the space shuttle "conspiracy"

  • 150 Replies
  • 32892 Views
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2007, 03:27:52 PM »
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

?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1525
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #31 on: November 11, 2007, 05:06:56 PM »
So what is an untraditional orbit?
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #32 on: November 11, 2007, 05:12:50 PM »
So what is an untraditional orbit?

An orbit that could theoretically fit in with the FET
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #33 on: November 11, 2007, 05:38:51 PM »
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.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #34 on: November 11, 2007, 05:42:53 PM »
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.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #35 on: November 11, 2007, 05:44:40 PM »
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.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #36 on: November 11, 2007, 05:46:25 PM »
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.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #37 on: November 11, 2007, 06:45:34 PM »
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. 


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #38 on: November 11, 2007, 10:42:21 PM »
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

?

eric bloedow

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #39 on: November 12, 2007, 09:22:01 AM »
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!

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17990
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #40 on: November 12, 2007, 01:13:10 PM »
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
So long and thanks for all the fish

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #41 on: November 12, 2007, 01:22:55 PM »
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.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #42 on: November 12, 2007, 01:29:01 PM »
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.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

eric bloedow

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #43 on: November 12, 2007, 07:06:14 PM »
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.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #44 on: November 12, 2007, 07:09:43 PM »
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.

?

eric bloedow

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #45 on: November 12, 2007, 07:16:20 PM »

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #46 on: November 12, 2007, 07:21:37 PM »
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?

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #47 on: November 12, 2007, 08:25:40 PM »
... 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.

?

eric bloedow

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #48 on: November 14, 2007, 03:53:41 PM »
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!

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #49 on: November 14, 2007, 04:24:08 PM »
lol.  You're hopeless.  :D
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

eric bloedow

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #50 on: November 14, 2007, 07:45:31 PM »

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #51 on: November 14, 2007, 08:54:36 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2007, 09:07:32 PM by divito the fascist »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #52 on: November 14, 2007, 09:59:19 PM »
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

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #53 on: November 14, 2007, 10:06:34 PM »
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."'
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

eric bloedow

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #54 on: November 15, 2007, 08:06:40 AM »
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!

?

sattyman

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #55 on: November 15, 2007, 09:04:01 AM »
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
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 09:18:56 AM by sattyman »

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #56 on: November 15, 2007, 09:58:26 AM »
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?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #57 on: November 15, 2007, 11:03:25 AM »
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
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #58 on: November 15, 2007, 11:23:07 AM »
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...


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« Reply #59 on: November 15, 2007, 06:59:48 PM »
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.