Google Earth satellites must be extraordinarily high - proof

Thousands?  LOL  It only takes a few.

As much as I disagree with most of your other positions, I kind of agree with you on this one post. A fleet of a few dozen (possibly less) could conceivably do such a thing. It would take a lot of passes though to get around the cloud obstruction issue. Satellites wouldn't be handicapped in the same way [I add solely for purpose of evidence towards practicality of satellites over secret high-altitude planes and conspiracy coverage of gargantuan proportion].

However, I see no reason to think this possibility is actually going on, or even likely. Many things are presumably 'possible'. But not every 'possibility' (real or imagined; after all, some things thought to be possible may well be im-possible in actual reality) is equally as likely.

I can place an apple on the ground under an apple tree. But that in no way implies that all apples on the ground underneath all apple trees where placed there by me or any other person.

I'm not convinced that you've either discredited the RE or bolstered FE. In fact, I'm pretty sure you've done neither.

Are the FE'ers aware that you can actually see many of the satellites in the night sky? Here's where to look: http://spaceweather.com/flybys/ . Just enter your ZIP code (in USA) and it'll list the times and coordinates, when and where you can locate them. Let me guess, those are weather balloons?

ISS here: http://www.lizard-tail.com/isana/tracking/

More real-time satellite tracking: http://science.nasa.gov/iSat/iSAT-text-only/?failure=Webgl

There are over 2,000 man-made satellites orbiting in the Earth's atmosphere.

Satellites do not exist.  I am not a FE, but I do understand that we are being lied to every day.  Start looking at evidence, because it is the only way that you are going to "know" any truths in this world.

https://flic.kr/p/nK2YYE

Satellites do not exist.  I am not a FE, but I do understand that we are being lied to every day.  Start looking at evidence, because it is the only way that you are going to "know" any truths in this world.

https://flic.kr/p/nK2YYE

How do you think satellite tv and GPS work?

Satellites do not exist.  I am not a FE, but I do understand that we are being lied to every day.  Start looking at evidence, because it is the only way that you are going to "know" any truths in this world.

https://flic.kr/p/nK2YYE

Yep. That quote from some unknown, random layman is definitive proof of everything he asserted.

Such breathtaking brilliance... you win the internet. Congratulations.

/end sarcasm

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on May 17, 2014, 05:36:30 PM

Thousands?  LOL  It only takes a few.

As much as I disagree with most of your other positions, I kind of agree with you on this one post. A fleet of a few dozen (possibly less) could conceivably do such a thing.

I don't think this is particularly important, but it's interesting (to me). The peak cold war fleet of well under 100 U2s were operated intensively and managed to keep track of only tiny areas of interest at great expense and were not able to keep their existence a secret. The idea that only a dozen such planes could photograph the whole earth every few years is nonsense, as is their being operated and kept a secret for half a century.

You may as well claim that one solar or nuclear plane has been doing it alone without ever landing for 45 consecutive years. With generation after generation of crew being born, working the great (and invisible) machine and dying on board. That's almost more believable.

And more entertaining!

When private parties pay to launch a satellite into orbit such as OSCAR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR
do you think they get upset when they find the satellite doesn't exist,
or isn't present to provide comms on it's expected pass?

When private parties pay to launch a satellite into orbit such as OSCAR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR
do you think they get upset when they find the satellite doesn't exist,
or isn't present to provide comms on it's expected pass?

Or, maybe NASA just likes to find ways to wash their money?  It is not like you or I can just launch things into orbit. 

Quote from: Art on June 23, 2014, 07:04:38 AM

When private parties pay to launch a satellite into orbit such as OSCAR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR
do you think they get upset when they find the satellite doesn't exist,
or isn't present to provide comms on it's expected pass?

Or, maybe NASA just likes to find ways to wash their money?  It is not like you or I can just launch things into orbit.

There are many organisations across the world unconnected with NASA who are launching satellites.

Quote from: jroa on June 23, 2014, 01:11:46 PM

Quote from: Art on June 23, 2014, 07:04:38 AM

When private parties pay to launch a satellite into orbit such as OSCAR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR
do you think they get upset when they find the satellite doesn't exist,
or isn't present to provide comms on it's expected pass?

Or, maybe NASA just likes to find ways to wash their money?  It is not like you or I can just launch things into orbit.

There are many organisations across the world unconnected with NASA who are launching satellites.

You can't put anything in space without the consent of your country-of-residence's friendly local space agency.

Quote from: inquisitive on June 23, 2014, 02:59:10 PM

Quote from: jroa on June 23, 2014, 01:11:46 PM

Quote from: Art on June 23, 2014, 07:04:38 AM

When private parties pay to launch a satellite into orbit such as OSCAR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR
do you think they get upset when they find the satellite doesn't exist,
or isn't present to provide comms on it's expected pass?

Or, maybe NASA just likes to find ways to wash their money?  It is not like you or I can just launch things into orbit.

There are many organisations across the world unconnected with NASA who are launching satellites.

You can't put anything in space without the consent of your country-of-residence's friendly local space agency.

Well that is about as specious an argument as you can make.

Yeah, you need permission to drive and fly planes as well because they're dangerous. It's not like a group of dark suited men arrive, blindfold you and drive you car or launch your rocket without you then give you unverifiable info about the result.

You tell them what you're doing and they say yay or nay.

You can't put anything in space without the consent of your country-of-residence's friendly local space agency.

For 89% of countries with launch capability their "local space agency" is not NASA.

Obviously all space agencies are money laundering, baby eating satanists (in before jroa), so they are in on the plot, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 10, 2014, 07:47:26 PM

It has already been confirmed that Google uses planes to capture the images for Google Earth, then compiles them into a speherical model.
http://m.slashdot.org/story/84087

Sure, the article says sattelties at one point but that just means they are covering for the conspiracy. All of Google earth images are taken via airplane or hot air balloon.

That is your conclusion. You say ALL via airplane or hot air balloon so us how you concluded that.

Hot air balloons can't go that high.

No, I can't, but that is irrelevant.  Google admits to using anything that can travel in the air to take pictures, yet, you bunch just assume the picture must have been taken from a satellite.

Google admits, or you assert?

Just look up spy planes...U2 or the newer version.  High altitude.

So you are asserting the pics are taken by a U2 spy plane.  Any evidence?

Quote from: inquisitive on June 23, 2014, 02:59:10 PM

Quote from: jroa on June 23, 2014, 01:11:46 PM

Quote from: Art on June 23, 2014, 07:04:38 AM

When private parties pay to launch a satellite into orbit such as OSCAR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR
do you think they get upset when they find the satellite doesn't exist,
or isn't present to provide comms on it's expected pass?

Or, maybe NASA just likes to find ways to wash their money?  It is not like you or I can just launch things into orbit.

There are many organisations across the world unconnected with NASA who are launching satellites.

You can't put anything in space without the consent of your country-of-residence's friendly local space agency.

This guy only had the permission of the FAA.

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

This guy only had the permission of the FAA.

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

That rocket went to 121,000 feet.  That is not exactly space, now is it?

Quote from: bgamelson on June 26, 2014, 02:20:31 AM

This guy only had the permission of the FAA.

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

That rocket went to 121,000 feet.  That is not exactly space, now is it?

It's high enough to see the curvature of the round earth.

Quote from: jroa on June 26, 2014, 03:32:07 AM

Quote from: bgamelson on June 26, 2014, 02:20:31 AM

This guy only had the permission of the FAA.

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

That rocket went to 121,000 feet.  That is not exactly space, now is it?

It's high enough to see the curvature of the round earth.

You can even see the curvature while it is still on the launcher. 

Quote from: bgamelson on June 26, 2014, 03:44:23 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 26, 2014, 03:32:07 AM

Quote from: bgamelson on June 26, 2014, 02:20:31 AM

This guy only had the permission of the FAA.

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

That rocket went to 121,000 feet.  That is not exactly space, now is it?

It's high enough to see the curvature of the round earth.

You can even see the curvature while it is still on the launcher. 

I see his point.  Do you?

Quote from: jroa on June 26, 2014, 03:50:27 AM

Quote from: bgamelson on June 26, 2014, 03:44:23 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 26, 2014, 03:32:07 AM

Quote from: bgamelson on June 26, 2014, 02:20:31 AM

This guy only had the permission of the FAA.

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

That rocket went to 121,000 feet.  That is not exactly space, now is it?

It's high enough to see the curvature of the round earth.

You can even see the curvature while it is still on the launcher. 

I see his point.  Do you?

What are you talking about?

Quote from: bgamelson on June 26, 2014, 03:44:23 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 26, 2014, 03:32:07 AM

Quote from: bgamelson on June 26, 2014, 02:20:31 AM

This guy only had the permission of the FAA.

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

That rocket went to 121,000 feet.  That is not exactly space, now is it?

It's high enough to see the curvature of the round earth.

You can even see the curvature while it is still on the launcher. 

Onboard camera does not show curvature at the pad/at low altitude; image is distinctly from a rectilinear lens with little geometrical distortion. It is worth noticing that once at an altitude where curvature is seen, degree of it remains the same when craft tilts so that the horizon moves vertically through the frame: if curvature was seen due to lens distortion, this would not be the case (there would be convex/concave transition). So either curvature of the horizon shown here is real, or these non-nasa rocketeers deliberately fabricated their video.

Quote from: jroa on June 26, 2014, 03:50:27 AM

Quote from: bgamelson on June 26, 2014, 03:44:23 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 26, 2014, 03:32:07 AM

Quote from: bgamelson on June 26, 2014, 02:20:31 AM

This guy only had the permission of the FAA.

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

That rocket went to 121,000 feet.  That is not exactly space, now is it?

It's high enough to see the curvature of the round earth.

You can even see the curvature while it is still on the launcher. 

Onboard camera does not show curvature at the pad/at low altitude; image is distinctly from a rectilinear lens with little geometrical distortion. It is worth noticing that once at an altitude where curvature is seen, degree of it remains the same when craft tilts so that the horizon moves vertically through the frame: if curvature was seen due to lens distortion, this would not be the case (there would be convex/concave transition). So either curvature of the horizon shown here is real, or these non-nasa rocketeers deliberately fabricated their video.

Around 8 min - 8 mins 15 seconds you can see the real lens distortion going on. (You know, that convex-concave transition.)

Quote from: neimoka on June 30, 2014, 04:42:30 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 26, 2014, 03:50:27 AM

Quote from: bgamelson on June 26, 2014, 03:44:23 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 26, 2014, 03:32:07 AM

Quote from: bgamelson on June 26, 2014, 02:20:31 AM

This guy only had the permission of the FAA.

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

That rocket went to 121,000 feet.  That is not exactly space, now is it?

It's high enough to see the curvature of the round earth.

You can even see the curvature while it is still on the launcher. 

Onboard camera does not show curvature at the pad/at low altitude; image is distinctly from a rectilinear lens with little geometrical distortion. It is worth noticing that once at an altitude where curvature is seen, degree of it remains the same when craft tilts so that the horizon moves vertically through the frame: if curvature was seen due to lens distortion, this would not be the case (there would be convex/concave transition). So either curvature of the horizon shown here is real, or these non-nasa rocketeers deliberately fabricated their video.

Around 8 min - 8 mins 15 seconds you can see the real lens distortion going on. (You know, that convex-concave transition.)

Which is from another, curvilinear camera. You can see that it's cover breaks during ascent, and the broken bits remain visible from there on. The other camera is rectilinear, and shows the correct curvature throughout it's field of view.

edit - it's probably easier to see what happens in this clip. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

You assume that there was only one fish eye lens camera on board. 

Images taken of a flat disc from above can in no way whatsoever be aligned and stitched together to fit the spherical model without enormous fallacies and obvious blanks. A pair of scissors and some paper can tell you as much.

You assume that there was only one fish eye lens camera on board.

You assume that the rectilinear lens was swapped for a fisheye lens mid-flight?

Which leads to what I said earlier, either a non-distorting lens shows curvature or this rocketeer group fabricated the video.

I'd just like to bump in here saying the orbital velocity of any spacecraft is dependent on the size and mass of the orbiting body as well as the apogee and perigee of the orbit. This means not all spacecraft go at 17,400 miles per hour around the earth. A GPS satellite in an orbit of around 20,000 km will go much slower than the Soyuz which operates at 200 to 300 km.

This also applies to celestial bodies. Uranus (stop giggling) has not yet completed an orbit around the sun since its discovery, while mercury orbits the sun every 88 days or so.

I highly suggest both RE'ers as FE'ers read on Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation, and if you have some free time play a game called Kerbal Space Program. It's more exciting and easier to pick up than orbiter, and is great for understanding all the maths involved in these "elaborate satanist baby murdering money-laundering hoaxes".

Heck, if you REALLY have free time, test these laws for yourself and grumpily admit that the math is sound or grumpily dismiss these old dead guys and their stupid math. Maybe math just makes everyone grumpy?