Mars Landing Video Footage

Just found this video:

www.disclose.tv...

Description: "Top secret video leaked from NASA about the first (unoffical) landing on Mars in 1962."

Is this true or a hoax video?

Terra

I believe this is from the "Alternative 3" tv show that was aired on the BBC back in the 70's, and I think there have been forums on this all through ATS. The common thesis is that it is a hoax, just the dialogue would be enough for me. I am sure there are many more members that know about this than me, and could direct you to the links Cheers!

Seems way fake, the voices, and the way they see something move STRAIGHT away! lol, but Im still open to the possibility that its not fake, but seems fake to me.

But the flying and the area was cool.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by _Phoenix_]

Here's a link en.wikipedia.org...
That should help

Great - thanks for your clarification and the link to Wiki

Terra

definatly fake. besides isnt there a few minutes of delay in radio waves from mars because its so far away?

Originally posted by fuzzkill
definatly fake. besides isnt there a few minutes of delay in radio waves from mars because its so far away?

in between 10 and 20 minutes depending on the Earth-Mars distance.

Yes, also found the conversations strange for that time... and russian american mixed...?!

Originally posted by fuzzkill
definatly fake. besides isnt there a few minutes of delay in radio waves from mars because its so far away?

But its a probe I think, nobody is in the ship.

Wow I got to say that looks REAL!! Todays CG quality is about the same. That is a real landing of something,and that terrain
is real imo. And did we even have pics of mars back then, it looks like it does.

I have heard some interesting things about this film over the recent months.

Alternative 3, from one stories' account, is a cover story for the real deal. Theoretically, similar to the Serpo story, something happened relative to contact in the 60's.

Now, I don't know for sure one way or another about the video. I didn't go to the Wiki site. Its reality is irrelevant to my concern.

I am the kind of "researcher" that looks for commonality among topics. For example, the insistance that Close Encounters of the Third Kind was based on a real story. Yes, I know this is more Serpo speak, but the insistance goes back before Serpo and last summer.

Or, the insistance that Carl Sagan was privy to the retrieval of some sort of beacon that was monolithic and this caused him to pen 2001.

It seems that, time and again, there was some sort of contact event being portrayed, along with visitation by Earthlings, to another planet. There is a commonality here.

With disinformation so abundant, along with misinformation, along with various degrees of accurate real information, the only thing you can do is look for a commonality among topics to try to discern the basic shape behind the curtain.

I'm not buying this. It just seems too much of a coincidence and rather cliche that the one indication of life on Mars has to being moving underground. They just coincidentally happened to land in a place where life is supposedly present, and wouldn't you know it...it doesn't appear on the surface but is stealthily crawling just beneath the surface! That is too much to swallow!

You mean, out of all the logical and sound reasons to debunk this video, all you can say is that the life form was not in the correct location for you? It is a bit presumptive to assume that it is indeed a life form, actually, and not the slow collapse of some natural tube like structure.

Originally posted by SkyWay
I'm not buying this. It just seems too much of a coincidence and rather cliche that the one indication of life on Mars has to being moving underground.

They just coincidentally happened to land in a place where life is supposedly present, and wouldn't you know it...it doesn't appear on the surface but is stealthily crawling just beneath the surface! That is too much to swallow!

Thats all I see wrong also, but the video sure looks real.

Could it be possible that the sound is the only thing fake?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Or, the insistance that Carl Sagan was privy to the retrieval of some sort of beacon that was monolithic and this caused him to pen 2001.

Sorry; wrong. "2001" was written by Arthur C. Clarke and based on his original short story called "The Sentinel" originally written in 1948. I remember reading it in the fifties. When 2001 came out I thought it sounded familiar. Indeed, in his book "The Lost Worlds of 2001" (NAL:1972) Clarke recounts how he came up with the idea and reprints the original story.

In other words, no aliens required.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
Could it be possible that the sound is the only thing fake?

Maybe but listen to this- www.disclose.tv...

That one Nasa guy sounds alike I think, what you guys think?

Originally posted by NLDelta9
Maybe but listen to this- www.disclose.tv...

That one Nasa guy sounds alike I think, what you guys think?

This seems like an older video. For example, it claims all the missions to Mars since Phobos have been failures. That's no longer true. The latest pictures of the Mars Face have pretty much demolished that issue. But further, I don't think you could get more subjects in 10 minutes of film! It goes from Mars to the Moon to the Shuttle and back to Mars again. I kind of wish it would focus!

i've seen that before , i think it's a fake . the sound is kinda " star treky "
don't ya think ?

[edit on 30-4-2007 by gen.disaray]

The fact that someone would think for even a second that this is genuine is upsetting.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Alternative 3, from one stories' account, is a cover story for the real deal. Theoretically, similar to the Serpo story, something happened relative to contact in the 60's.

Like the Serpo story, it's a complete fabrication. The technology (what little is shown) is not authentic for the time period, and the footage is not that of a spacecraft descending but of edited footage of a flyover of Earth terrain. You can tell this by the sudden cuts in viewpoint and by the very terrestrial geology.

I am the kind of "researcher" that looks for commonality among topics. For example, the insistance that Close Encounters of the Third Kind was based on a real story.

But only very slightly. It would be a mistake to conclude anything based on that account.

Or, the insistance that Carl Sagan was privy to the retrieval of some sort of beacon that was monolithic and this caused him to pen 2001.

That's Clarke, not Sagan. If Sagan had been privy to that kind of knowledge, we would ALL know about it by now. He was arrogant and opinionated and felt that we didn't do enough for the space race, and wasn't afraid to write and speak about such things. Clarke's story, as he has said many times, is simply something he made up.