5 Reasons that Satellites are Stupid

1. One-ton machines traveling 10x the speed of a bullet 20,000 miles up staying in orbit with bursts of air.



2. All the pictures of Satellites on Google images are fake.

http://images.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=satellites

3. It makes no sense to bounce a signal off a moving object to determine the location of a stationary target. The first iphones used Cellphone Tower Triangulation for GPS and NOT satellites.

4. A look at the Highest Altitude Records shows humans have only managed to get about 120,000 feet up. Don't you think that is a bit odd that NASA was able to travel 220,000 miles to the moon in the 1970s using calculator technology in only 72 hours.... while no independent space program can break through the atmosphere 40+ years later?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record

5. They can't even take a real picture of earth from space. With thousands of satellites orbiting at 20,000 miles up you'd think they could provide a real picture of earth, but all the pictures in the last 40 years have been composites. They still continue to show the Apollo 17 picture as earth.

Is this really what earth looks like?



This is what they are trying to sell you:



In their dreams....



Obvious fake^^ Why can't they show a real picture of a satellite in orbit?

Here you go, a satellite picture. Not that it matters. You ask for something you know you'll instantly discredit.

Amazing that even at 347 miles altitude (for the Hubble) the horizon is flat and at eye level 

Here is a shot from a weather balloon at roughly 100,000 feet (20 miles):



Looks pretty similar to that Hubble shot if you ask me...

Here is another realistic looking Satellite photo at first glance:



But notice the horizon is also flat and at eye level. It appears to be at the same altitude as the weather balloon photos roughly 100,000 feet.

Also, does it make sense to have 2 of the same exact satellites floating so close together? LOL. The atmosphere is BIG you know.... and one of them is tilted as if they were both dropped from a plane and photographed real quick as they were falling to earth.

All three of the photos show clear curvature.

Just shorten the picture along the axis of the earth and it'll become extremely apparent.

Flat circles can appear curved no one denies that. But spherical curvature is another thing entirely. The ground... simply... does not curve... The horizon should drop the higher altitude you go. But it does not.

Flat circles can appear curved no one denies that. But spherical curvature is another thing entirely. The ground... simply... does not curve... The horizon should drop the higher altitude you go. But it does not.

So you are verifying that those three pictures are from space?

1. One-ton machines traveling 10x the speed of a bullet 20,000 miles up staying in orbit with bursts of air.

First of all, a lot of geostationary satellites are well over 1 ton.  Secondly, they stay in orbit due to their momentum.  They do minor adjustments with bursts of air.

2. All the pictures of Satellites on Google images are fake.

Incorrect and irrelevant.

3. It makes no sense to bounce a signal off a moving object to determine the location of a stationary target.

You're right, that's why GPS doesn't work that way.  GPS satellites transmit signals, not reflect them.

4. A look at the Highest Altitude Records shows humans have only managed to get about 120,000 feet up. Don't you think that is a bit odd that NASA was able to travel 220,000 miles to the moon in the 1970s using calculator technology in only 72 hours.... while no independent space program can break through the atmosphere 40+ years later?

Europe, Japan and China have sent probes to the moon and (except for China) to Mars and beyond.

5. They can't even take a real picture of earth from space. With thousands of satellites orbiting at 20,000 miles up you'd think they could provide a real picture of earth, but all the pictures in the last 40 years have been composites. They still continue to show the Apollo 17 picture as earth.

Because most imaging satellites are in low enough orbits where they can't fit the whole earth in one shot.

Is this really what earth looks like?

Pretty much.  Why, what do you think is wrong with it?

This is what they are trying to sell you:



In their dreams....



Obvious fake^^ Why can't they show a real picture of a satellite in orbit?

Because it's very expensive to send photographers up just to take pictures of satellites.  However, the shuttle did take pictures of several satellites that it visited.

3 words:
Argumentum from incredulity. Just because it sounds incredible to you, doesn't mean it is all fake.

What are you using as a reference for eye level? If it's the horizon, then you've got nothing more than a tautology.

In reality, a horizon of some datum is slightly below eye level when your eyes are above that datum. Not by much for an average human adult standing at sea level (about 0.04°), but still some. If you're about 3200 feet above sea level, the sea-level horizon is about 1° below eye level.

This is one of the errors Mr. Rowbotham makes.

Lol, I can't believe you people seriously believe that piece of junk was really floating in space....

It doesn't even look that high up... doesn't appear to be higher than 120,000 feet yet it allegedly floated at over 400 miles up.

Here is a video about it:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Doesn't look to be moving at 17,000 miles per hour to me...

Satellites in low-Earth orbit, or LEO, stay within 500 miles (800 kilometers) and travel extremely fast—17,000 miles an hour (27,400 kilometers an hour) or more—to keep from being drawn back into Earth's atmosphere. Most satellites around Earth are found in the LEO range.

source: http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/solar-system/orbital/

3 words:
Argumentum from incredulity. Just because it sounds incredible to you, doesn't mean it is all fake.

I got 6 words for you: If it walks like a duck...

It doesn't even look that high up... doesn't appear to be higher than 120,000 feet yet it allegedly floated at over 400 miles up.

It doesn't "look" that high to you. OK. So? What are you using for a reference?

Doesn't look to be moving at 17,000 miles per hour to me...

It doesn't "look" to be moving at 17,000 miles per hour to you. OK. So? What are you using for a reference?

Amazing that even at 347 miles altitude (for the Hubble) the horizon is flat and at eye level 

That's because the Hubble picture was taken by a low FOV camera.

Using your logic, this jet doesn't look like its traveling over 400 mph either. I guess jets are fake.

First of all, a lot of geostationary satellites are well over 1 ton.  Secondly, they stay in orbit due to their momentum.  They do minor adjustments with bursts of air.

Tell us sir, how these 1-ton plus machines get the momentum to go 17,000 mph?

The fastest missiles in the world with small payloads go 15,000 mph TOPS. Most of which only go about 8000 mph. So how in the world is a GIANT SPACE SHUTTLE with huge payloads going to reach those speeds?



Rockets only takeoff at a few thousand miles per hour (generous estimate) and they have us believe that they just keep getting faster and faster until the rocket just "pops" out of the atmosphere at speeds of 17,000+ mph?

Then these satellites, giant hunks of space junk with flimsy solar-panel wings, effortlessly orbit at speeds 10x that of a bullet staying in orbit with pitiful bursts of air?





It all seems so easy! Once you pop through that atmosphere of course. That's the hard part, getting 25,000 miles per hour... Good luck!



Come on folks... just admit that you are being taken as fools. I know it's hard, but Jesus is Lord and he warned you about these Vipers, children of the evil one, who are deceiving the world.

1. One-ton machines traveling 10x the speed of a bullet 20,000 miles up staying in orbit with bursts of air.

It sounds crazy so you think it must be fake, but you believe in an even crazier global conspiracy where most of the world's population stops at nothing to feel smugly superior to everyone else.  That sounds like bias to me.

2. All the pictures of Satellites on Google images are fake.

No, only most of them are fake.  Photographing satellites is really hard because if you think about it, how would you get a camera right next to a satellite to take a picture?

3. It makes no sense to bounce a signal off a moving object to determine the location of a stationary target. The first iphones used Cellphone Tower Triangulation for GPS and NOT satellites.

It actually makes perfect sense when the signal is traveling at the speed of light, which if you didn't know is really fast.  (299,792,458m/s)

4. A look at the Highest Altitude Records shows humans have only managed to get about 120,000 feet up. Don't you think that is a bit odd that NASA was able to travel 220,000 miles to the moon in the 1970s using calculator technology in only 72 hours.... while no independent space program can break through the atmosphere 40+ years later?

The answer is money, it's not like we can't go to the Moon, it's just really expensive.

5. They can't even take a real picture of earth from space. With thousands of satellites orbiting at 20,000 miles up you'd think they could provide a real picture of earth, but all the pictures in the last 40 years have been composites. They still continue to show the Apollo 17 picture as earth.

There are not a lot of pictures of Earth from a distance because there are not a lot of satellites far enough away that are equipped with visible light cameras.  If you use the right keywords you can actually find tons of photos of Earth from lower orbiting space crafts.

Obvious fake^^ Why can't they show a real picture of a satellite in orbit?

Because taking a real picture of a satellite would require sending up a satellite to go close to another satellite and take a picture, and that is not a very good use for government money.

Tell us sir, how these 1-ton plus machines get the momentum to go 17,000 mph?

Really big rockets.

The fastest missiles in the world with small payloads go 15,000 mph TOPS. Most of which only go about 8000 mph. So how in the world is a GIANT SPACE SHUTTLE with huge payloads going to reach those speeds?

They use 2 solid rocket boosters and a big orange tank full of fuel, which is more then missiles use.

Rockets only takeoff at a few thousand miles per hour (generous estimate) and they have us believe that they just keep getting faster and faster until the rocket just "pops" out of the atmosphere at speeds of 17,000+ mph?

Rockets going to orbit spend a lot of time facing horizontally to gain speed, that's how they have so much speed.

Then these satellites, giant hunks of space junk with flimsy solar-panel wings, effortlessly orbit at speeds 10x that of a bullet staying in orbit with pitiful bursts of air?

That's because there is no air resistance to slow them down.

It all seems so easy! Once you pop through that atmosphere of course. That's the hard part, getting 25,000 miles per hour... Good luck!

No, getting out of the atmosphere is easy and gaining the speed is the hard part.  Research much?

Come on folks... just admit that you are being taken as fools. I know it's hard, but Jesus is Lord and he warned you about these Vipers, children of the evil one, who are deceiving the world.

And in believing that space travel is a lie you are ignoring the real "vipers" like ISIS.

Using your logic, this jet doesn't look like its traveling over 400 mph either. I guess jets are fake.

Here is a video of a Jet reaching 75,000 miles altitude:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Skip to the 5:00 minute mark. Looks to be a similar altitude to those satellite pictures that are supposedly 400 miles up. I wonder why it's so hard for these jets to just "pop" out of the atmosphere and reach speeds of 17,000 mph plus?

Now look at the video of the satellite:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

From the 0:06 to 0:11 mark the curved horizon is OBVIOUSLY edited. Because when the camera is zoomed in the next frame 0:12 to 0:14 mark the horizon is above the satellite.

How would it be possible in the first instance to be even altitude with the satellite and much further away than in the second instance.... yet the horizon be below the satellite?

Yet in the second instance, you are closer to the satellite and higher but the horizon is above the satellite?

That is because the second instance the horizon is not edited that is why it's flat, eye level and appears to be the same altitude as weather balloons reach around 120,000 feet. But in the first instance they edited the horizon to look curved which is why it drops below the satellite.

Not to mention this obvious Photoshop in the intro:



The hue of the earth changes on the horizon where they edited the curve and also forgot to remove some clouds along the edges.



Look.... it would be easier to believe in these so-called "Satellites" if there was sufficient evidence for their existence, but everything points towards lies, cover ups and more lies. Like... why is it so easy for a 11-ton satellite to float about in space going 17,000 miles per hour but no human seems to be able to accomplish this? Only a select few people 40 years ago. Give me a break guys, look at the resources available today in computers and gyroscopic technology yet no independent space program can get even close.

Don't insult my intelligence and the Lord of Heaven.

There is no way humans flew to the moon and walked on it. NO WAY so GET OVER IT.

Look at the moon tonight and you will see it is as bright white as a light bulb. If you were standing on it you would be blinded by the light beaming off the surface. But the moon surface in the Apollo photos is dull gray because they put ashes on the ground of their studio set.

Oh look they're on the moon:



Do you really think they are there?

Quote from: iWitness on February 27, 2015, 09:04:14 AM

It doesn't even look that high up... doesn't appear to be higher than 120,000 feet yet it allegedly floated at over 400 miles up.

It doesn't "look" that high to you. OK. So? What are you using for a reference?

Quote

Doesn't look to be moving at 17,000 miles per hour to me...

It doesn't "look" to be moving at 17,000 miles per hour to you. OK. So? What are you using for a reference?

I'm using the cloud sizes, the horizon, the land masses when visible and comparing them with all the available amateur photographs from weather balloons and other high altitude shots.

It's very basic independent research principals. To be truly open minded you have to look at all the clues and put together the most logical conclusion. And if you really take a step back and look at history, you'll find that the world is full of shit and Jesus Christ really is the Lord. Amen.

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Mark 10:42:45

From the Book of Revelation:

The Scroll and the Lamb

5 Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits[a] of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll
    and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
    and with your blood you purchased for God
    persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
    and they will reign on the earth.”

11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they were saying:

“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
    to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
    and honor and glory and praise!”

13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying:

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
    be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”

14 The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

The Garden Tomb in Israel where Jesus was Laid to rest:





Are you worthy to break the scroll? I don't think so...

Better get right or get left because the Lord of Lords is coming soon.

I mean, none of the god stuff was relevant. So there's that.

Here is another realistic looking Satellite photo at first glance:



But notice the horizon is also flat and at eye level. It appears to be at the same altitude as the weather balloon photos roughly 100,000 feet.

Also, does it make sense to have 2 of the same exact satellites floating so close together? LOL. The atmosphere is BIG you know.... and one of them is tilted as if they were both dropped from a plane and photographed real quick as they were falling to earth.

You know what the most stupid part of your argument is?
It was hard to choose, but I think it's this: If the photos are all faked, why don't they look "realistic"? Surely, if they don't look like what you would see from high up above a round earth, then NASA would doctor them to look "more realistic"?
You can't both claim the photos don't look real and then also claim they are showing what the earth really looks like from altitude. It's self-contradictory.

But the biggest thing you're ignoring: if the photos aren't really from space, why is the sky black?

I mean, none of the god stuff was relevant. So there's that.

I mean... like, you're not even relevant like such as. Bro, I used to be just like you.... ignorant, close-minded and thought I had all the answers. But you don't. You don't know jack, jack.

There is a war going on for your Soul, and if you reject the Lords gift to you, then you've already lost. Because you are not worthy to stand in the presence of your creator. On the day of judgement, you will be condemned by your own words. You judge others and by your own standards you will be judged.

The Lord has given you thousands of chances to admit you're wrong and seek forgiveness. But no, you flip him off with your blasphemous avatar thinking your wickedness is not offensive to a Holy God.

Tell me, if someone robs you should they be punished? If someone lies or cheats you should they be punished? What if someone murdered a family member of yours would you seek justice?

So a Just God would be correct in punishing you for lying, stealing, hating your brothers, lusting after the flesh and denying God's one and only Son? That's what you don't  understand. You know what's wrong and do it anyway. That is why you are guilty.

Turn to Jesus and be saved. It's that simple.

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:9

Quote from: iWitness on February 26, 2015, 10:22:07 PM

Here is another realistic looking Satellite photo at first glance:



But notice the horizon is also flat and at eye level. It appears to be at the same altitude as the weather balloon photos roughly 100,000 feet.

Also, does it make sense to have 2 of the same exact satellites floating so close together? LOL. The atmosphere is BIG you know.... and one of them is tilted as if they were both dropped from a plane and photographed real quick as they were falling to earth.

You know what the most stupid part of your argument is?
It was hard to choose, but I think it's this: If the photos are all faked, why don't they look "realistic"? Surely, if they don't look like what you would see from high up above a round earth, then NASA would doctor them to look "more realistic"?
You can't both claim the photos don't look real and then also claim they are showing what the earth really looks like from altitude. It's self-contradictory.

But the biggest thing you're ignoring: if the photos aren't really from space, why is the sky black?

I never said they weren't from so-called "space"... Heck, I could jump off my roof and be in "space".

The problem is all the satellite photos are obviously Animations or computer generated or fake-looking at best. Seriously look at the Hubble photograph. REALLY look at it. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? LOL, it's just a telescope basically floating around all crooked like. Do you really think there are people on earth controlling that as it  moves 17,000 mph?

Also, the sky does appear black at low altitudes 75,000 to 100,000 feet.

I just don't think there is a whole lot of evidence that the pictures are taken at 400 miles up that's all.

They must have a hard time focusing on things going 10x the speed of a bullet LMAO

They must have a hard time focusing on things going 10x the speed of a bullet LMAO

No because it focuses on things millions of light years away, so they barely move.  I would also bet it has a the ability to take in focus shots without focusing on an individual point, but someone like Dephelis would know better than I would.

lrn2astronomy

I'm using the cloud sizes, the horizon, the land masses when visible and comparing them with all the available amateur photographs from weather balloons and other high altitude shots.

If you used math to determine this then please show us your work and if you did not use math then use math.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 27, 2015, 10:35:01 AM

I mean, none of the god stuff was relevant. So there's that.

I mean... like, you're not even relevant like such as. Bro, I used to be just like you.... ignorant, close-minded and thought I had all the answers. But you don't. You don't know jack, jack.

There is a war going on for your Soul, and if you reject the Lords gift to you, then you've already lost. Because you are not worthy to stand in the presence of your creator. On the day of judgement, you will be condemned by your own words. You judge others and by your own standards you will be judged.

The Lord has given you thousands of chances to admit you're wrong and seek forgiveness. But no, you flip him off with your blasphemous avatar thinking your wickedness is not offensive to a Holy God.

Tell me, if someone robs you should they be punished? If someone lies or cheats you should they be punished? What if someone murdered a family member of yours would you seek justice?

So a Just God would be correct in punishing you for lying, stealing, hating your brothers, lusting after the flesh and denying God's one and only Son? That's what you don't  understand. You know what's wrong and do it anyway. That is why you are guilty.

Turn to Jesus and be saved. It's that simple.

As I have previously stated, I am a Christian so proselytizing to me is pointless.

What I meant is that all that god stuff had nothing to do with the thread, and therefore irrelevant.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on February 27, 2015, 09:24:57 AM

Quote from: iWitness on February 27, 2015, 09:04:14 AM

It doesn't even look that high up... doesn't appear to be higher than 120,000 feet yet it allegedly floated at over 400 miles up.

It doesn't "look" that high to you. OK. So? What are you using for a reference?

Quote

Doesn't look to be moving at 17,000 miles per hour to me...

It doesn't "look" to be moving at 17,000 miles per hour to you. OK. So? What are you using for a reference?

I'm using the cloud sizes, the horizon, the land masses when visible and comparing them with all the available amateur photographs from weather balloons and other high altitude shots.

Land masses can be used for scale if you have identifiable landmarks, but how big are clouds? These come in a wide range of sizes. You didn't say anything about the FOV (that's Field of View) of the image. Did you forget to mention it, or did you not realize that's a vital factor in interpreting an image? I'm betting on the latter since you're constantly making rookie errors about the curvature of the horizon (which depends on both FOV and altitude).

It's very basic independent research principals.

Identifying reliable reference points is a good start, but you have to apply the principles correctly to come up with the correct conclusion.

To be truly open minded you have to look at all the clues and put together the most logical conclusion.

Yes, you do. Think about what you just said.

<snip irrelevant preaching>