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: 17
11
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Please stay on topic.... seems like I've read that somewhere before...

Oh yes... just a few posts back.




Please, this is your friendly reminder, don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.. (going with a current theme)


Seriously, please stay on topic.

Thanks,




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychoHazard
...
Most of the probes and landers in the past landed backwards with rockets
...


Neither Russian nor American probes and landers ever landed backwards with rockets.

If you spend $400 million to send a probe to Mars that must land doing it itself and you don't test it on the earth, you are an imbecile or simply you are not able to do it.

Simple logic.




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Neither Russian nor American probes and landers ever landed backwards with rockets.


Oh?


...the synchronised firing of a dozen pulsing thrusters that will keep it from falling towards the planet too fast, hopefully setting it down on the surface with an impact speed of less than 10 km/hr.

The method worked beautifully in 1976 for the Viking I & II missions.
(Emphasis mine)

Link


The Mars 3 descent module was mounted on the bus/orbiter opposite the propulsion system. It consisted of a spherical 1.2 m diameter landing capsule, a 2.9 m diameter conical aerodynamic braking shield, a parachute system and retro-rockets.
(Emphasis mine)

Link

Sound familiar? Need I say more?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Well Big-Brain, it was fun while it lasted but this is the last I intend to say to you on this thread.

You are wrong. All evidence says it did land on Mars and you even now have an image of it being tested with it's rockets firing on Earth. So no more.


Originally posted by PsychoHazard
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.


Well, non enhanced ones can't.......




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
...
You are wrong. All evidence says it did land on Mars and you even now have an image of it being tested with it's rockets firing on Earth. So no more.
...




Would this be an image of Phoenix tested on earth?

What rubbish are you saying?

Phoenix in that image is not free to fly and they are only simulating to make a test.

Only goats can refute this evidence.




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Anything that flies was tested before. Never in the history has anything flown without being tested. We have not seen anything SIMILAR to "Phoenix" on Earth. Never ever absolutely never. Nothing was ever tested. Ever. Never.

And they invested all that money and sent it to Mars, to land? That is nothing but a joke, and BB has a right to laugh. Any technician, ANY technician, any mechanic from ANY mechanic shop will laugh if you explain the real story to them. Things don't happen if they are not tested. Never. Ever. Absolutely never.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by greshnik]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


IF there was a conspiracy look at how many would be involved...

from wikipedia...

Phoenix is a partnership of universities, NASA centers, and the aerospace industry. The science instruments and operations will be a University of Arizona responsibility. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, will manage the project and provide mission design and control. Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Denver, Colorado, built and tested the spacecraft. The Canadian Space Agency will provide a meteorological station, including an innovative Laser-based atmospheric sensor. The co-investigator institutions include Malin Space Science Systems (California), Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Germany), NASA Ames Research Center (California), NASA Johnson Space Center (Texas), De La Salle University (Philippines), Optech Incorporated, SETI Institute, Texas A&M University, Tufts University, University of Colorado, University of Copenhagen (Denmark), University of Michigan, University of Neuchâtel (Switzerland), University of Texas at Dallas, University of Washington, Washington University in St. Louis, and York University (Canada). Scientists from Imperial College London and Bristol University have provided hardware for the mission and will be part of the team operating the microscope station


Like that many people could POSSIBLY keep a secret. That'd be harder than the actual mission itself.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Most of those people believed they were doing the real thing. Only a few insiders knew the real story. How is it possible that all the news and all the media are lying to us every day? Organization.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


Thats the best you come up with? Wow. Mods, can we please put farce on this now? What more do we need to show lack of proof.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Yes, "Big-Brain"....that would be an image of the Phoenix lander being tested here on Earth. No, not THE Pheonix lander, not the one actually launched....a prototype. I hope you understand the concept of prototypes??? "Proof of concept" is another term.....

You just brought that very image into the discussion, yet you still refuse to understand the implications of HOW testing is accomplished, here on Earth.

Yes, the Phoenix Lander was tested on Earth....the concepts were tested and tested and tested and data was refined and refined and refined.....for the actual vehicle to go to Mars.

Test after test after test after test after test after test......

You have no right to joke about science.....



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


And here is a picture of the phoenix making its descent onto Mars.

Im not yet acquainted with posting pics so heres the link

en.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)


So try not to spread disinfo of no real pictures of the lander.



[edit on 20-6-2008 by bknapple32]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by bknapple32]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by bknapple32]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by bknapple32]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by bknapple32]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Ok apparently i have no idea how to post links without screwing them up. so apologies ahead of time.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I keep seeing injunctions by moderators to 'stay on topic'....I'm finding it difficult to do so, simply because the 'topic', and the thrust of the non-argument changes on a daily, and sometimes hourly, basis.

Let's recap a bit, shall we?

The original contention was "There is no Phoenix Lander on Mars". Fair enough, particularly on a site that entertains conspiracies. The response to the original contention was to show images of the Phoenix Lander descending toward the Martian surface under its parachute, and orbital imagery of the landing site, showing the lander, parachute, and aeroshell on the surface.

Did this produce a counter-argument from the OP? A presentation of some evidence supporting his position? Nope. Just a blanket "NASA FAKED IT!!!" and a new contention, namely that there was no Phoenix Lander on Mars because "Rockets can't fly backward". The response to this new contention? Posted footage of Armadillo Aerospace's test vehicle making a powered ascent, translation, and powered descent (flying backwards!) under a gravity field three times as strong as Mars'. Polite mention was also made of the Lunar Surveyor probes, the Lunar Excursion Module from the Apollo flights, and the Viking probes.

Did *this* produce a counter-argument from the OP? Did we finally get some evidence to support his claims, or refute the presented evidence? Nope. We got yet another contention...that since no footage of a LEM flying on Earth could be found, all LEM flights were fakes, and derived from that (questionable) premise, the ridiculous idea that (boiling the argument down to its essentials) "If NASA couldn't do it in 1968, that proves that it couldn't be done in 2008". I can't think of any polite way to refute that, other than to point out that there has been some tiny progress in technology in four decades....why, my new computer only fills up a medium-sized closet, and that new TEAC paper-tape reader is smoking fast. I can't afford one of those nifty "monitor" things, yet, but my teletype system is cutting edge!


On the heels of that burst of hilarity came the "It was never tested, so it didn't happen" contention. Pictures of the Phoenix being tested were then provided. The response? Another round of "stuff my fingers in my ears and claim that I can't hear you", and the blanket (and unsupported) claim that "NASA faked it all!"

So...which topic are we supposed to stay on? Evidence has been presented that a Phoenix Lander is, in fact, on Mars, that rockets can, indeed, fly backwards, that the Phoenix was tested on Earth, and that 2008 is substantially more advanced than 1968. In other words, every contention of the OP has been refuted, not with rudeness, but with evidence, while absolutely no evidence (other than the OP's opinion) has been presented in support of his claims. As far as I can tell, all aspects of the topic have been dealt with, at least until the OP creates a new set of mobile goalposts.

As a side note, I take a certain amount of offense (not a great amount, but some) at the OPs habit of referring to those who disagree with him as "goats". If I, or anyone else, had repeatedly tossed even a mild epithet his way, I'd bet that a "Keep it civil" warning would be out alongside the "Keep on topic" warnings.

As soon as the OP settles on one topic, and / or presents some solid evidence to counter the mass of evidence against his claims, I'll *gladly* "Stay on topic" and "Keep it civil here, folks"....but it's hard to stay civil and on-topic when the other side of a 'debate' is under no such constraints.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   
oh,no...another "brother" with MM in his name...how many wannabe masons are going to post here? Is this thread that threatening? What is bothering them so much?

"skunk works"...but not such a naive response. I am getting insulting u2u messages...they are really mad. What is happening here? Did somebody steal somebody's money? Ate their lunch?

Unless we include some expertise from a third party, all we can do is discuss. The owner of this site can decide that it is enough whenever they want. We are on the opposite sides of the argument, and I feel that I am just waisting my time with a bunch of "brothers" who write like twins...very similar.

I say: show me the REAL pictures of this bird flying, not the computer animation. Anywhere, on Mars, Earth or somewhere in Milky Way. You claim something landed on Mars. I ask for evidence. So far - nothing provided.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Big Brain is pulling you collective legs. "Goat"ing you on, so to speak.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by greshnik
oh,no...another "brother" with MM in his name...how many wannabe masons are going to post here? Is this thread that threatening? What is bothering them so much?


I can't speak for "them"...only for myself. As for being another "Brother" with "MM" in his name...why do you think that has anything to do with my being a Mason? Just so you'll know, my board alias has a long story behind it, so settle down in your comfy chair, and remember, you asked for it.


A long, long time ago, on an island far, far away, there was a company called "Games Workshop". Among their many offerings was a game that I found highly addictive, called "Warhammer: 40,000". It's a miniatures wargame set in a dystopian future. One of the available armies was called the Imperial Guard...normal men and women, who won battles by massed firepower, artillery, and armor. They became one of my 'trademark' armies. After a few years, an "Epic" set of rules emerged, allowing the use of larger armies, and super-heavy armor. In that offshoot game, one of the Imperial Guard's mainstay weapons was the "Stormhammer"...a heavily armed, heavily armored siege tank which I grew fond (some would say over-fond) of using in large numbers. My fondness for this particular bit of kit, combined with the fact that I'm an ordained Southern Baptist minister ("Brother"), rapidly led to the local gaming group nicknaming me "Brother Stormhammer". The first time I can remember it being used was around 1982, and I've used it ever since. No masonry involved. I told you it was a long story.




"skunk works"...but not such a naive response. I am getting insulting u2u messages...they are really mad. What is happening here? Did somebody steal somebody's money? Ate their lunch?


Again, I can't speak for "them"....but I can tell you that *I* haven't sent you any u2u's, emails, private messengers, or carrier pigeons. I can also tell you that I'm not particularly 'mad'...those who've seen me actually get angry would attest to that in a heartbeat.



Unless we include some expertise from a third party, all we can do is discuss. The owner of this site can decide that it is enough whenever they want. We are on the opposite sides of the argument, and I feel that I am just waisting my time with a bunch of "brothers" who write like twins...very similar.


What would you consider 'expertise from a third party" ? I've seen photos in this thread of Phoenix's engines being tested, and of the lander being tested at Lockheed-Martin. That's a "third party" in this discussion. I posted a photo from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter showing the Phoenix descending under its parachute. Said image was a lot clearer than images accepted as gold-standard proof in other threads (See various "I saw a UFO", "I saw an ALIEN", and "So-and-so shapeshifts ON CAMERA!" threads).

As for "brothers", my parents stopped at one child (for which a great many folks are thankful). I don't have an biological 'brothers', and the only "brotherhoods" that I claim membership in are my church, and the brotherhood of firefighters.

As for writing like twins, of course there's a similarity in content...we are, after all, defending the same point. That's going to cause a certain 'parallel evolution' in our comments...but nobody writes like I do...I'm far more long-winded!!!!!




I say: show me the REAL pictures of this bird flying, not the computer animation. Anywhere, on Mars, Earth or somewhere in Milky Way. You claim something landed on Mars. I ask for evidence. So far - nothing provided.


No matter what photos have been posted, they don't seem to be acceptable to you. When you're shown a photo of the Lander running engine / thruster tests, you don't accept them because it's not "free flying" in an environment it was never designed to fly in. When you're shown photos of the Lander under its parachute, or on the Martian surface, you claim that it's a fake image or a computer animation.

If you're seriously interested in the truth, why don't you tell me (and the rest of us) what you'd consider 'evidence', and what you'd consider a 'real' photo, and I (and possibly others) will try to supply it. Not because "I'm a MASON", or "I HAVE TWO M'S IN MY BOARD HANDLE!!", or even "because I'm angry"...but because the motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance".



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


GRE. there are pictures of the phoenix that arent animation. i didnt post the link right, but look on the ikipedia page for the phoenix. it shows two different pics at two different times. one on its descent and one after it landed. proof.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
OK...I am trying to stay out of this.....but I just have to say, it's been on CNN all day, the latest data from the Phoenix Lander....yes, it is there, on Mars, sending good data back to Earth.

CNN, and Miles O'Brien, have shown a time-lapse video of one of the trenches dug, near the Phoeinix Lander.

Time-lapse, in case you just evolved from under a rock, is a technique of filming....taking one image at a given interval.

The time-lapse of four Martian 'sols' of the same trench, over the course of four 'sols', shows pieces of something.....disolving once exposed to the atmosphere of Mars.

These four pictures were taken, at the same time, approx 24 hours apart (since Mars rotates on its axis at almost the same as the Earth) so that the sunlight angle would be the same in each photo.

So. over the course of four 'sols' (the term for a Martian day) the camera took four photos, at about the same 'time'....and what was seen, was chunks of something disappearing.

Frozen ice....frozen H2O...will sublimate, under the atmospheric conditions that exist on the Martian surface. So will frozen CO2.

So, the question is....were those chunks of H20, (frozen) or CO2 (frozen)

Here's the interesting part.....water ice (frozen H2O) will sublimate faster, or slower, than CO2 (frozen) ....in a partial pressure environment??

Maybe I need to make that more specific....which would be closer to the surface, while frozen? While under the regolith??

I'll try to Wiki this, from a scientific standpoint....sublimation rates of frozen H2O versus CO2...temperatures and ambient pressures required, etc....

As to, whether it is possible to land a spacecraft on another planet...most definately YES!!!!!

Editing to correct spelling...as usual...I alays miss a few typos, though....



[edit on 6/21/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


I wouldnt be surprised to see you get bashed for your last post to be called off topic. I mean, all it talks about is data being sent back to NASA. Why would that be proof? lol




posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Here's the part I can't figure out. I first found ATS in October, 2007. That's when I signed on. Wish I had chosen a beter username, but I have had to stick with the one I chose, because that's how it works.

I've been here for almost a year, and needed help (thank you KingLizard) just to get an avatar!!!

BUT, I see so many 'users' on this very thread....only recently signed on to ATS, yet they navigate the site like pros???!!!???

Sorry if I smell a rat.....but.....I smell several rats!!!!

Or....should I say....goats?




top topics



 
11
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join