Curiosity Has Not Landed - But Is Good Entertainment For The TV Brain Washed Masses

reply to post by LoveisanArt


Not at all, my knowledge comes from years of education, experience, involvement and the ability to verify information relatively independently. Fortunately for me I don't have to rely on statements from strangers coming from a box in the corner like you evidently do. But there's no point bragging on about things that can't be verified and I'm certainly not posting my CV/etc online in the midst of psychotic nut jobs, like the guy that shot the senator that was a member here and believed the space program is fake.
As for my avatar, its called a sense of humour. Look it up

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by LoveisanArt

 

Not at all, my knowledge comes from years of education, experience, involvement and the ability to verify information relatively independently. Fortunately for me I don't have to rely on statements from strangers coming from a box in the corner like you evidently do. But there's no point bragging on about things that can't be verified and I'm certainly not posting my CV/etc online in the midst of psychotic nut jobs, like the guy that shot the senator that was a member here and believed the space program is fake.
As for my avatar, its called a sense of humour. Look it up

I'm gonna concur with you on all counts.On a side note-I love your avatar--that's one of my favorite episodes and every time I see your avi I smile,it brings me a bit of joy.

I'm assuming NASA has the means to decide whereabouts this thing was going to land. With all the talk about structures on Mars and whatnot, why didn't they aim for a spot like that? Who cares if it finds water? Show me a picture of a structure standing there and the whole mission was worth it.

But no, just more pictures of rocks.

reply to post by chrisb9


I don't understand why this is getting starred and flagged. I have to wonder if you're for real or if you're on here to poke fun at people. I think the latter.

Anyone who believes the moon landing was a hoax is an idiot. Anyone who believes the mars landing was a hoax is an even bigger idiot.

Your signature:

No amount of information or actual photographs will ever convince the skeptics...

"skeptics" - like people who are "skeptics" of NASA and the Mars Landing

I wouldn't call the people who would buy into your OP skeptic just gullible.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by LoveisanArt

 

Not at all, my knowledge comes from years of education, experience, involvement and the ability to verify information relatively independently. Fortunately for me I don't have to rely on statements from strangers coming from a box in the corner like you evidently do. But there's no point bragging on about things that can't be verified and I'm certainly not posting my CV/etc online in the midst of psychotic nut jobs, like the guy that shot the senator that was a member here and believed the space program is fake.
As for my avatar, its called a sense of humour. Look it up

uhhh okay left brainer.. if you were a hermit all your life and have the knowledge you do now then yes you are right.. but you arent. Your knowledge comes from schooling, university, which is other peoples logic TEACHING YOU. You didnt come up with it.. "science" and someone else did, you just photocopied it to your memory, smart ass...
You rely on statements from Nasa to belive in the rover, so again.. you have hinderd your intelligence guy
Its cute humour, from a character who is an intelligent boy in a mans body, a reflection of yourself.

There's more to life then thinking you know everything .. left brain dominance

Peace child.

reply to post by LoveisanArt


I'd rather be a 'left brainer' than a no brainer..
So how did you come to your conclusions that its all lies?

Is it because you shut yourself off completely? (Obviously not or you wouldn't be on here).
Is it because you read or listened to someone else?
Explain exactly how you came to your way of thinking please.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by Plotus

 

... others are successfully receiving the signals from the MSL coming from... Mars.. While I understand the Ops concerns that people shouldn't believe everything the media tell them, to say that anyone who believes the rover landed is a sheep, etc is prickish behaviour to say the least.

Okay PROOF:

"others are successfully receiving the signals from the MSL ..."

Exactly, thank you.

If I tell you I'm gonna climb yonder mountain, and you say that my head's up my butt because it's too high and I'm not that good ... and besides, you think I lied about climbing that other mountain anyhow (even though i did & brought back rocks) ...

So, I tell you I'll shine a flashlight from the mountaintop as proof that I made it ... Would you not accept that as proof of my journey?? Or is there a way I could fool you?

MSL's high-gain antenna is exactly that flashlight. Radio signals are nothing more than encoded light of a color that our eyes can't perceive. -- I'm not talking about signals from the orbiting data-relay satellites ... talking about the rover itself ... shining its light straight back to Earth ... and just like the flashlight on the mountaintop, ya gotta actually go there to do it ...

Proof?? ummm ... We see it there. Why isn't that good enough?

Some say that the 'dark side' is in control the communication dishes that receive these (alleged) signals anyhow, and we're being duped at that point ... but would other countries who monitor us, like China, play along?? If so, then the conspiracy is truly complete, NWO is comfortably in place, and we should all feel even more embarrassed for participating in this incredibly stupid thread and try to get off this rock ...

AgentSmith is right ... it's the smmmelllllllll ...

Some of us have the ability to 'verify' what we already know and may even have more direct involvement or access than most.

apparently, the mere access to 'real' information makes one gullible, and liar if one speaks of it...

reply to post by Plotus


"This argument conveniently disregards a basic axiom of logic: The burden of proof is always on the claimant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

Where is this often quoted law laid out? Who defines this? Who decides what an extraordinary claim is, and what constitutes the required extraordinary proof? It is a typical meaningless get out quote to absolve the person making it from providing either an explanation or proof of their own.

"It is logically impossible and logically contradictory to require another person to prove that something does not exist. We can only prove that something exists; nobody can prove that something does not exist."

Nice one! Atheists are clearly always going to be on the back foot here. Atheists should pack up and go home lol

Using your own axiom of logic, we are presented with photographs which look like they could have been taken on earth. The photographer claims they are taken not in the mojave desert, but on mars. What is the extraordinary evidence to prove that mars is indeed the location, and not a mundane earthly location?

Kauskau wrote:

what are you laughing at so vainly ..

there are even competitions about that stuff you don´t want to believe in..but sure..all fake

www.youtube.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friend kauskau

At the beginning of the video you can read:
FLIGHT # 2
Northrop Grumman
Lunar Lander Challenge
$ 1M Level 2 Attempt by
Armadillo Aerospace
Sept 12, 2009

At this link
www.northropgrumman.com...
you can read:
“At its Bethpage, N.Y. facility, Grumman Corporation, now part of the Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems sector, designed, assembled, integrated and tested the Lunar Module (better known as the LM), the famed Eagle of the Apollo program. Between 1969 and 1972, six Grumman lunar modules carried 12 astronauts to and from the surface of the moon and one – Aquarius – served as a lifeboat for three astronauts during the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission”.

If Grumman corporation was able between 1961 and 1972 to build 14 lunar modules “Snoopy” (6 landed prodigiously, amazingly, perfectly, precisely, safely just in the desired place), why this prodigious company in 2009, almost 40 years later, would have promised 1 million dollars to poor artisans if they had been able to build a rocket capable of landing backwards on its own flames?

BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT THAT PRODIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY AND ARE TRYING TO INVENT IT OR LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY ABLE TO DO IT.
Ah, Ah, Ah Armadillo Aerospace is directed by JOHN CARMACK, a skilled video games developer:

en.wikipedia.org...

IT IS EASY FOR HIM TO FAKE VIDEOS

As this John Carmack, that likes video games and rocketry, is not able to build an authentic lunar lander (first astronauts called the LEM “Snoopy” because they knew to be in a comic strip), he also is looking for somebody able to do that:

Because he is poor, the prize is $ 5000

www.armadilloaerospace.com...

These are the best attempts of Armadillo Aerospace:
www.youtube.com...

At 2:05 minutes one of the artisans says: "Let's try a liquid catalyst"
He must be the prodigious child, more intelligent than Einstein.
These attempts are very fine, MORE AND MORE AND MORE FUNNY THAN CANDID CAMERA

BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, WITH LIQUID CATALYST ALL PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED, YOU MUST SAY
THIS WONDERFUL DISCOVERY TO NGTFC, NORTHROP GRUMMAN TECHNOLOGY FICTION COMPANY

reply to post by sinthia


You're right, can't prove that something doesn't exist ... but we really don't need you to.

No great task to prove that Curiosity indeed exists, we can see it right here from Earth (through point-source radio signals). Why isn't seeing good enough to believe?

Can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow either can I? ... oh, well I guess I can ... by waiting 'till tomorrow when I'll actually see the thing ... you might not think that's proof, but it's good enough for gullible me...

So, we don't need you to 'prove' that Curiosity doesn't exist. However, it would be nice to hear a rational reason why you suspect it doesn't -- besides just calling NASA a liar -- that's as empty as trying to prove God by simply quoting scripture...

reply to post by LoveisanArt


So your claim is that your logic is somehow superior to others because you created it from thin air? Yeah right.

reply to post by excentryk


Dodgeball deluxe. Who here can prove for themselves that Curiosity is on Mars, and that the images that look exactly like those of earthly deserts are from the rover on Mars?

Being told that they are from Mars by NASA is not proof.

Where is the extraordinary evidence?

reply to post by sinthia


Okay sinthia, I'd say that the fact that Russia and China aren't crying foul, because they're also detecting the signals, is a fair piece of 'evidence' for the rover being there. They see it too. Sure, this isn't conclusive proof by any means, but it is a significant piece of evidence that doesn't involve just taking NASA's word.

That's a fair answer. not conclusive proof, but a fair piece to consider.

Now please respond to my previous request: please tell me if you have a rationale for your skepticism -- besides just not believing what NASA says ... but if that's the entire basis for your belief, then just say so and conversation is over.

Originally posted by Maxatoria
we've had proof for ages that theres life on mars and we've been there

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE someone add in the "Not Impressed" girl from the olympics!!!

this photo is already outstanding and I think that would top it off nicely!!!

I think the proof that this thing is actually likely to be on Mars comes from the fact that someone feels the need to tell us it isn't.

What I'm curious about is the psychology behind a mind that *wants* it not to be there.

Why?

reply to post by ThatGuy45


Hahahahahahahaha!!!

reply to post by neformore


Because we are pissed off with goverments and politicians that want to take the piss out of us. They tell us what they want and they say a lot of lies.
Your goverment told lies about 6 moon landings never done, twin towers destroyed with controlled demolitions.
Your agencies Standard & poor's, Fitch, Moody's are trying to speculate on Euro, they are making war to Europe without weapons.
Leaders of all countries in the world must meet and take important decisions to save the job for people, to discover another energy for cars and industrial machines, to preserve the environment for children and so on.
Leaders must not divert our attention with fake enterprises.
We are not gullible people.

reply to post by SkepticGuy


But... you are gullible if you don't believe this.

Simply because there are too many people, from all over the world who are capable of monitoring this. They are capable of hearing the signal commands sent out, and received back, and measuring the timing, comparing it with rudimentary and simply science (speed of light, distance, time), planet orbit and spin. They can decode the signals being sent, understand the telemetry and work out for themselves where things are.

And they are not necessarily governmental people, they are independent scientists, amateurs, astronomers and radio hams - from all around the world.

reply to post by kisharninmah

Anyone who believes the moon landing was a hoax is an idiot.

You mean "brain challenged individual".

Didn't you get the memo? You have to be comletely PC and sterile.

Or do these rules only apply when mods disagree with what was said?

Btw, regarding your statement, you are a brain challenged individual.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by LoveisanArt

 

I'd rather be a 'left brainer' than a no brainer..
So how did you come to your conclusions that its all lies?

Is it because you shut yourself off completely? (Obviously not or you wouldn't be on here).
Is it because you read or listened to someone else?
Explain exactly how you came to your way of thinking please.

Everyone has a brain.. so you hinder intelligence again But I'll give you points because you have a childs mind

My conclusion is they have lied over..and over.. and over. They have airbrushed over..and over..and over. You dont have any true evidence that it actually happend, you dont have evidence that there is a man-made rover operating on another planet right now. The only evidence you could come up with is statements by this non-public organization, and the fact that a few billion dollars in tax payers money is gone!

You can stop sucking Nasa's nipple, its time to grow up and percieve the true reality. Not the one they want you to percieve. Your missing out on the good stuff "reality" has to offer.

Keep givin this guy stars too people its child arguments like this that you crave...