Are you kidding? This is just footage from a B movie. Not even as good as Capricorn 1.

Everyone know, we never landed men on Mars.

I dont think its real, at one point it looks like you can see coast line and waves then the static comes. Kind of conveniant if you ask me.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Are you kidding? This is just footage from a B movie. Not even as good as Capricorn 1.

Everyone know, we never landed men on Mars.

What movie?

Originally posted by jpmail
I dont think its real, at one point it looks like you can see coast line and waves then the static comes. Kind of conveniant if you ask me.

If it was filmed on Earth, where? The footage is clear enough to determine the flight pattern if we knew where the location (on Mars or Earth) is.

Nowadays it doesn't cost much to go to the USA or Africa, rent a helicopter to obtain similar footage which you edit a little by adding more red. But back in 1977 things were a bit more complicated and expensive. Would it fit in the budget of "Science Report"

Originally posted by Regenstorm

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Are you kidding? This is just footage from a B movie. Not even as good as Capricorn 1.

Everyone know, we never landed men on Mars.

What movie?

Hmm Wait a sec folks.. I didn't see the Alternative 3 film.. ( got a link?) Are you guys saying this film is really suggesting we went to Mars?

if so, I should check that out. Thinking this was in no way supposed to be real, I was assuming it was from a bad movie.

I want to add that in the article that Autowrench mentions - Classified Advanced Antigravity Aerospace Craft Utlizing Back-engineered Extraterrestrial Technology -

They mention the TR-3B.. now I don't know about the other craft on that page, but I had a bunch of scientist from a popular science forum take a good look at the TR-3B and they saw all the data that was supposed to tell how it flies.. why it works.. they told me there is no way this can be real and the explanations defied known laws of physics.

In the paper sited above, when they mention the TR-3B for proof they point to a Popular Mechanics magazine. I saw the article. There is nothing to suggest the two craft arr related. Just the guys word for it.

My point is, I would investigate very carefully before you believe something is real. Do I believe NASA is lying to people. Yes. Do I believe all the craft sited on that paper is real? No. I cannot. There is always some truth in Disinformation.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

The footage itself is very clever. The dialog is just what makes it so unbelievable. Horrible acting. I am thinking it was shot in Northern Arizona.

no way man. no- way- in - hell, is this real. that kind of maneuverability in 1962? and a flight all the way to mars? "we're making history." --- no you're not if this is a super secret, never to be seen video.

i will give you a star though because this made my night. i'm in a great mood already.

I'm not sure what else to tell ya. I don't have any software that can map the terrain and analyze it against desserts on earth in the 60's/70's... I'm not sure anyone does.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the static bars going across the screen that I mentioned, also the blip in visual and not audio. This is during the video in question. I feel you are jumping the gun. It's authenticity is in question, therefor I don't understand why the local matters just yet.

As I mentioned earlier:
Also, the camera/craft is flying fast in one direction then suddenly at 48:56 the picture goes into static and all choppy, yet the voices seem to be playing without any irregularities or hiccups over the static, when the picture returns the craft is drifting suddenly? huh?!?!!? Watch it. And the static bars that go across seem to be layered or placed. I know from my old TV, when this happens it caused the image to be pinched or rippled where the static bar would appear. Not the case here. It looks placed over, and the image appears unaltered behind the so called static bars.

With the terrible acting and those inconsistencies. it only further substantiates any editing or manipulation. I have come to the conclusion that this is indeed not authentic. Therefore the location is meaningless.