It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Beagle 2 missing what a surprise NOT

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2003 @ 12:18 PM
well the probes gone missing what a suprise not, looks like we need to wait for mothership to get to Mars in January to look for it properly.

Do you really think its a coincidance that loads of space probes go missing round Mars?

so much proof seems to point towards some sort of cover up going on with Mars an surrounding area of space.

USA, Russia, UK, Japan probes all gone funny, or lost no trace etc etc..................... cough COVER UP cough

pictures of mars surface around cydonia region:

weird looking pyrimids.
face like structure.
tunnel like trench's.

also other pics from other areas on Mars from NASA:

weird liquid oozing out of ground.
Mars comming out of an iceage?
pictures on ground like the big pictures found on Earth like the white horse an those African ones of like runways, man like pic etc etc but ones on mars are of dolphins an scorpions.

Russian space probe picking up an infa red pic of some sort of huge disc like thing in near orbit of Mars, looked like a big very very big flying saucer, then the Russian probe was lost.

loads of space probes lost more than coincidance if you ask me.

also i think it was a Russian lander that actually made it to surface picked up a shadow behing its arm before being lost, shadow was weird as Mars is meant to be lifeless, so wtf was moving?

probably more stuff if you can think of anything else or add to what i said please do.

posted on Dec, 28 2003 @ 12:32 PM
I think there is something there every probe that has been there has failed. Either its to far for us to keep communicating with our technology or something is destroying them or capturing them. There talking about sending astronauts there as well but I don't think there is any chance of that happening with all these probes being 'lost'.

[Edited on 28-12-2003 by Mikomi]

posted on Dec, 28 2003 @ 03:08 PM
I definately agree there is something wrong with all this. I dont think they had this much trouble exploring the moon... i dont think sending a manned mission is quite wise untill they can get some probes to land there and not lose contact... wierd stuff is happening up there and i think we'll know sooner or later... just sit tight

posted on Dec, 28 2003 @ 03:17 PM

Originally posted by specialasianX
...I dont think they had this much trouble exploring the moon...

Moon was like our backyard, not too far away, compare that to Mars.

Mars Express is so called because it was built more quickly than any other comparable planetary mission. So they are bound to be troubles.

Landing is not so simple as shown in sci fic movies and books. They are a million things to be accounted for when landing the Beagle 2 or anyother lander on Mars.

And we don't know a whole lot about Mars or its atmosphere or its gravitational effects. I won't be wondered if all the losses were connected to gravitational effects of Mars.

If there were Aliens living on Mars, they would be either underground or in very early stages.

If they did shoot down some of our probes, what about others?

[Edited on 28-12-2003 by surfup]

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 08:14 AM
maybe the are not on Mars but patrol area so some our probes make it through while others dont, i dont know but its just seems so weird that this happens around Mars only, all other probes we send else where get there also voyager probes made it to Mars ok an continued on and outwards they still send data back too.

go here and look at these pics:

Monolith Graveyard:

very spooky pics all taken from NASA originals so no tampering with them.

also i should say that some explanations from NASA are pure bs and just like the Roswell ufo explanations cough its a balloon or bird cough ahem hem and we are meant to beleive that?

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 08:20 AM
Alright, I've been waiting forever for some probe pictures, and now I've been jipped again.

What the heck is going on up there?

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 08:27 AM
While we've flown by further planets, you must consider that LANDING on a planet, via remote, is intrinsically WAY more difficult than simply passing by.... You're trying to slow down, maneuver, and then land a vehicle (by remote or programming), from going multiple MACH speeds, to zero. It only takes a freak wind, etc. to throw it out of whack. I'm sure Valhall could elaborate more on it, but I think you see the point...

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 08:36 AM
Considering this was the first attempt at landing a probe by parachute (initially), it wasn't a big surprise it went wrong.

This link on BBC covers some of the major concerns quite well. Click

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 08:43 AM
This is all such a hoax...specialasianx...the reason we didn't have as much trouble getting to the moon is because we never went, it was a hoax. if we had been there so many times, surely we would have set up some sort of research would be a lot easier to explore space with a telescope from the atmosphere, no city lights, etc...

it's all rediculous really.

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 09:15 AM
This just goes to show how difficult it is to land on another planet it is. There is no hoax and there are no little green men shooting the probes down.

The beagle was on a restricted budget too, no backup systems, it was always possible something would fail.

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 09:44 AM
Lukefj, uh its also a hell of a lot easier to just place a telescope in earth orbit (can you say Hubble?) than land one on the moon. Perhaps you could learn something about the lunar missions (anything, really) before jumping onto your little hoax bandwagon.

As far as the mars missions, many factors make Mars a much harder target than the moon. Apart from the obvious distance and orbital factors. Mars has a gravity that is much greater than the moons, and also has an atmosphere to further complicate matters.

Maybe we could wait for the NASA rovers to land (first and last week of January) and see what they find.

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 09:49 AM
Personally,i think it was a technical problem during it's descent through the atmosphere.We might hafta re-think the low-budget missions.

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 10:16 AM
Ok,now it might be blocked by a crater.

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 10:32 AM
Nice link...thanks. I especialy loved this line...

Beagle 2 would be only the fourth successful Mars landing if all goes well.

while more have been attempted, as you can see, there are no little green guys thwarting all of them....

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 02:01 PM

Although it is true that it is easier to set up a simple sattelite or probe (hubble), surely their are numerous benefits to having an outpost on the moon (possibly manned). As I said in my earlier post, it has never been adequately proven (to me atleast) that anyone ever landed on the moon to begin with.

IF we haven't gone there, then clearly it will be very difficult to land anything on Mars. I'm not saying that little green men grabbed the lander, not even close. I'm not sold on the idea that we have been as far as is traditionally thought.

PS. Fairly hostile for a moderator...this is a board where people are allowed to post what the believe to be true. Simply disproving my post is a muich more effective means of discussion, rather than ignorantly attacking my knowledge of lunar missions.

PSS. The lunar missions are truly fine tales.


Believe what you wish...but deny ignorance...let the American government spoon feed you as much macho crap as you like. It is unfortunate that the European probe didn't make it...I'm sure the American probes will (laugh).

Does it not seem strange that only now the probes are being sent to Mars as it moves further from our planet, rather than planning appropriately and sending them when Mars was closest in the summer? Amazing with all of this technology we still can't plan properly.

[Edited on 29-12-2003 by Lukefj]

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 02:12 PM
Its this simple. When you do something half-assed, it wont always work. I read an article praising the scientists that managed this project. It stated how wonderful it was that they did this on such a "tight budget".

They also took tiny jabs at the United States. Claiming that the US landed the only three successful attempts on mars. They did this with "High Budget" projects. Almost making it seem as if they were saying "ha! look what we did for half the cost."

Truth of the matter is that there is no conspiracy. No little green martians. The project was under-planned and under-funded. If it turns out it was a failure (which it may or may not)...whos fault is that? The US may have spent more money on their projects....but it seems that spending more money to get something to land is better than spending half as much and wasting it (at least to me).

[Edited on 12/29/2003 by Seapeople]


posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 04:15 PM
Lukefj: you should go here and read some things about the moon landings and how they wern't faked.

I agree about what others have said about the Beagel. It was just underfunded, didn't use top of the line parts either i believe, no redundant systems. That's a huge mistake in my opinion. I've even read things as to the design of it's heat shield for entering the atmosphere. It was more curved then most heat shields. That could have affected its entry too. There are just so many possibilities to consider before claiming, "aliens did it!"


posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 05:08 PM
Also. It looks like we'll have some more Mars stuff happening this weekend

One of NASA's probes will be landing and the 2nd one will land on Jan 24th.

posted on Dec, 29 2003 @ 05:16 PM
After so many efforts and expense it seems obvious that man should have better luck landing on the moon what amounts to being a crude robot.

Remember we did do this before but it was some time ago and not once since.

I believe it is one of the two current theories going around:

Either a blackout or a shoot down by alien intelligence that decide they do not want us there anymore or again.

I tend to prefer the blackout idea because if Aliens etc., did not want us snooping then we would have never landed a probe ever and we would also have difficulty holding a satellite in orbit around the red planet.

There is also one other explanation and that is the lack of understanding of conditions on and around Mars but the only explanation for this is that they have been worsening because as stated above we did succeed before did we not?

posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 12:52 PM
jra: thank you for the link. I will look through it with an open mind and possibly come to some new conclusions regarding moon landings.

It should be interesting in the next couple of days to see wether the American missions will turn out better than the European.

I still don't understand the timing. Does anyone have insight into this? Why not time it so that they were landing when Mars was closest several months ago?

<<   2 >>

log in