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.


Woman Claiming To Be Former NASA Employee Says She Saw Humans Walking On Mars In 1979

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 06:16 PM
I actually have to say something here..

First Science is defined in two categories

1)Button Sortin

2)scientific method

This is the first step in this discussion
is making sure you understand this..

Do you..

Science is the scientific Method

Rinse and Repeat

I have not seen any of that mentioned here
The only close no prizes are the conversations over someone hinting politely the woman suffers dementia and may be wrongly placing events
And one were specualtion come about

But keep in mind what we are discussing
You do NOT get to claim Hoax because it does not fit in your world view

It annoys the piss out of me

Part one and two have problems when type one think their type two
Type one are the types that become yes men

Which type are you
Because science is all two
the rest is type one

So far those crying hoax strike me as type one not two

I will further defend the position

First test
Did the technology exist to do this

Second test
Did the personnel exist to do this?

Third test
did the resources exist to do this?

Forth Test
Did the will or leadership exist to do it?

We have not reached the ladies stories
The first part of the smell test is could this be done

I have to assume yes
The only thing I put a question mark on is the streaming but.. If certain things are their..

so before I go into her story more do the ney sayers claim the pre-requisites for the technology does NOT exist?

or does it?

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 06:35 PM

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
I mean, come on, a person phones in with a stark claim - and the presenter does not even check the most essential facts?

Why would they want to do that? Those shows are not concerned about facts, they just want silly stories that the gullible lap up. Imagine what the show would be like if everything said was factual!

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 08:03 PM
a reply to: ripcontrol

The Viking lander was not capable of streaming live video, immediately falsifying her story. This has been pointed out at least twice.

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 08:26 PM
a reply to: DJW001

I haven't got to if the viking lander could in essence stream a live video..

I am asking if it could be done with the technology at the time..

That's first

Tech feasibility...

On my phone smoking a CIG ..

The question that comes from it is if the ability to process the stream exist..

Its the processing that's key..

The lady's claim seems to match my understanding of handling the data

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 09:12 PM

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ripcontrol

The Viking lander was not capable of streaming live video, immediately falsifying her story. This has been pointed out at least twice.

It does seem likely on the surface that it could not stream video.

But the fact is , you actually have no idea at all what any of the things launched into space could do, you do not know a dam thing about any of it except for what you are told.

It is truly amazing that you believe you actually have been told the truth wholeheartedly and so therefore can make assessments based on this.

What makes you believe that you actually have any clue about any of this ?

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 09:17 PM

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
I mean, come on, a person phones in with a stark claim - and the presenter does not even check the most essential facts?

Why would they want to do that? Those shows are not concerned about facts, they just want silly stories that the gullible lap up. Imagine what the show would be like if everything said was factual!

Better yet, an government agency based in secrecy which has a cult following of mega-believers can tell anyone anything they want, and the gullible lap it up too!

They even try to tell us they can see the flag on the moon and when asked for pictures give us the most grainy pictures EVER PRESENTED in the history of earth as evidence.

And they question why people do not take the religious story about how things are as truth!

And they also believe that the twin towers collapse when anyone with 2 eyes, hell a BLIND person can see they are doing far more than gravity based collapse, methinks some amazing hijinx in the mind can lead one to believe that all that damage occurred due to gravity, CLEAR PICTURES of ANYTHING BUT COLLAPSE, LOL !

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 11:30 PM

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ripcontrol

The Viking lander was not capable of streaming live video, immediately falsifying her story. This has been pointed out at least twice.

It does seem likely on the surface that it could not stream video.

But the fact is , you actually have no idea at all what any of the things launched into space could do, you do not know a dam thing about any of it except for what you are told.

It is truly amazing that you believe you actually have been told the truth wholeheartedly and so therefore can make assessments based on this.

What makes you believe that you actually have any clue about any of this ?

The fact is that you are clearly prepared to give more credence to some anonymous fruitcake on a radio show as opposed to a well documented event. I am basing my opinion on the Viking lander's capabilities on the basis of available evidence, you are basing your assertions on nothing other than distrust.

I'll be blunt: this woman is lying. There ya go.

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 11:55 PM
I will keep it simple on the video processing

Now when you go to buy a security system for your house.. Look At the models for cameras..

Let me tell you a little secret..

Its not in the quality of the camera 100%

They sell a new system called d100 or blue (ask someone else here not important for the point)
The secret is not the camera but the Processing unit

The same goes for the navy sonar equipment
Its not the tranceivers

Its the processing units
they take up a room with the older systems

It takes in the stimulus and translates it to usable information

They are water cool systems
not air

Now in the show she mentioned have to go upstairs from the equipment
Note same crap in sonar
The processing equipment is not with the big monitors

This is what is being said
She sounds like a technician

note the one that sounded like an oddball was the guest host not the caller
listen again to the two..

My main issue is that NASA had the capabilities for transmission
The question is did The have the processing power in 1979

This is Becoming very serious in the fact people are not listening to simple details

I have tried to keep this thread to the first part of if this is possible and then intended to get to the veracity of the caller

The problem right now
Everything the woman said is doable
(I hope someone will answer if the tech existed for processing I think it did because of the Damn machines I worked on in the NAVY.. were from that era it seemed)

Now someone mentioned their opinion being based on known capabilities of the viking lander
please provide the proof

I will treat it the same way I am treating this lady's phone call..

Now if your saying the guest on the show is a flake and jumped to conclusions that is a very different contention (and sounds well founded )

The woman is not failing the tech stage so far..

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 12:24 AM
a reply to: ripcontrol

Everything the woman said is doable

No, it's not. To keep it simple: the primitive camera had to scan the scene, convert it to digital information, then beam that information to Earth during a relatively narrow window when the transmitter and receiver were aligned. The transmitter was relatively feeble and required a large antenna to receive it. Live streaming video was impossible with the technology of the time.

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 01:25 AM

originally posted by: Unity_99
Not surprised by this in the least. Alot more than this is going on, things amazing, all over the solar system including black ops from our planet.

Savage Garden - To The Moon & Back (Extended Version)

Great Song, always loved it ..

thanks ..
the digital sounds at the beginning of the song is what I heard 2 stories outside my bedroom window. 30 years ago

and I would definitely agree with your post here, it can only stay hidden for awhile

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 01:30 AM
a reply to: DJW001

and thus their were two roads and I travel the one less traveled

KISSing the problem as you suggested

The rover would beam the information to the lander
lander to sat
sat to earth sat
earth sat to ground relay

I also just had an interesting conversation with a news nut
Seems he knows a little about the technology and when parts came about

It was interesting to find out CBS during the making of the Twilight zone switched to the cheaper process of video tapes then what was used

this was 1959 to 64.. he is double checking his data

I am looking over a few things to see where and when things were available to public
(assuming a lead time of five to ten years for government technology)

Keep in mind
There is a huge difference

1)physics problem
2)an engineering Problem
3)technicians problem
4) financing problems

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 01:38 AM
he is send me the info slowly
here we go

My friend

I was right - NBC was the first national-level TV network to broadcast in color. After NBC's then-parent company, RCA got the FCC to approve its system of broadcasting color TV programming in December 1953, the next month - January 1954, NBC broadcast the first TV shows ever to be in color. In 1956, NBC announced that its owned-and-operated local station, W.M.A.Q. Channel 5 in Chicago, was the very first local TV station in America to broadcast shows in color television.



Live Television happening in real time - Read the first paragraph at the top - "Technological Innovations" -


The Twilight Zone - Videotape vs Film. During the second season (1960-61), the then- new head honcho of CBS, Jim Aubrey, felt that TZ cost too much $$$ for a pre-recorded half-hour primetime drama. Once of his cost-cutting moves for TZ was that 6 of season 2's episodes were to be shot using videotape, rather than film, like in the movies, as we discussed in the car. In the following link citation, there is a link to Wikipedia's article on the evolution of videotape.


Film - Twilight Zone episode from season 1 - "The After Hours"

Just add this into what I said

The vid is for quality purposes of the filming used


if I remember our conversation correctly
edit on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 01:41:01 -060041p2014-11-28T01:41:01-06:0020141130Fri, 28 Nov 2014 01:41:01 -06002014Friday by ripcontrol because: last part I missed on adding

The reason film was considered far more superior to videotape during that time was not only a matter of picture quality, but also videotape was almost technologically impossible to edit, during that time.

I sent him the link to NLBS by the way

he is always interested in production values in media
Its his dream field and he knows a lot of the carp

Enough usually to point to where you need to find it

edit on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 01:46:51 -060046p2014-11-28T01:46:51-06:0020141130Fri, 28 Nov 2014 01:46:51 -06002014Friday by ripcontrol because: cause I wanted to

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 12:40 PM


posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 03:12 PM
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I am not so sure she is

I think the fruit cake part comes from the other speaker slash host

Now two points did come up
The Viking Rover
The Observer

This is were it gets touchy

On the surface
The record does NOT state
there was a rover to my understanding

The observer part ???

I refer back to an earlier post however
the russians sent one and it crashed

Soviet Mars Probe Lost In 1971 Possibly Found In NASA Photos By Russian Space Fans

LOS ANGELES -- Space fans from Russia scanning NASA images have spotted what may be a Soviet spacecraft that landed on Mars in 1971 and then mysteriously stopped working.

Photos taken by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter circling the red planet pointed to what may be the Mars 3 lander along with its parachute, heat shield and other hardware that it jettisoned during the descent through the thin Martian atmosphere.

While scientists said the find appeared promising, more follow-up was needed to rule out other possibilities.

Mars 3 operated for only 15 seconds on the Martian surface before it suddenly stopped communicating. It was part of a double mission the Soviet Union launched in 1971. Its twin, Mars 2, crashed.

The Russian space enthusiasts were part of an online group that followed the Curiosity rover, NASA's latest Mars mission. They used crowdsourcing to pore through publicly available archive images and contacted scientists about their find.

The main thing is they had a rover in one of those two supposedly

I am kinda of suspicious and was wanting to ask on ATS live
or if gets the AMA thing up a few questions

I am still on the tech side of this discussion and not the womans claim

It might be killed before it gets to that

Because the other issue is what public information they have on the Viking launches
-weight of the Cargo

-howmuch fuel they had

Weight of similar rover's sent to moon during this time period

We are looking for data not supposition.
If the ship doesnt have the necessary fuel to have launched that amount of wieght with any viking probe series

The woman lied

If it does she is still in the game

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 03:57 PM
a reply to: ripcontrol

To be honest nothing will surprise me anymore.. Government corruption, lies and false alibis... all over the world. Banks can get away with massive and in your face fraud and nobody held accountable, no arrests.. people with little money can pick up the bills and pay 'them' a bonus for a good job done.

The OP made me think... did anybody ever see a curiosity photograph taken at night... at night with stars in it? I ask this because that will be an indicator that curiosity is no lie... although today the stars in the Mars sky can be photoshopped too.

edit on 28/11/2014 by zatara because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 06:08 PM
so far we have had several bones of contention

big ones to

So lets stop for a moment

Happy tanksgiving


Now lets look at the basics of Streaming

Stream computing

In computer science, a stream is a sequence of data elements made available over time. A stream can be thought of as a conveyor belt that allows items to be processed one at a time rather than in large batches.

Streams are processed differently from batch data – normal functions cannot operate on streams as a whole, as they have potentially unlimited data, and formally, streams are codata (potentially unlimited), not data (which is finite). Functions that operate on a stream, producing another stream, are known as filters, and can be connected in pipelines, analogously to function composition. Filters may operate on one item of a stream at a time, or may base an item of output on multiple items of input, such as a moving average.

and or

Streaming media

Streaming media is multimedia that is constantly received by and presented to an end-user while being delivered by a provider. The verb "to stream" refers to the process of delivering media in this manner; the term refers to the delivery method of the medium rather than the medium itself.

A client media player can begin playing the data (such as a movie) before the entire file has been transmitted. Distinguishing delivery method from the media distributed applies specifically to telecommunications networks, as most of the delivery systems are either inherently streaming (e.g., radio, television) or inherently nonstreaming (e.g., books, video cassettes, audio CDs). For example, in the 1930s, elevator music was among the earliest popularly available streaming media; nowadays Internet television is a common form of streamed media. The term "streaming media" can apply to media other than video and audio such as live closed captioning, ticker tape, and real-time text, which are all considered "streaming text". The term "streaming" was first used in the early 1990s as a better description for video on demand on IP networks; at the time such video was usually referred to as "store and forward video",[1] which was misleading nomenclature.

Live streaming, which refers to content delivered live over the Internet, requires a form of source media (e.g. a video camera, an audio interface, screen capture software), an encoder to digitize the content, a media publisher, and a content delivery network to distribute and deliver the content.

We have a thought here

Before we try to bog down here to the main tech issues
What is the longest record for a signal received and sent

Well the official record

Moon landing right
A video and audio signal recorded and sent


How did that work again

A signal from a small device
went to a stationary device to another device
that device sent it to earth

and well on earth there are the big antennas

But I digress

The signal can be sent
the question becomes if there was a satellite powereful enough to act as a relay not a rover or lander

We have evidence in the moon landing scenario the tech existed

and my friends information fits right their

Again another piece of the puzzle fits HER story

unless your saying the satellite is not strong enough to relay a signal but has before


Because do play fair there is one small problem here but I think it is more of a technical one
its is over the BPS
but if the signal made it from the moon it is just a technical sidenote..
(through relays- camera, lander, sat or ship, to earth facilities)

again 1969 was the moon landing
we are talking a launch six years later and the a decade on the receiving end for processors

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 06:55 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You need to consider some other things.

Fuel: Fuel is important for getting objects of mass out of a gravity well. The more mass an object has, the more fuel you will need.

Orbits: Doing a TLI burn to get the moon is not the same as doing a burn to get to another planet. TLI only needs enough fuel to do a burn for a Hohmann Transfer. Getting to Mars, however, requires burning to leave the Earth's gravitational pull (which works out to about 1.5 million miles) and go into a solar orbit around the sun, but in such away that your craft will have an encounter with Mars.

Video feeds: There is a big difference between transmitting video feeds from 250,000 miles away (the moon), and from about 36,000,000 to 250,000,000 miles. The lander had a 20 watt transmitter for direct communication with Earth and a 30 watt UHF transmitter for direct one way communication with the orbiter. It had a tape drive for memory storage of up to 40 megabits (not bytes. bits).
It had two 360 degree scan cameras that were capable of taking still images.

Not video.

Other things to consider:

Either we believe that the Viking missions had the equipment that history says that it had, or.....

We believe that there was a massive cover up (consider all the people that worked on Viking), and that it was sent with other equipment that was kept secret for....what reason now?

Exactly what advantage would the US have by keeping secret that we have people on Mars? Certainly not a military advantage (that's a laugh).

Simply because technology might exist that would work, does not mean it was used. All sorts of things have to considered: mass that has to be moved, what scientific instruments need priority, which ones can survive lift off, a very long space flight, and a landing to a unknown world.

Instead of speculating on the tech, try instead to ask yourself this question: Why?

Why lie? Why cover it up? Why keep instruments secret? What advantage does that give the US?

Then ask yourself these questions: How did they fake it then? (because, well, if Viking was really a rover, or had a rover, and streamed video, do you think it would have been just the US that was able to receive that signal??). How did they keep other countries like the USSR from yelling about it? If they already sent a rover back in the 70s, why do it all over again starting in the 90s? And with something that was little more than a RC car with a camera (Pathfinder)?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link grandmother said

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:46 PM
a reply to: ripcontrol
Meaning you no disrespect, I don't know why you posted this. Anyone, and many do claim stuff like this.
When I was a child there was a guy on TV that said he had been to Mars many times and was friends with aliens that scooted him all over, the proof? He said he wouldn't lie about it!
Then there was a guy on a website that said he could travel into the future anytime he wanted. Someone said, all you have to do is snap a photo of a newspaper, then we might start to look into his claims. He agreed he would do that and a few days later he said he had taken the trip a few weeks into the future but for some reason the photographs turned out all black and we would just have to take him at his word. So, it was suggested all he had to do was tell us what the headlines in a paper of his choice would say, well he got mad that we wouldn't believe him and said he was telling the truth and we could all go to HELL since we didn't believe him! LOL....
I think the reason I have a hard time wrapping my head around stories like the OP has posted is because there are literally hundreds of people that state stories like this without proof!

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 02:57 PM
Here how it goes, if she is still alive, then its a made up story, or programmed by others for this information to come out, because these news are extreme for nasa to allow them come out, just like that.

Look how many NASA scientists died by not natural causes the last 10 years...

Nasa and bankers die very easy, Nasa and banks have very HIGH mortality the last 10 years lol

edit on 13-1-2015 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in