Proof Nasa Lies "Mars Coverup--literally"
- Thread starter fluid1959
- Start date
- Status
That rock could have been a skull.
Persol you have demonstrated nothing but the ability to flap your mouth.
Well I've also demonstrated the ability to shoot down your delusional claims. You still haven't responded to my questions about why you think those rocks look like something else.
You are repetitive rude and ignorant.
You have several threads which all say the same thing. Now THATS repetitive. I also think you mistake humor for rudeness and ignorance. Hell, if I can't laugh at you who can I laugh at?
Well I've also demonstrated the ability to shoot down your delusional claims. You still haven't responded to my questions about why you think those rocks look like something else.
You are repetitive rude and ignorant.
You have several threads which all say the same thing. Now THATS repetitive. I also think you mistake humor for rudeness and ignorance. Hell, if I can't laugh at you who can I laugh at?
Actually the rover does have a camera for looking at objects closely, like examining rocks. However I'm sure they will just find rocks, more rocks and perhaps a few rocks in the coming mission.
Lets just hope the rover, can rove, otherwise it might get stuck because of the rock. Especially since they'll be no native marsmonkeys to help NASA out of the scrape.
Lets just hope the rover, can rove, otherwise it might get stuck because of the rock. Especially since they'll be no native marsmonkeys to help NASA out of the scrape.
Persol said:
Oooohh, I love the game of Spot the Difference. Can I play too?
What I see is 3 black dots in both pictures. 2 are nominally the same due to resolution limits. They could be just about anything.
Just to the rear is what appears to be an aircraft hangar sitting on a circular trackway. Surprised Mr. Fluidonthebrain hasn't seen that as well. Maybe I'm being too openminded here.
I don't believe I even took the time to do this.
This is a zoom in of both objects. You will see no resemblence between the rocks (except for being smooth), or between the ground in front of them.
Now ONCE AGAIN, if you do see a resemblence, you must EXPLAIN what is the same. Saying that a cloud looks like a duck doesn't make it a duck.
This is a zoom in of both objects. You will see no resemblence between the rocks (except for being smooth), or between the ground in front of them.
Now ONCE AGAIN, if you do see a resemblence, you must EXPLAIN what is the same. Saying that a cloud looks like a duck doesn't make it a duck.
Hey Fluid, you could have a valid point no doubt. I know what you think about those spheres. We think a whole lot of chit is going down, check this out about the possible war evidence we have been researching. http://www.craterchains.com/ns/nspage.html
Disinformation Agents
Has anyone else noticed that certain topics seem to get attacked, made fun of, lied about openly, ignored, and attempts are continuously being made to disrupt or change the topic? We have noticed another “pattern” besides crater chains. BBS and forum’s boards are full of these agents that are there to keep us from learning about some things. The methods used form a pattern which can be found by reading that “persons” posts from many threads.
This is why I wont respond in this thread, only by email.
Has anyone else noticed that certain topics seem to get attacked, made fun of, lied about openly, ignored, and attempts are continuously being made to disrupt or change the topic? We have noticed another “pattern” besides crater chains. BBS and forum’s boards are full of these agents that are there to keep us from learning about some things. The methods used form a pattern which can be found by reading that “persons” posts from many threads.
This is why I wont respond in this thread, only by email.
Lol, I did what? Your pictures were rocks. I pointed this out to you. I removed nothing after the fact, as I had no reason to.fluid1959 said:
Yes, PLEASE educate me. Part of getting educated is asking questions. I've done that. You have yet to answer. So, yet again:fluid1959 said:
1) What is remarkable about those rocks/fragments that you claim they are not be natural? Why are they any different then the rocks I showed you to demonstrate?
2) What is similar in the picture above, of which I've presented you a larger photo?
The point is that you have been completely unable to explain your position. If you can not explain your position, I have to doubt whether you actually understand your position.
It always amazes me how predictably consistent the ufo/conspiracy nutters are to emerge anytime NASA does anything in public. The more significant the public event, the more extraordinary the claim.
There was nothing obvious in the NASA photos that suggested anything more than rocks and erosion. There may have been some similarities in the "two rocks," but many more points of difference. Besides, one should expect the morphology of rocks in the same environment to be similar since they are likely to be exposed to the same erosional forces and of the same mineral content.
There was nothing obvious in the NASA photos that suggested anything more than rocks and erosion. There may have been some similarities in the "two rocks," but many more points of difference. Besides, one should expect the morphology of rocks in the same environment to be similar since they are likely to be exposed to the same erosional forces and of the same mineral content.
Why find a better photo? The photo's you provided and linked to are clear enough.
You appear to be the only person that sees something other than rocks.
Besides... there's no need to silence your "idiotic beleifs," they are effectively canceled out by your colorful prose.
You appear to be the only person that sees something other than rocks.
Besides... there's no need to silence your "idiotic beleifs," they are effectively canceled out by your colorful prose.
fluid1959 said:
But what are your claims, kook? You keep posting images of rocks and hint they are not, with footnotes attacking any who disagree with you.
A rocks a rock a rock.
Before you claim I am mindlessly defending NASA, bear in mind I'm not American and have need to defend the American National Aeronautical Space Agency. Not my country, not my agency.
fluid1959 said:Let me try the scientific approach
The data is even more astounding using smaller samples and
measuring from left to right as you go over the added area. But I'm not reloading excel.
Sorry, what does the 'data' tell you exactly? Your method is flawed anyway, I can see that instantly. You have cut up a picture into equal sized rectangles, when to make sure the same area of ground is under each section, they should be cut according to the perspective in the picture, ie, leading to a point on the horizon, larger in the foreground, smaller towards the vanishing point.
So you've gathered some meaningless data via a spurious method, and have the gall to call it 'science'. Making schoolboy mistakes like this is why nobody who actually paid attention is science class takes you seriously!
fluid1959 said:
You do realize that writing in the luminosity that photoshop detected doesn't imply anything, right?
But, you were probably trying to infer that a gradient means something. Yes, I see that you put numbers there in about equal rectangles. So what? You have shown nothing. Or have you. Explain it.
What are your claims? Say them straight out. "I think that..." or "I think the images I have put forth shows that..." Just tell us. You are being unclear, which is a method of kooks. You don't want to be a kook, do you?
"What is remarkable about those rocks/fragments that you claim they are not be natural?" Answer.
Regardless of our "vision" being able to see it, just tell us what you think.
And please fully answer these questions before the excessive ad hom. attacks. They don't help your credibility.
- Status