Venus Photos from 1981 Show Signs of Editing/Fakery
(www.reddit.com)
Comments (18)
sorted by:
Yeah, I've seen the comparisons.
It is some art made from real image.
Real image from Venera 14
I don't know if I'd call that "art".
That could be from anywhere, as well.
On thinking, that picture has some sharp rocks. If Venus was covered in clouds of sulfuric acid, wouldn't you expect rocks to be more rounded?
I just lean towards anything from space being fake at this point, and work backwards from there. I mean, Russia can land multiple probes on Venus and take pictures, but the U.S. can't muster one?
Sulphuric acid is not a magic "dissolve everything in seconds" thing. And there is only 0.018% of SO2 in Venus atmosphere.
US just have no interest in Venus. May be somebody told them, that it is a useless hell with 600°C and 90bar on surface?
Flight to Venus is easier in terms of fuel and time than flight to Mars. Also, in USSR there was no any beforehand knowledge about surface conditions of Venus, Soviet scientists suppose that Venus is covered with water, and first probes was even build with an ability to float in theoretical Venus ocean. So, USSR choose Venus as a target of first interplanetary missions. US choose Mars.
Dude, I've dealt with fuming sulfuric on numerous occasions.
Who said anything about dissolving in seconds? I'm talking eons.
The landers obviously didn't last long, did they though?
Even eons is not enough to noticeably damage SiO2 with 0.02% SO2 atmosphere.
Landers didn't last long because of extreme temperature, not because they dissolved by some acid.
Sulfuric acid itself exists on the altitudes above 60km in the form of clouds, where tempersture allows its existence as acid. And it have very low concentration. Sulfuric acid can't exist on the surface at all due to 600°C temperature.
Sounds good to me.
Still doubting it overall.
I was pretty shocked when I first learned about the Russian Venera program.
Not something I was taught in school. Like most, if not all space ventures, there's evidence of BS (though I guess this would be elephant shit).
I still think Venus' opposing rotation to the other planets is important in the grand "scheme" of things, but maybe that's just me.
The original photos were made with a scanner and they are long narrow panoramas. Everyone ever taken can be seen here:
https://www.planetary.org/articles/every-picture-from-venus-surface-ever
In the reddit post it's an image someone 'shopped, to try and make it look like a normal photo, as if you were standing there.
When trying to prove a fake, always find as close to the original image as possible.
What you said is definitely true.
I did zero due diligence on this post.
There's actually less photos than I would have thought too (and I believe I've seen them before).
So are the panoramas themselves actually from the surface of Venus? Or from Devon Island, like another poster quipped about the Mars photos?
I remember reading an essay about early Mars probes and how they basically stated that they weren't going to find anything interesting because they always to choose to land in the safest spots, which are usually level and rather devoid of features. Always struck me as an easy excuse to explain away how uninteresting the photos are. Why not land somewhat near Olympus Mons and have a gander?
These were the only photos that could be obtained and transmitted before the lander succumbed to the adverse conditions on the surface. The 2 landers were Russian, not American/NASA.
It's an interesting topic, which I believe may be sensitive issue for some, but in general NASA is the space agency that does the fakes. Devon Island is a NASA project. I don't think I've ever seen a researcher call Russia out on any faked images.
In fact you can use some Russian images to prove NASA images are fakes - since early Russian satellite color images of the earth from the moon's perspective show the surface of the moon as a shade of brown, which correlates with spectral analysis done of the color of the moon's surface. However these things were still vaguely understood when NASA did it's first fakes of the moons surface, and they made it gray since that was the color they thought was accurate. It has been proved at various times in the past though, before and since the Apollo missions, that the surface is dark to light brown and not gray at all as seen in Apollo imagery; but this fact quietly ignored.
Detailed article on this topic:
The brown color of the moon is an established scientific fact!
Have you watched any of the videos on symbology in space agencies around the world? They are definitely in cahoots, almost regardless of country. I would say the situation is similar to Antarctica.
I would still find it very difficult to believe that most of space is fake and gay EXCEPT for Russian probe photos. There's been definite fakery from China as well.
I agree they are in cahoots, but in the early days, NASA faked images and missions from the get go (when they realised they could not get people to the moon alive), whereas Russia didn't.
The info gleaned from these early Russian missions and explorations is valuable because it appears to be real info.
For example, cosmonauts could not last long in space, in cramped confines of spacecraft. When they came back after a couple of days they were near death (infarction). Whereas NASA astronauts emerge from allegedly weeks long mission with big smiles!
However Russia has never called out NASA on it's obvious fakes despite the obvious discrepancies such as above. There is an agreement in place. But who knows when that might break down.
As to China, they have clearly done fakes, but then they also produced lunar rover pictures that showed a brown surface which were probably real. Maybe that was a message to USA?
So did Russia ever start with faking things as well? You said the early ones were valuable...well, what made them switch then?
I think Russia didn't do fakes since America was far superior in producing special effects in cinema and photography and had more money. NASA's fakes were convincing enough that they still convince most to this day.
Think about it like this: compare films from the time; a good comparison is "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Solaris" - both excellent space films, but the effects in 2001 are far more ingenious and convincing than those in the Russian film "Solaris". US military already had a fully equipped movie studio in Laurel Canyon for producing all kinds of propaganda; some say it was better equipped than even the top Hollywood studios.
I don't think Russia switched particularly; the venus missions are from the 80's for example. NASA's success probably put them off funding much real space exploration stuff, that was already going to be expensive, boring, and essentially unimpressive compared with America's elaborate fakery.
It was not always that way. May be you don't know, but there was a Soviet movie "Planet of storms" (Планета бурь) filmed in 1961 by Pavel Klushantsev. Interesting, that it was about joint USSR and US expedition to Venus. Venus was pictured as habitable planet with flora and fauna. I think it is not a problem to find that movie on the net with English subtitles or dubbing. The level of effects is near StarTrek Original series filmed 5 years later. If you like scifi, spend some time to watch it, it is really a milestone in scifi movies. It was even counterfeited and cutted, with removing everything that resemble USSR, even names in credits was changed to English-like ones, by some US studio and sold in US as "Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet" in 1965. :) Stanley Kubrick and George Lucas was aware of Soviet movie and tried to connect with Klushaktsev. Robert Skotak (special effects in Terminator 2) meet with Klushantsev in 1992.
So, initially USSR was a leader in space scifi, but things quickly changed in magic 1970, and there was no any noticeable scifi movies in USSR since then.
Also interesting, that few scientists participate in developing movie, including designing Venus surface. Scientists in USSR really believe that Venus potentially could be habitable. That is why USSR spend a lot of effort and money to explore Venus with Venera probes. Also it could be a reason to abandon lunar exploration in spite of Lunokhod missions success. Why spend money for lifeless Moon and Mars if there is potentially habitable Venus? However, future Venera missions show that Venus is far from habitable. Venera program was cutted. With USSR destruction Russian space industry switched to commercial and international projects with visible revenue.
As for all that questions about fake space exploration, really it does not matter at all. Technology definitely developed to the level when it is possible. It is possible to send probes to other planets, men on the Moon, drive robotic rovers on Mars and pick some mud from asteroids. But it is expensive and gives a little profit.
I dunno, seems a bit much that they would conclude it would be "boring"...I would say any pictures of another planet are valuable.
But all in all I'm still skeptical that ANY of these pictures (from Mars or Venus) are from the actual surface of that planet.
Side note: The Lookout at Laurel Canyon is now owned by Jared Leto, who likely is a cult-running Satanist. One of my siblings was in a 30 Seconds to Mars video. Weird world, man.