar surface. Such a vehicle would have direct application to NASA’s space exploration goals as well as the personal spaceflight industry.


space.xprize.org...

"Teams competing in the two level NG-LLC include:"

Acuity Technologies

www.acuitytx.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armadillo Aerospace

media.armadilloaerospace.com...

media.armadilloaerospace.com...

True Armadillo flight:

www.youtube.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BonNova

www.wirefly.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Masten Space Systems

www.youtube.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micro-Space

www.entrespace.org...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragon labs

www.paragonspace.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SpeedUp

images.townnews.com...

www.youtube.com...


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unreasonable rocket

www.rasdoc.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations.


NASA's frauds will be pleased to see all these extraordinary brains.




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-BrainI have not found a real picture of Phoenix tested on the earth.


Prove to us then, how testing it on earth would be relevant to something that lands on Mars. In any case a Harrier lands vertically on a moving ship, as can a JSF. Which could produce a situation like going backwards balanced on vertical jets of gas, which is very similar to a rocket.


To test Phoenix landing on the earth, since they must verify if its ALS (Automatic landing system) works.


Which is only useful if you want the end product to land on Earth.

According to your logic, the Wright brothers never flew their plane, since they didn't test it's flight capabilities until they first tried it. Oh they used gliders but according to your logic that would be something completely different.


Because USA have not technology to fly a probe that has to land going backwards.
A probe is a piece of metal thrust from the bottom, it's incredibly different from a helicopter.


But not so different a Harrier or F-35. Or the Apollo landers, or the 'Flying Bedstead'.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Didn't test the landing rockest on earth... hmmm... let me see...



You know, it's remarkable how much that looks like they're testing out the rockets.


As stated before, numerous times, this isn't exactly new technology. Most of the probes and landers in the past landed backwards with rockets, and the xprize moon landers are irrelevant. The moon is an entirely different set of parameters than Mars. Saying that they couldn't have used something for mars because they didn't use it for the moon is like saying that you can't build a speedboat because a sherman tank can't float. Now, to avoid another long post on how this works, I refer you to my post in another topic here.




top topics



 
11
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join