How did Columbia get so high before is broke up?

http://m.space.com/16546-photos-telstar-communications-satellite-anniversary.html
How about two being deployed by the space shuttle?
Scroll through the pictures and take a look at picture 3 and picture 6.  Now that you have your pictures, can we get back on topic?

My question is does it matter how many, if any at all, people got killed by falling debris from Columbia? If no one got killed in a hotel fire, does it mean the hotel didn't burn down?  You question is irrelevant to the discussion.

How many people were killed by the debris? It's irrelevant to you because you're one of the people trying to hang onto all of this for dear life, so avoiding this just futher proves it's all a load of bullc rap.

Tell me, why does it matter?

Tell me, why does it matter?

Supposed tonnage of the shuttle plus tanks. I thnk it matters.

If a directional antenna works best when pointed to the alleged satellite's position, doesn't this already prove there's something there in the sky sending the signal?

If not, why?

No, it only shows that it is direction that the signal is coming from, not where it is originating from. 

Quote from: BJ1234 on March 07, 2014, 05:21:03 AM

Tell me, why does it matter?

Supposed tonnage of the shuttle plus tanks. I thnk it matters.

The shuttle big orange tank was long gone 16 days past. You think because it is very difficult to take a close up picture of a TV broadcast deep in space you have the upper hand. you have shown to all of us that NO matter what we will feed you you will always say it is fake. You are what is called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian

Ok now tell me why it matters how many people got killed by debris?
Your answer about tonnage is not really an answer.

No, it only shows that it is direction that the signal is coming from, not where it is originating from.

And the difference is?

No, it only shows that it is direction that the signal is coming from, not where it is originating from.

So do you claim the signal is being sent from the surface and making a deep curve in space, back to Earth, by itself? Based in what?

And what about the stationary satellites which can actually be detected by telescope, in their expected positions?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:22:04 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on March 07, 2014, 05:21:03 AM

Tell me, why does it matter?

Supposed tonnage of the shuttle plus tanks. I thnk it matters.

The shuttle big orange tank was long gone 16 days past. You think because it is very difficult to take a close up picture of a TV broadcast deep in space you have the upper hand. you have shown to all of us that NO matter what we will feed you you will always say it is fake. You are what is called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian

It doesn't matter what you think I am, the truth is, you cannot produce any compelling evidence. For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...but you never do. It all looks fake. If it looked real I'd be hooked and admit it's real. It just doesn't, at all.

Quote from: jroa on March 07, 2014, 05:36:23 AM

No, it only shows that it is direction that the signal is coming from, not where it is originating from.

And the difference is?

Well, if I shine a light at a mirror and you see that light, it does not mean that the light originated from the direction that the light hitting your eyes is coming from, right?  I am not saying that there are mirrors in space or anything like that. 

I am just saying that the direction that a signal comes from does not prove that it originated from that direction. 

Ok now tell me why it matters how many people got killed by debris?
Your answer about tonnage is not really an answer.

Scattered over populated areas like that, there should have been casualties.

Quote from: jroa on March 07, 2014, 05:36:23 AM

No, it only shows that it is direction that the signal is coming from, not where it is originating from.

So do you claim the signal is being sent from the surface and making a deep curve in space, back to Earth, by itself? Based in what?

And what about the stationary satellites which can actually be detected by telescope, in their expected positions?

Do you not believe in light refraction?  How about reflection?  Can other areas of the spectrum not experience the same effect?

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 05:37:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:22:04 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on March 07, 2014, 05:21:03 AM

Tell me, why does it matter?

Supposed tonnage of the shuttle plus tanks. I thnk it matters.

The shuttle big orange tank was long gone 16 days past. You think because it is very difficult to take a close up picture of a TV broadcast deep in space you have the upper hand. you have shown to all of us that NO matter what we will feed you you will always say it is fake. You are what is called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian

It doesn't matter what you think I am, the truth is, you cannot produce any compelling evidence. For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...but you never do. It all looks fake. If it looked real I'd be hooked and admit it's real. It just doesn't, at all.

Define me what you mean by clear cut realistic images. What clear cut realistic image you make you happy. I will make you a deal. You show me a clear cut realistic image of the flat earth and I will give you the image your want. DEAL!!!!

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 05:37:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:22:04 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on March 07, 2014, 05:21:03 AM

Tell me, why does it matter?

Supposed tonnage of the shuttle plus tanks. I thnk it matters.

The shuttle big orange tank was long gone 16 days past. You think because it is very difficult to take a close up picture of a TV broadcast deep in space you have the upper hand. you have shown to all of us that NO matter what we will feed you you will always say it is fake. You are what is called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian

It doesn't matter what you think I am, the truth is, you cannot produce any compelling evidence. For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...but you never do. It all looks fake. If it looked real I'd be hooked and admit it's real. It just doesn't, at all.

There is plenty of evidence, you will not accept it as would mean you having to admit the earth is spherical.

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 05:37:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:22:04 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on March 07, 2014, 05:21:03 AM

Tell me, why does it matter?

Supposed tonnage of the shuttle plus tanks. I thnk it matters.

The shuttle big orange tank was long gone 16 days past. You think because it is very difficult to take a close up picture of a TV broadcast deep in space you have the upper hand. you have shown to all of us that NO matter what we will feed you you will always say it is fake. You are what is called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian

It doesn't matter what you think I am, the truth is, you cannot produce any compelling evidence. For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...but you never do. It all looks fake. If it looked real I'd be hooked and admit it's real. It just doesn't, at all.

You cannot be compelled, that does not make the evidence bad. In my time here, you have been given dozens of things you could do by yourself to see and you have never done it. So then people show you photographs and videos you request and you call them fake even though it was shown here that you cannot spot a fake. The truth is, near as can be told or matters, you refuse to be convinced. Just like when I showed you pancake collapses of buildings were not exclusive to the WTC.

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 05:38:54 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 07, 2014, 05:36:23 AM

No, it only shows that it is direction that the signal is coming from, not where it is originating from.

And the difference is?

Well, if I shine a light at a mirror and you see that light, it does not mean that the light originated from the direction that the light hitting your eyes is coming from, right?  I am not saying that there are mirrors in space or anything like that. 

I am just saying that the direction that a signal comes from does not prove that it originated from that direction.

Bad example. There are thousands of people from different countries that have satellite dishes pointing to the sky in one direction. What does common sense tell you? what would be your 99.99% conclusion.

Let me tell you how stupid this shuttle carry on is and any rational person tell me that this would be a common sense approach.
Apparently, those people at N.A.S.A knew the shuttle had been damaged by a piece of foam. What? I said, a piece of FOAM.
Anyway: they knew that the shuttle wouldn't make it back but they said they chose not to tell the actornauts, because to keep the shuttle in space and effect a rescue would take too long and telling the actornauts that the shuttle was damaged then leaving them to run our of oxygen and die in space would have been a cruel way to die. So what they did was; they decided to say nothing and allow them to burn to death on supposed re-entry, knowing that all the debris would land on many populated areas with the potential of killing many people.
The actornauts go on these missions, we are told, by being strictly tested over about 7 or 8 years and are also allegedly told that it's dangerous and there is a very good chance of dying.
That being said, they chose to let them burn to death whilst also putting the lives of towns in severe jepoardy.
Does this make any sense to anyone, seriously?

For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...

How?

I know of no satellite with capability to do that so easily. Could you name at least one for me?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:53:13 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 05:37:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:22:04 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on March 07, 2014, 05:21:03 AM

Tell me, why does it matter?

Supposed tonnage of the shuttle plus tanks. I thnk it matters.

The shuttle big orange tank was long gone 16 days past. You think because it is very difficult to take a close up picture of a TV broadcast deep in space you have the upper hand. you have shown to all of us that NO matter what we will feed you you will always say it is fake. You are what is called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian

It doesn't matter what you think I am, the truth is, you cannot produce any compelling evidence. For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...but you never do. It all looks fake. If it looked real I'd be hooked and admit it's real. It just doesn't, at all.

Define me what you mean by clear cut realistic images. What clear cut realistic image you make you happy. I will make you a deal. You show me a clear cut realistic image of the flat earth and I will give you the image your want. DEAL!!!!

To give you that, I would have to go into your fake space, so considering that it's impossible, then I can't grant you your wish, so let's just call it quits, because I'm 100% convinced they're fake and you are 100% convinced they're real. I'm happy with that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:53:13 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 05:37:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:22:04 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on March 07, 2014, 05:21:03 AM

Tell me, why does it matter?

Supposed tonnage of the shuttle plus tanks. I thnk it matters.

The shuttle big orange tank was long gone 16 days past. You think because it is very difficult to take a close up picture of a TV broadcast deep in space you have the upper hand. you have shown to all of us that NO matter what we will feed you you will always say it is fake. You are what is called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian

It doesn't matter what you think I am, the truth is, you cannot produce any compelling evidence. For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...but you never do. It all looks fake. If it looked real I'd be hooked and admit it's real. It just doesn't, at all.

There is plenty of evidence, you will not accept it as would mean you having to admit the earth is spherical.

Anyone with a small amount of common sense should know we don't live on a rotating globe.

Let me tell you how stupid this shuttle carry on is and any rational person tell me that this would be a common sense approach.
Apparently, those people at N.A.S.A knew the shuttle had been damaged by a piece of foam. What? I said, a piece of FOAM.
Anyway: they knew that the shuttle wouldn't make it back but they said they chose not to tell the actornauts, because to keep the shuttle in space and effect a rescue would take too long and telling the actornauts that the shuttle was damaged then leaving them to run our of oxygen and die in space would have been a cruel way to die. So what they did was; they decided to say nothing and allow them to burn to death on supposed re-entry, knowing that all the debris would land on many populated areas with the potential of killing many people.
The actornauts go on these missions, we are told, by being strictly tested over about 7 or 8 years and are also allegedly told that it's dangerous and there is a very good chance of dying.
That being said, they chose to let them burn to death whilst also putting the lives of towns in severe jepoardy.
Does this make any sense to anyone, seriously?

Hehehehe. You just admitted they were in space. If it was fake nobody would die.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:53:13 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 05:37:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:22:04 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on March 07, 2014, 05:21:03 AM

Tell me, why does it matter?

Supposed tonnage of the shuttle plus tanks. I thnk it matters.

The shuttle big orange tank was long gone 16 days past. You think because it is very difficult to take a close up picture of a TV broadcast deep in space you have the upper hand. you have shown to all of us that NO matter what we will feed you you will always say it is fake. You are what is called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian

It doesn't matter what you think I am, the truth is, you cannot produce any compelling evidence. For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...but you never do. It all looks fake. If it looked real I'd be hooked and admit it's real. It just doesn't, at all.

You cannot be compelled, that does not make the evidence bad. In my time here, you have been given dozens of things you could do by yourself to see and you have never done it. So then people show you photographs and videos you request and you call them fake even though it was shown here that you cannot spot a fake. The truth is, near as can be told or matters, you refuse to be convinced. Just like when I showed you pancake collapses of buildings were not exclusive to the WTC.

Common sense alludes you like a lot of your buddies. You live in a world of fakers and embrace it as real. Trying to tell me what I know when you're hanging on by a thread with the garbage you spew, is laughable.

Quote from: Jairo on March 07, 2014, 05:39:14 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 07, 2014, 05:36:23 AM

No, it only shows that it is direction that the signal is coming from, not where it is originating from.

So do you claim the signal is being sent from the surface and making a deep curve in space, back to Earth, by itself? Based in what?

And what about the stationary satellites which can actually be detected by telescope, in their expected positions?

Do you not believe in light refraction?  How about reflection?  Can other areas of the spectrum not experience the same effect?

The thing about signals reflecting off the atmosphere is you can compare the signal received to the signal transmitted and see a marked difference as the atmosphere is not a perfect reflector. When accounting for this it is easy to discern a signal bounce from one that would originate from an orbiting source (I.e. Signal attenuation would be off by a factor of 2 approximately). Unless you are ready to substantiate a claim that all broadcasters are lying, or worse, hideously incapable of determine their broadcast frequency, this bouncing signal theory is not going very far.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 07, 2014, 06:02:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:53:13 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 05:37:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:22:04 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on March 07, 2014, 05:21:03 AM

Tell me, why does it matter?

Supposed tonnage of the shuttle plus tanks. I thnk it matters.

The shuttle big orange tank was long gone 16 days past. You think because it is very difficult to take a close up picture of a TV broadcast deep in space you have the upper hand. you have shown to all of us that NO matter what we will feed you you will always say it is fake. You are what is called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian

It doesn't matter what you think I am, the truth is, you cannot produce any compelling evidence. For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...but you never do. It all looks fake. If it looked real I'd be hooked and admit it's real. It just doesn't, at all.

You cannot be compelled, that does not make the evidence bad. In my time here, you have been given dozens of things you could do by yourself to see and you have never done it. So then people show you photographs and videos you request and you call them fake even though it was shown here that you cannot spot a fake. The truth is, near as can be told or matters, you refuse to be convinced. Just like when I showed you pancake collapses of buildings were not exclusive to the WTC.

Common sense alludes you like a lot of your buddies. You live in a world of fakers and embrace it as real. Trying to tell me what I know when you're hanging on by a thread with the garbage you spew, is laughable.

You meant eludes not alludes.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:53:13 AM

For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...

How?

I know of no satellite with capability to do that so easily. Could you name at least one for me?
[/quote]I can't name you any, because they do not exist. The fact is, when you lot get asked for evidence, it's either nothing or cartoon images and laughable video.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 06:04:57 AM

Let me tell you how stupid this shuttle carry on is and any rational person tell me that this would be a common sense approach.
Apparently, those people at N.A.S.A knew the shuttle had been damaged by a piece of foam. What? I said, a piece of FOAM.
Anyway: they knew that the shuttle wouldn't make it back but they said they chose not to tell the actornauts, because to keep the shuttle in space and effect a rescue would take too long and telling the actornauts that the shuttle was damaged then leaving them to run our of oxygen and die in space would have been a cruel way to die. So what they did was; they decided to say nothing and allow them to burn to death on supposed re-entry, knowing that all the debris would land on many populated areas with the potential of killing many people.
The actornauts go on these missions, we are told, by being strictly tested over about 7 or 8 years and are also allegedly told that it's dangerous and there is a very good chance of dying.
That being said, they chose to let them burn to death whilst also putting the lives of towns in severe jepoardy.
Does this make any sense to anyone, seriously?

Hehehehe. You just admitted they were in space. If it was fake nobody would die.

Is this all you have? Seriously, is this all you can come up with? Can't you read or do you just choose what you think? You have no intention of finding anything out. Your goal is to make people believe the bull crap and you're failing miserably.

Quote from: Jairo on March 07, 2014, 06:05:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:53:13 AM

For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...

How?

I know of no satellite with capability to do that so easily. Could you name at least one for me?

I can't name you any, because they do not exist. The fact is, when you lot get asked for evidence, it's either nothing or cartoon images and laughable video.
[/quote]
We just explained it because it is very difficult to take. It does mean you won the argument. If you show me a picture of the air we breath I will admit it exist. Prove to me air exist!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Jairo on March 07, 2014, 06:05:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 05:53:13 AM

For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...

How?

I know of no satellite with capability to do that so easily. Could you name at least one for me?

I can't name you any, because they do not exist. The fact is, when you lot get asked for evidence, it's either nothing or cartoon images and laughable video.
[/quote]
I am waiting of your definition of a "clear cut realistic image"

I can't name you any, because they do not exist.

I know you don't belive in them.

But you just claimed they should be able make pictures of other satellites, considering "how big the space program is".

That's why I'm asking. What claim about the space program have you seen, to think they should be able to make such pictures?