Mars Curiosity Self-portrait

Because that other thread turned into hamsters vs. rocks.

Watch this video it's very helpful.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=156880341

What's interesting about this?

What's interesting about this?

It shows how the robot was able to take its own photograph without another camera being there. Though I'm sure you already knew this.

Its too bad the last thread got sceptimated.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2012, 06:14:59 PM

What's interesting about this?

It shows how the robot was able to take its own photograph without another camera being there. Though I'm sure you already knew this.

Its too bad the last thread got sceptimated.

Why is that interesting?

Why do you think NASA felt the need to waste money and make such a boring video.

Quote from: cartwheelnurd on December 11, 2012, 06:23:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2012, 06:14:59 PM

What's interesting about this?

It shows how the robot was able to take its own photograph without another camera being there. Though I'm sure you already knew this.

Its too bad the last thread got sceptimated.

Why is that interesting?

Why do you think NASA felt the need to waste money and make such a boring video.

The point of the video was

1. To help shut down conspiracy theorist such as yourselves.

2. to show aspiring scientists/photographers something they would find interesting.

Why did flatorange post this?

To get a new spin on things aside from the detieriorated last thread on the subject.

an interesting video, but i highly doubt NASA landed on Mars, they did land somewhere, but I assume its terrestrial.
Mars is very small, no more than 1-2 km in diameter. Maybe the rover crash landed in an Earth desert and NASA is simply mistaken.

either way, thank you for sharing.

I don't think the question of how these robots manage to take pictures of themselves has ever been a big issue with us.

an interesting video, but i highly doubt NASA landed on Mars, they did land somewhere, but I assume its terrestrial.
Mars is very small, no more than 1-2 km in diameter. Maybe the rover crash landed in an Earth desert and NASA is simply mistaken.

either way, thank you for sharing.

what place on earth would have no life or vegetation? also no outside disturbances such as aircraft
how do you know the size of mars?

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on December 11, 2012, 06:56:32 PM

an interesting video, but i highly doubt NASA landed on Mars, they did land somewhere, but I assume its terrestrial.
Mars is very small, no more than 1-2 km in diameter. Maybe the rover crash landed in an Earth desert and NASA is simply mistaken.

either way, thank you for sharing.

what place on earth would have no life or vegetation? also no outside disturbances such as aircraft
how do you know the size of mars?

A desert.  Yes, deserts are not typically devoid of life, but NASA would just have to be careful not to show pictures of it.

Quote from: cartwheelnurd on December 11, 2012, 06:23:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2012, 06:14:59 PM

What's interesting about this?

It shows how the robot was able to take its own photograph without another camera being there. Though I'm sure you already knew this.

Its too bad the last thread got sceptimated.

Why is that interesting?

flat earthers spend pages and pages saying that the mars rover self portariat must be a fake because a it looks like someone was taken it from a point away from and looking at the rover. and how can it have taken a picture of itself without getting the arm in the picture. how it is done has been shown to you all there by proving the validity of the photo, and you say this is interesting how? well for starters it proves you all wrong. something i know flat earthers don't take to well considering it happens quite a bit. lol

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on December 11, 2012, 06:56:32 PM

an interesting video, but i highly doubt NASA landed on Mars, they did land somewhere, but I assume its terrestrial.
Mars is very small, no more than 1-2 km in diameter. Maybe the rover crash landed in an Earth desert and NASA is simply mistaken.

either way, thank you for sharing.

what place on earth would have no life or vegetation? also no outside disturbances such as aircraft
how do you know the size of mars?

We know Mars's appoxmate size because the moon passes in front of it.
Since they are only a few hundred miles apart, and the moon is 32 miles in diameter,
we can tell MArs is very small, 100s of times smaller than the moon.
Venus and Mercury are even smaller yet.

We know Mars's appoxmate size because the moon passes in front of it.
Since they are only a few hundred miles apart, and the moon is 32 miles in diameter,
we can tell MArs is very small, 100s of times smaller than the moon.
Venus and Mercury are even smaller yet.

Could you explain how Phobos & Diemos fit into this picture - particularly their Kepler orbits. 

Also why it's position in the sky always corresponds exactly to where the Kepler orbits of Earth & Mars predict it should be.

And while you're at it, why the angular diameter of Mars changes by a factor of 7 over the years, and why the angular diameter observed also matches the angular diameter predicted by the very same Kepler orbits.

Quote from: canucks#01fan on December 11, 2012, 11:10:16 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on December 11, 2012, 06:56:32 PM

an interesting video, but i highly doubt NASA landed on Mars, they did land somewhere, but I assume its terrestrial.
Mars is very small, no more than 1-2 km in diameter. Maybe the rover crash landed in an Earth desert and NASA is simply mistaken.

either way, thank you for sharing.

what place on earth would have no life or vegetation? also no outside disturbances such as aircraft
how do you know the size of mars?

A desert.  Yes, deserts are not typically devoid of life, but NASA would just have to be careful not to show pictures of it.

Actually NASA has admitted they do much of their 'testing' in Antarctica because the terrain is almost identical[nb]Almost they say, identical I say[/nb].

I posted a video of this just a few days ago but will repost it. I've been using Google Earth to view the terrain around McMurdo.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conspiracy in ANTARCTICA. South Polar CONSPIRACY
^watch from about 1:25 and look at the terrain. I think people should be looking for mummified penguins in NASA's Curiosity photos. At 3:08 the presenter tells you how Mars like this place is.

If you go to Google Maps or better yet Google Earth, and type "McMurdo Antarctica" you will see there is now an extensive base set up there. I have found that valley to the East of McMurdo and the terrain is identical to 'Martian' pictures. Those sneaky NASA men are generating this hoax from behind the ice-wall where they know no one can see what they are up to.

As my investigation continues, I will keep you updated.

Quote from: canucks#01fan on December 11, 2012, 11:10:16 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on December 11, 2012, 06:56:32 PM

an interesting video, but i highly doubt NASA landed on Mars, they did land somewhere, but I assume its terrestrial.
Mars is very small, no more than 1-2 km in diameter. Maybe the rover crash landed in an Earth desert and NASA is simply mistaken.

either way, thank you for sharing.

what place on earth would have no life or vegetation? also no outside disturbances such as aircraft
how do you know the size of mars?

We know Mars's appoxmate size because the moon passes in front of it.
Since they are only a few hundred miles apart, and the moon is 32 miles in diameter,
we can tell MArs is very small, 100s of times smaller than the moon.
Venus and Mercury are even smaller yet.

for starters, use either miles or KM's to describe sizes not both
second, you are again making bogus claims that mars is only a few hundred miles away from the moon, how did you come up with that number?

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on December 12, 2012, 09:36:43 AM

Quote from: canucks#01fan on December 11, 2012, 11:10:16 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on December 11, 2012, 06:56:32 PM

an interesting video, but i highly doubt NASA landed on Mars, they did land somewhere, but I assume its terrestrial.
Mars is very small, no more than 1-2 km in diameter. Maybe the rover crash landed in an Earth desert and NASA is simply mistaken.

either way, thank you for sharing.

what place on earth would have no life or vegetation? also no outside disturbances such as aircraft
how do you know the size of mars?

We know Mars's appoxmate size because the moon passes in front of it.
Since they are only a few hundred miles apart, and the moon is 32 miles in diameter,
we can tell MArs is very small, 100s of times smaller than the moon.
Venus and Mercury are even smaller yet.

for starters, use either miles or KM's to describe sizes not both
second, you are again making bogus claims that mars is only a few hundred miles away from the moon, how did you come up with that number?

Try growing up in Canada someday and you'll know why not only using units of measurement but also languages are interchangeable.

The FAQ states the sun in 3100 miles above earth, the planets 3200 and the stars above. 
The only thing incorrect about this, and possibly due to the uneven weight of the earth, and the UA.
Sometimes Mercury and Venus come closer, because the transit the sun.

Quote from: canucks#01fan on December 11, 2012, 11:10:16 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on December 11, 2012, 06:56:32 PM

an interesting video, but i highly doubt NASA landed on Mars, they did land somewhere, but I assume its terrestrial.
Mars is very small, no more than 1-2 km in diameter. Maybe the rover crash landed in an Earth desert and NASA is simply mistaken.

either way, thank you for sharing.

what place on earth would have no life or vegetation? also no outside disturbances such as aircraft
how do you know the size of mars?

We know Mars's appoxmate size because the moon passes in front of it.
Since they are only a few hundred miles apart, and the moon is 32 miles in diameter,
we can tell MArs is very small, 100s of times smaller than the moon.
Venus and Mercury are even smaller yet.

Contrary to popular FE belief, 32 miles divided by hundreds is NOT 1-2 km. Take some math courses.

And yes, NASA would certainly not notice their rover crash-land in the desert and they would be oblivious as it fell down to earth completely untouched.

Quote from: canucks#01fan on December 12, 2012, 02:53:33 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on December 12, 2012, 09:36:43 AM

Quote from: canucks#01fan on December 11, 2012, 11:10:16 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on December 11, 2012, 06:56:32 PM

an interesting video, but i highly doubt NASA landed on Mars, they did land somewhere, but I assume its terrestrial.
Mars is very small, no more than 1-2 km in diameter. Maybe the rover crash landed in an Earth desert and NASA is simply mistaken.

either way, thank you for sharing.

what place on earth would have no life or vegetation? also no outside disturbances such as aircraft
how do you know the size of mars?

We know Mars's appoxmate size because the moon passes in front of it.
Since they are only a few hundred miles apart, and the moon is 32 miles in diameter,
we can tell MArs is very small, 100s of times smaller than the moon.
Venus and Mercury are even smaller yet.

for starters, use either miles or KM's to describe sizes not both
second, you are again making bogus claims that mars is only a few hundred miles away from the moon, how did you come up with that number?

Try growing up in Canada someday and you'll know why not only using units of measurement but also languages are interchangeable.

The FAQ states the sun in 3100 miles above earth, the planets 3200 and the stars above. 
The only thing incorrect about this, and possibly due to the uneven weight of the earth, and the UA.
Sometimes Mercury and Venus come closer, because the transit the sun.

i am canadian, and we use KMs and miles when we talk but its not common to compare an object in miles with another in KMs
and just because its on the FAQ it doesn't make it true

If you go to Google Maps or better yet Google Earth, and type "McMurdo Antarctica" you will see there is now an extensive base set up there. I have found that valley to the East of McMurdo and the terrain is identical to 'Martian' pictures. Those sneaky NASA men are generating this hoax from behind the ice-wall where they know no one can see what they are up to.

As my investigation continues, I will keep you updated.

Be sure to post it then when you find a picture of the terrain on Mars that NASA releases, and a screen shot of terrain that matches exactly from google Earth.