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: 19
11
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Personally, I'm pretty sure we have no Phoenix lander.. No rovers.... no Viking... no Voyager... no Apollo missions... no sputnik... no Lewis and Clark expedition... no Magellan to circumnavigate the Earth, no Columbus to find North America.

It's all a conspiracy.




posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


I think you are right.
Columbus could not have sailed to North America because the wind was not sufficient to move his ships forward. I know this for a fact because I have gone through hurricanes and the wind was not strong enough to push my car out of its parking space. So sailing ships must not work, and are also a NASA cover-up.

[edit on 6/22/2008 by defcon5]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
...it is scary to think like that, isn't it? Hard to imagine that a lot of our knowledge is...well, wrong.

Yes, that means questioning even the story of Columbus. Everything.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
If in 1975 we had the the Viking landers first time on Mars? yeah! 2 of them!

youtube.com...

Then why do we need the phoenix lander in 2008 to answer the same questions?
They even say that the vikings would only last 90 days just like the phoenix, but they lasted about 6 years and in these 6 years is a long time to answer these questions.
did these questions get answered ? who knows, but do they need to send
what looks like the same looking lander now (phoenix), using an enhanced video of the then viking landers landing on the surface of mars. 32 years later here we humans are in 2008, we have made fantastic advances in technology and NASA claims to be landing a lander on mars for the first time? using a vehicle that visually look the same as the 1975 viking landers, and what looks to me a 3D CGI enhancement of the original 1975 viking public prsentation.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ST SIR 86
If in 1975 we had the the Viking landers first time on Mars? yeah! 2 of them!

youtube.com...

Then why do we need the phoenix lander in 2008 to answer the same questions?
They even say that the vikings would only last 90 days just like the phoenix, but they lasted about 6 years and in these 6 years is a long time to answer these questions.


*sarcasm*
Are you sure we have Viking landers on Mars? After all, we've seen a massive amount of objective, scientific proof in this thread that rocket-powered vehicles can't fly backward, and that's supposedly how the Viking landers touched down.
*end sarcasm*

On a more serious note...Phoenix is in a much more 'arctic' region of Mars than the Viking landers. We need it up there to build a more complete picture of Martian weather, climate, and geography.

As to why we need Phoenix to answer "those same questions", can you imagine if an alien probe landed in (as an example) Chicago IL, and that race never sent another one, instead assuming that the entire planet was like that one area? That's an extreme example of the mistake NASA is trying to avoid by dropping probes at different latitudes and in different areas of Mars.

Saying that the Viking probes lasted six years is a bit misleading as well. They were still transmitting *some* data back to Earth six years after touchdown....but several of the instrument packages (most importantly, the life-sciences package) only had supplies for around 90 days of operation. The Viking landers were partially functional for a lot longer than 90 days, but underline the word partially. NASA kept grabbing the data they sent back because it would've been foolish *and scientifically irresponsible) to do otherwise.




did these questions get answered ? who knows, but do they need to send
what looks like the same looking lander now (phoenix), using an enhanced video of the then viking landers landing on the surface of mars. 32 years later here we humans are in 2008, we have made fantastic advances in technology and NASA claims to be landing a lander on mars for the first time? using a vehicle that visually look the same as the 1975 viking landers, and what looks to me a 3D CGI enhancement of the original 1975 viking public prsentation.


Some of the questions the Vikings were to answer were, indeed, answered. Others were answered *for the area within range of Viking's sensors*, and other questions weren't answered at all. Thus, we send more probes to collect more data.

As an aside, why do you claim that the Viking and Phoenix landers look alike?

Viking

Phoenix

Dang...you're right...they're virtually identical twins! Can I have a sip of whatever you're drinking? Must be the *good* stuff, if those two look alike.

You might also bear in mind that if you're watching color, high-detail 'footage; of either the Viking *or* the Phoenix touching down, it's an animation...there weren't any ground cameras down there to catch the landings 'live' in either case...so of course they both look like animations.

Also, I've never heard a NASA spokesman (or seen a NASA press release) saying that Phoenix was the "First time a lander touched down on Mars". I've heard (and read) that Phoenix was the first powered-descent lander since Viking (which is true), and that it's the first lander to successfully touch down in the polar region (also true), but never that it was, without qualification, the first lander on Mars. If you have a source for that claim, please post it, because I'll have a few nasty and sarcastic letters to write to somebody who obviously didn't do their own homework.


[Edited for spelling...never post before your second cup of coffee!]

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Brother Stormhammer]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Personally, I'm pretty sure we have no Phoenix lander.. No rovers.... no Viking... no Voyager... no Apollo missions... no sputnik... no Lewis and Clark expedition... no Magellan to circumnavigate the Earth, no Columbus to find North America.

It's all a conspiracy.


I think you're onto something. After all, we don't have any woodcuts of Nina, Pinta, or Santa Maria being tested under the big cranes at the Genoa shipyards.

And you lose a few style points because you left out the obligatory "goat" reference.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 

I know, I know, but why does it have to take so long and why won't they honestly address the weird stuff?
*stamping feet and pouting*




posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Your sarcasm is ludicrous.

Also goats know that America was discovered by Vikings:

www.bbc.co.uk...




Originally posted by ST SIR 86
If in 1975 we had the the Viking landers first time on Mars? yeah! 2 of them!

youtube.com...

Then why do we need the phoenix lander in 2008 to answer the same questions?
They even say that the Vikings would only last 90 days just like the phoenix, but they lasted about 6 years and in these 6 years is a long time to answer these questions.


This is a terrible coincidence. Fatality, destiny?

Vikings discovered America, Vikings landed on Mars.

I totally agree with you, ST SIR 86.

The greatest part of the historians think Vikings never discovered America.

Therefore they never landed on Mars too.



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



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Most of what NASA sets out to do they do. We went to the moon, we landed bots on Mars etc.

But what most have trouble swallowing is that NASA space programs are designed as a public relations platform for civilians, kids, and scientists out of the loop.

Meanwhile the secret space program studies, R&D continue that would probably more than likely freak you out if you knew what they do.

[edit on 6/22/2008 by prometheus1111]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by prometheus1111
 


prometheus.....you don't really want to confuse BB with actual facts....now, do you??

AND when you mention the reality.....you hit very close to the reason why BB is posting in the first place. He 'smells' something....it's the root of all of these stupid 'Moon Conspiracy' claims.

As you, prometheus, have alluded to....NASA is hiding something. BUT, it is certainly not the Phoenix Lander, that is a true mission, using technology that is easy to understand....for instance, the landing sequence....a series of twelve pulse-thrusters around the perimeter to keep it stable, and level, as it touched down. AND those thrusters WERE tested, individually, on earth. The key is the computer program, along with the stabilazation hardware, to 'key' those thrusters to work in harmony, during the touch-down phase of the Phoenix.

Let's try this for example. GE designs a new jet engine. They build a prototype. Do they mount it on a jet?? NO!!! they TEST it in a laboratory, for many many hours. Then, they disassemble it, and inspect each component. If it met the engineering specs, then it was a success, but they still tear it apart and inspect, inspect, inspect.....all the while, other prototypes are built, and tested....and so it goes.

Now, with a new jet engine, only so much can be done in the testing environment. Because this is going to someday be on a passenger jet, there is follow-on testing, in real conditions, on the wing of an airplane. BUT, that is for a jet engine, designed to operate for tens of thousands of hours, and do so safely, on the jet that your butt is strapped into.

Space exploration is about compromise....sometimes cutting-edge technology, but that could fail, if it hasn't been thoroughly tested by computer simulation, or by using existing known tech and just enhancing it.

The real compromise, especially with an inter-planetary mission, is weight. Launching anything from within Earth's gravity well will always be about weight....mass is the better term, because mass stays the same, weight is dependant on the gravitional field that the mass is within.

I don't expect a kid in his basement somewhere in Europe to understand the technicalities of such information, though....what a shame.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Pathfinder sol 42 mars.jpl.nasa.gov... This is the most blatant form of simple nasa masking where one frame is purposely darkenned to obscure detail.In this case an inconvenient giant insectoid fossil with mandibles waited for tens of millions of viewers before I stumbled on it just now.That's 11 years later before the designer yawned and looked back 1997-2008. Hey,what's this they are covering up 11 years ago? Giant insects were seen a lot in Spirit's earliest pics,covered up of course.It would be futile for me to post them without laying down some background for people or be scoffed at and rejected out of hand. This is one of those "PROOFS" from another landing site. BTW the cam is called IMP.I named it.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I have found the place on the earth where NASA's frauds have simulated to land their probes on Mars.

Here they have landed Viking in 1975, DEATH VALLEY:















Hey, Viking orbiter seems familiar:





[edit on 23-6-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
Pathfinder sol 42 mars.jpl.nasa.gov... This is the most blatant form of simple nasa masking where one frame is purposely darkenned to obscure detail.In this case an inconvenient giant insectoid fossil with mandibles waited for tens of millions of viewers before I stumbled on it just now.That's 11 years later before the designer yawned and looked back 1997-2008. Hey,what's this they are covering up 11 years ago? Giant insects were seen a lot in Spirit's earliest pics,covered up of course.It would be futile for me to post them without laying down some background for people or be scoffed at and rejected out of hand. This is one of those "PROOFS" from another landing site. BTW the cam is called IMP.I named it.


Looking at the original (thank you for the link), the upper left panel of the shot seems to have part of a Solar disk on its horizon. The darker panel could be dark because of filtering....it's where the majority of the disk should be, and I'd suspect that the camera would react accordingly. As for that being a fossil, it might be...but if so, it's an unusual one, in that the entire strata eroded from around the fossil, leaving the intact fossil exposed and remarkably erosion-free.

I do have to ask...what did you do at either NASA or JPL, that they let you name one of the cameras on Sojourner? And what, exactly, does a dark frame from a Sojourner image have to do with what one or more of the Spirit images shows? If you're leading to something about Spirit's images, why not post some of them, instead of an image from a different mission entirely? I'm both curious and confused.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Here's one of the problems about DISCLOSURE that nasa is still faced with. The harsh reality is that some Mars life,to our eyes is just UGLY as in NOT A PRETTY PICTURE for the KIDDIES. When I designed it I had in mind the kid's story "the Little Engine that COULD" about a train that had to struggle up hills carrying great weight. I wanted the Sojourner to appeal to women and kids,so it had to look "CUTE" and let me emphasize that point that more kids and women watched Pathfinder /Sojourner because it was "CUTESIE-WOOTSIE" than because they cared about science. It was on TV...It was CUTE. There you go.Yes those college Marketing classes had an effect on how you make the first Mars rover in HUMAN HISTORY look to please the tv fans and home computer whiz kids and future whiz kids,inspiring them for decades.Pragmatic.Yes. Don't be fooled by believing that there weren't serpents just loving the AIRBAGS,and being promptly MASKED by nasa to look all white and blend in with the airbags.The yellow circle is still the most disturbing.I just can't get over serpent body creatures with close to human faces.
The Mars screamer is one such creature.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
You can see I was influenced by 1960's tv series "Lost in Space" where (RIP) Jonathan Harris as Dr Smith called the ROBOT "bubble-headed BOOBY" and it tore me up every time. Throwing insults at a robot just seemed incredibly funny (you NINNY). Ok,I was a kid.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
There's the American flag next to my JPL logo design. There's a rectangular looking blocked-out faked masked snake on the airbags.How can we hide it? How can we make it look like a child's toy ? No,let's make it white and unrecognizable. Let's make a TONKA TRUCK looking snake. We could black it out completely like a DATA GLITCH....that always works. CHOO CHOO...I've GOT IT !



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
That whole thing is so bogus. Mars' sky isn't red; the ground isn't red.

It's pink-to-brown with greenery and water depending on wet season or dry season; and the sky is pale pale blue.

I found these photos here that show natural colors for Mars and I'm printing them out but I have to get a photoshop program and turn them sideways so I can print them out like a banner.

The second one is ten pages wide so what I have to do is flip the photo so the height fits across a page and then run it on perforated paper not separate sheets.

It's doubtful I'll find a picture frame 78 inches wide by 11 inches high but I guess thats the challenge I've got to deal with.


: ) sarc


ph.groups.yahoo.com...

ph.groups.yahoo.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
This is not the perfect FIXER for previous slight mistakes above,but just another TRIAL.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
There is no Phoenix on Mars!!

When I lived in Phoenix, it was really, really hot.....and we all had swimming pools, and ran from our air-conditioned houses and buildings to our air-conditioned cars....

Ice didn't last long, on the open desert....we tended to float down rivers on innertubes (I know, that's impossinle, since inner tubes don't really float, they are just used in truck tyres).

Also, we'd drive to various lakes nearby, to boat and jet-ski.....but I'm lying, because this never happened, since it's impossible.

See? It's so easy to show how anything is fake, as long as you say it is.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join