The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: doyh on December 27, 2010, 11:37:08 AM
-
The title basically says it all. Why does the U.S. spend trillions through NASA to pretend we can go to space?And that doesn't include the untold billions spent bribing every member of NASA and every airline in the world. There is no good reason for it, as far as I can tell. Money clearly isn't it, nor is power. Ignorance for the sake of ignorance seems unlikely, as the knowledge that the earth is flat isn't exactly dangerous. Give me a single good reason why they might be doing it.
-
Actually, they would SAVE trillions of dollars by faking all the space missions.
-
Actually, they would SAVE trillions of dollars by faking all the space missions.
Except of course they did not fake it.
Berny
EOL
-
The government still needs to give it all that money. People would find out if they tried to falsify that.
-
Actually, they would SAVE trillions of dollars by faking all the space missions.
-
Actually, they would SAVE trillions of dollars by faking all the space missions.
Actually, they would SAVE trillions of dollars by faking all the space missions.
Except of course they did not fake it.
Berny
EOL
You know - the post you quoted did not say that the missions where faked.
Berny
EOL
-
The government still needs to give it all that money. People would find out if they tried to falsify that.
From what I've seen in the forums, it seems that it's NASA falsifying the stuff.
If you think about it, quite a lot of people think NASA falsifies information, and I'm not even talking FET here.
-
If you mean the "faked" moon missions, that was unintentionally started by a comedian whose name I cannot currently remember.
-
The government still needs to give it all that money. People would find out if they tried to falsify that.
From what I've seen in the forums, it seems that it's NASA falsifying the stuff.
If you think about it, quite a lot of people think NASA falsifies information, and I'm not even talking FET here.
What makes you think NASA is the only space agency out there? The first domestic satellite to be launched was for television broadcasts in Canada. Ooooh very conspiratorial stuff - bringing Hockey Night in Canada to the far north - IN COLOUR. Something impossible to do with microwave technology, the only other alternative.
Berny
HNIC - can I say anything else?
-
Actually, they would SAVE trillions of dollars by faking all the space missions.
How would they? You can physically go to their launches. Not once has NASA ever put people into space without it being aired or watched in some way.
-
Actually, they would SAVE trillions of dollars by faking all the space missions.
How would they? You can physically go to their launches. Not once has NASA ever put people into space without it being aired or watched in some way.
Can you physically follow them to their destinations? If you can see a plane set off, does it no longer matter whether it reached its destination, or hit a fantastically tall building?
-
Can you physically follow them to their destinations? If you can see a plane set off, does it no longer matter whether it reached its destination, or hit a fantastically tall building?
You're missing the point. They're still blowing large sums of money on large rockets that, according to FET, don't reach an orbit. I'd wager that with all the costs involved, they aren't saving a lot of money at all.
-
You're missing the point.
No, you're missing the point.
They're still blowing large sums of money
Evidence?
I'd wager that with all the costs involved, they aren't saving a lot of money at all.
What costs? The costs of making a feeble phony rocket that'll collapse the moment it leaves your sight? Using the same amount of support you did, I'd wager that you can find those lying around on scrapyards.
-
I'd wager that with all the costs involved, they aren't saving a lot of money at all.
What costs? The costs of making a feeble phony rocket that'll collapse the moment it leaves your sight? Using the same amount of support you did, I'd wager that you can find those lying around on scrapyards.
No, the costs of making a multi-billion dollar shuttle that uses one of the most volatile fuel sources in the world to reach the atmosphere, stay there for a week while pretending to be in space, and then coming back down to be used again. Also, you can watch people board them.
-
No, the costs of making a multi-billion dollar shuttle that uses one of the most volatile fuel sources in the world to reach the atmosphere, stay there for a week while pretending to be in space, and then coming back down to be used again. Also, you can watch people board them.
That's just silly. Reaching the atmoplane is available daily to everybody.
-
If you mean the "faked" moon missions, that was unintentionally started by a comedian whose name I cannot currently remember.
Not true. According to Andrew Chaikin, NASA hoax theories already existed even before the moon landing.
The first domestic satellite to be launched was for television broadcasts in Canada. Ooooh very conspiratorial stuff - bringing Hockey Night in Canada to the far north - IN COLOUR. Something impossible to do with microwave technology, the only other alternative.
Wasn't it Sputnik? And it could be done with a huge network of pseudolites?
How would they? You can physically go to their launches. Not once has NASA ever put people into space without it being aired or watched in some way.
I can physically see an airplane set off but I can't know where it will end up except by reading what's on the screen, and they could put anything they want on the screen. They also could, for example, put the word "live" over some faked launch video.
-
It doesn't matter if it reaches it's damned destination or not, it matters because these vehicles, specifically vehicles used for spaceflight, cost money. Even if they're made of the cheapest materials they can use, they still cost money. I'm betting they cost a lot of money based on the observation that they fly really high before you can't see them anymore, and because they're really big and cause lots of fire and smoke.
-
The first domestic satellite to be launched was for television broadcasts in Canada. Ooooh very conspiratorial stuff - bringing Hockey Night in Canada to the far north - IN COLOUR. Something impossible to do with microwave technology, the only other alternative.
Wasn't it Sputnik? And it could be done with a huge network of pseudolites?
He's talking about commercial satellites.
How would they? You can physically go to their launches. Not once has NASA ever put people into space without it being aired or watched in some way.
I can physically see an airplane set off but I can't know where it will end up except by reading what's on the screen, and they could put anything they want on the screen. They also could, for example, put the word "live" over some faked launch video.
Regardless, people watch the shuttles go off, people watch them land weeks later, and they are reused. Therefore, they must be hovering in the atmosphere. Think of the costs.
-
The first domestic satellite to be launched was for television broadcasts in Canada. Ooooh very conspiratorial stuff - bringing Hockey Night in Canada to the far north - IN COLOUR. Something impossible to do with microwave technology, the only other alternative.
Wasn't it Sputnik? And it could be done with a huge network of pseudolites?
He's talking about commercial satellites.
Huge network of pseudolites?! I thought we were talking about making money from a conspiracy? Having a huge array of craft capable of circling Canada's arctic continually for the past 28 years broadcasting Television, Radio, and Telecommunications virtually uninterrupted would be vastly more expensive proposition. Thats why Canada invested so much in satellite technologies on the non-military front. There is no way to span the country with huge arrays of telecommunication towers, or gosh forbid cables.
Berny
Thinks Ungoliant hasn't traveled much.
-
The first domestic satellite to be launched was for television broadcasts in Canada. Ooooh very conspiratorial stuff - bringing Hockey Night in Canada to the far north - IN COLOUR. Something impossible to do with microwave technology, the only other alternative.
Wasn't it Sputnik? And it could be done with a huge network of pseudolites?
He's talking about commercial satellites.
Huge network of pseudolites?! I thought we were talking about making money from a conspiracy? Having a huge array of craft capable of circling Canada's arctic continually for the past 28 years broadcasting Television, Radio, and Telecommunications virtually uninterrupted would be vastly more expensive proposition. Thats why Canada invested so much in satellite technologies on the non-military front. There is no way to span the country with huge arrays of telecommunication towers, or gosh forbid cables.
Berny
Thinks Ungoliant hasn't traveled much.
Do you even know what's a pseudolite? It doesn't fly.
Ungoliant
Thinks Berny needs to do some research, and stop making ridiculous signatures in every post.
-
The first domestic satellite to be launched was for television broadcasts in Canada. Ooooh very conspiratorial stuff - bringing Hockey Night in Canada to the far north - IN COLOUR. Something impossible to do with microwave technology, the only other alternative.
Wasn't it Sputnik? And it could be done with a huge network of pseudolites?
He's talking about commercial satellites.
Huge network of pseudolites?! I thought we were talking about making money from a conspiracy? Having a huge array of craft capable of circling Canada's arctic continually for the past 28 years broadcasting Television, Radio, and Telecommunications virtually uninterrupted would be vastly more expensive proposition. Thats why Canada invested so much in satellite technologies on the non-military front. There is no way to span the country with huge arrays of telecommunication towers, or gosh forbid cables.
Berny
Thinks Ungoliant hasn't traveled much.
Do you even know what's a pseudolite? It doesn't fly.
Ungoliant
Thinks Berny needs to do some research, and stop making ridiculous signatures in every post.
Do you even know what a telecommunication tower is? It doesn't fly.
Doyh
Thinks Ungoliant needs to do some research, and stop insulting the nicest guy in the forums.
-
Do you even know what a telecommunication tower is? It doesn't fly.
Yes I do.
-
So then what are you saying?
-
The real question is what you are saying.
-
So then what are you saying?
The way he wrote it, it seemed like he meant he thought pseudolites were some sort of airplane flying around Canada. My apologies if that's not the case!
-
Apology accepted. At least, assuming that that isn't what he meant.
-
Do you even know what's a pseudolite? It doesn't fly.
Ungoliant
Thinks Berny needs to do some research, and stop making ridiculous signatures in every post.
Pseudolite is a contraction of the term "pseudo-satellite," used to refer to something that is not a satellite which performs a function commonly in the domain of satellites. Pseudolites are most often small transceivers that are used to create a local, ground-based GPS alternative. The range of each transceiver's signal is dependent on the power available to the unit.
The only way for a Pseudolite to operate in Canada's far northern reaches would be by stratalites, or any other high altitude alternative. Airships would be way to visible, so the only other alternative would be a high altitude aircraft. What other alternatives do you think there are? There are none that are readibly available and even less in the 70's.
Berny
Blame Thork
-
\
The only way for a Pseudolite to operate in Canada's far northern reaches would be by stratalites, or any other high altitude alternative. Airships would be way to visible, so the only other alternative would be a high altitude aircraft. What other alternatives do you think there are? There are none that are readibly available and even less in the 70's.
Some sort of internet-like network.
-
People would be able to hack into it.
-
People would be able to hack into it.
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/managing-infosec/hack-a-satellite-while-it-is-in-orbit-15690
(http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/managing-infosec/hack-a-satellite-while-it-is-in-orbit-15690)
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-125113670.html (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-125113670.html)
-
I mean that we would have found it out b now.
-
Do you even know what a telecommunication tower is? It doesn't fly.
Do you know how much area is covered by a telecommunication tower vs. a stratellite vs. a satellite.
-
Do you even know what a telecommunication tower is? It doesn't fly.
Do you know how much area is covered by a telecommunication tower vs. a stratellite vs. a satellite.
Coverage area would depend on the shape of the earth.
-
Do you even know what a telecommunication tower is? It doesn't fly.
Do you know how much area is covered by a telecommunication tower vs. a stratellite vs. a satellite.
Coverage area would depend on the shape of the earth.
It would also depend on the height of the transmitter. Guess which would be the more significant factor.
-
Do you even know what a telecommunication tower is? It doesn't fly.
Do you know how much area is covered by a telecommunication tower vs. a stratellite vs. a satellite.
Coverage area would depend on the shape of the earth.
And since the earth is round.....
\
The only way for a Pseudolite to operate in Canada's far northern reaches would be by stratalites, or any other high altitude alternative. Airships would be way to visible, so the only other alternative would be a high altitude aircraft. What other alternatives do you think there are? There are none that are readibly available and even less in the 70's.
Some sort of internet-like network.
But how the heck do you connect the internet-like network? We use satellites right now, and towers, and network cables and -
The point is in 1970's there was no way to link Northern Canada with microwave towers - there was just too much area to cover. The used microwave towers to link Canada east-west along the heavily populated Southern border but up North and all the tiny little communities up there it was way to cost-prohibitive.
As it was 139 towers were required to span the TransCanada microwave relay.
We are talking both about technology and conspiracy - the technology in the 1970's would have required 1000's of towers to cover the area required that a single satellite could cover. This would have been evident with towers dotting all across the sub-arctic.
And Microwave towers are essentially line of sight.
There are some that can use bounce-back scatter effect but are affected by weather and many other factors. Not exactly a suitable medium for TV broadcasts.
Berny
Do you even know what's a pseudolite? It doesn't fly.
Ungoliant
Thinks Berny needs to do some research, and stop making ridiculous signatures in every post.
So Ungoliant - still haven't explained how a non-atmospheric pseudolite would provide TV coverage with the technology relatively available for the times that Satellites have provided such TV coverage, Telecommunications and Radio over a total land area of over 9 million square km.
Berny
Still writing ridiculous signatures in every post
-
It would also depend on the height of the transmitter. Guess which would be the more significant factor.
The shape of the Earth.
-
It would also depend on the height of the transmitter. Guess which would be the more significant factor.
The shape of the Earth.
Please justify this statement.
-
Stuff would be out of reach if the Earth were round.
-
So stuff wouldn't be out of reach if the earth were flat? ???
-
Less often so, indeed.
-
Since stuff is out of reach, doesn't that support the notion of an RE?
-
Quite the opposite.
-
Please elaborate.
-
Please elaborate.
Stuff is not out of reach. See: Over the Horizon Radar.
-
Please elaborate.
Stuff is not out of reach. See: Over the Horizon Radar.
Where is the vanishing point (horizon) for RADAR?
-
Please elaborate.
Stuff is not out of reach. See: Over the Horizon Radar.
Where is the vanishing point (horizon) for RADAR?
That would depend in its resolution, sensitivity, and focus.
Visual Perspective can change by looking through a telescope, remember?
-
Please elaborate.
Stuff is not out of reach. See: Over the Horizon Radar.
Where is the vanishing point (horizon) for RADAR?
Radio waves, a form of electromagnetic radiation, tend to travel in straight lines. This generally limits the detection range of radar systems to objects on their horizon due to the curvature of the Earth. For example, a radar mounted on top of a 10 m (33 ft) mast has a range to the horizon of about 13 kilometres (8.1 mi), taking into account atmospheric refraction effects. If the target is above the surface this range will be increased accordingly, so a target 10 m (33 ft) high can be detected by the same radar at 26 km (16 mi). In general it is impractical to build radar systems with line-of-sight ranges beyond a few hundred kilometers. OTH radars use various techniques to see beyond the horizon, making them particularly useful in the early warning radar role.
The most common method of constructing an OTH radar is the use of ionospheric reflection. Given certain conditions in the atmosphere, radio signals broadcast up towards the ionosphere will be reflected back towards the ground. After reflection off the atmosphere, a small amount of the signal will reflect off the ground back towards the sky, and a small proportion of that back towards the broadcaster. Only one range of frequencies regularly exhibits this behaviour: the high frequency (HF) or shortwave part of the spectrum from 3 ? 30 MHz. Given certain conditions in the atmosphere, radio signals in this frequency range will be reflected back towards the ground. The "correct" frequency to use depends on the current conditions of the atmosphere, so systems using ionospheric reflection typically employ real-time monitoring of the reception of backscattered signals to continuously adjust the frequency of the transmitted signal. Given the losses at each reflection, this "backscatter" signal is extremely small, which is one reason why OTH radars were not practical until the 1960s, when extremely low-noise amplifiers were first being designed.
Thats why Airborne Early Warning systems were much more popular - they were much more accurate.
OTH radars have recently been making something of a comeback, as the need for accurate long-range tracking becomes less important with the ending of the cold war, and less-expensive ground based radars are once again being looked at for roles such as maritime reconnaissance and drug enforcement.
Radar is another proof of the Rotundity of the earth.
Berny
Too early for quote mining.
-
So Ungoliant - still haven't explained how a non-atmospheric pseudolite would provide TV coverage with the technology relatively available for the times that Satellites have provided such TV coverage, Telecommunications and Radio over a total land area of over 9 million square km.
Berny
Still writing ridiculous signatures in every post
Berny
And still writing.
-
Airships would be way to visible, so the only other alternative would be a high altitude aircraft.
I don't think this is the case. Yehudi lights, clear envelopes. There are several ways of making a stratellite less visible.
Edit: And hundreds of weather balloons are launched daily which are not observed at altitude or reported (barring the occasional extravagant stories about UFO's).
-
Airships would be way to visible, so the only other alternative would be a high altitude aircraft.
I don't think this is the case. Yehudi lights, clear envelopes. There are several ways of making a stratellite less visible.
We are talking about the 1970's, Canada, a country not known for extravagant spending. We are trying to give a realistic approachesfrom the technology of 1970 (excluding the reality of actual satellites), of a country that did not have (and was not willing) to place mass resources into its military.
Berny
Anik 1A
-
First, a balloon is relatively cheap. Second, I'm not sure what the existence of stratellites has to do with Canadian defense spending in the 1970's.
-
First, a balloon is relatively cheap. Second, I'm not sure what the existence of stratellites has to do with Canadian defense spending in the 1970's.
We were talking about the existence of 1970's communications satellites that were used to broadcast Television, Radio, and Telecommunications to the Northern areas of Canada. Canada had the first non-military satellites launched for the express purpose of communications linkages. The distances required and the infrastructure to link those communities with Microwave technology was much to cost prohibitive. Satellite technology was the only way to go.
Now for a conspiracy of "fake" pseudolites masquerading as actual Satellites would require balloons that would be able to remain in a psuedo-geostationary orbit (or sub orbit) and continually broadcast for years. This would mean balloons with engines(more likely an airship), therefore they would have to stay much lower than the average helium weather balloon. Or planes with pseudolite type equipment. Which now crew. Pilots, operators, ground handlers, maintenance, records keepers, landing strips, etc etc etc.
This has little to do with Canada's Military.
Berny
Trying to get to the point that certain aspects are impossible for a conspiracy to cover up.
-
Now for a conspiracy of "fake" pseudolites masquerading as actual Satellites would require balloons that would be able to remain in a psuedo-geostationary orbit (or sub orbit) and continually broadcast for years.
Or a rotation of balloons requiring a much smaller "orbit" time.
This would mean balloons with engines(more likely an airship), therefore they would have to stay much lower than the average helium weather balloon.
Or balloons/airships that would "park" above the jetstream and weather replaced as necessary.
-
Weather balloons, for example, are not visible. Theiy rise until they are out of sight.
-
Now for a conspiracy of "fake" pseudolites masquerading as actual Satellites would require balloons that would be able to remain in a psuedo-geostationary orbit (or sub orbit) and continually broadcast for years.
Or a rotation of balloons requiring a much smaller "orbit" time.
This would mean balloons with engines(more likely an airship), therefore they would have to stay much lower than the average helium weather balloon.
Or balloons/airships that would "park" above the jetstream and weather replaced as necessary.
Okay - lets do this one.
Case your first one - there is no orbit time - The Anik series are geostationary. That means the balloon would have to stay in a constant spot until so it would require an airship. Powered.
Case you second Or balloons/airships that would "park" above the jetstream and weather replaced as necessary.
Counter argument.
This would mean balloons with engines(more likely an airship), therefore they would have to stay much lower than the average helium weather balloon. Or planes with pseudolite type equipment. Which now crew. Pilots, operators, ground handlers, maintenance, records keepers, landing strips, etc etc etc.
Weather balloons, for example, are not visible. Theiy rise until they are out of sight.
And come falling down in two hours.
Nor are they big enough to carry a 500 kilo receiver/transmitter. A radiosonde is about 250grams. You would need something along the lines of a Zeppelin NT to haul that equipment. Which has a ceiling under 10,000 feet.
Berny
You guys are shooting at straws - might as well claim UN Black Helicopters operating in the backyards of trigger happy survivalists.
-
Case your first one - there is no orbit time - The Anik series are geostationary. That means the balloon would have to stay in a constant spot until so it would require an airship. Powered.
Poor choice of words. Perhaps I should have said "time in orbit".
This would mean balloons with engines(more likely an airship), therefore they would have to stay much lower than the average helium weather balloon.
I'm not sure this follows. An airship with small engines could maintain station at 60,000 feet say without much difficulty.
-
And come falling down in two hours.
Source?
-
I'm not sure this follows. An airship with small engines could maintain station at 60,000 feet say without much difficulty.
Agreed. That altitude should put it nicely above the weather and some small electric motors should suffice. All the relevant technology exists; nothing ultra-innovative here at all.
-
I'm not sure this follows. An airship with small engines could maintain station at 60,000 feet say without much difficulty.
Agreed. That altitude should put it nicely above the weather and some small electric motors should suffice. All the relevant technology exists; nothing ultra-innovative here at all.
But, did all of the relevant technology exist and was the necessary infrastructure in place 30-40 years ago?
-
I'm not sure this follows. An airship with small engines could maintain station at 60,000 feet say without much difficulty.
Agreed. That altitude should put it nicely above the weather and some small electric motors should suffice. All the relevant technology exists; nothing ultra-innovative here at all.
Case your first one - there is no orbit time - The Anik series are geostationary. That means the balloon would have to stay in a constant spot until so it would require an airship. Powered.
Poor choice of words. Perhaps I should have said "time in orbit".
This would mean balloons with engines(more likely an airship), therefore they would have to stay much lower than the average helium weather balloon.
I'm not sure this follows. An airship with small engines could maintain station at 60,000 feet say without much difficulty.
An airship is unpressurized. The weight of a pressurized cabin for the crew would create an even larger airship that would far outsize that of a Zeppelin NT - and now we have multiple huge jumbo jet sized airships hovering at heights that would make them clearly visible. We're trying to make things cheaper, and less complicated.
And AnikA cost 30million at the time. A far cry from the costs of the microwave towers that spanned the country east to west.
The only reason for the Conspiracy that has ever been stated was money - and the fact is in Canada at least - Satellites are money savers.
Berny
You guys are shooting at straws still
And since I got ninja'd.
I'm not sure this follows. An airship with small engines could maintain station at 60,000 feet say without much difficulty.
Agreed. That altitude should put it nicely above the weather and some small electric motors should suffice. All the relevant technology exists; nothing ultra-innovative here at all.
We are talking about 1972......
And come falling down in two hours.
Source?
The Internet - just read up about weather balloons - they're not exactly conspiratorial stuff.
BTW - you can get a reward for returning radiosondes.
Berny
Remember the conspiracy is to prove the money to be made - not squandered on dozens of manned balloons, airfields, crew, maintenance, etc etc.
-
I came in late. Why would a crew be needed?
-
I came in late. Why would a crew be needed?
Because technology is notoriously unreliable.
-
Small electric motors, celestial navigation and R/F transmitters? Check.
An airship is unpressurized. The weight of a pressurized cabin for the crew would create an even larger airship that would far outsize that of a Zeppelin NT
There need be no crew. And even large craft can be rendered in-visible at altitude by yehudi lights.
-
I came in late. Why would a crew be needed?
Because technology is notoriously unreliable.
Maybe I should rethink the unmanned part just because an air crew would give the whole thing more dash.
-
So Ungoliant - still haven't explained how a non-atmospheric pseudolite would provide TV coverage with the technology relatively available for the times that Satellites have provided such TV coverage, Telecommunications and Radio over a total land area of over 9 million square km.
Berny
Still writing ridiculous signatures in every post
Didn't I?
Some sort of internet-like network.
-
So Ungoliant - still haven't explained how a non-atmospheric pseudolite would provide TV coverage with the technology relatively available for the times that Satellites have provided such TV coverage, Telecommunications and Radio over a total land area of over 9 million square km.
Berny
Still writing ridiculous signatures in every post
Didn't I?
Some sort of internet-like network.
Okay lets see 1972 - an internet-like network. No cables. No ground based micro-wave relay towers.....
And....
So how will these non-atmospheric pseudolite work because.....Some sort of internet-like network doesn't explain a thing.
Berny
Doesn't think you are getting the equation
-
Okay lets see 1972 - an internet-like network.
The arpanet was created in the 60s.
No cables. No ground based micro-wave relay towers.....
Who said that?
And....
So how will these non-atmospheric pseudolite work because.....Some sort of internet-like network doesn't explain a thing.
They transmit the waves from the pseudolites.
-
No cables. No ground based micro-wave relay towers.....
Who said that?
Because of the impossibility to cover that range in Northern Canada.
This is the whole point I am trying to reach. The first satellite Anik was a cost of 30million dollars in 1972. It provided coverage to all of Canada for TV, Radio, and telecommunications. The Trans-Canada (East West) micro-wave cost 50million.
It would have been much more expensive to stretch microwave towers North to all the small communities in Northern Canada with Microwave relay towers or gosh forbid cables.
Therefore the only other PLAUSIBLE possibility would be airborne systems.
And there is a huge problem with those that the above posters seem to be skimming over.
So ground based psuedolites are not even plausible.
Berny
The Arctic Territories cover more area than Western Europe - with .05 percent of the Population of Paris.
-
They built a telegraph cable across the Atlantic.
In 1858.
Also, remember that in a flat earth model, waves reach farther.
-
They built a telegraph cable across the Atlantic.
In 1858.
Also, remember that in a flat earth model, waves reach farther.
Except the world is round and the waves are restricted.
And the cable went to two major points, and then standard above ground or shorter underground cables.
5 attempts.
Working in 1866.
Does not have any explanation of communications to the tiny communities in the arctic.
We are not arguing about imagined capabilities -this is not the StarWars vs StarTrek thread. We are talking about realistic efforts for the Gov.Of.Can to span the northern communities with Radio, Television and phone services. Communities that are often reachable only by air or sea.
Everything must be done to promote Hockey Night in Canada.
Berny
You still didn't get it.
-
Except the world is round and the waves are restricted.
Petitio Principii
And the cable went to two major points, and then standard above ground or shorter underground cables.
5 attempts.
Working in 1866.
Does not have any explanation of communications to the tiny communities in the arctic.
We are not arguing about imagined capabilities -this is not the StarWars vs StarTrek thread. We are talking about realistic efforts for the Gov.Of.Can to span the northern communities with Radio, Television and phone services. Communities that are often reachable only by air or sea.
Everything must be done to promote Hockey Night in Canada.
My point is: if they can put a cable across the Atlantic in the mid 19th century, why wouldn't Canada, a hundred years later, be able to make a network across land?
Berny
You still didn't get it.
Did you?
-
My point is: if they can put a cable across the Atlantic in the mid 19th century, why wouldn't Canada, a hundred years later, be able to make a network across land?
Have you seen how much the cable company charges to install a line to people who live out in the boonies?
-
My point is: if they can put a cable across the Atlantic in the mid 19th century, why wouldn't Canada, a hundred years later, be able to make a network across land?
Have you seen how much the cable company charges to install a line to people who live out in the boonies?
The cost + the company's profit + taxes.
A government agency would have to pay only the cost (and maybe a little profit).
-
My point is: if they can put a cable across the Atlantic in the mid 19th century, why wouldn't Canada, a hundred years later, be able to make a network across land?
Have you seen how much the cable company charges to install a line to people who live out in the boonies?
The cost + the company's profit + taxes.
A government agency would have to pay only the cost (and maybe a little profit).
You think that government contractors work at (or anywhere near) cost? ???
-
Dunno. But I expect they at least get a tax break.
-
My point is: if they can put a cable across the Atlantic in the mid 19th century, why wouldn't Canada, a hundred years later, be able to make a network across land?
You know - their are communities in Canada that are not accessible to except by air? Canada had at the end of world war II the third largest navy, fourth largest airforce, fifth largest land force (without resorting to general conscription). Do you think it is even in the top 20 anymore? What Canada could do is rather irrelevant to what it really has done.
Trying to link up everything by radio, microwave, ground cable would far exceed the cost of the satellite systems.
Yes Canada - if it wanted to dump money could do it. This isn't a tiny puny country where one can practically spit across it.
Berny
You still didn't get it.
Did you?
You still didn't.
BTW
They built a telegraph cable across the Atlantic.
In 1858.
They was England and the United States. Canada just was between them - Canada had nothing to do with the telegraph.
-
You know - their are communities in Canada that are not accessible to except by air?
They are not easily accessible to except by air.
Canada had at the end of world war II the third largest navy, fourth largest airforce, fifth largest land force (without resorting to general conscription). Do you think it is even in the top 20 anymore? What Canada could do is rather irrelevant to what it really has done.
What they say they did might not be the same thing as what they actually did.
Trying to link up everything by radio, microwave, ground cable would far exceed the cost of the satellite systems.
Yes Canada - if it wanted to dump money could do it. This isn't a tiny puny country where one can practically spit across it.
Satellites are really expensive.
They was England and the United States. Canada just was between them - Canada had nothing to do with the telegraph.
Not exactly England. The British Empire more precisely, of which Canada was part of at the time, and consider that the cable ran through Newfoundland.
-
You know - their are communities in Canada that are not accessible to except by air?
They are not easily accessible to except by air.
Nope. They are not accessible - unless you include dog sled or foot. Try getting to the capitol of Nunavut.
Trying to link up everything by radio, microwave, ground cable would far exceed the cost of the satellite systems.
Yes Canada - if it wanted to dump money could do it. This isn't a tiny puny country where one can practically spit across it.
Satellites are really expensive.
AnikA cost 30 million, less expensive than the 50 million Trans Canada Microwave
Not exactly England. The British Empire more precisely, of which Canada was part of at the time, and consider that the cable ran through Newfoundland.
Canada was independent a year after the cable, and the Newfs didn't join up until 1949.
Which has little to do with Canada's fiscal resources and a supposed ability to secretly build a network with hidden microwave towers and lines through the Arctic with nobody noticing it. We are trying to stay in the realm of possibilities.
Berny
Get real.
-
We are trying to stay in the realm of possibilities.
Berny
Get real.
You're new here, aren't you?
-
We are trying to stay in the realm of possibilities.
Berny
Get real.
You're new here, aren't you?
Sometimes I feel that way.
Berny
Where's Thork?
-
Regardless of all of this, can someone give me a cost estimate for keeping a space shuttle in the air for several weeks while astronauts pretend to work on a space station and are actually feverishly destroying the necessary pieces?
-
Regardless of all of this, can someone give me a cost estimate for keeping a space shuttle in the air for several weeks while astronauts pretend to work on a space station and are actually feverishly destroying the necessary pieces?
In the air for several weeks or in orbit for several weeks? There is a difference.
-
In the air, since it can't leave the atmosphere.
-
bindun.. you might enjoy this
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44566.0
-
True, but we can't just let obvious flaws in the conspiracy fade into obscurity just because they've been said before.
-
In the air, since it can't leave the atmosphere.
You may well be able to leave the atmoplane. You simply could not maintain a "perpetual free-fall" or any such nonsense. I doubt the shuttle is airborne more than an hour. More likely, half that for launch.
-
People would witness it if they landed ahead of schedule. Furthermore, landings are also televised, so they'd need to launch again without being seen. That would be impossible.
-
It lands at a remote site, and is released from a 747 when it is time to land.
-
It lands at a remote site, and is released from a 747 when it is time to land.
Because you are stating this as though it were fact, I'm sure you have evidence...
-
Where does it land, Antarctica? And why hasn't anyone ever seen this 747 carrying a space shuttle?
-
Where does it land, Antarctica? And why hasn't anyone ever seen this 747 carrying a space shuttle?
Probably somewhere near the Azores. Perhaps Lajes or somewhere similar.
Because you are stating this as though it were fact, I'm sure you have evidence...
(http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/sts_history3.gif)
-
Prove that that is landing and not taking off.
-
It's being released from a 747 in preparation for landing.
-
I'm not taking your word for that.
-
Well, that's what NASA claims at anyrate.
(http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/ALT/10076616.jpg)
-
How does a picture of a space shuttle being flight tested prove that it lands at a remote site when everyone believes it is in space ???
-
It doesn't prove it. It is evidence for it in light of the fact sustained space flight is not possible.
-
Maybe it gets attached to a giant balloon. ;)
-
the fact sustained space flight is not possible.
[citation needed]
-
the fact sustained space flight is not possible.
[citation needed]
http://xkcd.com/285/