It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:57 AM
That'll do thank you.

1. I've moved the thread to Skunk Works seeing that this kind of theory and the approach of "proving the theory" will best be dealt with in Skunk Works. Please respond according to the Rules of Skunk Works.
2. If we don't have a decent argument then we don't post. A link to a Youtube video is not a decent argument and will receive a 1-liner action. A 1-liner, will -funny enough - result in a 1-liner action.
3. Let's keep it civil.

Thank You.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Gemwolf]

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 05:12 AM
Go away you stupid man

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 05:22 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Are you a dictator?

I think you might mean that the MOD is a detector, as in lie detector, not dictator. And you would be correct.

Great thread though, lots of cool images. I tried to ring Stanely Kubrick (as he faked the Moon landing...hehe) to tell him about your thread. Apparently he died though while filming a twelve rocket reverse thrust monkey, for the opening scene for 2012: a mayan odyssey.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by atlasastro]

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 06:32 AM
I don't even know how to comment on this.

What's the use of this thread?

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:14 AM
I'm sitting here - reading this for ten minutes - quite entertaining.

Then i think to myself, why is this thread here? What's the point?

Someone already mentioned hoax - so i think, why hoax? What's the point?

Bit far fetched, but i realised that purely because of this thread i am now much more aware of just how close NASA alone must be to perfecting a.... UFO-type craft.

I didn't know they had tested such vehicles.

So, if the result of me reading this thread is that i have a greater understanding of the technology that already exists in regards to flight, then perhaps THAT was the point of this thread.

Invite us, through an interesting writing style and subject matter, to imagine the possibilities of where this technology has gone, so that when the bloody obvious disclosure on UFO technology hits over the next decade, we will not be so surprised.

I'm not sure if this thought is a result of me badly needing sleep or not - but please feel free to let me know

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:25 AM

Originally posted by tomfrusso
I don't even know how to comment on this.

What's the use of this thread?

There is not way to somment on this thread...

Good thing it was moved to Shrunkworks... nothing in there can be taken seriously...

To bird brain, er... Big Brain... i have one thing to say...

Extrodinary Claims, require Extrondinary Evidence.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:26 AM
You may want to change your name to small brain considering we landed on the moon in the same way a long long time ago. I think we probably have the technology.

No but you're right you are way smarter than NASA which is why you have all day to post here from your bedroom at college.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:29 AM

The thread was moved to Skunkworks for a reason. NO MORE INSULTS.

Skunk Works Forum Guidelines – Please Review This Link.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Big-BrainHarrier is a plane that flies in our atmosphere and has wings that balance it. It has nothing to share with Phoenix. Also goats know this simple concept.

Interesting that you think this, considering how when it lands vertically, the wings don't provide any lift, or do you think they do?
Edit: I suppose one could describe the drag they do in the upward direction as lift, but it isn't proper lift.

But too many incidents have discouraged use of these planes.

As far as I can find, they were used rather successfully in the Falklands war, with most losses to the enemy.

In fact:

Starting with just 20 Sea Harriers, a further eight joined the Task Force by mid-May. A total of six were lost by accident or ground fire, and not one in air-to-air combat....

Sea Harrier of No.800 NAS, HMS Hermes shot down over Goose Green by radar-controlled, 35mm Oerlikon fire (1.10 pm). Lt Taylor RN killed.

Two Sea Harriers of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible lost in bad weather, presumably by collision, south east of Falklands (9.00 am). Lt Curtiss and Lt Cmdr Eyton-Jones RN lost.

Harrier GR.3 of 1(F) Sqdn RAF shot down over Port Howard, West Falkland probably by Blowpipe SAM (9.35 am). Flt Lt Glover ejected and injured, was taken prisoner-of-war.

Sea Harrier of No.800 NAS, HMS Hermes crashed into sea north east of Falklands shortly after take-off and exploded (7.55 pm). Lt Cmdr Batt RN killed.

Harrier GR.3 of 1(F) Sqdn RAF shot down over Goose Green probably by 35mm Oerlikon fire (1.35 pm). Sqdn Ldr Iveson ejected to the west, hid up and later rescued.

Harrier GR.3 of 1(F) Sqdn RAF damaged near Stanley by small arms fire from Argentine troops. Ran out of fuel short of "Hermes" and Sqdn Ldr Pook RAF ejected to be picked up to east of the Falklands (12.20 pm).

Sea Harrier of No.801 NAS, HMS Invincible shot down south of Stanley by Roland SAM (2.40 pm). Flt Lt Mortimer RAF ejected and was later rescued from the sea.

Harrier GR.3 of 1(F) Sqdn RAF landed heavily at Port San Carlos with partial engine failure, and was damaged beyond repair (12.00 pm). Wing Cmdr Squire escaped unhurt.

That, in more than 1500 sorties, with most losses due to enemy fire, isn't really proof of them being bad.

Hey, but we are talking about Phoenix.
Show us a video of Phoenix tested on the earth.

We have simulations for that sort of thing, particularly when it comes to testing expensive craft that have to perform in a completely different environment to that of Earth. And in any case, Apollo used it successfully, though you seem to think they didn't.

If NASA's frauds never show a video of their probes that must land going backwards, it means that they have not technology to do it.

Really? Seems an interesting idea, considering they don't have to show everyone it doing it.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by apex]

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:54 AM
reply to post by Big-Brain

ok i believe you!! i also believe we did not land on the moon. i think and believe it was a stage act from area 51. there are to many things that are suspicious. the number one that hits me right off is the american flag waving in the moons breeze. ya thats believable??? or the fact of the do you get multiple shadows coming off the lander and roveR Its like they had lights set up to film or something. also everything seems to be red on the planet mars surface. that would be like if we lived on mars and sent a lander to earth and only showed blue green pictures of the surface, where only seeing part of the spectrum. what are they afraid we will see???

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:03 AM
you have to completely throw out all logic and reasoning to come to the conclusion that we never landed on the moon... or that nasa didnt send the lander to mars. I suppose this mission that launced yesterday to the space station is all fabricated also???? there is no space station.. and no broken toilet to fix.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:03 AM
reply to post by Big-Brain

WOW you are dumb as a rock; please change your user name to big empty skull. If you had even the most basic knowledge of engineering or aerospace technology you would realize how retarded you sound. And what is with your morbid fascination with goats, you may need some professional help.

Every lander up until the Sojourner lander on Mars pathfinder used retrorocket powered soft landing. There is no backwards landing, the spacecraft was designed with landing struts and pulse fired retro rockets for what is called a soft vertical landing; saying it landed backwards makes no sense when it was designed to land that way. Try doing some research before you and your goat start spouting garbage about things you don’t know.

Also I don’t want to beat a dead horse; but if you think anyone at NASA thought the public would think the animation was real you are very deluded. And I am pretty sure my 7 year old cousin with autism knew they where trying to show you what was supposed to happen, you may be the only person on earth who thought that was the real thing. You are delusional if you expect a live feed of the landing from Mars; it was amazing that they got the one picture of the craft with its parachute deployed.

Please, get a clue and read a book that doesn’t have an illustrators name on the cover; some books have words in them too.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:17 AM
Hey guys I could be mistaken but I kinda think that the entire thread is satire.
As for why he and his goats would make this thread my guess would be, to make you laugh.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:18 AM
reply to post by Big-Brain

I think they should take those who think nothing lands anywhere in space and send those folks into space. It would solve two problems. Proof it is being done and secondly an end to the nonsense that it hasn't been done.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:31 AM
reply to post by Big-Brain

Duh....of course the Harrier was an aircraft made for our atmosphere, Im juat pointing out that its pretty much the same concept..."VTOL" except the Phoenix is not going to be taking off.

You are being totally obtuse dude. Like another member about you provide evidence that the Phoenix didn't land on Mars then since you are basically going to ignore basic science and physics.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by QBSneak000]

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:34 AM
Well....until someone coughs up a video of this phoenix thing doing a test run on good 'ol earth, i think i will be in Big Head's camp.
and you can't show that armadillo video, look at the size of those tanks! many tests and they still haven't won the lunar challenge????

another thing that doesn't sit well with me with the Phoenix is the heat shield, the way that it just falls off, doesn't seem possible with the wind pressure pushing it up into the lander. it would have to be "shot" off as an ejection seat on a plane would be.

Big Head brings up another good point.
why not better quality pictures? why not video of the lander...uh...landing like the armadillo has from underneath?
I'm with Big Head...SHOW ME THE VIDEO!

[edit on 2-6-2008 by blimpseeker]

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by Big-Brain

I thought I could stay out of this, but since something I wrote was 'used' by order to start a thread (a complete nonsense thread, to my mind) I feel Ihave some right to comment.

The OP is a hoaxer, IMO. One of the highest order. A person unable to understand simple logic, nor listen to reason.

What's worse, this same person had a history, here on ATS, of being repeatedly banned, but coming back with a new user name on the following day, to just get banned again. Twenty-four times this happened (I took some time to count)

Now, this person has decided to begin a new thread (used to troll on the moon conspiracy thread).

This person was offered, very generously by the ATS staff, one final chance to seems this person has used up all the good will, at this point.

Since no T&Cs are being broken, (yet) seems a stalemate.

(I modify that last comment.....the general insult to anyone who disagrees, by calling them a 'goat'....might possibly cross the line?)

Again....the other Mars Landers/Rovers (Spirit and Opportunity) have sent plenty of photos back. Phoenix is not a Rover, but it will be doing a lot of science.

It is truly astonishing, to me, that someone cannot understand basic science.

B-B needs to be ignored. Did that violate a T&C?????

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:44 AM
reply to post by blimpseeker

blimp.....please do not feed the troll.....

How in the heck could they test a lander, designed to work in one-third gravity, in an atmosphere that is one half of one percent as dense as Earth's, on Earth?!?!?!??

For pete's sake, even modern airliners are completely designed in a computer!!! All of the technology was well simulated, with the modern computers we have's called 'science'!!!!!

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

seems like an awful lot of anymosity towards someone that has brought up a pretty legitimate question.

why no video of the phoenix test flights?

i smell a conspiracy here of the highest order.

how about we take off the hate hats and look at this question with the respect it deserves..

you guys remind me of those ancient priests that would burn anyone at the stake brave enough to bring up a concept that didn't agree with the common thought of the day.

how about we all take a deep breath and find the video hu?

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in