Yes, the Mars helicopter is a joke.  It's estimated (by NASA of course) that Mars' atmosphere is 1% the density of earth's.  Helicopters simply could not fly under those conditions.  Nor would parachutes work (how they claim they dropped another one of these onto Mars).  People have to be complete idiots to believe that parachutes and helicopters could work under those conditions.

Pictures allegely taken by these rovers have been found to match identically certain scenes from Greenland and from Devon Island.  There's actually an Arctic Lemming that was found in one picture (a small rodent that's native to Devon Island).

just by the way, is there any resource about Galileo's telescope, and that it's been exaggerated to students that he could see the moons of Jupiter sand so forth?

I can see the moons of jupiter with regular binoculars. I imagine Galileo could see much more with the quality of scope they could build back then.

Too bad the docuмent in which it was claimed that Galileo could see the moons was exposed as a forgery:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/23/galileo-manuscript-fake-university-of-michigan

Galileo's telescope was basically no more powerful than today's binoculars.

You can only see the moons of Jupiter because they're not actually the 500+ millions miles from earth that they claim it is.  It's absurd to think that you can see moons, the largest of which is a little bigger than mercury, from 500+ million miles away ... just as it's absurd to claim that starts could be visible (from Hubble) from 28 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AWAY, or from 4,000 light years away with the naked eye.  It's preposterous.  Even the largest "start" at those distances would shrink to nothingness.  Not to mention that the inverse square law of light's brightness would absolutely eliminate the ability of a light to be seen at those distances.

These are lights in the firmament, much closer than modern "science" claim.

Do you have any math to back it up? What is absurd is subjective. The math proving the size of the moons around jupiter as seen through 16x magnification from their nasa advertised size and distance is objective.

just by the way, is there any resource about Galileo's telescope, and that it's been exaggerated to students that he could see the moons of Jupiter sand so forth?

The 4 big moons of Jupiter are actually very easy to see and track with a small telescope or binoculars, even a poorly made one. I've seen 3-4 of them many times in small binoculars and a range of small telescopes ranging from 30mm-150mm diameters. Galileo's telescopes supposedly had objective (main) lens sizes ranging from about 20-50mm in diameter. As Ladislaus said, this is comparable to a typical medium-sized binoculars (7x50mm or 10x50mm), which have objective lenses of 50 mm diameter. On paper at least, if these specifications are true, the telescopes could visualize the 4 biggest moons, with the larger ones doing a better job of it than the smaller ones. I'd be interested though to hear if there is evidence to the contrary regarding Galileo's scope specifications.

Of course whether Galileo actually saw them or not is a separate question. It is certain that at least one of the "acclaimed" docuмents that was supposed to docuмent Galileo's discovery of the moon movements was a fraud (the one housed at University of Michigan). However, can it be proved that this was the only docuмent supposedly by Galileo that docuмented the moons? Are there any other docuмents proven to be really written by Galileo which docuмented the moons? If the Michigan State docuмent was in fact the only one, at the very least there is no written proof he ever saw them. 

Whatever they are made of, Jupiter's moons are very active and interesting to watch. They do move to different sides of Jupiter from night to night.  I once saw one of them gradually disappear behind Jupiter itself while watching at high power (200x) with the larger 150mm telescope. And at higher power, they do look different from stars; they resolve into tiny circles or discs.

Even at 1000x larger, the size and shape of Proxima Centauri would not be visible. Perhaps at 10,000 times magnification.

cf.

Investigation into the Saturn V velocity and its ability to place the stated payload into lunar orbit S. G. Pokrovsky, Ph.D Candidate of Technical Sciences General Director of scientific-manufacturing enterprise Project-D-MSK

https://www.aulis.com/PDF/Pokrovsky1.pdf

The Moon has a celestial velocity in a celestial sphere that is of another few orders of magnitude beyond rockets. Von Braun wrote in some journal entries that NASA cannot get to the Moon with rocket technology. An operation to fly to the Moon is simply out of the production scale of ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA and all the governments on Earth including the communist Chinese.

Having no hard science knowledge I once started a thread asking moon landing hoax proponents on CathInfo to try to convince me that the moon landings were fake. They did such a poor job of convincing me, and were nasty to me as well (especially the twerp NeilObstat), that I summed up the thread:

https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/moon-landings-no-hard-science-knowledge/

In re-reviewing this thread it's clear to me that moon hoaxers should admit that they're speculating. I don't see any information they have that should lead them to know the moon landings didn't happen.

I like astronaut Charlie Dukes question, when he was asked about what he thinks of moon landing hoax proponents (who also propose that we've never sent a man near the moon): "If we faked it why did we fake it 9 times?"

Great question.

I quite like some of the people who think the earth is flat and that the moon landings were faked. But I don't buy what they're selling. I hope these people are merely deluded and don't have malicious reasons for promoting such stuff.