Pusher Particles (was 'you guys should be locked up')

Do all those things in space, without major effects of gravity, and you'll und up with a sphere. On Earth it does it's best to get back to the ground, therefore it'll flaten on the surface. This is due to gravity.

Do you think bugs digs down, then suddenly makes an u-turn and returns back to the surface, off by a couple of thousand ks in China?

A sphere is unatural - pusher particles will create a disk.  This is substantiated by personal observation, since I am pushed onto a disk.

I dunno about  Bugs.  Imagine trying to go in a straight line in a cave without light?  I think Bugs juts gets confused in the dark and digs a curved path.[/code]

1. If "pusher particles" could simply pass through glass(or plastic or whatever) without being slowed down, than they couldn't exert a force on said glasstic now could they?
2. If pusher force relates to an objects' mass, then a larger mass should be more affected than a smaller mass. Galileo disproved this.
3. They weren't "compass needles," they were "compass-like" needles-I think brass. Anyway, it's a really funky expensive apparatus, but the idea is a superheavy mass, near which you put a pivoted brass needle that can rotate. The needle slowly turns towards the mass, according to the equation derived by Newton.
4. Galileo had everything to do with gravitation-he destroyed the concept of Aristotlean physics. Back then people believed that small objects descend at a slower rate than heavier ones. Galileo was called a moron for arguing the contrary, and in front of a big crowd went up the leaning tower of Pisa. From it he dropped a 10-lb cannonball and a 1-lb cannonball at the same time, which hit the ground at the same time and disproved a thousand years of Aristotlean physics, simultaneously validating his theories on the motion of planetary bodies. Of course some of the nuttier dogmatic people present refused to believe their eyes and insisted that lighter things descend slower than heavier things, just like some other people I can mention choose to ignore mountains of scientific evidence....

1) Actually, you have 10 gazillion particles going though the glass, and some of those particles are stopped (in proportion to the amount of glass).  But most still get through.
2)  Actually, according to the pusher particle theory, the 10 lb weight meets the ground faster than the 1 lb weight.  It's only that Galileo did not have the instrumentation to measure it accurately.  Remember that the 10 LB weight shields more pusher particles than the 1 Lb weight, so the ground moves faster towards the 10 lb weight than the 1 lb weight, since there's less particles hitting it through the 10 lb weight.
3) Your "compass-like" needle is proof positive of the pusher particle.  Look at the pusher particles like a flow of water - the least particles would come though the thickest part of the mass, so the needle would naturally be pushed to where the flow was the lowest.  If the needle moves away from the center, the additional pusher particles hitting it would force it back into the middle.  Tie a string to a rock in a stream - the string will point directly at the rock - it will not suddenly go sideways into the rapid flow of water.
4)  Thank you - I had forgotten about the cannon balls.  Too bad that Galileo didn't understand about pusher particles....

The thing that we must realize is that if we could develop a pusher particle umbrella or shiled - which would prevent the pusher particles on one side from acting or making them go around, we'd have infinite free energy.  It would be cold energy - the fusion of the theory of pusher particles with hard headed engineering.

[1) Actually, you have 10 gazillion particles going though the glass, and some of those particles are stopped (in proportion to the amount of glass).  But most still get through.
2)  Actually, according to the pusher particle theory, the 10 lb weight meets the ground faster than the 1 lb weight.  It's only that Galileo did not have the instrumentation to measure it accurately.  Remember that the 10 LB weight shields more pusher particles than the 1 Lb weight, so the ground moves faster towards the 10 lb weight than the 1 lb weight, since there's less particles hitting it through the 10 lb weight.
3) Your "compass-like" needle is proof positive of the pusher particle.  Look at the pusher particles like a flow of water - the least particles would come though the thickest part of the mass, so the needle would naturally be pushed to where the flow was the lowest.  If the needle moves away from the center, the additional pusher particles hitting it would force it back into the middle.  Tie a string to a rock in a stream - the string will point directly at the rock - it will not suddenly go sideways into the rapid flow of water.
4)  Thank you - I had forgotten about the cannon balls.  Too bad that Galileo didn't understand about pusher particles....

The thing that we must realize is that if we could develop a pusher particle umbrella or shiled - which would prevent the pusher particles on one side from acting or making them go around, we'd have infinite free energy.  It would be cold energy - the fusion of the theory of pusher particles with hard headed engineering.

How stubborn can you get?

1. Say you have a glass with a vacuum and a feather in it. If the glass deflects some pusher particles but not others, then the weight of the feather(i.e., the pressure of pusher particles on the feather) would be diminished in proportion to the ratio of particles deflected by the glass. The fact that any objects' weight in a vacuum  remains constant indicates that this is not the case.
2. You said: "Actually, according to the pusher particle theory, the 10 lb weight meets the ground faster than the 1 lb weight.  It's only that Galileo did not have the instrumentation to measure it accurately. " Yes, and the fact that this is NOT the case, and a 1-lb weight meets the ground at the same time as a 10 lb weight, show that the pusher particle theory is a load of crap. You can try any instruments you want; every high school physics class performs this same experiment using high tech sonar/laser equipment; the acceleration due to gravity is still ALWAYS 9.81 m/s2 for any object on earth.
3. How the fuck do you get this as proof of your pusher particles?

You put a small mass next to a large mass(horizontally). The small mass accelerates towards the large mass. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE IF GRAVITY CONSISTS OF DESCENDING PUSHER PARTICLES.

I mean, do you really think all the shit we have that relies on physics- roller coasters, airplanes, missiles- would be possible if the physical principles on which they were designed were seriously flawed?

Wow, you guys are a bunch of fucking dumb asses.
Of course the world is fucking flat. Why are you not just accepting that?
Hah, a round world, what's next? A hot asian chick called Juria who DOESN'T actually have a penis?

If the earth is flat, then how is it possible for someone to circumnavigate the globe in a yacht, with the destination being the same as the origin of the voyage? Why are there timezones? why did the US place radar stations to watch the north pole in case of a soviet launch?

A sphere is unatural - pusher particles will create a disk.  This is substantiated by personal observation, since I am pushed onto a disk.

I dunno about  Bugs.  Imagine trying to go in a straight line in a cave without light?  I think Bugs juts gets confused in the dark and digs a curved path.[/code]

A sphere is a very natural shape.  Its a shape whereby you get the highest volume to surface area ratio.  Why do you think rain drops are spherical?

If particle pushers cause objects to decend to the Earth by pushing them and falling, what happens when all the particle pushers reach the ground?

2. You said: "Actually, according to the pusher particle theory, the 10 lb weight meets the ground faster than the 1 lb weight. It's only that Galileo did not have the instrumentation to measure it accurately. " Yes, and the fact that this is NOT the case, and a 1-lb weight meets the ground at the same time as a 10 lb weight, show that the pusher particle theory is a load of crap. You can try any instruments you want; every high school physics class performs this same experiment using high tech sonar/laser equipment; the acceleration due to gravity is still ALWAYS 9.81 m/s2 for any object on earth.

I would differ with that statement.  Rememeber that the heavy flat earth disk is shielding some pusher particles from the 10 Lb mass.  So that makes the pusher particles on the the unshielded side of the 10 lb weight drive it towards the earth disk.  BUT  just the same way the 10 Lb mass is shielding some pusher particles from the flat earth disk, making the pusher particles on the back of the disk push it towards the 10 lb weight.  Therefore the two meet faster, because both are being pushed together by the pusher particles.
A 1 Lb mass shields less particles, so the eart disk moves towards the 1 lb mass more slowly.
(You know, even in some fallacious theories where they say that masses are attracted by some mysterious and irrational force, both bodies would move towards each other - not just the small one to the big one.)

You put a small mass next to a large mass(horizontally). The small mass accelerates towards the large mass. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE IF GRAVITY CONSISTS OF DESCENDING PUSHER PARTICLES

But the fallacy in your thought is that pusher particles come from only one direction.  Pusher particles are all pervasive - a quality of space itself.  Look - if you use a radio, you'll find that there are microwaves coming to you from all directions -  up, down, left, right, etc.  Any place you turne your antenna to you'll get microwave radiation coming at you.
It is just the same with pusher particles.  They come from all directions.  And - if unshielded, they balance each other out - so the pusher particles hitting your face and pushing it, are counterbalanced by the pusher particles hitting the back of your head.  So the net effect is zero push.
Say you were floating way way above the earth disk - the shielding effect of the earth disk would be minimal - and the pusher particles coming from below you would be balanced by the ones coming from above, and you would float without going anywhere.
The closer you get to a mass, the more that mass shield you from pusher particles coming in that direction, so the particles from the oposite direction push you more and more towards the shielding mass.

A sphere is a very natural shape. Its a shape whereby you get the highest volume to surface area ratio. Why do you think rain drops are spherical?

If particle pushers cause objects to decend to the Earth by pushing them and falling, what happens when all the particle pushers reach the ground?

Most raindrops that I have seen are spherical only for a brief part of their existence - in the end they flatten out, showing that a sphere is only a transition phase.  I would venture to guess that - if you have change the surface energy of some areas of these spheres they would become a different shape so as to minimize the overall energy - and that would not not be round.

Your second question is simple to answer - most of the pusher particles go though and come out the other side of the earth disk - but not as many as started out.  

For a game, postulate an infinitely large and thick mass - no pusher particles would come out the other side at all, and anything would be pushed down aginst the mass with the full force of the pusher particles - no counterbalancing particles coming though at all....   It might even force light particles(?) waves (?) to be pushed aginst this mass without a chance of reflecting or bouncing back..

If the earth is flat, then how is it possible for someone to circumnavigate the globe in a yacht, with the destination being the same as the origin of the voyage? Why are there timezones? why did the US place radar stations to watch the north pole in case of a soviet launch?

Haven't you ever heard of great circle routes?  If you are in yacht, you only think you are going straight  - you are actually along an arc of a circle.

Every map I have seen that is used for navigation is flat.

1. Say you have a glass with a vacuum and a feather in it. If the glass deflects some pusher particles but not others, then the weight of the feather(i.e., the pressure of pusher particles on the feather) would be diminished in proportion to the ratio of particles deflected by the glass. The fact that any objects' weight in a vacuum remains constant indicates that this is not the case.

True - say you have a glass with a vacuum, and one side of the glass is much thicker than the other - i.e. capable of shielding more pusher particles, then the feather would be pushed towards that side.  It is so obvious...

But the fallacy in your thought is that pusher particles come from only one direction.  Pusher particles are all pervasive - a quality of space itself.  Look - if you use a radio, you'll find that there are microwaves coming to you from all directions -  up, down, left, right, etc.  Any place you turne your antenna to you'll get microwave radiation coming at you.
It is just the same with pusher particles.  They come from all directions.  And - if unshielded, they balance each other out - so the pusher particles hitting your face and pushing it, are counterbalanced by the pusher particles hitting the back of your head.  So the net effect is zero push.
Say you were floating way way above the earth disk - the shielding effect of the earth disk would be minimal - and the pusher particles coming from below you would be balanced by the ones coming from above, and you would float without going anywhere.
The closer you get to a mass, the more that mass shield you from pusher particles coming in that direction, so the particles from the oposite direction push you more and more towards the shielding mass.

No, you are incorrect.  Radio waves are coming primarily from its source(s).  As are radio waves.  Which is why the government can track down pirate radio stations, as they can extrapolate where the signal is coming from based on signal intensities.

Secondly, I don't even know where to start debunking your second statement because there isn't a single thing in there that could be considered even slightly logical.  And seen as you're the one trying to prove this theory of yours I think you should provide some solid proof to the existence of these particle pushers.  Until then, I'll believe what I've been taught about the fundamental interaction forces, and through experience I've seen that theory to be correct.

Most raindrops that I have seen are spherical only for a brief part of their existence - in the end they flatten out, showing that a sphere is only a transition phase.  I would venture to guess that - if you have change the surface energy of some areas of these spheres they would become a different shape so as to minimize the overall energy - and that would not not be round.

Your second question is simple to answer - most of the pusher particles go though and come out the other side of the earth disk - but not as many as started out.  

For a game, postulate an infinitely large and thick mass - no pusher particles would come out the other side at all, and anything would be pushed down aginst the mass with the full force of the pusher particles - no counterbalancing particles coming though at all....   It might even force light particles(?) waves (?) to be pushed aginst this mass without a chance of reflecting or bouncing back..

That is incorrect.  A raindrop will remain a sphere from the moment it is precipitated in the clouds to the moment it hits the Earth.  And the reason it becomes a sphere is because it is the most energetically favourable shape.  Water droplets try to minimize their surface area therefore leading to the shape of a sphere.  Learn some basic facts.

No, you are incorrect.  Radio waves are coming primarily from its source(s).  As are radio waves.  Which is why the government can track down pirate radio stations, as they can extrapolate where the signal is coming from based on signal intensities.

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html

"...CMB stands for Cosmic Microwave Background...We refer to this radiation as a background because we see it no matter where we look. It clearly doesn't come from any nearby objects, such as stars or clouds within our Galaxy, or even from external galaxies. It is clearly a distant, "background" source of radiation. You can think of the whole Universe as being filled with this background of microwave photons. ..."

That is incorrect.  A raindrop will remain a sphere from the moment it is precipitated in the clouds to the moment it hits the Earth.  And the reason it becomes a sphere is because it is the most energetically favourable shape.  Water droplets try to minimize their surface area therefore leading to the shape of a sphere.  Learn some basic facts.

You are speaking about a purely transient pahes of raindrops.  The are spherical only for a short time between their genesis in the clouds and their reaching the ground.  After they have completed the trip to the ground they flatten out into their natural state.

Or try a different experiment - make a clude very cold, throw in a few nucleation sites, and see if the rain freezes round.  No - it turns into relatively complex 6 sided structures.   Perhaps that is the original shape for rain drops while in the clouds?

Secondly, I don't even know where to start debunking your second statement because there isn't a single thing in there that could be considered even slightly logical. And seen as you're the one trying to prove this theory of yours I think you should provide some solid proof to the existence of these particle pushers. Until then, I'll believe what I've been taught about the fundamental interaction forces, and through experience I've seen that theory to be correct.

Well - I think my pusher particles are just as logical to explain why two masses move towards each other as your gravitation, or depressions in the space plane matrix, or whatever.
Observations show that two bodies willl move towards each other.  This movement can be attributed to attraction due to "gravity waves" or whatever you want to that make the bodies attract each other, or by pusher particles that push them together, because there is a shielding effect of the pusher particles that are part of the CPPR (Cosmic Pusher Particle Radiation"
Don't just just accept Newton's confused equations as "proving" gravity because they have been written down.  Show me why pusher particles can't expalin equally well why two bodies want to move towards each other....
(of course, I wouldn't use the Pusher Particle principle on a test - there are too many teachers who don't bellieve the earth was created 4,062.8007394 years ago...)

Well - I think my pusher particles are just as logical to explain why two masses move towards each other as your gravitation, or depressions in the space plane matrix, or whatever.
Observations show that two bodies willl move towards each other.  This movement can be attributed to attraction due to "gravity waves" or whatever you want to that make the bodies attract each other, or by pusher particles that push them together, because there is a shielding effect of the pusher particles that are part of the CPPR (Cosmic Pusher Particle Radiation"
Don't just just accept Newton's confused equations as "proving" gravity because they have been written down.  Show me why pusher particles can't expalin equally well why two bodies want to move towards each other....
(of course, I wouldn't use the Pusher Particle principle on a test - there are too many teachers who don't bellieve the earth was created 4,062.8007394 years ago...)

Simple.  I've done experiments with Sonar equipment that prove Netwon's equations to be correct.  And using Occam's Razor, in that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one, gravity is the correct explanation of the two theories.

That and you're the only person I've ever seen sprout on about this "Particle pusher" theory.  Get it published in a reputible scientific journal and I may consider taking it seriously.

All your sonar experiments have done is to demonstrate that two bodies tend to move towards each other, but have not defined the cause.

Take   F= G x m1 x m2 / r x r as the basic pusher particle equation:

F      = Force that pushes masses together
G     = Pusher Particle Flux - a universael constant, the CPPR
M1   = Shielding effect of mass 1
M2   =  Shielding effect of mass 2
R     =  Distance between the masses
[/img]

All your sonar experiments have done is to demonstrate that two bodies tend to move towards each other, but have not defined the cause.

Take   F= G x m1 x m2 / r x r as the basic pusher particle equation:

F      = Force that pushes masses together
G     = Pusher Particle Flux - a universael constant, the CPPR
M1   = Shielding effect of mass 1
M2   =  Shielding effect of mass 2
R     =  Distance between the masses
[/img]

ONly one problem-- if gravitation worked through shielding action. Imagine two disks parallel to each other.  Pusher particles, as you call them, push them together. Now replace the disks with points. Since the surface areas are reduced then your "pusher particle force" is also reduced. Unless of course "pusher particles" depend on mass instead of surface area, which would not only make the concept useless for its sheer stupidity, but also make gravity lower in between the two points.

Dumbass.

ONly one problem-- if gravitation worked through shielding action. Imagine two disks parallel to each other. Pusher particles, as you call them, push them together. Now replace the disks with points. Since the surface areas are reduced then your "pusher particle force" is also reduced. Unless of course "pusher particles" depend on mass instead of surface area, which would not only make the concept useless for its sheer stupidity, but also make gravity lower in between the two points.

Dumbass

Pusher particle "transparency" is obviously a function of density, not surface.  So your fictitious point masses would have infinite density, and would stop all pusher particles.

Think these things through, before spouting off with obviously erroneous concepts...

You people are aproaching your opinion the wrong way. :<

Flat-Earthers are just people who thinks they have a cool new idea to look at the world, and wants a bit of attention.

Thus they are attention whores. And therefore they make stupid fast forward theories.

When I say; "Hey, if the Earth is flat, how come with have so much evidence that the Earth is round?", and you reply; "They are fake."

Oh, oh! OH EM GEE! They are all fake?! Fantastic. Why haven't some serious magazine said it yet? Why haven't any real people went to see that the Earth is flat?

And your reply; "That's a set up by the governments."

Okay, fact: You deny facts, not matter what sort of fact they are, just as long they proove your belief wrong.

You know what, good idea, I start my own theory; America, France and India does not exist, all made up by the governments.

And some will say; "Yeah, but what about all the evidence," and to follow YOUR logic I will just reply; "They are just fake, so there."

Goldfinger, Bongohead, Goodfriend, and others - please tell me you are just trolling to get a rise out of people.  There are a million and one reasons why every sensible person on the planet knows the earth is round.  If you simply choose to dismiss them, the *entire* scientific community, as "fakes" then you have no grounds to ever claim science is on your side.

You people are aproaching your opinion the wrong way. :<

Flat-Earthers are just people who thinks they have a cool new idea to look at the world, and wants a bit of attention.

Thus they are attention whores. And therefore they make stupid fast forward theories.

When I say; "Hey, if the Earth is flat, how come with have so much evidence that the Earth is round?", and you reply; "They are fake."

Oh, oh! OH EM GEE! They are all fake?! Fantastic. Why haven't some serious magazine said it yet? Why haven't any real people went to see that the Earth is flat?

And your reply; "That's a set up by the governments."

Okay, fact: You deny facts, not matter what sort of fact they are, just as long they proove your belief wrong.

You know what, good idea, I start my own theory; America, France and India does not exist, all made up by the governments.

And some will say; "Yeah, but what about all the evidence," and to follow YOUR logic I will just reply; "They are just fake, so there."

But the whole point is that all subjective evidence - that I can see and feel and touch with my own senses shows to me that the earth is flat.  So why should I believe the so-called "evidence" like pictures of white and blue flecked circles surrounded by black (and again flat when I touch it or look at it).

I would also assume that many books and magazines had plenty to say about the earth being flat not too long - like 1300AD - ago.  Who is to say that they were wrong?  It was published, and known to be correct by many savants.  Or course, trhere were some contrarians even then who had this crazy notion that the earth was circular.
Although I do agree with you that simply because something is publishged in a serious book, magazine, or pamphlet does not necessariliy mean it is true.  I have several books in my posession that postulate that the earth is a disk, held up by four elephants, and gets carried around by a turtle...  But that does not make it true - what would the turtle eat?

You either define "subjective" evidence WAY to liberally, or you are ignorant to the fact that this is not considered a "theory" nor is it up for debate.
If ANYTHING can be considered truth, then the shape of the earth is one such  truth.
Saying the earth is flat is endorsing ignorance and stupidity.

You either define "subjective" evidence WAY to liberally, or you are ignorant to the fact that this is not considered a "theory" nor is it up for debate.
If ANYTHING can be considered truth, then the shape of the earth is one such  truth.
Saying the earth is flat is endorsing ignorance and stupidity.

Everything is up for debate.  Saying the Earth is round is endorsing heresay.  And pusher particles explain why bodies want move towards each other is as likely as this "gravity" you speak of... What aspect of "gravity" cannot be explained by pusher particles?

For starters: What is the source of particle pushers, and how exactly do they "mimic" gravity?  Do they simple "push" matter they come across as the name might imply?  And is there any matter that they do NOT interact with? I apologize if you already answered this somewhere but I honestly just don't feel like wading through all the garbage.
Plus, since you are one of those one that I am guessing is just trolling, I'm not terribly concerned with arguing this with you anyway.  But for the time being, I'll play along.

I changed my mind and waded through some of the BS.  I'd still like answers to my questions, however.

I don't really believe the pretty pictures "from space" - they are as bogus as the moon landings.

I would LOVE to hear some of your evidence that the moon landings are fake.

Presumably, you don't think that air has an effect on traditional gravity, so why would it necessarily have an effect on the "pusher particles"?

If air has no effect on pusher particles, that would make air immune to gravity.  The mere fact that we are breathing an atmosphere contradicts this pathetic theory.

It's perfectly logical to measure the effects of the pusher particles pushing two things being pulled together, since they shield the pusher particles between them to some extent. Since the lab objects are by necessity small, they can't shield many particles.

So I suppose if I go deep underground, there will be no gravity?  LOL this gets better and better.  What a great theory.

Haven't you ever heard of great circle routes?  If you are in yacht, you only think you are going straight  - you are actually along an arc of a circle.

You use the term, but apparently you don't know what a great circle route really is.  Routes along the earth are called great circles because since the earth is a sphere, you aren't really traveling in a straight line - you are traveling an arc, or part of a circle.  Why you would use a term that only exists because the earth is a SPHERE as an argument for flat-earth nonsense is quite beyond me.

"...CMB stands for Cosmic Microwave Background...We refer to this radiation as a background because we see it no matter where we look. It clearly doesn't come from any nearby objects, such as stars or clouds within our Galaxy, or even from external galaxies. It is clearly a distant, "background" source of radiation. You can think of the whole Universe as being filled with this background of microwave photons. ..."

Thank you for giving me a key piece of evidence for the Big Bang.  How this relates to Particle Pushers, I am not sure.  Apparently you are claiming that particle pushers are just part of the universe and come from all directions?  If this is the case - If I leave the earth's atmosphere, gravity towards the earth should get STRONGER right?  Since there isn't all that pesky air in the way to block some particle pushers.

according to the pusher particle theory, the 10 lb weight meets the ground faster than the 1 lb weight. It's only that Galileo did not have the instrumentation to measure it accurately. Remember that the 10 LB weight shields more pusher particles than the 1 Lb weight, so the ground moves faster towards the 10 lb weight than the 1 lb weight, since there's less particles hitting it through the 10 lb weight.

So basically, once again, you are claiming that all of modern science is wrong, and you - because "you say so" are right.  If your arguments are nothing more than "they are wrong", "their instrumentation is faulty", and "Here is the truth, I know it just because" - then stop pretending you have any kind of a case.

So even putting aside the particle pusher crap, I'd rather just directly get on with this flat earth issue.

Explain how seasons work with a flat earth? Including why they are OPPOSITE in the Northern Hemisphere as opposed to the Southern.  As well as why summer at the poles is 3 months of light, and winter 3 months of darkness - while near the equator day and night are nearly 12 hours each year round.  Perfectly explained and expected with a sphere.  Impossible flat.

Explain time zones? With a flat earth (rotating or not) those disappear, and with a sphere they are expected.

Explain why the constellations, the moon, and anything else you'd like to pick in the sky appears UPSIDE DOWN in the Northern Hemisphere vs the Southern.  Perfectly logical with a spherical earth.  Completely impossible on a flat one.  And easily verifiable by anyone on the planet with the means to travel and a pair of eyes.

There are many more examples to give that a spherical earth explains perfectly, and which a flat earth either cannot explain or contractics entirely.  But I think these 3 are more than sufficient to start with.

Quote from: "Cryoruggie"

I don't really believe the pretty pictures "from space" - they are as bogus as the moon landings.

I would LOVE to hear some of your evidence that the moon landings are fake.

Well - the only proof you have of a moon landing is some video tapes, and some films.  Seems to me that these could be faked quite easily with computer graphics.  Granted, the govenmrnt probably used a couple of Crays or IBM's to create them at some secluded national lab, since public cpomputing power was pretty low in those days.   And the supposed rocks - they look just like any old rock you can find in a desert.  See Capricorn 1.

Oh - so it's a completely uneducated guess, based on...nothing.  Very convincing.