Mike,
great fact finding... mission complete on ice/water on Mars. I wonder how close 'total recal's' story line truely is....
Star, Flag and Digg my good sir!

Did anybody even read my goddamn post? You are the most unscientific bunch of kooks I've ever chanced to hear opinionate, and I thought *I* was a kook.

I cannot believe that the train of logic for this thread that everyone is debating is "Did NASA # with the colors of the pictures? If so, then they must be hiding something, and if they are hiding something, there must be life on Mars! #!"

Aaack.

why is it there's always a "cover up". why can't it be stuff just takes time. this isn't an episode of star trek. it's gonna take kirk a looong time to go where no man has gone before.and as you heard bush say were gonna go their anyway. "please don't bash me saying the "B" word". i know the gov. keeps secrets, but it's gonna take time to release all the tech they have too. you can't just hand out nuclear batteries or teleport technoligy while the ahkmeds of the world are still jihading around. i don't get why peeps don't want a new world order where everywhere is the same. we have to "grow up" the rest of the world to be able to advance any further. call me a nuttjob but isn't that basically what the show star trek is all about and we all love it.

Originally posted by special ed
why is it there's always a "cover up".

"Let me count the ways"
Cover up the coverup. It goes on and on. Stop and look for yourself that's all.
People are not say they know how things work (most of them). So can see there thing don't add up. If they can't be added then somethings wrong. You can see if you allow you're self to, speaking of my work now. I
f you look for it water it's everywhere on Mars. But mainstream says Mars is all dry.
Cover-up or covered-up?

Originally posted by Balez
As one poster said, NASA would probably gain more fundings if they would show everything they find, and there by saying that NASA have not found anything in particular.
Not sure i can agree to something like that, since we hardly know what the 'bigger' picture is, or if there is a bigger picture.

I think the bigger 'picture' is alot more scary than we want to know

I agree. All evidence says so. I think it possible that the life "out there" issue might erode control of evangelical sorts if it came out. Perhaps that is one motivation for concealing what they found on Mars.

Anyway... Great post, Mike. [smile]

Originally posted by BlasteR
Pretty convincing stuff.

-ChriS

[edit on 6-4-2008 by BlasteR]

Correct

It's not so much "of" a cover up as it a censor.
Like pornography is not publicly mainstream (hardcore) yet.
Water on Mars is thought of something children should be kept away from. It not a cover up, it's fear of something, unfounded in my book.

These are the sunflower faced dragons with generally round or oval heads. They sometimes have humanesque faces,and some look maniacal.

Originally posted by special ed
besides what would be the point of even sending the landers there if not to discover something.

They are in reality micro mining machines THAT is the point and that is why opportunity landed in that hematite rich location... they were however surprised to see the hematite in the form of round nodules, and in such quantity... since that form of hematite usually forms in water...

And that is why its spent so much time studying that same area and drilling into rocks looking for fossils



"Use of terminology, e.g., 'mining', could be considered (by some countries) to constitute a violation of the International Space Treaty. Thus, NASA is real-careful about use of terminology that could be considered a breach of 'Policy and Protocol'.I can give you this stuff as it's 'public information'. You have to look between the spaces/lines for more info and draw your own conclusions. Dr Resnick




[edit on 6-4-2008 by zorgon]

That's an entirely different topic though IMHO. We really have to end this war on science that has gone on for the last 8 yrs under the Bush administration. When I heard bush say we were going to mars and going to build moon bases I knew he was lying. Just as I knew when he got reelected we were in for a long, rough ride.

He just wanted to be the one to get the credit for saying those big words "we're going to mars". The big difference between Bush and Kennedy is that Kennedy actually meant what he said. Bush is just spitting out words on a piece of paper without thinking first. He sais one thing and then cuts funding to almost all science missions NASA has been working on. Some which had components already built. All that money that went towards those projects was wasted when the Bush administration flipped the switch from science to war.

Later on after the Bush Administration's 2008 Nasa budget was met with public outcry they decided to pump a little more money in and salvage a couple of the more meaningful science missions. But we we have basically been lied to in order for the Bush administration to pump more money into a war that should have never started in the first place. Your government dollars at work.

-ChriS

Originally posted by internos
Landing the Mars Exploration Rovers
Matthew P. Golombek, John A. Grant, Timothy J. Parker, Joy A. Crisp, Steven W. Squyres

The areas that satisfy the basic engineering requirements of the mission represent just 5 percent of the surface area of Mars and form the starting locations to begin identifying potential landing ellipses. This
first-round elimination of 95 percent of the planet results from three basic criteria: elevation, latitude and surface dust.

The rovers will be powered by sunlight. This constraint eliminates most of the planet. The landing sites must be close to the equator — specifically, between 5 degrees north and 15 degrees south for the first Mars
Exploration Rover (MER-A), and between 10 degrees north and 10 degrees south for the second (MER-B).

I think this is only partly applicable, an excuse trotted out to the public so no one questions them as to why the heck they can't land at Mars North/South poles if they want to find water which is one of their main objectives.

The Viking Landers touched down at 25 deg and 40 deg North Lat (approx). How come? I think this is some sort of conspiracy here. Their contention that they cannot land obove 10 deg North Lat is a lot of hot air.

Agreed mike.

It seems that the further north or south you would go would be the most interesting spots on the planet due to the potential for seasonal melting of the ice which would result in flowing water as NASA has already photographed on Mars at different geographical points on the planet. I'm sure that they were not ignorant to this then. The only reason they would say that is to "cover their tracks". At the time, everyone was so mystified by the photos and news coverage that noone was really paying close attention to the details of the conspiracy, which we are debating about now. Everyone just assumed that Nasa was being honest just like people still do. Personally, Me and you know better.

-ChriS

No one is hiding rvidence of life on any planet or space junk out there. It was in the news meaningless and uninteresting as it was. The fact is there is no evidence of any life anywhere other than here on earth thus far and the idea that anyone here is hiding anything regarding alien life is down right silly. If anyone reading this actually believe any of the Roswell or Area 52 crap may I sugget you ought to first get a life before YOU proceed. No disrespect intended but your life is too short to waste it on this foolishness.