Why NASA cant tell the truth about Mars

NASA cant come straight out and say their is biological life on Mars, because it would leave most of the worlds religions running for the life boats, So they seem to be going for slow disclosure, instead. It seems that the first mariner mission, with its two experiments, gave them the correct answer to give a disclosure, but they declined to verify. It also seems that Phobos is hollow. That ancient Mars was Oxygen rich, and today the sky is blue, their is running water, and at certain times methane is detected in the Atmosphere. Their are also a lot of anomalies, that if we are not there with some secret space program, then their is a high probability that some one is.
I thought this was an interesting vid that recaps some findings, and has a look at a few monoliths, and something that looks like a glass dome.

a reply to: anonentity

I wish it were true unfortunately theirs no life on Mars. Its a dead planet. Like the earth will be soon.

Their might be life on Mercury or pluto though.

Its easy to control you with lies..

a reply to: anonentity

Maybe you are correct... In today's world no matter who says what from a government people are always looking to catch them lying.. Simply because they have been exposed for lying before.

a reply to: anonentity

Sounds more like:

NASA is not telling me what I want to hear, so I'll make something up to explain why.

a reply to: 727Sky

Can't trust "officials",
Can't trust "government agencies",
Can't trust "fairy-tale gods",
Can't trust "religion",
Can't trust "education".
Can't trust "medicine",

Damn, what's left to trust and believe? Some random youtuber with a nervous twitch who claims he has all the answers, if we just like and subscribe?

Might as well go with:

I don't trust anyone who makes more than I do, and I don't make very much at all.

a reply to: Cygnis


Or once a monkey always a monkey.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: anonentity

Sounds more like:

NASA is not telling me what I want to hear, so I'll make something up to explain why.

This × 1000.

Yes us religious people are going to run for life boats....
Because you think that you know why

Truth is we are hoping to escape certain people with certain ideas about us

Do you really think that NASA matters outside of the US, really
You don't think seti, Buford, cufos and the many of others care about nasa and what they do and don't release
You don't think that these organisations are dictated to by nasa

I recently posted about a washed up sea monster, it was a whale
I wanted it to be a sea monster, believe in sea monsters, but it was a whale after all

Don't blame religion, blame the lack of evidence

a reply to: anonentity
It goes way back before NASA.

Both Phobos and Deimos were discovered in 1877 by American astronomer Asaph Hall. The moons appear to have surface materials similar to many asteroids in the outer asteroid belt, which leads most scientists to believe that Phobos and Deimos are captured asteroids.

mars.nasa.gov

How come Jonathan Swift mentioned the two moons of Mars in Gulliver's Travel in 1726? More than 150 years before it was said to be discovered?

Maybe it's on Chapter 3, A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan for those who want to fact check.

a reply to: anonentity

NASA isn't saying anything because there is nothing to say.

Mars is not hospitable to any life above microbes-no liquid water, no protection from solar flares, and any "monolith" discovered is pareidolia just like the face on mars, no rock formation could last a few million years without succumbing to Mar's vicious sand storms, and Phobos is more than likely a captured asteroid, and larger asteroids are made from smaller asteroids because they coalesce from gravity and can appear to be "hollow."

Next thing NASA won't be telling us is that the moon is a death star populated by reptilians, there is nothing doing on Mars-maybe at the poles, but nothing larger than a brine shrimp if we are lucky.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: anonentity

How come Jonathan Swift mentioned the two moons of Mars in Gulliver's Travel in 1726? More than 150 years before it was said to be discovered?

Perhaps they were discovered but not documented, or perhaps it was just coincidence. After all the Heliocentric system was poo pooed by many but turned out to be true, Maybe Swift heard a story from an astronomer colleague and ran with it, but the rest is history-just like Da Vinci's helicopter.

I truly don't see the religious community going bat # crazy for the notion of life on other world's.

If this is correct they should be freaking out over the discovery of new world's.

If you listen very closely...and make not a sound. You can hear them....

not giving a #.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie
Could be all possible. I checked if Swift was a member of a secret society, so far nothing except the obvious- the Church.

My math is rusty, but from what I understand from those who checked Swift's figures, they say it was better than a ballpark figure, which will be really weird if it was true. Please consider, here's the whole paragraph from Chapter 3:

This Load-stone is under the Care of certain Astronomers, who from Time to Time give it such Positions as the Monarch directs. They spend the greatest Part of their Lives in observing the celestial Bodies, which they do by the Assistance of Glasses, far excelling ours in Goodness. For, although their largest Telescopes do not exceed three Feet, they magnify much more than those of a Hundred with us, and shew the Stars with greater Clearness. This Advantage hath enabled them to extend their Discoveries much farther than our Astronomers in Europe. They have made a Catalogue of ten Thousand fixed Stars, whereas the largest of ours do not contain above one third Part of that Number. They have likewise discovered two lesser Stars, or Satellites, which revolve about Mars; whereof the innermost is distant from the Center of the primary Planet exactly three of his Diameters, and the outermost five; the former revolves in the space of ten Hours, and the latter in Twenty-one and an Half; so that the Squares of their periodical Times, are very near in the same Proportion with the Cubes of their Distance from the Center of Mars; which evidently shews them to be governed by the same Law of Gravitation, that influences the other heavenly Bodies.

Emphasis is mine.

Mars is a very desolate place not very hospitable to life of any kind as we know it. Here are some points:

1. Mars is a very dry place with no water in any significant amount although scientist see a discoloration in surface areas and assume that its water with no proof of what it is.

2. Mars is a highly electrified place with frequent whirlwinds that scorch the surface giving the impression that something is moving on the surface. Well it is, an electrified whirlwind.

3. The atmosphere is made of of mostly C02. Carbon dioxide: 95.32 percent. Nitrogen: 2.7 percent and a few trace gases to be precise.

4. The sky on Mars is a butterscotch color during the day with a rose color during sunrise and sunset. The atmosphere is only blue in the vicinity of the Sun in the martian sky.

5. Anomalies on Mars are nothing but rocks with strange shadowing or debris that has fallen off the rover.

5. It is unknown if Phobos is hollow although it has the strange feature of a large crater on one side.

Here's a nice analysis of the Gulliver's travels thing:

theness.com...

which basically says people kind of thought there might be two moons, so he ran with it.

As for the OP I agree with others: you can't decide there should be something, then use the fact that no-one has found that something as proof that it is being hidden. It may just be that there is nothing there to show.

NASA isn't hiding anything, neither are any of the many other space agencies who have researched Mars and even landed on it. Nor have they been proved to have lied about anything. NASA is not space science. It is not the sole arbiter of all things space.

a reply to: 727Sky

The old adage how do you know a politician is lying.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
Thank you for the link, it was an interesting read. I enjoyed the parts where Steven Novella or should I say Dr. Steven Novella throwing shades at the unenlightened.

I could be wrong, but why do I always have this feeling after reading or listening to skeptics that they are always sure they are right? Last time I checked the definition of a skeptic is a person inclined to question or doubt? Oxymoronic?

Maybe we can agree that it was a weird coincidence?

never a straight answer!!!! If Mars is as dead as we are led to believe, then why do we keep going back there?

originally posted by: eManym
Mars is a very desolate place not very hospitable to life of any kind as we know it. Here are some points:

1. Mars is a very dry place with no water in any significant amount although scientist see a discoloration in surface areas and assume that its water with no proof of what it is.

2. Mars is a highly electrified place with frequent whirlwinds that scorch the surface giving the impression that something is moving on the surface. Well it is, an electrified whirlwind.

3. The atmosphere is made of of mostly C02. Carbon dioxide: 95.32 percent. Nitrogen: 2.7 percent and a few trace gases to be precise.

4. The sky on Mars is a butterscotch color during the day with a rose color during sunrise and sunset. The atmosphere is only blue in the vicinity of the Sun in the martian sky.

5. Anomalies on Mars are nothing but rocks with strange shadowing or debris that has fallen off the rover.

5. It is unknown if Phobos is hollow although it has the strange feature of a large crater on one side.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.foxnews.com...

A giant deposit of buried ice on Mars contains about as much water as Lake Superior does here on Earth, a new study reports.

The ice layer, which spans a greater area than the state of New Mexico, lies in Mars' mid-northern latitudes and is covered by just 3 feet to 33 feet of soil. It therefore represents a vast possible resource for future astronauts exploring the Red Planet, study team members said.

"This deposit is probably more accessible than most water ice on Mars, because it is at a relatively low latitude and it lies in a flat, smooth area where landing a spacecraft would be easier than at some of the other areas with buried ice," co-author Jack Holt, of the University of Texas, Austin, said in a statement. [Photos: The Search for Water on Mars]