We landed on Mars... again? [Mod note post #1]

So, back to mars... Should be data coming in the next few hours about the first helicopter / drone flight on another planet, not sure when video / pics will be released, it takes time to upload the data to the mars orbiters, and send it back to earth.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Just coming in now, it was a successful test flight

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56799755

This is mainstream media, so obviously we can't trust it, better look for some conspiracy blog run by some guy in his basement and blindly trust his judgement without question

Some lad on YouTube said it was fake so it must be

I bet you that's not even the real Perseverance rover tweeting that....

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I bet you that's not even the real Perseverance rover tweeting that....

well clearly it isn't the actual rover tweeting that. it doesn't have the fingers required to use the twitter app.

Markus Antonius wrote: »

then why isn't there any ultra close-up pictures of the moon that they could have easily taken on the approach?

How about some nice video?



(speeded up by a factor of about four. Also, there is not any background music in space :pac: )

Markus Antonius wrote: »

Also, I just noticed this line in the article (from a NASA employee no less):



Well then, isn't this embarrassing...

It's embarrassing alright, just not in the way you think.

Did you notice the use of the word "ANYONE"? 1972 was the last time (so far) that a human was outside of Earth orbit, so the last time any ONE could have clicked a shutter to take a picture depicting the whole Earth. But we have millions taken by satellites and probes since then, there was a good 20 second whole-Earth animated satellite view on the RTE weather last night after the 9 o'clock news.

Jeez, that is actually a thing :eek:

Moon landing faked? Nah. Anyone who thinks it was, watch this. 100% debunked.

Oh my, oh my!

Isn't there a space fan club thread somewhere for all these off-topic posts?

I've seen a few more "news" reports from mars - apparently there is some lovely new footage finding it's way through the space wifi (imagine the dongle you would need for this! I shudder to think)

So what's it going to be? Some stunning landscapes? No. Some amazing discovery about how gravity differs to earth? No. Some software creating 3d replicas of rocks? YESSS, HOW EXCITING! Now we can look at both pictures of rocks and 3d models of rocks.
https://gadgets.ndtv.com/science/news/twitter-user-asks-how-long-before-he-can-see-google-mars-nasa-responds-2453026


Truly laughable how uninteresting this expedition is. Just last week you had a "glitch" with the drone where it almost crashed but didn't (amazing how nothing ever goes wrong with the things you rely on them telling you about)

https://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-mars-ingenuity-helicopter-survives-stressful-in-flight-anomaly/



One interesting question that has occured to me while thinking about how boring these space missions are. How come they have no images of the stars or the moons or a timelapse of constellations. Just think of how incredibly interesting this would be! But they don't because it would be too hard to fake!

So what else would be so easy for them to give us but they don't because it's too hard to fake? Moon phases, sun sets, telescopic pictures of earth, dust storms.

It's incredibly useless the stuff they give us really. Everything is mundane and easily fabricated

Markus Antonius wrote: »

One interesting question that has occured to me while thinking about how boring these space missions are. How come they have no images of the stars or the moons or a timelapse of constellations. Just think of how incredibly interesting this would be! But they don't because it would be too hard to fake!

But it's not a very interesting question. They don't have many of those as most probes sent to Mars are there to study Mars, not stars.
Second, there wouldn't be that much difference between the night sky on Mars and the night sky on Earth. The fact you don't know this again raises a lot of questions about what you understand about science.

So why do you believe this would be hard to fake?

Markus Antonius wrote: »

So what else would be so easy for them to give us but they don't because it's too hard to fake? Moon phases, sun sets, telescopic pictures of earth, dust storms.

Remember when you claimed this last time and you got a bit embarassed when it was easy to provide a bunch of examples of things you claimed didn't exist?
Sunset on Mars:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/925/what-does-a-sunrise-sunset-look-like-on-mars/

Earth from Mars:
https://www.space.com/24593-mars-rover-curiosity-sees-earth-photos.html

Earth and moon phase from Mars:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/earth-and-its-moon-as-seen-from-mars

One of Mars's moons:
https://www.planetary.org/space-images/phobos-sets-over-mount-sharp
(Wasn't sure what moon you were referring to and suspect that you didn't know Mars had a pair.)

Mars Dust Storm:
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619573721/enormous-dust-storm-on-mars-threatens-the-opportunity-rover
https://www.orissapost.com/nasas-curiosity-rover-captures-photos-of-mars-dust-storm/ < Edit: Actually not sure of this one anymore cause I can't find another source for it.

And dust storms from orbit:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mars-Orbital-Camera-images-of-a-regional-martian-dust-storm-developing-at-the-edge-of-the_fig8_238587608

Maybe if you're going to claim something doesn't exist, maybe you should do a quick Google to make sure they don't exist first.

Also, since you have claimed these things are all impossible to fake, I hope you won't do something underhanded and claim all of these photos are now fake.
That would be extremely dishonest.

Additional reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_on_Mars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Deimos_from_Mars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Phobos_from_Mars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Mercury_from_Mars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Earth_from_Mars

Markus Antonius wrote: »

One interesting question that has occured to me while thinking about how boring these space missions are. How come they have no images of the stars or the moons or a timelapse of constellations. Just think of how incredibly interesting this would be! But they don't because it would be too hard to fake!

So what else would be so easy for them to give us but they don't because it's too hard to fake? Moon phases, sun sets, telescopic pictures of earth, dust storms.

It's incredibly useless the stuff they give us really. Everything is mundane and easily fabricated

What would be so "incredibly interesting" about that? We know exactly what the constellations look like (just go out side some clear night and look up). I know this might melt your head, but the stars appear the same from Mars as they do on Earth. Amazing huh!

We have plenty of images of the Martian moons from orbiting spacecraft. As for Martian sun sets or dust storms:

King Mob wrote: »

Here's a collection of some pictures from the first 100 days of Perseverance's mission.
https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-57233756

All fake I assume.

I'm curious how exactly they are faked and who is faking them.

And also why bother? Why would anyone actually bother faking all this?

King Mob wrote: »

Well a lot of these kinda conspiracy theories are byproducts of the aliens/ufo sphere and the flat earthers.

Ufo types claim that all space missions are faked because NASA keeps running into alien stuff everywhere and they have to keep it hidden.
Ie: Can't show the surface of Mars cause it's covered in alien ruins etc.

Flat Earthers have to come up with these ideas for obvious reasons.

There might other reasons, but so far Markus has been disinclined to address any questions or requests to elaborate on the conspiracy theory.

It's the usual tactic of "keep it vague do they don't have to explain.

robinph wrote: »

Not as disappointing as Venutian ones which take nearly a year to happen.

And then it's a cloudy day, like the winter solstice at Newgrange.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I am fairly sure this poster thinks space program is fake, at the very least. I'd just like to know how they rationalise all that, like how do they explain satellites, the ISS, space craft sent up by other nations, is it all a giant global show? how do satellite phones work? how can we point dishes at satellites and pick up sat tv?

So many questions

He was asked exactly that on a few occasions - explain how satellite TV works, and he just ignored it. It's also a good one to use on flat earthers. They usually get either all stroppy or just ignore it.

Hi. You're back on this thread.

Before you try and deflect to a new tangent could you please go back and address some of the dozens of points you've left hanging?

Or if you aren't capable of doing that could you perhaps explain why you are ignoring them and running away?

If you do that then we can tackle your latest claims.

Also something about how the fact that he was in zero gravity shows that it's fake.

It looks like Mark here thinks that everyone believes that there's no gravity in space and that starts at the Karmin Line.

This kind of betrays either a flat earther level of understanding or a very poor and dishonest misrepresentation.

in space, no one can hear you scream your name

There are "plot holes" in Bransons flight, so what really happened according to you?

You write they go from gravity to "no gravity", how does it work according to you?

And back to the glaring questions

Do you believe the space program is fake? yes/no

Do you believe the earth is not a globe? yes/no

Bezos hasn't gone anywhere yet. He is going as far as the Kármán Line so he will be in space depending on the definition you use. Branson only went to 80,000KM so still the edge of space according to some. Where do you think the Earth ends and space begins?

Is there any chance you, Markus Antonius, could actually outline what exactly it is you believe and why you believe it so we can figure out just what conspiracy you are actually on about. So far all I'm getting form your posts is "I don't believe anything, ha ha you poor deluded fools". If you want to wake us up, you'll need to explain what exactly it is you are trying to say.

Okay, so what is really happening according to you? Without innuendo, what do you believe exactly?

I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. Especially not 95% of the people on the conspiracy forum who clearly loath conspiracy theories and don't believe a single thing unless it comes from "Official Government Sources".

I just get a good laugh at the blatant inconsistencies of all the space programs/missions and like to point them out here. The fact that I even have to explain why the Branson "space" flight is fake just goes to show how gullible or maybe just disinterested people are in general.

Gravity, according to Newton's Law of Gravitation should only reduce a miniscule amount at 200 miles (where the ISS supposedly is) and at 53 miles (where Branson supposedly went). In the Branson stream they claimed repeatedly to pass into the region where gravity is zero (which of course is impossible) and of course the footage in the cabin showed the "astronauts" floating around enjoying the endless wonders of zero gravity! That is of course until they entered back into a region where gravity magically turns back into 9.81m/s2 after 40 seconds...

It's hilarious and I can't wait to see what Bezo's interpretation of what space is during his "space flight"

They appeared weightless because they flew in a parabolic arc. the same can be achieved at much lower altitudes than Branson flew. Here are some technical details of how that works. Let me know what in particular you think is wrong https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/

No, he's saying that if Richard Branson can make it 85km up, why can't the rest of us make it to the moon and NASA put men on Mars.