Why does the government waste trillions of dollars on this conspiracy?

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.

Quote from: doyh on December 27, 2010, 02:26:54 PM

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.

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2010, 04:06:35 PM

Quote from: doyh on December 27, 2010, 02:26:54 PM

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.

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2010, 04:06:35 PM

Quote from: doyh on December 27, 2010, 02:26:54 PM

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.....

Quote from: berny_74 on December 27, 2010, 03:29:09 PM

\
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.

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2010, 07:55:08 PM

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.

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2010, 09:43:15 PM

Please elaborate.

Stuff is not out of reach. See: Over the Horizon Radar.

Where is the vanishing point (horizon) for RADAR?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 10:01:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2010, 09:43:15 PM

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?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 10:01:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2010, 09:43:15 PM

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).

Quote from: berny_74 on December 27, 2010, 03:29:09 PM

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.

Quote from: berny_74 on December 28, 2010, 05:40:57 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: Ski on December 28, 2010, 06:39:50 PM

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?

Quote from: Ski on December 28, 2010, 06:39:50 PM

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.

Quote from: berny_74 on December 28, 2010, 06:17:22 PM

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".

Quote

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.

Quote from: Ski on December 28, 2010, 06:39:50 PM

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......

Quote

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.