I found this on fark.com, but really I wouldn't post it if I didn't think something was going on.

The following link leads to one of the new images taken by the new Mars rover:

http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040106a/PIA04995_br2.jpg

The lower left cornor contains no image. It's been edited. So is NASA hiding something? You can clearly see a small pile of dirt starting to build up before the image is cropped. Also, if you look in the right conor you can see a square shaped rock (Erosion has taken it's course, though).

Im not sure if that photo is edited ,but its almost certain that nasa will/have edit the spirit photos if something that shouldnt be there shows up on the photo :(

It may just be that the camera stopped scanning there because below that point is the actual rover.

The question of wether NASA is hiding something is completely redundent. We all know they're hiding something. Take the moon landing for example, there's so many inconsistencies that it's just laughable. Someone on a home PC with 3DSMAX could do a better job. They are hiding something and they'll keep hiding it untill someone with better equipment gets out there and gives us real information.

Actually I already went through all the images, If you see a black square in a photo it just means that the packet of data from the Cellphone like signal got dropped (You know to how sometimes a mobile phone will generate static when you enter a tunnel? or go below power cables)

Looking through the images I found pictures that were taken of the same rocks, where on one you have the black squares and on the other you could see what was in the place of the black squares... And guess what it was....

More Rocks.

Some pictures have shown sandstone formations beneath the surface layer of sand and broken meteorite. So for any "structures" on Mar's surface, you only have to cross reference with the sorts of sandstone formations formed on earth.

For instance: Skyscrapers on a hill?
http://www.theslowlane.com/91tripb/cody.html

(Btw, the simplest way to work out if there was life on Mars would be to look for Lichen or fungi, perhaps even squirting water on a rock surface to see if anything grew during the exploration)

As for NASA's moon landing, How many times do you think NASA originally had hackers routing their system for photo's or dirt, or even planting stuff there?
Enough times for someone to get the real photo's and doctor them to suit their needs.

If you really believe the landing to have been a hoax, you'll have to get someone with a radiological Telescope and look for the metal plaque that was left behind, or even try scanning for the tyremarks or footprints.

ElectroMagetic Pulse. You are a fucking idiot. There are no inconsistencies. Everything you think you know can be explained away with real science. Think about this: the moon is not the earth. The moon has 1/6th the gravity of the earth. There is absolutely no air or atmosphere on the moon. What do you think that does to light? How do you determine distance on earth with eyesight? How do you determine distance on the moon with eyesight? Please think before believing. http://badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Read through that page and click all the links on the bottom and then decide if you still think what you think.


Stryderunknown said it well. And the data sent travels quite a distance... it takes about 20 minutes from Mars to Earth. The same thing happens with images of galaxies at high resolution. They need to take many pictures at different angles to get the whole picture.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0009/pillars3_hst_big.jpg

Why don't they show the rest of the dust around the pillars? Because it is the same as the rest of the dust. It doesn't matter.

Conspiracies are foolish. Stop it.

oy vey, how embarrassing!
sabena, flight 26, brussels/rome 2/2/77.
item: leather samsonite case lost in transit

recieved call from fedex that bag is en route to pad from mars

*hey, better late than never, jaaa? ja?

It's ok spookz. Go with the nice men in the new white coats. They'll give you one of your own with these cool sleeves.

cookies too?

All the cookies you would ever want. I promise.

Now get in the van.

Yes, they went, dropped stuff off, came back and realized they forgot to take pictures. Then they created a hoax.

Atleast they left everything up there, so they are still covered.

I think the image in question is a composite of many smaller images. The bottom right portion is not visible because there have been no images added to the composite there.

If a none NASA investigation went to the moon and saw all the evidence that is claimed to be there then I would believe it.

You don't need to go there. Just look at the research done using the mirror they placed there.

AD1 - yes, well said.

EM pulse - yeah, you got me there. Your barrage of evidentiary support has completely proven science and NASA wrong. NO!!! Read the website!!! http://badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds

Stop believing things just because they are opposite or argumentative. It is what republicans and theists do. Argue just to argue, regardless of what they actually think... they just want to be antagonistic. Try thinking for once.

The moon has 1/6th the gravity of the earth.

I guess this idiot took his measurements when he was there. Otherwise he is just another Weiner hanging in the wind. Or he gets his data from NASA=Never Admit Seeing Anything....just like everyone else.

1) There's sufficient evidence we went to the moon

2) Theres sufficient evidence photgraphy was faked

3) Theres sufficient evidence of temperature, gravity , color and atmostpheres are all falsely reported.

2) Theres sufficient evidence photgraphy was faked
Such as. The only evidence is that some photographs were filed wrong. Do you know just how many they took?

3) Theres sufficient evidence of temperature, gravity , color and atmostpheres are all falsely reported.
LMFAO. Well temperature, color, and atmosphere we can all determine here from Earth. Gravity can be determined by anybody with basic physics knowledge and a computer.

Please tell me that you are joking, or present some of this 'sufficient evidence'.

There is also proof of the astronauts going along a hill and then sometime later supposedly 2km away they're going over another hill. But, the hills are 100% identacle.

Well, perhaps you could direct us to the specific footage that you are talking about. I do think I know what footage you are talking about, however. It was a problem with mislabeled footage from Apollo 16. The two pieces of footage are actually from the same place around the same time.

Take the moon landing for example, there's so many inconsistencies that it's just laughable.

[...]inconsistencies of light on the moon landing.

Theres sufficient evidence photgraphy was faked

Theres sufficient evidence of temperature, gravity , color and atmostpheres are all falsely reported.

Well, there've been several dubious pronouncements made in this thread. There has not, however, been any evidenced presented in support of those pronouncements.

Is any body else tired of the presumed authority that these conspiracy flakes take?

Ellimist:
Conspiracies are foolish. Stop it.

You're in the wrong section of this forum to be saying that.

Ha, you're right. All things must be accepted at face value here. Nothing should be questioned. If someone says it, it is an opinion. All opinions are true, therefore, everyone is right.

Ah, the fallacies of philosophy.

How this works: Prior to going into space, scientists estimated that the neutral gravity point - the location between the earth and moon, where the moon's and the earth's gravitational pull is zero or neutral - was approximately 23,900 miles above the lunar surface. Based on this estimate, the theory of 1/6 lunar gravity was rationalized. However, this is not
accurate because the actual neutral point is located approximately
43,495 from the moon.
Using the actual distance equates to a much higher lunar gravity.
http://www.longislandlan.com/ngravity.gif

Damn, it IS made of cheese. CounslerCoffee said this long ago, and we all laughed. We now realize our mistake.

I said that the moon was fiction! A false image placed there by the quasi-homosexual-illuminati.

The moon is fiction! Free your minds you possible homosexuals!

Ha, you're right. All things must be accepted at face value here. Nothing should be questioned. If someone says it, it is an opinion. All opinions are true, therefore, everyone is right.

No, just me. I'm always right.

Ah, the fallacies of philosophy.

That's where you should be posting; philosophy.

Philosophy is incorporated into pseudoscience and bullshit (a bit of redundancy, I feel), so it must be taken into account HERE.

Philosophy is incorporated into pseudoscience and bullshit (a bit of redundancy, I feel), so it must be taken into account HERE.

Explain, please.

Philosophy is incorporated into everything. Here: the philosophy of belief. Implications that rocks are more than rocks are just annoying. And if any form of rational or critical thinking can be shown to these fools, they will have the option to step out of ignorance... and if they don't realize certain things, that ignorance will become stupidity. I am not saying people have to accept certain positions.. just that they first research them, and then think about it. And weigh the evidence.

Evidence for rocks being more than rocks: none.
Evidence against rocks being more than rocks: THEY ARE SURROUNDED BY OTHER ROCKS. That is not the only thing. Why would NASA allow such things to come out? This is foolishly ridiculous.

I am done here. You can quote me, respond, whatever, but I will not respond or read your responses.

I just know I am better than this... from now on, I will stop arguing the rational side of things when the other side won't consider reason.

Reason? Ellimist, you're posting in the pseudoscience section!

Try not to take everything so seriously, sheesh.

Prior to going into space, scientists estimated that the neutral gravity point - the location between the earth and moon, where the moon's and the earth's gravitational pull is zero or neutral - was approximately 23,900 miles above the lunar surface. Based on this estimate, the theory of 1/6 lunar gravity was rationalized. However, this is not
accurate because the actual neutral point is located approximately
43,495 from the moon.
Using the actual distance equates to a much higher lunar gravity.

This is from William Brian's book Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program. Brian claimed that NASA discovered that the acceleration due to gravity at the lunar surface was actually 0.64g instead of the figure of around 0.165g that is widely held to be accurate, and was known hundreds of years before NASA was even conceived.

Brian arrived at the conclusion that the moon was actually more massive than was previously thought due to discrepancies in the statements of the gravitational "neutral point" -- the point along an imaginary line between the earth and the moon at which the force due to gravity acting on a point mass will be equal from the earth and from the moon. This is, traditionally, roughly one-tenth the distance from the moon to the earth (because the masses of the earth and moon are roughly in the ratio 9² : 1). The thing is is that there is a discrepancy in the location of the neutral point even in the traditional sense because there is more than one definition of the neutral point, keep in mind that space is three-dimensional, and not one-dimensional. The definition given above, as it happens, is not useful in navigating spacecraft.

The point at which Apollo spacecraft were considered to enter the moon's "sphere of influence" (a neutral point) was actually ahead of the earth-moon line and was thus a greater distance both from the earth and from the moon.

And furthermore, to say that

Based on this estimate, the theory of 1/6 lunar gravity was rationalized.

is complete balderdash. One wasn't used to ratioanlise the other. No one went nine-tenths the distance to the moon and measured the strength of the moon and the earth's gravitational fields there. You simply equate the terms of the force of gravitational attraction on a point mass* for the moon and the earth and solve for r. The "theory of 1/6 lunar gravity" is merely the result of a computation based on Newton's law of gravitation and his second law of motion when you input the values of the moon's mass, its radius and the universal gravitational constant, G. i.e. a = GM/r²

Brian doesn't dispute Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. He merely disputed the value of M in the above equation because he inferred that NASA had discovered that it was different from the original value after noticing the difference in its position as stated in NASA's documents about the point at which the spacecraft would enter the moon's sphere of influence.

^{*<i>GM_mm/r² = GM_em/R²</i> where M_m is the mass of the moon, M_e is the mass of the earth, r and R are their respective distances from the neutral point and m is the smaller mass.}

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/anim.gif

Anyone who thinks NASA has been completely straighforward with its information released to the public hasn't been paying attention. It's as simple as that.

Yes, but not on the issues that the conspiracy wackos think that they have not been straight forward on i.e. the validity of the moon landings, the so-called "Apollo record" and artificial structures on the moon and mars. It's that simple.

In the past NASA has been hacked, don't you think the people that were doing that weren't in there for a reason. They were probably chaseing one of these hoaxes to the point of prosecution, and they didn't find anything... other than some exploit to get into their system.

The other reason why NASA would withhold information is purely if it would reveal any Defense strategies implimented, or for that matter counter-intelligence, but needless to say that was the state of the world approx. a Decade ago.

Or... they could have been in the system because that is what some hackers do.

Why do people break into private systems? To prosecute them? It's a matter of ego and pride... that's it.

AD1,

I am not going to use the terms wacko, but I do not believe in the ideas that we never went to the moon, and I have never heard of the 'Apollo record'.

I do not discount the rumors that there may be some structures on either the moon, or Mars. IMO, there've been too many reported incidents of the moon visits being accompanied by other vehicles. These reports have come directly from the astraunauts/cosmanauts themselves. Mars is a whole other matter.

Plus, it's always puzzled me as to why we've stayed away from the moon for so long.

On a final note. I believe NASA isn't the main part of our space program any longer. I believe the space program is now in the hands of our military. IMO, NASA is a quasi-robotics aspect of our space program. I just have a hard time believing we would continue to pull funding from NASA if it was our only avenue to the stars.

Conspiracies aside here is proof of the color editing.

http://fire.prohosting.com/cleoger/marscolors/

These reports have come directly from the astraunauts/cosmanauts themselves.

No Russians have ever been to the Moon. Just their robots.

Plus, it's always puzzled me as to why we've stayed away from the moon for so long.

Because there is no longer a space race and a lot of people believe money can be used right here on earth...althought I'd like to see us go to the moon again myself.

I just have a hard time believing we would continue to pull funding from NASA if it was our only avenue to the stars.

Because people have to see a reason for it to support it. I support the space program. I know a lot of people that aren't willing to give up their tax money for sending a man to Mars or a Moon base anytime soon. Hopefully Bush's new NASA plan is full of hot air and something really comes of it.

AD1,

I am not going to use the terms wacko, but I do not believe in the ideas that we never went to the moon, and I have never heard of the 'Apollo record'.

The "Apollo record" is the name given by certain moon hoax conspiracy theorists for Apollo photography, film- and TV-footage and other documentation of the Apollo project.

I do not discount the rumors that there may be some structures on either the moon, or Mars. IMO, there've been too many reported incidents of the moon visits being accompanied by other vehicles. These reports have come directly from the astraunauts/cosmanauts themselves. Mars is a whole other matter.

Well, you clearly have not been paying attention. As Blackholesun pointed out to you, no cosmonauts have ever visited the moon. And I challenge you to find one shred of evidence that an Apollo astronaut has claimed that their mission was accompanied by "other vehicles." (Do I take it you mean extraterrestrial spacecraft?)

Plus, it's always puzzled me as to why we've stayed away from the moon for so long.

Perhaps economics is not your forte.

On a final note. I believe NASA isn't the main part of our space program any longer. I believe the space program is now in the hands of our military. IMO, NASA is a quasi-robotics aspect of our space program. I just have a hard time believing we would continue to pull funding from NASA if it was our only avenue to the stars.

What you believe based only on the flimsiest of evidence is irrelevant.

Don,
That sites Funny.

Just note the Mars lander was stuck in a position for days taking pictures.
If I took pictures all day long at one spot, at one horizon, I would notice colour changes from the morning to day and then evening to night.

Such colour changes might be perceived Red, especially if the sand reflects red light more than other types, and I think although could be wrong the CO2 atmopshere would also give it a red taint if the sunlight was shinning at a particular angle, like at dawn or dusk.

As for the last picture with something in a crater, well lets look it at it like this, if you had a site you wanted to draw conspiracy buffs too, you would need a "Smoking gun" to catch their attention such as an addition to a photo through photoshop etc.

*COUGH*http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/2004/058/spirit-1st-images.htm*COUGH*

Great, another have-a-go photo-analyst's website.

Don't bother reading other people's analysis of photographs unless they are highly skilled, or they're pointing to an anomaly that is very plain.

Admittedly they do want to take the rover to have a look at those areas, but thats because if you look at them properly they look as if water/liquid had been there at some time as a puddle and then dried up.

I'm just waiting for someone to realise a picture of them pogs.

NASA Channel

I watched, un-cut, the first pictures come in from mars, when the rover's cameras turned on, and the lander unfolded.

The technician got the data and immediately sent the images to the projector screen so the Spirit and Opportunity teams and leaders could see them. The images were the same as NASA released them. The colors were the same. There was no editing between the technician getting the data and displaying it, because the data was going to the computer that was being displayed. I watched it! I saw it happen. The conspiracy theory is flawed. Sure, images could have been edited since then, but I suspect that is a mistake the media or the "theorists" themselves made.

And guess what? If you change the RGB in any photo, you will get something different than what humans see. That isn't very novel.

Haha, I laugh at childish conjecture.

http://www.arctic-mars.org/images/PascalonATVmod.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/quantumgluon/pascalon.txt

I watched, un-cut, the first pictures come in from mars, when the rover's cameras turned on, and the lander unfolded.

You think you did. You didn't.

AD1,

I'm very much aware that Russia has never landed a person on the moon. My point was, there have been numerous reports from cosmanauts of being accompanied by unknown vehicles while in outer space.

Well, you clearly have not been paying attention. As Blackholesun pointed out to you, no cosmonauts have ever visited the moon. .

What about the KGB Dwarf that drove Lunokhod?

http://www.astronautix.com/astros/kgbdwarf.htm

;-)

I'm very much aware that Russia has never landed a person on the moon. My point was, there have been numerous reports from cosmanauts of being accompanied by unknown vehicles while in outer space.

Well, your message was then terribly mis-worded. How would one be expected to interpret the following sentence?

there've been too many reported incidents of the moon visits being accompanied by other vehicles. These reports have come directly from the astraunauts/cosmanauts themselves.

Regardless of what you meant, you said that reports of the "moon visits" being accompanied by space aliens came from cosmonauts.

I'm still waiting to hear which Apollo astronauts saw space aliens on their Apollo missions.

What about the KGB Dwarf that drove Lunokhod?

He died on the surface, so whatever stories of alien visitation he may have had, we'll never know.

AD1,

I can understand how the wording of my post could be misinterpreted. However, I assume there is a certain amount of common knowledge when I'm posting on this board. The fact that Russia hasn't landed a person on the moon AND that cosmanauts/astronauts have both reported unknown vehicles while in space, to be two of those common facts.

So you don't have to actually provide evidence for any of your claims because they should be widely known?

You said that alien spacecraft were reportedly seen on "moon visits". That presumably means Apollo missions to the moon. Seeing as it is supposedly common knowledge that they have reported these things, it should be very easy for you to provide evidence that this is indeed the case. It's not possible for me to prove that Apollo astronauts didn't report such sightings. However, if it is true, it should be absurdly easy for you to show me where Apollo astronauts have said such things.

AD1,

Are you saying that you have never heard of Edgar Mitchell, Gordon Cooper, or Scott Mitchell(to name just a few), reports on what they encountered while in outer space?

Just trying to get a handle on what you're asking for.

Edgar Mitchell: Apollo astronaut. I think he is a believer in extraterrestrials. Nevertheless, he claims not to have seen any UFOs during his Apollo 14 mission. You can even ask him (http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/wwwboard/index.html) yourself if he saw any on Apollo 14.

Gordon Cooper: Not an Apollo astronaut but, rather, a Mercury astronaut. Also a believer in extraterrestrials and a claimed witness to UFO sightings on earth. Claims he did not (http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/phenomena/cooper.html) see any UFOs in space.

I've no idea who Scott Mitchell is, only that he is not an Apollo astronaut.

Just trying to get a handle on what you're asking for.

It's quite simple, really. I want you to provide the relevant testimony of Apollo astronauts where they claim to have seen alien spacecraft on Apollo missions like you claimed.

Conspiracies aside here is proof of the color editing.

http://fire.prohosting.com/cleoger/marscolors/

There is an explanation of this here. (http://www.atsnn.com/story/30048.html)

CounslerCoffee

What sort of data hocus-pocus is this? Photo has not been altered except to put the scale back in this part of the picture. As a researcher of crater chains you should be able to see the band I am curious about that band that suddenly got way bigger blotting out what I wanted to really see.!?
http://www.craterchains.com/ns/europa1a1.jpg

Notice the splatering of craters in the smooth lower area, THIS is what a borken up comet would look like if it broke up a few seconds before impacting.
I already know the answer, well, the one that NASA / JPL gives anyway.
Often it isnt what you know or dont know, but what you know tht isnt so that gets you.

ohhhh sorry, that is a picture of Europa, one of Jupiters moons.

CounslerCoffee

I would like your honest opinion on that photo I posted here. My honest opinion is that a better job of photo correction needs to be done by NASA next time.

craterchains (Norval

the image clarity enhancing algorithm looks at each pixel and its surrounding pixels to try to focus the image, the edges of the image do not provide the needed neighboring pixels and the algorithm errors out near the edges and so they were cut out of the final enhance image, this is why that line looks thicker. The Galileo space crafted (god rest its soul) needed to use a lot of compression algorithms in its data return due to its inactive high gain antenna.

So, VRob, is your lack of any further participation in this thread a concession that you didn't know what you were talking about?

AD1,

Not at all, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

What difference does it make that Mitchell & Cooper believe in the ET hypothesis? Does that make their testimony less credible?

I gave you two examples here?

If you'd like to hear some of the reports of NASA and their airbrushing schemes, I suggest you check out the thread relating to Govmt eyewitnesses. Unless of course, they're not credible enough for you either.

Huh? I too believe in the possiblity of extraterrestrial intelligence. My mentioning of Mitchell and Cooper believing in extraterrestrials was simply an acknowledgement that they do in fact believe in extraterrestrials. However, neither claims to have witnessed aliens in whilst in space. Cooper was not even an Apollo astronaut. I want you to tell me which Apollo astronauts claimed to have seen alien spacecraft on Apollo missions, like you claimed. Either substantiate your claim or withdraw it.

Does that make their testimony less credible?

So far, you have not provided any such testimony of astronauts seeing alien spacecraft whilst in space.

VRob, very specifically, all I'm asking you to do is to either substantiate the following claim:

IMO, there've been too many reported incidents of the moon visits being accompanied by other vehicles. These reports have come directly from the astraunauts/cosmanauts themselves.

or to concede that it is inaccurate. You specifically mentioned "moon visits". The only manned moon missions were Apollo missions. Which Apollo astronauts made these claims?

If you'd like to hear some of the reports of NASA and their airbrushing schemes, I suggest you check out the thread relating to Govmt eyewitnesses. Unless of course, they're not credible enough for you either.

I have heard some reports of NASA airbrushing pictures. I just want to know which particular claimed witnesses you have in mind. Can you post the URL to that thread for me, or else give me its exact title? They might not be credible enough for me, it depends who you are talking about. Appeals to anonymous authority are not particularly effective methods of arguing your point. If these people do not have any credible evidence for their claims of NASA airbrushing pictures, then no, I will not find their testimony to be particularly compelling.

AD1,

Now that I know what you're asking I will attempt to answer.

You want me to elaborate on this comment:

"IMO, there have been to many reports of Moon visits being accompanied by unknown vehicles. These reports come directly from the astronauts/cosmanauts."

First of all, I thought we went over this issue already, but here goes.

I'm well aware of the fact that Russia/cosmanauts have never been to the moon. A moon visit begins by leaving the earth's atmosphere, and then making the journy to Moon. Anything unusual during that journey is relevent to me. But, If you'd like to hear me say I worded my phrase wrong again, then here goes. I worded my phrase wrong.

First of all, what's your fixation on Apollo flights only? Does it have something to do with Moon landings? I have never been a proponent of the moon landings being faked. But, when I'm discussing NASA and or anomolies in space, I'm referring to any mission in outer space. Not just moon missions.

Let's try this. On many of both US/Russian space flights, there have been numerous reports of Unidentified Vehicles reported by both Astronauts & Cosmanauts. Now, this differs from all the 'Lights in the sky' reports. These are highly credible individuals reporting these things. Outside of satellites & debri, there's very little else that should be flying through space. Some of these reports have been accompanied by video & photo's. In fact, you should check out another thread titled STS-48. That is, IMO, one of the best pieces of evidence ever provided for the ET hypothesis. Unless of course, it was our Space vehicle that was being fired upon.

I'll try and find the link to the Airbrush reports.

Anything else you'd like to hear?

AD1,

Check out the thread 'Witnessess for UFO congressional hearing'. There is a link in there that allows you to listen to some of the testimony. In there, you can hear the former NASA employee tell her story.

Apparently Ed white and James Mcdivitt saw a metallic object in orbit(they took cini film of it but it was never released?), aswell as other Gemini astronauts saw strange objects

Ill type out the full text later