Cool Mission?

  • 577 Replies
  • 35871 Views
*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #150 on: December 27, 2022, 07:30:44 AM »
Oh I see. Now you're claiming they're geostationary orbits.

The geostationary orbit assumes the absurd premise that because the (1) Earth is round, (2) Earth spins at 1000+ mph, (3) tilts 21.5 to 24.5 degrees, (4) orbits 67,000 mph,   (5) while the sun itself drags the Earth long its path around the Milky Way, (6) the satellite and in fact all satellites are locked to this speed and irregularity without an excess of propulsion simply by trailing along with momentum or something when any source of fuel would exhaust itself trying to keep up with that, (7) and we haven't mentioned precession or eccentric orbits that Earth sometimes gets to explain away some other bullshit hole in the round Earth theory.

That's a hard fail for Occam's Razor. Either inevitably, the geostationary orbit isn't as good as we think it is and the object drags somewhere and progressively gets more and more off year after year, or we have to admit that not only is geostationary orbit a huge brag on the part of humans, but this entire premise of all this shit Earth does is complete crap.

Here's a simpler one. Satellite dishes are not attuned to a specific satellite in the sky. We can accept the Earth is round, but all of this works alot better if it's not, especially because then we can throw all the crap about matching orbit with a peculiar orbit out the window.

 We can accept that satellites are fixed in the sky, either by being weather balloons, or by simply being locked in place as floating solar-powered platforms. Or that dishes just pick up random signals. You can even accept as I do that the reason "satellite" is so easy for dishes to pick up is they are picking it up from celltowers on Earth.

 And you haven't explained when an overhead object chooses to cut out at high altitude but not at low altitude (behavior again more in line with celltowers than overhead satellites especially those supposedly in space), but instead decide to to use the same tone as "Someone has a case of the Mondays" when mentioning me not understanding geostationary orbit.

Of course I don't understand. There's no way such objects can match orbit with all the bullshit Earth does.


Not all satellites are in geostationary/geosynchronous orbit.

Satellites are not weather balloons. 

Weather balloons can't stay in the sky continuously, nor maintain a continuous altitude or lon/lat position.

Satellites are not cell towers.  There are no cell towers in the middle of the oceans, and having personally been in the middle of the several oceans, there is no cellular signal there.  The furthest I've been off the coast and still had cellular signal was about 2 miles and it was spotty at best.  Beyond that, there was no cellular signal.  Satellite phones  still work in the middle of the ocean with no cell tower within thousands of miles.  So again, satellites are not cell towers.

Your lack of understanding comes at the behest of your willful ignorance.  You can understand it, but willingly choose not to, because your one of two things, a cheap internet troll, or someone suffering from a mental disorder who can't rationalize information that's in direct conflict with their perceived bubble of existence.  I'm leaning toward you being the latter.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #151 on: December 27, 2022, 08:32:23 AM »
This thread ... turned into tl:dr.

Again, pretty obvious that bulmabriefs just trolling and fucking wif all y'all.

I guess it's fun as long as you're having fun. Me? Bored. Peace out.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #152 on: December 27, 2022, 09:28:44 AM »
This thread ... turned into tl:dr.

Again, pretty obvious that bulmabriefs just trolling and fucking wif all y'all.

I guess it's fun as long as you're having fun. Me? Bored. Peace out.

You give bulma a lot of credit. 
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #153 on: December 27, 2022, 11:17:15 AM »
This thread ... turned into tl:dr.

Again, pretty obvious that bulmabriefs just trolling and fucking wif all y'all.

I guess it's fun as long as you're having fun. Me? Bored. Peace out.
Possibly, or they may actually be so indoctrinated and naive that they just can't process anything that doesn't fit with what the youtube priest told them.  I'm leaning more toward troll since they have yet to try to justify anything.

*

JackBlack

  • 22141
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #154 on: December 27, 2022, 12:23:03 PM »
Oh I see. Now you're claiming they're geostationary orbits.
Some satellites are geostationary orbits.
The ones providing Satellite TV are.

The geostationary orbit assumes the absurd premise
No geostationary orbits rely upon and provide evidence for the fact that Earth is round and rotating.

You not liking those facts because they don't agree with your delusional BS has no impact on those facts.

It also doesn't rely upon the fact that Earth's axis is tilted w.r.t. the orbital plane, or that Earth orbits the sun, or that the entire solar system orbits the Milky Way (It isn't the sun dragging Earth along. The sun and Earth are both affected by gravity and thus both orbit the Milky Way).

the satellite and in fact all satellites are locked to this speed and irregularity without an excess of propulsion simply by trailing along with momentum or something when any source of fuel would exhaust itself trying to keep up with that
What speed? What irregularity?
Only geostationary and geosynchronous satellites are at that particular speed.
They also have a small amount of fuel for station keeping and orbital manoeuvres (such as putting it into a storage orbit or taking it out of one).

That's a hard fail for Occam's Razor.
No, that is hard fail for your delusional BS.

but this entire premise of all this shit Earth does is complete crap
Why?
Yet again you spout complete garbage with no justification at all.

Here's a simpler one. Satellite dishes are not attuned to a specific satellite in the sky. We can accept the Earth is round, but all of this works alot better if it's not, especially because then we can throw all the crap about matching orbit with a peculiar orbit out the window.
So you jump to a massive global conspiracy, about magical non-satellites, with these dishes working by pure magic.
That would fail Occam's Razor.
Lets stick to the more rational and simple option.
These is no massive global conspiracy.
Earth is round, which allows satellites to orbit it.
And Earth is spinning, which allows satellites to orbit with the same period as Earth's rotation, allowing them to remain stationary above a point on Earth, so satellite dishes can point to it.

We can accept that satellites are fixed in the sky, either by being weather balloons, or by simply being locked in place as floating solar-powered platforms.
Or by being in a geostationary orbit around a rotating round Earth.

You can even accept as I do that the reason "satellite" is so easy for dishes to pick up is they are picking it up from celltowers on Earth.
Why would I accept such utter irrational garbage?

And you haven't explained when an overhead object chooses to cut out at high altitude but not at low altitude
Because you are yet to demonstrate anything of the sort.
Instead you just have a baseless claim by someone selling a lie.

Of course I don't understand. There's no way such objects can match orbit with all the bullshit Earth does.
i.e. you don't like reality, so you reject it.
You don't have any rational objection, you just reject it because it doesn't match your delusional fantasy.

And I take it you deflecting yet again means you now fully accept you have been spouting pure BS about radio? And that radio waves do travel at the speed of light, as they along with light are EM waves?
Or were you hoping to run away from your pathetic inability to defend any of the delusional BS you have been spouting about that only to come back to it later?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #155 on: December 27, 2022, 02:20:38 PM »
This thread ... turned into tl:dr.

Again, pretty obvious that bulmabriefs just trolling and fucking wif all y'all.

I guess it's fun as long as you're having fun. Me? Bored. Peace out.
Possibly, or they may actually be so indoctrinated and naive that they just can't process anything that doesn't fit with what the youtube priest told them.  I'm leaning more toward troll since they have yet to try to justify anything.

It certainly smells like a troll. When someone comes along and is anti-everything; anti-physics, anti-medicine, anti-biology, anti-chemistry, even in the face of direct evidence, it all adds up to , "I'm just going to pick the opposite of reality, no matter how ludicrous, just to see how far and for how long I can get people to respond...".
Otherwise, it's just this weird deluded extreme level of hubris and arrogance that makes no sense.

*

JackBlack

  • 22141
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #156 on: December 27, 2022, 04:12:29 PM »
It certainly smells like a troll. When someone comes along and is anti-everything; anti-physics, anti-medicine, anti-biology, anti-chemistry, even in the face of direct evidence, it all adds up to , "I'm just going to pick the opposite of reality, no matter how ludicrous, just to see how far and for how long I can get people to respond...".
Otherwise, it's just this weird deluded extreme level of hubris and arrogance that makes no sense.
It is the classical case of Poe's law.

Are they truly that deluded/brainwashed/dishonest? Or are they just pretending to be?
With something as ridiculous as FE, unless you accept correction almost straight away it is virtually impossible to tell the trolls from the genuine believers.
Some times the troll will reveal themselves, and show that they are a troll, but the only thing a genuine believer can do to show they aren't a troll, is to accept that they are wrong and move on (as long as they don't come back to it).

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #157 on: December 27, 2022, 08:11:44 PM »
Quote
Quote
Again, pretty obvious that bulmabriefs just trolling and fucking wif all y'all.  I guess it's fun as long as you're having fun. Me? Bored. Peace out.

It certainly smells like a troll. When someone comes along and is anti-everything; anti-physics, anti-medicine, anti-biology, anti-chemistry, even in the face of direct evidence, it all adds up to , "I'm just going to pick the opposite of reality, no matter how ludicrous, just to see how far and for how long I can get people to respond..." Otherwise, it's just this weird deluded extreme level of hubris and arrogance that makes no sense.

I'm not a "troll." You guys are sheeple. 

The basic rule of science is to be able to falsify, or test what you know. It is not arrogant to say,"Yes, but do we know that?"  If we don't, and none of you even bother to test your assumptions, then I'm not a troll. You're sheeple.  People who go along with things like sheep.

Or as Oliver Cromwell said, "Is it therefore infallibly agreeable to the Word of God, all that you say? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."  To paraphrase, consider that you may be wrong. When you have departed from this rule, you are not working in science anymore. 

Could my ideas be crazy or dead wrong? Of course. But unlike you goofballs, I actually know the folly of groupthink.

At one point, in Salem, everyone thought that witches were in town. Actually it was people wanting to attack each other using witchcraft as an excuse. At another point, everyone wanted to give indulgences to the Pope. But this isn't about religion either. Adolf Hitler rose to power because everyone blamed the Jews for German poverty. The French Revolution happened because everyone blamed the royalty and thought it was okay to guillotine ppl. When everyone agrees, you don't have science. You have a fucking lynch mob. 

Intelligent conversations start when people actually have different ideas.

And I do accept real science. What I don't accept is when people say things by fiat, and we're supposed to believe they proved them.
How did Hertz prove that radio waves are equal to the speed of light? Did he actually measure the speed of radio against light the speed of light? (And not just against the reported speed of light but actually comparing them side by side) Cuz if there is anything half-assed about this proof, then it's not legit.

Now, if any of you can prove that he proved it, go right ahead. But I won't believe secondhand gossip. Nor all of you ganging up and calling me dumb for insisting we need real proof. Because we need real proof.

Otherwise, never pretend you know something you don't. Cuz you don't. Science is about what we know. And until we are sure what we know, calling people trolls for demanding we know what we know is poor form.

For that matter, how do we know the speed of light? So I asked Wikipedia.
Quote
It is exact because, by a 1983 international agreement, a metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299792458 second. This particular value was chosen to provide a more accurate definition of the metre that still agreed as much as possible with the definition used before. See, for example, the NIST website or the explanation by Penrose. The second is, in turn, defined to be the length of time occupied by 9192631770 cycles of the radiation emitted by a caesium-133 atom in a transition between two specified energy states.

Cycles of radiation emitted by cesium is real science. Consensus by international review is not real science (especially when they say the number was chosen because it agreed with someone's definition of another term, as that is circular reasoning).
Nor is an article where people claimed to have seen the Sputnik or the ISS. And when even photographs are inadmissible in the court of law (thanks to the prevalence of photoshopping), a grain of salt is applied when someone shows a pretty picture of how round the Earth is.

« Last Edit: December 27, 2022, 08:27:47 PM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: JackBlack
Firstly, DISTANCE MATTERS

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #158 on: December 27, 2022, 09:04:28 PM »
Quote
Quote
Again, pretty obvious that bulmabriefs just trolling and fucking wif all y'all.  I guess it's fun as long as you're having fun. Me? Bored. Peace out.

It certainly smells like a troll. When someone comes along and is anti-everything; anti-physics, anti-medicine, anti-biology, anti-chemistry, even in the face of direct evidence, it all adds up to , "I'm just going to pick the opposite of reality, no matter how ludicrous, just to see how far and for how long I can get people to respond..." Otherwise, it's just this weird deluded extreme level of hubris and arrogance that makes no sense.

I'm not a "troll."

Yeah, you are. You have to be. Even when you are provided evidence, you just default to, "Well, they are lying..." That is a troll & sheeple response. No way around it. You're so indoctrinated in your own belief system that evidence doesn't even matter to you. It's all "lies". That is a sheeple. And as you are trolling, that is actually a kind moniker. Otherwise, you really are a 100% sheeple as you don't accept any evidence especially when you have none of your own.

*

JackBlack

  • 22141
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #159 on: December 28, 2022, 12:15:27 AM »
I'm not a "troll."
So are you a conman spouting things you know to be false to try and con others into joining your cult, or are you a deluded, brainwashed fool that actually believes all the delusional BS you spout even though you cannot justify it at all and instead need to continually flee.

The basic rule of science is to be able to falsify, or test what you know.
Which is fundamentally different to what you are doing, where you just spout delusional BS as if it was a fact to pretend there is a problem with the RE.

Before you test things, you need to make sure you actually understand the model you are testing. Otherwise you could just be testing your own understanding, and any failure is merely a failure of your understanding, not with the model you claim to be testing.

Likewise, this is fundamentally different to just boldly proclaiming that we have no proof and instead just have statements of Hertz and predictions of Maxwell.

If you truly didn't know, you would say you don't know and ask. You wouldn't be making bold claims indicating that no one has any idea.

Could my ideas be crazy or dead wrong? Of course. But unlike you goofballs, I actually know the folly of groupthink.
Yet you cling to groupthink. Happily accepting whatever delusional BS comes from the FE group.
You don't bother thinking or even attempt to critically analyse it.

When everyone agrees, you don't have science. You have a fucking lynch mob.
Not how it works.
Just because lynch mobs have agreement does not mean everything that has agreement is a lynch mob.

If the evidence is overwhelming, most people will agree, and that will still by science. It doesn't mean it is a lynch mob.

Intelligent conversations start when people actually have different ideas.
Intelligent conversation requires you to actually respond to what people say, not just reject things you don't like or ignore them or misrepresent them.

Did he actually measure the speed of radio against light the speed of light? (And not just against the reported speed of light but actually comparing them side by side) Cuz if there is anything half-assed about this proof, then it's not legit.
Why?
Because you are looking for an excuse to dismiss it?
Measuring the speed, and determining that it matches the known speed of light, is quite strong evidence.
There is no reason to suggest that is not legit.
The sole reason to suggest such a thing is because you don't like it. You are desperate to pretend that radio waves are sound waves.

Now, if any of you can prove that he proved it, go right ahead. But I won't believe secondhand gossip.
This isn't how science works.
If you disagree, do the experiment yourself.

Nor all of you ganging up and calling me dumb for insisting we need real proof.
No, we are calling you deluded or a troll because of your statements which would cause so many problems with reality. Because you are proposing a massive global conspiracy with no evidence at all. Because your only attempt to justify it is based upon wilful ignorance of reality and repeated misrepresentations.

The widespread use of RADAR should be all the proof that is needed.
We have real proof.
The issue is you just reject it because you don't like it.

You have made it clear that you wont trust proof from other people.
You will just dismiss it as a lie or fake or whatever.
If you were willing to accept it you would already do so from the countless uses of radio, and things like GPS.
So if you want the proof, get it yourself.

For that matter, how do we know the speed of light?
By measuring it.
There are several ways.
An early method involved Astronomy, using the great distances of space, or the aberration of light.

But there are also time of flight methods.
The simplest time of flight method is by shining light through a spinning disk with a hole in it, having it reflect off something a known distance away, and come back

Consensus by international review is not real science (especially when they say the number was chosen because it agreed with someone's definition of another term, as that is circular reasoning).
That was to define the metre.
The initial definition of a metre was one 10 000 000 th of the distance from the equator to the pole (specifically on the meridian through Paris). This was done by the French academy of science.
It was redefined to a "prototype", i.e. a bar was produced, 1 m in length, and that bar then became the official standard, with various secondary standards made to the same length. But this has issues like the length of the standards potentially not matching due to degradation from use or oxidation, thermal expansion and so on.
The speed of light was redefined based upon the speed of light to avoid issues with the use of physical artefacts as standards.

So no, it isn't circular reasoning at all.
It is simply changing how it is defined.
And it means instead of measuring the speed of light, you area measuring a m.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #160 on: December 28, 2022, 03:19:13 AM »

I'm not a "troll." You guys are sheeple. 


Whatís that ridiculous thing at the end of your every postÖ.
 


The refuge of a cartoon fantasy that takes up space while giving a dirty look invoking the false authority you so much yearn for. 

Yeah, Your a troll





Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #161 on: December 28, 2022, 03:45:33 AM »

Nor is an article where people claimed to have seen the Sputnik or the ISS.

Iíve seen the international space station with my own eyes. And the line of lights caused by the starlink satellites

What did I see if they werenít objects orbiting the earth.

It takes a real troll using false authority explain while not proving evidence of a credible alternative to what was personally witnessed.  And I would say being in the military, and being involved in photography half my life, and the experience of studying and practicing amateur astronomy makes me a credible witness. 


The international space station and the starlink satellites, man made objects that are verified by sight and broadcasting to be in orbit around the earth.


Quote
About the ISS's orbit
Understanding some of the fine points of the orbit of the ISS will help you understand about the inter-relationship between elevation of a pass, the apparent shift in frequency due to doppler effect, the range or distance to the ISS, and the merit of compensating for the doppler shift.

I'll start out the discussion assuming that you're using two meters (144.49 Mhz) for the uplink frequency, and (145.80 Mhz) for the downlink frequency. Using the crossband mode and the UHF uplink frequencies modifies the generalizations below and that will be addressed later on this page.

Once you begin to see the relationships between elevation, doppler shift, the range to the ISS, and the advantage to be gained compensating for doppler, you'll be able to increase your chances of a successful contact with the ISS.

If you're unfamiliar with the relationships, you can look over this set of data from a telebridge conference between the ISS and the WH6PN ground station get an idea of the times of pass time, elevation. azimuth, doppler and range for a 57 degree pass.

https://www.qsl.net/ah6rh/am-radio/spacecomm/doppler-and-the-iss.html

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #162 on: December 28, 2022, 05:05:04 AM »

Nor is an article where people claimed to have seen the Sputnik or the ISS.

I’ve seen the international space station with my own eyes. And the line of lights caused by the starlink satellites

What did I see if they weren’t objects orbiting the earth.

It takes a real troll using false authority explain while not proving evidence of a credible alternative to what was personally witnessed.  And I would say being in the military, and being involved in photography half my life, and the experience of studying and practicing amateur astronomy makes me a credible witness.


You've seen it yourself.

That's nice!

 I remember a night when it was supposed to be super visible near our summer cottage. I wanted to see it so bad that summer. So we were gonna see it. But my dad got a case of the olds, and got sentimental about some stupid road that his dad took him on as a kid. So I wanted to go directly to the beach, but he kept driving along the road, and we got there late.

So no, I haven't seen it myself. It wasn't like it flew away or moved along in orbit. If that were the case, it should have been off to the side.  It was like was a hologram they projected for an hour and afterward they shut off the projector. There weren't any stars in the sky either, so when we got there I was totally disappointed in my dad. Now I'm not. He taught me disappointment, and that disappointment just grew into more skepticism. I haven't any proof the ISS exists.

How could something not only move on, but leave no proof of its existence in a narrow margin of time?

Let's assume you did see it, and it was real. You saw the object (or its light) with your naked eye right? So how do you know it was in outer space? My primary question in all this is, how can we know for certain what elevation we're seeing these objects at? We claim the sun is in outer space and much bigger than it looks.
What if that's crap? What if the sun is part of our atmosphere, as is the moon, and the reason the stars look so distant is because we can't actually see that far off? All we have at that point is NASA's explanation on how distant objects are. But that's just hearsay evidence, as in, I could say that things aren't that far away based on what I know 18/20 myopia looks like. I'd have just about as much proof of my assertions (as in practically none). But I do know that stars and satellites seem to come out at night. When distance of objects is very hard to gauge, and it is difficult to tell whether something is in space or simply in the sky.

As for Sputnik and ISS, there have been experiments in psychology...
Quote
A similar experiment was conducted by Stallen, Smidts, and Sanfrey. Twenty-four subjects were manipulated using a minimal group paradigm approach. Unbeknownst to them, they were all selected as part of the "in-group", although there was an established "out-group". Following this socialization, the subjects estimated the number of dots seen on the screen while given information about what an in-group or out-group member chose...
So if famous or important people say they saw Sputnik, people America might see planes fly by, not knowing that planes now have lights which can be seen at night. Wrong time zone, wrong country, but they swear they've seen it cuz a plane passed by and cuz scientists mentioned it. Omg, I saw Sputnik too!



If peer pressure can make you see nine dots when there are only eight, or convince you that the wrong line is the longest in a math question because the team all answers wrong, it can convince you of anything. If you're a sheeple and bow to peer pressure.

But my identity comes from being rejected by the group. I have seen how when you had a different idea, you got cruelly shut out of the conversation. Why then would I want the approval of people (I use the term loosely) who have just abused me?

So, what did you see? You may have seen a hologram.

(As you can see from this video, 3D holograms are now possible using hidden projectors, and the people seeing them can literally see what looks like a giraffe or polar bear from all angles. They were pretty polite about cooperating with visual space, and not walking "into the water")

And as to being a credible witness, people have all sorts of reasons for saying they saw what they saw. But chief among them is mentioned in X-Files. "I want to believe." In my experience, if you want to believe in something, you will find a sign of it even if you are looking at the wrong thing (a plane that passes by when everyone else says they saw Sputnik).
« Last Edit: December 28, 2022, 06:06:16 AM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: JackBlack
Firstly, DISTANCE MATTERS

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #163 on: December 28, 2022, 10:15:14 AM »
What's that, you personally didn't witness something when you were younger, like it doesn't happen several times a month or week depending on the time of year, insert random story to make the lie have an emotional element.   Claim it must have been fake because, well no reason at all.  Lie more,etc.

Then post a known cgi video ( edit, augmented reality and digitally combined video ) and falsely claim its 3D holograms.  Pathetic, dishonest, just a useless human being. 
« Last Edit: December 29, 2022, 03:50:45 AM by Mikey T. »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42598
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #164 on: December 28, 2022, 12:39:17 PM »
Intelligent conversations start when people actually have different ideas.
So do flame wars.  Productive conversations start when both sides have open minds.

And I do accept real science. What I don't accept is when people say things by fiat, and we're supposed to believe they proved them.
How did Hertz prove that radio waves are equal to the speed of light? Did he actually measure the speed of radio against light the speed of light?
You say that you accept real science, do you?  Have you ever taken a high school or college level lab physics course?  Do you accept that radio waves and light waves are both electromagnetic waves but at different wavelengths?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2022, 01:20:12 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 22141
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #165 on: December 28, 2022, 02:57:10 PM »
So no, I haven't seen it myself.
And that is your problem, not ours.
The point there are countless accounts of people observing the ISS.
You have no reason at all to dismiss these, yet you do.

So it is clear that you will not accept any evidence that shows you are wrong, unless you get it yourself.

It wasn't like it flew away or moved along in orbit. If that were the case, it should have been off to the side.
You sure do love spouting nonsense with no justification at all.

Just how late were you?
The ISS has an orbital period of roughly 90 minutes.
That means if you are 45 minutes late it will be above the other side of Earth.
At an altitude of roughly 400 km it is hypothetically visible (assuming appropriate illumination conditions) for a distance of 2200 km.
So if you were meant to see it directly overhead, it will be below the horizon 5 minutes later.
That means even if it was illuminated perfectly and it passed directly overhead, you would only be able to see it for a period of ~10 minutes.
But for most locations it wont pass directly overhead, so you get an even smaller window.

And a key part is the illumination requirements.
The best time to see the ISS is shortly after sunset, or shortly before sunrise.
This is so it is dark for you, and the sky is dark, but the ISS is illuminated by the sun.
The other option is for the ISS to transit a bright object like the sun or moon, but they are rarer.

But this is just another example of what makes people accuse you of being a troll.
You claim it is fake, spouting pure nonsense about holograms and that it should still be visible if it were real, with no justification at all.
That is not how healthy scepticism, or science or honest, intelligent conversation goes.

Instead, if that was your aim, you would have done something more like, clearly indicate what times it should be visible for, and what time you eventually got there.
If you didn't know those details, you would at least say just how late you were and put in some amount of effort to determine if you were too late. Just spouting vague BS that it should still have been visible just off to the side, with absolutely nothing to justify it is not scientific or honest at all. If the simple math or simply reporting when it should have been visible was beyond you, the very least you would do (to be honest and intelligent) would be say that you have no idea if you were too late to be able to see it.
But that honesty wouldn't have helped your story make your case.
So instead you dishonestly claim it should have still been visible even though you have absolutely no reason to think that.

How could something not only move on, but leave no proof of its existence in a narrow margin of time?
By orbiting at roughly 8000 m/s. But it does leave plenty of evidence of its existence from countless accounts of its observation.

So how do you know it was in outer space?
You alone can't do much. That is because your observation will primarily be 2D, that is measuring angles.
You either need something to determine distance, like radar, or an additional observer measuring angles which you can then determine the point of intersection.

We claim the sun is in outer space and much bigger than it looks.
What if that's crap? What if the sun is part of our atmosphere, as is the moon
The idea that they are in the atmosphere is crap.
The moon is a good candidate to work with.
Over the course of a day when the moon is visible, we see the moon as roughly the same size and see roughly the same face.
This means its distance to us is not changing significantly at all.
With a single additional observer you can trust (preferably more than 1, and preferably with region of overlap in the time you can see the moon), you can determine that this is also true across Earth.
i.e. everyone on Earth who can see the moon, sees roughly the same face (although at a different angle) at roughly the same size.
This alone is enough to demonstrate multiple things.
Firstly, it shows that the distance to the moon is roughly the same to everywhere Earth on. This means it must be a distance away from Earth which is many times the size of Earth, in order to make the change in distance to various points on Earth negligible.
It also means Earth must be round to account for the different observed positions of the moon and the different times it is visible at different locations on Earth.

Now, you could still claim that Earth's atmosphere stretches out that far. But a simple understanding of pressure gradients in a fluid will demonstrate that doesn't work, and that at such a distance Earth's atmosphere would be entirely negligible.

We could also use the fact that if it was in Earth's atmosphere (at least any significant amount), there would be significant drag which should slow the Moon down and cause it to fall to Earth.

As for the moon, given the best explanation for the phases of the moon, and the lunar eclipse, is that it is orbiting Earth and reflecting light from the sun, a simple measurement of the angle between the sun and the moon at a quarter moon (i.e. when half the moon is illuminated) being approximately 90 degrees, we can determine that the distance to the sun is many times the distance to the moon.
We can also do this by observing the timings of new moons, quarter moons, and full moons, and seeing that roughly the same amount of time is spent above half illuminated as below half illuminated; which once more demonstrates the distance to the sun must be many times the distance to the moon.

So again, there is plenty of evidence. Yet you choose to ignore it or reject it.

*

JackBlack

  • 22141
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #166 on: December 28, 2022, 02:57:48 PM »
I'd have just about as much proof of my assertions (as in practically none).
No, you don't.
You have no evidence at all for any of your claims.
Isntead the vast majority is based upon your wilful ignorance and wanting to reject reality at all costs.
Conversely, there are mountains of evidence that you reject that demonstrate you are wrong, that demonstrate the moon is far away, that objects are in space and so on.
And your only attempt at a response is to dismiss all that evidence as fake because it shows you are wrong.

A similar experiment was conducted by Stallen, Smidts, and Sanfrey. Twenty-four subjects were manipulated using a minimal group paradigm approach. Unbeknownst to them, they were all selected as part of the "in-group", although there was an established "out-group". Following this socialization, the subjects estimated the number of dots seen on the screen while given information about what an in-group or out-group member chose...
Why end the quote there?
Why not go for what the study actually was or demonstrated?

The participants where shown a dot pattern of between 5 to 30 dots for 1.5 seconds. Then were given 2.5 to 6 s to estimate how many dots were there (where they couldn't see the dots) and then provided a previous estimate by an "in-group" or "out-group" for 2 s, and then asked for their estimate.
In addition, the previous estimate provided was always correct.
And this was done over a course of 55 minutes.
The results were that they agreed with in group members 67.8% of the time with a SD of 9.4%, vs out group members 65.4% of the time with a SD of 9.2%. So quite a minor effect if any. And requiring them to quickly count dots and then guess how many there were is quite different to observing something in the sky. And note that over 30% of responses where incorrect.

As for the video, do you even bother watching it?
75% conformed at least once, while 25% never conformed. Where "conformed" is giving the incorrect answer.
In the control group (37 people), 1 person gave 1 conforming answer and 2 gave 2 conforming answers.
In the trial group (50 people), no one conformed all the timed, 13 only gave correct answers. And on average, they gave 3.84 incorrect answers out of the 12 tests, so an average of 32% of the time, people conformed. This means that 68% of the time, people went against a unanimous majority and stated the correct answer.

So this certainly isn't looking good for your position, especially not when there are so many people publicly speaking out spouting garbage like it is all fake.

When only 32% of responses were incorrect (conformed) when there was a unanimous majority you would expect far less to do so with a non-unanimous majority and lots of people speaking out.

But my identity comes from being rejected by the group.
And because of that, you will only trust those who agree with you, rejecting anything that shows you are wrong.
You weren't rejected by the group, you rejected the group.

Why then would I want the approval of people
So you admit it is all about approval and not about the truth?


(As you can see from this video, 3D holograms are now possible
Citation needed.
If it was really a hologram, rather than just CGI rendered on top of a real scene (i.e. augmented reality), why are so few people looking at the "holograms"?
The scene with the orcas really kills it.
Look at the crowd, looking at something towards the camera rather than the orcas. One person even has their camera out, not to take a photo of the orcas, but something else, and the faces of the people close to the orcas are blurred. Later on with the same scene when a polar bear comes out again they don't look at it at all.
Then the scene with the pandas, even the kid right near the alleged hologram isn't bothering to look at the Panda, and so many people walk past not caring.
Then again with the chimps, again people aren't looking at them, again they are looking elsewhere.
With the Cheetah, you see the guy looking completely away from the Cheetah to move presumably his kid into position, clearly getting feedback from whatever he is looking at to get the position correct, and again the kids aren't looking at it at all. Later on when the rhino comes out, the guy points out the screen to the kid, so the kid can see it.

In one scene, you even have someone point out a camera to the kid.

They are quite clearly looking at a screen showing the image, because they are not holograms.

Yet again, you see something you think supports you, so you accept it without any crtitical thinking at all.

As for claims of seeing something, don't forget the countless photos and videos.
They aren't just people saying they have seen it.
That is either real, or it is people intentionally faking things which goes well beyond just giving the wrong answer.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #167 on: December 29, 2022, 04:22:15 AM »

Iím an air traffic controller with 25yrs experience and am considered a subject matter expert on ATC radar systems. I represent the UK on European and international working groups on aviation radar systems.

If speed of radiation of differing wavelengths varied, the radars I use every day at Heathrow airport would paint aircraft on my screen miles away from their actual location. And yet they donít. So how does that work? Is it coincidence?

You make a lot of assumptions. On what are you basing these, please?

How? Based on the real science of echolocation, on which radar is based. Radio is like light until conveniently it has to behave like sound. Meanwhile, real sound behaves like this:


The radar hits the airplane, and projects the radar signal back to the air traffic control station. Simple as that.

Meanwhile, such things don't work on a round Earth where curvature disrupts signals.

I assume that you are able to track a plane from takeoff to destination? I don't know the effective range of radar, but...

https://sage-answer.com/what-is-the-maximum-range-of-radar/

158km.  So any plane within that should be able to be detected. If however, it moves outside that, I would have to assume there are other radar systems overlapping yours to make sure the plane is on track, no?

Radar will give you an accurate image, but not a limitless range. Such waves must be supplemented by towers and other systems. Obviously, radar does not travel at the speed of light across the Earth. So radar is not radio, or radio is far more limited than we have claimed.
The same article that told me about radar limits mentioned physical limits to radar from the engineering standpoint, and how to double the signal, for some reason you need 16 times as much stuff.

But this doesn't seem to be the case.

https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/


You are showing up your lack of knowledge of radar systems. You don't seem to be answering the questions I have asked.

The surveillance radars I work with are of 23cm, 10cm and 3cm wavelengths (the last one varies it's wavelength within a band depending on various inputs and variables). Are you saying that the different manufacturers of those radars all know the 'real' speed of radiation of each of these different wavelengths, but somehow have kept this knowledge secret and have coded the processing units and data fusion modules of the radar processing systems (these all feed in to the same display (made by a different company again), and merge targets from multiple radars) to make it look like they all have the same accuracy level and doppler effect? How do they manage the variable wavelength radar?

Would be fascinated by your thoughts.

I'm attending a European working group on airport surveiallnce radar systems in Cologne in mid-January, I could ask the manufacturers who attend any questions you have about radars.

(Edited for typos)
« Last Edit: December 29, 2022, 07:47:44 AM by Gonzo230 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #168 on: December 29, 2022, 06:09:30 AM »
What's that, you personally didn't witness something when you were younger, like it doesn't happen several times a month or week depending on the time of year, insert random story to make the lie have an emotional element.   Claim it must have been fake because, well no reason at all.  Lie more,etc.

Then post a known cgi video ( edit, augmented reality and digitally combined video ) and falsely claim its 3D holograms.  Pathetic, dishonest, just a useless human being.

This was about three years ago. I still live with my folks, because I believe in family, not "independence".

Actually, this was a demonstration of holograms in Poland, Dubai, and Japan. The title says it's from Tech World.



See? I didn't make this. It's not fake.

And it's fucking cool, so I posted it again.

But you are so dishonest with yourself and with me, that you cannot even admit that maybe just maybe, there's a possibility that ISS is fake in some way. Or maybe you didn't even watch the video?

So you claim that a technology that has made great strides (one of my teachers attested to how real holograms looked, back when I was in college... during a hologram demonstration, he'd paid to get in, but it was a crowded room and he worried they weren't gonna be able to see anything. They shut off the hidden projectors, and 2/3 of the people disappeared. That's how realistic holograms are, and that was 15 years ago) is not as real as you think because it doesn't suit your blind trust in certain things and total disbelief in others.

Look, certain technologies are impossible or at least very difficult, thanks to certain fundamental rules of physics. Others are very simple and have continued to progress.

Flight, holograms, electromagnetism, and surveillance devices. As are many other technologies like cellphones, microwave, cable internet. All of these are real, and have gotten better over time. We now have quite sophisticated drones.

Other things are real(ish) but lies have been told to make them seem more impressive than they are. Amazon is famous for this. They called a crude optical sensor an accelerometer. Their Alexa, when opened up, is mostly a microphone, that techies at the other end types answers to be used as stock for any other questions of that type. Alexa can either send new answers or use from built in Alexa stock.
 And satellite radio is a broadcast of packages to local cell connections. I have Korean radio in my car. It occurs to me that I probably will have Korean radio in my car whether my car drives to Canada or Florida, or anywhere not around a mountain range or inside a tunnel. This is a package that comes with a car, not as you believe, radio frequencies based on hitting a satellite. Or the channel would change with different satellites. Packaged cell radio vs local radio. They use a mix of cellular and internet to make prerecorded shows. This is cool how they do this, but I usually prefer local radio. Or they ship by truck, but that was the old way. Now they can pass along prerecorded radio signals by radio, and it doesn't have to be anywhere near the speed of light, because almost nothing is live.

Others are outright fake, like magician's acts, Hollywood tricks, and every launch from NASA ever.

Now a radio broadcast from Seoul could be done, assuming no mountains were in the way, but this would be the effective equivalent of local radio, using alot of towers to pass along signal. But this is expensive, and not very efficient as everything must be live.
It is cheaper to create internet radio, and pass along private recordings to radio stations in advance. So most things are not live. Even live things have a lag to them that allows certain slip-ups to be cut or changed. And most things are far from live. The Bachelor, for example is filmed several months in advance. Yet some of us here are so gullible that we have an easier time believing that a signal was bounced across from space (few companies have money like this, even if possible) than simply have a person from Korea say, "This is Radio Seoul, today is December 29," when in fact the date recorded was closer to December 7th. In fact, recordings for about three to five days are made while DJs create song tracks. The two are synced together (sometimes adding in commercials) to make several days of 24-hour broadcasting in a day (pretty cool trick). Satellite radio hosts are fairly busy, but like a swan kicking below the water, they make it all like easy and graceful.

It is fine that the satellite radio technology is a smoke and mirrors show using recordings. What's not fine is a generation of people so gullible that they think it sounds more plausible bouncing Korean radio across a globe through dishes in space.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2022, 06:28:08 AM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: JackBlack
Firstly, DISTANCE MATTERS

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #169 on: December 29, 2022, 09:46:23 AM »
What's that, you personally didn't witness something when you were younger, like it doesn't happen several times a month or week depending on the time of year, insert random story to make the lie have an emotional element.   Claim it must have been fake because, well no reason at all.  Lie more,etc.

Then post a known cgi video ( edit, augmented reality and digitally combined video ) and falsely claim its 3D holograms.  Pathetic, dishonest, just a useless human being.

This was about three years ago. I still live with my folks, because I believe in family, not "independence".

Actually, this was a demonstration of holograms in Poland, Dubai, and Japan. The title says it's from Tech World.



See? I didn't make this. It's not fake.

And it's fucking cool, so I posted it again.

But you are so dishonest with yourself and with me, that you cannot even admit that maybe just maybe, there's a possibility that ISS is fake in some way. Or maybe you didn't even watch the video?

So you claim that a technology that has made great strides (one of my teachers attested to how real holograms looked, back when I was in college... during a hologram demonstration, he'd paid to get in, but it was a crowded room and he worried they weren't gonna be able to see anything. They shut off the hidden projectors, and 2/3 of the people disappeared. That's how realistic holograms are, and that was 15 years ago) is not as real as you think because it doesn't suit your blind trust in certain things and total disbelief in others.

Look, certain technologies are impossible or at least very difficult, thanks to certain fundamental rules of physics. Others are very simple and have continued to progress.

Flight, holograms, electromagnetism, and surveillance devices. As are many other technologies like cellphones, microwave, cable internet. All of these are real, and have gotten better over time. We now have quite sophisticated drones.

Other things are real(ish) but lies have been told to make them seem more impressive than they are. Amazon is famous for this. They called a crude optical sensor an accelerometer. Their Alexa, when opened up, is mostly a microphone, that techies at the other end types answers to be used as stock for any other questions of that type. Alexa can either send new answers or use from built in Alexa stock.
 And satellite radio is a broadcast of packages to local cell connections. I have Korean radio in my car. It occurs to me that I probably will have Korean radio in my car whether my car drives to Canada or Florida, or anywhere not around a mountain range or inside a tunnel. This is a package that comes with a car, not as you believe, radio frequencies based on hitting a satellite. Or the channel would change with different satellites. Packaged cell radio vs local radio. They use a mix of cellular and internet to make prerecorded shows. This is cool how they do this, but I usually prefer local radio. Or they ship by truck, but that was the old way. Now they can pass along prerecorded radio signals by radio, and it doesn't have to be anywhere near the speed of light, because almost nothing is live.

Others are outright fake, like magician's acts, Hollywood tricks, and every launch from NASA ever.

Now a radio broadcast from Seoul could be done, assuming no mountains were in the way, but this would be the effective equivalent of local radio, using alot of towers to pass along signal. But this is expensive, and not very efficient as everything must be live.
It is cheaper to create internet radio, and pass along private recordings to radio stations in advance. So most things are not live. Even live things have a lag to them that allows certain slip-ups to be cut or changed. And most things are far from live. The Bachelor, for example is filmed several months in advance. Yet some of us here are so gullible that we have an easier time believing that a signal was bounced across from space (few companies have money like this, even if possible) than simply have a person from Korea say, "This is Radio Seoul, today is December 29," when in fact the date recorded was closer to December 7th. In fact, recordings for about three to five days are made while DJs create song tracks. The two are synced together (sometimes adding in commercials) to make several days of 24-hour broadcasting in a day (pretty cool trick). Satellite radio hosts are fairly busy, but like a swan kicking below the water, they make it all like easy and graceful.

It is fine that the satellite radio technology is a smoke and mirrors show using recordings. What's not fine is a generation of people so gullible that they think it sounds more plausible bouncing Korean radio across a globe through dishes in space.
That IS NOT a demonstration of holograms.  Stop lying. Find the original video, not the one used for your dishonest purposes.  The rest of you outright lies are pathetic.  I know satellite signals pretty well, please enlighten us with your drivel about how those are faked.  Really, this isn't even entertaining anymore with the shear amount of dishonesty you keep trying.  You don't know how something works so it must be what you need to sell your snake oil.  You didn't see it once upon a time in the past when you wanted to because of your own ineptitude, so it must be fake.  God you are pathetic. 
Come on, explain what they do, to fake a satellite signal.  Blimps, won't work, I've triangulated the satellites before from my own data that was gathered while I had to travel across the country setting up and training techs on DirecTV back in the early 2000s.  Towers won't work since you can put your hands in just the right spot in line between the signal and the reflector and kill the signal.  Yes they look like they are pointing about 22 to 25 degrees lower because of the reflector.  There is a reason, to concentrate the signal on a point, and if you have the feed horn in the way it does reduce possible signal strength.  They learned that in the 80s with the original BUDs (big ugly dish).  Later iterations prior to the small dishes had a 10 degree offset, aka the dish didn't point directly at the satellite.  The small dishes aren't round, they are oblong so that the focal point is maximized at a 22 degree offset above the feed horns angle.  Until you get into the multi sat dishes which are even more elongated.  They have multiple focal points some high and left of center, others high and right, some high center.  The biggest of the microwave signal dishes picked up 5 locations.  I've also put a small dish in a completely blocked on the sides area on a roof and it had great signal.   Put a piece of cardboard in front of the dish and no more TV signal.  Put it blocking anything but that signal pathway, which is LOS(line of sight), and it won't block the signal. 
I've also spent a lot of time in the military in reconnaissance, meaning lots of optics, covert comms, GPS guidance hundreds of miles from any tower etc. 
So let's hear YOUR expert opinion.  Please enlighten us. 
Where is scepti, at least he tries to come up with actual semi plausible mechanisms. 

*

JackBlack

  • 22141
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #170 on: December 29, 2022, 01:42:44 PM »
Actually, this was a demonstration of holograms in Poland, Dubai, and Japan. The title says it's from Tech World.
No, this is a demonstration of augmented reality and in at least one case a large screen.
This is not a demonstration of holograms.

And it's fucking cool, so I posted it again.
You mean you couldn't respond to the valid criticism of it, so you just post it again, once more without any critical thought, showing your position is not based upon critical thought or intelligent, honest conversation; and that instead you are most likely a troll.

Considering you are too dishonest to do anything more about it, try this more honest representation of something quite similar:


And this:
https://www.theregister.com/2016/12/09/magic_leap_neither_magic_nor_leaping/

But you are so dishonest with yourself and with me
No, you are the dishonest one here.

You posted this crap to avoid honest discussion.
You posted either without watching it or without thinking about it.
Even a cursory look through it would result in numerous flaws for the idea that they are holograms.
But you don't care.
You aren't looking for the truth.
You are looking for an excuse to dismiss the ISS being real, so you find this crap and provide it here.
Then you entirely ignore the problems with it just to provide the same delusional BS again.

that you cannot even admit that maybe just maybe, there's a possibility that ISS is fake in some way.
It is hypothetically possible, but there is absolutely no evidence to indicate it is fake, nor any known technology to fake it, nor any reason to fake it; and mountains of evidence supporting it.

Now try the opposite. Can you admit that there is a possibility (a quite high one) that the ISS is real, and is orbiting a rotating round Earth in space?
Can you admit there is the possibility that all the BS you have been spouting is just that, BS?

Or maybe you didn't even watch the video?
Did you?

Look, certain technologies are impossible or at least very difficult, thanks to certain fundamental rules of physics. Others are very simple and have continued to progress.
Like actual holograms.
They are incredibly difficult. And the best ones these days are a single colour, using monochromatic light from a laser.

Amazon is famous for this. They called a crude optical sensor an accelerometer.
Notice how again you spout things which such confidence, all based upon 1 person taking it apart and not being able to find an accelerometer?
Why trust them so much?

Their Alexa, when opened up, is mostly a microphone, that techies at the other end types answers to be used as stock for any other questions of that type. Alexa can either send new answers or use from built in Alexa stock.
And more delusional garbage. Do you have any justification for this at all?

And satellite radio is a broadcast of packages to local cell connections.
We have been over this. You have NOTHING to justify this delusional BS of yours, nor anything to cast doubt on the reality of it.
That actual satellite radio broadcasts are broadcast from a satellite.

Or the channel would change with different satellites.
So you think the channel would change with different satellites, but not with different local towers?

Now a radio broadcast from Seoul could be done, assuming no mountains were in the way, but this would be the effective equivalent of local radio, using alot of towers to pass along signal. But this is expensive, and not very efficient as everything must be live.
Yes, if you want to cover the world, it can be much more efficient to use a satellite, where a single transmitter can cover a massive area.

It is fine that the satellite radio technology is a smoke and mirrors show using recordings. What's not fine is a generation of people so gullible that they think it sounds more plausible bouncing Korean radio across a globe through dishes in space.
What isn't fine is how much dishonest BS you spout, while fleeing from all the problems raised by that dishonest BS, all to try propping up your delusional fantasy because you either can't handle reality, are trying to con people into your delusional fantasy, or because you are a pathetic troll.

You can't pre-record GPS.
Yet GPS works in the middle of the ocean, with no cell coverage at all.

Radio travels at the speed of light, scientific experiments, and daily usage of radar has confirmed this.

You not liking these facts because they don't fit your delusional fantasy has no impact on them being facts.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #171 on: December 30, 2022, 07:15:07 AM »

That IS NOT a demonstration of holograms.  Stop lying. Find the original video, not the one used for your dishonest purposes.  The rest of you outright lies are pathetic.  I know satellite signals pretty well, please enlighten us with your drivel about how those are faked.  Really, this isn't even entertaining anymore with the shear amount of dishonesty you keep trying.  You don't know how something works so it must be what you need to sell your snake oil.  You didn't see it once upon a time in the past when you wanted to because of your own ineptitude, so it must be fake.  God you are pathetic. 
Come on, explain what they do, to fake a satellite signal.  Blimps, won't work, I've triangulated the satellites before from my own data that was gathered while I had to travel across the country setting up and training techs on DirecTV back in the early 2000s.  Towers won't work since you can put your hands in just the right spot in line between the signal and the reflector and kill the signal.  Yes they look like they are pointing about 22 to 25 degrees lower because of the reflector.  There is a reason, to concentrate the signal on a point, and if you have the feed horn in the way it does reduce possible signal strength.  They learned that in the 80s with the original BUDs (big ugly dish).  Later iterations prior to the small dishes had a 10 degree offset, aka the dish didn't point directly at the satellite.  The small dishes aren't round, they are oblong so that the focal point is maximized at a 22 degree offset above the feed horns angle.  Until you get into the multi sat dishes which are even more elongated.  They have multiple focal points some high and left of center, others high and right, some high center.  The biggest of the microwave signal dishes picked up 5 locations.  I've also put a small dish in a completely blocked on the sides area on a roof and it had great signal.   Put a piece of cardboard in front of the dish and no more TV signal.  Put it blocking anything but that signal pathway, which is LOS(line of sight), and it won't block the signal. 
I've also spent a lot of time in the military in reconnaissance, meaning lots of optics, covert comms, GPS guidance hundreds of miles from any tower etc. 
So let's hear YOUR expert opinion.  Please enlighten us. 
Where is scepti, at least he tries to come up with actual semi plausible mechanisms.

Why should I find the original video?

By the same logic you just used, this is as far as I am concerned the original video.

Or do you want to answer about the original video of people supposedly floating around in a space shuttle? Cuz I think you don't want to touch that discussion. If all of these things can be inserted, and holographic technology is all CGI, then don't you want to tell me about people being layered in who are supposedly floating?



Quote from: JackBlack
Firstly, DISTANCE MATTERS

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #172 on: December 30, 2022, 07:47:13 AM »
Or do you want to answer about the original video of people supposedly floating around in a space shuttle? Cuz I think you don't want to touch that discussion. If all of these things can be inserted, and holographic technology is all CGI, then don't you want to tell me about people being layered in who are supposedly floating?

Did we have this hologram stuff back in 2012?

As well, do these look like a holograms?






And the coup d'gras, a 50 minute uncut tour of the ISS. There is no way to CGI 50 minutes uncut without employing 100's of VFX people, just look at the credits for any CGI heavy movie. No one seems to be spilling the beans that they worked on the VFX for NASA "fakes". Hundreds and hundreds of people and that's just for selected shots let alone 50 minutes solid. Not to mention the server farm to render 50 minutes would be the size of Texas.


Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #173 on: December 30, 2022, 08:50:40 AM »
Or do you want to answer about the original video of people supposedly floating around in a space shuttle? Cuz I think you don't want to touch that discussion. If all of these things can be inserted, and holographic technology is all CGI, then don't you want to tell me about people being layered in who are supposedly floating?

Did we have this hologram stuff back in 2012?

As well, do these look like a holograms?


Actually, I am quite sure they are simply composited layers of video. That is, none of this is live, it's all done with a film crew and the assistance of Hollywood. I'm not even going to bother watching them.

But to answer your question...

Quote from: bulmabriefs144
So you claim that a technology that has made great strides (one of my teachers attested to how real holograms looked, back when I was in college... during a hologram demonstration, he'd paid to get in, but it was a crowded room and he worried they weren't gonna be able to see anything. They shut off the hidden projectors, and 2/3 of the people disappeared. That's how realistic holograms are, and that was 15 years ago) is not as real as you think because it doesn't suit your blind trust in certain things and total disbelief in others.

Actually, it was 17 years ago.  The teacher in question was a theater teacher who gushed about the holograms he saw, during the last semester of college. I graduated from college in 2005.

Could you make better hologram than that in 2022? Yes, they have had 17 years to perfect something that in 2005 (and he was speaking of something that he say two or three years in the past, so maybe more)

Holograms can be compiled using refraction technology and stuff.



Yes we most certainly had holograms back in 2012, but this was not really how this was done.



I am reasonably certain that NASA could, given money to throw at them, film me doing MARTIAL ARTS IN SPACE, simply by recording me doing punches and kicks, and just insert me into a space background. Laughably bad technique, and I'm not funding it.

NASA has the money to create wind tunnels and such, but more often, we are talking just film tricks. The girl is sitting on a rolling chair in the first video. She crosses and uncrosses her legs... IN SPACE. Yeah, the space created when you slap her on to another video layer and remove the chair. She lifts her legs, and they rotate the shot on green screen while keeping the background unrotated (they tilt that shot up (dual photography trick). Her hair has been sprayed to stand up all poofy, and she's given nerdy clothes to looke like a scientist, instead of what she actually is (a paid actress). The set moves into a "lower section of the spacecraft" thanks in part to the fact that the film and characters are done separately. At this point, I stopped watching.

Some technologies continue to get better. Filming techniques have improved significantly in 100 years. We can indeed place actors in any location imaginable, have them get hit by things that aren't in the same room, or fire balls of energy.

Meanwhile, electric cars were actually invented 200 years ago.
https://jalopnik.com/electric-cars-are-way-older-than-you-think-ev-timeline-1847083118
In all that time, they are still woefully inefficient. This is because the technology is not feasible. It requires mining of rare earth minerals, turning them into huge batteries (no "carbon footprint" but a hell of a footprint in other regards) which charge time at a significant lag from what ICEs do. In fact, I've just heard that the Tesla company lost over $1 trillion.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/tesla-stock-collapse-sees-nightmare-losses-head-towards-1-trillion/ar-AA15KpgJ
This is not chump change. It's a testament to the impractical nature of such tech. Likewise, space shuttles fail to launch all the time. That technology is not real either.

Holograms? Despite being as real as film (that is to say, both specialize in illusion), this is a technology that continues to develop. Space technology and electric cars are not improved, just repackaged. Because they're fake, and it is not possible to make them much better.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2022, 09:27:22 AM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: JackBlack
Firstly, DISTANCE MATTERS

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #174 on: December 30, 2022, 09:11:50 AM »
Or do you want to answer about the original video of people supposedly floating around in a space shuttle? Cuz I think you don't want to touch that discussion. If all of these things can be inserted, and holographic technology is all CGI, then don't you want to tell me about people being layered in who are supposedly floating?

Did we have this hologram stuff back in 2012?

As well, do these look like a holograms?


Actually, I am quite sure they are simply composited layers of video. That is, none of this is live, it's all done with a film crew and the assistance of Hollywood. I'm not even going to bother watching them.

I knew you wouldn't watch them. That's what sheeple do, cover their eyes and ears so as not to be exposed to anything that may challenge their belief system.

And what exactly, specifically, makes you quite sure?

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #175 on: December 30, 2022, 09:30:39 AM »
Quote
That's what sheeple do, cover their eyes and ears so as not to be exposed to anything that may challenge their belief system.

Yes, you do.

Despite me telling you numerous times that these things aren't real, you continue to fall back on "holograms are fake, but NASA clearly is not movie magic."

And I did watch video 1, as explained in my updated post.

And if you're gonna tell me about CGI only being very recent, background filming dates back to black and white era.

« Last Edit: December 30, 2022, 09:43:14 AM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: JackBlack
Firstly, DISTANCE MATTERS

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #176 on: December 30, 2022, 09:50:16 AM »

That IS NOT a demonstration of holograms.  Stop lying. Find the original video, not the one used for your dishonest purposes.  The rest of you outright lies are pathetic.  I know satellite signals pretty well, please enlighten us with your drivel about how those are faked.  Really, this isn't even entertaining anymore with the shear amount of dishonesty you keep trying.  You don't know how something works so it must be what you need to sell your snake oil.  You didn't see it once upon a time in the past when you wanted to because of your own ineptitude, so it must be fake.  God you are pathetic. 
Come on, explain what they do, to fake a satellite signal.  Blimps, won't work, I've triangulated the satellites before from my own data that was gathered while I had to travel across the country setting up and training techs on DirecTV back in the early 2000s.  Towers won't work since you can put your hands in just the right spot in line between the signal and the reflector and kill the signal.  Yes they look like they are pointing about 22 to 25 degrees lower because of the reflector.  There is a reason, to concentrate the signal on a point, and if you have the feed horn in the way it does reduce possible signal strength.  They learned that in the 80s with the original BUDs (big ugly dish).  Later iterations prior to the small dishes had a 10 degree offset, aka the dish didn't point directly at the satellite.  The small dishes aren't round, they are oblong so that the focal point is maximized at a 22 degree offset above the feed horns angle.  Until you get into the multi sat dishes which are even more elongated.  They have multiple focal points some high and left of center, others high and right, some high center.  The biggest of the microwave signal dishes picked up 5 locations.  I've also put a small dish in a completely blocked on the sides area on a roof and it had great signal.   Put a piece of cardboard in front of the dish and no more TV signal.  Put it blocking anything but that signal pathway, which is LOS(line of sight), and it won't block the signal. 
I've also spent a lot of time in the military in reconnaissance, meaning lots of optics, covert comms, GPS guidance hundreds of miles from any tower etc. 
So let's hear YOUR expert opinion.  Please enlighten us. 
Where is scepti, at least he tries to come up with actual semi plausible mechanisms.

Why should I find the original video?

By the same logic you just used, this is as far as I am concerned the original video.

Or do you want to answer about the original video of people supposedly floating around in a space shuttle? Cuz I think you don't want to touch that discussion. If all of these things can be inserted, and holographic technology is all CGI, then don't you want to tell me about people being layered in who are supposedly floating?
You're reading comprehension is nonexistent.   You would find the original video to see what the video was actually about.  I guess by your logic, I could find some Hollywood alien invasion film and claim it as proof of an invasion.  But we aren't that dishonest.  We aren't that brainwashed.  We will point out fake videos, even when they support what we are saying,
But you, oh no can't break that sheep mentality.  Keep blindly following the FE youtube priests.  I'm sure you will please your cult leaders. 
 

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #177 on: December 30, 2022, 10:54:12 AM »
Quote
That's what sheeple do, cover their eyes and ears so as not to be exposed to anything that may challenge their belief system.

Yes, you do.

Despite me telling you numerous times that these things aren't real, you continue to fall back on "holograms are fake, but NASA clearly is not movie magic."

And I did watch video 1, as explained in my updated post.

And if you're gonna tell me about CGI only being very recent, background filming dates back to black and white era.

I asked, what exactly, specifically, makes you quite sure?

As in, what evidence do you have that makes you "quite sure"? Or is just that you believe it to be the case because your belief system won't allow you to think otherwise.

Specific evidence required or you're just being a sheeple.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #178 on: December 30, 2022, 12:19:17 PM »
Quote
That's what sheeple do, cover their eyes and ears so as not to be exposed to anything that may challenge their belief system.

Yes, you do.

Despite me telling you numerous times that these things aren't real, you continue to fall back on "holograms are fake, but NASA clearly is not movie magic."

And I did watch video 1, as explained in my updated post.

And if you're gonna tell me about CGI only being very recent, background filming dates back to black and white era.

I asked, what exactly, specifically, makes you quite sure?

As in, what evidence do you have that makes you "quite sure"? Or is just that you believe it to be the case because your belief system won't allow you to think otherwise.

Specific evidence required or you're just being a sheeple.

Okay, here's evidence. Zero Background astronaut jumping.

https://www.dreamstime.com/astronaut-jumping-white-background-alpha-channel-astronaut-jumping-white-background-alpha-channel-video228433855

Green screen jumping.

https://www.dreamstime.com/astronaut-jumping-green-screen-video227814200

All of this is readily available and royalty free. In other words, it costs NASA nothing to make their animations if they have a good movie-making software. There are people willing and able to make stock images which NASA shamelessly uses.

Just add background, and you can claim this astronaut is on Mars, the moon, the sun, Jupiter, or in a cave.

Now I cannot animate well (it's not part of my skillset), but I'll show you how absurd a picture can be made.



Look, our astronauts have made it all the way to Jupiter! And while there, they encountered a pegasus. And the wolf from  the Neverending Story.



Without spending a dime, I could move this frame by frame, and then animate and add sound using some default video maker. It would look like shit, but probably better effort than NASA gets away with.

Forget calling me sheeple, you sheeple. And give it a rest. You lose. Nothing can be proven to be real if everything can be photoshopped. Including a virus that held millions in terror for two years. Yes, I'm talking about the dread scourge COVID. You don't any more proof of that than you do of space travel. It's all numbers.

Oh wait, it's not weird enough. You want me to add a "newly discovered picture of outer space" where I claim the stars are tie-dye?



If I were any kind of animator, I could prove these things for the fraud they are. But you can settle for absurd stills.

You want the moon? Just say the word, and I'll bring it to you.



Here's another one if you're not convinced. This one's not mine.



Rare snailcat breed!
« Last Edit: December 30, 2022, 12:49:25 PM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: JackBlack
Firstly, DISTANCE MATTERS

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42598
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #179 on: December 30, 2022, 01:04:16 PM »
Okay, here's evidence. Zero Background astronaut jumping.

https://www.dreamstime.com/astronaut-jumping-white-background-alpha-channel-astronaut-jumping-white-background-alpha-channel-video228433855

Green screen jumping.

https://www.dreamstime.com/astronaut-jumping-green-screen-video227814200

All of this is readily available and royalty free.
Was any of that material "readily available and royalty free" in 1969?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.