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

The greatest error NASA's frauds did in their fake images taken on the moon was the strangest total absence of stars.

My dear readers,

observe carefully this image:



Also goats can realize that it is a model made by plastic materials.

The greatest error in this image is that ice has blue reflections. On our planet ice has blue reflections due to blue colour of the sky.

Since on Mars colour of the sky is this:



it is impossible that ice on Mars has blue reflections like on the earth.

Well then this is a totally fake image made by plastic materials in the fully goatish way typical of NASA's frauds.



[edit on 24-6-2008 by Big-Brain]

reply to post by Big-Brain


Really, hasnt the star argument already been answered like 1000000000 times. Come on mods, step up and farce this topic. PLEASE.

reply to post by Big-Brain


Oh SHEESH!!!!

Now, BB keeps going, and going and going.....like the Energizer Bunny, with a bunny brain....(see? BB)

First, his own post, this very thread, is about Mars, but he brings (very old) junk about the Moon.

Apparently, this poster has no idea how photography works. Ever heard of an f-stop? Or shutter speed? Ever done any photography?

thought not.

GO!!!! LEARN!!!! or.....just go.

Away.

reply to post by Big-Brain


You know, I was going to get all indignant at your travesty of logic and science. I was going to sit here and explain to you the flaws in your argument. Flaws large enough to fly a gas giant through. Instead, I decided to pull out the Bizarrotron(tm) and try to see things from your perspective.

*steps into Bizarrotron(tm)*

*BZZZZRT....HUMMMMMMMMM*

*steps out of Bizarrotron(tm)*

Hello. Me am BizarroHazard! You am right! There is not can be Phoenix on Mars! Me is can proving it for you, but first me am having something to say. Me am not liking goat. Goats am smelly. Me am liking llama. Llamas am spitting. You am like llama. You am spitting on wrongheaded science and goats. Now me am going to help llama prove not can be Phoenix on Mars. Me am suggesting you am reading carefully. Science is much big complex. Maybe Big-Brain only one smart enough to follow. Big-Brain am smart like llama.

Any llama am knowing light am particle and wave. Light particle am being called photons. Photons am can not go through solid objects, because particle am solid. Light am can pass through glass. Glass am not be solid. Glass am have tiny holes. Metal am solid. Light am not pass through metal. Am is being clear?

Any llama also knowing electricity am particle and wave. Electricity particle am being called electron. Electron am particle. Them say Phoenix am using computer and electronics. Computer and electronics am using metal. Wiring am using metal. Particle am not able to go through solid objects. Metal am solid. Them am try to say electricity go through metal. NASA frauds am think we am dumb. We am know that electricity am hoax.

We am knowing that no can there be electricity. If am no electricity, no can there be electronics. If am no electronics, no can there be computer. If am no computer, no can there be unmanned probe. If am no probe, no can there be Phoenix on Mars.

Also, no can there be interwebs, electric lights, servers, or board we am posting on. All am being frauds! You am not can be even reading this! They am must be making you to am being hallucinating! You am smart. You am can see this must be so! Even llama am can knowing this. Quick! We am must be making tin foil hat! Then them steam powered mind control ray not am making you see this. This all am go away. No more fake interwebs. No more fake electric lights. No more fake computers. No more fake ATS board. No more.... no more... no... n...

*Pffffffftttttttssssssss........*

Darn. I think the Bizarrotron(tm) wore off.

Anyway, there you go. With the help of the Bizarrotron(tm) I've proven that there can be no Phoenix on Mars once and for all. Case closed.

(P.S. Bizarro is copyright DC Comics. If anyone from DC Comics ever sees this, please don't sue me!)

reply to post by PsychoHazard


Psycho.....the funniest thing I think I have ever seen on the internet.....well, at least on ATS!!!

I am laughing me off!!

ps....all snips, are mine. Think of it as one of those toys, where you can dress Barbie as you wish....

Best, WW

edit....just found out, as I posted....I used a key that is best left to the Mods....maybe aI needed to do the *snip* in the appropriate places. You'll figure it out.....

[edit on 6/24/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by PsychoHazard


That am being hilarious. Even goats am knowing that.

Uh oh....not am wanting warn for short post. Am increasing content.

I grabbed a screen shot of that one PsychoHazard.......that am a gem. Odd, how all of the doo-doo in this thread spawned one of the funniest posts I've ever read....anywhere. Now I guess we might have some idea why some threads aren't dumped as fast as we'd like......we would have missed that little piece of genius otherwise.



[edit on 24-6-2008 by MrPenny]

reply to post by MrPenny


gotta agree with penny here. that am hilarious. much funny than any post other.

uh oh me needs to also increase also content on post also.

lol. star for psycho

Originally posted by PsychoHazard
...
I still contend that there is, in fact, a Phoenix lander on Mars. I have provided evidence to support my claim, as have many others. When you realize that you have most likely sacrificed whatever remaining credibility you may have had, and are prepared to properly, and politely support your claim in a rational adult manner, look me up. Until then, adieu. My work here is done.
...

My credibility is in my logical reasonings.

Keep your promise, you said adieu and instead you are still here. Then you are a liar and liars have no credibility.

Originally posted by bknapple32

To clarify, I meant that there is no space race now. The space race in the 60's was the motive that conspiracy theorists use. But since there is no space race now, I dont see the motive to use so much money to send an unmanned lander on mars.

You never spent much money since all NASA's frauds enterprises are false.

I am always waiting to see a video of LEM tested at Langley facility, and a video of Surveyor, Viking 1 and 2, Galileo, Huygens, above all Phoenix tested on the earth since I'd like to see how these pieces of metal can fly, brake their velocity, land going backwards like planes and helicopters.

Originally posted by bknapple32

Really, hasnt the star argument already been answered like 1000000000 times. Come on mods, step up and farce this topic. PLEASE.

Look at this image:



Shadows are longest since the sun is at dawn or sunset. There are no bright lights.

Even if there were bright lights, it would have been enough that that poor man dressed as a buffoon had turned 180 degrees and he would have been able to take photos of stars.

STARS ONLY, but those stupid NASA's frauds have never taken only photos of stars, stars only.

It's difficult to meet stupid people like NASA's fraud scientists.

They would have been able to take only photos of stars easily, avoiding all the other brighter lights.

Simple like to drink a glass of water.

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by PsychoHazard
...
I still contend that there is, in fact, a Phoenix lander on Mars. I have provided evidence to support my claim, as have many others. When you realize that you have most likely sacrificed whatever remaining credibility you may have had, and are prepared to properly, and politely support your claim in a rational adult manner, look me up. Until then, adieu. My work here is done.
...

My credibility is in my logical reasonings.

Keep your promise, you said adieu and instead you are still here. Then you are a liar and liars have no credibility.

Ah, but if you claim that you are, in fact, rationally supporting your claims, then my criteria for return have been met. You must make up your mind. Either, you have met my criteria, or you are admitting that this is all a farce. So which is it, Big-Brain?

Besides, I would have thought you'd be happy. I proved your claim, didn't I?

[edit on 6/25/2008 by PsychoHazard]

BB, if you write about how you just met an alien in the street - that is fine. Moderators will never bother you. But, exposing NASA - they are waiting for every wrong move to remove you from here. It is not enough that you are at "Skunk Works", but you have to be eliminated.

That is what the WW and his clones are asking the moderators to do.

Originally posted by Big-BrainShadows are longest since the sun is at dawn or sunset. There are no bright lights.

Only, there's no atmosphere on the Moon to weaken the light. So it wouldn't be so dim. As well as that, for a camera, most daylight is bright. So light which isn't dissipated by 100km of atmosphere is bright for such a camera. Which is also why the astronauts have massive screens over their visors as well.

Even if there were bright lights, it would have been enough that that poor man dressed as a buffoon had turned 180 degrees and he would have been able to take photos of stars.

Now, next time it's a clear night, you stare at someones full beam car headlights, for a bit such that your adjusted for that, then look at the sky, at the stars. If you can see them straight away, you are either lying or didn't look at the lights in the first place. Similarly, set up a good camera which you can set the exposure time and fstop and do the same. You'll find you can't see the stars in the second image.

They would have been able to take only photos of stars easily, avoiding all the other brighter lights.

Why go all the way to the moon to take pictures of stars?

reply to post by Big-Brain


From.. www.cru.uea.ac.uk...

The moon has an albedo of 0.07 to 0.12 - it diffusely reflects 7-12% of the incoming light. Think of an uplighter, which uses a ceiling (not air) to diffuse light.

Similarly, the Earth (albedo 0.31-0.37) lights the non-Sun-facing side of the shuttle quite well. Only when it moves into the shadow of the nightside is it plunged into darkness. All Apollo missions took place in the Lunar daytime (14 Earth days long) for the obvious reason they wanted to be able to see.


We are answering the same arguments now more than once. MODS WHERE ARE YOU???????????????????????????????????????????????????


[edit: removed excessive ?s]

[edit on 3-7-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by apex


apex....exactly!!!

Why go all the way to the Moon to take pictures of stars!!!! Ha, very rich.

Especialy, with a regular Hasselblad, without a telescope attached?!?!!!

For you doubters out there who think pictures of stars taken from the Moon would 'prove' the travel...the relative position of the stars, when seen from the Moon, are exactly the same as when viewed from Earth.

If it were possible to see a discernible change in the stars, then we'd see it every year as the Earth orbits the Sun. (hint....the stars are very, very far away...)

See, this is mostly for the OP of this thread....with his large brain and all...to figure out. See, the diameter of the Earth's orbit, at about 186,000,000 miles is nearly 750 times a larger distance from the Earth to the Moon. What possible good would it have been to take pictures of the stars?

Alas, the huge-brained one doesn't seem to understand how photography works either.....sigh....

As to a manned mission to Mars and sending one person.....sheesh! Total lack of understanding of space flight....maybe too much watching of old 'Lost In Space' re-runs.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


So we've proved 'Big' Brain doesnt know a thing about photography, thus killing his star argument.

Only uses NASA's 3-d pictures as proof we never went. Thus proves he has no idea about the mission's history behind it.

Thinks the cork in the heatshield is proof we never went, thus showing he has no knowledge of space flight dynamics

Supposes we fathom the idea of a one manned mission to mars, So we plainly see he has no knowledge of psychiatry.

Ignores rebuttals to his ( a stretch here) arguments. So he has no knowledge of how to have discourse.

Thinks Saturn's rings are made of plastic. So, well, thats just not even worthy of an explanation.

Cant use proper grammar. Thus has no knowledge of the English language

Yes... big brain indeed.

FARCE!!!!!!!

[edit on 25-6-2008 by bknapple32]

Originally posted by apex
...
Now, next time it's a clear night, you stare at someones full beam car headlights, for a bit such that your adjusted for that, then look at the sky, at the stars. If you can see them straight away, you are either lying or didn't look at the lights in the first place. Similarly, set up a good camera which you can set the exposure time and fstop and do the same. You'll find you can't see the stars in the second image.
...
Why go all the way to the moon to take pictures of stars?

What rubbish are you saying?

That poor man convinced to lie for the good of his nation



would have been able to take photos of stars directing the camera to the sky in the opposite side as regard to the sun but also close to the sun since without atmosphere there is no refraction of light.

Perhaps some goat can understand why that poor man would have had to look at moon buggy headlights before taking photos of the stars.

Surely an imbecile that simulates to be an astronaut on the moon can do any idiocy.

You said: "Why go all the way to the moon to take pictures of stars?"

This is a very intelligent question. Mi big brain gets frightened in front of this tremendous doubt.

reply to post by Big-Brain


BB, you are embarrassing yourself. The LRV had no headlights!!!

Gee, you just digging deeper and deeper. Hey! Stay around, this is getting entertaining.

Originally posted by Big-Brain
would have been able to take photos of stars directing the camera to the sky in the opposite side as regard to the sun but also close to the sun since without atmosphere there is no refraction of light.

Seriously, why don't you look at the sky in the daytime and see if you can see the stars, you can't.

You said: "Why go all the way to the moon to take pictures of stars?"

This is a very intelligent question. Mi big brain gets frightened in front of this tremendous doubt.

My point is they didn't take pictures of the stars. They didn't need to. And if the camera was setup to see detail of terrain on the surface of the moon, they wouldn't be able to see the stars.

Try it with a digital camera, point it at the sky, press the shutter down halfway to set it up for the correct exposure like that, then point it at a dim light. Then take the picture. Can you see the dim light easily, if at all? No, you can't because not enough light from it reaches the camera on that exposure level. It's the same with the stars on the moon pictures.

Originally posted by apex
...
Seriously, why don't you look at the sky in the daytime and see if you can see the stars, you can't.
...

We need to go to a new page.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



[edit on 25-6-2008 by Big-Brain]

We need to go to a new page.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.