Satellites : general discussion and musings

[Peter]

The_White_Lodge has a good point. Kepler and Newton can be criticized but more modern theories of people like Einstein seem to be largely fantasies and hypotheses. Historically man has changed his view of the violence of the universe imo depending on the current zeitgeist. Now of course, due to the space travel and satellite lie, it has to be a place of calm. The near universe at least. So we see the space station appearing still and peaceful and the old space shuttle gliding peacefully up to it to dock. In reality both would have to be traveling at tens of thousand of miles an hour and would have such energy that they could easily rip each other apart on contact. That is if they had magically survived being ripped apart on their own much earlier.

[kickstones]

. Now of course, due to the space travel and satellite lie, it has to be a place of calm.

According to this drivel put out by a fantasist in the article below its maybe not going to be a place of calm in this part of the universe much longer.

The Magnetic Field Is Shifting. The Poles May Flip. This Could Get Bad.

The shield that protects the Earth from solar radiation is under attack from within.
01.26.2018 / By Alanna Mitchell

https://undark.org/article/books-alanna ... ng-magnet/

This essay is adapted from...

“The Spinning Magnet: The Electromagnetic Force That Created the Modern World — and Could Destroy It,”
by Alanna Mitchell, to be published on January 30

A few extracts.......

When next the poles change places, the consequences for the electrical and electronic infrastructure that runs civilization will be dire.

The question is when that will happen.

In the past few decades, geophysicists have tried to answer that question through satellite imagery and math. They have figured out how to peer deep inside the Earth, to the edge of the molten, metallic core where the magnetic field is continually being generated.

The latest satellite data, from the European Space Agency’s Swarm trio, which began reporting in 2014, show that a battle is raging at the edge of the core. Like factions planning a coup, swirling clusters of molten iron and nickel are gathering strength and draining energy from the dipole.

Scientists can’t say for sure that is happening now ....


But they can say that the phenomenon is intensifying and that they can’t rule out the possibility that a reversal is beginning.

How bad could it be?

Scientists have never established a link between previous pole reversals and catastrophes like mass extinctions. But the world of today is not the world of 780,000 years ago, when the poles last reversed......

Add cosmic and ultraviolet radiation to this mix, and the consequences for life on Earth could be ruinous.

And the perils are not just biological...

Because grids are so tightly coupled with each other, failure would race across the globe, causing a domino run of blackouts that could last for decades.

No lights. No computers. No cellphones. Even flushing a toilet or filling a car’s gas tank would be impossible. And that’s just for starters....

And private satellite operators aren’t collating and sharing information about how their electronics are withstanding space radiation, a practice that could help everyone protect their gear.

It’s time to wake up to the dangers and start preparing.

[simonshack]

And private satellite operators aren’t collating and sharing information about how their electronics are withstanding space radiation, a practice that could help everyone protect their gear.

[bongostaple]

Just saw this in the news. Apparently there could be many more Near Earth Objects than are officially recorded. No shit. The whole news 'story' appears to be aimed at getting people to shit themselves about being hit by one.

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/230984/20180623/there-could-be-thousands-of-unconfirmed-near-earth-objects-according-to-scientists.htm

I think there are probably a lot of NEOs that have been confirmed as man-made satellites, rather than identify them as lumps of rock. With reference to earlier discussions here, I would imagine many NEOs have been spotted and tracked, but not publically identified as anything until a satellite gets launched. Or a 'space station'. No problem, there are more than enough NEOs to go round without affecting the 'Armageddon' fear story.

[edited - typo]

[Mansur]

The photo out of the pre-satellite era and of the heyday of scientific popularization was allegedly made by a 2¼ hour exposure. (Taken from a book of mainstream scientist James Jeans, The Stars in their Courses, published about 1930.) The straight line as the description says is the trace of a falling star running through accidentally.

(Btw, without even the least expertise in photography, I don’t see —satellites or not— why do the countless modern time-lapse photos show no such lines.)

[I found the original book: https://www.questia.com/read/6795692/th ... ir-courses
The caption there runs as (I. table) :
"Norman Lockyer Observatory. The Rotating Dome of the Sky Each curved line records the apparent path of a single star in 2 1/4 hours. The straight line across the plate is a meteor-trail, made by a meteor (p. 66) which happened to dash through the earth's atmosphere while the plate was being exposed."
So maybe I am wrong and misdirected by a floppy translation. ]

*************
Admin notice (simon) : your above picture wasn't displaying (for some unknown reason), so I went to that URL, found it, and made a screenshot of it.

[Mansur]

Thank you, Simon.

And I am sorry for the blunder. -- But now, quite contrarily to my intention that was when posting the picture, it seems to be a question of fakery.

(In the book (1931), the author is showing the universe surrounding us with the help of an imaginary rocket traveling through the spheres, -- “what we would see if we were there” as it were. -- But maybe it was the invention of the translation (1941) too…)

[heniek1812]

This is only to further try to clarify my viewpoint, not meant as proof...

I was actually trying to create a picture which represents the true dimensions we are dealing with here.
And I might even succeed creating one of Earth with satellites orbits in its true dimensions relative to each other - and to the shadow Earth creates, projecting it onto the satellites orbits.

I failed to create a faithful representation of the size- and distance ratios of Earth and Sun.
This time not because of lack of skill, but because of the actual vast ratios.
The picture would need to be vast too - wide, especially.
It just would not fit on screen while actually showing any detail.
......
The values I used to calculate:
Sun's diameter: 1.4 Million Kilometer
Earths diameter: 12.700 Kilometer
Distance Sun - Earth: 150 Million Kilometer (slightly rounded up value of one AU)
Diameter of Basketball: 24 cm (derived from a circumference of about 75.4 cm)
The previously introduced value of 30 inches diameter for a Basketball was obviously not correct - that was its circumference (for a standard NBA ball).

Ok, I am very late to this discussion but I noticed that over several comments no one calculated to the end the numbers that directly relate to why Jonathan gave up on making a scaled image of the situation.

I have been interested in Astronomy since I was a kid. After university it went by the wayside but the Moon and the stars at night continued to remind me that I liked them.

Ok, assuming that everything is in a straight line, Sun - Earth - geosat.

The angle that the Sun makes in the hypothetical field of view of the sky (180 degrees) is

arc tan(0.7*10^6/150*10^6) = 0.267 degrees ----> complete disk gives 0.534 degrees

Now the geosat is sitting behind the Earth and wants to see the Sun. Well to see it the Earth better make an angle in the field of view of the satellite that is LESS THAN 0.534 degree. So what is that angle ?

arc tan(0.6*10^3/35.8*10^3) = 0.96 degrees ----> complete disk gives 1.92 degrees

1) We are dealing with very small angles and HUGE distances. This is not going to look too informative if you try to show it in a visual. The numbers speak for themselves. The illusion being that we the ants on this huge Earth see a LARGE Sun in the sky and think "Wow, it is lighting everything !!!". Well that is an illusion if the Laws of Physics are as we have them and light travels in straight lines (Yes I know about the bending due to gravity , atmosphere .....).

2) Sun present to the geosat only 0.534 degrees of the field of view but the Earth blocks that with its 1.92 degrees.

So disregarding various spins, oscillation of the axis, orbits etc, on a straight line basis Earth blocks the rays of the Sun from the tiny geosat.

Sitting on this big sphere obscures certain realities of the dimensions we are dealing with and how they influence our perception.

[TripleSpeak]

Sorry to join so late in the discussion, but I believe the satellites issue is a lynchpin in the understanding and substantiation of the truth behind human success with: rockets, space travel, and technology in general.

I've not seen any reasonable explanations for how GPS works from those who do not believe in satellites. As an engineer, I feel the need to show that you can take apart GPS receivers or build open source ones that run software that have equations that only make sense if GPS works as officially explained. For example, there is no way - I can think of - that you could be able to "bounce signals from the ground off of the ionosphere" in a way that receivers on the ground could discern their locations. As anyone can easily show, you can use GPS receivers independently from WiFi & cell towers - and you can even use them in planes.

Just a quick synopsis on how GPS works... Each satellite has a very accurate clock on it. These clocks are synced. Each one is constantly broadcasting its time. Because of the # of GPS satellites, almost anywhere on earth (except very close to the poles) you are within range of at least 3 of them at once. Therefore, receiving the time stamp from 3 satellites uses relatively simple trilateration math to measure your distance.

I am totally open to this all being wrong, of course, but considering how easy it is to download open source GPS software and experiment from scratch using an Arduino - for example - it would be worth it for us to substantiate beyond what anyone thinks is a reasonable doubt. Doing so should make our argumentation for the other frauds that NASA has been part of even stronger.

Satellites seem to be the most useful tools for substantiating the fraudulent evidence of human travels to space. For example, if satellites are real, then the ISS could be real - but just a 'dud' - or it could be the directed energy weapon some think exist. Huge solar panels for charging a super capacitor and a microwave laser to start fires and whatnot on earth.

On the other hand, if you can prove that GPS works without satellites, then the rest of it is very easy to prove as well - because GPS is the most difficult thing to do without satellites that is easy to see being done.

[Kham]

GPS, just simple old terrestrial triangulation between 3 communication towers.

[Observer]

Sorry to join so late in the discussion, but I believe the satellites issue is a lynchpin in the understanding and substantiation of the truth behind human success with: rockets, space travel, and technology in general."

So, a new typist character has entered, who is rudely refusing to actually thoughtfully ponder (and rudely refusing to even quickly skim through) the points already made in the 59 pages of this thread (and rudely refusing to read this forum enough to know that one's first post should be in the intro section), because he is either a paid typist or mentally still a little child who faithfully religiously fanatically believes in the fantastical tale of rockets flying to hundreds of kilometers above earth and releasing satellites which magically are keeping themselves in "orbit", and his goal is to convince a few CluesForum readers to believe in satellites too, because according to him: satellites are the "lynchpin" in the substantiation of his (naïve) belief that humans have actually had SUCCESS with rockets and space-travel.

Basically he is saying, "C'mon guys, I dream of driving a moon-buggy on Mars someday, so satellites are the LYNCHPIN to my space-travel fantasy! If you believe in human success, you must believe in rocket-launched orbiting-satellite and space-travel success!"

And then, he basically continues, "Here, I've rote-memorized the official literature on the subject, since I'm smart I'm gonna' explain to you idiots how satellites are absolutely required for our handheld current-location-telling radio receivers to work. Satellites flying around hundreds of kilometers in space have perfectly synched clocks broadcasting the perfect time. For your handheld receiver to show your current location on Earth, you just need to be between three moving satellites, since we can triangulate your position within those three satellites. All we need is synched clocks and to calculate the time it takes for those three clocks to reach your receiver. See?"

But wait a second kid, if you had actually read through the 59 pages of this thread instead of repeatedly binge-watching watching Star Trek / NASA / space-travel fantasies - and even without actually reading the posts of others here, if you had actually used your own brain's latent powers of logic, you would have realized that broadcasting the time is not enough, time is not the only information being broadcast in triangulation signals: to know your exact coordinates, the broadcast must also include the exact location of the three signal transmitters, which is easy to do with non-moving towers (tower A includes it's non-moving coordinates in its signal broadcast, tower B includes it's non-moving coordinates in its signal broadcast, and tower C includes it's non-moving coordinates in its signal broadcast) thus for satellites to work each satellite would ALSO have to be including in their signal broadcast their constantly-greatly-changing NorthEastSouthWest position relative to known coordinates on Earth (and each satellite would ALSO have to be including in their signal broadcast their constantly-slightly-changing altitude as well), because even if the "clock information" shows you happen to be for a moment in time perfectly triangulated in the very center of three satellites such triangulation would still not be able to calculate your current coordinates without the satellites ALSO knowing and broadcasting their exact moment to moment pinpoint LOCATIONS as well.

Each transmitter must know and broadcast their own exact pinpoint coordinates, to actually be able to triangulate and calculate the exact pinpoint coordinate of the handheld receiver.

Before lecturing CluesForum readers about how "satellites only need to broadcast the perfect time, using their perfectly synched atomic clocks, to tell you your current pinpoint location" perhaps you should have first educated yourself about how real-life non-fantasy LAND-based transmission towers here on Earth must include in their broadcast signal their perfectly-known non-moving location, for any triangulation of a receiver between them to take place, for the receiver to finally be able to say "You are currently at 41.8085°North, 12.6761°East."

Look kid, current-location coordinate-telling systems using radio-waves transmitted solely by non-fantasy land-based fixed-location transmitters work, and they work over surprisingly long distances (whether helped in part by bouncing back off the ionosphere, or whether radio waves simply hug the Earth and bend [like light does] more than most people imagine, either way it matters not since they are working fine, as evidenced by your own "GPS" receiver telling you your coordinates fine right now) and they work by the actual LOCATION of each transmitter being quietly included in the signal (since each transmitter identifier is of course included in the signal, the known-coordinates of each transmitter is of course included in the triangulation calculations) and these land-based systems have been existing and working long before the fantasy "space satellite" psy-op even began, and you would know this fact about land-based systems if you had invested the time and energy to actually read this thread, instead of excitedly jumping in with your regurgitation of how "space satellites are essential to current-location coordinate-telling systems" and your childhood fantasies of "rocket-launched orbiting-satellites and space-travel are successes!"

But what a waste of my time this reply of mine is, altruistically explaining to a rude regurgitator (or a paid typist) that land-based current-location coordinate-telling systems using radio-waves transmitted solely by non-fantasy land-based fixed-location transmitters work.

This character basically manipulated me into attempting to prove that "GPS" works without satellites, and now that I have explained to him the reality (that his "GPS" receiver is receiving information from land-based transmitters) now suddenly I have strengthened his ability to try to put the burden of proof on ME to prove what I wrote above. Suddenly I have to provide reams of proof that "GPS" works without satellites, and that proof of course must come from mainstream sources, and basically if an official government source doesn't admit that GPS works without satellites then in his mind I have not provided sufficient proof of my bold statement about the reality of the amazing power of land-based current-location coordinate-telling radio-systems

Nope, listen pal, YOU are the one pushing NASA's fantastical tale of "rocket-launched orbiting-satellite (and space-travel) success", so you are the one who needs to provide evidence.

Simon Shack and the other good folks here at CluesForum have already proven that the official "rocket-launched orbiting-satellite (and space-travel) success evidence" was forged.

If you haven't yet realized that the rocket-launch/satellite-orbit/moon-landing/space-shuttle/space-station/space-travel images and animated-images are forged, then please stop posting here until you realize this primary fact.

If you want to waste our time with the debate game, first please explain WHY their "evidence of existence" contains forged images and forged animated-images.

Oh wait, are you one of those folks who halfheartedly admits the official space images are forged, yet still claims like a child or a shill, "But, but, even though they forged those moon-landing images, they really did land on the moon then! They faked the moon-landing images, to hide their actual moon-landing success!"

Like those folks who claim like a child or a shill, "But, but, even though they forged those 9/11 steel-beam-dustification images, they really do have such satellite-based star-wars DEW-lasers! They faked the 9/11 steel-beam-dustification images, to hide their actual 9/11 steel-beam-dustification success!" ?

So never mind my request for you to explain WHY their "evidence of existence" contains forged images and forged animated-images, because that merely results in the "to hide their actual success" claims.

The proper request for typists like you is: Please provide sufficient authentic non-forged footage (preferably film please, thank you) to prove the fantastical claims which you want us to believe.

The burden is on YOU the space-success believer, to provide extraordinary evidence for your space-success extraordinary claims. Good luck!

[Observer]

GPS, just simple old terrestrial triangulation between 3 communication towers.

And Kham efficiently beautifully summed up my whole post, and this whole thread really, in 10 words. Nice.

[TripleSpeak]

Sorry to join so late in the discussion, but I believe the satellites issue is a lynchpin in the understanding and substantiation of the truth behind human success with: rockets, space travel, and technology in general."

So, a new typist character has entered, who is rudely refusing to actually thoughtfully ponder (and rudely refusing to even quickly skim through) the points already made in the 59 pages of this thread (and rudely refusing to read this forum enough to know that one's first post should be in the intro section), because he is either a paid typist or mentally still a little child who faithfully religiously fanatically believes in the fantastical tale of rockets flying to hundreds of kilometers above earth and releasing satellites which magically are keeping themselves in "orbit", and his goal is to convince a few CluesForum readers to believe in satellites too, because according to him: satellites are the "lynchpin" in the substantiation of his (naïve) belief that humans have actually had SUCCESS with rockets and space-travel.

Basically he is saying, "C'mon guys, I dream of driving a moon-buggy on Mars someday, so satellites are the LYNCHPIN to my space-travel fantasy! If you believe in human success, you must believe in rocket-launched orbiting-satellite and space-travel success!"

And then, he basically continues, "Here, I've rote-memorized the official literature on the subject, since I'm smart I'm gonna' explain to you idiots how satellites are absolutely required for our handheld current-location-telling radio receivers to work. Satellites flying around hundreds of kilometers in space have perfectly synched clocks broadcasting the perfect time. For your handheld receiver to show your current location on Earth, you just need to be between three moving satellites, since we can triangulate your position within those three satellites. All we need is synched clocks and to calculate the time it takes for those three clocks to reach your receiver. See?"

But wait a second kid, if you had actually read through the 59 pages of this thread instead of repeatedly binge-watching watching Star Trek / NASA / space-travel fantasies - and even without actually reading the posts of others here, if you had actually used your own brain's latent powers of logic, you would have realized that broadcasting the time is not enough, time is not the only information being broadcast in triangulation signals: to know your exact coordinates, the broadcast must also include the exact location of the three signal transmitters, which is easy to do with non-moving towers (tower A includes it's non-moving coordinates in its signal broadcast, tower B includes it's non-moving coordinates in its signal broadcast, and tower C includes it's non-moving coordinates in its signal broadcast) thus for satellites to work each satellite would ALSO have to be including in their signal broadcast their constantly-greatly-changing NorthEastSouthWest position relative to known coordinates on Earth (and each satellite would ALSO have to be including in their signal broadcast their constantly-slightly-changing altitude as well), because even if the "clock information" shows you happen to be for a moment in time perfectly triangulated in the very center of three satellites such triangulation would still not be able to calculate your current coordinates without the satellites ALSO knowing and broadcasting their exact moment to moment pinpoint LOCATIONS as well.

Each transmitter must know and broadcast their own exact pinpoint coordinates, to actually be able to triangulate and calculate the exact pinpoint coordinate of the handheld receiver.

Before lecturing CluesForum readers about how "satellites only need to broadcast the perfect time, using their perfectly synched atomic clocks, to tell you your current pinpoint location" perhaps you should have first educated yourself about how real-life non-fantasy LAND-based transmission towers here on Earth must include in their broadcast signal their perfectly-known non-moving location, for any triangulation of a receiver between them to take place, for the receiver to finally be able to say "You are currently at 41.8085°North, 12.6761°East."

Look kid, current-location coordinate-telling systems using radio-waves transmitted solely by non-fantasy land-based fixed-location transmitters work, and they work over surprisingly long distances (whether helped in part by bouncing back off the ionosphere, or whether radio waves simply hug the Earth and bend [like light does] more than most people imagine, either way it matters not since they are working fine, as evidenced by your own "GPS" receiver telling you your coordinates fine right now) and they work by the actual LOCATION of each transmitter being quietly included in the signal (since each transmitter identifier is of course included in the signal, the known-coordinates of each transmitter is of course included in the triangulation calculations) and these land-based systems have been existing and working long before the fantasy "space satellite" psy-op even began, and you would know this fact about land-based systems if you had invested the time and energy to actually read this thread, instead of excitedly jumping in with your regurgitation of how "space satellites are essential to current-location coordinate-telling systems" and your childhood fantasies of "rocket-launched orbiting-satellites and space-travel are successes!"

But what a waste of my time this reply of mine is, altruistically explaining to a rude regurgitator (or a paid typist) that land-based current-location coordinate-telling systems using radio-waves transmitted solely by non-fantasy land-based fixed-location transmitters work.

This character basically manipulated me into attempting to prove that "GPS" works without satellites, and now that I have explained to him the reality (that his "GPS" receiver is receiving information from land-based transmitters) now suddenly I have strengthened his ability to try to put the burden of proof on ME to prove what I wrote above. Suddenly I have to provide reams of proof that "GPS" works without satellites, and that proof of course must come from mainstream sources, and basically if an official government source doesn't admit that GPS works without satellites then in his mind I have not provided sufficient proof of my bold statement about the reality of the amazing power of land-based current-location coordinate-telling radio-systems

Nope, listen pal, YOU are the one pushing NASA's fantastical tale of "rocket-launched orbiting-satellite (and space-travel) success", so you are the one who needs to provide evidence.

Simon Shack and the other good folks here at CluesForum have already proven that the official "rocket-launched orbiting-satellite (and space-travel) success evidence" was forged.

If you haven't yet realized that the rocket-launch/satellite-orbit/moon-landing/space-shuttle/space-station/space-travel images and animated-images are forged, then please stop posting here until you realize this primary fact.

If you want to waste our time with the debate game, first please explain WHY their "evidence of existence" contains forged images and forged animated-images.

Oh wait, are you one of those folks who halfheartedly admits the official space images are forged, yet still claims like a child or a shill, "But, but, even though they forged those moon-landing images, they really did land on the moon then! They faked the moon-landing images, to hide their actual moon-landing success!"

Like those folks who claim like a child or a shill, "But, but, even though they forged those 9/11 steel-beam-dustification images, they really do have such satellite-based star-wars DEW-lasers! They faked the 9/11 steel-beam-dustification images, to hide their actual 9/11 steel-beam-dustification success!" ?

So never mind my request for you to explain WHY their "evidence of existence" contains forged images and forged animated-images, because that merely results in the "to hide their actual success" claims.

The proper request for typists like you is: Please provide sufficient authentic non-forged footage (preferably film please, thank you) to prove the fantastical claims which you want us to believe.

The burden is on YOU the space-success believer, to provide extraordinary evidence for your space-success extraordinary claims. Good luck!

Wow... I clearly was already hedging something that I believed might be offensive - but I don't know what else I could have said to reduce the offensiveness of my post. People like us already have very few corners of the web to communicate through anymore - and they're all rapidly becoming more divisive. I had read this forum for weeks before posting - and I had emailed Simon according to the rules. I had just forgotten to paste that email into the intro thread before I started posting, and which was remedied before you wrote this reply.

I used the search functionality to go through this entire forum before posting each of my posts to make sure I wasn't asking questions that have already been answered. I really have the desire to get to the bottom of these things - and I will try not to let your reply discourage me. I really appreciate the admins here because I recognize this forum as a rare environment of truth seeking still online today. However, I hope that I do not have to preface every potentially controversial post with such hedging; the quality of this forum stands on its own two feet and is self-evident. Is calling me a shill right off of the bat a technique to make me qualify myself? Well, I am happy to do so. Perhaps calling me a shill is an attack on the administrators for letting low quality users through. Observer, it is annoying to be misquoted so much - my above post & introductory post clearly shows that I do not adhere to space-travel fantasies, but I don't see why satellites - an example of how we can only send things one-way into space - isn't a lynchpin in the history of fabrications in this domain. Please don't reframe by post as condescending - it is not; that is a fantasy of yours.

Anyway, where exactly does it say *how* terrestrial antennae can be used to trilaterate a receiver's moving position on earth? Why does it work in airplanes (I have tested this)? I think this is a good opportunity to get into the software on a GPS receiver and show how it really works - to write out the calculations by hand.

"This character basically manipulated me into attempting to prove that "GPS" works without satellites, and now that I have explained to him the reality (that his "GPS" receiver is receiving information from land-based transmitters) now suddenly I have strengthened his ability to try to put the burden of proof on ME to prove what I wrote above."

Why does this need to be framed as victim vs perpetrator? I am happy to take the burden of proof off of you and put it into myself.

"Suddenly I have to provide reams of proof that "GPS" works without satellites, and that proof of course must come from mainstream sources"

Again misquoting me - I did not say proof has to come from mainstream sources or any source at all. I am happy to prove things in writing using first principles. I just re-read my post several times and cannot see how it can be parsed in such inflammatory terms.

I am open to the possibility that I am illiterate, even after working in engineering for a decade building new technologies. But I wonder why cell phone towers can barely trilaterate one's position without the "GPS feature" to put it neutrally. I think the next step for me - since the burden of proof *is* on me - is to post some open source code from a GPS module that anyone can compile and test. This really raises so many questions. Like how is the GPS signal spread uniformly on the surface of the earth? Where is a picture of even a single GPS antenna? A proof of concept should be easy: 1) put phone on airplane mode 2) open google maps 3) see GPS coordinate 4) blow up supposed GPS antenna 5) either GPS coordinate vanishes or stays. If that was indeed the GPS antenna giving one that location information, then we should even see a GPS outage on the news. Note that I am merely saying this as an example PoC, and I do not intent for myself or anyone else to blow up terrestrial antennas.

"since each transmitter identifier is of course included in the signal, the known-coordinates of each transmitter is of course included in the triangulation calculations"

Great, then I should be able to find this debugging open source GPS module, then I should be able to travel to a few antenna to take pictures of them and post them back on this forum... I don't see why that wouldn't be welcome here.

"If you haven't yet realized that the rocket-launch/satellite-orbit/moon-landing/space-shuttle/space-station/space-travel images and animated-images are forged, then please stop posting here until you realize this primary fact."

This would mean that even Anders Bjorkman isn't allowed here - and he has provided under his own name the most complete picture and explanation for why nukes are a sham - because he believes satellites exist. Again, I don't see why we need to be so divisive. If anything, why not hold the view that some people have seen a lot of the truth - but not the entire truth - so they would be easier to convince that 99% of the rest (and you would be helping them a lot by doing so). Why should someone like Anders and myself be me with such divisiveness when we are so close to your truth?

"Simon Shack and the other good folks here at CluesForum have already proven that the official "rocket-launched orbiting-satellite (and space-travel) success evidence" was forged."

Again, I am not going against Simon, or saying anyone who has made contributions to this forum is not "good." I also believe he has proven that rocket forgery - so please don't frame this is "paid shill vs Simon."

"But, but, even though they forged those 9/11 steel-beam-dustification images, they really do have such satellite-based star-wars DEW-lasers! They faked the 9/11 steel-beam-dustification images, to hide their actual 9/11 steel-beam-dustification success!" -- Let it be known that this is not a quote from me and it never will be.

"The proper request for typists like you is: Please provide sufficient authentic non-forged footage (preferably film please, thank you) to prove the fantastical claims which you want us to believe."

Sure thing - I will work to do this. Despite your lack of technical reply - you wrote enough sense in your explanation of how you think terrestrial antennas are used to achieve GPS that I should be able to find this while debugging a GPS module.

EDIT: One more question that I think would be useful to readers of this thread: what are those seemingly far away, fast-moving blinking lights you can see with the naked eye in the skies at night (official sources say are satellites)?

[simonshack]

This would mean that even Anders Bjorkman isn't allowed here - and he has provided under his own name the most complete picture and explanation for why nukes are a sham - because he believes satellites exist. Again, I don't see why we need to be so divisive.

Anders Bjorkman was jettisoned out of this valiant "spaceship" of ours some years ago - as he started claiming that NASA's rockets are all fake - whereas the French Ariane rockets are real... More recently, I have seen him posting on his blog some quite imbecilic stuff about my Tychos model which shows that he simply doesn't understand (or feigns to misunderstand) the first thing of it.

EDIT: One more question that I think would be useful to readers of this thread: what are those seemingly far away, fast-moving blinking lights you can see with the naked eye in the skies at night (official sources say are satellites)?

My (best) answer to this question of yours can be found here:
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p ... 1#p2394371

[TripleSpeak]

This would mean that even Anders Bjorkman isn't allowed here - and he has provided under his own name the most complete picture and explanation for why nukes are a sham - because he believes satellites exist. Again, I don't see why we need to be so divisive.

Anders Bjorkman was jettisoned out of this valiant "spaceship" of ours some years ago - as he started claiming that NASA's rockets are all fake - whereas the French Ariane rockets are real... More recently, I have seen him posting on his blog some quite imbecilic stuff about my Tychos model which shows that he simply doesn't understand (or feigns to misunderstand) the first thing of it.

EDIT: One more question that I think would be useful to readers of this thread: what are those seemingly far away, fast-moving blinking lights you can see with the naked eye in the skies at night (official sources say are satellites)?

My answer to this question of yours can be found here:
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p ... 1#p2394371

Thanks, I had no idea about Anders... Interesting - and so is his decision to be so outward about this stuff to link to his own public FB & real name!

I feel my description of the naked-eye "satellite observations" was off... I cannot tell by the post you linked. What is the difference between shooting stars (what I think are asteroids), and these fast moving, far away things (that sometimes blink) with the same degree of intensity until they are out of the field-of-view (which we are taught are satellites)? I've never laid on my back for more than 10 minutes under a clear sky and *not* spotted one.
Here's a video of the difference I'm trying to describe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIkaeIL9s2Y

[simonshack]

I feel my description of the naked-eye "satellite observations" was off... I cannot tell by the post you linked. What is the difference between shooting stars (what I think are asteroids), and these fast moving, far away things that blink with the same degree of intensity until they are out of the field-of-view (which we are taught are satellites)? I've never laid on my back for more than 10 minutes under a clear sky and *not* spotted one.

Not sure what you mean by the above-quoted paragraph of yours - sorry.

The bottom line (regarding the supposed existence of man-made satellites) is this: no serious person can deny the fact that our skies are populated with "zillions" (pardon the "hyperbolic" expression) of flying rocks / space debris / meteorids / asteroids / call them what you will. In any case, hundreds of thousands enter our atmosphere every year (or week? or day?) and instantly burn (and thankfully, vaporize) as they crash into the same. Every year, spectacular meteor showers (of countless and particularly large such objects) are regularly witnessed all around the world. Evidently, our atmosphere (with its density of air molecules which has proven to melt the steel of any man-made aircrafts beyond certain mach speeds) provides us with an almost impenetrable protection-shield against these uninterrupted showers of potentially destructive bodies.

So the question is: HOW exactly could any man-made satellite survive (for years / or decades on end, as we are told) in the midst of such constant bombardment? Have we ever heard of any of those precious satellites being hit by any space debris? And please, spare me from the standard, idiotic answer that "space is sooo vast that it is unlikely that any of our satellites get hit by any meteors/comets/asteroids/space debris". Thanks.