The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2012, 09:07:57 PM
-
Look at the computer screens behind this NASA scientist. The martian skies are blue!
The Real Mars Sky? (http://#ws)
Here is a video showing how NASA faked the shots of its most recent rover missions (excuse the bad music):
NASA Mars expedition fraud (http://#)
I believe the above evidence is particularly damning and demonstrates that the shots are fake and were really shot on earth in a desert somewhere.
-
I had no doubts after the infamous sun dial pictures. It is clear that the "Mars" sky is "sky blue". No doubt somewhere remote in the Atacama desert not too distant from the observatories there.
Sundials and more: http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-hiddencolors.htm (http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-hiddencolors.htm)
-
Good link Ski. I like how the NASA logo turned bright pink:
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39767000/jpg/_39767433_naslogo_nasa_203.jpg)
-
For the first video, how do you know that's a supposed picture of mars? It's the guy's desktop and nothing in the video indicates that it's supposed to be a photo taken on mars.
-
You guys are aware that they use 'filters' to take these images, even if you are aware you may not be aware of what filters actually do. If they use a red filter on the images, it doesn't shift all the frequencies of the waves so they coincide as an exact copy just lower down the spectrum, it has a suppression which is a function of the frequency. So if a red filter were used it lowers the intensities of all the other colours, so blue becomes more 'red'. However the filters they use are not purely prime colours, they exist of various spectrum suppression peaks enabling these 'funny' looking images to exist, so I could leave the particular colour of the sky to stay the same but change to colours of all the similar colours lying either side of it in the spectrum, hence 'false colour' image.
Why do they do this? To make it more 'pretty' just why the sun seen in ultraviolet, and gamma observations usually green or purple look much better then the normal looking yellow filters.
-
You guys are aware that they use 'filters' to take these images, even if you are aware you may not be aware of what filters actually do. If they use a red filter on the images, it doesn't shift all the frequencies of the waves so they coincide as an exact copy just lower down the spectrum, it has a suppression which is a function of the frequency. So if a red filter were used it lowers the intensities of all the other colours, so blue becomes more 'red'. However the filters they use are not purely prime colours, they exist of various spectrum suppression peaks enabling these 'funny' looking images to exist, so I could leave the particular colour of the sky to stay the same but change to colours of all the similar colours lying either side of it in the spectrum, hence 'false colour' image.
Why do they do this? To make it more 'pretty' just why the sun seen in ultraviolet, and gamma observations usually green or purple look much better then the normal looking yellow filters.
Sounds like a lot of bullcrap to me.
And this type of response is exactly why you FE'ers are ridiculed, reply with a plausible discreditation rather then a 8 word reply. Im not trying too put you down just trying to understand how you can think you are right when you use the laws of 'physics' (I use this term very loosely) against the non-believers of FE when clearly you don't even understand the simplicity of functional filtering, yet you are using special relativity, electromagnetism and Einsteins field equations in trying to push your ideas.
Start with the basics then build up to the heavy artillery.
-
I had a change of heart and deleted that response as you were making yours. Instead, I've decided agree with you. There is clearly a filter turning blue things into red, as evidenced by the NASA logo.
I suppose that means the red martian sky is actually blue. That was easy!
-
I had a change of heart and deleted that response. Instead, I've decided agree with you. There is clearly a filter turning blue things into red, as evidenced by the NASA logo.
I suppose that means the red martian sky is actually blue. That was easy!
Glad you deleted it however you still missed my point, a filter does not need to be a band filter, as your 'blue filter' would be instead it could be a more finite filter. For example suppose the sky on Earth was a perfect blue at 475 nm with no other colours, then i had a blue object that was emitting light at frequencies between 440 and 490 nm, if I changed that 475 nm colour to go red the sky would go a completely different colour but the object emitting in the band would stay blue, amazing...no not really. The same principle applies to your above photos but in the inverse.
So your NASA logo turning red is hardly evidence merely the use of a blue suppression filter, and clearly the desktop background has had the inverse applied, a red suppression filter, hence why the ground looks so pale.
And on your point of 'There is clearly a filter turning blue things into red, as evidenced by the NASA logo' what if the sky was already red and a band filter was applied in the blue region? ...
-
I had a change of heart and deleted that response. Instead, I've decided agree with you. There is clearly a filter turning blue things into red, as evidenced by the NASA logo.
I suppose that means the red martian sky is actually blue. That was easy!
Actually, it is in some places. The sky seems to vary from red to blue and even greenish. I guess it all depends on the height of the sun and the amount of dust in its atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_21i093.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_21i093.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_11h016.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_11h016.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarsSunset.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarsSunset.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Victoria_Crater,_Cape_Verde-Mars.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Victoria_Crater,_Cape_Verde-Mars.jpg)
-
I had a change of heart and deleted that response. Instead, I've decided agree with you. There is clearly a filter turning blue things into red, as evidenced by the NASA logo.
I suppose that means the red martian sky is actually blue. That was easy!
Actually, it is in some places. The sky seems to vary from red to blue and even greenish. I guess it all depends on the height of the sun and the amount of dust in its atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_21i093.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_21i093.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_11h016.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_11h016.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarsSunset.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarsSunset.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Victoria_Crater,_Cape_Verde-Mars.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Victoria_Crater,_Cape_Verde-Mars.jpg)
Thanks for some support.
-
Actually, it is in some places. The sky seems to vary from red to blue and even greenish. I guess it all depends on the height of the sun and the amount of dust in its atmosphere.
Unfortunately the sundial is not visible in any of those photos and they are irrelevant. There is no reference to determine how NASA color schemed the photographs, contrary to the red sky photos. The red sky photos picturing the sun dial clearly shows the the blue sun dial pieces turned red, and the red logo on a sticker disappeared entirely. This is evidence that NASA edited the photo to shift everything to red uniformly. Whether they did this because the mission is fake or for other reasons is unknown.
What is obvious is that the photos were edited to look more red than they should be.
-
Mars is a tiny insifnificant piece of space rock, no bigger than 1 km in diameter.
Source: FAQ
Why it is possible these pictures are faked, I highly doubt anyone would ever want to land on such a small planet.
-
What is obvious is that the photos were edited to look more red than they should be.
Yes. Very obvious. The lengths RE'ers will go to believe in this blatant scam is ridiculous.
-
Because of your ignorance, you assume that photos of Mars should look a certain way and if they dont, you assume they are faked.
What kind of proof is that?
(clue: it's not a proof)
-
What is obvious is that the photos were edited to look more red than they should be.
Yes. Very obvious. The lengths RE'ers will go to believe in this blatant scam is ridiculous.
I think that "lengths" is incorrect here. If anyone has gone to lengths to believe something its the guy on the internet combing through NASA photos looking for "damning" evidence. But hey, that is just my understanding of "lengths."
-
Actually, it is in some places. The sky seems to vary from red to blue and even greenish. I guess it all depends on the height of the sun and the amount of dust in its atmosphere.
Unfortunately the sundial is not visible in any of those photos and they are irrelevant. There is no reference to determine how NASA color schemed the photographs, contrary to the red sky photos. The red sky photos picturing the sun dial clearly shows the the blue sun dial pieces turned red, and the red logo on a sticker disappeared entirely. This is evidence that NASA edited the photo to shift everything to red uniformly. Whether they did this because the mission is fake or for other reasons is unknown.
What is obvious is that the photos were edited to look more red than they should be.
Of course, I'm well aware that NASA edits many of it's photos to make them look more impressive than they really are. But can you blame them? Just look at the photo that Huygens returned after its visit to Titan. It sucks. That's not going to get people interested in the work NASA does. NASA wants something impressive to show to the crowds that don't understand the scientific work they're doing, so they just release some pretty pictures. That doesn't make them or the landings themselves fake.
It's like many of the ISS video's, they're taken with a fish-eye lense, de-grained and over-saturated so they'd look spiffy. The same thing goes four amateur astronomers. And still, the editing in Playboy Magazine is probably worse than NASA's.
Here's what Wikipedia says about Mars' sky:
Around sunset and sunrise the Martian sky is pinkish-red in color, but in the vicinity of the setting sun or rising sun it is blue. This is the exact opposite of the situation on Earth. However, during the day the sky is a yellow-brown "butterscotch" color.[3] On Mars, Rayleigh scattering is usually a very small effect. It is believed that the color of the sky is caused by the presence of 1% by volume of magnetite in the dust particles. Twilight lasts a long time after the Sun has set and before it rises, because of all the dust in Mars's atmosphere. At times, the Martian sky takes on a violet color, due to scattering of light by very small water ice particles in clouds.[4]
Generating accurate true-color images of Mars's surface is surprisingly complicated.[5] There is much variation in the color of the sky as reproduced in published images; many of those images however are using filters to maximize the science value and are not trying to show true color. Nevertheless, for many years, the sky on Mars was thought to be more pinkish than it now is believed to be.
More on this: http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/14C.html (http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/14C.html)
-
Good thread Tom. I'm on my phone now so I can't post the link. Can you post pictures from report #219 the pics are so fake, I wonder how RE'rs will be able to defend them.
-
You mean the Google Mars images?
(http://[url=http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2012/219/1-219-global-context.jpg]http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2012/219/1-219-global-context.jpg[/url])
(http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2012/219/3-219-long-block.jpg)(http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2012/219/2-219-corner.jpg)
(http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2012/219/4-219-extensions.jpg)(http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2012/219/5-219-3extensions.jpg)
(http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2012/219/6-219-6extensions.jpg)(http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2012/219/7-219-artifacts.jpg)
-
Yeah those, they are so fake it is indefencible..... Thanks.
-
That's where photos have been stitched together.
-
I thought that might be it at first too, but you can see from this photo exactly where the strips are and are not (and where the examples have been taken from).
(http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2012/219/1-219-global-context.jpg)
-
I still don't see a problem... other than it being a pretty lousy stitching job.
-
Obviously NASA is altering the images to cover up the indigenous civilization.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/NASA-Covers-Up-Evidence-of-Alien-Life-on-Mars.html (http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/NASA-Covers-Up-Evidence-of-Alien-Life-on-Mars.html)
-
Obviously NASA is altering the images to cover up the indigenous civilization.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/NASA-Covers-Up-Evidence-of-Alien-Life-on-Mars.html (http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/NASA-Covers-Up-Evidence-of-Alien-Life-on-Mars.html)
So from 1960 and on NASA has been covering up alien life on mars. How disappointing.
-
Obviously NASA is altering the images to cover up the indigenous civilization.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/NASA-Covers-Up-Evidence-of-Alien-Life-on-Mars.html (http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/NASA-Covers-Up-Evidence-of-Alien-Life-on-Mars.html)
So from 1960 and on NASA has been covering up alien life on mars. How disappointing.
That is no reason to give us fake pictures of Mars.
-
Obviously NASA is altering the images to cover up the indigenous civilization.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/NASA-Covers-Up-Evidence-of-Alien-Life-on-Mars.html (http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/NASA-Covers-Up-Evidence-of-Alien-Life-on-Mars.html)
So from 1960 and on NASA has been covering up alien life on mars. How disappointing.
That is no reason to give us fake pictures of Mars.
It is if they don't want to piss of the Martians.
(http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/mars_attacks2.jpg)
-
Those damn martians, always causing trouble for nasa!
-
What is obvious is that the photos were edited to look more red than they should be.
Yes. Very obvious. The lengths RE'ers will go to believe in this blatant scam is ridiculous.
Tom's viewpoint: A faked mission would have edited photos. The photos are edited. Therefore the mission is fake.
Congratulations Tom. Another master-class is screwed logic. Like I've said before, you don't have to understand what your argument is actually about, just look at the logic.
-
I thought that might be it at first too, but you can see from this photo exactly where the strips are and are not (and where the examples have been taken from).
(http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2012/219/1-219-global-context.jpg)
...and ??? What is this "stitching" evidence of???
-
I think these Flat Earth believers are simply trolling their own site. Seriously who in their right mind can open Google Earth, browse around the satellite images of the GLOBE and come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat?! These Flat Earthers are the type of people who would have burned random people alive in the 17th century for being a 'Witch'...
Please flat Earth conspiracy nuts, explain how this program was faked: earth.google.com
-
I just realized my last post was off-topic. I was thinking about posting in another thread but ended up here.
Anyway,
How do a few edited photos equal an obvious conspiracy? If the main purpose is to pocket the money tax payers put into the NASA budget, then they're not going a good job at maximizing their profit. They don't have to fake so many space missions, which can be argued that it is not necessary to accomplish their goal of stealing tax dollars. Besides, you can't just pocket billions of dollars and leave no paper trail. The banks are privately owned and whenever a person deposits anything over $10,000 on a single transaction, into ANY bank in the United States, the bankers are required to turn the account information over to the feds for background checks. The IRS is usually involved, meaning they're in on the conspiracy too. As with the banks.
Or wait, I know what's coming.. "They unload the money into an off-shore account." Point is, these Mars missions (from the Viking to Freedom & Independence rovers) have brought in enough money for NASA employees (whoever is 'in on it') to become the wealthiest people on the planet. That's just the Mars missions, then you add the Moon, other planets, comet and asteroid research, as well as the various deep space probes launched in the last couple decades and we're talking about some serious money. How much money does one need? Once you become a billionaire, you have enough money to last a lifetime. If they spend this loot like a rockstar, they're easily going to get nailed to the wall by the IRS. Oh wait, they're in on it too.
I read someone suggest that the Mars mission was faked somewhere out in the Atacama desert. That's a nice hypothesis, however, there's not a single crater in the Atacama desert that I know of. But if you look at all the pictures, and there are tens of thousands of them if you count the Mars satellite photos, there are clearly hundreds of craters in them. So, did NASA take the time (and money) to rent out some excavators, have them hauled out to one of the highest points of elevation on the planet and start digging them hundreds of 'fake' impact craters for their 'fake' photo? That would've cost a lot of money and taken a shitload of man hours.
Now here comes the hand-waving, ridiculous explanations and failed logic...
-
I read this thread and couldn't resist replying. Your photos are not evidence of anything but the fact that NASA takes photos for science, not press releases. I found comprehensive explanations for these color variations with 2 Google searches ("mars blue sky" and "nasa alter mars"). It took me maybe 4 minutes. You're so lazy that you won't even spend 4 minutes examining any other possible explanations for the colors you see. You don't do any research into the nature of the photo, the camera that took it, the optical settings used, or even into what we ought to expect to see. Your photos mean nothing.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/mars_colors.html (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/mars_colors.html)
Astronomical digital imaging is a fiercely complex topic. Most people assume that taking a digital picture is just like taking one with film: you point the camera, take the shot, and then look at the pretty color picture. In reality, things are a lot tougher than that...[A]stronomical images are taken in different filters. Each image is not really color, but greyscale (what some people erroneously call "black and white"), with each pixel representing the brightness of the target in the filter's color.
...
The martian rovers, as an example, carry a set of filters with them. These filters are designed to maximize the science returned from Spirit and Opportunity. They are not really designed to make a "true color" picture; that is, what you would see if you were standing on Mars. When the images from Mars are returned to Earth, and then processed to make a color image, what you are seeing at best is an approximation to what your eye can see. In reality, it may be very different. The filters on the rovers do not correspond to the color sensitivity of the human eye. Some of the filters only let through infra-red light, which is invisible to our eyes!
...
To make these single-filter images into a color composite is not easy. If the red filter lets in less total light than the blue, you need to compensate for that when you add the images together. If the red filter is wider (lets in a wider range of reds) than the blue filter, you have to compensate for that, and so on.
...
But one of the cameras onboard the rover can detect infrared. So when it looks at the blue tab, it sees blue coming from it, as well as infrared. In the infrared filter, that blue tab is actually quite bright. When that infrared filter greyscale image is used to construct a color image, the blue tab turns pink. It's not "really" pink. But then, in the other picture it's not really that exact color of blue either. Remember, the color is only an approximation.
When he says it "turns pink," he really means that it is "assigned pink." This should be obvious, since we can't represent colors we can't see with anything other than colors we can see. The infrared data has to be represented in the photo with colors that can be produced by a computer monitor. Obviously.
This page (http://hubblesite.org/gallery/behind_the_pictures/), linked in the Bad Astronomy explanation, has a video showing an astronomer actually doing this with Hubble photos.
NASA is not altering Mars colors (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread30048/pg1). The title of the article isn't totally accurate, but the information inside is, and it's very detailed.
As Dr. Bell explained in his email, and as visible by viewing the Raw images hosted by NASA. The color-chips are not as simple as they appear. The pigments are designed to have different brightness at a variety of wavelengths. Not just RGB values. So as to "provide different patterns of brightnesses regardless of which filters we used". The blue pigment is very bright in the near-IR range. Thus the L2 plate has a very bright recording of the blue pigment.
It even includes a personal email from the scientist in charge of that particular camera and the images it produced, Professor James Bell of Cornell University:
Thanks for writing. The answer is that the color chips on the sundial have different colors in the near-infrared range of Pancam filters. For example, the blue chip is dark near 600 nm, where humans see red light, but is especially bright at 750 nm, which is used as "red" for many Pancam images. So it appears pink in RGB composites. We chose the pigments for the chips on purpose this way, so they could provide different patterns of brightnesses regardless of which filters we used. The details of the colors of the pigments are published in a paper I wrote in the December issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), in case you want more details...
The paper he references can be found here (http://marswatch.tn.cornell.edu/THEMIS-VIS-cal_submitted.pdf)
-
Forum user Garygreen - i'm glad you chose to post here again, I think its great how diligently and thoroughly you document your assertions with citations and information. You set a great example, even if we dont agree on the shape of the Earth.
-
GG why doesn't NASA have unfiltered true color pictures from Mars?
-
GG why doesn't NASA have unfiltered true color pictures from Mars?
Partly because of the fact that there is no such thing as an unfiltered, true color CCD camera. All CCD and CMOS sensors (except for Foveon sensors) have red, green and blue filters on the sensors.
-
GG why doesn't NASA have unfiltered true color pictures from Mars?
1. Partly because this is not technically possible. I don't know exactly what you mean by "unfiltered," but that's not the way cameras work. I guess you didn't actually read the material I posted. From "NASA not altering Mars:"
Basically, the heart of a digital camera is the charge coupled device or CCD. This CCD converts light hitting it into electrical impulses, the brighter the light, the stronger the impulse. Now, CCD's are color-blind. All they do is signal how bright the light hitting them is. All well and good for black and white photography. But for color we need to do more. To get a color-picture. We need to record images via the CCD using a series of 3 filters. A Red filter, a Green filter, and a Blue filter. These are then recombined afterwards to give a color-representation of the picture. (Note, cheaper options like the Bayer filter pattern are often used in commercial digital cameras, but they use interpolation and are subsequently less accurate than 3-filter methods.
Quite a big deal has been made of NASA not sending 'True Color' images back from Mars. The problem with this argument is the fact that no digital images are ever 'True Color'. They are all composites. We cannot at present make a digital camera that sees images as the human eye does. The human eye also has 3-color receptors, but, being biological, there is a range over which the receptors pick up the colors.
Here is a diagram explaining what he means, found here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/cie.html):
(http://i.imgur.com/jufg4.gif)
2. Partly because, as explained in my previous post, the cameras are designed to capture wavelengths that our eyes can't see, like infrared light. These wavelengths have to be digitally represented in wavelengths we can see, like those produced by a monitor.
3. Partly because these particular cameras are not designed to take vacation photos. They're designed to record scientific data, not take the prettiest pictures possible for a press release. These photos are, if anything, evidence that NASA's goal is not just to impress the public for tax dollars. It's to do research.
-
garygreen,
At risk of drifting off topic here, I would also like to extend a hearty congratulations to your thorough explanation of the topic - it was a very interesting read and most certainly the way debates and discussions should be conducted. Very thorough, and void of the petulant one-upmanship I have come across. With more posts like yours, the search function would yield far less frustrating results. I will be most interested in the responses you receive from proponents of the conspiracy.
All the best,
Pilgrim.
-
GG why doesn't NASA have unfiltered true color pictures from Mars?
Technically, even our eyes work by combining several filtered images.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision)
-
If the earth is an infinite plain there would be no separate planet Mars. The region that we call Mars would simply be a distant region of earth. This might explain why the skies are blue there. (reference; Worlds Beyond the Poles by Amadeo Giannini)
-
Earth, which is not a planet can be infinite and there can be planets above.
-
Earth, which is not a planet can be infinite and there can be planets above.
LOL talk about arrogance. So, just because we live on something means it's infinite? Seriously that's more retarded than the FET. Apparently everything in space has no problem getting through the earth's crust without leaving any evidence of that. Please try and use a little bit of your brain before you post retarded theories like this.
-
Earth, which is not a planet can be infinite and there can be planets above.
LOL talk about arrogance. So, just because we live on something means it's infinite? Seriously that's more retarded than the FET. Apparently everything in space has no problem getting through the earth's crust without leaving any evidence of that. Please try and use a little bit of your brain before you post retarded theories like this.
It is not his theory and it is not retarded. As a matter of fact Infinite plain is a theory to which many flat earthers suscribe. In this model the earth is like a galactic floor (infinite) This theory makes a lot more sense then a finite disc model with edges from where one can fall into outer space.
-
Do you guys really expect us to believe that NASA spent billions of dollars to send robots to mars and did not take true color pictures of the martian surface?
Everything is conveniently tinted red due to special filters, used for vague unexplained "scientific purposes", since NASA is a scientific organization and all...
What a massive load of horse manure. Your delusions are sad beyond belief. I feel more pitty than disgust.
-
Do you guys really expect us to believe that NASA spent billions of dollars to send robots to mars and did not take true color pictures of the martian surface?
Everything is conveniently tinted red due to special filters, used for vague unexplained 'scientific purposes', since NASA is a scientific organization and all...
What a massive load of horse manure. Your delusions are sad beyond belief. I feel more pitty than disgust.
I take it you're an expert on extraterrestrial photography?
As we already said, there is no such thing as a camera that takes true color photos. All camera's work by using different filters and combining them.
The scientific value of filtered images is explained here: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/FAQRawImages/#q15. (http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/FAQRawImages/#q15.)
-
Do you guys really expect us to believe that NASA spent billions of dollars to send robots to mars and did not take true color pictures of the martian surface?
Everything is conveniently tinted red due to special filters, used for vague unexplained 'scientific purposes', since NASA is a scientific organization and all...
What a massive load of horse manure. Your delusions are sad beyond belief. I feel more pitty than disgust.
I take it you're an expert on extraterrestrial photography?
As we already said, there is no such thing as a camera that takes true color photos. All camera's work by using different filters and combining them.
The scientific value of filtered images is explained here: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/FAQRawImages/#q15. (http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/FAQRawImages/#q15.)
A true color image is an image one would see with the naked eye. Any camera you find on the market generally captures true color images. Why is NASA sending up red tinted cameras and no regular cameras?
What you are proposing is ludicrous.
-
Do you guys really expect us to believe that NASA spent billions of dollars to send robots to mars and did not take true color pictures of the martian surface?
Everything is conveniently tinted red due to special filters, used for vague unexplained 'scientific purposes', since NASA is a scientific organization and all...
What a massive load of horse manure. Your delusions are sad beyond belief. I feel more pitty than disgust.
I take it you're an expert on extraterrestrial photography?
As we already said, there is no such thing as a camera that takes true color photos. All camera's work by using different filters and combining them.
The scientific value of filtered images is explained here: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/FAQRawImages/#q15. (http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/FAQRawImages/#q15.)
A true color image is an image one would see with the naked eye. Any camera you find on the market generally captures true color images. Why is NASA sending up red tinted cameras and no regular cameras?
What you are proposing is ludicrous.
Because then they can't use the camera for the scientific purposes listed above.
-
Thanks for your last post Tom, I was voing to say something like that.
Tom don't you know everything NASA does is infallible. How could a regular picture of Mars belp anyone, all the pictures must be filtered. Only a scientist is qualified to know what he is looking at.
-
By knowing the exact filters used, wouldn't a true colour image be relatively easy to manufacture given the raw data?
-
Tom don't you know everything NASA does is infallible. How could a regular picture of Mars belp anyone, all the pictures must be filtered. Only a scientist is qualified to know what he is looking at.
Everyone is allowed to search Google for keywords such as "NASA filter usage."
-
By knowing the exact filters used, wouldn't a true colour image be relatively easy to manufacture given the raw data?
Do you mean something like this?
http://www.ominous-valve.com/pancam.html (http://www.ominous-valve.com/pancam.html)
And this should help you generate your "true color" images.
http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/projects_1.html (http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/projects_1.html)
-
So why aren't they doing it?
-
So why aren't they doing it?
They are: http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/true_color.html (http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/true_color.html)
Knock yourself out, there are thousands.
-
A true color image is an image one would see with the naked eye. Any camera you find on the market generally captures true color images. Why is NASA sending up red tinted cameras and no regular cameras?
What you are proposing is ludicrous.
You're creating a false choice. NASA did not choose between 'true color' and 'false color' when designing its camera. This is because digital cameras do not capture 'true color' images. That is, basically all digital cameras use RGB filters in a manner similar to the pancam on Mars. The photos produced are always and necessarily only an approximation of what we would see with our eyes.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cameras-photography/digital/digital-camera4.htm (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cameras-photography/digital/digital-camera4.htm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera#Methods_of_image_capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera#Methods_of_image_capture)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter)
http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/projects_1.html (http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/projects_1.html)
The two Panoramic Cameras (called Pancams) on each of the Mars Exploration Rovers work somewhat like a pair of human eyes. Each camera's light sensitive "cells" are called pixels, and they are part of a light detecting "eye" called a Charge Coupled Device, or CCD. However, unlike the human eye, the Pancams only measure one single wavelength or color at a time. In front of each camera is a filter wheel with eight different filters (seven colors plus one filter for looking at the Sun), each of which allows only certain wavelengths to hit the CCD. The filter wheel in front of the camera in the left Pancam eye of each rover has six filters which span the colors that we can see, from blue to green to red. The other filters can detect colors of light that we cannot see, called "infrared." When we want to take a "true color" picture of Mars, we actually take six pictures of the same exact spot - once with each of the six filters on the Pancam's left eye. Afterwards, we use computer software to combine the separate pictures and to calculate the proportions of primary colors - red, green, and blue - that the rover was seeing. We then combine these three "RGB" images into a single picture which your computer can then display as an estimate of the actual colors that you would see if you were there on Mars. Digital cameras that you can buy in stores work in a similar way, except that the filters are bonded directly onto the CCD, and the RGB images through the different filters are combined automatically for you by the camera's electronics.
...
It's important to point out that this is only an estimate of the true color of each of these scenes from Mars. As mentioned above, everyone perceives color differently, and different computer monitors and printers display color differently. The colors also vary with time of day, and even from day to day because of different amounts of dust and clouds in the Mars atmosphere. And there are also sometimes small calibration problems with the images that can cause errors in the true color calculations.
The pancam is simply a more sophisticated version of a 'regular camera' (whatever that means). But, it wasn't designed to best approximate 'true color' because that's not the most useful thing for that camera to do. Here are some examples: (http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/about.html)
• Pancam images can be stitched together to build multispectral panoramas of the full scene around the rover, and even full three-dimensional models of the surrounding terrain.
• Panoramic imaging provides information on the morphology of the site, on the lithology, distribution, and shape of nearby rocks, and on local features like fluvial terraces, depositional bars, and dunes that may be present. This information will be relevant to understanding what processes have affected the site, particularly when merged with compositional data.
• Multispectral panoramic imaging will provide information on the mineralogy of materials to supplement and complement data obtained by other instruments.
• Images of the Martian sky, including direct images of the sun, help determine dust and aerosol opacity and composition.
• The generated digital terrain models help guide rover traverse paths.
• Pancam provides information to guide the selection of the most interesting targets to look at with other rover instruments.
And, he also describes the usefulness of false color images here (http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/projects_5.html):
The purpose of these images, unlike the true color images we produce is to enhance subtle differences in color. These differences are sometimes so small that a person looking at them would not be able to see them at all - something you can see by comparing a true color image with its corresponding false color version. Images like these allow scientists to quickly asses even subtle color differences, and to choose the most interesting regions for possible study with the rover arm instruments. Subtle color changes may indicate changes in the materials making up rocks and soils, or how these materials are concentrated or deposited.
And, here (http://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/Bell_Pancam_JGR.pdf) is a much more technical explanation of the scientific objectives of the pancam:
The scientific goals of the Pancam investigation are to assess the high-resolution morphology, topography, and geologic context of each MER landing site, to obtain color images to constrain the mineralogic, photometric, and physical properties of surface materials, and to determine dust and aerosol opacity and physical properties from direct imaging of the Sun and sky. Pancam also provides mission support measurements for the rovers, including Sun-finding for rover navigation, hazard identification and digital terrain modeling to help guide long-term rover traverse decisions, high-resolution imaging to help guide the selection of in situ sampling targets, and acquisition of education and public outreach products. The Pancam optical, mechanical, and electronics design were optimized to achieve these science and mission support goals.
e: Sorry to make this so long, but I noticed something else when looking at this "evidence." All of the examples of changing colors they show in the video and on Ski's website are panoramas. This is relevant for several reasons:
1. Neither Tom, nor the original authors, have made any attempt at all to investigate the optical settings used to take the photo. This make their conclusions specious.
2. It's perfectly reasonable to think that those who made the panorama choose filters that would bring out the most surface detail over displaying 'true color.' This could include preferring infrared light that pierces atmospheric dust more easily than optical light.
3. That's actually exactly what happened.
Here is a panorama that features the pink tab: http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/independence.html (http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/independence.html)
This mosaic is an approximate true color rendering generated using the images acquired through Pancam's 750, 530, and 480 nm filters.
This technical manual (http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/doc/tb_pancam.pdf) shows that those are filters are L2, L5, and L6, respectively.
This image also shows the pink tab: http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/images/False/Sol001B_P2303_1_False_L256_pos_14.jpg (http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/images/False/Sol001B_P2303_1_False_L256_pos_14.jpg)
It comes from this page of false color pancam images (http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/false_color1.html), which shows it was taken with filters L2, L5, and L6.
It's just because the people who made the panorama chose those filters. That's all.
Here is a panorama made using a different set of filters: http://www.panoramas.dk/mars/mars-dec-2005.html (http://www.panoramas.dk/mars/mars-dec-2005.html)
-
All this is nice. There are billions of people on earth who like to see near true color images taken with a regular camera. They could have spent an extra 500 - 5000 dollars and sent a regular camera also. It is a little difficult to believe they spent all that money on the explorer and only get "filtered pictures".
-
All this is nice. There are billions of people on earth who like to see near true color images taken with a regular camera. They could have spent an extra 500 - 5000 dollars and sent a regular camera also. It is a little difficult to believe they spent all that money on the explorer and only get "filtered pictures".
It won't work at conditions it will be subjected to. It has to crash land on mars, endure -100 degrees C temperatures and sandstorms. You'll need a bigger vehicle to carry 2 robust camera's. It'll cost a lot more than 5000$. I don't blame them for taking only 1 camera along. Anyway, nobody is complaining about it, so why should they bother?
-
All this is nice. There are billions of people on earth who like to see near true color images taken with a regular camera. They could have spent an extra 500 - 5000 dollars and sent a regular camera also. It is a little difficult to believe they spent all that money on the explorer and only get "filtered pictures".
Waste of power. Plus, digital cameras don't like the cold.
-
All this is nice. There are billions of people on earth who like to see near true color images taken with a regular camera. They could have spent an extra 500 - 5000 dollars and sent a regular camera also. It is a little difficult to believe they spent all that money on the explorer and only get "filtered pictures".
This guy thinks that you could send an extra camera to mars for an extra 500-5000 dollars. Its much more than a simple camera cost.
-
This is all so dumb. There's the people asking for "true color, not filtered" and then the perfect explanation with a ton of sources as to why there is no such thing. All cameras use filters. All of them. Every single one. Digital. Polaroid. All of them. You cannot produce color without these filters. Even the human eye does it. And camera technology is nowhere near as advanced as the human eye. So maybe, if you want true color, you can be the next Mars Rover. We'll have Happy Rover, Ski Rover, and Markjo Rover.
Again, it can not be done. Every time I take a picture on a digital camera, I am (somehow) still surprised that it doesn't look quite the same as it does when I look directly at the object/person I took the picture of (color-wise). As someone said previously, not everyone sees color the same way. So I don't need to see responses such as "it doesn't look that way to me" because I don't care. I'm not you, of course it doesn't.
If you would actually read what garygreen is saying, (and I will say it again) a true color, digital image is not possible.
-
All this is nice. There are billions of people on earth who like to see near true color images taken with a regular camera. They could have spent an extra 500 - 5000 dollars and sent a regular camera also. It is a little difficult to believe they spent all that money on the explorer and only get "filtered pictures".
That would all be well and good if putting a 'regular camera' (still don't know what y'all mean by that) only cost you the money you spent on the camera. Aside from the environmental reasons already provided about why you can't just strap an off-the-shelf camera from Best Buy onto your Mars rover, there are also weight, space, and energy constraints. The causes of these constraints are numerous, but the point is that putting a 'regular camera' on the rover will cost you space, energy, and weight that could be devoted to other scientific instruments. Since they already have a camera specifically designed for their rover, it makes little sense to add another, less sophisticated camera that also doesn't take 'true color' images.
The pancam can do all of the things a regular camera can do, like approximate 'true color' images. Those images have been linked in this thread already. It can also do a bunch of things a 'regular camera' can't do, like accomplish all of the science objectives quoted in my previous post and described in great detail by the paper I linked, written by the team who built and operate the camera. A 'regular camera' can do none of the things the pancam can do.
Again, there is not any such thing as an 'unfiltered' photo. That's not how cameras work.
-
Every time I take a picture on a digital camera, I am (somehow) still surprised that it doesn't look quite the same as it does when I look directly at the object/person I took the picture of (color-wise).
Between variations in the sensor, the lenses, the exposure metering, lighting, filters, internal processing and compression, the display and a bunch of other factors, I'd be surprised if the picture did look exactly the same as what I saw.
-
At least someone agrees with me.
-
Look at the computer screens behind this NASA scientist. The martian skies are blue!
The Real Mars Sky? (http://#ws)
Here is a video showing how NASA faked the shots of its most recent rover missions (excuse the bad music):
NASA Mars expedition fraud (http://#)
I believe the above evidence is particularly damning and demonstrates that the shots are fake and were really shot on earth in a desert somewhere.
Mars Rover Spirit's Entire Journey on Mars - Time Lapse (http://#ws)
The mars rover timelapse video.
3400 images, over 5 years and 5 miles.
Not one bit of vegetation. No planes in the sky. No sign of civilisation or any recognisable earth landmarks or rock formations.
So where did they film it? 'in a desert somewhere.' Doesn't cut it!
I think it would be MORE expensive to fake something of this scale than actually do it.
MArs is easier than fooling an entire planet of people and never being caught.
I believe the above evidence is particularly damning and demonstrates that those who deny mars exploration is real and happening, are lost, desperate and deluded.
-
It's more expensive to clear an area with weed killer than it is to send a robot to mars?
-
I think it would be MORE expensive to fake something of this scale than actually do it.
It's more expensive to clear an area with weed killer than it is to build and send a robot to mars?
Weed killer may kill a plant but it does not magically remove all trace of the plant.
Branches, twigs, dead leaves, roots...
Unless you have some incredibly powerful weedkiller?
As in MAGIC weedkiller?
-
Also... you are forgetting to add the cost of:
- paying off thousands of scientist who 'pretend' they are working on a mars project.
- purchase and research costs for the thousands of rover parts built by subcontracted companies.
Actually... a magic weedkiller would make NASA more money than any mars mission would!
Check how successful Va-Poo-Rize was.
Jack Blacks commercial - Vapoorize (http://#)
-
I think it would be MORE expensive to fake something of this scale than actually do it.
It's more expensive to clear an area with weed killer than it is to build and send a robot to mars?
Weed killer may kill a plant but it does not magically remove all trace of the plant.
Branches, twigs, dead leaves, roots...
Unless you have some incredibly powerful weedkiller?
As in MAGIC weedkiller?
Do you mean like the lichens on these rocks which NASA forgot to remove, as seen by the Spirit rover?
(http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2009/157/7-157-growth-on-rocks.jpg)
-
Do you mean like the lichens on these rock which NASA forgot to remove, as seen by the Spirit rover?
(http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2009/157/7-157-growth-on-rocks.jpg)
Check me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the primary reasons for sending various rovers to Mars, to look for evidence of life? If that truly was lichen, don't you suppose that NASA would scream: "Hey, we just found life on Mars!!" ? ???
-
Check me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the primary reasons for sending various rovers to Mars, to look for evidence of life? If that truly was lichen, don't you suppose that NASA would scream: "Hey, we just found life on Mars!!" ? ???
Not if the missions were being faked and NASA didn't properly clear out the area before the mission. The Spirit didn't even stop to study it. It just drove right past it.
-
Do you mean like the lichens on these rocks which NASA forgot to remove, as seen by the Spirit rover?
Or it's just an odd looking rock? The image even says it was released by NASA as a possible sign of meteorites. I doubt they would have released an image of local plant life for extra journalistic and scientific scrutiny. If you do a google image search for "meteorite" you will find many images which resemble the rock on Mars.
That resemblance isn't proof the image is fake, but in fact is the reason the image was of note and released.
-
BTW, here is a link to the original NASA press release (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20060710a.html) and high resolution photo (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20060710a/1152281618_30555-4_Sol872A_P2263_L456atc-A893R1.jpg).
-
Check me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the primary reasons for sending various rovers to Mars, to look for evidence of life? If that truly was lichen, don't you suppose that NASA would scream: "Hey, we just found life on Mars!!" ? ???
Not if the missions were being faked and NASA didn't properly clear out the area before the mission. The Spirit didn't even stop to study it. It just drove right past it.
It looks like volcanic rock to me? Perhaps debris from some large impact? Its far from definitive proof of anything.
-
And I suppose the wooden log on the left hand side of this image (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040524a/site_B115_navcam_180_cyl_L-B118R1.jpg) is merely a rock carved by micrometeorites to look like a piece of wood.
-
Looks like a railroad tie. You could show them a picture of birds on "Mars", Tom. They will still make excuses.
-
http://www.universetoday.com/21705/wood-plank-found-on-mars/ (http://www.universetoday.com/21705/wood-plank-found-on-mars/)
For those of you who remain convinced that NASA is covering up some sort of “major” finding here, just remember a few things:
1. This image was released back in May of 2004, just a couple of days after it was taken by Opportunity. MER Principal Investigator Steve Squyres made the decision before the mission started to release all the images taken by the rovers and make them freely available to anyone. If NASA was hiding something, they wouldn’t have posted this image, as well as all the other images of the area that are available. Please, go look at them all if you have any doubt.
2. The best planetary geologists on Earth have looked at this image, and have all concluded this is just a rock. It’s an interesting rock, but a rock nonetheless. Think again if you believe some internet sleuths out there have a better understanding of this object than highly trained and experienced planetary scientists.
3. If this object really was a piece of wood, NASA and all the scientists on the MER mission would probably be shouting from the rooftops. As Jim Bell said, it would be incredible and spectacular, and don’t think for a minute these scientists wouldn’t be jumping for joy if they found something as amazing as log on Mars.
-
And I suppose the wooden log on the left hand side of this image (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040524a/site_B115_navcam_180_cyl_L-B118R1.jpg) is merely a rock carved by micrometeorites to look like a piece of wood.
never seen such a convincing 'rock log' before! it is odd!
-
Gary, that's not a very good defense.
For point 1, the author is assuming that any NASA hoax would be competent and flawless.
For point 2, the "very best geologists on Earth" are referring to the ones who allegedly work for NASA.
In point 3, why would NASA be shouting from the rooftop of something that would expose their fraud?
-
It looks like they drove over it. I wonder why they didn't sample or test it. ::)
-
Thanks for the research gary. It is more proof of the lies coming from NASA. That picture is a log.
-
Looks like wood.
But so does this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/nave-html/W11/imgwin/1673ashpetlogs.jpg (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/nave-html/W11/imgwin/1673ashpetlogs.jpg)
So we have 3 options:
1. NASA is incompetent to allow a piece of wood to be put on their set.
2. NASA is filming in a desert with old railroads and doesn't bother to check.
3. It looks like a railroad tie from a single picture.
-
So you're saying that it might be petrified wood like your photo? That it looks like petrified wood, and NASA first deliberately didn't test it even after running it over?
Isn't it possible a railroad tie was buried beneath the sand "on set" and was uncovered by "martian" sandstorm.
-
http://www.universetoday.com/21705/wood-plank-found-on-mars/ (http://www.universetoday.com/21705/wood-plank-found-on-mars/)
Did Tom, Ski or hoppy actually read this link?
Also, isn't one of the ideas behind the Mars missions to look for signs of any life, be it animal or plantlife? So wouldn't the discovery of some signs of current or previous life (like a piece of petrified wood) actually provide a sort of legitimization of the mission? If they are making it all up, why would they try to deny any signs of vegetation? Wouldn't it make just as much sense to say something along the lines of "Eureka, signs of life, the implications are mind boggling and we will need millions more in funding to study this new scientific discovery!"
I guess what I'm getting at is, why would a sign of life on Mars prove a fake mission? And when they say the anomaly has actually been studied by experts and was determined to not be a sign of life, that is also evidence lies/fraud/conspiracy, etc?
-
So you're saying that it might be petrified wood like your photo? That it looks like petrified wood, and NASA first deliberately didn't test it even after running it over?
I'm saying it could be anything. Just because it looks like something doesn't mean it is. We thought a picture from the Viking orbiter was a face. Turns out it was just a shadow.
Isn't it possible a railroad tie was buried beneath the sand "on set" and was uncovered by "martian" sandstorm.
So the rovers are on Automatic and automatically upload the images to the website without a single human even looking at them?
-
Isn't it possible a railroad tie was buried beneath the sand "on set" and was uncovered by "martian" sandstorm.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier and make a lot more sense to just remove the "railroad tie" from the "set" than to bury it, especially considering that this doesn't seem to be a particularly sandy area?
-
Looks like a mostly dislodged piece of flat rock viewed from the side just like the other buried or half buried pieces around that crater.
It does somewhat resemble an old railroad tie at a glance though, but then reality kicks in when you look closely and factor in the terrain.
-
Again, it is being assumed that NASA is flawless and competent.
Seriously, do you guys even listen to yourselves? In one thread we hear arguments like "NASA could never pull off a scam on the public undetected," and in threads like this one we hear arguments to the effect of "NASA wouldn't make mistakes." Which is it?
This could very well be the result of being missed in review. Or perhaps a few photos were renamed wrongly or put into the incorrect directory and never reviewed. Maybe there was a backup restore to some of the server files during the review, and some deleted files got restored. There are a thousand and one ways this could have been a result of incompetence.
-
the smartest thing said so far is to point out the obvious;
"if it was petrified wood or any sign of life, then nasa would be able to ask for even more money for future missions."
im glad you took my advice tom and joined another comedy nasa thread.
-
Again, it is being assumed that NASA is flawless and competent.
Seriously, do you guys even listen to yourselves? In one thread we hear arguments like "NASA could never pull off a scam on the public undetected," and in threads like this one we hear arguments to the effect of "NASA wouldn't make mistakes." Which is it?
This could very well be the result of being missed in review. Or perhaps a few photos were renamed wrongly or put into the incorrect directory and never reviewed. Maybe there was a backup restore to some of the server files during the review, and some deleted files got restored. There are a thousand and one ways this could have been a result of incompetence.
I'm still far convinced that its not just a slab of rock being eroded in an irregular pattern that just looks like wood. I certainly don't see it as evidence for a giant space travel conspiracy. If it is a log (which i don't think it really looks like), then I think a more likely story is that one of their Rover test photos made it in to the wrong folder, and NASA was too embarrassed to admit it. So rather than admit that they identically threw in an old picture of the rover bing tested on earth they just hoped no one noticed. But even that is less likely than us just seeing a upward facing rock slab that has been eroded at its tip to give it a somewhat log like definition.
I certainly think that NASA is fallible. The thing is that mistake does not equal giant space conspiracy.
-
the smartest thing said so far is to point out the obvious;
"if it was petrified wood or any sign of life, then nasa would be able to ask for even more money for future missions."
im glad you took my advice tom and joined another comedy nasa thread.
If NASA had gone that route when the mistake was brought to attention, claiming that it was indeed Martian wood, then Congress and the public would rally and demand that they study it with the equipment on the rover. Now NASA has to either fabricate microscopic alien biology on the fly, or potentially raise red flags by showing pictures of microscopic earth biology. This complicates the matter substantially.
-
You guys are a riot. "Maybe the picture was from earth and accidentally got in the wrong file." "NASA wouldn't make a mistake like that."
News flash: ALL the pictures were taken on earth. There is a reason they've gone out of their way to grind away anything remotely lifelike. There could be a mini-mall in the background and you guys would come up with a "rational" reason why it would be in the photo.
-
Again, it is being assumed that NASA is flawless and competent.
Seriously, do you guys even listen to yourselves? In one thread we hear arguments like "NASA could never pull off a scam on the public undetected," and in threads like this one we hear arguments to the effect of "NASA wouldn't make mistakes." Which is it?
This could very well be the result of being missed in review. Or perhaps a few photos were renamed wrongly or put into the incorrect directory and never reviewed. Maybe there was a backup restore to some of the server files during the review, and some deleted files got restored. There are a thousand and one ways this could have been a result of incompetence.
I'm still far convinced that its not just a slab of rock being eroded in an irregular pattern that just looks like wood. I certainly don't see it as evidence for a giant space travel conspiracy. If it is a log (which i don't think it really looks like), then I think a more likely story is that one of their Rover test photos made it in to the wrong folder, and NASA was too embarrassed to admit it. So rather than admit that they identically threw in an old picture of the rover bing tested on earth they just hoped no one noticed. But even that is less likely than us just seeing a upward facing rock slab that has been eroded at its tip to give it a somewhat log like definition.
I certainly think that NASA is fallible. The thing is that mistake does not equal giant space conspiracy.
If the log was a mistake of a test.mission, or some other kind of mistake NASA would have said so. Them parading out experts to deny that it is a log proves bad motives.
-
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00003/mcam/0003ML0000037000E1_DXXX.jpg (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00003/mcam/0003ML0000037000E1_DXXX.jpg)
Have we captured the Namaqua Sandgrouse in this photo? Three of them, actually. Or maybe there are martian birds. Or martian air-/spacecraft. I guess I can't rule that out. ::)
-
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00003/mcam/0003ML0000037000E1_DXXX.jpg (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00003/mcam/0003ML0000037000E1_DXXX.jpg)
Have we captured the Namaqua Sandgrouse in this photo? Three of them, actually. Or maybe there are martian birds. Or martian air-/spacecraft. I guess I can't rule that out. ::)
I don't see any birds. Just rocks. Where are the birds?
-
An inch-and-a-half to an inch above the mountain range.
-
An inch-and-a-half to an inch above the mountain range.
The brown dot?
-
There are three brown "dots"...
-
If seemingly "unnatural" rock formations (http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/07/22/18-natural-formations-that-look-man-made/) can occur naturally on earth, then why shouldn't they occur on Mars?
-
thanks markjo those look great.
You guys are a riot. "Maybe the picture was from earth and accidentally got in the wrong file." "NASA wouldn't make a mistake like that."
News flash: ALL the pictures were taken on earth. There is a reason they've gone out of their way to grind away anything remotely lifelike. There could be a mini-mall in the background and you guys would come up with a "rational" reason why it would be in the photo.
then please provide solid evidence of this. so far its all opinion and questionable photos. i do recall that tom said it was the wrong file.
the biggest joke is the moderator providing evidence in the form of a picture when the website clearly states that photos do not provide evidence.
-
If seemingly "unnatural" rock formations (http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/07/22/18-natural-formations-that-look-man-made/) can occur naturally on earth, then why shouldn't they occur on Mars?
I don't see anything that looks like a piece of wood in those images.
Why should we believe that the rover came across a rare rock that just happens to look exactly like a wooden log, or a rare rock that just happens to look like lichen is growing on it? The simplest answer is that those are not rare rock formations.
-
the biggest joke is the moderator providing evidence in the form of a picture when the website clearly states that photos do not provide evidence.
I'm showing you exactly why those pictures aren't evidence.
-
Look at the computer screens behind this NASA scientist. The martian skies are blue!
The Real Mars Sky? (http://#ws)
Here is a video showing how NASA faked the shots of its most recent rover missions (excuse the bad music):
NASA Mars expedition fraud (http://#)
I believe the above evidence is particularly damning and demonstrates that the shots are fake and were really shot on earth in a desert somewhere.
Its not fake theirs no way possible you guys photoshopped it blue you guys are fake you can tell.
-
Look at the computer screens behind this NASA scientist. The martian skies are blue!
The Real Mars Sky? (http://#ws)
Here is a video showing how NASA faked the shots of its most recent rover missions (excuse the bad music):
NASA Mars expedition fraud (http://#)
I believe the above evidence is particularly damning and demonstrates that the shots are fake and were really shot on earth in a desert somewhere.
Its not fake theirs no way possible you guys photoshopped it blue you guys are fake you can tell.
Actually, the Mars sky is different colors at different times of the Martian day. It can be red, blue, and green.
So the photo with the "birds"... They are three brown dots. Just saying, that could be anything.
Also, I was looking at the photo with the odd log looking object in it. The other part of the photo that I noticed that people haven't seemed to make mention of is that crater. I've never seen any images of a crater like that on Earth. Can anyone find anything like that?
-
people can make artificial craters on earth by blowing up holes in the ground. nasa actually do this to test equipment. or make film sets... ::)
-
people can make artificial craters on earth by blowing up holes in the ground. nasa actually do this to test equipment. or make film sets... ::)
Explosion craters aren't the same as impact craters.
-
people can make artificial craters on earth by blowing up holes in the ground. nasa actually do this to test equipment. or make film sets... ::)
Explosion craters aren't the same as impact craters.
isnt that the same as the explanation of gravity round here? they will both appear to be the same?
-
people can make artificial craters on earth by blowing up holes in the ground. nasa actually do this to test equipment. or make film sets... ::)
Explosion craters aren't the same as impact craters.
isnt that the same as the explanation of gravity round here? they will both appear to be the same?
No, they are completely different and can't even be put into an analogy. Explosions (I would assume of a buried explosion) leave a different crater because they are just pushing everything out and away from the site. Impacts rapidly displace large amounts of material out, up and away because something is coming down on top of it at high velocity.
-
No, they are completely different and can't even be put into an analogy. Explosions (I would assume of a buried explosion) leave a different crater because they are just pushing everything out and away from the site. Impacts rapidly displace large amounts of material out, up and away because something is coming down on top of it at high velocity.
Well, you've convinced me... ::)
-
No, they are completely different and can't even be put into an analogy. Explosions (I would assume of a buried explosion) leave a different crater because they are just pushing everything out and away from the site. Impacts rapidly displace large amounts of material out, up and away because something is coming down on top of it at high velocity.
Well, you've convinced me... ::)
i wasnt going to say it ski, but yeh it sounds exactly the same to me too.
-
So the photo with the "birds"... They are three brown dots. Just saying, that could be anything.
How many "anythings" are supposed to be flying around on Mars?
-
If you want to see the difference between explosion craters and impact craters, make a mortar. Use the mortar to create an impact crater (it'll be rather small, but it suits the purpose), and then go near the crater, make a small explosive, and observe the difference.
So the photo with the "birds"... They are three brown dots. Just saying, that could be anything.
How many "anythings" are supposed to be flying around on Mars?
I don't know, dust, rocks. For all I know it could be a ufo, or a glitch in the camera. I'm no extra-terrestrial photography expert, so I couldn't tell you anything for certain, and I'm not going to claim to know what it is. But you can't claim those dots to be birds, because they just look like dots.
-
You guys are a riot. "Maybe the picture was from earth and accidentally got in the wrong file." "NASA wouldn't make a mistake like that."
News flash: ALL the pictures were taken on earth. There is a reason they've gone out of their way to grind away anything remotely lifelike. There could be a mini-mall in the background and you guys would come up with a "rational" reason why it would be in the photo.
How can you compare this to a mini mall? Troll harder please.
1.) NASA makes mistakes, and people have died due to that, anyone who argues otherwise is just wrong. That being said, not every single mistake is the same as another in terms of prevention and magnitude, to pretend otherwise again is just wrong.
2.) I personally dont think its a log I have seen rock formations just like that on earth caused my errosion, which also takes place on mars.
3.) I like how people then come out and say that the wrong folder either would not have happened, or that NASA would not have defended it, they would have just admited their mistake. Tom said that it was possible that it somehow slipped into the wrong folder, and no one said a thing from the other bench, but one mention that it could have been a mistake out of my keyboard, and suddenly its unreasonable. look im just saying that going from "hey that might be a log" to "NASA never went to mars" is a giant leap, especially since its just a photo.
-
There are three brown "dots"...
So why do you think they're birds? They could be dust particles.
-
You guys are a riot. "Maybe the picture was from earth and accidentally got in the wrong file." "NASA wouldn't make a mistake like that."
News flash: ALL the pictures were taken on earth. There is a reason they've gone out of their way to grind away anything remotely lifelike. There could be a mini-mall in the background and you guys would come up with a "rational" reason why it would be in the photo.
How can you compare this to a mini mall? Troll harder please.
1.) NASA makes mistakes, and people have died due to that, anyone who argues otherwise is just wrong. That being said, not every single mistake is the same as another in terms of prevention and magnitude, to pretend otherwise again is just wrong.
2.) I personally dont think its a log I have seen rock formations just like that on earth caused my errosion, which also takes place on mars.
3.) I like how people then come out and say that the wrong folder either would not have happened, or that NASA would not have defended it, they would have just admited their mistake. Tom said that it was possible that it somehow slipped into the wrong folder, and no one said a thing from the other bench, but one mention that it could have been a mistake out of my keyboard, and suddenly its unreasonable. look im just saying that going from "hey that might be a log" to "NASA never went to mars" is a giant leap, especially since its just a photo.
This kind of dismissive answer is mentioned on nearly every NASA screw up. How many times will you defend them before you see that something is wrong with them?
-
You guys are a riot. "Maybe the picture was from earth and accidentally got in the wrong file." "NASA wouldn't make a mistake like that."
News flash: ALL the pictures were taken on earth. There is a reason they've gone out of their way to grind away anything remotely lifelike. There could be a mini-mall in the background and you guys would come up with a "rational" reason why it would be in the photo.
How can you compare this to a mini mall? Troll harder please.
1.) NASA makes mistakes, and people have died due to that, anyone who argues otherwise is just wrong. That being said, not every single mistake is the same as another in terms of prevention and magnitude, to pretend otherwise again is just wrong.
2.) I personally dont think its a log I have seen rock formations just like that on earth caused my errosion, which also takes place on mars.
3.) I like how people then come out and say that the wrong folder either would not have happened, or that NASA would not have defended it, they would have just admited their mistake. Tom said that it was possible that it somehow slipped into the wrong folder, and no one said a thing from the other bench, but one mention that it could have been a mistake out of my keyboard, and suddenly its unreasonable. look im just saying that going from "hey that might be a log" to "NASA never went to mars" is a giant leap, especially since its just a photo.
This kind of dismissive answer is mentioned on nearly every NASA screw up. How many times will you defend them before you see that something is wrong with them?
What do you mean? in my opinion this was not a NASA screw up, its just a rock that looks sort of like a log. How could the answer to ever NASA conspiracy photo posted be "thats not a log, its a rock"? Are there that many NASA photos with log shaped rocks?
I understand that there is more than just his photo, and that no one is looking at just this and then jumping to the conclusion that three is a space travel conspiracy, but this is not evidence of anything except that most people have not taken college classes on rock formation. That picture is like wind erosion 101.
The issue is that every time someone posts a photo (usually tim) of some NASA mistake, its usually easily explainable by something other than "NASA made a mistake".
-
You guys are a riot. "Maybe the picture was from earth and accidentally got in the wrong file." "NASA wouldn't make a mistake like that."
News flash: ALL the pictures were taken on earth. There is a reason they've gone out of their way to grind away anything remotely lifelike. There could be a mini-mall in the background and you guys would come up with a "rational" reason why it would be in the photo.
How can you compare this to a mini mall? Troll harder please.
1.) NASA makes mistakes, and people have died due to that, anyone who argues otherwise is just wrong. That being said, not every single mistake is the same as another in terms of prevention and magnitude, to pretend otherwise again is just wrong.
2.) I personally dont think its a log I have seen rock formations just like that on earth caused my errosion, which also takes place on mars.
3.) I like how people then come out and say that the wrong folder either would not have happened, or that NASA would not have defended it, they would have just admited their mistake. Tom said that it was possible that it somehow slipped into the wrong folder, and no one said a thing from the other bench, but one mention that it could have been a mistake out of my keyboard, and suddenly its unreasonable. look im just saying that going from "hey that might be a log" to "NASA never went to mars" is a giant leap, especially since its just a photo.
This kind of dismissive answer is mentioned on nearly every NASA screw up. How many times will you defend them before you see that something is wrong with them?
What do you mean? in my opinion this was not a NASA screw up, its just a rock that looks sort of like a log. How could the answer to ever NASA conspiracy photo posted be "thats not a log, its a rock"? Are there that many NASA photos with log shaped rocks?
I understand that there is more than just his photo, and that no one is looking at just this and then jumping to the conclusion that three is a space travel conspiracy, but this is not evidence of anything except that most people have not taken college classes on rock formation. That picture is like wind erosion 101.
The issue is that every time someone posts a photo (usually tim) of some NASA mistake, its usually easily explainable by something other than "NASA made a mistake".
I don't know where the video is right now. How about the video when they have the astronauts going to the moon with the earth out of the window. The astronauts say the camera is pushed all the way up against the window, then they turn off the camera and you see they had cardboard in the window. The astronauts where showing earth crescent shaped from space. Only thing was the camera was not turned off and you see astronauts in front of the window and stuff(the astronauts were lying).
This website shows some of the bogus moon landing stuff. Not the cardboard in the window trick other things.
http://www.firetown.com/blog/2011/03/21/my-husband-directed-the-fake-moon-landing-says-stanley-kubricks-widow/ (http://www.firetown.com/blog/2011/03/21/my-husband-directed-the-fake-moon-landing-says-stanley-kubricks-widow/)
-
I don't know where the video is right now. How about the video when they have the astronauts going to the moon with the earth out of the window. The astronauts say the camera is pushed all the way up against the window, then they turn off the camera and you see they had cardboard in the window. The astronauts where showing earth crescent shaped from space. Only thing was the camera was not turned off and you see astronauts in front of the window and stuff(the astronauts were lying).
I believe you're talking about this clip from the movie "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon":
Moon Hoax (http://#ws)
-
Thanks Tom, that's the one I was talking about.
-
I like the part of the video that says "and you can see that full size earth in the background..." All I saw was glare. That was probably the only damning part of the video, and it wasn't even compelling evidence. The way the video starts, it's got you thinking that you're gonna listen to recorded conversations where the crew and ground crew talk about what they're doing to stage it.
-
I don't know where the video is right now. How about the video when they have the astronauts going to the moon with the earth out of the window. The astronauts say the camera is pushed all the way up against the window, then they turn off the camera and you see they had cardboard in the window. The astronauts where showing earth crescent shaped from space. Only thing was the camera was not turned off and you see astronauts in front of the window and stuff(the astronauts were lying).
I believe you're talking about this clip from the movie "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"
...which is completely debunked by this website here:
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html (http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html)
-
I don't know where the video is right now. How about the video when they have the astronauts going to the moon with the earth out of the window. The astronauts say the camera is pushed all the way up against the window, then they turn off the camera and you see they had cardboard in the window. The astronauts where showing earth crescent shaped from space. Only thing was the camera was not turned off and you see astronauts in front of the window and stuff(the astronauts were lying).
I believe you're talking about this clip from the movie "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"
...which is completely debunked by this website here:
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html (http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html)
That website is known to be connected to NASA. But even so, the arguments are bad:
"There you can see that the astronauts are not talking about how to fake the footage, as Mr. Sibrel claims, but simply learning to use an experimental color television camera that was a late addition to their mission."
Color television was not experimental in the 1969.
"The astronauts were preparing for a live telecast for which they hadn't had time to practice. Is this any different than a news reporter testing her uplink back to the studio by telling a joke before 'going live'?"
Yes, it's a bit different. News reporters don't typically fake house fires for their news broadcasts. And faking a scene of being half way to the moon doesn't sound like much of a "joke" to me.
-
That website is known to be connected to NASA. But even so, the arguments are bad:
"There you can see that the astronauts are not talking about how to fake the footage, as Mr. Sibrel claims, but simply learning to use an experimental color television camera that was a late addition to their mission."
Color television was not experimental in the 1969.
The quote you listed clearly says "experimental color television camera." It does not say color television was experimental.
"The astronauts were preparing for a live telecast for which they hadn't had time to practice. Is this any different than a news reporter testing her uplink back to the studio by telling a joke before 'going live'?"
Yes, it's a bit different. News reporters don't typically fake house fires for their news broadcasts.
And faking a scene of being half way to the moon doesn't sound like much of a "joke" to me.
There's absolutely nothing to substantiate that they faked it. There's a shaky scene from an old camera with someone claiming that "oh see, it's faked because they blocked the sun out and you can see things moving when they move the camera."
-
The quote you listed clearly says "experimental color television camera." It does not say color television was experimental.
Color television cameras were not experimental either.
There's absolutely nothing to substantiate that they faked it. There's a shaky scene from an old camera with someone claiming that "oh see, it's faked because they blocked the sun out and you can see things moving when they move the camera."
According to the above link the authors agree that the scene was faked, but was done so for "practice" or "a joke."
But on the dates on the footage the astronauts were supposed to be half way to the moon. The argument that they were staging it as a "joke" or "practice" is nonsense. If they were half way to the moon they wouldn't need to stage anything.
-
That website is known to be connected to NASA. But even so, the arguments are bad:
"There you can see that the astronauts are not talking about how to fake the footage, as Mr. Sibrel claims, but simply learning to use an experimental color television camera that was a late addition to their mission."
Color television was not experimental in the 1969.
No, not color television. An experimental Westinghouse Lunar Color Camera.
http://www.clavius.org/tvqual.html (http://www.clavius.org/tvqual.html)
"Normal color television cameras at that time used three image sensor tubes called vidicons, each fitted with a filter for one of the primary red/green/blue colors. The signals from each vidicon were electronically combined into a single color signal inside the camera. This three-tube system was deemed too heavy and bulky for use in space.
Engineers at Westinghouse developed an ingenious way to produce a color signal using only one vidicon. They placed a spinning color wheel in front of the vidicon with red, green, and blue filters in it. Thus the vidicon would capture the red part of the image, followed by the green, followed by the blue. It could send them sequentially as a series of intensity-only frames that the ground equipment would assign to color. Not only would this result in a very light camera, but it would transmit a color image in the smaller bandwidth normally taken up by a black-and-white signal.
But there was a drawback. If the color component frames were sent one after the other instead of in a combined signal, then it would take three frames from the camera (one red, one blue, and one green) to produce just one color frame on the television screen. And that meant that the effective color frame rate was one-third that of the actual frame rate. Not only that, it would require equipment on the ground to very quickly assemble the color components into the single frame.
But the transmission rate of 30 fps would equate to only 10 fps after combining. That's too slow for viewing. To the viewer the motion would have a jerky, stop-motion quality to it. Not to mention a noticeable flicker. The frames were therefore recombined according to rolling "window". The red, green, and blue frames of one set were combined to form a finished frame. The the red frame was dropped from that set, and the blue and green frames from that set were combined with the red frame from the next set, and so forth. This means each color component frame could be used three times, and the decoded frame rate would be back up to 30 frames per second.
If you freeze a frame of the color television coverage during an abrupt movement of the camera or subject, you can see a sort of rainbow effect where each color component captures the object in a slightly different position. The object has moved in the time it takes the color wheel to move to the next position."
-
So what about testing this "experimental" television camera necessitates faking your craft being half way to the moon with low light interior shots and cardboard cutouts?
-
No one said they were faking anything. Not even in the link that was provided. I read it. They were practicing for the actual broadcast. Anyone with any sense would do this so that they didn't make a complete fool out of themselves in front of millions and millions of people. Not one mention of them "faking" anything. Getting ready, learning how to use the camera, the proper lighting, position. That's all very important in a live broadcast.
-
So what about testing this "experimental" television camera necessitates faking your craft being half way to the moon with low light interior shots and cardboard cutouts?
Were you born with the ability to take pictures using any camera in any situation?
-
Yes, it's a bit different. News reporters don't typically fake house fires for their news broadcasts. And faking a scene of being half way to the moon doesn't sound like much of a "joke" to me.
"My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes." -Ronald Reagan
You're right Tom, no one makes jokes during mic tests. ::)
-
No one said they were faking anything. Not even in the link that was provided. I read it. They were practicing for the actual broadcast. Anyone with any sense would do this so that they didn't make a complete fool out of themselves in front of millions and millions of people. Not one mention of them "faking" anything. Getting ready, learning how to use the camera, the proper lighting, position. That's all very important in a live broadcast.
Yeah right. Videotaping the earth from the back of the craft with a cardboard cutout on the window is standard NASA astronaut procedure for preparing for a live broadcast, I'm sure.
Yes, it's a bit different. News reporters don't typically fake house fires for their news broadcasts. And faking a scene of being half way to the moon doesn't sound like much of a "joke" to me.
"My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes." -Ronald Reagan
You're right Tom, no one makes jokes during mic tests. ::)
So you're saying the astronauts were making a joke that they were half way to the moon on the date they were supposed to be half way to the moon? ???
-
No one said they were faking anything. Not even in the link that was provided. I read it. They were practicing for the actual broadcast. Anyone with any sense would do this so that they didn't make a complete fool out of themselves in front of millions and millions of people. Not one mention of them "faking" anything. Getting ready, learning how to use the camera, the proper lighting, position. That's all very important in a live broadcast.
Yeah right. Videotaping the earth from the back of the craft with a cardboard cutout on the window is standard NASA astronaut procedure for preparing for a live broadcast, I'm sure.
There was no cardboard cutout. If you're look at the entire video, which is readily available through various sources (and if you can't find it, I'm sure you can get it from NASA), then you'll see that there was no cutout.
Yes, it's a bit different. News reporters don't typically fake house fires for their news broadcasts. And faking a scene of being half way to the moon doesn't sound like much of a "joke" to me.
"My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes." -Ronald Reagan
You're right Tom, no one makes jokes during mic tests. ::)
So you're saying the astronauts were making a joke that they were half way to the moon on the date they were supposed to be half way to the moon? ???
No one said that. You seem to think that people in the news media business don't practice or make jokes before they're live.
-
For point 1, the author is assuming that any NASA hoax would be competent and flawless.
The author is assuming that constantly releasing thousands of images of your operations to the public is counter to the interests of a conspiracy to fake space flight. He assumes that such a conspiracy would be run by people who aren't functionally retarded, and who have at least some understanding of risk exposure.
The conspiracy as you describe it would have to be orchestrated from the highest levels of government, and it would have to have virtually limitless resources at its disposal. It's difficult to image how such an operation could be as incompetent as you describe.
For point 2, the "very best geologists on Earth" are referring to the ones who allegedly work for NASA.
Their findings are publicly available to anyone, and they have been independently reviewed by thousands of geologists.
Your assumption is incorrect anyway. Go to a public library and search any science journal index. You'll find many, many peer-reviewed papers on the geology of Mars written by geologists with no affiliation with NASA.
Don't you claim to work in academia? Find a geologist. Show him or her the image. Ask if he or she thinks that it's possible for an outcrop of rock, viewed edge on, to resemble a log.
In point 3, why would NASA be shouting from the rooftop of something that would expose their fraud?
Indeed. Why would NASA keep releasing image after image after image after image after image that potentially exposes their fraud? Why would they keep making the exact same mistake over and over and over and over again. It doesn't make much sense.
However, I can imagine a scenario in which NASA scientists claiming to find a petrified log on Mars would lead to a sudden and massive increase in both funding and enthusiasm for more space missions. Finding petrified remains of life on Mars would almost certainly be a boon to NASA's budget, prestige, and popularity.
-
Don't you claim to work in academia? Find a geologist. Show him or her the image. Ask if he or she thinks that it's possible for an outcrop of rock, viewed edge on, to resemble a log.
Actually, Tom claims to be a geologist. So, I guess that we're getting his professional opinion here.
Being a Geologist I am indeed a surveyor. It comes with the job.
-
Don't you claim to work in academia? Find a geologist. Show him or her the image. Ask if he or she thinks that it's possible for an outcrop of rock, viewed edge on, to resemble a log.
Actually, Tom claims to be a geologist. So, I guess that we're getting his professional opinion here.
Being a Geologist I am indeed a surveyor. It comes with the job.
Funny, I thought he worked with astronomers and sold fake college degrees. Tom does a lot of things I guess.
-
Don't you claim to work in academia? Find a geologist. Show him or her the image. Ask if he or she thinks that it's possible for an outcrop of rock, viewed edge on, to resemble a log.
Actually, Tom claims to be a geologist. So, I guess that we're getting his professional opinion here.
Being a Geologist I am indeed a surveyor. It comes with the job.
Funny, I thought he worked with astronomers and sold fake college degrees. Tom does a lot of things I guess.
Indeed. Tom is a renaissance man.
-
Don't you claim to work in academia? Find a geologist. Show him or her the image. Ask if he or she thinks that it's possible for an outcrop of rock, viewed edge on, to resemble a log.
Actually, Tom claims to be a geologist. So, I guess that we're getting his professional opinion here.
Being a Geologist I am indeed a surveyor. It comes with the job.
Funny, I thought he worked with astronomers and sold fake college degrees. Tom does a lot of things I guess.
Indeed. Tom is a renaissance man.
He's a true pioneer. No one does as much as Tom does.
-
I myself believe in a Flat Earth not because of religion, but as a result of my own observations, experiments, and scientific proofs. I'm an atheist who came to the conclusion of a Flat Earth because it makes vastly more scientific sense than a Round Earth. I hold a Masters in Geology from U.C. Berkley.
There are certain observations that could only occur because of a Flat Earth.
Someone with his same forum username made that claim - it does not seem to be the current forum account however.
If they are the same person - It has been some time since that claim was made, perhaps he has forgotten.
-
Not fake anymore. Curiosity just checked in on Mars on foursquare. It's settled. :)
-
LIFE ON MARS? NASA'S CURIOSITY ROVER DISCOVERS 'ONE FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS' (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/359803/Life-on-Mars-NASA-s-Curiosity-rover-discovers-one-for-the-history-books)
If it’s going in the history books, organic material is what I expect
[size=78%]Excited experts are already speculating that the imminent announcement will confirm that signs of life are evident on the red planet, as the £1.6billion Mars Curiosity rover seems to have discovered what it set out to find on Mars.[/size]
-
Apart from rockets being useless in space, this Mars rover is nothing more than a toy on Earth.
They tell us that the Mars atmosphere is very thin... yet that's no problem for the parachutes. ::)
Apart from you not knowing what vacuum does (it does nothing), maybe that's why they didn't use parachutes in final part of the landing?
-
Not useless, just not as useful, that is why they used rockets for the landing.
-
Who cares about the rockets.
I'm talking about parachutes working in a supposed paper thin atmosphere, it would be like me giving you a net curtain as a parachute and telling you it's ok to jump.
If you gave me a jet pack strong enough to overcome gravity at that falling speed before hitting the floor, I would be fine. The mars rover landed using rockets.
-
As you said, it was just to slow it down before using the rockets to land on mars. A curtain net parachute is still better than no parachute if all i want is to slow down the fall.
-
No
-
If they found organic compounds... maybe they'll send a manned mission. And here I thought they should stay off of that ugly ball of rust because it was just a dead world.
-
As you said, it was just to slow it down before using the rockets to land on mars. A curtain net parachute is still better than no parachute if all i want is to slow down the fall.
Parachutes in a paper thin atmosphere. Only N.A.S.A could use this and get people to accept it.
If N.A.S.A said they used lead parachutes, most people would accept it simply because N.A.S.A said so. ::)
Parachutes can still serve a purpose. As you say it was a thin atmosphere, but still an atmosphere.
The parachute would be insufficient for a complete landing, but were very useful for slowing to a manageable speed for the sky crane and rockets to take over.
Just for the record sceptimatic, I would be interested to hear what other conspiracy theories you believe. 2012 Mayan calendar? Atlantis? Alien abduction? 911 holographic planes? The illuminati and NWO? Elvis lives?
My reason for asking is that you seem to believe in conspiracies more than you believe in anything else. Or is it just the RE and space?
-
There's another so called Mars picture that you can see a rodent of some description on it as you move it around.
I would LOVE to see this image! Do you have a link?
-
It's amazing how , on the moon, the so called Astronauts have dishes to receive communication and such from Earth, yet this rover on Mars needs none of this stuff.
I know it's like... technology advanced over the last 40 years. Weird.
illuminati and NWO?
The funny thing about those two is, I believe there was once a group called the illuminati. I think they were like elite assassins or something. And the NWO comes from the beginning of the United Nations, when they said they were creating it to establish a New World Order. I can see where people might get paranoid about this latter one if they didn't do research from all angles.
-
It's amazing how , on the moon, the so called Astronauts have dishes to receive communication and such from Earth, yet this rover on Mars needs none of this stuff.
I know it's like... technology advanced over the last 40 years. Weird.
illuminati and NWO?
The funny thing about those two is, I believe there was once a group called the illuminati. I think they were like elite assassins or something. And the NWO comes from the beginning of the United Nations, when they said they were creating it to establish a New World Order. I can see where people might get paranoid about this latter one if they didn't do research from all angles.
Agreed. Nothing wrong with questioning things, but people should be able to accept answers that are proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
For the record, I am not saying that I believe everything I am 'spoon fed'. I like to question and consider the alternative. It can even be fun. But I find that the truth far more rewarding.
-
Agreed. Nothing wrong with questioning things, but people should be able to accept answers that are proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
For the record, I am not saying that I believe everything I am 'spoon fed'. I like to question and consider the alternative. It can even be fun. But I find that the truth far more rewarding.
The reason people keep on about a lot of those conspiracy theories is that they really haven't been proven wrong.
-
Agreed. Nothing wrong with questioning things, but people should be able to accept answers that are proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
For the record, I am not saying that I believe everything I am 'spoon fed'. I like to question and consider the alternative. It can even be fun. But I find that the truth far more rewarding.
The reason people keep on about a lot of those conspiracy theories is that they really haven't been proven wrong.
Well... elvis IS dead (unfortunately), and 2012 apocalypse is a load of shite.
But other than that, fair enough.
Flat earth though is not a modern conspiracy. It is entrenched in middle ages ignorance and should have remained that way.
EDIT
I forgot to mention Nibiru! That one is hilarious!!
-
Agreed. Nothing wrong with questioning things, but people should be able to accept answers that are proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
For the record, I am not saying that I believe everything I am 'spoon fed'. I like to question and consider the alternative. It can even be fun. But I find that the truth far more rewarding.
The reason people keep on about a lot of those conspiracy theories is that they really haven't been proven wrong.
Well... elvis IS dead (unfortunately), and 2012 apocalypse is a load of shite.
But other than that, fair enough.
Flat earth though is not a modern conspiracy. It is entrenched in middle ages ignorance and should have remained that way.
EDIT
I forgot to mention Nibiru! That one is hilarious!!
Well I did say a lot of them haven't been proven wrong, not all. I never knew there was actually a conspiracy theory that elvis was still alive though. Weird. Nibiru is also pretty hilarious. I'm pretty sure we would have seen a planet four times the size of earth barreling our way by now. Also, given the time we have left until December 21st, the gravities of the two planets would already be making massive tidal forces on our world, and we would possibly all already be dead.
-
The more I read of this site, the more I realise that it is just another conspiracy site, like abovetopsecret.com - just nowhere near as popular.
Some of the earlier discussions looked like fun, in a debate club type way - ie defending an indefensible position can actually educate you. However it now seems to be about this sort of "NASA ate my homework" type drivel.
-
The more I read of this site, the more I realise that it is just another conspiracy site, like abovetopsecret.com - just nowhere near as popular.
Some of the earlier discussions looked like fun, in a debate club type way - ie defending an indefensible position can actually educate you. However it now seems to be about this sort of "NASA ate my homework" type drivel.
No, that's just sceptimatic. There are good debaters here. But most of these people that are around most of the time are either trolls or denser than lead.
-
The more I read of this site, the more I realise that it is just another conspiracy site, like abovetopsecret.com - just nowhere near as popular.
Some of the earlier discussions looked like fun, in a debate club type way - ie defending an indefensible position can actually educate you. However it now seems to be about this sort of "NASA ate my homework" type drivel.
Question anything official and it's a conspiracy theory.
If anyone official questions someone else's theories, it's fine.
It's like God.
If a person talks to their invisible friend, they will be certified a nut case.
If a person talks to God, it's fine.
You're not questioning anything. You're not actually skeptical. You're just saying, "I don't believe you." That's not anything.