| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| It looks like they faked the Mars missions too; We got fooled again | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 7 2008, 02:22 PM (4,709 Views) | |
| David C | Jun 7 2008, 02:22 PM Post #1 |
|
This is interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH7vN3oO1Zw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlUPnNiG81k What they say about the parachute not being able to open in low air pressure seems logical. After the Apollo hoax, it shoudn't be surprising at all that they faked all the unmanned Mars missions too. More videos- (added July 23,2008) ------------------------------------------------------------ http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=rM0bHAXsRio http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=nHdvAiz8yUw http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNbnXmV1CQ http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=-J_cMoQ_SzE http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NsKX9WPpWRg http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=0RgmjDJdvV0 http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=8hcY6LcUe7s Edited by David C, Jul 23 2008, 12:08 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jun 7 2008, 03:43 PM Post #2 |
|
Yeah sorry but this is just two youtube videos with some guy saying "oh because untrained and unqualified people say so, there's no way a parachute can work". I am pretty sure NASA had a think about that and designed a parachute that would work. Hell we have a couple of pictures of it, but of course they're fake too aren't they?
|
![]() |
|
| JFK | Jun 7 2008, 03:54 PM Post #3 |
![]()
|
Yeah, the part which turned me off was the statement which said something like " As you increase the altitude the atmosphere gets denser. " Otherwise they bring up some good talking points, but I guess ![]() in this subject.
|
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Jun 7 2008, 04:10 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
Actually the parachute is just redundant the real mechanism is the auto inflate bubbles that protect the lander as it hits the surface. Here's better details. http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/mission/spacecraft_edl_lander.html Here's more on the parachute design features. http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/mission/spacecraft_edl_parachute.html Edited by mynameis, Jun 7 2008, 04:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| David C | Jun 7 2008, 04:18 PM Post #5 |
|
I noticed that too but it was just a careless mistake. After what he says in the rest of the video, he obviously doesn't believe that. |
![]() |
|
| chrisfarb | Jun 7 2008, 05:08 PM Post #6 |
|
Looks like about 18,000 feet is the highest safe altitude to deploy in earth atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kittinger Edited by chrisfarb, Jun 7 2008, 05:29 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jun 7 2008, 05:37 PM Post #7 |
|
That is not for Phoenix, but it is relevant for other mars missions. Phoenix used just a parachute and a few rockets for final descent. |
![]() |
|
| JFK | Jun 7 2008, 06:48 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
@ mynameis - You want this mission - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/main/index.html
|
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Jun 7 2008, 11:05 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
My post was in response to his statement about fake landings and the parachute. Both systems deploy parachutes. I thought this system would use bubbles, but it appears to use reverse thrusters. Edited by mynameis, Jun 7 2008, 11:06 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| David C | Jun 8 2008, 09:54 AM Post #10 |
|
I've been looking through the comment section of the video. There are some explanations for the opening of the parachutes. http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMADSTC05_1134/PV2005_1659.pdf http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/sunrisevisuals.shtml http://marstech.jpl.nasa.gov/news/paraDev2.cfm What we need are some math experts to verify whether this is possible. This may be bogus info which was part of their plan and it may turn out that it's real and it was possible. I don't have the math background to calculate how much surface area is needed at what speeds to slow down an object in Martian gravity. We can't just accept it without varifying it as the US government has done bogus studies before. This RAND report on depleted uranium is bogus. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm These videos expose the government's lie. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=depleted+uranium&hl=eN&sitesearch=# Here's what RAND says about GM foods. http://www.rand.org/commentary/051204FT.html The alternative press gives a different story. http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-dangers-of-genetically-modified-food-confirmed/ We get taught in school that the US defends freedom and democracy in the world. The truth is quite different. http://mtwsfh.blogspot.com/ http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/ This woman talks about how a lot of the science community has sold out at around the thirty minute mark of part one. GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3626298989248030643 GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7451332617120640846 We have to take any evidence from the mainstream with a grain of salt given the government's record of lying on a large scale and finding lots of scientists to back them up and do bogus studies. I'm not ruling out the possibility of the explanations being right. I'm just saying they have to be verified. |
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Jun 8 2008, 01:04 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
You need to talk to engineers in the field. Mathematicians have no practical knowledge of applications and design. |
![]() |
|
| JimBob | Jun 8 2008, 11:07 PM Post #12 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
Jarrah White starts of his video with a lie. He claims he has spent his entire life investigating astronomy and other subjects. Obviously untrue as infants can not investigate anything about space flight. But truth or the lack of it has never bothered a foolish clown like Jarrah White. White claims Capricorn One was based on Kaying’s book. This is a lie as Kaysing published his book in 1976 while Peter Hyams wrote the script for Capricorn One in 1974-75. Whites claim that movie landscapes are similar to the photographs taken on Mars. Well no kidding, it is easy to make sand and rocks look similar enough to make a convincing backdrop. Nothing suspicious here. White claims that the higher one goes into the atmosphere, the denser the air becomes. White quotes Rene claiming that a parachutist needs to be below 15,000 above sea level in order for the parachute to open and work properly. A minimum of research would reveal that using HAHO techniques routinely open at over 25,000 feet. White claims that his Australian source says the limit is 14,000 feet. What he does not say is that this is an FAA limit for using oxygen, not parachute opening. White continues to support Rene’s claim that it is basic physics that says a parachute will not work in the Martian atmosphere and questions how much weight the chute would support. He does not even attempt to answer his own questions. This makes for a very weak argument. Rene's evidence for why the Mars Viking Landers could not have landed is that he just does not believe it. Hardly convincing, but White lets it go with hardly a comment. Rene also claims that pathfinder did not use braking rockets; this is a lie. He also uses as evidence of a hoax two conflicting newspaper articles, very poor evidence. Whites quotes Michael Malin as saying; “Once he gets some sleep after watching 24 hours of images coming down from pathfinder and planning the next round of activities, he expects to calculate just how catastrophic the flood would have been.” He use this statement to imply that Pathfinder was broadcasting for 24 hours uninterrupted which is not possible since there are no functioning satellites in orbit around Mars to send a continuous signal while it rotates during its 24.6 hour day. The magazine article quoted no way implies that the “24 hours of images” was continuous. This is another attempt by White to fabricate evidence instead of telling the truth. White equates the Mars atmosphere to the vacuum on the Moon, very stupid. Whites repeats the claim that parachutes do not work at high altitude, as if we are so stupid we will believe it just because he says it more than once. Jarrah Whites says a proven liar can never be trusted, so why does he expect us to believe a proven liar like himself? He must be stupid. These two videos are so stupid that they must be a lame attempt at satire. Anyone who can not recognize this and uses them to try and convince someone that the Mars probe could not land is stupid too. Edited by JimBob, Jun 8 2008, 11:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jun 9 2008, 05:11 AM Post #13 |
|
i think this is rubbish...... |
![]() |
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jun 9 2008, 06:59 AM Post #14 |
|
There are also online videos of parachutes being operated at 120,000 feet, where the atmospheric pressure is similar to that on Mars. Sunrise Project www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/sunrisevisuals.shtml Here's a list of some organisations involved in this project. "The project, known as Sunrise, is an international collaboration involving NCAR, NASA, Germany's Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research and Kiepenheuer Institute for Solar Physics, Spain's Astrophysics Institute of the Canary Islands, and the Swedish Space Corporation. Additional U.S. partners include the Lockheed Martin Corporation and the University of Chicago. Funding for NCAR's work on the project comes from NASA and from the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR's primary sponsor." ![]() Still from the video showing balloon cutdown and parachute deployment. If that parachute could not operate at 120,000 feet, then it's safe to say they probably faked the entire mission. Which means that individuals at each and every one of the organisations mentioned are complicit in faking a mission to photograph the sun at high altitude. Here's footage of the actual parachute used in the Phoexnix missions being tested at 120,000 feet. marstech.jpl.nasa.gov/news/paraDev2.cfm Jarrah asked for footage of parachutes opening at 120,000 feet, and was shown these 2. He's had several days to comment but has so far remained silent on the issue. Many of the believers in a moon hoax are coming out on Jarrah's comment board and saying that Jarrah's evidence for the Phoenix mission being faked is very flimsy, or simply saying they don't believe it was faked. There isn't ANY evidence it was faked. There is only 2 people's ignorance of how high altitude sub-sonic parachutes work in low pressure, which IMO does not a conspiracy make. Edited by HeadLikeARock, Jun 9 2008, 07:03 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jun 9 2008, 07:13 AM Post #15 |
|
Why then do you take Jarrah's "research" at face value, when the only "scientist" he can find to back up his claim is Ralph Rene, a man who believes he has proven Newtonian physics is wrong because 1000 foot cliffs on't collapse, and who believes that the value of Pi accepted by mathematicians the world over is wrong, and sells "proof" on his website for $6 a pop? Do you not think you should be holding their argument up to some kind of rigour? If not why not?
That doesn't ring true with the subject title and subtitle.
Clarification please? Do you actually believe the Phoenix mission is being faked, or not? If yes, what evidence can you put forward to back this claim up? The only evidence you've presented so far is Jarrah White's and Ralph Rene's disbelief that a parachute can be designed to inflate in the Martian atmosphere, what soures do you have to confirm their assertion? |
![]() |
|
| Miragememories | Jun 9 2008, 08:47 AM Post #16 |
|
Is it just me, or does all this attention focusing on the legitimacy of the Mars and Lunar landings, seem like a big time waster that only serves to reinforce the negative image that the 9/11 Official Story propagandists wish to convey about the Loose Change Forum? I'm inclined to think this topic is a better fit in the Skeptics sub forum. MM |
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jun 9 2008, 01:29 PM Post #17 |
|
same here. if they were going to fake it, they would have done it in the 60s. another thing a bout the moon. if the USA faked the moon missions, then why wouldn't the USSR? Why would they send a rover instead of a man? Why not fake the construction of moonbases to one-up us? Do you think that Russia/USSR seriously wouldn't know we faked it if we really did? |
![]() |
|
| JimBob | Jun 9 2008, 02:14 PM Post #18 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
David C is behaving like a wanna-be victim who is bleating for attention. After making outrageous claims about generally accepted historical events, he drags out his "look, here is other stuff the government is lying about" crap. He uses this to support his moon hoax and other claims. He then cries about how others who do not support his claims are lying to him and that this is evidence that supports his original Moon and Mars hoax claims. He is like a broken record that is waiting for the turn table to stop. Round and round he goes; the same thing post after post. You think he would be ashamed to get in bed with whores like White, Sibrel, Kaysing and Rene, but he is not. |
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jun 9 2008, 02:22 PM Post #19 |
|
yea, as if these alleged hoaxes, if they are truly hoaxes, would be worth all of his time and energy? How about exposing lies which actually killed people? I don't see how faking the landing of a robot onto another planet, if truly faked, would be such a huge atrocity. |
![]() |
|
| David C | Jun 9 2008, 03:26 PM Post #20 |
|
I did jump the gun. I hadn't seen the links to the parachute tests when I started the thread. It still remains to be confirmed though as the govenment has done a lot of bogus science to fool Americans. I posted some examples above. This parachute stuff may turn out to be bogus too. We need an engineer, as was pointed out above, to do the calculations. We should also consult a sky diving club. You aren't one anybody should listen to though as you have played down evidence that was so clear that you couldn't smear it. Look at how you responded to the evidence that the American press lies habitually. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=57174&t=51606
You once said Jay Windley was "Mistaken" instead of "Lying" on this issue even though he said he knew what he knew from experience. http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094 http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand You refused to address the evidence that Clavius and Bad Astronomy are government damage-control sites in this post because the evidence is so clear that you can't obfuscate it. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=58093&t=51606 Face it. It's clear that you are here to obfuscate. You are not a truth-seeker. Let's just put everything on the table and try to see what the truth is about the Mars missions. Here's something else I found. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9436&hl=mars%20hoax&st=0 If it turns out they were real, I won't be disappointed. I'll be happy about it. Right now I'm pretty doubtful though. |
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jun 9 2008, 03:33 PM Post #21 |
|
to use a parachute on a thinner atmosphere, you simply need a larger parachute... it doesn't take an engineer to figure that out. it allows you to enter the atmosphere at a higher speed than on earth, in fact. I suggest a series called "Mars Rising"... it's probably part four that deals with entry into the atmosphere and how they might do it with a manned mission. |
![]() |
|
| David C | Jun 9 2008, 03:41 PM Post #22 |
|
That's too simplistic. Were the simulations in the video of the Mars landers going down by parachute the right proportions of parachute to lander? They didn't look especially big to me. There is a point where the pressure would be too low for even a larger parachute to slow the decent sigificantly. These general statements don't prove anything. |
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jun 9 2008, 03:55 PM Post #23 |
|
the lander was extremely lightweight compared to other things that have used parachutes on earth, like the ERVs used to get astronauts out of the water, for instance. smaller mass means smaller parachute. but if you take a larger object like one that might carry people, it is theoretically possible (although it may prove less reliable or practical than other methods) to use a really large parachute to slow this larger object. the issue with larger craft using parachutes, which I believe I saw on Mars Rising, was that they thing the cables will snap off the chutes if there is too much mass to the craft. but that doesn't debunk the notion that you can use parachutes to slow the craft of a small rover and it's power supply and then bounce it the rest of the way with balloons. Think of the physics involved. If there's atmosphere (called air) then there is air-resistance. If there is thinner atmosphere, there is still air-resistance, but less. Larger surface equals larger capacity for resistance. less mass in hte object attached to the chute, means less resistence needed to slow the object. this could be proven with a thought experiment taking place on earth. Think of what would happen if you took WTC7 and attached a small parachute to the top of it, and dropped it from the sky? The chute wouldn't have any measurable effect. Use that same chute on a box of cereal. It would reach terminal velocity within mere seconds, and float gracefully to the surface. Same methods apply to the mars rovers. Smaller mass, even though thinner atmosphere, means successfully acheiving terminal velocity. The reason they use the balloon things to cushion the fall even after the chute has performed is because terminal velocity on Mars (just as with earth) is not slow enough to keep the payload from being damaged or destroyed. Mars has less gravity, AND less atmosphere than earth. The results are something that is useful for relatively small objects. |
![]() |
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jun 9 2008, 06:16 PM Post #24 |
|
Why do you always feel the need to resort to bald-faced ad hominems? It doesn't reflect well on you.
I posted video evidence of parachutes opening at 120,000 feet in Earth... air pressure similar to Mars at that height. The only "evidence" being offered that the Mars Phoenix mission is fake is that claim by Jarrah White that parachutes don't work over 14,000 feet on Earth. Please explain how this equates to obfuscation, or how it shows I'm not a truth-seeker.
Having doubts doesn't equate to a conspiracy: nor does it give you the right to keep on flaming me when I'm discussing/presenting evidence. Rest assured, the only message that your diluting is your own. |
![]() |
|
| JimBob | Jun 9 2008, 09:13 PM Post #25 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
Did I say broken record? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |










9:23 AM Jul 11