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

Originally posted by chrisb9
reply to post by o0pinMind0o

 

Also notice how that in the most recent " Curiosity Landing Photo " How Perfect the terrain is for a wheeled vehicle such as the new Curiosity Rover, so that it will have no problem to just take off and drive away...

Just think how " Extremely Lucky " the Curiosity Rover is to have landed on such a smooth area, with no big boulders or anything in the way to block it's path... It also didn't land and fall over on it side into a Giant Rocky Ravine, with No Way of Ever Driving out of it.... Sure was a " Lucky Landing... "

A significant part of landing-site selection is finding a nice smooth spot -- the engineers absolutely insist upon it. Today we are able to make that determination form both visible and thermal observations and choose the landing ellipse accordingly. We couldn't do that in '76 because we didn't have such wonderfully robust orbiting cameras back then. I agree that Viking was fortunate, but not all that much -- the rocks in that scene aren't all that huge and the landing legs had some flexibility.

reply to post by nimbinned

I guess we'll just have to wait for Jarrah White to study this current mission and give us his appraisal.

Oh great.

reply to post by DJW001


Thanks for replying but you didn't answer my questions. As for artists - I am one and have nothing against them - all art is important and relevant.

However the topic is NASA and it is controlled, financed and managed by the cabal/illuminati/whatever and yes they exhibit psychopathic, sociopathic and narcissistic traits by virtue of their lies and other behaviours.

As for evidence - watch the UFO Hunters and in one episode an artist - working for NASA explains excactly what she was asked to do - with an airbrush - because "we can't let the public see that."

As for brochures - that was your thinking not mine - I wasn't thinking about the advertising department or the public relations department - I was writing about the art department - where photographs are airbrushed etcetera. Thanks for responding even though I still want someone to answer my question/s.

Much Peace....

NB The avatar was a gift from Purple Chiten.

reply to post by Amanda5

As for evidence - watch the UFO Hunters and in one episode an artist - working for NASA explains excactly what she was asked to do - with an airbrush - because "we can't let the public see that."

I believe you are talking about Donna Hare. She did not work on any photos and she does not say she was asked to do anything. She's says that someone told her that airbrushing was done.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Phage


Watch the episode - it is her speaking. Later on when I have the time I will dig out the DVD and post the exact remark.

Much Peace...

reply to post by Amanda5

Watch the video. It's her speaking. All second hand information, "He told me this. They told me that". All uncorroborated.

reply to post by chrisb9


They said the same # about the moon landings at the time in "69. Turns out it may have been true. Who knows. You either believe in accurate successful travel through outer space, or you don't. If they are able to pull this off, although it be a little crude with the parachute and all. Well it shouldn't be long till we're zipping and zapping all over the place.As I recall they were saying the same # about the moon landing in "69.

reply to post by Phage


UFO Hunters - Episode Titled - NASA. The first few minutes are fascinating with regard to NASA 'policy' and UFOs. Donna Hare - I noticed an object - her co-worker states -" Well we have to airbrush these out before we sell them to the public." This is first hand conversation. The conversation included her and her co-worker.

There is a comment that states what Donna Hare offers as evidence is uncorroborated but that applies to everyone on this site. Within this very response I am doing exactly what occurs here everyday - I am referencing my opinion with evidence found during personal research. I - personally am not corroborated and neither are you for your personal opinions.

So if corroboration is required for anyone here - can you explain to me how anyone can corroborate what Donna Hare states when she has clearly spoken outside the NASA 'policy?' When whistleblowers come forward they are inevitably decried and called liars. Donna Hare states that her phone was bugged and she was visited at her home. Knowing that assault and murder occur everyday with regard to whistleblowers - just one person on this site tell me HOW do we corroborate what Donna Hare has stated - with the threat of bodily harm, intimidation and victimisation are rife and a (sad) part of life when trying to expose the truth.

Later on - take note when 'Hollywood' is mentioned and becomes a direct link to NASA via another person. Anyone who is inclined to watch the episode and think critically while conducting their personal research - I just want to make one comment - that the panes of glass, the anomalies etcetera that are explored - are all supposition, theory, perhaps this is what it is ...

There is never a definitive answer to any of the questions posed.

Much Peace...while searching for the answers & truth...

reply to post by Amanda5

So if corroboration is required for anyone here - can you explain to me how anyone can corroborate what Donna Hare states when she has clearly spoken outside the NASA 'policy?'

Donna Hare did not work for NASA, she worked for a subcontractor. Her story is doubtful.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by stumason

It's called triangulation and, to be honest, is basic level maths. Add on to this the earth's orbit around the Sun, then Mars orbit, which would lead to noticeable changes in the signal and no, it cannot be faked.

You mean the way the Iranians "brought down" one of our super duper unhackable drones? I hear what you are saying about "triangulation", but ummm... do you control those dishes and computers from your keyboard there where you are?

Only morons with a less than basic level understanding of science think it can be faked.

Only people who call others morons are morons. The word is ignorant. Anything can be faked nowadays. And I mean A_N_Y_T_H_I_N_G.

reply to post by excentryk

As for the pics ... what, holdouts from the other faked missions?

No, those were real. This was a bonus mission... bonus for all the hard underpaid work up until now. By there way... just playing devils advocate here with OP. 2.5 billion buys a lot of silence. Whats your price? Personally?

Remember the Manhatten Project? How many kept that quiet for free?

Originally posted by magma
Imagine what you could achieve if you used your talents in a productive way.

Just imagine

Imagine what you could be doing with all the time you saves not watching Curiosity.

It's a wonder these sheep are still even breathing. This pen is filled to capacity and no one has noticed "Curiosity Killed The Cat?" LOL. Seriously?

This is a scam, just like the others before Curiosity. Oh whoops we forgot to convert from inches to millimeters...there goes a $1,000,000,000. That happened more than once, but this one two and half times the price is an excellent way of making people THINK that it's money well spent.

I'm sorry, but America has problems...we have a Mexican drug war with literal dumptrucks of decapiated bodies being delivered to the border as signs, we have hundreds of thousands of homeless roaming our lands and streets, we have a poverty level and educational system on par with most "2nd rate nations" but yet you're all so dumbfonded by a few pictures of a dusty, old, useless, and unimaginably boring "Mars surface?"

What a bunch of #ING MORONS! # up and eat your chicken-# feed and be happy you have your power on. When it goes out, you're going to flip balls and wonder "where the hell did the time I did have go?" It went to curiosity and that's why you're going to die in the pen. Live and learn I guess.

Curiosity is a hoax, a load of crap, and has no correlation to any of our lives and it won't change anything. Just like the other $10,000,000,000 blown on Mars "rovers" before it. You know what we gained from those last pictures? Nothing.

The ONLY thing this mission has proved to me? Is IF it's real, then where the hell was the "sky crane" to avoid the "dust cloud" on the moon landing? No dust flew anywhere...with even less gravity and even lower density dust particles? Seriously?

No, no, this chicken-# feed isn't for this old goat. I'll find my own elsewhere. It's at least reliable.

Funny too: most who complain about the MSM, TPTB, the gov, the fed, the election, the olympics, etc. are all here loving Curiosity like it's one of their own. Yeah yeah, you're a thinker alright...just think and think and think why you chew your chicken-# kurd.

Originally posted by chrisb9

Also notice how that in the most recent " Curiosity Landing Photo " How Perfect the terrain is for a wheeled vehicle such as the new Curiosity Rover, so that it will have no problem to just take off and drive away...

Just think how " Extremely Lucky " the Curiosity Rover is to have landed on such a smooth area, with no big boulders or anything in the way to block it's path... It also didn't land and fall over on it side into a Giant Rocky Ravine, with No Way of Ever Driving out of it.... Sure was a " Lucky Landing... "

Yep, Nasa sure is " Lucky "

Do you think that after so many years of high-res satellite imaging, several orbiting mars probes etc. they were unable to find a halfway decent landing spot?

Big bolders (as long as reasonable sized) would indeed not pose a problem for Curiosity, it's designed to be able to drive over obstacles/rock as high as 1m high as far as i know. due to how the wheels are suspended. Of course, for you this must all by MAGIC, starting from the fact that we're indeed able to select a good landing site and able to make a decent rover. PURE MAGIC. WITCHCRAFT!!

>>
It also didn't land and fall over on it side into a Giant Rocky Ravine, with No Way of Ever Driving out of it....
>>

No, it didn't land and fall over since the new landing method with the crane and thrusters is made to avoid exactly that. This is one ton equipment, which, unlike the small Opportunity/Spirit Rovers, can indeed not just be thrown on the planet and bounce around on airbags - it's too heavy and would otherwise be damaged. It would furthermore also defy the purpose to spend a decade on R&D on an elaborate way of getting equipment up there safely - just to see it fail and "fall over" once it gets up there Do you think the scientists are so dumb?

And now..you take the obvious SUCCESS of the mission so far...and use it as evidence it must be fake since (according to your logic)..its not possible that it landed in a halfway smooth area and its also unlikely that it didnt fall over once it landed? Very funny. Sometimes i am glad i am on ATS, it's like watching the comedy channel

reply to post by Phage


While your opinion suggests she is doubtful I think she is in all likelihood telling the truth. Yes she was contracted but by virtue of her pay packet she was employed by NASA - semantics can alter any fact. She was on NASA property working with NASA artefacts and conversing with another NASA employee. She states that she worked in Building 8.

Factor in NASA 'policy' and it becomes very easy to simply state - she is lying because no one will back her up. No one else will back her up because they are adhering to NASA 'policy' and do not want their phone tapped - they do not want threatening strangers on their doorstep 'telling' them to adhere to NASA 'policy' - they do not want to invite any dangerous situations into their home, particularly where Children are involved. Most people just want to ensure their pay packet so they can pay the mortgage and have their annual holiday. That last sentence is an observation not a judgement.

Donna Hare - is telling the truth - until someone can disprove her statement. As far as I can see - the UFO Hunters were protecting themselves - given that they are led and produced by a person with legal training. And they too want to protect their livelihood. Take note that the NASA episode was the last one produced. Hmmmm....

I am in support of Donna Hare until someone can write a post supporting their opinion that she is a liar. Please don't just link a post it goes a long way to credibility to actually engage and practice your cognitive skills as well as merely pressing a button - helpful but not the only skill people can utilise to evince their intelligence. I would rather read a poorly spelt, badly structured post than be given a link for which I can press a button. I am not a robot and neither is any intelligent human.

So to continue with the topic of the thread - I still believe that NASA have all the technology and staff to fake any event that is televised via any and all media outlets. Particularly when people live a fast lifestyle and don't always have the luxury of examining the news they are absorbing.

Much Peace...

reply to post by chrisb9
I am so glad some one on the ats has enough grapefruits to tell the truth around here, excellent thread

reply to post by redbarron626


Welcome to ATS. Where the points don't matter, and everything's made up...

Originally posted by Xterrain


Curiosity is a hoax, a load of crap, and has no correlation to any of our lives and it won't change anything. Just like the other $10,000,000,000 blown on Mars "rovers" before it. You know what we gained from those last pictures?

you can either claim hoax or 10 Billion blown Claiming both is a fail

Originally posted by Xterrain

The ONLY thing this mission has proved to me? Is IF it's real, then where the hell was the "sky crane" to avoid the "dust cloud" on the moon landing? No dust flew anywhere...with even less gravity and even lower density dust particles? Seriously?

you need something to suspend the "dust cloud" on Mars there is enough atmosphere to do so the Moon not so much

reply to post by Phage


I just clicked on the link you provided and as far as I can see you are not utilising your own intellect but relying on the intellect/evidence of another person - to make your mind up for you. I have provided you with evidence - researched - on film with the words coming out of the mouth of the person in question. Just because Bill Byrnes added a legally protective comment after her segment - does not mean she is lying - he just does not want to be sued by NASA - who have far more money than him when it comes to winning court proceedings.

If you doubt her - look up her employment history and determine when she worked in Building 8 and with whom she worked - see whether they will speak with you. I doubt anyone who worked with Donna Hare will ever speak to support her, most people are sacred of the truth and scared of losing their comfortable lives.

Much Peace...

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by Phage

 

I just clicked on the link you provided and as far as I can see you are not utilising your own intellect but relying on the intellect/evidence of another person - to make your mind up for you. I have provided you with evidence - researched - on film with the words coming out of the mouth of the person in question.

and how is that any different?

Are you suggestign that everyone has to research everythign from first principles or they are not allwoed to make a valid conclusion?

Or is it only "using your own intellect" when you accept the silly suppositions of the looney fringe, and not when you accept the conclusions of the vast volume of verifiable scientificly justified research available?

Eg how do you know computers work?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


People can research utilising any method they like. I make my opinions based on research and utilising my own intellect. Essentially I speak my mind because I have one. You don't have to agree with me and as long as I am not abusive - my right to speak freely is my right.

Cognition is a very special human ability and it is like a muscle - it needs to be used every day so that it is strong and gets stronger with use.

When I agree with your opinion without utilising my intellect and cognitive abilities I am in a way only hitch hiking on your opinion and not engaging my own skills. I hope that helps.

I believe that I have presented credible evidence to support my opinion that NASA has every technology and plenty of capable and willing staff - in order to fake anything. If you are utilising your cognition you will note that I have not accused NASA of anything - I have not made an allegation of forgery. I am utilising my cognitive skills and supporting my opinion without links to references and I am forming my own communication supported by references you are free to locate for yourself.

Much Peace...