Peter » December 3rd, 2017, 11:08 pm wrote:. Now of course, due to the space travel and satellite lie, it has to be a place of calm.
kickstones wrote:
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.![]()
Jonathan » November 1st, 2011, 12:49 pm wrote: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).
TripleSpeak » September 28th, 2018, 3:15 am wrote: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."
Kham » September 28th, 2018, 2:09 pm wrote:GPS, just simple old terrestrial triangulation between 3 communication towers.
Observer » September 28th, 2018, 6:26 am wrote:TripleSpeak » September 28th, 2018, 3:15 am wrote: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!
TripleSpeak wrote: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.
TripleSpeak wrote: 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 » September 28th, 2018, 11:15 pm wrote:TripleSpeak wrote: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.TripleSpeak wrote: 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
TripleSpeak » September 28th, 2018, 10:27 pm wrote: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.
Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests