Mars and the Landing of the Perseverance Rover?

Written By Thomas Perez. February 26, 2021 at 2:37AM. Copyright 2021. 

A. The Skinny According to Mainstream

On February, the Perseverance Rover, the heart of NASA’s $2.7 billion Mars 2020 mission, lifted off from Florida’s Space Coast atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket on July 30, 2020. That was about halfway through Perseverance’s month-long launch window, which closed in mid-August. It landed on Mars February 18th, 2021. Along with the Rover, a helicopter called “Ingenuity, nicknamed Ginny, (was sent)… a robotic rotorcraft that is planned to be used to test the technology to scout targets of interest on Mars, and help plan the best driving route for future Mars rovers.” (1)(2). The helicopter carries two cameras: A panchromatic, wide angle 0.3 megapixel navigation camera that is nadir pointing to track the position of the helicopter, and a 13 megapixel color camera that captures the surface from near nadir to just above the horizon.

(1). Chang, Kenneth (23 June 2020). “Mars Is About to Have Its “Wright Brothers Moment” – As part of its next Mars mission, NASA is sending an experimental helicopter to fly through the red planet’s thin atmosphere”The New York TimesArchived from the original on 23 June 2020. Retrieved 23 June 2020.

(2). Leone, Dan (19 November 2015). “Elachi Touts Helicopter Scout for Mars Sample-Caching Rover”. SpaceNews. Archived from the original on 21 February 2021. Retrieved 20 November 2015.

There are also beautiful, pretty and awe-inspiring videos and pictures sent from the red planet, courtesy of NASA via its Rover as the following depicts.

It is what they are claiming. It is what they are showing us, as seen on NASA’s very own website. (3).


NASA is not the only folks who are giving us pictures in panoramic views. Some, video amateur enthusiasts, have actually taken it upon themselves to do the same as the following Facebook post depicts. (4)


Here are NASA’s own panoramic views…

With all that is going on in this world, and considering what nearly 3 billion dollars can do to help benefit people and communities here, and now, on Earth, they, nevertheless, tell us that sending a mechanical device on wheels to Mars “should matter to us.” (5).


And there you have it, the crux of the story. Or is it?

B. The Magnifying Glass

Having read of the so-called official accounts, let us now take a deeper look with our magnifying glasses at the discrepancies and outlandish claims.

I will begin with the alleged distance of what science calls “Mars” with that of the Earth. Many sources tell us that it took the Rover a “292.5 million-mile journey from Earth, the agency (NASA) confirmed at 3:55 p.m. ET Thursday.” (6). Those sources include CNN, CBS, and many others; including, believe or not, Facebook. But what does NASA say on their site? NASA cites it at 292.5 too. “The spacecraft has about 25.6 million miles (41.2 million kilometers) remaining in its 292.5- million-mile (470.8-million-kilometer) journey.” (7). In another NASA quotation, they had claimed that; “By the time of its landing, Perseverance will have covered 292.5 million miles (470.8 million kilometers), and Mars will be about 130 million miles (209 million kilometers) away from Earth…” During the Rover’s travel, NASA cited that “In straight-line distance, Earth is 26.6 million miles [42.7 million kilometers] behind Perseverance and Mars is 17.9 million miles [28.8 million kilometers] in front.” (8). That is exactly 44.5 million miles away altogether.

Moreover, according to Space.c-m, “In 2003, Mars came closer to Earth than it had in about 60,000 years, 34.65 million miles (55.76 million km), according to The Red Planet won’t come closer than this until Aug. 28, 2287 when it will be 34.60 million miles (55.69 million km) from Earth, according to” (9). The farthest Mars can be from the Earth is “about 401 million km (249.17 miles). The average distance is about 225 million km. (1.398.10 miles). (10). But still again NASA cites that Mars is at a distance of 134.54 million miles away at its furthest and about 33.9 when closet to Earth. If that’s the case, then they really shouldn’t use the terms farthest at 225 and farthest at 134.54. That is a difference of roughly 91 million miles.






Science claims that the apparent discrepancies in distance are due to a number of factors. Distances change due to movements. They claim Earth and Mars “changes from moment to moment because Earth and Mars are orbiting the Sun. It also requires a little explanation about the orbital mechanics of each. Both Earth and Mars are following elliptical orbits around the Sun, like two cars travelling at different speeds on two different racetracks.” “…

“Sometimes the planets are close together, and other times they’re on opposite sides of the Sun. And although they get close and far apart, those points depend on where the planets are on their particular orbits. So, the Earth Mars distance is changing from minute to minute.”

“The planets don’t follow circular orbits around the Sun, they’re actually traveling in ellipses. Sometimes they’re at the closest point to the Sun (called perihelion), and other times they’re at the furthest point from the Sun (known as aphelion).” (11). Hence, the discrepancies are due to movements, moment to moment.


C. What Science History Tells Us.

Keeping in mind what we all just read above, it should behoove any individual to ask a simple question, “How exactly can they tell how close or how far something is from the Earth?” Answer: By the measurement of light, its speed of travel and an objects movement – this is called “Stellar Aberrations” and “Stellar Parallax” (A)(P) – for short. I can not over emphasize the role that A and P plays when scientists use their heliometers and photometers to achieve A & P. We already discussed aberrations and parallaxes in chapter two of our “Pale Blue Dot, series. But for the sake of this article I will share what they mean briefly.

Measurement of light, or brightness, if you will, is called a Stellar Aberration. “Aberration is related to two other phenomena, light-time correction, which is due to the motion of an observed object during the time taken by its light to reach an observer, and relativistic beaming, which is an angling of the light emitted by a moving light source.” (12). Similarly, aberration is a “displacement of the apparent path of light from a star, resulting in a displacement of the apparent position of the star from its true position; discovered by the English astronomer James Bradley and explained by him in 1729.” (13).

According to Britannica.c-m, “Bradley used a telescope to accomplish (A). In 1725, using Molyneux’s house as an observatory, Bradley attempted to repeat Hooke’s measurements on Gamma Draconis with a telescope aimed so as to avoid any error resulting from the refraction of light. Although he failed to detect parallax because the star was too far away, Bradley made one of the two discoveries for which he is famous. He observed that Gamma Draconis shifted south in position by an astonishing 1″ of arc in three days—the wrong direction and by too large an amount to be accounted for by parallax. It is said that the explanation for this phenomenon came to Bradley as he sailed on the Thames, observing how the wind vane on the mast shifted position with the varying motion of the boat, even though the wind had not changed direction. He concluded that the apparent stellar shift was brought about by the aberration of light which was a result of the finite speed of light and the forward motion of the Earth in its orbit. Bradley communicated this discovery to the Royal Society in 1728, shortly after the death of Molyneux. On the basis of his quantitative observations of aberration, Bradley confirmed the velocity of light to be 295,000 kilometres (183,000 miles) per second and gave a proof for the Copernican theory.” (14).

(12). Wiki.



Now, with reference to the term Stellar Parallax, astronomers use a different method. Using parallax “Astronomers estimate the distance of nearby objects in space by using a method called stellar parallax, or trigonometric parallax. Simply put, they measure a star’s apparent movement against the background of more distant stars as Earth revolves around the Sun.” (15). The term parallax was coined by Friedrich Bessel in 1838. Parallax was first accomplished that year. It is claimed that the first successful distant star measurement – the star Cygni, to be exact, was discovered using P through the use of a heliometer. “A heliometer is a refracting telescope with a split objective lens, used for finding the angular distance between two stars.” (16). Heliometers were invented in 1743 & 48.

Similarly, “The photometer, which was invented by 19th-century British astronomer John Frederick William Herschel, (created in 1836 – T. Perez) is an instrument used to measure and quantify the amount of light that emanates from a celestial body. The measured brightness allows astronomers to calculate a number of important parameters, including the temperature of a star’s surface, the distance of a star or the age of a star.” (17).


(16). Google Dictionary


Understanding what we now know about A and P, we also realize that the integrity of A & P are solely based upon light and measurement. But how were these measurements decided upon? How were they created? By what standard are they dependant upon? Since we know the tools that were, and are still, used to measure light and its speed, we must now focus our attention on light and measurements.

As cited in chapter two of my series “The Pale Blue Dot?” – “Aberration is historically significant because of its role in the development of the theories of light (as mentioned above – T. Perez) electromagnetism and, ultimately, the theory of special relativity. It was first observed in the late 1600s by astronomers searching for stellar parallax in order to confirm the heliocentric model of the Solar System. However, it was not understood at the time to be a different phenomenon.” (18).

(18). Williams, M. E. W. “Flamsteed’s Alleged Measurement of Annual Parallax for the Pole Star.” Journal for the History of Astronomy. 10 (2): 102–116.

You can tell by the citation above that they wanted to confirm the heliocentric model – the Copernican model – that claims that it is the Earth that is rotating around the Sun (as in heliocentric) and not the Sun around the Earth as seen in the Tycho Brahe geocentric model. And as mentioned above, that opportunity came in 1727.

However, and most importantly, Bradley’s theory did not hold water with 19th cent theories of light. And because of this, Aberration became a major motivation for the following four; 1. The aether drag theories, 2. The Michelson Morley Experiment, 3. The aether theory of electromagnetism and 4. The theory of special relativity. In short, without repeating myself from chapter two of my series, none of the first three theories or experiments have been proven to be conclusively false. But in reference to relativity, Einstein himself did not deny an aether. Such a refusal to deny an aether seriously topples his theory of relativity, in which he admitted this in a paper. It then follows that when relatively is toppled then the theory of gravity in favor of an aether, is also toppled; which in turn also seriously jeopardizes the concept of a universal constant (as in the speed of light) of which Bradley, Bessel, and the work of modern day astronomers all depend upon when performing A & P.

Einstein’s quotation on the aether is as follows. “A more careful reflection teaches us not to deny aether. We may assume the existence of ether, only if we give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it.” “The aether of general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematic qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.” “I think that the aether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian aether through relativation.” “We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities: in this sense therefore, there exists an ether.” “space without ether is unthinkable: for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standard of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.” (19).


For a in-depth look into these things see Chapter Two of my “Pale Blue Dot” series.

Now that the domino effect has seriously jeopardized aberrations and parallaxes, hence giving birth to the reliability or at a least a creditable outlook on the aether drag theories, the Michelson Morley Experiment and the aether theory of electromagnetism, we now repeat our last two questions in reference to measurements; How were they created? By what standard are they dependant and based upon? Answer: The Astronomical Unit (AU).

“The AU is a unit of length roughly equal to the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun. The currently accepted value of the AU is 1.49597870691 x 1011 (± 3) meters (m), which is approximately 150 million kilometers (km) or 93 million miles.” (20). They use this unit for calculating the distances of planets (Wandering Stars) and other objects in the Solar System, relative to the Earth’s distance from the Sun.


Now this is where it gets crazy. According to Eusebius of Caesarea in the Praeparatio Evangelica, Eratosthenes found the distance to the Sun to be (literally “of stadia myriads 400 and 80000″).” (“Stadia” – bold emphasis by T. Perez). Hence the AU, as defined above, comes from measurements pertaining to ancient Greek stadiums – literally of stadia myriads of 400 and 80000″). So in other words, astronomers today achieve their AU measurements from ancient Greek stadiums. As they say in slang; “Are you kidding me? “I kid you not.”

According to Herodotus one stadion was equal to 600 Greek feet (podes). However, the length of the foot varied in different parts of the Greek world, and the length of the stadion has been the subject of argument and hypothesis for hundreds of years Various hypothetical equivalent lengths have been proposed, and some have been named.” Among them are: Itinerary, Olympic, Ptolemaic or Attic, Babylonian-Persian and Phoenician-Egyptian. Citations can be found in chapter fourteen. This is akin to deciding that the size of a local hockey rink located in the Bronx, of NY, where I play, is an AU. Why? Because I said so; just like Eratosthenes said centuries ago with reference to his stadiums. This is what I call an absurdity. Calculations based upon Greek stadiums? Complete nonsense.

However, a calculation demonstrating a non AU calculation for a local non gaseous Sun with limited heat source; while using trigonometric geometry, has proven mathematically that the Sun can indeed be within our atmosphere; roughly 2,700 to 3,000 miles away. This is precisely why the Sun and Moon are the same size during an eclipse. See chapter thirteen of my “Pale Blue Dot” series.

But mainstream denies this citing, “The Sun measures 1.4 million km across, while the Moon is a mere 3,474 km across. In other words, the Sun is roughly 400 times larger than the Moon. But the Sun also happens to be 400 times further away than the Moon, and this has created an amazing coincidence.”


But again, this fallacy is based upon the measurement of ancient Greek stadiums, instead of logical math. Moreover, in reference to Eratosthenes’nmodel, his measurements for a globe Earth can easily be inverted to support a flat Earth model, like it once was in the Chinese book Huainanzi in the 2nd Cent BCE, which we briefly mentioned in our chronological outline in our “Pale Blue Dot” series.

“Eratosthenes’ model depends on the assumption that the Sun is far away and therefore produces parallel rays of light all over the Earth. If the Sun is nearby, then shadows will change length even for a flat Earth. Therefore Eratosthenes’ columns, obelisks, and sticks hold not the only form of persuasion. And since measurements are faulty then so are the alleged distances of the Sun and the planets. Pseudoscience at its worst. But what about the said surface of Mars? If the planets are indeed only wandering stars then how does one account for the surface of Mars and any other planet for that matter as being seen as solid?

D. The Make Up of Mars and Other Planets

We covered the make up of planets in chapter fourteen. In short, spectrometers are used to determine the make up of a planet. But that too is faulty since it relies upon the periodic table. “In chemistry, the CPK coloring is a popular color convention for distinguishing atoms of different chemical elements in molecular models. The scheme is named after the CPK molecular models designed by chemists Robert Cory and Linus Pauling, and improved by Walter Koltun.” 

(22). Wiki

And as quoted in chapter 14 of my series, “One can choose any color” for any element. “There is no standard set of colors used to identify element groups or other properties. Colors are selected based on how well the text shows up against them, but mostly it’s just a matter of personal preference. You can find periodic tables in a variety of color schemes.” (23).

To be more precise, astronomers use the instrument called the optical spectrometer which utilizes the electromagnetic spectrum, measures light intensity and wavelengths; and all of this is matched and compared to chosen colors inserted in the spectrometer itself – that is the colors of the Periodic Table. BUT what are their colors? Answer: There are none. Elements are given colors by men (scientists, chemists and astronomers). In actuality, and therefore if, objects give off certain conformational characteristics, are not those confirmations based upon any given chosen color? Yes, they are. For more on spectrometers; their history and how they work, click the two links below…(24)(25).



E. Some Mechanical Practicalities and Jet Propulsion Laboratories.

After the Rover allegedly landed on Mars, we were treated to some entertainment; the sounds of Mars. The sounds were that of blowing winds. However, one thing that should peak the curiosity of any individual is the claim of hearing audio of wind on the Martian surface. Is that even possible, or do they really think the world is really that stupid? The atmospheric pressure on Mars is allegedly 0.087psi. One the earliest classroom experiments is putting a ringing bell in a vacuum chamber and demonstrating how silent it is with the chamber evacuated.

Moreover, the atmosphere on Mars is much thinner than Earth’s. The Red Planet’s atmosphere contains more than 95% carbon dioxide and much less than 1% oxygen. Another thing that struck my curiosity is the helicopter and parachute. It is said that parachutes can’t work in space. They require air to inflate and operate. That doesn’t mean that earthlings haven’t sent a few spacecraft with parachutes. All manned spacecraft, except the Space Shuttle Orbiters, used parachutes to slow their descent after re-entry from space after their mission. However, according to science, the Martian atmosphere is too thin for parachutes to function correctly, as NASA claims to have done, much less a helicopter that is required to hover over an almost non-existent atmosphere as we know it on Earth. The following video demonstrates how even something as lite as a feather can not move or float in a vacuum, or in a Mars equivalent type atmosphere. If a feather can’t move, hover, or float properly how can the “Ingenuity.”

Back Ground On the Creators of the Perseverance Rover

I find it extremely interesting how every single contractor for NASA is associated with the DOD (Department of Defense). For more on the list of contractors see chapter seventeen of my “Pale Blue Dot” series. Question: Which contractor created the Perseverance Rover? Answer: Jet Propulsion Laboratories. A subsidiary of the DOD.

“The Defense Program office is the interface between JPL technical teams and Defense-related organizations such as the US Dept of Defense as well as NATO and other Five-Eyes organizations for Defense Intelligence. We provide critical assessment of customer needs and match that to existing JPL technologies or capabilities for creating new technologies.

The Defense office supports formulation of programs and projects with an external customer focus (outward facing), but also develops project and tasks with the JPL technical team input (inward focus) that we then take to external customers or support for internal funding, when appropriate. When projects begin the Defense Office takes an active role in the implementation phase to ensure that Cost, Schedule, and Performance goals are all met while maintaining a cognizance of the labor and staffing realities that are recognized from the Line organizations. When there are discontinuities between the needs vs labor forces we look at structural changes and improvements to the labor force and talent acquisition to ensure the right mix of staff are available to draw from.

We work with the Finance and Contract Management Division to ensure that we have a fair and clear contractual vehicle from which we can effectively manage the effort from the point of inception to the point of appreciation of the scientific result.” (25)


Naturally, the most inclined response to all this proof by globe adherents is usually the following; “Why would they fake all of this, and everything else for that matter, for so many years?” Good question. I will discuss that in another article to be written and posted soon.