NASA is a lie

> 2016
> NASA faking their images with mspaint
> no one notices
What's wrong with people?

Other urls found in this thread:

arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/hubble-finds-additional-evidence-of-water-vapor-plumes-on-europa/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>NASA is a lieFE

If everyone in the world, including well-educated and experts, seem to be wrong and stupid, consider that you might actually be the one that's wrong.

It is far more likely that you are looking at the world though a flawed lens, than it is that everybody else in the world has a flaw in the exact same place where yours is clear.

That's a PR image. It has been PR'd by shooping an high res pic of Europa on to a very low res comparison of europa transit data.

pic and link very related:
arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/hubble-finds-additional-evidence-of-water-vapor-plumes-on-europa/

fukken saved

NASAyy a lie lmao

source please.

samefagging

This

And why would NASA of all things be a huge hoax? NASA only has an 18 billion dollar budget. Not really worth some kind of huge global conspiracy considering that the military alone gets like 600 billion dollars.

What the fuck would the motive even be?

Waste money on nothing

nasa never claimed eddited pictures are photos or 100% accurate... only subhumans like you do.

And the 2016 defense budget is 585 billion. You think all this money is used effectively?

Nasa and all other space agencies edit their pictures. Astrophotography is very different than the ones pictures taken on earth

Logical Fallacy. Probability concur, but the does not prove the fact. You should rather consider you're not wrong (but not right neither) until proven wrong. Which you highly probably are.

wtf I could take a better picture with my phone

Tell that to Clair Cameron Patterson.

can your phone travel thousands or millions of miles and send the photo back?

why travel there when the photons travel by themselves?
just point the camera up and shoot

>t. common sense

because of how scattered the photons are, you would need a massive lens. Even then, they are going to be extremely low res. If you want to finance a telescope the size of New York city, feel free. Otherwise, enjoy the shitty photos we can get from satellites

if your calculator says 2+2=5, and everyone else's says its 4, do you buy a new calculator?

More likely claim that the calculator is right and everyone else is part of the government conspiracy to cover up the truth

Okay, do that now and report back.

Just going to say it... moon base. Lunar colony.
Lunar colony.
Lunar colony.
Build a lunar colony. Build machinery and devices that couldn't exist in Earth's gravity well.
Lunar colony.

Moon base.
Lunar.

Lunar moon base.
Moon base on the moon.
On the moon base.

If people knew about "false color" nasa probably wouldn't have a budget.

that would be even more expensive than a telescope on earth. Probably 100x the price, minimum

with the only benefit being a lack of atmosphere

No, it would allow the creation of much larger lenses.

it would also be prohibitively expensive

You would need to use half the money we spend on the military, and it would still end with a 10 man station with a small telescope on it

Ok, now go take a better picture of Europa. Extra bonus points if you do it in the UV spectrum.

You have officially been challenged to do it faggot.

appeal to authority
discarded

>arguemntum ad populum
>argumentum ad verecundiam

even intelligent people are susceptible to error and groupthink. it was not long ago that a layman corrected the scientific community on the count of human chromosomes. not to defend op but that argument is really annoying and flawed.

At first. Then the asteroid mining begins.

Obviosuly there's an initial investment and a bit of overhead. When will the human species grow up, omg s-m-h tbqh famalamalam.

Fallacy fallacy. Just because it's a fallacious argument, doesn't mean it's wrong.

what are you on about? user made no argument about anything. He just went on about how authorities are automatically correct.

what part of "not to defend op but that argument is really annoying and flawed" don't you understand?