When will Mars be Colonized?

Bill Kaysing was a librarian/writer of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014 chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon.



However, only 2 years later, American President John F. Kennedy set a goal in May 1961, when he made the following famous speech. 'I believe that this nation should commit itself. To achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of Space.' It was just eight years later in 1969, that man finally left Earth and set foot on the Moon... Or so we have been led to believe.




PICTURES ARE FROM THE NASA VIDEOS AND FILM ROLLS





Lets move onto the famous picture of Buzz Aldrin that shows the LEM, Neil Armstrong and landing site in the reflection of his visor. One of the strange things with this picture is that the reticule that is supposed to be in the middle of the picture actually shows up at the bottom of Aldrin's right leg? How can this be when the camera is attached to the cameraman's chest??? A fact that is easily verifiable by the reflection of the cameraman in the visor.

Many people have speculated that the pictures have been retouched to bring up the detail of the astronauts. But this cannot be applied to the Apollo 11 photographs because a duplicate copy of the original Armstrong film has been analyzed and shows that the pictures are all on one continuous roll of film that contains over 100 images. Even Jan Lundberg from Hasselblad, the makers of the camera, says that the pictures seem as though Armstrong is standing in a spotlight. The only way the reticule could appear in the bottom of the leg is if the picture had been copied and reframed!!!


The horizon is about 89 degrees from the true vertical. Dr Groves has worked out that after analysing the shadows cast by both the astronaut in the picture and the supposed cameraman in the visor, that Armstrong who is taking the picture is standing on ground that is a mere few inches higher than where Aldrin is stood, If this is the case, then it means that whoever took the shot was in fact at least 2 feet higher than Aldrin and therefore means that Armstrong, although visible with the camera in the visor, is not the actual person who took the shot.

More Later

 

Enough of this until you read this: http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

 

I already have. It gives me nothing. you can't debate the fact that an intact NASA film roll shows the clear evidence

 

I commend you on finding some kind of evidence on the topic, but what does this have to do with colonizing on mars?

 

I can tell you didn't read it; you skimmed it. Read it. For real. It really explains some of the things you are trying to disprove and having read it, I think it's possible for people to want to think it didn't happen, because it's such a marvel of technology, and so unheard of, but I still do not believe it was a hoax in any way. Also, answer my question.

Were all of the other moon and planetary landings fakes as well? Because they used similar technology. You also didn't answer why we can see the footprints, flag, and other things on the moon's (and Mars') surface through satellites that match up perfectly with the pictures and videos taken at the time...?

Also, if you read it, you will be able to answer why there are no stars in the sky of the pictures, and why the film did not corrode from the heat.

 

Marz will be colonized when we fail at saving our planet.
We are going to fail.

EDIT: And if it is colonized don't expect just anyone will be moved there. Just the important people.

 

Haha I'm really hoping you did that on purpose

Ye of little hope, what makes you think we can't turn things around for ourselves? With technological advances someone may come with an invention that will save us all!

 

I'll answer them when I have time to formulate a proper disposition. And it has everything to do with mars. It will not happen in our lifetime i gurantee

 

I really don't see it having any relevance to actually colonizing on mars. Explain why you think so?

 

Because in generilization Russians said that could land on the moon in the 60's so JFK unleashes the new rocket to go there in a VERY improbable amount of time. Mars won't be in our lifetime because its still gonna be decades before the spacestation will ever be completed etc etc etc.

 

That very long report you obviously copy and pasted does not relate to colonizing on mars what so ever, that was why I was asking how it could possibly relate to the topic being discussed.

Trying to prove how one nation faked landing on the moon years before we were born does not give me any insight on when we will colonize on mars.

 

.

Yes.

 

Pshh...obvious that you did not read. It's ok. Lots of people in this forum won't change what they believe no matter if the evidence is staring them right in the face.

As for Mars, if it becomes necessary we will do it. It's not necessary to colonize Mars at this point.

 

Was it necessary to go to the moon? I believe it will happen when we get sufficient technology. I don't know if it'll be beneficial to actually colonize it, but I'm certain there will be a manned mission to Mars in the future.

 

In a way we did have a sense of urgency: to beat the Soviets to the moon. There is not such urgency for Mars.

 

Never. It takes way to long to fly ther for starters.

 

in about 1 trillion years i guess?

 

...yet. I think the same thing will happen once we get the technology needed to seriously start planning a mission to Mars.

 

Probably. When the Soviets/Chinese/other gain the ability to colonize Mars we'll probably try to prove once again that we can do it first...we're a pretty competitive nation.

 

transporting things there would cost soo much money and we do not have enough gas to get enough tings there