NASA Faking Space proves flat earth?
On a recent visit to NASA in Houston I spoke with many NASA employees and their public relations people and none of them were firmly convinced that the Apollo moon landings were real. None of them were prepared to put forward any arguments to try to “prove” they sent men to the moon in the 1960s. So now, in 2018, we have reached the point where even the NASA employees are not sure the Apollo manned moon landings were real.
So it is obvious, NASA faked the Apollo manned lunar landings, and every thoughtful person knows this by now. NASA makes no attempt whatsoever to prove they landed men on the moon. Basically they don’t talk. Even the NASA employees complained that they have no one to ask questions about these things to and that they are kept completely in the dark. NASA scientists don’t talk to anyone. At the same time NASA openly admits that now, in 2018, it is not possible for them to send men to the moon, they can’t even send men out of low earth orbit.
So the obvious conclusion is if NASA can’t send men out of low earth orbit today they could not send men out of low earth orbit in 1966…
So flat earthers talk a lot about NASA fakery, and there is a lot of real NASA fakery. After faking the moon NASA went on to fake a lot of other things they were being funded trillions of dollars for doing in space. So there is not question, a very large percentage of what NASA tells us is lies and fakery. But NASA’s fakery is not actually proof that the earth is flat.
The only purpose of exposing NASA’s fakery from the point of the flat earth is to show that if NASA did not send men to the moon then the fabulous photograph of earth from space, the “Blue Marble” is also fake.
Obviously if we have photographs of a globe earth from space then that is proof the earth is a globe. So flat earthers attempt to show that the few photos of earth from space NASA have given us are fakes. And they have quite convincingly proven this.
So it seems NASA not only faked the Apollo manned lunar landings, they also faked their earth from space photographs.
In this way NASA has enabled the flat earth movement. Because of their wholesale fakery very few people trust anything they say anymore.
There is truly an enormous amount of proof of NASA’s fakery, from the flat earth perspective the only thing that is really important is to establish that NASA has not been far enough away from the earth to look back and take a photo of the entire globe. And they have been able to do this quite convincingly.
Conclusion: The fact that NASA faked the Apollo manned moon missions in the 1960s and have faked many other things in the years to follow does not prove the earth is flat. But it does indicate the possibility that we have not be far enough away from the earth to take a photo of the full globe, thus leaving open the possibility that the earth is not a globe.
Supporting Flat Earth Proofs
- 160) It is impossible for rockets or any type of jet propulsion engines to work in the alleged non-atmosphere of vacuum space because without air/atmosphere to push against there is nothing to propel the vehicle forwards. Instead the rockets and shuttles would be sent spinning around their own axis uncontrollably in all directions like a gyroscope. It would be impossible to fly to the Moon or go in any direction whatsoever, especially if “gravity” were real and constantly sucking you towards the closest densest body.
- 161) If Earth were really a ball, there would be no reason to use rockets for flying into “outer-space” anyway because simply flying an airplane straight at any altitude for long enough should and would send you off into outer-space. To prevent their airplanes from flying tangent to the ball-Earth, pilots would have to constantly course-correct downwards, or else within just a few hours the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph would find themselves lost in “outer-space.” The fact that this never happens, artificial horizons remain level at pilot’s desired altitudes and do NOT require constant downwards adjustments, proves the Earth is not a ball.
- 162) All NASA and other “space agencies” rocket launches never go straight up. Every rocket forms a parabolic curve, peaks out, and inevitably starts falling back to Earth. The rockets which are declared “successful” are those few which don’t explode or start falling too soon but make it out of range of spectator view before crashing down into restricted waters and recovered. There is no magic altitude where rockets or anything else can simply go up, up, up and then suddenly just start “free-floating” in space. This is all a science-fiction illusion created by wires, green-screens, dark pools, some permed hair and Zero-G planes.
- 163) NASA and other space agencies have been caught time and again with air bubbles forming and floating off in their official “outer-space” footage. Astronauts have also been caught using scuba-space-gear, kicking their legs to move, and astronaut Luca Parmitano even almost drowned when water started filling up his helmet while allegedly on a “space-walk.” It is admitted that astronauts train for their “space-walks” in under-water training facilities like NASA’s “Neutral Buoyancy Lab,” but what is obvious from their “space bubbles,” and other blunders is that all official “space-walk” footage is also fake and filmed under-water.
- 164) Analysis of many interior videos from the “International Space Station,” have shown the use of camera-tricks such as green-screens, harnesses and even wildly permed hair to achieve a zero-gravity type effect. Footage of astronauts seemingly floating in the zero-gravity of their “space station” is indistinguishable from “vomit comet” Zero-G airplane footage. By flying parabolic maneuvers this Zero-G floating effect can be achieved over and over again then edited together. For longer uncut shots, NASA has been caught using simple wires and green screen technology.
- 165) NASA claims one can observe the International Space Station pass by overhead proving its existence, yet analysis of the “ISS” seen through zoom cameras proves it to be some type of hologram/drone, not a physical floating space-base. As you can see in my documentary “ISS Hoax,” when zooming in/out, the “ISS” dramatically and impossibly changes shape and color, displaying a prismatic rainbow effect until coming into focus much like an old television turning on/off.
- 172) If you pick any cloud in the sky and watch for several minutes, two things will happen: the clouds will move and they will morph gradually changing shape. In official NASA footage of the spinning ball Earth, such as the “Galileo” time-lapse video however, clouds are constantly shown for 24+ hours at a time and not moving or morphing whatsoever! This is completely impossible, further proof that NASA produces fake CGI videos, and further evidence that Earth is not a spinning ball.
- 173) NASA has several alleged photographs of the ball-Earth which show several exact duplicate cloud patterns! The likelihood of having two or three clouds of the exact same shape in the same picture is as likely as finding two or three people with exactly the same fingerprints. In fact it is solid proof that the clouds were copied and pasted in a computer program and that such pictures showing a ball-shaped Earth are fakes.
- 174) NASA graphics artists have placed things like faces, dragons, and even the word “SEX” into cloud patterns over their various ball-Earth pictures. Their recent 2015 Pluto pictures even clearly have a picture of Disney’s “Pluto” the dog layered into the background. Such blatant fraud goes unnoticed by the hypnotized masses, but provides further proof of the illegitimacy of NASA and their spinning ball planet mythos.
- 175) Professional photo-analysts have dissected several NASA images of the ball-Earth and found undeniable proof of computer editing. For example, images of the Earth allegedly taken from the Moon have proven to be copied and pasted in, as evidenced by rectangular cuts found in the black background around the “Earth” by adjusting brightness and contrast levels. If they were truly on the Moon and Earth was truly a ball, there would be no need to fake such pictures.
- 176) When NASA’s images of the ball-Earth are compared with one another the coloration of the land/oceans and relative size of the continents are consistently so drastically different from one another as to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the pictures are all fake.
- 188) Over the years NASA has twice changed their story regarding the shape of the Earth. At first they maintained Earth was a perfect sphere, which later changed to an “oblate spheroid” flattened at the poles, and then changed again to being “pear-shaped” as the Southern hemisphere allegedly bulges out as well. Unfortunately for NASA, however, none of their official pictures show an oblate spheroid or pear-shaped Earth! All their pictures, contrary to their words, show a spherical (and clearly CGI fake) Earth.
- 177) In the documentary “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon,” you can watch official leaked NASA footage showing Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins, for almost an hour, using transparencies and camera-tricks to fake shots of a round Earth!
The people who believe the earth is flat need help, they should not be criticised. To completely ignore gravity so that a plane could just fly off the earth is laughable.
buoyancy, air pressure and density are all real provable things that can explain the so called gravity effect, also gravity must be super strong to hold the sea to a Spinning ball whilst super weak so you can walk around and not be outright squashed GRAVITY makes no sense and without it the whole big bang theory and most other ones fall part lol
Actually buoyancy, air pressure and density do not explain gravity. All buoyancy can do is hold things up. So if something is in a medium like air or water and it is less dense it will be held up by the medium. But if you take away the medium that is holding it up it will fall at the gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s.
So this force exists that is pulling things down, if you think the earth is flat there is a force pulling things down, that is gravity, and if you think the earth is a globe there is a force pulling towards the center of the globe and that is “down” on the globe.
So there is no way buoyancy, air pressure and density can explain the phenomenon that we call ‘gravity’ because that force still exists if you remove the medium [air, water, etc] that is holding the thing up and in this way causing the gravity to not act on it or reducing the action of gravity on it…
Yes, buoyancy and air pressure do not explain gravity. Rather, buoyancy and air pressure can be explained by, and is a result of gravity. Density, however, is an inherent property of matter – it is mass per unit volume, and is independent of gravity.
Fluid (e.g. air, water) pressure is caused by the weight of fluid due to gravity. So at the bottom of a fluid, there is more pressure due to more weight of the fluid above it, and at the top there is less pressure due to less weight. All this are due to the gravity acting on each of the particles of the fluid to pull it down. So fluid pressure “is” caused by gravity.
Buoyancy is the upward force that results due to fluid pressure being different at the bottom of an object than at the top, allowing the object to float. Lift is another upward force that acts on moving objects (like planes, birds) due to pressure differences in the fluid between an object’s top and bottom due to its speed – by Bernoulli’s principle, which can be derived from Newton’s laws and the law of gravity.
So gravity acts on all masses, including the fluids – but its effect on fluids, and objects in it, ultimately makes it counter-intuitive to us – that things can float in the fluid – thereby we say it “defies” gravity, when in fact that phenomenon can also be explained by gravity! And yes, if we take away fluid medium, we get to see raw gravity in action, everything will fall at 9.8 m/s/s (not 9.8 m/s exactly, as you say – that is speed, we are talking about an increase in speed per second, that is 9.8 m/s/s).
Yes. The gravitational acceleration constant is 9.8 meters per second squared I believe.
There is no gravity that is made up physics that they continue to have to recalculate large caluculus and trig formulas over and over again because they keep coming up short every which way even to this day. Then they make up terms like photons and dark matter to top it off just as delusional as gravity. Simple magnets defy gravity. There is no gravity it is all magnetism. Research The Thunderbolt Project, Eric Dollard’s continued Tesla work in electrical engineering, even Steinmetz. Real provable science. You would be amazed how much and how far scientific community has gone in lying ro the general public. Most people don’t know anything about what electricity is and we use it everyday. General public has been indoctrinated to make people dumb. Truth is simple and easily verified provable and Fantasy will lead you through long equated rabbit holes.
I study physics and electrical engineering and also the work of Tesla! I have found that just simple sound made up of different harmonics derived from the Schumann Resonance not only manipulates “GRAVITY” but controls it. I was in a big argument with a Professor at Rice University about one of my experiments that showed gravity is not a constant!! Tesla got his information on a visit to the great pyramid. He measured the harmonic wave length at different heights and concluded it was an energy generator!! He spent the rest of his life trying to develop free energy for everyone. Electromagnetism also has an effect on “little g” if emitted in harmonic intervals in conjunction with the Schumann Resonance frequencies. I am a musician, that is how I discovered it. You cannot use the standard counting system we are taught though or you end up in an equation that is almost endless. Did you know ancient that the ancient cultures did not use a 9 place counting system??? Many used a counting and math system divisible by 6!! 1,2,3,4,5,6, 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,20. this makes is a 6 place counting system with 0 having absolute value!! Try dividing 1/7, 2/7,3/7,4/7.5/7,6/7. You will notice a in final decimal. this is the Schumann Resonance increments. Of course I’m not going to spell out some equations for you because you just would not understand the math. You must un learn what you have been indoctrinated into believing,
Thank you for this. I got a little carried away there before I read your comment. Haha! Still a really interesting fact about NASA here though. Doesn’t really seem like they can be trusted.
It may make no sense to YOU but, like it or not, there are people in the world that are smarter than you are, and who DO understand the nature of gravity. There are probably a few hamsters that are smarter than you if you’re having trouble understanding that your body has less mass than the oceans. “I don’t understand this, therefore it’s wrong” is not a valid argument.
Since you have proven gravity to be real and no longer a theory please enlighten us with your absolute mathematical proof
It is a fact that things fall down to the ground and accelerate at 9.8 meters per second and if you want to call this gravity then it is an indisputable fact. And this fact is true either on a globe earth or a flat earth. Things fall down towards the earth. That definition of gravity everyone can agree on. However the gravity that the globe earthers talk about does quite a lot more than just cause objects to fall down…
Flat Earth Facts,
Good points. Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation is not an observed fact but a claim that all matter attracts all other matter with force proportional two the mass of the attractors. To do this he makes assumptions about Earth’s mass and inserts a constant into his equation that for whatever reason seems to satisfy him. Like radiation gravity is said to decrease by the inverse square the further one is from said attractor. Of course it’s been sold so well that many forget the several problems that plague his opus LAW.
Fortunately, Nikola Tesla did not and understood the likely connection between the force we call gravity and electromagnetic lines of force.
Have a great day!
Globers: “There are 2 ways to be deceived-one is to believe what isn’t true. The other is to accept what IS true, despite irrefutable evidence.”
They never said that . They were implying that if a pilot would put his plane in auto pilot or simply keep the plane going in a straight line without altering their elevation that the plane would reach a no gravity zone , low earth orbit in a matter of minutes. The pilot would or should have to carefully monitor the elevation and do some kind of manipulating so they do not end up in low earth orbit. Or at least that’s how I understood it . When you think about it , it makes sense . By the way gravity is just a theory . How does water always find level. Still so many unanswered questions. And how does someone destroy and/or loose the technology to go to a place that only a handful people have supposedly gone and then think they are going to send more to mars It would appear easier to me that we terraform earth into remaining a livable planet than to seek out other planets to terraform into becoming a livable planet.. We are already here to perform the task.. Some of their ideas just don’t make sense
Good morning,
Last night I thought of a few more questions regarding satellites and space.
1. The Hubble space telescope supposedly orbited Earth for several decades but in all that time never took a detailed close-up of the earth or of neighboring satgellites numbering supposedly 17K+, it appears it didn’t even take close-ups of the moon, why?
2. During the several supposed moon landings astronauts brought 3 electric go carts billed to the US government at approximately 60 million dollars a piece but never brought a telescope or telescopic lens for their expensive video cameras with costly Zeiss lenses, why?
Keep in mind the amazing footage a telescope on the moon shooting live video footage of Earth could not have been faked with CGI at that time. Very difficult to realistically fake detailed images of Earth in all it’s glory with technology of the day ( not much CGI going on ). However, film crews did have Scotchlite ( [paper covered with small glass beads that made it a very reflective surface screen ) that allowed them to project fake backgrounds for movies like the monkey-monolith scene in Stanley Kubrick’s opus to fake space 2001 a Space Odyssey. Similar techniques could be used to fake the astronaut’s various walks on the moon as well.
Have a great day!
Reposted from another thread, might be topical.
Clarification, electric go-carts were called Moonrovers back then.
And they didn’t cost $60 million apiece. Do your research.
Thanks for the reply. You are apparrntly correct. I remember reading that figure some where, but an automotive website went into the history of the moon rovers and claimed that for $38 million dollars NASA got the use of 4 moon rovers. Assuming their figure is more accurate it still comes to between 9 and 10 million dollars per moon river. That’s still quite a lot of bread for an electric go cart with fewer parts than a jeep, and still a total scam.
Have a great day!
Evidently you didn’t bother to do even the most basic research. The Hubble Space Telescope or “HST” was launched in 1990 and is still in service. It was placed into orbit not to take detailed photos of the Earth (it’s only 337 miles above the Earth and its optics are pointed AWAY from the Earth anyway), it was designed to image deep-space objects like stars, galaxies and nebulae. There are plenty of cameras mounted on plenty of satellites that routinely take detailed photos of the Earth. And speaking of those satellites, Hubble can’t photograph one of them either, for the same reasons it can’t take detailed photos of the Earth – it’s pointed in the wrong direction and it’s moving too fast. Hubble’s fastest imaging instrument has an exposure time of 0.1 seconds, but in that time the HST has moved about 760 meters, so anything it was imaging would come out as a long streak of light. But HST has taken detailed photos of the Moon, despite your belief to the contrary.
Hi Mike,
Your reply seems to me a litany of excuses. A space based telescope pointed at earth would provide invaluable assistance in weather prediction and information about conditions on the ground. Supposed images of planets ( cgi ) benefits humanity very little.
Please show me these “detailed” images of the lunar surface. If they’re so wonderful where are all the streaming photos of meteor showers pounding the surface Werner Von Braun claimed to have knowledge of. It’s been claimed we’ve sent many satellites close to the lunar surface where are the high resolution pictures of all those landing sites? Or is it all just a cgi fantasy?
Have a great day!
I’ve already explained to you twice that the Hubble Space Telescope is not pointing TOWARDS the Earth, it’s pointed towards outer space. That’s what it was designed for, observations of very distant deep-space objects. Its resolution limits and its nearness to the surface make it unsuitable for Earth observations, as I’ve also explained. In addition to the Earth rotating, the telescope is moving at over 27,000 kilometers per hour in orbit, about 7.6 kilometers a second. As I told you before, the shortest exposure time of any of Hubble’s instruments is 0.1 second, during which time the telescope has moved about 760 meters. Also, to be able to follow an object on the rotating Earth below, the moving telescope would have to slew from side to side to keep the object in focus. The fastest that the telescope can slew is about as fast as the minute hand of a clock, and even then the onboard gyroscopes can’t prevent vibrations from ruining any image quality. It’s simply that the Earth is too close and objects on its surface are whizzing by too quickly for Hubble to track. Add to this the fact that Hubble was placed in orbit to avoid the blurring effects of the atmosphere, so why waste time looking back down through it?
In any case, Hubble IS regularly pointed back at the Earth – not to take detailed photos, but to calibrate one of the cameras. You can read about it here:
http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/2000/hubbleearth.html
If you want to see pictures that Hubble took of the Moon, search online for them if you’re really interested (I suspect you aren’t). Or watch this video:
https://youtu.be/rUvDf-DB_is
1. “The surface of the Earth is whizzing by as Hubble orbits, and the pointing system, designed to track the distant stars, cannot track an object on the Earth. The shortest exposure time on any of the Hubble instruments is 0.1 seconds, and in this time Hubble moves almost half a mile, about 700 meters. A picture Hubble took of Earth would be completely streaked.”
https://hubblesite.org/quick-facts/telescope-quick-facts
The Hubble Space Telescope doesn’t take pictures of the Earth because it is not a good platform for that. We have numerous other satellites that image the Earth. (Have you seen Google Earth?)
The Hubble Space Telescope has taken pictures of the Moon.
https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/1999/news-1999-14.html
As for images of other satellites, why? Time on the Hubble Space Telescope is expensive and hard to get. Why would anyone waste their time and money imaging other satellites?
2. We went to the Moon to get pictures and video and samples from the Moon. If you want close-up pictures of the Earth, grab a camera. We already had pictures and video from aircraft and balloons and manned orbital missions. Why would we go to the Moon to take pictures of the Earth?
Hi Langerak,
Do you know why Google apparently owns a fleet of planes so I’m told. No evidence they’re using satellites that I’ve seen.
Not surprising that one of the largest companies on Earth has a fleet of jets to fly its top executives around. What do jets have to do with satellites, other than getting their GPS signals from them?
What he is saying is google use imaging from planes, not satellites, on their “Google Maps.” Which is true, particularly for the high resolution images. Flat earthers claim satellites don’t exist because they can not imagine how they could be floating up their above their flat earth…
Flat earthers are not scientists, not logical. One of their leaders, like Eric Dubey, says something and they, without thinking, blindly believe in it. Flat earthers don’t look up in the sky and see the satellites going above their heads. So he is trying to prove that satellites don’t exist by saying google are using imagery from planes on google maps. So maybe you can convince him that satellites exist?
Of course most of the globe earthers do the same thing, they just blindly believe in what NASA and the scientists say, and repeat that, without thinking about it…
Flat Earh Facts,
Flat Earthers are quite logical, simply not gullible. Arthur C Clarke invented artificial orbiting satellites for the globe model. They don’t appear to function on an actual flat Earth.
In the globe model satellites accelerate centripetally ( free fall ) but with sufficient tangential velocity maintain altitude over the globe’s surface declination.
On an actual flat Earth this doesn’t appear to happen. Velocity proves irrelevant to elevated objects in parallel motion to the surface. They simply accelerate parabolically to the flat surface at the same gravitational rate 9.8 m/s2. High altitude Balloon satellites overcome this challenge all the time, but occasionally fail. In 2019 a Samsung 5G communication satellite with solar panels fell tethered to a balloon on a Michigan farm owned by Ms. Nancy Welke. Another “space” satellite fell in Brazil attached to a balloon as well.
Question:
Why does one need 17000 imaginary space satellites orbiting the earth 20000 miles away smack-dab in the ( ( dangerous and deadly to electronics and living organisms ) Van Allen radiation belts when 99% of international communication traffic can be handled by undersea cables and the rest by stratospheric balloon satellites and other means at much closer and safer ranges? Well you don’t unless your confused by the globe.
Thanks for your consideration and hopefully this reply gets through.
Flat earthers are stupid if they choose to not believe in things that absolutely certainly exist and that anyone with half a brain can confirm exist. And anyone with half a brain can confirm that low earth satellites most certainly exist. We absolutely certainly know for sure that you can shoot something up there with a rocket and if you can get it going fast enough and get the direction of it parallel with the ground below, thanks to Neuton’s law it just keeps going if there is no resistance and there is very little resistance in space. So this is a real thing, some natural phenomenon. Why and how, we don’t really know. But we do know for sure if you shoot something up there and it is going fast enough it will orbit the earth for a long time.
They do gradually loose speed and drop down and will eventually fall back to earth. But they stay up there for a long time.
So if you choose not to believe in low earth satellites, that is quite insane. Because they are quite real and anyone, as I said, with half a brain, can verify that they are real.
Geosynchronous satellites, they also work, but their action is more passive than the sort of things done by the low orbit satellites. Basically the geosynchronous satellites really only reflect a radio signal. You fire a signal at a certain frequency to a very specific location in the sky and the ground station for that satellite is also pointing to that exact point in the sky and the ground station picks up your transmission. And ground station replies on a different frequency to the same spot in the sky and you receive the reply from the ground station. So actually geosynchronous satellites, they don’t do anything, they are inert. They are just reflectors. So it is possible that just as there is some natural phenomenon allowing you to throw things up into low earth orbit and have them stay there orbiting for a long time, there may also be some natural phenomenon that certain points in the sky reflect radio waves. So it is possible that they don’t have to put up geosynchronous satellites at all. Maybe they just have to find these points in the sky that naturally reflect radio waves and point their antennas at them. Or maybe they really put the satellites up there. Actually we don’t know. We have no way really to verify that the geosynchronous satellites exist because they don’t do anything except reflect radio signals. But we do know the low earth satellites exist. They do things. They do give us imagery that would not be possible to get any other way, they transmit radio signals that you can pick up. You can track the low earth satellites as they pass over your head, you can see them with a telescope, some even with your naked eyes, and you can pick up the radio signals that they transmit. So realistically no intelligent person can say low earth satellites don’t exist. So if someone is saying this they are not an intelligent person.
Good afternoon Flat Earth Facts,
You stated: “Flat earthers are stupid if they choose to not believe in things that absolutely certainly exist and that anyone with half a brain can confirm exist. And anyone with half a brain can confirm that low earth satellites most certainly exist.”
Hmmh! Balloon satellites are by definiation “:Low Earth Satellites” and I’ve already claimed them to exist. Reading is fundamental. My post sarcastically referred to orbiting space satellites supposedly beyond the first few hundred miles from the surface, in particular those 17,000 astonishing work of deception that supposedly function flawlessly thousands of miles from Earth in the Van Allen radiation belt, which for some reason known only to NASA no other current vehicle can operate in safely or pass through using similar technology except the moon landers and Gemin/Apollo men of yore.
You go on to assert: ” We absolutely certainly know for sure that you can shoot something up there with a rocket and if you can get it going fast enough and get the direction of it parallel with the ground below, thanks to Neuton’s law it just keeps going if there is no resistance and there is very little resistance in space.”
Several of Newton’s Laws could apply here including his Laws of Motion especially the Third Law of Motion that I whole heartedly agree with. However, do you refer to his Universal Law of Gravitation instead?
F∝m1m2r2 ⇒F=Gm1m2r2
If so I must depart since it’s based on assumptions and yet to be established claims. Btw I have no problem with rocketry, ballistics or even EM propulsion or other such technologies. However, simply making a claim that satellites exist or that they can maintain a position over a fixed location on Earth ( all which applies to balloon satellites, which as I’ve indicated crash all the time still tethered to their balloons like the Samsung 5G communication satellite that crashed not long ago ) does not prove the existence of orbiting free-fall satellites circling a spinning globe. Try again.
Have a great day!
I don’t think you have read what I have written. We are not talking about balloons. If you don’t believe in things you can easily prove exist if you do a little research, that shows a lack of intelligence certainly.
The Apollo astronauts that landed on the Moon were not there as tourists taking cool pictures to show the folks back home after Thanksgiving dinner – they were there to collect soil and rock samples, set up scientific experiments and monitoring equipment and to explore the nature of the Moon’s surface. Sorry to burst your bubble. If they had brought a telescope with them and set it up pointing back towards the Earth, who would have been looking through it when they left the Moon?
Hi Mike,
Moon rocks provided by Buzz Aldrin to European monarchs were reported upon testing to be petrified wood! They never went to the moon, apparently just New Mexico.
A telescope and telescopic lenses for their cameras would have allowed humanity a view and perspective of earth unparalleled in information, beauty and motion that could not have been faked easily with computers. That’s also precisely why it was never done.
Have a great day!
The typical Apollo 11 Moon rocks given out to foreign dignitaries weighed about 5 hundredths of a gram, or about as much as one grain of rice. The ones that were brought back from the last lunar mission, Apollo 17, were around 1 gram each. In all, Apollo 17 returned over 100 kilograms of lunar material. The “Moon rock” given to the Netherlands Prime Minister in 1969 weighed nearly 90 grams. The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam never even questioned the authenticity of the “rock” they inherited from Drees’ estate. How do we know that Drees himself, or possibly his grandson, decided to keep the expensive Moon rock for himself and donated a worthless Earth rock to the museum?
Hi Michael. I wonder how you can have such strong faith that NASA sent men to the moon in 1969 but NASA, nor anyone else, is able to send men to the moon now, more than 50 years later?
Has that ever crossed your mind? I was born in 1959 so I was there in the 60’s and know the cave-man technology (compared to what we have today) that was available then. Our technology is now hundreds of times better. And do you seriously believe that sending men to the moon and bringing them home safely was almost a routine activity in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and now with such huge advances in technology, sending men to the moon is impossible?
How do you account for this?
Today they say there are many obstacles that we have to cross, problems that we need to solve, not only to send men to the moon, but to even got out of low-earth orbit!
Do you realize that now it is not only impossible to send people to the moon, it is impossible to get people out of low earth orbit?
How do you account for this?
And surely you have to at least consider the possibility that NASA faked the Apollo moon missions?
Hi Mike,
You’re not making sense.
Think. What good would it do the Drees family or their estate to publicly pawn off a normal earth rock as a moon rock and donate that to a museum then keep the moon rock? If Drees later tried sell the gram or two of lunar pixy dust no one would believe him since he supposedly donated it to the museum. He would either be lying to them or the museum and no one with a functioning cerebellum would credit him with any integrity at all or even the brains God gives a slug. In fact, you seem far to willing to insinuate that Drees who merely accepted a gift lied for which there exists no evidence rather than NASA and their astro-nots that have a long history of tall tales and unexplained accidents.
Above all of this remains the fact that all lunar claims are mere assertions no scientific evidence exists that any rock anywhere came from the moon. It’s all conjecture a tall tale told by those with a strong incentive to make sure the world never gloms to the facts before they leave this world for real.
Have a great day!
I was born in 1955, so I was there as well. My Dad and I traveled to Florida to watch the launching of Apollo 10, and if you had been there there’s no way you could deny the reality of what NASA had accomplished with what you call “cave-man technology”. Your evident mistrust of anything that America has achieved is a relatively recent phenomenon. No amount of evidence that men walked on the Moon’s surface in 1969 will satisfy you, it seems. Go look at the photos returned by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and you’ll see all six landing sites, and even the tracks left by the Lunar Rovers. What would be the point in faking all of this for the past 50+ years at a cost which far exceeds the entire cost to date of the space program?
As to why we haven’t been back to the Moon, we figured out how to safely gather the information we want for a much smaller cost and no risk to human life. But that won’t satisfy you, I’m sure.
You are dishonest Michael. You are trying to avoid the point I made. I did not ask you “Why haven’t we been back to the moon.” What I am asking you is why can’t we send people to the moon now when sending people to the moon and bringing them home safely was routine in the 1960’s and 1970’s. That is the question.
And you know very well the answer to this question. We could not send men to the moon in the 1960’s either. So we faked it.
That is the only logical explanation for the facts.
NASA has now many times been offered as much money as they want to go back to the moon (by presidents George Bush and also by Donald Trump), but NASA’s reply, “Can’t do it…” “Give us ten trillion and we might be able to go in 2020…”
Research the ‘Lunar Laser Retro-Reflector.’ While you’re at it, find some information on the former Soviet Union’s ‘Lunokhod 1 Rover,’ that they’ve also bounced lasers off of. I know facts and proof screw you small brains up, but that’s what you get. You should have stayed in school, and off drugs!
The moon is a reflector. They had already bounced lasers off the moon before they even sent anything up to it. You don’t need to put reflectors on the moon. It is already a reflector……
We’re going back to the moon now, will that end this argument?
First of all we never went to the moon. So there is no question of “Going back”.
And no. Doing another fake moon landing is not going to solve anything.
Fake moon landing 2…
NASA are even worse now than they were in the 1960’s. At least in the 1960’s if NASA said they were going to the Moon they were able to roll out a big rocket onto the launch pad and light it up and it would, most of the time, fly up in the sky and disappear out of our view. Of course they had many that exploded also, before they disappeared from view, they were the only missions that failed. All the others were a grand successes.
But now, NASA can’t even get their rockets off the ground. It took three or four tries this time before they could get the rocket to take off and fly up in the sky and disappear. And that is it, that is the mission. Everything is is prerecorded CGI they just playback as soon as they can get that rocket to disappear in the sky…
Maybe if you’re lucky you can get a job on “fake” moon landing part 3
They will not advertise jobs for the fake moon landing, they will pretend it is real. And most of the people working on it will believe it is real. All they have to do is fake the data feed from their “space ship”.
All they know about their moon mission comes through that data feed…
So they just transmit it up to a satellite that is between the earth and the moon and satellite transmits it back to the earth and everyone can point their antennas at the moon and receive the feed from the men on the moon.
Simple. NASA have a lot of experience faking space like this.
Then why did some astronauts carry Golf equipment all the way to the moon to play around ? A beautiful telescopic view of planet Earth would have meant much more to the world than freemason liars playing golf in new mexico.
Astronauts in the space suits were not able to bend over and pick things up. To do that, they had a tool. To play golf, they had the head of a golf club that attached to the end of the tool, and a golf ball. It was very minimal.
As for the shot of the Earth, why carry a telephoto lens to the Moon, when you can just use the regular lens on the camera you’ve got, and wait until you are closer? That had already been done on previous missions.
Hi Mike,
Just a little more info. Apparently Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin gave Holland the petrified wood presented as moon rocks back in 1969. This story has been around for some time.
No, that’s incorrect. Neither Neil nor Buzz presented the rock sample. It was presented by J. William Middendorf II, the U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands, who accompanied the astronauts on their goodwill tour in October of 1969. Read all about it here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays
Mike,
If I go to a 7/11 store give them $100 to send to my sister did I give the money to 7/11 or my sister, semantics.
Hi Mike,
Can you tell me where the space capsule and lunar lander on the moon missions stored their oxygen? Can’t see where they’d have enough room. A standard aluminum scuba tank at 3000psi lasts a diver 45-60 minutes. The 240,000 mile journey for the three man crew from earth to the moon takes supposedly 76 hours. The first mission left at 9:32am, July 16, 1969 and returned supposedly 8 days later on July 24, 1969 at 12:50pm! That’s a lot of air tank storage capacity for vessels that don’t even appear air tight or show any indication of having adequate storage. Apart from breathing the crew may need oxygen for other tasks.
If you carefully look at the logistics involved carefully there is simply no way they could carry the fuel, air and other resources required for such a journey. It’s the real reason NASA destroyed their own telemetry data which showed the mission to be a fabrication and why Werner Von Braun initially claimed it would take a rocket at least the size of the Empire State Building if I remember correctly to reach the moon.
What do you think?
My post refers to a standard 80 cubic foot aluminum scuba tank.
It is a VERY good point On the Level… Yes. They need oxygen on the Apollo missions for reasons other than breathing. Apollo missions, except the luna lander, are powered by fuel cells that work by burning hydrogen and oxygen. So they have to store a lot of hydrogen and oxygen also to burn in their fuel cells. Another interesting point is Luna lander is only powered by batteries!!! And they had no way of recharging batteries because they didn’t have solar panels then…
But back on the oxygen, another strange thing is they used an atmosphere of 100% oxygen at about a quarter of the pressure we have on earth. The air we breathe is about 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen. But on the Apollo missions they only had 100% oxygen. This is the only time in history when people have existed on a 100% oxygen atmosphere. Generally you can’t breathe 100% oxygen for an extended period without serious ill effects. But our NASA astronauts managed to live in 100% oxygen atmosphere for a week or two, no problems?
And another interesting point on the oxygen requirements is the Luna Lander on the moon did not have an air lock. They had an atmosphere inside it, they could take their space suits off inside, but because no air lock, when they opened the door all their oxygen went out into the vacuum of space. Every time they opened the door…
So every time they come back into the Luna Lander they have to fill it up with oxygen again so they can take off their space suits and breath.
So yes. There does seem to be an oxygen problem for sure. There is also a very serious power problem on the moon. They had a few car batteries only, and most of the power in those batteries was required for the pyrotechnics, firing the rockets, for the landing and the takeoff. So realistically they stayed on the moon for up to a week with virtually no power source at all. More NASA magic.
They did not even try to make it believable. These days no thoughtful person can believe in the ‘man on the moon’ story.
Most of the oxygen, hydrogen, propellant and other “consumables” were stored in tanks in the Service Module, directly behind the Command Module on the lunar stack assembly. The Lunar Module also had oxygen and other consumables storage for use while on the lunar surface. In addition, each astronaut had a PLSS (personal life support system) worn on a backpack which had a four-hour oxygen supply that could be refilled from the LM supply. Remember that on the surface they were breathing 100% oxygen at only 3.9 psia pressure, not normal sea-level pressure of 14.7 psia. All in all, Apollo carried enough oxygen for a 14-day mission to the Moon and back, so an 8-day mission was no sweat. And they had the ability to “scrub” the carbon dioxide expelled and thus recapture that oxygen. This became a problem on Apollo 13 because the three astronauts were overloading the Co2 scrubbers. See the movie Apollo 13 with Tom Hanks and you’ll see how they improvised a solution.
Yes. He does not understand the difference between scuba diving oxygen usage and usage of oxygen in space. The difference is when you are scuba diving the tank is filled up with 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen approximately and diver breathes it in then when he breathes out that air bubbles up to the surface. So scuba diver looses 100% of the oxygen he breaths out.
But on Apollo they only had oxygen, no nitrogen. So they used a lower pressure, and breathed in 100% oxygen. So immediately you have saved 80% of the storage space because there is no nitrogen which makes up 80%. And when we breathe in we do consume some of the oxygen, but most of it we breath out, with carbon dioxide added. So most of the oxygen is not lost, only problem is carbon dioxide is being added, and they have ‘scrubbers’ which remove the carbon dioxide. So they can keep on breathing the same air over and over again with the aid of the scrubbers that remove the carbon dioxide.
But there is a big problem on the moon. Luna Lander does not have an airlock. So every time they open the door their whole atmosphere vanishes into the vacuum of space. Then when they come back in they have to fill it up with oxygen again. Towards the later missions they were staying on the moon for a week or more. And opening the door dozens of times, loosing the whole Luna Lander full of oxygen dozens of times. It does seem far fetched that they would have been able to bring so much oxygen with them.
Flat Earth Facts,
Please know I do understand the difference between scuba air tanks and the conjectured 100% pure oxygen environment supposedly used by their Apollo crews. Simply seems hard to believe you can’t see the absurdity of this since you seemed to glom upon it in your previous post.
On Earth humans as you mentioned breathe an air mixture of approximately 22-23% oxygen and 78% nitrogen. Problems occur when oxygen concentrations rise beyond these levels, like spontaneous combustion. This phenomenon is well known and documented. Mr. Mr. Roger Chafee, Edward White and Mr. Gus Grissom might have something to say about if they were still alive.
Pulmonary edema, slowed oxygen absorption and other issues such as oxygen binding to surface proteins of the lungs, interfering with operation of the central nervous system and attacking the retina. Chest pains can occur during deep breathing. Astronauts apparently in the Gemini and Apollo programs breathed 100% oxygen at reduced pressure for up to two weeks with no problems. However, ground based testing labs are not outer space.
In space high energy regions named after James A. Van Allen ( Van Allen radiation belts ) apparently exist and are dangerous and often lethal to living organism and electronics. In fact, it’s one the reasons/excuses given by NASA bots like Dr. Kathleen Rubins and Dr. Kelly Smith as to why they can’t leave low earth orbit and go to the moon, like they supposedly did without any problems decades before. Moreover, it’s very likely such unstable, high energy fields interacting with a pure oxygen environment might result in spontaneous combustion!
Of course thanks to NASA wizardry or just plain cover-your-rear-ethics we’ll never know clearly what really happened especially since they destroyed all their telemetry data. Convenient wouldn’t you say?
Have a great day!
Yes. All very good. I do think they would not have had anywhere near enough oxygen for two weeks, particularly as they were burning it in their fuel cells constantly, 24 hours a day, of course it created some water, but used A LOT of oxygen, and on the moon where every time the open the door of the luna lander they vent out their entire lander full of oxygen, and then have to fill it up again with oxygen when they go back in. Very unlikely they had enough oxygen on the moon to do this…
And yes. They must have been very special creatures, the astronauts, to breath 100% oxygen for two weeks. No one else has ever achieved this. And it is very unlikely they could have done it without serious health consequences.
The answers are out there. You just have to look for them.
According to NASA, an astronaut requires about 1.85 lbs (0.84 kg) of oxygen per day. The decent module carried two tanks with 48 lbs each of oxygen. More than enough to keep the astronauts alive. Oxygen was also used in fuel cells for power.
Maneuvering thrusters and motors used hypergolic propellants. No oxygen required. The components ignite when mixed. No ignition system was required.
The entire mission for three people would have required less than 48 lbs of oxygen for breathing.
What about the lack of a airlock on the luna lander. How much oxygen does it take to pressurise the luna lander? How much oxygen so they can take off their spacesuits and breathe? And every time they opened the door, woof… All that oxygen gone out into the vacuum of space. They were on the moon for up to a week. Coming and going from the Luna Lander up to dozens of times, every time a whole luna lander full of oxygen, woof… Lost in space…
Not possible to take that much oxygen with them in the lander I think.
And you are mistaken about the pyrotechnics, the rockets. You say “no ignition system necessary.” Rubbish. There was an ignition system and it used a lot of power, OK when you’ve got the fuel cells to make power, but luna lander just had a few truck batteries. 1960’s truck batteries. AND NO WAY TO RECHARGE. No solar cells invented yet…
So on the moon there is both a very serious oxygen problem and a very serious lack of power. Most of the power in the batteries was used for the pyrotechnics, rocket control, for landing and take off, leaving very little power for life support and everything else on the moon. That rover for example, they took it out for up to seven days and were zooming over the moon, covering maybe 100 KM or more, but they had no power. No way of recharging it. It was all done on one battery. One 1960’s truck battery. Not possible actually. I think you will have to admit that.
How much oxygen DOES it take to pressurize the lunar lander? You asked the question, but didn’t make any effort to answer it. I don’t know what the volume of the lunar lander may have been, but they pressurized the lander to about 5 psi, and they pressurized the oxygen tanks to a little less than 3000 psi. That’s about a 600:1 ratio. For every cubic foot of lander volume, they needed 3 cubic inches of compressed oxygen to pressurize the lander.
Apollo 17 was one of the longest missions, with three days on the Moon and three moonwalks. So for the entire mission, they would need to pressurize the lander three times. Does that really sound impossible to you?
Fuel cells were used to produce electricity to charge any batteries.
As for the lunar rovers:
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html#:~:text=On%20Apollo%2017%20the%20rover%20went%2035.9%20km,meters%20long%20with%20a%20wheelbase%20of%202.3%20meters.
Nowhere near 100 km.
The chemicals used in the maneuvering thrusters and motors spontaneously ignited when mixed. They did not require an ignition system. They just opened the valves and the engines fired.
Hi Ross. You just blindly believe what NASA says. In your mind, if NASA says it, it must be true. So where do you get such great faith in NASA from? It is faith, blind faith. So you are the faithful believers.
You guys keep changing the story. It is not a good story, it doesn’t work the way it was originally told. The pyrotechnics required batteries in the original story, but that story didn’t work, so you change it. That is the reality. It is an impossible story, “men on the moon”, and like intelligent people can’t believe satellites don’t exist, intelligent people can’t believe NASA sent men to the moon in 1969 but we can’t even send people out of low earth orbit today. This is impossible. If we could do it in 1969, then we would be able to do it today.
So this debate is going on between two groups of fools.
You know these things are impossible and you are trying to make excuses for NASA, trying to make their story more believable that it is. You say “Fuel cells were used to produce electricity to charge any batteries.” Yes. But only on the command module, Luna Lander has no fuel cells, only batteries, so it was not possible to recharge anything at all on Luna Lander.
(from https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15mr-6.htm) “The electrical power system batteries and fuel cells performed satisfactorily throughout the mission. The entry, auxiliary, and pyrotechnic batteries performed normally.”
There used to be very elaborate descriptions of the batteries and a fair percentage of the batteries were “pyrotechnic batteries” at least in the original story.
If we could go to the moon in 1969, we would have gone back during the past 50 years, instead, we don’t even know how to get people out of low earth orbit more than fifty years later! How on earth can you believe in men on the moon?
You know the NASA scientists do not believe this story. You will not find any official NASA scientist defending the man on the moon story. They just want people to forget about it so they can get trillions of dollars of new funding to work out first, how they can get people out of low earth orbit, then how they can get people to the moon. We don’t know how to get people to the moon now, that means we did not know how to get people to the moon in 1969. Try and understand this simple point.
I have researched everything, and according to NASA there were pyrotechnic batteries, means the pyrotechnics need power. So why don’t you also read the NASA documents:
Apollo Lunar Module Electrical Power System Overview
Automatically claiming everything NASA says is false works, unless they finally decide to say “you were right, we faked the moon landing and earth is flat.” If that happened, you wouldn’t say they were lying, would you?
Flat earth facts don’t delete this.
Yes. Not everything NASA says is false. NASA does real science. Certainly in low earth orbit, they have real satellites, the space station is real and they can send people up there, however it is very dangerous up there and I don’t think many Americans would be game to go up there now. They prefer to do their livestreams from the space station from earth in front of a green screen.
So the thing is a lot of what NASA does is fake. If you go to the NASA headquarters in Houston Texas, and if you actually analyze what they have there and what they are doing there, all their energy, 100% is spent, at least there, in simulating space, not exploring space. There they have got life-size models of every space craft in orbit including the Russian ones, and they have a huge swimming pool, that they can put their life-size space ship models in and film the space walks, underwater. They have a huge “rock yard” where they have simulated lunar and Martian landscapes, for filming on the moon and on mars… Then they have the largest green screen sound stage in the world where they can bring in their life size space ship models and have the green screen background and film space from the comfort of their studio…
So the point is NASA spends so much time, money and effort simulating space, and they do a lot of lying and faking. So yes, they do some real stuff also, but when you mix some real stuff in with so many lies, then really you can not trust anything NASA says.
They played golf though..
I we are on a spinning ball traveling around a sun that is speeding through space at The speed that it is claimed, How is our atmoaphire not stripped away
Gravity, that is always the answer…
GRAVITY..
When the feelings gone and you still go on
it’s GRAVITY..
When things fall down and you don’t know why
its GRAVITY..
It’s really hard to bare, you ain’t going no where
Stripped away by what?
Space is a near-perfect vacuum-provides no “resistance” to travel through.
There are “solar winds” which can slowly strip away atmosphere, fortunately our magnetosphere provides a good protection- Mars is not so lucky in this regard.
At the end of the day, the air molecules are much like other molecules- they follow the path of least resistance for the most part. Which on this case means that they flow to the bottom of the “sinkhole” which in this case is the “gravity well” of the earth’s mass. They bunch up at the bottom, where these lower molecules have to bear the weight of the molecule above them trying to get to the same place- which is why we have high pressure at sea level, that reduces with altitude.
Stripped away by what? Space is mostly empty. There is nothing in space to strip away the atmosphere.
There are solar winds, which can wreck havoc on atmospheres. Earth’s molten iron core provides a wonderful magnetosphere which provides stellar protection from these forces, and helps block other harmful radiation. Mars is not so lucky- it’s core has long cooled and lacks this magnetic force field, which caused it to slowly lose its atmosphere to these winds, which was believed to be somewhat comparable to our own atmosphere eons ago, now being barely 1%.
Read Warner Von Braun’s headstone fools…
The father of rocket technology is telling you something very important….
Psalm 19;1. etched alone in bold print says ;
The heavens declare the glory of God
And the firmament showeth his handiwork…
End of story and end of Conspiracy
Admiral Richard Byrd knew of the dome also
Operation fish bowl was his attempt to nuke
through the wall he found over the ice wall..
Explain how you make water curve moron…
There are so many easy ways to know if you look for truth and not dogma which is what science has become through NASA and so called aerospace technology. They all will be hiding in shame soon once the public wakes and locks them up for all their crimes…
HELL YES KEN ON 19.1 PSALM DAY 2 OF CREATION
LET THE FIRMAMENT DIVIDE THE WATERS FROM THE WATERS. WE CAN NOT GET THREW THE DOME.
VON BRAUN ADMIRAL BYRD YES IM WITH YOU KEN. COAST LINE OF ANTARCTICA , THE TREATY??
NASA STANDS FOR DECEIVE IN HEBREW.
NEXT HUMAN EVIL IS ADDING FLUORIDE TO OUR DRINKING WATER . THANKS KEN HOPE ALL IS WELL.
B”H
NASA does NOT mean to deceive in Hebrew.
“Explain how you make water curve moron…”
Someone clearly slept through chemistry class… And the rest of his classes…
“I” don’t make water curve, it does that naturally by following the curvature of the Earth. Don’t try and refute things that you don’t understand, because frankly, you’re not very good at it.
Admiral Byrd did NOT believe there was a “Dome” over Antarctica, and don’t go quoting that excerpt from his book, that refers to an ice dome on the ground.
Moron indeed.
Did he believe there was significant land mass beyond Antartica?
What do you mean by “beyond Antarctica”? Antarctica is a continent that is (more or less) centered on the South Pole. Once you’ve reached the South Pole, there’s nowhere else to go but North. You could go north to Africa, South America, India or Australia from the South Pole, all of which are “significant” land masses. Admiral Byrd was an intelligent man, and knew of the existence of Africa, South America, India and Australia so yes, he believed it.
Oh. My. God.
You’re all so god damn delusional. Think you’re so ‘enlightened’ to disregard common sense and the work of brilliant scientists. Fools through and through. Give up.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When a spacecraft burns fuel and oxygen, it accelerates the exhaust in one direction, which causes the spacecraft to accelerate in the other. The spacecraft doesn’t need any air to push against. It pushes against its own exhaust.
You clearly bunked a couple of physics classes
How so?
Wow! Somebody needs to talk to a real pilot. Gravity pulls you toward the center of the Earth. The lift to resist that gravity is generated by an aircraft’s wings. If you try to increase altitude by bringing the nose up, the center of gravity falls behind the aircraft, causing it to slow down, lose lift, and either return to its previous altitude or stall. If you want to gain altitude, you have to increase your velocity, which increases lift.
If you tried to maintain a straight flight path, independent of the curvature of the Earth, the result would be the same as slowly trying to gain altitude by bringing the nose up. The center of the Earth’s gravity would fall behind you and slow you down. You would be forced to return to your previous altitude.
If you compensate by increasing thrust, you will run out of throttle because most aircraft engines don’t have enough thrust to lift the weight of an aircraft. And because aircraft engines need air to burn fuel, as altitude increases, engines lose power. Wings also lose lift due to thinning air.
Once the engines and wings hit their limit, you won’t be able to fly any higher. No matter how hard you tried, you would not be able to fly off into space. You don’t have to nose down. Just set your speed and the plane will naturally follow the curvature of the Earth.
I did not know that . So when a pilot sets his plane to auto pilot at 35,000 thousand feet the engines computer will go in the direction set and also automatically remain at 35,000 feet away from he earth , right ? Please don’t tell me it just feels the change of thinning air because of loss of power and gravity pull all by itself and adjusts at will . I absolutely hate flying and if that is true I will never fly again except for a very small plane close to the ground if I absolutely have too.. I do need to learn about how a plane that weighs god knows how many tons get off the ground in the first place and stays in the air. I live by an international air port and they fly right over my head just taking off or right about to land . They are quite close to me when I’m crossing the bridge . The huge airliner seems to be going way too slow to stay in the air . I guess my worst fear is being at 35,000 feet and the engines die or a wing catches fire or falls off . That would mean I will have about 7 minutes of knowing I’m going to die . That would be an awful way to go , you know what I mean ? At first it made perfect sense that say a plane flying north at 35,000 feet with no destination set except north , that the plane would hit low earth orbit at some point and then I would be stuck orbiting the earth with Elon Musk ‘s Tesla Roadster passing by periodically. lol It probably would be in my best interest to talk too a pilot someday who can explain to me and make me believe that it really is the safest method of transportation because it just doesnt seem like it would be that’s all. A plane doesn’t have a shop at 35’000 feet to stop at if they hear a funny sound or a warning light starts blinking on the dashboard. There’s a project for Elon to work on !!
Thank you for this. I have had arguments with several pilots on this very subject and unfortunately I lack the intelligence, or possibly just the education to properly debate the subject. I did feel however, that I had been correct. My explanation to the statement, “I’m a pilot for 50 years… the FAA does not teach nor are the any written test questions on altitude compensation for a curved surface. I’ve been in the cockpit of a 747 from Africa to the US for 14 hours. The artifical horizon guage never moves as the controls stay stationary “. My response was, “because your not compensating you are simply holding the same altitude around a globe”. That unfortunately was the end of my explanation to which I have pondered extensively that it actually made the same sense out loud as it did in my head. So thank you for the confirmation I apparently needed to ease my simple mind.
Someone needs to take a course in physics. Rockets don’t go straight up because the orbital velocity of a near Earth orbit is faster than the surface of the Earth. Rockets need to accelerate eastward so they can stay in space once they reach orbit. Even geostationary satellites travel faster, because they travel farther per day than the surface of the Earth.
There is an orbit that you can get to by going straight up, but it’s about 8 times the distance to the Moon, so it’s not very useful. There are sites on line that will calculate orbital parameters for you. Google “orbit of a satellite calculator”. Try entering 1 to see why we don’t just fly off the Earth.
Isn’t it true that the international space station is traveling at around 6000 miles per hour ? Well they take repair parts and food and such up there a lot how the hell do they meet up and attach themselves to things to retrieve those items traveling at such a speed . The other rocket would have to be traveling at the same speed . When they show the docking process on TV it looks as if they aren’t even moving at all . How does that work ? And please don’t answer very carefully . That’s the only answer I can get from anyone. lol
No, the ISS moves about 17,100 miles an hour (or around 7.66 kilometers per SECOND) in order to remain in orbit as it has for over 22 years. Any spacecraft that dock with the station have to reach this same speed. But when a spacecraft gets close to the ISS it has to gradually adjust its speed so as to slowly approach the docking module. It’s not much different than one car traveling down a road at 60 mph being approached by another car gradually catching up to the first car. When the two cars are alongside one another, a person in car 1 could easily hand something to someone in car 2 because their speed RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER is zero. In the case of the ISS, a spacecraft at rest on the Earth has to launch and travel faster than the ISS in order to catch up to it. And on TV there’s nothing whizzing by to give the viewer any indication of the high speeds involved. That’s why it LOOKS like they’re hardly moving at all. Relative to each other, the spacecraft is closing on the ISS at just a few inches per second.
No, astronauts have not been caught “faking” anything. I suspect someone is confusing training video with actual space video.
Water has surface tension. In space, a blob of water will float like a bubble. If it attaches to something, it could stay in place, or it could extend itself to cover more surface. During Luca Parmitano’s space walk, his movements caused the blob of water to extend over his forehead and cover his eyes and nose. The water was not filling the helmet – it was attached to his head. This is something that would only happen in space.
You wanna good laugh watch
NASA Celebrating 50 years since MOON LANDING
Whoops this is the real one I was talking about a good laugh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz4NX-Hy4Bo
A funny thing happened on the way to the moon 🤣🤣
In the article, you stated “At the same time NASA openly admits that now, in 2018, it is not possible for them to send men to the moon, they can’t even send men out of low earth orbit.” My view on that is NASA don’t have enough resources just to send someone to the moon or out of low earth orbit. There are many steps comes into play for a mission: Payload, Fuel, Designs, Astronauts, Astronaut’s safety, etc. Also keep this in mind, the ORION project only getting (if $1 is the national’s budget) NASA is only getting 1/10 of a penny.
it is impossible to fake the moon landing and if your saying that “what about the lights it’s really bright” my answer to that is the sun’s light the moon may reflect light but not all of the light will be reflected and they cant have too much light and what they would need would be millions of laser light things to match of the movement of light at the moon and they cant use them because it would go way over their budget but if people were donating money to NASA and they have enough budget to buy the millions of lasers it would still be impossible because the laser that they had at the 60’s or i don’t remember the year are only single colored which is red also if you say “what if they secretly mad computer programing” still impossible i mean how would you make at least hundred of thousands or millions of NASA employee’s shut their mouth about it?
If the moon reflects the sunlight then why are they diametrically opposed types of light? The sun is generative and the moon putrefying, also when put through a magnifying glass the sun gets hotter while the moon only gets brighter??
The replies to most of these topics are hysterical, built on assumptions and range from the absurd to the easily dismantled. If the earth was of the dimensions were told and travelling at the velocity asserted it would be easily demonstrated however we still await that repeatable, scientifically sound experiment after all this time, hmmm!
Food for thought guys
One has to be beyond dumb to believe that NASA sent some three guys to the Moon, in a little device not more than twice the size of a modern SUV, 50 years ago, and, since then, nothing similar was not only achieved, but not even attempted. That doesn’t mean that the Earth is flat though, it simply shows that it’s populated by dumb sheep …
Dd,
Not only that but apparently according to NASA they sent astro-nots to the moon a quarter of a million miles away six times to a harsh alien environment void of air, bombarded by lethal radiation and meteors and yet not one serious mishap! The lunar lander that never appeared to function well on earth found it’s groove and worked flawlessly several times. Moreover, apparently Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong found a fossilized petrified forrest that they forgot to film recovered the petrified wood heroeically returned to Earth and presented this treasure to the Dutch. This story is more incredible than the wizard of Oz but a lot more harmful.
Keep in mind that all the Apollo missions supposedly went without a hiccup and then remember how many dead bodies litter mount Everest in a simple attempt to climb a hill. Remember how many airmen died testing new aircraft, seamen died simply traveling from one land mass to another and all the men and women who perished simply trying to survive in a wilderness. All those environments and ventures would be far friendlier to human life than the claimed lunar landscape of NASA delusion.
Have a great day!
You probably don’t realize that the Lunar Module (LM) was designed for flight in the Moon’s gravitational field, just one-sixth the strength of Earth’s. So naturally it would have functioned less than ideally had it been tested here. Which is why it was tested in low Earth orbit before it went to the Moon.
And please stop with the petrified forest crap. The genuine Moon samples presented to the Netherlands are still in the museum there.
Yes. Amazing that. Something designed for an atmosphere no one had ever been in before that just happened to work perfectly the first time. Very unlikely. Have you heard of Murphy’s law? Seems like it was suspended for the Apollo missions…
The Apollo missions did not go “without a hiccup”
Apollo 1- complete failure, all three astronauts dead in most gruesome manner.
Apollo 13- Ended almost as badly- saved by little more than miracle.
And the LM was not designed to work in “an atmosphere no one had been to before”- it was designed for the moon’s surface- which is a vacuum. (So close to a vacuum that the fees gas particles are not considered an atmosphere)
Yes. Of course. 2 hiccups. The first one to murder the non-believers and to put fear in anyone else who may dare not believe in the story. And second one a desperate attempt to get some people to watch the totally boring NASA moon mission television show.
Marc,
How would NASA design the LM to work in a vacuum properly without testing it in a vacuum before going to the moon?
How does testing it in the Earth’s atmospheree help in this regard? If it doesn’t, then why did NASA spend so much time and money doing precisely that only to have repeated failures?
How does testing the LM in Earth’s atmosphere and encountering repeated failures prepare NASA to actually operate a craft in a vacuum a quarter of a million miles away? If it doesn’t then why do you and quite a number of people on this website think they accomplished their mission?!
Have a great day!
Did you ever hear of PUNCTUATION?
i forgot about one last thing
“there’s wind there they must be really hot on their suits maybe they turned the ac on”
nope without any wind the flag would just keep waving on and on and on because there would be no wind to stop the waving flag so the earth cannot be flat unless people start being dumb and make more theories
Without any wind the flag would just keep waving? Have you ever seen a flag wave without wind?
On the Earth, the movement of a flag is dampened by the air. If you hold a flag pole parallel to the ground, hold the flag out so it is also parallel with the ground, and release it, the flag will swing down and almost immediately stop. This is due to the resistance of the air.
On the Moon, there is no air. If you perform the same experiment, the flag will swing back and forth. The only thing stopping it is internal resistance of the material and perhaps resistance where the flag is attached to its pole. Any movement induced in the flag will continue until it is damped by internal forces.
you spelled atmosphere wrong
A Dilettante Presumptuous Theorem:
APOLLO 11 PROVES THERE IS NO OUTERSPACE BEYOND THE STARS
Simple everyday things like our Waste Matter proves there is no outer space and no planets.
Apollo 11 – The Poop & Pee Theory Proves
No Outer Space and No Moon Landing
By the way there are no planets either. The so-called planets, except for the flat Earth, were named after Roman gods and goddesses. Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Venus and Mercury were given their names thousands of years ago. Those were the planets that the ancient Romans claimed they could see in the sky without a telescope. The Romans claimed they could see the so-called planets with their naked-eye. So-called out-space is a huge $monetary racket$. Here is a reasonable Theory why there is no outer space or universes or space stations etc.
A Presumptuous Opinion: APOLLO 11 PROVES NO OUTER SPACE BEYOND THE STARS
Apollo 11 – The Poop & Pee Theory Proves No Outer Space and No Moon Landing
The astronauts supposedly spent 3 days to reach the moon and only 2 days to come back.
It is told by NASA that a clear plastic bags were used to urinate in and obviously someone had put catheters into the astronaut’s urinary tract into their bladder.
On a documentary just two days ago the urine bag was shown and it was a small thin clear plastic bag with pee in it. Looked like they could only urinate maximum 2 times and it’s full.
What a minute? How did you astronauts hold your pee for 5 days.
Also, the inside of the capsule barely had room for 3 people, so there certainly was no toilet.
Wait a second? Where is all the poop from 3 men for 5 days. That is a lot of poop. We’re talking pounds of poop. Were you astronauts wearing outer-space-diapers? How did you astronauts hold your poop for 5 days? Can’t imagine the smell inside that capsule. When the astronauts came out of the capsule, they must have had such a lovely fragrance to smell that made people immediately vomit.
This was A Presumptuous Opinion on the Poop & Pee Theory.
And of course, it was “impossible” for the astronauts to have carried more than ONE urine storage bag, right?
some of these people are nut jobs. flat earth is more likely when you research it yourself, getting through the van-Allen belt 350 miles out has always been my persuader.
160) It is impossible for rockets or any type of jet propulsion engines to work in the alleged non-atmosphere of vacuum space because without air/atmosphere to push against there is nothing to propel the vehicle forwards…
Rockets create thrust for the same reason guns create recoil- a gun will have almost identical recoil whether it is fired in a vaccum chamber or sea level (it will still fire so long as the cartridge is air-tight.) Rockets will actually make more efficient thrust in a vacuum than at sea level, as the effective thrust is relative to exhaust velocity, and he denser the air is, the more it inhibits the velocity of the exhaust.
161) If Earth were really a ball, there would be no reason to use rockets for flying into “outer-space” anyway because simply flying an airplane straight at any altitude for long enough should and would send you off into outer-space. To prevent their airplanes from flying tangent to the ball-Earth, pilots would have to constantly course-correct downwards, or else within just a few hours the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph would find themselves lost in “outer-space.”
LOL….no.
Most airliners have a max altitude of around 40,000 ft. Much higher than this and the air gets so thin that the gas-turbine engines can’t generate enough thrust, nor can the wings generate enough lift, to keep it at these elevations, as both depend on the density of the air in order to function.
A few military planes can achieve more than this, but even the famed, and retired, SR71 was well below 90,000 feet, not even 1/6th of the way to “space” and at only 2200mph, 1/7th the velocity required to keep you in orbit around the earth- any slower and you would re-enter the atmosphere, even if you were able to magically teleport to typical orbital altitudes.
A plane has an equilibrium altitude for a given weight and thrust level. Once you trim it out, you will maintain a given altitude more or less indefinitely, rising slightly as you lose mass due to burning off fuel (thereby raising the equilibrium altitude.)
You adjust to a higher or lower altitude primarily by modulating power, not by pointing the nose up or down. If you try to gain altitude by pulling back on the yoke, you’ll go up a few hundred feet, and then start stalling out and losing altitude.
Anyway, it’s physically impossible to reach orbit via an airliner, or pretty much any aircraft, as there is no usable amount of air in “space”. Rockets sidestep this issue by carrying along their own “air” (usually Liquid oxygen) to oxidize (burn) their fuel (Hydrogen, Methane, Kerosene, or twenty dozen other chemicals) and accelerate it through a nozzle to generate thrust (Recoil)
Unlike aircraft, which work with the air, most rockets are kind of just hampered by it, which is part of the reason why rockets fly almost vertically for the first part of their ascent, in order to get through the thick, draggy atmosphere as fast as possible, before they turn more towards the horizon to do the real task, which is accelerating up to 17,000 mph parallel to the surface to sustain orbit.
It’s all fake!
Can you explain the idea of Asteroids / crators? This is the only thing that makes me think the idea has flaws.
Really … wakie wakie
Space and space travel in a vacuum is impossible.
How does water curve on a spinning ball turning at 1000 mph. Really …Admirable Bill Byrd and his lost diary a hoax…. really , Werner von Braun and
on his headstone… psalm 19:1 really… Elon Musk and CGI fake rocket booster landings on moving platforms on the ocean … really… Satellites in orbit
at 17,000 mph with over 30,000 others all at different vector launches never seem to collide after all these years… really … why do we need soo many cell towers for communication with all these satellites ….really … and soo many more lies…
“Space and space travel in a vacuum is impossible.”
Tell that to the countless impact craters on the surface of the moon.
“How does water curve on a spinning ball turning at 1000 mph. Really …”
Like, why does water maintain a fairly level surface over the earth? Why wouldn’t it?
“Elon Musk and CGI fake rocket booster landings on moving platforms on the ocean”
Err, if you say so? Source please.
“Satellites in orbit
at 17,000 mph with over 30,000 others all at different vector launches never seem to collide after all these years… really …”
Space is big. Leo-to geo orbit is big. Really big. So big that you would have trouble comprehending. Satellites are small. And there’s not that many in relative terms. And orbital collisions are a pressing issue. Google “satellite collisions” and pay particular attention to the Russia/iridium collision from 09 and the resulting debris cloud.
“why do we need soo many cell towers for communication with all these satellites”
Bandwidth and signal to noise. Satellite communication is possible, but you need some pretty high power receivers/emitters to manage any significant bandwidth. And the network would quickly be overwhelmed with even a tiny fraction of the current cell tower traffic handles.
“….really … and soo many more lies…”
…really … I’m sure they are soo profound…
The only flaw is in your own logic … common sense
What do you hold a doctorate in, ignorance? Your “opinions” regarding space, vacuum, satellites and curving water aren’t worth commenting on as you don’t seem to have a grip on reality. What difference does it make whether Von Braun had a Bible passage engraved on his headstone?
5 REASONS SATELLITES ARE STUPID
1. A one-ton machines traveling 10x the speed of a bullet 20,000 miles up staying in orbit with bursts of air.
2. I’ve been informed, all the pictures of Satellites on Google images are appear fake.
3. It makes no sense to bounce a signal off a moving object to determine the location of a stationary target. The first iphones used Cellphone Tower Triangulation for GPS and NOT satellites.
4. Some claim the Highest Altitude Records shows humans have only managed to get about 120,000 feet up. Don’t you think that is a bit odd that NASA was able to travel 220,000 miles to the moon in the 1970s using calculator technology in only 72 hours…. while no independent space program can break through the atmosphere 40+ years later?
5. They can’t even take a real picture of earth from space. With thousands of satellites orbiting at 20,000 miles up you’d think they could provide a real picture of earth, but all the pictures in the last 40 years have been composites. Apparently, they still continue to show the Apollo 17 picture as earth.
Just some problems people have expressed.
Hi On the Level. You are mixing everything up without understanding it very clearly. Some of your points are very good, but other points show you have no understanding of things. You don’t know how anything works, that is a big problem. You don’t understand these things. For example GPS, you imagine it works by “bouncing a signal off a moving object to determine the location of a stationary target.” That is absolutely NOT how GPS works. All a GPS satellite is is a radio transmitter. There is no 2 way communication. It is just broadcasting a very exact time signal. And in your car you just have a radio receiver that picks up these time signals from the GPS satellites and by calculating the difference between the current time and the time received from the GPS satellite it can work out how long it took to get from the satellite to your GPS receiver, so, knowing the time, using the speed of light, it calculates the distance from your GPS receiver to the satellite. And it knows the exact position of the satellite at that time. So its just a matter of picking up enough GPS signals [3 at least but the more the better] and with trigonometry it calculates your position. So for GPS moving satellites are perfectly suitable.
So if you don’t understand things it may seem impossible. But if you understand how it works then it becomes possible. I think that is a problem with today’s education system and the younger than 50 people. They don’t understand how things work. So to you satellites seem impossible. And you don’t know that you can see them, you can pick up the radio messages they are transmitting, you can 100% conclusively prove that low-earth orbit satellites exist. This is proof, if you can see them, and pick up the radio signals they are transmitting as they pass across by pointing an antenna at them, they exist. Your GPS is proof also of the existence of GPS satellites. Yes. GPS can also be done with ground-based transmitters. You could put GPS transmitters on the top of hills, etc. But it would not work very well because GPS requires line of sight between the transmitter and receiver. So it works much better if you can put the transmitters in the sky on GPS satellites. Which is what they do.
As far as your point 5, it is a very good point. Yes. If they have got thousands of geosynchronous satellites up there there should be no problems whatsoever for them to provide us with gorgeous super high-resolution live feeds of the earth from every angle of vision. But they are not doing that. Such super high-resolution realtime views of the globe would be very useful for many reasons. But there is very little, very very little available.
So although we know for sure that low-earth satellites exist, and we know for sure that the geostationary satellites [that give us satellite TV, satellite internet, etc] work. Because we can point an antenna into the sky and pick up TV or connect to the internet, exactly what we are pointing at, that we have no idea. And because these ‘satellites’ don’t do anything, they just reflect the radio signal, it is possible there is just some natural thing up there that is reflecting the radio waves. Or it is possible they have their satellites up there.
So summary is we know for sure that the low earth satellites [GPS, weather, etc] exist, and we know that geostationary satellites work in the sense they reflect radio waves, but we do not really know what they are and that reflecting of radio waves could be occurring due to some other cause perhaps.
Other points about LTA’s. They can reach altitudes of 70000 to 100000 feet and higher. They can stay aloft for months or years, unmanned and controlled by ground based operators akin to drones. They can maintain a geosynchronous position that satellites purport to do ( ha ha! ). They’re much more cost effective than expensive rocket launches ( these supposed rocket launches like boeing’s sea launch are very dubious ). You can bet with all the money NASA grabs from people the more cost efficient platforms that provide the biggest profit margins will likely be used.
HAA’S, LTA’S AND HAP’S can take all shapes and certainly mis-perceived by the public as satellites. Besides (High Altitude Airships there are HALE (High Altitude Long Endurance) stations or SPR (Stratospheric Platform Radios). If we happen to spot various Airships in the sky, we may only know them as blimps no big deal. In reality they can provide all the capabilities satellites allegedly provide.
Have a great day!
Yes. Of course lighter than air balloons do exist and are being used. But they do not behave anything at all like a satellite. Geostationary satellites only work if they are directly above the equator, about 22,000 miles up. You CAN NOT imitate this with a balloon!!! Unless you can get your balloon 22,000 miles above the equator. Geostationary satellites are visible from half of the earth. So without putting your balloon up there, 22,000 miles, you can not imitate it. And balloons are not in space, they are still in the atmosphere and they do not move like satellites move.
Why don’t you study the history? First satellite was put up by the Russians, sputnik. It was only 22 inches in diameter, had a radio transmitter on it and it circled the earth once every hour and 36 minutes. And because it was broadcasting all the governments and ham radio operators would pick up its signal when it passed overhead. So do that with your balloon. Put it up there, get it to circle the earth once every hour and 36 minutes and broadcast a radio signal from it that everyone on the earth with a suitable received can pick as it passes above. How on earth are you going to do that with a balloon? For that you need a satellite..
Wow. I could probably list more than 5 reasons why your whole post is STUPID. Have you ever bothered to find out on your own HOW THINGS WORK, or do you just wait for someone to “inform” you – someone that doesn’t understand the subject themselves? I’ll address each of your “reasons” here:
1) Satellites do not use “bursts of air” to maneuver in space, they either use onboard chemical thrusters (hydrazine, for example) or electric thrust (ion propulsion or Hall-effect thrusters) to move in space. Many use spinning reaction flywheels to maintain optimum orientation of their antennas, cameras and other instruments as well as solar panels.
2) Again, you’ve “been informed” but you’re too lazy or too arrogant to believe that the information you were given was incorrect. The ISS is a great example of a visible satellite, and it’s been photographed thousands of times. Many smartphone apps will TELL YOU when and where to look for it in your area. All you need to do is look up, but a telescope tracking the ISS is a big help. Geostationary satellites (indeed, ALL other satellites) are MUCH smaller than the ISS and, since they’re much further away from Earth (over 22,000 miles) and moving fast enough to appear to be stationary over one point on Earth as it rotates, they require a telescope to even see them as a point of light. But if you point an antenna at them, you receive the signals being relayed off of them. Did you believe that empty space reflected signals back to you?
3) You’re correct, it makes no sense to bounce a signal off a moving target to determine the location of a stationary target. That’s why GPS doesn’t work that way. GPS satellites are merely broadcasting time signals from the atomic clocks on board each satellite. The satellites aren’t aware of who’s listening on the ground, like a radio station doesn’t know how many receivers are out there listening to its broadcast. No one is “bouncing” signals off of the moving satellites, the GPS receiver in your car or smart device is simply listening for those signals and then computing the distance to the satellite at that moment. Ideally, signals from at least 4 of the 24 or so satellites in orbit are enough to figure the receiver’s position on the ground to within a few inches. Did you REALLY believe your Apple watch has the ability to bounce signals off multiple satellites simultaneously? You’re living in a dream world if you do.
4) Everything ever launched into orbit has left the atmosphere, that’s why we say they’re “in space”. That’s what space IS – the area outside a planet’s atmosphere. The Moon is far outside the atmosphere of Earth and Russia, China, Japan and even Israel have reached the Moon’s surface, so your statement is simply wrong.
5) Real pictures are taken of Earth from orbit every single day. Because the vast majority of orbiting satellites are too close to Earth to see much of its surface, these photos must be composites that are “stitched together” like the stitch function on your digital camera creates a panorama. But the HIMAWARI-8 and -9 satellites take daily photos of half the visible Earth from geostationary orbit and the DSCOVR satellite does so from nearly a million miles out, at one of the Lagrange points between the Earth and the Sun. They’re real photos of Earth, so what’s your issue?
None of these are “problems” or “issues” for the vast majority of intelligent people.
Michael,
You begin with:
“Wow. I could probably list more than 5 reasons why your whole post is STUPID.”
Of course, those reasons are wrong.
You further rant:
“or do you just wait for someone to “inform” you – someone that doesn’t understand the subject themselves?”
No, it would take to long to wait for your reply.
Nevertheless, you reply:
“1) Satellites do not use “bursts of air” to maneuver in space, they either use onboard chemical thrusters (hydrazine, for example) or electric thrust (ion propulsion or Hall-effect thrusters) to move in space. Many use spinning reaction flywheels to maintain optimum orientation of their antennas, cameras and other instruments as well as solar panels.”
The statement was a joke made to point out an obvious absurdity. Hydrazine & Methanol were used by Werner Von Braun in his original V2 rocket experiments. Those rockets and others rely on expanding hot gasses or colloquially “air” to propel them based on Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which I’ve already indicated I have no problem with. They also require large fuel tanks. Your thoughtless reply ignores the fact that so-called orbiting satellites would if they existed require enormous quantities of such fuel to keep them aloft for any length of time, not to mentioned the years many of them are supposed to have been circling above and many of them in supposed geo-stationary orbit. The mass of such fuel should be quite visible on said satellites, but alas you’ve provided no evidence of these satellites beyond NASA claims nor even photographic images ( even fake ones ) of them or their fuel.
At one point you hilariously reference the Space Station. In WWII allies used inflatable tanks, jeeps and other supposed “war equipment” along the British coast to fool gullible folks like you into alarm over mythical war preparations. You have no idea what is above your head even if you view it through a telescope. Nor can you tell the distance or relevant scaling factors. Your credulity is unmatched in my opinion by most on this website.
You also reference Japanese HIMAWARI-8 and 9 satellites. You can find them of course on NOAA’s dubious site ( http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/ramsdis/online/himawari-8.asp ) here. The unimpressive, easily faked globe images provide little information or substance. The detailed land photos provide nothing lower altitude LTA’s can’t provide. You’ve proven and established nothing.
There are many platforms that can mimic satellite utility. Shall we consider some?
1. Land-based technologies. Loran (long range navigation)
2. GPS uses Cel-tower triangulation not Satellites
3. High Altitude Airships (HAA)
4. High Altitude Platforms (HAP)
5. Lighter-than-air vehicles (LAV)
6. High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE)
7. High Altitude Long Operation (HALO)
8. StratSat
9. Airborne Relay Communication (ARC)
10. HeliPlat which connects to the HeliNet System
11. High Altitude Shuttle System (HASS)
12. Small Balloon Systems (SBS)
13. Nano Balloon Systems (NBS)
14. Google Loon System
15. Stratospheric Platform Systems (SPS)
16. High Altitude Long Endurance Demonstrator (HALE-D)
17. Undersea Cable
18. DARPA Integrated Sensor is Structure or ISIS
19. Lower altitude tropospheric air ships can perform many such duties but would be subject to weather.
There are at least 18 platforms that can be used independently, in tandem or groups to provide all the services that satellites supposedly provide. The most glaring aspect of satellite fakery is cost. All 18 platforms I’ve mentioned are substantially more cost-efficient than satellites and inherently more reliable. It makes no sense to repeatedly risk hurling satellites into space if more cost-efficient, reliable and readily maintainable terrestrial systems already exist, which they do. NASA appears unable to furnish a single actual photo or video footage of real satellites.
Which do you think is more probable? Satellites exist and NASA provided all the proof a reasonable person could ask. yet for reasons known only to themselves NASA seems incapable of convincingly confirming their existence or simply they do not exist at all? It seems to me, Occam’s Razor suggests they don’t exist period.
Keep in mind, the satellites you boast of cannot operate in the thermosphere above the 100 km Theodore Karman, nor in the Van Allen Radiation Belt. Which NASA scientists repeatedly claim they cannot operate in. More facts your credulous posts routinely ignore.
If this post is allowed I may choose to respond to other points you’ve made.
Time and evidence will tell if this website wants honest dialogue.
Have a great day!
GPS SATELLITES ARE STUPID, COUNTER-FACTUAL, CARGO-CULT JUNK SCIENCE
Good morning Mr. Mike and Mr. Flat Earth Facts,
You both savagely and irrationally attacked my previous post 5REASTONS SATELLITES ARE STUPID. Where I listed 5 quite accurate reasons as to why they are a ludicrous unnecessary concept. Allow me to repeat the claim made that seemed to trouble both of you so much.
“3. It makes no sense to bounce a signal off a moving object to determine the location of a stationary target. The first iphones used Cellphone Tower Triangulation for GPS and NOT satellites.”
The first sentence is true and you acknowledge it as such. Note it never mentions GPS. The second sentence never claims GPS bounces a signal off stationary objects. In fact, as I’ve mentioned countless times GPS satellites are impossible and cannot exist for many reasons, which I’ve listed and neither you or Flat Earth Facts have really dealt with them. The second sentence merely states a truth. Iphones and other such devices use Wi-Fi Hot Spots ( signal strength ) and other non-satellite sources to provide GPS location data. So where’s the error? There isn’t any, only in your deluded minds.
Mike your following quote somes up the silliness if not stupidity of your view.
“You’re correct, it makes no sense to bounce a signal off a moving target to determine the location of a stationary target. That’s why GPS doesn’t work that way. GPS satellites are merely broadcasting time signals from the atomic clocks on board each satellite. ”
As I pointed out I never claimed nor would claim GPS orbital satellites bounce a signal off of a moving target. You know who does? NASA/DARPA and deluded followers like apparently both of you. This can be illustrated by asking one simple question.
HOW DOES NASA/DARPA CLAIM TO KNOW WHERE THEIR EXPENSIVE GPS SATELLITE PIECES OF JUNK ARE LOCATED?
Well they use radar. Ground based radio beacons supposedly inform them where there satellites are positioned ( 10,000 miles above the Earth ) at all times by bouncing radio waves off satellites ( metal objects ). That’s how radar works. Where do the satellites get their location information to broadcast to GPS units? From radar ground based or otherwise!!!
Your posts are so confused and counterfactual it’s amazing any one can take you serously! Seriously!
Per Richard Feynman:
“In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land. ”
You two play with technology but like primitives apparently have no clue how they work, the science behind them and so you use them but your arguments remain hot air and you still have no proof and have provided none that orbiting space satellites exist or apparently how they operate.
It is true, On the Level, these people like Michael, etc, they have no idea actually how the things work really. I do not know also, how the fast moving satellites know exactly where they are and transmit that exact location information to the receivers on the ground? Presumably they have some way. But I am sure it is not radar. All these things are somewhat mysterious to us, who do not understand how they work, almost magical. But if you take the time and trouble to find out how they work it is no longer magic. Gradually the world is becoming like that. No one understands how things work anymore… But that does not mean it is magic, or that it does not work, or that the earth is flat. No. We just don’t understand how it works…
You say that I don’t actually know how GPS satellites work….but then you admit in the next breath, that YOU DON’T KNOW EITHER. You say you don’t know how the satellites know exactly where they are, but that they somehow transmit that information to a ground receiver. That’s not what happens at all. The receiver on the ground doesn’t need to know where the satellites are – the GPS receiver in your car or your smartphone gets signals from the satellites so it can figure out where YOU are. That’s the whole purpose of GPS – to calculate YOUR position on the Earth. But you don’t understand how it works, nor is it required that you understand – to you, it appears ” almost magical”. Isn’t that what Arthur C. Clarke said?
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.
How true.
You may not understand how some technology works but, not surprisingly, there are smarter people in the world than you. If you want to learn about the world, fine – more power to you. It’s not magic, it’s applied science. You say, “WE just don’t understand how it works”. Wrong, it’s YOU that doesn’t understand. If you want to remain ignorant, that’s your choice as well. Just don’t complain when you can’t figure something out. You had your chance.
You miss my point Michael. I understand how it works in that it uses triangulation to pinpoint your location based on an accurate measurement of the distance from you to the satellite based on the speed of light and how long it takes for the radio signal to get from the satellite to you. But to do that calculation you need to know exactly where the satellite is located. So I do not know how the satellite knows exactly where it is and how it transmits that information to the GPS in your car. Of course there are satellite tracking apps on the internet so they are already tracking the satellites and most probably already know where they are and where they will be, etc, because they follow a predictable path.
So my point is I may not know all the details of how it works but that does not meant that it does not work. So what I am saying is I don’t know exactly how the exact locations of the satellites are determined but I am sure there is a way and if I would investigate it further I would be able to find out how it works. Not that, like On the Level, if he does not not understand it he thinks it does not exist.
Flat Earth Facts,
Thanks for the reply. You stated:
“I do not know also, how the fast moving satellites know exactly where they are and transmit that exact location information to the receivers on the ground? Presumably they have some way. But I am sure it is not radar.”
Actually, I agree they don’t use radar to locate said satellites because don’t exist.
Consider this. If you spend untold millions building and launching some piece of high tech to the most dangerous realm known to man above the 100km Karman Line ( aka Thermosphere ) and above do you think you’d want to keep track of it? The distances involved exceed by orders of magnitude any other means of contact than radio that I can think of or that even makes sense. The problem is the distances are so vast and the ionization fields so strong to practically do so defies logic. For example, when I drive out of state to visit my folks radio contact fades only a few tens of miles outside the city. As I approach their city the strongest radio station they have becomes discernible some few hundred miles from their location. Keep in mind radio signal amplitude decreases by the inverse square with distance. Double the distance signal strength drops by a quarter. What kind of radio equipment would be necessary to communicate 1000’s of miles? Or through heavy ionization fields of enormous strength like the ionosphere / Van Allen Radiation belts? Heck, people get bad reception from mild storms! If radio can’t be used in these regions then how does the GPS satellite communicate to your device the time stamp? Presumably it sends a radio signal, but operating a radio transmitter 10000 miles into the Van Allen Radiation belt seems insane. NASA claims electronics don’t work their and that’s why their research methods to harden the Orion craft to operate there.
The problem is all this is unnecessary if one uses either terrestrial cell-phone towers, lighter than air vehicles or other means. If cell towers transmitted time stamps no location confusion would arise and the transmitter costs reduce precipitously. Same benefits come with geo-stationary LAV’s. Morover, if lav’s are used in the stratosphere all dangers from weather dissappear ( all weather events occur in the troposphere ), they can be moved if nececssary by remote control, meteor aren’t a big danger the temperatures are more than reasonable and you don’t require expensive launch facilities. all the risks involved with handling dangerous chemicals. They can be easily repaired don’t require enormous fuel supplies that exceed reasonable replacement costs. One could go on and on. That’s why satellites were never really used. It’s just cold war propaganda in my opinion.
Take a minute to consider what you believe a reasonable satellite would mean and tell me one function that it can perform better for humanity than lighter-than-air platforms. If you consider it seriously you won’t be able to find any.
Have a great day!
Hi On The Level. There is a problem with your logic. You are using the arguement that there are better alternatives for communication than satellites therefore satellites don’t exist. There is truth in what you say of course. These days satellites are not very useful for communication, except in remote areas where there are no cable connections, then they become the only practical method of communication.
Because if you can lay fibre-optic cables between the two points then obviously you get a much much better communications facility than if you were to use a satellite.
However because there are better options to satellites that does not mean satellites don’t exist. Try to understand this.
Satellites do exist. There is a phenomenon where when you put an object into orbit around the earth at a fast enough speed it will stay up there for a long time and just continue going around on the same orbit. This is an absolutely established fact. The first satellite was Russia’s Sputnik, it orbited the earth once every 1.5 hours and was broadcasting a radio transmission that was picked up by governments and ham radio operators world wide as the sputnik satellite passed above their heads.
So you have to study this. I am going to consider any more posts by you saying satellites don’t exist spam so I would suggest you actually research it before speaking and if you research you will find there certainly are satellites.
Yes. You can do GPS from cell towers but only if you have line-of-sight view of them. And you know there are so many places on this planet where there are no cell towers, no cell service, but satellite phones, satellite internet and satellite television all work as long as the satellite is visible in the sky. So how can you explain these things working in the remote places where there is no other way of getting the signal except from the satellite.
You do not understand how satellites work, but because you do not understand how they work that does not mean they don’t exist.
Flat Earth Facts,
If GPS satellite time stamp radio broadcasts really require line-of-sight to receiver’s GPS unit either lighter-than-air-vehicles ( LAV’s ) or tall cell towers ( some are >1500 feet ) will perform task better than imagined satellites.
Have a great day!
Yes. GPS satellite time-stamps require line-of-sight to the satellite. Radio signals can bounce of course, but for GPS a bounced radio signal is useless because then you can no longer calculate the exact distance between the satellite and the receiver. So there are so many locations where your land based GPS would fail because in so many locations you do not have line-of-sight view to the cell phone tower.
What about satellite internet? That works anywhere on the surface of the earth when the GPS satellite is in view [you can’t actually see it of course, but when that part of the sky is in view]. So that is the whole point of satellite internet. If you are somewhere where there is no ground-based communication network, no cell phone service, no nothing, then you just point your satellite internet dish at the satellite and then you are online. And it works, anywhere on the planet. That is how they get internet in airplanes, on ships at sea, etc etc…
So it is just insanity, total insanity, to claim satellites don’t exist and you are either totally stupid or something, I don’t know. If you have any capacity to think at all please think about it otherwise I am not going to post your comments any more.
When you can see something, photograph it, track it in its predictable orbit constantly then it is not imaginary. You can see satellites, you can track them, you can receive the radio signals they broadcast. So it is insane to say they don’t exist and if you just keep on repeating this mantra without any substantiation then I have to consider your posts spam. As I have written before because there may be a better alternative to satellites for some applications, for example communication if you have got fibre optic cables available between the two points, does not mean that satellites do not exist. This argument is invalid.
Satellites do exist, balloons and other lighter than air ships do exist, some of them are tethered also, on a rope, so they stay in the same spot in the sky. But because these other things exist and because they may be better for some applications than satellites does not mean satellites don’t exist.
However none of these things can be used to simulate a low-orbit satellite. Because low earth satellites, for some reason or other, who knows why??, when you launch them into orbit the circle the earth quite fast, I understand it depends on the speed you launch them into orbit at, but if it is not fast enough they come down quickly, and they orbit quite fast, like every 2 hours or every 4 hours, like that.
So satellites are a thing, it is a fact, no matter if the earth is flat or round, if you launch things into orbit and point them in the right direction at the right speed they stay up there for a long time and can be used for missions like for GPS, for surveillance, for taking photos and other measurements, radar, infra red, etc, etc, for weather forecasting, etc, etc, etc…
So satellites are a thing, a real thing, and are easily verifiable, and if you continue on this insane ‘satellites don’t exist because there are other technologies that could do the job better’ line of bogus argument, it is spam as far as I am concerned.
This is a link to an image from the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) 16, September 4, 2019.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/satellite-captures-four-tropical-cyclones-from-space
Yes, we have gotten images of the Earth since Apollo 17.
NASA ( Never A Straight Answer, or eve a consistent one )
Try this nugget:
“Dr. John H. Mauldin
PhD, Science Education, University of Texas; MS Physics, Purdue; BS Physics, Cornell
Worked on the NASA Voyager project
Prospects for Interstellar Travel – American Astronautical Society
John H. Mauldin has a bachelor’s degree in engineering physics (Cornell University, master’s in physics (Purdue University), and Ph.D. in science education (University of Texas). He has four books published in science and technology covering mathematical graphics in Perspective Design (1985; second edition now being prepared), physics in Particles in Nature (1986), solar energy in Sunspaces (1987), and optics in Light, Lasers, and Optics (1988). He has taught physics and engineering at several colleges and universities, done education research and development at MIT and University of Texas, and worked at NASA in electronic power engineering on an early phase of the Voyager missions.
“Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least 2 meters of solid shielding all around living organisms.”
“Solar (or star) flares of protons, an occasional and severe hazard on the way out of and into planetary systems, can give doses of hundreds to thousands of REM over a few hours at the distance of Earth [b-Lorr]. Such does are fatal and millions of times greater than the permitted dose. Death is likely after 500 REMs in any short time.”
The Apollo capsule was not even 1/10 meter thick, the Van Allen Belts have over 100 REM/hour, so the astronauts could not have survived going to the Moon.”
Oh! There’s so much more. It’s asked, if space-flight is a conspiracy why hasn’t anyone come out and said so? Many have and many of us know what happened to them. Do you? Many claim facts contradicting NASA’s claims, including the moon landing.
Hope you enjoy these gems.
http://www.moontruth.org/NASA/
GPS nonsensical satellite claims prove so problematic DARPA considered other platforms ( HA!HA! ).
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/202111-darpa-to-re-invent-gps-navigation-without-satellites
Have a great day!
According to NASA the ISS weighs over 900,000 lbs ( http://www.boeing.com/space/international-space-station/ ). Note, I’m being conservative. Shouldn’t their be massive fuel tanks around this thing? How much Hydrazine / Methanol / Ethanol / whatever would it take to keep this aloft? Think those ion-propulsion Hall-Effect thrusters have what it takes? Really? The V2 rockets had large fuel tanks. The ballistic V2 missile weighed ~27,600 lbs which rapidly burned out before it reached it’s target. How much fuel keeps a 900,000 lb object over-head for years on end without producing the V2’s inevitable parabolic, ballistic descent? Think you know the answer? You should tell NASA because they haven’t a clue. All they have is models, cgi and credulous followers.
Give the Newtonian / Einsteinian psuedo-scientists their best shot. According to their physics the Earth’s gravitational pull decreases by the inverse square. They claim Earth’s radius falls around 6378km or 3963 miles. ISS’s close Earth surface proximity ~350km means little if any weight reduction due to increased distance from Earth’s supposed center of gravity.
Keep in mind the ISS supposedly resides in the Thermosphere where temperatures can reach according to NASA 4500 degrees F.
Another website claims:
“At about 85km altitude temperatures start to rise until they hit the Kármán line which is 100km high. After this line, the heat abruptly increases rising rapidly to 200km whereby it starts to level off (100km is the very start of the radiation belts as well which become full strength at 200km funnily enough), although other sources say it continually rises. Temperatures can vary, depending on sun activity, but can reach as high as… wait for it…
2500°C!
I kid you not.
In case you don’t know how hot 2500°C is. Your oven in your kitchen can hit 240°C max. A ceramic laboratory oven for jewelers and dentists to melt gold can reach 1200°C. Temperatures in a blast furnace for melting iron can go as high as 2300°C.”
Now NASA apologists and some others will hurriedly claim Oh! no the Van Allen Radiation Belts kick in at 1000km ( HA!HA! ), but in a quick sleight-of-hand comment admit solar winds can bring the Van Allen Radiation belt to within 200km of the surface! Quite a reversal. At 350km the ISS supposedly resides in a very dangerous zone. Where’s the 2m thick shielding around it? How much would it weight if it had it?
The Wild Heretic website ( https://www.wildheretic.com/space-machines-do-not-orbit-the-earth/ ) also notes:
“The only elements in the periodic table that can withstand 2500°C are carbon, niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, and osmium. Except for carbon, these metals are very, very heavy and are of course extremely conductive to heat and most are very ductile when heat treated meaning they bend and coil. Carbon even has the highest thermal conductivities of all known materials! So, if you want to cook someone very efficiently and quickly, there is nothing better than a space capsule made out of graphite.
Now, admittedly, it is not always 2500°C. In fact the temperature range is usually between a mere 600 to 2000°C! depending on sun activity and if it is day or night, with these temperatures usually reserved for altitudes of 300km and above; the upper boundary of which is unknown.”
Just some questions for those anxious to defend the indefensible ISS.
Have a great day!
Wow, you really go out of your way not to understand how a satellite remains in a stable orbit. Let’s address your concerns about the ISS first. The station is already in orbit – it doesn’t require massive amounts of thrust in order to REMAIN in orbit. The ISS gets much of the extra boost it needs from the spacecraft that dock with it – the Russian Soyuz and SpaceX’s Dragon capsules, and the Cygnus OA-9 cargo spacecraft did the same back in July of 2018. When the Space Shuttle was operating it could also give the ISS an orbital boost to raise its altitude. But the station DOES have its own thrusters to provide ” for altitude maintenance, debris avoidance and attitude control”. The V-2 rocket (why such an old reference?) had to burn through lots of fuel just to get itself and its ~27,600-lb. mass off the ground, and it wasn’t even heading to orbit – it was being launched against Allied targets in WW2. Modern rockets are very heavy while sitting on the launchpad. Their first stages have to burn a prodigious amount of fuel to get through the lower atmosphere where air density is the greatest – usually in the first 150 seconds of the flight. By that time the rocket is moving fast enough that the second stage engines can take over, as the initial fuel supplies are used up and all the mass of the first stage is discarded. Now the rocket can continue into orbit at a greatly reduced mass. But once it’s moving at orbital velocity, simple thrusters can maintain it there. And the capsules that supply the station can also bring fuel for the thrusters up to it, but as the ISS requires about 7.5 tonnes of propellant per year to maintain its orbit, cheaper methods are being sought – such as the 50Kw Hall thruster engine from NASA and Ad Astra’s VASIMR 200Kw ion engine, which only requires about 0.3 tonnes of argon gas per year and provides higher thrust than conventional hydrazine thrusters.
As to the temperatures present in the thermosphere, you should really brush up on your understanding of thermodynamics. The number of gas molecules present at the ISS’ altitude are so low that they cannot transfer their heat energy to the station. Try reading this site aimed at children and you might understand:
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/thermosphere/en/
Mike,
Hilariously, to show off your supposed knowledge you reveal thermodynamic ignorance/absurdity. Thermosphere temperatures result from radiation/emission ( ethereal energy ) not merely gas convection. You do understand the difference I hope? Don’t swallow NASA apologist pseudo-science nonsense that thermosphere temperatures arise merely from a few high velocity gas atoms/molecules colliding with one another and/or objects. No claim could be more moronic. It’s no accident the Van Allen Radiation belts exist in the thermosphere. You should know better. I’ve provided links explaining this to some extent.
Radiation does not require gas mediums to transfer heat/energy thermal or otherwise ( really ). Otherwise, how do the NASA bots claim the sun transfers energy to the earth through the presumed vacuum of space? As noted above by NASA scientists 2m thick shielding isn’t required merely for a few gas molecules in an apparently near vacuum environment. If you think so you not only lack any grounding in physics bit common sense. Ether/electromagnetic energy is everywhere.
“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy frequency and vibration.”
Nikola Tesla
Btw, you still have not provided an adequate answer as to how a 900,000 pound object the size of a football field is held aloft. You haven’t even begun to explain it, but merely recited a litany of silliness from your favorite NASA sites children’s learning center. Reading is fundamental and if you examine the links I’ve provided and the wealth of information out there you just might learn something. I’ll have more to add later.
Thank you for the effort and have a great day!
Mike,
Just a question for you. Where does the ISS store the 7.5 tones of pixie dust fuel ( joke ) to supposedly propel it? Do you really believe it’s enough to keep a 900000 pound object the size of a football field from descending to the earth for a year? Ever thought of buying some Florida swamp land?
Have a great day!
The ISS doesn’t store all of that fuel at one time, it uses around 7.5 tonnes of fuel IN A YEAR, brought up to the ISS in its resupply missions. The station’s momentum and velocity is what keeps it in orbit, along with periodic boosts from its own thrusters of those of attached resupply capsules.
You’re sounding more and more foolish with each comment. What does any of this doubt about the ISS have to do with the shape of the Earth?
Correction:
My statement should have read that the ISS requires 7.5 tons of fuel to maintain altitude for 1 year not more than 1 year.
Mike,
I brought up the V2 rocket for many reasons including the fact that you brought up Hydrazine a fuel first used for rockets by Werner Von Braun and because of your apparent devotion to NASA, an organization comprised historically of Nazi’s, Masons and occultists.
Have a Great day!
Wow, a satellite doesn’t need fuel to stay aloft because its orbital velocity was added when it was placed into space by the rockets that put it there and at the speed that they needed to travel to stay in orbit. It’s not like it needs to constantly be held up by any thrust or Force because it is traveling at many thousands of miles an hour and falling around the (ROUND) earth. It would be beneficial to your education if you would go out and witness an actual rocket launch and see for yourself the sheer power and awesomeness that our technology is capable of instead of using youtube for all your educational experiences. You somehow believe that NASA needs to lie to everyone, when its much more likely that youtube and people like yourself are responsible for lieing to gullible people who have very little if any scientific literacy. Most of your questions about how satellites stay up without falling or using tonnes of fuel, and that we really can’t say for sure that ISS is really up there, or we can’t really know if man has been to the moon, regardless of the fact that we can see these things with our own eyes, are questions from ignorance as to what actually constitutes evidence. If you really don’t know the answers to these questions you ask, then obviously your brain is incapable of reasoning out what is obvious to the rest of humanity, which is that you and those like you are not seeing reality as it is. You claim we cannot trust NASA and their lying scientists, yet I’m sure you use science and the many benefits it has given humanity every day. Why do you trust some science and not the rest? You show your hypocrisy by using medical science to keep you from dying, you use physics and geometry and geology and history and all the rest of proven science every time you drive a car or drink clean water or watch youtube or fly in a plane or take a medication or wear clean clothes or read or eat or almost every darn thing you do every darn day yet you actually believe that, with all of humanities proven science, and with all the amazing things we are capable of, you refuse to believe we cannot put man and machines into outer space or that we are incapable of knowing what the shape of the rock is that we live on. You really need to re-evaluate the way you determine what constitutes evidence and then you just might get to learn the true facts of our reality. Cause it appears to me and almost all of the rest of humanity that up to now, you have been incapable of telling the difference between truth and bullshit. So, decide if its true that your full of it when you ask these silly questions, or if you really just need to re-evaluate the way you determine what constitutes actual evidence, using the scientific method in the proper way. Until you determine which one you are,full of crap, or just not fully educated yet, please don’t ask stupid questions like these because all you are doing is confusing innocent people who are only trying to get actual knowledge about reality. Thanks a bunch, have a nice day.
Yes, On The Level’s ideas, which reflect the general flat earth people’s ideas, are so crazy that they might as well be working for NASA as what they say is so crazy and obviously incorrect. Absolutely certainly satellites do exist, and yes absolutely certainly they can be put up in the sky with an initial velocity and orbit and will basically continue orbiting at the same speed without any additional fuel or propulsion. The orbits do gradually degrade and it will eventually crash back to earth, generally burning up in the atmosphere. However this can take many many years.
Yes. The space station is up there and we can see it, photograph it, as it passes over our heads.
There are so many absolutely crazy things that flat earthers believe, and as we see from “On The Level”, he is incapable of considering that any of the flat earth ideas might be wrong. For him satellites don’t exist, and even though we use them daily and we can see them and we can pick up the radio transmissions form them as they pass above our heads, and every sane person will have to agree they exist. Flat earthers deny them. Why? Because their flat earth guru tells them they don’t exist.
But, although the craziness of the flat earthers is almost comical, the globe earthers also, follow the same process. They accept the statements of NASA and the scientists and will never consider the possibility that their gurus might be wrong.
So we have got two groups of people here, flat earthers and globe earthers, both blindly following their respective religions and both not prepared to consider any of their beliefs could be incorrect.
In reality we do not know the shape of the earth. We have two stories. We have the well established and logically and scientifically presented globe earth story and we have the much less developed and much less logical story of the flat earth.
At the moment the globe earth story is far more convincing and scientific and logically consistent however it is still a story, maybe true of course, but may be not true also. And globe earthers are not prepared to admit that some aspects or even all aspects of their story may be incorrect.
So these are stories. The globe earth story and the flat earth story. The globe earth story is a much better story of course, but there is no guarantee that the reality mirrors the globe earth story.
ISS HOAX
A woman apparently photographed the ISS passing in front of the moon. Moreover, she has previous footage of a jetliner, likely either a 737 or 747 plane passing in front of the moon as well. She made a side by side analysis of the two photographs matching the lunar dimensions one with the other and found jetliner length about doubled the ISS image length. NASA claims the ISS to be the same general length as an airplane I believe. Normal cruising altitude for such airlines is 10-20km. Meaning if NASA is correct about the dimensions it should not be much further than 20-40km above the Earth’s surface, definitely not 350km in any case.
Despite NASA nonsense, it’s very unlikely one could see with the naked eye a clear image of the ISS 350km away especially given the inverse square law.
The evidence of space fraud seems obvious and overwhelming.
Have a great day!
Addendum:
You can read the web-thread at:
“https://www.wildheretic.com/hubble-and-the-international-space-station-hoax/”
Moreover, re-reading the post it mentions:
“The jumbo crop was 17.64 x 10.23 cm and the ISS crop was 7.41 x 6.7 cm.”
Meaning the Jumbo airliner more than doubled ~130% the linear length of the ISS. So maybe the ISS given NASA described dimensions could be 25-47km away. who knows, but obviously it seems not 350km.
Have a great day!
There are several problems with this analysis.
First, the ISS is about 240 ft long and 360 ft wide. The longest dimension, which you are comparing to the 777 or 787, is going to be larger than you think, so your estimate is already off by about 50%.
Second, the apparent size of the ISS in the image is about 1/4 the apparent size of the aircraft. That’s another factor of two.
Third, unless you live in the tropics, the Moon is never directly above you. It is clear from the picture of the airplane that we are seeing it from behind.
The angular size of the Moon is 0.5 degrees. Comparing the apparent size of the aircraft to the apparent size of the Moon, the wingspan of the aircraft spans 0.045 degrees. Since we know the wingspan of a 777 or 787 is about 200 feet, we can calculate the distance to the aircraft as about 49 miles. Assuming the aircraft is at its cruising altitude of about 7 miles, the Moon in the image of the aircraft is about 8.3 degrees above the horizon.
Doing the same for the ISS, the apparent size of the ISS spans 0.011 degrees. The longest dimension of the ISS is about 360 feet, so we can calculate the distance to the ISS as about 350 miles. ( The exact dimension of the ISS would depend on its angle with respect to us, but 360 feet is close enough for our purposes.) The altitude of the ISS is about 260 miles, so the Moon in the image of the ISS is about 48 degrees above the horizon.
The reason your argument fails, is because you didn’t take into account the different positions of the Moon in the sky.
Have a nice day, which is one rotation of the Earth with respect to the Sun.
Hi Langerak,
Your flawed analysis doesn’t disprove mine. The moon’s position is at best tangentially related.
First the Boeing 777, 737 or 787 is not 50% larger than the ISS according to NASA. They claim them to be approximately the same linear length. If you speak of visible surface area you must consider the Inverse Square Law such that an object reduces to a quarter of it’s visible surface area when you double the distance. So again you cannot extend the distance based on that. However, I do agree with you that the ISS may apparently only be a quarter the linear length from appearnce. Assuming NASA’s simply not lying again that suggests the ISS distance may be at most 40-80km above the surface and definitely not 350km.
Your 5th & 6th paragraph seems to be a hash of obscurity. Your back of the envelope angular size estimates require more information. You seem to hazard guesses without feeling the need to support them. Since you used the term “angular distance” and proceeded to apply degrees to them, you likely make assumptions regarding the size, distance and locations of celestial objects without actually knowing them. Which means until you define your terms I cannot give any credit to them. For example, you claim/assume to know without support other than NASA claims an ISS altitude of 260 miles precisely the point you claim to seek to prove. That’s a logical fallacy, to assume as given the result you seek to prove.
The reason your counter-argument fails is that you’ve offered no proof at all, merely a pile of assumptions and little or no supporting empirical evidence.
To get a better idea of the ASSUMPTIONS involved in determining angular distance in Astronomy please read the following Wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
Personally, I’m not a big fan of Wikipedia but it may help here.
Have a great day!
Hi Langerak,
Just another observation. You concluded/calulated the distance to the Boeing airplanie 777, 787, 737 or whatever at 49miles and the distance to the ISS as 350 miles! If true the distance to the ISS exceeds that of the airplane by over seven times. By the Inverse Square Law this means the suface area image of the Boeing image should be up to some 49 times larger than the ISS surface area. That is clearly not the case and your conclusions are empirically flawed. Please check your premises and try again.
Thanks and have a great day!
Surface area of what? The ISS? The aircraft? The Moon? And why surface area? Linear dimensions are linear.
The Moon is 238,855 miles from the Earth. That changes a little for an observer due to the rotation of the Earth and the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit, but its angular size is consistently about 0.5 degrees.
We don’t know what magnifications were used to take the pictures, so the images have been scaled to make the apparent size of the Moon the same. It’s like using currency or coins to provide scale in a photo. Once we know the scale is the same, we can compare the apparent (angular) sizes of the aircraft and the ISS. Knowing the actual sizes, we can determine their distances.
A Boeing 747 has four engines, so the aircraft in the image is not a 747. The engines on the aircraft in the image appear to be consistent with a Boeing 777 or 787, but not a 737. The 777 and 787 are about the same wingspan.
Hi Langerak,
Linear length of aircraft supposedly corresponds to jetliner’s. I don’t stand by that it’s a NASA claim. Surface area and linear length are relevant to testing claims. Your claims as to distance of aircraft and ISS make no sense given inverse square law if you believe the station to be the size and distance NASA claims. Reread my post it’s obvious.
Your lunar distance claim derives from bad astronomy and many assumptions in my opinion. The distance has never been objectively measured or verified.
Your correct about not knowing photo magnifications, but they were scaled to the lunar dimensions that were matched for both photos. You seem to know that.
Read the article. It will not change size ratios between airplane and ISS, but humans can at most claim knowledge of the aircraft and ISS dimensions with the ISS being the one few people really know. Lunar shape is clearly seen but size and dimensions remain unknown despite arrogant foolish claims otherwise.
You have shown no apparent ability to determine distances nor willingness to lay out clearly how you’d do so. Your last effort seems to me a flop, but by all means try again. If you do I’d suggest using terrestrial objects of known length to compare, not lunar assumptions.
Boeing 777’s have two engines not four. Most powerful commercial jet engines available. I’ve flown overseas on the plane first hand and can attest to it. It seems largely irrelevant to determining object distances though. The linear difference in plane dimensions shouldn’t vary that much and can safely be ignored, unless you have terrestrial objects of known dimensions in the photo possibly in the foreground to reference as a comparison standard to determine distance.
Hmm, may just check those photos again.
Have a great day.
It’s the wingspan of the jet we need to know, not the length, and it has nothing to do with NASA. Wingspan is a linear measurement, not an areal measurement. The apparent wingspan deceases linearly with distance, not the square of the distance. Move something twice as far away and it will appear half as wide and half as tall. Anyone who remembers high school geometry knows this.
We don’t need to know the actual size or distance of the Moon. Our measurements are based on the angular size of the Moon, which is about 0.5 degrees. This can easily be measured.
We can measure the size of the Moon on our computer screens. On my screen, it is 5.6 inches. So on my screen, 0.5 degrees equals 5.6 inches. That’s about 0.09 degrees per inch. Also on my screen, the wingspan of the airplane measures 0.5 inches, and the width of the ISS measures 0.125 (1/8) inches. So the angular size of the airplane is 0.045 degrees, and the angular size of the ISS is 0.011 degrees.
Knowing the actual sizes of the airplane and the ISS, we can use some very easy trig to determine their actual distances. None of this is based on area, so the inverse square law does not apply.
The aircraft in the image has two engines. Further investigation found that earlier models of Boeing aircraft have been modified with the larger turbofan engines, so the aircraft in the image could have a wingspan anywhere from about 117 feet to about 212 feet. Assuming the aircraft is at cruising altitude of 7 miles and the ISS is at its reported altitude of 260 miles, then the airplane was photographed anywhere from 8.3 to 14.25 degrees above the horizon, and the ISS was photographed 48 degrees above the horizon. You cannot directly compare the apparent sizes of the airplane and the ISS in the image, because they were not photographed on the same line of sight. If the airplane was photographed directly above us, its distance would be about 7 miles, but since it has flown some distance past us, its distance is much greater. The same is true for the ISS, except its distance above us would be 260 miles and it hasn’t orbited that much farther.
Your original claim was that these images demonstrated that the ISS could not be 260 miles above the Earth. That simply is not true. The ISS can be 260 miles above the Earth and still produce the image that we compared to the image of the airplane.
Langerak,
Reading is fundamental, and I didn’t claim linear span reduces by the inverse square with distance, object “surface area” does. That’s why the term was used. However, it’s nice to know you remember High School geometry.
Thank you for clarifying assumptions. The planes presumed heigth above the horizon of 8.3 to 14.25 degrees seems to low and a mere guestimate. Likewise the ISS height above horizon seems conjectured, perhaps based on NASA viewing instruction claims. Please clarify. You claim to use trigonometry but don’t show it, merely assumptions.
The ISS and plane objects don’t have to be in same line of sight to make size comparisons, although it helps for precision. The plane indeed may be farther than 7 miles, but frankly your last claim of 49 miles appears ludicrous unless you further assume use of telephoto lenses.
Please explain how the images support the view that the ISS is 260 miles above the Earth’s surface. You still haven’t don’t so.
Have a Great day!
I do remember some of my high school geometry. I also remember some of my high school trigonometry. Especially the really easy stuff like I am using here:
r * sin a = y
where r is the radius, a is an angle, and y is the distance above the x-axis. Do you remember your high school trig? If not, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometry
For our purposes, r is the distance to the aircraft, a is the angle between the wingtips, and y is the wingspan (we’ll call it W). Solving for r:
r = W / sin a
For a 777,
r = 200 ft / sin 0.045 degrees = 200 / 0.000785 = 48.6
miles
To get the angle of the airplane above the horizon, we use the same equation, but we solve for the angle. I will use A for this angle and h for the altitude of the aircraft.
r * sin A = h
where A is the angle of the aircraft above the horizon, and h is the altitude of the aircraft above the ground. For our purposes the error due to the curvature of the Earth is negligible.
sin A = h / r
A = arcsin (h/r) = arcsin (7/48.6) = 8.28 degrees
(Arcsin is the reverse of sin. If sin a = y, then arcsin y = a or arcsin sin a = a.)
Now do the same for the ISS.
Something else we can glean from the images:
The length and wingspan of the aircraft should be about equal. Comparing the apparent length of the aircraft with the apparent wingspan, there is about a 1:4 ratio. Using similar trig calculations, we can determine that the angle of the axis of the aircraft to the camera is about 14.5 degrees, which is in the ballpark considering the aircraft is following the curvature of the Earth or is not flying level and is not flying directly away from the camera. I’m also measuring these images with a tape measure.
Why is this significant you ask? Tape two paper plates to your ceiling about 8 (or 10 or 20) feet apart. Standing under one of them, it will be about 2 feet above your head. The other paper plate will be a little over 8 (or 10 or 20) feet away. Compare your hand at arm’s length to the paper plate above you. Now compare your hand at arm’s length to the paper plate that is 8 (or 10 or 20) feet away. Do you see a difference?
As the ISS moves away from the vertical, its apparent size will change. When comparing the images, the orientation of the two images in the sky is significant.
I don’t have to demonstrate that the ISS is 260 miles above the Earth. Your original claim was that these images demonstrated that the ISS could not be 260 miles above the Earth. These calculations show that the ISS can be 260 miles above the Earth and still produce the image that we compared to the image of the airplane. Your claim is false.
Flat earth facts. Well, I’m not so sure you can say globe earth is just a story. Compare it to a heart transplant story. We can and have placed a used heart from one person into another person and save lives, every day. Is this just a story? I do not think so. We can have records, recordings, outcomes, and over all case histories of the entire procedure. It is a fact as provable as a fact can be.
Now, space flight, we can record, study, outcomes, planned trajectories that work perfectly, timeframes worked out to the milli-second, almost flawless missions, attested to by millions, viewable by billions of people, pictures, measurements, predictions, mathematics for fuel ratios, all this done in full view , As provable a reality as anyone can expect. To deny these kinds of achievements is to deny reality. All the science, all the achievements, all the advancements, all the awesomeness of our abilities here on earth, all provable, repeatable in time and space, all knowable, all learnable. If this does not mirror reality then what, if anything, does? I have only one question, why, if a person can accept and utilize all the advancements and achievements of modern science, such as medical, engineering, biological, etc. all the amazing things that we can do with provable science, how on earth could anyone think that humanity is totally incapable of discovering the shape of the rocks that we live on. One would really have to have a complete lack of trust in mankind’s abilities to know anything at all . And also, why do these flat earthers never seem to be anyone with any kind of formal education? Could it be that nearly all flat earthers have, what seems to me to be an amazingly underdeveloped and rarely utilized cognitive reasoning abilities, because it seems to me that most of the questions they ask have very simple answers, they simply have yet to delve more deeply into the question so as to come to the only conclusion possible.
Hi Jerry
Yes. Globe earth is most certainly a story. You have no way of testing or proving the shape of the earth yourself. For this you have to accept some person as an authority and hear about it from them. So they will tell you a story, and you will believe that story and that is why you believe the earth is a globe. You don’t know it is globe, you have heard a good story that makes the case for the earth being a globe and you believe that story.
You have no proof actually, no way of validating that story. It is a very good story, very consistent with our actual observations and can explain practically everything we observe happening around us. So it a very believable story, and it may well be true alos. It is certainly the best story we have at the moment and intelligent people are right to accept this globe earth idea, as it is the best story we have.
On the other hand, flat earth people, they have decided to believe the earth is flat and they have tried to construct a story based on that assumption. But they have not been very successful. They have no generally accepted story and none of their stories can satisfyingly explain what we observe happening in the sky and around us.
So certainly, the globe earth story if far superior to the flat earth story. But the reality? That we do not know actually.
You don’t know. You have no way of testing if the earth is a globe or if it is flat or if it is something else. Space flight we have never done except going to the moon, that is obviously a false story, NASA’s “men on the moon” story, so the problem is when big authorities like NASA tell big lies like their men on the moon story then how can we trust anything they say. Of course NASA may have done many wonderful things, but because they lied so spectacularly with moon, they have no credibality.
So the flat earth people are not necessarily unintelligent, they just accept a different story to you. There is no guarantee that your story is correct, and realistically the flat earthers, they don’t even have a real story that works.
So the conclusion is globe earth story is the best story we have, it is, as you say, supported by a huge amount of scientific endeavour and they can provide reasonable logical scientific explanations for practically everything based on the globe earth idea. And these ideas are agreed on by practically everyone and can be tested generally with our actual observations. So it is a very good story.
But the bottom line is you don’t know, if NASA did not send men to the moon, and it is very unlikely they did, because we can’t send men to the moon now, 50 years later with much better technology, then no one has actually seen the globe.
And, at least up to date, they can not give us credible realtime high-resolution full globe imagery, which they should have no problems doing if they have all these geosynchronous satellites, etc.
So the point is if you get suspicious about the globe earth story and start poking around at the edges, if you look a bit deeply into NASA’s “men on the moon” story, etc, then you start seeing things that really don’t add up. So it is not unintelligent to question the established doctrine. However, as history has shown, those who do question the established doctrine are not very much appreciated by the followers of the official story.
So my position is I don’t accept either the globe earth story or the flat earth story. Everyone can see the huge problems with the flat earth story, globe earth story, that is a nice story, but still has a lot of problems if you start poking around at the edges.
So the reality, that may be something else. We may be mistaken, either in part, or completely, in regard to our understand of the shape of the earth. That is a possibility. And for advancement in knowledge we have to be able to accept that the currently accepted paradigm may not be correct. Otherwise, there is no possibility of advancement.
So we need to be able to think outside the box, consider ideas that are new and different. I agree, however, that at the present moment globe earth model is the only believable story we have. However, as I have tried to establish, just because we have a believable story does not mean it is necessarily correct.
This is the problem with flat Earthers. You say that the globe explains our daily observations and follows our predictions very precisely, and that it’s “the best story we have”. What more would you want out of a model of our world? Why would we need “ideas that are new and different”? What’s wrong with the Earth being a globe if it fits our observations?
Obviously you have something against NASA, or one or more of the other dozens of space agencies around the world – you either don’t trust that they’re telling the truth or that they’re concealing….something. And you’re basing this position on the fact that you’re a Moon landing denier. What is it about the Apollo program that led you to this conclusion?
One easy way you can tell Earth is a globe is to observe its shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse. You can see that the shadow has a rounded edge to it. But rather than convince them that Earth is a globe, some wonder, “What is that shadow REALLY? It must be a hidden planet near the Earth – Nibiru – or maybe it’s Rahu and Ketu casting that shadow, or perhaps the Moon is self-illuminating and changes its phases to fool us”. It’s these kinds of outlandish claims that make science deniers sound ridiculous. What’s wrong with accepting the simplest explanation? It’s the one that is most often the truth, and isn’t that what everyone is seeking?
I am not denying anything Michael. I accept your globe story is the best story we have at the moment. But it remains a story and the reality could be different, that is my only point. The globe story is a nice story but we have not established it as fact.
Imagine you’re out driving in your car, and you come upon a bridge with a sign that says “Weight Limit 10 Tons”. What do you do? Do you continue to drive across the bridge, knowing that you and your vehicle are well under the weight limit, or do you get out of your car and examine the condition of the steel beams, the road decking and the supporting concrete foundations? Do you do a metallurgical analysis to test for metal fatigue in the structure? Do you just “take the word” of whoever put the sign up that the bridge is safe to travel over, or is your life more valuable than that?
The same can be said of other aspects of our lives. Have you ever entered a high-rise building for a meeting, and stepped into an elevator without hesitation? Or rather, do you examine the engineer’s certification, and check to see if you and the other occupants are under the recommended weight capacity of the elevator? Do you climb out into the elevator shaft to examine the condition of the supporting cables and safety equipment, or do you just “take someone’s word” that it’s safe?
Likewise, do you buy a car and just drive it off the lot, assuming that the mechanics that prepared the car have properly done their jobs? Or rather, do you get under the car and examine all its components yourself to be sure it’s safe? Do you go to the service station and tell the attendant to “fill it up” without checking the quality of the fuel being dispensed? Or perhaps you refine your own fuel so that you can be assured of its quality? Perhaps you grow your own food and make your own medicines, rather than depend on others? You have to draw the line of trust somewhere, so why do you stop at NASA?
Of course, you have no idea yourself of any of these things, and it is beyond your power to test and find out the shape of the earth, for example, so you just choose an authority and believe what they say. Everyone is doing that, more-or-less.
You religiously accept every word of NASA as truth, but we know NASA lied to us, claiming that putting men on the moon in 1969 was more-or-less a simple routine thing to do, they repeated it about six times successfully, but today NASA claim they have no idea how to put men on the moon and will need trillions of dollars more funding to work it out and maybe, perhaps, in 2030 they might be able to send men to the moon.
So it is a religion you are following, the religion of NASA and science. You believe them, whatever they say, you blindly believe it.
But how can you trust people who tell such gigantic lies?
Jerry we can know the shape of land and water we experience, it’s flat not convex. Water does not curve away at 8.5 inches per mile squared as NASA claims, otherwise standing on the beach at sea level an averaged sized person should see no surface water beyond approximately 3 miles. Photos of ocean surface water over 16 miles away have been made. I have University degree and knowledge of math and physics and am not stunned at all by your apparent lack of erudition and scientific understanding on this subject. Many of us were schooled in similar fashion. You must always bear in mind the model is not the terrain. Imo, to grow one must stop living confined to unproven models and past assumption. If you do you will only find the model or map becomes a trap.
Have a great day!
Yes On the Level, I think this is a very good point. It does truly seem to be a flaw in the globe earth model and perhaps Jerry can try and understand it. We can definitely see much much further than we should be able to see on a globe of the given dimensions [8000 miles diameter approx]. Things that should have dropped well below the horizon based on that geometry very often are still clearly visible.
It does not prove the earth is flat but it is certainly an unexplained mystery that things do not disappear over the horizon at the point where the horizon should be on a globe of the prescribed size and sometimes things are stubbornly viable in the distance that should be way way below the horizon on the supposed globe.
However, of course, there are so many other observations, almost all the other observations actually, which are consistent with the globe, not with a flat plane…
But this is a real issue in my opinion. Something that the globe people, I do not believe, can satisfactorily explain with their story at the moment.
Yes, sometimes you can see things farther than the “8 inches per mile squared” rule of thumb would suggest, which is why that rule isn’t very useful. You seem to conveniently forget that we live on a planet surrounded by an atmosphere, which in many instances causes light rays to refract, or bend, especially over stretches of water where most of these claims are made. Refraction is a real thing, so stop denying it exists.
“Which is why that rule isn’t very useful,” Yes. Doesn’t fit the model so not useful. Only useful if it proves the model [story] we are trying to prove. Yes of course, there is some refraction. But the degree of inconsistency at times does appear to be far more than could be explained by refraction. And if you are going to believe light bends like this then you have to forget all your other observations. Because if light bends like this then the reality is going to be very different to what you observe. Everything will be appearing to be in a different place than where it actually is. So you will not be able to trust any of your observations at all. And actually this might be a fact.
Mike and Flat Earth Facts,
Refraction only applies to object location appearance when medium changes. For example, one might argue apparent lunar or solar locations illusory because their light passed between atmospheric and a presumed space medium like vaccuum, firmament, etc.. Apparent object locations within Earth’s atmosphere shouldn’t alter from refraction. Other phenomenon like mirrage distortion might alter appearnce but not refraction.
Have a great day!
You’re correct in stating that “Water does not curve away at 8.5 inches per mile squared as NASA claims”. The actual number is 7.98 inches per mile squared, and it isn’t NASA that claims this – it’s a long-standing rule of thumb in the field of surveying, in use much longer than NASA has been in existence. In any case this “rule of thumb” is only an approximation, and is only valid for distances up to ~100 miles. The “rule” actually describes the shape of a parabola, not a sphere.
And apparently, despite your possession of math and physics knowledge, plus your university degree, you forget that the Earth is surrounded by an atmosphere of air, which causes light rays to refract (or bend) around its surface, allowing views of objects further away from the observer than the “8 inches per mile squared” rule of thumb would suggest.
#1 men have been carving up bodies live and dead since the beginning of time Space travel was supposedly figured out in less than a decade with archaic computers. Your response is useless in this argument Facts about space time theory have changed hundreds of times. The human body on the other hand has been a constant since man could record anatomy
NASA most certainly does not claim that the ISS is “the same general length as an airplane”. The dimensions of the ISS and of modern jet airliners can easily be learned from many different sources, and anyone with a functioning brain can see that the ISS dimensions exceed that of even the largest jet airliners.
Of course the image of the jetliner was larger than that of the ISS. A jet airliner operates within the atmosphere and is much closer to the camera than the ISS, which orbits outside the atmosphere. The ISS cannot be made out in detail with the naked eye – its image must be magnified by use of optical aids (binoculars, cameras or telescopes) in order to see its shape and details. All the unaided eye can see is the reflection of sunlight from the various surfaces of the ISS as it passes overhead. Many people have photographed the ISS passing in front of the Moon’s face and published their work. Are you suggesting that they’re all lying? Preposterous.
Well, are you all actually just limiting your pool of knowledge because I’m sure you all are not idiots, every experiment I have seen and participated in have show a definite disappearing from bottom up on a calm sea. Ive dove in 3 oceans and dozens of lakes and streams, been on many,
many boats and I can tell you that yes, you can witness the curve in real time if you would just go do an experiment instead of believing ramdon hypothesis, that contradicts the observable facts, from basement armchair laptop jockeys. The real world is out there, go out and enjoy it. You can discover for yourself the shape of our home world. I’m not sure who convinced you to accept hypothesis that disagree with observable facts and in the same breath fully believe some alternate reality or hypothesis that only can be corroborated if you first just deny what our collective minds have discovered through hard won achievements and dedication.
By the time humanity even thought about attempting to send men to the moon we had been collectively traveling on the ground and through the air some many millions of miles a week. Why on earth is it so hard to see that our next step would be to explore in the most open dimension, which is up. The moon is not very far away and wouldn’t it be immensely easier to simply go to the moon instead of trying to fool the world. We are explorers and that’s what we do. Is that not what you would do if you had all those billions of $? Almost every item brought up about proofs that NASA is a hoax and the curve cannot be see from within the system can and have been shown to be false claims put forward by people who have some deep seated need to hold on to their beliefes regardless of the inconsistent nature of the proofs they have put forward. Either you go where the majority of evidence points or you cling to small inconsistencies within the framework. Nothing is know 100% but 99.999 is as good as it gets. That 0.001 is too little too late. Why do you think so little of the human races think it’s impossible for us to accomplish these kinds of things? Going to the moon and putting robots on other planets, asteroids, moons, ECT. Because the evidence is overwhelming. If you refuse to watch the massive vehicles take off or refuse to see what the rest of us witness then its up to you to do all your own experiments. Only then will you know for sure. What would it take to convince you of the true nature of the shape of the earth? Going into space to look back? Well plenty of humans have done that. As well as a lot of satellites. Don’t believe the piles of pictures, well then you may never trust anything you see because your getting your info from some mysterious source. What is this info and where is this source. Why does Fake NASA and flat earth not even warrant an hour on CNN or other world news sources? Cause these points of view are not tenable, they don’t pass the bullshit test. I’m sure you guys have reason to believe in these conspiricy hypothesis, but they are fringe at best, deceptive at worst. But dont stop thinking, step out of your comfort zone and trust that we are capable of and indeed have been off this planet and do fully understand the shape of our rock. We really are able to go up. We’ve done it and have currently had men in space for decades. Go watch the rockets fly and take some more science courses and get answers to all these questions you have about why something can be shown to be true and other things can be shown to be bull.
I think the problem is more emotional than logical. Most of us cling to beliefs because it seem somehow intuitive that it is so, but our intuition fails up all the time. Of course the world looks flat, we are tiny in comparison. Of course it appears the universe revolves around us, it looks that way. But when every person with a second grade education can prove a theory, thats because that theory projects accurately onto reality. If you view reality through the lens of mistrust and suspicion, you may miss the facts that would convince you. And there is a lot of convincing evidence. Anyway keep thinking deeply.
Hi Jerry, I think you are emotionally attached to the idea that all our observations must necessarily be consistent with us being on a ball of 8000 miles diameter. However, in this case, the distance of the actual horizon vs. the theoretical distance it should be according to the globe earth story, there is, at times, a very great unexpected discrepancy. You can not criticize the flat earth people of not doing experiments in this regard. They have extensively documented this and it is a real thing, a real unexplained discrepancy with what we would expect to experience if we were on a globe.
You have to have an open mind and explore things also. If you explore this area you will find some unexpected results.
In my opinion it’s just a tactic to mix the flat earth theory with the faking of the Moon landing, in order to discredit the ones doubting the Moon story. I don’t think any serious person can still believe that humans landed on the moon fifty years ago, but, mixing this with the flat earth is meant to force one to take a definite side: either all we’re told is true, or none
I see no reason to doubt that we landed on the Moon 50 years ago. Why do you think we didn’t?
Because we have no idea how to send men to the moon today… If we sent men to the moon and brought them home safely many times 50 years ago we would know how to do it today. But today it is impossible. Because there are so many challenges NASA has to overcome before they can send people out of low-earth orbit. Space is a nasty place. There is radiation out there that kills people. You need shielding from the radiation if you go out there, otherwise you will die. And we do not have the technology at the present movement to build a space ship that is both light enough to launch with also provides the necessary radiation shielding…
So it is quite obvious, if we can’t send men to the moon now, we couldn’t send men to the moon in 1969….
We do know how to send men to the Moon, but why would we? It’s already been done. Mission duration is limited by our ability to provide air and food and water. Missions 50 years ago lasted only two or three days, if I remember correctly. And we have to limit exposure to that deadly radiation you mentioned.
What we are doing is sending probes and orbiters and landers to all of the other planets and the Moon and asteroids and comets. These are all cheaper and more efficient than sending people. Unmanned missions can go on for years with just an adequate power supply.
We are looking at the possibility of sending extended, perhaps permanent missions to the Moon. That is why we have sent orbiters to look for water. For the moment, orbiters and landers provide us with the information we want. If or when we decide to send people to the Moon again, we are perfectly capable.
This is insanity: “We do know how to send men to the Moon, but why would we? It’s already been done.”
How can you expect anyone to believe this rubbish. Have you not noticed there are dozens of companies just in the US trying to go to the moon lead by Elon Musk, they are all trying to send people into space but none of them can do it. It is not going to the moon, we can’t even send people above low earth orbit. Try and understand it. With the current technology space travel for people is impossible.
And look at SpaceX, almost everything they put up explodes on takeoff or landing. It is a joke. We can’t make a reliable spaceship to take men to the moon and bring them home safely and we have never been able to do this.
Space X has had over a hundred successful launches. It has had three failures: one on the ground, one in flight, and the recent failed landing of the prototype. They have taken measures to ensure the survival of the capsule in the event of an in flight failure. I’m sure they will take measures after the failed landing as well. Space X has no problem getting to low Earth orbit, and there is no reason it couldn’t get to the Moon and beyond.
You may remember NASA had its own issues: Apollo 13, Challenger, Colombia. No one said it was easy, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Especially when we have more than convincing evidence for the Moon landings.
Well, we would sincerely hope after all these years of the Russians being able to do it almost flawlessly Space X would have no trouble getting into low earth orbit. If Elon can’t manage that then there is a very very serious problem with Space X.
As far as going to the Moon, that is an entirely different thing. Low earth orbit, a couple of hundred miles, the moon, a quarter of a million miles. Big difference.
The convincing evidence for moon landings would be we would still be able to send people to the moon and land on the moon. If today, 50 years later, we can’t send people to the moon and have no idea when we will be able to send people to the moon, that means we have never sent men to the moon.
And the only real convincing way to show we have men on the moon is to do something on the moon that is clearly visible from earth through a telescope. Anyone can get a telescope for a few hundred dollars that can give a very clear close-up view of the craters on the moon for example. So you don’t have to do much at all on the moon for it to be clearly visible from earth.
Actually that is why it is so hard to fake the moon. Because if NASA or SpaceX send people to the moon, then the evidence of the people on the moon will be visible to anyone with a reasonable telescope.
Just think, if you were on the moon, and looked back at Earth, the presence of us earthlings would be very obvious.
So that is the evidence of the success of our trips to the moon, that we can actually go to the moon. At the moment we can’t go to the moon, that means we could never go to the moon. And the real proof will be when the evidence of our moon missions is visible through the telescopes from earth.
So far there is no evidence at all that man has been to the moon.
I think, firstly, we didn’t have the technology, if, even now, so many years later, “they considering ” a second trip. If that really happened when they say it happened, by now we would have weekly tours of the Moon. That is if we don’t even consider the various seemingly valid observations made by the “conspiracy theorists” with regards to the actual images put forward by NASA, size of the spacecraft used, etc., etc.
Well, we can’t take a supersonic flight today from New York to Paris or London, either. We could do this in the late 1970’s, so why is it not possible today? We know how to build supersonic aircraft, so what’s the problem?
Not enough demand, coupled with the fact that we already have global communications which are changing the way business is done, both domestically & internationally. There’s less need for actual face-to-face contact these days, especially with a global pandemic surging.
Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. There are plenty of supersonic airplanes owned by the military. They are still being built and used. We never stopped building them and using them.
Forget about going to the moon, that is certainly not possible now, and not possible in the 1960’s. IT IS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO LEAVE LOW-EARTH ORBIT!!! There are so many problems to solve, even just to leave low-earth orbit, sending people to the moon, that is a very far distant dream.
OK, go and try to book a flight on any military aircraft and see how far you get. I said we know how to build supersonic aircraft. My question is why can’t we (the general public) book a transatlantic flight on one, like we could with the Concorde?
The point is, we USED to have this technology available to us, but now we don’t. Same with Apollo and the Saturn V rocket. We USED to have that technology but we stopped building and using it. That doesn’t mean we don’t know HOW to do so. We’ve been to the Moon already – we showed the world it was possible to land on it and return safely – six times. The next target should be Mars. But we’re aiming to return to the Moon in 2024-2025 after the new systems are tested out. Mars likely will follow before 2030. Dream bigger.
You totally misunderstand the reality. The reality is we have always had supersonic aircraft. Once we invent a technology we always have that technology. And in the case of supersonic travel that ability, that technology has constantly improved over time. Today’s supersonic aircraft are so much better than the supersonic aircraft of 50 years ago for example.
So the point is if we had the technology to safely and repeatedly send men to the moon in the 1960s we would still have that technology now. But we don’t. WE DON’T KNOW HOW TO SEND MEN TO THE MOON NOW. Ask NASA, they will quite openly tell you this. There are many obstacles that still need to be overcome before people can leave low-earth orbit.
We NEVER had the technology. That is why we don’t have the technology now.
You can not provide any example in history of developing some technology and having that technology just disappear as if it never existed.
The reality is NASA’s ‘men on the moon’ technology never existed. And they have been trying to build it for the past 50 years, but still it is always a total failure.
Yes of course, you are correct, “dream bigger”. Elon was hoping that he could just do a fake Mars mission. That he could do with great CGI and effects. But people want to see a moon mission, unfortunately for Elon. And we can not be having humans doing things on the moon without the evidence of the activities of the humans on the moon being visible to the earthlings with telescopes…
Thus, “dream bigger”, lets go to Mars instead which is far enough away from those pesky earthlings, they won’t be able to see we are not really there…
The following absurdity was spouted by NASA spokesmouth/propagandist Robert Frost, Instructor and Flight Controller:
“How do you explain in a simple language why the ISS doesn’t fall to the earth?
One of the simplest explanations is provided by Sir Isaac Newton in his book Treatise on the System of the World. Sir Isaac describes a thought experiment involving a projectile, such as a cannon ball. He says that if we propel that cannon ball sideways, parallel with the ground, the cannon ball travels a curved path towards the ground, because of gravity. He then says, suppose we increase the velocity at which we eject that projectile. The more we increase that initial speed, the farther the projectile will be able to travel before it hits the ground.
Sir Isaac then imagines we take our cannon up to the top of a very high mountain, so that not only will there be no obstacles in the path of the projectile, but the air will be so thin that it will offer little resistance to the projectile. Does it not then make sense that we could fire our projectile at such a speed that the curvature of its path would match the curvature of the Earth and the projectile would never fall to the ground?
That’s the conceptual essence. The ISS doesn’t fall to Earth because it is moving forward at exactly the right speed that when combined with the rate it is falling, due to gravity, produces a curved path that matches the curvature of the Earth.
Newton went a bit further, though. He figured out the math. Stop here if math gives you hives. He said that for this scenario, the force of gravity on the ISS equates to the centripetal force of the ISS traveling in a curve around the Earth.
Gravity pulls the object towards the center of the planet and also provides the acceleration that forces the object to travel in a circular path. The result being, that an object with a certain velocity will achieve stability when it is at a distance from the center of the planet where the equations balance.
FG = FC,
GMm/r2(squared) = MV2(squared)/r
So,
V = square root of GM/T
( G is gravitational constant )
v is the velocity at which the ISS has to travel to stay on that curved path that just keeps missing the Earth. The variable in that equation is “r” which is the distance between the ISS and the center of the Earth.
The higher a spacecraft is, the weaker the pull of gravity and thus the slower it has to travel to not fall to Earth. The lower a spacecraft is, the stronger the pull of gravity and thus the faster it has to travel to not fall to Earth.
So at the altitude of the ISS (250 miles (~400 km) above the Earth’s surface or 4210 miles (~6770 km) above the center of the Earth), the required velocity is about 4.7 miles per second (7.6 km/s). By traveling forward at 4.7 miles per second (7.6 km/s) and pulled by gravity into a curved path, the ISS travels around the world at a fixed distance.
But, remember that Sir Isaac said we needed to be high up to avoid the drag of the air, well even at 250 miles (400 km) there is still a tiny bit of air and it has a small decelerating effect on the ISS. The ISS loses up to 0.1 mph (5 cm/s) of velocity and 330 ft (100 meters) of altitude each day, because of the continual collisions with gas particles. To compensate for this, about once a month the ISS briefly fires its thrusters to regain the lost altitude.”
Consider, why do objects float in space only 100km+ above the Earth? Does gravity magically stop affecting objects at this height? The official answer is that above 100km objects free fall, but if they travel fast enough laterally, i.e. the space shuttle, at 27,360 kmp/h then this speed causes the object to fall along the convex curve of the Earth, thereby never actually hitting the ground.
So Newton develops a thought experiment (NOT science) to demonstrate a concept. Imagine placing a cannon on top of a very tall mountain. Once fired, said cannonball falls to Earth. The greater the speed, the farther it travels before landing. If fired with proper speed, said cannonball achieves a state of continuous free-fall around Earth, which we call orbit. Same principle applies the space shuttle, space station or satellites. While objects inside them appear to floating motionless, they supposedly travel at same orbital spacecraft speed: 17,500 miles per hour (27,360 km per hour)!
A thought experiment(?) supposedly conducted by a man living in the 17th century which amazingly matches perfectly with late 20th century NASA explanation used to explain how their machines orbit the Earth. What are the odds Newton goty that one right, let alone knowing what gravity really is and how it works? This is at the very, very beginning of “science” if it can be called that. NASA verified Newton’s thoughts? Or desperately used them to explain away their claims which do not exist in fact?
Stranger still, that in Newton’s letter to Halley he writes that he thinks gravity is a push by “descending spirit”.
“…Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre‘
How does push gravity work as a property of mass, especially in the convex Earth heliocentric model with spinning globes whizzing around each other exuding their various pressures? With great difficulty, if at all. Newton agrees in a letter to Bentley.
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
NASA, did you read this? Your god Newton does not think you have a competent thinking faculty.
Hilarious, that.
Have a great day
Yes. It is really quite magic, this gravity thing… But something is making these objects stay up there and not fall to the ground and I think this story is more believable than the ‘weightless’ story. So it is not that gravity stops but they are just magically falling around the globe, hence producing the weightless feeling. I do agree On The Level that the story is fabulous and maybe not true. But in any case there IS something that causes the satellites to stay up there, but only if they are moving fast. Exactly what that something is, who knows, but we know there are satellites up there, floating, and moving fast on regular predictable orbits. So it is a thing, a real thing, you and I may not understand how it works, but it is a thing and somehow or other satellites are up there and they do work.
ECHO’S FROM THE PAST
SATELLITES = BALLOONS
Flat Earth Facts,
You claim satellites are not balloons, but don’t know what’s up there. NASA begs to disagree. They claim one of their first satellite Echo 1 ( 1960 ) was not only a balloon but if you research will find they claimed to launch it by rocket, expand it from a pod at high altitude and place into orbit ~1000 miles overhead! That’s about four times farther than the supposed ISS!!! Why?
1. Rocket launch protects the balloons journey to high altitude. Tropospheric weather events ( rain, hail, lightning, etc. ) no longer plague the mission so much.
2. At such high altitude and thin atmosphere balloons can travel at high velocities relative to Earth as determined by said rocket, with significantly less atmospheric drag. Moreover, aside from NASA claims what do we know about that region of the atmosphere? The gasses supposedly comprise oxygen, nitrogen, and the normal trace gasses at far reduced density. Well, a balloon filled with hygrogen/helium with a gas release control valve would allow the balloon to expand to required size and eject excess gas that threatens the balloons capacity when said gasses expand at reduced atmospheric pressure and still be buoyant. Correct mix of H & He reduces risk of combustion.
3. Such distances prove stealthy balloon satellites can surveil the earth without being directly observed by most countries.
4. Echo 1 as the name suggests bounced radio signals back to Earth, which proved useful for communications and knowing where the heck it is.
5. If made from resilient material it can survive the Thermosphere temperatures. Which explains why they used a highly reflective metal coating to reflect not just radio waves but visible spectrum radiation that might super heat it. In fact, modern translucent/transparent materials can prove tougher and allow more visible spectrum and near infrared “thermal” radiation to pass through with significant possibilities in heat reduction.
› The Odyssey of Project Echo
Chapter Six, SP-4308, “Spaceflight Revolution”
NASA History Office
The ‘Satelloon’ Takes to the Sky
ASK the Academy
July 30, 2010 – Vol. 3, Issue 7
Academy of Program/Project and Engineering Leadership (APPEL)
NASA launched the Echo I communications balloon satellite on Aug. 12, 1960.
The 100-foot-diameter (30.5 meter) satellite, designed by the Space Vehicle Group of the NASA Langley Research Center and constructed by General Mills of Minneapolis, Minnesota, was shown during ground inflation tests in 1959.
Suspended from the ceiling of a hangar the sphere, named “Echo,” was inflated by use of a blower connected to the satellite by a hose. Forty thousand pounds (18,144 kg) of air was required to inflate the sphere on the ground, while in orbit it only required several pounds of gas to keep it inflated.
Echo was a passive communications satellite which reflected radio and radar signals as a limited communications relay. It was also used, over a period of time and with accurate tracking, to plot the variations in air density at the top of the atmosphere by following the vagaries of its orbit.
Weighing 150 pounds (68 kg), the satellite was inflated in space. It did not have a rigid skin and accordingly was used at high altitudes where it would be subjected to negligible aerodynamic drag force.
To keep the sphere inflated in spite of meteorite punctures and skin permeability, a make-up gas system using evaporating liquid or crystals of a subliming solid were incorporated inside the satellite.”
NASA has been doing this since 1959 and as you say technology always improves with time. Unlike, orbiting slabs of space junk and moon missions, both flat earthers and NASA bots have never rejected balloon satellites existence except for one guy who posted such on another thread or perhaps yourself. No, it’s not “puffs of air” or attitude jets/retro’s that keep these things up despite some bizarre claims balloon physics proves more than adequate. Just ask NASA or don’t.
Have a great day!
I did not claim satellites were not balloons?
Some satellites are obviously balloons.
But they are satellites. And they exist. So your claim “satellites don’t exist” is false.
However all satellites are not balloons. That is your problem. Because something exists that does not prove other things don’t exist…
Just a little blog on transparent high altitude ballooning:
https://tt7hab.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-superpressure-balloons.html
Oh! There’s this tiny article about the army floating idea of high altitude, apparently transparent balloon satellites complete with solar panels and such. Which only means the military has been doing this for years, probably.
https://news.yahoo.com/us-army-floats-option-fielding-150000673.html
Have a great day
The U.S. Military is probably doing a lot of things that they don’t come out and tell ordinary citizens. Frankly, that’s the way it should be in today’s world. They do have military secrets and would like to keep them, so they generally don’t advertise the full capability of our technology to our foreign (and domestic) rivals. If the world was a utopian paradise where everyone lived in peace and harmony, there’d be no need for a military, let alone military secrets. But, in case it has escaped your notice, humanity is still rather divided against itself.
Geostationary satellites? DARPA knows.
https://newatlas.com/lockheed-martin-geostationary-solar-powered-airship/11582/
Have a Great day!
A blimp flying at 65,000 is NOT a satellite. Anyway the project (ISIS) never got off the ground and was cancelled in 2015. Sorry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Sensor_is_Structure
Question: Why does atmospheric temperature rise rapidly above the 100km over sea level Karman line?
The infinitesimal difference in the supposedly extremely low air density between the Mesosphere and the Thermosphere seems an absurd answer considering that solar radiation make this region warm. Does solar radiation stop functioning fully within a few kilometers of the Karman line? If so, why?
One answer that’s been proposed is a solid barrier in the vicinity such as glass. Glass would block a significant amount of infra-red radiation, with the exception of near infrared ( close to visible spectrum ). Any evidence of such? Well some have sited Libyan glass strewn throughout the Libyan deserts that is of extreme high purity and not Made from lokal sand. Then of course there’s the 2014 Go Fast Rocket video apparently showing a home made rocket ascending to 117km or ~72 miles. This is higher than either the X15’s 106km or Spaceship One’s 112km. The rocket appears to stop suddenly when what some say is an impact with something, where upon the rocket remains suspended in the air. Then the bottom of rocket falls while the top remains in place. It falls later.
Have a Great day!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAuu-Zg9ejw
How does NASA explain the ability of humans to survive in the Thermosphere’s heat? Not very well it turns out.
A Plane Truth
“#30 How Do Satellites Survive 4,000F + Degree Heat in Space?
gravity, NASA, Photos April 15, 2015 Comments: 41
Since the launch of Sputnik in the 1950s, thousands of satellites have been put into orbit around the Earth and even other planets. Each has served a different purpose, from complex space stations like the International Space Station to the Global Positioning System. Most satellites can be considered to be “in space”, but in terms of the Earth’s atmosphere, they reside in either the thermosphere or the exosphere. The layer through which a satellite orbits depends on what the satellite is used for and what kind of orbit it has.
https://i2.wp.com/www.wildheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/thermosphere1.jpg
The thermosphere is a region of very high temperature that extends from the top of the mesosphere at around 85 kilometers up to 640 kilometers above the Earth’s surface. It is called the thermosphere because temperatures spike to thermal levels
Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 2,000 °C (3,630 °F). Radiation causes the atmosphere particles in this layer to become electrically charged (see ionosphere), enabling radio waves to bounce off and be received beyond the horizon. In the exosphere, beginning at 500 to 1,000 kilometres (310 to 620 mi) above the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere turns into space.
The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day.. (Source)
The only elements in the periodic table that can withstand 2500°C are carbon, niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, and osmium. Except for carbon, these metals are very, very heavy and are of course extremely conductive to heat and most are very ductile when heat treated meaning they bend and coil. Carbon even has the highest thermal conductivities of all known materials! So, if you want to cook someone very efficiently and quickly, there is nothing better than a space capsule made out of graphite.
The solar panels which adjorn these machines would barely function even if they could keep it together long enough. A British company found a drop of 1.1% of peak output for every increase in degrees Celsius of photovoltaic solar panels once the panels reached 42°C, and of course at 1414°C silicon actually melts. But wait… the Hubble Telescope and satellites uses gallium arsenide instead of silicon which melts at an even lower temperature of 1238°C.
Excuse number one comes from a few websites such as Wikipedia who wish to insult our intelligence to the max. Here is the main explanation for why satellites aren’t converted into man-made meteorites:
“The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2500°C (4530°F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.”
Errr… wait a minute. I thought it is the sun that causes those few atoms of gas to heat up to 2500°C? Oh, it is.
“Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation.”
The source of the heat of the thermosphere is not a few atoms of gas. It is the sun!
Here is Wiki’s explanation of heat, that is not really heat when in space due to the all correcting and pacifying “vacuum” of space…which really isn’t a vacuum at all:
The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer would be significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact.
Even NASA themselves admit this in their question and answer session at question 3:
Heat travels through a vacuum by infrared radiation. The Sun (and anything warm) is constantly emitting infrared, and the Earth absorbs it and turns the energy into atomic and molecular motion, or heat.
So much for that excuse. They realize that there will be a few multi-cellular brained human beings out there that will see straight through this, so they’ll need reserve explanations. Enter Dr. Eberhard Moebius at question 5. who says,
…this is the second secret of the vacuum bottle (or thermos): while the vacuum suppresses heat exchanges by conduction and air convection, exchange by radiation is suppressed by the shiny metallic coating of the bottle. This shiny coating reflects the heat radiation like a mirror and keeps it either inside the bottle (if the content is hot) or outside (if the content is cold).
But none of NASA’s orbiting machines are completely covered in a layer of IR reflecting materials, only a bit of aluminum foil for the Hubble Telescope. Even if the foil could withstand 1500°C radiating heat, it certainly wouldn’t be able to stop conducting the heat from the the other materials of the telescope, especially those lovely infra-red absorbing dark areas, copper foil, plastic coated wires, and tarnished metal; and how about that same aluminum foil reflecting light back onto the telescope itself! Solar cooker anyone?”
NASA magic has tough time with the facts.
Have a great day!
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
“The highly attenuated gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Despite the high temperature, an observer or object will experience cold temperatures in the thermosphere, because the extremely low density of the gas (practically a hard vacuum) is insufficient for the molecules to conduct heat. A normal thermometer will read significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), at least at night, because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. In the anacoustic zone above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the density is so low that molecular interactions are too infrequent to permit the transmission of sound.”
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature
“In an ideal gas, and in other theoretically understood bodies, the Kelvin temperature is defined to be proportional to the average kinetic energy of non-interactively moving microscopic particles, which can be measured by suitable techniques. The proportionality constant is a simple multiple of the Boltzmann constant. If molecules, atoms, or electrons,[9][10] is emitted from material and their velocities are measured, the spectrum of their velocities often nearly obeys a theoretical law called the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution, which gives a well-founded measurement of temperatures for which the law holds.”
Translation:
Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules in a material. The average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules in the thermosphere may be high, but one molecule hitting your body at 2500 degrees C will not transfer nearly as much energy as a billion molecules at 20 degrees C, so you aren’t going to roast in the thermosphere.
On the surface of the Earth, we measure temperature as heat transfer with a thermometer. In the mountains, the air is less dense than the air at sea level, thus the lower measured temperature in the mountains. Fewer molecules, less heat transfer.
Your claim is that if the Sun’s radiation heats the thermosphere to 2500 degrees C, then it should heat a satellite to the same temperature. There are multiple mechanisms heating the thermosphere that would not affect a satellite, however, we can easily test your claim.
Measuring the temperature of the Moon should give us a good indication of what a satellite should experience. (The Moon itself being a satellite.) The maximum temperature of the Moon at the equator is about 117 degrees C. The minimum temperature is about -173 degrees C. This range occurs because the surface of the Moon experiences two terrestrial weeks of sunlight and then two terrestrial weeks of darkness. The average temperature of the Moon is about -23 degrees C.
A satellite in a low Earth orbit orbits the Earth several times per day. Without the extremes of heating and cooling, we would expect a satellite to remain close to the average temperature of the Moon at about -23 degrees C. If anything, the cold temperature would be a problem. Collect some energy from solar panels and add some insulation, and you can easily keep the interior of a satellite at a comfortable temperature.
I don’t understand why you would be concerned about temperatures in the thermosphere when you can easily see that the Earth is a sphere. The disappearance of ships over the horizon; the disappearance of mountains over the horizon; time zones; shorter summer days and longer winter days as you move toward the equator; seasons. All of these are easily experienced and easily explained if the Earth is a sphere. Why won’t you just believe your eyes?
Have you ever heard of radiation? Look it up.
NASA doesn’t know the lunar supposed far-side temperature. They’ve never been there. Why do you take their word for anything? Go to the Thermosphere and measure it yourself.
Oh! Did I hear you say you can’t go there? Such a pity. Guess you’ll never really know.
We don’t have to go there. From the Earth, we can determine the temperature by measuring the thermal radiation from the Moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
We don’t have to go to the far side, because about every four weeks, we are looking at the dark side. We measure the hot side when the Moon is full, and the cold side when the Moon is new.
These are rubbish ideas. Measuring the temperature of the moon. It is all based on so many assumptions, and every one of those assumptions may or may not be correct. So yes, of course scientists can propose all these wonderful things like counting the planets orbiting distant stars, measuring the distance to the stars, etc, etc. But actually we can not do these things. We can construct some theory based on heaps of assumptions, but we can’t measure the temperature on the moon without actually going to the moon.
The moon presented by NASA proves to be fiction. If you don’t believe us consider NASA and the media’s contrivance to delude the public. Recently on the Bing search engine I found the nutty “Earth Rise” cartoons ( I.e., supposed photographs from the lunar surface ) that purport to depict the Earth rising above a lunar landscape horizon. They make this absurd claim despite the fact that the same moon surface always faces toward Earth making such a proposition impossible! NASA calls this an orbital lock, when the same lunar face always points to Earth.
The credulity of NASA fans proves as immense as they believe outer space to be.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=earthrise+photograph&qs=SC&pq=earth+rise+photo&sk=SC1&sc=8-16&cvid=39FE5084481F41949966ABDABCAC221A&FORM=QBRE&sp=2
Very good point On the Level!!!
Never thought of that one. Earth never rises on the moon. From a given spot on the moon the earth has to be always stationary in the sky. But they will see the earth rotating… As the moon orbits the earth it will appear to to the moolings that the earth is fixed in the sky and rotating.
Very strange indeed that NASA did not think of this before faking their impossible ‘earth rising’ photos…
Pentagon wants to replace GPS satellites with LORAN ( Long Range Navigation ) system they’ve had since World War II!
Funny they didn’t think of it til now.
https://www.microcontrollertips.com/eloran-a-terrestrial-alternative-to-gps/
Cheers!
Did you read the article? I did.
The Pentagon is considering eLORAN, along with other alternatives, as a backup for GPS, NOT a replacement.
eLORAN was developed AFTER the deployment of the satellite GPS system.
GPS covers the entire planet. eLORAN has a limited range of about 1200 miles. To function, the receiver must be within 1200 miles of 3 transmitters. That could be a problem in the Pacific.
In the event of a war, naval operations could be hindered if the opposition disables their transmitters or alters the code.
Nothing in this article disputes the existence of the satellite GPS. In fact, it acknowledges the existence of GPS and explains why it was preferred over LORAN.
Wrong. Article status:
“ Pentagon ordered to find GPS replacement
eLORAN is expected soon to have competition as a possible replacement for GPS. There are numerous efforts to develop the so-called “assured position, navigation, and timing” (APNT) systems. APNT systems are designed to compensate for any loss of GPS signals and provide multiple alternative sources of data that can validate existing GPS data’s trustworthiness.
As a result of the growing vulnerability of GPS to jamming and spoofing (for a discussion of GPS vulnerabilities, you can read part one of this FAQ series, “GPS is a ubiquitous and problematic technology”), the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has ordered the Pentagon to provide an alternative to GPS within two years. In Section 1601 of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), SASC states that the two-year deadline is “consistent with” urgent needs, and the Pentagon must:
Prioritize and rank order the mission elements, platforms, and weapons systems most critical for the operational plans of the combatant commands;
Mature, test, and produce for such prioritized mission elements sufficient equipment —
to generate resilient and survivable alternative positioning, navigation, and timing signals; and
to process resilient, survivable data provided by signals of opportunity and on-board sensor systems; and
Integrate and deploy such equipment into the prioritized operational systems, platforms, and weapons systems.
The third and final FAQ in this series, “Quantum compasses and optical imaging for global positioning and navigation,” will present several advanced technologies proposed as unhackable and unjammable GPS replacements for providing PNT.”
Apparently, you either didn’t read it, understand it or don’t care. In any case, it’s all propaganda.
From your quote, “eLORAN is expected soon to have competition as a possible replacement for GPS. There are numerous efforts to develop the so-called “assured position, navigation, and timing” (APNT) systems.”
eLORAN is one of numerous other systems being considered.
From your quote, “APNT systems are designed to compensate for any loss of GPS signals and provide multiple alternative sources of data that can validate existing GPS data’s trustworthiness.”
It’s a backup for GPS.
Other objections remain.
eLORAN was developed AFTER the deployment of the satellite GPS. Nothing in this article disputes the existence of the GPS.
Wrong, again. Never claimed other navigation systems aren’t being considered. Never claimed the article disputes existence of GPS ( although it should clearly be in doubt there was ever a need for it ). You referenced the following passage:
“From your quote, “APNT systems are designed to compensate for any loss of GPS signals and provide multiple alternative sources of data that can validate existing GPS data’s trustworthiness.””
So! It never claims APNT systems are a back-up for GPS. On the contrary, eLoran, APNT or whatever are all supposedly designed to REPLACE GPS! The article itself states:
“eLORAN is expected soon to have competition as a possible replacement for GPS.”
“The greatest disorder of the intellect is to believe things because one wishes that they were so.”
L Pasteur
Still wishing upon GPS satellites?
( Correction )
With all due respects On the Level your nice quote is equally applicable to your good self:
“The greatest disorder of the intellect is to believe things because one wishes that they were so.”
You wish to believe the earth is flat and you wish to believe satellites do not exist. So you accept and twist everything you can to try to prove this, on the other hand Langerak, wishes to believe in science and NASA and a rotating globe earth, and he accepts and twists everything he can to prove this.
So that is the problem. Everyone has already got a preconceived idea, including the scientists, including NASA, and they go about trying to reinforce and confirm their beliefs, simply disregarding any evidence that may contradict or question their beliefs.
This is from HR 6395:
“SEC. 1611. RESILIENT AND SURVIVABLE POSITIONING, NAVIGATION, AND TIMING
CAPABILITIES.
(a) In General.–Not later than two years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, consistent with the timescale applicable to
joint urgent operational needs statements, the Secretary of Defense
shall–
(1) prioritize and rank order the mission elements, platforms,
and weapons systems most critical for the operational plans of the
combatant commands;
(2) mature, test, and produce for such prioritized mission
elements sufficient equipment–
(A) to generate resilient and survivable alternative
positioning, navigation, and timing signals; and
(B) to process resilient survivable data provided by
signals of opportunity and on-board sensor systems; and
(3) integrate and deploy such equipment into the prioritized
operational systems, platforms, and weapons systems.
(b) Plan.–
(1) In general.–Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a plan to commence carrying out
subsection (a) in fiscal year 2021.
(2) Reprogramming and budget proposals.–The plan submitted
under paragraph (1) may include any reprogramming or supplemental
budget request the Secretary considers necessary to carry out
subsection (a).
(c) Coordination.–In carrying out this section, the Secretary
shall consult with the National Security Council, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, the Secretary of Transportation, and the head of any
other relevant Federal department or agency to enable civilian and
commercial adoption of technologies and capabilities for resilient and
survivable alternative positioning, navigation, and timing capabilities
to complement the global positioning system.”
The relative subsections are SEC. 1611 (a) (2) (A) where it says “alternative” positioning, navigation, and timing signals, and SEC. 1611 (c) where it says “alternative” positioning, navigation, and timing capabilities
to “complement” the global positioning system. Nowhere does it say anything about replacing the current satellite GPS.
Of course, if the government were to replace the existing satellite GPS system, that would not support your claim that the satellite GPS system doesn’t exist. eLORAN was developed after the satellite GPS system was already in place. Technology gets replaced when it becomes obsolete, not before it becomes obsolete.
Flat Earthers say we should trust our eyes. I have seen the Sun rise in the east and set in the west. I have roamed the Western US. Seen firsthand the reason for time zones. Seen the days shorten as I moved south. Watched the Rockies disappear over the horizon, then rise again as I returned. A spherical Earth fits the evidence. A flat Earth does not.
Think about what you just wrote. Why spend all that time and money just to complement satellites? Either because as the military constantly asserts satellites eventually die and the expense to replace them is too great & because as pointed out previously their weak signals easily jammed or corrupted or because as I assert they never existed in the first place and their posing some plausible explanation why they must go.
You go on:
“Of course, if the government were to replace the existing satellite GPS system, that would not support your claim that the satellite GPS system doesn’t exist. eLORAN was developed after the satellite GPS system was already in place. Technology gets replaced when it becomes obsolete, not before it becomes obsolete.”
LORAN and hyperbolic navigation predates the end of WWII. LORAN C,D & F, Decca, Gee and other hyperbolic navigation systems go back decades yes some even before the 1974 fictional GPS birthday!
“I have roamed the Western US. Seen firsthand the reason for time zones. Seen the days shorten as I moved south. Watched the Rockies disappear over the horizon, then rise again as I returned.”
Time zones exist just as well on Flat Earth despite any pre-conceptions you may have. Days do appear to move faster south of equator as sun circles over the plane faster in the region. Perfectly explained in Flat Earth model, makes no sense on a globe. Likewise, southern extremities much colder than Northern polar/center region, inconsistent with globe model but makes perfect sense on FE. Parallax explains your experience with the Rockies, which I also have witnessed. Yet I have never seen the Rocky Mountains tilt away from me due to imagined curvature, merely reduce size along lines of perspective and parallax.
Have a great day!
Satellites exist On the Level, you have to stop this otherwise I will consider it spam. Even you admit they exist and try to explain they are balloons, etc. Even if they are balloons, they are satellites. There is absolutely no question whatsoever that low earth satellites, like the GPS satellites, do exist. You can see them passing over at night, the paths are all there on the internet and you can track them as they pass over your head and many are transmitting radio signals and you can point at them with a parabolic reflector and pick up the radio signals they are transmitting.
And we use them for GPS and we have the images from them. Almost real-time photos of the earth streaming down from the low-earth orbiting satellites. And all the weather information, so where do you think this is all coming from if there are no satellites.
So it is simply insane to argue that satellites do not exist and there is no point in having you here going on and on and on with this insanity.
Dam dude, you need to go look up tonight, track the beautiful satellites floating across the great expanse of the heavens.
Listen, you can see a mountain or crater rim on the moon. That is some 235,000 or so miles away. I think the Rocky Mountains are going to be able to be seen from less that 1000 miles away, and I know cause I live right smack in the dam middle of the Rockies.
That statement was severely mistaken but I think you already know that. I’m not sure your telling us what you actually believe cause theres no getting to that kind of conclusion unless your are severely mentally challanged, or are actually perpetrating a hoax.
I’m not sure which yet.
This sort of thing is quite interesting Jerry if you think about it. If the earth were a globe then things are supposed to drop below the horizon, according to the geometry of a globe, quite quickly. So this is one interesting point put forward by the flat earthers. They have quite convincingly proven that in many cases this does not happen and we can still see things which, should have, if we were on a globe of the said dimensions, slipped below the horizon.
So this is another mystery that seems to contradict the spinning ball model. We do appear to be able to see things, at least in some situations, that on a ball should be hidden behind the ball…
So there is some real factual evidence behind this claim and it is a mystery. Globe earthers try to explain it as some optical illusion. Maybe it is. But certainly it is interesting to investigate how far you should be able to see on the ball of said dimensions and compare it with how far you can actually see. Of course you can see 1000 miles in the sky but you should not be able to see 1000 miles away on an earth-sized globe because that would be hidden by the globe…
One of the great things about online maps, is that you can get 360 degree views from many roads. From the town of Shelby, MT, Mount Stimson in the Rocky Mountains is 75 miles east. Assuming a flat Earth, doing some simple trig, and taking into account the altitude of Shelby, at over 10,000 feet the top of Mount Stimson should be about 1 degree above a level horizon. Looking east from Shelby, we don’t see Mount Stimson.
Looking NNE from Shelby we can see West Butte 30 miles away to the NNE. At about 7000 feet, and again assuming a flat Earth, the top of West Butte should be about 1.3 degrees above the level horizon. Travelling 10 miles south of Shelby on I-15, there is an overpass. From that overpass, West Butte should be about 1 degree above a level horizon. We can still see West Butte 40 miles away. That is what Mount Stimson should look like, but Mount Stimson is nowhere to be seen. Mount Stimson has disappeared over the horizon.
We see the Sun rise and the Sun set. If the Earth were a flat disk, the Sun would rise on the entire Earth at the same time. There would be no time zones.
I assume you think the Earth looks something like this.
http://www.flat-earther.co.uk/flat-earth-maps/sunanimation/
That doesn’t work. Being farther away would make the Sun deliver less light, not no light. On a flat Earth, even when the Sun was far away, it would still be above the horizon. We would be able to see the Sun all the time. You also have the problem with apparent size. As the Sun moved away, it would appear to get smaller. Instead, from sunrise to sunset, the angular size of the Sun is about 0.5 degrees. That is easy enough to measure with a cardboard box and a sheet of paper.
None of this makes sense if the Earth is flat, but it all makes sense if the Earth is a globe. We have time zones because local noon occurs at different times depending upon longitude. Days get longer or shorter if you move north or south because the angle changes depending upon latitude. We have seasons because of the angle of the Earth’s axis. The Sun rises, the Sun sets, and its apparent size doesn’t change. And no, the days do not move faster south of the equator. Get on a plane and visit Australia. While you’re there, take that flight from Auckland to Santiago that flat Earther’s don’t think is possible.
Yes. You are correct. Flat earth map, flat earth model, it does not work. The flat earth people, with their map and model, can not even accurately predict, can’t predict at all, the accurate sun rise and sun set times using their map and a sun circling around the top. There is no way to actually demonstrate with this model the actual sun rise / sun set times we experience in reality. In a similar way you can try and explain practically any actual observation we make with the flat earth and it does not work. Does not predict what we actually observe.
Anyhow Flat earth people they do not have any agreed model. They have so many different ideas, none of them actually work in the way that the globe earth model works, predicting our actual observations like the sun rise and set times, what we see happening in the sky with the sun, moon, stars, etc…
Actually the earthrise photo does not show it rise. It is stationary in the sky. The one true earthrise photos, where earth does rise, were taken from an orbiting capsule in which the earth would rise. As a matter of fact the moon does not always face the same exact direction in relation to earth. There is about a 20% deviation that takes most of 48 hours and on a certain spot on the moon you would see earth rise, only it would take 48 hours. Why you have not researched this particular aspect about moonrise completely I will never understand. You make a statement that only represents a portion of the facts to make your views sound more credible. Shame.
Hi Jerry
Yes. Earthrise taken from moon orbit, not moon.
I think NASA have realized their mistake. Try searching on Google for photos of earth from the moon. Nothing comes up. But the Apollo astronauts did take some photos of earth from the moon? Surely?
Can you imagine how stunning the earth would look from the moon? And NASA has no photos?
I remember the photos? NASA used to have them, earth from the moon. I guess they’ve realized they were wrong now…
You really think they went to the moon but took no photos of the earth from the moon????
Here’s a grainy photo claimed to be of from lunar surface.
https://www.planetary.org/space-images/first-image-of-earth-from-surveyor-3
Hi On the Level,
Yes. This could be correct. We would expect earth from the moon to look something like that. Earth would be up near the center of the sky on the moon most of the time. So the impossible photos of earth from the moon would be if the earth was shown like rising or setting, that is impossible from the moon, but possible from something orbiting the moon.
So if you can find photos taken on the moon with the surface of the moon and the earth low down in the moon’s sky, that sort of photo would be impossible. Because earth never comes down low in the sky on the moon.
But this picture, it is OK, could be real.
You state:
“The one true earthrise photos, where earth does rise, were taken from an orbiting capsule in which the earth would rise.”
To be accurate the Earth then does not rise over the lunar surface. The statement is false. The Earth does not move, and no proof has been offered. The lunar orbiter supposedly moves or rises over the lunar surface which falls away revealing the Earth. The “Earth Rise” name is marketing.
Of course, it is an illusion. The illusion is created because the photo is taken from something orbiting the moon, so from that perspective you can see the earth rising over the moon, but yes, of course, you are correct, from the moon viewing the earth, earth should not move much. It might move a bit, because as someone has pointed out there is a 20% or so up and down on the orbit of the moon around earth and also it is supposed to be an elliptical orbit, so the distance between the earth and moon changes over time.
So earth is probably not absolutely stationary in the moon sky, but probably remaining in about the same position moving around a bit, getting slightly smaller and slightly bigger at times.
Flat earth facts,
You are correct, I think most people twist the truth to make their own beliefs sound more credible. We are all guilty of this although some do it purposely and some are sincerely mistaken.
Flat Earth Facts,
I see many, many pictures of earth from the moon on Google. Not sure what you mean when you say they don’t exist.
There are many photos of course. Many fakes of course, but the “official” NASA ones are all, as far as I can see, from orbiting the moon, not from the surface of the moon. If you can find any official NASA photo where the astronauts took photos of the earth from the moon, please send the links. Otherwise if the astronauts did not take any photos of the earth from the moon, we have to question why not?
We didn’t go to the moon to prove the earth was round.
That was just common knowledge at the time.
For some reason a small subset of humanity is now believing in theories so absurd that people 50 years ago would question their stupidity.
Once again note Langerak states:
“ GPS covers the entire planet. eLORAN has a limited range of about 1200 miles. To function, the receiver must be within 1200 miles of 3 transmitters. That could be a problem in the Pacific.”
Please note further from the article:
“ eLORAN capabilities include:
The signal is 3-5 million times stronger than GPS/GNSS
999% reliability & availability
1,200-mile signal range
Transmitted at up to 1 MW of power and nearly impossible to disrupt, jam, or spoof
Spectrum: 90 kHz to 110 kHz internationally protected
Usable anywhere, penetrates all buildings, structures, tunnels, underground, underwater w/without amplification
Added encryption and authentication make eLORAN spoof-proof
Synchronized to Universal Coordinated Time (UTC)
Supports unmanned/autonomous operations (low cost)
Terrestrial, independent but interoperable with GPS/GNSS
Required infrastructure for US national coverage: 6 towers for timing, 19 for position & navigation
User antenna integrated with a receiver, no need for roof or external installations.”
This is an enormous problem for GPS! Por Quah! Well BASIC physics for one thing. Radiation energy is directly proportional to frequency (oops!). Just ask Max Planck. GPS satelites according to Wikipedia operate at a height of 20,180 km or 12,540 miles above Earth’s surface. Well that’s awkward, that’s in the outer Van Allen Radiation Belt where NASA scientists mentioned earlier claimed they’re still trying to develop proper shielding and technology to operate in ( hope they have lead shielding a foot thick ). Worse eLoran and other terrestrial, hyperbolic navigation systems can bounce their signal off the ionosphere 48km-965km above Earth’s surface, and operate at low frequency 90-110 kHz, range ( very low energy required ) 1200 miles. Note Terrestrial systems like Loran have all the power needed at their disposable from all the plentiful Terrestrial sources and can be updated with better more powerful systems and repaired quickly and easily. Not so GPS satellites. Their signals must travel over 12000 miles ( 10 times farther ) through the ionosphere, not just bounce off it. This requires much higher frequency and energy all of which must come from it’s battery, solar panel ( dubious ). How much more energy? Well GPS satelites operate between 1228-1575 MHz! That’s only about 12.28-15.75 thousand times more energy than eLoran typically, but in fact it’s worse still. Oh No! Do tell… Given the Inverse Square Law since the GPS signal must travel at least 10 times the range of eLoran it will require 100 times more energy to reach Earth’s nearest point and even more energy to travel further! Well that explains why eLoran’s signal is 3-5 million times stronger! It also explains why GPS satellites are absurd. Who really believes some light weight tin-can piece of space Junk with a solar panel able to fit on the nose of some under powered rocket, operating in one of the most dangerous radioactive regions according to NASA can out power fully functioning terrestrial power sources and beat their range by an order of magnitude? This seems to me a whole new level of absurdity.
Seriously, if one tells oneself this makes sense it won’t be long before one give’s all their money to Elon Musk, Branson or maybe El Ron Hubbard for a lunar flight to watch the Earth rise!
Have a great day!
(Correction, please use this one instead. Thanks )
Wow, your a genius who lacks the capacity to see how absurd your own mind has hijacked your capacity to properly connect the evidence. These comnections only make sense to you. Sorry for the put down but, come on.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
“The belts endanger satellites, which must have their sensitive components protected with adequate shielding if they spend significant time near that zone.”
I’m guessing the GPS satellites have been adequately shielded.
Radio waves are electromagnetic radiation. So is light. Radio waves bounce off the ionosphere, but light seems to pass through quite well. This is because the opacity of the ionosphere is dependent on wavelength.
Using your numbers, eLORAN operates at 90-110 kHz, and satellite GPS operates at 1228-1575 MHz.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere
we learn that the highest frequency that can be reflected by the ionosphere is about 450 MHz, and that only rarely from one of the layers. To state the obvious, 450 MHz is much lower than 1228-1575 MHz. This is basic physics.
I don’t have enough money for a flight into space, so I’ll just have to settle for this:
https://echomon.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Earth-From-Spaces.jpg
If ISS is real why is NASA faking 11 second communication delays with supposed ISS?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70497.0
Take care.
It is because a lot of the time NASA prefer to do their “live” broadcasts from the space station from earth. It is much safer and easier for the astronauts and they can go home to their families in the evenings and come back into the space station in the mornings. Much better arrangement for everyone.
Very funny! Well done.
So do you think that Russia , China, the US, and all the nation’s participating in the space station wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to make the other nations look like fools by exposing it as a fake, considering that most of them don’t get along all that well? If it were fake then those nations that have a beef with the US would show the world how stupid we are. Why do you think they don’t do this? It’s because it is not fake and there is nothing in the way of evidence to show that and it so happens that the US is not stupid.
I think On The Level knows exactly what is and what is not. He cannot be this dense in the head. Either that or he is writing all this from some 1950s style underground bunker and is afraid to come out to look up and prove himself wrong. I’m not sure which excuse he has to fool himself into believing these obvious lies about the non-exsistance of the international space station. He really must have some form of mental disability because that is the only way he could still make these kinds of claims. How odd.
Hi Jerry. Yes. I agree with you. International space station certainly exists, it is like the satellites, you can see it pass across the sky and take photos of it. So there is certainly something up there resembling the international space station on the orbit that NASA claim it is orbiting on.
But the problem is NASA most certainly fake a lot of the “live” broadcasts from the space station. They obviously have a green screen setup and do a lot of those transmissions from earth, not the space station. Also they obviously fake a lot of the space walks outside the space station, they fake them in a huge pool of water. And you can see the bubbles in many of the “space walks”, there is even one where you can see a scuba diver other there in space…
So yes, space station is not fake, but I suspect it is very dangerous to stay up there and dangerous to travel there and travel back so many of the “astronauts” may prefer to play their parts in front of a green screen in the safety of a NASA facility firmly fixed to the earth…
http://truthstreammedia.com/2015/01/13/cia-flashback-well-know-our-disinformation-program-is-complete-when-everything-the-american-public-believes-is-false/
Quote can be tracked from here.
Flat Earth Facts,
You state:
“So there is certainly something up there resembling the international space station on the orbit that NASA claim it is orbiting on.”
For clarity, actually, I do not and have not denied that something resembling superficially the so called ISS may operate above the Earth at some higher altitude. Simply put, I do not accept the counter factual nonsensical NASA claim as to what that is. You’re all free to believe them if you like.
In WWII the British cleverly used inflatable tanks and other war machinery to convince the Germans of war preparations they never actually made. Such practices are not unheard of among governments. WWII involved many deceptions people still believe to this day.
Have a great day!
Yes, there exists many conspiracies to delude the public on many subjects. Many other nation’s governments participate with the US in various deceptions. The space racket benefits many people throughout the world to the expense of the masses.
William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
Flat Earth Facts,
Please let On The Level read this because he needs to hear this for once. Thanks.
On The Level,
So, you have all these ideas about space exploration being a racket. Well you will never know the truth unless you get involved with the industry yourself. Go out and watch the rockets go up. Apply for an internship at NASA. Seek out people who have been in space and get to know them. Ask what its like to float in a thin tin can going 17,000 miles an hour around the round earth. Get a job programming satilites. Help design them. Come up with good ideas for more uses for them. Start a telescope club and witness the awe of space for the first time. I dare you. You seem like an intellegent enough person, I’m sure you can put all these questions you have aside about whether or not we have a space program. If you won’t then why not? Are you so stuck in this delusional identity you have lost yourself in that you are incapable of at least attempting to prove yourself wrong? Are you so sure of your mental capabilities that you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than the entire world? So sure that your mind has the ability to see what everyone else can’t? So sure that these so called hoaxes have fooled everyone but yourself? Whats more plausible, that the entire world of science is fooling everyone else but not you because you are so much smarter than them that you couldn’t possibly be fooled, or that you have gone so far down this path of mistrust with a conspiracy mentality that you can’t admit now that the only one being fooled is yourself, by your own mind? Dig deep and think, ‘am I really the smartest person alive or am I just having so much fun playing the part of the smartest person alive that if I give even one inch in the other direction my ego couldn’t take it, I would be crushed’? Look within yourself if you want to discover the true liar of this story. Because every time you tell someone to believe your the smartest person alive, you are pretty much lying to them. I’m sure you don’t want to be the biggest liar on earth so stop coming up with these silly mental mind games to make your view fit reality and get your hands dirty. Play with the people who really know about space exploration and the technology we have developed to get there. Go out and look up, only then will you see for yourself that the world of space exploration is so much more fascinating than this weird anti-science wall you have created around yourself. Or is this all just a game you play because you want to see how many people you can get to believe these crazy hypothesis you have put foward? Or maybe you just don’t have anything better to do than to fool others who are susceptible to influence no matter how absurd the story gets. Is this some kind of power trip you play or are you seriously so out of touch with the rest of the world that you actually believe this shit? I’m curious to know. Please enlighten me on why it is you somehow cannot see what everyone else sees when we look up? Because when we look up we see hundreds of satilites going around earth and we see that there is no ice wall and we see that things disappear over the horizon if you watch long enough and not base it on mathematics that are incorrect, and we see pictures from space that show the shape of earth, and we see that people can become so entrenched in their ideas that even when proof stares them in the face they refuse to acknowledge it, and we see there are no armed men keeping the public from visiting the south, and we see that there are flight times in the south that match a round earth, and we see that there are rockets that reach outside our atmosphere, and we see that people such as yourself have the burden of proof when you claim there is no ISS. We see all that you refuse to see and we see a much more wonderful and beautiful world because of it. All your connections about hoaxes and fooling the masses are simply put, bullshit. I think you know this because I’ve said it many times and you have not denied it once. I don’t think you can because there is something about the way you think that disables you from making proper connections, the way a normal individual does. Unless your going to claim you are not normal, and if so my point is made.
Yes, many good points. But NASA… They do tell a lot of lies. So it is really their fault that nowadays most people find it difficult to believe anything they say.
If you can not see the flaws in NASA you are also blind in that way.
I see all that you see. I already said I understand your views.
I wonder, if the earth were flat and there is no tilt and it does not go around the sun in an elliptical orbit, what is the cause of our changing seasons? What makes our summers hot and winters cold? If there is some kind of dome, I bet that at the top, inside, the tempature would be very hot. Because no matter what shape the earth is, heat rises and cold sinks. But when I am on top of a tall mountain, I am always colder then when I am closer to the ocean, which is the lowest I can get in relation to up and down on land masses, except when we find ourselves in places like Death Vally California or The Dead Sea near modern day Israel in the middle east. Whats up with that?
NASA’s own website defines Earth’as Flat and non-rotating for their aircraft model.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19890005752
“A linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat, nonrotating earth is derived and defined. The derivation makes no assumptions of reference trajectory or vehicle symmetry. The linear system equations are derived and evaluated along a general trajectory and include both aircraft dynamics and observation variables.”
NASA knows mathematics and physics of a sphere and plane differ. Do you?
P.s.
To Flat Earth Facts again the Facts here seem uncontestable. There seems no rational reason not to include them. Unless of course….
Do you think Jerry has had a Flat Earth break through?
On the Level. This site is not for endless and pointless debates between people who blindly believe the earth is a globe or blindly believe the earth is flat. For the record the people who believe it is a globe do have a valid scientific model to back up their belief. If you ask a globe earther how it works he can explain it very clearly and logically. Flat earthers, on the other hand, have no working model, can not explain how things could work if the earth was flat, and even among themselves flat earthers don’t agree on anything.
So there is just no point in having these discussions here. Here we are only interested in people who are seriously trying to discover the real situation. You are not one of those people, and Jerry is also not one of those people. You blindly believe the earth is flat and Jerry blindly believes the earth is a globe and you would just go on arguing with each other pointlessly until you die.
And the crazy thing is in this posting you are quoting NASA, accepting NASA as an authority, to try and disprove NASA. It’s all crazy and pointless.
So really this site is not for people like you and Jerry.
Jerry,
You claim:
“Because when we look up we see hundreds of satilites going around earth and we see that there is no ice wall and we see that things disappear over the horizon if you watch long enough and not base it on mathematics that are incorrect, and we see pictures from space that show the shape of earth, and we see that people can become so entrenched in their ideas that even when proof stares them in the face they refuse to acknowledge it, and we see there are no armed men keeping the public from visiting the south, and we see that there are flight times in the south that match a round earth, and we see that there are rockets that reach outside our atmosphere, and we see that people such as yourself have the burden of proof when you claim there is no ISS.”
There exists so much wrong with this.
When did you see hundreds of satellites overhead? When did you circle Earth’s Southern rim some call Antarctica and not see an ice wall?
Here’s a challenge if your honest (?). Go to what you call Antarctica place an electronic beacon ( similar to lighthouse ) then circle it by boat going either East or West always keeping the land mass or ice wall to your right or left respectively the entire distance. If your failed globe model proves correct it should take you less than 15-20k miles to return to said beacon, if not like Captain Cook over a century ago you’ll log over 70,000 miles and still not find your beacon. Good luck with that!
When did you see an airplane or anything go nose first over the horizon? They always remain level and even when they disappear can be often brought back by refocusing your telescope. As too incorrect mathematics, I’m sure you’re an expert. All NASA images purportedly from space are cgi fakes. NASA itself admits there mainly cgi composites. They claim a very few are real. Photographs and such images are the easiest things to fake. If you’re honest you should know this.
Never claimed armed men kept people from traveling South ( weird ). The U.S. made a 1950’s treaty supposedly limiting travel to Antarctica. Can’t imagine how they’d enforce such nonsense. It would be easier to enforce U.S. Federal marijuana laws in California or Oregon, or even anti-prostitution laws in Nevada ( assuming there’s any left.
Sub equatorial flights seem fine to me. As I’ve stated many times both Flat Earth maps ( globes reimposed on flat surfaces ) and globes are all inaccurate to degrees. Flat earth maps exaggerate sub-equatorial land mass distances to fit certain map goals and IMO do not accurately portray. Most maps and all globes since the 1540’s lack large land masses appearing on most if not all Earth maps prior to that time. The land masses never disappeared.
Never claimed rockets don’t enter space above 100km Karman line. Curiously even NASA now claims the moon falls within our atmosphere last I checked. You should scold based on your solid foundation of ignorance. What you call “outer space” is filled with gasses admittedly of extreme low density.
It’s no one but NASA’s job to prove their International Fake Station is what they claim it is.
Just a few notes on the International Fake Station.
There’s so much evidence it’s a fraud please allow me to present a little more. Mariner Anders Borkman notes regarding a supposed image of the IFS with Earth in the background:
“Fake photo of astronuts orbiting planet Earth every 90 minutes at 7.000 m/s speed building the International Fake Station – half of the time in darkness. The photo is made in a swimming pool! There are therefore no videos of any astronots doing anything extravehicular, e.g. screwing together a new IFS module or repairing an antenna, as the light and background should change all the time. It cannot be faked in a swimming pool. Only still photos are provided. The asstronut actors are just hanging on not to float up or upside down in the swimming pool. The background is pasted in.
In the swimming pool the water pressure is higher than inside the IFS. To pass from the dry, air filled IFS into the external swimming pool any astronut must pass through an air lock! If the IFS was in space, the asstronut must pass into zero pressure external vacuum, which is different from entering into a higher pressure swimming pool. There are therefore no NASA videos available how to get in and out of the IFS in a swimming pool or in vacuum space. NASA couldn’t fake it.“
Curiously Flat Earth Facts noted an air lock problem with lunar lander. It seems NASA can’t handle air-locks. How to show asstronots moving from the air filled IFS to an air-lock, then closing said air-lock only to reopen into outer space all in one video stream? IFS supposedly orbited above us for decades, shouldn’t there be at least one how-to video? They could post it on U-tube!
The intrepid Jerry Paul can fly up there in a Branson rocket without those supposedly useless Space Shuttle thermal protection tiles ( that 1500 C degree Thermosphere temperature where the IFS orbits is just a few gas molecules according to the NASA shills on this website, it doesn’t feel like anything ) filming himself the whole way with a 4K go pro camera. Jerry can even venture outside in a space suit and show us how the air-lock works. Ha,ha,ha,ha!
Question for all the curious types. Why does NASA need thermal protection shields to completely cover IFS?
Hint: It’s not re-entry. All the supposed Apollo projects, the X-15, and privately launched Space Ship 1 and 2 supposedly re-entered without it.
Give up? Because the Thermosphere is blazing hot that’s why! It’s not just a few gas molecules either, it’s the entire mass of the Earth. How’s that? The Thermosphere temperature ranges from 200C to 2000C, usually between 600C to 2000C,.
Ignore the Sun for a moment. The night time temp where the ISS resides has a low of 600 degree Celcius. By all known physics the gasses should quickly emit their energy and fall to low Kelvin temperatures if not absolute zero. Where do they get the energy to make thermometor record 600 degrees Celcius? Jerry Paul? Flat Eart Facts? Anyone?
Should read:
Question for all the curious types. Why does NASA need thermal protection shields to completely cover the Space Shuttle?
“Question for all the curious types. Why does NASA need thermal protection shields to completely cover (Space Shuttle)?
Hint: It’s not re-entry. All the supposed Apollo projects, the X-15, and privately launched Space Ship 1 and 2 supposedly re-entered without it.”
This one is easy to explain and understand. The orbital space shuttle enters at around 17000 mph (Mach 25) , whereas the suborbital SS1 and SS2 “reenter” at around 2000 mph (Mach 2.8)
Remember that aerodynamic heating increases with the CUBE of velocity. The Space Shuttle is travelling close to 10x faster than the SS1 and SS2, so a back of the envelope calculation (10×10×10) shows that The Space Shuttle has to deal with (roughly) ONE-THOUSAND times the relative thermal energy of the Rutan/Branson sub-orbital hoppers.
(The actual difference I believe is a touch smaller, due to a lot of other factors being non-equal, but this is a good ballpark figure)
So this is why the Rutan Crafts can get by without dedicated heat shielding- they experience thermal loads not far off from fighter jets, while an orbital reentry requires a thousand times (three orders of magnitude) more heat to be handled, hence the elaborate heat shields of the the shuttle and capsules.
space is a globe in your kids class room, space is on most mc donalds toys, space is in most cartoons, space is force fed in all movie fantasies, space is in all logos, space is pushed into everything, space is a fantasy to stop the rats thinking they are trapped in a closed system, space is fake! Whats way more exciting! is the possibility of more land past the south pole that we could actually explore! space we will never explore… lol
it’s visit to NASA in Houston I spoke with many NASA employees and their public relations people and none of them were firmly convinced that the Apollo moon landings were real. thank you so much for sharing great article post
Yes. I have done the same thing of course. Visited many NASA places and spoken to many NASA employees and scientists even, not a single one was sure they sent men to the moon in the 1960s and none of them were prepared to speak on video. So I don’t find any NASA people who are seriously prepared to defend the story that they sent men to the moon in the 1960s. If anyone knows of any NASA scientist or director or anyone in any position in NASA who is prepared to defend their men on the moon in the 1960s let me know. I don’t think anyone in NASA is prepared to do this. They just want us to forget about it and give them another 10 trillion dollars to produce a more believable, HD version, of their men on the moon story.
It’s been 50 years since the Moon landings. Who do you expect to find still alive, let alone still working for NASA?
There are four Apollo astronauts alive today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_astronauts
They have talked about their experiences on camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HvG6ZlpLrI
You’d better talk to them quick, because they might not be around much longer. And be careful. I understand they don’t have much tolerance for people who are only interested in calling them liars.
The people who are currently working at NASA have been involve with sending probes to the Moon and Mars and the other planets of the Solar System. They have been involved with sending satellites into orbit. They have been involved with getting images and data from weather satellites and space based telescopes. NASA has been doing much more than just sending people to the Moon.
Of course, flat-earthers will accuse NASA of faking the landings and everything else. But NASA isn’t the only game in town. Several other countries have sent satellites into orbit. Are they all lying as well?
Sending a rocket into orbit is expensive. Until recently, no individual has had the money and interest to build a system to send people and equipment into orbit. Now we have at least three. Will flat-earthers accuse them of lying?
We have all the evidence we need to demonstrate that the Earth is a sphere. Much of it is evident to us right here on Earth. But flat-earthers will accuse anyone who has personally seen any of this evidence of lying. The US government, the US military, NASA, every other government and every other military and every other space agency, GPS manufacturers, scientists, ship’s captains, airline pilots, anyone who has taken photos of ships disappearing over the horizon, and the entire population of Australia, must all be in on the conspiracy to fool the flat-earthers.
You are trying to equate putting things into orbit with putting men on the moon.
Some flat earthers will disagree of course, but if they disagree they are fools, however there is plenty of proof that NASA and others have put satellites, the space station, etc, in orbit.
Putting things in orbit, satellites, space station, that is a fact. There is plenty of proof for this. However, there is also a lot of evidence that points to NASA doing at least a lot of their live broadcasts from the space station in front of a green screen on earth.
But the space station is up there for sure. And they can send people up there, and people can stay there. However it seems some of the American astronauts may prefer to work from earth and do their live broadcasts in front of a green screen.
So yes. Certainly. NASA has done a lot of real research and real work and have really put a lot of stuff in orbit.
But they did not send men to the moon in the 1960s. Even NASA people don’t believe that story now. So if you are believing that rubbish “men on the moon” story, then you are a fool.
This has nothing to do with flat earth, and you should not mix the two things together.
NASA lied about sending men to the moon in the 1960s. That is a fact. And you won’t find anyone in NASA at all who will go on the record and dispute this fact.
On my recent visit to NASA, every one of the employees I spoke with absolutely confirmed the fact that the moon landings were real.
Show me the videos. I tried with dozens of NASA employees, none were confident that they went to the moon with 1960’s cave man technology, all knew that they can’t go to the moon now. So if any NASA employee is confident they sent men to the moon in the 1960s he is insane.
The ones I spoke to were honest, none of them were sure they went to the moon in the 1960s. Some were quite embarrassed, and many knew of course. But the point is I could not find anyone from NASA who was sure they sent men to the moon in the 1960s. And there is no recent public statements from NASA claiming they sent men to the moon in the 1960s. You can not get any official person from NASA today to state they sent men to the moon in the 1960s on video.
Get that interview, that what what I was trying for, but no one at NASA was prepared to give me that interview..
How can they confirm it? Did they go there themselves?
Of course they don’t have firsthand knowledge. The Moon landings were over 50 years ago. How many of those NASA employees were even alive when we landed on the Moon, let alone working for NASA?
We don’t currently make a Saturn V rocket. We aren’t currently sending people to the Moon, so we don’t currently have a need for one. That doesn’t mean we couldn’t design and build one, or that we couldn’t design and build one 60 years ago. 50 years ago, we were designing and building the Space Shuttle, the Voyager probes, and Skylab.
We already have video of the Moon landings and so much more. Why do you need video of someone who wasn’t there saying we did it?
You misunderstand. My point is today many of the NASA employees know they they did not send men to the moon in the 1960s and the others are not sure if they sent men to the moon or not. My point is I couldn’t find ANYONE at NASA who was sure they sent men to the moon and I couldn’t find ANYONE prepared to take part in an interview presenting todays perspective, from NASA’s point of view, of the 1960s men on the moon story.
We have got left over saturn-v rockets still. They made more, there were supposed to be more Apollo missions, but the TV ratings for the men on the moon show plummeted. People were complaining the television stations were cancelling repeats of “I Love Lucy” to show the men on the moon nonsense. So no one was interested, so they cancelled the show. But they still made the extra saturn-v rockets and have them somewhere. There is one of them you can visit and see yourself at the Houston Mission control place. It is very big…
We can not design and build anything to go to the moon today. That is NASA’s current opinion. According to NASA there are still many unresolved issues, making manned space flight, above low-earth orbit, impossible. That is NASA’s opinion.
Maybe they will solve these problems in 10 or 20 years. Maybe…
Yes. We have video of the Moon landings, and we have also go video of moon landings in 2001 a space odyssey. There is video of a mars landing in Capricorn One, there are so many videos. We have video of the USS Enterprise travelling all over the universe in Star Trek….
Rather disingenuous to leave my post waiting for moderation. As a manufacturing consultant, I’ve been to NASA Ames, Langley, Johnson, and JPL. Not one person at any of those facilities was the least bit shy about what NASA has accomplished, including open discussion of their manned Lunar landings. Apparently this is your site, so your rules, but if it is truth you want, you won’t get it by suppressing those with different opinions.
Hi Nils
When was this? And you should try it again today. I think you will find things have changed in NASA. I have done the same thing, big tour of the NASA facilities in the US, same time I did that Antarctica Sun video. 2020 I think. I went to Houston, mission control and found dozens of NASA experts there, both big scientists and ordinary staff members, and none of them were sure they sent men to the moon in the 1960s. And NOBODY was prepared to talk about it on video. I went to a number of other NASA facilities also but could not find anyone who was prepared to publicly represent the NASA position in an interview.
So please provide me with the links of all the NASA people today, in 2022, lauding their astonishing achievements of sending men to the moon with their 1960s technology. And let them explain why it was so easy to do in the 1960s, but impossible today, more than 50 years later. Today NASA says they have only ever gone up to low earth orbit and there are still many unresolved challenges including radiation shielding and so many other issues that they need to resolve before manned spaceflight will be possible.
So send me the links to the actual NASA leadership, scientists, etc who are glorifying their great achievement of sending men to the moon in the 1960s, and send their rebutals also of all the inconsistences and problems with the “evidence” they have provided. So send the links to the current NASA videos and I will check them out.
Oh didn’t you hear , They lost the technology and it is was just too expensive to build it back up again or so that’s what the NASA employee said and he seemed pretty pleased by his answer. Yeah they lost all the reels and such that have big red letters on them that say DO NOT DESTROY all over them not to mention that they were locked in a vault. I don’t know why they are still trying to make people believe that we ever landed on the moon since its clearly a lie. We were in a space race trying to prove that we were the most powerful and technologically stronger country at the time.. It seemed to work back then but I think we all know now that it just isn’t so…But still there still are a few that will never stop fighting for the astronauts story that they did, I truly feel sorry for them as it is really tough to swallow such a sad lie. All of us wanted to believe it and back then we all did, even me ….
I went to JPL twice in 2014, Langley and Ames several times in 2016 and 2017, and Johnson in 2019. There was no reason to videotape NASA employees verifying manned Lunar landings: it’s common knowledge, everyone knows that, been there, done that, have the….graphic emblazoned, short sleeved, cotton, upper body garment to prove it.
Everyone I spoke with knew their past accomplishments without a doubt, and were focused on current and future projects.
The only things preventing a return to the moon are the lack of a Saturn V-ish rocket, and a lack of need to go back there at this point. Given some money, a rocket could be built in no time. SpaceX could do the rest. So not “impossible”, but with a defined mission and some money, absolutely doable in short order. Aerojet-Rocketdyne and SpaceX would be more than happy to oblige.
You need to understand that we’ve been to the Moon, and at this point, bringing back more rocks doesn’t provide further insight into the nature of our Solar system or the Cosmos. Far cheaper unmanned probes to Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Pluto, and the sun, along with space based observatories like Hubble, COBE, Spitzer, Chandra, James Webb and many others actually provide much more bang for the buck.
NASA isn’t going to continually waste its time debunking fringe-element deniers of its proven, well-documented, unassailable claim to have landed men on the moon. In fact, being uber defensive about the subject would make it appear the they have something to hide. They do occasionally try: https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/great-moon-hoax/.
Also remember that in 1966 NASA’s budget was approximately 4.5% of US gdp, in 2021, it was less than .5%. Nearly an order of magnitude less. If NASA’s budget had kept pace it would have received ~$200b in 2021… but it was budgeted about $24b. Yup, could have bought a lot of Saturn V’s and made many trips to the Moon with that extra $175b!
I hope you digest some of this and come around to the fact that men have landed in the Moon. The facts are all there and they are indisputable. Time to embrace them.
Nills this is all rubbish and you know it.
There is no evidence we went to the moon. And how can you explain that since the Apollo days when we were easily making the half a million mile roundtrip multiple times, what to speak of the moon, NO MAN HAS EVER LEFT LOW-EARTH ORBIT. Because NASA say this is not possible yet.
So you have not provided anything except watch NASA’s moon movie.
NASA, in recent years have twice been offered unlimited funds to return to the moon, first by George Bush Jnr. NASA’s response: “Impossible, maybe in 20 years..” Then more recently Trump offered them unlimited funding to put men on the moon again, NASA’s response: “Impossible, maybe in 20 years.”
There are official NASA videos stating that it is impossible, for example to shield people from the radiation, with today’s technology.
So you have just got your head in the sand and want to believe the impossible fairy tale of men on the moon that you have believed since you were a child and are not prepared to let go of.
There is no proof NASA ever sent men to the moon and NASA can’t send men to the moon today, maybe in 20 years.
It is not a question of money. If they went to the moon in the 60’s they can just do it again. No research needed, they are already supposed to know how to do it. They even still have the old saturn 5 rockets. It’s all rubbish.
So with Stanley Kubrick gone, who’s going to film the next fake landings? (-:
Maybe that’s why they haven’t done one since?
Actually I think the reason they can’t do a new fake moon landing is because the moon is quite close [at least they think it is] and if we sent men to the moon, and if they did anything at all there, even small things would be clearly visible from the earth. The presence of humanity on the earth is quite clearly visible from the moon. So if men went to the moon and did anything there the results would be visible from earth from very inexpensive telescopes.
So today they could make a wonderful CGI fake moon mission telecast. But they are unable to actually do anything on the moon, to prove they went there… And without being able to do something on the moon to show they are there, no one is going to believe them this time…
So that is why some years ago they were saying. “Let’s skip the moon, been there, done that. Now we go to Mars…” That is because Mars is too far away, we can’t see any real details in our telescopes of Mars. So they can fake a Mars mission and not have to actually do anything on Mars.
But people did not go for it. People demanded go back to the moon first and do something there so we can see you are actually on the moon.
And that, they can not do… They are stuck. So NASA will tell you, “Yes, we’re going back to the moon, in 20 years. Maybe.”
FEF,
Wow! Faking a Mars mission would make a great movie. Just ask Elliot Gould and Hal Holbrook in Capricorn 1!
Thanks
You guys have a serious mental deficiency. To actually think that you, who have no experience in anything that has to do with science and reality, have the mental capacity to determine that all the space missions were faked, really gets to the point of the whole issue. Your brain is lying to you and you are falling for it. Really, why can you not see the astronomical error that is your position. It’s not like your group of people have the intelligence or the courage to look within to find the flaw in your thinking. “Oh no, it couldn’t be me. I couldn’t possibly be mistaken. Even though I have to throw out all of established science to adhere to my belief. I must be right, my brain says so. “
Hi Jerry. I don’t think anyone is saying all space missions were faked. We know that NASAs manned moon missions were faked. That is a fact. Even NASA accept that.
But even on the fake NASA moon missions the astronauts were up there in space. There were in low earth orbit. So in a sense it was not completely fake. They were in the rocket when it took of, they were in space orbiting the earth, but they never went to the moon and the moon photos and moon videos, they were all taken on earth.
So the maned moon landings, they were faked for sure 100% absolutely.
Not that NASA has never put anything in space. NASA is certainly able to put things in low earth orbit. But they have never sent men to the moon. That was faked. That we can say for absolute certain.
How do you know the Moon landings were faked?
Everybody knows the moon landings were faked? Why don’t you? Just study it. Then you too will know NASA’s manned Apollo moon landings were faked.
Only an ignorant fool can believe the NASA men on the moon fairytale. I bet you believe in the Easter Bunny also.
FEF, please provide proof that NASA accepts the “fact” we haven’t landed humans on the moon. And your claim that nobody at NASA would go on camera to confirm the landings is hearsay, so show us proof please.
The proof is NASA can’t land men on the moon today. If they could land men on the moon in the 1960s with cave man technology compared to what we have today, they would be able to land men on the moon today. But NASA say they can’t because they still have to solve a number of issues before manned space flight above low-earth orbit will be possible, radiation, for example. You can research these things for yourself, why ask me? Find out for yourself.
How would you propose we do it today? Get on Amazon and buy a Saturn V rocket? A command module, landing module, ascent module, and maybe a lunar rover? You think Amazon has those components sitting in a warehouse somewhere? You think NASA has those components sitting in a warehouse somewhere? You think anyone has those components sitting in a warehouse somewhere?
We have enough components sitting in museums across the country to perhaps build one Saturn V rocket with modules. That hardware is 50 years old. Most of the companies that built those components don’t exist anymore. The equipment needed to build those components doesn’t exist anymore. When people say we can’t land men on the Moon, they don’t mean we don’t have the technology, they mean we don’t have the hardware. Landing men on the Moon would require designing and building new rockets and modules. We can send men to the Moon, we just can’t do it right now. We don’t have a stock of Saturn V rockets and modules sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting to be assembled on a whim.
And why would we send people to the Moon? It’s already been done. We have orbiters and rovers that are far more efficient and can stay far longer than any human could. And those orbiters are sending back pictures of the Apollo landing sites.
You may know NASA has decided to go back to the moon again. They were going to launch a rocket on Monday. But they can’t even launch the rocket…
Had problems getting the hydrogen fuel in it.
All they have to do is get the thing to take off and disappear into the sky before it explodes and then they have got the whole pre-recorded CGI mission ready to playback…
But they can’t even get the thing off the ground…
So if they can’t get the rocket off the ground in 2022, if they can’t take people up and down from the space station even, in 2022, how are they going to go to the Moon and come back home safely???
NASA has been transporting people to and from space stations for decades now. Stuff happens and sometimes launches get delayed. Sometimes launches get delayed because we are sending people into space. Going to the Moon again is no different. That is how you bring people back home safely.
Yes. Of course. NASA are very expert at transporting people to the space station using their green screens on the ground. It is better that way, safer, and astronauts can go home to their families after work.
FEF,
It seems to me the reason people claim to believe men landed on the moon is that they’re raised in a virtual reality, media culture where their concept of the world derives from entertainment media and craft. Paid artists and renderers illustrate their concepts through the media and their supplicant audience sucks it up. They know what’s instantly placed in front of them and accept it without much thought. They have no concept of what it would take to accomplish the fetes astro-nuts and others claim to achieve.
It takes hours of supervised driving and practice simply to drive and navigate an automobile on the road properly for many people. Artists take years to perfect their crafts. Mr. Malcolm Gladwell claims it takes 10,000 hours of practice to perfect skills. Yet people swallow the idea that a few guys, at best having many hours of flight time in airplanes, will have no problem navigating a rocket half a million miles through a hot, radioactive, vacuum land a detachable craft on a supposedly orbiting globe, meander around the lunar surface some of the time in EV’s, fly back the lander to their orbiting craft, then use their remaining fuel to rocket back to Earth and splash their capsule into the ocean and all without any practice at all!!! Further they supposedly accomplished it all several times without serious mishap or lethal consequences! One might be tempted to call it a miracle, when in fact it seems to me pure fantasy.
Even more amazing is that they supposedly accomplished the whole thing in a rocket only 111 meters high that as the story is told used up 3 of their fuel pods simply lifting the bulk of it above Earth’s gas layers. The problem is it should have taken more fuel than that. Why? Well remember NASA claimed the rocket had to navigate to the North polar region just to find a supposed whole through the Van Allen radiation belts so the crew could survive, then they had to re-orient the craft in space to point toward the moon, which would have required a great deal of fuel as well. Further it’s extremely unlikely that just pointing the craft at the moon will actually get you there, fuel would have to be burned throughout the trip just to maintain proper direction. Btw, since so much effort supposedly went into avoiding the Van Allen radiation belts on the way out, why is no mention of it made regarding re-entry. His craft supposedly splashed-down in the Pacific ocean 800 or so miles southeast of Hawaii. How did they make it back ok through that same Van Allen radiation belt on their return?
Yes. The whole HASA fairytale is crazy. They can go up to low-earth orbit however, and they do have the space station up there in orbit. So NASA can do something in low-earth orbit. But US does not have any safe way to send people up and bring them back down from the space station. For that they have to rely on Russia. Russians are the only ones who have got a fairly reliable rocket system and can relatively safely launch people into low earth orbit and dock with the space station, etc.
US can not even do this. Can’t safely take people up to the space station and bring them home, yet they tell us now they will go to the moon?
There is no propulsion in space, so it is, as you say, truly a miracle if NASA can go to the moon and come home safely.
The story they told us back in the 1960s was the whole mission is powered from the initial blast of the rocket taking off from earth. They put it into earth orbit and then fire a rocket to take it out of earth orbit at the exact moment so it will be pointing to where the moon will be when it gets to the moon… They have no ability to change the course in any significant way. So if there initial aim was a bit off one way they will not get caught by the gravitational field of the moon and will just keep going out in space forever, and if they are slightly out the other way they will fabulously crash into the moon and maybe we might even be able to see the explosion from earth…
So it is such a fine razors edge thing, and it all depends on where the rocket is pointed at time they blast out of earth orbit.
So then the idea is rocket gets caught in the moon’s gravitational field and starts orbiting the moon, still conserving the same energy it got from the rocket taking off from earth. Then they pop down to the moon and play golf, etc, then pop up again and dock with their still very fast orbiting rocket… Very difficult of course because when they pop up they are not moving very fast at all, but rocket, it will still be moving very fast. But somehow they effortlessly dock with it.
Then they have to fire a rocket to get out of the moon orbit at the exact moment so they will be caught in the earth’s gravitational field and start orbiting the earth. Same danger of missing and being lost in space for ever or being to close and fabulously crashing into the earth.
And our great scientists at NASA, they can’t even get the rocket off the ground??? So certainly they can not accomplish all the miracles required to get their rocket to the moon and back home safely.
They are not even trying to go to the moon. They never tried to go to the moon. It is just a show. All they are trying to do is to get the rocket to take off and disappear in the sky so they can play their already pre-recorded CGI generated moon mission.
So very frustrating for them. They are ready to go with their fake moon mission, but they can’t get their rocket off the ground. And they can’t do that with CGI because there are people there at Florida who want to see the rocket go up and disappear in the sky…
Very difficult situation for NASA….
Artemis I will now launch on Friday, given all is deemed well by the engineers in charge of it. It did not launch on Monday because issues were detected, and when you have something worth billions of dollars, you’re going to do your best to get it right,
If they were going to CGI the mission, why not CGI the rocket and launch also? Why spend all that time and effort to build a rocket, just to have it fail, then use computer generated graphics to fake the rest of the mission?
Now set to launch Saturday.
Yes, lets see how NASA go this time.
It is crazy. They can’t even take off, can’t get it off the ground, yet they want us to believe, if they can get it to go up and disappear in the sky, it is going to the moon.
That is the mission actually, just to get the rocket to go up in the sky and disappear. Then they run their pre-prepared CGI produced footage. It will be fake of course. But the only part that is “real” is the rocket, and getting the rocket to fly up in the sky and disappear without exploding.
But NASA can’t even manage this……
Of course NASA would CGI the launch if they could… But people come to Cape Canaveral and they are expecting to see a rocket going up into the sky and disappearing. And this is really NASA’s expertise. They can do it, they should be able to do it… They should be able to launch a rocket and get it high enough so it disappears without exploding.
They did it once in 2014. So now they are trying to do it again…
But not Friday unfortunately, now they have failed to get it off the ground twice, now they are trying again on Saturday. And then maybe they will try again on Monday…
I presume they will eventually get it off the ground, after all they are supposed to be able to do that, but there is a good chance it will explode before it disappears in the sky…
Anyhow let’s see how it goes on Saturday….????…
Once they get it off the ground, and if it does not explode before it is out of sight, I am sure the fake CGI mission they’ve got ready to play will be nice…
Do you have any evidence NASA will use CGI, or are you just dismissing anything that doesn’t fit your world view?
NASA are doing some real stuff, I admit that, certainly in low-earth orbit. I admit the space station is there of course, but very dangerous to go there and come back, so it is more convenient for NASA to film the space station in front of their green screens on the ground. That is what they did in the 1960 and 70s, of course, they faked the Apollo manned landings and anyone can check that and know it to be a fact.
If you go to NASA at Houston and actually analyze what they are doing there, what they have there, you will see what is their mission actually. At Houston 100% energy is put into simulations. There NASA have a HUGE warehouse with life size models of every piece of space hardware that is in space, including all the Russian vehicles. NASA have the largest green screen sound stage in the world, big enough for them to roll in their lifesize models of the space station and Russian vehicles, for example, to film the Russian rocket docking with the spacestation. Obviously, even if they are doing it really, it is much easier and more practical for them to film their lifesize models doing it in front of their greenscreen.
NASA also has one of the biggest swimming pools in the world. Big enough for putting their life size model of the space station in it, for example, and they use it for filming the “space walks”. Obviously much more practical and easier then trying to film it in space.
Then, at Houston, they have their “Gravel Pit”, where they have simulated landscapes of the Moon and Mars. So it is much easier, if they want to film something on the surface of the Moon or Mars, to do it in their “Gravel Pit”.
So in this way everything at NASA Houston, it is all about simulating space, you can’t find anything there about actual space travel. All the money, all the facilities, all the energy, it is consumed by simulating space.
So if we see that is where NASA is spending its time and resources, simulating space, then that is obviously what they are doing, simulating space.
If they go to the moon it is very very very simple for them to prove they have gone to the moon. All they have to do is do something on the moon we can see from earth.
I have previously suggested they could take up one of Elon Musk’s power-walls and some big red, white and blue floodlights and some solar panels which could charge the powerwall during the long lunar day, and then in the Lunar night they could just floodlight one crater on the moon, have it flashing Red White and Blue. That would be proof they had been there.
There are so many other things they could do, but the point is if they go to the moon they should do something on the moon that people with a reasonable telescope can look at and see. Then people would believe they went to the moon…
But they can’t go…
So they have to fake it….
That is of course what we have to presume, they faked it in the 60s, couldn’t go then, and I am presuming they still can’t go now, so they will fake it again. It is a reasonable assumption.
The ball is in NASA’s court. They faked it once, so if they expect anyone to believe them a second time then they have to provide some actual proof.
I do not think they can. But they have to do something on the moon that we can see from the earth. That would be very very easy to do. And that would be proof they had been there…
You mention “low earth orbit” as if it exists. Please explain that to me on a flat earth. Thanks.
Of course low earth orbit exists. We have got so many satellites in low earth orbit and we are using them. We get imagery from them, we get all the weather system information from them. We can see them, we can point an antenna at them and pick up the radio transmissions they are broadcasting, they are orbiting regularly on regular predictable orbits. So yes, there is low earth orbit and there are satellites in it. This is a provable fact. So one would have to be an idiot not to accept this fact. If flat earthers do not believe in this they are obviously idiots.
NASA could just as easily claim to launch from Vandenberg, or a few other publicly prohibited locations, thereby eliminating crowds of witnesses…. save billions on hardware….
NASA have to do something, they have to give their contractors orders and get them to build something. This is a whole industry. And, at least in the past, NASA have been able to shoot rockets up into the sky and have some of them disappear without exploding. That is what they do. That is NASA. They have to show something real to the public. After all it is publicly funded…
It’s not that everyone in NASA knows. Most of them will be believers. Really believing they are going to send this rocket to the moon. So they have to make a show. And for the politicians, not all of them know NASA is faking it. But they only need the rocket to take off and fly up in the sky and disappear, without exploding. Then all they have is the feed from the instruments, cameras etc, on the rocket, and that feed is coming through one cable, a signal picked up with one antenna pointed in the general direction of the rocket…
So that feed, that can be so very easily faked. And that is what NASA do. They just fake the feed. And hardly anyone has to know. So it is not that this is an open thing, in NASA most of them are believers, at least in today’s missions, they don’t, of course, believe NASA sent men to the moon in the 1960s…. But, you know, they have to try at least and believe in todays missions…
You might be interested: “NASA uses ‘holoportation’ to transport people to the space station…”
NASA has worked with AEXA Aerospace and Microsoft to use ‘holoportation’ to teleport holograms of people onto the space station.
Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/85606/nasa-uses-holoportation-to-transport-people-the-space-station/index.html
So they don’t need to actually go to the space station or to the moon, they can use holograms… And the astronauts can appear to be in the space station or on the moon, with their holograms…
Actually, rockets do work in space because the instead of pushing off a wall in space, you’re pushing off particles.
Rubbish. Space is a vacuum, there are no particles in a vacuum.
Pushing off particles of rocket exhaust. Elementary physics.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Exhaust is accelerated out the back of a rocket and the rocket is accelerated forward. Exhaust goes one way, the rocket goes the other.
There is no propulsion in space. You can read my other comment to OTL. NASA are not claiming to have any propulsion system in space. At least the never had one for Apollo missions or for Space Shuttle [they were just gliders, no propulsion] and they are not proposing any propulsion system in space for their currently planned moon mission.
You, also, like OTL, should learn the NASA fairy tales before trying to comment on them.
What particles would that be? The heliocentric bullshit model says space is a perfect vacuum, so do enlighten us👍
While we’re on that particular area of lies and nonsense, do you agree that the sun is a ball of gas? Is it hurtling through space at over a million mph? As your model states?
If so, why doesn’t it have a tail?
So many questions, so many lies! It’s hard to accept something so fundamental is a lie, we know, we’ve all been there.
The fictional model for “outer space” insists space is a vacuum. If so, then by definition no particles exist in a vacuum. The problem remains very little evidence exists anyone has been 100km above Earth’s surface aka the Karman line or beyond it. Mainly space agency claims and bravado. NASA doesn’t claim rockets operate by pushing off the atmosphere. They claim rockets operate based on Newton’s Third Law of Motion, that for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction. The problem is their rockets lack sufficient fuel to perform their many pseudo-science missions. Good luck figuring those out. You’ll need it!
Hi OTL. You might be correct…
I don’t think NASA really claim rockets work very well in space. Although they require rockets to work in space to go to the moon and get back. The first put their rocket in orbit around the earth then they fire a rocket to get out of earth orbit and get them on the way to the moon [hopefully they don’t miss even by a few feet, otherwise they miss the moon or crash into the moon…]
Then the get into the moon orbit and have to fire a rocket to get out of the moon orbit and get back to earth.
But the actual power for the whole mission comes from the original rocket blast on earth. There is no power added by the rocket to get it out of earth orbit or the rocket to get it out of moon orbit…
The whole story is so fantastical and magical and unlikely.
And the reality is NASA can’t even get their rocket off the ground.
And that is all they have to do, get it to take off and disappear into the sky. Then they can just play their pre-recorded CGI mission. But the amazing thing is they can’t even get their rocket off the ground and they expect us to believe, if only they could get it off the ground and get it to disappear in the sky, that it will then go to the moon…..
Hi FEF,
Just another point to consider. A conjectured moon mission, based on modern day pseudo-science assumptions, would involve a continuous fuel burn to the target. Why? Well imagine you’re in some fictional space rocket pointed toward the moon. Your craft veers right of your moon target and will continue rotating to the right forever, because there’s supposedly no gas in space nor much of anything else to slow let alone reverse your motion. So what do you do? You can merely fire an attitude jet ejecting gasses in the same direction your craft turns so that the resulting oppositional force ( Newton’s Third Law ) will retard and/or counter-act the incorrect motion of the craft. This will inevitably result in some other incorrect motion that must be compensated in the same manner. The idea supposedly being that by such counter-puntal adjustments you can eventually somehow hit the moon! Yet to do this with any remote semblance of credibility you must be able to fire such attitude jets in any conceivable direction to compensate for any conceivable unaligned motion. In short, this mission would involve non-stop fuel burn of limited fuel and a craft that would invariably spin out of control.
Simply doesn’t seem remotely plausible.
Thanks.
Hi OTL
Like always you seem to have no idea whatsoever what is going on… Or what is possible. As you don’t even vaguely understand the quite reasonable globe earth model story you also have no idea of NASA’s Apollo mission “man on the moon” story.
The man on the moon story is there is not propulsion in space. One or Newton’s laws says that once something is moving it will keep moving in the same direction at the same speed unless there is something to slow it down or stop it.
So NASA says there is nothing in space, a vacuum, so what they do is they put their rocket in earth orbit with a big fire-cracker under it that puts a lot of energy in it orbiting the earth, then, at exactly the right moment, when the rocket is pointing exactly at the spot in space where the moon will be in a few days, they fire their trans-earth orbit rocket. That is not propulsion. It just breaks the rocket out of earth orbit and points it to the moon and as long as the do it at exactly the right moment, so it not exactly hits the moon, that would be a disaster, but it has to just be close enough to get caught in the gravity of the moon and start orbiting the moon. Its still moving at that same speed as when it left the earth, because there was nothing to slow it down in the vacuum of space. So the moon’s gravity has to exert a huge force on it to pull it into moon orbit…
So the point is there is no propulsion in space.
It is not that NASA says propulsion in space is impossible. But it requires a huge amount of fuel to produce a relatively small amount of propulsion. So they are pushing very hard to just carry that little capsule with 3 men in it. They can not carry fuel for propulsion.
They have a couple of rockets, one to break out of earth orbit, and one to break out of moon orbit and a few little thrusters to hopefully make very minor changes to their course.
But realistically. They have to fire that trans earth rocket at the exactly correct moment so they arrive at the moon within a tolerance of less than a mile from a quarter of a million miles away. It is impossible actually. Because they have no way of significantly adjusting the course of their rocket after trans earth rocket is fired. It is set then, either they will crash into the moon, or they will miss and not get caught in the moon orbit and go on forever, lost in space. It is very very very unlikely they will get caught in the moon orbit, with no way of aiming at it, except from a quarter of a million miles away and projecting where the moon will be in a few days…
The whole NASA “men on the moon” story is a fairytale.
But if you are going to comment on it you should learn their story. The more you learn the NASA story the more impossible you realize it is…
Hi FEF, Jerry Paul and all those that get weak knee’d around anything NASA,
The space farce continues as NASA banned photographers and photographs of it’s obviously fake lunar mission this last week!
“NASA barred the press from photographing the launch site of its Space Launch System after it boosted the agency’s Artemis I Moon mission into space earlier this week.
Multiple space reporters said on Twitter that the agency had sent them a message telling them they were prohibited from photographing the Artemis 1 launch tower after the liftoff.
“NASA did not provide a reason,” Eric Berger, Ars Technica’s senior space editor, tweeted. The reporter added that according to his sources, the ban was apparently an attempt to save face after the launch damaged the tower.
“So now sources are saying that yes, Launch Complex-39B tower was damaged during the Artemis I launch on Wednesday morning,” Berger tweeted. “Basically, there were leaks and damage where there weren’t supposed to be leaks and damage.”
Noor Al-Sibai, Futurism
There’s that working model sputtering nonsensically yet again. Seems obvious with more sophisticated photographers, technology and commercial interests today than in the past they’re scared someone will follow the trajectory of the latest roman-candle hunk of junk to take off for fake space! After all some clever lad may trace it’s parabolic flight path drop into the ocean and then post it on-line. Joe Biden may be compared to Kim Jun Ung Heaven help us!!!
They also keep tightly mumm about those supposed IFS launch locations. Launches must be tightly controlled and all public propaganda relegated to pre-approved computer generated and controlled images suitable for framing! Framing an agenda that is.
Have a great day!
Yes. OTL. I agree. NASA have so much trouble just getting a rocket to take off and disappear in the sky. They call that a successful mission as once the rocket disappears in the sky they playback their pre-recorded CGI mission. And yes, I do suspect you are correct, their rocket, assuming they can get it to take off and assuming it does not explode before it disappears from our view, just crashes into the ocean somewhere…
However, they can, obviously, launch objects, like Elon Musk’s StarLink satellite’s, for example, which I am using these days to connect to the internet, and these satellites are up there, in the sky, travelling in their predictable orbits some hundreds of miles up.
So NASA can do stuff in low-earth orbit for sure. Satellites are real for sure. At least the low-earth orbit ones. But I am quite doubtful about the higher, geosynchronous orbit communications and television satellites. My suspicion is they are not there at all but they do work for sure. And I suspect there is something naturally there in the sky that is able to reflect radio signals, and they have discovered and are using this natural radio wave reflector in the sky for their geosynchronous communications “satellites”.
Of course I do not know, that is speculation, but we do not see any proof of these satellites actually doing anything except acting as inert reflectors of radio waves. Like if they had all these distant satellites 22,000 miles above an 8,000 mile diameter ball, you can provide fabulous super high resolution live feeds of the globe from these satellites… But there are no such fabulous super-high resolution live feeds of the globe. All we have is NASA CGI, that is getting better, pasting their imagery form their low-earth satellites [WHICH THEY DO HAVE…] onto their computer generated globes.
Anyhow, who knows, maybe they put geostationary satellites up there, but I very very seriously doubt that. But no sane person can question the reality of low-earth orbit satellites.
Artemis 1 now just 88K/mi from the moon! Really happy to see that NASA has determined there are good reasons for returning there. Space travel is essential to our future as a species, and while we may never leave our solar system, we will need to explore it, and exploit the resources available in it. Better sooner than later,
Yes. Enjoy the CGI show.