Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
We landed on Mars... again? [Mod note post #1]
Options
Comments
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »Imagine being underwhelmed by humanity sending robots to Mars to check for signs of life.
Whatever generation this is, it's truly the worst.
I've been thinking about this and I reckon if you're the type of person who believes in inter dimensional vampire shape shifting lizards are controlling the world... I can see why Mars missions might feel underwhelming.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Interesting points, for the time of the transmissions you were dealing with low resolution greyscale black and white TVs, and the reception is quite grainy.
Also the footage of said landing could be done weeks or months in advance.
Im not saying they didn't go, just saying it could be faked.
For example, it was not possible to porduce the amount of slow motion footage required.
It was not possible to replicate certain effects of the lunar environment.
And this is before considering that it would be impossible to hide an operation to fake the landings.
It is not reasonable to consider the possibility that it was faked. You might as well be considering the possibility that the Earth is flat.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Interesting points, for the time of the transmissions you were dealing with low resolution greyscale black and white TVs, and the reception is quite grainy.
Also the footage of said landing could be done weeks or months in advance.
https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/germany-landing-on-the-moon-on-television-screen-on-the-news-photo/549548081?adppopup=true
https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/television-screen-grab-from-a-cbs-news-special-report-shows-news-photo/85737792?adppopup=true
https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/screen-capture-from-a-cbs-news-special-report-depicts-news-photo/85747232?adppopup=true
Im not saying they didn't go, just saying it could be faked.
If it was faked, why didn't the USSR expose them? They had the means. They had the technology. They had the motive. But they chose not to.
Why?0 -
But no, it couldn't have been faked.
For example, it was not possible to porduce the amount of slow motion footage required.
It was not possible to replicate certain effects of the lunar environment.
And this is before considering that it would be impossible to hide an operation to fake the landings.
It is not reasonable to consider the possibility that it was faked. You might as well be considering the possibility that the Earth is flat.
you also have to completely ignore the fact that we let items on the moon that we can interact with from earth.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 23651
Deleted User wrote: »Also the footage of said landing could be done weeks or months in advance.
And you then have to launch the transmitter of that video taped footage to the moon and successfully land it there in advance without being noticed by anyone else so that you can then transmit those signals from the surface of the moon, because that is where the various observatories around the world ( I think mostly Australia) are going to be looking for the signal to be coming from. You also have to have the radio signals of the craft during the flight to the moon being transmitted from the correct places in the sky at the correct time as other countries will be watching for that as well.0 -
Advertisement
-
And you then have to launch the transmitter of that video taped footage to the moon and successfully land it there in advance without being noticed by anyone else so that you can then transmit those signals from the surface of the moon, because that is where the various observatories around the world ( I think mostly Australia) are going to be looking for the signal to be coming from. You also have to have the radio signals of the craft during the flight to the moon being transmitted from the correct places in the sky at the correct time as other countries will be watching for that as well.
It is really odd that the russians were listening in to the communications signals from Apollo 11 and never told the rest of the world that they weren't coming from the moon.0 -
And you then have to launch the transmitter of that video taped footage to the moon and successfully land it there in advance without being noticed by anyone else so that you can then transmit those signals from the surface of the moon, because that is where the various observatories around the world ( I think mostly Australia) are going to be looking for the signal to be coming from. You also have to have the radio signals of the craft during the flight to the moon being transmitted from the correct places in the sky at the correct time as other countries will be watching for that as well.
Once, a conspiracy theorists claimed that there was a second second space program to develop an autonomous rover that could operate in secret, retrieve the samples and return to Earth whilst being hidden in the descent stage of the lunar lander.0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »If the probe can be controlled from this end (200 million km away) then it's hardly magic that a static transmitter sending data back in the other direction is some kind of scientific miracle.
But at this end, you can use as much transmission power as you like, not so on the probe.
At this end you can make the antenna as big as you like, not so on the probe
At this end it's easy to aim the antenna accurately, not so on the probe...namloc1980 wrote: »What are you talking about? Perseverance is powered by a radioisotope thermoelectrical generator, in essence nuclear powered. You're being absolutely ridiculous.
Yes, a whole 110 watts at launch, which will decay over time... the radio is at best a few watts. Radio enthusiasts consider it a major achievement to communicate in morse code from one side of the earth to the other using a few watts of power.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
I just watched the BBC about this asteroid that has come so close to Earth.
There was an MIT professor also giving his 2 cents worth.
There was "footage" of the surface of this asteroid. I'm just wondering where this footage came from. Pretty skillful to get a probe up into space and film an asteroid. Lot of money too I would imagine.
Allegedly there's also one that was discovered 2 days ago :eek:
In conclusion the newsreader asked "how could we be be prepared" and the MIT professor said "well on way would be to get a space craft up and nudge it off course"
This was on the BBC News.0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »There was "footage" of the surface of this asteroid. I'm just wondering where this footage came from. Pretty skillful to get a probe up into space and film an asteroid. Lot of money too I would imagine.
It wasn't. It was probably footage from one of the many asteroid missions there have been in the last few years.
You just assumed they were claiming it was footage of the asteroid they were talking about because you didn't understand the concept of illustrative purposes and you didn't bother to check into the footage.ShatterAlan wrote: »Allegedly there's also one that was discovered 2 days ago :eek:
Are you claiming that it wasn't discovered then?ShatterAlan wrote: »In conclusion the newsreader asked "how could we be be prepared" and the MIT professor said "well on way would be to get a space craft up and nudge it off course"
This was on the BBC News.
What exactly is your point? And what has this report to do with the silly notion that Mars/space missions are faked?0 -
Advertisement
-
ShatterAlan wrote: »I just watched the BBC about this asteroid that has come so close to Earth.
There was an MIT professor also giving his 2 cents worth.
There was "footage" of the surface of this asteroid. I'm just wondering where this footage came from. Pretty skillful to get a probe up into space and film an asteroid. Lot of money too I would imagine.
Allegedly there's also one that was discovered 2 days ago :eek:
In conclusion the newsreader asked "how could we be be prepared" and the MIT professor said "well on way would be to get a space craft up and nudge it off course"
This was on the BBC News.
This is the only news item I can find from the last few days on BBC news regarding an asteroid, so I strongly suspect this is the story you are referring to. If so, perhaps pay attention to the details.
https://youtu.be/ymcdjlJE48M?t=9810 -
-
ShatterAlan wrote: »2 months now.
Still waiting for the Hi-Def pics.
https://twitter.com/NASAPersevere?s=090 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »2 months now.
Still waiting for the Hi-Def pics.
You can find them easily.
Still waiting for you to address my last set of questions.
Weird that you'd come back to a thread you ran away from and expect that everyone had forgotten the points you're not able to address.
And again it's a very did position to be on the fence about.
Why do you believe that there hasn't been any high definition images?0 -
-
ShatterAlan wrote: »2 months now.
Still waiting for the Hi-Def pics.
Photos and footage have been produced daily. The fact that you have to ask on a conspiracy forum for info that takes seconds to find says a lot.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/images/0 -
https://mars.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/25796_heli-movement-far.gif
So Alan, did you not bother to look any of that up before you declared victory here? Or...?0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »2 months now.
Still waiting for the Hi-Def pics.
Wow embarrassed for you. Can I ask why are you lying? Is the only way you feel secure in your conspiracy bubble is to blatantly lie?0 -
These have been supplied to you.
You can find them easily.
Still waiting for you to address my last set of questions.
Weird that you'd come back to a thread you ran away from and expect that everyone had forgotten the points you're not able to address.
And again it's a very did position to be on the fence about.
Why do you believe that there hasn't been any high definition images?
Aren't you the pushy poster. Why do you think anyone is under any obligation to answer your questions? Not only do you ask an unrealistic and unwieldy amount of questions that nobody has the time for but they are also mundane and uninteresting to say the least - they take the thread nowhere.
How about you answer my question as to why, in the 60-70 years that humans have been going to space that we have only managed to get one picture of the entire earth?
That being this one by Neil Armstrong in '69:
Why were more pictures not acquired during all the moon landings of the early 70s?
Why have we sent a telescope into space to take pictures of distant galaxies but not a single camera to take pictures of the only planet of interest to 99% of the population i.e. Earth?
Why in the 15 or so years that we've been sending rovers to mars did they not incorporate a single shred of technology that could point a camera backwards and take a picture of the earth?
Why is the only officially released photo by NASA of the entire earth since the moon landing a self proclaimed stitched image of many other images? (Simmon's Blue Marble)
Why are there so many fake 3D rendered images of the earth on the internet without any consistency between any of them?
I will not discuss any topic with you unless you sufficiently answer, not one, not two, but all of the above questions to a level that I am satisfied with.0 -
Markus Antonius wrote: »Aren't you the pushy poster. Why do you think anyone is under any obligation to answer your questions?
I'm likewise free to point out that's what they are doing and that doing so undermines their position.
Don't see why you'd believe I wasn't allowed to do that.Markus Antonius wrote: »Not only do you ask an unrealistic and unwieldy amount of questions that nobody has the time for but they are also mundane and uninteresting to say the least - they take the thread nowhere.Markus Antonius wrote: »How about you answer my question as to why, in the 60-70 years that humans have been going to space that we have only managed to get one picture of the entire earth?
The answer is: that's not true.
There have been many photos of the Earth from space.Markus Antonius wrote: »That being this one by Neil Armstrong in '69:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise
So it's not looking good that your premise is base entirely on things that aren't actually true.Markus Antonius wrote: »Why were more pictures not acquired during all the moon landings of the early 70s?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_MarbleMarkus Antonius wrote: »Why have we sent a telescope into space to take pictures of distant galaxies but not a single camera to take pictures of the only planet of interest to 99% of the population i.e. Earth?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIROS-1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_(satellite)#1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATS-1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATS-3
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orbiter_1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DODGEMarkus Antonius wrote: »Why in the 15 or so years that we've been sending rovers to mars did they not incorporate a single shred of technology that could point a camera backwards and take a picture of the earth?
First of which is that we haven't been sending probes to Mars for 15 years. It's been for 50 years.
Secondly there's been plenty of photos or Earth from these probes.
Like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Global_Surveyor
And: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)
And: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/science/earth-from-mars-photo.html
And most famously: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_DotMarkus Antonius wrote: »Why is the only officially released photo by NASA of the entire earth since the moon landing a self proclaimed stitched image of many other images? (Simmon's Blue Marble)
They also release composite photos. I'm not sure what your objection to them is. Composite does mean faked.Markus Antonius wrote: »Why are there so many fake 3D rendered images of the earth on the internet without any consistency between any of them?
What an odd question to ask.Markus Antonius wrote: »I will not discuss any topic with you unless you sufficiently answer, not one, not two, but all of the above questions to a level that I am satisfied with.
And I suspect you will use this insistence to ignore and run away from the points I brought up as well as any follow on questions I might ask.
At least you're more up front about your desire to ignore difficult points that some other people around here.
As such I'll just ask the one question:
What do you believe is the explanation for why there's only one full picture of the Earth?0 -
Advertisement
-
Markus Antonius wrote: »
How about you answer my question as to why, in the 60-70 years that humans have been going to space that we have only managed to get one picture of the entire earth?
That being this one by Neil Armstrong in '69:
There are plenty of pictures of earth from space. This below is from 1972.Why were more pictures not acquired during all the moon landings of the early 70s?
They were. I expect most taken from the spacecraft were garbage given the limited vision and factors on any of the moon missions.Why have we sent a telescope into space to take pictures of distant galaxies but not a single camera to take pictures of the only planet of interest to 99% of the population i.e. Earth?
We have plenty now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_images_of_Earth_from_spaceWhy in the 15 or so years that we've been sending rovers to mars did they not incorporate a single shred of technology that could point a camera backwards and take a picture of the earth?
As aboveI will not discuss any topic with you unless you sufficiently answer, not one, not two, but all of the above questions to a level that I am satisfied with.
I know this is pointed at another poster, but any reason you are asking these questions?
Edit: Ah Kingmob just replied.0 -
-
Markus Antonius wrote: »How about you answer my question as to why, in the 60-70 years that humans have been going to space that we have only managed to get one picture of the entire earth?
That being this one by Neil Armstrong in '69:
There isn't just one, and that one was not taken in 1969, and not by Neil Armstrong, but apart from all that... :rolleyes:Why have we sent a telescope into space to take pictures of distant galaxies but not a single camera to take pictures of the only planet of interest to 99% of the population i.e. Earth?
There are hundreds of satellites taking pictures of Earth every single day - weather, mapping, reconnaissance. You have no doubt seen satellite photos on the weather forecast and used Google Maps or similar.
These satellites are in low Earth orbit for obvious reasons, so don't produce the "whole Earth as a ball floating in space" photos you seem inordinately fond of.Why in the 15 or so years that we've been sending rovers to mars did they not incorporate a single shred of technology that could point a camera backwards and take a picture of the earth?
You can't get a good picture of Earth from Mars because of the Martian atmosphere, duh.I will not discuss any topic with you unless you sufficiently answer, not one, not two, but all of the above questions to a level that I am satisfied with.
:pac:Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »There isn't just one, and that one was not taken in 1969, and not by Neil Armstrong, but apart from all that... :rolleyes:
There are hundreds of satellites taking pictures of Earth every single day - weather, mapping, reconnaissance. You have no doubt seen satellite photos on the weather forecast and used Google Maps or similar.
These satellites are in low Earth orbit for obvious reasons, so don't produce the "whole Earth as a ball floating in space" photos you seem inordinately fond of.
they couldn't be that fond of them, they've only ever seen one of them.0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »These satellites are in low Earth orbit for obvious reasons, so don't produce the "whole Earth as a ball floating in space" photos you seem inordinately fond of.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 23651
Might need to break out the Father Ted-Small-Far away gif soon...
On a run a few years ago I came across a couple of small hamlets appropriately named.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154516451960290&id=630120289
One of them I think was where Beatrix Potter used to live.0 -
There were plenty. But the focus of the moon missions was, ya know, the Moon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble
Again this is not true. There's been lots of missions that photographed the Earth in full. There have been since the 60s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIROS-1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_(satellite)#1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATS-1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATS-3
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orbiter_1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DODGE
You say "there's been lots of missions that photographed the earth in full". Yet I can only see 2 pictures in all the links you posted in which there is a picture of the earth in full.But again this isn't actually true.
First of which is that we haven't been sending probes to Mars for 15 years. It's been for 50 years.
Secondly there's been plenty of photos or Earth from these probes.
Like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Global_Surveyor
And: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)
And: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/science/earth-from-mars-photo.html
And most famously: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_DotAgain not actually true. NASA and other space agencies have released lots of full pictures of the Earth.
They also release composite photos. I'm not sure what your objection to them is. Composite does mean faked.Because 3d artists use different programs at different times using different techniques and different methods for different purposes all with different levels of skill and budget and fidelity.
What an odd question to ask.
To do what exactly? What is all this achieving?
More shallow answers once you actually read what you are saying
I suspect that even though I've answered your all of your questions directly, clearly and in full, with sources and references, you will still decide that I haven't "satisfied" your questions. I suspect that this was going to be your response regardless of the quality of my answers.
And I suspect you will use this insistence to ignore and run away from the points I brought up as well as any follow on questions I might ask.
I claim there is only one full, official, non-composite image of the earth. You claim there are "lots" and yet you only link 4-5 at most?
And you make the claim that during the lunar missions that the astronauts weren't interested in earth - then why isn't there any ultra close-up pictures of the moon that they could have easily taken on the approach? Why hasn't the current lunar rover sent us back a handful of high definition images of the entire globe of mars on the way over there? Did all the "scientists" at NASA not think of taking a few pics on the way? Surely these would be incredibly interesting for research? Or maybe they are just interested in rocks and aliens
You must be joking me! :rolleyes:0 -
Markus Antonius wrote: »Ha! I can't believe you are standing over this post and looking at me with a straight face. The age old tactic of blinding your opponent with sand before drawing your gun. Except in your case the sand is countless links that lead nowhere and instead of a gun you've drawn a banana. I'm left standing here rubbing my eyes in disbelief at how shallow your post truly is.
This is just rambling.Markus Antonius wrote: »You say "there's been lots of missions that photographed the earth in full" Yet I can only see 2 pictures in all the links you posted in which there is a picture of the earth in full.
Yet again. More erroneous links that aim to prove we have "plenty of photos"
Ah. Ok. Hand holding it is.
From Apollo 17:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble#/media/File%3AThe_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg
From TIROS 1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIROS-1#/media/File%3ATIROS-1-Earth.png
From Molniya:
https://i.redd.it/d9zyeb623rg01.jpg
ATS1:
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/11Dec1966_ATS1.jpg
ATS3:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATS-3#/media/File%3AATSIII_10NOV67_153107.jpg
Lunar Orbiter 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_View_of_Earth_from_Moon.jpg
Surveyor 3: https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/web/assets/pictures/_346x398_crop_center-center_line/first-color-photo-of-earth-from-the-moon.png.webp
The ironically named DODGE:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/First_color_image_of_the_earth_from_outer_space_%28Dodge_Satellite%29.png/996px-First_color_image_of_the_earth_from_outer_space_%28Dodge_Satellite%29.png
So how many more would you like?
Either way, you can stop lying and saying that there's only one (or 2 or 3) photo.Markus Antonius wrote: »LOL
However, the word composite does not mean fake.
Again, because you need the hand holding:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/compositeMarkus Antonius wrote: »What an odd answer to give. Why use different programs? Why use different techniques? Why use different methods? What different purposes? What level of skill?
To do what exactly? What is all this achieving?
More shallow answers once you actually read what you are saying
Because different techniques and methods suit different programs and requirements and goals.
Different purposes mean different purposes. One person might be making an ultra detailed and super accurate model. One person might just be slapping together something quick and simple to stick in the background of an image.
And people have different levels of skill. Some people are better at things than other people. For instance, I could bang together a 3d earth in Blender in a couple of minutes. (I've been learning over lockdown.) But it wouldn't be as good as someone able to make a super accurate, high detail one. Nor would it be as good as someone who could do a really good photoshop version.
Again, I'm not sure what the point of this question is other than wasting time and asking pointless questions for some reason.
You could of course explain what your point is, but we both know you're not going to do this.Markus Antonius wrote: »Lol! Is this some kind of wind up? Do you actually think your answers are satisfactory?
My response got plenty of likes so at least some people believed my response was satisfactory.
If anyone besides yourself believes that my answers haven't been complete or fair, please speak up, explain why and I will endeavour to remedy this.
But as I said, you have arbitrarily decided that any answer I give, regardless of quality would be unsatisfactory. This is because you are not engaging in good faith and are more just annoyed with me because I'm a meanie to conspiracy theorists.
Again, that's fine. But it's not fooling anyone.Markus Antonius wrote: »I claim there is only one full, official, non-composite image of the earth? You claim there are "lots" and yet you only link 4-5 at most?
Your claim was there was one photo. I've shown that's false.Markus Antonius wrote: »And you make the claim that during the lunar missions that the astronauts weren't interested in earth - then why isn't there any ultra close-up pictures of the moon that they could have easily taken on the approach?Markus Antonius wrote: »Why hasn't the current lunar rover sent us back a handful of high definition images of the entire globe of mars on the way over there?
There's plenty of photos of Mars.Markus Antonius wrote: »Did all the "scientists" at NASA not think of taking a few pics on the way? Surely these would be incredibly interesting for research? Or maybe they are just interested in rocks and aliens
Specifically:
https://mars.nasa.gov/mro/Markus Antonius wrote: »You must be joking me! :rolleyes:
You have ignored mine as per typical conspiracy theorist tactics.
So what have you been trying to demonstrate exactly?0 -
There are plenty of pictures of earth from space. This below is from 1972.
It doesnt' matter what angle you take a picture of the earth from - at this distance we can see half of the globe in this picture. And yet africa appears to make up about 1/8th of the entire surface of the earth! Despite land only making up 29% of the globe surface and africa taking up only 20% of the total land mass! It's ridiculous to think NASA get away with this fish story.:D
What about this google maps composite:
Does this give an accurate representation of the globe?0 -
Advertisement
-
Markus Antonius wrote: »Ha, this picture is as hilarious as it is fake! You need to use the thinking side of your brain.
It doesnt' matter what angle you take a picture of the earth from - at this distance we can see half of the globe in this picture. And yet africa appears to make up about 1/8th of the entire surface of the earth! Despite land only making up 29% of the globe surface and africa taking up only 20% of the total land mass! It's ridiculous to think NASA get away with this fish story.:D
What about this google maps composite:
Does this give an accurate representation of the globe?
So, are you a flat earther or...?0
Advertisement