NASA finally finds life on Mars

Amazing photos from Nasa probe reveal image of mystery figure on Red Planet

Its a Yeti!

It's almost certainly Bin Laden.

Expect a US invasion shortly.

Bush is already planning one.

Anyone else think it's just a rock?

Some cheeky bugger's photoshopped Bigfoot in there.

He's an attendant at a service station for all those UFO's they keep out in area 51; he's probably on first name terms with Elvis, Buddy Holly, Jesus and any other "dead" celebrity you care to name.

It's a rock.

It's Sup Cat!



But seriously, this isn't going to help temper that conspiracy theorist asshole Richard C. Hoagland's popularity:


It's a a rock. Or Sup Cat. But probably a rock.

BTW... It always astounds me that we humans would rather accept the far-fetched or "supernatural" answer (i.e. "life on Mars" or "God") rather than the simple and more plausible one (i.e. "rock and lighting effects" or "smoke and mirrors").

Freud planted it there.

The God one is simple as it is the lazy answer. I don't understand and I can't understand so it must be beyond understanding.

Life on mars I guess is more hope. Plus quite a few wind ups?

There is nothing surprising or astounding about that. We all have inbuilt "need" and "knowledge" about the supernatural. although some might want too hard to explain it away. It is IN us.

From the awesome Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy:

Start the clcock - how long before God, Him and Truth appear on this thread!

Then I have some GREAT heal-all snake oil that I want to sell you. Real cheap, only 100€ a bottle!!

That would be trash you're talking there.

Please show one piece of research from a plausable source that backs up that statement.

again, What would be pausable? As we discussed some time ago, if I present something, for an unbeleiveing person, there is always a way to explain it away. Even if God were to appear, they will exaplain it away with light-tricks, majic, hallucinations.-.etc. So there is nothing really I can present here...

But, I am not sure if I beleive what this NDE shows myself, but I know that some people have seen such things. Ofcourse I cannot prove unless I myself see this.

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=562786

using groundbreaking technological advances british & american "intelligence" services were able to zoom even further in to give us this image...



Even closer inspection revealed this...



Forget life on Mars, is there life in Toytown?

Is that a self-portrait?

djgrazy, talk to me about the Apollo landings, NASA's cover-up of ancient civilizations on the moon and Mars, etc. I'm interested to hear it all.

again, racing away, brain full of jizz...

You know my views on the moon landings, I'm still waiting for you to explain...

1) How we could travel a 600,000 mile round trip in the late 60s but can't today?
2) How in your mind America was capable of this but couldn't build a decent family car, video recorder or anything else for that matter?

You, your country and many of your countrymen are an embaressment to mankind, if the earth ever needs an enema New York/Texas would be the insertion point.

If you're still waiting, you've obviously never bothered to read what I've had to say before. You don't have to take my word for it. Here.

By admitting to being a Apollo denier you are effectively telling the whole world that you're a dumbass. It gets no simpler than that.


And that's the crux of your position: forget evidence, if a conspiracy theory paints the US in a bad light then it must be true; 9/11 inside job, Apollo hoax, etc. Please put your money where your mouth is - stop using ANYTHING made/designed in the US. You can start by pulling the CPU out of your motherboard and switching to one designed in another country... oh wait...

Hey dj, please define "can't"

Do you mean:
1) We don't immediatly have the equipment for doing this right now
2) We wouldn't be able to develop the equipment today even if we tried.

Your blatant prejudice and blind hatred is an embarassment dj.

I'd leave it. It makes him look bad not everybody else.

Wait, New York? I must be confused... are enemas typically done so close to the armpit?

Well, thefirelane, it's blatantly obvious that you never been to New Jersey, or, at least, left the Turnpike.

ha, I thought that might get a response

It's patently Bigfoot, the same jaunty swinger. Alls it proves is that it takes the average sasquatch 39 years to walk from Bluff Creek to Mars.

I'm not sure you understand this correctly, but if life is found outside of Earth, it would be the ultimate proof that the Bible is false. Because although Genesis says it describes the world entire, with all of God's created beings, if there is life out there it must have missed big time. Just so it won't come as a surprise when Spock and his crew buzz our planet one day.

Why? As far as I have read, the Bible does not say anything about creatures in other worlds, does it ? Atleast I am unaware.

dino, you know how it is when even though you really like one type of food, you're just in the mood for a different type of food? That's how I feel about "crazy" today.

So I'm hoping only djgrazy responds to this thread.

here we go...

Start by reading my post:

Genesis says everything about the EARTH.
The Bible talks about the EARTH and stars.
The Bible was given to humans and describes how Humans are to be saved.
Is says nothing about other planets.
If God was concerend about other creature ( if any), then He would give us instructions on such.

But, respecting the request by another poster here, I shall remain silent here...

tick, tock, tick ,tock.

1 & possibly 2.

See here

Still not an answer dj as the only limitations referred to in that article are financial not technical.

Since you don't can't read links, I'll paste it all here for you:

In the 1960s and 1970s the technology didn't exist to travel to the moon.

In making this statement, conspiracists often draw parallels to the consumer technology of the 1960s. "If they couldn't make X, then how could they go to the moon?"

First we must remember that NASA was on the cutting edge of technology in the 1950s and 1960s. They had an enormous budget and attracted the top scientists in the country. At the height of the Apollo project there were half a million scientists and engineers working on different aspects of the missions.

In a larger sense, it's easy to lose touch with technology. That is, it's easy to look back to the past and wonder how we ever got along without the miracles we enjoy today. We sit at our gigahertz computers and forget that there was a time when an eight megahertz computer was pretty cool.

Just because we rely today on one particular technology or another in order to do some hard thing, doesn't mean it was impossible to do that thing before our modern technology was invented. For example, nearly all modern clocks use a real-time clock integrated circuit. It does all the timekeeping. In the 1970s we had analog clocks that used synchronous electric motors to precisely drive mechanical gears. Would it be correct to say that accurate timekeeping was impossible before that integrated chip? Of course not. Similarly, old mechanical action clocks used pendulums and springs to keep surprisingly accurate time.

What's the lesson? Just because we choose to use some particular technology today to solve a problem doesn't mean that problem was unsolvable before we had today's technology. Apollo engineers didn't have high-speed portable computers to make self-contained guidance systems, so they just built guidance systems differently. The computer was only one part of the guidance system. When John Glenn orbited the earth in his Mercury capsule, there were no computers with him. Yet his capsule was fully automated.

The moral of the story is that people can be very ingenious working with limited tools.

Many people from NASA have said it would be difficult or impossible to return to the moon anytime soon.

This, unfortunately, is probably true. But not because the technology never existed to go to the moon.

In the 1960s we had a clear mandate to go to the moon. Although NASA had an ambitious program of scientific exploration planned, the real motivation in the public's mind was to beat the Russians. After Apollo 11, interest in the space program dwindled rapidly. And consequently the budget was slashed and then slashed again.

Most of the people involved in the lunar landings have retired, and many have passed away. That is a lot of expertise to lose. A lot of that has not been passed on to the next generation of engineers because the newer engineers don't need that knowledge. Landing on the moon required a specific set of skills that isn't much in demand in the space program anymore.

Most of the equipment is gone too. A few lucky museums have command modules or lunar modules, or other significant chunks of Apollo hardware. But a lot of it has been scrapped. The manufacturers no longer have the specialized tools to build these spacecraft, and the detailed design documents have been thrown out. Not that we would actually use these machines, but today's engineers would study them to understand what their predecessors worked out for solutions to various problems.

How could these people throw out something so dear to the national heritage? Unfortunately these are private companies intent on making a profit. They are in the aircraft business, not the museum business. The plans and design documents for one lunar module take several thousand cubic feet of storage space.

NASA is, unfortunately, suffering a brain drain. While it was fashionable in the 1960s and 1970s to work for the space program, it isn't anymore. NASA is scrambling for talented scientists and engineers. There are probably two reasons for this. First, NASA isn't the same organization it was in the 1960s. Today it's more bureaucratic, more like the other government agencies. Second, much of what NASA does today is seen as routine and repetitive. The magical allure of space travel isn't what it used to be.

Henry Ford invented his automobile, and now a hundred years later the technology to produce automobiles is still commonplace. Similarly if the technology existed to go to the moon in 1969, it should still be around today.

It's not very useful to draw a parallel between technology that was intended from the start to be a mass-produced consumer product, and a highly specialized technology, only twenty or so items of which would ever be produced. There just isn't a big market for manned spaceships. The companies that produced them in the 1960s and 1970s went back to making conventional aircraft. Some of what they learned making the Apollo spacecraft was incorporated into their more consumer-oriented products, but some wasn't.

There were processes involved in making lunar spacecraft that were known literally to only a handful of people. They were the people who invented them. These techniques aren't necessarily needed into today's aerospace market, and so they weren't passed on when those people retired. Most automotive engineers can't make a wheel for a horse-drawn covered wagon. It's not technology that's required much anymore, so it's not generally passed down through the ranks of automotive engineers.

because you never said anything before, just linked to a dubious site with a bunch of space nuts that obviously believe, like yourself, it happened. Please explain HOW it would have been possible? There and back is 600,000 miles DW, 300,000 EACH WAY. That's a lot of fuel, then there's the return leg with no boosters, ok there's no gravitational pull on the moon but to propel the craft 300,000 miles they would need a bit of help.

personally i believe that Wallace & Grommit had more cred.

As for me being a denier, i think the term can be applied on both sides of the table, you are adamant it did happen, then somehow all the craft/technology and plans got scrapped in a CIA Video tapes kinda way, just because there was no space race anymore? You been sniffing the rocket-fuel again?

It was a hoax, an elaborate one at that, to fool the Russians into thinking they were capable of it. They're not, never have been, and probably won't be for some time to come.

It's blurb, there's no way you could travel that far, land on the moons' surface then travel the same 300,000 miles back again, nowhere in your post does it explain HOW this was possible.

You are in denial, plain and simple. pre-programmed, you bought in to this crap when the Russians were the baddies and the cold war was in full swing. You HAD to believe that the American way of life was so much more superior. It's all a farce, your country is crumbling around you due to the mentality and refusal to accept anything other than the governments' take on things of it's residents it will continue as they become dumber and dumber.

Now on that note, I've got a bridge here for sale...

This is what I thought when I saw it. I was surprised by all the media attention.

Wrong! The Russians are in on it!

Science Experiments - Laser Ranging Retroreflector

[i]The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment was deployed on Apollo 11, 14, and 15. It consists of a series of corner-cube reflectors, which are a special type of mirror with the property of always reflecting an incoming light beam back in the direction it came from. A similar device was also included on the Soviet Union's Lunakhod 2 spacecraft. These reflectors can be illuminated by laser beams aimed through large telescopes on Earth. The reflected laser beam is also observed with the telescope, providing a measurement of the round-trip distance between Earth and the Moon.[/i]

Troll. For the sake of actual people who genuinely just don't know, I'll feed.


You seem to think that going to the moon in a rocket is the same as going a really long trip in a car.

Step 1: reach low earth orbit. (Do you deny that this is possible?)
Step 2: obtain escape velocity (~10.9 km/s). With virtually no atmospheric resistance in low earth orbit, it's only a matter of having enough fuel and Newton's 2nd law.
Step 3: coast the rest of the way - Newton's 1st law.

What is the highest level of education that you've completed?


The evidence supports that it happened. All of it. It's that simple. Denying so is saying that you, Mr. Internet Know-It-All, know more than thousands of Ph.Ds, rocket scientists, geologists, and other experts who have poured over the millions of pieces of evidence that support that it happened. Your "evidence" is nothing more than YouTube videos and a profound misunderstanding of the sciences.


During the late 1960s and 1970s, the Russians had the most elaborate (extra) orbital tracking system ever created. Tracking stations were placed all over allied countries and on ships across the oceans. The state vector (position & direction per unit time) of everything the US launched was watched. It would be easier to actually go to the moon than to fool them into thinking it happened.

Idiot. 100% idiot.

We've put craft away from the Earth far, far further than that without vast amounts of fuel. Ever heard of Voyager?

Ok dj, I want to focus on the one thing that's always bothered me about this whole Apollo thing:

Let's say, for the sake of things... you figured it out. The Apollo landing was a giant hoax, and piecing together all the publicly available information, sleuths on the Internet are able to figure it out, even claiming it is "obvious"

If a bunch of nerds on the Internet were able to figure it out in their spare time... why wasn't the Soviet empire with thousands of engineers also able to do so? If the Apollo landings were only propaganda, why wouldn't the Soviet Empire trumpet this from the hills if it was fake?

Are you saying that these Apollo landing conspiracies are smarter or more motivated than people dead set against the US who are literally "rocket scientists"?

I'm honestly curious as to your view on this.

Also, the claim of landing on the moon leaves very distinct evidence... so it is quite obvious this will be found/not found one day, either through telescopes or another mission. What is the plan for that?

Spirit, the (American-made) rover that took the original photo in this thread, traveled 302,600,000 miles from Florida to Mars. Do you deny that it did so?

As of today, the ISS has traveled 1,100,000,000 miles! Voyager 1 has gone 9,600,000,000 miles! There's no way you could travel so far!

djgrazy, here's your vocabulary word from the day: inertia.

tfl, even I can answer that one: Because they wanted to stage their own fake landing in the dusty plains of Kazachstan just to keep up the My Rocket Can Fly Further Than Yours game.

To answer your points, ever heard of the Gargarin hoax? The Russies were at it too, there's evidence to show that Gargarin was never in space including various documentaries.

So what evidence would you expect to see on the moon? and what's your plan for that when it's not found?

This is a pointless arguement, regardless of what DW posted there is NO credible evidence either way, either side of the arguement is flawed and full of cointelpro.

I, like many others call bullshit. Why on earth is it so difficult to grasp that the administration at the time lied to you? It is their MO, they all lie, they did back then, they did way before the 60s and they're still doing it now.