Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!

Sceptimatic : There clearly have been enough launches to accommodate every satellite in orbit. It seems that it doesn't matter how many launches there were because you deny the possibility of space travel all together. Is this an accurate depiction? I would like to understand why you believe this, if it is indeed your assertion.

thats funny. i seem to remember you saying that their have not been enough launches for all the satellites in orbit. then i remember posting a link providing all the dates launches orbits and vehicles used thus proving you wrong. then i remember you saying the space shuttle was the only US launch system lol. that was funny

Quote from: Galactian on April 23, 2013, 12:26:32 PM

Sceptimatic : There clearly have been enough launches to accommodate every satellite in orbit. It seems that it doesn't matter how many launches there were because you deny the possibility of space travel all together. Is this an accurate depiction? I would like to understand why you believe this, if it is indeed your assertion.

True, I don't believe rockets or anything has ever went into space.The reason is simple, if space is a vacuum like the bull crappers say, then rockets won't work but I don't want to get into why in this topic, as It's all in another topic.

That is at the heart of your problem with satellites, however, so it is completely relevant to the discussion at hand. Your denial of orbital mechanics and a misunderstanding of how a rocket would operate in the vacuum of space has caused you to also deny the conventional notion of how satellites are placed into orbit.

I just looked over your reasons for why a rocket, or anything for that matter, could not operate in space. For simplicity's sake, you have denied Newton's laws of motion and the conservation of momentum. You must first accept these physical laws to be true in order for any understanding of how a rocket would work in the vacuum of space to come about.

Well, in the so called vacuum of space, I do not accept them.

We have created vacuums on Earth and the laws hold true. What could possibly alter reality so that these physical laws become invalid once you enter space, which, as a vacuum, is no different than ones we have created on Earth? A vacuum is simply the absence of matter and that by itself does not effect physical laws.

Objects do not need to push off of anything in order to accelerate, they need only to have a force applied to them. This is what is encompassed in the vector equation F=ma. A simple explanation - The fuel is ejected, providing a force in the direction of the rocket. That force, in turn, accelerates the rocket in the same direction as the force.

Quote

Well, in the so called vacuum of space, I do not accept them.

We have created vacuums on Earth and the laws hold true. What could possibly alter reality so that these physical laws become invalid once you enter space, which, as a vacuum, is no different than ones we have created on Earth? A vacuum is simply the absence of matter and that by itself does not effect physical laws.

Objects do not need to push off of anything in order to accelerate, they need only to have a force applied to them. This is what is encompassed in the vector equation F=ma. A simple explanation - The fuel is ejected, providing a force in the direction of the rocket. That force, in turn, accelerates the rocket in the same direction as the force.

Stop it, you are using science against him now, play fair...

It seems improbable that a satellite is even conceivable.  They supposedly travel at extremely high speeds and there is no way they can manuever in time to accommodate everyone's transmission.  It has to be just radio towers scattered throughout the world.  It just has to be.  FE cannot be just a hope or a opium dream of xanadu.  It has to be a real attempt at explaining the phenomena of life.  The Suez Canal and the Nile River, if they appear flat after telescopic analysis.  Everyone is a liar that says opposite.  People have to learn not to accept everything innately that is told to them.  Maybe this is a lesson from the Creator himself.  I certainly hope the coming info is not falsified...

Maneuver to accommodate everyone's transmissions?  Is that how you think satellites work?  Oh dear...

It seems improbable that a satellite is even conceivable.  They supposedly travel at extremely high speeds and there is no way they can manuever in time to accommodate everyone's transmission.  It has to be just radio towers scattered throughout the world.  It just has to be.  FE cannot be just a hope or a opium dream of xanadu.  It has to be a real attempt at explaining the phenomena of life.  The Suez Canal and the Nile River, if they appear flat after telescopic analysis.  Everyone is a liar that says opposite.  People have to learn not to accept everything innately that is told to them.  Maybe this is a lesson from the Creator himself.  I certainly hope the coming info is not falsified...

You keep posting about the Suez Canal.  I can only presume you are referring to the datum line thread started by Odes.  This is a line that is parallel to the water surface, so if the water were curved, the line curved, water straight, line straight.  And your God cares not whether the Earth is flat or not.

You keep posting about the Suez Canal.  I can only presume you are referring to the datum line thread started by Odes.  This is a line that is parallel to the water surface, so if the water were curved, the line curved, water straight, line straight.  And your God cares not whether the Earth is flat or not.

Read his other recent posts. I don't think he's being serious. 

Quote from: Tom_Wilson on April 10, 2013, 03:01:17 PM

Those are clearly rainwater collectors.

They are able to watch Oprah as well from those collectors. Isn't the technology amazing nowadays?

My guess is, they are water collectors. Water is loaded with a whole bunch of information. One water droplet contains 1000 hours of television. Then the water is vaporized, travel to those locations and they collect the data....makes me wonder how they collect the water droplets where these discs have a more vertical position...

Quote from: Cartesian on April 11, 2013, 12:58:03 AM

Quote from: Tom_Wilson on April 10, 2013, 03:01:17 PM

Those are clearly rainwater collectors.

They are able to watch Oprah as well from those collectors. Isn't the technology amazing nowadays?

My guess is, they are water collectors. Water is loaded with a whole bunch of information. One water droplet contains 1000 hours of television. Then the water is vaporized, travel to those locations and they collect the data....makes me wonder how they collect the water droplets where these discs have a more vertical position...

Exactly, but there is never enough room for cheese-dip...

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 15, 2013, 04:49:58 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on April 11, 2013, 12:58:03 AM

Quote from: Tom_Wilson on April 10, 2013, 03:01:17 PM

Those are clearly rainwater collectors.

They are able to watch Oprah as well from those collectors. Isn't the technology amazing nowadays?

My guess is, they are water collectors. Water is loaded with a whole bunch of information. One water droplet contains 1000 hours of television. Then the water is vaporized, travel to those locations and they collect the data....makes me wonder how they collect the water droplets where these discs have a more vertical position...

Exactly, but there is never enough room for cheese-dip...

Really? You really think that water droplets contain data with 1000 hours of television broadcasts?

Quote from: Pythagoras on April 23, 2013, 12:28:14 PM

thats funny. i seem to remember you saying that their have not been enough launches for all the satellites in orbit. then i remember posting a link providing all the dates launches orbits and vehicles used thus proving you wrong. then i remember you saying the space shuttle was the only US launch system lol. that was funny

I never said the shuttle was the only launch system at all. I said, all we ever seen was shuttle launches in the last 30 years.

I live like 25 miles from Cape Canaveral and see rocket launches often. I can take pictures of the next one if you'd like if the weather allows. There's a Delta 4 taking off on May 22nd but it's at 8:30pm so it might be too dark to get a good picture as I don't have a good camera. The next day launch will be no problem though.

I have seen two launches, and 3 descents. 
Why in the world would NASA and other space agencies go to such extreme lengths to fake all of this.
Also why has NASA budgets been slashed and record layoffs have been recorded?
Surely one of the thousands of people getting laid off would have let the secret loose.

(Or maybe there is no secret)
As a Zetetic Society we must accept this.

If you have noticed, you will see that N.A.S.A has gave up on the shuttle and are now supposedly piggy backing Astronauts aboard Russian rockets.
So they cannot be seen to get a massive budget in the public eye, unless they show the public what their tax dollars are being spent on.
It makes no real odd, because N.A.S.A is just a front anyway.

What does it matter they are on russian rockets right now? The budget of NASA is publicly available. In 2011 they got an annual budget of 18.7 billion dollars. In fact NASA retired the space shuttle because it was getting old and expensive to operate. NASA is now looking for new spacecrafts.

I don't see the point you are trying to make here.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 20, 2013, 09:44:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2013, 09:34:45 AM

If you have noticed, you will see that N.A.S.A has gave up on the shuttle and are now supposedly piggy backing Astronauts aboard Russian rockets.
So they cannot be seen to get a massive budget in the public eye, unless they show the public what their tax dollars are being spent on.
It makes no real odd, because N.A.S.A is just a front anyway.

What does it matter they are on russian rockets right now? The budget of NASA is publicly available. In 2011 they got an annual budget of 18.7 billion dollars. In fact NASA retired the space shuttle because it was getting old and expensive to operate. NASA is now looking for new spacecrafts.

I don't see the point you are trying to make here.

Old and expensive to operate?
They supposedly operated it for 30 years, with re-usable boosters and could supposedly land Astroliars on the runway by gliding in, meaning they didn't have to resort to the supposed 1960's primitive capsule on parachute carry on.
Now, it seems that the Russians can take their rockets to any ASDA  petrol station and put a tenners worth of fuel in and away they go.
Who said reverting back to primitive isn't the way to go.
Sod the new cars we have, let's go back to the Ford model T. 

They needed a work force of 30,000 people to get one space shuttle ready for launch. After the disaster of Columbia the figured out there was a great danger of a piece of foam detaching again from the fuel tank and damaging the space shuttle. Since Columbia they always kept a second space ready for launch in case of a rescue mission. That required a total of 60,000 people to work on the space shuttles. Though the concept of a re-usable aircraft is more favourable, the sheer size of the space shuttle with a large cargo bay was becoming outdated. The space shuttle finished the ISS with the last segment in 2010, making a cargo like spacecraft like the space shuttle abundant. They are now looking for ways to scale down the size the original space shuttle program as to a more efficient and effective program to carry people to space. The soyuz is a relative cheap way to do that. The Dragon from SpaceX and the Virgin Galactic may have the concept as where NASA is going, but as of now they keep all options open, even building space craft which could take us to Mars. As long as NASA is figuring out a way to best spend their money, they make use of the Russian soyuz rockets.   

Bloody foam falling off and damaging the shuttle.
Yea, let's worry about foam and forget about the big chunks of ice falling from it lol.
N.A.S.A have already figured of how best to spend the money, by faking it all.

NASA first reaction was exactly the one you have now. Foam...yeah right. They conceived it as impossible. But they continued the research and after computer calculations they performed a real life to scale experiment to see if it is true. The result visible to you from 1:30
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shuttle Debris Impact Testing

There you have solid proof evidence that foam can be accounted for damaging the leading edge of the wing. The videos from launch also show a foam piece hitting the wing. All things observed are matched and acopenguined for.

Ice forms the same threat, but never before had it shown to be a threat nor did the piece of foam. The disaster of Columbia showed this issue to NASA and altering the space shuttle would need a complete redesign. Given all the other facts they decided to retire the space shuttle program.

Lolflatdisc:

To say you are gullible, would be a massive understatement.
Fake video of a shuttle at that speed and you think foam would fly off like that. Come on man, give your head a real big shake.

There you have the videos yourself. You can see it yourself, but probably you resist to watch it . The space shuttles were live to see by many individuals. Launches were open to the public. I have no reason to doubt that these are fake videos. Do you?

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 20, 2013, 11:49:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2013, 11:45:03 AM

Lolflatdisc:

To say you are gullible, would be a massive understatement.
Fake video of a shuttle at that speed and you think foam would fly off like that. Come on man, give your head a real big shake.

There you have the videos yourself. You can see it yourself, but probably you resist to watch it . The space shuttles were live to see by many individuals. Launches were open to the public. I have no reason to doubt that these are fake videos. Do you?

Absolutely it's a fake video. They all are.

How do you tell?

1. it looks fake, CGI.

Alright, but then where are all the people on the ground looking at? What is the guy doing on the right side of the video doing with his big camera lens? #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Real Sound of Space Shuttle STS-117 Launch, 3 miles

2. It's in a black sky after being in a blue sky.

Now if you want to say, " oh it's in a black sky because it's high up"...then tell me who zoomed in with the perfect lighting to see the so called foam, fly up and then back as if some kid had flung his cinder toffee away.

Come on man, stop being so naive.
If you are a shill, then It's understandable that you see nothing wrong.

NASA provides the very zoomed in videos because they want to track the space shuttle as it ascends into space. The foam does not fly 'up' but flies away from the fuel tank and sideways. Following the stream of air rushing past the side of the space shuttle and into the wing.

They have analyzed, as it caused some concern, but were dismissed, because "hey, what could foam do to the space shuttle?" upon re-entry we have seen what it did and all the experiments show that the foam can be accounted for damage to the wing.
Re-entry has been filmed by many amateurs. I wonder how the launch and re-entry can be faked with all these bystanders to witness the event.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Space Shuttle Columbia re-entry

If had I to choose a sound, I would say it is souds like fire crackers, although there are no fire crackers.

This video shows you there is no countdown, so there are no sound installations near the camera and all you hear is the low rumbling noise of the space shuttle. I guess you will not agree to me, but how would they send up something in the sky without making any noise to hear?  #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">STS-132 - Extremely Loud Shuttle Launch from the Kennedy Space Center press site. (in HD)

Well, I am officially admitting that now I have doubt about the Earth being flat.  This guy has got me thinking that there is a false perception of our Earth in the way that we SEE it.  What we perceive with our ROUND eyes as being flat, is actually curved. Satellites may REALLY be orbiting the Earth, not outside of it but INSIDE of it!  Please watch this:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I love how the guy in that video never shows a simple mathematical proof for his assertions. He just says over and over, "It's an optical illusion."  I am going to check out his website now, can't wait. Maybe Thork is there having tea.

Yes, I'm back with another YT video.  I don't care if you don't consider it evidence.  It's just for your consideration:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Yes, I'm back with another YT video.  I don't care if you don't consider it evidence.  It's just for your consideration:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Before I give up the valuable space in my brain devoted to my mother's homemade bolognese recipe for this video, what is the topic?

Satellites are real. This talk of "conspiracy" has poisoned FET for far too long.

Satellites are real. This talk of "conspiracy" has poisoned FET for far too long.

Wait, didn't you just post in the squirrel thread that you believe in the conspiracy?

Quote from: Rushy on June 03, 2013, 06:36:01 PM

Satellites are real. This talk of "conspiracy" has poisoned FET for far too long.

Wait, didn't you just post in the squirrel thread that you believe in the conspiracy?

From the way i read it,  he sounded sarcastic in the squirrel thread.

Quote from: icanbeanything on June 04, 2013, 01:39:11 AM

Quote from: Rushy on June 03, 2013, 06:36:01 PM

Satellites are real. This talk of "conspiracy" has poisoned FET for far too long.

Wait, didn't you just post in the squirrel thread that you believe in the conspiracy?

From the way i read it,  he sounded sarcastic in the squirrel thread.

That's what I thought at first, too. But then I saw his reply to Rama right after, and it gave me the impression he was actually being serious... I don't know.

There are no such things as "space" satellites. They do not exist.
Anything in that sky is in our atmosphere and is not orbiting at speed.
Anything in what we regard as space is not man made.

Anything we have "communication" wise on this earth, is due to transmitters etc, on this earth, not in space.

Sometimes you should give ground to what you say, otherwise is is pointless and meaningless.