NASA's Mars Missions are Fake

Look at the computer screens behind this NASA scientist. The martian skies are blue!

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Real Mars Sky?

Here is a video showing how NASA faked the shots of its most recent rover missions (excuse the bad music):

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">NASA Mars expedition fraud

I believe the above evidence is particularly damning and demonstrates that the shots are fake and were really shot on earth in a desert somewhere.

I had no doubts after the infamous sun dial pictures. It is clear that the "Mars" sky is "sky blue". No doubt somewhere remote in the Atacama desert not too distant from the observatories there.


Sundials and more: http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-hiddencolors.htm

Good link Ski. I like how the NASA logo turned bright pink:

For the first video, how do you know that's a supposed picture of mars?  It's the guy's desktop and nothing in the video indicates that it's supposed to be a photo taken on mars.

You guys are aware that they use 'filters' to take these images, even if you are aware you may not be aware of what filters actually do. If they use a red filter on the images, it doesn't shift all the frequencies of the waves so they coincide as an exact copy just lower down the spectrum, it has a suppression which is a function of the frequency. So if a red filter were used it lowers the intensities of all the other colours, so blue becomes more 'red'. However the filters they use are not purely prime colours, they exist of various spectrum suppression peaks enabling these 'funny' looking images to exist, so I could leave the particular colour of the sky to stay the same but change to colours of all the similar colours lying either side of it in the spectrum, hence 'false colour' image.

Why do they do this? To make it more 'pretty' just why the sun seen in ultraviolet, and gamma observations usually green or purple look much better then the normal looking yellow filters.

Quote from: jric1416 on June 26, 2012, 11:45:40 PM

You guys are aware that they use 'filters' to take these images, even if you are aware you may not be aware of what filters actually do. If they use a red filter on the images, it doesn't shift all the frequencies of the waves so they coincide as an exact copy just lower down the spectrum, it has a suppression which is a function of the frequency. So if a red filter were used it lowers the intensities of all the other colours, so blue becomes more 'red'. However the filters they use are not purely prime colours, they exist of various spectrum suppression peaks enabling these 'funny' looking images to exist, so I could leave the particular colour of the sky to stay the same but change to colours of all the similar colours lying either side of it in the spectrum, hence 'false colour' image.

Why do they do this? To make it more 'pretty' just why the sun seen in ultraviolet, and gamma observations usually green or purple look much better then the normal looking yellow filters.

Sounds like a lot of bullcrap to me.

And this type of response is exactly why you FE'ers are ridiculed, reply with a plausible discreditation rather then a 8 word reply. Im not trying too put you down just trying to understand how you can think you are right when you use the laws of 'physics' (I use this term very loosely) against the non-believers of FE when clearly you don't even understand the simplicity of functional filtering, yet you are using special relativity, electromagnetism and Einsteins field equations in trying to push your ideas.

Start with the basics then build up to the heavy artillery.

I had a change of heart and deleted that response as you were making yours. Instead, I've decided agree with you. There is clearly a filter turning blue things into red, as evidenced by the NASA logo.

I suppose that means the red martian sky is actually blue. That was easy!

I had a change of heart and deleted that response. Instead, I've decided agree with you. There is clearly a filter turning blue things into red, as evidenced by the NASA logo.

I suppose that means the red martian sky is actually blue. That was easy!

Glad you deleted it however you still missed my point, a filter does not need to be a band filter, as your 'blue filter' would be instead it could be a more finite filter. For example suppose the sky on Earth was a perfect blue at 475 nm with no other colours, then i had a blue object that was emitting light at frequencies between 440 and 490 nm, if I changed that 475 nm colour to go red the sky would go a completely different colour but the object emitting in the band would stay blue, amazing...no not really. The same principle applies to your above photos but in the inverse.

So your NASA logo turning red is hardly evidence merely the use of a blue suppression filter, and clearly the desktop background has had the inverse applied, a red suppression filter, hence why the ground looks so pale.

And on your point of  'There is clearly a filter turning blue things into red, as evidenced by the NASA logo' what if the sky was already red and a band filter was applied in the blue region? ...

I had a change of heart and deleted that response. Instead, I've decided agree with you. There is clearly a filter turning blue things into red, as evidenced by the NASA logo.

I suppose that means the red martian sky is actually blue. That was easy!

Actually, it is in some places. The sky seems to vary from red to blue and even greenish. I guess it all depends on the height of the sun and the amount of dust in its atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_21i093.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_11h016.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarsSunset.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Victoria_Crater,_Cape_Verde-Mars.jpg

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2012, 12:20:27 AM

I had a change of heart and deleted that response. Instead, I've decided agree with you. There is clearly a filter turning blue things into red, as evidenced by the NASA logo.

I suppose that means the red martian sky is actually blue. That was easy!

Actually, it is in some places. The sky seems to vary from red to blue and even greenish. I guess it all depends on the height of the sun and the amount of dust in its atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_21i093.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_11h016.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarsSunset.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Victoria_Crater,_Cape_Verde-Mars.jpg

Thanks for some support.

Actually, it is in some places. The sky seems to vary from red to blue and even greenish. I guess it all depends on the height of the sun and the amount of dust in its atmosphere.

Unfortunately the sundial is not visible in any of those photos and they are irrelevant. There is no reference to determine how NASA color schemed the photographs, contrary to the red sky photos. The red sky photos picturing the sun dial clearly shows the the blue sun dial pieces turned red, and the red logo on a sticker disappeared entirely. This is evidence that NASA edited the photo to shift everything to red uniformly. Whether they did this because the mission is fake or for other reasons is unknown.

What is obvious is that the photos were edited to look more red than they should be.

Mars is a tiny insifnificant piece of space rock, no bigger than 1 km in diameter.
Source: FAQ
Why it is possible these pictures are faked, I highly doubt anyone would ever want to land on such a small planet.

What is obvious is that the photos were edited to look more red than they should be.

Yes. Very obvious. The lengths RE'ers will go to believe in this blatant scam is ridiculous.

Because of your ignorance, you assume that photos of Mars should look a certain way and if they dont, you assume they are faked.

What kind of proof is that?
(clue: it's not a proof)

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 27, 2012, 09:08:41 AM

What is obvious is that the photos were edited to look more red than they should be.

Yes. Very obvious. The lengths RE'ers will go to believe in this blatant scam is ridiculous.

I think that "lengths" is incorrect here.  If anyone has gone to lengths to believe something its the guy on the internet combing through NASA photos looking for "damning" evidence.  But hey, that is just my understanding of "lengths."

Quote from: Alatus_leo on June 27, 2012, 04:02:15 AM

Actually, it is in some places. The sky seems to vary from red to blue and even greenish. I guess it all depends on the height of the sun and the amount of dust in its atmosphere.

Unfortunately the sundial is not visible in any of those photos and they are irrelevant. There is no reference to determine how NASA color schemed the photographs, contrary to the red sky photos. The red sky photos picturing the sun dial clearly shows the the blue sun dial pieces turned red, and the red logo on a sticker disappeared entirely. This is evidence that NASA edited the photo to shift everything to red uniformly. Whether they did this because the mission is fake or for other reasons is unknown.

What is obvious is that the photos were edited to look more red than they should be.

Of course, I'm well aware that NASA edits many of it's photos to make them look more impressive than they really are. But can you blame them? Just look at the photo that Huygens returned after its visit to Titan. It sucks. That's not going to get people interested in the work NASA does. NASA wants something impressive to show to the crowds that don't understand the scientific work they're doing, so they just release some pretty pictures. That doesn't make them or the landings themselves fake.
It's like many of the ISS video's, they're taken with a fish-eye lense, de-grained and over-saturated so they'd look spiffy. The same thing goes four amateur astronomers. And still, the editing in Playboy Magazine is probably worse than NASA's.

Here's what Wikipedia says about Mars' sky:

Around sunset and sunrise the Martian sky is pinkish-red in color, but in the vicinity of the setting sun or rising sun it is blue. This is the exact opposite of the situation on Earth. However, during the day the sky is a yellow-brown "butterscotch" color.[3] On Mars, Rayleigh scattering is usually a very small effect. It is believed that the color of the sky is caused by the presence of 1% by volume of magnetite in the dust particles. Twilight lasts a long time after the Sun has set and before it rises, because of all the dust in Mars's atmosphere. At times, the Martian sky takes on a violet color, due to scattering of light by very small water ice particles in clouds.[4]

Generating accurate true-color images of Mars's surface is surprisingly complicated.[5] There is much variation in the color of the sky as reproduced in published images; many of those images however are using filters to maximize the science value and are not trying to show true color. Nevertheless, for many years, the sky on Mars was thought to be more pinkish than it now is believed to be.

More on this: http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/14C.html

Good thread Tom. I'm on my phone now so I can't post the link. Can you post pictures from report #219 the pics are so fake, I wonder how RE'rs will be able to defend them.

You mean the Google Mars images?

Yeah those, they are so fake it is indefencible..... Thanks.

That's where photos have been stitched together.

I thought that might be it at first too, but you can see from this photo exactly where the strips are and are not (and where the examples have been taken from).

I still don't see a problem... other than it being a pretty lousy stitching job.

Obviously NASA is altering the images to cover up the indigenous civilization.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/NASA-Covers-Up-Evidence-of-Alien-Life-on-Mars.html

Obviously NASA is altering the images to cover up the indigenous civilization.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/NASA-Covers-Up-Evidence-of-Alien-Life-on-Mars.html

So from 1960 and on NASA has been covering up alien life on mars. How disappointing.

Quote from: markjo on June 27, 2012, 04:14:11 PM

Obviously NASA is altering the images to cover up the indigenous civilization.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/NASA-Covers-Up-Evidence-of-Alien-Life-on-Mars.html

So from 1960 and on NASA has been covering up alien life on mars. How disappointing.

That is no reason to give us fake pictures of Mars.

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on June 27, 2012, 05:27:04 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 27, 2012, 04:14:11 PM

Obviously NASA is altering the images to cover up the indigenous civilization.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/NASA-Covers-Up-Evidence-of-Alien-Life-on-Mars.html

So from 1960 and on NASA has been covering up alien life on mars. How disappointing.

That is no reason to give us fake pictures of Mars.

It is if they don't want to piss of the Martians.

Those damn martians, always causing trouble for nasa!

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 27, 2012, 09:08:41 AM

What is obvious is that the photos were edited to look more red than they should be.

Yes. Very obvious. The lengths RE'ers will go to believe in this blatant scam is ridiculous.

Tom's viewpoint:    A faked mission would have edited photos.  The photos are edited.  Therefore the mission is fake.

Congratulations Tom.  Another master-class is screwed logic.  Like I've said before, you don't have to understand what your argument is actually about, just look at the logic.

I thought that might be it at first too, but you can see from this photo exactly where the strips are and are not (and where the examples have been taken from).

...and   What is this "stitching" evidence of??? 

I think these Flat Earth believers are simply trolling their own site. Seriously who in their right mind can open Google Earth, browse around the satellite images of the GLOBE and come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat?! These Flat Earthers are the type of people who would have burned random people alive in the 17th century for being a 'Witch'...

Please flat Earth conspiracy nuts, explain how this program was faked: earth.google.com