ISS Live Stream can't be faked, can it?

Quote from: Kami on May 28, 2016, 08:46:27 AM

And papa: This indeed looks like it is taken from space

No it doesn't.

Quote from: Kami on May 28, 2016, 08:46:27 AM

such clouds are most times way higher than 10km

That's a flat-out Lie.

You need to stop this shit.

Intrinsic factors include the diameter of the erupting vent, the gas content of the magma, and the velocity at which it is ejected. Extrinsic factors can be important, with winds sometimes limiting the height of the column, and the local thermal temperature gradient also playing a role. The atmospheric temperature in the troposphere normally decreases by about 6-7 K/km, but small changes in this gradient can have a large effect on the final column height. Theoretically, the maximum achievable column height is thought to be about 55 km (34 mi). In practice, column heights ranging from about 2–45 km (1.2–28.0 mi) are seen.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruption_column

Sarychev volcano is one of the most active volcanoes in the Kuril Island chain streching between Kamchatka and Japan. Large explosive eruptions occured between 11-19 June 2009, sending huge ash coulds to altitudes of up to 14 km, and forcing many flights with routes accross the northern Pacific to be cancelled or diverted.

and

Sarychev volcano has a spectacular eruption on 12-15 June 2009. A powerful explosion produced an sub-plinian eruption column 12-18 km tall which injected large amounts of ash into the stratosphere. The plume extended 200 km to the south-west and 105 km to the south-east. The eruption was mainly observed through satellites, because Sarychev is not monitored with ground-based instruments. The eruption intensified on 14 June, when the column reached 40,000 ft (13 km), and on 15 June, when it peaked at 54,000 ft (18 km) altitude.

from http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/de/sarychev.html
Check your facts before calling me a liar.

Yes. because every pilot dreams of flying right above an erupting volcano.

He's clearly not right above it you psycho.

Wtf is wrong with you?

Plus, these:

 

Check your facts before calling me a liar.

I did; you were lying.

And now you're trying to confuse a volcanic ash column with clouds to get out of your lies...

You Liar.

Seriously; get a life, you sad sacks.

okay, seems like i need to clarify:
with "those clouds" I meant the volcanic ash column which is photographed in this picture. This column is higher than 10km.

okay, seems like i need to clarify:
with "those clouds" I meant the volcanic ash column which is photographed in this picture. This column is higher than 10km.

LMFAO!!!

By 'clouds' I was referring to the CLOUDS in this picture, none of which can be more than 10km high, you Liar:



And the U2 or Canberra high-altitude PR planes from the 1950's could easily have taken that photo, with no risk to the pilot whatsoever.

Just get a life ffs; no-one is buying your bullshit any more.

What about the giant thing in the middle? doesn't that look like a volcanic ash column? Sorry for using the term "cloud", that was confusing.

LMFAO!!!

By 'clouds' I was referring to the CLOUDS in this picture, none of which can be more than 10km high, you Liar:

I must say, Papa, your insults have gotten a bit stale^[1]. You really need to invent some new ones.

And the U2 or Canberra high-altitude PR planes from the 1950's could easily have taken that photo, with no risk to the pilot whatsoever.

Just get a life ffs; no-one is buying your bullshit any more.

Gee Papa you're right up with ex-globe's could've been posts, it could be this, it could be that.

Never any real evidence - all guesswork - the evidence that there really are satellites up there is piling up.

Who's this giving this advice "Just get a life" - just a bloke that doesn't believe that earth is flat, doesn't support arguments that it is a Globe, doesn't believe atoms exist^[2], doesn't believe rockets can work in a vacuum, doesn't understand Newton's Laws of Motion, doesn't believe the kinetic theory of gases^[3] and can't ever explain anything asked of him^[4].

And you tell us to "Just get a life"!
This from someone with 5794 posts (over 14 per day) and 61st out of 8860 members! - you've got miles to go to catch up to markjo and jroa!
I am ashamed to say that I have only posted 1734 (a bit over 6 per day) that's 175th - I know I'm a slacker!


Now, I suppose some might say I'm insulting Papa Legba in this post, not a bit of it I'm trying to point out his good points!



[1] New definition of a liar: "Anyone who disagrees with papa legba, no matter how honestly!"

[2] Of course this proves that Papa doesn't exists, since I imagine he's made of atoms.
     Then I've often said he's just an AI, just a heap of electrons whizzing around.

[3] Hence denies numerous Laws of Nature.

[4] Such as how high these rockets (that supposedly won't work in a vacuum) can actually go. We see the optically tracked to extreme altitudes.

The only evidence for satellites is

"when I point my dish in a certain direction it picks up a signal!!!"

Which could easily be explained by other floaty things in the sky that are extremely cheap to make and launch compared to a satellite which is 300 million dollars just for one.

The only evidence for satellites is

"when I point my dish in a certain direction it picks up a signal!!!"

Which could easily be explained by other floaty things in the sky that are extremely cheap to make and launch compared to a satellite which is 300 million dollars just for one.

More "could be", "might be" guess work!

So for every location in say Australia we can point a dish at the angles specified on sites on the internet and magically point at one one these "other floaty things in the sky". Your guesses are getting more ridiculous by the minute. Just how many billion of these "other floaty things in the sky" are there around the globe. How are they magically anchored in  place?

And just how "extremely cheap", since you need so many and each in contact with a ground station.

Then again we can triangulate on a number of these and "magically" find that the common point where that these dishes just happen to be aiming at is at a know location at Geosynchronous altitude as in (these are for a US TV satellite, not Australian)

OK, here it is - your proof that satellite dishes are point at the same object. I am using towns at the 97° longitude to make this a 2D trigonometric problem:

Satellite:

• Galaxy 19
• latitude, longitude (0°, 96.96° W)

Victoria, TX:

• latitude, longitude (28.8169° N, 96.9933° W)
• dish angle, north alignment (56.441°, 179.93°)
• Geosynchronous distance = 42,601 km

Augusta, KS:

• latitude, longitude (37.6925° N, 96.9800° W)
• dish angle, north alignment (46.382°, 179.97°)
• Geosynchronous distance = 42,572 km

Grand Forks, ND:

• latitude, longitude (47.9253° N, 97.0325° W)
• dish angle, north alignment (35.034°, 179.90°)
• Geosynchronous distance = 42,559 km

These are all within 42 km. The 3 dishes are pointing at the same object. It is not a bird, balloon or plane 42,000+ km in the sky.

The other satellites in the area:

• 98.39 W Inmarsat, approximately 1060 km away from Galaxy 19
• 96.19 W Echostar 6, approximately 570 km away from Galaxy 19

These are MUCH farther than 42 km away. The dishes are not pointing at any other satellite.[/size]

No, those dishes are pointing at an object in Geostationary orbit, not at one of billions of imaginary "floaty things in the sky".

Waiting for your imagination to come up with more ridiculous ideas is getting almost entertaining - beats "Alice through the Looking Glass".

Each airship does not need to be in contact with a ground station, they can send signals to each other just like satellites are supposed to!

Google talk about doing this on their page, which describes their airships.

There is no debate about the cost, its obviously much less.

Lets say there are 2 dishes
Dish A and Dish B

Dish A is located in London and points exactly to the West.

Dish B is located 20 miles north, and points exactly West plus one degree

Both are pointed at  something 40,000 km away so they have almost exactly the same angle.

Both Dishes could easily be pointed at 2 seperate objects that are much closer,
They have almost the same angle but are located in different places, so could easily be pointed at one distant object or two closer objects.


To put it more simply:
2 lines converging on a distant point could easily encounter 2 closer objects on their way!

I am very new to the flat earth theory debate and discussion and am intrigued by some of the points being brought up. Although I recognize the bias against photographic evidence, the international space station's live stream ( http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream ) has to be better than a photo, right? I am genuinely curious as to how this altering could be done. I am currently on the globe earth side of the argument, but i understand the merits of the flat earth theory. If the station is not currently broadcasting the footage of earth, there are vods of previous streams. again i realize how these seem less valid.

Well, I suppose the question is whether or not you are willing to believe that the feed you are watching is, in fact, live.  Some have pointed out the logistical hell that would be inherent in editing a live feed with seemless CGI integration, it's somewhat beyond our capabilities at this point.  But that only really matters if you are certain the feed is live, there remains the possibility that the feed is pre-recorded which drastically changes what is or is not possible.

Each airship does not need to be in contact with a ground station, they can send signals to each other just like satellites are supposed to!

Google talk about doing this on their page, which describes their airships.

There is no debate about the cost, its obviously much less.

Lets say there are 2 dishes
Dish A and Dish B

Dish A is located in London and points exactly to the West.

Dish B is located 20 miles north, and points exactly West plus one degree

Both are pointed at  something 40,000 km away so they have almost exactly the same angle.

Both Dishes could easily be pointed at 2 seperate objects that are much closer,
They have almost the same angle but are located in different places, so could easily be pointed at one distant object or two closer objects.

Congratulations on almost passing remedial high school economics class.  I'm sure Dish Network is itching to make use of your expert cost-benefit analysis. 

To put it more simply:
2 lines converging on a distant point could easily encounter 2 closer objects on their way!

First of all, that starts leading to a lot more distant points that you need to build and maintain.

Secondly, why bother lie about satellites in the first place?  If you're using airships, or other some such floaty stuff, why claim that they're really satellites?  Especially when some of the newest services are promoting the fact that they're using airships.

The only reason to lie is if satellites are impossible.

Satellite TV brings in an incredible amount of money so maintaining a bunch of airships is no big deal.
They are at twice the height of airplanes according to Google so are invisible.

The only reason to lie is if satellites are impossible.

Satellite TV brings in an incredible amount of money so maintaining a bunch of airships is no big deal.
They are at twice the height of airplanes according to Google so are invisible.

I don't understand.  The moon is a satellite.  Regardless of whether the planet is round or flat, or even the specific forces that keep it in check, the moon is clearly able to maintain it's distance from us.  Why then would a man-made satellite not be also able to do that?

The only reason to lie is if satellites are impossible.

Satellite TV brings in an incredible amount of money so maintaining a bunch of airships is no big deal.
They are at twice the height of airplanes according to Google so are invisible.

But why not just tell everyone the truth that they're airships from the beginning?  Who cares if it's an airship or a satellite, as long as it works?

The only reason to lie is if satellites are impossible.

Satellite TV brings in an incredible amount of money so maintaining a bunch of airships is no big deal.
They are at twice the height of airplanes according to Google so are invisible.

Sure, but there is massive PROOF that satellite TV uses satellites. As stated in other places triangulating the aiming directions of TV dishes can locate these satellites - right where they are supposed to be.

Even amateur astronomers can observe the satellites directly, see Observing Geostationary Satellites.

Here is a like to a video of some "wandering" slowly (no they are not precisely stationary) " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Astra geostationary satellites through telescope.

I found some pictures illustrating this on the EurAstro/EPO Astroc Club website

If you took a picture of the sky without moving the camera, the stars would move and show
up as streaks, and the geosynchronous satellite will show as points of light

Geostationary satellites Astra and Hot Bird 12.3.2002, M. Rudolf

from Galaxyzoo Forum

These photographs of dots are taken with regular cameras, a telescope should be able to get a closer view right?
None of these nerds have tried this?

(I used the word nerd to emphasise that these people are into science and astronomy, and probably own telescopes)

These photographs of dots are taken with regular cameras, a telescope should be able to get a closer view right?
None of these nerds have tried this?

(I used the word nerd to emphasise that these people are into science and astronomy, and probably own telescopes)

If you have a good enough telescope, but satellites at that distance are very faint.  More fun and feasible to get images of the ISS. 

Sure sign of someone who KNOWS they has completely LOST an argument - when they start insulting their opponents!

^Then spends rest of tl;dr disinfo-rant insulting me.

^lol.

'Sattylytez' & 'Shpayze-shippz' are all part of an enormous military-industrial propaganda/embezzlement scheme.

There are no laws of physics or principles of aerodynamics that support their existence.

Hence you lot & your massively obvious sock-puppet shill armies spending 16-hour shifts, 7 days a week, thought-policing anyone who dares to point this out.

I have repeatedly suggested that you all get a life; but it seems this is your 'life'...

How very unfortunate for you!

These photographs of dots are taken with regular cameras, a telescope should be able to get a closer view right?
None of these nerds have tried this?

(I used the word nerd to emphasise that these people are into science and astronomy, and probably own telescopes)

Are you completely ignorant. How can you ask "None of these nerds have tried this?" when if you bothered to look you would have found that those photos were certainly not taken with ordinary cameras!


And how does the fact that they were taken through a telescope mean that they are less believeable?

I have repeatedly suggested that you all get a life; but it seems this is your 'life'...

The only explanation I can come up with is this your profession, and you collect a handsome retainer for derailing all these posts.

BTW Just because I am shown as "online" means nothing. I often log in once and just leave it connected, but I could be shovelling dirt (bit like you do, but this with a real spade, shovel, hoe and wheelbarrow) as I was an hour or so ago.

You wrote this:

Sure sign of someone who KNOWS they has completely LOST an argument - when they start insulting their opponents!

Then you wrote this:

Are you completely ignorant.

By your own standards you now know you have completely lost your argument with ex-globe.

And so does everyone else.

So I expect you'll be making no more contributions to this thread, will you Geoff?

(lol of course he will the drunken old madman - it's his job!)

Papa you haven't answered these questions yet.
Must have slipped your mind, you seem to be regressing again. You must miss Geoff! Pity he's gone away, but you'll just have to live with it. Maybe send him a PM. Bit hard for me to contact him, last I heard he lived over 1,600 away. Think you'll survive without him!


The only explanation I can come up with is this your profession, and you collect a handsome retainer for derailing all these posts.

BTW Just because I am shown as "online" means nothing. I often log in once and just leave it connected, but I could be shovelling dirt (bit like you do, but this with a real spade, shovel, hoe and wheelbarrow) as I was an hour or so ago.

If you added all your posts to those of your sock-puppets, as well as all the comments you troll & shill on youtube & other websites, there would be hundreds of thousands, Geoff.

So give it up.

Cos everyone knows who you are & what your job here is.

Go shovel shit in your imaginary garden or whatever you poor sod.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 28, 2016, 07:01:58 PM

The only reason to lie is if satellites are impossible.

Satellite TV brings in an incredible amount of money so maintaining a bunch of airships is no big deal.
They are at twice the height of airplanes according to Google so are invisible.

I don't understand.  The moon is a satellite.  Regardless of whether the planet is round or flat, or even the specific forces that keep it in check, the moon is clearly able to maintain it's distance from us.  Why then would a man-made satellite not be also able to do that?

I will try again, since this was apparently ignored.  Why is it the moon can maintain it's distance from us, but a man-made object cannot? 

The only reason to lie is if satellites are impossible.

Satellite TV brings in an incredible amount of money so maintaining a bunch of airships is no big deal.
They are at twice the height of airplanes according to Google so are invisible.

Also googles project loon was started in 2011. There was GPS and many other satellite services well before that.
And if you claim that others did it before, then why do they have to go through this tedious R&D stage that they are at now?
plus
"In Feb, 2014, the record streak for a balloon lasting in the stratosphere was 50 days. In Nov 2014, the record was 130 days, and in March 2, 2015, the record for a continuous balloon flight is 187 days (over 6 months)."
So before 2014 no one has managed to get a balloon to stay in the air for an extended period of time, not a good way to supply reliable service.
Oh, and the balloons are constantly moving at about 25 km/h, they are in the stratosphere and cant hold their position. They are useless as stationary stations, so will never be able to transmit to a TV dish. Unless you want a few seconds of TV every time one passes over every now and then.

Further more, even though google is doing this, they are quite some way from providing an actual usable service with it. Although the project seems to be moving along quite nicely.

And if you claim that others did it before, then why do they have to go through this tedious R&D stage that they are at now?

Cos R&D is where the really big, easy thieving happens.

What world do you live in where you don't know this shit?

Plus, I've already pointed out the problems with blimps & ex-globe has already acknowledged reflection off the sky alone is more likely, so why do you not mention this?

Probably cos you're doing the usual shill-trick of splitting a subject between two threads & asking questions on the wrong ones.

Why?

Because shills.

Well, ex-globe is certainly getting a fast-track intro as to what this forum is really all about...

I've known it since before I joined.

Toodle-pip, Shills!

"reflection off the sky alone is more likely"
Can you give some examples where enough data was reflected off the atmosphere to provide what we see as satellite TV?

Yeah; every time you watch 'satellite tv'.

Because 'satellites' defy all the laws of physics & therefore cannot exist.

Kinda dumb, aintcha, 'M'-person?

Now shill me some more with your pointless shill-noise.

"Can you give some examples where enough data was reflected off the atmosphere to provide what we see as satellite TV?"

Papa Legba
"ramble ramble"

Did not think so.