NASA's Mars Missions are Fake

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00003/mcam/0003ML0000037000E1_DXXX.jpg

Have we captured the Namaqua Sandgrouse in this photo?  Three of them, actually. Or maybe there are martian birds. Or martian air-/spacecraft. I guess I can't rule that out.   

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00003/mcam/0003ML0000037000E1_DXXX.jpg

Have we captured the Namaqua Sandgrouse in this photo?  Three of them, actually. Or maybe there are martian birds. Or martian air-/spacecraft. I guess I can't rule that out.   

I don't see any birds.  Just rocks.  Where are the birds?

An inch-and-a-half to an inch above the mountain range.

An inch-and-a-half to an inch above the mountain range.

The brown dot?

There are three brown "dots"...

If seemingly "unnatural" rock formations can occur naturally on earth, then why shouldn't they occur on Mars?

thanks markjo those look great.

You guys are a riot. "Maybe the picture was from earth and accidentally got in the wrong file."   "NASA wouldn't make a mistake like that." 

News flash: ALL the pictures were taken on earth. There is a reason they've gone out of their way to grind away anything remotely lifelike. There could be a mini-mall in the background and you guys would come up with a "rational" reason why it would be in the photo.

then please provide solid evidence of this. so far its all opinion and questionable photos. i do recall that tom said it was the wrong file.
the biggest joke is the moderator providing evidence in the form of a picture when the website clearly states that photos do not provide evidence.

If seemingly "unnatural" rock formations can occur naturally on earth, then why shouldn't they occur on Mars?

I don't see anything that looks like a piece of wood in those images.

Why should we believe that the rover came across a rare rock that just happens to look exactly like a wooden log, or a rare rock that just happens to look like lichen is growing on it? The simplest answer is that those are not rare rock formations.

the biggest joke is the moderator providing evidence in the form of a picture when the website clearly states that photos do not provide evidence.

I'm showing you exactly why those pictures aren't evidence.

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.

Its not fake theirs no way possible you guys photoshopped it blue you guys are fake you can tell.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2012, 09:07:57 PM

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.

Its not fake theirs no way possible you guys photoshopped it blue you guys are fake you can tell.

Actually, the Mars sky is different colors at different times of the Martian day. It can be red, blue, and green.

So the photo with the "birds"... They are three brown dots. Just saying, that could be anything.

Also, I was looking at the photo with the odd log looking object in it. The other part of the photo that I noticed that people haven't seemed to make mention of is that crater. I've never seen any images of a crater like that on Earth. Can anyone find anything like that?

people can make artificial craters on earth by blowing up holes in the ground. nasa actually do this to test equipment. or make film sets... 

people can make artificial craters on earth by blowing up holes in the ground. nasa actually do this to test equipment. or make film sets... 

Explosion craters aren't the same as impact craters.

Quote from: squevil on September 24, 2012, 07:27:44 AM

people can make artificial craters on earth by blowing up holes in the ground. nasa actually do this to test equipment. or make film sets... 

Explosion craters aren't the same as impact craters.

isnt that the same as the explanation of gravity round here? they will both appear to be the same?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 24, 2012, 07:36:40 AM

Quote from: squevil on September 24, 2012, 07:27:44 AM

people can make artificial craters on earth by blowing up holes in the ground. nasa actually do this to test equipment. or make film sets... 

Explosion craters aren't the same as impact craters.

isnt that the same as the explanation of gravity round here? they will both appear to be the same?

No, they are completely different and can't even be put into an analogy. Explosions (I would assume of a buried explosion) leave a different crater because they are just pushing everything out and away from the site. Impacts rapidly displace large amounts of material out, up and away because something is coming down on top of it at high velocity.

No, they are completely different and can't even be put into an analogy. Explosions (I would assume of a buried explosion) leave a different crater because they are just pushing everything out and away from the site. Impacts rapidly displace large amounts of material out, up and away because something is coming down on top of it at high velocity.

Well, you've convinced me...   

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 24, 2012, 10:08:18 AM

No, they are completely different and can't even be put into an analogy. Explosions (I would assume of a buried explosion) leave a different crater because they are just pushing everything out and away from the site. Impacts rapidly displace large amounts of material out, up and away because something is coming down on top of it at high velocity.

Well, you've convinced me...   

i wasnt going to say it ski, but yeh it sounds exactly the same to me too.

So the photo with the "birds"... They are three brown dots. Just saying, that could be anything.

How many "anythings" are supposed to be flying around on Mars?

If you want to see the difference between explosion craters and impact craters, make a mortar. Use the mortar to create an impact crater (it'll be rather small, but it suits the purpose), and then go near the crater, make a small explosive, and observe the difference.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 24, 2012, 05:38:25 AM

So the photo with the "birds"... They are three brown dots. Just saying, that could be anything.

How many "anythings" are supposed to be flying around on Mars?

I don't know, dust, rocks. For all I know it could be a ufo, or a glitch in the camera. I'm no extra-terrestrial photography expert, so I couldn't tell you anything for certain, and I'm not going to claim to know what it is. But you can't claim those dots to be birds, because they just look like dots.

You guys are a riot. "Maybe the picture was from earth and accidentally got in the wrong file."   "NASA wouldn't make a mistake like that." 

News flash: ALL the pictures were taken on earth. There is a reason they've gone out of their way to grind away anything remotely lifelike. There could be a mini-mall in the background and you guys would come up with a "rational" reason why it would be in the photo.

How can you compare this to a mini mall?  Troll harder please.

1.) NASA makes mistakes, and people have died due to that, anyone who argues otherwise is just wrong.  That being said, not every single mistake is the same as another in terms of prevention and magnitude, to pretend otherwise again is just wrong.

2.)  I personally dont think its a log  I have seen rock formations just like that on earth caused my errosion, which also takes place on mars.

3.)  I like how people then come out and say that the wrong folder either would not have happened, or that NASA would not have defended it, they would have just admited their mistake.  Tom said that it was possible that it somehow slipped into the wrong folder, and no one said a thing from the other bench, but one mention that it could have been a mistake out of my keyboard, and suddenly its unreasonable.  look im just saying that going from "hey that might be a log" to "NASA never went to mars" is a giant leap, especially since its just a photo.

There are three brown "dots"...

So why do you think they're birds?  They could be dust particles.

Quote from: Ski on September 23, 2012, 01:55:43 PM

You guys are a riot. "Maybe the picture was from earth and accidentally got in the wrong file."   "NASA wouldn't make a mistake like that." 

News flash: ALL the pictures were taken on earth. There is a reason they've gone out of their way to grind away anything remotely lifelike. There could be a mini-mall in the background and you guys would come up with a "rational" reason why it would be in the photo.

How can you compare this to a mini mall?  Troll harder please.

1.) NASA makes mistakes, and people have died due to that, anyone who argues otherwise is just wrong.  That being said, not every single mistake is the same as another in terms of prevention and magnitude, to pretend otherwise again is just wrong.

2.)  I personally dont think its a log  I have seen rock formations just like that on earth caused my errosion, which also takes place on mars.

3.)  I like how people then come out and say that the wrong folder either would not have happened, or that NASA would not have defended it, they would have just admited their mistake.  Tom said that it was possible that it somehow slipped into the wrong folder, and no one said a thing from the other bench, but one mention that it could have been a mistake out of my keyboard, and suddenly its unreasonable.  look im just saying that going from "hey that might be a log" to "NASA never went to mars" is a giant leap, especially since its just a photo.

This kind of dismissive answer is mentioned on nearly every NASA screw up. How many times will you defend them before you see that something is wrong with them?

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on September 25, 2012, 12:34:37 PM

Quote from: Ski on September 23, 2012, 01:55:43 PM

You guys are a riot. "Maybe the picture was from earth and accidentally got in the wrong file."   "NASA wouldn't make a mistake like that." 

News flash: ALL the pictures were taken on earth. There is a reason they've gone out of their way to grind away anything remotely lifelike. There could be a mini-mall in the background and you guys would come up with a "rational" reason why it would be in the photo.

How can you compare this to a mini mall?  Troll harder please.

1.) NASA makes mistakes, and people have died due to that, anyone who argues otherwise is just wrong.  That being said, not every single mistake is the same as another in terms of prevention and magnitude, to pretend otherwise again is just wrong.

2.)  I personally dont think its a log  I have seen rock formations just like that on earth caused my errosion, which also takes place on mars.

3.)  I like how people then come out and say that the wrong folder either would not have happened, or that NASA would not have defended it, they would have just admited their mistake.  Tom said that it was possible that it somehow slipped into the wrong folder, and no one said a thing from the other bench, but one mention that it could have been a mistake out of my keyboard, and suddenly its unreasonable.  look im just saying that going from "hey that might be a log" to "NASA never went to mars" is a giant leap, especially since its just a photo.

This kind of dismissive answer is mentioned on nearly every NASA screw up. How many times will you defend them before you see that something is wrong with them?

What do you mean?  in my opinion this was not a NASA screw up, its just a rock that looks sort of like a log. How could the answer to ever NASA conspiracy photo posted be "thats not a log, its a rock"?  Are there that many NASA photos with log shaped rocks?

I understand that there is more than just his photo, and that no one is looking at just this and then jumping to the conclusion that three is a space travel conspiracy, but this is not evidence of anything except that most people have not taken college classes on rock formation.  That picture is like wind erosion 101.

The issue is that every time someone posts a photo (usually tim) of some NASA mistake, its usually easily explainable by something other than "NASA made a mistake".

Quote from: hoppy on September 25, 2012, 03:15:59 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on September 25, 2012, 12:34:37 PM

Quote from: Ski on September 23, 2012, 01:55:43 PM

You guys are a riot. "Maybe the picture was from earth and accidentally got in the wrong file."   "NASA wouldn't make a mistake like that." 

News flash: ALL the pictures were taken on earth. There is a reason they've gone out of their way to grind away anything remotely lifelike. There could be a mini-mall in the background and you guys would come up with a "rational" reason why it would be in the photo.

How can you compare this to a mini mall?  Troll harder please.

1.) NASA makes mistakes, and people have died due to that, anyone who argues otherwise is just wrong.  That being said, not every single mistake is the same as another in terms of prevention and magnitude, to pretend otherwise again is just wrong.

2.)  I personally dont think its a log  I have seen rock formations just like that on earth caused my errosion, which also takes place on mars.

3.)  I like how people then come out and say that the wrong folder either would not have happened, or that NASA would not have defended it, they would have just admited their mistake.  Tom said that it was possible that it somehow slipped into the wrong folder, and no one said a thing from the other bench, but one mention that it could have been a mistake out of my keyboard, and suddenly its unreasonable.  look im just saying that going from "hey that might be a log" to "NASA never went to mars" is a giant leap, especially since its just a photo.

This kind of dismissive answer is mentioned on nearly every NASA screw up. How many times will you defend them before you see that something is wrong with them?

What do you mean?  in my opinion this was not a NASA screw up, its just a rock that looks sort of like a log. How could the answer to ever NASA conspiracy photo posted be "thats not a log, its a rock"?  Are there that many NASA photos with log shaped rocks?

I understand that there is more than just his photo, and that no one is looking at just this and then jumping to the conclusion that three is a space travel conspiracy, but this is not evidence of anything except that most people have not taken college classes on rock formation.  That picture is like wind erosion 101.

The issue is that every time someone posts a photo (usually tim) of some NASA mistake, its usually easily explainable by something other than "NASA made a mistake".

I don't know where the video is right now. How about the video when they have the astronauts going to the moon with the earth out of the window. The astronauts say the camera is pushed all the way up against the window, then they turn off the camera and you see they had cardboard in the window. The astronauts where showing earth crescent shaped from space. Only thing was the camera was not turned off and you see astronauts in front of the window and stuff(the astronauts were lying).

This website shows some of the bogus moon landing stuff. Not the cardboard in the window trick other things.

http://www.firetown.com/blog/2011/03/21/my-husband-directed-the-fake-moon-landing-says-stanley-kubricks-widow/

I don't know where the video is right now. How about the video when they have the astronauts going to the moon with the earth out of the window. The astronauts say the camera is pushed all the way up against the window, then they turn off the camera and you see they had cardboard in the window. The astronauts where showing earth crescent shaped from space. Only thing was the camera was not turned off and you see astronauts in front of the window and stuff(the astronauts were lying).

I believe you're talking about this clip from the movie "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon":

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Hoax

Thanks Tom, that's the one I was talking about.

I like the part of the video that says "and you can see that full size earth in the background..." All I saw was glare. That was probably the only damning part of the video, and it wasn't even compelling evidence. The way the video starts, it's got you thinking that you're gonna listen to recorded conversations where the crew and ground crew talk about what they're doing to stage it.

Quote from: hoppy on September 25, 2012, 08:48:23 PM

I don't know where the video is right now. How about the video when they have the astronauts going to the moon with the earth out of the window. The astronauts say the camera is pushed all the way up against the window, then they turn off the camera and you see they had cardboard in the window. The astronauts where showing earth crescent shaped from space. Only thing was the camera was not turned off and you see astronauts in front of the window and stuff(the astronauts were lying).

I believe you're talking about this clip from the movie "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"

...which is completely debunked by this website here:

http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2012, 10:50:05 PM

Quote from: hoppy on September 25, 2012, 08:48:23 PM

I don't know where the video is right now. How about the video when they have the astronauts going to the moon with the earth out of the window. The astronauts say the camera is pushed all the way up against the window, then they turn off the camera and you see they had cardboard in the window. The astronauts where showing earth crescent shaped from space. Only thing was the camera was not turned off and you see astronauts in front of the window and stuff(the astronauts were lying).

I believe you're talking about this clip from the movie "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"

...which is completely debunked by this website here:

http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html

That website is known to be connected to NASA. But even so, the arguments are bad:

"There you can see that the astronauts are not talking about how to fake the footage, as Mr. Sibrel claims, but simply learning to use an experimental color television camera that was a late addition to their mission."

Color television was not experimental in the 1969.

"The astronauts were preparing for a live telecast for which they hadn't had time to practice. Is this any different than a news reporter testing her uplink back to the studio by telling a joke before 'going live'?"

Yes, it's a bit different. News reporters don't typically fake house fires for their news broadcasts. And faking a scene of being half way to the moon doesn't sound like much of a "joke" to me.

That website is known to be connected to NASA. But even so, the arguments are bad:

"There you can see that the astronauts are not talking about how to fake the footage, as Mr. Sibrel claims, but simply learning to use an experimental color television camera that was a late addition to their mission."

Color television was not experimental in the 1969.

The quote you listed clearly says "experimental color television camera." It does not say color television was experimental.

"The astronauts were preparing for a live telecast for which they hadn't had time to practice. Is this any different than a news reporter testing her uplink back to the studio by telling a joke before 'going live'?"

Yes, it's a bit different. News reporters don't typically fake house fires for their news broadcasts.

And faking a scene of being half way to the moon doesn't sound like much of a "joke" to me.

There's absolutely nothing to substantiate that they faked it. There's a shaky scene from an old camera with someone claiming that "oh see, it's faked because they blocked the sun out and you can see things moving when they move the camera."