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

Originally posted by g146541
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...

That's impossible! I don't know if you're joking or not.

A telescope could NEVER in a million years (well, you never know) resolve something like the rover from Earth. That's just ridiculous.

Definitely not with our technology at the moment.

But if you're joking, then that's just funny.

Edit - then what IS proof to you?

reply to post by impaired


Just what is not rediculous about getting clear pics from mars but not the moon?
We can get some real good pics of Earth through an atmosphere, but not of the atmosphere free moon?
Now that is rediculous.

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by impaired

 

Just what is not rediculous about getting clear pics from mars but not the moon?
We can get some real good pics of Earth through an atmosphere, but not of the atmosphere free moon?
Now that is rediculous.

Friend. Are you messing with me? This is SCIENCE. This is math.

Distance from the Moon: 238,900 miles (384,400 km). Do you believe that?

Distance from Mars: Between 128,600,000 miles (128.6 MILLION) and 160 million miles (160,000,000).

There's a issue of data limits to consider. If I remember correctly, The rover gets 4 chances a day to send a max of 32 meg's of information back to earth. That's 128 megs of information a day.

They have to limit the resolution of images sent because of this very modest data cap.

Originally posted by impaired

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by impaired

 

Just what is not rediculous about getting clear pics from mars but not the moon?
We can get some real good pics of Earth through an atmosphere, but not of the atmosphere free moon?
Now that is rediculous.

Friend. Are you messing with me? This is SCIENCE. This is math.

Distance from the Moon: 238,900 miles (384,400 km). Do you believe that?

Distance from Mars: Between 128,600,000 miles (128.6 MILLION) and 160 million miles (160,000,000).

They want fantasy not facts or numbers. Of course those who only educate themselves though star trek and tabloids have no understanding of how the real world works and are effected by outside influences.

reply to post by impaired


I agree, mars is much farther away, yet we can get good pics, why can we get no good pics of our own moon that is much closer?
I am not arguing math, in fact I'm agreeing.
Do you see what I'm asking?
(Edit)
Off topic, Stewie rocks.

reply to post by g146541


If you are complaining that all photos of the moon are in black and white then I have some bad news for you.

Wow logic clearly died on ats, which is why its been at least a year since i last signed on.

This site is pathetic, refuting basic knowledge as conspiracies. At that point of paranoia i would just kill myself..oh no thats a conspiracy to

Reality check, the mars rover landed. We landed on the moon, science is real. We evolved from monkeys whom evolved from fish things. Just because you were not there does not mean it didn't happen, it only makes you ignorant to think otherwise.

Like saying the holocaust didnt happen, you are bound to piss people off.
But reality doesnt come to everyone, look at crazy people you could tell them the sky is blue and they would disagree. Or trying to say three plus three is eight but its not. So surely you can see, where people like me see big holes in your logic that scream "I AM A FLAW"

So ats members need to know, that their leader or wtf ever you call him, basically sold you out for money. I wont say exactly how (but due to greed and federal pressure and if that then hes a loon, or just gave the # up...i know i would


No aliens are visiting, we are the aliens and we send our probes to mars, ha ha and ha the irony

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by impaired

 

I agree, mars is much farther away, yet we can get good pics, why can we get no good pics of our own moon that is much closer?
I am not arguing math, in fact I'm agreeing.
Do you see what I'm asking?
(Edit)
Off topic, Stewie rocks.

edit on 19-8-2012 by g146541 because: Stewie

Ahah - I gotcha now.

Let me find that answer. I actually found it before. Got it. Here's the first paragraph, but click the link. It gets technical:

The answer is basically "not a chance". No Earthbound telescope can see the flag on the Moon. Why not? For openers, the Earth's atmosphere is never steady enough to allow resolution below about one arc second for most locations. Beyond that, the telescope required to "see" the flag would need to be absolutely huge! Here is some basic analysis to show what would be needed:

Method 1 will use simple proportions to show what would be needed. The Moon's diameter is approximately 2160 miles. The Moon is nominally about 239,000 miles from Earth, and at this distance it subtends a diameter of about 30 arc minutes in the sky as seen from Earth. There are 60 arc seconds per arc minute, so the Moon is about 1800 arc seconds across. Let's figure out how many arc seconds represent one mile. The calculation is straightforward: if 1800 seconds = 2160 miles, then 1 mile = .83 arc seconds (basically just divide 1800 by 2160).

So, now we know that 1 mile is about .83 arc seconds. How big is the flag? I do not know for sure but let's assume it is 3 feet long on the long side. How many arc seconds is this? We know that 1 mile = .83 arc seconds; the flag is 3/5280 miles wide (or about 5.682e-4 miles). To find out the arc seconds, we simply multiply this value by .83 to get 4.716e-4 arc seconds. A long time ago someone named Dawes determined that the resolution of an optical telescope is basically 4.56 divided by the telescope's diameter (in inches). So, from that we can rearrange the equation to say that the diameter of the telescope needed (in inches) is 4.56 divided by the resolution required (arc seconds). Dividing 4.56 by4.716e-4 comes out to be 9669 inches. Converting this to feet yields about 805 FEET! And this would be the required telescope diameter to JUST BARELY see the flag at all! And, it would only be just visible as a small dot, it would not "look" like a flag at all.

Let's say we really want to see the flag and have it look like a flag. We'll have to make some assumptions again. Let's assume that the stripes on the flag are 1.5 inches wide and we want to just be able to see them. Using the same method as above we can come up with an answer. In this case we need to be able to see something that is 1.5/12/5280 miles wide, or 2.367e-5 miles. We multiply this by .83 to get the resolution (1.965e-5). Dividing 4.56 by this number yields 232065 inches, or about 19388 FEET! This value is also about 3.6 miles. Clearly it is not possible to build an optical telescope of this size. So, basically the Flag on the Moon remains "invisible" to us here on Earth.

www.rocketroberts.com...

Hope that does the trick.

Originally posted by rottenrascals
reply to post by g146541

 

If you are complaining that all photos of the moon are in black and white then I have some bad news for you.

Not to be crude, but I almost wet myself when I read that. Ahahaha! Just the delivery alone.

reply to post by Anthony1138


"Some people wouldn't believe they were on fire even if their hair was burning" - Ollie Weeks - Character in "The Mist" by Stephen King.

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by impaired

 

I agree, mars is much farther away, yet we can get good pics, why can we get no good pics of our own moon that is much closer?
I am not arguing math, in fact I'm agreeing.
Do you see what I'm asking?
(Edit)
Off topic, Stewie rocks.

edit on 19-8-2012 by g146541 because: Stewie

The images we get of Mars are taken from orbiters around the planet not from earth.
For instance the HiRise experiment. hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

reply to post by impaired


right.
*grin* ....and the 'curiosity' descended in exact the same angle as *cough* googleMars..?

What an amázing 'coincidence'.

- im not against you OP... but this whole curiosity thing is 1st a question of belief.
Only after that, proof is searched to support the belief - whether it landed or didnt land.

its all 1 occult Ritual, this entire mars thing

....planet of Nergal, chief of the Annunaki

reply to post by Lone12


Ok... Ok. You got me.

What would be proof some would have to have to believe that we did indeed land (this rover) on Mars?

Edit - and the image viewpoint from Google Mars was because that's how I navigated to and set it up (the view). You can do that too.[

reply to post by impaired


..i think thats the whole point OP -
there would néver be "enough proof" for someone, who doesnt believe it landed

Besides - no single soul of all earths population actually sáw it happen
( exept for whatever was ' presented'...true ?)

so - millions upon millions " had to belíeve " that it happened
That is THE required aspect for a Ritual: that souls believe
Because that generates the power, to whatever the subject of the Ritual was about.

and that is, millions of souls have " curiosity for Mars " - that is the message implanted.

And what man believes, *will* happen.
Annunaki are , basically, invited by this Ritual.

...see.

- i dont even consider it to be so relevant whether it perhaps indéed 'landed ' or not.
It was all about the Ritual

bless

reply to post by Anthony1138

Well you wont mistake if you say that skies are black(night), red(sunset) or green(aurora), it's not always blue
On the OP: they did land on Mars, but IMO they are going over there with reason, knowing there is something interesting, besides 2.5 billion is a large sum to spend just from human desire to explore the unknown.

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman

Originally posted by impaired

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman

Originally posted by rottenrascals
reply to post by Ryanssuperman

 

but I'm pretty sure all these things happened.

Exactly. "Pretty sure" is what I'm saying. You're not %100 certain, you can't be.

There we go.

It's all semantics, but yeah - I'm "pretty sure", but of course I can't be 100% certain because I wasn't there...

Regardless - the evidence is enough for ME.

Exactly

This evidence should be enough for anyone. Otherwise its sorta like saying, "how do we know life isnt a computer simulation like the matrix"
Of course it could be, but we have no reason whatsoever to discount what we know and start working on this.
Its the problem with David icke, if you spend your life doubting everything, trying to find deeper meaning, you're gonna wind up believing some crazy stuff.

And yes I know we can't be 100% sure about anything, how do we even know if were 10% right about anything?
That's the problem we need to stick to what we think we know.

Originally posted by Lone12
reply to post by impaired

 

..i think thats the whole point OP -
there would néver be "enough proof" for someone, who doesnt believe it landed

Besides - no single soul of all earths population actually sáw it happen
( exept for whatever was ' presented'...true ?)

so - millions upon millions " had to belíeve " that it happened
That is THE required aspect for a Ritual: that souls believe
Because that generates the power, to whatever the subject of the Ritual was about.

and that is, millions of souls have " curiosity for Mars " - that is the message implanted.

And what man believes, *will* happen.
Annunaki are , basically, invited by this Ritual.

...see.

- i dont even consider it to be so relevant whether it perhaps indéed 'landed ' or not.
It was all about the Ritual

bless

I'd like to see you supply the slightest bit of evidence to support that ridiculous claim please?

Originally posted by Lone12
reply to post by impaired

 

right.
*grin* ....and the 'curiosity' descended in exact the same angle as *cough* googleMars..?

What an amázing 'coincidence'.

- im not against you OP... but this whole curiosity thing is 1st a question of belief.
Only after that, proof is searched to support the belief - whether it landed or didnt land.

its all 1 occult Ritual, this entire mars thing

....planet of Nergal, chief of the Annunaki

How do you know this? Tell me, what do you think of the failed lunar missions? The ones that failed before reaching space, killing everyone on board? Do you think these were staged rituals to keep the sheep following?

I don't see why you feel the need to come to these conclusions.

Originally posted by zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by Anthony1138

 

Well you wont mistake if you say that skies are black(night), red(sunset) or green(aurora), it's not always blue

On the OP: they did land on Mars, but IMO they are going over there with reason, knowing there is something interesting, besides 2.5 billion is a large sum to spend just from human desire to explore the unknown.

Now THIS I can entertain as a thought.

Well, now that I think about it, it's already accepted that they went to the Gale Crater because they know or really think they will find something.

Originally posted by zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by Anthony1138

 

On the OP: they did land on Mars, but IMO they are going over there with reason, knowing there is something interesting, besides 2.5 billion is a large sum to spend just from human desire to explore the unknown.

Whoa whoa whoa. 2.5 billion a large sum for human desire to explore? We are the creatures that spent years trying to explore every inch of this globe. Columbus, Magellan, Ponce de Leon, these are all men who risked their own lives as well as their entire crew because they had a desire to explore.

As humans we are always looking to discover new stuff. We built the LHC to explore the tiniest thing and put the Hubble into orbit to see the largest things.

I think you are highly underestimating our desire to learn and discover.

People who think NASA didn't land another Rover on Mars aren't worth proving anything to. Their brains don't work quite right in the first place.

IRM :shk: