Voyager 1 - fake?

Can Voyager 1 travel be a fake? I know many intellegent people who take them for granted. But if it is real, then conventional science seems to have gotten it right.

What reason is there to say that Voyager is real? All we know about it is its pictures and what NASA, a company substantiated by spreading false information, has told us about it. Unless you see it in interstellar space for yourself, which is impossible, you would simply be believing what the media says.

I have friends who have done work for NASA, was all of the things that they put together to send a probe to orbit the moon faked as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1

I have friends who have done work for NASA, was all of the things that they put together to send a probe to orbit the moon faked as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1

Obviously, since space travel is impossible, the moon cannot be reached, so a lunar probe must be faked as well. However those who work for NASA might not be aware. As with many other conspiracies, only the very highest of authorities probably knows about the conspiracy and your friends are unaware that they are building a probe based on incorrect physics which will never be launched to the moon.

So then, where did all of the data from the probe actually come from?

Why did the probe fail if it was never even sent into space?

So then, where did all of the data from the probe actually come from?

Why did the probe fail if it was never even sent into space?

NASA has a very extensive knowledge of the physics they are pretending to do. They know what type of measurements the public would expect or want to hear, so to protect their points someone created this false data.

The probe failed because no corporation is perfect, and to avoid suspicion even NASA must make mistakes.

So, when you go to Florida and watch them launch something, where does it go?

So, when you go to Florida and watch them launch something, where does it go?

Likely the launched object is sent high enough that it is out of sight, then directed to another, unknown location where it is recovered or it is taken from the air by a recovery vehicle and transported in secrecy to another location. Remember that since the space travel conspiracy is a conspiracy we have no way of knowing how or why they do what they do, we can only speculate.

Um, well, I have a theory that these beans I bought are magical.

Common sense would dictate otherwise.

There is a thing called Occam's razor, basically it says if you have to go through tons of jumps and loops in an attempt to prove your conclusion there may be issues with your conclusion.

In my theory I can produce all kinds of tests to prove it works.

I have yet to see the same from the Flat side....

Here you go, a picture that you can look at on your computer that shows the curvature of the Earth....

It is taken from a tall building, which does not even violate you do not fly rule....

http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506

Um, well, I have a theory that these beans I bought are magical.

Common sense would dictate otherwise.

There is a thing called Occam's razor, basically it says if you have to go through tons of jumps and loops in an attempt to prove your conclusion there may be issues with your conclusion.

In my theory I can produce all kinds of tests to prove it works.

I have yet to see the same from the Flat side....

Please elaborate. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. Is your conclusion right just because it validates the experiment which you said would work? "Common Sense" really doesn't mean anything considering the complexity of the human brain.

Common sense.

Things that we can take as happening naturally because logically, they will happen.

For instance, when I let go of a ball, it falls.

These beans are not magical (unless you count their ability to induce flatulence), because magical beans do not exist.

Winter follows fall, which follows summer, which follows spring.

If I bet on a lame horse, chances are I will lose.

If I go outside in the winter without a coat I will likely get cold.

Now lets look at some more complex things.

When you have a low pressure area in the northern hemisphere the wind around it circles in a direction whereas the predominant wind flow on the Eastern side will be towards the North, and on the Western side it will be to the south, if it is in the southern hemisphere it will be opposite.

The motions of the tides correspond with the positions of the sun and the moon as the tides are caused by gravitational effects.

The sun and the moon take the same amount of time to transverse the same angular distance in the sky no matter where that angular distance is in the sky.  (They both move across the sky at roughly ~15 degrees per hour).
This corresponds to the objects ability to travel in a straight line angular distance of 360 degrees.  If you hold an orange out with your hand at arms length and turn it at the same rate around you consider the first half of a turn to be 12 hours of day, the most logical way for the sun to make the rest of its journey to end up back to where it will rise in the morning would be that it continues on its same arc going around.

Grab an orange and spin around slowly until you are either dizzy, or figure it out.

Here you go, a picture that you can look at on your computer that shows the curvature of the Earth....

It is taken from a tall building, which does not even violate you do not fly rule....

http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506

Photos are not valid evidence. First of all most photos are taken with a slight lens distortion causing much of what you see when you think you see the curvature of the earth from photos. Also, unless I see the same thing with my own eyes, how can I be sure that it is unaltered?

Common sense.

Things that we can take as happening naturally because logically, they will happen.

For instance, when I let go of a ball, it falls.

These beans are not magical (unless you count their ability to induce flatulence), because magical beans do not exist.

Winter follows fall, which follows summer, which follows spring.

If I bet on a lame horse, chances are I will lose.

If I go outside in the winter without a coat I will likely get cold.

Now lets look at some more complex things.

When you have a low pressure area in the northern hemisphere the wind around it circles in a direction whereas the predominant wind flow on the Eastern side will be towards the North, and on the Western side it will be to the south, if it is in the southern hemisphere it will be opposite.

The motions of the tides correspond with the positions of the sun and the moon as the tides are caused by gravitational effects.

The sun and the moon take the same amount of time to transverse the same angular distance in the sky no matter where that angular distance is in the sky.  (They both move across the sky at roughly ~15 degrees per hour).
This corresponds to the objects ability to travel in a straight line angular distance of 360 degrees.  If you hold an orange out with your hand at arms length and turn it at the same rate around you consider the first half of a turn to be 12 hours of day, the most logical way for the sun to make the rest of its journey to end up back to where it will rise in the morning would be that it continues on its same arc going around.

Grab an orange and spin around slowly until you are either dizzy, or figure it out.

most of what you said made sense, though I still don't understand how this affects the earlier statements in this thread. YEs most things are validated by basic logic, that doesn't mean that "Common sense" is an infallible research tool. Let's pitch a question that gets most people: A woman has two children. One is a boy. What is the probability that the other is a boy?

The probability that the other one is a boy is ~50%  There is a little variability in the case of twins, and also birthrates between males and females.

As for the picture, that is somewhere that you can go, take your own picture with your own camera.  Or even just take a straight edged ruler and sit very carefully and observe.

It is the Sear's (Willis) tower in Chicago.  Although any building near a large flat area (sea, large lake) around a 1/4 mile in height should do the same.

The other aspect is that there is a limit to how far you can see over the lake.  You can't see the other shore, and from that position you are over 1/4 mile above it, if the Earth was flat you should be able to see yonder shore easily.

Um, well, I have a theory that these beans I bought are magical.

Common sense would dictate otherwise.

There is a thing called Occam's razor, basically it says if you have to go through tons of jumps and loops in an attempt to prove your conclusion there may be issues with your conclusion.

In my theory I can produce all kinds of tests to prove it works.

I have yet to see the same from the Flat side....

You cannot directly prove anything and you know it. All you have is words and the so called pictures and experiments they say they do. You are as much in the dark as the next person, except, you believe you are armed with the knowledge of what is real, when basically you are about as armed with the knowledge of it all, as a child believes he/she knows santa is real.

One of the most informative works on the fake nasa missions...

http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos


A brief excerpt.



How did they fake so many trips to Venus and Saturn, Mars, etc.?

Well, one day around 1978 I was also wondering the same thing myself. I had seen the pictures of Saturn and it's rings and moons and I was also wondering, wow, 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos were being transmitted from, what was it, Voyager?. I kept wondering, How?  Of course, they could just be models and photos were taken. But, then, one day, just after Star Wars II came out and Star Trek the movie (# 1) came out I had got hold of a movie industry magazine that was called Business Pictures. In it were ads from special effects companies who work for Hollywood. This was the dawn of computer graphics being used in motion pictures. Star Wars I was made using mostly models, but, after Star Wars I, George Lucas used some of the profits to set up a new lab called Pixar, which strove to push the technology and create stunning effects using state of the art Computer Workstations. CG, or Computer Graphics. I was looking at some of the ads and articles in the magazine and I found a peculiar one. Unfortunately I do not recall the name of the company running the ad. But, they were selling computer graphics "programming", not a finished program, but the algorythms and 'basic mathematical building blocks' used to create a program. What they claimed to be was a company that does contract work for JPL, NASA and the military. What they were selling were the software foundations and routines that did texture mapping and perspective, surface reflection, shadow mapping, etc. Then, what really caught my eye and peaked my interest was that the ad stated that the information they were selling had been developed over 10 years prior by NASA and the US military and had, up until now, been considered highly classified and secret information. With this technology and the use of super computers they claimed it was possible to create virtually any special effects scene. The reason given that the information was now being declassified and being offered for sale was that the movie industry (specifically the work done by Lucas's Pixar team - which became the foundation for Industrial Light and Magic, the premiere computer graphics company of the entire industry), had begun to catch up with the secret technology and it was decided there was no longer any reason to keep the information classified.

Wow. The same technology that helped to produce the visual effects of space, planets, and space crafts used for Star Wars II and Star Trek I had been developed and used by NASA and JPL for over 10 years earlier. That would mean that NASA and JPL had the ability to create virtual reality graphics effects as early as the late 1960's. Texture mapping, shadow mapping, light reflection, etc. Then I instantly realized how JPL was turning out 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos of Saturn and space. They had CG technology for a long time before Hollywood finally caught up and learned how to do it. The 'fly-by' probes that mapped Venus and Saturn, etc. all sent back to earth electronic data and photos. It was feasible to generate all of this on computer. JPL had at it's disposal the fastest and most powerful super-computers of the day, like the Cray. All they had to do was bounce signals off a distant satellite so that the ground crews would receive real signals that they thought were coming from deep space.

Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 04, 2013, 09:51:13 PM

I have friends who have done work for NASA, was all of the things that they put together to send a probe to orbit the moon faked as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1

Obviously, since space travel is impossible, the moon cannot be reached, so a lunar probe must be faked as well. However those who work for NASA might not be aware. As with many other conspiracies, only the very highest of authorities probably knows about the conspiracy and your friends are unaware that they are building a probe based on incorrect physics which will never be launched to the moon.

I strongly urge you to have a look at the nightsky and see for yourself that there are satellites up there, especially the ISS which is the brightest and with aid of a telescope can be seen in details.

Also saying that things are not being launched is just utter denial of the facts. Launches can be witnessed and have been witnessed by thousands of people.

Get out of your dark room and do some real explorations, before calling things fake from behind your computer. Or at least dare to admit that you cannot know, because you haven't gone out to see it. 

There's supposed to be thousands of satellites up there, yet all people ever see is one or two. Why?
Through your super telescopes, you should easily be able to see them as regular as clockwork every time you point your telescope to the sky.
Out of the thousands, we have yet to see a realistic picture of one.

If you people are simply hanging on to them being real because you have an agenda, then fair enough.
If not, I suggest you have a serious word with yourselves and question a lot of things instead of just accepting what you are told, blindly.

One of the most informative works on the fake nasa missions...

http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos


A brief excerpt.

(...)

Yes, from the guy who was told by a friend -Rob- who was told by his father -Bob that :

prior to the first 'recorded' X-15 flight into space that another flight had also entered space. However, that craft, along with the pilot on board, never returned to earth. Rather, the pilot was actually the 'first' man to orbit earth.

So the X-15 can achieve orbital velocities.... May I ask you more information about this ?

Here you go, a picture that you can look at on your computer that shows the curvature of the Earth....

It is taken from a tall building, which does not even violate you do not fly rule....

http://photos.rossfinlayson.com/var/albums/Trips/Project49/37%3A-Illinois/DSC_0787.jpg?m=1305885506

I would think that a supposed genius would know it is impossible to discern the supposed curvature of the earth from low altitudes.  Even commercial flights at 30, 000 feet can't see the curvature.  Clearly lens distortion.

There's supposed to be thousands of satellites up there, yet all people ever see is one or two. Why?
Through your super telescopes, you should easily be able to see them as regular as clockwork every time you point your telescope to the sky.
Out of the thousands, we have yet to see a realistic picture of one.

If you people are simply hanging on to them being real because you have an agenda, then fair enough.
If not, I suggest you have a serious word with yourselves and question a lot of things instead of just accepting what you are told, blindly.

A few thousand satellites may seem like a lot, but in fact it is a very small number. The earth has a surface of 510 million square kilometers. There are about 8300 satellites. This means that every satellite has 510,000,000 / 8300 = 61445 square kilometers of space. That is like there is only 1 car in the entire state of West Virginia. I am not sure if you have ever been to New York City, but that is like 80 times the size of New York city, for just 1 car...

Now you might wonder how it would be possible to see a satellite if there are so few. That is because you are able to see them from a great distance. They can be flying over the state of West Virginia, while you are in New York watching it. But all in all it will come down to you being to see just a few. If you watch the nightsky often, you will se there are more than one or two. You will be able to spot a few during one night, or maybe none. 

Why is that? Because of the relative short time window in which you are able to see them. This is either just after sunset or just before sunrise. So during the day more satellites (I don't know how many) may pass overhead, only you will not be able to see those.

I hope it made sense to you.

Also saying that things are not being launched is just utter denial of the facts. Launches can be witnessed and have been witnessed by thousands of people.

Yeah, launched into the air, not hundreds of miles into space.  I think they're sending probes to Antarctica...you know, all that research they do there.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 05:08:13 AM

There's supposed to be thousands of satellites up there, yet all people ever see is one or two. Why?
Through your super telescopes, you should easily be able to see them as regular as clockwork every time you point your telescope to the sky.
Out of the thousands, we have yet to see a realistic picture of one.

If you people are simply hanging on to them being real because you have an agenda, then fair enough.
If not, I suggest you have a serious word with yourselves and question a lot of things instead of just accepting what you are told, blindly.

A few thousand satellites may seem like a lot, but in fact it is a very small number. The earth has a surface of 510 million square kilometers. There are about 8300 satellites. This means that every satellite has 510,000,000 / 8300 = 61445 square kilometers of space. That is like there is only 1 car in the entire state of West Virginia. I am not sure if you have ever been to New York City, but that is like 80 times the size of New York city, for just 1 car...

Now you might wonder how it would be possible to see a satellite if there are so few. That is because you are able to see them from a great distance. They can be flying over the state of West Virginia, while you are in New York watching it. But all in all it will come down to you being to see just a few. If you watch the nightsky often, you will se there are more than one or two. You will be able to spot a few during one night, or maybe none. 

Why is that? Because of the relative short time window in which you are able to see them. This is either just after sunset or just before sunrise. So during the day more satellites (I don't know how many) may pass overhead, only you will not be able to see those.

I hope it made sense to you.

8300 satellites and that's just as it stands, not what has supposedly been launched over decades, so lets go with 30 years for these satellites that are in space now, as this would clear room for error as in the life spans of them, which as you can see, I'm giving these satellites a long life . So, here we go.

And correct me if I'm wrong, here.

8300 satellites divided by 30 years, equals 276 per year launched.

Which means that just over 5 each week are launched. Let's say 5.
I'm being ultra generous here, as you know.

Let's split them up between the main countries.
U.S.A.
Russia.
India.
China.
Japan.

Basically, except for the U.S.A and Russia, the other countries aren't claiming many satellites up in space, so we can negate those.
So that leaves 2 nations...ok we will add China in as an excess baggage carrier.

5 and a bit satellites per WEEK.
Let's give Russia 2 and China 1, plus the U.S.A their 2 and the point 3 can be split between the others.

Ok, so we have the U.S.A launching 2 satellites per week into space.
We have Russia doing likewise and China flinging one a week up as well.

Where are they managing to build all the rockets to achieve this?
Remember, I've been ultra generous in giving the earlier satellites a 30 year life span and still up there, so how have all these rockets been built to achieve this?

Quote from: Don Quichotte on November 05, 2013, 07:39:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 05:08:13 AM

There's supposed to be thousands of satellites up there, yet all people ever see is one or two. Why?
Through your super telescopes, you should easily be able to see them as regular as clockwork every time you point your telescope to the sky.
Out of the thousands, we have yet to see a realistic picture of one.

If you people are simply hanging on to them being real because you have an agenda, then fair enough.
If not, I suggest you have a serious word with yourselves and question a lot of things instead of just accepting what you are told, blindly.

A few thousand satellites may seem like a lot, but in fact it is a very small number. The earth has a surface of 510 million square kilometers. There are about 8300 satellites. This means that every satellite has 510,000,000 / 8300 = 61445 square kilometers of space. That is like there is only 1 car in the entire state of West Virginia. I am not sure if you have ever been to New York City, but that is like 80 times the size of New York city, for just 1 car...

Now you might wonder how it would be possible to see a satellite if there are so few. That is because you are able to see them from a great distance. They can be flying over the state of West Virginia, while you are in New York watching it. But all in all it will come down to you being to see just a few. If you watch the nightsky often, you will se there are more than one or two. You will be able to spot a few during one night, or maybe none. 

Why is that? Because of the relative short time window in which you are able to see them. This is either just after sunset or just before sunrise. So during the day more satellites (I don't know how many) may pass overhead, only you will not be able to see those.

I hope it made sense to you.

8300 satellites and that's just as it stands, not what has supposedly been launched over decades, so lets go with 30 years for these satellites that are in space now, as this would clear room for error as in the life spans of them, which as you can see, I'm giving these satellites a long life . So, here we go.

And correct me if I'm wrong, here.

8300 satellites divided by 30 years, equals 276 per year launched.

Which means that just over 5 each week are launched. Let's say 5.
I'm being ultra generous here, as you know.

Let's split them up between the main countries.
U.S.A.
Russia.
India.
China.
Japan.

Basically, except for the U.S.A and Russia, the other countries aren't claiming many satellites up in space, so we can negate those.
So that leaves 2 nations...ok we will add China in as an excess baggage carrier.

5 and a bit satellites per WEEK.
Let's give Russia 2 and China 1, plus the U.S.A their 2 and the point 3 can be split between the others.

Ok, so we have the U.S.A launching 2 satellites per week into space.
We have Russia doing likewise and China flinging one a week up as well.

Where are they managing to build all the rockets to achieve this?
Remember, I've been ultra generous in giving the earlier satellites a 30 year life span and still up there, so how have all these rockets been built to achieve this?

You are asking how rockets are built? When you send a small payload it is a lot easier to achieve then when you send people. Space Physics programs exist across several Universities. They receive funding for satellites they then build to collect data for various reasons. Given the number of space physics programs across the country, it seems rather easy to achieve the number of satellites you request.

I am familiar with some of these programs, they do exist, and launching these rockets is not so hard. It is not the more serious undertaking of launching people up there. There is no media coverage for these type of launches, it is just not interesting enough, and happens too frequently.

So what you are saying is, some of these rockets are launched into space from college campuses and are just rigged up rockets that can achieve so called earth escape velocity, or am I missing the point here, as you make it sound so easy.

Let's put it in a simpler way, just in case someone comes out with, "oh, they're not all working satellites...most of it is bits and pieces of debris."

Since 1957 to 2010, there have been (apparently) 6,910 satellites launched into space.
Out of those 6,910 satellites, 3,494 were still orbiting at the time and 3,395 decayed and burned up and whatever.

Let's concentrate on how many were launched.

1957 to 2010, means we are talking 53 years of launches.
6,910 divided by 53, equals 130 per year launched.
That's 2 and a half launches per week.

Anyone care to tell me how this can happen for 53 years. I mean, we all know what they say the price of satellites are and launches, plus rockets to take them into so called space, plus the rockets have to be supposedly powerful enough to escape earth's atmosphere.

Does anyone seriously think this is possible. I mean , really?

Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.

Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.

It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 05, 2013, 08:56:43 AM

Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.

It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Well, it only seems impossible in YOUR head. The most difficult aspect is the first few miles. That is where the force trying to return the spacecraft to the Earth (whatever it is) is the largest, and also where the drag forces are greatest. Putting a satellite 20miles up versus 60miles is not really that different of an effort: by the time you get to 20 you've done the lion share of the work.

Large numbers only seem insurmountable if one doesn't know how they apply in a given context.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 05, 2013, 09:04:48 AM

Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 05, 2013, 08:56:43 AM

Possible and easy.  You also have to remember it is possible, in some cases, to get multiple payloads on one rocket.  It is dependent on what the final orbital destination of the rocket is.

It's only possible and easy in peoples heads. Those who absolutely refuse to see it all for what it is.

Oh and about those orbital destinations. Which rockets take these satellites 23,000 miles into space?

Well, it only seems impossible in YOUR head. The most difficult aspect is the first few miles. That is where the force trying to return the spacecraft to the Earth (whatever it is) is the largest, and also where the drag forces are greatest. Putting a satellite 20miles up versus 60miles is not really that different of an effort: by the time you get to 20 you've done the lion share of the work.

Large numbers only seem insurmountable if one doesn't know how they apply in a given context.

Oh, I didn't know they had lowered the satellite heights. Oh well, at least you put me right.
So now they orbit at 20 miles and 60 miles.