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 hoi.polloi on June 10th, 2015, 5:10 pm

Their theory is not holding a lot of water lately. Balloons, satelloons, aerial sprays (as Simon conjectured) or other things could be an explanation but they just go with NASA images? Whaaa?

It's one thing to back up science of an Earth physics model. It's entirely different to write that "Polar satellites" article in the sparse and loose way it was apparently thrown together to make sense of the NASA fantasy of "satellites". A disappointing direction. This is how I imagine it ...

distraction.GIF


There are a couple reasons people take that sharp turn. One is because they are legitimately duped by their own thoughts. Another is ...

EDIT: This is the response I tried to post. It is awaiting moderation.

I enjoy your writings on optical sciences, though some of them have been a bit hard to follow. But this one is a new level of vagueness and leaps of faith that I am not willing to make. This article is poorly written compared to your Earth model articles, and makes them look worse off too.

It reveals a bad habit of writing style that could be confused for deliberately dumbing down your audience by having them follow along using only base assumptions rather than good, solid, well-explained reasoning. If you do not go back and edit this article, you are bound to make Earth studies look like a propaganda attempt rather than an attempt to show the truth. I hope that is not your intent.

The pattern I am picking up on here is your tendency to create a huge theoretical direction based on just a few images, while ignoring outright the need to identify and vet the sources. Line drawings about curvature of light are one thing. It makes sense to use diagrams when it's about geometry and math and scientific models that anyone can confirm.

But so-called "photos" from creepy NASA halls? It doesn't compliment your technical intelligence when you are taking images of the PR/propaganda company like NASA for face value — or even more bizarrely — allowing yourself to be drawn into PR statements calculated to intrigue and deceive, while providing no solid information for the public to discern why or how their incredible claims have gone un-vetted — even by so-called skeptical thinkers like yourself.

These are not simple functions of nature you are analyzing anymore. They are claimed to be very complex machines, and you are just forcing them to be in your theory which by necessity makes you endorse official explanations — for what purpose?

Going back now and seeing your earlier articles is a bit tense now because you had been going slowly and methodically before. You explained each concept, leaving room for the theories to grow in the future. But this article abandons those.

With this article, you have practically created a huge hole (no pun intended) in your readers' potential cohesion of an already shaky theory. If people read this article first, they would conclude you don't actually do any research at all.

Why have you stopped doing research to this extent? Why?

Each one of those so-called satellite images you showed is suspect, and the quotes you've drawn up are nothing less than PR from a huge time- and money-wasting organization. How can you switch from skeptical inquiry of pure observation to endorsing the simulation to this extent? How can you not cite thoroughly each presumption you make about what you have (seemingly arbitrarily) chosen to trust from the self-contradictory Disney-NASA fantasies?

It doesn't make sense when you take NASA images and start speculating and pondering about the functions of photoshopped contraptions that have no proof of full functionality on Earth, let alone in "environments" like "outer space", which we couldn't describe and you have only begun to try to replace (and NASA can't even describe consistently with all their writers and spinners). It's like in the 9/11 drama, Judy Wood trying to read science "out of the pixels" while failing to credit her "burnt out car photos" to New York scam artist George Marengo.

Please, remember to build your theories on solid foundations.

If they have *some* satellites that "work", demonstrate in detail to us:

1. How you determined which satellite data fronts are "real" (Starting with why you thought they might be real in the first place)

2. Specific and clear diagram(s) of the model you are proposing (instead of slowly hinting of a possible hypothesis that we have to imagine)

3. How the so-called satellite images presented, when there are any images at all to be gleaned from a front site, are by necessity made by an advanced computer "in space" or ("on the glass" as you require) rather than simply constructed in an office.

4. Analysis of the launch and life cycle that must have been necessary for each

5. Analysis of each and every "satellite" model and its so-called parts (without relying on trust of NASA's descriptions) to indicate that the thing is actually going to function in a way that YOU predict rather than how NASA would have it. And, explain how it won't be fried, irradiated, shredded by debris, etc. (Including in your description at least the moving parts you think it has, and means of conveyance! A computer in a chunk of material and moving parts does not make it more than expensive make-believe)

---

There is so much missing, as I've explained above, if you wanted to just create the most basic form of the theory you are designing.

In the face of the incredible amount of lies and propaganda being pumped out of that organization to invent fake technologies, I am disappointed in and suspicious of your direction to basically endorse a bunch of NASA images of their satellites, while failing to provide evidence that the images and articles connected to and about them produce anything of value besides obfuscation of the truth.

Have you even been to the Modis web site and tried to make any sense of their so-called data? The place is a scientific-appearing front for the fact that they don't produce anything.

If you are going to pick some ideas from a mountain of lies and fantasy to just believe, or re-interpret or re-imagine, you've got to have a better explanation as to why you are allowing such make believe. And even then, it needs to fit better with your earlier speculations — which, now, sadly, by comparison, look weak and undeveloped compared to these claims, because it hints that you could write another article all together that is purely drawn from no evidence and that's the pattern we are facing.

Please, just make a warning on the top of this page, saying something like: "This is a theory in development and in serious need of detailed reasoning, which I am working on" and leave this article as a "stub" for people to read while you collect data that helps a skeptical person understand why you of all people trust the highly suspicious data that you do.

Otherwise, please explain your reasoning for crafting this article in such a loose and useless style compared to the measurable observations of previous articles. I hope for this site to be a consistent resource rather than a distraction. Please, though you are eager to have a Theory of Everything, stick to the slow and patient methods that are more convincing. Thank you!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby fbenario on June 11th, 2015, 1:10 am

^ Absolutely stellar critique, Hoi. I doubt any of his posts have ever received such a complete evisceration of both their content and methodology.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby hoi.polloi on June 11th, 2015, 5:55 am

Thanks, fbenario. But I do really mean what I wrote, and I hope it's taken as constructive criticism rather than something crushing or insulting. There is a lot of good information on their site. This is just a sad turn for the worse, in my opinion, despite its potential.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on June 18th, 2015, 12:41 pm

*


"TELSTAR" - FIRST EVER TV SATELLITE ANNOUNCED ON TV :

JFK selling the Santa-Satellite-Saga to the world... :rolleyes:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5w31UnsTRk


Hat tip to smj - who keeps finding these priceless old TV clips of yore...
When is America (and all 'civilized' nations) gonna wake up from their television-induced hypnotic slumber?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6427
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Selene on June 26th, 2015, 8:01 pm

ICfreely wrote:Though Earth science has been a key part of NASA’s mission since the agency was founded in 1958, this year has been one of the peaks. Two new Earth-observing satellites have already been launched and put to work: the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2). Three more missions are set to take off in the next six months: the wind-measuring ISS-RapidScat, the ISS Cloud-Aerosol Transport System (CATS), and the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) satellite. And research planes have been flying over polar ice, hurricanes, boreal forests, and pollution plumes.

Thanks ICFreely, an excellent post in the Earth as seen from Space-topic.

A smart person would ask the question; "why do they need 'research planes' if they have satellites"?
A smarter person would reverse the question; "why do they need 'satellites' if they have research planes"?

it answers partly one of my burning questions: if satellites are not real (what I suspect due to failure of rocket technology in Space), how do we get the enormous amounts of "satellite data"?

Wondering about balloons, high altitude planes or reflections against the ionosphere (still an unclear mechanism) is for a large part covered by using regular planes to obtain the clear satellite pictures of Google Earth and pollution, boreal forest and other data which is used by scientists and engineers.

Point which still stands is active "satellite" data like GPS. One "sees" the "satellites" moving in screen of GPS hardware, it could be all fantasy satellites but how does the triangular positioning system work then? With only planes that becomes pretty challenging on a ship sailing the vast Pacific...

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby hoi.polloi on June 26th, 2015, 8:10 pm

it answers partly one of my burning questions: if satellites are not real (what I suspect due to failure of rocket technology in Space), how do we get the enormous amounts of "satellite data"?


True, but what do you mean by "satellite data" and why do you qualify it as being of the "satellite" variety instead of just "data"? There's more than one way to skin a cat. Man, I am full of clichés today. Sorry.

What I mean is: there is more than one way to take a photo, and now there are more than just about a million ways to assemble a collage from various photos or images.

There is more than one way to take a temperature reading. There is more than one way to look at moisture. All of these methods have been developed over thousands of years.

What is it about the magic, imaginary "satellite" — and placing it in "outer space" far away from all the tried-and-true developed technologies — that makes it superior to all methodology before it?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Selene on June 26th, 2015, 9:05 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
it answers partly one of my burning questions: if satellites are not real (what I suspect due to failure of rocket technology in Space), how do we get the enormous amounts of "satellite data"?


True, but what do you mean by "satellite data"


"Satellite" data is used daily by millions and millions of people, not a small amount of those not even noticing it.

Short summary:
1 - "satellite" pictures (Google Earth, BING, Wikimapia, all these "satellite" picture providers)
2 - "satellite" data
3 - active "real-time" "satellite" data, like GPS

I'd say that point 1 can be explained to confidence by airplanes, looking at the photo quality and resolution of the various "satellite" softwares. Also the areas with the same resolution (and then a next layer of lower/higher resolution begins next to that area) are too small to be caused by "satellites high up in the air" and are better explained by planes.

Point 2 refers to all the data many people (engineers, scientists and others) use daily. You're right in saying that there are more roads leading to Rome (your cliches are forgiven, please forgive mine ;) ) so to obtain this data. And ICFreely's post shows how they do that with part of the data (using planes again). But does that explain all of the satellite data around?

I've worked a lot with satellite data myself and I am not a physical geographer, hydrologist, social geographical analist, city planner or any other who uses this data much more.

The data comes typically in the form of X, Y, (Z), datapoint

The datapoints can be temperature, moisture, carbon levels in the top soil, intensity of light, degree of erosion with respect to an earlier date, degree of deforestation, etc. etc. etc.

Let's assume an agricultural researcher working in Kansas analysing an area of the vast agricultural fields there and using "satellite" data.

There are 3 possibilities in the comparison of the ground level acquired tangible data and data from external sources like satellites:
- data 1 (Earth-based) is (anomalously) higher than data 2 ("satellite"-sourced)
- data 1 (Earth-based) is (anomalously) lower than data 2 ("satellite"-sourced)
- data 1 (Earth-based) is exactly equal to data 2 ("satellite"-sourced)

In the last case there's something fishy. Whenever 2 data sources exactly show the same, the data usually is corrupted and based on the same. It does not make sense that satellite data would exactly fit other data. If it does, the satellite data is tweaked according to the other data following the same model such that the data "acquired" exactly fits the pre-existing data. This scamdalous approach NASA used in their Apollo "Moon" landings "geology" ("regolith", "moon" rocks, "mapping").

In the other cases, the question becomes; where is the data coming from? Does plane data explain for the full 100% for all 100% users of "satellite" data, then the question is answered.

To me, at this point, it seems too early to "debunk" all this data without having seen any of it and have made proper checks.

If the anomalies between the "satellite" data and the earth-bound data are very high, also then there's something fishy and the data could be even invented. But completely inventing data is dangerous and risky to exposure.

The problem I still have is with 3. How about data which is told to come from satellites, and "scripted in real time"? Where does it come from, how does GPS work without satellites, etc. Those questions are still burning.

To summarise: "I couldn't step to a fellow geoloscientist or engineer I am working with and say rockets cannot go in space". They will respond with the satellite and GPS data and for the latter I do not have a reasonable non-satellite explanation yet.

It doesn't mean I need satellites to fix the story, it rather means delving deeper into this point and being able to explain how this data is acquired in a non-satellite system.

What is it about the magic, imaginary "satellite" — and placing it in "outer space" far away from all the tried-and-true developed technologies — that makes it superior to all methodology before it?


Good question. And hard to answer when you realise that we had so many years of indoctrination of Space Travel Is Possible Because I Say So.
98.5% of my lifetime on Earth I was ignorantly convinced space travel was possible. I am just living in the recent 1.5%....

So for 1 the planes can explain the "tried-and-true-magic-far-away-pictures", for 2 at least partly (but unknown to which extent) "research planes" can do the job and for 3 I am still wondering how to fit "state-of-the-art-real-time-superduper-military-but-donated-to-the-people-how-nice-to-be-'donated'-the-coordinates-of-your-own-house-the-US-tax-dollars-that-paid-for-this-'donation'-are-returned-too?"-GPS data to an ordinary world view where we can get maybe 100 km high in the sky but not able to position geocentric "36.000/20.000 km in the center of the outer Van Allen Belts-satellites".

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby arc300 on June 26th, 2015, 11:51 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
What is it about the magic, imaginary "satellite" — and placing it in "outer space" far away from all the tried-and-true developed technologies — that makes it superior to all methodology before it?


At a guess, I would say that, to the layman at least, satellites are believed to be superior technology BECAUSE they have been placed in outer space (Heaven) far away from the tried and true (Mundane/Earthbound/Banal) developed technology.

Satellites are the most cutting edge, highly developed technology known to man. They float in the heavens untouchable, unreachable and untestable, but because they are so far away from the earthly banalities of bias, falsity, propaganda etc, there is NO need to question their ever-truthful and cutting-edge data.
arc300
Member
 
Posts: 167
Joined: April 27th, 2012, 11:13 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby hoi.polloi on June 27th, 2015, 6:20 am

The problem I still have is with 3. How about data which is told to come from satellites, and "scripted in real time"? Where does it come from, how does GPS work without satellites, etc. Those questions are still burning.


I am not bothered at all to assume parts 1 and 2 are pseudo-painstakingly constructed in cubicles by bored military staff using conventional reconnaissance.

My question about number 3 would be the opposite. How does GPS work with satellites?

We already answered this question a few posts back in this very thread. It is not denied or covered up at all (because, well, how could they?) that GPS data is emitted from ground wave antennas they are calling "relays".

Since GPS works in many places, but is blocked by something as innocuous as a highway tunnel while not being effected too much by layers of weather, it's also very safe to assume the blocking occurs on a ground level.

With just one relay catching a signal from a GPS device, a clever relay could measure the time it takes the signal to bounce and figure out the direction. With two relays, you already have a triangulation calculation that an even simpler computer could figure out. With more than two, which (due to ubiquitous wireless coverage) is a much likelier scenario these days, you basically have a groundwave object scanner. I would be surprised if they weren't already equipping towers to pick up organic objects with no "GPS" (Grounded Phony Satellite?) signal whatsoever. The fact that we willingly travel around with little broadcasting devices on our person just makes the planned system of nigh omnipotent tracking much easier to test and perfect.

If the only thing that would satisfy your curiosity about the "satellite" story is to constantly disprove every lie, you will certainly exhaust yourself. I think the best way to go about this research knowing all we do is to question those who claim insider knowledge of the "satellite" system with very pointed questions we all develop together as a population of questioners and learn to sniff out the paid liars, and glean information from them about what aspects are being kept under wraps just to promote the "satellite" myths.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Nink on September 3rd, 2015, 7:17 pm

The obvious question that springs to mind, if the assumption is GPS satellites are simply terrestrial satellites (ie a series of ground based transmitters that send signals that are bounced off the ionosphere), could we not use multiple people at multiple known points to triangulate the location of the actual transmitters?

Example: Say we chose a specific satellite and then posted current locations and the signal strength of that terrestrial satellite and associated NMEA data, then cross correlated our results could we then calculate the actual location of the satellite? Could we verify that location by checking if satelite drops during bad weather over that location when it's clear in your location or perhaps by physical inspection?
Nink
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: September 2nd, 2015, 2:21 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby hoi.polloi on September 3rd, 2015, 8:46 pm

I am not sure they would be all that hidden, but sounds like a good project to organize with friends.

However, since you cite NMEA 018x, you are clearly aware that GPS doesn't hide the fact that they use ground based transmitters and/or relays to send data. Would you mind please coming back to us when you actually perform such an operation? My guess is that we'll see a tower and say to ourselves, "Yep. That was a waste of time." But who knows? Worth a try!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Postby sharpstuff on January 4th, 2016, 5:10 am

I hope this is in the correct place. I don't read the Daily Mail (or any newspaper) but I found this link through another site.

It's quite typical of the drivel regarding 'space' junk. I thought some of the comments were quite perceptive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3380183/See-decades-space-junk-swarm-Earth-60-seconds-Video-reveals-debris-orbiting-planet-increased-1957.html

Best wishes for the season.



*******
ADMIN MESSAGE (simon) : Best wishes to you, sharpstuff. I just moved this post of yours over here to our 'satellites' thread. You may wish to check out this old post of mine - regarding "SPACE DEBRIS"... viewtopic.php?p=2388948#p2388948
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 91
Joined: February 4th, 2015, 2:31 pm

(moved from: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$)

Postby sharpstuff on October 13th, 2016, 7:15 am

Definition of Cretinetti:

Wikisharpstuff: Cretinetti: a pasta dish especially for astronots.

*************************************

On a more serious note:

If this is the wrong thread for this piece, I apologise. I couldn’t find a specific thread regarding satellite fakery.

I am not sure if what I am about to say is trivia or whether it proves anything either way but here goes:

I have sometimes to make the trip from my home in Brittany to Saint Malo ferry terminal (France, of course).

What has intrigued me in the past (and before I gathered that there are no man-made satellites) that the distance from my home to Saint Malo, is (according to Google maps) 129 kilometres (about 80 miles, I have a UK car).

When I put my trip into the GPS, it tells me (in miles) that it is 53 miles (approximately 85km). There is a discrepancy of 44km (129 - 85).

Why the discrepancy, I asked myself?

I took a screen grab of the Google route, enlarging it and (after printing it out) then following the route with a piece of flexible wire I determined that the length was 23cm. So 129km becomes 23cm. Thus 129/23 becomes 5.6km per cm.

I then, on the same map) measured a line-of-sight from my home to Saint Malo which was 16cm.

23cm - 16cm = 7cm.

If 1cm is 5.6km, it follows that 7x 5.6 = 39.2km.

This is (given inaccuracies in measurement, (rounding up or down) as near as damn it, the discrepancy between the Google route (on the ground, so to speak) and the (obviously?) line-of-site indicated on the GPS.

Question:

If satellites were that accurate, why the discrepancy?

Any thoughts?
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 91
Joined: February 4th, 2015, 2:31 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby simonshack on October 13th, 2016, 5:42 pm

*

THE BIG BOUNCE - or how 'telcom sats' were sold to the public


Dear readers, I would like you to watch this short, old propaganda movie - and (after having calmed down and reset your wits) - ask yourselves:

WHY (if man-made satellites are real), would the very first telecommunication satellites (such as "ECHO1" and "ECHO2") be documented with such a painfully phony and contrived 'Hollywood / military' production - complete with obvious actors cast in the role of the purported NASA scientists / engineers who, we are told, were behind this alleged historical / extraordinary technological feat of mankind ?

WHY, if it were truly possible to launch and inflate balloons (such as "ECHO1" and "ECHO2") at over 1000miles / 1600km of altitude (!!!) would we not have ANY such cheap / economical balloons TODAY, in 2016, functioning as "reflectors of telcom EM waves" - and why would the so-called "geo-stationary satellites" (supposedly now orbiting Earth at 22.000miles /36.000km of altitude) have improved such electromagnetic wave reflection?

WHY - and to sum it up - WHY would anyone (in his/her right mind) watch this 'BIG BOUNCE' propaganda movie today - and fail to sense its utter phoniness?

Image


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBUXLmLzxxg

And for the more technologically-inclined of you, have a laugh and read all about "PROJECT ECHO" ... on Wonkypedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo

I rest my case: ALL of this world's EM telcom data (radio / TV / GPS, internet, etc) is - and has always been - propagated via ground-based antennas (triangulating with the ionosphere) or with submarine communication cables .

***************
And let me remind all readers (especially the casual readers of this forum) that : NO, I do NOT believe that the Earth is flat. -_-
Here at Cluesforum, we have - since 2009 -exposed NASA for the total fraud that it is - and accordingly / predictably - the NASA damage-control-crew has launched this recent / "viral" Flat Earth DBA campaign (Discredit-By-Association) - in the hope of ridiculing our longstanding research in the eyes of Joe Public.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6427
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby SacredCowSlayer on October 21st, 2016, 3:03 am

simonshack » October 13th, 2016, 11:42 am wrote:*

THE BIG BOUNCE - or how 'telcom sats' were sold to the public


Dear readers, I would like you to watch this short, old propaganda movie - and (after having calmed down and reset your wits) - ask yourselves:

WHY (if man-made satellites are real), would the very first telecommunication satellites (such as "ECHO1" and "ECHO2") be documented with such a painfully phony and contrived 'Hollywood / military' production - complete with obvious actors cast in the role of the purported NASA scientists / engineers who, we are told, were behind this alleged historical / extraordinary technological feat of mankind ?

WHY, if it were truly possible to launch and inflate balloons (such as "ECHO1" and "ECHO2") at over 1000miles / 1600km of altitude (!!!) would we not have ANY such cheap / economical balloons TODAY, in 2016, functioning as "reflectors of telcom EM waves" - and why would the so-called "geo-stationary satellites" (supposedly now orbiting Earth at 22.000miles /36.000km of altitude) have improved such electromagnetic wave reflection?

WHY - and to sum it up - WHY would anyone (in his/her right mind) watch this 'BIG BOUNCE' propaganda movie today - and fail to sense its utter phoniness?

Image


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBUXLmLzxxg

And for the more technologically-inclined of you, have a laugh and read all about "PROJECT ECHO" ... on Wonkypedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo

I rest my case: ALL of this world's EM telcom data (radio / TV / GPS, internet, etc) is - and has always been - propagated via ground-based antennas (triangulating with the ionosphere) or with submarine communication cables .

***************
And let me remind all readers (especially the casual readers of this forum) that : NO, I do NOT believe that the Earth is flat. -_-
Here at Cluesforum, we have - since 2009 -exposed NASA for the total fraud that it is - and accordingly / predictably - the NASA damage-control-crew has launched this recent / "viral" Flat Earth DBA campaign (Discredit-By-Association) - in the hope of ridiculing our longstanding research in the eyes of Joe Public.


Thank you Simon for that treat. We watched it as a family and had a good laugh. :lol: Disintegrating powder that expands to fill the balloon in the vacuum once in space? Say whaaat? :wacko:

In any event, I will make an educated guess about where they came up with (in part) the name "PROJECT ECHO".

There is an old short story by Mark Twain called The Canvasser's Tale (http://www.online-literature.com/twain/3270/). It's about a wealthy but unsatisfied man who began obsessing over various collections, and eventually blew all his money on a worthless echo collection that turned out to be the sad inheritance of his nephew.

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. :(
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests