Satellites

In the FAQ one of the questions was how do satellites revolve around the earth and the answer was satellites don't exist and signals are just broadcasted through towers. My question is why when I look threw my telescope at certain times I can see satellites floating in outer space?

I don't know what will be their answer... I agree that we can see the ISS throught a telescope.

Run a search for "pseudolites".

I like the stratellite answer better.  The word reminds me of troglodyte.  Who doesn't like troglodytes? No one I say, no one.


EDIT:  Sorry, that was not adding anything useful to the thread.  Ummmm, satellites are an annoying thorn in the side of the flat earth theory that people constantly pick at.  If you would like to become indoctrinated in the club, you must either deny their existence or argue for weather balloons.

In the FAQ one of the questions was how do satellites revolve around the earth and the answer was satellites don't exist and signals are just broadcasted through towers. My question is why when I look threw my telescope at certain times I can see satellites floating in outer space?

 you see them because they exist and the founders of these ideas are acting like 3 year olds plugging their ears and saying no when something is blatantly in their face.

In the FAQ one of the questions was how do satellites revolve around the earth and the answer was satellites don't exist and signals are just broadcasted through towers. My question is why when I look threw my telescope at certain times I can see satellites floating in outer space?

Just exactly what do you see when you spot one of these so called satellites in your telescope?

I would bet all you see is a white dot.

Quote from: StreetMeat on March 05, 2009, 05:58:49 PM

In the FAQ one of the questions was how do satellites revolve around the earth and the answer was satellites don't exist and signals are just broadcasted through towers. My question is why when I look threw my telescope at certain times I can see satellites floating in outer space?

Just exactly what do you see when you spot one of these so called satellites in your telescope?

I would bet all you see is a white dot.

we kind of have this thing called atmosphere blocking us from clearly viewing satellites but go ahead and blurt out the same mumbo jumbo.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on March 05, 2009, 10:15:17 PM

Quote from: StreetMeat on March 05, 2009, 05:58:49 PM

In the FAQ one of the questions was how do satellites revolve around the earth and the answer was satellites don't exist and signals are just broadcasted through towers. My question is why when I look threw my telescope at certain times I can see satellites floating in outer space?

Just exactly what do you see when you spot one of these so called satellites in your telescope?

I would bet all you see is a white dot.

we kind of have this thing called atmosphere blocking us from clearly viewing satellites but go ahead and blurt out the same mumbo jumbo.

So its the atmosphere which prevents us from clearly seeing satellites?

Wow.

Run a search for "pseudolites".

Psudolites can not exist. Using triangulation you can work out their altitude. At the same time you can track them with directional antennas.

These will give you the two pieces of information by which you can work out their speed. It works out that it is many times the speed of sound (search for my calculations in these forums - I'm not going to do it again if I don't have to). The air friction caused by such speed would cause them to glow (they would be at the lower speeds of meteors entering the Atmosphere). As we do not see constant fireballs streaking across the sky where satellites are (I have used directional antenna to track satellites at night and nave not seen these fireballs at the location the satellites are).

Thus we can only conclude that they are real satellites and not Psudeolites. Also because you can track them with a directional antenna, this rules out them being ground based antennas, as a directional antenna would block out the signal form any source other than one that originates in the direction the antenna is pointed.

The only conclusion left is that Satellites are real, and this means that FET can not be correct and that RET must be correct.

BTW: Directional Antennas are not that expensive. Good quality ones are, but you don't have to have ones that are the best on the market to do this.

I like the stratellite answer better.  The word reminds me of troglodyte.  Who doesn't like troglodytes? No one I say, no one.


EDIT:  Sorry, that was not adding anything useful to the thread.  Ummmm, satellites are an annoying thorn in the side of the flat earth theory that people constantly pick at.  If you would like to become indoctrinated in the club, you must either deny their existence or argue for weather balloons.

Yes, because of the reasons that I have stated above. Psudolites/Stratelites do exist, but they can not account for the Satellites that do exist.

Who doesn't like Troglodytes. I like them, Chimpanzees are very cool (fyi: Their scientific name is Pan troglodytes).

And and some more on Troglodytes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troglodyte

Also consider that if these "pseudollites," or stratellites were in our atmosphere they would burn up because of how freaking fast they are moving. Someone in another thread around here worked it out to like Mach 36 or something like that.

Also consider that if these "pseudollites," or stratellites were in our atmosphere they would burn up because of how freaking fast they are moving. Someone in another thread around here worked it out to like Mach 36 or something like that.

Mach 36 is more like escape velocity.  Orbital velocity is around mach 20-25.

Quote from: Ambassadork on March 06, 2009, 06:27:17 PM

Also consider that if these "pseudollites," or stratellites were in our atmosphere they would burn up because of how freaking fast they are moving. Someone in another thread around here worked it out to like Mach 36 or something like that.

Mach 36 is more like escape velocity.  Orbital velocity is around mach 20-25.

Mach is a moot point in this theoretical orbit isn't it?

Quote from: markjo on March 06, 2009, 07:49:10 PM

Quote from: Ambassadork on March 06, 2009, 06:27:17 PM

Also consider that if these "pseudollites," or stratellites were in our atmosphere they would burn up because of how freaking fast they are moving. Someone in another thread around here worked it out to like Mach 36 or something like that.

Mach 36 is more like escape velocity.  Orbital velocity is around mach 20-25.

Mach is a moot point in this theoretical orbit isn't it?

Yep. Good catch.

The point I was trying to make is that these objects are observed moving much faster than should be possible in the atmosphere without burning up.

Remember, the distances are different.

Remember, the distances are different.

If the satellites were closer to the Earth (contained within the Earth's atmosphere) that what we're told they are, then the calculated speed would be higher the closer the satellites (stratallites) are to the Earth's surface.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on March 07, 2009, 09:06:49 AM

Remember, the distances are different.

If the satellites were closer to the Earth (contained within the Earth's atmosphere) that what we're told they are, then the calculated speed would be higher the closer the satellites (stratallites) are to the Earth's surface.

You're assuming that they are where we're told they are.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 07, 2009, 10:19:58 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on March 07, 2009, 09:06:49 AM

Remember, the distances are different.

If the satellites were closer to the Earth (contained within the Earth's atmosphere) that what we're told they are, then the calculated speed would be higher the closer the satellites (stratallites) are to the Earth's surface.

You're assuming that they are where we're told they are.

Okay, I got that backwards, based on observed data, if satellites were closer than we're told, they would be moving slower, I don't know why I assumed they'd be going faster.  Although if we observe the ISS and assume it's 350km up (that's where we're told it is), we can calculate based on the height we're given and the amount of time it takes to travel across the sky, that it's traveling at roughly 28,000km/h.  Tom, you're more than welcome to make your own observations and calculations and let us know how fast you find it's traveling.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/tracking/  There's a website where you can find out where the ISS is at any given time.  I've used it before to look at the station, and I've confirmed what I saw as the ISS with binoculars, as I could easily make out its modular shape.  Let us know when you've made your calculations.

Nobody's going to tell me how fast they calculate the ISS to be travelling?

Nobody's going to tell me how fast they calculate the ISS to be travelling?

Average speed:    27,743.8 km/h (17,239.2 mph, 7706.6 m/s)

Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 13, 2009, 04:06:37 PM

Nobody's going to tell me how fast they calculate the ISS to be travelling?

Average speed:    27,743.8 km/h (17,239.2 mph, 7706.6 m/s)

Sorry Sven. Right answer to the the wrong question. The poster wants to know the speed of ISS under FET, which by necessity must vary from the RET model. Of course, since the ISS transits the Sun, it must be flying so low that its speed across the sky must be "changed" to compensate.

Quote from: svenanders on March 13, 2009, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 13, 2009, 04:06:37 PM

Nobody's going to tell me how fast they calculate the ISS to be travelling?

Average speed:    27,743.8 km/h (17,239.2 mph, 7706.6 m/s)

Sorry Sven. Right answer to the the wrong question. The poster wants to know the speed of ISS under FET, which by necessity must vary from the RET model. Of course, since the ISS transits the Sun, it must be flying so low that its speed across the sky must be "changed" to compensate.

That's what I was getting at.  And I used the ISS specifically because it can be easily identified with an average pair of binoculars.

Quote from: StreetMeat on March 05, 2009, 05:58:49 PM

In the FAQ one of the questions was how do satellites revolve around the earth and the answer was satellites don't exist and signals are just broadcasted through towers. My question is why when I look threw my telescope at certain times I can see satellites floating in outer space?

Just exactly what do you see when you spot one of these so called satellites in your telescope?

I would bet all you see is a white dot.

Are you saying that when you, personally use a telescope to look into the night sky and point it in the direction of a satellite, you only see a white dot?

Maybe a better telescope is on the cards for you?

I spent a small $860 on my set up, and with it, I can see very clearly the makings of the ISS. All I do is go to the page that tells me where the ISS is to be located, I point my telescope in that direction, and there it is. It is NOT a white dot, It is very visibly a satellite, orbiting the earth many high...

There are hundreds upon hundreds (including my own that I posted on a certain web page) of video footage 'through a telescope' that show the ISS, there are photos 'through a telescope' that show the ISS. And if you think that all you can see is a white dot, buy your self something better then binoculars.

It is just too obvious that you have not done your own search and research.

At least a conspiracy like "Forbidden Archeology" can provide its own facts and evidence. They don't just sit around doing nothing. They show their evidence and reasoning. They even provide a realistic theory that is basically full proof that they can use against their enemies in any debate.

But you guys don't even hold ONE PIECE of evidence for your outlandish claim. (except for ROBOTHAM, as some of you may claim. but the most important thing is, His experiments where peer reviewed and falsified, so his work is not a valid scientific argument for a flat earth)

Man, your Flat Earth Theory is not even a theory!

When I looked into a dictionary for the definition of THEORY, this is what I got:

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ..."


I just highlighted the important part, for you people who like to skim through posts without reading everything...

So please, find another way to name your society. Because it is not a THEORY, it is far from it.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 07, 2009, 10:19:58 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on March 07, 2009, 09:06:49 AM

Remember, the distances are different.

If the satellites were closer to the Earth (contained within the Earth's atmosphere) that what we're told they are, then the calculated speed would be higher the closer the satellites (stratallites) are to the Earth's surface.

You're assuming that they are where we're told they are.

Actually, it makes no difference as to the distance from the observer to the "Satellite" on a FE. As we know the time it takes for a Satellite, like the ISS to make one orbit, then we can work out the distance it has to travel.

If the Earth is flat, this distance is the same as if tit was 5 mile up or 5,000 miles up. So the distance to the Satellite is irrelevant for a FE. It is only relevant for a Round Earth.

ISS orbit time: ~90 minutes
Distance around the FE Equator: ~156,451

Speed of ISS of a FE: ~104,300 miles per hour 

It has to be that fast to make it around the equatorial distance in that time.

However, if you track it, then you will find that it is not moving due East/West, but at a rough angle. In other words, for the ISS to exist on a FE, it must be making a Zig Zag Pattern which would not only increase the distance but require it to accelerate and decelerate all the time (however, on a RE, this is explained by having the orbit not precisely an equatorial orbit and the Earth being round).

As the ISS is not the only satellite to have a similar orbit time or distance, then you can pick whatever one you like to make actual observations on.

Also, as we know the speed of the ISS, and we can track it across the visible sky (with our eyes even) and time it (it is around 10 minutes), we can actually work out its height compared to us (it takes some fairly complicated geometry, but I'll leave that for you to do as it is not important for this rebuttal).

the fact is, any "satellite" that exists on a FE has to move a certain distance in a certain time regardless of its height or there actually being an observer. Using this we can work out how fast it has to travel, and this is so fast that it exceeds, many many times, the speed of sound. Not only that, if we factor in the amount of heat generated by friction with the air, then it should burn up any material in seconds (you can track it for longer than a few seconds, and don't see it as a fiery trail through the atmosphere). This means that Psudolites or Stratelites  can not explain what we call Satellites.

That only leaves Projectors, but as no projector can project a silhouette, and as observations of Satellites can be seen crossing bright objects (like the moon or sun), then we can discount projectors too.

This leaves absolutely nothing in FET to account for Satellites. That is right, nothing. THere is no way that FET has been able to explain observations of satellites.

As direct observation (that FEers can do for themselves) show that Satellites exist and are not faked, this means that NASA is not faking these and these can be confirmed to exist. As nothing in FE can account for them, and RE can, this mean that RET is a better theory than FET and so one can no longer state that FET is a default because there are things that can not exist if FET is true (ie Satellites).

Now, of course, this does not prove that RET is true, it just means that the current FET HAS to be wrong about NASA faking Satellites.

Therefore: Satellites do exist, that Sustained Space flight is possible and NASA is not as suspect as before (yes they could still be faking stuf, but it seems less likely now).

The ISS is an advanced projection in the sky by NASA.

How advanced does a projection have to be to disappear behind a cloud for one observer, but still be completely visible to another observer 2 towns over at the exact same time?  Possibly at the same time, it could be transiting the moon for yet a 3rd observer.  What sort of technology is this, and why hasn't this technology been even remotely seen in industries such as movies or advertising?  I could see big names like Coke, or Microsoft using this to mass market a new product globally.

The ISS is an advanced projection in the sky by NASA.

Do you have an evidence of your outlandish claim? Can you answer straightforward questions about your claim? Onto what is NASA projecting? How does NASA manage to provide a projection for one observer as RET predicts without another observer seeing the projection other than RET predicts for him? Where does NASA get the energy for these projections? Where is the origin of these projections? Why can't you trace the projection back to the origin and expose the Conspiracy?

You can find projectors capable of such a feat on the free market. You just need to know where to look.

You can find projectors capable of such a feat on the free market. You just need to know where to look.

I've yet to see a projector that can project a shadow on the Sun, which is what's seen when the ISS transits the Sun's disc.