PDA

View Full Version : The Space Shuttle and the ISS are a Hoax!


Pages : [1] 2

galexander
07-01-2009, 12:13 PM
As impossible as it may sound at first, and I have been studying this phenomena for several years now, but it would appear that the International Space Station (ISS) and the Space Shuttle are a complete hoax. I have managed to prove this by directly viewing the ISS through a privately owned telescope (a Newtonian of 6 inch aperture at low magnification and using manual tracking). On every occasion I have viewed the ISS, and I am an experienced observer, a perfectly round object is revealed presenting no angular projections whatsoever. This entirely goes against what we have officially been told regarding the exact configuration of the ISS which could loosely be described as shaped somewhat like an aeroplane.

Knowing the quoted altitude of this object (the ISS) and estimating its approximate apparent diameter by comparing it with the apparent diameter of the planet Saturn at the time (excluding its rings), I was able to calculate its absolute diameter as being somewhere around 40 metres. A perfectly round man-made object of this size in space could only be a balloon that has been inflated in orbit. Such experimental balloon satellites were officially launched in the early 1960s (e.g. Echo 1 and 2).

But the question is how could the Space Shuttle ever dock with a balloon? It is possible that the Space Shuttle isnt real either and there is ample evidence to suggest that this is in fact the case. For example the Earths sky during the daytime glows a bright blue colour as a result of the scattering of light. But this blue colour should be just as visible from space as it is from the ground as the light in question is by necessity scattered in all directions. Yet most of the photographic and video images of the Earth taken from the ISS and Shuttle dont show this blue glow which should appear as a blue fog clouding out much of the detail on the Earths surface below. In fact most of these images would suggest that the Earths atmosphere were completely transparent in this regard. Yet despite the absence of this blue glow we can still see blue coloured oceans which according to the opinion of some obtain their colour from the very same blue sky glow.

I believe the images supposedly taken on board the Space Shuttle in orbit were actually filmed in an underwater film studio and possibly the same Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory specially built for the Space Shuttle astronauts to do their training in. Indeed the footage shows loose appendages and insulation foil swaying about as if being moved by currents of water. Also small white dots are sometimes seen shooting off the side of the Shuttle in straight lines and at a constant velocity which could well represent rising air bubbles as there is no way in the vacuum of space that any loose debris could leave the side of the Space Shuttle in such a manner.

In addition to this and despite the fact that we are told that the Space Shuttle performs an unpowered landing, i.e. it glides, video footage taken from both outside and inside of the Shuttle on landing appears to betray what is clearly background engine noise. Besides how could a delta winged aircraft with such a weight to wingspan ratio possibly glide anyway? Further night time landings when viewed from the rear of the Shuttle reveal peculiar red lights directly inside the rocket combustion chambers mounted at the rear of the craft. What are these, landing lights? I strongly doubt it. These lights would also indicate that the Shuttles engines are actually running on landing.

It is also evidently the case that NASA scientists have not been entirely honest when it comes to the immediate hazards presented to spacecraft by the space environment. For example the Earths upper atmosphere is comprised largely of ionized atomic oxygen at temperatures at times approaching 1,400C. This gas apparently produces a noticeable drag factor for spacecraft such as the ISS which has to be re-boosted every three months or so. But this gas in reality would be more corrosive than any acid found in an Earth laboratory such as hydrofluoric acid which easily corrodes glass.

Further the Suns spectrum of radiative output (assuming it to be a blackbody of a temperature of 5,770 Kelvin) contains ultraviolet light possessing the required quantum energy to break open not only every organic bond known to man but every inorganic bond known to man as well. Obviously at the higher frequencies and at the Earths distance from the Sun, the flux density of this radiation is comparatively weaker than the radiation in the visible spectrum. However the effects of this high frequency radiation are nevertheless cumulative. Space suits would blacken and glass would become smoked in appearance as the hours or even minutes passed by.

In my mind it is only too apparent who the perpetrators of this monumental fraud are. At the end of World War II Nazi scientists were taken to both the United States and the Soviet Union as part of Operation Paperclip. It were these same scientists who ultimately made up the chief executive at NASA. The first director of the Kennedy Space Center, Kurt Debus, was an ex-Nazi; the founder of the science of exobiology (the study of the possibility of life on Mars or elsewhere in the Universe), Hubertus Strughold, (whose experiments on live humans during the War at Dachau concentration camp often proved fatal) was an ex-Nazi; and the designer of the Saturn V, Wernher von Braun was Hilters leading rocket scientist who built the V-2.

I believe that these ex-Nazis were clearly not to be trusted and like other stay behind Nazi operatives after the war, they actively conspired from the outset to do damage to the US government. They were directly putting into practice Hitlers famous saying concerning the power of propaganda, The bigger the lie, the more believable it is. I also believe these bogus space endeavours represent a plant from which further operations could be launched against the anti-Nazi United States possibly assisted by an international league of Nazis in hiding rescued by the Vaticans notorious ratlines at the end of the war.

Astronut
07-15-2009, 11:17 AM
As impossible as it may sound at first, and I have been studying this phenomena for several years now, but it would appear that the International Space Station (ISS) and the Space Shuttle are a complete hoax. I have managed to prove this by directly viewing the ISS through a privately owned telescope (a Newtonian of 6 inch aperture at low magnification and using manual tracking). On every occasion I have viewed the ISS, and I am an experienced observer, a perfectly round object is revealed presenting no angular projections whatsoever. This entirely goes against what we have officially been told regarding the exact configuration of the ISS which could loosely be described as shaped somewhat like an aeroplane.

In my 8" schmidt-cassegrain I can see ISS just fine, and no it's not round at all. In fact, the solar panels and modules of the station are quite obvious and beautiful to behold. Here's a picture from my telescope to prove it:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2154/2110105639_493fe9b3ee_o.jpg
If you're telling the truth about what you saw and the equipment you used, I suggest you double check your focus and verify that you're really pointing at the space station.

In addition to this and despite the fact that we are told that the Space Shuttle performs an unpowered landing, i.e. it glides, video footage taken from both outside and inside of the Shuttle on landing appears to betray what is clearly background engine noise. Besides how could a delta winged aircraft with such a weight to wingspan ratio possibly glide anyway?

First of all, I've been to the landings, there's no engine noise, just the sound of the wind disrupted by the shuttle's massive presence as soon as the sonic booms pass by. If it were a fighter jet engine blazing past mach 1, it'd be a hell of a lot louder if it were really that close (it flew right over my head about one minute from landing).

Further night time landings when viewed from the rear of the Shuttle reveal peculiar red lights directly inside the rocket combustion chambers mounted at the rear of the craft.

Wrong, although if you view it against the black night sky before the spotlights hit it, you can see the faint red glow of the heat shield as it flies overhead.
It is also evidently the case that NASA scientists have not been entirely honest when it comes to the immediate hazards presented to spacecraft by the space environment. For example the Earths upper atmosphere is comprised largely of ionized atomic oxygen at temperatures at times approaching 1,400C. This gas apparently produces a noticeable drag factor for spacecraft such as the ISS which has to be re-boosted every three months or so. But this gas in reality would be more corrosive than any acid found in an Earth laboratory such as hydrofluoric acid which easily corrodes glass.

LOL, there are so few atoms of gas, and they bounce away immediately when hit, that there's no way it could be corrosive.

Further the Suns spectrum of radiative output (assuming it to be a blackbody of a temperature of 5,770 Kelvin) contains ultraviolet light possessing the required quantum energy to break open not only every organic bond known to man but every inorganic bond known to man as well.

That's just wrong, ultraviolet light doesn't do that. If it did, no satellite could exist.

neo1962
07-15-2009, 11:38 AM
Amazing...

galexander
07-15-2009, 12:17 PM
Astronut, you claim that you can see the ISS just fine in your telescope and that it is not round but we are obliged to take your word for it. How do we know you aren't working for NASA yourself? I mean its not impossible is it? And no my telescope was not out of focus, it was the first thing I checked! And incidentally members of The Flat Earth Society were able to independantly confirm the round shape of the ISS through telescopes.

You claim to have seen a Shuttle landing and that there was no noise. Again we have to take your word for this. How do you explain the obvious noise in the video footage?

The red lights at the rear of the Shuttle are clearly visible in photos of night time landings. How do you explain this?

As for your 'bouncing atoms' which explains why gas atoms don'y react in space.............oh dear, oh dear, oh dear......

You claim UV does not break molecular bonds........! It ionizes atoms silly, of course it breaks bonds as well!

Astronut
07-15-2009, 01:07 PM
Astronut, you claim that you can see the ISS just fine in your telescope and that it is not round but we are obliged to take your word for it. How do we know you aren't working for NASA yourself? I mean its not impossible is it? And no my telescope was not out of focus, it was the first thing I checked! And incidentally members of The Flat Earth Society were able to independantly confirm the round shape of the ISS through telescopes.

Well, regardless of what you say you saw or what a member of the flat earth society thinks they saw, I KNOW what I've seen many times. I don't work for NASA either. The fact that I can see the space station properly isn't disproven by someone who was incapable of seeing it. I've also shown the station to others over live webcasts and have the video to prove it:
YouTube - International Space Station and More
Watching you try to accuse me of being in on it is hilarious, but how about you prove your accusations?

You claim to have seen a Shuttle landing and that there was no noise. Again we have to take your word for this. How do you explain the obvious noise in the video footage?

I can tell you from personal experience the sound on TV doesn't do justice to the real sound of the sonic booms, similarly it doesn't adequately record the true sound of the shuttle rapidly descending and decelerating past mach 1. There is no engine plume, no heated wake behind it, and no loud roar that would accompany a jet. Just what sounds like the wind, caused by a high drag vehicle moving at high fractions of the speed of sound. Again, if you're going to accuse me of being a NASA employee or conspirator, prove it instead of just slandering me.

The red lights at the rear of the Shuttle are clearly visible in photos of night time landings. How do you explain this?

There aren't any. There are shiny surfaces at the top of the engine bell that reflect the flood lamps though:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-103/images/high/KSC-99PP-1511.jpg
http://www.wooshrocketry.org/MiscPhotos/davem/eaa2002/Shuttle%20Engine%20Inner%20Bell.jpg

As for your 'bouncing atoms' which explains why gas atoms don'y react in space.............oh dear, oh dear, oh dear......

The density of gas in space is far too low to cause any noticeable reaction.

You claim UV does not break molecular bonds........! It ionizes atoms silly, of course it breaks bonds as well!
You claimed it could break any organic or inorganic bond known to man, which is utter nonsense.

Astronut
07-15-2009, 01:08 PM
*accidental double post

galexander
07-15-2009, 02:01 PM
In reply to Astronut, since when did suggesting that someone may be in the employ of NASA count as slander? Can't see that at all.

And why is Astronut so keen to show 'live' telescopic images of the ISS over the internet unless he was trying to prove a big point, that the ISS does actually exist in case anyone had any doubts!

I'm afraid UV light can break open every single bond known to man, organic and inorganic. Check out the photon energy levels of UV light in eV's which far exceeds all known chemical bonds in the case of far UV. UV can ionize oxygen which has a potential of 13.6 eV I seem to recall which is bigger than any bond I can think of.

Astronut
07-15-2009, 04:05 PM
In reply to Astronut, since when did suggesting that someone may be in the employ of NASA count as slander? Can't see that at all.

Unless I'm mistaken, in context what you're essentially saying is that I'm being paid to claim that I've seen the ISS.

And why is Astronut so keen to show 'live' telescopic images of the ISS over the internet unless he was trying to prove a big point, that the ISS does actually exist in case anyone had any doubts!

See above, you seem to think I'm paid to do this. I'm keen to show live telescopic images of ISS over the internet because astronomy is my hobby and I love getting people interested in it as well. It's no different than participating in public star parties and public viewings offline, something I also do routinely. Just because it disproves your theory doesn't make it part of a conspiracy.

I'm afraid UV light can break open every single bond known to man, organic and inorganic.

Ah good, so then the moon doesn't exist, because after all, the moon has no atmosphere to speak of and so therefore every bond creating the molecules of the moon must have been broken a long time ago...

Check out the photon energy levels of UV light in eV's which far exceeds all known chemical bonds in the case of far UV. UV can ionize oxygen which has a potential of 13.6 eV I seem to recall which is bigger than any bond I can think of.

Not all bonds are broken by UV light. Titanium oxide (which would be the outermost atomic layer of ISS's skin) has a bond energy of 458 eV. Pure titanium would 455 eV.

Leonardo
07-15-2009, 07:08 PM
So you're saying the ISS is fake, right?

galexander
07-16-2009, 12:24 PM
Astronut, you ask why the Moon still exists if UV could destroy every single bond it has? You may be a keen amateur astronomer keen on educating others but your knowledge of science is just awful. For a start the Moon could still exist in elemental form, however you misread or ignored what I clearly stated in my original post. UV light only affects the surfaces of solid objects such as the Moon.

You claim to have websites with your pictures of the ISS on but where are they? The first picture you show us of the ISS you took has no text at all attached to it.

Astronut
07-16-2009, 10:16 PM
Astronut, you ask why the Moon still exists if UV could destroy every single bond it has? You may be a keen amateur astronomer keen on educating others but your knowledge of science is just awful. For a start the Moon could still exist in elemental form,

"Elemental" form? So the moon has no chemical bonds, it's just a bunch of unbound atoms? It should be rapidly eroding away under the radiation pressure of the solar wind (not to mention what would happen every time a major collision occurs with the moon) if that's the case, so now whose science is awful? In fact, when LCROSS strikes the moon in october, if it's just a bunch of unbound atoms, that should become immediately obvious in the morphology and spectrum of the dust (or unbound atom) plume.

however you misread or ignored what I clearly stated in my original post. UV light only affects the surfaces of solid objects such as the Moon.

Umm, contradict yourself much? If UV affects the surface of solid objects such as the moon in the way you describe, then my points about the moon stand... In truth, light can affect any phase of an element (heat it, etc). Also, as stated, many bonds, like that of titanium-titanium bonds, are far greater in energy than UV light.

You claim to have websites with your pictures of the ISS on but where are they? The first picture you show us of the ISS you took has no text at all attached to it.
I thought the picture I showed was pretty self-explanatory. I didn't come here to plug my own website, I came to counter your misinformation about what you can see when you look at the space station with a proper telescope at an appropriate magnification with proper technique. Not that it matters, but here's my flickr page with some of my best photos. Some are of ISS, some are of the shuttle, many are just general astrophotography, and a few are from my lame attempt at game modding:
Flickr: astroferg's Photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/astropics/)

Astronut
07-16-2009, 10:29 PM
What are your pictures intended to prove or disprove?
They're intended to prove that the International Space Station is not fake and is not a big white balloon decoy in orbit as has been claimed by the OP. I don't know what, if anything, he saw, but he seems to want to see all of my pictures with textual descriptions of each. They're there for him or anyone else who doubts the reality of ISS. Perhaps he was using far too little magnification to make out the structure, perhaps he was looking at the wrong satellite, I don't know. What I do know is that time and time again I've looked at the space station myself, sometimes by eye, sometimes by camera, and every time I see it (truly nothing can quite do justice to the first hand view), it's revealed to be a breathtaking space station with large solar panels, shiny radiator panels, and silvery habitation modules.

Leonardo
07-17-2009, 12:40 AM
Actually, BA, the correct idiom is to say, "I couldn't care less." Because if you "could care less", this implies that you could have more contempt than you do now. And that just defeats the whole purpose of the statement.

Thank you.

Sorry, one of my pet peeves.

Astronut
07-17-2009, 07:45 AM
Sorry, but your pictures don't prove anything.

Actually it proves that for ISS to be a hoax, amateur astronomers like myself would have to be a part of the conspiracy. That's why the OP immediately insinuated that I might be a NASA employee.

How do you see the space station by EYE?

You just look up in the sky with your EYE and see it?

If you're not using a telescope, just your eye, it'll look like a rapidly moving bright star, which could just as easily be the OP's ballon as it could be the space station seen in my pictures of it.

Actually, I could care less whether the ISS exists or doesn't.

Just another "USELESS" conspiracy.

Fine, then why did you post on the thread? It matters to me a great deal, because it directly contradicts what I've seen and attested to with photos; if the OP is correct then I must be a habitual liar or conspirator.

I could care less whether the ISS exists or not and I'm certain that most of the world could care less, as well.

US citizens (as well as Russians, Italians, Canadians, etc) who are paying for the space station should care.

What are they doing up there, anyway?

Whatever it is, I don't see that any of it has benefited mankind.
The research done in space has provided many benefits to mankind, most of which are taken for granted on a daily basis. Many came out of Apollo, some from the shuttle, but ISS actually has resulted in a good number of scientific publications by itself.

galexander
07-17-2009, 12:42 PM
To clear up the point Astronut I was trying to tell you that UV light ONLY AFFECTS THE SURFACES OF SOLID OBJECTS. Got it yet? That's why the Moon wouldn't disappear as soon as UV light ionized its surfaces.

The Earth's upper atmosphere is comprised entirely of ionized gas as a result of the Sun's UV light and note the Earth's atmosphere simply doesn't fly off into space because of this!

Looking at your webpage with accompanying space images I couldn't help noticing you have taken pictures of the Space Shuttle taking off as well as a bald headed eagle! Are you absolutely certain you are not a patriotic NASA fan?

I'm afraid what I viewed through my telescope on numerous occasions cannot be explained away by poor focus or lack of magnification. The focus was checked carefully on each viewing and I could easily see the apparent diameter of the spherical object and calculate its actual diameter to be around 40 metres about the same as quoted for the ISS.

Incidentally could I asked what tracking you used with the moving image you showed us which is allegedly of the ISS? Was it manual or computer driven as the image is a little erratic?

Astronut
07-17-2009, 01:14 PM
To clear up the point Astronut I was trying to tell you that UV light ONLY AFFECTS THE SURFACES OF SOLID OBJECTS. Got it yet? That's why the Moon wouldn't disappear as soon as UV light ionized its surfaces.

The moon is a solid object... if it's not, LCROSS will be a dud.

The Earth's upper atmosphere is comprised entirely of ionized gas as a result of the Sun's UV light and note the Earth's atmosphere simply doesn't fly off into space because of this!

Yeah, and the bonds of O3 are much easier to break than the bonds of titanium...

Looking at your webpage with accompanying space images I couldn't help noticing you have taken pictures of the Space Shuttle taking off as well as a bald headed eagle! Are you absolutely certain you are not a patriotic NASA fan?

Moving the goalposts. First it was that I was a NASA employee, and now it's a crime to be a NASA fan? Yes, I'm patriotic, yes I enjoy NASA as it relates to my hobby, but I'd be the first to cry foul if ISS didn't look right in my telescope.

I'm afraid what I viewed through my telescope on numerous occasions cannot be explained away by poor focus or lack of magnification. The focus was checked carefully on each viewing and I could easily see the apparent diameter of the spherical object and calculate its actual diameter to be around 40 metres about the same as quoted for the ISS.

Well, whatever you're doing wrong doesn't disprove a postive result, and many amateurs including me have gotten positive results. If you were to see it in person would it convince you any more than a picture?

Incidentally could I asked what tracking you used with the moving image you showed us which is allegedly of the ISS? Was it manual or computer driven as the image is a little erratic?
I used computer tracking; Satellite Tracker software by Brent Boshart. It's erratic because there's a lag between issuing a command to the computer to center it up and it being reflected in the tracking of the scope. There's also the issue that whenever the computer "hiccups" and accesses the hard drive the tracking shuts off for a split second before resuming. Getting it to stay on ISS at an equivalent of 200x or so is easy:
International Space Station Video by Scott - MySpace Video
Getting it to do that with a 640x480 tiny little chip in a cheap webcam-style video camera at the equivalent of about 400x is difficult due to the tiny field of view and imperfections in the telescope's gears. If you were using an eyepiece with a good field of view like a 9mm Nagler though (even with a 2x barlow), it'd be as easy as the above video.

Astronut
07-17-2009, 10:03 PM
Seriously, do we really have to listen to a debate about whether or not the Space Shuttle and ISS are a HOAX

No one forced you to click on the thread. I promise we'll keep the discussion to just this thread.

between two CC members who both claim that they are EXPERTS in this field and that field and, for all we know, they attain no knowledge at all about the ISS or space shuttle and are not the experts they want us to believe that they are regardless of their fancy scientific writings.

I'm going to have to start collecting credentials at the door before entry is permitted.

I've spent the last 13 years in amateur astronomy, I was a manager at a local observatory for the public after volunteering at the observatory in college. I trained their personnel on how to operate the telescopes and locate objects. I even had to show my boss how to get focused images out of a Coronado PST (personal solar telescope).

I'm not the best astrophotographer in the world by any means, and in fact there are plenty of guys out there who can take a far clearer picture of the space station than I can, but I've observed the space station close enough to make out the solar panels and modules, and it's not a balloon decoy. I don't know if that makes me an expert, but I would say that I'm competent.

Kindly explain what purpose this HOAX would serve.
I'll leave that to alexander since he's the one proposing the hoax exists.

galexander
07-18-2009, 12:35 PM
In reply to Blueangel the reason why amateurs are debating this is because no-one else is brave enough to speak out about it.

As for the purpose of the hoax, I clearly revealed this at the end of my first post. In my opinion the Nazi rocket scientists in NASA weren't to be trusted......

As for why we should be concerned with such a hoax we're not just talking about the principle of the matter, this represents a huge fraud and criminal enterprise. You've got to admit it its far bigger than Enron.

As a self confessed victim of MK-ULTRA mind control, Blueangel, surely you should be highly concerned by trends like this as well? Surely this a striking example of a government body misleading the people and abusing our rights and freedom of knowledge? And surely the Space Shuttle and ISS represent a form of mind control themselves?

galexander
07-19-2009, 11:55 AM
I used computer tracking; Satellite Tracker software by Brent Boshart. It's erratic because there's a lag between issuing a command to the computer to center it up and it being reflected in the tracking of the scope. There's also the issue that whenever the computer "hiccups" and accesses the hard drive the tracking shuts off for a split second before resuming. Getting it to stay on ISS at an equivalent of 200x or so is easy:
Getting it to do that with a 640x480 tiny little chip in a cheap webcam-style video camera at the equivalent of about 400x is difficult due to the tiny field of view and imperfections in the telescope's gears. If you were using an eyepiece with a good field of view like a 9mm Nagler though (even with a 2x barlow), it'd be as easy as the above video.

Brilliant, you explained it so well Astronut! This is why your video image of the ISS wanders around so erratically while your image of Saturn is so perfectly stationary even though of a similar angular diameter and viewed with the same computer tracking! You explained it so well, I couldn't have done better myself! Well done!

Astronut
07-20-2009, 07:40 AM
Brilliant, you explained it so well Astronut! This is why your video image of the ISS wanders around so erratically while your image of Saturn is so perfectly stationary even though of a similar angular diameter and viewed with the same computer tracking! You explained it so well, I couldn't have done better myself! Well done!
If you wanted to know why Saturn is relatively stable in the video while ISS is not, you should have asked that question. You claimed you're an amateur astronomer, so I would have expected you to know the reason why the two are not comparable. Saturn isn't noticeably moving against the background stars in that short of a timeframe, and it certainly isn't hauling ass at several arcminutes per second. ISS is moving so fast across the sky that even my telescope's drives can't keep up if I'm using a 12 volt power source (like the marine battery I sometimes use when I'm doing astronomy in the middle of nowhere). At its full 18 volt-powered slewing speed it can keep up, but any slight inaccuracies or errors in the gear or pointing system are amplified many times over because of the speeds involved - as you can see in the second video, ISS is there but slightly off-center. It can be corrected with joystick inputs, but as 400x it's very easy to over-correct because the command has to go through an external laptop and be processed before being reflected in the telescope's motion. Again, this isn't the case with Saturn. Also, the motion of the gears themselves vibrate the telescope quite badly, requiring the use of anti-vibration pads and even then the problem is still present. None of this is the case when all your telescope has to do is track at a sidereal speed, as is the case with Saturn. Trying to compare the two is intellectually dishonest to say the least.

galexander
07-20-2009, 11:30 AM
Astronut, the reason you give may explain why the ISS appears to drift to one side of the field of view only to be centred again each time but this is clearly not what is happening in your video. The image of the ISS is dancing around erratically and apparently at random.

As for titanium oxide having a bond energy of 458 eV (sic.) are you absolutely certain you didn't actually mean 458 kJ/mol? The two units are completely different. I wouldn't be surprised about the latter figure but certainly not the former.

Astronut
07-20-2009, 12:26 PM
Astronut, the reason you give may explain why the ISS appears to drift to one side of the field of view only to be centred again each time but this is clearly not what is happening in your video. The image of the ISS is dancing around erratically and apparently at random.

Getting and keeping ISS in the field of view at an effective magnification of 400x is much more difficult than doing the same with saturn; one is flying across the sky at several degrees per second at its peak, the other is almost stationary. Add to that, the lag between issuing a command in the satellite tracking and seeing it reflected on the screen, and with my color camera the framerate is almost-slideshow-like and you get massive over-correction. It's moving "erratically" because I'm having trouble getting it to center properly. You also get hiccups when the computer pauses for a split second to process the tracking commands - that results in it dashing out of the field only to return a moment later, assuming I didn't react to the sudden motion and "correct it" out of the field. Again, you're trying to compare centering a celestial object like saturn to centering a fast-moving satellite where the controls are sluggish and the slightest mistake is devastating. Last, but not least, to increase stability I always mount the LX200 in alt-az mode when doing satellite tracking. As you should know, alt-az has the nasty issue of field rotation; not so bad for short planetary observations, but devastating to long exposure images. This also affects satellite tracking for the same reason; in different parts of the sky, "up and down" in the eyepiece will mean totally different things in terms of right ascension and declination. For satellite tracking, this means that pushing "up" on the joystick will adjust the apparent position of the satellite one way at the start of a pass, and a different way at the peak of a pass. If you're using less magnification like in the second video, this is acceptable as long as you have room to play with, for 400x it means you're going to look like you're adjusting it erratically. For my second video, however, I had a wider field of view at the equivalent of 200x and the motion of ISS is quite stable.

As for titanium oxide having a bond energy of 458 eV (sic.) are you absolutely certain you didn't actually mean 458 kJ/mol? The two units are completely different. I wouldn't be surprised about the latter figure but certainly not the former.
Yes, I'm sure. It's 458 eV. See: Tatsuya Okubo et al (2005) Plasma Nitriding of Titanium Particles in a Fluidized Bed Reactor at a Reduced Pressure. Journal of the American Ceramic Society. 73(5) pg. 1150-1152

galexander
07-21-2009, 07:27 AM
Yes, I'm sure. It's 458 eV. See: Tatsuya Okubo et al (2005) Plasma Nitriding of Titanium Particles in a Fluidized Bed Reactor at a Reduced Pressure. Journal of the American Ceramic Society. 73(5) pg. 1150-1152

Astronut, scientific journals such as the one you quote from are not good sources in general when it comes to physical chemistry data. Are you sure you are not actually quoting for some other physical property relating to titanium oxide? Looking at your source this looks highly likely. "Plasma Nitriding of Titanium Particles in a Fluidized Bed Reactor at a Reduced Pressure from the Journal of the American Ceramic Society" WHAT........!!?? COME AGAIN.......!!??

According to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 75th Edition, the bond energy of Ti-O is 672.4 kJ/mol. This is equivalent to 6.98 eV. To convert to electronvolts you divide 672,400 by 6.022 x 10exp23 (the Avagadro constant which is the total number of molecules in a mole) and then divide this by the total energy is a single electronvolt which is 1.6 x 10exp-19 joules.

You see titanium oxide is not such a strong bond after all and would easily be broken up by the Suns UV rays.

Astronut
07-21-2009, 07:40 AM
Astronut, scientific journals such as the one you quote from are not good sources in general when it comes to physical chemistry data.

It's actually a much more reliable source. It clearly states that the Titanium oxide bond energy is 458eV. Not kJ/mol. Laughing at it won't make it go away. Here's another reference:
Xuebin Zheng, et al 2000 Bond strength of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite/Ti composite coatings.
Are you sure you weren't quoting the strength of a Ti-O bond?


You see titanium oxide is not such a strong bond after all and would easily be broken up by the Sun’s UV rays.
Titanium will not disintegrate under UV light, that's insane. Indeed, the presence of an electronegative The fact that I can personally see and photograph the space station confirms this simple fact.

galexander
07-21-2009, 11:58 AM
Here's another reference:
Xuebin Zheng, et al 2000 Bond strength of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite/Ti composite coatings.
Are you sure you weren't quoting the strength of a Ti-O bond?

Of course I was referring to the bond strength of Ti-O. What do you think I was talking about? You said the Space Shuttle was coated in titanium oxide which would not break down in the Sun's UV. Here's your quote to prove it:

Titanium oxide (which would be the outermost atomic layer of ISS's skin) has a bond energy of 458 eV.

And don't try to wriggle out of either with the following quote:

Titanium will not disintegrate under UV light, that's insane.

YES, WE WERE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT TITANIUM OXIDE!!

Astronut
07-21-2009, 11:02 PM
Of course I was referring to the bond strength of Ti-O. What do you think I was talking about?

Apparently you don't know jack about metal oxidation or the difference between dissociating oxygen from Titanium and titantium from titanium. If you think breaking a Ti-O bond is going to disintegrate the space station, then there's really nothing I can do to help you.

You said the Space Shuttle was coated in titanium oxide which would not break down in the Sun's UV. Here's your quote to prove it:

Funny, in my quote I'm talking about ISS. The space shuttle doesn't have titanium anywhere on its skin. And yes, the outer layer of titanium on ISS should have been oxidized before it left earth, but the Ti-O bond is not what gives ISS its structural stability.
And don't try to wriggle out of either with the following quote:

Umm, I'm not. The electronegativity of the Ti-O bond does have an effect on the bond strength of the surrounding metal-metal bonds.

YES, WE WERE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT TITANIUM OXIDE!!
lol, not in the way you seem to think.

So, got an explanation for those videos yet, or is your bullcrap still debunked?

galexander
07-22-2009, 11:47 AM
This entire thread is a HOAX!

This thread is not a hoax Blueangel, I can guarantee. However I cannot guarantee that what Astronut is saying is not part of the hoax that represents the Space Shuttle and the ISS.

Does Blueangel really believe in the Shuttle and ISS? If NASA are an entirely above board and genuine organization then why were they also indulging in drug induced mind control experiments as Cathy O'Brien clearly states they were in her book?

I didn't reply to Astronut because I'm board hearing what he's saying!!

Astronut
07-23-2009, 07:23 AM
I didn't reply to Astronut because I'm board hearing what he's saying!!
Another closed mind, unwilling to accept independent evidence, color me surprised. Here's where you're probably going wrong, alexander.
http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm477/ngchunter/activationenergy.jpg
You seem to think the equivalent of delta H is the bond energy, and since UV light is > delta H on this graph, titanium will disintegrate. The true binding energy is given by E sub A. You need at least that much energy, a much higher value than UV light can provide, to disintegrate titanium. You will end up spending a net amount of energy equal to a much lower value, delta H, because when the bond breaks it will release most of the energy back.

Or you could have just accepted the mountains of independent video and photographic evidence of ISS that shows you're doing something wrong in your observations.

galexander
07-23-2009, 12:12 PM
Obviously, I don't believe that NASA is above board, but I have no clue as to whether or not the ISS and Space Shuttle are a hoax.

If they are, it wouldn't be the first time the public has been fooled by our government.

911 comes to mind.

Some of the same Nazi scientists who were responsible for torture and experimentation of Holocaust prisoners during WWII were given safe haven in the US; touted as ROCKET SCIENTISTS who went to work for NASA.

This, to appease the public that we allowed NAZI's into our country.

Hence, their HUMAN experimentation in mind control and much more continued in the good ole' US of A under the direction of the CIA who were learning from them.

My memories of CAPE CANAVERAL and the Kennedy Space Center are vague, but I'm certain I was there.

Nazis didn't just end up in NASA, they went to universities throughout the USA and help found and staff the CIA itself which was formed at the very end of WWII. Much of the CIA's ant-soviet politics probably came from this Nazi influence but undoubtably much of it also came from the Mafia's hatred of communist regimes in the far east and south america who had the nasty habit of destroying their narco crops.

There is much evidence that the science of mind control was originally pioneered by the Nazis during WWII.

As for 9/11 I believe this was the Mafia's direct response to the Taliban's banning of opium production in 2000. Since the US and its allies have been in Afghanistan the country is producing even more opium than before the ban. Before the ban it was 70% of the world's supply now it is 93%.

RoqEL22
07-23-2009, 12:35 PM
Very nice.

galexander
07-24-2009, 12:22 PM
Another closed mind, unwilling to accept independent evidence, color me surprised. Here's where you're probably going wrong, alexander.
http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm477/ngchunter/activationenergy.jpg
You seem to think the equivalent of delta H is the bond energy, and since UV light is > delta H on this graph, titanium will disintegrate. The true binding energy is given by E sub A. You need at least that much energy, a much higher value than UV light can provide, to disintegrate titanium. You will end up spending a net amount of energy equal to a much lower value, delta H, because when the bond breaks it will release most of the energy back.

Or you could have just accepted the mountains of independent video and photographic evidence of ISS that shows you're doing something wrong in your observations.

I'm not sure what your delta H is a reference to Astronut but it could be the energy absorbed when a bond is formed. Some reactions are endothermic. But this has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

As for what bond energy actually is, take the following quote from Wikipedia:

"Another example: an OH bond of a water molecule (HOH) has 493.4 kJ mol-1 of bond dissociation energy, and 424.4 kJ mol-1 is needed to cleave the remaining OH bond. The bond energy of the OH bonds in water is 458.9 kJ mol-1, which is the average of the values."

Astronut
07-24-2009, 02:09 PM
I'm not sure what your delta H is a reference to Astronut but it could be the energy absorbed when a bond is formed.

It's the net energy lost to break the bond, in this case, or the net energy lost to form it. If the graph were reversed it would be the net energy gained by breaking or forming it. When that breakage occurs you will still get a release of energy, there's no such thing as breaking or forming bonds without overcoming the activation energy needed to do so.

Some reactions are endothermic. But this has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

It has everything to do with it, the process of breaking titanium atoms apart in a sample of titanium metal is an endothermic process.

As for what bond energy actually is, take the following quote from Wikipedia:

You obviously don't know what "bond dissociation energy" is or you wouldn't have offered that quote just now.

"Another example: an O–H bond of a water molecule (H–O–H) has 493.4 kJ mol-1 of bond dissociation energy,

Bond dissociation energy IS delta H, you just proved my point. From your own wiki page:
"For instance, the bond dissociation energy for one of the C-H bonds in ethane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethane) (C2H6) is defined by the process:
CH3CH2-H → Ethyl Radical + H.
D0 = ΔH = 101.1 kcal/mol (423.0 kJ/mol)"
You're not talking about the energy actually required to start breaking the bond, you're talking about the energy actually lost in doing so, delta H on the above graph I posted.

"Every reaction in which bonds are broken will have a high energy transition state that must be reached before products can form. In order for the reactants to reach this transition state, energy must be supplied and reactant molecules must orient themselves in a suitable fashion. The energy needed to raise the reactants to the transition state energy level is called the activation energy, ΔE"
Chemical Reactivity (http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/react2.htm)

galexander
07-26-2009, 11:55 AM
You just never give up do you Astronut? However you do have a tendency to misquote.

It has everything to do with it, the process of breaking titanium atoms apart in a sample of titanium metal is an endothermic process.

Who said anything about breaking titanium atoms apart? Are you talking about nuclear fission Astronut?

You obviously don't know what "bond dissociation energy" is or you wouldn't have offered that quote just now.

It was actually Wikipedia which spoke of "Bond dissociation energy" while explaining what "Bond energy" was. I suggest you reread the quote carefully:

"Another example: an OH bond of a water molecule (HOH) has 493.4 kJ mol-1 of bond dissociation energy, and 424.4 kJ mol-1 is needed to cleave the remaining OH bond. The BOND ENERGY of the OH bonds in water is 458.9 kJ mol-1, which is the average of the values."

Astronut
07-27-2009, 06:33 AM
You just never give up do you Astronut? However you do have a tendency to misquote.

Who said anything about breaking titanium atoms apart? Are you talking about nuclear fission Astronut?

I copied everything you said to the letter, I never misquoted you. You, however, are either deliberately distorting what I said or you're more ignorant than I thought. I am NOT talking about nuclear fission, when I say "breaking titanium atoms apart" I'm talking about breaking them apart from EACH OTHER, I'm talking about breaking bonds, not the atoms themselves. I thought that was pretty obvious, but apparently I have to spoon feed you every word I say or else you'll misunderstand it just like you did the wiki article about bond dissociation energy.

It was actually Wikipedia which spoke of "Bond dissociation energy" while explaining what "Bond energy" was. I suggest you reread the quote carefully:

The article was actually titled bond dissociation energy for a reason; that's what it's talking about, and it even explicitly uses the words "bond dissociation energy" (as previously mentioned, equal to delta H on my graph) in your quote. You just proved my point, thanks for pointing it out again.

"Another example: an OH bond of a water molecule (HOH) has 493.4 kJ mol-1 of bond dissociation energy, and 424.4 kJ mol-1 is needed to cleave the remaining OH bond. The BOND ENERGY of the OH bonds in water is 458.9 kJ mol-1, which is the average of the values."
In case you didn't notice (obviously you're too busy quote mining), the bond energy it's talking about here is the average bond dissociation energy of the entire molecule and has nothing to do with the activation energy required to start breaking the bond, only the average net energy absorbed by the entire process. Take a college chemistry class, then maybe you'll know the difference between dissociation energies and the actual energy required to start breaking bonds. They are not the same, as I've demonstrated over and over. Ignoring it won't change the truth. Here's a little homework assignment for you; find out the "bond energy" of H2 and O2 diatomic species, then add those values in the correct proportions (half of O2 to one of H2) to the negative of 458.9 times two (to get the value for both bonds in H2O). If the result is negative you have an exothermic reaction, and indeed you do, so why don't the bonds of H2 and O2 spontaneously break and reunite as H2O at room temperature, or in the presence of UV light? It's energetically favorable, but it doesn't spontaneously occur even when there's ample amounts of reactants because you still must overcome the required activation energy, which isn't present at room temperature and isn't given by the average bond dissociation energy.

galexander
07-27-2009, 11:41 AM
Astronut the page I quoted from Wikipedia was devoted to BOND ENERGY not BOND DISSOCIATION ENERGY.

Here is the link to prove it: Bond energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_energy)

This is the first line of the webpage:

In chemistry, bond energy (E) is a measure of bond strength in a chemical bond.

And the second paragraph was the initial quote I gave you:

Another example: an OH bond of a water molecule (HOH) has 493.4 kJ mol-1 of bond dissociation energy, and 424.4 kJ mol-1 is needed to cleave the remaining OH bond. The bond energy of the OH bonds in water is 458.9 kJ mol-1, which is the average of the values.

So when you said the following Astronut you were completely wrong:

The article was actually titled bond dissociation energy for a reason; that's what it's talking about, and it even explicitly uses the words "bond dissociation energy" (as previously mentioned, equal to delta H on my graph) in your quote. You just proved my point, thanks for pointing it out again.

Are you sure you're being serious Astronut or are you having us all on?

Astronut
07-28-2009, 07:12 AM
So when you said the following Astronut you were completely wrong:

Funny, an almost identical quote occurs on the bond dissociation energy page.
"an O-H bond of a water molecule (H-O-H) has 493.4 kJ/mol of bond dissociation energy, and 424.4 kJ/mol is needed to cleave the remaining O-H bond. The bond energy of the O-H bonds in water is 458.9 kJ/mol, which is the average of the values.
"
Bond dissociation energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_dissociation_energy)
I shouldn't have assumed you were looking at the same page based on what you were saying, but the information contained within tells you the same thing; the bond energy you're referring to is the average bond dissociation energy and has absolutely nothing to do with the activation energy required to break the bonds. It's just the average delta H. Since your quote contains that information as well it still proves me right. So, when is your trolling conspiracy BS going to come to an end? Saw ISS again last night, it was as beautiful as ever.

galexander
07-28-2009, 12:03 PM
The following quote from your Bond Dissociation Energy webpage clinches it:

Except in the case of diatomic molecules, the bond dissociation energy is different from the bond energy, which is an average calculated from the sum of the bond dissociation energies of all bonds in a molecule.

Not bad for a BS'er, eh?

As for your breaking of bonds between titanium atoms on the surface of the ISS, that probably happens as well. It is known that UV light tends to turn surfaces powdery over a period of time and don't forget the UV light in space is a lot worse than what you get at the Earth's surface.

galexander
07-29-2009, 11:57 AM
Kindly inform me when either of the main posters on this thread has proven and/or disproven that the ISS and Space Shuttle are a hoax.

BlueAngel, that is for you to decide.

As for myself I would of course claim that I have already proved my case.

I think the main problem is that many who read my initial post either won't understand the science or won't take my word for it when I quote scientific facts. Astronut I feel probably fits into both these categories.

Of course Astronut has made the classic mistake, and a number of times now, of trying to knock down my science but while getting it wrong himself in the process. And its so easily done. Believing someone to be wrong is one thing but actually proving it with reasoned arguments is quite another.

Astronut
07-29-2009, 04:09 PM
The following quote from your Bond Dissociation Energy webpage clinches it:

What part of "average bond dissociation energy" are you NOT understanding? That's the point! You're talking about the average delta H! Tell me where it says the average delta H has ANYTHING to do with activation energy!

Astronut
07-29-2009, 04:14 PM
BlueAngel, that is for you to decide.

As for myself I would of course claim that I have already proved my case.

I think the main problem is that many who read my initial post either won't understand the science or won't take my word for it when I quote scientific facts. Astronut I feel probably fits into both these categories.

No one, NO ONE, should take YOUR word for it when you claim to know a scientific fact. You just demonstrated you read up until the point where the fact starts to contradict your argument and then you stop paying attention. "Bond energy" of a molecule is different than "bond dissociation energy" - you'll read that part and completely ignore what "bond energy" actually means - the average of the molecule's bond dissociation energy. All that tells you is the delta H for the complete molecule averaged across all bonds, it has nothing to do with activation energy, which is required to actually perform the act of breaking bonds. You have no clue what you're talking about but you troll about it anyway pretending to be an expert. I read your initial post, and I addressed it; my observations confirm the existence of the ISS. Your failure to properly observe it does NOT prove a negative, nor does it over-ride my positive result or the positive result of many other amateur astronomers.

Astronut
07-29-2009, 04:19 PM
Kindly inform me when either of the main posters on this thread has proven and/or disproven that the ISS and Space Shuttle are a hoax.
I've disproven it just by seeing it for myself and recording video and pictures.
YouTube - International Space Station and More
YouTube - International Space Station - June 2006
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2154/2110105639_493fe9b3ee_o.jpg
International Space Station Video by Scott - MySpace Video
Kindly inform me when someone can explain these observations.

galexander
07-30-2009, 12:28 PM
How do we know you didn't just download these videos from YouTube?

The second video is different from the first and the third doesn't play as all.

I wasn't entirely convinced either by that webpage of yours with the Shuttle launching and the bald headed eagle.

Astronut
07-31-2009, 06:42 AM
How do we know you didn't just download these videos from YouTube?

Why don't you send my account on Youtube a message if you don't believe me then? It's the same me and I'll verify it if you ask.

The second video is different from the first and the third doesn't play as all.

For some reason myspace videos don't like to play in embedded form, but this forum did that to the link automatically. You can get to the original video site on myspace just by clicking on the title. And yes, of course the second video is different from the first; why would I keep uploading the same video over and over? I'm always trying to improve my images with different cameras.

I wasn't entirely convinced either by that webpage of yours with the Shuttle launching and the bald headed eagle.
So because I'm trying to document every phase of the shuttle's flight I must be a liar? Or I'm a liar because I took a picture of a bald eagle? Serious non-sequiturs there. And if you think I'm lying about recording those videos of the space station, why don't you report me to flickr for using someone else's images? Let's see what they decide.

Astronut
07-31-2009, 06:47 AM
But, Galexendar says that you haven't.

So, who am I to believe?

Why do you trust galexander in the face of overwhelming evidence proving ISS exists? Look at the independent evidence for yourself and form your own conclusion. Either he's right and amateur astronomers are all in on the conspiracy with the exception of him, or he's just incapable of viewing the station properly through his telescope but refuses to admit to his own mistakes.

galexander
07-31-2009, 12:24 PM
Either he's right and amateur astronomers are all in on the conspiracy with the exception of him, or he's just incapable of viewing the station properly through his telescope but refuses to admit to his own mistakes.

Correction Astronut other amateur astronomers have reported seeing exactly the same thing as I have, i.e. a round object.

Astronut
07-31-2009, 01:59 PM
Correction Astronut other amateur astronomers have reported seeing exactly the same thing as I have, i.e. a round object.
Wrong. Any amateur who has the skill and equipment required to see the ISS produces images like this:
YouTube - ISS through Telescope 08-2007
YouTube - Atlantis Docking 02/09/08
YouTube - International Space Station form the Earth
YouTube - ISS Amateur Ground Tracking
YouTube - ISS 27th Oct 2006
http://alpo-j.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/kk08/o080512a5.jpg
I could go on all day. There are at least hundreds of amateurs from all over the world who are capable of photographing ISS in their telescopes, and they all show the same thing. Personally I still think you're not using enough magnification to resolve it, but because you don't use computerized tracking and you're trying to view it directly, you don't have a choice in the matter. I don't know what your problem is or if you're just full of crap, but I KNOW what I've seen and the images and videos I present are 100% real. You've done nothing to actually prove that I faked anything at all. If you think you can prove it, then by all means try to get youtube to take down my videos; the terms of service require that uploaders do not submit falsehoods.

GR0ND
07-31-2009, 07:01 PM
Astronut, you have more than met the burden of proof. What's more, I've enjoyed your photographs of the space station, the shuttle...and the bald eagle. Heck, I didn't even know that hobbyist telescopes could resolve the station and I find it fascinating. Wow, thanks for the education.

galexander, can you provide any proof other than you own testimony? Really, you’re the one making the fantastic claim, isn't the burden of proof your responsibility? All you done so far is make a wildly improbable claim and then try to refute Astronut's reputation or the validity of his evidence. Can you bring any evidence besides your own speculation? Is it possible that your experience of looking through a telescope and seeing a “white ball” is due to some other factor other than a worldwide conspiracy involving thousands of operators, the mass media, governments and the willful ignorance from an army of hobbyist, fact checkers and whistle blowers? Really? Could you just go back and fiddle with the focus ring some more?

GR0ND
08-01-2009, 12:13 AM
I'm certain that when the Space Shuttle exploded in mid-air back in the early 1980's and everyone on board died, it was a HOAX.

Rather than ask you to repeat your reasons why you believe this, I'll check out the forums to catch up on the thread. Should be entertaining, to say the least.

galexander
08-02-2009, 04:56 AM
Personally I still think you're not using enough magnification to resolve it, but because you don't use computerized tracking and you're trying to view it directly, you don't have a choice in the matter.

With the eyepiece and magnification I was using I was easily able to resolve the rings of Saturn which has a similar apparent diameter to the ISS, and yet I could see no angular projections. The conclusion I came to is that this was because there were none.

It is also the case that whenever I have viewed the ISS, which is many times now, I have never witnessed any flashes as the silvery object catches the Sun. How do you explain this? Distant aircraft sometimes catch the Sun when it is low on the horizon suddenly bringing them into view and these aircraft don't even have the shiney surfaces the ISS is said to have.

And how do you explain the fact that the object I observed is always a pale yellow colour? These video images you show allegedly of the ISS are all white in colour.

There are at least hundreds of amateurs from all over the world who are capable of photographing ISS in their telescopes, and they all show the same thing.

And how do you know there are hundreds of amateur's all over the world who have seen this based upon these few images on YouTube? What about all the amateurs who have seen what I saw? How many of them fit into this category, thousands, tens of thousands? How do you know what the stats are, you were just using empty rhetoric.

galexander
08-02-2009, 05:02 AM
I'm certain that when the Space Shuttle exploded in mid-air back in the early 1980's and everyone on board died, it was a HOAX.

I certainly agree with you BlueAngel. NASA were fully aware of the dangers of the O-rings at the low temperatures that were encountered on the launch pad that day so they knew the accident was going to happen before it did. But who would ever have let such a thing happen if there were real people on board that thing that day?

The whole thing was so fishy even the FBI were forced to look into the matter, not that the investigation came to anything.

Astronut
08-03-2009, 06:00 AM
I'm certain that when the Space Shuttle exploded in mid-air back in the early 1980's and everyone on board died, it was a HOAX.
I saw it happen with my own eyes from my front lawn, certain family members of mine retained a piece of the debris recovered from the ocean floor (probably not legally), it was not a hoax. If this is sarcasm you really should try harder to denote it as such.

Astronut
08-03-2009, 06:21 AM
With the eyepiece and magnification

What eyepiece and magnification, what stage of ISS's construction? I know what ISS looks like at various magnifications, so I'll know if you're BS'ing me or not.
It is also the case that whenever I have viewed the ISS, which is many times now, I have never witnessed any flashes as the silvery object catches the Sun.

ISS is massive, you wouldn't be able to see quick little "flashes" unless you resolved it very effectively because the vast majority of its brightness doesn't come from specular highlights (thus its appearance is unaffected when you're not resolving it as anything more than a point of light), plus because it's actively tracking the sun, its orientation with respect to the sun doesn't quickly change, so any change in brightness is gradual and not conspicuous. You can get glints though, as in this picture:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1057/529075156_9831c4a242_o.jpg
Note the star-like reflection off the radiator on the left side by the solar array.
And how do you explain the fact that the object I observed is always a pale yellow colour? These video images you show allegedly of the ISS are all white in colour.

Sounds like you mixed the color of the amber solar arrays with the white of the habitat modules. Either you're defocused, not using enough magnification, or just plain BS'ing about telescopically tracking it.

And how do you know there are hundreds of amateur's all over the world who have seen this based upon these few images on YouTube?

"A few" - so just how many do I have to waste my time posting when I know for a fact you'll just arbitrarily move the goal post back further saying "that's not enough." There are many of us, we swap tips over other forums dedicated to satellite tracking and astronomy, and not once have I heard anyone ever complain about ISS looking like a pale yellow ball.

What about all the amateurs who have seen what I saw?

Right now all I have is you and your word that some idiot flat earther saw what you claim to have seen while tracking it telescopically.

How many of them fit into this category, thousands, tens of thousands?

If there are tens of thousands, where are all the videos and pictures? Where are all the complaints on message boards? Right now all I see is you.

How do you know what the stats are, you were just using empty rhetoric.
There are currently 2,031 members of a group dedicated to satellite tracking using the software I use. Never once have I heard a single complaint from ANYONE who says they tracked ISS successfully but couldn't resolve the solar panels.

Astronut
08-03-2009, 06:25 AM
Astronut, you have more than met the burden of proof. What's more, I've enjoyed your photographs of the space station, the shuttle...and the bald eagle. Heck, I didn't even know that hobbyist telescopes could resolve the station and I find it fascinating. Wow, thanks for the education.

Thanks Gr0nd, I'm glad I could share the view. That makes it all worth it.

galexander
08-03-2009, 11:35 AM
ISS is massive, you wouldn't be able to see quick little "flashes" unless you resolved it very effectively because the vast majority of its brightness doesn't come from specular highlights (thus its appearance is unaffected when you're not resolving it as anything more than a point of light), plus because it's actively tracking the sun, its orientation with respect to the sun doesn't quickly change, so any change in brightness is gradual and not conspicuous. You can get glints though, as in this picture:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1057/...31c4a242_o.jpg
Note the star-like reflection off the radiator on the left side by the solar array.

Astronut, you are wrong. Reflections from the Sun off a shiney silvery surface can be huge. The example I gave of distant aircraft that are barely visible to the naked eye suddenly drawing our attention as they 'flash' momentarily in the Sun's light, shows the effect is significant. Besides I myself have seen other Earth satellites glint or 'flash' in the Sun. The effect is most certainly noticeable. So why doesn't the ISS do the same?

There are currently 2,031 members of a group dedicated to satellite tracking using the software I use. Never once have I heard a single complaint from ANYONE who says they tracked ISS successfully but couldn't resolve the solar panels.

Perhaps they are too shy to point the fact out just in case someone accuses them of not having their telescope in focus! Either that or someone has arranged to have their comments censured.

And also, while I remember, why is it these other images of the ISS you have shown us are all so steady and aren't moving all over the place in an apparently random fashion? What was the explanation you gave for this again Astronut? Something about a Barlow lens and a hard drive hiccuping?

GR0ND
08-03-2009, 06:18 PM
galexander,
If the Space Station were a hoax, wouldn't some organizaton or government, interested in the embarressment of the participating nations or with a simple since of honesty, expose the hoax long ago? I mean, North Korea probably has some pretty nice telescopes, much better than the ones a hobbyist could afford.

Maybe the question would be better put... what evidence would you accept as proof, or are your conclusions set and immovable?

Astronut
08-04-2009, 07:13 AM
Astronut, you are wrong. Reflections from the Sun off a shiney silvery surface can be huge. The example I gave of distant aircraft that are barely visible to the naked eye suddenly drawing our attention as they 'flash' momentarily in the Sun's light,

First of all, you're talking about conditions in broad daylight, second of all, an airplane's surfaces are much more flat and reflective than the surfaces on ISS save for the radiators, lastly and most importantly, a plane is not a point light source, ISS is unless you're looking at it through a telescope.

Besides I myself have seen other Earth satellites glint or 'flash' in the Sun.

The only other satellites that routinely do so are Iridium satellites with their large mirror-like antennae which account for most of their brightness, and even then you must be correctly positioned with just the right timing to see it.

Perhaps they are too shy to point the fact out just in case someone accuses them of not having their telescope in focus! Either that or someone has arranged to have their comments censured.

I haven't censored any of your comments, what are you complaining for?

And also, while I remember, why is it these other images of the ISS you have shown us are all so steady and aren't moving all over the place in an apparently random fashion? What was the explanation you gave for this again Astronut? Something about a Barlow lens and a hard drive hiccuping?
Are you talking about other people's videos? I know Mike Tyrell and most others will register their images before assembling them into a video; they move the images to center ISS in each frame of the video to make it easier to look at. I don't alter my videos unless it's a time lapse (the only thing I will do is trim out excess empty parts of the video for the sake of time). Still accusing us of lying, you're incredible.

galexander
08-04-2009, 12:09 PM
galexander,
If the Space Station were a hoax, wouldn't some organizaton or government, interested in the embarressment of the participating nations or with a simple since of honesty, expose the hoax long ago? I mean, North Korea probably has some pretty nice telescopes, much better than the ones a hobbyist could afford.

Maybe the question would be better put... what evidence would you accept as proof, or are your conclusions set and immovable?

Unfortunately I find this a little naive of you GROND. Look at the influence of the US across the globe as a superpower and who is going to listen to COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA? During Apollo 11 the Dutch press went very public in exposing the hoax but then seemed to change their tune. I wonder why?

And think also how NASA could have peddled influence over the years especially when you consider all the billions in spare cash they have!

galexander
08-04-2009, 01:19 PM
First of all, you're talking about conditions in broad daylight, second of all, an airplane's surfaces are much more flat and reflective than the surfaces on ISS save for the radiators, lastly and most importantly, a plane is not a point light source, ISS is unless you're looking at it through a telescope.

That's just rubbish Astronut! There is nothing flat about the surfaces of an aeoroplane and the ISS is meant to have shiney metallic surfaces on it which would produce blindingly bright glares on it.

The only other satellites that routinely do so are Iridium satellites with their large mirror-like antennae which account for most of their brightness, and even then you must be correctly positioned with just the right timing to see it.

Rubbish yet again Astronut. I have seen the ENVISAT satellite blinking on and off as it span out of control during those solar storms we had several years ago. I contacted the press about this but never got a reply. So its not just the Iridium satellites.

You have made so many mistakes so far Astronut that I am extremely doubtful as to your authenticity as the dedicated astronomer you claim. We've been treated to an incorrect definition of bond energy, an incorrect value for the bond energy of titanium oxide and the Moon evaporating in the Sun's UV light! Indeed all the evidence so far suggest that you are the TROLL Astronut and not myself.

Astronut
08-05-2009, 07:14 AM
That's just rubbish Astronut! There is nothing flat about the surfaces of an aeoroplane

Compare the hull of an airplane to that of ISS and you'll find the former to be far more smooth.

and the ISS is meant to have shiney metallic surfaces on it which would produce blindingly bright glares on it.

Blindingly bright? Quite the claim, prove it.

Rubbish yet again Astronut. I have seen the ENVISAT satellite blinking on and off as it span out of control during those solar storms we had several years ago.

You're comparing a tumbling satellite to a gyro stabilized one? Are you nuts? Oh, I forgot, yes. Apples and oranges, ISS isn't tumbling out of control.

I contacted the press about this but never got a reply.

Cause they probably identified you as a nut.

So its not just the Iridium satellites.

Gee, who would have thought you'd be foolish enough to compare a tumbling piece of junk to ISS? At least iridium sats are usually stable.

We've been treated to an incorrect definition of bond energy, an incorrect value for the bond energy of titanium oxide

You confuse the wikipedia definition of "bond energy" (as in the average dissociation energy) with the energy required to break a bond, then you troll me about semantics, and yet you don't apply this mistake to the moon for some reason. If the moon's atoms are not chemically bound at all but just held together by gravity, it would have evaporated away a long time ago. What do you call a gravitationally bound collection of individual unbonded atoms? A nebula, and even those usually contain some small molecules and dimers.

galexander
08-05-2009, 12:08 PM
About reflections of the Sun's light off the surface of the ISS, Astronut said the following:

Blindingly bright? Quite the claim, prove it.

Polished metal is almost as reflective a surface as a glassed mirror. A schoolboy would have known this.

You're comparing a tumbling satellite to a gyro stabilized one? Are you nuts? Oh, I forgot, yes. Apples and oranges, ISS isn't tumbling out of control.

Yes but what you didn't comment upon Astronut was why the ENVISAT was able to disappear completely between winks. The following night was even more interesting because its rate of rotation was much slower and the satellite 'flared' each time before disappearing again.

If the moon's atoms are not chemically bound at all but just held together by gravity, it would have evaporated away a long time ago.

This last comment is an absolute classic! So what is the temperature of vaporization of silicon, calcium, phospherous and all the other minerals found on the Moon?

Astronut
08-05-2009, 12:57 PM
Polished metal is almost as reflective a surface as a glassed mirror. A schoolboy would have known this.

I guess you've never looked at a picture of ISS, it's not as reflective as a mirror. It's certainly not nearly as flat as an airplane's fuselage.

Yes but what you didn't comment upon Astronut was why the ENVISAT was able to disappear completely between winks. The following night was even more interesting because its rate of rotation was much slower and the satellite 'flared' each time before disappearing again.

You're continuing to compare apples to oranges. Evisat was tumbling out of control. It doesn't freaking matter how bright or dim it got, it was spinning out of control, what part of that do you not get? That's the only reason the brightness varied so much during the pass! ISS varies in brightness as well depending on what angle you're looking at it from in a given pass, but because it's not tumbling you won't see that variation from a single spot within a pass but as a variation from pass to pass.
This last comment is an absolute classic! So what is the temperature of vaporization of silicon, calcium, phospherous and all the other minerals found on the Moon?
I assume you want those values for standard temperature and pressure, right? Tell me genius, how is it that carbon monoxide is found in the reflection nebula NGC 7023 when it's temperature is 40 kelvin while the boiling point for carbon monoxide is 81 kelvin?
[astro-ph/0103151] Physical Conditions in the Foreground Gas of Reflection Nebulae: NGC 2023, vdB 102, and NGC 7023 (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0103151)
If the atoms of the moon were completely chemically unbound the solar radiation pressure would have dissolved the entire thing a long time ago. But hey, you only have to wait till october to witness LCROSS slam into the very-solid moon.

galexander
08-06-2009, 11:09 AM
I guess you've never looked at a picture of ISS, it's not as reflective as a mirror. It's certainly not nearly as flat as an airplane's fuselage.

Polished metal makes a very good mirror in actual fact Astronut. You can see you face in it easily. And what is the primary mirror of your very telescope made from Astronut but aluminium coated onto the outside of glass?

Astronut
08-07-2009, 07:39 AM
Polished metal makes a very good mirror in actual fact Astronut.
You overestimate how well "polished" the aluminum of ISS is. Aluminum can be as dull as it can be vibrant. You can't see your reflection in the surfaces of ISS:
http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/73/ISS_Destiny_Lab.jpg
I can't believe you're actually comparing Aluminum coating on telescope mirrors to any and all other applications of aluminum. I used to have a small slab of industrial aluminum, not well polished, but smooth to the touch. It was anything but shiny.

Astronut
08-07-2009, 07:56 AM
Where is your front lawn located

On January 28th, 1986 it was located about 16-17 miles west of the launch pad. Now I live a couple hours away.

and how is it that one of your family members were able to retain a piece of the Space Shuttle debris that was recovered from the ocean floor after it exploded in mid-air in the early 1980's?
Parts of challenger are still out there on the ocean floor today (though my family member picked up the piece he found years ago).
CNN - Shuttle Challenger debris washes up on shore - Dec. 17, 1996 (http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9612/17/challenger.debris/index.html)
The wreckage was never fully recovered, that would be impossible, it's just too scattered.

galexander
08-08-2009, 12:16 PM
Couldnt find an appropriate image on the internet but photos in a book I have seem to reveal polished metal surfaces on the ISS. And then there are also the static solar panels the glass surfaces of which would tend to cause flares.

I just love those NASA photos of the ISS supposedly in orbit with that studio quality lighting.

When you see those astronauts somersaulting inside these space modules in what is effectively zero gravity (can be reproduced in 30 second bursts by an aircraft doing a parabolic nose-dive), has it never struck anyone that it would have been exceptionally dangerous performing such manoeuvres surrounded by the myriad of switches, buttons, dials and loose wiring that is found on the inner walls of these capsules?

One classic piece of film from space history shows a chap running around the inside of a cylindrical module in zero g. The centrifugal force produced by his running keeps his feet firmly on the capsules curving walls as he runs in a perpetual loop-the-loop. But would such a thing have been possible? I doubt even the finest circus acrobat in the world would have been able to achieve such a thing. What is more likely is that the cylindrical capsule was actually revolving back down on the Earth with the camera bolted to its wall and with the man running forward to avoid falling over as the cylinder rotated.

But what I find most humorous of all are the laboratory mice in zero g. Surely that would have counted as animal cruelty? I mean what can a mouse do in zero g apart from float around inside its cage and what about the mess.......?

GR0ND
08-09-2009, 10:19 AM
On January 28th, 1986 it was located about 16-17 miles west of the launch pad. Now I live a couple hours away.

Though I lived much further away, I can attest that the plume is highly visible and night launches are nothing short of spectacular. I actually went to the cape on another occassion to get closer look, where you can actually see the beast on the pad, but alas the flight was delayed that day :(.

Astronut you've done an admirable job but I think BlueAngel may be right about the thread in general, there is no amount of evidense, logic or reason that gale will accept. It's a religious belief for him now and unassailable by any arts you posses. Soon the shape shifting reptilians will be coming out and they are nasty.

cheers!

Astronut
08-10-2009, 07:13 AM
So, your family member who picked up a piece of the Space Shuttle debris is one of the persons in the article you posted?

No, the article is just an example of how much is still out there. My family member made his living diving for lobsters on the ocean floor just off the coast of the space center. He came across a piece of the orbiter one day while he was working, and brought a piece of it back with him to the surface. He didn't tell anyone he did so, obviously, as it was illegal to keep it.

Astronut
08-10-2009, 07:29 AM
(can be reproduced in 30 second bursts by an aircraft doing a parabolic nose-dive),

Thanks for admitting the 30 second limitation; that would make those long and boring zero g press talks on orbit impossible to fake, wouldn't it? I've seen some last for a half hour or more on NASA TV without any breaks or cuts from camera to camera. Can't do that on earth, at all.

has it never struck anyone that it would have been exceptionally dangerous performing such manoeuvres surrounded by the myriad of switches, buttons, dials and loose wiring that is found on the inner walls of these capsules?

Most buttons and switches do nothing irreversable, and the rest must be flipped in a specific order to do anything important. The most critical switches are kept under flip up protectors and located well away from any flipping astronauts; that's why they only tend to goof off on the mid deck, not the flight deck. ISS is a different kind of animal, and most wiring goes to peripherals like microphones, laptops, and cameras. Space station control is largely done on those computers as well, and it's not like you're going to accidentally type your way to your grave in bumping it.

Astronut
08-10-2009, 07:34 AM
Astronut you've done an admirable job but I think BlueAngel may be right about the thread in general, there is no amount of evidense, logic or reason that gale will accept. It's a religious belief for him now and unassailable by any arts you posses. Soon the shape shifting reptilians will be coming out and they are nasty.

cheers!
Thanks! I agree, I'm pretty sure he can't be convinced, though I'd love to see his reaction when seeing the space station through the eyepiece of a telescope that's automatically tracking it. That would separate the trolls from the sincere. I enjoy learning his arguments, which is the main reason I continued to post this long; to find out everthing that can be thrown at me so that I can prepare myself against any argument the next time someone accuses me of faking my images or videos. I think this bone's been picked clean, but it's been fun.

galexander
08-11-2009, 11:53 AM
Astronut you've done an admirable job but I think BlueAngel may be right about the thread in general, there is no amount of evidense, logic or reason that gale will accept. It's a religious belief for him now and unassailable by any arts you posses. Soon the shape shifting reptilians will be coming out and they are nasty.

Why is GROND going on about shape-shifting repitilians if he is so rationally minded?

Or perhaps his remark is a rather poorly concealed threat. If there are any shape-shifting reptilians out there then they are likely to be Nazis in disguise. And GROND himself might have a problem with them one day if what has been going on eventually catches up with him also. At least I'm better prepared.

Thanks for admitting the 30 second limitation; that would make those long and boring zero g press talks on orbit impossible to fake, wouldn't it? I've seen some last for a half hour or more on NASA TV without any breaks or cuts from camera to camera. Can't do that on earth, at all.

In my experience Astronut they either always cut to the interviewer or some cheap special effects have been used such as all being seated with brylcreem in their hair to make it look like its floating in zero 'g'.

GR0ND
08-11-2009, 05:01 PM
Ah, Gale, kindly explain to the FORUM what the BENEFITS would be of a Space Shuttle and ISS hoax.

Yes! Great place to start. For what purpose? Don't just talk about the billions of dollars. You could perform other, simpler hoaxes to get billions of dollars. Simpler hoaxes that could not be discovered and the plot revealed by a dude with a telescope out in his back yard.

GR0ND
08-11-2009, 05:34 PM
That would separate the trolls from the sincere.

Yeah, I've followed this thread because (yeah, its kinda fun), I'm trying to determine if gale is sincere...or just trolling. Someone in my office is really into conspiracies, and we debate (friendly) all the time. It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference in the way I (who is generally skeptical) and he (as a "conspiracy theorist) evaluate and process facts, data and draw conclusions. I'm not trying to assigna value of one being better than the other, just trying to understand how people come to "believe" something.

I found this thread (and site) via a great site called Fundies Say the Darndest Things. Gale got himself featured in the conspiracy area.

galexander
08-12-2009, 12:16 PM
Yes! Great place to start. For what purpose? Don't just talk about the billions of dollars. You could perform other, simpler hoaxes to get billions of dollars. Simpler hoaxes that could not be discovered and the plot revealed by a dude with a telescope out in his back yard.

GROND the point I made abundantly clear in my original post was that NASA is a Trojan Horse set up by Nazis.

Astronut
08-12-2009, 12:26 PM
In my experience Astronut they either always cut to the interviewer or some cheap special effects have been used such as all being seated with brylcreem in their hair to make it look like its floating in zero 'g'.
In my experience, they don't always cut to interviewers, and anyone looking with a shred of honesty can tell their hair is naturally floating; it isn't stiff, it's floating. You can also see the effects of zero-g in the way the microphone and its cord are constantly floating, especially as they pass the mic. But hey, my experience has also shown me beautiful detail on ISS itself, so I should just let you get back to wallowing in your ignorance since you can't disprove my images and videos are real.

GR0ND
08-12-2009, 06:29 PM
GROND the point I made abundantly clear in my original post was that NASA is a Trojan Horse set up by Nazis.

Nazis....yes I went back and re-read you original post and you are absolutely correct, you did explain all that about the Nazis. How could I have missed the Nazis...

Galexander, I'm sure you a very nice person. As for the theory proposed, a hoax involving the ISS and the US Space shuttle, perpetuated by a cabal of underground Nazis, I remain unconvinced.

Call me stubborn. If youre receptive to such counsel, I've noticed on this very small thread, on this little website, that you have failed to convince the three people actively participating. You approach and data may require refinement to bring this, obviously important message, to the public as a whole.

Astronut
08-13-2009, 07:39 AM
Wait!

Does Gale propose that the ISS and Space Shuttle are a hoax because of what he views and/or does not view through the telescope in this back yard?

:)
Indeed, which makes one wonder why he's unable to produce images or videos proving any of this, all while claiming that I fake mine. Even if he doesn't have the necessary equipment to photograph it, thousands of other amateurs do, and simple webcam style imagers are extremely cheap anyway. Yet in spite of all of this, I don't see any other amateur complaining to the rest of us that the ISS looks completely wrong in their telescope, let alone providing images that prove it or accusing us all of forging our results. The inability to properly see ISS does not prove that it doesn't exist, especially when everyone else IS able to see it just fine. If I met him at a star party during an ISS pass I could easily show the station or even use my video camera to get his telescope to produce a recognizable image of it, if it's really the 6" reflector he claims it is. The problem with a negative result is that it includes the possibility of operator error, and when you have so many others all producing repeatable positive results, it's the only logical conclusion left.

GR0ND
08-13-2009, 09:31 AM
Wait!

Does Gale propose that the ISS and Space Shuttle are a hoax because of what he views and/or does not view through the telescope in this back yard?

:)
Unfortunately, yes. This whole situation could probably be put to rest with a small bottle of Windex.

But from reading Mr. Alexander's other posts, I'm getting the impression he may believe that space flight is not even possible. So I'm curious about the Apollo moon landings, other space programs, geocentric theories and flat earth.

Those Nazis have been around a long time and I'm sure they've been up to absolutely no good. Stink'in Nazis.

galexander
08-13-2009, 12:38 PM
In my experience, they don't always cut to interviewers, and anyone looking with a shred of honesty can tell their hair is naturally floating; it isn't stiff, it's floating. You can also see the effects of zero-g in the way the microphone and its cord are constantly floating, especially as they pass the mic.

Astronut, can I ask you to quote your source of reference on this one please if I am to give it further comment.

But from reading Mr. Alexander's other posts, I'm getting the impression he may believe that space flight is not even possible. So I'm curious about the Apollo moon landings, other space programs, geocentric theories and flat earth.

Saying space flight is impossible per se is different from suggesting it is technically extremely difficult and that it has been hoaxed for dishonest reasons. It is the latter view I hold and not the former.

Look at the old Gemini photographs supposedly taken from Earth orbit. In many of these photos the land is uniformly brown throughout. Africa is shown as uniformly brown throughout but what about the lush jungle of the Congo Basin? And north of Africa is a perfectly brown Europe and a brown UK. How do you explain this? Are the colours on these photos not real and if so why? We have never been told the colours on these photos are false.

Astronut
08-14-2009, 11:35 AM
Astronut, can I ask you to quote your source of reference on this one please if I am to give it further comment.

Well I don't normally take formal notes when I watch NASA TV, I just watch it like most people watch sports. I've seen prolonged uncut interviews like that on multiple missions. I'll often put it on during lunch on the weekends when I'm working. Usually I'm mostly done eating by the time they end the interview and cut to a new shot. Shortly before STS-127 I watched a very long video tour of ISS where the astronaut flew through the entire station and updated mission control on the status of every nook without a single camera cut.

Nicole Stott has decently long hair, so if they do an interview with the crew of STS-128 on orbit before she gets transferred to the station I'll be sure to let you know the video's identifier etc. At other times I've watched prolonged shots of people working inside ISS, just floating at a workstation for minutes at a time before they cut to another "boring" shot. If I see that again I'll be sure to let you know as well.

Saying space flight is impossible per se is different from suggesting it is technically extremely difficult and that it has been hoaxed for dishonest reasons. It is the latter view I hold and not the former.

What do you make of people like me who have photographed the spacecraft and found them to be real though? Isn't it possible you just made a mistake?

galexander
08-14-2009, 11:51 AM
Checking the internet I got the following on NASA TV:

NASA TV's Public, Education and Media channels are available on an MPEG-2 digital C-band signal via satellite on AMC 6, Transponder 17C in continental North America. In Alaska and Hawaii, they're available on AMC 7, Transponder 18C. Analog NASA TV is no longer available.

Astronut, how did you receive NASA TV if it is no longer available to the general public?

The reason why I ask you to quote your source is because you appeared to be going entirely from memory. Sometimes memories are not accurate especially when they are constructed upon impressions and expectations. Also note in the following quote you use the expression "in my experience" indicating that there was possibly some reasonable doubt involved:

In my experience, they don't always cut to interviewers, and anyone looking with a shred of honesty can tell their hair is naturally floating; it isn't stiff, it's floating. You can also see the effects of zero-g in the way the microphone and its cord are constantly floating, especially as they pass the mic.

GR0ND
08-14-2009, 12:44 PM
Checking the internet I got the following on NASA TV:
Astronut, how did you receive NASA TV if it is no longer available to the general public?

Nasa TV is available to the general public. I have DirectTV at my house. Channel 376 is NasaTV, I believe I could even recieve it in high def. What's more, I have watched it from time to time. To Astonut's point, I usually get bored and turn the channel, because they have these incredibly long static shots of people working inside the station, floating around. It's like watching fish in a bowl. I generally prefer the excursions when they go outside the station/ship (I can't remember which it was).
When you check the internet, check DirectTV's channel line up.
Again, what evidense would be acceptable that ISS & the Shuttle are real?

galexander
08-15-2009, 11:19 AM
To Astonut's point, I usually get bored and turn the channel, because they have these incredibly long static shots of people working inside the station, floating around. It's like watching fish in a bowl.

But do these "long static shots" last for more than 30 seconds and have you timed them?

Again, what evidense would be acceptable that ISS & the Shuttle are real?

This is an unfair question as I am not able to directly answer it. I think what is more to the point GROND is that both you and Astronut have failed to answer any of the questions I raised in my original post.

Astronut
08-17-2009, 06:46 AM
Astronut, how did you receive NASA TV if it is no longer available to the general public?

NASA TV is available online for free, I get it on my phone through the internet:
NASA TV - NASA site (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1369080)
I also watch it on the satellite TV at work on the weekends when no one else is here. Where I grew up next to cape kennedy they still have NASA TV included with standard cable.

The reason why I ask you to quote your source is because you appeared to be going entirely from memory. Sometimes memories are not accurate especially when they are constructed upon impressions and expectations.

Considering I've watched countless missions on NASA TV, throughout the time I spent growing up next to cape kennedy through even now, that's about as absurd as suggesting that all the launches I've watched from there are just hallucinations.

Also note in the following quote you use the expression "in my experience" indicating that there was possibly some reasonable doubt involved:
I used the words "in my experience" because you were saying you've never seen a video showing zero g for longer than 30 seconds. You apparently lack that experience, but that's not to say your lack of experience makes a more informed experience impossible or even doubtful. There is no reasonable doubt here, no more than the fact that I've personally seen the orbiter and ISS in orbit with my telescope and I've resolved the shapes of each. Again, your lack of experience accomplishing the latter does not make it impossible that someone else can successfully accomplish it and experience it first hand. I know what I've seen, I didn't just make up these experiences in my head, I've spent entire lunch breaks watching uncut shots from inside the space station. I'm not even asking you to take my memory for it, because as I told you I'll gladly tell you when I see the next long interview from space showing obvious and uncut zero g video. The next shuttle launch is what, a week away? Considering how you have ignored direct evidence of ISS's existence filmed by myself and others already, I don't see why you'd be open to accepting evidence in any form though.

GR0ND
08-17-2009, 10:39 AM
But do these "long static shots" last for more than 30 seconds and have you timed them?

No. Why would I? Besides, when I say long static shots, I mean loooooonnnnnggg static shots. The kind where you make a sandwich, do you nightly exercises, and generally perform other actions while it plays in the background.

This is an unfair question as I am not able to directly answer it. I think what is more to the point GROND is that both you and Astronut have failed to answer any of the questions I raised in my original post.

Respectfully, it's not unfair. I suspect that you position is as immovable as it is untenable. While it may be true that I have provided little direct evidence to your original post, Astronut has deftly and impressively gone above and beyond. Every point he makes to you original points, you "weasel" around them, make accusations, change the criteria and argue minutia. So all I'm asking is what would be acceptable to you. Is it possible for you to admit that you have made a mistake in your conclusions? You must certainly realize that you fall into an infinitesimal minority in reference to this belief. At this point, the two most probable conclusions that we make is that the whole thread is "Poe" or trolling, or we're involved in a debate with someone who mental health will never permit a fair, honest and rational outcome to the debate.

That's why I ask the not unfair question of, can you be convinced otherwise?
Well, can you be convinced otherwise?

GR0ND
08-18-2009, 10:15 AM
NASA - Kennedy Space Center Home Page (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/home/index.html)

NASA - Space Shuttle (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html)

I request that Gale go to the Cape; watch the lift-off of the shuttle and report back to CC as to his findings.

BTW, If memory serves me correctly, and, I believe that it does, Gale suggested to me on the Mind Control within the Music Industry thread when I was reporting as to the constant high-pitched frequency being directed mainly in my left ear, that I confront my neighbors because they were responsible.

Sound advice, don't you think?

LOL BlueAngel. I'll have to go searching for some of gale's other posts, which I've meant to do anyway. Does this mean the nieghbors are trying to mind control you? Do you ever feel an irrational need to give them money, wash thier dishes or perform sexual favors?

galexander
08-29-2009, 12:41 PM
NASA - Kennedy Space Center Home Page (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/home/index.html)

NASA - Space Shuttle (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html)

I request that Gale go to the Cape; watch the lift-off of the shuttle and report back to CC as to his findings.

BTW, If memory serves me correctly, and, I believe that it does, Gale suggested to me on the Mind Control within the Music Industry thread when I was reporting as to the constant high-pitched frequency being directed mainly in my left ear, that I confront my neighbors because they were responsible.

Sound advice, don't you think?

I've been off-line for a couple of weeks moving home but it seems I didn't really miss a lot.

Blueangel, I don't deny the Space Shuttle takes off from the Cape but what it does after that is anyone's guess. Since it isn't really necessary for this empty shell to actually get into orbit, I suggest it tales a sub-orbital path directly into the sea.

As for your reference to electronic harrassment and your neighbours you have misquoted what in actual fact had been a quite sophisticated suggestion on my part.

Astronut
08-31-2009, 07:05 AM
I've been off-line for a couple of weeks moving home but it seems I didn't really miss a lot.

Just in time, actually. A guy in france just nailed an AMAZING image of STS-128 inspecting itself in orbit:
http://wwwusr2.obspm.fr/~biver/ISS/discovery300809-4h08m27-t407f5.jpg
I'm also working on a much better technique for automated satellite tracking that should yield much better results. Hopefully I can get it up and running in time for this mission's visible passes in my area.

galexander
09-01-2009, 12:28 PM
Your thread states that the Space Shuttle is a hoax, but you agree that it takes off from the Cape. So, kindly explain in 50 words or less what you propose to be the Space Shuttle HOAX and its' purpose.

Blueangel, I already explained my position quite clearly with regard to the Space Shuttle taking off from the Cape, as follows:

Blueangel, I don't deny the Space Shuttle takes off from the Cape but what it does after that is anyone's guess. Since it isn't really necessary for this empty shell to actually get into orbit, I suggest it tales a sub-orbital path directly into the sea.

And I still insist that you have misquoted me. I only suggested you knock on your neighbours door ONLY after you had scientifically established that the microwaves were coming from their direction using an appropriate detection device that I had recommended. I have read in books of sound authorship that the powers that be, based upon published scientific papers, have the capability if they feel so inclined to harass people using microwaves or microwaves which stimulate an implant connected to a nerve ending. And no GROND this is not paranoid twaddle this is PUBLISHED FACT which above board scientific papers prove.

galexander
09-03-2009, 01:24 PM
An implant is not necessary to harass people with EMF's and microwaves.

Nevertheless, kindly provide the forum with the names of the books that you have read that contain PUBLISHED and "above board" scientific papers that suggest people with implants can be harassed with microwaves by the powers that be if they so desire and the names of the sound authors.

Certainly. Two books by Alex Constantine on mind control, "Psychic Dictatorship in the USA" and "Virtual Government" and one book by Mark M. Rich, "The Hidden Evil". The first title quoted by Alex Constantine is probably the best source and in addition exposes the shocking cover-up at the McMartin Preschool child abuse case where the media were silent about the fact that many of the kids had contracted an STD and that a team of archaeologists did uncover a network of tunnels at the school even though the supposed lack of the same tunnels 'PROVED' that the kids had imagined the whole thing.

I get the feeling however Blueangel that we are getting a bit side-tracked here.........

stompk
09-04-2009, 07:54 AM
galexander; great thread!

I've questioned before, if the thrust of a rocket engine produces forward force by pushing against air, how does a shuttle move around in an environment without any air??

I believe you about the hoax. Nice work. Huge revelation.

galexander
09-04-2009, 01:44 PM
If you read about the McMartin case and the various UNBELIEVEABLE claims that some of the children made, it's NO SURPRISE that they weren't taken seriously.

Being the MIND CONTROL expert that I am :), this indicates to me that the perpetrators placed the YOUNG children in a SUGGESTIBLE state of mind and implanted FALSE information so the children would repeat same and be discredited COMPLETELY.

This is THEIR MO.

I can't believe you are saying this about the McMartin case when you claim to be a victim of child abuse yourself. How can you be so absolutely certain of what you are saying Blueangel?

GR0ND
09-08-2009, 09:50 AM
galexander; great thread!

I've questioned before, if the thrust of a rocket engine produces forward force by pushing against air, how does a shuttle move around in an environment without any air??

I believe you about the hoax. Nice work. Huge revelation.

REALLY? Galexander! You got a disciple. Good work dude. If only you had a few expose DVDs or books to sell about the subject. People talk about the longevity of Moores law, Im much more impressed by PT Barnums dictum.

stompk
09-10-2009, 07:32 AM
In space, the surrounding atmospheric pressure is zero. In principle, the expansion ratio would have to be infinite to reduce the exit pressure to zero.

Rocket Thrust Equation and Launch Vehicles (http://aticourses.com/rocket_tutorial.htm)

..!..

galexander
09-14-2009, 01:45 PM
GROND said: REALLY? Galexander! You got a disciple. Good work dude. If only you had a few expose DVDs or books to sell about the subject.

I have actually offered to write a book on the subject being an author of two published books but I never got anywhere. I also proposed the idea with DVD/film producer but he never got back to me. I think for many the idea is too far fetched and the moon landing hoax is enough to keep people going in the meantime.

Laokin
10-06-2009, 11:48 AM
In reply to Astronut, since when did suggesting that someone may be in the employ of NASA count as slander? Can't see that at all.

And why is Astronut so keen to show 'live' telescopic images of the ISS over the internet unless he was trying to prove a big point, that the ISS does actually exist in case anyone had any doubts!

I'm afraid UV light can break open every single bond known to man, organic and inorganic. Check out the photon energy levels of UV light in eV's which far exceeds all known chemical bonds in the case of far UV. UV can ionize oxygen which has a potential of 13.6 eV I seem to recall which is bigger than any bond I can think of.


Bud, your a moron. First off, you have absolutely no idea why the sky is blue. It's not "scattered light" it's refractions from water reflecting off of humidity in the air, the same humidity that makes clouds. The atmosphere is clear.

Further more, I don't work at nasa, nor am I part in any conspiracy, but even I too have seen the ISS. I got my first telescope when I was 4 was part of a college grade astronomy club when I was 8. Your uneducated and that's all there is too it.

UV breaks all bonds? Really, because we have UV light here on earth. We have man made UV lights that project dense beams of UV light. They don't break apart welds... at very most it might dry out crazy glue. Your a loony.

It's people like you that give conspiracies a bad name, because they are completely ignorant to how to partake in a formal argument. (read: debate)

Unless you present actual facts to support your theory, your theory is useless. We have actual facts that tell us ISS is there, it's not our responsibility to prove it to you, since it is true. We all know it, you people who claim it's not are the minority, so it's your responsibility to give supportive evidence as to why. Something in which you cannot do..... merely because your wrong and you refuse to accept it.

People like you spout misinformation in order to get attention. You trype like your intelligent so people who don't understand what kelvin is are inclined to take your word for it, but people who are in fact more intelligent than you realize your just babbling about incoherent nonsense.

Move on, the earth is not flat, UV doesn't break things down (I mean if it did, how do we have use of cell phones? Google Earth? Anything satellite based? If a satellite can survive surely a space station could as well. They would just make it out of satellite materials, eh?)

You propose it's a balloon. How is a balloon more sturdy than a space station?

Mmmhmmm..... This guys is a crazy.

In short, if you ever want some one to believe you, you must provide "Empirical Evidence." Unless your correct, there won't be any.

galexander
10-06-2009, 12:46 PM
Bud, your a moron. First off, you have absolutely no idea why the sky is blue. It's not "scattered light" it's refractions from water reflecting off of humidity in the air, the same humidity that makes clouds. The atmosphere is clear.

If your science is so good how come you have not heard of Rayleigh scattering? Check the following link:

Blue Sky and Rayleigh Scattering (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/atmos/blusky.html)

UV breaks all bonds? Really, because we have UV light here on earth. We have man made UV lights that project dense beams of UV light. They don't break apart welds... at very most it might dry out crazy glue. Your a loony.

Next time you are in the library look up the 1st ionization energy of atomic oxygen in kJ/mol and you will find it is greater than all the bond energies known to man. If a photon of UV light can ionize oxygen in the Earth's upper atmosphere then according the the laws of quantum physics it can therefore break open every bond known to man based upon this simple mathematical consideration. Understand the science now?

And please don't forget the UV you get on Earth is not the same as the UV light you get in space. A large spectrum is involved.

As for the proposed satellite technology NASA claims to have, Earth based technologies are more than adequate. I'm talking about fibre optic telecommunications and over-the-horizon tropospheric scattering. Is it a co-incidence that the Sat Nav's are supported by a vast global network of ground stations which apparently tell the satellites exactly where they are at any given point in time?

Its so easy to assume that satellites must exist but just think how technically difficult it would have been. For example the satellites need to know which way up they are so they need Sun sensors and sensors to detect the Earth's limb in addition to star trackers. But further in the case of geosynchronous satellites they need to rotate exactly once every 24hrs so the high gain antenna (dish) is pointing towards the Earth. And this is while tracking the position of the Sun, stars and the Earth. Its a veritable balancing act. In theory it might be possible but in practice.......... And also don't forget the satellite is all doing this while being bombarded by high energy particles and magnetic storms which can flip satellites over and set them spinning. Wouldn't it have been easier to have used fibre optics and over-the-horizon technology........?

Laokin
10-06-2009, 01:41 PM
If your science is so good how come you have not heard of Rayleigh scattering? Check the following link:

Blue Sky and Rayleigh Scattering (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/atmos/blusky.html)



Next time you are in the library look up the 1st ionization energy of atomic oxygen in kJ/mol and you will find it is greater than all the bond energies known to man. If a photon of UV light can ionize oxygen in the Earth's upper atmosphere then according the the laws of quantum physics it can therefore break open every bond known to man based upon this simple mathematical consideration. Understand the science now?

And please don't forget the UV you get on Earth is not the same as the UV light you get in space. A large spectrum is involved.

As for the proposed satellite technology NASA claims to have, Earth based technologies are more than adequate. I'm talking about fibre optic telecommunications and over-the-horizon tropospheric scattering. Is it a co-incidence that the Sat Nav's are supported by a vast global network of ground stations which apparently tell the satellites exactly where they are at any given point in time?

Its so easy to assume that satellites must exist but just think how technically difficult it would have been. For example the satellites need to know which way up they are so they need Sun sensors and sensors to detect the Earth's limb in addition to star trackers. But further in the case of geosynchronous satellites they need to rotate exactly once every 24hrs so the high gain antenna (dish) is pointing towards the Earth. And this is while tracking the position of the Sun, stars and the Earth. Its a veritable balancing act. In theory it might be possible but in practice.......... And also don't forget the satellite is all doing this while being bombarded by high energy particles and magnetic storms which can flip satellites over and set them spinning. Wouldn't it have been easier to have used fibre optics and over-the-horizon technology........?


Wow. Are you a quantum physicist? No. Not only that, but to be a quantum physicist, you first have to accept the facts that quantum physics is a theory, and only a theory.

Secondly. "For example the satellites need to know which way up they are so they need Sun sensors and sensors to detect the Earth's limb in addition to star trackers."

It's called Gyro meters and Accelerometers. If your son's Wiimote can do it, surely a satellite can. As for tracking stars, it wouldn't have to... but just for the sake of entertainment.... My telescope auto tracks star positions. Ground breaking technology INDEED!!!!!

Your a crack pot dude. Satellites have fallen out of orbit and hit peoples homes. I've seen one with my own eyes. Not to mention my Uncle pioneered Metro One. One of the first cellular telecommunications networks. He owned his own satellite and I was there when it launched. He later sold it to Singular, which became "Singular One."

Get real. You haven't a clue what your talking about.

As for satellite images, I'm sure we just fly hundreds of thousands of planes over enemy territory to get a peak at what they have out in the open. Mmmhmm. Google Earth, you propose they use a sky tower or planes to produce these images? Where is this sky tower? How do these planes not get shot down flying over restricted air space?

Not to mention if the images were taken by "over the horizon" technology.... every image produced would be on a severe angle. They aren't, they are TOP down. Why is this?

Better yet, you know you can lease the use of a satellite and look at whatever you wish with it? It comes with a hefty price tag and a year waiting list... but yes, even you can control a satellite.

Your an uneducated goof ball, that read books written by other uneducated goof balls. Either that, or you just fail to comprehend what your actually reading.

P.S.

Hyper physics? Georgia State University. My point is, you don't understand a lick of what is on that page, not only that, but that page contradicts any rhyme or reason for the sky to be any other color other than blue. It's only a partial equation.

galexander
10-07-2009, 11:44 AM
Laokin, you don't convince me one bit. Using abusive language doesn't impress me either. It reveals a sense of insecurity in my opinion.

Wow. Are you a quantum physicist? No. Not only that, but to be a quantum physicist, you first have to accept the facts that quantum physics is a theory, and only a theory.

So, quantum physics is only a theory. And what else is also only a theory Laokin, that everything NASA says is the absolute truth? Is it also just a theory that a photon that has enough energy to break a given bond can therefore break open all weaker bonds? Come on, admit I've won the point and let's move on.

I'd like you to visualize for a few moments a satellite floating in empty space and imagine that satellite slowly rotating, but rotating so slowly you can hardly see it move. In fact it is rotating exactly once every 24 hours. Now ask yourself the question, how did the engineers/scientists manage to calibrate that spin to such a degree of accuracy using nothing but gas operated thrusters? I mean a clock maker would have been slightly challenged using cogs and wheels on a fixed immoveable surface, but in empty space and in zero gravity? I don't know if you have managed to grasp the subtlety of my argument?

EireEngineer
10-07-2009, 02:46 PM
:D



Stompk proposes that if the thrust of a rocket engine produces forward force by pushing against air, how does a shuttle move around in an environment without any air?
A rocket generates thrust not by pushing against air, but by explosivly ejecting gas generated by burning the fuel.

The shuttle moves in space via the use of gas releasing jets that produce the required force, and by burning the RSS engines to accelerate.

Mr Blee
10-08-2009, 08:39 PM
Astronaut nice pics of the ISS...way cool. Got to get me one of those telescopes one day.

galexander using the flat earth society is not the best resource. Do you think the earth is flat? I just have to ask.

EireEngineer
10-08-2009, 09:47 PM
:D Is a cheesy ad hominem all that you have? To answer your question, my dad was the head engineer on the Manned Maneuvering Unit used by shuttle astronauts during spacewalks. And I got my EE from the University of Maryland, so yes...I am one of those dreaded scientists you all fear. However, the basic principles of rocketry and spaceflight can be understood by anyone capable of reading. Even my 10 year old neice gets it, so you hardly have to be a "Rocket Scientist".

What do rocket scientists say in stead of "Its not ROcket Science!"?


"Its not like getting a girl!"

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 08:13 AM
Yes. So? What degree gives you such authority to criticize the easily understood principles of rocketry and spaceflight?:D

galexander
10-09-2009, 12:36 PM
Astronaut nice pics of the ISS...way cool. Got to get me one of those telescopes one day.

galexander using the flat earth society is not the best resource. Do you think the earth is flat? I just have to ask.

To answer your question Mr Blee, no I do not believe the Earth is flat, but sometimes it feels like it might just as well be.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 09:28 PM
Nor does it qualify me as a virologist, yet I can read the science and understand it just the same. You might want to pull out your high school physics book if you need an explanation of how rockets actually work.

Oh, and as I said, my father was a rocket scientist and I grew up with the principles of aerospace engineering all around me. In fact, when I was a little kid I held the sample scoop that is currently atttached to the Viking II on Mars. So I do know just a little bit more than the average person.

Books: not just for use as doorstops anymore!

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 09:51 PM
LOL. You do know that just by being online you have access to Google, right? So why ask such silly questions? I notice that you like saying that only a rocket scientist can understand aerospace, but yet still think that you, a non scientist of any type, can refute it. That is called the argument from ignorance fallacy if I am not mistaken?

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 10:18 PM
I never did say I was a rocket scientist. That was something you said trying to set up a straw man argument. What I did indicate was that I have a descent understanding of rocketry in general, and the operations of the space shuttle in particular. Aerospace has been a keen interest of mine since childhood, and I dare say I have picked up quite a bit of knowledge of it over the years. And as of yet I have not seen you refute the assertion that a rocket generates thrust not by pushing against air, but through the explosive ejection of matter. I also posited the mechanism for how the shuttle maneuvers in space. Both of these principles are covered in any BASIC Physics textbook, so its not exactly arcane knowledge only held by Von Braun acolytes. Go ahead and refute these if you like, but dont resort to ad hominem or strawman arguments

As for the Viking II, the Viking program sent 2 orbiters and 2 landers in the 1970s to Mars and conducted the first search for life there (hence the sample scoop).

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 10:33 PM
Scoop not scope.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 10:36 PM
I never set-up anything as a straw-man argument.

You have presented yourself as a ROCKET SCIENTIST and you are not.

Anyone can posses the knowledge you propose to KNOW through the reading of books, but that wouldn't qualify them as ROCKET SCIENTISTS nor does it you either.

You indicated that the Viking II program currently exists.

I suggest you employ the use of GOOGLE or read the link I have provided about the Viking II program.
Point to the post where I said I was a rocket scientist please. And as I said, the Viking was one of the projects my dad worked on, as well as Voyager, the Shuttle, the MMU, and the Titan series rockets. You seem very confused, and its pretty funny.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 11:07 PM
No, I never said it qualifies me as the same, but it defiantly gives me a better background than the average person. Plus, as I have repeatedly stated that any and all assertions that I made are covered in a high school physics text, it is irrelevant. I took high school physics (A- since you asked), so that qualifies me to speak on that. Just because someone isnt a specialist in a field does not mean they cant understand it.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 11:10 PM
Sorry, but I wouldn't be the one who is confused.

What kind of work did your father do on the Voyager, the Shuttle, the MMU and the Titan series rockets?

Was he employed at NASA?
Once again, if you did a quick Google search you would have found the commonality between all of those projects.
He was a senior aerospace engineer at Martin Marrietta for 38 years, just in case you cant alt-T and google it.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 11:50 PM
And as I said, I never did qualify myself as a rocket scientist. You did.

EireEngineer
10-09-2009, 11:51 PM
I'm so thankful for the many ROCKET SCIENTISTS who post on this forum.

From where have you and STOMPK attained your degrees and for whom do you work at present?

NASA?

:eek:
See, you were the one saying I am a rocket scientist. lol

EireEngineer
10-10-2009, 12:03 AM
Well, let me ask you this....do you think that a rocket motor operates by pushing against air, like a fan, or through the ejection of matter?

EireEngineer
10-10-2009, 12:31 AM
Well...all of this has been about you attacking me for correcting the guy on his physics understanding, so I am assuming you must have a position on it. Do YOU think that the whole ISS/space shuttle thing is a hoax?

EireEngineer
10-10-2009, 12:34 AM
Right, you just said that I was unqualified to post any info on how rocketry works because I am not a "Rocket Scientist". Funny. Do you ever contribute any substantive rebuttals in any of your postings?

EireEngineer
10-10-2009, 12:42 AM
Seems like it. Its all circular with you.

EireEngineer
10-10-2009, 12:58 AM
Kind of pointless seeing as you cant see "any benefits from the space station". Such short-sightedness is alarming. Perhaps you should google their press kit sometime. Well, goodnight, I am off to do some thing more productive....like my girlfriend.

galexander
10-25-2009, 01:05 PM
Newton's Third Law of Motion states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Contained within the Third Law is also the law of the conservation of momentum.

As exhaust is thrust out of the back of the rocket this exhaust has a momentum which is equal to its mass multiplied by the exhaust velocity. It follows from this that the higher the exhaust velocity the greater the momentum of the rocket exhaust and hence the greater the thrust.

Because of Newton's Third Law half of the momentum of this rocket exhaust will be used to push the rocket in the opposite direction.

If you know the rocket's mass, the amount of fuel burnt per second and the exhaust velocity then you can calculate the rocket's gain in velocity per second interval which is also therefore equal to its acceleration.

Does this clear the issue up for you?

EireEngineer
10-26-2009, 08:36 AM
If you cant understand that simple, clear explaination then you have no room criticizing.

Good job Galax!

Majick
11-07-2009, 03:07 PM
I have a small observatory at home - can tell you that the ISS is a certainty.

You can see the ozone in pictures recorded by NASA from the shuttle.

What you have to also remember that cameras cannot determine light in the same way in space because light behaves different.

I the same sense a picture on the moon will not reveal any stars and if you try to take a picture of the night sky on earth with a standard camera - you will get nothing but black!

galexander
11-08-2009, 12:19 PM
I have a small observatory at home - can tell you that the ISS is a certainty.

You can see the ozone in pictures recorded by NASA from the shuttle.

What you have to also remember that cameras cannot determine light in the same way in space because light behaves different.

I the same sense a picture on the moon will not reveal any stars and if you try to take a picture of the night sky on earth with a standard camera - you will get nothing but black!

You may be able to see some blue mist in some of the pictures from NASA but not all. I make this quite clear in my initial post. What I am saying is that you ought to see blue mist in ALL the pictures.

We can only take your word for it that you own an observatory and that you have clearly seen the ISS through your telescope.

As for light behaving differently in space I am genuinely baffled. However I would have thought an astronomer could have given a better explanation of what he was talking about in this regard.

EireEngineer
11-08-2009, 02:31 PM
You may be able to see some blue mist in some of the pictures from NASA but not all. I make this quite clear in my initial post. What I am saying is that you ought to see blue mist in ALL the pictures.

We can only take your word for it that you own an observatory and that you have clearly seen the ISS through your telescope.

As for light behaving differently in space I am genuinely baffled. However I would have thought an astronomer could have given a better explanation of what he was talking about in this regard.
Its pretty simple to understand, if you ever did even minimal research. Ever notice the gold plated visors that astronauts wear? Why do you think that they have to wear those? It is because, unshielded by our atmosphere, the sun is easily quite bright enough to blind you right through your eyelids. In order to get descent pictures on the moon or in space you have to use a short exposure with a number of filters on the lens. Otherwise you would get a massive overexposure. The same would be true even with a CCD camera, in fact it would probably be worse, as the elements would quickly overcurrent and self destruct.

galexander
11-09-2009, 11:44 AM
Its pretty simple to understand, if you ever did even minimal research. Ever notice the gold plated visors that astronauts wear? Why do you think that they have to wear those? It is because, unshielded by our atmosphere, the sun is easily quite bright enough to blind you right through your eyelids. In order to get descent pictures on the moon or in space you have to use a short exposure with a number of filters on the lens. Otherwise you would get a massive overexposure. The same would be true even with a CCD camera, in fact it would probably be worse, as the elements would quickly overcurrent and self destruct.

Well fine. But that's a bit different from saying light 'behaves' differently in space. 'Behave' is a misleading term to use. Its just brighter outside the Earth's atmosphere.

TrutherD
11-11-2009, 08:17 AM
I found this really interesting. You guys sure know a lot about this stuff. Can I get a summary? Who taught who what? I would have to side with the ISS existing considering the mountains of amateur video as stated, but I really haven't done any research of my own. :P

EireEngineer
11-11-2009, 12:29 PM
Well fine. But that's a bit different from saying light 'behaves' differently in space. 'Behave' is a misleading term to use. Its just brighter outside the Earth's atmosphere.
Yeah, you are right. Words do have meaning,lol. I wish more people understood that.

EireEngineer
11-11-2009, 12:30 PM
I found this really interesting. You guys sure know a lot about this stuff. Can I get a summary? Who taught who what? I would have to side with the ISS existing considering the mountains of amateur video as stated, but I really haven't done any research of my own. :P
Read the treads and ask specific questions if you need to.

Out of the Box
11-17-2009, 06:28 AM
In my mind it is only too apparent who the perpetrators of this monumental fraud are. At the end of World War II Nazi scientists were taken to both the United States and the Soviet Union as part of Operation Paperclip. It were these same scientists who ultimately made up the chief executive at NASA. The first director of the Kennedy Space Center, Kurt Debus, was an ex-Nazi; the founder of the science of exobiology (the study of the possibility of life on Mars or elsewhere in the Universe), Hubertus Strughold, (whose experiments on live humans during the War at Dachau concentration camp often proved fatal) was an ex-Nazi; and the designer of the Saturn V, Wernher von Braun was Hilters leading rocket scientist who built the V-2.

I believe that these ex-Nazis were clearly not to be trusted and like other stay behind Nazi operatives after the war, they actively conspired from the outset to do damage to the US government. They were directly putting into practice Hitlers famous saying concerning the power of propaganda, The bigger the lie, the more believable it is. I also believe these bogus space endeavours represent a plant from which further operations could be launched against the anti-Nazi United States possibly assisted by an international league of Nazis in hiding rescued by the Vaticans notorious ratlines at the end of the war.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.


After 1945, the US occupational government enforced a radical "denazification" program in Germany, indoctrinating all Germans about the supposed "evils" of Nazi ideology. Nazis lost their civil rights and many ended up in prison camps. While it is true that some German scientists came to work for the US, this was only after a thorough background check than could clear them from any affiliation with Nazi ideology.
Zionist Jews are the most dominant power in the US and back in 1945 Jews were also quite powerful. Are you seriously suggesting they would allow Nazis to run key multi-billion dollar NASA projects without any outside control?
What purpose would the otherwise powerless Nazis have in forging key multi-billion dollar NASA projects? Why would they waste their time on such pointless endeavors rather than seaking political or media dominance in the US (which they clearly do not have today)?
How do the perpetrators hide their conspiracy, when most people involved in these projects must be aware?
Although I'm pretty sceptical about the landing on the moon, I know of no reason to question the existence of the space shuttle missions or the ISS. Several of your technical claims have also been disputed by others here, so I wonder if you aren't just making this all up to get some attention.

galexander
11-18-2009, 12:00 PM
Wrong, wrong, wrong.


After 1945, the US occupational government enforced a radical "denazification" program in Germany, indoctrinating all Germans about the supposed "evils" of Nazi ideology. Nazis lost their civil rights and many ended up in prison camps. While it is true that some German scientists came to work for the US, this was only after a thorough background check than could clear them from any affiliation with Nazi ideology.
Zionist Jews are the most dominant power in the US and back in 1945 Jews were also quite powerful. Are you seriously suggesting they would allow Nazis to run key multi-billion dollar NASA projects without any outside control?
What purpose would the otherwise powerless Nazis have in forging key multi-billion dollar NASA projects? Why would they waste their time on such pointless endeavors rather than seaking political or media dominance in the US (which they clearly do not have today)?
How do the perpetrators hide their conspiracy, when most people involved in these projects must be aware?
Although I'm pretty sceptical about the landing on the moon, I know of no reason to question the existence of the space shuttle missions or the ISS. Several of your technical claims have also been disputed by others here, so I wonder if you aren't just making this all up to get some attention.

Unfortunately Out of the Box I think you are wrong, wrong, wrong yourself.

Firstly have you ever heard of Operation Paperclip?

Operation Paperclip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip)

Secondly not all Nazi war criminals were executed or imprisoned. The Nuremberg Trials were indeed just show trials and after one or two leading examples were executed the vast majority were simply let off to live their own secret lives.

As for thorough background checks, a number of employees at NASA were previously SS.

Dream on Out of the Box......

Out of the Box
11-18-2009, 12:20 PM
Unfortunately Out of the Box I think you are wrong, wrong, wrong yourself.

Firstly have you ever heard of Operation Paperclip?

Operation Paperclip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip)

As mentiong at the Wiki-page you're referring to, Truman expressly ordered that anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi party and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism" would be excluded. Although the source also claims that all were cleared to work in the U.S. their backgrounds "bleached" by the military, I don't see why anyone would have been stupid enough to allow genuine German National-Socialists, hostile to the US from an ideological point of view, to work on high profile cases without any supervision from above. It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

Secondly not all Nazi war criminals were executed or imprisoned. The Nuremberg Trials were indeed just show trials and after one or two leading examples were executed the vast majority were simply let off to live their own secret lives.

The most they "testified" against their former employer and the less they seem to have been involved in any antisemitic activity, the more lenient the authorities were in their punishment. You seem to forget, however, about the many German civilians who lost their civil rights and in some cases spent several years in post-war camps or prisons because of their ideological beliefs. And do also think about the way millions of Germans were indoctrinated for years with the most diverse sorts of anti-Nazi propaganda.

As for thorough background checks, a number of employees at NASA were previously SS.

How many of them were forced to be enlisted? Didn't Germany have mandatory army service at the time of the war?

galexander
11-21-2009, 12:24 PM
As mentiong at the Wiki-page you're referring to, Truman expressly ordered that anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi party and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism" would be excluded. Although the source also claims that all were cleared to work in the U.S. their backgrounds "bleached" by the military, I don't see why anyone would have been stupid enough to allow genuine German National-Socialists, hostile to the US from an ideological point of view, to work on high profile cases without any supervision from above. It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

Okay, well how do you explain the fact, having said this, that Wernher von Braun joined the Waffen-SS in 1933 and became a member of the Nazi Party in 1937?

He was the top rocket scientist in NASA for many years and designed the Saturn V.

Out of the Box
11-22-2009, 04:00 AM
Okay, well how do you explain the fact, having said this, that Wernher von Braun joined the Waffen-SS in 1933 and became a member of the Nazi Party in 1937?

Maybe he wasn't allowed to do the kind of research he wanted to do without being a member of the right club. You see it in "democratic" society all the time that people join a political party, an elite fraternity or a secret society to advance their career. I'm sure many people made similar decisions in Nazi Germany.

JazzRoc
11-22-2009, 08:46 AM
Sun, Shuttle, International Space Station...

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m18/JazzRoc/clubcons/iss_shuttle.jpg

galexander
11-22-2009, 11:50 AM
Maybe he wasn't allowed to do the kind of research he wanted to do without being a member of the right club. You see it in "democratic" society all the time that people join a political party, an elite fraternity or a secret society to advance their career. I'm sure many people made similar decisions in Nazi Germany.

The point is Out of the Box that what I have said directly contradicts your Truman quote.

HenryHunter
12-18-2009, 12:00 PM
I stopped reading when the flat earth society was mentioned as a reference... They think the earth is flat, why would you use them as an example... I am holding a black panther meeting and I'm getting the catering done by the KKK, you get where I am going? Why in a scientific debate would you shout out the flat earth society?

jojo
01-16-2010, 05:36 PM
Astronaut thanx for the video and images, to be honest i have only seen what nasa has filmed. I prefer your images and videos

galexander
01-27-2010, 04:28 AM
I stopped reading when the flat earth society was mentioned as a reference... They think the earth is flat, why would you use them as an example... I am holding a black panther meeting and I'm getting the catering done by the KKK, you get where I am going? Why in a scientific debate would you shout out the flat earth society?

The point is HenryHunter that organisations like the Flat Earth Society are the only people open minded enough to even discuss the possibity that the ISS and Shuttle are a hoax.

Evidently people like yourself are completely closed minded and won't listen to serious scientific evidence when it is presented to them.

tyffty
02-19-2010, 06:52 PM
hmmm.... so those videos must be fake as well.YouTube - International Space Station Tour (Part I)
YouTube - International Space Station Tour (Part II)
YouTube - International Space Station Tour (Part III)
YouTube - International Space Station Tour (Part IV)

Why would any organization or consolidation of governments make up a hoax like that? what do they have to gain from that? The world has so much to gain from an ISS. Since the corporations are dying to militarize the moon, they need the research being developed at the ISS.

I just do not see what anyone can gain by creating a hoax as large as this. Not to mention the 100billion euros being funneled into this project. Or is that money being funneled somewhere else?

JazzRoc
02-20-2010, 04:17 AM
Why would any organization or consolidation of governments make up a hoax like that? what do they have to gain from that? The world has so much to gain from an ISS. Since the corporations are dying to militarize the moon, they need the research being developed at the ISS.

I just do not see what anyone can gain by creating a hoax as large as this.
The whole thing's absurd.

What interests me is what the proposer of this hoax conspiracy has to gain...

galexander
02-20-2010, 09:41 AM
hmmm.... so those videos must be fake as well.

Why would any organization or consolidation of governments make up a hoax like that? what do they have to gain from that? The world has so much to gain from an ISS. Since the corporations are dying to militarize the moon, they need the research being developed at the ISS.

I just do not see what anyone can gain by creating a hoax as large as this. Not to mention the 100billion euros being funneled into this project. Or is that money being funneled somewhere else?

Well I didn't have the time or the patience to watch all those videos. They all the looked the same to me anyway.

But watching the first video in its entirety there wasn't a single thing in it that proved it was shot in Earth orbit.

Notice that even though the presenter's hair was stood up it did not sway from side to side when he moved his head. This effect is easily achieved with hair cream.

The camera swaying and the presenter's movements up and down can easily be achieved by mechanical means.

Notice that when the presenter has to adjust his camera and he 'accidentally captures himself in shot' he has to wave at the camera and say hello. This is another phoney NASA motif. Notice how they do this every single time without fail.

I also couldn't help noticing the distinct military ring in the presenter's voice. What do we know about the presenter, is he military or civilian?

Very boring I'm afraid and I don't know why I should put in so much effort.

tyffty
02-20-2010, 12:17 PM
you still cant answer my question though. What does someone have to gain by creating such a hoax? So when the presenter films the earth through various windows, that must be some picture plastered on the window. Or when he films through the window giving a clear image of exterior ISS. Also he films himself floating. You should really watch all of them. Its quite fascinating.

Why dont you focus on more important conspiracy issues that effect our everyday life. Help make people aware of more important issues such as the bilderbergs, the federal reserve bank, and corporate take over of our country.

galexander
02-21-2010, 03:45 AM
you still cant answer my question though. What does someone have to gain by creating such a hoax? So when the presenter films the earth through various windows, that must be some picture plastered on the window. Or when he films through the window giving a clear image of exterior ISS. Also he films himself floating. You should really watch all of them. Its quite fascinating.

Why dont you focus on more important conspiracy issues that effect our everyday life. Help make people aware of more important issues such as the bilderbergs, the federal reserve bank, and corporate take over of our country.

I don't think that when the presenter films the Earth or the exterior of the ISS through a window it is a 'picture plastered on the window'. Have you not heard of special effects? There are dozens of ways of achieving this effect. Try watching a film like 'Space Cowboys'.

Tell me where exactly and on which film you see the presenter floating and I'll have a look at it.

You ask what someone has to gain from creating such a hoax? I explained all this in my original post. Its a Nazi Trojan Horse.

The reason why I don't whine on about the Bilderbergers and the Federal Reserve is because I don't personally subscribe to these particular conspiracy theories. I think they deflect attention away from the real issue like corruption in the US government via the Mafia and Nazi sympathizers.

Don't forget some conspiracy theories may be manufactured by the government to discredit the genuine theories and others could well have been manufactured by the conspirators themselves to act as a smoke screen to hide what is really going on.

galexander
02-27-2010, 05:17 AM
Well I have now seen all four videos now and I am still not impressed.

Again if you watch a film like Space Cowboys you can be fooled at times into thinking that the actors are actually in zero gravity in orbit but of course it is all just special effects.

There was nothing I saw in those films that could not be reproduced by a special effects team.

tyffty
03-03-2010, 06:59 PM
ummm what about the various times he films outside and shows the exterior of the ISS. Just remember that you have made yourself believe this conspiracy theory, so any proof presented to you will just be denied or ignored.

You are free to express whatever you believe, and i thank you for sharing it. The facts you have presented are interesting and it is quite possible that this is a hoax. Since we all know that the first moon landing was staged.

Here are some times that i recommend investigating in those clips
6:55 video1
7:10 video3
:35 and 2:30 and 5:00 video4

anything specific that looks out of the ordinary please share. Also, it is a weak argument to simply say these videos are fake and nothing special effects cant do. Give specific reasons so i can watch them and see for myself. If you can prove that these videos are fake, it will give great support to your theory

galexander
03-04-2010, 12:48 PM
ummm what about the various times he films outside and shows the exterior of the ISS. Just remember that you have made yourself believe this conspiracy theory, so any proof presented to you will just be denied or ignored.

You are free to express whatever you believe, and i thank you for sharing it. The facts you have presented are interesting and it is quite possible that this is a hoax. Since we all know that the first moon landing was staged.

Here are some times that i recommend investigating in those clips
6:55 video1
7:10 video3
:35 and 2:30 and 5:00 video4

anything specific that looks out of the ordinary please share. Also, it is a weak argument to simply say these videos are fake and nothing special effects cant do. Give specific reasons so i can watch them and see for myself. If you can prove that these videos are fake, it will give great support to your theory

I am not an expert on special effects and could not go into the detail you ask. However I would claim that I don't really need to.

In science fiction films you never believe that what you are watching actually happened in reality because you were told in advance that the whole thing is a gargantuan work of fiction.

And yet you can actually see these things happening with your own eyes.

What I am saying is is that the special effects used by NASA aren't any better than the ones used in science fiction movies.

Its because you've been told that what NASA produces is real that you end up seeing that it is real.

As for your video clips:

So you can see the Earth and parts of the exterior of the ISS through a window. But what does this prove? We have already seen the Earth and the exterior of the ISS during space walks. Can you tell me what difference the window makes?

That leaves one clip remaining:

In Video 3, 7:10 it is not really clear what is going on in this rather cramped environment. A pipe flexes from side to side but this effect can easily be achieved using the appropriate flexible materials.

In summary these videos don't really make a significant impact.

galexander
05-16-2010, 04:34 AM
I'd just like to add a note as to how bad the UV light is outside the Earth's atmosphere.

NASA scientists would claim that the UV light in space is so diffuse it doesn't really do anything. However according to the laws of quantum physics any effect is cumulative with time.

Using a speadsheet created graph based upon the Einstein-Bose equation for blackbody radiation which was over 10,000 lines long, I calculated that the intensity of UV light powerful enough to break the Si-O bond in glass was 0.04 W/m2.

This sounds like nothing but consider the following:

A watt is one joule per second. So after one hour each square metre would receive 144 joules, after a day 3,456 joules, and after a week 24,192 joules.

In other words something is bound to happen to that glass surface after the space of a day or so.

superted
05-16-2010, 04:45 AM
"NASA scientists would claim that the UV light in space is so diffuse it doesn't really do anything. However according to the laws of quantum physics any effect is cumulative with time."

I'm no physicist but sure they simply mean that UV light has no effect over any sizeable time frame, like 10,000 years...?

Surely what your proposing only works if each UV photon has a additive effect to the previous....which isn't the case? Instead each UV photon to hit the glass acts as if it was the first and so no damage is done.

galexander
05-16-2010, 04:53 AM
"NASA scientists would claim that the UV light in space is so diffuse it doesn't really do anything. However according to the laws of quantum physics any effect is cumulative with time."

I'm no physicist but sure they simply mean that UV light has no effect over any sizeable time frame, like 10,000 years...?

Surely what your proposing only works if each UV photon has a additive effect to the previous....which isn't the case? Instead each UV photon to hit the glass acts as if it was the first and so no damage is done.

No.

On a quantum level each photon of sufficient energy has a probability of striking the electron shell of the chemical bond in question and breaking that bond.

Once that happens the bond is permanently broken.

Each and every single photon striking the glass surface has the chance of breaking a single chemical bond.

Those single broken chemical bonds add up with time.

Simple.

superted
05-16-2010, 05:53 AM
Hmmm, your probably right but I'm not convinced. What your saying makes sense but then you assume each or any photon has sufficient energy? How do you know what energy the UV photons from the sun have at the distance of our planet?

Could you explain why UV and not the rest of the light spectrum?

kerry
05-16-2010, 11:27 AM
galexander (http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/4125-galexander/)s first post gave me a idea if nasa dident think of it yet
a space station. with everything in it so anyone can live in it for a long time. even the rest of a life. what if this type of space station had rockets or somthing on it so it can travel in space. imagion a space station the size of new york. exploreing space. like star treck . sending back data to ground controll.

galexander
05-17-2010, 11:41 AM
Hmmm, your probably right but I'm not convinced. What your saying makes sense but then you assume each or any photon has sufficient energy? How do you know what energy the UV photons from the sun have at the distance of our planet?

Could you explain why UV and not the rest of the light spectrum?

superted, you appear to be a slow learner.

I only included in my calculation the WAVELENGTHS OF UV LIGHT POSSESSING THE REQUIRED PHOTON ENERGY TO BREAK THE Si-O BOND IN GLASS.

As I said quite clearly in my first post on this matter:

I calculated that the intensity of UV light powerful enough to break the Si-O bond in glass was 0.04 W/m2.

superted
05-17-2010, 01:08 PM
Don't be so tetchy gale.

As much as a believe the calculations of some guy on an internet forum, that throws the toys out of the pram just because I query his post....? WTF? I could not have been more civil, there was me thinking your weren't a crazy like others on this forum.

I'm sure right and all those NASA scientists are just chimps in lab coats!

Out of the Box
05-17-2010, 02:08 PM
I'm sure right and all those NASA scientists are just chimps in lab coats!

That's besides the issue. If we cannot trust the puppet politicians, we cannot trust the media and we cannot trust our "education system" ("indoctrination system" would be more correct), then why can we trust NASA?! All are but minions of Big Brother (aka the New World Order).

superted
05-17-2010, 02:20 PM
Yea you can't trust the media, they never tell the truth. Politicians less so but still lies to keep the masses happy......but you can't distrust science...unless of course you want to get start talking about 'do we even exist' debate....I assume not.

superted
05-18-2010, 01:49 AM
Its as close to perfect as your going to get!

Remember that both the media and politicians lie, so science that is expressed by either the media or politicians should be taken with caution....BUT the actual science behind what they say is usually 100% correct, it's the way the results are worded or interpreted that could be twisted.

Essentially, read between the lines! Or better yet, read all relevant material surrounding a topic you want to know about and come to your own conclusion.

galexander
05-18-2010, 11:56 AM
Don't be so tetchy gale.

As much as a believe the calculations of some guy on an internet forum, that throws the toys out of the pram just because I query his post....? WTF? I could not have been more civil, there was me thinking your weren't a crazy like others on this forum.

I'm sure right and all those NASA scientists are just chimps in lab coats!

What I objected to superted was having to repeat myself because you didn't have the time to read my post carefully enough.

galexander
05-18-2010, 11:59 AM
Yea you can't trust the media, they never tell the truth. Politicians less so but still lies to keep the masses happy......but you can't distrust science...unless of course you want to get start talking about 'do we even exist' debate....I assume not.

Correction.

The question, "Do we even exist?" is PHILOSOPHY and not SCIENCE.

Scientists assume to already know the answer to that question.

Out of the Box
05-18-2010, 01:14 PM
Yea you can't trust the media, they never tell the truth. Politicians less so but still lies to keep the masses happy......but you can't distrust science...

I trust science but I don't trust scientists. Some scientists are incompetent, other have an agenda and yet others are afraid to speak out because they're censored. Especially in the field of human sciences one must be very careful which scientist to check out.

superted
05-18-2010, 01:44 PM
"The question, "Do we even exist?" is PHILOSOPHY and not SCIENCE.

Scientists assume to already know the answer to that question."

Did I say it was science? And no science hasn't already proved that, it can't ever prove that! Who says that I have really have fingers and that I'm actually typing on a keyboard right now and that your not a pedantic moron?

superted
05-18-2010, 01:46 PM
"I trust science but I don't trust scientists."

Well said, I totally agree!

Out of the Box
05-18-2010, 02:14 PM
"The question, "Do we even exist?" is PHILOSOPHY and not SCIENCE.

Scientists assume to already know the answer to that question."

Did I say it was science? And no science hasn't already proved that, it can't ever prove that!

No they can't, which is why it's an assumption. The assumption that our physical existence is real is an axiom in physics and such axioms are necessary to make any science useful at all.


"I trust science but I don't trust scientists."

Well said, I totally agree!

Thanks :D

superted
05-18-2010, 05:32 PM
Scientists use science, they didn't invent it. I believe most scientists are trustworthy but there are a few bad apples, as per every profession. When a team of scientists publish a paper in well respected journal, I will take their findings as gospel because peer reviewed journals follow strict and unbiased rules. How those papers and results are construed and skewed by media is not the fault of scientists and definitely not the fault of science.

Your a fine example yourself blue, you posted earlier about how pesticides cause ADHD. There is absolutely no causative link established and the fine research scientists at the top university in the world (harvard) that wrote the paper do not claim there to be a proved link either. It's people like yourself and the masses that see the media headline, "Pesticides cause ADHD" and BOOM every1 just believes it.

Of course the same sheep then a few years down the line find out that something else causes ADHD and guess who gets the blame....the media....the politicians....no the poor scientists.

kerry
05-18-2010, 06:53 PM
how was the space shuttle a fake
we all see them going into space a hundred times

kerry
05-18-2010, 06:54 PM
Scientists use science, they didn't invent it. I believe most scientists are trustworthy but there are a few bad apples, as per every profession. When a team of scientists publish a paper in well respected journal, I will take their findings as gospel because peer reviewed journals follow strict and unbiased rules. How those papers and results are construed and skewed by media is not the fault of scientists and definitely not the fault of science.

Your a fine example yourself blue, you posted earlier about how pesticides cause ADHD. There is absolutely no causative link established and the fine research scientists at the top university in the world (harvard) that wrote the paper do not claim there to be a proved link either. It's people like yourself and the masses that see the media headline, "Pesticides cause ADHD" and BOOM every1 just believes it.

Of course the same sheep then a few years down the line find out that something else causes ADHD and guess who gets the blame....the media....the politicians....no the poor scientists.

Scientists use science, they didn't invent it
at long last somone with some common sense

superted
05-19-2010, 01:49 AM
Blue, your really starting to bore me. How about stop being so pedantic? It comes across very childish, your not a kid are you?

"How can you possibly trust science completely and not scientists when many SCIENTIFIC facts are the result of research and study by scientists using science?"

Pedantic, pedantic, pedantic. Look here's a simple analogy that most people will understand.

If there's a disease called the blue-annoyance which so far can't be cured but only managed. A team of pharmaceutical scientists invent a new drug to treat it, drug 'A'. Now there's currently a med out right now and it reduces morbidity by 20%, drug 'B'. A study is carried out by another team of scientists across the world in the US and there peer reviewed and published journal shows very clearly that drug A reduces morbidity by an astonishing 80%. Similar studies are carried out in respective countries and they all come up with similar results.

The example above shows that you don't need to trust a single scientist, the paper contains lots of background writing, discussion, etc but really all that matters are the results. Plain old numbers on a page that clearly state that drug A works better, numbers do NOT lie, only the way the numbers are INTERPRETED can be false. So simply, if you don't trust scientists themselves then read their paper, check their facts and figures and come up with your conclusions.

galexander
05-19-2010, 11:51 AM
"The question, "Do we even exist?" is PHILOSOPHY and not SCIENCE.

Scientists assume to already know the answer to that question."

Did I say it was science? And no science hasn't already proved that, it can't ever prove that! Who says that I have really have fingers and that I'm actually typing on a keyboard right now and that your not a pedantic moron?

I can't believe you had the audacity superted to call me a "pedantic moron".

Your problem is you can't stand people being cleverer and better educated than yourself.

I have been very patient in explaining scientific and technical matters and would expect a little more respect in return.

superted
05-19-2010, 12:36 PM
"Your problem is you can't stand people being cleverer and better educated than yourself."

Well when you come out with a comment as mature and witty as that then I conceit defeat, you are obviously more educated than me!

"I have been very patient in explaining scientific and technical matters and would expect a little more respect in return."

Patient eh? Respect eh? Are you serious? Let us slowly go through our conversation.

1. I politely and kindly question your previous post.

2. The first paragraph of your reply is simply the word, "No." You try to explain it but it doesn't answer my question.

3. I actually say your probably right, and ask a series of related but completely different questions that you haven't answered or even tried to answer yet.

4. You throw the toys out of the pram. "superted, you appear to be a slow learner." No need to insult but I guess that's what "more educated" people do to win debates eh?



You know what I think your problem is gale, just like others on here that has tried to blind with science falsely has been caught out by me and now that I'm pressing you on your 'calculations' you throw the toys out of the pram instead of simply answering my straight questions, why, because your talking total nonsense?

galexander
05-20-2010, 12:26 PM
"Your problem is you can't stand people being cleverer and better educated than yourself."

Well when you come out with a comment as mature and witty as that then I conceit defeat, you are obviously more educated than me!

"I have been very patient in explaining scientific and technical matters and would expect a little more respect in return."

Patient eh? Respect eh? Are you serious? Let us slowly go through our conversation.

1. I politely and kindly question your previous post.

2. The first paragraph of your reply is simply the word, "No." You try to explain it but it doesn't answer my question.

3. I actually say your probably right, and ask a series of related but completely different questions that you haven't answered or even tried to answer yet.

4. You throw the toys out of the pram. "superted, you appear to be a slow learner." No need to insult but I guess that's what "more educated" people do to win debates eh?



You know what I think your problem is gale, just like others on here that has tried to blind with science falsely has been caught out by me and now that I'm pressing you on your 'calculations' you throw the toys out of the pram instead of simply answering my straight questions, why, because your talking total nonsense?

And is BlueAngel also throwing the toys out of the pram?

And yourself..................?

Listening to you two squabbling certainly gives that impression.

superted
05-20-2010, 12:32 PM
I'm not allowed to talk about blueangel any more, it's against the rules.

pixka
08-03-2010, 06:48 AM
Hi everyone - sorry to drag up an old post but this is quite possibly the dumbest thread I have ever read.

jane doe
08-03-2010, 09:31 AM
I'm not allowed to talk about blueangel any more, it's against the rules.

Can you speak louder? I can't hear anything.

galexander
08-05-2010, 12:38 PM
Hi everyone - sorry to drag up an old post but this is quite possibly the dumbest thread I have ever read.

Why?

kerry
08-19-2010, 08:40 PM
they post what they think which has very little resource
why dont you peopole post it the way it is.
insted of what you want it to be.

Gate420
10-08-2010, 02:01 AM
What A joke for anyone to actually believe the ISS and the shuttle is a hoax is a joke in itself,:D but A good way to get ppl stirred up. Too many ppl have seen the ISS and the space shuttle with their own eyes for it to be a hoax. What about the sacrifices of the men and women that have lost their lives to space shuttle accidents all the families and the world are involved in your hoax.:confused: What an insult this would be to them and their families I hope none of them ever see this! :mad:

galexander
10-09-2010, 04:24 AM
What A joke for anyone to actually believe the ISS and the shuttle is a hoax is a joke in itself,:D but A good way to get ppl stirred up. Too many ppl have seen the ISS and the space shuttle with their own eyes for it to be a hoax. What about the sacrifices of the men and women that have lost their lives to space shuttle accidents all the families and the world are involved in your hoax.:confused: What an insult this would be to them and their families I hope none of them ever see this! :mad:

Presumably Gate you believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are joke as well for who would go to such elaborate lengths in destroying one of the premier building of New York City just to make a point?

And who would go to all that effort in assassinating JFK and framing Lee Harvey Oswald just because he wasn't quite in line?

I mean is this honestly the best you could do in refuting all the evidence I have carefully presented concerning the Space Shuttle and the ISS being a fake?

albie
10-11-2010, 07:11 AM
Galealexander is STILL alive? What, the illuminati not killed you with sleep deprivation yet? Hilarious. :)

albie
10-11-2010, 07:20 AM
Gale, you claim they put a balloon in orbit to fool people with telescopes. Why didn't they just put an object shaped like the ISS up there to fool them better? The telescope you used is pretty common aperture and power. Must be thousands of them. Again, your theories and paranoia do not make sense. But then you are losing sleep - that can make you weird.

galexander
10-11-2010, 11:56 AM
Galealexander is STILL alive? What, the illuminati not killed you with sleep deprivation yet? Hilarious. :)

I don't find your sense of humour very funny.

galexander
10-11-2010, 12:01 PM
Gale, you claim they put a balloon in orbit to fool people with telescopes. Why didn't they just put an object shaped like the ISS up there to fool them better? The telescope you used is pretty common aperture and power. Must be thousands of them. Again, your theories and paranoia do not make sense. But then you are losing sleep - that can make you weird.

If they put something up there shaped like the ISS, i.e. a balloon, it would just start spinning and hence blinking on and off to the naked eye as it span in the Sun's light.

Of course there are many telescopes out there like mine but the ISS is not an easy object to look at and not everyone even bothers to try. Ideally you need computerized tracking and I don't know how well the system works for fast moving objects like the ISS never having used it myself.

albie
10-12-2010, 03:21 AM
Satellites don't spin around uncontrollably when they are in orbit, why would a model of the ISS? And even if they did they could put rocket boosters on it to keep it still. or simply make the object look the same no matter how it span. I've seen dozens of amateur photos of the ISS on the web.I suppose they all work for NASA? Madness.

Go and get in contact with a few other amateur astronomers on the web and ask them if they think the ISS is a flipping balloon hoax. If you can get ten other people seeing a balloon then I will believe you.

You have the exact persona of a conspiracy theorist. You are smart enough, but there's just something missing up there. Life just isn't exciting enough for you so you have to make stuff up or face another suicide attempt.

galexander
10-12-2010, 11:13 AM
Satellites don't spin around uncontrollably when they are in orbit, why would a model of the ISS? And even if they did they could put rocket boosters on it to keep it still. or simply make the object look the same no matter how it span. I've seen dozens of amateur photos of the ISS on the web.I suppose they all work for NASA? Madness.

Go and get in contact with a few other amateur astronomers on the web and ask them if they think the ISS is a flipping balloon hoax. If you can get ten other people seeing a balloon then I will believe you.

You have the exact persona of a conspiracy theorist. You are smart enough, but there's just something missing up there. Life just isn't exciting enough for you so you have to make stuff up or face another suicide attempt.

I take the following quote as being libellous. You said the following:

Life just isn't exciting enough for you so you have to make stuff up or face another suicide attempt.

You are the one albie who isn't smart enough and has to mouth people off.

galexander
10-12-2010, 11:16 AM
Satellites don't spin around uncontrollably when they are in orbit, why would a model of the ISS? And even if they did they could put rocket boosters on it to keep it still. or simply make the object look the same no matter how it span. I've seen dozens of amateur photos of the ISS on the web.I suppose they all work for NASA? Madness.

Go and get in contact with a few other amateur astronomers on the web and ask them if they think the ISS is a flipping balloon hoax. If you can get ten other people seeing a balloon then I will believe you.

You have the exact persona of a conspiracy theorist. You are smart enough, but there's just something missing up there. Life just isn't exciting enough for you so you have to make stuff up or face another suicide attempt.

Yes satellites do behave like this in orbit albie, it is published fact despite your own short-sighted misconceptions.

During times of solar activity all satellites have a tendency to spin and I've seen this happen myself during solar storms.

Why put rocket thrusters on a balloon? It doesn't make sense.

albie
10-13-2010, 07:07 AM
Yes satellites do behave like this in orbit albie, it is published fact despite your own short-sighted misconceptions.

During times of solar activity all satellites have a tendency to spin and I've seen this happen myself during solar storms.

Why put rocket thrusters on a balloon? It doesn't make sense.

I never said put rocket boosters on a balloon. I said put them on a model of the ISS so it wouldn't spin.

I see you are avoding all my more pertinent points as usual.

get more evidence. Things like fake space stations and problems with the laws of physics would be noticed by vast numbers of people. Not just by you.

That is the main and damning argument against you. Why do you not see that?

galexander
10-13-2010, 02:18 PM
I never said put rocket boosters on a balloon. I said put them on a model of the ISS so it wouldn't spin.

I see you are avoding all my more pertinent points as usual.

get more evidence. Things like fake space stations and problems with the laws of physics would be noticed by vast numbers of people. Not just by you.

That is the main and damning argument against you. Why do you not see that?

Okay then albie, so how do you get a 40 metre diameter 'model' of the ISS into orbit?

And it still doesn't explain why the ISS looks perfectly round through an Earth bound telescope.

It is quite possible that many people have noticed that something appears to be quite wrong with NASA and the laws of physics its just that there are very few dedicated specialists out there who are prepared to speak out about it.

albie
10-14-2010, 06:07 AM
>>Okay then albie, so how do you get a 40 metre diameter 'model' of the ISS into orbit?

The same way we get satellites up there, or are you saying satellites are all fake too? And it wouldn't have to be 40 metres. Just make it smaller and position it closer. Or do an Ikea version and build it in space. I still don't think people will be fooled and I still think if you saw it with a relatively cheap unit and set up then hundreds would also have seen it. You haven't proven to me that the set up you used is rare and in the hands of few people. That's the keystone to your entire argument. Where are all the people crying foul? Go and find them. Go to an amateur astronomy forum and post your opinions on this.

Like this one...

Amateur Astronomy Forum - Astronomy Forums | Telescope Forums & Reviews | Astronomy Community (http://www.astronomyforum.net/amateur-astronomy-forum/)

Money/mouth.

I bet after a few days posting there you will rename it the secret evil NASA forum.

galexander
10-14-2010, 12:18 PM
>>Okay then albie, so how do you get a 40 metre diameter 'model' of the ISS into orbit?

The same way we get satellites up there, or are you saying satellites are all fake too? And it wouldn't have to be 40 metres. Just make it smaller and position it closer. Or do an Ikea version and build it in space. I still don't think people will be fooled and I still think if you saw it with a relatively cheap unit and set up then hundreds would also have seen it. You haven't proven to me that the set up you used is rare and in the hands of few people. That's the keystone to your entire argument. Where are all the people crying foul? Go and find them. Go to an amateur astronomy forum and post your opinions on this.

Like this one...

Amateur Astronomy Forum - Astronomy Forums | Telescope Forums & Reviews | Astronomy Community (http://www.astronomyforum.net/amateur-astronomy-forum/)

Money/mouth.

I bet after a few days posting there you will rename it the secret evil NASA forum.

I don't think you quite appreciate how big 40 metres is albie.

As for building it in space, would you want to risk your neck doing an Airfix job in space?

Fancy doing a human cannon ball albie, followed by a barrel over Niagara and perhaps a tightrope walk over the Grand Canyon just to build a model in space? Be my guest..............

albie
10-15-2010, 08:16 AM
Oh, I see you are not talking about singing up at that astronomy forum. What a surprise!

Funny how you think the enemy have technology advanced enough to have sound beams that wake you up, yet they cannot build a fake ISS. It's NASA. It is their JOB to build large things and send them into space.

I really wish you could see how terrible your arguments are. Your sense of reality is amazingly askew. I'm almost convinced it is an act and you are a plant.

albie
10-15-2010, 08:21 AM
Look here's an amateur photo of the ISS.

The International Space Station through my telescope | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pacobellido/3524162290/)

another NASA agent!

And another!

http://www.apstas.com/astrotas/Sayers/PhotographingtheISS.html

AND ANOTHER!!!

http://www.astrosurf.com/legault/

AND ANOTHER NASA AGENT!!!!!!!!!

http://darwinsastroworld.com/ISS2.htm

And at the BOTTOM of that page is a list of MORE people who took photos of the ISS. A COMPLETE LIST OF NASA ILLUMINATI AGENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joe Ricci

Tom Gwilym

Adam Stuart, M.D.

Leo Taylor

Ralf Vandebergh

Mike Salway

Jeff in Austin

Fox Keri

chutch44

Philip Masding

Mike Tyrrell

With a 25" telescope

galexander
10-15-2010, 02:18 PM
Look here's an amateur photo of the ISS.

The International Space Station through my telescope | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pacobellido/3524162290/)

another NASA agent!

And another!

Photographing the ISS (http://www.apstas.com/astrotas/Sayers/PhotographingtheISS.html)

AND ANOTHER!!!

Astrophotography - Thierry Legault (http://www.astrosurf.com/legault/)

AND ANOTHER NASA AGENT!!!!!!!!!

Photos of the International Spac (http://darwinsastroworld.com/ISS2.htm)

And at the BOTTOM of that page is a list of MORE people who took photos of the ISS. A COMPLETE LIST OF NASA ILLUMINATI AGENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joe Ricci

Tom Gwilym

Adam Stuart, M.D.

Leo Taylor

Ralf Vandebergh

Mike Salway

Jeff in Austin

Fox Keri

chutch44

Philip Masding

Mike Tyrrell

With a 25" telescope

I have in fact communicated with other persons over the internet who also claimed to have seen a perfectly round ISS.

So how do you explain this anomaly?

How do explain the lack of a blue fog in almost all of NASA'a photos which would have resulted from the sky's blue colour?

How do you explain NASA's silence concerning the highly corrosive nature of ionized gas?

And how do explain the fact that the Sun's UV light can ionize atomic oxygen in the Earth's ionosphere and yet the energy it takes to ionize any atom far exceeds the bond energy of every chemical bond known to man?

albie
10-16-2010, 08:16 AM
>>I have in fact communicated with other persons over the internet who also claimed to have seen a perfectly round ISS.


funny, because earlier in the discussion (below) you say...

>>It is quite possible that many people have noticed that something appears to be quite wrong with NASA and the laws of physics its just that there are very few dedicated specialists out there who are prepared to speak out about it.

Suddenly you have been talking with people? That's convenient. I smell a lie.

>>How do explain the lack of a blue fog in almost all of NASA'a photos which would have resulted from the sky's blue colour?

The atmosphere is only a few miles up from the surface. It would not reach the ISS at all. The blue colour is negated by the reflection of the earth's surface itself. So you don't see it from space. Only on the edge.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HtZMSRIIa-k/RqzJIqH-kQI/AAAAAAAAAGU/rxM2U2_xvjc/s400/iss.jpg

albie
10-16-2010, 08:22 AM
>>How do you explain NASA's silence concerning the highly corrosive nature of ionized gas?

Well, a basic google brought up this.

Plasma contactor development for Space Station (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993iep..confQ..13P)

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2001/TM-2001-211293.pdf

How are they being silent? By not telling us how it works? Never heard of national security or patenting?

albie
10-16-2010, 08:26 AM
As for this...

>>And how do explain the fact that the Sun's UV light can ionize atomic oxygen in the Earth's ionosphere and yet the energy it takes to ionize any atom far exceeds the bond energy of every chemical bond known to man?

Yet again you seem to think only you would see something wrong with the laws of physics. Amazing arrogance and lack of awareness of reality.

If there was a problem like this we would all know about it. There would be discussions on forums about it. Show me them.

What you are saying is that ionization does not occur at all!

I wonder if you mean photodissociation.

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

If you REALLY had found a problem with the laws of physics then why haven't you taken this to a forum that deals with such subjects? I find that really odd.

Seems to me you are so uncertain about what you are saying that you are scared to. Dump the BS on us why doncha.

galexander
10-16-2010, 09:14 AM
>>I have in fact communicated with other persons over the internet who also claimed to have seen a perfectly round ISS.


funny, because earlier in the discussion (below) you say...

>>It is quite possible that many people have noticed that something appears to be quite wrong with NASA and the laws of physics its just that there are very few dedicated specialists out there who are prepared to speak out about it.

Suddenly you have been talking with people? That's convenient. I smell a lie.

>>How do explain the lack of a blue fog in almost all of NASA'a photos which would have resulted from the sky's blue colour?

The atmosphere is only a few miles up from the surface. It would not reach the ISS at all. The blue colour is negated by the reflection of the earth's surface itself. So you don't see it from space. Only on the edge.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HtZMSRIIa-k/RqzJIqH-kQI/AAAAAAAAAGU/rxM2U2_xvjc/s400/iss.jpg

It wasn't just the colour effect of the sky glow I was referring to but the FOG.

In the NASA images you would expect to see a BLUE FOG.

Just as on a misty or foggy day on the Earth's surface when white light is scattered by suspended water droplets, a fog will appear on any pictures taken by a camera.

Just so with the images taken of the Earth's surface from space. It isn't just the blue colour but the FOG or MIST.

galexander
10-16-2010, 09:18 AM
>>How do you explain NASA's silence concerning the highly corrosive nature of ionized gas?

Well, a basic google brought up this.

Plasma contactor development for Space Station (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993iep..confQ..13P)

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2001/TM-2001-211293.pdf

How are they being silent? By not telling us how it works? Never heard of national security or patenting?

Scientific poppycock.

Would mind explaining what these inventions actually do?

galexander
10-16-2010, 09:25 AM
As for this...

>>And how do explain the fact that the Sun's UV light can ionize atomic oxygen in the Earth's ionosphere and yet the energy it takes to ionize any atom far exceeds the bond energy of every chemical bond known to man?

Yet again you seem to think only you would see something wrong with the laws of physics. Amazing arrogance and lack of awareness of reality.

If there was a problem like this we would all know about it. There would be discussions on forums about it. Show me them.

What you are saying is that ionization does not occur at all!

I wonder if you mean photodissociation.

Photodissociation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodissociation)

If you REALLY had found a problem with the laws of physics then why haven't you taken this to a forum that deals with such subjects? I find that really odd.

Seems to me you are so uncertain about what you are saying that you are scared to. Dump the BS on us why doncha.

I strongly detect that you are stumped on this one albie.

For example you misquote me:

What you are saying is that ionization does not occur at all!

I quite clearly say that much of the Sun's UV radiation is ionizing and that is how the Earth's ionosphere is formed. Understand now?

You also said the following:

I wonder if you mean photodissociation.

But when I state that the Sun's UV has the potential to 'break open every single chemical bond known to man', then that by definition is photodissociation.

I think you're poor brain must have overheated on this one albie. Never mind!:)

albie
10-18-2010, 05:07 AM
It wasn't just the colour effect of the sky glow I was referring to but the FOG.

In the NASA images you would expect to see a BLUE FOG.

Just as on a misty or foggy day on the Earth's surface when white light is scattered by suspended water droplets, a fog will appear on any pictures taken by a camera.

Just so with the images taken of the Earth's surface from space. It isn't just the blue colour but the FOG or MIST.

WRONG. The atmosphere is well BELOW the ISS. No way would it show up in photos taken of the station from close up. The earth's reflection negates the blue haze. prove me wrong.

albie
10-18-2010, 05:10 AM
Scientific poppycock.

Would mind explaining what these inventions actually do?

I don't see your point. You want a step by step description of how classified machines work? WHY ARE YOU NOT POSTING THIS ON A SCIENCE FORUM?

BECAUSE YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE AND THEY WOULD LAUGH AT YOU.

albie
10-18-2010, 05:17 AM
I strongly detect that you are stumped on this one albie.

For example you misquote me:



I quite clearly say that much of the Sun's UV radiation is ionizing and that is how the Earth's ionosphere is formed. Understand now?

You also said the following:



But when I state that the Sun's UV has the potential to 'break open every single chemical bond known to man', then that by definition is photodissociation.

I think you're poor brain must have overheated on this one albie. Never mind!:)

You said >>And how do explain the fact that the Sun's UV light can ionize atomic oxygen in the Earth's ionosphere and yet the energy it takes to ionize any atom far exceeds the bond energy of every chemical bond known to man?

That is clearly suggesting that EVERY CHEMICAL BOND KNOWN TO MAN cannot be ionized.

Your words.

Or you are saying that the ionization of UV light HAPPENS but it SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. Make up your mind.

And prove to me how you come to the conclusion that "the energy it takes to ionize any atom far exceeds the bond energy of every chemical bond known to man?"

AND AGAIN WHY ARE YOU NOT POSTING THIS ON A SCIENCE FORUM?

FEAR?

albie
10-18-2010, 05:21 AM
Tell you what. I've signed up on a science forum. I'm going to post your BS and they will all laugh at you.

Here you go.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=262755#262755

galexander
10-18-2010, 11:44 AM
WRONG. The atmosphere is well BELOW the ISS. No way would it show up in photos taken of the station from close up. The earth's reflection negates the blue haze. prove me wrong.

You're just playing albie.

Please take the subject seriously!

What I was suggesting, and this was plainly obvious, was that the blue fog would show up in photos of the Earth's surface taken from orbit.

Don't try and avoid the issue albie or I will simply assume I've beaten you.

galexander
10-18-2010, 11:49 AM
You said >>And how do explain the fact that the Sun's UV light can ionize atomic oxygen in the Earth's ionosphere and yet the energy it takes to ionize any atom far exceeds the bond energy of every chemical bond known to man?

That is clearly suggesting that EVERY CHEMICAL BOND KNOWN TO MAN cannot be ionized.

Your words.

Or you are saying that the ionization of UV light HAPPENS but it SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. Make up your mind.

And prove to me how you come to the conclusion that "the energy it takes to ionize any atom far exceeds the bond energy of every chemical bond known to man?"

AND AGAIN WHY ARE YOU NOT POSTING THIS ON A SCIENCE FORUM?

FEAR?

I think your problem is albie that you really can't believe that it is just that simple and you have failed to fully get your mind around the issue.

What you have said above is just nonsense to me so I can hardly answer something which doesn't make any sense.

galexander
10-18-2010, 11:51 AM
Tell you what. I've signed up on a science forum. I'm going to post your BS and they will all laugh at you.

Here you go.

Science Forum - Help with a Conspiracy NUT please. _blue sky ISS (http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=262755#262755)

Of course I welcome such debate on other forums.

Please feel free to copy and paste any of my posts at your leisure.

If you get any interesting responses please update me.

albie
10-19-2010, 04:02 AM
You're just playing albie.

Please take the subject seriously!

What I was suggesting, and this was plainly obvious, was that the blue fog would show up in photos of the Earth's surface taken from orbit.

Don't try and avoid the issue albie or I will simply assume I've beaten you.


Beaten me? And you have the gall to tell me to take this seriously? Is this a game for YOU then? Beaten me? I've debunked you from the start, pal. All your theories rely upon the slim chance that only you have noticed things that vast numbers should have. Your excuse for this is that most of the world are too scared or are Nasa agents. The most childish excuses ever heard. I don't need to debunk you any further than that. You know deep down that you are wrong. That's why you had to lie about knowing other people who had seen a round ISS.

>>What I was suggesting, and this was plainly obvious, was that the blue fog would show up in photos of the Earth's surface taken from orbit.

Plainly? all you do reiterate the same point without showing ANY evidence. Why should there be a blue fog?

why I should bother talking to you is beyond me, I've just looked back with the discussion with Astronut about the UV breaking down bonds. You were stumped on the bit about the moon being broken down. You seemed to think that the moon was by now a ball of ELEMENTS. That is so laughable I cannot conceive of a way of conveying it. When he said that any impact with this ball of elements would scatter the moon, you DIDN'T ANSWER. How on earth would a ball of elements remain the same shape for all this time? impacts would have distorted its reconisable features by now. Also, any gases given off by the breaking of the bonds would have formed a visible atmosphere. Where is it?

Don't tell me, the moon is really a spaceship.

Face it the much more likely scenario is that you have got your science wrong.

albie
10-19-2010, 04:04 AM
I think your problem is albie that you really can't believe that it is just that simple and you have failed to fully get your mind around the issue.

What you have said above is just nonsense to me so I can hardly answer something which doesn't make any sense.


Whatever, mr "the moon is just a ball of elements".

HAHAHAHAHAH. Hilarious.

albie
10-19-2010, 04:16 AM
Here's more excuses from you for why more people have not reported the fake ISS.

>>Perhaps they are too shy to point the fact out just in case someone accuses them of not having their telescope in focus! Either that or someone has arranged to have their comments censured.


What you fail to grasp is how weak that sounds. That's the massive hole in all your arguments. You think these are reasonable excuses for why only you have seen these phenomenon, or reported them. The arrogance is astounding. I'm assuming it is arrogance and not a weak mind.

albie
10-19-2010, 04:24 AM
The blue atmosphere of earth only reaches around 11km up. Yes?

The ISS is around 350km up. yes? So there is no atmosphere up there. Yes?

The only signs of our atmosphere from photos taken at the height of the ISS would be the thin blue rind around the edge of the earth and a barely noticeable blue tinge to the earth's surface, probably filtered out by the cameras or in post production to give a better image.

Why on earth(or in space) would there be a blue fog?

Admit it, you CANNOT back down on one single point because of your childish arrogance. Go on, call me a NASA agent. You already thought I was connected with your bad sleepping patterns. Hilarious. And people wonder why conspiracy theorists never reach the mainstream.

albie
10-19-2010, 04:26 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/International_Space_Station_after_undocking_of_STS-132.jpg/800px-International_Space_Station_after_undocking_of_STS-132.jpg

See the blue rind at the edge? see how thin it is? 11km.

See the blue tinge to the the clouds? There's your atmosphere, almost negated by the brightness of the clouds and the earth. The "fog" is there, over 340km away. have you ever seen fog, 340km away?

galexander
10-19-2010, 11:14 AM
Beaten me? And you have the gall to tell me to take this seriously? Is this a game for YOU then? Beaten me? I've debunked you from the start, pal. All your theories rely upon the slim chance that only you have noticed things that vast numbers should have. Your excuse for this is that most of the world are too scared or are Nasa agents. The most childish excuses ever heard. I don't need to debunk you any further than that. You know deep down that you are wrong. That's why you had to lie about knowing other people who had seen a round ISS.

>>What I was suggesting, and this was plainly obvious, was that the blue fog would show up in photos of the Earth's surface taken from orbit.

Plainly? all you do reiterate the same point without showing ANY evidence. Why should there be a blue fog?

why I should bother talking to you is beyond me, I've just looked back with the discussion with Astronut about the UV breaking down bonds. You were stumped on the bit about the moon being broken down. You seemed to think that the moon was by now a ball of ELEMENTS. That is so laughable I cannot conceive of a way of conveying it. When he said that any impact with this ball of elements would scatter the moon, you DIDN'T ANSWER. How on earth would a ball of elements remain the same shape for all this time? impacts would have distorted its reconisable features by now. Also, any gases given off by the breaking of the bonds would have formed a visible atmosphere. Where is it?

Don't tell me, the moon is really a spaceship.

Face it the much more likely scenario is that you have got your science wrong.

I only ever stated that the UV radiation would affect the surfaces of the Moon NEVER any deeper.

The problem is albie that you have only skimmed through what I have written and gained an extremely superficial impression of what I had actually said.

In fact everything you have said so far is extremely superficial.

You ask why the blue fog? Well the blue sky glow can't simply magically disappear just as a photo is about to be taken, that's nonsense.

The reason why most people can't see the truth and aren't prepared to see the truth about NASA is simply because the lie is so monumental. As Hitler once said the BIGGER the lie the MORE believable it is.

galexander
10-19-2010, 11:17 AM
The blue atmosphere of earth only reaches around 11km up. Yes?

The ISS is around 350km up. yes? So there is no atmosphere up there. Yes?

The only signs of our atmosphere from photos taken at the height of the ISS would be the thin blue rind around the edge of the earth and a barely noticeable blue tinge to the earth's surface, probably filtered out by the cameras or in post production to give a better image.

Why on earth(or in space) would there be a blue fog?

Admit it, you CANNOT back down on one single point because of your childish arrogance. Go on, call me a NASA agent. You already thought I was connected with your bad sleepping patterns. Hilarious. And people wonder why conspiracy theorists never reach the mainstream.

Again albie I NEVER suggested the blue fog should surround the ISS, I ONLY suggested it should surround the Earth and fog out any photographic images of the Earth's surface taken from space.

The misunderstanding is purely your own.

galexander
10-19-2010, 11:21 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/International_Space_Station_after_undocking_of_STS-132.jpg/800px-International_Space_Station_after_undocking_of_STS-132.jpg

See the blue rind at the edge? see how thin it is? 11km.

See the blue tinge to the the clouds? There's your atmosphere, almost negated by the brightness of the clouds and the earth. The "fog" is there, over 340km away. have you ever seen fog, 340km away?

All I can say is this.

If the ISS did actually look like this photograph in reality then every time it passed over you would expect to see some sort of flash or even number of flashes or flares as it caught the Sun's light.

In all the times I have viewed the ISS, and we are taking dozens, I have never seen any flares even once!

albie
10-20-2010, 04:02 AM
Again albie I NEVER suggested the blue fog should surround the ISS, I ONLY suggested it should surround the Earth and fog out any photographic images of the Earth's surface taken from space.

The misunderstanding is purely your own.


You never once said anything about the blue fog surrounding the earth and not the ISS. Clearly you have no basic understanding of how light works. A bright object like the earth will shine right through the blue colour. Look at the moon during the day, shines through the blue.

http://www.amateurphotoart.com/pictures/fullsize/02-12-

You expect me to believe you about the UV light when you don't even understand this basic fact? How many people have you convinced, I wonder. Anyone? NASA are not stupid. if they wanted to fake photos they would be able to fool anyone. They would think to put the blue in. Why anyone would fake the ISS is beyond me. Why not just tell everyone that it is unfeasable because of the UV radiation? That would keep people out of space and save money.

The whole thing is a joke, and you have fallen for your own joke.

galexander
10-20-2010, 12:11 PM
You never once said anything about the blue fog surrounding the earth and not the ISS. Clearly you have no basic understanding of how light works. A bright object like the earth will shine right through the blue colour. Look at the moon during the day, shines through the blue.

http://www.amateurphotoart.com/pictures/fullsize/02-12-

You expect me to believe you about the UV light when you don't even understand this basic fact? How many people have you convinced, I wonder. Anyone? NASA are not stupid. if they wanted to fake photos they would be able to fool anyone. They would think to put the blue in. Why anyone would fake the ISS is beyond me. Why not just tell everyone that it is unfeasable because of the UV radiation? That would keep people out of space and save money.

The whole thing is a joke, and you have fallen for your own joke.

The Moon may well shine through the blue sky during the day but it is nothing at all compared to the Moon when seen at night. There IS a difference.

Look at the Moon not long after midday through a telescope (and I have) and it is a complete washout. You can hardly see any detail at all. The 'Seas' are full of blue fog and the whole image is obviously smothered in a blue fog.

The fact that the Moon looks so white during the day with the unaided eye is a trick of the eye. It only looks pure white compared to the surrounding blue.

galexander
11-07-2010, 04:54 AM
You said >>And how do explain the fact that the Sun's UV light can ionize atomic oxygen in the Earth's ionosphere and yet the energy it takes to ionize any atom far exceeds the bond energy of every chemical bond known to man?

That is clearly suggesting that EVERY CHEMICAL BOND KNOWN TO MAN cannot be ionized.

Your words.

Or you are saying that the ionization of UV light HAPPENS but it SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. Make up your mind.

And prove to me how you come to the conclusion that "the energy it takes to ionize any atom far exceeds the bond energy of every chemical bond known to man?"

AND AGAIN WHY ARE YOU NOT POSTING THIS ON A SCIENCE FORUM?

FEAR?

In answer to your question albie, I have recently registered with "Physics Forums" to discuss my views on physics and I was banned the very next day and all my posts removed.

The explanation I was given was that I am a "crackpot".

Astronut
01-05-2011, 09:03 AM
Of course there are many telescopes out there like mine but the ISS is not an easy object to look at and not everyone even bothers to try. Ideally you need computerized tracking and I don't know how well the system works for fast moving objects like the ISS never having used it myself.
It works just fine:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/5033051806_47fd27fe75_z.jpg
ISS tracking starts about 34 minutes into the video:
Venus and ISS, Recorded on 11/22/2010 Astronut on USTREAM. Educational (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/11021268)

galexander
01-08-2011, 07:30 AM
It works just fine:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/5033051806_47fd27fe75_z.jpg
ISS tracking starts about 34 minutes into the video:
Venus and ISS, Recorded on 11/22/2010 Astronut on USTREAM. Educational (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/11021268)

So why is it if you use manual tracking (which isn't updated over the internet) you see a perfectly round object?

You can't satisfactorily explain this can you?

And no, my telescope was not out of focus. I checked the focus and besides an object which is out of focus reveals a very definite pattern to it. If you look a distant aircraft in daylight hours, say through binoculars, and then change the focus so the object becomes blurred, it will not change to a perfectly round ball, far from it.

Never.

Astronut
01-10-2011, 06:33 PM
So why is it if you use manual tracking (which isn't updated over the internet) you see a perfectly round object?

You can't possibly be tracking ISS manually by hand AND looking in the telescope at any kind of high magnification at the same time. It's a mutually exclusive condition, it moves way too fast to keep up with unless you're using just the viewfinder and a camera in the main telescope. At low magnifications and altitudes above the horizon it certainly could look like a round object if it's slightly out of focus as its angular size would be much smaller than an airplane. The alternative is that you're just deluded in the most literal sense and what you thought you saw was not what was actually there in the eyepiece.

Now, all this said, you have still failed to explain my evidence directly contradicting your unsupported claims. Furthermore, I've just found out that this Arizona shooter was someone I debated with online about the reality of the shuttle and ISS. Turns out he ended up being a killer and he attempted to kill the wife of a shuttle astronaut. I'm done debating you, for all I know you could wind up doing something similar one day and I don't want to contribute to the hardening of your beliefs by debating them any further. If you seriously believe these things that you're claiming I seriously suggest you seek professional mental help. I've given you more than enough evidence to show that your claims do not match reality and you need to seriously question your whole perspective. Do it for yourself and do it for the safety of others. Perhaps this is a ban-worthy suggestion, but I really don't care at this point. There's too much at stake.

galexander
01-12-2011, 12:14 PM
You can't possibly be tracking ISS manually by hand AND looking in the telescope at any kind of high magnification at the same time. It's a mutually exclusive condition, it moves way too fast to keep up with unless you're using just the viewfinder and a camera in the main telescope. At low magnifications and altitudes above the horizon it certainly could look like a round object if it's slightly out of focus as its angular size would be much smaller than an airplane. The alternative is that you're just deluded in the most literal sense and what you thought you saw was not what was actually there in the eyepiece.

Now, all this said, you have still failed to explain my evidence directly contradicting your unsupported claims. Furthermore, I've just found out that this Arizona shooter was someone I debated with online about the reality of the shuttle and ISS. Turns out he ended up being a killer and he attempted to kill the wife of a shuttle astronaut. I'm done debating you, for all I know you could wind up doing something similar one day and I don't want to contribute to the hardening of your beliefs by debating them any further. If you seriously believe these things that you're claiming I seriously suggest you seek professional mental help. I've given you more than enough evidence to show that your claims do not match reality and you need to seriously question your whole perspective. Do it for yourself and do it for the safety of others. Perhaps this is a ban-worthy suggestion, but I really don't care at this point. There's too much at stake.

And I suppose the people who thought Enron might be diddling the US economy were mental as well?

Nice try Astronut, but I think the people who gave Enron the right to be a "black box" company need their heads checked themselves!

You claim it is not possible to track the ISS through a telescope because it is travelling too fast. But this is not so.

The ISS moves at more than 80 times its apparent diameter per second, however if you "chase" after it through the eyepiece as it whizzes past you can catch up with it and track it at quite a gentle pace for up to a minute or so.

And yes it's always round.

Gate420
03-13-2011, 04:36 PM
And I suppose the people who thought Enron might be diddling the US economy were mental as well?

Nice try Astronut, but I think the people who gave Enron the right to be a "black box" company need their heads checked themselves!

You claim it is not possible to track the ISS through a telescope because it is travelling too fast. But this is not so.

The ISS moves at more than 80 times its apparent diameter per second, however if you "chase" after it through the eyepiece as it whizzes past you can catch up with it and track it at quite a gentle pace for up to a minute or so.

And yes it's always round.
You need a computerized telescope to make it easier and you can see it just fine and snap pictures with great clarity. Have a look I think the conspiracy is in your telescope.
I am not a Nasa employee and if you don't believe me Google my alias.
I am so tired of people calling every little thing a conspiracy what purpose would it serve them to lie to us.Same as the nutjobs that belive the earth is flat and that sustained space flight doesn't exist and they are easily proved wrong by this photo and Astronut's videos and photos.
No one is out to fake every little thing in the world heck maybe you don't exist maybe you are a robot heck maybe your a ghost in the computer who still thinks your alive, next time you want to talk about a hoax or conspiracy bring some science or some evidence other then I looked and seen a blot get real in court you would lose because we have hard evidence that corroborates each others.
Perhaps you need new lenses new glasses a better spot I dunno but the shuttle and the space station,the moon landings are all real.Also the earth is round gravity does exist and sustained space flight is possible. Thanks have a nice day.:D



http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l630/Peter_Lesperance/spacestationfrommytelescope.jpghttp://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l630/Peter_Lesperance/spaceshuttlewithISS.jpg

galexander
03-27-2011, 05:30 AM
You need a computerized telescope to make it easier and you can see it just fine and snap pictures with great clarity. Have a look I think the conspiracy is in your telescope.
I am not a Nasa employee and if you don't believe me Google my alias.
I am so tired of people calling every little thing a conspiracy what purpose would it serve them to lie to us.Same as the nutjobs that belive the earth is flat and that sustained space flight doesn't exist and they are easily proved wrong by this photo and Astronut's videos and photos.
No one is out to fake every little thing in the world heck maybe you don't exist maybe you are a robot heck maybe your a ghost in the computer who still thinks your alive, next time you want to talk about a hoax or conspiracy bring some science or some evidence other then I looked and seen a blot get real in court you would lose because we have hard evidence that corroborates each others.
Perhaps you need new lenses new glasses a better spot I dunno but the shuttle and the space station,the moon landings are all real.Also the earth is round gravity does exist and sustained space flight is possible. Thanks have a nice day.:D

And what model of telescope again was it you said you owned?

Gate420
03-27-2011, 01:37 PM
And what model of telescope again was it you said you owned?

I didn't mention any type of telescope, I actually own a few.
I belive the one I used for these shots was my C11-sgt (xlt) computerized telescope.:D

galexander
03-29-2011, 07:46 AM
I didn't mention any type of telescope, I actually own a few.
I belive the one I used for these shots was my C11-sgt (xlt) computerized telescope.:D

And what are the other telescopes that you use?

Gate420
03-30-2011, 05:40 PM
That would get kinda boring since I still have my first telescope from when I was 10 years old I have a few but the C11-sgt (xlt) computerized telescope is the one I have been using the most why would you want me to list all of my telescopes what does it matter ??

And what are the other telescopes that you use?

galexander
03-31-2011, 12:27 PM
That would get kinda boring since I still have my first telescope from when I was 10 years old I have a few but the C11-sgt (xlt) computerized telescope is the one I have been using the most why would you want me to list all of my telescopes what does it matter ??

Knowing that my eyesight is quite good, you would suggest that my telescope was out of focus after all.................

Strange but when I checked it before each viewing it seemed just fine.

Gate420
03-31-2011, 05:24 PM
All I know is I can see the station just fine and I am not the only one and I can take clear pictures of it, so either your scope is not strong enough or you are not tracking the ISS.
So get a scope like mine and you will surely see what the rest of us see and be able to take snapshots.
Question Where are these pictures of your so called hoax ISS ???Perhaps you can't see it with your eyes through your scope but your camera may be able to if it is the ISS that your looking at.
Basically I am telling you that just because you can't see it for whatever reason, being your scope or your eyesight or tracking the wrong thing.
That doesn't make it a hoax! If it was a hoax why can so many of us amateurs get pictures of the same thing?
Knowing that my eyesight is quite good, you would suggest that my telescope was out of focus after all.................

Strange but when I checked it before each viewing it seemed just fine.

Gate420
04-01-2011, 08:13 AM
I agree with you and that's why I actually posted to this topic.
I am so tired of everything being a conspiracy like the moon landing the space station and even the earth being flat it is so retarded for these people who make these accusations.
I don't know what purpose it would serve that the whole world is trying to pull the wool over our eyes as for Japan they got what they deserved, mother nature finally struck back at them.
I am sure there are some innocent people there and I feel for them but for the way they treat dolphins and whales as far as I am concerned the ocean finally struck back.
Have a look at what they do to one of the most gentle smartest creatures of the ocean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ7DPcw5cu0 sorry for getting of topic but that Japan thing really hits a sore spot with me.

There are events that have occurred throughout history such as 911 and the JKF assassination that are considered to be conspiracies and, IMO, are worthy of discussion and investigation because their consequences upon the people of a nation and the world are detrimental to our well-being.

There are other CREATED conspiracies that are not worthy of discussion such as the topic of this thread.

These conspiracies are nothing but a distraction from reality.

They do not cause harm to the people of a nation or the world.

galexander
04-01-2011, 12:55 PM
I agree with you and that's why I actually posted to this topic.
I am so tired of everything being a conspiracy like the moon landing the space station and even the earth being flat it is so retarded for these people who make these accusations.
I don't know what purpose it would serve that the whole world is trying to pull the wool over our eyes as for Japan they got what they deserved, mother nature finally struck back at them.
I am sure there are some innocent people there and I feel for them but for the way they treat dolphins and whales as far as I am concerned the ocean finally struck back.
Have a look at what they do to one of the most gentle smartest creatures of the ocean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ7DPcw5cu0 sorry for getting of topic but that Japan thing really hits a sore spot with me.

To be absolutely honest with you Gate420, I don't believe you own the telescope that you claim you do or indeed any telescope at all.

In fact I doubt you have ever even looked down the end of a telescope in your life.

I believe you have simply copied these images off the Net and have claimed them as your own.

The problem is you hardly come across as literate enough or educated enough to find a subject like astronomy of any interest at all and especially not interesting enough to fork out thousands on a high-tech piece of equipment as you claim.


http://www.celestron.com/c3/images/files/product/11067-XLT_c11sgtxlt_mid.gif

Gate420
04-02-2011, 01:37 AM
I guess that's your defense for something you can't or don't want to argue about because you are wrong about the ISS.
That is your problem what you choose to believe but my very first scope was I believe it was called an orbiter for Kids but since I am almost 40 years old now.
I have had a great interest in space and have spent more then a couple thousand more like 10 thousand on scopes and cameras over the last 15 years so believe what you will but you are wrong the ISS is there and is easy to catch with the computerized scope!
So Good luck trying to make anyone believe that it is not why not just get yourself a better scope or better camera or try a camera on whatever scope you have cause what ever your doing wrong cause the station is not a white blob.There is no conspiracy unless it's against just you! People like you make me laugh can't attack anything so try and attack the person to make yourself feel better or for whatever reason you are saying what your saying good luck in your quest to prove that the station is not there just because you can't see it explain to me why all over the net every one with a good scope and camera are taking picture's of the station except you????I don't believe you have a scope, I think you are using dollar store binoculars so where even their.
To be absolutely honest with you Gate420, I don't believe you own the telescope that you claim you do or indeed any telescope at all.

In fact I doubt you have ever even looked down the end of a telescope in your life.

I believe you have simply copied these images off the Net and have claimed them as your own.

The problem is you hardly come across as literate enough or educated enough to find a subject like astronomy of any interest at all and especially not interesting enough to fork out thousands on a high-tech piece of equipment as you claim.


http://www.celestron.com/c3/images/files/product/11067-XLT_c11sgtxlt_mid.gif

Gate420
04-02-2011, 01:49 AM
The actions of others it was their actions not actions of others.
I said already I feel for the ones that are innocent but I totally feel that the ocean struck back or mother nature whatever way you want to take it, but since
I don't believe in a god and I believe in mother earth mother nature type thing and I also believe that she will defend herself and we will all pay for what we have done to her but that's neither here nor their.If I have offended you in any way I am sorry but I really hope that some dolphins where able to escape that killing cove.
I also hope that the word gets out to all the Japanese that don't know about it and maybe they will take action and make it stop. I do feel for the innocents as I said before but when earth strikes back it doesn't care. The world of people need to take better care of earth it won't be here forever as some of us may take for granted.With that said we need not carry this on in this topic. AS for Gale I really don't care what he believes for he believes the space station is a hoax, he probably also belives the earth is flat.

Gale doesn't believe that Gate owns the telescope that he says that he does.

Excuse me while I take a snooze!

P.S. to GATE:

The Japanese people did not get what they deserved.

You need to re-think your opinion regarding this matter.

Thousands of Japanese people did not deserve to be swept out to sea and, or otherwise die due to a tsunami and earthquake because of the actions of others.

galexander
04-02-2011, 04:41 AM
I guess that's your defense for something you can't or don't want to argue about because you are wrong about the ISS.
That is your problem what you choose to believe but my very first scope was I believe it was called an orbiter for Kids but since I am almost 40 years old now.
I have had a great interest in space and have spent more then a couple thousand more like 10 thousand on scopes and cameras over the last 15 years so believe what you will but you are wrong the ISS is there and is easy to catch with the computerized scope!
So Good luck trying to make anyone believe that it is not why not just get yourself a better scope or better camera or try a camera on whatever scope you have cause what ever your doing wrong cause the station is not a white blob.There is no conspiracy unless it's against just you! People like you make me laugh can't attack anything so try and attack the person to make yourself feel better or for whatever reason you are saying what your saying good luck in your quest to prove that the station is not there just because you can't see it explain to me why all over the net every one with a good scope and camera are taking picture's of the station except you????I don't believe you have a scope, I think you are using dollar store binoculars so where even their.

So you really want to see a photograph of a yellow/white ball of light?

Because that is all I ever saw with the naked eye.

What you see with the eye is more or less what you will see with a camera especially when a bright object is involved.

Gate420
04-02-2011, 10:18 AM
Now that is so untrue unless you have a crappy camera a good Kodak digital camera with full zoom can see much more clearer then the eye.
Have you even tried a camera through your scope to get a closer look at whatever object your are seeing???
Explain to me why you are the only one out of thousands of us armatures that can see it yet you are the only person who see's it as a white ball of lite. How does that happen?
I would like to see you try to take a picture through your scope and post the picture of the object perhaps the camera will show you what you can't see. What harm is there in trying perhaps you have a friend who has a better scope then yours and you could try and see it through that.
I honestly don't know why you don't see what the rest of us see but it has to be the scope the wrong object or something of that nature because the station is real.
Why I am even responding to you after your insults, is beyond me but that is all I have to say about that.

So you really want to see a photograph of a yellow/white ball of light?

Because that is all I ever saw with the naked eye.

What you see with the eye is more or less what you will see with a camera especially when a bright object is involved.

theconspiracist
04-02-2011, 07:20 PM
It was the Japanese version of The Rapture. lol

Oh, so you believe that mother nature caused the catastrophe in Japan that is spreading radiation throughout the world in food, etc., the oceans, etc., killed tens of thousands of people and more will suffer with CANCER and other illnesses in the future from exposure to this radiation, etc., because of the "wrongful" acts of a few of the Japanese people.

Please.

Put on a thinking cap.

That might help with your next post.

galexander
04-03-2011, 04:26 AM
Now that is so untrue unless you have a crappy camera a good Kodak digital camera with full zoom can see much more clearer then the eye.
Have you even tried a camera through your scope to get a closer look at whatever object your are seeing???
Explain to me why you are the only one out of thousands of us armatures that can see it yet you are the only person who see's it as a white ball of lite. How does that happen?
I would like to see you try to take a picture through your scope and post the picture of the object perhaps the camera will show you what you can't see. What harm is there in trying perhaps you have a friend who has a better scope then yours and you could try and see it through that.
I honestly don't know why you don't see what the rest of us see but it has to be the scope the wrong object or something of that nature because the station is real.
Why I am even responding to you after your insults, is beyond me but that is all I have to say about that.

And I suppose you have done a survey of thousands of amateurs and found that, yes, every single one of them has seen exactly the same thing; what you have shown in your allegedly genuine images.

Well how do explain the fact that when I aired my views on the forum of The Flat Earth Society (and yes I have heard all the jokes already.....!) I was told that an unspecified number of people had reported seeing exactly the same object as I had.

I suppose their telescopes were all out of focus as well......

Gate420
04-03-2011, 07:58 PM
And I suppose you have done a survey of thousands of amateurs and found that, yes, every single one of them has seen exactly the same thing; what you have shown in your allegedly genuine images.

Well how do explain the fact that when I aired my views on the forum of The Flat Earth Society (and yes I have heard all the jokes already.....!) I was told that an unspecified number of people had reported seeing exactly the same object as I had.

I suppose their telescopes were all out of focus as well......
if you believe anything them quakes say you have bigger problems then your telescope they would agree with you because they don't believe sustained space flight is even possible lmfao I wouldn't say surveyed thousands but it is very easy to do a search with google and find more pictures that look pretty much identical to the ones I showed and videos all from amateurs and that's how I know that there are thousands more that see what we see and not see what you and the quakes at the flat earth society see. Perhaps you would like me to go find you some more pictures and videos from other armatures??
How would that be?
Seriously your trying to say that one of the biggest accomplishments of the world is a hoax and you are trying to say they where able to make a hologram or something of the space shuttle for us all to see take off time and time again. Right? And so you are also saying that for the space shuttle that blew up and killed that teacher was a hologram or something?
The world watched it blow up now if the shuttle and the station are a hoax what did they do murder 7 people? Just so they could have an exploded shuttle ???
So you also want us to believe that because you can't see it properly that we should take your word for it that they did all this to fool us isn't that what you are saying ??????
It would be far easier for them to have done it for real since anyone can point a scope and look at it dude you are so far off this planet I think you may need professional help.
I am not trying to be rude but I seriously think you may need some sort of therapy.
I just can't see how you could say the crew from challenger is not real or been murdered for cnn coverage I dare you to go and tell Christa McAuliffe parents that this did not happen cause the shuttle is a hoax and that nasa murdered their daughter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE so because you say the shuttle is a hoax along with the station that video is fake and no one seen this, and the seven poor souls on board where murdered is that not what your telling us????????????????????????????????????????
Like seriously what is easier to believe
1: that every government involved with the station is pulling a hoax and that Nasa kills people for ratings and such and they are able to blast the shuttle of over and over again and land it over and over again.
Or
2:They do exist and your having some telescope difficulties?
I know I choose #2

Gate420
04-03-2011, 08:07 PM
Oh, so you believe that mother nature caused the catastrophe in Japan that is spreading radiation throughout the world in food, etc., the oceans, etc., killed tens of thousands of people and more will suffer with CANCER and other illnesses in the future from exposure to this radiation, etc., because of the "wrongful" acts of a few of the Japanese people.

Please.

Put on a thinking cap.

That might help with your next post.
As for radiating the whole world I think your exaggerating a whole lot are you not? Chernobyl reactor 3 blew up and did not radiate the whole world so c'mon get real.
Perhaps you should learn a little more about what your talking about they have stripped the oceans of dozens of whales species and are currently stripping the oceans of blue whales dolphins and sharks the sharks they cut a fin off and throw the shark back in to die it's horrible.
YES it is what I believe as for just a few jap's as you say they have been doing this for thousands and thousands of years more then a few, I would say
They should have built that plant better.
Better them then me! Also as I have said before I do feel for the innocents but the earth does not!!! A lesson to be learned we should respect it and care for it instead of trash it and destroy all the other beings in it!!!!!
As I said before I am sorry if I offended you and there was no need to carry this on in this subject.
You will never see my point of view!
I have a feeling you are a person who believes we are the higher species and can do what we damn well want, well as you have seen the earth can fight back we can't do as we damn well want we are not the strongest force!
Okay so leave it alone already it is what I believe.
So in all honestly can we please leave it alone it hit a sore spot with me and I responded to it and you don't like it leave it at that!!!
I don't eat seafood never will the creatures of the ocean are not like cows no one is breeding them for food they are there and soon they will be gone if places like Japan are not held responsible for the species they eliminate so who speaks for them?
Obviously not you!!!!

galexander
04-05-2011, 02:34 PM
if you believe anything them quakes say you have bigger problems then your telescope they would agree with you because they don't believe sustained space flight is even possible lmfao I wouldn't say surveyed thousands but it is very easy to do a search with google and find more pictures that look pretty much identical to the ones I showed and videos all from amateurs and that's how I know that there are thousands more that see what we see and not see what you and the quakes at the flat earth society see. Perhaps you would like me to go find you some more pictures and videos from other armatures??
How would that be?
Seriously your trying to say that one of the biggest accomplishments of the world is a hoax and you are trying to say they where able to make a hologram or something of the space shuttle for us all to see take off time and time again. Right? And so you are also saying that for the space shuttle that blew up and killed that teacher was a hologram or something?
The world watched it blow up now if the shuttle and the station are a hoax what did they do murder 7 people? Just so they could have an exploded shuttle ???
So you also want us to believe that because you can't see it properly that we should take your word for it that they did all this to fool us isn't that what you are saying ??????
It would be far easier for them to have done it for real since anyone can point a scope and look at it dude you are so far off this planet I think you may need professional help.
I am not trying to be rude but I seriously think you may need some sort of therapy.
I just can't see how you could say the crew from challenger is not real or been murdered for cnn coverage I dare you to go and tell Christa McAuliffe parents that this did not happen cause the shuttle is a hoax and that nasa murdered their daughter. YouTube - Challenger Disaster Live on CNN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE) so because you say the shuttle is a hoax along with the station that video is fake and no one seen this, and the seven poor souls on board where murdered is that not what your telling us????????????????????????????????????????
Like seriously what is easier to believe
1: that every government involved with the station is pulling a hoax and that Nasa kills people for ratings and such and they are able to blast the shuttle of over and over again and land it over and over again.
Or
2:They do exist and your having some telescope difficulties?
I know I choose #2

Everyone in NASA knew there was a problem with the O-rings on Challenger.

Everyone knew that day it was too cold for a safe launch.

NASA knew the accident was going to happen.

Q.E.D.

Gate420
04-05-2011, 08:45 PM
So you admit that the space shuttle is not a hoax ?
I don't think they Knew it was going to happen or they would not have let them go But that's another thing all together your post is "The Space Shuttle and the ISS are a Hoax!" SO either they knew it was going to happen and the shuttle is very real and your wrong or it was faked and it is a hoax and Nasa murdered them so which is it???

Everyone in NASA knew there was a problem with the O-rings on Challenger.

Everyone knew that day it was too cold for a safe launch.

NASA knew the accident was going to happen.

Q.E.D.

galexander
04-06-2011, 12:21 PM
So you admit that the space shuttle is not a hoax ?
I don't think they Knew it was going to happen or they would not have let them go But that's another thing all together your post is "The Space Shuttle and the ISS are a Hoax!" SO either they knew it was going to happen and the shuttle is very real and your wrong or it was faked and it is a hoax and Nasa murdered them so which is it???

No, no, no.

The argument is a little more subtle and complex than that.

Just because the Saturn V was real (or at least it looked real on take-off), doesn't therefore mean that the Moon landings were NOT faked.

The Saturn V may have been REAL in the sense that it blasted off from the launch pad with great sensation but it was UNREAL in the sense that it was empty of any useful cargo, including men.

The exact same argument applies to the Space Shuttle. It was FAKE in the sense that it was empty of any real, useful cargo.

I hope this wasn't too testing for your brains.

Gate420
04-07-2011, 08:14 AM
There's no subtle argument in your statement that the space shuttle is a hoax, now your just making stuff up Just like your friends at the flat earth society.
The space shuttle is real and it wasn't empty and the moon landing's were not fake do you even realize the magnitude of the moon landing's and what would have had to be faked and kept quiet for example over 400,000 thousand people worked on the moon landing's and every one of them kept quiet.
I don't think so what about all the scientist that studied the moon rocks and moon dust how do you suppose Nasa fooled them?
I tell you for all they had to fake it would have been far easier and cheaper to send a man to the moon and how do you suppose they got the equipment up to the moon for Russia to see, do you really think they would have not been the very first to call foul and not decide to work with them instead ?
The proof is on the moon and there are also pictures from satellites orbiting the moon that show equipment from the moon landings but I guess they are also faked too right!!
Your just a sore loser when you have to admit your wrong and have to make up an argument its as simple as this the space shuttle is a hoax or it is not a hoax and now your saying that only the contents of the missions are a hoax .
You are just too much How do you suppose that so many of us amateurs have picture's posted online of the ISS and of the shuttle approaching the ISS or docked with the ISS how did they fool us into taking false images and then for you made sure you seen a ball of white?
You have some sort of problems that's all there is to it get over and try again there is no conspiracy its all where it should be and you have lens problems or wrong object problems or your tracking one of the 2500+ satellites orbiting earth and not the ISS whatever the issue is it is on your end only.
How do you explain that it is only your end and your friends at the flat earth society?
I have already told you why they don't believe why the station is there and if you don't believe me I can grab there FAQ and quote word for word if you like and give you the link.
As a refresher They will Believe you that the station is fake simply because they don't believe in satellites or space stations or the Hubble for that matter becasue sustained space flight is not possible in there world.


As for your Brains Comment I hope the Above isn't to taxing on your Brains and don't make it smoke anymore then the last time as you make some more chit up Ahole
No, no, no.

The argument is a little more subtle and complex than that.

Just because the Saturn V was real (or at least it looked real on take-off), doesn't therefore mean that the Moon landings were NOT faked.

The Saturn V may have been REAL in the sense that it blasted off from the launch pad with great sensation but it was UNREAL in the sense that it was empty of any useful cargo, including men.

The exact same argument applies to the Space Shuttle. It was FAKE in the sense that it was empty of any real, useful cargo.

I hope this wasn't too testing for your brains.

galexander
04-07-2011, 12:27 PM
There's no subtle argument in your statement that the space shuttle is a hoax, now your just making stuff up Just like your friends at the flat earth society.
The space shuttle is real and it wasn't empty and the moon landing's were not fake do you even realize the magnitude of the moon landing's and what would have had to be faked and kept quiet for example over 400,000 thousand people worked on the moon landing's and every one of them kept quiet.
I don't think so what about all the scientist that studied the moon rocks and moon dust how do you suppose Nasa fooled them?
I tell you for all they had to fake it would have been far easier and cheaper to send a man to the moon and how do you suppose they got the equipment up to the moon for Russia to see, do you really think they would have not been the very first to call foul and not decide to work with them instead ?
The proof is on the moon and there are also pictures from satellites orbiting the moon that show equipment from the moon landings but I guess they are also faked too right!!
Your just a sore loser when you have to admit your wrong and have to make up an argument its as simple as this the space shuttle is a hoax or it is not a hoax and now your saying that only the contents of the missions are a hoax .
You are just too much How do you suppose that so many of us amateurs have picture's posted online of the ISS and of the shuttle approaching the ISS or docked with the ISS how did they fool us into taking false images and then for you made sure you seen a ball of white?
You have some sort of problems that's all there is to it get over and try again there is no conspiracy its all where it should be and you have lens problems or wrong object problems or your tracking one of the 2500+ satellites orbiting earth and not the ISS whatever the issue is it is on your end only.
How do you explain that it is only your end and your friends at the flat earth society?
I have already told you why they don't believe why the station is there and if you don't believe me I can grab there FAQ and quote word for word if you like and give you the link.
As a refresher They will Believe you that the station is fake simply because they don't believe in satellites or space stations or the Hubble for that matter becasue sustained space flight is not possible in there world.


As for your Brains Comment I hope the Above isn't to taxing on your Brains and don't make it smoke anymore then the last time as you make some more chit up Ahole

I am not a member of The Flat Earth Society and I do not believe that the Earth is flat. I merely contributed to discussions on their on-line forum.

In fact there have been Russian cosmonauts who have spoken out about the faked Moon landings and believe me their arguments proving the fake are very convincing indeed, despite what Gate420 might say.

See the following Russian language link which can be translated by clicking the tab at the top of the screen:


Человек на Луне. Солнце на снимках Аполлонов в 20 раз больше. - 4 Ноября 2009 - Освоение Луны (http://ligaspace.my1.ru/news/2009-11-04-184)

On the left hand column are other evidences of the faked Moon landings.

galexander
04-07-2011, 12:32 PM
As for your Brains Comment I hope the Above isn't to taxing on your Brains and don't make it smoke anymore then the last time as you make some more chit up Ahole

:eek: And the above abusive comment was made by an owner of a telescope like this:

http://www.celestron.com/c3/images/files/product/11067-XLT_c11sgtxlt_mid.gif

A little touchy aren't we? :D

Gate420
04-07-2011, 01:41 PM
I simply responded to your abuse first like "I hope this wasn't too testing for your brains." SO keep your petty comments out and I won't call you an ahole what is your deal with the scope I bought you jealous or something???? It is a beautiful scope believe me and that picture doesn't do it justice at all.

:eek: And the above abusive comment was made by an owner of a telescope like this:

http://www.celestron.com/c3/images/files/product/11067-XLT_c11sgtxlt_mid.gif

A little touchy aren't we? :D

Gate420
04-07-2011, 01:49 PM
There isn't one piece of evidence out there that hasn't already been debunked over and over again there is nothing you can show me that hasn't been debunked over and over again A couple Russian cosmonauts and you right away believe them your as pathetic as the flat earther's.To clarify I never said you were a member just that they believed you because of what they believe all you did was fuel their delusions.
To believe you that there arguments are worthy of even listening to is another joke. After you saying that there scopes are out a focus too those idiots don't even know how to use a scope they simply believed your story because sustained space flight is not possible in there deluded world of the sun being a spotlight and the sun being 32 kilometers or miles wide whatever it said in there FAQ which I can post if you like so everyone here can see whose mouth you actually believed and the nonsense they believe for you to believe any word out of there mouths makes your credence of anything you say unbelievable.
I truly feel sorry for people like you who believe man kinds biggest accomplishment was FIRE lmfao.
Now you need to fix whatever problem your having with your scope weather its the power or the wrong object whatever it is you need to correct it instead of trying to make people believe in your deluded conspiracy.I guess my browser hasn't got a language translator and I will have to look into that as for whatever BS evidence they say they have it is just that BS.
Tell me how did they fool over 400 thousand employees scientist that are even with Nasa that studied the rocks how did they make all that?
It would have been far easier and cheaper to just got the moon and collect it then to have to fake and lie to all them people.Here is a nice satellite picture of Apollo 14 landing site showing left over equipment and footprints of the astronauts there are tons more but I already now your going to say they are fake but I feel sorry for you I truly do good luck in your quest to make people believe in your delusions.


I am not a member of The Flat Earth Society and I do not believe that the Earth is flat. I merely contributed to discussions on their on-line forum.

In fact there have been Russian cosmonauts who have spoken out about the faked Moon landings and believe me their arguments proving the fake are very convincing indeed, despite what Gate420 might say.

See the following Russian language link which can be translated by clicking the tab at the top of the screen:


Человек на ›ƒне. Солн†е на снимка… Аполлонов в 20 €аз болŒˆе. - 4 Нояб€я 2009 - žсвоение ›ƒн‹ (http://ligaspace.my1.ru/news/2009-11-04-184)

On the left hand column are other evidences of the faked Moon landings.

galexander
04-08-2011, 12:19 PM
There isn't one piece of evidence out there that hasn't already been debunked over and over again there is nothing you can show me that hasn't been debunked over and over again A couple Russian cosmonauts and you right away believe them your as pathetic as the flat earther's.To clarify I never said you were a member just that they believed you because of what they believe all you did was fuel their delusions.
To believe you that there arguments are worthy of even listening to is another joke. After you saying that there scopes are out a focus too those idiots don't even know how to use a scope they simply believed your story because sustained space flight is not possible in there deluded world of the sun being a spotlight and the sun being 32 kilometers or miles wide whatever it said in there FAQ which I can post if you like so everyone here can see whose mouth you actually believed and the nonsense they believe for you to believe any word out of there mouths makes your credence of anything you say unbelievable.
I truly feel sorry for people like you who believe man kinds biggest accomplishment was FIRE lmfao.
Now you need to fix whatever problem your having with your scope weather its the power or the wrong object whatever it is you need to correct it instead of trying to make people believe in your deluded conspiracy.I guess my browser hasn't got a language translator and I will have to look into that as for whatever BS evidence they say they have it is just that BS.
Tell me how did they fool over 400 thousand employees scientist that are even with Nasa that studied the rocks how did they make all that?
It would have been far easier and cheaper to just got the moon and collect it then to have to fake and lie to all them people.Here is a nice satellite picture of Apollo 14 landing site showing left over equipment and footprints of the astronauts there are tons more but I already now your going to say they are fake but I feel sorry for you I truly do good luck in your quest to make people believe in your delusions.

Its quite possible that most of the scientists employed by NASA weren't in on the secret and were just doing what they were paid to do.

With such things the less people you tell about it the better.

As for there being 400,000 scientists employed by NASA on the Moon landings, this sounds a little generous by anyone's standards.

galexander
04-08-2011, 12:20 PM
I simply responded to your abuse first like "I hope this wasn't too testing for your brains." SO keep your petty comments out and I won't call you an ahole what is your deal with the scope I bought you jealous or something???? It is a beautiful scope believe me and that picture doesn't do it justice at all.

I was merely pointing out that your touchiness didn't create a good impression.

But it seems you aren't too bothered about creating a good impression anyway. :rolleyes:

Gate420
04-09-2011, 04:25 AM
You obviously need to do some real research there where with everyone working from the engines the rockets the computer the scientist test missions and so on there was approx 400,000 employees who all worked on the moon landings.
The only one who has made a bad impression is you I haven't done anything to make a bad impression except respond to your nonsense and delusions.
You are just like them flat earthers when caught in a corner and no where to go you start attacking the person who makes the most sense even say their are spelling and grammar issues next you will have me banned just like you yahoo friends.
Since all my posts are run through a spell check.
So when I cornered them that's what they did starting telling me I was making stuff up and attacking my character and attacking my spelling same as YOU!!!!
I also noticed that you are ignoring anything Blue says and it's is all because you have been cornered with lies and you making stuff up to fit your delusions.
As I said before good luck trying to convince any sane individual with any knowledge of you delusions that everything in the world is a conspiracy and the biggest thing that mankind did was create FIRE!!:confused::mad::eek::rolleyes:



Its quite possible that most of the scientists employed by NASA weren't in on the secret and were just doing what they were paid to do.

With such things the less people you tell about it the better.

As for there being 400,000 scientists employed by NASA on the Moon landings, this sounds a little generous by anyone's standards.

Gate420
04-09-2011, 04:54 AM
I think your really Jealous. My scope can say nothing to my character or intelligence and if I am not putting my words together well enough in type to show my real intelligence then too fricking bad don't care. I can own any kind of scope I want and since I am a Licensed Computer Technician not one that calls themselves one I was schooled for it and have a degree in hardware repair which is pretty much non existence these days since no one actually repairs systems like in the good oll days, when I would get 80 $ an hour all they do these days is replace parts and any dumb ass can do that but me I am a real technician.
I actually repair system's replace keyboard slots and chips by unsoldering and resoldering parts back in,but that is another story all together.
I really would like to know what your problem is with me buying myself a really nice scope so I could really see the stars and planets.
I was so tired of not seeing details that I wanted to see so I found that scope for around 2000.00 to 2,500.00 and For what it does I found it a bargain there are much more expensive scopes then mine but mine is really nice hooks to my laptop and does most everything for me and I can track and watch things I never could before and it makes me incredibly proud and Happy to have it.
So I really don't understand your problem with it and me.
Except that I have real proof and it goes against what you want people to believe so only thing you can do is strike out GET OVER IT I OWN IT sorry if you don't have enough play money to bye things you want but I do now that my kids are all grown up and have left home I have money for myself and my hobby's so I wanted to make 1 more purchase and for it to be my last telescope so I would not want to get a better one like I did so many times before by buying used and at hock shops and garage sales and what not with this scope I will never have to buy another one so bite me.
I learned my lesson from buying underpowered scopes for what I wanted to see time for you to learn yours YOU NEED A BETTER SCOPE plain and simple.
And if you never caught on to my name I do some extra sales that provide an income most people dream off.

I simply responded to your abuse first like "I hope this wasn't too testing for your brains." SO keep your petty comments out and I won't call you an ahole what is your deal with the scope I bought you jealous or something???? It is a beautiful scope believe me and that picture doesn't do it justice at all.

galexander
04-10-2011, 06:02 AM
You obviously need to do some real research there where with everyone working from the engines the rockets the computer the scientist test missions and so on there was approx 400,000 employees who all worked on the moon landings.
The only one who has made a bad impression is you I haven't done anything to make a bad impression except respond to your nonsense and delusions.
You are just like them flat earthers when caught in a corner and no where to go you start attacking the person who makes the most sense even say their are spelling and grammar issues next you will have me banned just like you yahoo friends.
Since all my posts are run through a spell check.
So when I cornered them that's what they did starting telling me I was making stuff up and attacking my character and attacking my spelling same as YOU!!!!
I also noticed that you are ignoring anything Blue says and it's is all because you have been cornered with lies and you making stuff up to fit your delusions.
As I said before good luck trying to convince any sane individual with any knowledge of you delusions that everything in the world is a conspiracy and the biggest thing that mankind did was create FIRE!!:confused::mad::eek::rolleyes:

I note that the "400,000 scientists" has now become "400,000 employees".

But even then 400,000 'non-scientist' employees sounds a little on the generous side.

galexander
04-10-2011, 06:12 AM
I think your really Jealous. My scope can say nothing to my character or intelligence and if I am not putting my words together well enough in type to show my real intelligence then too fricking bad don't care. I can own any kind of scope I want and since I am a Licensed Computer Technician not one that calls themselves one I was schooled for it and have a degree in hardware repair which is pretty much non existence these days since no one actually repairs systems like in the good oll days, when I would get 80 $ an hour all they do these days is replace parts and any dumb ass can do that but me I am a real technician.
I actually repair system's replace keyboard slots and chips by unsoldering and resoldering parts back in,but that is another story all together.
I really would like to know what your problem is with me buying myself a really nice scope so I could really see the stars and planets.
I was so tired of not seeing details that I wanted to see so I found that scope for around 2000.00 to 2,500.00 and For what it does I found it a bargain there are much more expensive scopes then mine but mine is really nice hooks to my laptop and does most everything for me and I can track and watch things I never could before and it makes me incredibly proud and Happy to have it.
So I really don't understand your problem with it and me.
Except that I have real proof and it goes against what you want people to believe so only thing you can do is strike out GET OVER IT I OWN IT sorry if you don't have enough play money to bye things you want but I do now that my kids are all grown up and have left home I have money for myself and my hobby's so I wanted to make 1 more purchase and for it to be my last telescope so I would not want to get a better one like I did so many times before by buying used and at hock shops and garage sales and what not with this scope I will never have to buy another one so bite me.
I learned my lesson from buying underpowered scopes for what I wanted to see time for you to learn yours YOU NEED A BETTER SCOPE plain and simple.
And if you never caught on to my name I do some extra sales that provide an income most people dream off.

You are making some pretty bold assertions about myself and slightly contradictory ones as well.

You say I have "yahoo friends" and then you say I can't afford a telescope like the one you claim you have. Neither assertion is true.

All I am saying is that you very much come across as someone who would rather have spent the money on a nice looking motorbike. ;)

Gate420
04-10-2011, 12:37 PM
Wrong again look at my original post which I shall quote myself "Tell me how did they fool over 400 thousand employees scientist that are even with Nasa that studied the rocks how did they make all that?"
So you se I have not changed what I have said only forgot to add the scientists to the equastion the second time.Like I said before do soem real reaserch I am actully under the actual amout of people that worked on the missions.
And if it is a little under so what how did they fool them all and keep them all quiet?


I note that the "400,000 scientists" has now become "400,000 employees".

But even then 400,000 'non-scientist' employees sounds a little on the generous side.

Gate420
04-10-2011, 12:52 PM
Again it is you who made assumptions about me again, I am only retailating to your BS. As well as your Yahoo friends at the Flat earth socity whom you admit to beliveing in your delusions.
It is you who comes across as someone who can't afford a scope like mine it is you who has posted pictures of my scope here saying this and that it is you who called me names and made assuptions of me it was all YOU!!! as for bikes I am a little old for such toys since I am not allowed a license to drive due to siezures so I can use my money for my other interest in case you needed to know.
You really come across as an abusive and broke bloat who has delusions of conspiracies all around him even thought the truth is right in front of you.
You have problems weather it's your scope or tracking the wrong object or you just need more power.
I know with my old scopes I was lucky to see a flash of light when the station passed which is why I spent the money to get one that would do all the hard work for me and let me see what I want to see whith great ease.
So I say again either bring some proof to the table which you can't or go back and talk to your believers at the flat earth society casue you don't stand a chance in changing my mind or any one else that has a good enough scope and camera to catch it.
Your flat earth friends will believe you all day long so go join them and have fun feeeding their delusiosns.


You are making some pretty bold assertions about myself and slightly contradictory ones as well.

You say I have "yahoo friends" and then you say I can't afford a telescope like the one you claim you have. Neither assertion is true.

All I am saying is that you very much come across as someone who would rather have spent the money on a nice looking motorbike. ;)

galexander
04-11-2011, 12:07 PM
Wrong again look at my original post which I shall quote myself "Tell me how did they fool over 400 thousand employees scientist that are even with Nasa that studied the rocks how did they make all that?"
So you se I have not changed what I have said only forgot to add the scientists to the equastion the second time.Like I said before do soem real reaserch I am actully under the actual amout of people that worked on the missions.
And if it is a little under so what how did they fool them all and keep them all quiet?

Well if you made efforts to improve your written English it would help a great deal.

From your previous comments it sounds like others have had a problem with it also.