I have just watched this video and since I consider myself to have an open mind I find some the arguments quite compelling.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obP-Un-nc0U
Mars
- Thread starter Pies
- Start date
If folks watch this video, 9:12 minutes. The first minute shows this is geocentric teaching where Mars is not a planet or its size or distance known today (common in flat earth, geocentric teaching) and the NASA rover landings are a *charade* that the public accepts but never happened. No different than other past posts where the distance and size of the Sun and Moon are not known correctly in modern, heliocentric solar system astronomy because of the penumbra and umbra sizes during total solar eclipses and parallel rays of the Sun.
Here is my observation. Any questions raised in post #3 or others, does not mean much to me. Why? if the modern, heliocentric solar system astronomy metrics are all wrong (this includes no gravity), clearly no nation or individual has gone anywhere in space, including since 1957 (Russians) or any Moon missions (Israel for example recently), let alone land anything on Mars. This is a foundational pillar in flat earth, geocentric astronomy teaching. The first minute of the 9:12 video demonstrates this pillar very well concerning Mars.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Some people have said that there is plenty of room in an open mind to contain enormous amounts of rubbish.
I am not one of them. I believe that an open mind is a very good thing, so long as it is safeguarded by a good sense of discrimination.
Cat
I am not one of them. I believe that an open mind is a very good thing, so long as it is safeguarded by a good sense of discrimination.
Cat
I agree wholeheartedly withn the two previous comments and that is I asked those very simple questions about the video. What appears to be happening is that nobody wants to answewr but just look for non-related issues in order to side-track.Some people have said that there is plenty of room in an open mind to contain enormous amounts of rubbish.
I am not one of them. I believe that an open mind is a very good thing, so long as it is safeguarded by a good sense of discrimination.
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Still no reply to my video questions!Many, like me, will be more than happy with Rod's statement.
Cat
May I suggest that you treat me like a keen 12 year-old who is always asking his dad questions and why all the time when he doesn't understand something. What's the problem with that?
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I believe that a 12-year old could read and understand post #4.
I do not intend wasting my time on answering 12-year old's questions, which have already been dealt with in a proper and understandable manner.
Cat
I do not intend wasting my time on answering 12-year old's questions, which have already been dealt with in a proper and understandable manner.
Cat
Wolfshadw
Moderator
You've never lost anything or accidentally thrown something out? The people who work at NASA are just as human and you and I. We make mistakes.
Go to the bathroom and fill the tub with water. Now cup your hand and slowly enter it into the water. Do you get a big splash? Do you get a large ripple? Now do the same thing, except this time, hit the water as hard and as fast as you can. Do you get a big splash? Do you get a large ripple?
Your hand represents the parachute. The water represents the atmosphere. If you're moving too slow, then nothing happens. If you're moving fast enough, the chute opens.
As I understand it, this is how it works. A NASA Technician sends a command to the rover via radio (not the Internet). Let's just say that command tells the rover to move forward ten feet. About eight minutes after the command is sent, the rover receives it, verifies it, and executes it. Assuming the execution of the command completed successfully (the rover is now ten feet from it's previous position), it sends a signal back to Earth saying it successfully executed the command. Approximately eight minutes later, that signal is received by the NASA technician and the next command is sent (turn left 10 degrees").
It's not like you have someone sitting in a gaming chair with a VR headset on, driving the rover around.
What bolt/screw? All I saw was a blurry strip of brightness. Provide me with a link to any other web site that states it was a fallen screw. The second image was taken over two minutes later and from a different angle.
Go outside on a sunny day. Find a sidewalk that has a bit of shade running across it. Place a rock on the edge of that shady spot; half in sunlight and half in shade. Now wait two minutes. Is the rock still half in sunlight and half in shade or has it changed?
These answers are just as viable (if not moreso) as the one provided in the video.
Which answers you choose to believe are entirely up to you and your "open" mind.
-Wolf sends
Last edited:
With respect the questions about the Mars Rover video nhave not been answered.
Moon files and data. Are you serious! It's just a simple mistake? I can't imagine any right thinking person accepting such an excuse.
Parachute problems. You have ignored that they do not work on Earth in the upper atmosphere.
Rover control instructions. I think you are over simplifying the possible cammands that could be sent! I would like to see you control an RC car with an 8 minute delay.
Disappearing bolt. The point is whatever it was in one photo it is missing in the other.
These answers are not viable they are just poor attempts at trying to justify what is patently questionable.
“The trouble is that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And once you’ve seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There’s no innocence. Either way, you’re accountable.” - Arundhati Roy.
FYI. If folks watch the 9:12 minute video in post #1, the first two and half minutes discuss Mars and show a Nikon camera image of Mars along with other Mars images compared to NASA image of Mars. The claim is, Mars looks like what the video shows and NASA uses CGI, Mars is not a spherical planet suggesting the planets are more like stars. In October 2020, Mars came to opposition and I used my 90-mm refractor telescope and 10-inch Newtonian to enjoy Mars views, seven times that month, from 40x to 216x views. My log shows 27 Mars observations I conducted using my telescopes from 07-May-2020 through 19-Jan-2021 using my telescopes.
On 02-Dec-2020, I viewed Mars and close conjunction with the star HIP4978, ~ 7' angular separation in Pisces. Visible together in same field of view at 129x and 200x using my 90-mm refractor telescope with TeleVue products. The star is a double and at 200x, barley visible as a double, ~ 1.5" separation according to Stellarium 0.20.3.
I can testify that the Mars images shown in the first minutes of this video is not what I observed using my telescopes. If questions need asking, I would start right there.
On 02-Dec-2020, I viewed Mars and close conjunction with the star HIP4978, ~ 7' angular separation in Pisces. Visible together in same field of view at 129x and 200x using my 90-mm refractor telescope with TeleVue products. The star is a double and at 200x, barley visible as a double, ~ 1.5" separation according to Stellarium 0.20.3.
I can testify that the Mars images shown in the first minutes of this video is not what I observed using my telescopes. If questions need asking, I would start right there.
Wolfshadw
Moderator
Tell you what. Why don't you tell us what answers you WOULD accept and we'll see what happens.
-Wolf sends
I don't have any answers, that's why I asked the questions. If you don't either then I guess the video is creating problems.
Interestingly what I observed in my Moon-Sun thread is not what everyon believes about the Moon's illumination. We appear to have double standards here.
The arguments in the video are patently false and absurd. Don Pettit, whom I have met, never said the technology was destroyed. It's common knowledge we don't have technology and craft ready-for-use to go to the Moon. We still have the knowledge and we have even better science to pursue more missions. Those missions, of course, only support the other NASA claims about all objects in our solar system. To suggest Mission control is comprised of 20 actors is ridiculous. Their names aren't a secret and you won't find them in Holywood. They are supported by other scientists. The moon landings involved about 400,000 people so fooling them would have taken more money than what was actually used to go to the Moon. The same argument is fitting for the missions to other planets.
To show a matching Mars image with some exact area on Earth is crazy. Given all the cheap shots in the video I need more motivation to try and invalidate their video claim.
We certainly have radio capabilities for communication with Mars. In fact we are still receiving signals from Voyager, perhaps 80 times or so farther than Mars. They can buy a radio and a powerful antennae and listen for themselves. They could buy two radios and use parallax to get the distance to Mars but they won't, of course.
To show a matching Mars image with some exact area on Earth is crazy. Given all the cheap shots in the video I need more motivation to try and invalidate their video claim.
We certainly have radio capabilities for communication with Mars. In fact we are still receiving signals from Voyager, perhaps 80 times or so farther than Mars. They can buy a radio and a powerful antennae and listen for themselves. They could buy two radios and use parallax to get the distance to Mars but they won't, of course.
Since it is NASA that is being questioned then it would be necessary to provide independent evidence to corroborate NASA's claims. This would not work in a court of law without independent data.
I note this comment in post #12, "Parachute problems. You have ignored that they do not work on Earth in the upper atmosphere."
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/spacecraft/entry-descent-and-landing-configuration/parachute/, "Rocket assisted descent (RAD) motors: Because the atmospheric density of Mars is less than 1% of Earth's, the parachute alone cannot slow down the Mars Exploration Rover enough to ensure a safe, low landing speed. The spacecraft descent is assisted by rockets that bring the spacecraft to a dead stop 10-15 meters (30-50 feet) above the Martian surface."
Going back to my post #13, the 9:12 minute video presented in post #1, 2 1/2 minutes at the start show images of Mars, as Helio says in post #16, "are patently false and absurd.", good words I would use to describe the difference in what I see in my telescopes when viewing Mars and this video argument against NASA showing what Mars really looks like.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/spacecraft/entry-descent-and-landing-configuration/parachute/, "Rocket assisted descent (RAD) motors: Because the atmospheric density of Mars is less than 1% of Earth's, the parachute alone cannot slow down the Mars Exploration Rover enough to ensure a safe, low landing speed. The spacecraft descent is assisted by rockets that bring the spacecraft to a dead stop 10-15 meters (30-50 feet) above the Martian surface."
Going back to my post #13, the 9:12 minute video presented in post #1, 2 1/2 minutes at the start show images of Mars, as Helio says in post #16, "are patently false and absurd.", good words I would use to describe the difference in what I see in my telescopes when viewing Mars and this video argument against NASA showing what Mars really looks like.
Last edited:
NASA tested the parachute design using NASA Wallops Island (see link, 2 minute video). The rover is descending at some 1500 mph or near Mach 2.0 in the very thin martian atmosphere. In 0.5 second, the parachute deploys and opens. Even in very thin air, the velocity of descent and force measurement in newtons or dynes is sufficient to deploy, e.g. 10 km up at Mars and coming in fast. The video provided in post #1 is fraught with misconceptions presented to the public.
The comment made "Parachute problems. You have ignored that they do not work on Earth in the upper atmosphere." is a misconception or misinformed source(s) used in this thread.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Again you are ignoring how a parachute operates in the thin air of Earth's upper atmosphere proved by Joe Kittenger which is an independent source.
NASA tested the parachute design using NASA Wallops Island (see link, 2 minute video). The rover is descending at some 1500 mph or near Mach 2.0 in the very thin martian atmosphere. In 0.5 second, the parachute deploys and opens. Even in very thin air, the velocity of descent and force measurement in newtons or dynes is sufficient to deploy, e.g. 10 km up at Mars and coming in fast. The video provided in post #1 is fraught with misconceptions presented to the public.
The comment made "Parachute problems. You have ignored that they do not work on Earth in the upper atmosphere." is a misconception or misinformed source(s) used in this thread.
You cannot keep appealing to NASA to prove NASA. That's like using evoluton to prove evolution. Independent sources need to be used with corroborating evidence. If NASA is the only source then it must be treated with caution.
Regarding the 'missing bolt' the video gives the two NASA photo numbers to show the difference rather than rely on the poor qwuality images in the video.
The statement in post #22 says "If NASA is the only source then it must be treated with caution."
Q: Does this apply to Joe Kittenger?
Example, what is the force measurement in newtons per square meter on the rover parachute or dyne per square centimeter when deployed at Mars at 10 km altitude descending some Mach 2 or more velocity? The same applies to NASA Wallops Island rocket testing process.
Q:What force measurements did Joe Kittenger provide in the video and who performed an *independent*check of these force measurements?
FYI, I like the idea of rigorous testing standards. What I said here about Joe Kittenger used in the video and force measurement, equally applies to the Mars images presented to the public in the opening minutes of the video and claim NASA uses CGI to present a misleading image of Mars. Did this video imaging for Mars get independently verified and tested? I can say using my telescopes those Mars images are fake. I am an independent test of the video Mars images, so are many others with quality telescopes. Sky & Telescope published much on the 2018 Mars opposition, many folks observed and we all agreed about the global dust storm color raging across Mars at the time when a solar powered rover died on the surface. Yes, please produce independent verification of the opening images of Mars as factual. I say they are not.
Q: Does this apply to Joe Kittenger?
Example, what is the force measurement in newtons per square meter on the rover parachute or dyne per square centimeter when deployed at Mars at 10 km altitude descending some Mach 2 or more velocity? The same applies to NASA Wallops Island rocket testing process.
Q:What force measurements did Joe Kittenger provide in the video and who performed an *independent*check of these force measurements?
FYI, I like the idea of rigorous testing standards. What I said here about Joe Kittenger used in the video and force measurement, equally applies to the Mars images presented to the public in the opening minutes of the video and claim NASA uses CGI to present a misleading image of Mars. Did this video imaging for Mars get independently verified and tested? I can say using my telescopes those Mars images are fake. I am an independent test of the video Mars images, so are many others with quality telescopes. Sky & Telescope published much on the 2018 Mars opposition, many folks observed and we all agreed about the global dust storm color raging across Mars at the time when a solar powered rover died on the surface. Yes, please produce independent verification of the opening images of Mars as factual. I say they are not.
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Pies, do you remember this?
You posted above:
"Interestingly what I observed in my Moon-Sun thread is not what everyon believes about the Moon's illumination. We appear to have double standards here. "
Yes. You were clearly in error and gave up.
This is where you tried to show illumination by the Sun as at an angle when the Sun was as shown at lower right.
Cat
You posted above:
"Interestingly what I observed in my Moon-Sun thread is not what everyon believes about the Moon's illumination. We appear to have double standards here. "
Yes. You were clearly in error and gave up.
This is where you tried to show illumination by the Sun as at an angle when the Sun was as shown at lower right.
Cat
Last edited:
I just cannot believe that, in this day and age of the 21st century, people are still questioning the authenticity of the space program.
Do they have to bring these people up in rocket to the ISS in order to prove to them that this is all real?
Even if presented with such overwhelming evidence, would they believe it or just continue to deny it? It seems they don't want to face the truth, and I think they would claim they are under water and the windows are just showing videos or something.
So, in effect, I don't believe there is any way to convince these people, no matter what evidence you present them, and because of this continuing to try to convince them is just a waste of time.
Do they have to bring these people up in rocket to the ISS in order to prove to them that this is all real?
Even if presented with such overwhelming evidence, would they believe it or just continue to deny it? It seems they don't want to face the truth, and I think they would claim they are under water and the windows are just showing videos or something.
So, in effect, I don't believe there is any way to convince these people, no matter what evidence you present them, and because of this continuing to try to convince them is just a waste of time.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 178
-
-
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram