Satellites follow a path around the globe

Weather satellite imagery is easily verifiable by looking up in the sky.  You can see when clouds are about to clear out on those inages taken from orbit. Those satellites have to follow orbital mechanics or they would crash into the Earth.  They barely have enough fuel to make minor course corrections, let alone power to stay aloft.

your magical satellites have never been observed. you spend millions of dollars to send each satellite into space. but you don't put a $ 1000 camera in any of them to prove its existence. Is it convincing? Nope.

your magical satellites have never been observed. you spend millions of dollars to send each satellite into space. but you don't put a $ 1000 camera in any of them to prove its existence. Is it convincing? Nope.

True.  The cameras on weather satellites probably cost significantly more than $1000.

your magical satellites have never been observed. you spend millions of dollars to send each satellite into space. but you don't put a $ 1000 camera in any of them to prove its existence. Is it convincing? Nope.

Not only do they have cameras, but I can tell you when they are about to pass overhead at night and you can look up in the night sky at the right time and see them passing by. 

your magical satellites have never been observed. you spend millions of dollars to send each satellite into space. but you don't put a $ 1000 camera in any of them to prove its existence. Is it convincing? Nope.

You want them to take selfies now?  Anyway, you just dismiss photos from space, so why would this be different?

Ahahah. I like to see you the globulards in pain. 

All we know, comparatively the cost of camera is nothing compared to cost of satellites.

I have seen only a few cameras on rockets and then all we seen that the space isn't space they told us; right?



We have clearly heard a "plop" like something jumped to a pool. 

NASA has 20 billions of dollars budget, but has not enough money to connect a camera will show a rocket from launching to the orbit. They are poor. Having 20 billions isn't proving their being rich, maybe their money is going elsewhere.

Ahahah. I like to see you the globulards in pain. 

All we know, comparatively the cost of camera is nothing compared to cost of satellites.

I have seen only a few cameras on rockets and then all we seen that the space isn't space they told us; right?

We have clearly heard a "plop" like something jumped to a pool. 

NASA has 20 billions of dollars budget, but has not enough money to connect a camera will show a rocket from launching to the orbit. They are poor. Having 20 billions isn't proving their being rich, maybe their money is going elsewhere.

What is your point?  Still waiting for transmitter locations for satellite receivers.

Quote from: wise on July 19, 2019, 12:38:48 PM

Ahahah. I like to see you the globulards in pain. 

All we know, comparatively the cost of camera is nothing compared to cost of satellites.

I have seen only a few cameras on rockets and then all we seen that the space isn't space they told us; right?

We have clearly heard a "plop" like something jumped to a pool. 

NASA has 20 billions of dollars budget, but has not enough money to connect a camera will show a rocket from launching to the orbit. They are poor. Having 20 billions isn't proving their being rich, maybe their money is going elsewhere.

What is your point?  Still waiting for transmitter locations for satellite receivers.

I am trying to answer all your sincere statements but you are numerically so many so that I can't reply all of the statements phsically, and statements of globulalists here are generally not at all sincere . My point still I am waiting a realtime real video.

Ahahah. I like to see you the globulards in pain. 

All we know, comparatively the cost of camera is nothing compared to cost of satellites.

I have seen only a few cameras on rockets and then all we seen that the space isn't space they told us; right?



We have clearly heard a "plop" like something jumped to a pool. 

NASA has 20 billions of dollars budget, but has not enough money to connect a camera will show a rocket from launching to the orbit. They are poor. Having 20 billions isn't proving their being rich, maybe their money is going elsewhere.

The rocket deployed an anti spin mechanism. It’s been covered many times.

Quote from: inquisitive link=topic=82387.msg2188644#msg2188644


[/quote

What is your point?  Still waiting for transmitter locations for satellite receivers.

I am trying to answer all your sincere statements but you are numerically so many so that I can't reply all of the statements phsically, and statements of globulalists here are generally not at all sincere . My point still I am waiting a realtime real video.

Since when do FEers believe in video/photographic proof?

 Wither way, there is a continuous live video feed from the International Space Station you can track.  You can go outside at night an wait for it to pass over you and see it with your own two eyes above you.

All we know, comparatively the cost of camera is nothing compared to cost of satellites.

I have seen only a few cameras on rockets and then all we seen that the space isn't space they told us; right?

Really? What is not right about space?

NASA has 20 billions of dollars budget, but has not enough money to connect a camera will show a rocket from launching to the orbit. They are poor. Having 20 billions isn't proving their being rich, maybe their money is going elsewhere.

Inside a Rocket From Take Off To Orbit (External Cameras) in HD


Rocket cam shots from launch to orbit, AtlasV launch of the #OA7 mission for Orbital ATK and NASA


Dashcam on a Space Shuttle - FRONT WINDOW launch

And weather satellites have far better cameras photographing earth!

I have seen only a few cameras on rockets and then all we seen that the space isn't space they told us; right?

No, we never see that space isn't what they told us.

We have clearly heard a "plop" like something jumped to a pool. 

This has been explained to you repeatedly.
Why do you keep bringing it up?

It is nothing like jumping into a pool. It is the yo-yo despin mechanism activating.
If it was running into a pool the rocket would have been destroyed.

NASA has 20 billions of dollars budget, but has not enough money to connect a camera will show a rocket from launching to the orbit.

The question isn't if they have enough money, it is what purpose does it serve and just what footage do you want?

You previously spoke about satellites, not rockets, now you jump over to rockets.
Did you mean video footage like this:

Just so you can dismiss it as fake?
Or do you want video of a satellite in a cargo hold, showing nothing until the satellite is released, so you can then dismiss that as fake?

Your objections are irrelevant.
Even if there was no video footage of a satellite going into orbit, it does nothing to indicate that the satellites are fake.
A rational objection needs to deal with the evidence that does exist rather than complaining about a particular type of evidence not existing.

Where does rocket booster falling to after separation?

Quote from: JackBlack on July 19, 2019, 08:03:53 PM

Where does rocket booster falling to after separation?

Ocean:

Where does rocket booster falling to after separation?

Typically the ocean. If you watch the video you see it at around 7 minutes.

...

Inside a Rocket From Take Off To Orbit (External Cameras) in HD[/b]

Rocket cam shots from launch to orbit, AtlasV launch of the #OA7 mission for Orbital ATK and NASA[/b]

Dashcam on a Space Shuttle - FRONT WINDOW launch[/b]

The first one:



Rocket clearly begins to move horizontally after 2 minutes voyage. The goal is to fall into Antarctica. The speed appearently seems not more than 2.000 kms/h.

The fastest fighter aircraft in the world X-15 has a record speed of 7,200 km / h.

Patriot air defence rocket has to be faster than other rockets to catch them. Its speed 1,4 km/seconds= 5,000 km/h.

Nasa claims its rockets move 20 km/seconds. If it was really so, so no need to defence companies, lets give all the defence to NASA. It just a joke, you know. Nasa says what it needs only. It completely a lie. This is the speed of fastest vehicles in earth.

from this example, we see that a fast plane can be faster than a fast rocket. This is the highest speed. 7200 km / h. Moreover, this speed is not climbing speed. the speed during climbing is half that. So this rocket can be going no more than 3,600 km / h.

Lets calculate its maximum altitude:

2 minutes * 3600km/h /60 h/min = 120 kms. This is highest altitude. This altitude meanwhile approximate upper limit of the sky dome.



The second one climbs 2 minutes again. Then starts to move to Antarctica.

We know where they go. This is the Russian space shuttle over Abu Dabi.



rockets always go south, not because the equator is in the south, but because the antarctica is in the south.

What happens if a rocket touches the sky dome mistakenly when moving parallel to it? This happens:



Remind; When hits, this one:



Arent everything clear? There are a water barreer rockets can't pass but swim in it. for a long time you all said that it is physically possible. you said that the separation of the part of the rocket caused it. Now you realize that this is impossible and you start to say fake. your defense is not convincing.

from this example, we see that a fast plane can be faster than a fast rocket. This is the highest speed. 7200 km / h. Moreover, this speed is not climbing speed. the speed during climbing is half that. So this rocket can be going no more than 3,600 km / h.

No, we see none of that.
That number is just your baseless assertion.
We have the footage of it going to space.
You making up numbers to pretend it hasn't gone to space wont help your case.

Remind; When hits, this one:

Why repost the same refuted garbage as if it wasn't just refuted?
That isn't hitting a dome.
Do you know how we can tell?
It doesn't disintegrate.
It remains intact.
If it hit the dome it would be more like this:

Notice how the much slower moving jet complete disintegrates?
There is no jet left.
So no, that is not hitting a dome.

Arent everything clear?

Yes, it is clear.
Rockets go to space.
Satellites are in space.
You have absolutely no rational objection to this and are grasping at whatever straws you can to pretend they can't exist so you can pretend Earth is flat.

Now how about you address the topic of the OP? The very real imagery provided by many satellites?

Remind; When hits, this one:



Arent everything clear? There are a water barreer rockets can't pass but swim in it. for a long time you all said that it is physically possible. you said that the separation of the part of the rocket caused it. Now you realize that this is impossible and you start to say fake. your defense is not convincing.

We've been over this ten times with you. Even the guy who made the video got schooled on what a yo-yo deadspin mechanism is and posted a video showing the rocket in question found and intact and not like it hit a 'dome' at hundreds of miles per hour. The closing words of his follow-up video, "So it didn't hit the dome, I hope that explains it for everyone."

Here:

Quote from: wise on July 20, 2019, 02:29:06 AM

Remind; When hits, this one:



Arent everything clear? There are a water barreer rockets can't pass but swim in it. for a long time you all said that it is physically possible. you said that the separation of the part of the rocket caused it. Now you realize that this is impossible and you start to say fake. your defense is not convincing.

We've been over this ten times with you. Even the guy who made the video got schooled on what a yo-yo deadspin mechanism is and posted a video showing the rocket in question found and intact and not like it hit a 'dome' at hundreds of miles per hour. The closing words of his follow-up video, "So it didn't hit the dome, I hope that explains it for everyone."

Here:

It explains why it stopped spinning, not why it stopped forward motion.

It explains why it stopped spinning, not why it stopped forward motion.

That's good, because it doesn't stop forward motion. Instead it continued on its way, slowing down due to gravity.
You can see this in the original footage where the features on the ground appear to get smaller.

Ahahah. I like to see you the globulards in pain. 

All we know, comparatively the cost of camera is nothing compared to cost of satellites.

I have seen only a few cameras on rockets and then all we seen that the space isn't space they told us; right?



We have clearly heard a "plop" like something jumped to a pool. 

The "plop" is not caused by the rocket hitting anything but is the yo-yo de-spin device being released.

This video shows the rocket continuing it's climb, the payload separating and the rocket starting to descend.

Flat Earth Debunked: Glass Dome Hoax Exposed! by InfoStrike

But this has nothing to do with the topic, "Satellites follow a path around the globe".

Then you post this:

It explains why it stopped spinning, not why it stopped forward motion.

But, as you see from the video that I showed, the rocket's forward motion does not stop - only it's spinning.

Quote from: wise on July 19, 2019, 12:38:48 PM

Ahahah. I like to see you the globulards in pain. 

All we know, comparatively the cost of camera is nothing compared to cost of satellites.

I have seen only a few cameras on rockets and then all we seen that the space isn't space they told us; right?



We have clearly heard a "plop" like something jumped to a pool. 

The "plop" is not caused by the rocket hitting anything but is the yo-yo de-spin device being released.

This video shows the rocket continuing it's climb, the payload separating and the rocket starting to descend.

Flat Earth Debunked: Glass Dome Hoax Exposed! by InfoStrike

But this has nothing to do with the topic, "Satellites follow a path around the globe".

Then you post this:

Quote from: wise on July 20, 2019, 03:43:22 AM

It explains why it stopped spinning, not why it stopped forward motion.

But, as you see from the video that I showed, the rocket's forward motion does not stop - only it's spinning.

No, it is not as you say. It stops both forward motion and spinning. First of all, we clearly heard that motor stops and not run anymore. and it is wandering in the water like a ship has lost its shovels.

No, it is not as you say. It stops both forward motion and spinning. First of all, we clearly heard that motor stops and not run anymore. and it is wandering in the water like a ship has lost its shovels.

Incorrect! Learn to face the truth for once!

There was an earlier thread on this topic and this post shows a rocket continuing much higher after the yo-yo despin is deployed:

The video you show deceptively ends just after the yoyo de-spin and does not show the rest of the ascent but
look carefully at the following video you will find that it stops spinning but it does not stop ascending!

SpaceLoft-7 launch and de-spin video
This one presents the time of de-spin at T + 55.8 secs and 212,500 ft (about 65 km) and Mach 3.3 (still rising very fast!)
                                       and the apogee at T + 165 secs and 119 km.

Now, Wise, face the facts! Those rockets do not hit any dome!

Then this one shows the rocket payload in the nose-cone after it came down by parachute.
           Re: SpaceX rocket launch? « Reply #13 on: January 03, 2019, 02:37:04 PM ».

And here is the nose-cone after it came down by parachute:

Rocket intact after claimed hitting of the "Dome".

That rocket do not hit any dome!

No, it is not as you say. It stops both forward motion and spinning. First of all, we clearly heard that motor stops and not run anymore. and it is wandering in the water like a ship has lost its shovels.

Stop lying about who is posting.

It is as we have both said.
The rocket does not magically stop its forward motion.
Again, if you bother watching the footage this is very obvious.
All it takes is a comparison of what the ground looks like when it stops spinning, compared to what it looks like significantly later.
e.g. comparing this:
https://i.imgur.com/wNuNNND.png
to this
https://i.imgur.com/6bqCilW.png

Notice the features on the land?
One nice one is the patch in the top right or right of the images.
The straightish section is ~118 pixels long just after the despin mechanism activates.
Then later, it has shrunk to ~92 pixels.
Is this because the ground is magically shrinking, or the far more rational explanation that the rocket is continuing along its path, without being stopped by a fictitious dome?

Quote from: wise on July 20, 2019, 04:14:56 AM

No, it is not as you say. It stops both forward motion and spinning. First of all, we clearly heard that motor stops and not run anymore. and it is wandering in the water like a ship has lost its shovels.

Incorrect! Learn to face the truth for once!
rocket do not hit any dome!

Stop lying about who is posting.
It is as we have both said.
The rocket does not magically stop its forward motion.

The only lies here are said by you. I mean both you one is.



We have clearly heard a "plop" then rocet does magically stop! Because there isn't any phsics law describe that forward motion stops immediately; other than either magic (according to globularist theory), or flat earth dome. I guess flat earth dome seems magic to you.

Quote from: Jacblack on July 20, 2019, 04:27:21 AM

Quote from: wise on July 20, 2019, 04:14:56 AM

No, it is not as you say. It stops both forward motion and spinning. First of all, we clearly heard that motor stops and not run anymore. and it is wandering in the water like a ship has lost its shovels.

Incorrect! Learn to face the truth for once!
rocket do not hit any dome!

Quote from:  any alt on July 20, 2019, 04:44:52 AM

Stop lying about who is posting.
It is as we have both said.
The rocket does not magically stop its forward motion.

The only lies here are said by you. I mean both you one is.



We have clearly heard a "plop" then rocet does magically stop! Because there isn't any phsics law describe that forward motion stops immediately; other than either magic (according to globularist theory), or flat earth dome. I guess flat earth dome seems magic to you.

So, a question. Is the dome solid? Because if it is, how come the rocket does not explode when it hits the dome? Wouldn't that be magic?

Quote from: rabinoz on July 19, 2019, 04:10:02 PM

Inside a Rocket From Take Off To Orbit (External Cameras) in HD[/b]

Rocket cam shots from launch to orbit, AtlasV launch of the #OA7 mission for Orbital ATK and NASA[/b]

Dashcam on a Space Shuttle - FRONT WINDOW launch[/b]

The first one:



Rocket clearly begins to move horizontally after 2 minutes voyage. The goal is to fall into Antarctica. The speed appearently seems not more than 2.000 kms/h.

The fastest fighter aircraft in the world X-15 has a record speed of 7,200 km / h.

Patriot air defence rocket has to be faster than other rockets to catch them. Its speed 1,4 km/seconds= 5,000 km/h.

Nasa claims its rockets move 20 km/seconds. If it was really so, so no need to defence companies, lets give all the defence to NASA. It just a joke, you know. Nasa says what it needs only. It completely a lie. This is the speed of fastest vehicles in earth.

from this example, we see that a fast plane can be faster than a fast rocket. This is the highest speed. 7200 km / h. Moreover, this speed is not climbing speed. the speed during climbing is half that. So this rocket can be going no more than 3,600 km / h.

Lets calculate its maximum altitude:

2 minutes * 3600km/h /60 h/min = 120 kms. This is highest altitude. This altitude meanwhile approximate upper limit of the sky dome.



The second one climbs 2 minutes again. Then starts to move to Antarctica.

We know where they go. This is the Russian space shuttle over Abu Dabi.



rockets always go south, not because the equator is in the south, but because the antarctica is in the south.

What happens if a rocket touches the sky dome mistakenly when moving parallel to it? This happens:



Remind; When hits, this one:



Arent everything clear? There are a water barreer rockets can't pass but swim in it. for a long time you all said that it is physically possible. you said that the separation of the part of the rocket caused it. Now you realize that this is impossible and you start to say fake. your defense is not convincing.

Its amazing how flat earther only see what they want to, making comments about things they know little to nothing about.
This video clearly shows the launch of a satellite bound for Mars.

Satellites are of course visible given the right conditions. Wise as is his want just tells bare-faced lies to suit his own close minded agenda.
You want to see satellites, then go ahead, no one is stopping you. It's not a matter of debate, it's just a plain fact that that he cares to ignore and constantly lie about. This link shows the brightest satellites, their courses and where and when to see them.

https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=1

We have clearly heard a "plop" then rocet does magically stop!

The "plop" was activation of the yo-yo despinner, then it stopped the rocket spin.

How the rocket didn't smash the nose at the "dome hit" ? hehehe

And for yo-yo despinner, here is your chance to further educate yourself:




"Smart is not who knows. Smart is who learns."

The only lies here are said by you. I mean both you one is.

That is rich coming from someone who is currently falsely claiming that 2 different people are one person and falsely claiming that they said things that the other person said. Grow up.

We have clearly heard a "plop" then rocet does magically stop!

No, it doesn't stop.
It stops rotating, as the yo-yo despin mechanism was designed to make it do, but it continued its forward motion.
Again, that was conclusively proven by watching the original video.

Or are you going to claim that as well as it magically stopping, the ground also magically shrank?

If you wish to disagree, provide evidence that it stopped its forward motion.

What we know for sure, is that it did not hit any dome as it remained in tact and just stopped spinning. Unless you want to claim your dome is magic and just stops rotation.