Scientific Evidence Of Life On Mars!! Why is NASA Obfuscating The Truth?

reply to post by gormly


gormly you are so funny you see garbage and I see life on Mars. I am serious and you think it is a joke about the craft that looks like a rock. Keep looking gormly, I will never convince you about anything on Mars because your mind is stuck in the unconvinced mode. How would you know what other worlds would do when it comes to camouflaging? Here on earth our military uses camouflage everyday not to mention hunters of game. Rik Riley





[edit on 6-4-2008 by rikriley]

reply to post by ArMaP


Nice work ArMaP!

You killed my theory but the truth of the matter is far more important!!
Thanks for setting the record straight! It's always a good day when you learn something new

If only it were possible for many others here to learn not to hold on so dearly to their beloved theories!

Mike,
great fact finding... mission complete on ice/water on Mars. I wonder how close 'total recal's' story line truely is....
Star, Flag and Digg my good sir!

Did anybody even read my goddamn post? You are the most unscientific bunch of kooks I've ever chanced to hear opinionate, and I thought *I* was a kook.

I cannot believe that the train of logic for this thread that everyone is debating is "Did NASA # with the colors of the pictures? If so, then they must be hiding something, and if they are hiding something, there must be life on Mars! #!"

Aaack.

why is it there's always a "cover up". why can't it be stuff just takes time. this isn't an episode of star trek. it's gonna take kirk a looong time to go where no man has gone before.and as you heard bush say were gonna go their anyway. "please don't bash me saying the "B" word". i know the gov. keeps secrets, but it's gonna take time to release all the tech they have too. you can't just hand out nuclear batteries or teleport technoligy while the ahkmeds of the world are still jihading around. i don't get why peeps don't want a new world order where everywhere is the same. we have to "grow up" the rest of the world to be able to advance any further. call me a nuttjob but isn't that basically what the show star trek is all about and we all love it.

Originally posted by special ed
why is it there's always a "cover up".

"Let me count the ways"
Cover up the coverup. It goes on and on. Stop and look for yourself that's all.
People are not say they know how things work (most of them). So can see there thing don't add up. If they can't be added then somethings wrong. You can see if you allow you're self to, speaking of my work now. I
f you look for it water it's everywhere on Mars. But mainstream says Mars is all dry.
Cover-up or covered-up?

Originally posted by waffles
Did anybody even read my goddamn post? You are the most unscientific bunch of kooks I've ever chanced to hear opinionate, and I thought *I* was a kook.

I cannot believe that the train of logic for this thread that everyone is debating is "Did NASA # with the colors of the pictures? If so, then they must be hiding something, and if they are hiding something, there must be life on Mars! #!"

Aaack.

There are many trains of thought in this thread and the photo colour is just one part. Try checking out some of the other sources and you might be quite surprised where it leads you. For instance we were told that no liquid water can exist on Mars, and yet the surface temperature does in fact go above 0 degrees celcius, and that water ice clouds form at the equator.

As for the evidence that life can exist in extreme conditions, maybe check out the following report on the Red Rain of Kerala in India. The cells can survive extreme conditions that currently was not thought possible. Rather than taking just one argument and dismissing the entire thread, try looking at all of it.

Red Rain of kerala

Originally posted by Balez
As one poster said, NASA would probably gain more fundings if they would show everything they find, and there by saying that NASA have not found anything in particular.
Not sure i can agree to something like that, since we hardly know what the 'bigger' picture is, or if there is a bigger picture.

I think the bigger 'picture' is alot more scary than we want to know

I agree. All evidence says so. I think it possible that the life "out there" issue might erode control of evangelical sorts if it came out. Perhaps that is one motivation for concealing what they found on Mars.

Anyway... Great post, Mike. [smile]

Originally posted by Shere Khaan

Originally posted by waffles
Did anybody even read my goddamn post? You are the most unscientific bunch of kooks I've ever chanced to hear opinionate, and I thought *I* was a kook.

I cannot believe that the train of logic for this thread that everyone is debating is "Did NASA # with the colors of the pictures? If so, then they must be hiding something, and if they are hiding something, there must be life on Mars! #!"

Aaack.

There are many trains of thought in this thread and the photo colour is just one part. Try checking out some of the other sources and you might be quite surprised where it leads you. For instance we were told that no liquid water can exist on Mars, and yet the surface temperature does in fact go above 0 degrees celcius, and that water ice clouds form at the equator.

As for the evidence that life can exist in extreme conditions, maybe check out the following report on the Red Rain of Kerala in India. The cells can survive extreme conditions that currently was not thought possible. Rather than taking just one argument and dismissing the entire thread, try looking at all of it.

Red Rain of kerala

You can also see the external images I posted in an earlier post from NASA which show water flowing on mars or at least the after effects of water flowing on mars in certain areas (and NASA admits that it is probably flowing liquid water that caused the anomalies). Pretty convincing stuff.

-ChriS

[edit on 6-4-2008 by BlasteR]

Originally posted by BlasteR
Pretty convincing stuff.

-ChriS

[edit on 6-4-2008 by BlasteR]

Correct

It's not so much "of" a cover up as it a censor.
Like pornography is not publicly mainstream (hardcore) yet.
Water on Mars is thought of something children should be kept away from. It not a cover up, it's fear of something, unfounded in my book.

reply to post by waffles


Waffles,I'm trying to show pictorially that there is and was life on Mars. I'm a true believer that nasa masks images,and witholds some images they can't mask to the point of being ridiculous. If they cover a dragon face with this guy wearing a hat looking like dead actor Bob Cummings from the TV show "LOVE THAT BOB" I'm convinced. Sol 003 Opportunity pancam marsrover.nasa.gov... The dragon face is in the negative B&W pics in bottom extreme left corner.However if you look at the middle to right hand side a far larger and more interesting face appears (bottom pic/neg image),surrounded by other faces.But look in the extreme upper RIGHT HAND corner for 2 small dark eyes.

reply to post by mikesingh


Mike since most of those pics are from 2004 spirit I have lost a lot of info in a comp loss since then in 2006. But since I was most active the first half of 2004,if you give me the most interesting image to you I could probably backtrack for an hour and find it and try to sharpen up or enlarge them. Both Spirit and Op sites had humanoids and animals,but I favored Spirit then and now for more numbers and better variety. Some of my best finds were from OP,yet I had to drag myself to go there and 90% of the time went to Spirit when I got online. The Viking shots were sent to me as a gag from friends who teased me...and I was glad to turn the tables and find LIFE in their "GAG " photos. Smokezilla from Opie and Anthony show message boards sent his barbs tongue in cheek,while Howard Stern fans were no better. (spirit pics)

These are the sunflower faced dragons with generally round or oval heads. They sometimes have humanesque faces,and some look maniacal.

reply to post by Woodlock

what i meant was finding frost on mars isn't gonna get this brittney spears society excitded. so what we call a cover up may just be stuff not good enough to be released as a big deal. you remember that after the first moon landing public interest faded with each mission after that. peeps wanna be wowed and fuzzy rock pictures that look like jesus or bugs bunny aren't gonna cut it. besides what would be the point of even sending the landers there if not to discover something. with the economy going the way it is you would think nasa would be chomping at the bit to find something, so we would have a real reason to go. who's to say the next administration won't cut there budget. i mean think about it. you send 2 landers to search for life on a planet. talk about squeezin a penny, there should be hundreds of landers there but know were to busy blowing up the desert peeps with our hard earned tax dollars.!!!!!!!!!!! sorry last part just a rant. lol

Originally posted by special ed
besides what would be the point of even sending the landers there if not to discover something.

They are in reality micro mining machines THAT is the point and that is why opportunity landed in that hematite rich location... they were however surprised to see the hematite in the form of round nodules, and in such quantity... since that form of hematite usually forms in water...

And that is why its spent so much time studying that same area and drilling into rocks looking for fossils



"Use of terminology, e.g., 'mining', could be considered (by some countries) to constitute a violation of the International Space Treaty. Thus, NASA is real-careful about use of terminology that could be considered a breach of 'Policy and Protocol'.I can give you this stuff as it's 'public information'. You have to look between the spaces/lines for more info and draw your own conclusions. Dr Resnick




[edit on 6-4-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by special ed


Back during the Apollo Moon missions 4% of the entire budget went for space exploration and compared to today 1/10th of 1% goes to NASA for space exploration. Breaking it down even more that is 15 cents per day for every man, woman and child in the U.S. Rik Riley

That's an entirely different topic though IMHO. We really have to end this war on science that has gone on for the last 8 yrs under the Bush administration. When I heard bush say we were going to mars and going to build moon bases I knew he was lying. Just as I knew when he got reelected we were in for a long, rough ride.

He just wanted to be the one to get the credit for saying those big words "we're going to mars". The big difference between Bush and Kennedy is that Kennedy actually meant what he said. Bush is just spitting out words on a piece of paper without thinking first. He sais one thing and then cuts funding to almost all science missions NASA has been working on. Some which had components already built. All that money that went towards those projects was wasted when the Bush administration flipped the switch from science to war.

Later on after the Bush Administration's 2008 Nasa budget was met with public outcry they decided to pump a little more money in and salvage a couple of the more meaningful science missions. But we we have basically been lied to in order for the Bush administration to pump more money into a war that should have never started in the first place. Your government dollars at work.

-ChriS

Originally posted by internos
Landing the Mars Exploration Rovers
Matthew P. Golombek, John A. Grant, Timothy J. Parker, Joy A. Crisp, Steven W. Squyres

The areas that satisfy the basic engineering requirements of the mission represent just 5 percent of the surface area of Mars and form the starting locations to begin identifying potential landing ellipses. This
first-round elimination of 95 percent of the planet results from three basic criteria: elevation, latitude and surface dust.

The rovers will be powered by sunlight. This constraint eliminates most of the planet. The landing sites must be close to the equator — specifically, between 5 degrees north and 15 degrees south for the first Mars
Exploration Rover (MER-A), and between 10 degrees north and 10 degrees south for the second (MER-B).

I think this is only partly applicable, an excuse trotted out to the public so no one questions them as to why the heck they can't land at Mars North/South poles if they want to find water which is one of their main objectives.

The Viking Landers touched down at 25 deg and 40 deg North Lat (approx). How come? I think this is some sort of conspiracy here. Their contention that they cannot land obove 10 deg North Lat is a lot of hot air.

Agreed mike.

It seems that the further north or south you would go would be the most interesting spots on the planet due to the potential for seasonal melting of the ice which would result in flowing water as NASA has already photographed on Mars at different geographical points on the planet. I'm sure that they were not ignorant to this then. The only reason they would say that is to "cover their tracks". At the time, everyone was so mystified by the photos and news coverage that noone was really paying close attention to the details of the conspiracy, which we are debating about now. Everyone just assumed that Nasa was being honest just like people still do. Personally, Me and you know better.

-ChriS

No one is hiding rvidence of life on any planet or space junk out there. It was in the news meaningless and uninteresting as it was. The fact is there is no evidence of any life anywhere other than here on earth thus far and the idea that anyone here is hiding anything regarding alien life is down right silly. If anyone reading this actually believe any of the Roswell or Area 52 crap may I sugget you ought to first get a life before YOU proceed. No disrespect intended but your life is too short to waste it on this foolishness.