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 simonshack on October 21st, 2016, 9:13 pm

SacredCowSlayer wrote:
As I watched "The Big Bounce" I could not help but think that the American people have been bamboozled into pouring vast amounts of money into nothing but Echoes for a long time now. And there's no end in sight from what I can tell. :(


Indeed, dear SCS - indeed:

The American people - but also the rest of the world - has been bamboozled by a bunch of power-clowns who thought they could fool all of the people - all of the time, by using their total stronghold of international television AND deceptive /fraudulent 'Hollywood-grade' imagery to inject into our minds ANY "information" of their liking - all of it designed to push their "dumbing-down-the-masses" and fear-mongering agenda.

They have utterly failed. No matter how few of us there are (at this moment in time) who have at long last woken up and exposed their shenanigans, these control-freaks will eventually have to bite the dust - sooner or later. Of course, you may say that our predicament looks a bit bleak right now - since those clowns are deploying ALL of their financially-unmatchable propaganda means and clout to ridicule anyone exposing their pathetic plans (think "Flat Earth" DBA operation), but I frankly can't see how they could possibly keep hiding their naked butts - and perpetuate this state of affairs forever. Hopefully, we will live long enough to witness their - uh - 'melodramatic' downfall. I'm already grabbing my popcorn - are you?

Hey, it's been a bit quiet on this forum lately, folks! Everyone ok?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6427
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby sharpstuff on October 22nd, 2016, 2:21 am

Dear Simon,

It's the quiet time of the year. The psychopaths have been on holiday, so not many (if any) false flags/psysops available to comment upon.

Rest assured, the CGI factories have been working hard to create the next round of vicsims and crisis actors have been learning new lines for the next exciting event.

The South China Sea thingy seems to have been a washout. The Zika virus scare never got very far. World War Three is missing nukes.

What is there to talk about?

The 'election' in the land of the bamboozled? Which new psychopathic puppet will be next? What will happen to Barry and Michael?
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 91
Joined: February 4th, 2015, 2:31 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Kham on October 22nd, 2016, 5:27 am

Simon,

I really enjoyed The Big Bounce, thanks. Here is another film full of poppycock from those investment scammers over at Bell Labs. It is a cartoon produced by the late John Sutherland from around 1962 explaining how Bell Labs' guidance systems for missiles work. It is narrated by the missile because it's from his perspective, his name is Mac.

Bonus feature: around 6:15 we get to see Echo 1 in action.

Image

Missile Guidance: "A Missile Named Mac" circa 1962 Bell Labs

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hat2-zIG8Mc
Kham
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: June 25th, 2015, 10:30 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Flabbergasted on October 22nd, 2016, 1:26 pm

Mac @ 4:23: The engines are mounted on swivels. When the order comes, they turn me and straighten me out.

Image

Let´s not forget: "space rockets don´t push against anything." Whoopee, rocket science rocks!
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 685
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby bongostaple on October 22nd, 2016, 8:13 pm

The Big Bounce indeed.... that massive balloon thing reminded me of the discussion quite some time ago in the ISS thread, of somebody reporting that they could see it with a telescope, but it's perfectly round..... viewtopic.php?p=2376538#p2376538

On the other hand, I think the ISS is much more likely to be one or more Near Earth Objects, as at least a few thousand of these were lost at some point a few decades ago (can't remember which thread that was discussed in, probably this one) when the 'model' describing them was changed. I suppose if a NEO is big enough, and far away enough to escape the Earth's albedo, and is travelling fast enough, would reflect sunlight in a reasonably circular shape for us to see, and it's distance from the Earth pretended to be much less, and bingo, it's passed off as a 'space station' orbiting at about 250 miles.

I haven't seen any amateur footage of the ISS from the Earth that shows anything other than a bright dot or full-on detail. Those full detail things, iirc, were held up here by a visiting amateur 'astronomer' as proof the ISS is what we're told it is. And he came across as a faker and buggered off....

I often think about how a private individual may feasibly detect the ISS at any more detailed level than the bright dot.

Radar, in theory, may do the trick. But it requires a powerful radio transmitter - not difficult to obtain, but powerful enough that the Home Office and the Civil Aviation Authority, and the Ministry of Defense, would likely hand my ass to me on a plate.

Any suggestions as to further ways we could test this? I'm currently tinkering with a Software Defined Radio receiver and various haphazard aerials, to see what range of aviation signals can be picked up. I understand a cheap SDR setup and some carefully measured aerial types can pull aircraft comms out of the sky, and plenty more besides.

I am officially really busy, but this is an area I'm keen to investigate, as it's also possible to pick up raw GPS signals. I've been reading a lot of the theory behind GPS recently, and currently I can't see any good reason why GPS as-is couldn't work with ground-only stations. The scam side I'm still thinking about, as the raw GPS data emitted by 'satellites' would include the orbital path, and the same data for a ground station would in theory be obviously on the ground and not 25,000 miles away. More homework required, much more homework. But again I'm trying to work out how a ground station transmission could 'pretend' it was from a satellite and the system would still work.
bongostaple
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: October 4th, 2016, 12:53 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby hoi.polloi on November 27th, 2016, 11:46 am

Quoted from chatbox post of November 2016:

sharpstuff » November 27th, 2016, 5:00 am wrote:I am posting a link here in Chatbox, as I am not sure the best thread for it. I hope you will excuse me.

I have alluded to my cousin before when he sent me some material on Ripple Rock which I posted.

He has just sent me some very interesting information on the radar facility at Canewdon in Essex, UK. I know the area well, since I lived at Southend-on-sea for my first 18 years.

The material covers the radar facility before and during the Second World War and shows how sophisticated the system was. I thought by posting it, it might give some understanding to those who think 'satellites' might be necessary.

I have posted it to one of my sites as it is a .pdf and 16Mb. The title is GPS and Radar.

The link is here: https://sharpspeake.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/gps-and-radar/

My very best regards to all and especially Simon.


We should figure out if there are extracts from this PDF which we can actually archive on our site for the purposes of our investigation into "satellites". Thanks, sharpstuff.

In my opinion, the bit on the end of the first section (the cover letter?) about V2 rockets arriving is notably "tacked on", complete with a run-on or grammatically awkward sentence. Probably, all data given should be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems to me that some of it may "have to" be framed in gibberish in order to disguise the source.

Doesn't it seem as though that would be a good practice for releasing declassified information? Or am I looking at the document too optimistically?

You can see another example in the third/last document, when it closes with "Permission from the Director if Signals, Air Ministry, to publish this article is gratefully acknowledged."

It indicates to me there may always be a "catch" when it comes to these paranoid military groups.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby ICfreely on November 30th, 2016, 5:10 pm

hoi.polloi » November 27th, 2016, 2:46 am wrote:Doesn't it seem as though that would be a good practice for releasing declassified information? Or am I looking at the document too optimistically?



Releasing declassified information creates the illusion of government transparency/accountability and whatnot - official disinformation. Nothing new there.


You can see another example in the third/last document, when it closes with "Permission from the Director if Signals, Air Ministry, to publish this article is gratefully acknowledged."

It indicates to me there may always be a "catch" when it comes to these paranoid military groups.



I think these paranoid military groups are as brainwashed as the general public. Sci-fi authors like Peter Singer specialize in keeping us all in a constant state of fearful suspense. We waste so much time worrying about the future that we miss out on the present (gift). The following article contains a rich smorgasbord of sci-fi delusions. It gives the impression that life, as we know it, would cease to exist without "satellites." Propaganda by any other name...


US military prepares for the next frontier: Space war
By Jim Sciutto, Chief National Security Correspondent
Updated 8:59 AM ET, Tue November 29, 2016

Washington (CNN) — Since man first explored space, it has been a largely peaceful environment. But now US adversaries are deploying weapons beyond Earth's atmosphere, leading the US military to prepare for the frightening prospect of war in space.

"As humans go out there, there has always been conflict. Conflict in the Wild West as we move in the West ... conflict twice in Europe for its horrible world wars," Gen. John Hyten, head of US Strategic Command, told CNN. "So, every time humans actually physically move into that, there's conflict, and in that case, we'll have to be prepared for that."

Today, the US depends on space more than any other nation.

In a nightmare scenario, as adversaries launch a massive cyber attack on key infrastructure and disable and destroy our satellites in space, televisions would go blank, mobile networks silent, and the Internet would slow and then stop.

Dependent on time stamps from GPS satellites, everything from stock markets to bank transactions to traffic lights and railroad switches would freeze. Airline pilots would lose contact with the ground, unsure of their position and without weather data to steer around storms.

World leaders couldn't communicate across continents. In the US military, pilots would lose contact with armed drones over the Middle East. Smart bombs would become dumb. Missiles would sit immobile in their silos. The US could lose early warning of nuclear attacks for parts of the Earth.

"There's incentive to take that away from us," said Peter Singer, who advises the Defense Department on space threats and authored "Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War," which runs through a scenario of space war. "And that means if there was conflict on Planet Earth, it would almost inherently start with some kind of conflict in space."

America's chief adversaries in space are familiar ones: Russia and China are extending above the atmosphere the competition and conflict already boiling down here on Earth -- from Syria to Ukraine to the South China Sea to cyberspace.

China and Russia are taking aim at America in space with a dizzying array of weapons seemingly borrowed from science fiction. Russia has deployed what could be multiple kamikaze satellites such as "Kosmos 2499" -- designed to sidle up to American satellites and then, if ordered, disable or destroy them. China has launched the "Shiyan" -- equipped with a grappling arm that could snatch US satellites right out of orbit.

"We would absolutely be shocked if the US military were not on a war footing now based on what we see," said Paul Graziani, CEO of the civilian satellite tracker AGI.

These are not experimental weapons of the future, but weapons of today, already operating from Near Earth Orbit, just 100 miles up and home of the International Space Station, to Medium Earth Orbit at 12,500 miles, where the GPS satellites fly, all the way up to 22,000 miles in Geostationary Orbit, home of the nation's most sensitive military communications and nuclear early-warning satellites.

Hyten warned that adversaries will soon be able to threaten US satellites in every orbital regime.

"We have very good surveillance and intelligence capabilities, so we can see the threats that are being built," said Hyten. "So we're developing capabilities to defend ourselves. It's really that simple."

The US Air Force Space Command was created in 1982 when Earth's orbit was less contested, and today has some 38,000 employees, an annual budget of nearly $8.9 billion, and 134 locations around the globe. The broader Pentagon space budget is $22 billion.

Among the units are the 50th Space Wing, a team of more than 8,000 people charged with monitoring US and foreign military satellites. For now, these space warriors are little more than spectators, watching and observing this new space battlefield with no ability to fire back.

In 2015, Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work expressed his grave concern that the military was not "ready to do space operations in a conflict that extends into space."

He was proven right when, months later, US space forces were overwhelmed in a mock attack on US military satellites.

So many took notice when, in April this year, Work vowed that the US would "strike back" if attacked in space -- strike back, he added, and "knock them out."

"From the very beginning, if someone starts going after our space constellation, we're going to go after the capabilities that would prevent them from doing that," Work told CNN. "Let me just say that -- having the capability to shoot the torpedo would be a good thing to have in our quiver."

Work suggested a space equivalent of the depth charges US Navy warships dropped into the sea during World War II, setting off enormous explosions to fight off attack submarines.

"These satellites were built 15 years ago and launched during an era when space was a benign environment. There was no threat," said Lt. Gen. David Buck, Commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Space. "Can you imagine building a refueler aircraft, or a jet for that matter, with no inherent defensive capabilities? So our satellites are at risk, and our ground infrastructure is at risk. And we're working hard to make sure that we can protect and defend them."

So far, such weapons remain in the conceptual category. But the US is quietly developing advanced capabilities that could, some day, have defensive or offensive missions in space.

These include the US Navy's Laser Weapons System, or LAWs, the US military's first operational laser weapon now deployed in the Persian Gulf on board the USS Ponce. The X-37b, a pilotless space drone resembling the space shuttle without windows or a cockpit, has already flown multiple missions to space and has space watchers and US adversaries wondering if it could be used as a weapon.

Still, as Russia and China make rapid advances, some of the most senior military commanders are sounding the alarm that this is a war -- the next world war and the first to extend beyond the confines of Earth -- that America could lose.

"We'd be silly to say it's not a possibility," said Singer. "What any defense (planner) will tell you is, don't look for the ideal outcome, plan for the worst day so that you can survive."

Winning a space war means rethinking how the US wages war, and that rethinking is one our current military leaders and politicians are only just beginning to undertake.

So is the US moving quickly enough to respond to the new threats in space?

"I would say the answer was no," said Gen. William Shelton, former head of Space Command. "Could we provide active defense of our own satellites? The answer's no."

The stakes couldn't be higher. How the US responds to this new threat could determine who wins the defining conflict of the 21st century.

CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to more accurately reflect the size, age and budget of the Pentagon's space efforts.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/28/politics/space-war-us-military-preparations/index.html



CORRECTION: This story is based on Peter Singer's morbid sci-fi fantasies.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on November 30th, 2016, 9:27 pm

*

"...and the internet would slow and then stop."
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Hmmmm - now, WHY on Earth would that happen - if 99% of internet data goes through undersea cables?

What is something most people don’t know about undersea cables?
"Most people probably don’t know that 99 percent of all transoceanic data traffic goes through undersea cables, and that includes Internet usage, phone calls and text messages. This route is also faster than satellite transmissions, by up to eight-fold."
http://europe.newsweek.com/undersea-cab ... 9072?rm=eu


Also, I have to wonder what this 'Hyten' fellow is all about...

"Hyten warned that adversaries will soon be able to threaten US satellites in every orbital regime."


You probably all know that my true surname is 'Hytten' ('Shack' being just my artist name). Now, one could rightly say that I have, in fact - through the research material on this very forum, "threatened US satellites in every orbital regime"...

Hyten? Surely just a happenstance-coincidence? :P
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6427
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby fbenario on December 1st, 2016, 2:40 am

simonshack » November 30th, 2016, 4:27 pm wrote:Now, one could rightly say that I have, in fact - through the research material on this very forum, "threatened US satellites in every orbital regime"...

Wonderfully droll. Hilarious.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby antipodean on December 15th, 2016, 10:46 am

Thanks for posting the undersea cables link.

A friend of mine who believes in the moon landings, and knows that I loathe Phil Collins posted me this link.

http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/phi ... e/3116638/

He later used the existence of satellites to argue how space travel is possible.
I asked him, why do we need satellites when 99% of internet traffic is via undersea cables ? Showing him this site, he was speechless.
http://europe.newsweek.com/undersea-cab ... 9072?rm=eu
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 578
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby SacredCowSlayer on December 15th, 2016, 3:19 pm

antipodean » December 15th, 2016, 4:46 am wrote:Thanks for posting the undersea cables link.

A friend of mine who believes in the moon landings, and knows that I loathe Phil Collins posted me this link.

http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/phi ... e/3116638/

He later used the existence of satellites to argue how space travel is possible.
I asked him, why do we need satellites when 99% of internet traffic is via undersea cables ? Showing him this site, he was speechless.
http://europe.newsweek.com/undersea-cab ... 9072?rm=eu


Yes I would say speechless would be the most intelligent response to what you provided him, should he wish to maintain his position. Perhaps your friend will dare to question his beliefs in such things.

On a related note, our fine Sheriff in my Texas town has recently argued that the county needs to spend several million dollars on upgrading the walkie-talkies from the "old high frequency" communication systems to the "new ultra frequency" technology available.

Evidently some deputies can't reach other deputies clear across the county, and well. . . this puts lives in danger. :wacko: :lol:

You don't have to wonder why I wouldn't dare attend such a public "hearing" and "discussion".

There's just no way I could conduct myself in a constructive way.

I suppose I could refer them to "The Big Bounce" and see if they can get permission from DHS to use Echo 1 or some other other (1/17,000 or so) satellite to "save all those lives". Or better they can launch their own county satellite. I'd love to go watch. :P

Or perhaps I could just tell them who my cell phone carrier is, and that it reaches "all the way across the county" with no problem. :D

Things can hardly get more silly around here. But just watch. . . they will.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby pov603 on December 16th, 2016, 11:12 am

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38333629

Antarctic 'pole of ignorance' finally addressed
...Known as PolarGAP, the project was largely funded by the European Space Agency (Esa) to gather measurements over an area of Earth that its satellites cannot see, as they generally only fly up to about 83 degrees in latitude...


How they get away with this BS is almost unbelievable!
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 736
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Kham on December 17th, 2016, 7:34 pm

About Undersea Cables for communications,

The industry calls them Submarine Cables. Here is an interactive submarine cable map that can isolate and identify each cable. http://www.submarinecablemap.com/

FUN FACTS
Longest submarine cable: SEA-ME-WE 3 or South-East Asia - Middle East - Western Europe 3 is an optical submarine telecommunications cable linking those regions and is the longest in the world, completed in late 2000. Its speed is 4.6 Tbps (2015) and is based off of 100G (the next upgrade past 3G and 4G) technologies. It's length is 24,000 miles (39,000 km).

Humans first started the using submarine cables in 1865 and 1866 with the world's largest steamship, the SS Great Eastern and produced the first successful transatlantic cable. Great Eastern later went on to lay the first cable reaching to India from Aden, Yemen, in 1870. This cable was said to be for telegraph communications.

Facebook and Google are building a huge undersea cable to China, October 13, 2016.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/13/technol ... a-pacific/

Submarine Cable construction is growing daily
Image

reference: https://www.telegeography.com/research- ... index.html
Kham
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: June 25th, 2015, 10:30 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Kham on December 19th, 2016, 9:43 pm

Cable Communications in Perspective

Here is another pretty cool interactive map. This time the map incorporates both terrestrial and submarine cables. As you can tell, the data base is missing a few countries. There are more terrestrial cables than it appears so if you zoom in, the terrestrial cable map is like fractal images; the closer one gets to earth, then the smaller cables come into view. Mostly, this pic is posted as a reminder of how the vast majority of data is transmitted around the world: through cables.

Image

https://www.itu.int/itu-d/tnd-map-public/


Considering the images above that show data traffic, one must ask what percentage of global data traffic is sent through satellites? In answering this question, one must consider the fraud or outright lies when a company says they use satellites for communications or data, etc.

CASE STUDY: Sirius Satellite Radio
My daughter works for a telecommunication company in Seattle. The other day she was working with a Sirius Satellite Radio antenna installation guy. He was at my daughters work to install some repeaters on a rented tower and needed some specs before installation. My daughter asked the Sirius Satellite Radio antenna installation guy "Do you ever use satellites? The response was "No, Sirius Satellite Radio sends 100% of it's radio transmissions to customers through cell towers."

Even when the word 'satellite' is used in the name of the company providing services, there is no guarantee that actual satellites will be used.
Kham
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: June 25th, 2015, 10:30 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby patrix on December 19th, 2016, 10:21 pm

Hi Cluesforum!

I'm new here and like to be controversial by saying I DO believe satellites exist. It felt funny to write that :). I am with you on 9/11, NASA and Nukes but not this and I don't think this thread brings up strong arguments against man made satellites.

Yes most of our communication go through cables today but that is because the rise of the Internet and because its cheaper and more convenient to use the existing cables today. Satellites are best suited for broadcasting. Not for two way low latency communication like you need for the Internet.

I've been on boat trips since childhood and in the eighties there was a navigation system that predated GPS. I've forgot the name but it was pretty inaccurate. GPS was a revolution and much more accurate. I find it hard to see how and why they would fake that.

I believe manned space travel is impossible not because you cannot send a man into space but because re-entry is impossible. It's not possible to "air brake". Trying that would give you the same fate as a meteor. First you burn. Then you crash.

I also think Occam's razor is relevant here. I see the reason and motivation behind the 9/11, NASA and Nukes hoaxes. But why fake Sats?

Just my 2c
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests