Mars Conspiracies

A

Anonymous

Guest
Capricorn One was on last night. Synchronicity or the inspiration for this thread? ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
erm......

maybe it would just cost too much....or there is a problem with Human rights or Health & Safety or something...........whatever, if they don't want to go for whatever reason, something will crop up to make it an unviable course of action.....just wait and see.
 

Jerry_B

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
59
Points
129
I too think it's down to a funding problem.

What's the bet that if there were actually a US mission to Mars on the cards, there'd be conspiracy theories for that too? ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
As long as there is no Mars mission, my childhood dream of being the first man on Mars is still technically possible.
 

Jerry_B

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
59
Points
129
Well then I hope my dream of being the first cat on Mars doesn't come true...
 

_schnor

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
992
Reaction score
23
Points
49
No time lag to mars? "We have landed! Base: - yay", Plants on mars? "Look plants! (no lag) Base: - yay!"

Also, hows about the landing? Nice circular motion going on there, plus the soil and sky are the wrong colour, but apart from that it looks genuine! :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Strangely, I dreamed last night that we have already landed on mars. In my dream, astronauts carried out unethical experiments on organisms on board the rocket, hence the secrecy. I'm not called dreamer for nothing you know!
 

SoundDust

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 17, 2002
Messages
1,677
Reaction score
20
Points
69
is this anything to do with that alternative 3 documentary of the 70's? They showed it on there.

anyone read the book btw? It's in my local library:)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Interesting...

I can not say that I believe this videotape necessarily, but I feel I should refute some of the arguments AGAINST this videotape being a hoax. First of all, as schnor asked, why is there no times lag? The answer is simple: it was not a manned mission, and it is doubtful that the probe ever returned, so in all likelihood what we would have heard would be the reactions of the Commander Center staff as they watched the video feed come in from the probe, rather than hearing live commentary we may be hearing commentary as-the-story-unfolds (so to speak). Secondly, the argument that the colors were wrong is flawed, as there is every reason to believe that the sky on Mars actually is blue and was only shifted to a 'reddish' tint to quash speculation about life on Mars (see http://www.destinationspace.net/dmdeexcerpt.asp for a first-hand account of how scientists at NASA have come to claim that Mars's atmosphere is red and not blue). I believe Mars does have a blue atmosphere and looks very much like the Southwestern American deserts on Earth, and that the idea of Mars as a 'red planet' has more to do with it appearing red from Earth than it appearing red to an observor standing on the surface of the planet itself. Anyways I do want to hear further analysis of the tape, but if you want my opinion I think it likely that, strange as it may be, the videotape is genuine.:eek!!!!:
 

Mob1138

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
267
Reaction score
2
Points
47
jima said:
is this anything to do with that alternative 3 documentary of the 70's? They showed it on there.

anyone read the book btw? It's in my local library:)
if i remember right this video is part of the A3 programme.

its as fake as jordans breasts!
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
Fake Indeed

Quite obviously fake on many levels. Not even a very good try, really, and if it's part of the A3 nonsense, then all the more reason to disbelieve this bunk.

Incidentally, the German tape had better audio.

Also incidentally, if this were "coverage" of some landing by remote, then please answer why the video includes no reaction shots, no wide or long shots of the room, etc. Only the video AS IF ON A MONITOR.

Come off it. Simply bogus.
 

oll_lewis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
1,876
Reaction score
24
Points
69
not a lot of people realise this but in pre cambrian times the earth's atmosphere would have had a red tinge, the earths atmosphere was at one time simmilar to mars in it's chemical make up, however it is now it's current blue tint due to pollution over many millions of years by bateria and plants that turned carbon dioxide to oxigen and carbon, this led to a mass extinction of microbes in the precambrian era and theatmosperes current make up. the reson that mars could still be retaining it's red atmosphere is because of the fact that there have never been enouth bacteria present to cause the effects sean on earth. when the microbe cataclysam occored there were many million times the amounts of microbes present on earth today present on land and in the oceans, the ocens being the most fretile ground for microbes by a long strech and the place in which they first evolved so the lower amounts of liquid water present on mars could be the reason the martain air has yet to blue.

it's only a theory though...;)
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
Blue Sky Mining

The blue of the sky is due to backscatter of sunlight.

Not sure about Pre-Cambrian skies, but what's the point, that Mars is in Pre-Cambrian condition? If so, how'd that happen?

I suspect Mars is just an interesting neighbor with precious little contact between it and Terra.
 

oll_lewis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
1,876
Reaction score
24
Points
69
It didn't happen as such, the red tint in the atmosphere was due to the chemicals in the atmasphere of the planet, I have't looked at it for a while but if I remember corectly (I'm a biologist not a physacyst or chemist so the chemical stuff in this thery is quoted from memory) the tint of the sky is caused by the chemicals in the atmosphere, the nitrogen which makes up the bulk of the atmospheric gas dose not change tint of light as it passes through but oxigen and carbon dioxide do. The carbon dioxide in the earhs atmosphere that changes the tint to a very slight red is outclasses by the amounts of oxigen that change the atmospheric tint to blue, on mars where the amount of oxigen is negligable because carbon dioxide hasen't been changed to oxigen to the extent of the earth because there just hasn't been enougth resperation of microbes over a short length of time to interfere with the cabon cycle to this extent, the skys tint is a slight red caused by the abundance of carbon dioxide.

The reason that mars's atmosphere is like the earths was pre-cambrian (actuly this was about mid pre cambrian that this all kicked off, when bacteria and algae were the only life around) is simply because of the frozen state of mars's alleged water it is simply too cold on the planet for large scale or fast reproduction of bacteria to occour (evolution is unfortunatly chained up within the context of chemistry). and it is resperation of the bacterias waste product, oxigen from carbondioxide that caused the earth to have high amounts of oxigen in the first place.

Hope this answers some of those questions about the theory, but I must point out that there are dosens of theorys concerning mars's atmosphere being red and this is just one of them (althogh personaly I think it's the most viable), have fun researching them all:)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mars atmosphere colours

This link, among others, suggests that the redness of the Martian atmosphere is enhanced, if not caused by, the camera and filtering systems used to take the pictures.

If you look at the pictures, you can see that the red colouration of the sky is more pronounced closer to the surface, which, IIRC, is scattering caused by dust. The intense blueness of the Earths atmosphere is more to do with air pressure than chemical composition.

As to Mars being Pre-Cambrian, it's more a case of the Pre-Cambrian being Martian. The atmosphere of Mars is in chemical equilibrium, as was the Earth's until life started releasing unstable chemicals. If all life on Earth ceased to exist, the Earth's atmosphere would eventually return to something like that of Mars.
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
But Where

But where did most of the Martian atmosphere GO? Is it chemically bound on the surface, or was it blasted off by a huge impact, or what?

Earth's atmosphere is quite dense. Earth's mass is many times that of Mars. Losing our atmosphere to the point that Mars lost its atmosphere would require an astonishing set of calamities, wouldn't it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ah, sorry, possibly should have made that a little clearer.

If all life on Earth disappeared, the atmosphere would return to chemical stability, which would probably be mostly carbon dioxide, like Mars. That doesn't necessarily mean the the density of the atmosphere would drop.

Eventually, as the Earth became geologically inactive, there would be less gas escaping from the core, and the atmosphere would start to dwindle, but that's at least a billion years in the future. This is probably what happened to Mars; when it "died", the atmosphere started drifting of in to space.
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
Gas Expulsion

I see. Sorry to be so dense about all this.

Seems we're trying to carbonize the atmosphere as quickly as possible, doesn't it? Maybe those notions about the Bush League being Reptoids isn't entirely off..
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,238
Reaction score
9,119
Points
284
Because Mars is much less massive than Earth, and has a lower gravitational field, it is easier for molecules of gas to achieve escape velocity and drift off into space.

Over millions of years the atmosphere leaks away - no catastrophes or chemical reactions needed (although these may also have played a part).
 

DerekH16

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
865
Reaction score
16
Points
49
And I always thought Mars was red because

1) There's a negligible atmosphere, so no atmospheric scattering

2) The surface was predominantly iron oxide - rust - and therefore red.

:confused:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Does anyone have any information on the video of the supposed Mars landing in '62? Opinions?
That would have been the expedition sent out by my old mentor, Sir Bernard Quatermass and the `British Rocketry Group.' The took some very fine `Standard 8' and 16mm films of the whole trip, using specially adapted, Bolex equipment.

All very `hush, hush, ' none the less.
 

Eponastill

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
946
Reaction score
1,590
Points
164
Location
generally on the fringes
This is my own version of the old 'Moon landings filmed in a studio' conspiracy. Don't you think it's odd that our carefully planned Mars mission has gone awry, but - ooh look - the Americans have come up trumps again. Just when they had such a rotten year last year with everyone picking on them. They really are the best country in the world. First they beat everyone to the moon and now they've got super pictures of mars. Done in a Hollywood studio, mate. Check out the shadows. Etc.

Couldn't it be a possibility?

Bitter? Twisted? Me? I'll be saying the earth's flat as well in a minute.
 

Philo_T

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
16
Points
69
Run OJ, RUN!

Wouldn't there be amature HAM radio operatiors who would be monitoring the broadcasts? Or would they not be interested since it's probably a all digital signal?

Is it within the capability of the spook agencies to retransmit an Earth generated signal from a satellite positioned so it appears to be coming from Mars? I would expect that the orbits would be hard to reconcile.

What's NASA's infrastructure like these days? Do they even transmit directly back to Earth, or do they use relay satellites?


I'm sure given enough money, I could fake it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm just musing ... if the NASA craft has indeed landed where they say it has, what are the odds that we, poor suckers around the globe, are only shown boring flat desert pictures (that could be shot in Mongolia or Turkmenistan, as a wild guess) while the real information about standing structures / ruins / living things / moving objects is running 24 hours non-stop for theri internal use? How about that?
 

oll_lewis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
1,876
Reaction score
24
Points
69
I think IF space exploration IS being faked its a really smart way to accout for millions or possibly billions of $/£s disapearing from public funds ;).

And how else would Rocket Scientists get the girls?
 

athyra

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
148
Reaction score
4
Points
49
So much of a coincidence, you know, what with NASA having launched mars landers since the 1970s, and, even given the vast experiencial gulf between NASA and the ESA, 1/3rd of NASA landers still have failed. And a 100% fail rate for russian landers (30 secs does not count), who, again, have much more space expertise than the ESA.

From what I saw of the head of the Beagle project, his statements, and the way the UK media played this story, the whole "Haha we do this on the cheap, we're so much better then those darn yanks!" attitude is pretty sickening. And hypocritical (in a general sense), as I've seen countless comments by Europeans who deride yanks for their rabid nationalism.

Beagle was poorly designed, period. No retrorockets and only 3 inflatable bouncers left 0 margin for error. Hubris hurts, it does, truly.

(*not american*)


As to the moon hoaxers, there's been rebuttals posted everywhere. Not even worth wasting the effort typing.
 

oll_lewis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
1,876
Reaction score
24
Points
69
Colin pillenger did not make beagle 2 'on the cheap' nor do it to teach 'jonny forigner' a lesson and there havev never been any media articles sugesting this to my knolage...
what he did triumph in was building and launching beagle 2 though entiarly non government funded means so it did not cost britsh tax payers the cash that American tax payers have to pay to fund nasa (even more now that GWB is trying to divert peoples attention from his failings by saying "I want a moon base like in 2010! and I want to go to mars like they did in that capricorn film").
 

ruffready

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
2,393
Reaction score
23
Points
69
I don't care who does

it. I'm just glad someone got there , so I can look at the cool pictures and hear Richard hoagland point out all the artificial debris strewn about! He'll be on coast to coast in about twenty eight minuets again and he's a hoot!
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,458
Reaction score
1,306
Points
184
Firstly - What do people expect from pictures of the Mars surface? It is a damn desert! Those who want ruins/ancient monuments/little green men smiling and waving at the camera should stop imagining NASA fakes and go back to science fiction! While I agree that NASA could pull a "Capricorn" - after all, who else can prove them wrong - don't imagine they'd do it to cover up military bases or alien civilisations please! Since 9-11, USA needs a group psychological boost. And, since the end of the Apollo missions the go-getting, pioneering spirit has waned. I can imagine faking further space exploration to give a much needed celebration - the billions of dollars would be needed to keep it quiet from the general public. The only problem would be if hard evidence was needed or confirmed by an "independant" source.

Secondly - While it is suspicious that the NASA lander functioned perfectly while the European one has failed, this cannot excuse "NASA jealously rules space" whining. They have a bigger budget (which in my mind is due to "Black" military orbital operations being accomodated by NASA), more experience and a higher technological pool - and you can't get away from the fact that to go anywhere far in space you need hi-tech and not gaffer-tape, chewing-gum and rubber bands. It is no wonder that NASA has a higher success rate.

Thirdly - As a Brit, I was proud of any achievement made with Beagle 2. This didn't make me say "Them Yanks ... Boooo!" To succeed in science, one must learn from failures. Problem is, we can't afford too many failures! I may be a little jealous of the funding NASA gets - but this only makes me angry at European pinch-pennies who like to pour millions into pointless subsidies, corruption and waste but still expect us to do a bit of flag-waving at finance-starved projects. I don't suppose the USA could spare us a couple of bob?

I don't expect blind acceptance of any statement or production by any government - after all, they have their own agendas. But I wouldn't automatically brand achievements or failures as conspiracy or cover-up victims. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And accidents do happen, regardless of importance or investment!
 
Top