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

Dear greshnik, do you remember your question?

“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?”

Look at this article:

findarticles.com...

Goran Bjelakovich, the visiting researcher who led the systematic review at Copenhagen University, said: "We could find no evidence to support taking antioxidant supplements to reduce the risk of dying earlier in healthy people or patients with various diseases."
"The findings show that, if anything, people in trial groups given beta-carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E showed increased rates of mortality. There was no indication that vitamin C and selenium may have positive or negative effects; we need more data [on these]."

In these arguments who knows the truth? We all must be doubtful.

But all the people should agree with you when in your last post you said:

Originally posted by greshnik
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.

Antioxidants and vitamin C can't be seen.

But all the people can see if a probe is able to fly or not.

Lookheed Martin's engineers have surely tested Phoenix on the earth since it had to land on Mars in automatic way, without pilot.

They have surely tested Phoenix suspended from a crane and seen if it was able to land softly going backwards on the hard ground of our planet, hard like the ground of Mars.

If they have not done that test, either they are imbeciles or they are not able to land Phoenix anywhere.

We want to see some videos of Phoenix tested at Lookheed Martin's Facility.

If you say you have invented a piece of metal thrust from the bottom able to fly, since it would be an extraordinary thing you must show us your invention.

If we don't see, we don't believe.

Kennedy said: “we must land men on the moon”.

I also could say: “I must fly with two wings fixed to my arms”.

But nobody could give me wings to fly.

reply to post by Big-Brain


Here is where I lay down the gauntlet. This thread is a farce, and I, for one, am done with it. You contend that there is no Phoenix on Mars, you claim that it cannot be done. In fact, you make a lot of claims. We provide evidence to the contrary, and you change why it can't be true. You continually refuse to provide any evidence to back your claims, and you refuse to accept when any of your claims have been refuted. You make demands for evidence, yet when it is provided you dismiss it and demand different evidence. This thread, and your arguments, are getting nowhere. At this point, neither you, nor greshnik, have any credibility, yet you seem determined to continue. Therefore, you leave me no choice but to issue the following challenge:

I contend that there is, in fact, a Phoenix lander on Mars. I challenge you to prove me wrong in a proper, moderated debate. You may choose one, and only one, additional member to support you, and I will accept volunteers and select one, and only one, to support me. We will solicit the help of a volunteer to moderate the debate, after which we will begin a new thread wherein we will adhere to a debate format as specified by the moderator. We will proceed in an orderly fashion, producing point and counterpoint posts. You will remain on topic, you will desist from name-calling, you will provide evidence to support your claims and/or evidence to refute mine, and I will do the same. The moderator will call foul if the rules are broken at any time. You may also call upon the moderator at any time for summary judgment.

If your claim holds any truth to it at all, this should be a relatively easy debate for you. Are you willing to put yourself on the line? I await your response.

Originally posted by PsychoHazard
...
you will provide evidence to support your claims and/or evidence to refute mine...

I am already doing it.

This is my thread. If you don't like it, stop coming here to say rubbish.

Rules already exist and it is not necessary to change them.

Try rather to say something intelligent.

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by PsychoHazard
...
you will provide evidence to support your claims and/or evidence to refute mine...

I am already doing it.

This is my thread. If you don't like it, stop coming here to say rubbish.

Rules already exist and it is not necessary to change them.

Try rather to say something intelligent.

I see. You fear to accept my challenge. You cannot show any actual evidence to support your claims, instead reverting once again to insults, name-calling and false claims. I thought as much. I accept your admission to the farcical nature of your claims, and will now bow out of your little game. I still contend that there is, in fact, a Phoenix lander on Mars. I have provided evidence to support my claim, as have many others. When you realize that you have most likely sacrificed whatever remaining credibility you may have had, and are prepared to properly, and politely support your claim in a rational adult manner, look me up. Until then, adieu. My work here is done.

Another incredible buffoonery of NASA's frauds:



If lenses are round, why has this camera two square eyes?

Hey, dear AUGE (Arizona university goat engineers), haven't you ever seen this image?



It is much more beautiful this cartoon that looks like an ostrich with wheels.

Another incredible buffoonery of NASA's frauds:



Is the camera sustained by a truss like this?





Telescopic trusses don't exist.

How many poor figures are you cutting?

Do you think all the people is gullible and you can do what you want?

No, ludicrous frauds.



[edit on 22-6-2008 by Big-Brain]

Originally posted by Big-Brain
If lenses are round, why has this camera two square eyes?

Lens’s can be any shape that they are ground too. Those actually look more like mirrors used in a refracting telescope.

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Telescopic trusses don't exist.

Have you been living under a rock since the start of the industrial revolution or what?
What would you call this?

Or this?
US Patent 5040349 - Collapsible truss structures
Or this:
Collapsible three sided truss - Patent 6321501
Or these:
Pop Display Trusses

Come on this has to be a hoax at this point, why is this thread still open?

Originally posted by defcon5


Or this?
US Patent 5040349 - Collapsible truss structures
Or this:
Collapsible three sided truss - Patent 6321501
Or these:
Pop Display Trusses

Look carefully at this image:



This model has not been used by NASA's frauds:



As you can see, it is totally different.

Also these models have not been used by NASA's frauds:

Pop Display Trusses

Collapsible three sided truss - Patent 6321501

As you can see and read, they need an assembly.

Think for a long time before saying rubbish.

reply to post by Big-Brain


All those need is someone to pull them out, no assembly required except to connect trusses going in the opposite direction. The one in the Nasa Photo is obviously got telescopic legs that extend and the “X”’s just lock into place as it stretches out. I suppose you have never seen a folding antenna before either. I am not sure where you are going with the lens thing, yes there are square mirrors used in refracting lens set ups.

Originally posted by defcon5
...
The one in the Nasa Photo is obviously got telescopic legs that extend and the “X”’s just lock into place as it stretches out.
...

Also goats can see in this image that this truss has 3 vertical elements and it has even some connecting rods.

Yes as the three vertical elements stretch up the connecting rods snap into place. Three vertical elements or four makes no difference on how it works.

What is all this Goat stuff, isn’t that a personal attack?

reply to post by defcon5


Goats are more intelligent than many humans, I like them.

Are those 3 vertical elements telescopic in your opinion?

Only some imbecile engineers can invent this CTTWCRS (Crap telescopic truss with connecting rods system).

My lunch is ready. What will you eat today?





[edit on 22-6-2008 by Big-Brain]

reply to post by Big-Brain


They might be, its hard to tell from that photo. There are also various materials now that can be either twisted into a small coil and released, or spooled up on a reel, which are strong enough to hold weight when they are extended. Give me a few to look into it, and I’ll see if I can find how that works specifically.

Here you go:

THE PHOENIX SURFACE STEREO IMAGER (SSI)
Instrument design: SSI is mechanically similar to
the Imager for Mars Pathfinder (IMP) [1] and to Mars
Polar Lander’s SSI [2]. The cylindrical camera head
(Fig. 1) is set on a one-time deployable mast, 84 cm
above the lander deck. The camera has two apertures,
each protected from dust accumulation while in the
stowed position. The eyes are separated by 15 cm to
simulate human stereo vision. Stereo overlap is optimized
for the RA workspace at 3 m from the camera
head. Azimuth and elevation motors allow imaging
from the zenith to -60º elevation through 360º of azimuth.
Mirrors direct light through a dual-filter wheel
with 12 positions for each eye. Fold mirrors then direct
the light to the electronics assembly.

So the squares are exactly what explained already, they are mirrors that feed the image to the camera that is inside the SSI camera head.

Now here is a better picture of the SSI’s mast:
phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu...

You see the circular tray that the mast fits into. The mast is twisted down as one piece into that can, then held in place by a latch of some kind. When they activate the camera, they release the latch and the mast springs up out of that tray all set in one piece already. I would have to assume that the mast is made out of some sort of composite material. Here is evidence of that fact:

Peter Smith:
Well, I noticed that too, Emily. Uh, [laughs] it-it took a-a very violent shaking during the-the interaction through entry, descent and landing. And, uh, we-we had trouble with this [tell tale], believe it or not, in the vibration test because it's on the end of the-the mast. And, the mast is a little like a fishing rod.
So, when it gets vibrated, it-it takes on an ext -- incredible velocity, and-and it does put some stress onto that-that [tell tale]. And, so maybe some of the little fibers that hold it have broken. Uh, it sure looks that way.

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Another incredible buffoonery of NASA's frauds:



If lenses are round, why has this camera two square eyes?

Hey, dear AUGE (Arizona university goat engineers), haven't you ever seen this image?



It is much more beautiful this cartoon that looks like an ostrich with wheels.

Another incredible buffoonery of NASA's frauds:///end quote Big Brain Well,nasa will never tell you this but that round cylinder looking pan cam I actually drew/designed 1987 as it was planned as topping the Mars rovers Spirit and Op.But the powers that be took my designs many steps further than mere protection from the weather casing(cylinder) I had envisioned.That's why it's so odd and clunky in comparison.I never designed a lander,so it must have been salvaged from some early experiments with rovers and dropped some time in the 1990's I'd guess. Ideally you'd think a more encapsulated cam would be good for the cold of Mars North Polar region. The rovers were built to look like an animal to attract animals or large life.I had always hoped there were humanoids on Mars,and yes there are who look much like us. I regret not adding a nice microphone to hear them.I was 29 when I sent my designs ,very hopefully thru Gene Roddenberry of Star Trek. Motion detectors,cams,filters,spiked wheels(changed from Sojourner style)and many innovations like tether assisted airbag controlled crash landings were my babies. I set the high bar by giving the date for landing of July 4 1997 for Pathfinder,and the sats with swept wing solar panels for orbital insertion and airbraking(bouncing controlled skips off the upper atmosphere).There would be a HALO of communication sats around Mars.Thanks Authur C. Clarke. I was thinking SMALLER,CHEAPER.If I had to do it over again I'd concentrate on more computer power,but that's hindsight.The JPL logo is also my design,and those are my initials. Here is a Martian.Many have dark eyes like goggles for protection.The humanoids I've seen don't wear sunglasses. So is he animal or humanoid?

Does he wear a hat?

Take a look at his nose.One nostril instead of 2 like humanoids.Many Mars digging animals have this type of round like a short drinking straw nose.

Nasa masks the images by showing only outlines on the ground so they look like rocks. Many people have a hard time seeing this,and some will never catch on to nasa masking.

The first big animals were capture in pics from 32 years ago,Viking landers. I personally want rovers on Mars,not landers.We should be studying Martian languages by now if someone was forward thinking at JPL and had TRANSCEIVERS/Com devices on everything they sent to Mars.Nobody listens. Six billion critics chirping like crickets.TooCheap... TooCheap... TooCheap ...TooCheap.

Pay attention, defcon5.

NASA's frauds are taking the piss out of you.

That mast is another incredible fake device that works only in their 3D animations.

Don't you agree with me that you would have tested Phoenix on the earth suspended from a crane safely before sending it to Mars?

Listen to me carefully: Phoenix is not a plane, it is not a helicopter, it is a piece of metal without a front side, a back side, a left side, a right side.
It has only an upright side and a bottom side.
Therefore it has infinite pitch axes, infinite roll axes and infinite yaw axis and can spin in all directions at 360 degrees.

If John had invented a system to fly it and to land it vertical like helicopters, John would have built an extraordinary machine, more and more fantastic than planes and helicopters.

John surely would think to show all the people his amazing, astonishing, incredible invention.

Surely some amateurs would build that fantastic machine and they surely would compete in POMFC (Piece of metal flying Challenge), like some people build these:

www.quicksilverultralight.com...

Look at the videos: they are very nice.

If NASA's frauds had invented such an extraordinary machine, they would show us 1000 videos.

Don't you agree?

Originally posted by Big-Brain
That mast is another incredible fake device that works only in their 3D animations.

No, those masts work the same as the composite poles on my tent.
Nothing fake about them.

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Don't you agree with me that you would have tested Phoenix on the earth suspended from a crane safely before sending it to Mars?

Nope! I’ve said it before on this thread and I’ll say it again. Different atmospheres, and different gravity levels, a test of the lander would not work here.

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Listen to me carefully: Phoenix is not a plane, it is not a helicopter, it is a piece of metal without a front side, a back side, a left side, a right side.
It has only an upright side and a bottom side.
Therefore it has infinite pitch axes, infinite roll axes and infinite yaw axis and can spin in all directions at 360 degrees.

Yes, but they keep it proper end down by controlling its center of gravity. Then they use a gyroscope and thrusters for attitude correction, and the main breaking rockets to land it.

Originally posted by Big-Brain
John surely would think to show all the people his amazing, astonishing, incredible invention.

The Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury capsules similarly used rotating their center of gravity to control their decent attitude, and angle of decent.

Originally posted by Big-Brain
Look at the videos: they are very nice.

They are of ultra-light aircraft that are flying in earths atmosphere and gravity level. The Lander is not flying, its falling, and it is not in a similar gravity level or atmosphere.


[edit on 6/22/2008 by defcon5]

The Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury capsules similarly used rotating their center of gravity to control their decent attitude, and angle of decent.

defcon, why are you not using the Moon lander as an example. It is the most famous backwards landing device in the history...why don't you use that?

Just asking

reply to post by greshnik


We have already tried to explain it that way in the first few pages, but he obviously does not believe that worked either.

oh, that's why...for a moment I thought you did not believe in Moon landing...

But, of course, bright minds like you would not make such a mistake, would they???

You see, this is why I am having fun. You guys are doing a good job, and it is fun to watch you do it.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by greshnik]

BB,

For the selenium and vitamin C research - most likely FDA (or whatever is the name in other countries) noticed that usage of vitamins has increased, and they don't want patients to stop using their drugs. Pharmaceutical industry is by far the strongest in the world, and they want humans to keep on being sick and buying drugs that make them more sick. Humans should not heal themselves, there is no money in it.

This is my guess, based on the long time observation of the pharmaceutical industry in the world and their cooperation with governments. I agree, I could be wrong - and that is what I have been asking you...it is so hard. They have the money for the research, and they purposely mislead us. It is hard for us now, without time and funding, to analyze their results.

In space science, I started to even question simple concepts, like planet orbits, Sun, Moon - everything they taught us. Some of it is true, but most likely, there are things they did not tell us, or they taught us wrong.

I feel like I have to go back to elementary school and revise everything I know about everything.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by greshnik]