The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: eric bloedow on November 09, 2007, 01:11:07 PM
-
ok, since anyone can go to Cape Canaveral and watch, there's no doubt that the shuttle actually takes off and goes somewhere. so let's examine what the news said last week:
RE belief: the shuttle flew into space, met the space station, repaired the solar panels, then came down and landed, just as NASA says.
FE belief: the shuttle did NOT really go into space, it landed on earth, SOMEHOW* without anyone on the ground noticing, NASA SOMEHOW* faked all the pictures from the space station, especially the ones with earth in the background, then the shuttle SOMEHOW* got back into the air without anyone on the ground noticing, then made it's public landing.
*: if you asked any FEer to define these "somehows" they would say something like: "we have no explanation, we may never have an explanation, BUT it must work that way just because WE say it does, reguardless of proof or fact or logic or..." etc.
frankly, the shuttle would have to be able to everything the ship in "Star Trek 4" does in order to avoid being spotted by people on the ground!
-
still no comments?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Space_shuttle_goose_bay.jpg
-
I've seen three shuttle launches. Sadly, none did anything to prove the shape of the earth.
still no comments?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Space_shuttle_goose_bay.jpg
So that's how they get it back into the air...
-
ok, since anyone can go to Cape Canaveral and watch, there's no doubt that the shuttle actually takes off and goes somewhere. so let's examine what the news said last week:
RE belief: the shuttle flew into space, met the space station, repaired the solar panels, then came down and landed, just as NASA says.
FE belief: the shuttle did NOT really go into space, it landed on earth, SOMEHOW* without anyone on the ground noticing, NASA SOMEHOW* faked all the pictures from the space station, especially the ones with earth in the background, then the shuttle SOMEHOW* got back into the air without anyone on the ground noticing, then made it's public landing.
*: if you asked any FEer to define these "somehows" they would say something like: "we have no explanation, we may never have an explanation, BUT it must work that way just because WE say it does, reguardless of proof or fact or logic or..." etc.
frankly, the shuttle would have to be able to everything the ship in "Star Trek 4" does in order to avoid being spotted by people on the ground!
What are you talking about? NASA did went to space. This thread is useless.
-
ok, since anyone can go to Cape Canaveral and watch, there's no doubt that the shuttle actually takes off and goes somewhere. so let's examine what the news said last week:
RE belief: the shuttle flew into space, met the space station, repaired the solar panels, then came down and landed, just as NASA says.
FE belief: the shuttle did NOT really go into space, it landed on earth, SOMEHOW* without anyone on the ground noticing, NASA SOMEHOW* faked all the pictures from the space station, especially the ones with earth in the background, then the shuttle SOMEHOW* got back into the air without anyone on the ground noticing, then made it's public landing.
*: if you asked any FEer to define these "somehows" they would say something like: "we have no explanation, we may never have an explanation, BUT it must work that way just because WE say it does, reguardless of proof or fact or logic or..." etc.
frankly, the shuttle would have to be able to everything the ship in "Star Trek 4" does in order to avoid being spotted by people on the ground!
LOL, you do realise that removing your *SOMEHOW* comments and replacing them in certain places in the RE explanation reverses the argument completely.
-
LOL, you do realise that removing your *SOMEHOW* comments and replacing them in certain places in the RE explanation reverses the argument completely.
Not to put too fine a point on it... but what the heck does that have to do with it - for either argument?
(Seriously... if I completely alter anyone's argument by exchanging any statements, or inserting / deleting information into it... then the argument becomes moot and nothing more than finger pointing. ??)
-
I've seen three shuttle launches. Sadly, none did anything to prove the shape of the earth.
He's merely saying that NASA is in fact real, and there are people on this earth who can fly out into space and take pictures of what our planet looks like. Whether you believe they're fake or not is entirely your decision.
-
Who said NASA was not real?
-
Who said anything about the shape of the earth?
-
frankly, the shuttle would have to be able to everything the ship in "Star Trek 4" does in order to avoid being spotted by people on the ground!
Hehe, I love The Voyage Home!
Pavel Chekov: Hello, we are looking for the naval base in Alameda. It's where they keep the nuclear wessels.
[Uhura and Chekov look at each another]
Pavel Chekov: Nu-clee-ar wessels.
-
I've seen three shuttle launches. Sadly, none did anything to prove the shape of the earth.
still no comments?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Space_shuttle_goose_bay.jpg
So that's how they get it back into the air...
This is a typical FE response, instead of actually providing an answer to the question they come back with an answer to something else. He wasn't talking about the shape of the Earth, simply would like to know if there is no spaceflight possible and NASA fakes everything what the hell happens to the shuttle after it takes off. Simple question. Of course there is no FE answer to this, we all know where it goes, an orbit around Earth.
-
yes, all FErs think ALL space travel is a hoax, and ALL photos from NASA are fakes. i was trying to show how silly this belief is.
I believe NASA is telling the truth.
-
but it's purely a faith thing in that case. You can't prove it to be true, yet you believe it is.
-
Who said anything about the shape of the earth?
LOL...clearly no one. ::)
*: if you asked any FEer to define these "somehows" they would say something like: "we have no explanation, we may never have an explanation, BUT it must work that way just because WE say it does, reguardless of proof or fact or logic or..." etc.
frankly, the shuttle would have to be able to everything the ship in "Star Trek 4" does in order to avoid being spotted by people on the ground!
Straw man. They would say nothing of the sort, except that it's unknown. It must work that way (since you want to use that word), if the Earth is indeed flat. If it is flat, the space shuttle launches upwards, and eventually lands somewhere devoid of human observation. I'm not sure at what altitude the shuttle would be inperceptible to the human eye, but there are plenty of places in the world that can be utilized.
Now as for watching the launch with a telescope, that would bring in a variety of other variables and consequences, but none are outside the realm of possibility.
-
and FErs believe all space travel to be false, yet have NO explanations for how it COULD be falsified.
and it IS possible for someone on a fast airplane to keep the shuttle in sight all the way into orbit. in fact NASA is REQUIRED to do so! but of course, FErs INSIST that all of NASA is in on their theoretical "conspiriacy" which they also have no proof of.
one FEer said it flies "in a random direction to avoid the cameras". WRONG. it always flies DUE EAST, OVER THE OCEAN!
so if it did circle back, ANYONE on the ENTIRE east coast could see it, use a camera to take a picture, and post it on the internet for EVERYONE TO SEE!
the FACT that this has never happened certainly makes their "conspiracy theory" sound silly. unless, of course, the conspiracy controlled the entire internet...including this website?!
-
Eric Bloedow,
Does your cap lock, like a gearshift lever, have an automatic transmission? I'm curious.
-
the FACT that this has never happened certainly makes their "conspiracy theory" sound silly. unless, of course, the conspiracy controlled the entire internet...including this website?!
:o
He's on to us! ABORT! ABORT!
-
RE belief: the shuttle flew into space, met the space station, repaired the solar panels, then came down and landed, just as NASA says.
Okay, basically your telling me that the shuttle SOMEHOW* flew into space, met the space station that magically floats in the air, then SOMEHOW* repaired these supposed solar panels, then SOMEHOW* came down through the atmosphere without burning, and SOMEHOW* landed safely from that height, as NASA claims.
*: Somehows are things which don't really make sense in reality because I don't understand them fully.
~D-Draw
-
RE belief: the shuttle flew into space, met the space station, repaired the solar panels, then came down and landed, just as NASA says.
Okay, basically your telling me that the shuttle SOMEHOW* flew into space, met the space station that magically floats in the air, then SOMEHOW* repaired these supposed solar panels, then SOMEHOW* came down through the atmosphere without burning, and SOMEHOW* landed safely from that height, as NASA claims.
*: Somehows are things which don't really make sense in reality because I don't understand them fully.
~D-Draw
Well, think about a large missile right? They can travel long distances, much farther than either theories edge of the atmosphere. Many of them work by actually traveling at a high arc already.
So... just think of the space shuttle as having two gigantic missile engines on it (minus the warheads on the end :) ) that it detaches from once it gets to a certain altitude.
As far as the space station magically hanging in the air. I won't argue that point because I have seen it argued here many times before and I realize I won't change your mind about that because orbit requires a round earth model with rotation to work.
That aside, the space shuttle is like any other man-made or natural artifact coming through the atmosphere. Part of it DOES burn up. That's why they are so cautious about the tiles because they are there for re-entry into our atmosphere. When everything gets super hot, the layers of tiles take the brunt of the heat and in case of a harsh re-entry can even break away under extremes and the next layer starts getting hot until they finally slow down enough to cease "friction-burn" (insert preferable phrasing there).
Then, since the shuttle is still intact and has plenty of time to cool off in our regular atmosphere as it descends, it's just a matter of a good pilot and the aircraft landing where they should.
Really, other than the conflicting earth theories - The flight, exit, re-entry, and landing is not all that outlandish if you think about it. We've attained the composites and technology at this point in the game to push said object plenty high enough, and resist temperatures plenty high enough. That's about it I think.
My 2 cents is all.
C-me!
John
-
Spare me. I understand it perfectly fine.
On a completely unrelated note, look up satire.
~D-Draw
-
Satire: See my previous post. ;)
Sorry, but hey... fair is fair. I know ur smarter'n 'dat.
lol
-
Consider this possibility.
The shuttle actually never (or just barely) reaches outer space before plummeting back down hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away from the launch site, somewhere over the ocean. It's not seen because it's in some area that is deep in the middle of nothing, and the conspiracy jams any imaging that might be gotten of the area at the time of the drop, probably replacing the images received with nondescript images of the empty ocean.
That's just a hypothetical, of course, but the point is that I'm sure the conspiracy has this covered. Otherwise the truth would have been let out, right? As you can see, though, it wouldn't necessarily be that difficult.
-
Consider this possibility.
The shuttle actually never (or just barely) reaches outer space before plummeting back down hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away from the launch site, somewhere over the ocean. It's not seen because it's in some area that is deep in the middle of nothing, and the conspiracy jams any imaging that might be gotten of the area at the time of the drop, probably replacing the images received with nondescript images of the empty ocean.
That's just a hypothetical, of course, but the point is that I'm sure the conspiracy has this covered. Otherwise the truth would have been let out, right? As you can see, though, it wouldn't necessarily be that difficult.
Ok, I will grant you that - but there are lots of people (including myself) who are amateur astronomers - or heck, just people that happen to have nice telescopes that really do watch the launches ... (I wish I could get the chance to see one in person!)
So my only problem with that theory is that it would be awfully hard to pull the wool over the several hundred (being generously low here) people's eyes that literally "watched" that happen.
If telescopes and other viewing methods weren't readily available to the average consumer I would say that theory would be a solid conspiracy since the naked eye really can't tell where the shuttle is after a certain point. And of course - I am sure there are other things that I'm not thinking of that could explain away the direct observation of others as well, I'm just not thinking of them right now... someone will most likely be able to point that out to me though!
Take care,
John
-
Is it really possible to continuously watch something moving that fast with a telescope, though? I've read that satellites are hard to catch because of their size and speed relative to the viewing area. Surely the same would apply to a space shuttle rocketing into space?
-
Well that is a very good point, however the difference here is that the shuttle is on a set tangent that is readily observable while it exits our atmosphere. What I mean by that is once they have reached the edge of the atmosphere... or thereabouts, I can't say the exact altitude, I'd have to look it up, they begin to plane out to start into an orbital plane or tangent. At that point (depending on what your vantage point is) The shuttle would be going in one constant direction either to or from you and would be relatively easy to track.
Once it is in orbit though, it would be just like any other satellite - once you lost sight of it, the next time it 'came around' so to speak - it would be difficult to keep in a standard telescope as it is traveling at orbital velocity. Even the Moon will move quite rapidly across some telescopes. All depends on the power of the telescope, and whether or not it's manual.
Kind of like being on the 2nd turn of a race track... it's easy enough to watch the cars take off and get up to speed... make it around the first corner... then *zip zip zip zip!!!* they're going by so fast it's much harder to track them until they get some distance again. Same thing with watching something overhead... the more directly overhead it is, the faster it seems to be going and harder to track. As it gains some distance from you it seems to slow down and is easier to track until it disappears.
That's just the way I break it down in my mind anyway.
Take care,
John
On a personal note, as far as the shuttle is concerned: I am a HAM radio operator and have been since the 80's. I was fortunate enough to make contact with the shuttle once and have a QSL card from them! :) It was on 2m FM Voice transmission and it was pretty darn cool when I got that card in the mail some weeks later!
So there is another conundrum as far as NASA's involvement in the conspiracy... somehow they have to cover the (correction:) earth and have radio operators in timed sequence on every flight. It has been a tradition for HAM radio operators to talk with the shuttle crew on various frequencies as they fly over. One of the main ones is 2m FM Voice, they also have someone doing code (Morse code / CQ) and some form of voice transmissions on the lower frequencies as well. Not sure if it's 10 or 15 meters.
So, there's 3 simultaneous frequencies to cover, 24 hours a day, in sequence, around whatever set path works according to the flat earth model that several people around the world during every shuttle mission end up with QSL cards, having talked with someone that sounds just like the astronauts on board the shuttle.
I got mine from Owen Garriott, W5LFL - space shuttle Columbia (SK) in Dec, 1983.
-
The shuttle, the ISS and many other orbiting satellites can be seen with the naked eye if the circumstances allow(clear sky, early morning hours before the sun is up etc) These objects can also be easily seen with even a cheap telescope if one knows which way to point it. Obviously every single telescope you can buy in a hobby shop is "somehow" tricked out by NASA before they sell them to the public.
-
Doesn't seem too far-fetched to me to make a rocket ship... I mean, you can build a model rocket for $10 that goes up 1500 feet, and if you strap a few more engines on and make it a classy job you can easily get it up 10,000, sometimes 15,000 feet. With NASA's budget, you could easily go to the moon and such.
Further: The Moon-Landing-Fake people (who don't say that space travel isn't real) have some good points to make about the actual pictures and all. From what I've seen, no one has made any points about the photos from space to doubt their sincerity, just said that they COULD be fake. It'd make your argument stronger if you could point to things in the picture and say "Here. That proves its fake".
Further than that: Space race. the USSR and US were mortal enemies during the cold war, and competed through the space race. As the US/USSR periodically lagged behind the other, wouldn't it be beneficial to expose the conspiracy, prove the other a fake, and drop their morale? I think it would have slipped out.
-
[The shuttle, the ISS and many other orbiting satellites can be seen with the naked eye if the circumstances allow(clear sky, early morning hours before the sun is up etc) These objects can also be easily seen with even a cheap telescope if one knows which way to point it. ]
Agreed, however I think the question also implied the wish to be able to identify the object itself to confirm the object in question. If that was the case - you would need a good quality telescope or "gazing binoculars" (those things are getting NICE these days.) For instance, it's one thing to look up at the night sky and see a particular shiny dot moving across the sky and say "hey look! it's the ISS!" - but unless the person you're sharing the moment with knows and believes the same information you have regarding where and when the ISS should be appearing, and it correlates with this shiny dot, then what does that prove if you can't at least make out a general shape?
I'm making a mountain out of a mole-hill obviously, but I think that was my original point of intent.
Take 'er easy!
John
-
So does the Flat Earth Society believe that no space shuttles have never been in orbit around the earth?
-
Traditional orbit is not possible.
-
Traditional orbit is not possible.
Ok, that being said, what about an 'un-traditional' orbit? Could it be that the shuttle missions are real, but are in an oribtal pattern you would explain, rather than the orbital pattern many are accustomed to? I'm very interested in that.
I did read in the FAQ where it is possible to be suspended between the earth and the stars due to the pull of the celestial bodies themselves - thus negating the UA (in effect). Would you simply have to supply enough fuel (and hence, thrust of course) to get to that point and then be free to use small pulses to move about anywhere over the earth at that point? As in a true 0g type of environment.
Take care,
John
-
So what is an untraditional orbit?
-
So what is an untraditional orbit?
An orbit that could theoretically fit in with the FET
-
So what is an untraditional orbit?
An orbit that could theoretically fit in with the FET
Great fucking answer. You did not answer the guys question but just gave him some bullshit response that means absolutely nothing.
When are you going to have fun for being a loser. I'll send flowers.
-
So what is an untraditional orbit?
An orbit that could theoretically fit in with the FET
Great fucking answer. You did not answer the guys question but just gave him some bullshit response that means absolutely nothing.
When are you going to have fun for being a loser. I'll send flowers.
Are you going to troll me all over the boards? This'll be fun.
Since I was not asked the question, why should I elaborate on the answer? The answer I gave is correct, not bullshit. Just because you're too thick to understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong.
-
So what is an untraditional orbit?
An orbit that could theoretically fit in with the FET
Great fucking answer. You did not answer the guys question but just gave him some bullshit response that means absolutely nothing.
When are you going to have fun for being a loser. I'll send flowers.
Are you going to troll me all over the boards? This'll be fun.
Since I was not asked the question, why should I elaborate on the answer? The answer I gave is correct, not bullshit. Just because you're too thick to understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong.
You dont know the answer and thus why you just gave a bullshit response. And you are correct, he did not fucking ask you so shut the fuck up and stop responding to him. He would never ask an ignorant fuck like yourself to answer. Of course, you fit in here.
-
So what is an untraditional orbit?
An orbit that could theoretically fit in with the FET
Great fucking answer. You did not answer the guys question but just gave him some bullshit response that means absolutely nothing.
When are you going to have fun for being a loser. I'll send flowers.
Are you going to troll me all over the boards? This'll be fun.
Since I was not asked the question, why should I elaborate on the answer? The answer I gave is correct, not bullshit. Just because you're too thick to understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong.
You dont know the answer and thus why you just gave a bullshit response. And you are correct, he did not fucking ask you so shut the fuck up and stop responding to him. He would never ask an ignorant fuck like yourself to answer. Of course, you fit in here.
Also, dongs.
-
Ok, that being said, what about an 'un-traditional' orbit? Could it be that the shuttle missions are real, but are in an oribtal pattern you would explain, rather than the orbital pattern many are accustomed to? I'm very interested in that.
Without a gravitational field, it is not possible for an object to follow the traditional orbit. However, it may be possible to devise a way in which a space vehicle could stay suspended above the earth without expending fuel.
-
Without a gravitational field, it is not possible for an object to follow the traditional orbit.
...
Agreed.
I am interested what the "breakaway" properties would be. Seems obvious but at the same time it makes for an interesting issue of what the fine line of weightlessness would be since opposing systems are causing the area to exist - it ends up being a very finite area where the actual weightlessness occurs then of course some room for near-weightlessness surrounding it by nature of the systems as a whole before you start getting "pulled or pushed" to harshly one way or the other.
Alas, who am I to now start plotting theoretical space engines? LOL
Anyway, thanks for the input.
C-me!
John
-
ok, a related point: the moon landings happened LONG before most things for altering photographs were INVENTED!
that was also before movie makers came up with sophisticated special effects. for example, the original Star Wars came out in 1977!
and a counter-example: does anyone believe the 9/11 attack was a complete hoax, and that the towers are actually still standing? the FE belief is even sillier!
-
ok, a related point: the moon landings happened LONG before most things for altering photographs were INVENTED!
that was also before movie makers came up with sophisticated special effects. for example, the original Star Wars came out in 1977!
and a counter-example: does anyone believe the 9/11 attack was a complete hoax, and that the towers are actually still standing? the FE belief is even sillier!
Lucas hardly had nasas budget
-
ok, a related point: the moon landings happened LONG before most things for altering photographs were INVENTED!
that was also before movie makers came up with sophisticated special effects. for example, the original Star Wars came out in 1977!
and a counter-example: does anyone believe the 9/11 attack was a complete hoax, and that the towers are actually still standing? the FE belief is even sillier!
Lucas hardly had nasas budget
NASA hardly has the budget for that either with the fake launches they have been holding with civilians watching.
-
ok, a related point: the moon landings happened LONG before most things for altering photographs were INVENTED!
that was also before movie makers came up with sophisticated special effects. for example, the original Star Wars came out in 1977!
and a counter-example: does anyone believe the 9/11 attack was a complete hoax, and that the towers are actually still standing? the FE belief is even sillier!
NASA was created in 1958. Moon landing happened in 1969. Star Wars came out in 1977.
That leaves 11 years of receiving $34.78 billion for their endeavors. Star Wars was created on a budget of $11 million.
And even after that, believing that NASA couldn't create imaging software of such caliber would put forth the argument that you believe nothing in the government or NASA is classified; which is a ridiculous notion.
-
ah, the usual FE answer: "it must be faked because WE say it's faked, and anyone who says otherwise MUST be part of 'the conspiracy'."
or in other words: "i am absolutely and totally right and EVERYONE else is absolutely and totally wrong". (that's a quote from an old fantasy story, "the compleat traveler in black")
that's religious cult thinking!
there is not a GRAM of evidence of FE, but there is 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 metric TONS of evidence that earth is round.
(that's the estimated mass of earth according to a science article i found online)
Note: before coming to this website, i had NEVER heard of: shadow object, universal accellerator, ice wall, dark energy, "the conspiracy", etc.
-
there is not a GRAM of evidence of FE, but there is 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 metric TONS of evidence that earth is round.
Well, then, let's see these "5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 metric TONS" of evidence. Post them all here. If you can't, you may stop and quit the game at any time. Thank you.
-
here's one link:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question30.htm
-
I don't see any evidence in there. However, I see numbers and Newton's equation of universal gravitation. Nice try.
Anyway, I'll let you go for this. So, where's the other 5,971,999,999,999,999,999,999 metric tons of evidence?
-
... So, where's the other 5,971,999,999,999,999,999,999 metric tons of evidence?
Hehe no offence there eric... but regardless, that's pretty funny.
-
i think i said this before: FErs think ALL space travel is fake, INCLUDING the weather satellites most weathermen are using RIGHT NOW!
think about that, the next time you watch a weather report!
-
lol. You're hopeless. :D
-
try out this web page:
http://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-photo-image-viewer.htm
-
INCLUDING the weather satellites most weathermen are using RIGHT NOW!
This topic has already been discussed.
"Components of a modern weather forecasting system include:
* Data collection
* Data assimilation
* Numerical weather prediction
* Model output post-processing
* Forecast presentation to end-user
[edit] Data collection
Observations of atmospheric pressure, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, humidity, precipitation are made near the earth's surface by trained observers, automatic weather stations or buoys. The World Meteorological Organization acts to standardize the instrumentation, observing practices and timing of these observations worldwide. Stations either report hourly in METAR reports, or every six hours in SYNOP reports.
Measurements of temperature, humidity and wind above the surface are found by launching radiosondes (weather balloon). Data are usually obtained from near the surface to the middle of the stratosphere, about 30,000 m (100,000 ft). In recent years, data transmitted from commercial airplanes through the AMDAR system has also been incorporated into upper air observation, primarily in numerical models.
Increasingly, data from weather satellites are being used due to their (almost) global coverage. Although their visible light images are very useful for forecasters to see development of clouds, little of this information can be used by numerical weather prediction models. The infra-red (IR) data however can be used as it gives information on the temperature at the surface and cloud tops. Individual clouds can also be tracked from one time to the next to provide information on wind direction and strength at the clouds steering level. Polar orbiting satellites provide soundings of temperature and moisture throughout the depth of the atmosphere. Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good.
Meteorological radar provide information on precipitation location and intensity. Additionally, if doppler radar are used then wind speed and direction can be determined.[5]"
If that is really all the satellites are claimed to do, it doesn't appear that they are a complete necessity if they truly exist. Doesn't seem outlandish that it could all be done with preexisting technology and methods.
"Although their [satellites] visible light images are very useful for forecasters to see development of clouds, little of this information can be used by numerical weather prediction models."
"Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good."
They get to see clouds as they develop and it covers more area. Big whoop. Although, I suppose that just means that the capacity in which they're useful is incredibly low. It doesn't mean that they aren't useful in some way provided they exist.
You did not address my comment. Do you find that there is sufficient evidence to believe that it's plausible that the nascent technology of pseudolites (with their limited range and use) can allow the conspiracy to mimic the vast amount of useful data supposed collected from RE's weather satellites? I also fixed the bold tags for you above.
I did. I'm also not seeing this useful data that the satellite is providing.
I showed you that the "incredible amount of weather forecasting related data that satellites provide" isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's replicated by the technologies I've already mentioned.
"Although their visible light images are very useful for forecasters to see development of clouds, little of this information can be used by numerical weather prediction models." - You know, the stuff forecasts are made from.
The infra-red data gives temperature, wind speed and direction. Hey, so do radiosondes! You even bolded part of it yourself.
"Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good."
Coverage is only global because multiple satellites would be used, and as stated, it's not as accurate.
Forecasting is exactly that, forecasting. It involves prediction and computer simulations based on physics and the data collected. Do you know those images that weathermen show you of a forecast? Do you know why they only show a brief timeline into the future on the weather? Because "the errors in a forecast will inevitably grow with time due to the chaotic nature of the atmosphere."
Satellites in the end, are not required in regards to weather forecasting.
-
quote: Satellites in the end, are not required in regards to weather forecasting.
Yes, but a high speed connection isn't required to connect to the internet. A modem will do.
In fact the internet isn't necessary for worldwide network communications via landlines - Bulletin Board Systems, combined with radio until the major onset of the internet did this quite well. Just slower and without the fancy graphics.
My point being this... I can use a modem, but I'd rather have high speed since it's available.
I'd also rather have the warning times on tornadoes and hurricanes reduced by as much as 15 minutes, rather than not. Satellite imaging COMBINED with scatter and Doppler radar have reduced warning times drastically over the last few years.
Take the satellites away, and you tack at least another 10 min back onto warning times in many cases. So, in my opinion they are invaluable at this point in time in our society for a number of reasons, not just weather in fact.
Does this prove or disprove an Earth theory? I don't know... I just know what I've said. :)
Take care,
John
-
How does a present image of a hurricane change the actual data that ends up being collected and used in the prediction model? And how does that reduce times exactly?
As stated - 'Forecasting is exactly that, forecasting. It involves prediction and computer simulations based on physics and the data collected. Do you know those images that weathermen show you of a forecast? Do you know why they only show a brief timeline into the future on the weather? Because "the errors in a forecast will inevitably grow with time due to the chaotic nature of the atmosphere."'
-
my point: FErs claim that there ARE no man-made satellites, that there is NO SUCH THING as a weather satellite!
but when a weatherman shows you the "present image" of a hurricane, he is USING one of those satellites RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES!
try that website i mentioned: "satsig.net". it has CURRENT satellite pictures of the ENTIRE WORLD, updated every 10 minutes, something Tom Bishop says is IMPOSSIBLE, yet you can see it on your screen. if you know where to look, you could even see your OWN HOUSE, as it would appear from 1 mile up!
and Tom says that's fake!
-
Since satellites were brought up I'd like to discuss why you think they are unnecessary. Man-made satellites provide many services that we use in everyday life. Satellites serve a number of functions to include communications(tv, telephone, internet) observation(both of stars and the earth), GPS for navigation, weather forecasting, missile defense, and of course the ISS for scientific experimentation in 0g.
Satellites themselves prove your theory of a flat earth to be completely false. Due to curvature of the earth and distance from ground one can then determine the footprint(area of the earth the satellite can see). If the earth were flat then a distance of 23,000 miles which is the norm for a communications satellite would cover the entirety of the world. This just isn't true. In order to provide services halfway around the globe we use "double hops" or three ground stations and two satellites to transmit a signal from say Virginia to Afghanistan.
If the earth were indeed flat then everyone on earth would see the moon or the same set of stars at roughly the same time. This just isn't the case either. For example, if you were to call someone up on the opposite side of the world and have them validate what time of day or night it is then if it is opposite of your day/night cycle this inherintly proves the round shape of the earth.
Some good information on different orbits and why they are used can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#Non-Military_Satellite_Services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#Non-Military_Satellite_Services)
-
RE belief: the shuttle flew into space, met the space station, repaired the solar panels, then came down and landed, just as NASA says.
Okay, basically your telling me that the shuttle SOMEHOW* flew into space, met the space station that magically floats in the air, then SOMEHOW* repaired these supposed solar panels, then SOMEHOW* came down through the atmosphere without burning, and SOMEHOW* landed safely from that height, as NASA claims.
that's exactly what he's saying, and all of these *SOMEHOWS* can be answered with an elementary science book. you did go to elementary school, right?
-
RE belief: the shuttle flew into space, met the space station, repaired the solar panels, then came down and landed, just as NASA says.
Okay, basically your telling me that the shuttle SOMEHOW* flew into space, met the space station that magically floats in the air, then SOMEHOW* repaired these supposed solar panels, then SOMEHOW* came down through the atmosphere without burning, and SOMEHOW* landed safely from that height, as NASA claims.
that's exactly what he's saying, and all of these *SOMEHOWS* can be answered with an elementary science book. you did go to elementary school, right?
They taught rocket science at your elementary school? :o
-
try that website i mentioned: "satsig.net". it has CURRENT satellite pictures of the ENTIRE WORLD, updated every 10 minutes
Where do you come up with this stuff? Does it at least make sense in your head? Those 'satellite' photos are not updated every 10 minutes, it is more like every three years...
-
How does a present image of a hurricane change the actual data that ends up being collected and used in the prediction model? And how does that reduce times exactly?
As stated - 'Forecasting is exactly that, forecasting. It involves prediction and computer simulations based on physics and the data collected. Do you know those images that weathermen show you of a forecast? Do you know why they only show a brief timeline into the future on the weather? Because "the errors in a forecast will inevitably grow with time due to the chaotic nature of the atmosphere."'
Well it's simple really... Satellites DO offer real time imagery as far as the weather and communications satellites go. If you can see the storm forming before standard radar picks it up, you can start working on gathering more information, targeting in on the location.
Constant updating between what you are getting from satellite - especially the infra red, and combining it with what you get with ground level radar and visual information from spotters reduces the time in the end. The earlier the start you get, the more time you end up with in the end since you started gathering data sooner. That's just the simple truth. Aside from that - without the IR data you would have the gaps to fill in just like we used to without it and that wastes time.
More data - more knowledge - better results. At least in these cases.
-
If you can see the storm forming before standard radar picks it up, you can start working on gathering more information, targeting in on the location.
Before radar picks it up? How much faster do you think satellites do this?
And sorry, but seeing an image of something forming is useless to the model that requires DATA for prediction. I'm sure it looks nice though.
Constant updating between what you are getting from satellite - especially the infra red, and combining it with what you get with ground level radar and visual information from spotters reduces the time in the end. The earlier the start you get, the more time you end up with in the end since you started gathering data sooner. That's just the simple truth. Aside from that - without the IR data you would have the gaps to fill in just like we used to without it and that wastes time.
I still fail to see what data the satellite is providing that decreases time, that can't be replicated by all the stuff aforementioned (you know, the whole reason this was brought up). An image of what is happening does not constitute data used in the prediction model.
-
ah, but Tom Bishop claims that ALL satellite photos are TOTAL fakes that have NOTHING to do with what is actually happening on earth!
so if radar and satellites agree...
-
I still fail to see what data the satellite is providing that decreases time, that can't be replicated by all the stuff aforementioned (you know, the whole reason this was brought up). An image of what is happening does not constitute data used in the prediction model.
How can you say that? Observation is the first and most paramount form of data when available, especially if it precedes data known to be impending because of it.
Just think about what you are saying for a second.
No satellites: We have ground tools (radar, etc.) and spotters. What can you gather from them? Lot's of stuff to be sure, but only what people can see over their heads as far as they can see, and what your instruments report back to you on what's going on with wind directions, and probable development.
With satellites: On top of all of that, you now have overhead live imaging (there is a delay just due to distance called latency however minute, I grant you that it does exist) that gives you a picture of what the fronts are actually doing (in movement and shape) and therefore where it's best to "point" your equipment, your spotters, etc. Cuts down on time wasted scanning for naught. You can't replicate an image (not to mention other types of imaging such as IR and near IR) from that altitude giving you constant updates with any other equipment.
Sort of like aerial surveying for property lines. It's great to go through court records and go out to farms, find markers, and walk out everything on the ground, surveying your way there so to speak once on site. However, it's much easier to lay out new property divisions using an aerial photograph, then just go in knowing your survey points. Cuts way down on your time and expenses.
I hope that helps, but I'm not sure if I can explain it any better than that. Perhaps someone else can - I'm not the best at doing plain language, but I try.
Take care,
John
-
try that website i mentioned: "satsig.net". it has CURRENT satellite pictures of the ENTIRE WORLD, updated every 10 minutes
Where do you come up with this stuff? Does it at least make sense in your head? Those 'satellite' photos are not updated every 10 minutes, it is more like every three years...
-
try that website i mentioned: "satsig.net". it has CURRENT satellite pictures of the ENTIRE WORLD, updated every 10 minutes
Where do you come up with this stuff? Does it at least make sense in your head? Those 'satellite' photos are not updated every 10 minutes, it is more like every three years...
Is this in response to my post? If it is, I can assure you that although there are many topographic and geographic maps that aren't updated very often... Satellite's can and do send live information and imagery depending on their design. Think about that for a second. Satellite TV doesn't update but once every 10 years? Come on seriously... (this with the assumption satellites exist) The only reason you see several minutes delay between the snapshots meteorologists use to show you on the screen is so you can see the changes and movements rapidly.
-
No that was not in response to your post. I wanted Eric to answer the post I had made previously.
-
Ok, no problemo... kinda hard to tell in here sometimes. ;) I'm whooped. Finally settled in at the hotel. Niters all.
Take care,
John
-
No satellites: We have ground tools (radar, etc.) and spotters. What can you gather from them? Lot's of stuff to be sure, but only what people can see over their heads as far as they can see, and what your instruments report back to you on what's going on with wind directions, and probable development.
Did you read anything I pasted?
With satellites: On top of all of that, you now have overhead live imaging (there is a delay just due to distance called latency however minute, I grant you that it does exist) that gives you a picture of what the fronts are actually doing (in movement and shape) and therefore where it's best to "point" your equipment, your spotters, etc. Cuts down on time wasted scanning for naught. You can't replicate an image (not to mention other types of imaging such as IR and near IR) from that altitude giving you constant updates with any other equipment.
I'll paste this again since it seems to have been overlooked:
"Increasingly, data from weather satellites are being used due to their (almost) global coverage. Although their visible light images are very useful for forecasters to see development of clouds, little of this information can be used by numerical weather prediction models. The infra-red (IR) data however can be used as it gives information on the temperature at the surface and cloud tops. [which is replicated by other devices] Individual clouds can also be tracked from one time to the next to provide information on wind direction and strength at the clouds steering level. [Also replicated] Polar orbiting satellites provide soundings of temperature and moisture throughout the depth of the atmosphere. Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good."
The only thing that really makes the advantage for satellites is the aspect of "global coverage." Even then, if stratellites are used, this would even be rivaled.
-
sorry, i meant the Satsig WEBSITE updates every 10 minutes with CURRENT satellite photos.
i have no idea where he got that "3 years" figure!
-
sorry, i meant the Satsig WEBSITE updates every 10 minutes with CURRENT satellite photos.
What current photos?
i have no idea where he got that "3 years" figure!
Straight from Google themselves. I wish you would learn to stop talking out of your ass.
-
oh, google hasn't updated their satellite images for 3 years, therefore ALL weather satellite images are 3 years out of date? sheesh.
and remember, Tom B claims that there ARE no satellites AT ALL!
-
oh, google hasn't updated their satellite images for 3 years, therefore ALL weather satellite images are 3 years out of date? sheesh.
What are you talking about? The site you linked to does not show weather.
-
not weather reports, but it DOES show clouds!
-
oh, google hasn't updated their satellite images for 3 years, therefore ALL weather satellite images are 3 years out of date? sheesh.
What are you talking about? The site you linked to does not show weather.
-
did you even bother to look?
-
Yes I did. I didn't see any weather shown. Perhaps you can back this claim up, at least? I assume you can't back up your claim they update the pictures every 10 minutes.
-
ok, forget the 10 minutes, did you try to find your hometown on that website?
-
Yep, sure did.
-
so do you really think that the NASA mission that put the satellite that took those pictures into orbit was a HOAX, and that the satellite doesn't EXIST? because that's Tom's opinion!
-
Who said the picture came from a satellite? It sure looks like pictures I've taken of my house from my airplane.
-
and can you see the entire world from your airplane at one time?
can you, personally, produce a picture that shows more than half the earth in one picture with your plane?
-
and can you see the entire world from your airplane at one time?
can you, personally, produce a picture that shows more than half the earth in one picture with your plane?
Why should I have to do that when your 'satellites' don't do that?
-
Why should I have to do that when your 'satellites' don't do that?
Because you don't think that satellites and the pictures they do take are real...
If you did he wouldn't need to ask you now would he?
-
So why should I have to show a picture of the entire Earth, when the satellite only has to show ~140 mi^2? That's not quite fair, as I see it.
-
So why should I have to show a picture of the entire Earth, when the satellite only has to show ~140 mi^2? That's not quite fair, as I see it.
-
my point: IF earth was flat, you COULD, but since it's round, you CAN'T!
-
my point: IF earth was flat, you COULD, but since it's round, you CAN'T!
My airplane does not fly that high. However, back to the original point, the pictures of my house as seen from your 'satellites' look just like the ones I've taken from my airplane.
-
so you STILL claim that satellites don't really exist? including the ones weathermen use to show LIVE pictures of HURRICANES from above?
BTW, i get TV from Dish Network's satellites using a dish antenna on my roof. maybe you should tell THEM that satellites don't exist!
-
So, what makes those pictures only obtainable from orbit?
-
Oh god no eric now they're gonna start claiming the government has cloaks placed on the shuttles so we don't see them land or take off the second time to make the fake landing ::)
-
Oh god no eric now they're gonna start claiming the government has cloaks placed on the shuttles so we don't see them land or take off the second time to make the fake landing ::)
Why?
-
Oh god no eric now they're gonna start claiming the government has cloaks placed on the shuttles so we don't see them land or take off the second time to make the fake landing ::)
Why?
"the shuttle would have to do everything the ship in star trec 4 could"
-
"the shuttle would have to do everything the ship in star trec 4 could"
Who said that?
-
"the shuttle would have to do everything the ship in star trec 4 could"
Who said that?
Read the OP
-
Oh, Eric said it; big deal.
-
how much evidence do you have for a FE from what i have seen on here practicly zilch, aprt from some "observetions" by accliamed scitists from the 1800s. MOVE ON!! we have space travl we know the world is round accept it. i bet you love you Satalite TV at home lol in fact you probably just used a satalite to post thes comments on these stupid forums!
-
No "studies" of a flat earth have been made since the 1800's as stated above. Space travel wasn't even a concept back then! what makes you so damned sure the space programme is a conspiracy. Show me proof of it being so rather than allogations.
-
ok, let me repeat it: FErs claim the Space Shuttle does NOT actually fly into space, it actually secretly lands on earth somewhere.
but just HOW would it avoid being spotted by anyone with a camera during these "secret" landings? THAT would require a "cloaking device" like in Star Trek 4.
-
I give eric 10 days before he caves in and joins the FE cause.
-
i think he already secretly believes in FE
-
ok, let me repeat it: FErs claim the Space Shuttle does NOT actually fly into space, it actually secretly lands on earth somewhere.
but just HOW would it avoid being spotted by anyone with a camera during these "secret" landings? THAT would require a "cloaking device" like in Star Trek 4.
No, it would require a landing somewhere far away from the civilized world. For example, some undisclosed spot in the middle of the ocean. No need for a cloaking device at all! :D
-
how does it land in the water?
and then take off, climb to sufficient height and land again?
-
how does it land in the water?
and then take off, climb to sufficient height and land again?
I'm not arguing that some kind of landing platform wouldn't need to be involved. As for taking off, climbing to sufficient height, and landing again, I don't see where the problem is. Obviously the initial launch is Hollywooded up and I don't think it would take as much effort to make it appear that the shuttle is landing as you do.
-
K one more question...
what about the Colombia accident?
Surely the lives of seven astronauts were not traded just to keep the level of the conspiracy 'believable'
-
yeah, and the challenger disaster. was that a hoax?
-
Either that or it was an honest accident. No one here disputes that the shuttle actually takes off. It just either doesn't reach space or doesn't stay there for an extended period of time.
-
I give eric 10 days before he caves in and joins the FE cause.
I don't want him on my side.
-
yeah, and the challenger disaster. was that a hoax?
It was staged in Hollywood, just like how they did with World War 2.
-
Ugh! You people and WWII !!! >:(So
So, great-grandparents came home in boxes or worse yet - very small boxes to provide a hoax?
No matter how evil or deceitful you think our country is, killing thousands upon thousands of it's own people in a short span of time is not on the menu. For God's sake just stop and think about what you're saying. How many lives do you need for evidence? American lives. You don't even have to include all the hundred+ thousand other casualties.
Please tell me you're joking.
-
>:(
So I take it you're not joking. Well thanks but no thanks - I can deal with and enjoy discussing FE vs RE theories, how things could work, etc. But I'm not about to stick around while someone actually thinks WWII was a made up "Hollywood" hoax. Too many lives were lost... too many sacrifices made, all to take apart one man's dream of world domination.
It was a war that needed to be fought for sure, but the sacrifice was great. Millions of *our* lives were saved, from those that were lost.
I sincerely hope as you get older you will come to see the folly of your statements.
Feel free to comment however you like, negative or positive is fine by me since your opinion has dropped to a mere nothing in my observation.
Take care all, it was fun.
John
-
Bye! :)
-
Either that or it was an honest accident. No one here disputes that the shuttle actually takes off. It just either doesn't reach space or doesn't stay there for an extended period of time.
What about the live videos of the astronaughts reaching space from takeoff? when gravity suddenly becomes zero for them.
-
Yes, I saw the same thing in the movie "Apollo 13".
-
Yes, I saw the same thing in the movie "Apollo 13".
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH HOLY SHIT MAN! ;D ;D ;D
real comedy act aren't you ¬_¬ ::) ::)
-
ok, consider the LOGISTICAL problems of the "floating platform" theory: that is, keeping it supplied with food, fresh water, fuel for the shuttle, etc., while hiding ALL of that from EVERYONE...
even if "the conspiracy" had a secret seaport, they would still have to get all of that from the farms, refineries, etc to the seaport, which would be noticed!
and that's assuming nobody saw the fence and the "no trespassing" signs around the port and wondered who it belonged to...
-
I think you're adding way more than is necessary for the floating platform theory to work.
-
that's my point: it's too complicated to work IN REAL LIFE!
or does "the conspiracy" have alien technology, like "men in black"?
-
that's my point
No, it's not.
My point is that it's not nearly as complicated as you make it out to be.
-
ok, so how would YOU run an operation like that?
how do YOU think "the conspiracy" does it?
i'd really like to hear ANY explanation for how "the conspiracy" COULD do any of the things you are so certain it DOES do!
-
::)
-
i'm still waiting for an answer...
-
It's a conspiracy. Dumbshoe
-
It's a conspiracy. Dumbshoe
lmao
-
ok, consider the LOGISTICAL problems of the "floating platform" theory: that is, keeping it supplied with food, fresh water, fuel for the shuttle, etc., while hiding ALL of that from EVERYONE...
even if "the conspiracy" had a secret seaport, they would still have to get all of that from the farms, refineries, etc to the seaport, which would be noticed!
and that's assuming nobody saw the fence and the "no trespassing" signs around the port and wondered who it belonged to...
and that's not even considering the problems of passing airplanes or coast guard ships seeing it!
i'm still waiting for a meaningful answer: "it's a conspiracy" is just hot air!
-
If the shuttle never leaves earth then why do we see it burning up as it re enters at 17,000 mph
-
yes, that would be very hard to fake!
-
Maybe they set it on fire. ::)
-
If the shuttle never leaves earth then why do we see it burning up as it re enters at 17,000 mph
It's most likely a rock fallen from space.
-
a rock which then lands and morphs into a space shuttle? Come on, you have to do better than that, people watch it the whole way down...
-
The space shuttle is probably just a stratospheric aircraft.
-
I don't see why you think it would be hard to fake something like that.
-
then please explain to me how you would go about doing it
-
Doing what?
-
turning a rock into a space shuttle whilst people are watching
-
How would a rock turn into a space shuttle?
-
I don't see why you think it would be hard to fake something like that.
I presume he is talking about the fact that i said how impossible it would be for a rock to turn into a space shuttle (read the post above it)
-
If the shuttle never leaves earth then why do we see it burning up as it re enters at 17,000 mph
It's most likely a rock fallen from space.
Rocks leave dust and smoke trails. Silicone based ceramic tiles don't.
-
the space shuttle comes back down at 17,000 miles an hour, making a big trail of flames anyone can see from the ground.
but if it was supposedly hiding on the ground just before that, how would they get it up to 17,000 miles an hour without anyone on earth seeing or HEARING it going up?!
(rockets are VERY noisy!)
-
the space shuttle comes back down at 17,000 miles an hour, making a big trail of flames anyone can see from the ground.
but if it was supposedly hiding on the ground just before that, how would they get it up to 17,000 miles an hour without anyone on earth seeing or HEARING it going up?!
(rockets are VERY noisy!)
I read the first page and the last one... Something doesn't fit with you two arguing.
NASA did [go] to space.
-
Every one thinks moon landings, space shuttle, space travel in general etc were fake is a disgrace to the human race. There are astronauts(US and Russian) who gave their lives to space exploration.
-
Bit silly of them to give their lives for something that's fake...
*awaits the inevitable backlash from stupid people*
-
Bit silly of them to give their lives for something that's fake...
bit silly to believe in a worlds that flat
-
Bit silly of them to give their lives for something that's fake...
Bit silly to believe in a world that's round.
Don't worry, I corrected your sentence for you. No need to thank me.
-
Bit silly of them to give their lives for something that's fake...
Bit silly to believe in a world that's flat.
Jackie Chan is H-O-T!!!
Fixed. ;)
-
Every one thinks moon landings, space shuttle, space travel in general etc were fake is a disgrace to the human race. There are astronauts(US and Russian) who gave their lives to space exploration.
Take your fallacies elsewhere.
-
Every one thinks moon landings, space shuttle, space travel in general etc were fake is a disgrace to the human race. There are astronauts(US and Russian) who gave their lives to space exploration.
Take your fallacies elsewhere.
Sure thing
http://www.goingfaster.com/icarus/all_the_dead_heroes.htm (http://www.goingfaster.com/icarus/all_the_dead_heroes.htm)
-
You're all wrong! the world is cube!
(http://www.worth1000.com/entries/87000/87313WCEB_w.jpg)
-
i still haven't gotten an answer: the shuttle would have to make a second, secret takeoff before it's public landing (if it's faked). so just how would it avoid seeing people on the ground seeing it going UP?
-
i still haven't gotten an answer: the shuttle would have to make a second, secret takeoff before it's public landing (if it's faked). so just how would it avoid seeing people on the ground seeing it going UP?
You will never get a straight answer that is also sane to this. We all know why.
-
Make the wings and tail collapsible. Then make a large aircraft that resembles something like a C-10 or the like that when in flight could be easily mistaken for a standard cargo plane.
Get up to altitude way out over the ocean, some place it will be most unlikely for you to be seen at high altitude, open the bay doors and drop the sucker!!
Hey, it could happen! ;D
-
I wonder the people who aren't using this website as an intellectual exercise and believe in FE, live knowing almost everything their government is part of the conspiracy.