*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5794
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2017, 04:15:16 PM »
Who would go through so much trouble just making up a planet?




*

Offline MrCuriosity

  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Mommy dropped me off and never came back :c
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2017, 04:53:55 PM »
Who would go through so much trouble just making up a planet?



Not sure but that is a beautiful planet.  I'm stuck on Mars still :c

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5926
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2017, 06:58:04 AM »
Are you saying the fake Apollo missions WEREN'T about convincing a lot of people?  What else could they have been for?
Convincing a very small number of people who actually matter. Nobody that matters cares about what you, I, or "a lot of people" think.

Since when are we not on the forefront?
Something like 2005.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #23 on: April 28, 2017, 03:46:16 AM »
Cassini has sent back a total of 383,731 images. And I thought there were a lot of pictures from the Apollo mission. Someone should tell NASA that they are overdoing the fake pictures from space, as clearly they only needed 350,000 or so to make the mission look real ;)

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/raw-images/

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5926
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2017, 09:37:51 AM »
Ah, yes, another collection of, uh, this:





That's it, guys, I'm convinced.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2706
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #25 on: April 28, 2017, 06:39:27 PM »
Ah, yes, another collection of, uh, this:



An odd choice, to put a 1980's digital camera onto a 3 billion dollar spacecraft.

Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2017, 03:59:06 AM »
An odd choice, to put a 1980's digital camera onto a 3 billion dollar spacecraft.

Not odd at all considering that the spacecraft left the earth 20 years ago, and the camera was built in the early 90's. It is not like they could have sent a 2016 camera up there. Besides, there were not many digital cameras at all in the 1980s. The first commercially available digital camera came out in 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_photography

Here is more info about the camera they did use: https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/imaging-science-subsystem/

And here are the "hall of fame" pictures: https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/hall-of-fame/
including the two attached to this post.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2017, 04:42:43 AM by Nirmala »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1439
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #27 on: May 02, 2017, 05:09:30 AM »
NASA sure do have a lot of purty pitchers.  Therefore NASA must be real.  That's, like, logic.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5926
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #28 on: May 05, 2017, 04:56:14 AM »
Wow, we moved on from "suspiciously. meaningless clumps of black and white pixels" to "Nintendo 64". Way to go, NASA!
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #29 on: May 05, 2017, 04:04:25 PM »
If someone was going to give me a $1,000,000,000,000 over 50 years I think the least I could do is fake some photos.

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #30 on: May 05, 2017, 04:51:32 PM »
If someone was going to give me a $1,000,000,000,000 over 50 years I think the least I could do is fake some photos.
Or build rockets and go into space.....Like every other space agency across the earth.

Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2017, 06:03:16 PM »
If someone was going to give me a $1,000,000,000,000 over 50 years I think the least I could do is fake some photos.
Or build rockets and go into space.....Like every other space agency across the earth.

What's harder to do? What's possible to do?

Don't forget NASA originally was originally apart of the DOD, and no doubt has developed some good rockets and propulsion technology... for Missiles.

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2017, 07:43:18 PM »
I still don't get why people think that we have been behind ANYONE in technology at any point. I mean we have a space program in advance of everyone, aircraft a generation ahead of what everyone else has, companies such as Intel, Apple, Microsoft, and Google, and yet "We're not on the cutting edge"

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5926
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2017, 01:19:29 PM »
I still don't get why people think that we have been behind ANYONE in technology at any point. I mean we have a space program in advance of everyone, aircraft a generation ahead of what everyone else has, companies such as Intel, Apple, Microsoft, and Google, and yet "We're not on the cutting edge"
I will ignore your word-twisting, and assume that you're simply looking for me to elaborate on my assertion. I will also ignore your attempt at attributing all research output of gigantic multinational corporations to count as American, because that's not how scientific publications work.

The USA is the 20th country in research output per capita and the 6th in R&D expenditure per capita. This puts you considerably behind the more scientifically-inclined Europeans, as well as Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and Isrealis. It's not a question of what people think. It's just a simple statement of fact. The USA used to be at the forefront, and it no longer is.

But hey, don't let that get in the way of your American exceptionalism. We wouldn't want those years of forcing you to mindlessly repeat the Pledge of Allegiance to go to waste (◕‿◕✿)
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 01:22:52 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 652
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2017, 05:17:58 PM »
Spending per capita isn't necessarily the relevant measure.  It could be that spending less per capita is enough for us to remain in the lead (whatever that might mean) if our total outlay is higher due to a larger population.  Consider an analog: suppose California and Wyoming each decided to embark on a state-level space program.  California could spend much less per capita and still end up with many multiples of Wyoming's budget.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5926
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #35 on: May 12, 2017, 10:49:21 AM »
Spending per capita isn't necessarily the relevant measure.
I only provided spending to contrast it with output - the first measure I listed. Not only are Americans 20th in output, their spending doesn't translate into output.

Consider an analog: suppose California and Wyoming each decided to embark on a state-level space program.  California could spend much less per capita and still end up with many multiples of Wyoming's budget.
Certainly, but if Wyoming's space program turned out to be more successful despite them spending less per capita, you'd be asking some serious questions about California (unless your school brainwashed you into Californian exceptionalism). And that's exactly what's happening here.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!