Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

http://www.space.com/14725-moon-tempera ... night.html

Maat wrote:

... anyways, according to NA$As own Lunar Temperature Extremes, ALL cine/photo film
would be alternately baked and melted then snap & shatter like brittle waferthin
sheet toffee. For NA$As 'Lunar Imagery' to be true, NA$As own Lunar Temperatures
must be a lie...

Exactly! But our li'l NASAfag has dodged that 'elephant' from the start too http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p2371161

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... &start=885

Alternately... NA$As' own +100c > -173c MOON TEMPS stats are probably roughly approx correct,
instantly rendering ALL SURVIVING MOON-SURFACE CAMERA & VIDEO FILM a technical impossibility.
NA$A DEBUNKS NA$A.
voilà.


do i wanna pick a fight with Neil & Buzz & NA$A about it ? nah...
whats the point ? like they're gonna 'fess up', 'come clean' ?

illusion42 wrote: In order to prove this Mars Curiosity mission a hoax we shouldn't really be dealing with the numbers and data because NASA would sure to have double checked it to perfection as any faulty data would have been spotted sooner or later by any Scientist/Engineer or anyone who still remembers some of their high school physics/maths.

Now does NASA seriously expect us to believe they successfully landed the Curiosity Rover after travelling some 100 million km with a communication delay of around 14 minutes, after their disastrous test on the Morpheus Rover on August 9th 2012?

Yes, Illusion42 - those are exactly my thoughts. I believe that what we need to highlight through our common efforts here, are the macroscopic aberrations of NASA's bunk. As it is, I am not precisely advocating to focus on 'emotional' angles (as someone wrote) to wake up people about this farce. It is more a question of (as someone else wrote) "intutitive impossibilities" - and appealing to people's common sense, no matter how 'unscientific' this may sound to some. I can partly understand Rick55's wish to compute some slam-dunk, mathematically incontrovertible proof - which the academic/scientific community cannot refute. As I see it though, any 'scientist' or 'academic' incapable of intuitive thinking is a fraud - and a lost cause: such fools will probably dismiss clear-cut evidence anyway!...

Dear Rick55, as previously stated, I won't discourage you from your chosen path/methodology of exposing NASA's skullduggery. Again, I wish you luck with it - but I will have to reiterate my skepticism as to the wisdom & potential effectiveness of such a debunking strategy. You wrote: "... there's only one universe and one set of rules. Faulty data is going to consitute "proof". I beg to differ a bit with that statement. Think of it as a game of cards: we are actually playing against an adversary who is not only dealing the cards - but who has also written and printed the card game's rules, ranks, suits and numbers (Martian atmosphere, gravity, temperatures, etc...). I find it most unlikely that NASA - who poses as a World Authority on matters scientific - would leave gaping (mathematical) holes for us to beat them at their own game. See, last time I checked, high school physics classes didn't contemplate Martian physics / parameters - but if they did, they'd originate from some NASA textbook, no? So how far would this (proving an impossible deceleration on Mars) take us? Of course - in the mind of Joe Public - no one on this planet has gathered more 'authoritative, academic /scientific' Martian data than NASA.

Lastly, Rick - please let me kindly ask you not to throw around the 'cointelpro' word on this forum. Keep on track and doing what you do - and if that leads to solid results in terms of debunking NASA, we will all warmly welcome them. I can only see one problem with it: you may eventually reach the conclusion that NASA's deceleration data all adds up in a way or another... But, once again, good luck!

Heiwa wrote:

rick55 wrote: For example, between atmospheric entry at time=0 to the next data point, over 4 minutes pass and we've decelerated from 13,200 mph to 900 mph. That represents a constant deceleration of a fantastical 44 miles/second/second.

Hm, to decelerate (13,200-900)=12,300 mph in 4 minutes or 240 seconds correspond to a deceleration of 12,300/240=51.25 mph/second and if 1 mph corresponds 1609/3600=0.4469 m/s the deceleration is of the order 22.9 m/s² which is very big. The early JPL/NASA projects failed because they mixed up metric and US units.

I'm glad you said that.
I noticed that on the "live landing" stream, the voiceovers kept saying blah, blah kilometers.
But, the visuals on their gigantic screen so the telemarketers seated there could follow along with their cool headphones and matching blue polos, the rate of descent, and altitude were listed in miles.

Heiwa wrote:

illusion42 wrote: Actually, a deceleration in the order of 22.9 m/s² is not that much especially due to Mars' thin atmosphere and weak gravity.

In order for a space ship with mass 3 690 kg landing on Mars to be decelerated at average 22.9 m/s² by friction during four minutes an average force of 84 501 N must be applied on the space ship all the time during the deceleration....Do you think NASA/JPL can provide info about the actual force at any time while decelerating?

Right on Heiwa. This is a productive route that involves the deceleration I'm interested in. I think in mph we're looking at a constant deceleration of 44 miles per sec./sec (22.9 m/s2) .... G is 1/3 lowering the need for braking, but atmosphere is 1/100 of Earths far overwhelming the 1/3 less G... so the deceleration rate is concievable in terms of order of magnitude in general but inconcievable given the atmosphere. In effect... you're taking it to the next logical step which is-- where is the force in Newtons that provides the brakes? This is just between 13000 mph and 900 mph BEFORE the parachute.

Simon

I find it most unlikely that NASA - who poses as a World Authority on matters scientific - would leave gaping (mathematical) holes for us to beat them at their own game.

... last time I checked, high school physics classes didn't contemplate Martian physics / parameters

Thanks for the entire effort here Simon, I appreciate it. I'm going to take leave for awhile and I'll check in later down the road sometime. There's no point in fighting uphill and you're doing a fantastic job in the approach you're taking. Thanks for tolerating my angle for awhile.

The somewhat intuitive obvious problem is that Curiosity had no brakes as Heiwa points out with his simple high school force calculation. High school provided enough physics to apply to the Mars Curiosity problem-- no matter what planet or even what star system you apply it to.

So.... essentially Curiosity has no brakes... so no cigar for NASA. Thanks everyone-- and special thanks to Simon for this great great great website and personable style. BUMPER STICKER for my car... "Mars Curiosity... had NO BRAKES!"....

4 mintutes on an Alpine coaster with no brakes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqCkICXWdWI

"Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."
- Plato

rick55 wrote:Right on Heiwa. This is a productive route that involves the deceleration I'm interested in. I think in mph we're looking at a constant deceleration of 44 miles per sec./sec (22.9 m/s2) .... G is 1/3 lowering the need for braking, but atmosphere is 1/100 of Earths far overwhelming the 1/3 less G... so the deceleration rate is concievable in terms of order of magnitude in general but inconcievable given the atmosphere. In effect... you're taking it to the next logical step which is-- where is the force in Newtons that provides the brakes? This is just between 13000 mph and 900 mph BEFORE the parachute.

The Mars spaceship was flying like an airplane without pilot in the Mars atmosphere for almost 1 000 kilometer while descending from 125 000 to 11 000 meter altitude during 4 minutes and 14-20 seconds, we are told by NASA/JPL. This space/airplane had no wings and no means to brake than a heat shield at the nose. In spite of this the velocity was decelerated from 13 000 to 900 mph ... by friction.
I am a frequent flyer and on Earth I am always told to fasten seat belts almost 10 minutes before landing ... when speed is only 500 mph ... and yes, braking is then by friction ... and deceleration is small so it takes time to land.
Many times when I have been flying and landing on Earth the plane has dropped into "holes" in the atmosphere or I have experienced dynamic forces due to turbulence or violent pilot action (?) and ... my G&T or Bloody M drink has flown away ... with the peanuts.
I think it should be obvious to anybody that landing anything anywhere in 254 seconds without pilot and without any brakes than friction is pretty difficult or rather impossible when speed is 13 000 mph.

I am also told that Mars atmosphere is much thinner than on Earth. Doesn't it mean that friction will be much smaller?

Heiwa wrote: I am also told that Mars atmosphere is much thinner than on Earth. Doesn't it mean that friction will be much smaller?

Heiwa-

I am also told that Mars atmosphere is much thinner than on Earth. Doesn't it mean that friction will be much smaller?

Precisely-- 100X thinner. I'm not sure what the equation for friction would be but you would think that even with a coefficient, that you would have a "lot" less friction. Friction in an atmosphere is called "drag". Here is the equation the science fiction writers for Nasa/JPL would need to stick with to continue their charade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation

Here's an interesting little element to this...

Of particular importance is the dependence on velocity, meaning that fluid drag increases with the square of velocity. When velocity is doubled, for example, not only does the fluid strike with twice the velocity, but twice the mass of fluid strikes per second. Therefore the change of momentum per second is multiplied by four. Force is equivalent to the change of momentum divided by time. This is in contrast with solid-on-solid friction, which generally has very little velocity dependence.

So effectively, at high speeds, the atmosphere is effectively only 1/50 as dense, relatively speaking. I'll think on this more... I didn't intend to continue but but I'm obviously addicted. Thanks, Heiwa for this productive high school line of thought-- with all due respect to Simon.

2012 Curiosity is all digital, its state-of-the-art 'c2006 smartphone-style' 2.4 megapixel
cameras work best at the optimum Martian 'Minimum ground temperatures about -85°C'.
http://marsweather.com/

damn. i've been such an idiot.
i've been leaving my i-phone lying around on the floor at +21°C room temperature;
when i should be storing it in an optimum -78.5°C bucket of dry-ice.

rick55 wrote: I'm not sure what the equation for friction would be but you would think that even with a coefficient, that you would have a "lot" less friction. Friction in an atmosphere is called "drag".

So the simple question is: Was there enough drag in the Mars atmosphere to decelarate Curiosity from 13000 to 900 mph in about 4 minutes.
When Apollo 11 returned from the Moon 1969 - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm - it was at higher speed and landing took longer but it seams Earth atmosphere was denser. And Apollo 11 dropped into international waters disregarding all rules for ships there. It was still a miracle - Apollo 11 should have gone down in flames.
As a frequent Earth airplane flier I have landed 500+ times and it always takes more than 4 minutes and start velocity is max 500 mph. Why does it take so long to land on Earth with an airplane when a Mars spaceship does it 100X faster at 100X greater deceleration? Without a pilot! Any ideas?

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI

Heiwa wrote:

rick55 wrote: I'm not sure what the equation for friction would be but you would think that even with a coefficient, that you would have a "lot" less friction. Friction in an atmosphere is called "drag".

So the simple question is: Was there enough drag in the Mars atmosphere to decelarate Curiosity from 13000 to 900 mph in about 4 minutes.
When Apollo 11 returned from the Moon 1969 - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm - it was at higher speed and landing took longer but it seams Earth atmosphere was denser. And Apollo 11 dropped into international waters disregarding all rules for ships there. It was still a miracle - Apollo 11 should have gone down in flames.
As a frequent Earth airplane flier I have landed 500+ times and it always takes more than 4 minutes and start velocity is max 500 mph. Why does it take so long to land on Earth with an airplane when a Mars spaceship does it 100X faster at 100X greater deceleration? Without a pilot! Any ideas?

Good question: Was there enough "DRAG" in the Mars atmosphere to decelarate Curiosity from 13000 to 900 mph in about 4 minutes.

Apollo 11 came into the top of earth's atmosphere, according to the science fiction numbers, at about 18,000 mph I think I recall without googling. At age 12 - 18, despite being in high school, our teachers never drew a velocity curve for the capsule on the blackboard... and it never occurred to me to draw one myself. That would have been funny to have proven an Apollo hoax as a smart teenager. I'm sure Playboy would have interviewed me if I had. I could have been famous... and popular with the ladies.

Maybe the airplane takes longer to land because the whole vehicle is not, itself, a big flap. If you built the airplane so that the wings literally tilted 90 degrees like big flaps, or like birds do when the land, you could have some serious drag. As it is, the airplane slips through the air being aerodynamic. I suppose they want g-force to remain minimal too. Maybe they could experiment with an airplane that, when landing, ejects its wings, comes almost straight down with a heat shield on the belly, ejects parachutes at the last 1000 m. or so... .and fires retrorockets for the last 10 feet. That way, they might go from 500 mph to 0 in 3 minutes.. and passengers would have more fun.

The last Chinese capsule came in a bit like that. Shengzou-9 I think they call it, fired retrorockets in the last few seconds before hit the ground hard, then was dragged along by the still-attached parachute, rolling over upside down-- while the Chinese mission control narrator laughed. I thought the laughing was cruel since it did not look like a comfortable thing to do.

Simon, let me know if you want me to stop. It's your forum. I just can't resist sometimes... and quite frankly, Heiwa is onto this angle. With Heiwa's force calculations applied to the drag, derived from deceleration, it's just a matter of time before we have a proof and some Illuminati comes knocking on our door telling us to stop doing high school math. But I'll just call Obama on them. Obama knows what's going on-- he cancelled the Shuttle and reduced NASA's science fiction budget.

simonshack wrote:...Think of it as a game of cards: we are actually playing against an adversary who is not only dealing the cards - but who has also written and printed the card game's rules, ranks, suits and numbers (Martian atmosphere, gravity, temperatures, etc...). I find it most unlikely that NASA - who poses as a World Authority on matters scientific - would leave gaping (mathematical) holes for us to beat them at their own game. See, last time I checked, high school physics classes didn't contemplate Martian physics / parameters - but if they did, they'd originate from some NASA textbook, no? So how far would this (proving an impossible deceleration on Mars) take us? Of course - in the mind of Joe Public - no one on this planet has gathered more 'authoritative, academic /scientific' Martian data than NASA.

Exactly right, Simon! And to prove it, for any still puzzling over Martian atmosphere, etc. etc., see how NASA has and does cover all angles — by just making up anything and everything they might need for their storyline. e.g. Create Martian 'dust devils'!

Per Spirit Rover in 2005:

Dust whirlwinds

On March 9, 2005 (probably during the Martian night), the rover's solar panel efficiency jumped from around 60% of what it had originally been to 93%, followed on March 10, by the sighting of dust devils. NASA scientists speculate a dust devil must have swept the solar panels clean, possibly significantly extending the duration of the mission. This also marks the first time dust devils had been spotted by either Spirit or Opportunity, easily one of the top highlights of the mission to date. Dust devils had previously been photographed by only the Pathfinder probe.

Mission members monitoring the Spirit rover on Mars reported on March 12, 2005, that a lucky encounter with a dust devil had cleaned the solar panels of that robot. Power levels dramatically increased and daily science work was anticipated to be expanded.

“Video of a dust devil on Mars, photographed by the Mars rover Spirit. The counter in the bottom-left corner indicates time in seconds after the first photo was taken in the sequence. At the final frames, one can see that the dust devil has left a trail on the Martian surface. Three other dust devils also appear in the background.”



@ http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11681 [Ref http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2373855#p2373855]

Wait...WHAT THE...???

Can't tell whether this is a joke or being serious.

EXPLOSIVE NEW EVIDENCE PROVES MARS LANDING IS A HOAX!

SHOCKING NEW PHOTOS LEAKED!! Production crew prepare to film “Mars Landing” in the Nevada desert.

http://thedailytrash.wordpress.com/2012 ... x-is-real/













http://thedailytrash.wordpress.com/2012 ... x-is-real/