Planet of Art..

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br /> www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/clafleur/Spacecrafts-index.html
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes......and.......?

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>Mariner 4 was the 467th interplanetary craft .. launched off of earth not the first ..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I never said it was the first craft "launched off of earth", what I said was it was the first spaceship to make it to Mars.

You seem to be making your case by innuendo, rather than by just saying things directly. Are you equating a satellite that's put in orbit here on Earth, with the first attempts to get a ship to Mars? In all honesty, it makes more sense to me that the early attempts to go to Mars were plagued with difficulties. Look what happened to the early Russian attempts.

Are you trying to say that all those thousands of ships that were launched (on the website you posted).... that all of them or scores of them circled Mars at one point at 70,000 feet like the U2, but sent back blurry pictures to hide the Martian Art? Is that your argument? Why not just stick with the ones that did go to Mars and send back pictures, and make a direct argument, rather than an inferred argument. That way the reader can see for himself what you're saying and can decide for them self.

When you posted the U2 plane as an example of your case, I showed how that was an invalid point. If you come up with something that I can't dispute in real terms like that, the viewer will start to get your point, and maybe you can make a case for them. As it stands now, you're not really presenting your case in a way that will garner you support for your theory. You're just throwing bits and pieces (lots of them) out there as if to say, "see there's all this stuff, there must be a conspiracy." But that doesn't help you, in fact it hurts you.

rd

Rd, I just want to thank you for your input whether or not we agree it is helping me focus
many of my ideas..

<font color="limegreen">I showed how that was an invalid point. ( I'm sorry I missed that rd.. )</font id="limegreen">

I thought you were spurting Nasa's Data to me to prove Nasa's point of view..
(oh but you believe the data to be true..) heres where we part...

<font color="limegreen">
Does it matter to the extent that it would cause this fuzzy image from 1964 Mariner 4 Image? Probably not <font color="red">bingo 1</font id="red">

Who knows what wrong? <font color="red">bingo </font id="red">

It's probably documented somewhere. All things considered though, the magnitude of the accomplishment of getting the ship to Mars before the Russians far outweighs the failure of the camera. That's one way of looking at things.</font id="limegreen">
<font color="red">You see heres where your wheels left the road did you notice! did you feel a little tickle in your tummy</font id="red">

U2/Mariner4

Out of 100 people 99 people would see that example for what it is, And have.... Nothing more..

I don't believe it hurts anything.. Since there is no one looking to begin with..

Wasn't your Nasa mariner4 theory
Mars is so far away and hard to get to.. so the pictures must be blurry (theory)..

Could anyone tell what quadrant of the planet we are looking at..in that mariner 4 image..

when you search for an image of mars in globe form in 2007 ,what satellite provided it and from what year ?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<font color="limegreen">I showed how that was an invalid point. ( I'm sorry I missed that rd.. )</font id="limegreen">

I thought you were spurting Nasa's Data to me to prove Nasa's point of view..
(oh but you believe the data to be true..) heres where we part...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are you saying after reading my whole argument about the difference in camera distance of U2 vs. MOC or HiRISE you disagree? Please be specific. Refer to my original numbers please. Let's just handle that one point for now. No point in moving on to other topics, if I didn't convince you with that one. Forget about the Mariner for now, and let's just zero in on the U2 vs MOC or HiRISE. Do you dispute my numbers about how camera distance changes could easily account for the differences in resolution? We can debate Mariner later if that's ok with you. Right now I want to address the fact that you said you "missed my point" about that one.

rd

rd

after this discussion I realize
u2 versus anything .. is a waste of time..


Not knowing the true numbers..
I just don't want to bicker over what is "only" a visual cue..

My second visual clue after the u2 was the v2 launched 14 years prior

Maybe this is more apples to apples to you....

<font color="limegreen"><font size="5">1948</font id="size5"></font id="limegreen">



bigger

www.airspacemag.com/issues/2006/october-...ages/V2-panorama.jpg

<font color="limegreen"><font size="5">1964 mariner 4</font id="size5"></font id="limegreen">



Without a single calculation I believe most observers would get the point that
I tried making with the u2 but probably is more prevalent here with the v2 images..

*RD*
There is another way to look at the mariner 4 "images"

They must have felt that this is as clear as they can go, without
giving away their big secret !

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />Not knowing the true numbers..
I just don't want to bicker over what is "only" a visual cue..

My second visual clue after the u2 was the v2 launched 14 years prior

Maybe this is more apples to apples to you...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Bob, yes I would say that's more apples and apples, but it doesn't really show much of anything either if you try and zoom in.

I'll grant you though, that the Mariner image is blurry and doesn't show us anything, I just wouldn't bet the farm on that particular fact having all that much meaning.

I'm going on vacation for a week, so I'll talk to you when I get back.

rd