Why is there a squirrel on Mars?

Why would a squirrel pose for a picture?  I don't know if any of you guys have ever actually seen a squirrel in real life, but they are awfully twitchy critters and would not sit still for one picture, let alone however many exposures would be required for the picture in the OP.

The area used to hoax the landings was surely dusted with a cocktail of potent poisons. The rodent in question is dead and therefore no longer twitching.

Quote from: markjo on May 31, 2013, 08:00:04 AM

Why would a squirrel pose for a picture?  I don't know if any of you guys have ever actually seen a squirrel in real life, but they are awfully twitchy critters and would not sit still for one picture, let alone however many exposures would be required for the picture in the OP.

The area used to hoax the landings was surely dusted with a cocktail of potent poisons. The rodent in question is dead and therefore no longer twitching.

maybe its a possum, and just playing dead.

In the right light etc... you can see things that your brain wants to interpret all the time.

For instance people see images of Jesus all over the place, even on the arse of a dog:

Fraud is hard to perpetrate. That NASA web is thick too. NASA enthusiasts love to point to video and photographic propaganda when it suits their needs, yet dismiss it when one of their mistakes make it through their scrubbing. 

Fraud is hard to perpetrate. That NASA web is thick too. NASA enthusiasts love to point to video and photographic propaganda when it suits their needs, yet dismiss it when one of their mistakes make it through their scrubbing.

You didn't get the memo? It's a rock!

I've never seen a rock naturally form into a realistic shape of an animal.

I googled "pareidolia" and got images like this:





This squirrel is definitely more realistic than these chance formations.

to whom is our trust needed to be given to, if the acceptance that these are 'naturally occurring' is made?

is there time-lapse imagery dating back however (insert stupid no. of millions) of years they supposedly formed in?

not suggesting you are posting/presenting dishonestly, but the source.

*Spam removal*

In the right light etc... you can see things that your brain wants to interpret all the time.

For instance people see images of Jesus all over the place, even on the arse of a dog:

i love this image

I can see why 

Easy there Roundy, I was just showing you a rock. You don't have to ban me for that.

I didn't ban you for that.  You can express your fixation on male genitalia all you want as long as you don't actually post a dick (and of course the picture is meaningful to the discussion, which this one actually is).  I banned you for your repeated low-content posts, despite being warned, culminating in a response in the upper forums consisting only of "lol".

Please familiarize yourself with the rules.  We ban for longer if the offense is repeated, and the post just above this one has me cracking my knuckles already.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on June 09, 2013, 05:57:48 PM

Easy there Roundy, I was just showing you a rock. You don't have to ban me for that.

I didn't ban you for that.  You can express your fixation on male genitalia all you want as long as you don't actually post a dick (and of course the picture is meaningful to the discussion, which this one actually is).  I banned you for your repeated low-content posts, despite being warned, culminating in a response in the upper forums consisting only of "lol".

Please familiarize yourself with the rules.  We ban for longer if the offense is repeated, and the post just above this one has me cracking my knuckles already.

Make a new topic in the suggestions & concern topic if you want to discuss this! What a lousy moderator...(Thork was way better)
And the fact you're cracking your nuckles over a comment like 'I can see why  ' Well. we have seen before how you misinterpret things. You see low-content. I see an arguement against the ridicilous squirrel on mars thing. Hence "I can see why!" Utter idiocy from your side, but hey...we're on the flat earth forum, so I don't expect anything else.

Ban me forever if you want, why don't you delete my account right away... I don't give a shit..I'm done with you anyway. Goodbye Round Earthers! Stay strong....

P.S. I made you a new topic in the right board..so if you got anything else to say. Go to!  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58898.0.html#new

Fraud is hard to perpetrate. That NASA web is thick too. NASA enthusiasts love to point to video and photographic propaganda when it suits their needs, yet dismiss it when one of their mistakes make it through their scrubbing.

I can just feel the stupidity radiating from you. Maybe it is your display picture that emphasises it.

I personally suspect that this kind of "oversight" on the part of NASA has become deliberate. It really seems to be a "let's see what we can get away with this time" kind of attitude that they've developed there. This would be the perfect demonstration of just how cynical and brazen and cocky and malicious (and downright sadistic) they've become over the years. They leave something in an image that should all but prove they're a sham and then sit back and watch as their acolytes fall over each other to explain it away. Not only does NASA get to enjoy watching the mental acrobatics, but they also don't even have to spend as much time (and therefore money) on their photo editing - if something happens to slip through, the rabid members of their cult step up to the task of making it all fit for them. Free of charge. This is what is meant when it is said that the Conspiracy is self-perpetuating: once you have enough patsies, you don't even need to spend money anymore.

The Globularists in this thread are a testament to that.

Because what is in that image cannot be anything other than some kind of rodent right?  It couldn't possibly be a naturally occurring rock because that would mean NASA isn't this evil and corrupt entity, right?

I personally suspect that this kind of "oversight" on the part of NASA has become deliberate. It really seems to be a "let's see what we can get away with this time" kind of attitude that they've developed there. This would be the perfect demonstration of just how cynical and brazen and cocky and malicious (and downright sadistic) they've become over the years. They leave something in an image that should all but prove they're a sham and then sit back and watch as their acolytes fall over each other to explain it away. Not only does NASA get to enjoy watching the mental acrobatics, but they also don't even have to spend as much time (and therefore money) on their photo editing - if something happens to slip through, the rabid members of their cult step up to the task of making it all fit for them. Free of charge. This is what is meant when it is said that the Conspiracy is self-perpetuating: once you have enough patsies, you don't even need to spend money anymore.

The Globularists in this thread are a testament to that.

Perhaps you could address my recent posts showing the outline of a rock and tell me why I'm wrong.

Quote from: Oscar on June 10, 2013, 03:37:55 PM

I personally suspect that this kind of "oversight" on the part of NASA has become deliberate. It really seems to be a "let's see what we can get away with this time" kind of attitude that they've developed there. This would be the perfect demonstration of just how cynical and brazen and cocky and malicious (and downright sadistic) they've become over the years. They leave something in an image that should all but prove they're a sham and then sit back and watch as their acolytes fall over each other to explain it away. Not only does NASA get to enjoy watching the mental acrobatics, but they also don't even have to spend as much time (and therefore money) on their photo editing - if something happens to slip through, the rabid members of their cult step up to the task of making it all fit for them. Free of charge. This is what is meant when it is said that the Conspiracy is self-perpetuating: once you have enough patsies, you don't even need to spend money anymore.

The Globularists in this thread are a testament to that.

Perhaps you could address my recent posts showing the outline of a rock and tell me why I'm wrong.

I've shown the high res version hosted on NASA's website to 10 different people, zooming into the creature, and none of them said it was a rock.

Quote from: FlatOrange on June 10, 2013, 04:15:05 PM

Quote from: Oscar on June 10, 2013, 03:37:55 PM

I personally suspect that this kind of "oversight" on the part of NASA has become deliberate. It really seems to be a "let's see what we can get away with this time" kind of attitude that they've developed there. This would be the perfect demonstration of just how cynical and brazen and cocky and malicious (and downright sadistic) they've become over the years. They leave something in an image that should all but prove they're a sham and then sit back and watch as their acolytes fall over each other to explain it away. Not only does NASA get to enjoy watching the mental acrobatics, but they also don't even have to spend as much time (and therefore money) on their photo editing - if something happens to slip through, the rabid members of their cult step up to the task of making it all fit for them. Free of charge. This is what is meant when it is said that the Conspiracy is self-perpetuating: once you have enough patsies, you don't even need to spend money anymore.

The Globularists in this thread are a testament to that.

Perhaps you could address my recent posts showing the outline of a rock and tell me why I'm wrong.

I've shown the high res version hosted on NASA's website to 10 different people, zooming into the creature, and none of them said it was a rock.

And that is supposed to be proof of what? 

Quote from: FlatOrange on June 10, 2013, 04:15:05 PM

Quote from: Oscar on June 10, 2013, 03:37:55 PM

I personally suspect that this kind of "oversight" on the part of NASA has become deliberate. It really seems to be a "let's see what we can get away with this time" kind of attitude that they've developed there. This would be the perfect demonstration of just how cynical and brazen and cocky and malicious (and downright sadistic) they've become over the years. They leave something in an image that should all but prove they're a sham and then sit back and watch as their acolytes fall over each other to explain it away. Not only does NASA get to enjoy watching the mental acrobatics, but they also don't even have to spend as much time (and therefore money) on their photo editing - if something happens to slip through, the rabid members of their cult step up to the task of making it all fit for them. Free of charge. This is what is meant when it is said that the Conspiracy is self-perpetuating: once you have enough patsies, you don't even need to spend money anymore.

The Globularists in this thread are a testament to that.

Perhaps you could address my recent posts showing the outline of a rock and tell me why I'm wrong.

I've shown the high res version hosted on NASA's website to 10 different people, zooming into the creature, and none of them said it was a rock.

please list the names of these ten people, and the credibility they have to to determine a rock from a living mammal.

Quote from: FlatOrange on June 10, 2013, 04:15:05 PM

Quote from: Oscar on June 10, 2013, 03:37:55 PM

I personally suspect that this kind of "oversight" on the part of NASA has become deliberate. It really seems to be a "let's see what we can get away with this time" kind of attitude that they've developed there. This would be the perfect demonstration of just how cynical and brazen and cocky and malicious (and downright sadistic) they've become over the years. They leave something in an image that should all but prove they're a sham and then sit back and watch as their acolytes fall over each other to explain it away. Not only does NASA get to enjoy watching the mental acrobatics, but they also don't even have to spend as much time (and therefore money) on their photo editing - if something happens to slip through, the rabid members of their cult step up to the task of making it all fit for them. Free of charge. This is what is meant when it is said that the Conspiracy is self-perpetuating: once you have enough patsies, you don't even need to spend money anymore.

The Globularists in this thread are a testament to that.

Perhaps you could address my recent posts showing the outline of a rock and tell me why I'm wrong.

I've shown the high res version hosted on NASA's website to 10 different people babies, zooming into the creature, and none of them said it was a rock.

Fixed.

I've shown the high res version hosted on NASA's website to 10 different people, zooming into the creature, and none of them said it was a rock.

How many of them were geologists?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2013, 04:58:33 PM

I've shown the high res version hosted on NASA's website to 10 different people, zooming into the creature, and none of them said it was a rock.

How many of them were geologists?

Were any of them biologists?

How many of them could talk? How many of them are you sure were not rocks themselves?

If you're willing to seriously consider this, then you have no intellectual honesty nor integrity.

So a rodent hitched a ride. Reminiscent of the bubonic plague.

I personally suspect that this kind of "oversight" on the part of NASA has become deliberate. It really seems to be a "let's see what we can get away with this time" kind of attitude that they've developed there. This would be the perfect demonstration of just how cynical and brazen and cocky and malicious (and downright sadistic) they've become over the years. They leave something in an image that should all but prove they're a sham and then sit back and watch as their acolytes fall over each other to explain it away. Not only does NASA get to enjoy watching the mental acrobatics, but they also don't even have to spend as much time (and therefore money) on their photo editing - if something happens to slip through, the rabid members of their cult step up to the task of making it all fit for them. Free of charge. This is what is meant when it is said that the Conspiracy is self-perpetuating: once you have enough patsies, you don't even need to spend money anymore.

The Globularists in this thread are a testament to that.

This is what I mean when I say the Conspiracy is "self-sealing". Any counter evidence or counter argument is used to make a case for an even deeper conspiracy.

Quote from: Oscar on June 10, 2013, 03:37:55 PM

I personally suspect that this kind of "oversight" on the part of NASA has become deliberate. It really seems to be a "let's see what we can get away with this time" kind of attitude that they've developed there. This would be the perfect demonstration of just how cynical and brazen and cocky and malicious (and downright sadistic) they've become over the years. They leave something in an image that should all but prove they're a sham and then sit back and watch as their acolytes fall over each other to explain it away. Not only does NASA get to enjoy watching the mental acrobatics, but they also don't even have to spend as much time (and therefore money) on their photo editing - if something happens to slip through, the rabid members of their cult step up to the task of making it all fit for them. Free of charge. This is what is meant when it is said that the Conspiracy is self-perpetuating: once you have enough patsies, you don't even need to spend money anymore.

The Globularists in this thread are a testament to that.

This is what I mean when I say the Conspiracy is "self-sealing". Any counter evidence or counter argument is used to make a case for an even deeper conspiracy.

The essence of most conspiracies.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 11, 2013, 04:40:23 PM

Quote from: Oscar on June 10, 2013, 03:37:55 PM

I personally suspect that this kind of "oversight" on the part of NASA has become deliberate. It really seems to be a "let's see what we can get away with this time" kind of attitude that they've developed there. This would be the perfect demonstration of just how cynical and brazen and cocky and malicious (and downright sadistic) they've become over the years. They leave something in an image that should all but prove they're a sham and then sit back and watch as their acolytes fall over each other to explain it away. Not only does NASA get to enjoy watching the mental acrobatics, but they also don't even have to spend as much time (and therefore money) on their photo editing - if something happens to slip through, the rabid members of their cult step up to the task of making it all fit for them. Free of charge. This is what is meant when it is said that the Conspiracy is self-perpetuating: once you have enough patsies, you don't even need to spend money anymore.

The Globularists in this thread are a testament to that.

This is what I mean when I say the Conspiracy is "self-sealing". Any counter evidence or counter argument is used to make a case for an even deeper conspiracy.

The essence of most conspiracies.

No. A real conspiracy is more likely to be small scale, involving a few people with specific aims. Like Watergate. Which was undone the moment they got caught. In a capital "C" conspiracy, them getting caught was just what "they" wanted you to think and Nixon's preserved head is still pulling the strings behind everything from world oil prices to Ben and Jerry's latest ice cream flavour.

We have different definitions of conspiracy. I could certainly be wrong, but I always think of it in a negative, incorrect light. Whereas watergate, I don't consider a conspiracy, because it did happen.

So I guess in my own little world, all conspiracies have to be false, because once they are proven, they are no longer conspiracies.  Hmmmm...

We have different definitions of conspiracy. I could certainly be wrong, but I always think of it in a negative, incorrect light. Whereas watergate, I don't consider a conspiracy, because it did happen.

So I guess in my own little world, all conspiracies have to be false, because once they are proven, they are no longer conspiracies.  Hmmmm...

I think you're lumping the 'theory' meaning from "conspiracy theory" in with 'conspiracy' and confusing yourself. 

Once a conspiracy theory is proven, it is no longer a theory; it's just a conspiracy.

We have different definitions of conspiracy. I could certainly be wrong, but I always think of it in a negative, incorrect light. Whereas watergate, I don't consider a conspiracy, because it did happen.

So I guess in my own little world, all conspiracies have to be false, because once they are proven, they are no longer conspiracies.  Hmmmm...

There are different types of conspiracies, I suppose some might be destroyed by being discovered but some might not. I tend to distrust the conspiracy theories that become more elaborate and insidious as the evidence mounts against them.

We have different definitions of conspiracy. I could certainly be wrong, but I always think of it in a negative, incorrect light. Whereas watergate, I don't consider a conspiracy, because it did happen.

So I guess in my own little world, all conspiracies have to be false, because once they are proven, they are no longer conspiracies.  Hmmmm...

Conspiracies are very real.  A conspiracy is simply a plot, typically of some form of gain to the party.  In this sense, Watergate was a conspiracy.  Even conspiracies such as the NASA conspiracy is simply a plot by a party, NASA, for a gain, duping the world about the shape.  However, the uncovered conspiracies have a sense of realty to them in that they involve a very limited number of people and have a very specific purpose to them.  The other types of conspiracies would often require multitudes of people and quite a few seem to have a self-serving purpose of keeping the masses under a false sense of security.