An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Congratulations.

USA swindlers' technology of RLGB (Rocket Landing Going Backwards) at the end of 2007 is this:

www.spacedev.com...

Men of this ridiculous company are not even able to understand the winch that sustains the rocket had to be built longer. Their awkward, clumsy, ungainly rocket (that is able to wag its tail nicely) ran the risk of crashing against the framework instead of the ground.

At the end of this disastrous test, someone has the face to congratulate. BUT THE ROCKET IS SUSPENDED FROM THE WINCH WITH CABLES.

Zorgon has had a brilliant idea: it is possible to suspend SNOOPY from CHARLIE BROWN with cables.

Jra, it is great fun with you.

reply to post by landing


Welcome back, OWWGU. "One Who Won't Give Up". AKA bigbrain, greatbrain, skepticfriend, Jetpilot, Jet.pilot, pollock, and now 'landing'.

With all due respect, you pollute this thread with your continuing returns after being banished. But, in the spirit of scholarly effort, would you try to wrap your mind around something? There is an airplane, a fighter jet, designed by the British decades ago...it's called a Harrier. Please, feel free to look it up, research it. But basically, it can take-off vertically and land vertically (VTOL)...in other words, as you like to say, it can 'land backwards' --- as non-sensical as those words are.

Perhaps you will get to read this before you are banned again......

Originally posted by weedwhacker

There is an airplane,Harrier, that can take-off vertically and land vertically

www.msnbc.msn.com...

thatvideosite.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.air-attack.com...

It seems to me the Harrier is not too reliable.

But you don't understand anything about gravity forces. Harrier is an airplane that moves in the air and has wings: its gravity forces act on a large surface.

Put a dish on your finger. Easy to balance?
Put a coke can on it. Very difficult?

Do you begin to understand?

RLGB (Rocket Landing Going Backwards) technology is still poor, very poor.

youtube.com...

Very interesting keep going

reply to post by landing


Dear, Dear 'landing', AKA...well, see all the above...

You post four incidents, out of over two decades. One, BTW, involved a COLLISION between two of the jets!!

Based on that logic, any airliner ever built isn't reliable because it's had a crash or two. Do you not realize, oh Dear, Dear 'landing', AKA...

Do you not realize that airplanes usually crash because of human error? Even when you assign a mechanical cause to an accident, it is always part of a 'chain', either because it was designed by a human or overlooked by a human or mismanaged by a human...do you catch my meaning yet?

The Harrier was, as I mentioned, designed by the British. Yet, the US Marines decided to buy them and include them in their fleet. Are you now going to claim, 'lander', that the US Marines are incompetent? You seem to think everyone else is (except you, of course).

'lander', AKA...all those other monikers you have trolled here on ATS over the last month. Gee, thanks for your continued clever arguments, we always appreciate a little levity now and then...

Originally posted by weedwhacker


You post four incidents, out of over two decades. One, BTW, involved a COLLISION between two of the jets!!

Other incidents:

www.lubbockonline.com...

A Marine Harrier jet demonstrates its hovering capabilities during an air show at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in this Feb. 22, 1999 file photo. The Marine Corps suspended all Harrier jet missions at Cherry Point Air Station in Cherry Point, N.C. Sunday, Feb. 4, 2001, pending an investigation into a crash that killed two aviators. The suspension will last until the release of preliminary findings in the investigation of Saturday's crash, said 1st Lt. John Caldwell, spokesman at Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station.

www.examiner.com...

Nov 28, 2007 11:55 AM (25 days ago) AP
YUMA, Ariz. (Map, News) - A Marine Corps attack jet crashed in a remote desert training area during a training flight but the pilot ejected safely, officials said Wednesday.

The AV-8B Harrier wasn't carrying weapons. The cause of the crash was under investigation.

The plane crashed on the Barry M. Goldwater Range, a sprawling desert area of southern Arizona about 50 miles east of the Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, where the aircraft was based.

findarticles.com...

Crew escapes Harrier jet crash
Independent, The (London), Aug 25, 2000
TWO MEN, the crew of a pounds 16m Harrier fighter plane, escaped with minor back injuries by ejecting minutes before it nose-dived and burst into flames yesterday. The aircraft had been on a routine mission when it crashed over Boscombe Down, near Salisbury in Wiltshire.

AND SO ON
...

"Fly with our Harrier Jets and you are almost sure to die"

reply to post by bushgw


Three more so-called posts by the same so-called 'expert' who claims, inexplicablly, that NASA cannot land a rocket going backwards. When, in fact, many different machines have demonstrated what you 'claim' to be impossible, over and over and over again.

As I said before...just an airplane crashes doesn't mean there is a design flaw. People can screw up -- it's a fact of life. Perhaps automobiles themselves are to fault for killing people? By your logic, no one can build an automobile that can go backwards succussfully without failure?

Really...you are a troll...bushgw, all the way back to jetpilot, and all of your other fake names.

But, thank you for your posts, and....as Apu from the Simpsons would say, 'Come Again'!

At the end of October 2007 your technology to land going backwards was this:

youtube.com...

At the end of November 2007 your technology to land going backwards is this:

www.spacedev.com...

Congratulations, yankees.

Merry Christmas and a happy 2008

Originally posted by landing

Originally posted by weedwhacker

There is an airplane,Harrier, that can take-off vertically and land vertically

www.msnbc.msn.com...

thatvideosite.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.air-attack.com...

It seems to me the Harrier is not too reliable.

But you don't understand anything about gravity forces. Harrier is an airplane that moves in the air and has wings: its gravity forces act on a large surface.

Put a dish on your finger. Easy to balance?
Put a coke can on it. Very difficult?

Do you begin to understand?

RLGB (Rocket Landing Going Backwards) technology is still poor, very poor.

youtube.com...

Of course the harier can pull it off, simply because it's a plane, the hariier can slow down before using vertical thrust, it can reduce speed, it can control it's descending speed because it has wings, flaps , only after that it will use the gliding ability.
I can only imagine the LEM descending from orbit like a brik on the lunar surface with no ability to control it's descending speed.

reply to post by pepsi78


Ummm...the LEM had a huge main thruster that was able to be throttled from 10,000 lbs (45 kN) of thrust to 1000 lbs (4.5 kN). Plus it also had 16 reaction control sytem (RCS) thrusters to help control its attitude. This main thruster is what slowed its descent, while the RCS thrusters kept it in control.

So I don't think it's very accuratre to say the LEM had no way to control its descent.

By the way, a Harrier can hover because of its downward-vectored thruster. If a hovering Harrier shut off its engines, it would fall like a brick -- wings, flaps, and all (although I suppose its wings would provide some air resistance while the Harrier is falling like a brick, but definitely no aerodynamic lift).

An wing requires a certain forward speed to work as an airfoil creating lift. If that forward speed is too low, then a "stall" occurs, and the wing provides no lift. A hovering Harrier (or one falling straight down like a brick) is getting no lift from its wings.

Ummm...the LEM had a huge main thruster that was able to be throttled from 10,000 lbs (45 kN) of thrust to 1000 lbs (4.5 kN). Plus it also had 16 reaction control sytem (RCS) thrusters to help control its attitude. This main thruster is what slowed its descent, while the RCS thrusters kept it in control.

You can't contol such a machine only with jet power, if you have an example where such a device is descending from orbit on to the soil by using only jet power to land backwards please provide the video.



So I don't think it's very accuratre to say the LEM had no way to control its descent.

It can't the harier can't either, it can only do it after it will slow down on it's descending speed, only after that it can land verticaly.

By the way, a Harrier can hover because of its downward-vectored thruster. If a hovering Harrier shut off its engines, it would fall like a brick -- wings, flaps, and all (although I suppose its wings would provide some air resistance while the Harrier is falling like a brick, but definitely no aerodynamic lift).

It's not about aerodinimics, it's about slowing down before aplying the veritcal thrust, the harier does that because it can, it has wings , flaps, and most important air so it can use it's airplane characteristics.

An wing requires a certain forward speed to work as an airfoil creating lift. If that forward speed is too low, then a "stall" occurs, and the wing provides no lift. A hovering Harrier (or one falling straight down like a brick) is getting no lift from its wings.

It's aerodinimics helps the harier slow down before using vertical thurst, being an airplane plays a major role, don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about the airplane offering more stability while it uses vertical engines, what I'm saying is that the harier can use this tehnology because it can slow down before using anything at all, I don't beilive the lem used flaps or wings for gliding ability to land on the moon? they would be useles.

The point is , when people are going to see such a tehnology where such of device that you mention of comes from orbit and lands on earth as you speak, then they are going to beilive you, and this with there is more gravity on earth is not valid, they can simply use more thrust power.

You know they show experiments where some object takes off and sometimes with a little luck lands back, those objects take off and when they get up to the maximum level they aply vertical thusters with out picking up descending spped, most of them fail anyway, I would like to see one of those objects droped from an airplain or from orbit, my guess it would make a nice big explosion

I to this day I have not seen such a device that you speak of, the harier can do this because it is able to slow down before using such a thehnology.
There is no such thing, it is only in the apollo adventures and of course in peeter pan.

Dear friend pepsi78,

finally you have understood that wrong pictures with wrong illumintion, wrong shadows, no stars and so on are only insignificant details.

You have said a very important thing:

"What I'm saying is that the harrier can slow down using flaps and wings for gliding before using vertical thrust".

Yes, pepsi78, you are pretty right.

As I have said, LEM is running fastly towards the ground of the Moon. What should the pilot do to brake its run? He has not the foot-brake. Then he turns round the LEM and runs going backwards, switch full throttle and begin to whirl crashing on the ground.

www.astronautix.com...

After Stafford's camera failed, he and Cernan had little to do except look at the scenery until time to dump the descent stage. Stafford had the vehicle in the right attitude 10 minutes early. Cernan asked, "You ready?" Then he suddenly exclaimed, "Son of a bitch!" Snoopy seemed to be throwing a fit, lurching wildly about. He later said it was like flying an Immelmann turn in an aircraft, a combination of pitch and yaw. Stafford yelled that they were in gimbal lock - that the engine had swiveled over to a stop and stuck - and they almost were. He called out for Cernan to thrust forward. Stafford then hit the switch to get rid of the descent stage and realized they were 30 degrees off from their previous attitude. The lunar module continued its crazy gyrations across the lunar sky, and a warning light indicated that the inertial measuring unit really was about to reach its limits and go into gimbal lock. Stafford then took over in manual control, made a big pitch maneuver, and started working the attitude control switches.

Snoopy finally calmed down

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Actually, there have been a number of vehicles with no aerodynamic characteristics whatsoever that were capable of vertical takeoff, hover, and landing on Earth. The Rools Royce TMR and SNECMA C.400 P2 are excellent examples.

The most successful such vehicles were undoubtedly the Bell LLRV and LLTV. These craft repeatedly demonstrated prolonged flight while simulating lunar landing maneuvers. There are numerous videos available if you are interested. Here is one link:

www.youtube.com...

Five LLRV/LLTV craft made at least 795 flights, so don't try to use video of Neil Armstrong's crash or the fact that three of the vehicles were lost as "proof" that the concept was unsuccessful. These were purely experimental vehicles that pushed the technology of the time to its limit.

reply to post by Shadowhawk


We debated those already.
Just like previos machines they take off wonder around and then land , this is insignificant, there is no speed verticaly and horisontaly, they act just like the harier.
I can say that this does not provide evidence or any indication that this kind of objects are able to land once they drop from orbit, can you see how they control them, how gentle they are with the controls? can you imagine such an object droping from orbit and that has orbiting speed , can you imagine it will crash and then explode?
What you are showing me is a vehicle that is berly moving and manuvering with slow speed.

reply to post by Shadowhawk


Shadowhawk,

'Pepsi78' may be the same person who has continued to troll, latest troll name is 'bush.gw' (My thoughts, I could be wrong...).

One only has to look up a few pages, you will discover a trend. The 'troll' isn't even trying to be clever in picking names anymore, he is just wasting electrons (and server space).

This forum deserves better, in my opinion. Of course, all are welcome, until they break the rules of civil discourse. Then, steps should be taken to elevate the discussion once again. And, to permanently ban those who have repeatedly flaunted the rules.

There is a forum for such as those...it's called 'YouTube'.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I just stated my opinion on this issue, if you like to resort to this kind of actions be my guest, I could care less.
I'm a registred member since 19-10-2005 , I have participated to this thread since it's early beginings, if you can't debate some one on the this issue then he must be troling?
It seems that you are frustrated with out answers weedwhacker. you would of stayed on the subject if you had it in you, in stead you go on calling everyone a troll.


[edit on 25-12-2007 by pepsi78]

reply to post by pepsi78


Dear pepsi,

I never wish to be confrontational. I only state my opinion. My opinion may seem controversial to some, so be it.

My observation, and I think many will back me on this point, has been that a certain individual has come into this thread repeatedly, although having been banned repeatedly, to write and post essentially the same thing that got him/her banned in the first and second and third, et al, places to begin with.

This is a Conspiracy Forum...and this thread is titled 'An End To The Moon Conspiracy'. It tends to invite controversy, doncha think?? Heck, I'm just helping out in my own small way......

Happy New Year to all....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Just another post...

Here it is, December 25th, 2007....it's a clear night here, this evening, in my Latitude and Longitude...

I had a chance to glance up at the Moon. Not an unusual sight, the Moon. It's not even that full...yet it is still quite bright.

Seems the folks who claim the Apollo pictures are wrong, because there is no reflectivity, or whatever their silly arguments...why do these people not take some time to look up at the Moon? Oh, and BTW, haven't these same people ever seen the Moon in the daytime? Why is that? I mean, we know the Earth's atmosphere can diffuse light...yet, 'moonshine' still gets through...

We can see the Moon, people!!!! Even when we cannot see stars...sometimes Venus is visible as well...but that is because of reflected star shine...the star being what we know as the 'Sun'...

Why is it not understandable to people as to the way celestial bodies move?

How can you not understand that what you know and evolved on Earth have given you a basic understanding of what you need to know, to survive in this environment. Hence, when you see something outside of your understanding, or your experience, you immediately label it as 'false'???

A person's experience here, in a Terrestial environment, does not qualify them to comprehend an extra-terrestrial environment. Sorry, it just is not that easy. It's hard to convey, in a post...hope some will understand.

Thanks for your posts, and your opinions...this was my opinion...

136 pages..


...i think you are going to have to change the name of your thread!!


(my joke for the day )

Bonjour à tous. Merci pour l'hospitalité.

Excuse me for my bad English.

I don't know if USA went to the Moon in 1969. But if they have that great technology, why are they waiting for 2020 to go there again?

Thank you