How did Columbia get so high before is broke up?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 06:13:21 AM

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?

You can see a satellite from Earth, yet you can not see a satellite from outer space, where the satellite is?

Quote from: glokta on March 07, 2014, 04:03:13 AM

Anyone like to address this? The Columbia debris field was around 480km - compare this to something like the Lockerbie bombing which occured at around 31,000 feet at at around 580kmh which resulted in a debris field around 130km.

How many people were killed by the falling debris?

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?

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

Quote from: jroa on March 07, 2014, 05:57:19 AM

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

I know refraction and reflection. I just don't know how refraction and reflection could mimic all the properties expected from a satellite. Do you?

Aditionally, one can also detect geostationary satellites with telescopes. If they are not things in orbit, what we are seeing there?

You can see a satellite from Earth, yet you can not see a satellite from outer space, where the satellite is?

I know refraction and reflection. I just don't know how refraction and reflection could mimic all the properties expected from a satellite. Do you?

Quote from: Jairo on March 07, 2014, 06:23:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 06:13:21 AM

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?

Before i forget could you tell me the company and model of your phone?

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 06:26:33 AM

Quote from: Jairo on March 07, 2014, 06:23:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 06:13:21 AM

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?

Before i forget could you tell me the company and model of your phone?

The discussion that came to that you claim you had your coordinates to your position on your phone. I wanted know more about that feature.

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.

Quote from: Jairo on March 07, 2014, 06:36:59 AM

I know refraction and reflection. I just don't know how refraction and reflection could mimic all the properties expected from a satellite. Do you?

Radio signals can be refracted by the atmoplane.  You can also reflect radio signals off the atmoplane.  Do you believe that the angle and direction prove that the angle and direction that these signals are picked up prove that they came from that angle and direction?

Quote from: jroa on March 07, 2014, 06:49:30 AM

Quote from: Jairo on March 07, 2014, 06:36:59 AM

I know refraction and reflection. I just don't know how refraction and reflection could mimic all the properties expected from a satellite. Do you?

Radio signals can be refracted by the atmoplane.  You can also reflect radio signals off the atmoplane.  Do you believe that the angle and direction prove that the angle and direction that these signals are picked up prove that they came from that angle and direction?

Only low frequencies can be reflected or reflected to a good amount. That works well on frequencies below 30mhz. When you are in the gigahertz it does to a very very small amount. The frequencies used in satellites are in the range of 4,000mhz to 11,000 mhz. Remember visible light is much higher frequency than satellite frequencies.

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 06:50:09 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 06:26:33 AM

Quote from: Jairo on March 07, 2014, 06:23:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 06:13:21 AM

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?

Before i forget could you tell me the company and model of your phone?

The discussion that came to that you claim you had your coordinates to your position on your phone. I wanted know more about that feature.

You can't get your coordinates on your phone?  Pretty much everyone can today.

Here is your statement: "I am saying that my phone knows my location without GPS, which goes against RE claims that it could only know that if satellites exist.  "
Could you explain?

Do you know what GPS means?
[/quote
Who are you asking?

Who are you asking?

Radio signals can be refracted by the atmoplane.  You can also reflect radio signals off the atmoplane.

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 07:10:12 AM

Who are you asking?

Seeing how you answered, I'll say, you.

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?

Quote from: jroa on March 07, 2014, 06:49:30 AM

Radio signals can be refracted by the atmoplane.  You can also reflect radio signals off the atmoplane.

I know atmosphere can refract and reflect. Some radio users even use this to actually communicate through larger distances.

The problem is that this real phenomenon doesn't look like with what you need here. It can't mimic movement, paralax and visual image of a satellite at the same time. Aditionally, this extreme distortion would be detectable by other means, like messing our view of the stars; yet the sky keeps looking like an undistorted background.

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 07:04:06 AM

Here is your statement: "I am saying that my phone knows my location without GPS, which goes against RE claims that it could only know that if satellites exist.  "
Could you explain?

Yes, my phone knows where I am without the GPS turned on.  Land based antennas maybe?

Quote from: Jairo on March 07, 2014, 07:15:35 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 07, 2014, 06:49:30 AM

Radio signals can be refracted by the atmoplane.  You can also reflect radio signals off the atmoplane.

I know atmosphere can refract and reflect. Some radio users even use this to actually communicate through larger distances.

The problem is that this real phenomenon doesn't look like with what you need here. It can't mimic movement, paralax and visual image of a satellite at the same time. Aditionally, this extreme distortion would be detectable by other means, like messing our view of the stars; yet the sky keeps looking like an undistorted background.

I understand what you are saying.  You are saying that I could not both see something and pick up radio signals from it, from the same direction unless the Earth is round?  Correct?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 07:12:34 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 07, 2014, 07:10:12 AM

Who are you asking?

Seeing how you answered, I'll say, you.

Global Position Satellite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

What? Round Earthers are the ones who claim that videos can only be sent by satellites.  They do it all the time.  I don't want to name names, but read over threads and you will see it for yourself.

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?

scepti - copying out a loosely accurate description of an event and throwing in the odd "allegedly" and "supposed" before certain words does not say anything other than "I don't believe it!". Which we already know. Moreover it was not known for sure that the outcome would be catastrophic failure it was was a high possibility. So I ask you, what would your procedure be given a "rescue in space was impossible" and "allowing it to break up would risk lives on the ground". Pray tell what your solution would be

What? Round Earthers are the ones who claim that videos can only be sent by satellites.  They do it all the time.  I don't want to name names, but read over threads and you will see it for yourself.