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

Originally posted by Amanda5
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...

Some say if you are aware - then you are in touch with your "higher self" - and that is the source of "true" knowledge. Some say intuition is your higher self speaking to your conscious self.

Here is more on that:

STEPS TO KNOWLEDGE takes you on the journey of discovering Self Knowledge, the mysterious source of your inner power and authority. Following this Knowledge leads you to the essential relationships that you will need to find and to fulfill your purpose in life.

www.newmessage.org...

Also, Mythi gets into the Mars hoax in his latest video:

reply to post by g146541


just a couple of weeks or so ago they took pics of the supposed flags, looked worse than the ones from after rover landed which makes no sense to me what so ever, isn't the Hubble telescope like way closer and tons of spy satellites that could probably turn that way i mean they can see a dime on ground through atmosphere? not sure if they are in or out but i do know each country(major) has several far out spy satellites

when i brought up Hubble people said reason we cant use it is because Hubble is to close ? i don't get that but thats what people told me on that forum. i really don't get it all, we landed on another outer space body when computers took up a room the size of a bus or two! but yet 50/60 years later we can barely make out a smudge and at that they were in black and white, wtf, its the 21st century and we still use black and white to show evidence!! (coming from an art back ground i understand some things can be seen better in b/w) but all they showed was like 5 pics all REAL TINY dots w arrows pointing to what was supposed to be our junk from a bunch of missions, IM pretty sure that is why India and china are in such a rush to get there and PROVE we weren't but somehow the programs they run get sabotaged(maybe) or have large problems like the Indian rocket that exploded plus why no mannedd missions since that time, i dont get it, if we could get there then, why dont we have mining bases, space stations/ space rocket building facilities ect ect yet we spend billions going even further when we really havent even finished exploring this one a stones throw away, it just makes no f ing sense other than the fact that technology is getting closer for the normal civilian to see the truths, im wondering if we keep going out further so no one can ever see the real evidence one has to wonder

so i dont know if we are there now or not, i dont know if we have ever been to the moon, i dont even know if a human being can even leave the outer atmosphere with out dying of radiation but id rather listen to this fairy tale then war all day

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

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.

It is perfectly clear to me that you are implying that the landing is faked - even though you do not come out and say as much, and IMO that is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

And this and the similar tactics of just asking questions, and being a concern troll, are feeble attempt to avoid responsibility for having to actually take a position.

reply to post by Xterrain


Again another deluded person who thinks that the world is out to get him.

I feel sorry for you and the others that live in a world of make believe.

I fail to see why this is such a big thing. So billions was spent on an exploration to another planet.

That is great news. I am keen to see more and keen to learn more about our own existance and this is one step closer to a better understanding.

People like you will live their life and miss out on the truly wonderful things that are available and when you get old you will look back and see how foolish you were. By then it is too late.

reply to post by Amanda5


By your standards of evidence there is a large colony of green unicorns in neptune who marry lonely farmers.
That Donna clip is pretty obvious. First of all her 1st story is complete bull#. The one about the guard burning ufo-photos. Claim is that the guard was burning photos, looked at one when he was told not to and then he was hit in the head and knocked unconcious. Somehow by acts of magic and miracles he makes it away from that situation to tell Donna this fairytale and needs protection now? So they choose to just bumb his head and let him go?
2nd her own personal story about a "dot" (her own words) on a photograph on earth. Yeah so? We got #tons of stuff flying around. And when there's crap on the photo you're not allowed to fix it just cause you work for NASA? BS.
Meanwhile in reality...

Originally posted by PsykoOps

By your standards of evidence there is a large colony of green unicorns in neptune who marry lonely farmers.

Psychological triggers.

First of all her 1st story is complete bull#.

Emotional triggers

Meanwhile in reality...

Ego diminishment.

Did you purposely use these psychological tactics or did it come naturally?

Can you make your point without using them?

reply to post by r2d246


If the military want's moey for a "black program" they don't have to tell anyone what they are doing with the money. That's way it's "black". They don't have to tell what they are using for.

reply to post by chrisb9


Translation of OP:

Science baffles me, logic escapes me so you all are stupid. Also, something about money.

/end translation

Seriously though. Just because YOU and 99% of the population can't personally go to Mars does not mean that our space tech is not very well understood or feasible. And if this is just another 'they gots all da monies!' thing then I would like more of an indictment than 'successful people have nice homes.'

reply to post by PsykoOps


I don't understand your response because the evidence you are referencing - I have not viewed or read. I can only refer to what I have located in my research - the UFO Hunters episode titled NASA. You are assuming that I have located information other than that cited by me. You are assuming I have knowledge that I don't.

You are entitled to your opinion and from what I glean from your post - there are other aspects to the Donna Hare evidence. All I know is that information and disinformation are becoming so closely interwoven it take a lot of research, effort and intellect to stay in tune with your own mind and not be 'hitch hiking' on the minds of others.

Much Peace...

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE




reply to post by Amanda5


That was "straight from the donkeys mouth" or how they say it. In case you haven't seen her speech (!?) it's linked by phage.

reply to post by Amanda5

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.

I believe that you have presented no credible evidence at all. You have provided the dubious story of a woman who did not work for NASA. A story which makes little sense.

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


I agree with you!! I can't believe that it took this long!!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Intellectual dishonesty - ahhhh - semantics in action. While I accept your opinion I do not have to agree with you. I am intellectually very honest. I write freely and I hide nothing. I seldom post links in threads preferring to practice my literacy skills and cognition while referencing my evidence/information sources within my work.

Just asking questions - last time I looked asking questions was a fundamental skill for learning and exploring our world. Asking questions is how we exercise our cognition. It is essentially how we avoid being a brain washed mind controlled human.

I am taking a position with regard to the topic of the thread. I have presented evidence/information that I believe supports the proposition that NASA are capable of faking space exploration. NASA have technology, complicit staff and loads of money to fake a landing. If you are trying to force me into taking a stance - that could be considered intimidatory trolling supported by convoluted semantics. Sorry no links to those terms you will have to utilise your intellect - just saying straight out so that you cannot accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

Now back to the topic of the thread - Mars landing and NASA and is it a fake? Well is it? What is your opinion as I would like to respect your view. Oops sorry - asking questions again and you don't manage questions from me or is it everyone?

Much Peace...

reply to post by Phage


The very small excerpt you have taken as a quote from my post is not supportive of your accompanying few lines. When you read my entire post and put the evidence I present into a context then I believe I have presented credible evidence.

Please note - everyone who has an issue with my posts - I am not asking anyone to believe me. Watch the UFO Hunters for yourself - there is nothing stopping you from researching for yourself.

Much Peace...

reply to post by Amanda5

The very small excerpt you have taken as a quote from my post is not supportive of your accompanying few lines. When you read my entire post and put the evidence I present into a context then I believe I have presented credible evidence.

Your excessive verbage is not supportive of your claim that you have provided any evidence other than the claims of Donna Hare.

Please note - everyone who has an issue with my posts - I am not asking anyone to believe me. Watch the UFO Hunters for yourself - there is nothing stopping you from researching for yourself.

I have watched UFO Hunters. Doing so does not constitute research. It's not even very entertaining.

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Intellectual dishonesty - ahhhh - semantics in action.

snippage

I am taking a position with regard to the topic of the thread. I have presented evidence/information that I believe supports the proposition that NASA are capable of faking space exploration. NASA have technology, complicit staff and loads of money to fake a landing. If you are trying to force me into taking a stance - that could be considered intimidatory trolling supported by convoluted semantics. Sorry no links to those terms you will have to utilise your intellect -

Semantics in action indeed.

[quoet]just saying straight out so that you cannot accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

I can, I did, and thank you for highlighting my case yet again!

hollywood studios probably have better capabilities for faking space missions, and a proven record of doing so, unlike NASA.

Now back to the topic of the thread - Mars landing and NASA and is it a fake? Well is it? What is your opinion as I would like to respect your view. Oops sorry - asking questions again and you don't manage questions from me or is it everyone?

no - apparently it is only you who resent being questioned.

I have already posted my opinion in this thread - clearly and without hiding behind semantics

Much Peace...

Yeah...right!

reply to post by Phage


Above Top Secret supports verbiage as you state they prefer it over minimal posts. I write with depth because I have depth and prefer to present my opinions within in a context.

If my depth of character and intellect is not to your liking that is fine I am not offended. If you find UFO Hunters not very entertaining that is unfortunate for you as I not only find it entertaining but informative. The investigative team looks at the evidence - plans their investigation and the team is comprised of educated professionals with a diversity of skills and intellects. It is for these reasons I cite it as a source of evidence. Your opinion is yours and I respect that and if you choose to disregard my opinion that is a reflection of your psyche.

Much Peace...

Originally posted by Komodo

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

Just imagine

and flying to Mars to see a lifeless plantet we could have looked at thru our telescopes/Hubble.....

is productive??? How.. ?

Wow, first, I'm surprised you hadn't considered what is known as "Pure Research", second, I'm surprised you hadn't considered that this is a stepping stone toward future missions, which could one day yield all kinds of value for the human race, or for the U.S., for example. Let's keep it simple - how about we find a few trillion dollars worth of precious metals, or an abundance of fuel for future fusion reactors.

I would imagine others said the same thing when we decided to first blast off into space, and I'm guessing they're not upset about the fact that we now have satellites providing us all kinds of amenities we didn't used to have.

Did you think merely looking at Mars through a telescope was the end of human space research? Is a $13B NASA budget too much to ask when we spend hundreds of billions of dollars occupying Iraq and Afghanistan every year? I'm just shocked there's so many folks so strongly set against science who use the internet.

I just want to double check I've got this.

The government said they spent 2.5 billion on this, and you believe that figure in the first place without having been personally present for the transfer of this money from one government account to another government account.

Then you are suggesting that this is a hoax because they need to cover up what they spent this money on? Is this entire hoax to fool some government accountant alone, because what citizen has access to all the receipts and bank balances of the government? Surely they don't need to pull a such a grand hoax to make just a few billion disappear. They can make trillions disappear without hoaxes.

Then the other suggestion is that this is an entertainment distraction. Looking at those mars pictures distracted me for about 45-60 seconds. But I've been in this thread longer then that reading the different ideas....hmmm maybe ATS is the REAL government distraction!!!!

Or maybe the real hoax here might be that the government had that much money to spend on something!

reply to post by Amanda5

Above Top Secret supports verbiage as you state they prefer it over minimal posts.

Actually ATS supports content. Content which can be expressed concisely is preferable to verbage.

And again, to put it concisely, you have provided a single bit of "evidence". "Evidence" which really does nothing to support the idea that the entire MSL mission is a fabrication.