Thanks for posting this. I think even the technical proof you are seeking is (or is related to) an emotional appeal. For instance, catching people in slips that contradict the "official" story are not necessarily different from catching NASA doing an unrealistic computer animation of what supposedly happened (or is supposedly video footage of what happened). These are technically "technical" mishaps in that they describe complete errors in reality. However, I am sure we all appreciate your posts and look forward to a time you can share your discoveries/dissections.rick55 wrote:I thought I would review ABC News as they presented the landing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UU7qU ... Q_8Md4iK-o
We've been considering a lot of angles in this thread and they all have some merit. I would argue that to debunk it however, that we begin with this ABC report on the 7 minutes of terror and the other phrase I hadn't heard till just now... 'a galactic hole-in-one with no margin for error". As well, this ABC report said its the most complicated landing ever attempted by NASA and they compared it to the Olympics.
The presentation indicates the craft travelled 13,000 mph "until" the "supersonic parachute" was deployed. In other articles, I've seen an indication that the supersonic reference was in relation to the speed of the release... not the speed of the craft at the time of the release. As far as a popular myth goes, however, this ABC report is an example of the starting point for a debunking.
I fear that my own motivation to continue to construct a viable technical debunking here is flagging. Simon himelf indicated he prefers an emotional appeal to expose the hoax similar to that gained when watching Neil Armstrong in his post-moon mission interview stumble and fumble with his words. I understand his point but over time, I guess, I'll plug away at something I can post on my own blog. When I'm happy with the presentation, I'll let readers and Simon here know about it and you all can visit me there.
Till then... happy landings... ? Thanks for this terrific forum, Simon... your work on 9/11 is truly #1 in my book... and I haven't even tapped into the fake bombings like 7/7 and Oslo. I thought those were all 'real' false flags but not fake! Your whole angle of fake events has awaked me to a whole new level. And thanks for tolerating my obsession with a technical proof.
And where is Richard Hoagland gonna sit?brianv wrote: edit: This is exactly the wrong machine to send to any desert. Too many moving parts and fiddly bits going to get clogged. And what genius put ventilator grills above the wheels. Good grief!"
SJ27 says:
August 3, 2012 at 12:23 pm
A decade? We’ve had the CGI technology to do a successful hoax landing on Mars since the 90′s.
http://www.infowars.com/mankind-only-a- ... s-landing/
...and they got away with a couple of 3M front projection curtains for the loony landings for a decade or two.simonshack wrote:*
***BREAKING NEWS***BREAKING NEWS***BREAKING NEWS***BREAKING NEWS***BREAKING NEWS***
INTELLIGENT LIFE observed at Infowars.com ! (in comment section)
Intelligent life has been detected in the comment section of this Infowars article stupidly titled "Mankind ‘only a decade away’ from Mars landing": This is of course a most encouraging discovery which bodes well for mankind's future.
SJ27 says:
August 3, 2012 at 12:23 pm
A decade? We’ve had the CGI technology to do a successful hoax landing on Mars since the 90′s.
http://www.infowars.com/mankind-only-a- ... s-landing/
In addition to streaming and traditional video viewing, JPL made Eyes on the Solar System, a 3 dimensional real time simulation of entry, descent and landing based on real data. Curiosity's touchdown time as represented in the software, based on JPL predictions, was less than 1 second different than reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory
