Did NASA Fake the Mars Rovers?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
So basically everything is fake, NASA scientists know absolutely nothing about anything, the entire space program is a deception to fake industry into making technology and there is no such thing as communication.

Is that about the jist of this thread?





posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I don't see why this has evolved into 3 pages.

The OP doesn't believe its possible that we can send a signal to Mars, and that a signal can go from Mars to Earth, so therefore its impossible.

The OP says that scientists involved just might fake photos or evidence, so they obviously do, just because he thinks it.

Not once has he provided any "evidence" or claims to back up any statements, just basically says "well they could be lying so lets talk about it".

Yeah, this is a valid argument.




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
First off, I think the mars rover is real, I am not really educated enough about space craft/communication technology to say it's not possible, so I am just going to assume my common sense is correct. But, I would also like the point out (from studying fractals and how they can be used to create computer generated landscapes) I know we do have the technology to fake it all, although I doubt we did fake it, Im just saying it isnt really that outlandish.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I personally believe we did send rovers to mars. It is easy to send unmanned objects into space. Now if we sent manned missions to mars, then I would question.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


It's just as easy to send humans to Mars. Easier than we make it out to be to send just spacecraft. The problem is the cost of production. We have several sub-light engines that work and could get us to the edge of the Solar System in a week or less.

But it's simply not cost effective to rapidly produce or manufacture at the moment. So you must slowly gear a society around an endeavor that large.

It's more about human capital than anything.

And as a side-note. I never claimed any of it was fake. Simply that it could be, and you honestly don't know due to your own personal involvements. I was just pointing out that most humans take things at face value from figures of authority without any actual proof or observations of their own to find meaning in it.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


Hi Derek,

Apparently so.

Hopefully on the next mission the OP will be included so they can experience things first hand and not waste everyone's time with this sort of thread....

Peace!



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by dragnet53
 


It's just as easy to send humans to Mars. Easier than we make it out to be to send just spacecraft. The problem is the cost of production. We have several sub-light engines that work and could get us to the edge of the Solar System in a week or less.

But it's simply not cost effective to rapidly produce or manufacture at the moment. So you must slowly gear a society around an endeavor that large.

It's more about human capital than anything.

And as a side-note. I never claimed any of it was fake. Simply that it could be, and you honestly don't know due to your own personal involvements. I was just pointing out that most humans take things at face value from figures of authority without any actual proof or observations of their own to find meaning in it.


But risking a man's life is a different story.

2nd line



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Hi dragnet,

I'd happily risk the OP's life - I'm not mean.

Second line

Peace!

[edit on 12-7-2010 by The Wave]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


All new adventures require risk, but it's consensual. I think skydiving is more dangerous.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DizzyDayDream
Lol, thread extension:

Age of OP?

12?

pre-teen rant thread, offically dead.


Ooh! You should look at the post you made.

I'm proud to type in complete sentences!
They probably didn't teach you literacy in school?


What comes from chickens for the process to lay eggs?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
So basically everything is fake, NASA scientists know absolutely nothing about anything, the entire space program is a deception to fake industry into making technology and there is no such thing as communication.

Is that about the jist of this thread?



Why would they send anything into space with unknown amount of debris ?

I have to rethink the use of money to fund the mars rover program.

Depends how you see the shooting star.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
I don't see why this has evolved into 3 pages.

The OP doesn't believe its possible that we can send a signal to Mars, and that a signal can go from Mars to Earth, so therefore its impossible.

The OP says that scientists involved just might fake photos or evidence, so they obviously do, just because he thinks it.

Not once has he provided any "evidence" or claims to back up any statements, just basically says "well they could be lying so lets talk about it".

Yeah, this is a valid argument.



Thank you for the inductive reply to this thread.

What about the space debris that is unknown to NASA?

Why not try creating a rover yourself?


[edit on 13-7-2010 by Erad3]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
I personally believe we did send rovers to mars. It is easy to send unmanned objects into space. Now if we sent manned missions to mars, then I would question.



Why are you believing this argument?

I found this challenging for space exploration.

I have to think of the space debris and signal for communication.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by dragnet53
 


It's just as easy to send humans to Mars. Easier than we make it out to be to send just spacecraft. The problem is the cost of production. We have several sub-light engines that work and could get us to the edge of the Solar System in a week or less.

But it's simply not cost effective to rapidly produce or manufacture at the moment. So you must slowly gear a society around an endeavor that large.

It's more about human capital than anything.

And as a side-note. I never claimed any of it was fake. Simply that it could be, and you honestly don't know due to your own personal involvements. I was just pointing out that most humans take things at face value from figures of authority without any actual proof or observations of their own to find meaning in it.


Why would they accept the project for space debris to collide during travel?

They have an unknown certainty of the space debris that's between Earth and Mars.
How scary for this project to be accepted without evidence of space debris!


[edit on 13-7-2010 by Erad3]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Erad3]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Erad3
 


You could have a million items of debris from here to Mars. Due to space being 3-dimensional and well, "space". The chances of hitting anything are beyond cosmically small.

They also have more advanced version of "radar" which tell you if something is in the way and to avoid it.

NORAD tracks some hundred thousand pieces of debris an hour from just our orbit.

We get RF signals from stars billions of light years away. Communicating wirelessly through space isn't a challenge.

The only reason you or I can't do it is mainly...

1. It's illegal for civilians to launch ANYTHING beyond a certain ceiling without government approval. (Propelled items, not balloons etc. In America anyways) [Loved that Billybob movie
]

2. The amount of material required to construct something strong enough not to be obliterated by gravity as it leaves the Earth is huge.

3. The man power to just do the physics to find a trajectory and flight time is ridiculous.

4. Money is always a bottom line.

It's not hard, just can't do it by yourself with our current system of economics.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


NASA's definition of space exploration is basically like a drunk rabbit running around in circles. All they know how to do is build telescopes and look at far distance solar systems and just drool.




NASA:

No Advanced Spaceships Allowed



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Erad3
 


4. Money is always a bottom line.

It's not hard, just can't do it by yourself with our current system of economics.



I know this program could cease to exist because of the uncertainty in knowledge from Earth to Mars.

NASA has no idea of the space debris from the earth to mars.
NASA has no idea of the atmosphere of mars.
NASA has no idea of the conditions of the weather on mars.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Erad3]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Erad3
 




Why would they accept the project for space debris to collide during travel? They have an unknown certainty of the space debris that's between Earth and Mars. How scary for this project to be accepted without evidence of space debris

Why would explorers cross the oceans when they knew there were storms that could sink their ships? Why would they go when they thought there were monsters that would eat them?

Exploration of any kind involves dealing with the unknown. That's what it is about. Fortunately, humans are pretty good explorers.


[edit on 7/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Not only will I stay on topic with this thread, but bring deductive arguments to the thread.

This isn't a topic about the underwater whatever.

This is a topic for the faked NASA Mars rovers.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Erad3]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Please bring information to this thread that concludes the layers of atmosphere for mars.

How is a scientist testing the layers of the atmosphere to know the facts?
I'm not accepting that mars posses the same layers as the layers of earth.

If NASA knows the layers of the atmosphere for mars then NASA factually-knows the layers of the atmosphere for mars through scientific experiments.
NASA doesn’t factually-know the layers of the atmosphere for mars through scientific experiments.
Hence, NASA doesn’t know the layers of the atmosphere for mars.

How are you accepting this faked program from the government?


[edit on 15-7-2010 by Erad3]





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum