Phoenix Spacecraft Set to Land on Mars Today

Quote:

---

Actually it belongs to the US government. And I'm pretty certain they have better knowledge of what to do with a robot on Mars than a random internet troll such as you.

---

The US government is suppose to be for the people. The people are the ones to run their life. The governments job is just to serve the people and that's it. How do you figure out who is and isn't a internet troll anyway. Who are these people that call people internet trolls, and why are they doing it? It makes no sense to insult someone that has done nothing but express their opinion. It's pretty rude behavior to just randomly insult everyone.

It should be possible not to include insults and name calling by now. Isn't it a bit childish?

I'll like to know what people have to say about this video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

That's exactly what I said the US government is suppose to be for the people. How do you figure out who is and isn't a internet troll. Who are these people that call people internet trolls, and why are they doing it? It makes no sense to insult someone that has done nothing but express their opinion. It's pretty rude behavior to just randomly insult. I would think that the person calling someone a troll. Wouldn't that make them the one being the troll....not the other way around.

---

It's not insulting to call a spade a spade - you ARE a troll. You post poorly thought out drivel and flat out ignore information that refutes everything you say, and when you argue you commit one logical fallacy after another like you're doing it on purpose from a checklist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

I'd be willing to make DVDs of the planets because I'd have nothing to hide.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

And for people who want "hours of color TV from the surface of Mars", get a grip on reality or educate yourself. We don't have a fibre optic cable network stretching from Houston, Texas to Mars to download Martian home movies at 1GB/sec. Everything coming from our probes is being transmitted on pathetically small bandwidth because radio waves are the only thing we have to work with and they are agonizingly slow for information transfer. It can take HOURS to get a single high definition frame decoded from the scrambled signal we receive back here on Earth.

We can't land a probe on Mars, get it to take a few hours of high color DVD imagery then lift back off into space like our Moon landers did. The gravity is too high, and it couldn't carry that kind of fuel capacity on a lander that small.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

The smoking gun is already here.

---

I don't understand. What is the smoking gun?

Quote:

---

It's not insulting to call a spade a spade - you ARE a troll. You post poorly thought out drivel and flat out ignore information that refutes everything you say, and when you argue you commit one logical fallacy after another like you're doing it on purpose from a checklist.

---

Excuse me? I have no checklist. You're just being rude. If you have a problem you face what fallacy is present not just call them a troll because you disagree. I read things but I don't have to respond to every single bit of information. Who judges what is poorly thought out and what is not refuted etc? That is just your perspective and a matter of opinion. I am not purposely being a troll you just don't seem to like me it appears but that doesn't exclude the use of manners.

Also even I can understand that it doesn't take much to have an operating camera on a robot. You bring the footage back with the robot. Or can it not make it back? What's the use of a robot that can not make it back home anyway.

It would be silly to try and convert video while it's still on mars instead of waiting for it to come back even though I'm not convinced that it's even impossible to get video from that distance.

Please don't call me stupid by calling my thoughts drivel.

skysaw those flying things are not comets.

She thinks they are aliens checking out a broken tether from STS-75, Columbia's 19th mission.

And I refute with: http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm

Quote:

---

Other issues remain with the interpretation of the scene as showing genuine kilometers-wide circles in space near the shuttle. Such hypothesized objects would be on the same angular size and brightness of a full moon as viewed from Earth's surface. It is not a matter of a handful of amateur astronomers viewing and not seeing such immensely impressive apparitions -- these are images which would have been visible in the daytime sky to anybody on Earth, on the ground or on ships or in aircraft, along the track of the shuttle (they would also have been visible in satellite imagery, including weather satellite views). Not a single report of fast-moving moon-like circles in the sky has been found from anywhere on Earth during this period when the videos were showing the images that have been thus interpreted. The mandatory deduction from this is that such objects never existed.

---

I already said - the robot can't get back home. They are stuck on Mars forever. Forever. And ever. Until we go there one day and pick them up to put them in a museum. It has a use because it does experiments while its there, and it relays the results of the experiments back to us. Text files full of data are at lot easier to send home than full HiDef color movies.

I wouldn't have a reason to call your posts drivel if you absorbed information from the thread and posted accordingly. As it stands you basically ignore any good point anyone else makes, and continue to post in a misinformed manner. Believe me, I'd rather we could have a civil discussion on this but it just irks me when you ignore key information and just say "Well if I owned NASA, things would be different". You can't break the laws of physics by putting your name on the front door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

skysaw those flying things are not comets.

---

Of course they aren't. They don't look anything like comets.

But I'm still not getting the smoking gun. Can you explain in detail what this video is supposed to be showing me that is important? Are you saying they are extraterrestrial or something like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

She thinks they are aliens checking out a broken tether from STS-75, Columbia's 19th mission.

---

Really? How could anyone draw that conclusion? There is so much debris up there that to not see some of it floating about near a NASA spacecraft would be much weirder.

At that, even if they are aliens (which they're not), I fail to see what this video proves in terms of a smoking gun. This footage is in the public domain and it has been since the mission it was filmed on. If NASA was trying to hide evidence of UFO's for some silly conspiracy nutter reason, why would they release the footage (this footage was released, not leaked)?

edit: The website I linked has clear explanations for the objects you can see. And cameras see things that don't exist all the time. Things like artefacts, and lens flaring. These problems become more common when you add more and more auto-correction to what a camera sees before you see it through the video screen.

I didn't say they were aliens. But if they don't exist as flying objects according to what you just quoted. Then what are they?....ghosts or magical lights appearing for no reason out of no-where? We can see they exist from the film and that's trying to suggest they never existed. But what kind of angular insane light has that impressive crazy effect never before seen because I don't think there is a scientific reason to say it's apparitions. It doesn't look like apparitions it looks plainly like flying objects to me. And I don't think that is space debris. I have some reasonable instinct that tells me it couldn't possibly be space junk because that's not what it looks like and that's not how it orbits and moves in space in different directions in a round circular disk.

Allow me to jump in...

Conspiracy theorists rejected NASA's explanation of space debris and ice particles as some are seen clearly flying BEHIND the 12 mile long tether...



Do continue... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

The US government is suppose to be for the people. The people are the ones to run their life. The governments job is just to serve the people and that's it.

---

No. You give the government money. They spend the money. They hire people who know what they're doing. Fin.

Quote:

---

The tether thickness must be an illusion, because the tether itself is less than a centimeter in diameter. Yet on the scenes of the free-flying tether, its full 20-kilometer length is matched by a scaled width, in angular terms (or in pixels), on the order of hundreds of meters. At the tether range (140-180 km), a pixel is only about 100-meters across, so an image several hundred meters in size has "spilled over" several pixels (five or so) beyond the actual pixels illuminated directly by the bright reflecting tether.

---

How can you take anything in that video at face value when the 12km long tether that's only a few centimetres thick appears to be several times its actual width? So he's using the distorted size of the tether to extrapolate the size of the objects. That's just all round bad science.

edit: And of course, they're going to reject the explanation. They don't have a conspiracy if they accept the explanation :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

If NASA was trying to hide evidence of UFO's for some silly conspiracy nutter reason

---

Are you serious? Do you think NASA would not be aware of UFOs even though the military in new Mexico have released official footage of them.

Quote:

---

The website I linked has clear explanations for the objects you can see. And cameras see things that don't exist all the time. Things like artefacts, and lens flaring. These problems become more common when you add more and more auto-correction to what a camera sees before you see it through the video screen.

---

Are you saying the camera is just making those objects up? How can lens flaring cause that? How silly do you think people would have to be to think that is the result of some lens flaring? Are you going to suggest the voices talking about the objects are also microphone static? Because even that would be more plausible.

Ok, so the astronauts saw thousands of UFOs but for some reason lied to ground control about it? :laugh:

I didn't say those objects were the result of lens flaring. I said cameras see things that don't exist all the time such as artefacts and lens flaring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Are you serious? Do you think NASA would not be aware of UFOs even though the military in new Mexico have released official footage of them.

---

Then tell me why NASA has to beg and plead every financial year to NOT get its budget cut from the piddly 0.58% it has down even further, against people who argue that aliens don't exist? Why why why? Why wouldn't you shove PROOF of aliens right into their faces so you could get the funding? NASA isn't putting on a charade for the benefit of the public. They're people with jobs and families to feed. Budget cuts mean people get laid off.

And what official military footage from New Mexico are you referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Ok, so the astronauts saw thousands of UFOs but for some reason lied to ground control about it? :laugh:

---

Where did anyone say anything about thousands? It's clearly a few dozen, though.

They said, "star-like things flying with us"... sounds pretty clear and obvious to me... I'm sure they have been briefed as to how to refer to anything especially considering it is being aired live. Do you honestly think an astronaut would disclose something like that on television?

NASA used to air their footage live on public access, and due to things like this they now air it pre-recorded. Why is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

And what official military footage from New Mexico are you referring to?

---

This...

edit: not worth it, going to bed.

Ok fair enough I really don't know much about it. But I highly doubt cameras see things that aren't there.

Here is the Mexico footage can't believe you don't know about it? Everyone knows about it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

They said, "star-like things flying with us"... sounds pretty clear and obvious to me... I'm sure they have been briefed as to how to refer to anything especially considering it is being aired live.

---

The astronaut says: "There's a little bit of debris that kind of flies with us that's illuminated by the sun."

The reference to "star-like things" was from ground control, and was not connected to the "flying with us." Ground control could not tell what they were seeing, which is why the astronauts clarify. Please listen again and confirm this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Everyone knows about it!

---

Troll alert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

The astronaut says: "There's a little bit of debris that kind of flies with us that's illuminated by the sun."

The reference to "star-like things" was from ground control, and was not connected to the "flying with us." Ground control could not tell what they were seeing, which is why the astronauts clarify. Please listen again and confirm this.

---

Granted. It still doesn't change objects flying behind the tether.

Well they do. He knew about it.

Why would a government be interested in hiding credible contact with extraterrestrial life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Granted. It still doesn't change objects flying behind the tether.

---

I'm not convinced they were flying behind the tether.

Anyone who grew up in the days of high-contrast black-and-white videography being the norm on television has seen similar illusions where very bright images have extra dark surrounding areas. (Take a look at an old Ernie Kovacs or Honeymooners episode to see examples of this).

When this happens, the black shadow appears adjacent to very white spots on the video, and would remain black even in the presense of additional lighting, unless the object that passed in front were of an equal or almost-equal brightness. I'm not saying this is indeed the case, but that's where my money would be.

If you like, I'll try to dig up an example from old television programs that demonstrates the effect.

It's cool. Don't bother. I'm sure we'll both remain in the dark about it, either way.

Speculating from both sides of the coin until we are blue in the face.