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.


Is NASA using smoke and mirrors on Mars?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:14 AM
How sure are we, that what we see is what is there?

It’s a daft question, but when you think about it, not that difficult to do.
The pictures from Mars, are they really from Mars or computations from a graphics engine?
NASA has the technology to create these images not from the Rovers, but from a computer programme that creates an artificial terrain.
The real images, if there are real images, are transmitted to a separate set of co-ordinates.
The fake ones, showing what has already been pre-programmed, has enough juicy bits in it to keep conspiracy theorists happy looking for alien artefacts and ignoring the glaring truth.

Why would they do such a thing though?

One reason, is that if alien life is, or already has been, discovered, the images will not leak to the public and remain safely locked away, for our own protection of course.

A second reason is money. With such a low success rate for not just getting to Mars but also landing, NASA has to justify the millions of dollars it spends on missions to the people who fund them.

If it has done this, how would you know?
Just like the moon landings, you can’t just wander over and make sure the Rovers are there.
Check the graphics that have been released?
They have computers, programs and technology more powerful than we can estimate. We only know of the stuff they decide to release or tell us of.
They’ve already admitted to altering photographs to make them look more natural

So, ignoring the objects you’ve seen and the hours spent pouring over the pictures with a magnifying glass/zoom, how certain are you that what you see is actually what is there?

Personally, I think the pictures are real, but I know you people love a good conspiracy.

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Mark Roazhar
Personally, I think the pictures are real, but I know you people love a good conspiracy.

...and this IS a very good one, Mark.
I think that the pictures are real, but i'm still open minded about it; i've also noticed that the more one knows the technical details, the more he/she gets convinced that they are real.
It can, technically, be done, yes it can, in my opinion. It can be re-created a virtual environment with the smallest details, but.... what really would be the purpose? The money that have been spent for the missions to Mars are real... It would be better and easier to say that we can't get there.
I mean, it would be a huge lie which would need to involve a huge amount of people, organizations, companies, not to mention governments (not just the U.S. one), it's not like the common speculation about "NASA airbrushing images", it's a far more far-fetched scenario, which would need to involved every single "ring of the chain".
I mean, if they need to airbrush some images, then all that they would need to do is to control the people who receive data straight from the sources (and this is not so difficult to do). But to create (and to CONTROL) a gigantic lie like this one, would be not just a matter of money, of power, of control...

Yes, my take is that they are real, but that this is a very good conspiracy.
Star and flag from me

[edit on 19/5/2008 by internos]

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by internos

Once a program is up and running it wouldn't need that much babysitting.
To actually build something like this wouldn't be that difficult. As in the Manhattan project, individuals wouldn't know exactly what they were working on, so they wouldn't have anything to deny or question.
So you can shorten the chain quite quickly just with that.
As control goes, its easy enough to hold control over someone, you just take a leaf out of the Nazis book as to when they got to France. Don't threaten the individual, threaten everyone they hold dear.
Perhaps the people who are to be threatened, are actually the people controlling the program or with the reason behind it, which case your work is done.

Adding a little 'airbrushing' gives a conspiracy theorist something to chew on and not question the whole picture.

We know governments can lie, but if you can control where the truth is so that people can't find or see it, it makes it a whole lot easier.

As for claiming it wouldn't be possible to send to Mars, wouldn't wash. We know they can as Viking proved, not to mention Voyager I & II who managed to fly exactly as predicted.

If they already knew what was there, as in the Face on Mars or the Pyramids, they may have decided that there was no choice in the matter and taken appropriate steps 'in our best interest' of course.
The idea of a civilisation predating our own, or even influencing ours would undermine evolution theories as well as religions.

As I've stated, this is just a bit of a fun conspiracy and is to establish if it is possible and to have a little fun with the idea, and NOT actually saying Mars pictures are a NASA hoax

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:52 PM
reply to post by Mark Roazhar

I know that you aren't stating that it's a hoax.

Yes, it could be done, and there's also a long list of valid reasons to do that, and even a long list of WAYS in order to achieve such a target.
Let me also say that your point is more clear now.
My take is that all the technology involved in the missions to Mars is someohow available (at least) to our knowledges: if one would decide to check every single component, then my guess is that all will turn out to make sense, but of course no one is able to go there in order to see what really rovers' and orbiter's cameras are actually catching. About WHAT software to use in order to do it, well some time ago i've seen in action something that anyone would find interesting, and that would be VERY useful in such a scenario: yes: expensive, complex, difficult to use and even to unterstand: but no one of these problems would be an actual obstacle. This theory is not easy to dismiss.

[edit on 19/5/2008 by internos]


log in