It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

*My* evidence that we landed the Rover on Mars - Images.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
So THIS confirms it huh




posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rottenrascals
Wait, I'm a little new.

Is there a theory that we didn't land a rover on mars?

It was a pretty well documented, and widely followed event. Seems a little silly to think that it was faked.

What would be the point of that?



Some people try to find/make-up a conspiracy pretty much about anything and everything these days. All in the name of 'denying ignorance' no doubt. Bunch of muppets if you ask me.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman

Originally posted by impaired

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
Sorry, I may be missing something here OP. Are you saying the two images match, therefor that is irrefutable proof that we landed on Mars? If so, I'd have to disagree.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Ryanssuperman because: (no reason given)


Please don't twist my words. Look at the title to the OP:

"*My* evidence that we landed the Rover on Mars - Images"

"My evidence".

Ryansuperman - I gotcha.

edit on 8/18/2012 by impaired because: (no reason given)


I'm just saying I dont think that matching two images is proof of anything. I'm not putting down this guys belief, just saying, it doesn't prove anything. I could create two images and call them whatever I want from two different perspectives, and it wouldn't be proof of the image I created's existance.


Do you trust Google Earth, Google Moon, and Google Mars?


I trust that they can be manipulated and fabricated. I also trust that they could be real. Information is a powerful tool that's been used to the advantage of people before, so I wouldn't put anything past the folks at Google. I'm not saying that's whats happening, but it's entirely possible.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Ryanssuperman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired

Originally posted by r2d246
So in otherwords what you're saying is that they didn't get some hollywood special effects person to use the Google image and incorporate it into the video that NASA is trying to say was taken from the lander, is that it? And because you can line them up that means it automatically is true? No nasa would never higher a special effects person, and they went to the moon, and that wasn't hollywood special effects either. Wake up.


Of COURSE that's possible. I don't believe it, however.

You do. That's your choice and prerogative.


Well I'm glad you agree. But what I'm saying is there's tons of evidence that's come out over the years that the moon landing was a hoax. So they lied about that, now they want us to believe on this one that it's real? Get real.

In texas we have an old saying "fool me once shame on me...food me...ummhhh thats' like you want the shame on the guy who fooled you ya see"... G Boosh Jr.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246

Originally posted by impaired

Originally posted by r2d246
So in otherwords what you're saying is that they didn't get some hollywood special effects person to use the Google image and incorporate it into the video that NASA is trying to say was taken from the lander, is that it? And because you can line them up that means it automatically is true? No nasa would never higher a special effects person, and they went to the moon, and that wasn't hollywood special effects either. Wake up.


Of COURSE that's possible. I don't believe it, however.

You do. That's your choice and prerogative.


Well I'm glad you agree. But what I'm saying is there's tons of evidence that's come out over the years that the moon landing was a hoax. So they lied about that, now they want us to believe on this one that it's real? Get real.

In texas we have an old saying "fool me once shame on me...food me...ummhhh thats' like you want the shame on the guy who fooled you ya see"... G Boosh Jr.


What a load of bollocks.

There are theories that the moon landing were faked, theories I may add that were concocted by charlatans, not one of theses cock and bull stories have been proven real and/or based in the real world. Do some real research and look up the originators of the hoax theories.

And here you are stating an argument based upon the premise that it's as if we all should take it fore granted that, "oh yeah, of course they didn't land on the moon".



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rottenrascals
Wait, I'm a little new.

Is there a theory that we didn't land a rover on mars?

It was a pretty well documented, and widely followed event. Seems a little silly to think that it was faked.

What would be the point of that?


You had a nice argument until your last point....

Just because you don't know why they would do it, doesn't mean they wouldn't do it.

EX: Do you know the reason that person A is driving in their car ? NO

Does that mean they aren't driving in their car then ? NO

The only thing that bothers me is that we had colored photos back in 1908.......

think about that......

And we can barely get decent colored video and photos now in 2012...........

I'm 95% positive we have far more advance tech that we could be using to go to Mars.....stuff that blows what they are showing us out of the water by a mile.
edit on 18-8-2012 by LucidDreamer85 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by impaired
 


You realize both of these pictures come from NASA, don't you?

So even if google Mars is completely honest it doesn't matter because NASA could have just doctored both photos in the first place in order for them to match.

Don't understand your logic here OP. Maybe you can enlighten us?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Another thing i don't fully understand about the curiosity landing is that we can watch this beautiful video in full 1080p high definition but it was being transmitted to us from Mars at a speed slower than dial up and the lander has to be in line of sight of the Earth or have atleast 3 satellites surrounding Mars to be uploading 100% of the time.

So i find it amazing we got this high definition footage so quickly, considering how hard it was for NASA to upload some thumbnails of a simple photo to their website.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by epsilon69
reply to post by impaired
 


You realize both of these pictures come from NASA, don't you?

So even if google Mars is completely honest it doesn't matter because NASA could have just doctored both photos in the first place in order for them to match.

Don't understand your logic here OP. Maybe you can enlighten us?


Can't do. You make a point.

But like I said - I don't believe that to be the case. "Believe".
edit on 8/18/2012 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I am curious how instantly the ground beneath settles after the rocket stops. Shouldn't we be waiting at least a few minutes for the 'dust to settle' before we start seeing something?

I am in fact less convinced after seeing the video than I was before.


Regards, Skellon.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Skellon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Its funny how people who are so quick to accept any lame ufo/ET story as die for facts refuse to accept we're capable of landing on the moon or mars.

wtf



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Chargeit
 


It's funny how people that are so quick to judge others refuse to be objective and question themselves.


Regards, Skellon.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skellon
I am curious how instantly the ground beneath settles after the rocket stops. Shouldn't we be waiting at least a few minutes for the 'dust to settle' before we start seeing something?

I am in fact less convinced after seeing the video than I was before.


Regards, Skellon.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Skellon because: (no reason given)


I was thinking this as well, however in the defence of the video they are are still shots that are framed together to make what appears to be a seamless video...there very well could have been several minutes between "frames" or sill images in the last few seconds of the video...

I'm not entirely sure a lot of it depends on FPS etc that the pictures were taken. The last few frames showing the "settled" dust and rocks may have actually been several minutes after touchdown.

Also to add, it appears the OP took the video down? I'm not sure why but I cannot view it anymore as it says the user removed the video.


edit on 18-8-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skellon
I am curious how instantly the ground beneath settles after the rocket stops. Shouldn't we be waiting at least a few minutes for the 'dust to settle' before we start seeing something?

I am in fact less convinced after seeing the video than I was before.


Regards, Skellon.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Skellon because: (no reason given)


Ok. Let me explain (again).

There are a little over 1200 frames in the landing video that you are talking about. I only had about 600 in the OP's video - I just updated it because I downloaded over 60 more. So now we're at exactly 669 frames.

Now, I have an almost non-interrupted sequence of the first 600 or so. That last 600 frames/images are of the lander on the ground or right before.

When they come up on the site, I will add those frames and make another video. Hopefully they will all be there tomorrow. Do you understand?



Never mind - the above poster said it.
edit on 8/18/2012 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
I was thinking this as well, however in the defence of the video they are are still shots that are framed together to make what appears to be a seamless video...there very well could have been several minutes between "frames" or sill images in the last few seconds of the video...

I'm not entirely sure a lot of it depends on FPS etc that the pictures were taken. The last few frames showing the "settled" dust and rocks may have actually been several minutes after touchdown.

Also to add, it appears the OP took the video down? I'm not sure why but I cannot view it anymore as it says the user removed the video.


Thank you - that's it.


Sorry about that. I checked the NASA site about 30 mins ago and there were about 60 more frames there so I quickly download them and made another video and uploaded it - and I deleted the old one - that's why the videos are getting longer - more frames. Plus I did a switcheroo in the OP (updated the video).

So yeah, it's supposed to be over two minutes long (final product).

The camera took images every 15 seconds - if that helps anyone. And I ran the film at 10 frames per second.


edit on 8/18/2012 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by Chargeit
 


It's funny how people that are so quick to judge others refuse to be objective and question themselves.


Regards, Skellon.


Hmm. I am very objective. I enjoy facts though. The facts are for not against.

You people are quick to claim that skeptics don't take facts into consideration, while at the same time refusing to accept the lack of facts as proof of anything.

You live in a magical world of aliens, fairies and ghosts. Quick to accept anything that slightly back up the mystical world you've built up in your head. At the same time denying things which have countless records, pictures, witness and follows reason.

No my friend you are the ones that deny reality in favor of fantasy. Some of us live life in the real world. In the real world Nasa is capable of sending payloads to another planet, in fantasy we've been denied this ability by aliens and dragons that seem intent on stopping our modest efforts at space exploration.

It would seem to them that Peoples who assumable are capable of traveling the vast distances of interstellar space are somehow concerned or fearful of our nuclear capabilities. They are fearful that one day tens of thousands or years from now humans may one days step out of this solar system.

lol, I guess this is why they seem to amass such resources to this backwater of a planet we call home.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Chargeit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired

Originally posted by Sly1one
I was thinking this as well, however in the defence of the video they are are still shots that are framed together to make what appears to be a seamless video...there very well could have been several minutes between "frames" or sill images in the last few seconds of the video...

I'm not entirely sure a lot of it depends on FPS etc that the pictures were taken. The last few frames showing the "settled" dust and rocks may have actually been several minutes after touchdown.

Also to add, it appears the OP took the video down? I'm not sure why but I cannot view it anymore as it says the user removed the video.


Thank you - that's it.


Sorry about that. I checked the NASA site about 30 mins ago and there were about 60 more frames there so I quickly download them and made another video and uploaded it - and I deleted the old one - that's why the videos are getting longer - more frames. Plus I did a switcheroo in the OP (updated the video).

So yeah, it's supposed to be over two minutes long (final product).

The camera took images every 15 seconds - if that helps anyone. And I ran the film at 10 frames per second.


edit on 8/18/2012 by impaired because: (no reason given)


Yea well with your previous "troubles" with these mars images etc I didn't know exactly what was up with the video being removed.

Also thanks for taking the time to do all this, I know that it has to be extremely repetitive and time consuming but in the end its always worth it...The video you compiled is on my favs list because I've always wanted to see something like this in as high def as this is.

and if the images are taken every ~15 seconds you would only have to be missing 4 images to lost a full minute of video...more than enough to explain how/why the dust seemed to settle so quickly...


edit on 18-8-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1oneYea well with your previous "troubles" with these mars images etc I didn't know exactly what was up with the video being removed.

Also thanks for taking the time to do all this, I know that it has to be extremely repetitive and time consuming but in the end its always worth it...The video you compiled is on my favs list because I've always wanted to see something like this in as high def as this is.

and if the images are taken every ~15 seconds you would only have to be missing 4 images to lost a full minute of video...more than enough to explain how/why the dust seemed to settle so quickly...


edit on 18-8-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)


Yes. It is EXTREMELY repetitive, but worth it. And just like you, I have always wanted to see something like this - ESPECIALLY from Mars (thanks for getting me into Mars when I was a kid, Total Recall!).

And that does more than explain the dust settling "problem".

Thanks for appreciating this. Wish I could say the same for other people.

I do this for fun, and to share, but people want to kick you in your face for trying to be altruistic - as another poster posted in one of my other threads.


Like seriously:



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I wish I could add this to the OP:



From the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter as the rover was landing - as seen in the video.

Edit - Oh yeah - the image was sharpened and cropped (not by me).
edit on 8/19/2012 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by impaired
 


I see a couple of pics and John madden scribbles, what I do not see is proof.
Why don't we turn one of those powerful telescopes that get good images of mars toward the moon and get some real photos of some flags??
mmmmhm...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join