satellites

  • 112 Replies
  • 23137 Views
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 05:46:54 PM by Jack »

Re: satellites
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2009, 06:33:02 AM »
It's either fake, a hologram or a balloon. Run away! Run away!

(Pretty cool for manual tracking though)

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: satellites
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2009, 09:15:19 AM »
It's either fake, a hologram or a balloon. Run away! Run away!

(Pretty cool for manual tracking though)
Well, now nobody can say this hasn't been done. They will have to revert to saying its faked. RE win!
Don't diss physics until you try it!

Re: satellites
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2009, 04:22:46 PM »
Way cool! But yeah - those will be completely hosed here as fakery  :P

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: satellites
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2009, 03:39:25 AM »
No surprise the FE'ers are staying away from this thread. Looks like another resounding win for RE!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: satellites
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2009, 03:53:21 AM »
The photographer Vandebergh works for NASA. They regularly feature his work on their website: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17mar_bigconstruction.htm

When one looks at the ISS with a high powered telescope, it actually looks much differently than depicted.

Some say that it looks like a spherical body.

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: satellites
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2009, 04:12:47 AM »
The photographer Vandebergh works for NASA. They regularly feature his work on their website: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17mar_bigconstruction.htm

When one looks at the ISS with a high powered telescope, it actually looks much differently than depicted.

Some say that it looks like a spherical body.


How do you know who took this video? Not an attack, just wondering.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: satellites
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2009, 04:41:02 AM »
The photographer Vandebergh works for NASA. They regularly feature his work on their website: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17mar_bigconstruction.htm

When one looks at the ISS with a high powered telescope, it actually looks much differently than depicted.

Some say that it looks like a spherical body.


How do you know who took this video? Not an attack, just wondering.

Because his name is all over the website in the OP.

Vandebergh isn't an amateur. The website in the OP makes it sound like he's just some guy who looked into his telescope one night and caught the ISS in action.

Do amature space photographers sell their work to big news agencies and have their media plastered all over NASA's/ESA's websites when they want to show us (prove to us) what they've been doing with our trillions of dollars we've been giving them?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2009, 04:19:28 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: satellites
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2009, 06:26:28 AM »
When one looks at the ISS with a high powered telescope, it actually looks much differently than depicted.

Some say that it looks like a spherical body.
Sounds like second-hand evidence. Why even bring it up if you haven't experienced it yourself?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: satellites
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2009, 07:55:35 AM »
Because his name is all over the website in the OP.

Vandebergh isn't an amature. The website in the OP makes it sound like he's just some guy who looked into his telescope one night and caught the ISS in action.

Do amature space photographers sell their work to big news agencies and have their media plastered all over NASA's/ESA's websites when they want to show us (prove to us) what they've been doing with our trillions of dollars we've been giving them?

Tom, amateur astronomers have made substantial contributions to astronomy, including the discovery of the Shoemaker-Levey comet that crashed into Jupiter.  Why is it so unreasonable for them to point their telescopes at the ISS from time to time? 

Also, who said that Vandebergh sold the picture and/or story to anyone?  Large news agencies often monitor smaller news agencies and blogs for interesting tidbits.

*edit*
After about 30 seconds of research, I found this about Ralph Vandebergh:
Quote from: http://astrocast.tv/blog/?tag=ralf-vandebergh
Amateur Astronomer Captures Image of Space Station
Posted by: Dr. Geller in Dr. Harold Geller, tags: amateur astronomer, ISS, Ralf Vandebergh, Space Station

NASA reported Tuesday 17 March 2009 that amateur astronomer Ralf Vandebergh of the Netherlands was able to image the International Space Station from his own backyard. You can check out the image taken by Ralf by linking to NASA’s website here. Ralf posts all his photographs taken from his backyard in the Netherlands online here. He appears to revel in the ability to take images of launch vehicles and spacecraft.

Here is the web site referred to in the quote:
http://alpo-j.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/Latest/Oplanets.htm

*edit 2*
Here is Ralf's Telescopic Spaceflight Images page:
http://ralfvandebergh.startje.be/vieuw.php?qid=328303

And here is what Linkedin has to say about Ralf (you need to join to see a full profile):
Quote from: http://nl.linkedin.com/pub/ralf-vandebergh/8/1a/121
Ralf Vandebergh
independent science journalist photographer
Eindhoven Area, Netherlands

And here is Ralf's Twitter page:  http://twitter.com/ralfvandebergh

Funny that I wasn't able to find anything that says that he works for NASA or any other space agency.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2009, 10:08:57 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: satellites
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2009, 09:36:33 AM »
The photographer Vandebergh works for NASA. They regularly feature his work on their website: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17mar_bigconstruction.htm

"Amateur astronomers can see it happen with their own eyes."

I'm always amazed how you manage to pick yourself up after every colossal fail.

When one looks at the ISS with a high powered telescope, it actually looks much differently than depicted.

Some say that it looks like a spherical body.

For kicks and giggles I'm going to ask you to provide a cite for that "cool story".

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: satellites
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2009, 04:02:24 PM »
Quote
Tom, amateur astronomers have made substantial contributions to astronomy, including the discovery of the Shoemaker-Levey comet that crashed into Jupiter.  Why is it so unreasonable for them to point their telescopes at the ISS from time to time?

It's unreasonable because the ISS is a moving object, whereas Jupiter is nearly stationary.

Have you ever tried to see a jet airplane with a high powered telescope? It's nearly impossible. At best you can see a brief blur after fiddling forever to find it.

Quote
Also, who said that Vandebergh sold the picture and/or story to anyone?  Large news agencies often monitor smaller news agencies and blogs for interesting tidbits.

News agencies don't just publish interesting pictures they find on the internet. They buy them.

Just the same, NASA doesn't go around publishing pictures which are not theirs. They pay someone for them.

Vandebergh is making business transactions with NASA at the very least, if not working for them directly as an "amateur" to keep the government in check by keeping up with the developments of NASA's/ESA's the trillion dollar ISS.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2009, 04:18:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: satellites
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2009, 04:52:05 PM »
Have you ever tried to see a jet airplane with a high powered telescope? It's nearly impossible. At best you can see a brief blur after fiddling forever to find it.
Then it's a good thing that the ISS isn't a jet airplane flying at jet altitude.  Yes, the ISS is a moving target, but more than one amateur astronomer has been able to photograph it.

News agencies don't just publish interesting pictures they find on the internet. They buy them.

Just the same, NASA doesn't go around publishing pictures which are not theirs. They pay someone for them.

Vandebergh is making business transactions with NASA at the very least, if not working for them directly as an "amateur" to keep the government in check by keeping up with the developments of NASA's/ESA's the trillion dollar ISS.

Tom, you may or may not have noticed in my second edit where I pointed out that Vandebergh is an independent science journalist photographer.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: satellites
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2009, 04:21:53 PM »
Have you ever tried to see a jet airplane with a high powered telescope? It's nearly impossible.

I think Vandebergh managed it. Take a look.

News agencies don't just publish interesting pictures they find on the internet. They buy them.

Or the photographer can give them for free. You can't really say for certain which is the case, nor can you show how it's relevant.

Quack quack.

Re: satellites
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2009, 08:52:20 PM »
Quote
Tom, amateur astronomers have made substantial contributions to astronomy, including the discovery of the Shoemaker-Levey comet that crashed into Jupiter.  Why is it so unreasonable for them to point their telescopes at the ISS from time to time?

It's unreasonable because the ISS is a moving object, whereas Jupiter is nearly stationary.

Have you ever tried to see a jet airplane with a high powered telescope? It's nearly impossible. At best you can see a brief blur after fiddling forever to find it.

I think the problem isn't that you believe in the FET, it's that your perception of RET is completely wrong.

Go stand next to the highway and look at the cars driving by. Are the ones on the opposite side of the median going faster than the ones in front of you? No, they are traveling at the same speed.

Now take pictures of them. Which car was harder to get a shot of: the close one, or the one far away?
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: satellites
« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2009, 10:49:55 PM »
Quote
Tom, amateur astronomers have made substantial contributions to astronomy, including the discovery of the Shoemaker-Levey comet that crashed into Jupiter.  Why is it so unreasonable for them to point their telescopes at the ISS from time to time?

It's unreasonable because the ISS is a moving object, whereas Jupiter is nearly stationary.

Have you ever tried to see a jet airplane with a high powered telescope? It's nearly impossible. At best you can see a brief blur after fiddling forever to find it.

I think the problem isn't that you believe in the FET, it's that your perception of RET is completely wrong.

Go stand next to the highway and look at the cars driving by. Are the ones on the opposite side of the median going faster than the ones in front of you? No, they are traveling at the same speed.

Now take pictures of them. Which car was harder to get a shot of: the close one, or the one far away?

If you're zooming in on speeding cars with a high powered telescope they would be quite hard to capture.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 02:21:18 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: satellites
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2009, 02:01:35 AM »
Tom: evidence that it was faked?

Unless you want to simply say something is true without any evidence.

Re: satellites
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2009, 04:42:34 AM »
If you're zooming in on speeding cars with a high powered telescope they would be quite hard to capture.

Not really.

Your "argument" seems to be just insisting that photographing the ISS is impossible, and then making some weak parallels that don't even stand up on their own.

Hundreds of people not connected to NASA have photographed the ISS. You need to come to terms with this fact.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: satellites
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2009, 05:36:30 AM »
Tom: evidence that it was faked?

Unless you want to simply say something is true without any evidence.

I've already provided enough evidence that Vandebergh is a shill who works for NASA.

NASA puts up his images on their website, which means that he is associated with them and receiving money at the very least.

Also, Vandebergh says in the OP:

    "According to data from the helmet cam, and calculated from the point of sunset in the video and during the pass, timing and location indicated the spacewalker as Joe Acaba working most earth-faced during these seconds of recordings."

Yeah right. As if an "amateur" had timestamps from the helmet cam. NASA doesn't release any of that to the public.

NASA actually releases very little data from its alleged spacewalks and space missions. The sole and only data they release to the public is the footage here and there which we see on TV.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 05:39:51 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: satellites
« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2009, 07:42:14 AM »
Quote
Tom, amateur astronomers have made substantial contributions to astronomy, including the discovery of the Shoemaker-Levey comet that crashed into Jupiter.  Why is it so unreasonable for them to point their telescopes at the ISS from time to time?

It's unreasonable because the ISS is a moving object, whereas Jupiter is nearly stationary.

Have you ever tried to see a jet airplane with a high powered telescope? It's nearly impossible. At best you can see a brief blur after fiddling forever to find it.

I think the problem isn't that you believe in the FET, it's that your perception of RET is completely wrong.

Go stand next to the highway and look at the cars driving by. Are the ones on the opposite side of the median going faster than the ones in front of you? No, they are traveling at the same speed.

Now take pictures of them. Which car was harder to get a shot of: the close one, or the one far away?

If you're zooming in on speeding cars with a high powered telescope they would be quite hard to capture.

I'm glad you responded. The difficulty in capturing these images depends on how far the objects are from the photographer. You would not use a high powered telescope to take a picture of a car, but even if you did, the cars that are further away would be easier to capture than the ones close to you.

This image exemplifies this well:



Notice how the cars that are further away come up much less blurry. The only way you can explain this according to your theory is that as the cars approach, they speed up. I'm not sure that you want to extend the round earth conspiracy to include everybody on Earth who drives a car. That's a tough sell.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

?

Don B

Re: satellites
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2009, 09:15:43 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
I've already provided enough evidence that Vandebergh is a shill who works for NASA.

You have done nothing of the kind. You have offered innuendo and a very weak "guilt by association" argument, but no actual evidence.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
NASA actually releases very little data from its alleged spacewalks and space missions. The sole and only data they release to the public is the footage here and there which we see on TV.

Exactly what type of data would you expect them to release?

?

Tristan

  • 180
  • Bendy Earth Proponent
Re: satellites
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2009, 09:21:27 AM »
I've already provided enough evidence that Vandebergh is a shill who works for NASA.

Wrong. NASA does not hire photographers.
http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/jobs/occupations.htm

NASA puts up his images on their website, which means that he is associated with them and receiving money at the very least.

Wrong Again. NASA will link to images, but people with linked media only get credited, not payed.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html

Also, Vandebergh says in the OP:
    "According to data from the helmet cam, and calculated from the point of sunset in the video and during the pass, timing and location indicated the spacewalker as Joe Acaba working most earth-faced during these seconds of recordings."
Yeah right. As if an "amateur" had timestamps from the helmet cam. NASA doesn't release any of that to the public.

Wrong also.
http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/info/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/208194main_News%20Media%20Access%20Policy%20_Final%20PM%20and%20DS_.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/news/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/news/119_status_search_agent_archive_1.html

NASA actually releases very little data from its alleged spacewalks and space missions. The sole and only data they release to the public is the footage here and there which we see on TV.

Guess what... Wrong.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2006/151959main_fd07_ex_pkg.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/304681main_sts119_press_kit.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316119main_ASC_119_F_3.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316121main_ENT_119_F_1.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316164main_EVA_119_F_A.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316130main_FLT_PLN_119_F.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316132main_ORB_OPS_119_B_1.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316134main_PDRS_119_F.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316136main_PI_119_F.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316137main_RNDZ_119_F.pdf

http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/srh/SRH_119.pdf
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/119/119boeingnotepad.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&Ntk=all&Ntx=mode%20matchall&Ntt=sts%20119

Some of these files are over 50MB, so you might not want to read all of them.
Also, the very first link is the mission report from the specific EVA (spacewalk) that was referenced in the OP.

Tom.... Epic Fail, dude.
Image used in Avatar:
"Duck Dodgers™ in the 24&1/2th Century"
© Warner Brothers Animation
All Rights Reserved

Re: satellites
« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2009, 10:33:26 AM »
I've already provided enough evidence that Vandebergh is a shill who works for NASA.

Wrong. NASA does not hire photographers.
http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/jobs/occupations.htm

NASA puts up his images on their website, which means that he is associated with them and receiving money at the very least.

Wrong Again. NASA will link to images, but people with linked media only get credited, not payed.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html

Also, Vandebergh says in the OP:
    "According to data from the helmet cam, and calculated from the point of sunset in the video and during the pass, timing and location indicated the spacewalker as Joe Acaba working most earth-faced during these seconds of recordings."
Yeah right. As if an "amateur" had timestamps from the helmet cam. NASA doesn't release any of that to the public.

Wrong also.
http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/info/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/208194main_News%20Media%20Access%20Policy%20_Final%20PM%20and%20DS_.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/news/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/news/119_status_search_agent_archive_1.html

NASA actually releases very little data from its alleged spacewalks and space missions. The sole and only data they release to the public is the footage here and there which we see on TV.

Guess what... Wrong.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2006/151959main_fd07_ex_pkg.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/304681main_sts119_press_kit.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316119main_ASC_119_F_3.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316121main_ENT_119_F_1.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316164main_EVA_119_F_A.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316130main_FLT_PLN_119_F.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316132main_ORB_OPS_119_B_1.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316134main_PDRS_119_F.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316136main_PI_119_F.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316137main_RNDZ_119_F.pdf

http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/srh/SRH_119.pdf
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/119/119boeingnotepad.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&Ntk=all&Ntx=mode%20matchall&Ntt=sts%20119

Some of these files are over 50MB, so you might not want to read all of them.
Also, the very first link is the mission report from the specific EVA (spacewalk) that was referenced in the OP.

Tom.... Epic Fail, dude.

Great research. Definitely deserves a response.

Re: satellites
« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2009, 10:41:12 AM »
Tom.... Epic Fail, dude.

Great research. Definitely deserves a response.

One that will probably consist of "but what about the 200 jillion tons of telemetry data from the moon missions that the taxpayers paid billions of dollars to have collected and were mysteriously lost?"
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: satellites
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2009, 12:01:21 PM »
Quote
Wrong. NASA does not hire photographers.
http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/jobs/occupations.htm

Actually, they do.

Quote
Wrong Again. NASA will link to images, but people with linked media only get credited, not payed.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html

NASA didn't link to his image. They hosted, displayed, and featured it on their website.

Quote
Also, Vandebergh says in the OP:
    "According to data from the helmet cam, and calculated from the point of sunset in the video and during the pass, timing and location indicated the spacewalker as Joe Acaba working most earth-faced during these seconds of recordings."
Yeah right. As if an "amateur" had timestamps from the helmet cam. NASA doesn't release any of that to the public.

Wrong also.
http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/info/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/208194main_News%20Media%20Access%20Policy%20_Final%20PM%20and%20DS_.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/news/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/news/119_status_search_agent_archive_1.html

I don't see any "helmet cam footage with timestamps" in any of those links.

Quote
NASA actually releases very little data from its alleged spacewalks and space missions. The sole and only data they release to the public is the footage here and there which we see on TV.

Guess what... Wrong.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2006/151959main_fd07_ex_pkg.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/304681main_sts119_press_kit.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316119main_ASC_119_F_3.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316121main_ENT_119_F_1.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316164main_EVA_119_F_A.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316130main_FLT_PLN_119_F.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316132main_ORB_OPS_119_B_1.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316134main_PDRS_119_F.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316136main_PI_119_F.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/316137main_RNDZ_119_F.pdf

http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/srh/SRH_119.pdf
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/119/119boeingnotepad.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&Ntk=all&Ntx=mode%20matchall&Ntt=sts%20119

All of that is actually incredibly, incredibly, little data compared to the many gigabytes of mission and sensor data they claim to be receiving from the ISS every day.

Also, many of those flight-check PDFs you posted are pretty much just copied and pasted for every shuttle mission.

You're also linking to things such as the "boeing note pad," which is just a rectangular information pamphlet for a waiting room somewhere. If you count that as "mission data" you are either ignorant of the particulars involved, or you're hoping to pass off the illegitimate as legit.

Quote
Also, the very first link is the mission report from the specific EVA (spacewalk) that was referenced in the OP.

No helmet cam timestamps there, either.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 12:15:40 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: satellites
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2009, 12:27:01 PM »
We're missing the big picture here: that even if Tom was right (and that is a huge round earth-sized "if") he is arguing that NASA is part of a conspiracy on the scale of which has never been pulled off in human history.

Watergate involved a handful of some of the most brilliant minds in the world, but they couldn't keep something as simple as breaking into a hotel a secret for more than a few years, just to put things in perspective.

Tom, this is the government we're talking about. They SUCK at this kind of stuff.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: satellites
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2009, 12:39:56 PM »
We're missing the big picture here: that even if Tom was right (and that is a huge round earth-sized "if") he is arguing that NASA is part of a conspiracy on the scale of which has never been pulled off in human history.

Watergate involved a handful of some of the most brilliant minds in the world, but they couldn't keep something as simple as breaking into a hotel a secret for more than a few years, just to put things in perspective.

Tom, this is the government we're talking about. They SUCK at this kind of stuff.

Most people can agree that the military doesn't have a problem with keeping military secrets, secret.

Please recall that NASA was originally part of the military, being directly funded by the DOD and existing as a branch of the Airforce.

After it broke off into its own entity, to pretend to be a "Peaceful Civilian Space Program" with its motto of  "For all Mankind," NASA remained operating in a compartmentalized manner just like the military. They use the same protocols for classification as the military, for example. They classify documents either Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret, just as the miliatary does. Astronauts are all military men with Top Secret clearances.

Civilian Space Program, indeed.

Keeping a secret at NASA isn't too hard when everyone is in the dark about what they're being told to build or write, what it will be used for, and the bigger picture. Military always keeps the snake's head centralized at the top of the organization.

And even then the structure of the snake's head is often decentralized, as just because you're a manager and have Top Secret, it doesn't mean you have access to everything, or even very much. The Military generally keeps everything on a need-to-know basis.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 04:06:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: satellites
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2009, 12:41:51 PM »
We're missing the big picture here: that even if Tom was right (and that is a huge round earth-sized "if") he is arguing that NASA is part of a conspiracy on the scale of which has never been pulled off in human history.

Watergate involved a handful of some of the most brilliant minds in the world, but they couldn't keep something as simple as breaking into a hotel a secret for more than a few years, just to put things in perspective.

Tom, this is the government we're talking about. They SUCK at this kind of stuff.

Most people can agree that military doesn't have a problem with keeping military secrets, secret.

Please recall that NASA was originally part of the military, being directly funded by the DOD and existing as a branch of the Airforce.

After it broke off into its own entity, to pretend to be a "Civilian Space Program," it remained operating in a compartmentalized manner just like the military. They use the same protocols for classification as the military, for example. They classify documents either Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret, just as the miliatary does. Astronauts are all military men with Top Secret clearances.

Keeping a secret at NASA isn't too hard when everyone is in the dark about what they're being told to build or write, what it will be used for, and the bigger picture.

But we're not just talking about NASA, are we?
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

Re: satellites
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2009, 12:47:43 PM »
Most people can agree that military doesn't have a problem with keeping military secrets, secret.


Like Stalin knowing we had "the bomb" before we told him"?  Like the Germans knowing we we tunneled under the Berlin Wall to tap into a communication line, before one shovel hit the ground? Or, like the Chinese stealing our secrets for W88? 
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: satellites
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2009, 01:17:51 PM »
Quote
Like Stalin knowing we had "the bomb" before we told him"?  

Everyone knew we were working on "the bomb". Einstein wrote a public letter to the president recommending that he do so.

The principles of "the bomb" were out in open scientific circles long before the Manhatten Project. The Nazis and Soviets also strived for "the bomb". It was just a matter of who could get the special materials fast enough.

Quote
Like the Germans knowing we we tunneled under the Berlin Wall to tap into a communication line, before one shovel hit the ground?

How did the Germans know that we tunneled into the ground before we tunneled into the ground? ???

Quote
Or, like the Chinese stealing our secrets for W88?

I'm not saying that espionage doesn't happen. With something like the W88 it's easy for word to get out because these small classified research teams for nuclear weapons were rather small and everyone working on the project could see the big picture and generally knew how everything operated. The need-to-know compartment for such a small and simple nuclear device by necessity needs to include the entire staff.

However you'd never see the plans for the B2 get out in the open, as the operations for such compartments are very large and compartmentalized. One man can be working on the special radar while another works on the special radar paint, probably located at far off different facilities. Neither knowing what the other is doing, forbidden by security access. Even if the radar and paint guys both have Top Secret Access, information is still distributed on a need to know basis.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 01:29:14 AM by Tom Bishop »