Flat Mars Society

The filming sites are well known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_analogue_sites

It should be pretty easy for an enterprising conspiracy buster to just go to the sites and recreate all of the Martian shots to demonstrate the forgeries.  If NASA's "Mars" pictures were all taken at those sites, then other pictures taken there should match the terrain features of the Martian photos.  I believe that would be the nail in the coffin of the NASA conspiracy.

What would it indicate if none of the Martian photos were able to be duplicated on Earth?

Why would we? That work has been done. We all know where the sites are, what they look like, and so on. Obviously, we don't have knowledge of every single filming site they use, as they only provide a splattering of them when they get caught and have to explain to the farmers why there are a bunch of astronauts filming nonsense out in the desert.

Why would we? That work has been done.

*citation needed.

Why would we? That work has been done. We all know where the sites are, what they look like, and so on.

But have you compared the known sites to the original pictures on NASA's site that they claim are from mars (or anywhere else)?

If it pleases you, then next time I am within distance to one I'll be happy to compare. Either way, as noted earlier, we can't trust hte photographic evidence so the entire point is moot.

If it pleases you, then next time I am within distance to one I'll be happy to compare. Either way, as noted earlier, we can't trust hte photographic evidence so the entire point is moot.

So you're saying that you can't trust the photos because you haven't verified that they were taken on earth?

Here you go again, markjo.

Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.

Here you go again, markjo.

Quote

Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.

To which I say:

All I'm saying is that you need to be able to prove that it's NASA doing the faking and not someone trolling the conspiracy theorists.

Why do you think that it's unreasonable to consider the possibility that you're being trolled by a fake fake?

I did consider that possibility.

Here, I'll help you read:

Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.

Here you go again, markjo.

Quote

Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.

Markjo'd

I did consider that possibility.

Here, I'll help you read:

Quote

Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.

You set up a false equivalence with an either/or that isn't comprehensive.  You've listed only two possibilities, and neither one covers the actual facts.   

The actual fact is the earth image is real, and there is no NASA picture.  The "NASA" picture is a photoshop alteration of the same Earth image by a private citizen to demonstrate his opinion that faking Mars photos from Earth locations is easy.  These two photos have literally nothing to do with NASA and it's either dishonest or ignorant to keep talking about them like they do. 

I did consider that possibility.

Here, I'll help you read:

Quote

Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.

And I'm saying that you should try to figure out whether or not the earth image was faked by rabble rousers before you declare NASA to be an untrustworthy source.  It seems to me that you wouldn't be willing to accept any photos of the surface of mars to be trustworthy, even if you went there and took them yourself.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 10:31:35 AM

I did consider that possibility.

Here, I'll help you read:

Quote

Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.

And I'm saying that you should try to figure out whether or not the earth image was faked by rabble rousers before you declare NASA to be an untrustworthy source.  It seems to me that you wouldn't be willing to accept any photos of the surface of mars to be trustworthy, even if you went there and took them yourself.

Its irrelevant if the earth image is faked or if the nasa image is faked. Either way, we know we can't accept photographic evidence. Of course you know this, from being a member of this site for about a decade .

Quote from: markjo on December 08, 2017, 12:15:40 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 10:31:35 AM

I did consider that possibility.

Here, I'll help you read:

Quote

Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.

And I'm saying that you should try to figure out whether or not the earth image was faked by rabble rousers before you declare NASA to be an untrustworthy source.  It seems to me that you wouldn't be willing to accept any photos of the surface of mars to be trustworthy, even if you went there and took them yourself.

Its irrelevant if the earth image is faked or if the nasa image is faked. Either way, we know we can't accept photographic evidence. Of course you know this, from being a member of this site for about a decade .

So you're saying that since one photo of mars with a questionable origin has been shown to be fake, then no picture of mars can ever be trusted regardless of origin?

I'm saying that you can't trust photographic evidence.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:10:10 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 08, 2017, 12:15:40 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 10:31:35 AM

I did consider that possibility.

Here, I'll help you read:

Quote

Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.

And I'm saying that you should try to figure out whether or not the earth image was faked by rabble rousers before you declare NASA to be an untrustworthy source.  It seems to me that you wouldn't be willing to accept any photos of the surface of mars to be trustworthy, even if you went there and took them yourself.

Its irrelevant if the earth image is faked or if the nasa image is faked. Either way, we know we can't accept photographic evidence. Of course you know this, from being a member of this site for about a decade .

So you're saying that since one photo of mars with a questionable origin has been shown to be fake, then no picture of mars can ever be trusted regardless of origin?

Can we all acknowledge that there IS no picture of Mars being discussed?  It's a picture of Earth photo shopped to look generally like Mars, and the person who altered the Earth photo never said it was anything but a photo of Earth.  Don't let John argue as though this photo in any way compromises the integrity of the Martian photo library.

I'm saying that you can't trust photographic evidence.

Then what evidence can you trust?

Quote from: markjo on December 08, 2017, 02:26:13 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:10:10 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 08, 2017, 12:15:40 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 10:31:35 AM

I did consider that possibility.

Here, I'll help you read:

Quote

Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.

And I'm saying that you should try to figure out whether or not the earth image was faked by rabble rousers before you declare NASA to be an untrustworthy source.  It seems to me that you wouldn't be willing to accept any photos of the surface of mars to be trustworthy, even if you went there and took them yourself.

Its irrelevant if the earth image is faked or if the nasa image is faked. Either way, we know we can't accept photographic evidence. Of course you know this, from being a member of this site for about a decade .

So you're saying that since one photo of mars with a questionable origin has been shown to be fake, then no picture of mars can ever be trusted regardless of origin?

Can we all acknowledge that there IS no picture of Mars being discussed?  It's a picture of Earth photo shopped to look generally like Mars, and the person who altered the Earth photo never said it was anything but a photo of Earth.  Don't let John argue as though this photo in any way compromises the integrity of the Martian photo library.

I know we can agree to that, for the purposes of discussion. The sad fact is the organization that we pay our taxes to so they can show us what the world is through use of their discipline have made it impossible to verify any picture of mars, or any of the moon-landing footage. Its a disgrace. Might as well be buying snakeskin oil.

The sad fact is the organization that we pay our taxes to so they can show us what the world is through use of their discipline have made it impossible to verify any picture of mars, or any of the moon-landing footage.

How would you suggest that NASA make it possible for you to verify pictures of mars or the moon-landing footage?

I would suggest they not have thrown out the moon landing footage, to start.

What about all of the moon landing footage that didn't get thrown out?  Doesn't that count for anything?  You do realize that there was more than one moon landing, don't you?

Besides, we're talking about mars, so let's try not to drift too far off topic.

What they did save has been torn apart for the better half a century by the conspiracy camp, which has shown beyond any doubt that all that we've been shown has been complete jabberwocky. I don't realize there was any moon-landing, because its all a farce.

What they did save has been torn apart for the better half a century by the conspiracy camp, which has shown beyond any doubt that all that we've been shown has been complete jabberwocky. I don't realize there was any moon-landing, because its all a farce.

Really?
Have you ever looked objectively into the other side of this issue? You might start with, Clavius Moon Base.

Then if you are into YouTube videos you might look at debunking the moon hoaxes on the following YouTube channels:
Astrobrant2, Yes, We did!
Phil Webb, MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique
And still, there are many more, though some are a bit scathing in their attacks on the FE.

And a discussion by Scott Sutherland:
Celebrate the Moon landing with 10 debunked ‘Moon Hoax’ arguments

Still, I won't hold my breath, your whole life is so wrapped if the idea of a flat earth, that you would never look at the other side.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 05:55:42 PM

What they did save has been torn apart for the better half a century by the conspiracy camp, which has shown beyond any doubt that all that we've been shown has been complete jabberwocky. I don't realize there was any moon-landing, because its all a farce.

Really?
Have you ever looked objectively into the other side of this issue? You might start with, Clavius Moon Base.

Then if you are into YouTube videos you might look at debunking the moon hoaxes on the following YouTube channels:
Astrobrant2, Yes, We did!
Phil Webb, MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique
And still, there are many more, though some are a bit scathing in their attacks on the FE.

And a discussion by Scott Sutherland:
Celebrate the Moon landing with 10 debunked ‘Moon Hoax’ arguments

Still, I won't hold my breath, your whole life is so wrapped if the idea of a flat earth, that you would never look at the other side.

At least JD has a reason to be here on the Flat Earth Society. What is your reason rab?

At least JD has a reason to be here on the Flat Earth Society. What is your reason rab?

To do my best to stop those not yet fully infected with the Flat Earth Delusion that there is another side to your silly claims.

To support your fantasy,
you have to claim the many many ordinary people have to be lying about the shape of the earth and have been for millenia.

If that's the sort of person that you, John Davis and others are, fine by me, but I'll do my best to show that there is a better, more honest way.

Thank you for this opportunity to state my thoughts.

You are the only one lying, as there is no reason we could not simply be mistaken about the shape of the earth. The popularity of error is almost universal.

You are the only one lying, as there is no reason we could not simply be mistaken about the shape of the earth. The popularity of error is almost universal.

Could you present some facts to support your statement.

I'm saying that you can't trust photographic evidence.

Are you saying no photographic evidence is admissible? On what grounds do you make this claim?

The pictures from mars are pure nonsense. Does anybody else remember the gopher they found in one of the shots?

Could you provide a link.

How about when they found life.... ten different times?

Not true.