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

Originally posted by Wh00pS

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...

You rock!!, as you are the first person in this thread who has exhibited reading comprehension.
I see wgat you are saying but we have seen many other magnificent photos of other places taken from Earths orbit.
But we do not seem to have any real good pics of the moon, just some real grainy ones.
If we can get near immaculate pics of the earth through our atmosphere, then why can we get no good pics of our moon that has no atmosphere?
Star to you!

reply to post by Ryanssuperman


if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Originally posted by g146541

Originally posted by Wh00pS

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...

You rock!!, as you are the first person in this thread who has exhibited reading comprehension.
I see wgat you are saying but we have seen many other magnificent photos of other places taken from Earths orbit.
But we do not seem to have any real good pics of the moon, just some real grainy ones.
If we can get near immaculate pics of the earth through our atmosphere, then why can we get no good pics of our moon that has no atmosphere?
Star to you!

You may have skipped over this post. It's relevant:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by g146541


Erm, what about the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter? Some great hi-res images there, if only b&w. It even photographed the Apollo landing modules and other "stuff" left after the Apollo missions. Heck, you can even see the footprints left by the astronauts!

en.wikipedia.org...
www.nasa.gov...

Resolution: 0.5 meters per pixel. You could explore for hours...
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

reply to post by g146541

As wildespace mentioned above, we have very high-resolution pictures of the moon from LRO where you can make out objects the size of a beachball...

...Plus, do you realize that those really close-up pictures of Earth from google maps (the ones close enough for you to make out the details of your own house) are mostly taken from airplanes, and not from orbit.

Originally posted by Wongbeedman

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.

edit on 19-8-2012 by Wongbeedman because: (no reason given)

By "sure" I was speaking to our own convictions. Not "sure" as in certainty of the truth of something.

Originally posted by WonOunce
reply to post by Ryanssuperman

 

if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

I have no idea We could ASSUME it does, but we have no evidence of that. Anything is possible!