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]

1235719

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    We send probes and landers and rovers to other planets because we are inherently curious as a species. The discoveries benefit science (and understanding) of the universe around us, and the technology we develop along the way can be used in other applications.

    From your posts so far you seem to be complaining about the mission but also claiming it's fake, which is completely contradictory. Which is it, it happened and you don't agree with it? or it's fake?

    It's not contradictory at all, it's the key point to my argument. If we had sent a probe that landed on Mars then we would have learned something useful by now. But we haven't. We've learned absolutely nothing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    King Mob, you constantly accuse people of avoiding your posts, yet you have done nothing but avoid posts since the beginning of the thread. Any conspiracy theory thread you don't agree with (which seems to be all of them) you swarm with posts that add absolutely nothing to the discussion. You've been doing it for years and everyone is tired of it.

    I'm going to ask you for a third time: What discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for years to come? We've sent a robot there at least 5 times already, this should be a basic question
    And I answered that point directly the first time.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116344795&postcount=26

    You shouldn't lie.

    Meanwhile, any chance you'll be addressing any of my points or substantiating any of your claims?

    Let's start simple.
    Do you believe all space missions are fake or just this latest one?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    King Mob wrote: »
    And I answered that point directly the first time.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116344795&postcount=26

    You shouldn't lie.

    Meanwhile, any chance you'll be addressing any of my points or substantiating any of your claims?

    Let's start simple.
    Do you believe all space missions are fake or just this latest one?

    You did not answer it. I addressed the link you posted as irrelevant here:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116344981&postcount=27

    You are not going to plague this thread with questions without answering mine first. Now do I have to ask it for a 4th time?

    What discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for years to come?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Daz747 wrote: »
    I'm generally not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm certainly not ashamed to be called one if you don't believe bare facts.

    The Conspiracy Theorist is thrown around here like it's a derogatory term and that in itself showas the ignorance of many people.
    But the label is valid as you believe a conspiracy theory. Just a statement of fact.
    Daz747 wrote: »
    I'm not a flat-earther etc... But if those people want to believe in that they can freely do so. Just like those that believe we went to the moon etc.. it's a free world.
    and people are also free to point out such beliefs aren't true and are a bit silly.
    Daz747 wrote: »
    I didn't give a specific source as I didn't go looking for one but as I said before most Aerospace Met documentation states what I said previously. It is only one of a numerous amount of issues these missions would have encountered.
    You say that you believe bare facts.

    But the one "bare fact" you presented turned out not to be true at all. You never even looked into it, yet you claimed that the astronauts would be killed by the radiation.

    This should be a warning flag for the other "issues".

    So what other issues were there that made the moon landings impossible in your view?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    You did not answer it. I addressed the link you posted as irrelevant here:
    But I did answer it. You just don't accept the answer. I also addressed your dismissal of my answer in the next post, along with a bunch of other points you actually did ignore.
    bfa1509 wrote: »
    You are not going to plague this thread with questions without answering mine first. Now do I have to ask it for a 4th time?

    What discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for years to come?
    But this has been answered many times. Dohnjoe also have you a full and complete answer.

    Maybe you could elaborate on what you're demanding.
    What do you define as "useful"?
    You clearly won't accept understanding of Mars and the universe as "useful".
    What useful knowledge did you expect to find on Mars if we really went?

    And again do you believe that all space missions are fake or just this one?
    If you ignore the point again I shall just continue with the assumption that you believe all missions are fake.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    Daz747 wrote: »
    It's very difficult to explain something to someone who uses wikipedia as their source of information.

    Everything in that article is referenced from credible sources.

    What you have is nothing but BS and nonsense.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    King Mob wrote: »
    But I did answer it. You just don't accept the answer. I also addressed your dismissal of my answer in the next post, along with a bunch of other points you actually did ignore.


    But this has been answered many times. Dohnjoe also have you a full and complete answer.

    Maybe you could elaborate on what you're demanding.
    What do you define as "useful"?
    You clearly won't accept understanding of Mars and the universe as "useful".
    What useful knowledge did you expect to find on Mars if we really went?

    And again do you believe that all space missions are fake or just this one?
    If you ignore the point again I shall just continue with the assumption that you believe all missions are fake.
    Ok so your answer to the question is "NASA has spinoff technologies" - none of which appear to have anything to do with the Mars expeditions

    Dohnjoe's response is "because we are curious"

    And you think you are winning this debate :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    Das Reich wrote: »
    I not believe was destroyed, is not the Nasa that says that? You don't find strange that a man landed on the moon after few years the first man went to space, but they can't do it now? You not find strange that before Apollo 8 no one had been more than 1.600 km from Earth, then they went to 380.000 km and they did nearly 1 million km going and returning, and after 1972 they never went far than a 1.000 km? You not find strange that they sent the man to the moon only 7 months after the Apollo 8? And they did the Apollo 9 and Apollo 10 in between? And why landing 6 times in 3 years? And then never again? Its strange that you not find strange those numbers. The fact I BELIEVE in moon landings doesn't mean I can't question things that not add up. Regarding the real explanation I not have any answer as I not believe on the theory of fake landings, but would like to know.

    There is nothing strange about any of this. You need to inform yourself about the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the end of the Bretton Woods system and the gold standard, and the 1973 oil crisis. The US could spend billions in the 1960s on anything vaguely military related (as the space programme was - both the US Navy and the USAF had their own manned space programmes in the late 60s) but by the mid 1970s the US was in economic crisis. Meanwhile NASA had decided to plunge all of its manned space budget into the Shuttle, which turned out to be massively delayed, massively over budget, and a huge mistake.

    "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers" as Gus Grissom said in "The Right Stuff".

    Das Reich wrote: »
    I don't have the fear to question things, I did grow up in a VERY CHRISTIAN country and when I was a child family members were very upset when I doubt about the existence of god. And 30 years later they are all non believers now. I would be called a conspirationist then.

    So what. Atheists have been called many uncomplimentary things over the years, but not conspiracy theorists. If anything it's the religious believers who are conspiracy theorists, they believe lots of wild and crazy stuff without any evidence at all.

    Das Reich wrote: »
    There are people that builds airplanes or rockets on the back of their homes.

    So what? That's like saying that someone who can build a model aeroplane can run an airline.
    What I mean is that to rebuild a program better than Apollo would cost a fraction than it did in the 1960's. Sorry but no one can deny this, that it would be much cheaper, faster and better to go to the moon today than before.

    Rubbish. It's funny when people think that the huge gains in price and performance which specifically apply to electronics and computers (a billion-fold miniaturisation in the space of 60 years) can be applied to totally unrelated areas of engineering. So yes the onboard computers will be better, smaller and cheaper. The rocket engines won't, the expensive crygenic fuels won't, the rocket stages won't, etc.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    For info, the Vietnam War cost the US $111billion, the Apollo programme cost $25billion.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,200 ✭✭✭beachhead


    Only the yanks commit conspiracy in space.The ruskies,chinese.japanese or even the UAE(in turn) simply can't.They are so goody goody people.


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 22 JimCore


    THE MOON WAS DESTROYED?????? Am I like the last person to hear about this!?

    Also, like it or not guys but the Earth is round, we landed on the moon and we just pulled of an exceptionally cool move to land that cool ass rover on Mars.

    The science legitimises all of this. Counter arguments tend to be a bit weak on factual accuracy!

    Like imagine thinking the earth is flat. Thats a person that spends alot of time just imagining a false reality. Arent we apparently surrounded like a wall of ice or something. I mean cmon! It also means EVERYONE in NASA and SPACEX to name a few are in on this huge conspiracy.

    Dont be silly lol


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    :p
    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Ok so your answer to the question is "NASA has spinoff technologies" - none of which appear to have anything to do with the Mars expeditions

    Dohnjoe's response is "because we are curious"

    And you think you are winning this debate :D
    Yes, those are the answers to your question. You can stop lying and saying the question was ignored now.

    You can also start answering some of the questions you've actually ignored.

    Since you believe that all space missions are faked, could you explain how this is accomplished?
    Are all world governments involved with this?


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,017 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    JimCore wrote: »
    THE MOON WAS DESTROYED?????? Am I like the last person to hear about this!?

    Also, like it or not guys but the Earth is round, we landed on the moon and we just pulled of an exceptionally cool move to land that cool ass rover on Mars.

    The science legitimises all of this. Counter arguments tend to be a bit weak on factual accuracy!

    Like imagine thinking the earth is flat. Thats a person that spends alot of time just imagining a false reality. Arent we apparently surrounded like a wall of ice or something. I mean cmon! It also means EVERYONE in NASA and SPACEX to name a few are in on this huge conspiracy.

    Dont be silly lol


    Dont forget the most amazing of all that time we landed a robot on to an asteroid. What a day


  • Site Banned Posts: 22 JimCore


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    You did not answer it. I addressed the link you posted as irrelevant here:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116344981&postcount=27

    You are not going to plague this thread with questions without answering mine first. Now do I have to ask it for a 4th time?

    What discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for years to come?

    Really?? Is it not glaringly obvious?

    We as a species innately travel and explore. We also will likely have to leave Earth one day to prolong the existence of our species. Im sure exploring Mars will go a long way towards achieving that as a starting point.

    A quick Google search provided this

    http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Exploration/Why_go_to_Mars#:~:text=The%20scientific%20reasons%20for%20going,preparing%20for%20future%20human%20exploration.&text=Understanding%20whether%20life%20existed%20elsewhere,a%20fundamental%20question%20of%20humankind.

    Apologies for the size but that might give you an idea of how many bits it takes to get us into Space. And send back visuals and audio from the red planet.

    What a time to be alive I say.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Ok so your answer to the question is "NASA has spinoff technologies" - none of which appear to have anything to do with the Mars expeditions

    Dohnjoe's response is "because we are curious"

    And you think you are winning this debate :D

    You're just here for point scoring. Quite sad really.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,704 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    It's not contradictory at all, it's the key point to my argument. If we had sent a probe that landed on Mars then we would have learned something useful by now. But we haven't. We've learned absolutely nothing.

    It's completely contradictory

    On the one hand you are complaining about the latest rover being on Mars:
    Of course we get the grainy black and white images with really interesting rocks we will study for the next few years. I can't wait for the blurry red pictures of rocks to come through in about 6 or 7 months when people have finished caring about the landing event.

    But on the other hand you are claiming it's all faked:
    Of course it's faked, NASA has, is and always will be nothing more than a financial buffer/rainy day fund for the US government.

    Which is it, there is a rover on Mars or there isn't?


  • Site Banned Posts: 22 JimCore


    There's never a conspiracy theory about the legitimacy of social welfare payments :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    It's not contradictory at all, it's the key point to my argument. If we had sent a probe that landed on Mars then we would have learned something useful by now. But we haven't. We've learned absolutely nothing.

    What do you mean by "useful"?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's completely contradictory

    On the one hand you are complaining about the latest rover being on Mars:



    But on the other hand you are claiming it's all faked:



    Which is it, there is a rover on Mars or there isn't?

    No, I was complaining about it being on the news. Of course it's faked.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    No, I was complaining about it being on the news. Of course it's faked.

    Proof/evidence? I'm guessing you have none, just like all the conspiracy theorists who shout fake.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,704 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    No, I was complaining about it being on the news. Of course it's faked.

    Okay, please provide the details and evidence on how it has been "faked".


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    No, I was complaining about it being on the news. Of course it's faked.
    But it's not faked.

    What evidence do you have that it's faked?

    The only argument you've so far provided is that you personally don't think going to Mars is useful.
    That's not a logical argument.

    Why do you believe all other space missions are fake?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Okay, please provide the details and evidence on how it has been "faked".
    King Mob wrote: »
    But it's not faked.

    What evidence do you have that it's faked?

    The only argument you've so far provided is that you personally don't think going to Mars is useful.
    That's not a logical argument.

    Why do you believe all other space missions are fake?
    Oh I have plenty of evidence. Much of which I saved before it was mysteriously censored from the internet.

    I have no interest in trying to convince you two either. You clearly despise conspiracy theories. And if either of you had your way, the whole conspiracy forum would be taken down immediately.

    Now I will address any lurkers who are open minded and interested in the topic. A good place to start is in watching investigative journalist Bart Sibrel's: "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" and "Astronaut's gone wild". These two short films cement the fact that the moon landings were faked. They, hopefully, should still be available to watch on Youtube.

    All the other so called "space missions" were faked also. If you mourned for the "victims" of the Challenger disaster in the 80s. You should fret not: there was nobody on board! Here is a picture of the astronauts side by side with a present day picture of them alive and well! (Most of them didn't even bother changing their names :rolleyes:)

    CFWXws7.png

    This should be enough to get you going!


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Oh I have plenty of evidence. Much of which I saved before it was mysteriously censored from the internet.
    You have evidence, you just can't provide it?

    Sure buddy. That've very believable...

    I think it's clear to everyone you have no evidence.
    bfa1509 wrote: »
    A good place to start is in watching investigative journalist Bart Sibrel's: "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" and "Astronaut's gone wild".
    A crank, not an investigative journalist. He did no investigating. His documentary is a collection of long debunk silly arguments.
    bfa1509 wrote: »
    All the other so called "space missions" were faked also. If you mourned for the "victims" of the Challenger disaster in the 80s. You should fret not: there was nobody on board! Here is a picture of the astronauts side by side with a present day picture of them alive and well! (Most of them didn't even bother changing their names :rolleyes:)

    CFWXws7.png

    This should be enough to get you going!
    Ok. So your evidence is that they faked a shuttle explosion. They went to the bother of building a fake shuttle and running a fake shuttle program for years before and after.
    But they didn't bother to change the appearance of their fake victims, or even change their names. Or even just you know, shoot them.

    That's ridiculous.

    Why do you think this argument will convince anyone or do anything other than make your position look silly?


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Bart Sibrel has been debunked numerous times on here and many other places. He uses fancy words to bamboozle the gullible and easily convinced, but he just rehashes the same old tired conspiracy theories with zero actual evidence.

    As for the Challenger accident. It's kind of disgusting what you're are suggesting. And then to post a ridiculous picture to boot as "proof". You must think people on here are fools to believe that rubbish.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Bart Sibrel has been debunked numerous times on here and many other places. He uses fancy words to bamboozle the gullible and easily convinced, but he just rehashes the same old tired conspiracy theories with zero actual evidence.
    In fairness, it's more like he's the inventor of those same tired, debunked, ignorant arguments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56158928

    All fake I assume?
    And all the people at mission control, are they actors? CGI? Robots?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭JJayoo


    Yeah, look at this horrible grainy, black and white video with no sound.

    https://twitter.com/IrfanKh65232660/status/1362274214707924993

    Pretty sure this video had been debunked, it's actually video footage constructed from pictures taken from a previous rover and the sound is fake as the previous rover has no audio.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭JJayoo


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    Dont forget the most amazing of all that time we landed a robot on to an asteroid. What a day

    But we lost Bruce Willis :(


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 17,381 [Deleted User]


    I genuinely had no idea that there were conspiracy theories about modern spaceflight. What a trip.


Advertisement