Anyone else think the moon landing was a fake?

yup, id say same area different lightning state and better camera (as you'd expect- actually each pixel of the new image is 1.56 metres, compared to 43metres of the old camera) doesn't really look like a face, but then neither did the other one, particularly. are there any other "unaltered" versions of the face? because it seems like people have inferred symmetry from the area of the face which is completely in shadow, then when it is revealed (and not symmetrical) have called foul, simply because the new, clearer image doesn't conform to what they imagined was hidden in the original image. the left hand side of the face (the only bit that is visible in the "unaltered" picture) corresponds with this one pretty well, i'd say.

also, i know we're supposed to be debating whether or not NASA are trustworthy, so this is kind of off topic, but its a point worth raising; the surface area of Mars is 144,798,500 km2 with over 635,000 craters on it (and those are just the ones larger than a kilometer in diameter- btw, i know this is a mesa and not a crater.) surely it would be MORE unlikely that NOTHING on the surface of mars looks a little....kind of....if-you-squint... like a face. then that one thing vaguely does? we are, after all, pattern-seeking animals, we see faces everywhere. look at some clouds for a while, i bet you'll see a few.

 

Fine, than perhaps you'll take the word of a former NASA scientist and researcher :2thumbsup:


http://www.enterprisemission.com/shrunk.html




Hotwater

 

who? not Richard C. Hoagland, surely? a brief consultancy with a NASA space centre is not quite the same as being "a former NASA scientist", this guy spent most of his career as a museum curator as the rest being dismissed offhand as a fringe nutcase by the rest of the scientific community.


http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/
a fairly comprehensive list of the ways in which he is talking out of his anus.

and a brief summary of how his position on "the face" has changed over the years:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/face.html

http://www.enterprisemission.com/pasadena2.html
in this article (from the same site) he claims to be able to see both a NAZI SS insignia AND the turret of a WWII era tank in photographs taken on Mars.

This article unfortunately has no referenced sources, but is pretty funny.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1562/1

in his own words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prPLXp7XLY4&feature=relmfu"]RIR-Richard Hoagland-Secret Space Program & Fukushima 2/4 - YouTube

 

Regardless of how you feel about RH and his somewhat imaginative views of space, he’s very intelligent, a dedicated researcher, and a regular guest on coast to coast am :2thumbsup:


Hotwater

 

I don't see a human face in either of those pictures.

But both of them look rather similar to homer simpson.

 

his intelligence isn't necessarily in question here, more his objectivity and therefore validity as a voice on this subject. you don't have to be stupid to be wrong. it strikes me that anyone who looks at a picture of a bunch of rocks and sees a NAZI SS insignia or a face (which just happens to fit into their pre-concieved narrative about there being space Nazis and intelligent life on mars) and takes this as solid evidence which backs up their theory and THEN retroactively changes their story when new evidence appears to contradict their theory, has abandoned the principles of ethical, objective research in favour of picking and choosing (largely subjective) data which fits into a preconceived personal narrative. in this case, Space NAZI's on Mars.

i just want to type that again.

space NAZI's on Mars.

TOO dedicated. dedicated to a narrative and blind to any evidence which opposes it, while jumping on the flimsiest evidence which can be made to feed into it. its the classic non-falsifiable hypothesis, most un-scientific.

thats what happens when you make a career out of being a contrarian, happens in journalism all the time, well-researched, responsible, professional journalists lose out to journalists who are just willing to go against the prevailing opinion on every issue. i'm not doubting his motives, just saying that having a spot on a radio show doesn't mean you know what your talking about.

In my country there's this bitch called Gillian mckeith whose had several TV series as a "nutritionist" telling people what to eat to remain healthy even though her only qualification was purchased online (Ben goldacre, a guardian journalist who writes about bad medical science, purchased this same qualification for his dead cat)

 

Upon closer examination, that is a very interesting picture.

While the area on the left could easily have been weathered by light, gravity, gas, whatever there is on mars, the right has an arroyo system that LOOKS to be the result of liquid, presumably water, draining down from the top.... which would point not only at water, but at a weather system with some amount of rain.

Lookie hurr, I'm already more legitimately scientific than mr mars nazi

 

:smilielol5:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!




That's like saying because I saw some bimbo shoot golf balls out of her pussy on Howard Stern that makes her a qualified gynecologist and pro golfer!!!!


HAHAHAHA!!!!!

really Hotwater, you need to set the bar a little higher.

 

Coast to coast has allot of guests who are very qualified. PHD's, authors respected by peers etc.

Many guests are also just selling a book perhaps, and since it's an open call show, any nut can have an opinion, but you can not assume all the information on there is false.

What makes someone "credible" anyway?

 

I don't believe that NG was claiming that all information presented on coast to coast is false. examine his metaphor; the young lady in question MAY WELL be a qualified gynecologist and professional golfer, who merely fires objects from her genitals for the amusement of others as a hobby, or to subsidise her income when business in her medical capacity is slack, or when the weather is too bad to hit the links. The point is that her appearance on Mr. Stern's show in no way constitute credentials in these fields.

Similarly, Hoagland's appearances on Coast to coast in no way constitute credentials, nor can they really be seen as evidence of his reliability as a source, which is how Hotwater appeared to be presenting them.

in the scientific community? generally peer review. Most of Hoagland's peers seem to be of the opinion that he is somewhat misguided. certainly not the word of whoever is in charge of booking on a radio show.

space NAZI's on Mars.

i just can't stop.

 

^^^What he said^^^:2thumbsup:

Yes, Hotwater was offering up the radio appearances as some form of credentials, that's laughable,

 

RH is a chief science advisor for coast to coast am and their expert on space phenomena.

They also have other science advisors including Dr. Michio Kaku, do you question his credentials as well?


Hotwater

 

i'm confused, your post as it appears on the page is different to the one that appears when i quote you, maybe your in the process of editing...

anyway,

being on a radio show: still not a valid reason to trust a scientist's opinions, see previous posts.

also, as someone has already said, there are nuts on coast to coast AM, as well as people with actual credentials. you can't have authority through association. being a respected peer-reviewed scientist with extensive credentials ISN'T something that rubs off on you. if i hung out with Steven hawking, it wouldn't make me a respected astrophysicist.

the only association that these two men have is STILL only the gentleman in charge of booking guests. I have no idea who this gentleman is, but i'm fairly confident we never universally decided to make him the arbiter on what does, ad does not, constitute credible scientific research.

 

:2thumbsup:

 

There is one less voice to vouch for the authenticityof the landings today. Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the moon, died today.

 

I can almost anticipate noxious gas and autophobe2e “what no deathbed confession? Well I’m shocked”

Hotwater

 

my grandad witnessed a launching.. if you dont believe it went to the moon where do you think it went? just into space? why would nasa spend all that money to lie to the human race?i dont believe there is such a motive.. and also there is no reason to mock the memory of a wonderful historical figure such as neil armstrong

 

you assume i'd use someone's death as an excuse to make a petty sarcastic joke in obviously poor taste? cheers, man, you obviously hold me in very high esteem.

 

I know nothing about coast to coast AM, but suddenly I'm questing the credentials of the whole damn thing.

They could make me a science advisor, and I think I could make them more respected, if this is truly the case....

He seriously thinks there's a nazi howitzer on mars..... what the fuuuuck? That's very very very delusional, and the fact that people still listen to him is sort of delusional sounding to me, too.

Lets start by asking how and WHY the nazis would go to mars, when they had enough problems at home. Why would the use resources that they never had to go to a place with just about no atmosphere, little gravity, no life or chemicals to sustain it (at least, today) ...... and even if they could carry the thing with them, WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY TAKE A TANK TURRET TO MARS?

Also, why does this clown think that nasa keeps sending these probes, if he also thinks they're trying to suppress information about mars? Wouldn't it make sense for the organization sending shit there to STOP sending shit there, and to filter released images much more carefully? HOW does he think he would ever have been able to display the real images, if he could have even SEEN them, if he was really right? Why would we take ANY more pictures of mars? Why wouldn't they just create a bogus topographical map, and say we mapped it, we're done with mars, screw that shit? Or if it's top secret but the government had to know, why would they tell his paranoid ass (or anyone, much less the public) that there even IS a probe on mars, or show images, doctored or otherwise?

 

killer clowns from outer space..