Satellites : general discussion and musings

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby chuck22 on October 1st, 2011, 2:43 am

nonhocapito wrote:I think you have to explain a little better this post. You say that "satellites are a scam" but then it seems that you are just talking about satellite TV.
Also can you please elaborate on these transmitters you talk about. Do you suppose they are in fact in orbit, or are they -as it has been suggested previously on this thread- located on land and sending a signal that bounces off the stratosphere?
Also i don't follow exactly how receiving non-encoded satellite signals by accident as it happened to you (I imagine you mean TV satellites signals) makes the satellites in general a scam. I was under the assumption that the presence of a decoder of the signal is the reason why they can make you pay for it. It goes without saying that there must be ways around it. The real question we are discussing in this thread is whether it would be possible for satellites to not even be real. Which would leave us with the need to explain a number of technical solutions, from gps to weather monitoring to satellite phones and tv.


It's all proprietary algorithms utilizing radio waves. Occams Razor applies here. Ask yourself, can the operations of the above equipment (you mentioned) be accomplished with standard radio waves? Yes. Then- No satellite needed in explanation or in actual use.
GPS: Radio Waves
Weather Monitoring: (Multi)-Radar
Satellite Phones: Radio Waves
TV: Radio Waves (Please remember, houses use to have a standard antenna to receive over the air TV before transitioning over to HD which, is the same thing you receive on your decoder (called a satellite dish).

I say again: Satellites need not exist to accomplish communications for all of these mediums.
chuck22
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 10:14 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Jonathan on October 1st, 2011, 11:27 am

chuck22 wrote:I say again: Satellites need not exist to accomplish communications for all of these mediums.

So you say.
Where are your reasons?

GPS is not communication. It's just one way.
It works based on knowing exact time and position of the signal - a couple of them are used to calculate the position of the receiver - which is your GPS-device such as built into nearly every modern smartphone.

This for one cannot be explained away so simply by calling Occam' razor.

TV-Satellites: geostationary mostly - that means far away but appearing to be at a fixed location.
To receive enough of the signal you do need a highly directional antenna pointing at that fixed location - a dish the size of which varies depending on where you are trying to receive and from which source (satellite).
Their antennas have footprints, too (not everywhere the same signal strength).

Can you explain (away) the fast moving quite bright lights we can see each night? Those we are told are reflections of sunlight off of satellites?
I find that very credible for several reasons.

Just one: never before in history of astronomy where these clearly visible phenomenons described.
Of course not! - They did not exist until about 50 years ago.
But they do now.

BTW: you just mentioned random snippets of "facts" you interpreted one way.
This is a general musings thread, but it should contain some substance I suppose.
To me this makes no sense at all.
Last edited by Jonathan on October 1st, 2011, 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jonathan
Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: July 26th, 2011, 9:17 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby nonhocapito on October 1st, 2011, 11:45 am

I agree with you, Jonathan. I still have to find convincing arguments to this "satellites do not exist" bizarre idea.
It would be much more interesting to try and understand the things about satellites that are hidden from us. While on one hand big-budget productions that produce entertaining results, such as Hubble, might as well be entirely fake, on the other hand there might be satellites up there for military and surveillance purpose of which we know nothing about. They certainly are not going to tell us when those are about to fall down...
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby reel.deal on October 19th, 2011, 8:49 pm

Declassified US Spy Satellites Reveal Rare Look at Secret Cold War Space Program

Saturday's spysat unveiling was attended by a number of jubilant NRO veterans who developed and
refined the classified spacecraft and its components for decades in secret, finally able to show
their wives and families what they actually did 'at the office' for so many years.

KNOCKED 3 GARDEN SHEDS TOGETHER... ?
Image

Image
Image
:P
Both of the newly declassified satellite systems, GAMBIT and HEXAGON, followed the U.S. military's
frontrunner spy satellite system CORONA, which was declassified in 1995.

Image

Image
Image
:rolleyes:
http://www.space.com/12996-secret-spy-s ... d-nro.html
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby chuck22 on October 20th, 2011, 6:43 pm

Pull out your own telescope and you'll be able to confirm that there are no satellites. Radio waves run the show with encryption plus triangulation in conjunction for GPS. All such proprietary systems are set up for streams of income.
chuck22
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 10:14 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Terence.drew on October 21st, 2011, 1:01 am

chuck22 wrote:Pull out your own telescope and you'll be able to confirm that there are no satellites. Radio waves run the show with encryption plus triangulation in conjunction for GPS. All such proprietary systems are set up for streams of income.



You said it chuck man.

Put these words into google images. "satelitte showing up in astronomy photography".
What might you expect?
A streak, or even numerous across the sky with the stars in the background?
The first page containing over 250 results has but 3 or 4 such images. 'Show more results" and there are hardly any more images. THis is odd. Given the rich profusion of orbiting satellites numbering in the thousands, you would expect that this phenomenon of satellites literally ruining astronomical photographic plates would be a hot topic among astronomers and that they would display their seeded goods on the net just as eagerly as they are wont to display their non seeded goods.

For some fair to middling contrast put these words into google images..."plane in front of moon". Not exactly the same thing but interesting.

The first result from above search about satellites leads to this site.

http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/gsd/gsd.htm

Scroll down and you come to this piece.

"NATURAL SPACE DEBRIS AND SPACE TRAVEL

As well as artificial space debris there is also a population of natural space debris (meteoroids) that, while they don't orbit the Earth, do pass through all orbital altitudes. In fact prior to the space age, some scientists predicted that the hazard from natural debris might be so great as to make space travel very dangerous. In fact NASA spent considerable effort in trying to evaluate this hazard. Ground visual and radar observations were examined, and most of the early satellite carried meteoroid detectors.

ImageImage
The early satellite detectors were often microphones to record the sound of a meteoroid impact. A large number of impacts were recorded by these detectors and this appeared to reinforce the idea of a large natural orbiting debris cloud. This was referred to as an anomalous debris cloud because it indicated a population much larger than ground observations (mainly radar) could account for. Continued investigation found that microphone type detectors were registering impacts that were in fact expansion and contraction noises of satellite panels.

And thus it was found that the meteoroid collision hazard is usually low but not negligible.
"
Image

The early satellite detectors were often microphones to record the sound of a meteoroid impact That would be all fine and dandy if you could record sound in space. Sound needs something to carry it i.e. air.


Satellites cannot exist in 'space' and this has been known since the start of 'space' exploration. This is because 'space' is not empty. If you follow the etymology of the the word SPACE you will find that it is only in the last few decades that the idea of space as being completely empty has come into vogue. Before that space was thought to be filled with 'the ether' or 'the luminiferous aether' or other substances including material ones.
This is the reason as I have stated here before, why early satellites were round metal balls and not the French haute couture gallianoesque contraptions we sometimes see now.
All of this satellite pounding does not even take into account the ravages of a solar mass ejection. Would your garden shed survive a hurricane? Same principle.

Even at the end of the war the lads were still speculating on it all things beyond our atmosphere..
"In 1918 Einstein publicly alluded to that new definition for the first time.[A 18] Then, in the early 1920s, in a lecture which he was invited to give at Lorentz's university in Leiden, Einstein sought to reconcile the theory of relativity with his mentor's cherished concept of the aether. In this lecture Einstein stressed that special relativity took away the last mechanical property of Lorentz's aether: immobility. However, he continued that special relativity does not necessarily rule out the aether, because the latter can be used to give physical reality to acceleration and rotation. This concept was fully elaborated within general relativity, in which physical properties (which are partially determined by matter) are attributed to space, but no substance or state of motion can be attributed to that "aether" (aether = curved space-time)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

The Americans created the idea of 'space' equals 'nothingness' to avail of the mind bending possibilities that this idea opened up.

"Typographical sense is attested from 1670s (typewriter space bar is from 1888). Space age is attested from 1946; spacewalk is from 1965. Many compounds first appeared in science fiction and speculative writing, e.g. spaceship (1894, "Journey in Other Worlds"); spacesuit (1920); spacecraft (1930, "Scientific American"); space travel (1931); space station (1936, "Rockets Through Space"); spaceman (1942, "Thrilling Wonder Stories;" earlier it meant "journalist paid by the length of his copy," 1892). Space race attested from 1959. Space shuttle attested by 1970."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=space

More crap from the 'space debris' site..http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/gsd/gsd.htm

Image

"When photographing near the celestial equator the problem becomes a lot worse because of the number of large satellites and debris objects that are in or near geosynchronous orbit. The following image shows almost 20 trails from these objects over a total of one hour exposure. Imaging was interrupted every 10 seconds for 10 seconds to allow underlying fainter objects to be seen. The bright short trail in the center of the image is the asteroid Vesta."

One hour exposure . Work it out lol.

Contributors here have said on more than one occasion that they have seen Satellites in the night sky.
?
?
I have spent many months over the last couple of years in an area in Middle Europe where the skies were totally lit up with stars. Maybe one unexplained light in all that time.

I would like these contributors to photograph what they see and post it online because I cant work it out personally.
Terence.drew
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:55 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby nonhocapito on October 21st, 2011, 3:38 pm

Man, to photograph those things would require equipment and knowledge I don't have. All I know is that I have seen these lights going by (if you still haven't seen any, look more patiently because they're there. You can see at least ten of them in a hour or more) and that I assume they are satellites orbiting. Maybe it is debris orbiting the earth, debris coming from asteroids and comets, and constantly renovated from that source. Possible. But this doesn't explain, though, why these flying objects are never mentioned by astronomers of the ancient and modern times, who observed comets, meteorites, could tell planets from stars and even satellites from planets when the first early telescopes were invented: but never mentioned these non-falling lights, "moving stars" that journey the sky.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby hoi.polloi on October 21st, 2011, 10:38 pm

On a clear night I can watch half a dozen of these objects go by. I will do my best to video record them. I don't have any way of proving what they are - only that it's clear there are some things way up there that move extremely quickly and are bright enough for their dimmer-than-starlight lights to shine to where I am standing/laying.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on October 21st, 2011, 11:50 pm

hoipolloi wrote: On a clear night I can watch half a dozen of these objects go by.


Hoi,

When I was a kid, spending my summers in Norway, we (my cousins and I) used to spend nights lying on the lawn in front of my grandfather's house (we are talking about the mid-70's). Of course, up in Norway the star-studded sky is particularly spectacular. Well, we would see bright dots flying across the firmament maybe every 15 minutes or so - and that's a conservative estimate... actually, maybe it was more like every 7/10 minutes or so. We were told (by our parents and uncles) that they were satellites. Now, I don't know how many satellites were supposed to be operative in the mid-seventies, but there must have been an awful lot of them up there for us to see so many of them - with such reliable frequency. I was fascinated by these moving dots of light and kept picking them out all night long, actually keeping awake just to watch more and more of them - long after my cousins had fallen asleep (And no, they were'nt airplanes. Can I be absolutely sure that they were satellites? Hell, no.)

In later years and lately, I must say, I haven't seen many such fly-by dots in the sky at night (but then again I now live above Rome, and the city lights keep me from seeing many stars at all).


nonhocapito wrote: Man, to photograph those things would require equipment and knowledge I don't have.

Nonho,
I have recently contacted my local astronomy club and asked them to participate in their next observations of the International Space Station fly-by. I will expect to see no less than this sort of shape in their powerful optical equipment:

Image

After all, the ISS is supposed to drift above us - only about 200 miles away or so...
I'll let you know. :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Dcopymope on October 22nd, 2011, 12:34 am

simonshack wrote:
hoipolloi wrote: On a clear night I can watch half a dozen of these objects go by.


Hoi,

When I was a kid, spending my summers in Norway, we (my cousins and I) used to spend nights lying in rucksacks on the lawn in front of my grandfather's house (we are talking about the mid-70's). Of course, up in Norway the star-studded sky is particularly spectacular. Well, we would see bright dots flying across the firmament maybe every 15 minutes or so - and that's a conservative estimate... actually, maybe it was more like every 7/10 minutes or so. We were told (by our parents and uncles) that they were satellites. Now, I don't know how many satellites were supposed to be operative in the mid-seventies, but there must have been an awful lot of them up there for us to see so many of them - with such reliable frequency. I was fascinated by these moving dots of light and kept picking them out all night long, actually keeping awake just to watch more and more of them - long after my cousins had fallen asleep (And no, they were'nt airplanes!)

In later years and lately, I must say, I haven't seen many such fly-by dots in the sky at night (but then again I now live above Rome, and the city lights keep me from seeing many stars at all).


If the perps weren't dumping their shit in the skies so much it would be easier to see these shooting stars like you could in the 70's, like we're supposed to. There is very low visibility now because of these damn chemtrails that create an overcast all day & night, even though on some days we're not even supposed to have an overcast at all according to the news.
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Terence.drew on October 22nd, 2011, 2:10 am

Sorry lads I still don't get this'
Put 'Madonna' into google images and guess who appears?
Put 'Satellite in the night sky' into google images and guess what doesn't appear?
Put 'Satellite trails in the night sky' and what do you get? Very very little. Spiral star trails over long exposures. The odd and infrequent line through an image.
For a seemingly easily spotted with naked eye phenomenon you would expect a multitude of good quality shots placed on the web, especially because of the mysterious nature of the lights and people wanting answers to their questions.

For a comparison put 'jupiter moons camera lens' into google images. I have taken the same photo myself several times over the last few weeks and there they are...the moons of jupiter which are NOT visible to the naked eye but are capturable with a semi decent camera and zoom lens and then cropped.

One strange phenomenon easily spotted with the naked eye and there are virtually no real looking shots of it? Something not visible with the naked eye and many people go for it?

Is the Yeti in the house?

(I am not saying here that I don't believe what the entire mod team of this forum is saying. I am saying that my experience of this phenomenon is very different and that the image trail of this phenomenon matches my experience and not that of other people.) :blink:
Terence.drew
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:55 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby hoi.polloi on October 22nd, 2011, 5:07 pm

Sorry lads I still don't get this'
Put 'Madonna' into google images and guess who appears?
Put 'Satellite in the night sky' into google images and guess what doesn't appear?
Put 'Satellite trails in the night sky' and what do you get? Very very little. Spiral star trails over long exposures. The odd and infrequent line through an image.
For a seemingly easily spotted with naked eye phenomenon you would expect a multitude of good quality shots placed on the web, especially because of the mysterious nature of the lights and people wanting answers to their questions.


Point taken. That's definitely a clue of ... something, but I don't know what. Looking forward to Simon's study's results.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Jonathan on October 23rd, 2011, 10:46 am

chuck22 wrote:Pull out your own telescope and you'll be able to confirm that there are no satellites. Radio waves run the show with encryption plus triangulation in conjunction for GPS. All such proprietary systems are set up for streams of income.


I do not need a telescope to see those quite fast but steady moving lights.
There are many sound reasons to believe that those are - just as we are told - satellites.
I gave a few...

Just yesterday I observed one particularly bright one traveling from west to east.
A few days earlier I witnessed what probably was a meteorite - a quite distinct appearence to satellites in orbit and a beautiful and special one too, because it was not just bright white, it was orange and it broke in two pieces which then both vaporized. Lasted maybe half a second.

Again you make the general announcement to the non-existence of satellites but do not give one shred of the reasoning behind it.
That way yours is just an odd opinion to me.

Of course proprietary systems are set up to generate income.
It's a non sequitur (does not follow logically) to state that as a reason for a scam.

I work to generate income.
What does that prove?
That I'm not rich at this moment in time?
Not even that.
Jonathan
Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: July 26th, 2011, 9:17 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Terence.drew on October 24th, 2011, 4:22 am

Jonathan wrote:
I do not need a telescope to see those quite fast but steady moving lights.
There are many sound reasons to believe that those are - just as we are told - satellites.
I gave a few...

Just yesterday I observed one particularly bright one traveling from west to east.


Johathan. How can a Satellite be a bright light when it is supposed to be traveling through and in the shadow of the Earth?
What is illuminating it? The sun? :wacko:
Terence.drew
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:55 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Maat on October 24th, 2011, 1:13 pm

Terence.drew wrote:How can a Satellite be a bright light when it is supposed to be traveling through and in the shadow of the Earth?
What is illuminating it? The sun? :wacko:

Yes Terence, from what I understand, they do reflect the sunlight since they are high enough to catch the rays when we are already in darkness. Depending on the season and your latitude, they are visible as long as the sun is not too far below the horizon, otherwise the satellites are then also in earth's shadow — i.e. they can be seen for a few hours after sunset or before sunrise. In Summer though, if you're latitude is far north or south, the sun isn't too low down and you can see satellites all night long.

When I was a little kid (in 1962 or '63) on a farm in western NSW — where the skies were crystal clear at night — my father showed me a satellite moving across the sky, looking like a little star. I do remember his saying it was Sputnik (not sure which one, there were apparently a few from '57 on), but it was definitely the only "star" moving across the night sky :) Very vivid memory!

I guess the best way to verify it for yourself is to see which satellites are supposed to be visible from your location at a given time: http://www.heavens-above.com/
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests