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.


MSM outlet reports "Is there a Mars Conspiracy"!

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 08:05 AM

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Elliot

why spend billions on missions to mars if they dont want to find anything?

Its called "job security". You would be amazed at how silly government work can be.

At the local VA hospital, a relative of mine works as an admin assistant. She spilled her coffee in the hallway and was cleaning it up. The janitors threw a FIT. Why? Because she was doing THEIR work. She was reprimanded and told to not do it again. Stupidity. Deep stupidity.

If you get a billion dollars a year in funding to study the behaviors of the Snipe, you don't worry about it being a non existant bird meant to pull pranks on kids and "city folk". You find ever increasing elegant ways to measure and observe Snipe behavior.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 08:55 AM
This is on the blogs page of TimesOnline.

There's no solid references to what the author said or claimed happened.

Probably libel.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:31 AM

Originally posted by errorist
Why the hell would NASA search for life on Mars when they know on forehand there won't be any (even if there is) ? Why send all the fancy equipment only to cover up the results?
There must be other ways to burn tax dough no?

Yea, a simple answer to that is that they are sending those probes and landers for specific tasks and lying to us about it..

How far fetched is it for NASA to be sending those landers to test for resources for mining in later years while already knowing about life on the planet?

By pretending that Mars has no real resources or organic life forms, the private sector won't take a huge interest for another few years because they would deem it almost impossible with current technology to set up mining expeditions and that would leave it open to the powers that be or the US government to claim the resources.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 03:00 PM
this is the entire post from the link of the OP..

I'm posting this because it's completely relevant!!! you must read...

13 Things That Don't Make Sense: The Most Intriguing Scientific Mysteries of Our Times by Michael Brooks

The Sunday Times review by Christopher Hart

For all the achievements of science during the 20th century, its great heroic age, there remains a surprising number of absolutely fundamental questions still to be answered. Questions as basic as What Is Life? and Why Do We Die?

In this fascinating, bang-up-to-date report from the outer limits of scientific knowledge today, New Scientist writer Michael Brooks examines 13 of the most urgent scientific mysteries in turn.

One of the great discoveries of 20th-century science was that our universe is expanding. The discovery, however, led straight to another puzzle. The puzzle is, there's nowhere near enough matter to prevent the expanding universe from blowing apart completely into a vast, sterile infinity of lifeless interstellar dust. So how come we live in a lumpy universe, one of the lumps being the planet on which we live? There must be more matter than we can see: the famous dark matter and, to go with it, something even more mysterious - dark energy.

To date, however, there's not a shred of evidence for either, even though teams of scientists have been looking for years. (The UK's search “takes place 1,100m underground, in a potash mine whose tunnels reach out under the seafloor”.) The only alternative to dark matter is to tweak Newton's most fundamental laws of physics and suggest that they don't apply everywhere, all the time, in quite the same way. But physicists are a law-abiding bunch, and detest this idea.

In his next chapter, however, Brooks considers the curious afterlives of the Pioneer spacecraft, which only seem to cast more doubt on the universal truth of Newton's law. Pioneer 10 and 11 are now 8 billion miles away, “far beyond our solar system, drifting silently out into the void”. In 2m years' time, they will crash and burn in the star Aldebaran. Except that neither of them have quite followed the course they were supposed to - every year they veer 8,000 miles farther away from their intended trajectory. “Nasa explicitly planned to use them as a test of Newton's law,” explains Brooks. “The law failed the test; shouldn't we be taking that failure seriously?”

If that weren't enough of a revelation, there's alien intelligence as well. And here we have one of modern science's greatest mysteries: the Wow! signal, so-called because the man who first registered it simply scribbled Wow! on the read-out sheet. It is the only signal ever received from outer space that is utterly inexplicable - unless, as Brooks points out, you grant the existence of alien intelligence.

In 1959, two scientists wrote an article in Nature, describing what an intelligent alien signal would probably sound like. They predicted a radio signal at a steady frequency of 1420Mhz, referring to the most obvious universal constant, the element hydrogen. Nothing in nature would emit such a deliberate signal. And on August 15, 1977, a receiver in Ohio picked up just such a signal. “A few hours later,” notes Brooks dryly, “by coincidence, it should be emphatically noted, Elvis Presley died.” He also reminds us of William of Ockham's famous razor: given a number of possible explanations, the simplest one is always the best. And the simplest explanation for the Wow! signal is alien intelligence.

But surely such an intelligence wouldn't send out just one signal? Well, that's just what we've done ourselves, actually. In 1974, Nasa beamed out a message to star cluster M13, just once: a stream of binary digits that ET and his chums should easily resolve into what Brooks calls “a crappy Atari Pong-style picture of a person”. Arthur C Clarke put it best, though. Either we're alone in the universe or we're not. “In either case the idea is quite staggering.”

Back on earth, points out Brooks, science still can't define what “living” means, as opposed to inanimate, nor can it explain death. Especially since some species, such as Blanding's turtles of North America, don't age. They die from injury or illness, but not from cell death like us. Sex also gives scientists a terrible headache. Why do we do it? In terms of expenditure of time and energy (not to mention income), having to attract a mate is a ridiculously costly way of self-replicating. Many species simply sub-divide, like amoeba, or practise virgin birth, like the solitary Komodo dragon in London Zoo in 2006. She thus passed on 100% of her genes without having to flirt, diet or splash out on Jimmy Choos. But sexual reproduction reproduces only 50% of you, with no guarantee that it'll be the best 50%.

While on the subject of sex, Brooks also explains that scientists remain mystified by the process of courtship. It's a myth that females choose the biggest and flashiest males - hence the peacock's tail, the stag's antlers. In reality, naturalists have often observed a couple of alpha stags bashing away at each other during the rut, while the females, getting bored, slope off to mate with some less well-endowed and less aggressive beta male. The evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith named these beta males (and this is official) sneaky f*****s.

Some biologists think that sex arose in response to death. Once our evolutionary ancestors, the eukaryotes, started using oxygen as a fuel, they had much more energy, but also suffered a lot more cell damage. Think of rust: it's what happens to iron when oxygen gets to work on it. As Brooks says, there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you start burning oxygen, your metabolism has a powerful source of energy, but it's also going to suffer extensive cell damage due to free radicals. So sex arose as a way of reshuffling your genes along with your partner's, in the hope that the resulting new combination - your offspring - will evade damage.

Freewill is the biggest puzzle in this book. As Brooks points out, human civilisation is built on it: law and order, praise and blame, good and evil. Yet most neuroscientists declare it doesn't exist. “Freewill is a fictional construction,” says Steven Pinker. But this is a puzzle in itself. Why isn't Pinker a passionate opponent of any punishment for crime, in that case? You might as well discipline a great white shark for swallowing a surfer. Do Pinker et al really believe war heroes don't deserve medals, or war criminals prosecution? Or are such “experts” just enjoying saying something wildly controversial, without really believing it themselves, let alone putting it into practice?

The experiments they adduce to disprove human freewill are less than impressive: attaching an electrode to your head and them making you wiggle your fingers involuntarily. More proof than this will be needed. Elsewhere in 13 Things, there are numerous examples of scientists making mistakes, refusing to see the obvious, or simply following the herd. On freewill, I choose to believe that they're wrong.

Like all the best science popularisers, though, Brooks reawakens us to the astonishing fact of our mere existence, the strangeness of the world around us, and the astonishing amount that science has yet to discover. A writer once called South America “a continent of inexhaustible wonders”, which is quite true. But it's true of the rest of the universe as well.
13 things that don't make sence

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:04 PM
Back in January of this year,NASA did report of finding plumes of Methane gas on Mars.
When the plumes were actually discovered I don't know,but if Volcanic activity is dead on Mars,(the official scientific line) then there must be some old Fart knocking about there that they didn't know about!
Here is a link to a interesting new Cydonia picture,

[edit on 16-6-2009 by smurfy]

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:10 PM
reply to post by zorgon

Thanks for the clarification.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:24 AM
When isn't NASA hiding the truth? We know they have a department that specifically removes images in pictures and crops them out with edited square boxes that don't fit at all in a natural way....

NASA stands for...Never Allowing Someone Answers or Never Admitting Secret Affairs

[edit on 6/17/2009 by AceOfAces]

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:53 PM
reply to post by Dermo
Yes,I really agree with you on your major points. I'm the original artist of the Mars rovers and orbiters 1987,and have waited half my life for the truth about life on Mars. I have pics of people ,animals,fossils on Mars since 2004,and some from 1976 landers(Viking). for pics

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:54 AM
reply to post by AceOfAces
We asked this innocent bystander on Mars if Nasa is witholding information about Life on Mars.

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 04:41 AM
No doubt there is Op and plenty of evidence around/anomalies to make it pretty sound evidence as they say! but Nasa will look in the other direction?

We can not upset the religious population can we? as we might have to admit to other life forms that may exist on other planets be it intelligent or not.

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:05 AM

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
reply to post by Dermo
Yes,I really agree with you on your major points. I'm the original artist of the Mars rovers and orbiters 1987,and have waited half my life for the truth about life on Mars. I have pics of people ,animals,fossils on Mars since 2004,and some from 1976 landers(Viking). for pics

Your altered images do nothing to prove any point and only destroy any anomalies from being studied further by the public and give the skeptics more ammo.

To be honest they are realy bad.

Do not take offence but you try and manipulate everything on most Mars Images

In a nut shell "you realy piss me off"

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Bob Down Under]

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:01 AM
If Nasa was not MASKING much of what I present,I'd never have to present and they would be fairly obvious to all(life on Mars). But that's not the case,so highlighting buried/masked images,albeit imperfectly,is one way to alert other researchers to dig for the truth,like hunting dogs. It's a challenge for the commoner who is used to HDTV and National Geographic pristine images.We don't have that luxury with many low res pics offered,bits and scraps.The GOOD STUFF,Nasa isn't releasing.You can be sure of that.It would blow their cover story.
Some people can't acept new information or see what's unfamiliar to them. They can see rocks,though.Famously!
Nasa BLACKFACED the evidence and corrupted it,MAMMY.Realize it!

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link Talk to the Mask. Far left edge,1/4-1/3 way down from top.
Hopefully the original will dissolve your doubts about the real faces on Mars.

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:39 AM
Here's the real irony to the original article: Dan Brown already wrote a novel that involves some of the plot points mentioned in this thread.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 02:31 AM
Is there a Mars conspiracy? Here is a Man from mars 1976 Viking lander. Yes overcolored for emphasis for the "ROCK PEOPLE".
I was 18 years old when we were denied the truth about life on Mars.I'm age 51 now,and had to spend 5 years using photo programs to find what Nasa has covered up and would rather not release....ever. Is there a Mars conspiracy?

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:42 PM
Here's a quick comparison of the Mars1976 guy and a small Earthbound alien caught by chance among other faces in the blurry shot.
I can only point them out and not explain them.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in