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

ShatterAlan wrote: »

2 months now.


Still waiting for the Hi-Def pics.

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?

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/

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?

Markus Antonius wrote: »

Aren't you the pushy poster. Why do you think anyone is under any obligation to answer your questions?

I don't believe that any one is obligated. People are more than free to ignore any questions they can't answer.
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.

Lol, you make this accusation, yet in the post you quote I ask a grand total of one question.

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?

Simple.
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:

For one that photo wasn't taken by Armstrong in 1969. It was taken by Bill Anders in 68.
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?

There were plenty. But the focus of the moon missions was, ya know, the Moon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble

Markus 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?

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

Markus 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?

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_Dot

Markus 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)

Again 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I know this is pointed at another poster, but any reason you are asking these questions?

I have suspicions that it's cause I'm a big meanie and he wanted to show me up by asking a tricky question that I couldn't answer.

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.

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.

Lol Whut?
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

Yes. Excellent rebuttal there.
However, the word composite does not mean fake.
Again, because you need the hand holding:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/composite

Markus 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 programs were available at different times to different people based on availability, cost and requirements.
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?

Yup. You haven't explained why it isn't and you've already had to lie about what I've given you.
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?

No, I linked to a good many examples, including specific ones you asked for.

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?

There is.

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?

Because the rover was packed into it's reentry vehicle and couldn't.
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

They did. and there's a bunch of other Mars missions that were specifically designed to take photos of Mars.
Specifically:
https://mars.nasa.gov/mro/

Markus Antonius wrote: »

You must be joking me! :rolleyes:

Nope. I answered all of your questions directly, concisely and clearly with sources.
You have ignored mine as per typical conspiracy theorist tactics.

So what have you been trying to demonstrate exactly?

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...?

namloc1980 wrote: »

Is Markus Antonius peddling a "flat earth" conspiracy or a "spaceflight is fake" conspiracy or a "space photos are fake" conspiracy? Not really sure. It's comical either way though :pac:

Not sure he knows himself.
We're not going to get a straight answer anyway.

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 is your line of reasoning with all this? do you believe the world is flat?

King Mob wrote: »

Lol Whut?
This is just rambling.



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.

Yes. Excellent rebuttal there.
However, the word composite does not mean fake.
Again, because you need the hand holding:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/composite

Because different programs were available at different times to different people based on availability, cost and requirements.
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.


Yup. You haven't explained why it isn't and you've already had to lie about what I've given you.
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.


No, I linked to a good many examples, including specific ones you asked for.

Your claim was there was one photo. I've shown that's false.


There is.


Because the rover was packed into it's reentry vehicle and couldn't.
There's plenty of photos of Mars.


They did. and there's a bunch of other Mars missions that were specifically designed to take photos of Mars.
Specifically:
https://mars.nasa.gov/mro/


Nope. I answered all of your questions directly, concisely and clearly with sources.
You have ignored mine as per typical conspiracy theorist tactics.

So what have you been trying to demonstrate exactly?

Here we go again, completely avoiding my original question and flooding the thread with irrelevance. I've already told you, you can paste as many links as you want - there is nothing of substance in any of them. I specifically asked you about pictures of the entire earth and you continuously go off topic to avoid the question:

Markus Antonius wrote: »

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?

You keep telling me there are plenty of this, plenty of that. Where? Where are all the pictures?

I can't believe you are standing over this link to the "complete pictures" of the globe of mars:



Be honest with me now - Do you actually believe these pictures are real?

Just dropped in to see what was happening in here and bemused by a poster trying to convince others that there are no pictures of earth from space and then posting clips from engineering videos in a gotcha! moment.

There are
literally
millions of them.

As one example, the DSCOVR satellite is live streaming images of Earth each day
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Markus Antonius wrote: »

Here we go again, completely avoiding my original question and flooding the thread with irrelevance. I've already told you, you can paste as many links as you want - there is nothing of substance in any of them. I specifically asked you about pictures of the entire earth and you continuously go off topic to avoid the question:



You keep telling me there are plenty of this, plenty of that. Where? Where are all the pictures?

I can't believe you are standing over this link to the "complete pictures" of the globe of mars:



Be honest with me now - Do you actually believe these pictures are real?

Let's just say you are right, what is the point you are trying to make here..

That satellites don't exist? that all the space agencies are conducting a massive lie? that spaceflight hasn't happened? that the world is flat? what exactly is it?

Markus Antonius wrote: »

Ha! This is what you all resort to? Just goes to show that if you just question one thing, it exposes the countless flaws! The whole space program is fake.

Why?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Be honest with me now - Do you actually believe these pictures are real?

You don't believe the dscovr images are genuine? If so, why not?

Markus Antonius wrote: »

Here we go again, completely avoiding my original question and flooding the thread with irrelevance.

This is a lie. I answered all of your questions directly and fully.
You have avoided mine.

Lying is wrong.
If you have to lie, you probably aren't on the right side.

Markus Antonius wrote: »

I've already told you, you can paste as many links as you want - there is nothing of substance in any of them. I specifically asked you about pictures of the entire earth and you continuously go off topic to avoid the question:

You keep telling me there are plenty of this, plenty of that. Where? Where are all the pictures?

And I supplied you a bunch of examples. You are just ignoring them because you don't want to believe they exist.
You are also upset that I'm addressing your points directly rather than just dismiss them out of hand because they are so riduculous.

Markus Antonius wrote: »

I can't believe you are standing over this link to the "complete pictures" of the globe of mars:



Be honest with me now - Do you actually believe these pictures are real?

No. Never said they were.
More lies on your part.

And again, you still haven't answered any of my questions or addressed any of my points.

This is getting a little sad.

'Playing chess with a pigeon' springs to mind here.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i wasn;t being entirely serious.

I'd hope not, some of these threads are like the twilight zone.

I just want to know why the entire space program would be faked..

How do individuals who believe that rationalise it to themselves? we can literally see satellites with the naked eye on a clear night, what do they think that is? where do they think rockets with people on them go when they launch? there's a 24 hour feed on the international space station, how is it possible to fake all that zero g stuff?

Markus Antonius wrote: »

You go to flat earth debunk websites to learn science? Bizarre that you can't formulate your own counterarguments.

Again, you are the one using flat earth arguments.

You didn't address the question about being a flat earther, so I suspect that you do indeed subscribe to this nonsense.
It would explain your bizarre and childish beliefs about the space program.

And neither of these have any baring on the validity of the counter arguments, you're just looking for any excuse to ignore them and not have to address them. Because you are desperate and don't have many options, and certainly can't address them directly, you're left with this particularly pathetic attempt.

Markus Antonius wrote: »

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

Well then, isn't this is embarrassing...

So the NASA employee says directly that there have been many photos of the Earth and you are arguing that he's supporting your bizarre conspiracy claims?

Also, the article is from 2012. It's now 2021.
For example, DSCOVR which takes hundreds of pictures of the Earth from far enough away to capture a whole face, was launched 2015.
This was pointed out to you eariler, but because you can't address it, you ignored it and ran away.

Also, could you explain what he means by this:

By 2002, we finally had enough data to make a snap shot of the entire Earth. So we did. The hard part was creating a flat map of the Earth’s surface with four months’ of satellite data. Reto Stockli, now at the Swiss Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, did much of this work. Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble.

I was happy with it but had no idea how widespread it would become. We never thought it would become an icon. I certainly never thought that I would become “Mr. Blue Marble.”

We have since updated the base maps by increasing the resolution and, for 2004, we made a series of monthly maps.

Do you believe that what he's saying here is all fake and lies? Or...?

Markus Antonius wrote: »

Ouch :P

Lol yea. Excellent rebuttal there.
Good job.
Top marks.

Maybe you could actually try again and address the points and questions this time though.

But if you can't, that's fine. Just ignore them. Maybe they'll stop existing if you pretend hard enough and really really believe.

Markus Antonius wrote: »

What about this google maps composite:



Does this give an accurate representation of the globe?

Yes, it does (without clouds, and the continental shelf is highlighted for effect, you wouldn't see underwater features from space...) but other than that, it's pretty good... Now what?