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

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.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on December 28, 2010, 07:18:50 PM

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.

Quote

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?

Quote from: Ungoliant on December 27, 2010, 03:35:18 PM

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.

Quote

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?

Quote from: Ungoliant on December 29, 2010, 10:27:38 AM

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).

Quote from: markjo on December 29, 2010, 03:25:53 PM

Quote from: Ungoliant on December 29, 2010, 10:27:38 AM

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.

Quote from: berny_74 on December 29, 2010, 08:42:07 AM

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.

Quote from: berny_74 on December 29, 2010, 07:38:50 PM

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.

Quote

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?

Quote from: berny_74 on December 29, 2010, 08:51:36 PM

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?