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: 20
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
im shocked this thread is really still going. com on. this is a FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

What more do we need. The mods love to jump and call foul on off topic threads. But they let this complete bashing of NASA go on with absolute zero proof.

The phoenix landed on Mars. There is proof. We have shown it. End of story.




posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
im shocked this thread is really still going. com on. this is a FARCE

What more do we need. The mods love to jump and call foul on off topic threads. But they let this complete bashing of NASA go on with absolute zero proof.

The phoenix landed on Mars. There is proof. We have shown it. End of story.


Hey, life must not be taken too seriously. You must relax.

Have you seen? We don't know even if Vikings discovered America.

How can we know if they landed on Mars?





posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Oye. Either BB is a troll, or he really chooses to make sweeping accusations without any proof. Either way this thread is a waste. Ironic I keep posting. But a sense of logic must be added, as most of my fellow ATS'rs are doing, thankfully



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
the video thats really going to do your heads in is this video. the only 2 things im going to say are

1/ this if real was filmed 4 years before my time!

2/ the title: secret land mars ...... 1962

www.youtube.com...

edit: come to think of it, i think i once herd John Lear mention in a video man was on the moon in 1962 and set foot on mars 1967 but i think it may be crap
but after watching this im not so sure.

2nd edit: william cooper in this episode mentions the above information to which im talking about and if you havent seen these videos before watch the whole 9 episodes its a real eye opener YOU wont believe your ears.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 23-6-2008 by ST SIR 86]

[edit on 23-6-2008 by ST SIR 86]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
First of all, ST SIR 86, I don't believe in Aliens and UFO. If they existed, they would have already been on our planet.



NASA's frauds never landed any probe anywhere.

Let me talk about the most important enterprise of NASA’s frauds.

This is my reasoning: image you want to go to the moon with this probe:



You know that rockets usually go forward. But on the moon you must land going backwards.

Your probe is not a helicopter, it is a piece of metal thrust from the bottom and you must be so clever that you can slow down its velocity from 10,000 km/h to 0 Km/h.

In order to brake, you must turn your probe 180 degrees, you must fire its rocket engine and you must maintain the right direction.

In the last part of this incredible flight, you must keep it vertical and flying like a helicopter you must land softly always backwards.

They will be very difficult manoeuvres. No person would risk his neck to land that probe on the moon without testing it on the earth.

At Langley Facility NASA’s frauds built a largest crane to test LEM (Lunar Excursion Module):

ntrs.nasa.gov...


Page 20
The structure is about 240 feet (73 m) high with two 400-foot (121.9-m) long tracks 72 feet (22 m) apart at the 220-foot (67-m) elevation.



Page 5
Over 150 flight-test operations have been performed to date with 9 research pilots and astronauts, who have all reported the sensations of actual free flight during the test operations. Approximately 2 minutes of sustained flight are possible by use of the hydrogen peroxide main rockets in the vehicle.



Page 12
The research vehicle is somewhat smaller than the Apollo lunar module and the pilot is sitting down rather than standing up; however, the linear and angular accelerations produced by the main and the attitude rockets are comparable. Consequently, the vehicle permits an accurate duplication of lunar module flight characteristics.




Both television and film pictures are obtained from a manually operated camera station just outside the control room at the southwestern corner of the facility. Two additional manned stations for motion pictures are located at the southeast corner, one at the 50-foot (15.2 m) elevation and the other at the 150-foot (45.7 m) elevation. An additional remote camera for motion pictures of the vehicle is located in the dolly, with the camera looking straight down so as to obtain an overhead view of the vehicle relative to the ground. Direct measurements of the vehicle motions can be obtained by means of this motion picture and a calibration scale painted on the concrete apron over which the vehicle flies.
Additional photographic coverage is obtained inside the vehicle by two fixed, remotely operated motion-picture cameras to obtain records of the pilot's activities and field of vision.


150 flight tests x 6 cameras for motion pictures = 900 videos

No video exists about LEM flight tests at Langley Facility.

What can also goats deduce?

Simple: NASA’s frauds were not able to fly LEM and land it backwards.

We can’t see other logical reasons. If they had been able to do it, they would have been proud to show it.




posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Well....BB, if you do not understand the eveidence before you, not only for Space Sciences, but the obvious visitations on our planet, by Extraterrestrials....then, you are, indeed, so closed-minded as to be beyond reclamation.

In fact, you have NO BUSINESS even being here, at ATS....since this is about denying ignorance.

Calling someone 'ignorant' is not a perjorative, by the way. A newborn child is 'ignorant', by that definition. Children are growing up, all around us...many listen to what the 'authorities' tell them, others question it. You, SIR....are just mocking. It is not a greater road to understanding, it is simply pathetic.

I offended someone, because I wrote that there may be a pre-pubescent in a basement somewhere in Europe posting this nonsense. Could just as easily be a pre-pubescent in America....or anywhere in the World, for that matter. Not the point.....

POINT IS! This entire thread has no merit. NONE! Well....actually, I'll modify that statement.....it has attracted some very well-reasoned, well-thought-out comments, and facts....and it has been a very educational experience, I think, for most of us.

The incredible lack of scientific knowledge, of some, has been well documented in this thread. AND, the great contributions of well-reasoned responses to refute that very singular lack of scientific knowledge, has resulted in a great learining experience.....for most.....



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

150 flight tests x 6 cameras for motion pictures = 900 videos

[SNIP]

Simple: NASA’s frauds were not able to fly LEM and land it backwards.


So, your own evidence shows that NASA tested the technology.....resulting in 900 videos by your own reckoning. You completely acknowledge the existence of the test facility and its use by NASA, in order to test the art of landing a "hunk of metal" backwards.

Then you turn right around and deny they could do it.

Aside from that......do you have anything else to add? Or are you simply going to continue parrotting the same thing over and over again? While proving yourself inept at reason and logic at the same time?

I have an idea...."There is No Big-Brain on the Internet"......It's a "bot" programmed to emulate the most egregious examples of Internet trollery possible.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


No, MrPenny....it's obviously not a 'bot', since it's able to cut and paste.

I've been on ATS since last Fall, 2007....and I still can't bring in an 'external image'....I tried to bring YouTube vids, but I accidentally 'embedded' them, and that's not cool....

I am 52 years old.....maybe that's the problem....I'm not some kid in a basement somewhere, getting his jollies at other's expense. I happen to think that the discourse on ATS threads should have a scholarly bent.....

Sorry fo rthe rant, but it had to be said!!!!

WW



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
BB had a question: Why does NASA not show us any of 900 videos? Why?

Nobody landed on the Moon, and nothing landed on Mars. End of story, even the most naive readers here must have gotten the same conclusion.

WW and company, nice try.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am 52 years old.....maybe that's the problem....I'm not some kid in a basement somewhere, getting his jollies at other's expense. I happen to think that the discourse on ATS threads should have a scholarly bent.....



I don't think BB would believe in Skylab even if it fell on him.



I just checked in for my daily laugh thanks I needed that.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


Its so sad you chose to discredit so many individuals who made so many sacrifices to make those things happen. Go back to school.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


Its so sad you chose to discredit so many individuals who made so many sacrifices to make those things happen. Go back to school.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Problem is, SLAYER69....SKYLAB allready de-orbitied....

But, nice try!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
The more I read, the less I learn. There is simply no way with all these fights going on to tell what's true.

My grandmother is a whacko and she showed me photos from 1850s and 1950s and then the moon landing photos. She said that does not compute they can land on the moon but they can't take a decent photograph, no stars in the sky and shadows everywhich way.

So if they didn't go to the moon maybe they don't go to mars either. Or maybe they do but the photographs are still terrible and don't show anything but black and white rocks up close.

Something is wrong with this picture.


sarc



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sarcastic
 


sarc...LOL!!!!!

OK....what do I need to say so it's not a one-line post?

Oh....Phoenix Lander is ON MARS!!!!!

OK, had my say.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
sarcastic,

your grandmother is right. I had a grandmother who told me the same thing long time ago. There are a lot of common sense people who KNOW that Moon Landing never happened.

What I think about a lot now is - what else? How many other "scientific" facts are a lie? I have to question myself about everything I know, and about what I don't know.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


Oh for crying out loud...

Have you ever heard of reflections washing out weaker light sources? Go to a brightly lit parking lot some night, and look up. Do you see a lot of stars, no, because the lights of the parking lot are much much brighter. Much the same reason is why you don't see stars in the moon photos.

Now then...

No Pheonix on Mars, no it's in Arizona. LOL...I crack me up...

Why, oh why, would NASA or whomever, go to all this effort to fake a landing on Mars? Expensive, dangerous...seems to me, it would be easier just to GO.

And how cool is it, that they may have found water type ice?



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Seagull....here's the exciting part.

They scooped, then took four time-lapse photos of the trench.

On the left side, after a scoop, were these chunks....didn't know if they were chunks of minerals, or rocks. But, during time lapse photos, over four Martian Sols (it's almost the same as four days on Earth, just for hte scientifically challenged) the chunks disappeared. Hmmmmm.....salt won't sublimate, and rocks certainly won't sublimate.....hmmmmmm....what else will sublimate? Two things. Frozen CO2, and frozen H2O.

Seems the Jury is tensding towards frozen H2O, so far....

Let's keep watching the evidence, shall we??



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yea, wheres the motive ??? Theres no space race. That was the motive for the moon landing.... Cant use that one here. So now what? Hmm???



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Problem is, SLAYER69....SKYLAB allready de-orbitied....

But, nice try!!!


I know I just wish BB was in it's path


I can't believe the MODS allow this waste of band width to continue



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join