 Mars is a planet, called the red planet, which is at a distance of more than 200 millions kilometers from our planet. It is acknowledged to have an almost unexistent atmosphere (less than 1% of the one of the earth), which makes life impossible on Mars. |
 In these conditions, it is very surprising that NASA would have chosen to slow down the impressive speed that the spaceship (that contains Curiosity) has when it arrives on Mars (more than 10 thousands miles per hour) with a parachute; a parachute can only work with an atmosphere. If NASA had wanted to make a serious landing on Mars, it would have chosen to slow down the spaceship with rockets and not a parachute. |
 Furthermore, the descent trajectory which is displayed makes no sense. |
 Indeed... |
 ... The parachute is necessarily oriented in the direction of the trajectory, and, on the drawing which is shown, there is a portion of the trajectory on which the orientation of the parachute is very different from the current direction of the trajectory. Someone has said that it was because the spaceship of Curiosity was using its engines. It could not use its main engines for they are oriented in counter direction of the trajectory and so they could not push the spaceship toward this trajectory. The spaceship also has small engines on its top which are used to control the orientation of the spaceship, but, if only one was firing, it would make the spaceship turn, and we can see on the drawing that it is not turning, and, if all were firing, they would make the spaceship descend, and not follow the indicated trajectory, the way that the spaceship appears oriented on the drawing. So, there really is a problem. |
 It is not the only clue that the descent of Curiosity is not real. At a given moment of the video, we can see the display of the parameters of the descent, in particular the remaning distance to travel to the landing point, and the current speed; this is very interesting, for it is possible to relate the two. We can see that the speed is quite regular; it slightly increases on the displayed sequence from 11580 miles par hour ro 11600 miles per hour, which makes, when divided by 3600, a speed of around 3.22 miles per second (from 3.216 to 3.222). We should observe an equivalent varation on the remaining distance. We are going to check by observing the variations of distance between regular intervals. |
 We start from this initial state shown when the sequence starts being displayed. The current distance is 2273.68 miles. |
 Five seconds later the following indications are shown. The remaining distance is now 2258,47 miles; that makes a variation of 2273.68-2258.47=15.21 miles, which makes a variation of 15.21/5=3.04 miles per second (3.042). 3.04 when it should be close to 3.22 according to the displayed speed! That makes a too important difference. |
 Five seconds later from the previous state, the following indications are shown. The remaining distance is now 2243.29 miles; that makes a variation of 2258.47-2243.29=15.18 miles, which makes a variation of 15.18/5=3.03 miles per second (3.036). 3.03 is close to the previous speed obtained by computing the previous variation of distance, but once again too far from the observed speed which corresponds to 3.22 miles per second. |
This means that the indications which are shown are not coherent. The distance which is shown does not correspond with the speed which is displayed. And, if it does not correspond, this means that this descent cannot be a real descent. It is a simulation in which the engineers have intentionallly introduced an error, a clue that this descent is fake. Of course, they could have made a coherent simulation, in which case it would have been difficult to prove it was fake, but they have made it so that it was easy to prove fake, so to expose those who forced them to fake the Mars project. |
 But this is not even the most strange. According to the descent parameters shown on the graphic of the descent of Curiosity's spaceship, the spaceship would have lost 13200-900=12300 miles per hour after a time of 254 seconds (time at which the spaceship deploys its parachute - in an almost if not completely unexistent atmosphere). What can we deduce from these observations? 12300 miles per second represents 19790km/h, that we must divide by 3.6 to obtain the correspondence in m/s, which gives 5497m/s. As the spaceship lost this speed in 254 seconds, it means that the spaceship had to produce an average deceleration of 5497/254=21.6m/sē. Said this way, it does not mean much to you. But you are going to understand when we compare with the deceleration the lunar module was able to produce. According to its mass and the maximal thrust of its engine, the lunar module was theoretically able to produce a maximal deceleration of 9.627 feet/sē (with tanks full). If we look into the official descent table of the lunar module, we find decelerations of this order, a little higher, for as the fuel was burnt, the mass of the lunar module was decreasing. This deceleration corresponds in m/sē to a deceleration between 3 and 4 m/sē, of the order of the sixth of the average deceleration of Curiosity's spaceship. When you know that the lunar module had a very powerful central engine, whereas curiosity's spaceship only had lateral engines, because the center of the spaceship was occupied by the robot Curiosity, I think that you start to understand. Each lateral engine of Curiosity's spaceship would have been able to produce a ratio thrust/mass one and a half higher than the ratio of the powerful central engine of the lunar module. This is outright insane, and confirms curioty's landing was a complete joke! |
 The Apollo project is also full of such intentional incoherences to prove the project fake. In the descent of the lunar module, this one was first following a transfer orbital trajectory, that is a trajectory it could follow without using its engines, in order to reach a lower orbit. According to the Kepler law, this elliptical trajectory had to be such that one of its foci is the center of the moon in order to be an orbital trajectory of the moon. |
 This is the transfer trajectory they show in the technical documentation. |
 The problem is that none of the foci of this elliptical trajectory (I have represented with red crosses) corresponds with the center of the moon (I have represented with a green cross). |
 If I place the moon's center on a focus of this trajectory, this is what I obtain: The trajectory bumps into the moon. |
 In fact, if I represent the normal transfer trajectory as it should have been drawn to be realistic, it would have appeared with a much smaller eccentricity (for those who don't know what "eccenticity" means, with a more round trajectory). |
 I have to give some explanations about the way the lunar module was descending from the starting orbit of the powered descent. At start, the lunar module has a very important orbital speed (around 6000 km/h); this orbital speed creates a centrifugal force which allows to counter the lunar attraction, which means that the lunar module has to produce no effort to counter the lunar attraction, it can follow it with its engine off. In order to descend to the lunar surface, the lunar module must reduce this horizontal speed which prevents it from descending; furthermore if the lunar module was landing with this very important horizontal speed, it is obvious that it would be crushed to little bits. So the lunar module has first a horizontal attitude and pushes with its engine to reduce its horizontal speed; as the horizontal speed is reduced, so is its centrifugal force, and consequently the lunar attraction starts making the lunar module descend, and the vertical speed starts increasing; int the first phase of the descent, the lunar module does not bother about the vertical speed, which remains moderate compared to the horizontal speed, because it must first consequently reduce the horizontal speed. That means that the vertical speed is first going to increase. Then, when the horizontal speed has been consequently reduced, the lunar module starts countering the lunar attraction and reducing its vertical speed by slowing turning from a horizontal attitude to a vertical one, but in a very progressive way. The goal is to arrive near the lunar surface with both horizontal and vertical speeds nulled (or at least weak). |
 This is the descent table which is shown in the technical documentation of NASA. We are going to get interested in the events I colored in this table. Between these two events, the vertical speed increases, for the lunar module is still trying to slow down the important horizontal speed, and does not care about reducing the vertical speed. Between these two events there is a difference if time equal to 6:24-4:18=126 seconds; between these two events, the vertical speed (indicated in feet per second in the column "Altitude rate" - and negative because oriented downward) varies from 89 to 106 feet per second; this means that 106 represents the maximal speed between these two events; so the maximal loss of altitude should be equal to the maximal speed multiplied by the time interval, which gives, according to the table: 106*126=13356 feet; the difference of altitude between these two events should be less than this value; yet if we compute the difference of altitude between these two events, we find: 39201-24639=14562 feet. So the difference of altitude between the two events is greater than the maximal loss of altitude according to the displayed vertical speed. This is of course totally impossible, and a clue to the show that this descent cannot be real. This is not the only anomaly in this table, but it is enough to show that the NASA engineers were inserting clues of the fakery to expose those who were forcing them to fake it. |
 Let's go back to the landing of curiosity. When close to the Mars ground, the system which was transporting Curiosity was hauling it down with cables. Once again the engineers have given a clue of the fakery by representing a cable twisted all along, whereas the other cables appear tight. |
 I show an animation on which I have colored in red this cable, so you can clearly see it. This twisted cable is a new hint of the fakery, for it is impossible that a cable could be twisted that way when the other cables are tight. |
 Then the new anomaly I see is that Curiosity could be taken in photo when it was the only device on Mars which could have a camera. Curiosity's fans assert that Curiosity was planting a camera on the Mars ground, so this camera could take Curiosity in photo. |
 This photo of Curiosity is outright impossible. The angle under which we see Curiosity is much too closed, it is not realistic. |
 I show here in an animation a collection of cars taken in bias under various angles, and none of this cars appears with an as closed angle as what we see on the last photo of Curiosity I have shown, far from it. Of course, you might think that it is because the original photo has been dilated... |
 ..But... |
 ...If I vertically compress the photo in order to obtain a more reasonable angle, there is a serious problem... |
 ...which is that Curiosity no more has round wheels, but oval ones! |
So, in conclusion, there is no way that this might be a natural photo of Curiosity taken on Mars! |
 And, for a planet which has no amosphere, or almost not (less than 1% of earth's atmosphere), the sky appears much too clear on the photos taken by Curiosity; we can even see clouds. What they make is plain clear: They take photos of the earth, and then they add an orange filter to make them look like they had been taken on the red planet. |
 Someone has taken a photo of a landscape on earth, and added a color filter to make it look like it had been taken on Mars by Curiosity; he has even added a bit of Curiosity to make it more convincing. |
 And we can have serious doubts about the measures made by the Viking probes, when we know that they used the computer of Apollo, that the documentation shows that its memory could not work. |
 And of course, Curiosity (which is not on Mars) has not found water on Mars. It is very probable that water does not exist on Mars. |
 The media are so gullible that, if NASA was saying that it has managed to make a spaceship land on the sun, and to make astronauts walk on it, they would blindly believe it, without asking the least question. |
 The conclusion is that the whole space program of NASA is fake, at least the part which claims to have gone beyond the close earth's orbit. What NASA is serving us is science fiction, and not real science! |
