Mars Conspiracies

athyra

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
148
Reaction score
4
Points
49
"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")."

Of course he didn't do it to get those evil Americans. Anyone stating such would be an idiot. And I did not state such.

And yes, he did do it relatively on the cheap. And in the media, both in british papers and in british articles carried in Canadian papers, it was constantly compared to NASA's price for spirit. As well, the comments of the team members associated with it, especially team head, seemed to be implying that, therefore, the ESA was superior to Nasa. Related, was after the failure team members expressing their regrets over the "kick in the teeth" and the failure "to beat" NASA to mars (which is ludicrous, they're 30 years late).

As to his trumph and the launch etc., I don't deny that. But the beagle was also fundamentally flawed in design, and to search for outside excuses as to it's failure is pretty ridiculous. 1/3rd nasa fail rate, 100% soviet fail rate. Between the normal failure rates, and the fact that the beagle was much less robust then a typical lander, looking for outside excuses to blame the failure on seems pretty arrogant. The only reason why you should assume that there would NOT be a MASSIVE chance of failure, even if everything went right, would be if the ESA were somehow more capable then the US or Russia. At least, that's the way I see it.

Getting a rover landed on mars is TOUGH. One nation only, at the moment, is capable of doing that. Even getting a probe in mars orbit is a significant accomplishment. But there was an incredible lack of redundancy in Beagle's landing apparatus. As well, unlike NASA, the beagle did not maintain communications while descending (spirit used pre-selected tones to indicate status/problems except in the moments prior/after touchdown), unlike NASA's spirit, so what happened to beagle may never be known.

Anyways, the beagle was an incredible achievement. And that holds true even though Beagle itself did not survive landing.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well said, Stormkhan. Yet I wasn't expecting any little green men smiling and waving, as you suggest - my concern is that the public probably won't be shown any truly earth-shattering videos/shots, if they may threaten the universally accepted scientific/military/political balance.
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
2,242
Points
234
I have had people ask me about Beagles failure, and I just shrug my shoulders and say "Mars is a dangeous place, and if you dont like it, try getting to Venus..."

But I do think Spirit should have been put down in a place with decent scenery...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ruffready

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
2,393
Reaction score
23
Points
69
Well..

there's another landing on the 24th , maybe it'll be better ..
 

chris_in_LA

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
136
Reaction score
1
Points
47
Ath said:
Anyways, the beagle was an incredible achievement. And that holds true even though Beagle itself did not survive landing.
Here here! Even though it didn't achieve every one of its' objectives, putting a piece of Earth hardware on an alien planet is a fantastic accomplishment. The British scientists and engineers that worked on Beagle are heroes.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hello Everyone,

How about this scenario. They did send a rover and it is taking pictures but it's basically 1 of 2!!! Rover A-aka-Spirit is for public satisfaction only. Rover B--a secret that was launched in secret--is the one transfering the type of photos and info that we will never know or see. I think it is highly possible!

Same with the Lunar landings. One done for public scrutiny and a secret mission done for covert purposes.


WW
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
2,242
Points
234
Yes, thats why they never went back.

The geology want interesting enough to bother with.
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,924
Reaction score
1,997
Points
234
Location
In a Liminal Zone
WonderWoman said:
Hello Everyone,

How about this scenario. They did send a rover and it is taking pictures but it's basically 1 of 2!!! Rover A-aka-Spirit is for public satisfaction only. Rover B--a secret that was launched in secret--is the one transfering the type of photos and info that we will never know or see. I think it is highly possible!

Same with the Lunar landings. One done for public scrutiny and a secret mission done for covert purposes.


WW
Erm, Wonder Woman they have sent two rovers, and the second one's sending back pictures, which definitely aren't the same as the ones from Spirit - so unless there's a third rover I don't think this is possible at all.

I've never understood why it would be a bad thing if ancient ruins, for example, where found on Mars after 40 years of Star Trek etc. most people half expect there to be someone on other planets.

And if they did find anything like that NASA would be in a very strong position for a manned Mars mission - I don't see what anyone gains from a cover-up.

I know it's not likely, but I still hope that they'll move a rock and see a little bug scuttle for cover.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hello Timble,

Yes, I am aware there were two. But the BEAGLE has inexplicably disappeared??? What explanation have we of that particular mystery???
My point was more in line with governmental tactics that have been outlined since the UFO flap of the 40's which is to keep things of this nature (regarding Extraterrestrial life) under wraps BECAUSE people will panic.
It would not surprise me in the least if there is a second, unidentified Rover in Cydonia, searching for any Extraterrestrial threat to this mission.
Perhaps the whole story about the missing BEAGLE is a hoax and the beagle is in fact the second, secret rover???
I am just looking at this logically.
There are things you don't want the public to get a rush on and panic about, if you are in a position of power and the only thing to keep any surprises, whatsoever from cropping up, is to survey the immediate area, prior to televising or opening it up to public scrutiny which would mean, if the government and nasa are infact using their brains, they will have sent another rover, secretly to investigate and pull off the harder work, whilst the spirit just zooms around taking pictures of the horizon and some rocks.

WW
 

diamonddogs

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
264
Reaction score
13
Points
49
Four miles to the east and you'd have seen a MacDonalds and Ikea....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
WonderWoman said:
Hello Timble,

Yes, I am aware there were two. But the BEAGLE has inexplicably disappeared??? What explanation have we of that particular mystery???
[/B]
It landed, it broke?
It fell in a big hole and couldn't open/power up/be bothered?


My point was more in line with governmental tactics that have been outlined since the UFO flap of the 40's which is to keep things of this nature (regarding Extraterrestrial life) under wraps BECAUSE people will panic.


Hence the 60 year government plan to instill apathy into the general populace through the use of television, big brother and pop idol. So successfull was this plan that such an announcement would barely flicker across the human consciousness unless it happened to interrupt a particularly exciting ground force episode.


It would not surprise me in the least if there is a second, unidentified Rover in Cydonia, searching for any Extraterrestrial threat to this mission.
Perhaps the whole story about the missing BEAGLE is a hoax and the beagle is in fact the second, secret rover???

I am just looking at this logically.
[/b/]
Obviously. ;)


There are things you don't want the public to get a rush on and panic about, if you are in a position of power and the only thing to keep any surprises, whatsoever from cropping up, is to survey the immediate area, prior to televising or opening it up to public scrutiny which would mean, if the government and nasa are infact using their brains, they will have sent another rover, secretly to investigate and pull off the harder work, whilst the spirit just zooms around taking pictures of the horizon and some rocks.

WW


There's not much secret or covert about Beagle. I know a few people who worked on it and let's just say if Beagle was broadcasting, it wouldn't take much for the public to get hold of it's raw data stream. Although, if you wish to fuel the American conspiracy you could say that was the main reason for it being 'silenced' :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hello Siriuss,

LoL! I do sound like a conspiracy theorist, don't I.
I think I need to lay off the morning latte's...they may be druggin me.
Oops, there I go again.


WW
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hello,

I've always believed they live underground. That would explain the glasslike canals embedded in the hills. Walkways perhaps(???)
We never know when we ourselves, may have to go underground.

WW
 

dot23

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
7
Points
69
A little tangential, which is unusual for me ;), but thought readers here might be interested in this round up of the problems potential colonisers have on the moon, let alone Mars:Working on the Moon

I found one part particularly interesting:
The trip means leaving the protection of Earth's magnetic field. Astronauts aboard the International Space Station orbit low enough to stay shielded, but going further means exposure to cosmic radiation and occasional intense solar flares. Apollo astronauts experienced high numbers of colourful flashes sometimes called "ghosts", caused by charged particles passing through their optic nerves.
I've never heard of this phenomenon before, and although the Earth is shielded, surely this must happen occasionally, and if so, what other phenomena could be attributed wrongly (UFO sightings themselves could be the result of charged particles, for example).

I think getting man on the moon permanently is a great idea, as launching any other missions (ie to Mars) would be a lot easier from Luna than from here.

I was very sad to hear about Beagle's demise (although they are making one last ditch sweep to locate it, I fear it is lost), a classic underdog tale that had no happy ending. Still, the Mars Express got there, and as others have before, I must applaude that.

As a final note, I find all this competitiveness in the space race utterly depressing. Man's greatest endeavour since glacial migration is treated as a political tool by ephemeric politicos whose only real interest is looking good on TV and money. Why can't the ESA/ NASA/ Russia and China have a joint lunar project? It would make much more sense than all these half-arsed, half-funded attempts for Mars, bringing international scientists and govt. money together would get the job done in half the time (a decade) and be a lasting monument to world peace. After all, there's not much on the moon worth fighting over; or is there? :eek:

And you thought WWs comments were 'extravagent', Sirius ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Don't get me wrong, I like a conspiracy as much as the next person and have always harboured secret hopes that the consistent failure of Mars landers was down to Native Martians protecting their secrecy. Unfortunately, there are plenty more satisfying and probable reasons for the failures, which ultimately come down to human error and over-confidence (hard pills to swallow I know).
As for competing nations in space, I'm all for it. Competition is the drive that leads to the biggest leaps in invention and science in the world today. WIthout it we wouldn't have had a man on the moon when we did, wouldn't have split the atom, wouldn't even have a rocket to take us into space. Competition also means diversity, different ways of solving problems, and ultimately different advances and greater overall knowledge!
Although, world peace would be nice ... :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Stop wasting money on Mars...the martians don't like us Earthlings! They destroyed the Rovers (and if they're anything like a Land Rover, they were broken down pieces of crap, anyways....)
The martians probably sold them for PARTS! ;)
 

Renigirl

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 12, 2001
Messages
217
Reaction score
3
Points
49
Agreed

Competition is the drive that leads to the biggest leaps in invention and science in the world today. WIthout it we wouldn't have had a man on the moon when we did, wouldn't have split the atom, wouldn't even have a rocket to take us into space. Competition also means diversity, different ways of solving problems, and ultimately different advances and greater overall knowledge!
Definitely. Although I'm quite skeptical of Dubya's plans to beef up NASA launches/research etc. (I'm finding it all a little too diverting of attention), I do think a little old-fashioned space-race competition is healthy for technological development.

As far as NASA's Rovers go, I was frankly surprised at how many people were ready to call the whole thing a failure when the first one had its problems earlier. The American public is so conditioned to accept only full and total success that smaller ones cannot be celebrated. It is, however, much more difficult to convince people that the massive, massive amounts of money involved with such endeavors is useful if there are substantial successes, so it's something of a double-edged sword. I myself am guilty of complaining about Dubya's plans, even though colonizing the moon and attempting to send people to Mars are events I've wanted to see in my lifetime ... just that I don't fancy paying for them, I guess. It's also shocking that people don't care more about the Mars rovers right now ... I could probably stop 10 people on the street and perhaps 3 of them would know what was going on. It's scary, I'm telling ya.

I did read in the initial story from the second Rover landing (Opportunity, I believe), NASA's people were "flabbergasted" by what they were seeing from it. Whatever that means. I'll see if I can dig something up and add a link later on.

Anyway. I'm a bit of a lurker, so I guess I'll go back to that. :D
 

austen27

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 9, 2001
Messages
1,187
Reaction score
15
Points
69
I always think its atrange that there are so many Ameican's keen to denegrate their nations greates achievements! Why do people come up with all these conspiracy theories abou NASA's Mars and Moon landings being faked? Is there a conspiracy to say that Mark Twain was a bad author?;)
I find also it odd that the US should make films trying to take the credit for British victories in WWII when it has so many real victories of its own in that war.

Come on Americans - you are the only nation to sucessfully land probes on Mars (five times since 1976) be proud of that!:)
 

wembley8

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,999
Reaction score
10
Points
69
"WIthout it we wouldn't have had a man on the moon when we did, wouldn't have split the atom, wouldn't even have a rocket to take us into space"

You make it sound as though these were good things.
Nuclear weapons and energy - what a boon to mankind those have been, eh?
Man on the moon - better than ascending Everest? Does it really make any odds?
As for rockets, living in South London I am well aware of what von Braun's masterpiece can achieve. When the North Korean's put up a satellite, it wasn't because they want to put up their own Sky TV...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Wembley said:
As for rockets, living in South London I am well aware of what von Braun's masterpiece can achieve. When the North Korean's put up a satellite, it wasn't because they want to put up their own Sky TV...
But what about all of the met-sats, com-sats, as well as environmental remote-sensing satellites? ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hello Everyone,

Has anyone here ever spent a day checking out all the Mars related pics on the JPL, NASA and MALIN center websites?
Anyone ever notice the apparent airbrushing, or tampering of the pic's?
I read a lot of fashion magazines and I am an amatuer photographer. I know what airbrushing looks like and many of these images are tampered big time.
So my question is, If there is NO life on mars, why tamper with the photos? What are they hiding?

And finally, anyone see the pic of the giant colossal head-like sculpture? Hey, the SPHINX was under sand (up to it's nose) for a long time until Napoleons army dug it up. So we may have a similar thing here.

Here is the link to Malin so you can judge for yourself:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04 ... 00163.html
 

MrSnowman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
874
Reaction score
20
Points
49
I've had a scan through a few of the pictures. amd you're right, there does seem to be evidence of photo-trickery in some of the pictures. However, one has to wonder whether it was a part of the photo that was somehow garbled during transmission, and they've just done it to smooth it out. On some of the 'raw' pictures, you can see that there are pixel jumbles and black squares where something clearly has gone wrong... or has it??

Interestingly, check this out..

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04 ... 200164.jpg

At the bottom centre of the picture there appears to be a grimacing Gigeresque half-buried bald man's head. Who says that we don't make pictures out of things that aren't there...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hello Mr. Snowman,

That is the exact same pic I linked to in my message. The massive head.
It's too uncanny that it should stick out of the pic like that.
I understand what you are saying about the transmittion obscuring the pics, but I am mostly talking about smoothed out areas that have obviously been artificially smoothed out because they do not fit with the sorrounding terrain and appear blurred when everything else in the sorrounding area is clearly defined.
Here is an example of photo tampering at this link:

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evid ... pering.htm

WW
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,238
Reaction score
9,119
Points
284
WonderWoman said:
Has anyone here ever spent a day checking out all the Mars related pics on the JPL, NASA and MALIN center websites?
A DAY? You'd need weeks or months to check them all out!

I've spent many a happy hour exploring Mars this way. And there are many interesting pics that have neither been airbrushed OR satisfactorily explained. (Like the tree-like formations that A.C.Clarke said suggested banyans, and many others.)

I used to have a collection of them on my old computer, but sadly that died. (Backups? What are backups? [blush])

What's so special on
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04 ... 200163.jpg ?
It's a long image - whereabouts is the sphinx, or tampering, or whatever?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hello Rynner,

Just my opinion, but that pic has a lot of areas that are too smooth and appear to have been tampered with. Fer sher!

WW
 

MrSnowman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
874
Reaction score
20
Points
49
That's a totally different link Rynner... Where on Earth (or Mars *chuckle*) did you dig that one up from? I once had an outstanding collection of space pictures, but my hard drive went *zing* and the collection was hence known as a non-collection :-(

WW> That's an interesting page, but aren't those photos taken from the Viking missions? I'm thinking that the long distance transmission of photographic images in those days wasn't quite the science that it is now, and we're merely looking at patchwork photos where the definition and resolution on some areas isn't as good as the adjoining ones. There is one which piqued my astronomy gland, however, where there are clear smudgings in one frame photo of a crater. I suppose you could assume that, again, there was interference through transmission and it's just a tidy-up job or that there were indeed some aliens sunbathing on that particular day...
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,238
Reaction score
9,119
Points
284
WonderWoman said:
Just my opinion, but that pic has a lot of areas that are too smooth and appear to have been tampered with. Fer sher!
But Mars is a desert planet - deserts do have smooth areas.

(I know, having spent several months in the Sahara! Some bits rocky and interesting, some bits full of dunes, other bits just flat and stony and boring.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I refuse to believe Mars is a desert planet! I think the whole idea of Mars being a dead, desolate planet is all hogwash! Mars is alive and so are its inhabitants.
I refuse to believe otherwise.

WW

P.S.,
I should know! I am a Martian! lol
 

Bullseye

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Messages
921
Reaction score
275
Points
94
rynner said:
And there are many interesting pics that have neither been airbrushed OR satisfactorily explained. (Like the tree-like formations that A.C.Clarke said suggested banyans, and many others.)
There were pictures of that in the now defunct UFO Magazine,damn good they were too.
 
Top