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

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by blimpseeker

 

AHHH come on Blimp
Man don't throw in the towel that easily

i'm objective but not an idiot
i saw the proof i needed and it was sufficient for me.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


You nailed it man. That image seems to be the composite of two:

a) An earth landscape, tinted red and blurred.
b) A cropped picture of the craft superimposed over the landscape.

NASA is so good at photoshop.

PD: The craft is too neat to be real, it simply defies logic.

Is this not a conspiracy web site? Why all the its just a conspiracy theory then?

If you are to debunk I want to see concrete evidence, this thread started with a theory that the Pheonix project is fake. Guess what, I agree. I dont beleive any object from earth has made it to mars.

Here is one reason why nasa would fake the pheonix landing. Because they can.

Surely everyone must know by now that governments, wolrd leaders etc.. lie to us all the time. Stretegic defence Initiative anybody?

I dont believe in any mars landing as yet but as soon as I get there I will let you all know. Until now, I can only speculate as we all do.

Some time ago (2005-2006) I purchased an ebook on mars anomalies by a rense.com guy by the name of Ted so I spent many hours having a look at all the NASA, JPL etc photos looking for more evidence and ended up thinking that everything looks like it was done on earth with camera effects.

I sent an email back to this Ted guy saying that its possible that this was all on earth and gave him 3 examples. One was the skull on mars, now well known. I was very surprised to see the image on the internet just a few weeks later and is still here today.

We all need to keep an open mind. Especially on this website.

Originally posted by Big-Brain
NASA'S FRAUDS ANIMATION

youtube.com...

Ha, Ha, Ha

What a biggest buffoonery.

NASA's frauds can only make animations and simulations.

The new liar, the new biggest fraud is Barry Goldstein.

Will it be true his name? Ein - stein. Gold - stein. Ha, Ha, Ha, NASA's frauds have not big creativity.

This Goldstein doesn't look at the cine-camera, WHY?

Simple for my big brain: he is ashamed of himself to play the part of the biggest scientist.

man alot of this doesn't even make sense... I dont know how to reply to this without being offensive.. so all I can say is.. read what you've written..

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by Big-Brain

 

I saw a show on either discovery or nat geo that actually did show the test landing of first a model of the lander, then the lander.

edit= ? Dude, what is up with the goat references?

[edit on 2-6-2008 by space cadet]

You are so right! But the goat reference gave him away too.
I sincerely think that Big-Brain is related to Borat! He is very funny! So Big-Brain, I am not trying to make fun of you, but sincerely, you are pulling our leg, aren't you?

Sorry, I always try to place logic in perspective and that is the only way I can explain the logic portrayed by BB.

Borat example for those who don't know him

[edit on 3-6-2008 by Pjotr]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Is this not a conspiracy web site? Why all the its just a conspiracy theory then?

If you are to debunk I want to see concrete evidence, this thread started with a theory that the Pheonix project is fake. Guess what, I agree. I dont beleive any object from earth has made it to mars.

Here is one reason why nasa would fake the phoenix landing. Because they can.

Surely everyone must know by now that governments, wolrd leaders etc.. lie to us all the time. Stretegic defence Initiative anybody?

I dont believe in any mars landing as yet but as soon as I get there I will let you all know. Until now, I can only speculate as we all do.

Some time ago (2005-2006) I purchased an ebook on mars anomalies by a rense.com guy by the name of Ted so I spent many hours having a look at all the NASA, JPL etc photos looking for more evidence and ended up thinking that everything looks like it was done on earth with camera effects.

I sent an email back to this Ted guy saying that its possible that this was all on earth and gave him 3 examples. One was the skull on mars, now well known. I was very surprised to see the image on the internet just a few weeks later and is still here today.

We all need to keep an open mind. Especially on this website.

Heavens, how paranoid are we getting?
Some governments may be fooling around with data that they want to withhold form the public. That is not the same as purposefully hiding everything and staging a total other reality. That is a comic book.

Conspiracies are pretty normal. When I invent something I do not blurt that out untill I ma sure that my invention will work and that I will be payed for the work I did on it. Or that I get ownership for the idea. Companies try also to maximize their profit by keeping thing silent for a while, untill the thing hits the market. We have a compartmentalized society, we don't know and see all from each other.

Now for simple spaceprojects as this.
1. You can see the thing build (testfase news etc.)
2. You can see the thing placed in the rocket
3. You can see the rocket go up and the people following it on the screens and machines.
4.You can see them yelling as the thing lands.

Are they all fools or actors?
I think it is a petty when one is in a state that one believes that.

Conspiracies are made to make money and or power. A conspiracy like Phoenix is useless. There is no profit!
Scientific results or knowlegde claimed to be made would be useless.


[edit on 3-6-2008 by Pjotr]

Originally posted by Pjotr
...
Conspiracies are made to make money and or power. A conspiracy like Phoenix is useless. There is no profit!
Scientific results or knowlegde claimed to be made would be useless.

USA make this to purchase power, respect and to distract people in a moment of economic recession.

My dear readers, go please to:

www.lockheedmartin.com...

In the first page of their site there is the image of Phoenix:



Why have not they put a true photo of Phoenix?

Why have not they shown a real video of Phoenix that is unhooked by a helicopter and that lands in their airport?

Someone here said that on Mars there is only 38% of earth gravity and that Phoenix tested on the earth would fall as a brick.

No, dear friend, the things are not in this way.

Phoenix has had to slow down its own descent with a lot of power of its rocket engines, therefore it could be tested very well on the earth.

Reason, please: they have spent $400 million to land Phoenix on Mars and they don’t test it on the earth before sending it there. Only the goats would act this way.

NASA's frauds and your government should not squander money to make 3D space cartoons or to build weapons, war airplanes and to make wrong wars, but they should invest in the search of a new energy that can replace the oil.

reply to post by Big-Brain


You actually don't have to test such a technology .... you can make a simulation including all other conditions and see how it behaves .... so if it's ok in simulation with mars gravity why test it here on earth with full gravity and risking losing project worth 400.000.000$ ...

Big-Brain, you sound certifiably insane.

All this talk about goats and buffoonery and your enormous brain...

It's madness, man! Take your meds!

reply to post by baburak



The simulation is not equal at all to the real thing since you cannot consider all the variables involved in a true prototype.

The softwares used for simulating the true prototype don't succeed in considering the manifold factors that modify in unexpected way the real object.

Originally posted by Big-BrainWhy have not they shown a real video of Phoenix that is unhooked by a helicopter and that lands in their airport?

Someone here said that on Mars there is only 38% of earth gravity and that Phoenix tested on the earth would fall as a brick.

Phoenix has had to slow down its own descent with a lot of power of its rocket engines, therefore it could be tested very well on the earth.

No, it couldn't. On Earth it weighs nearly 3 times as much as on Mars, so you need at least 3 times as much thrust. As others have said you need different systems such as differing designs for rocket nozzles. With three times as much thrust you need three times as much momentum change of exhaust, wither it goes three times as fast out or three times as much comes out. This is difficult with a small amount of space on a craft where the rest goes to things that are useful to the mission such as the computers, and samplers, or cameras. To test in Earths atmosphere would require larger fuel tanks and different propulsion systems, which would change the actual flying behaviour of the craft, rendering the test useless anyway.

Reason, please: they have spent $400 million to land Phoenix on Mars and they don’t test it on the earth before sending it there. Only the goats would act this way.

Newsflash for people who aren't engineers, we have tools for simulations like MATLAB, and don't need to test things in the real world all the time. Infact, they could make a system that behaves like Phoenix would on Mars for Earth, but why do that when you can simulate it? It's cheaper than doing it with an actual system unless you really need it done for a completely new system.

This thread is like a scratched phonograph (look it up younguns'), the same thing, over and over again.

Please folks....drop it now.....Big-Brain has his/her head stuck some place the sun doesn't shine.

This thread is literally accomplishing nothing.

Originally posted by apex
...
With three times as much thrust you need three times as much momentum change of exhaust, wither it goes three times as fast out or three times as much comes out.

1 - This is difficult with a small amount of space.

2 - To test in Earths atmosphere would require larger fuel tanks.

1 - No, it cannot be difficult for genial people as the cheats of Nasa and Lockheed Martin.

2 - No, if you test for a short time. At Langley Facility they tested full scale LEM for 2 or 3 minutes each flight. But we have no video of those flights.
Yet there were 6 camcorders.

Why not yet one video?

Because NASA's frauds had not the biggest technology to land a rocket going backwards and they don't have today even that technology.

If you want to understand how much difficult is to balance a rocket pushed from the bottom (in completely different way than helicopters), test to balance a glass on your forefinger.

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by Pjotr
...
Conspiracies are made to make money and or power. A conspiracy like Phoenix is useless. There is no profit!
Scientific results or knowlegde claimed to be made would be useless.

USA make this to purchase power, respect and to distract people in a moment of economic recession.

My dear readers, go please to:

www.lockheedmartin.com...

In the first page of their site there is the image of Phoenix:



Why have not they put a true photo of Phoenix?

Why have not they shown a real video of Phoenix that is unhooked by a helicopter and that lands in their airport?

Someone here said that on Mars there is only 38% of earth gravity and that Phoenix tested on the earth would fall as a brick.

No, dear friend, the things are not in this way.

Phoenix has had to slow down its own descent with a lot of power of its rocket engines, therefore it could be tested very well on the earth.

Reason, please: they have spent $400 million to land Phoenix on Mars and they don’t test it on the earth before sending it there. Only the goats would act this way.

NASA's frauds and your government should not squander money to make 3D space cartoons or to build weapons, war airplanes and to make wrong wars, but they should invest in the search of a new energy that can replace the oil.

"USA make this to purchase power, respect and to distract people in a moment of economic recession."

What crock, these things are plannes for beyond recession days, and respect doesn't pay bills. You are definitily mislead. In the real world you cannot earn power with lies. I don't know what you do for a living and were you live, but if it works that way in your country, it cannot be much.

"Why have not they put a true photo of Phoenix?"
Because this is nice action graphic, that's all. Looks more glamorous than the real thing. They do it with cars too.


"Why have not they shown a real video of Phoenix that is unhooked by a helicopter and that lands in their airport?"

Nonsense money spill, you can calculate it all.

Originally posted by baburak
reply to post by Big-Brain

 

If they could land this thing ... believe me they could land phoenix on mars ..

hahahaha

here's a picture of an earth craft which was flying and landed similliar way without a scratch.

Originally posted by baburak


If they could land this thing ... believe me they could land phoenix on mars ..

hahahaha

Videos and images of that UUUFO (Unidentified Ugly Unable to Fly Object) are faked.

Have you tried to balance a glass on your forefinger?

reply to post by Big-Brain


lol ..... you wanted a pic and i showed it to you and you still don't believe .... you're telling something without any single solid evidence and want us to believe? .... wow

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by apex
...
With three times as much thrust you need three times as much momentum change of exhaust, wither it goes three times as fast out or three times as much comes out.

1 - This is difficult with a small amount of space.

2 - To test in Earths atmosphere would require larger fuel tanks.

1 - No, it cannot be difficult for genial people as the cheats of Nasa and Lockheed Martin.

2 - No, if you test for a short time. At Langley Facility they tested full scale LEM for 2 or 3 minutes each flight. But we have no video of those flights.
Yet there were 6 camcorders.

OK if thats what you think I'll counter it.

1. You need more space for fuel, and more weight of fuel. Even the geniuses can't make those issues go away, so your point is not really one.

2. Test for a short time. We are only talking for a few seconds anyway. And a three times faster exaust requires nine times as much energy anyway. So why completely change your craft so you can 'test' it in Earth Atmosphere?.

Because NASA's frauds had not the biggest technology to land a rocket going backwards and they don't have today even that technology.

Or they can and test it on a computer. Unless you have some definite demonstrable proof that it's impossible to land something vertically using rockets, you are only making silly claims.

If you want to understand how much difficult is to balance a rocket pushed from the bottom (in completely different way than helicopters), test to balance a glass on your forefinger.

But, my finger isn't attached to the glass, whereas the rocket is attached to the lander. Null point.

And I think I know at least a little about control of craft. If you can show us where you get your expertise from then maybe we won't laugh at your theories.

PS- my knowledge comes from the University of Sheffield Engineering Departments, so you can't ask me for it first. So where does your knowledge of it come from?

reply to post by jalien


Could you u2u me with info on this 'alien' monitoring?