Satellites : general discussion and musings

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby reichstag fireman on October 8th, 2012, 11:32 pm

fast67vellen2o wrote:The photo that the Pleiades Earth observation satellite took of the Envisat satellite looked to be completely bogus.

[RF: this image?]
Image



Aside the larger question of the non-existence of artificial satellites: what is it in that image which makes you sure that it is "completely bogus"? Your conclusion must have been based on personal study. Please talk us through that analytical process.
Last edited by reichstag fireman on October 9th, 2012, 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Dcopymope on October 9th, 2012, 12:00 am

reichstag fireman wrote:
Dcopymope wrote:no conclusion has been made that proves without any shadow of a doubt that satellites are real or fake


Well I am totally convinced of the non-existence of artificial satellites. They are vapourware.

What burden of proof are you using, Dcopymore, and how are you applying logic to arguments for and against?
You must have applied very different evidential standards when deciding to believe in God.


And then you bring 'God' in the argument, for whatever reason. :rolleyes:

This argument has been going on for months and no real progress has been made at all for either side. I'll have something to say about it when something conclusive is brought forth for or against, if ever. From the start, my view was sort of leaning towards satellites not existing at all, but I'm not fully convinced, and apparently, nor are a few other members.
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby icarusinbound on October 9th, 2012, 12:06 am

reichstag fireman wrote:
Dcopymope wrote:no conclusion has been made that proves without any shadow of a doubt that satellites are real or fake


Well I am totally convinced of the non-existence of artificial satellites. They are vapourware.


RF, I am always extremely interested by your posts, and constantly admire your wide range of knowledge.

But.... your stated personal absolute certainty regarding the non-existence of artificial satellites worries me a lot.

My position is not in conflict with the identification of false space imagery. Be it Apollo nonsense, ISS bubbles or Martian fairytales, I'm there with you.

But by contrast, I really think that there needs to be a more balanced opinion taken regarding satellites. To say that there is nothing whatsoever physically transmitting from up there is far too entrenched a position to take. Given the chance I believe I can show this to be the case.

Would you accept that much of your position on this (ie the use of atmospheric refraction in the form of skywave propagation) makes most sense in the context of one-to-many broadcasting, and becomes much-more technically difficult to reconcile in virtually all other alleged satellite-driven technology contexts?

I can expand upon this proposition, if I may be permitted (and please, RF/Simon/other dear CF members in general, don't shout/shut me down without giving me a chance to have a proper say on this matter)
icarusinbound
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: November 28th, 2011, 9:49 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby reichstag fireman on October 9th, 2012, 12:09 am

Dcopymope wrote:This argument has been going on for months and no real progress has been made at all for either side.

I'll have something to say about it when something conclusive is brought forth for or against, if ever.

From the start, my view was sort of leaning towards satellites not existing at all, but I'm not fully convinced


That's doesn't explain how 'you are where you are'.

If someone asked me why I believe "the 911 attacks" were a hoax, I could probably spent a month explaining my reasoning.

You state that you are "not fully convinced" about artificial satellites. So, please, for the benefit of the forum, elaborate on your reasoning now. What niggling suspicions do you have to support the existence of the 'artificial satellite'.

The off-the-cuff remark: "I'll have something to say about it when something conclusive is brought forth for or against" doesn't really pass muster in a thread called "general discussions and musings".

Why bother posting at all, if you have no opinion either "for or against". The one thing your comment does do, is to bolster the lobby that seeks to marginalise the whole question of the Satellite Hoax, as being one of those "hopeless implausible internet theories", or words to that effect.
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby reichstag fireman on October 9th, 2012, 12:21 am

icarusinbound wrote:.. your stated personal absolute certainty regarding the non-existence of artificial satellites worries me a lot.

My position is not in conflict with the identification of false space imagery. Be it Apollo nonsense, ISS bubbles or Martian fairytales, I'm there with you.

But by contrast, I really think that there needs to be a more balanced opinion taken regarding satellites. To say that there is nothing whatsoever physically transmitting from up there is far too entrenched a position to take. Given the chance I believe I can show this to be the case.


Please do show this. And please do so in the context of our general understanding of ionospheric refractive ("skywave") propagation. Are you of the mind that skywave propagation is a plausible explanation for the reception of radiowaves seemingly from outer space (30,000km away in the so-called "Clarke Satellite Belt")?

Would you accept that much of your position on this (ie the use of atmospheric refraction in the form of skywave propagation) makes most sense in the context of one-to-many broadcasting, and becomes much-more technically difficult to reconcile in virtually all other alleged satellite-driven technology contexts?

What other supposed "satellite" technologies are there? GPS is broadcast technology, albeit with very low entropy - just a few bits per second. That leaves us chiefly to explain the point-to-point skywave link. As with any wireless communications system, the question is one of beam focus, or beam width. We can look to groundwave microwave comms solutions for an answer.

With appropriate antennae to form a point-to-point link, beam width (proportionate to signal dispersion) is reduced to just a fraction of a degree. That solution - very tight beam focus - works perfectly for point-to-point skywave propagation, too. In fact, in many circumstances, a skywave link will work better than a ground-based link. The skywave link does not suffer the problems of "multi-path fading" - i.e. signal reflections from hills, trees, buildings, nor the problems when passing over different ground terrain. Microwaves passing over water propagate differently to those passing over a corn field, for example.

I can expand upon this proposition, if I may be permitted (and please, RF/Simon/other dear CF members in general, don't shout/shut me down without giving me a chance to have a proper say on this matter)


It's a fascinating subject, so I certainly wouldn't shut you down!
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby fast67vellen2o on October 9th, 2012, 5:25 am

reichstag fireman wrote:
[RF: this image?]
Image


Aside the larger question of the non-existence of artificial satellites: what is it in that image which makes you sure that it is "completely bogus"? Your conclusion must have been based on personal study. Please talk us through that analytical process.



"the French space agency CNES rotated the Pleiades Earth observation satellite to capture this image of Envisat."

This photo was supposedly taken from the Pleiades Earth observation satellite (according to the MSN article).

Here is some information according to Wickedpedia on this particular satellite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades_(satellite)

Now if I am reading this correctly, one of the main jobs of this particular satellite is: "Land planning: detection and identification of small features (e.g. vehicles, roads, bushes)".

If this particular satellite really has the photographic capabilities that they are claiming it has, then why such a blurry photo?
fast67vellen2o
Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: September 11th, 2012, 5:38 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby reichstag fireman on October 9th, 2012, 11:06 am

Hi, fast67vellen2o,

I appreciate your sincerity, though it's hard to reconcile the two schools of thought here. On the one hand, there are those claiming the image is fake (obviously fake, imvho). Yet we accept or, at least, we don't challenge the broader claim that it was taken by an "artificial satellite" (a monstrously fake claim, imvho). It's one of those quandaries of "limited hangout". Adopting the second premise as fact is to set a contrived and very stifling boundary to the whole discussion. What a to-do!
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby fbenario on October 9th, 2012, 8:49 pm

This is downright laughable.



Image



US Air Force’s 1950s supersonic flying saucer declassified

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1375 ... classified
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby lux on October 9th, 2012, 10:14 pm

^ Made by ...

Image
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby fbenario on October 10th, 2012, 1:48 am

reichstag fireman wrote:[1] Hi, fast67vellen2o
...
[2] we don't challenge the broader claim that it was taken by an "artificial satellite"

On [2] - Oooh, well done, Reichstag. I would suggest there is no such thing as an 'artificial satellite'. The term itself has an internal truism (such as "a = a"), and thus becomes, at best unhelpful, at worst a meaningless neologism.

Thanks for making me focus on the term.

On [1] - Hey, fast67vellen2o, what the h**l kind of username is that? Please explain its genesis. It actually looks like one of the so-called 'unbreakable' passwords we're encouraged to use on every website - as if anyone could remember so much malarkey. Silliness.

EDIT: Sorry, fast, I now see it is a reference to cars.
Last edited by fbenario on October 11th, 2012, 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby lux on October 10th, 2012, 4:41 am

^ It's a car thing. Google it.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby MrX on October 10th, 2012, 4:12 pm

Here is supposidly a picture from Lushtoto, Tanzania - which is practically right at the equator.
Image

Shouldn't these dishes be pointed basically straight-up?

Original link here: http://www.world-traveler.eu/travels-af ... nzibar.htm
MrX
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: September 14th, 2011, 12:42 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby MrX on October 10th, 2012, 4:15 pm

Sorry about previous post -- they would only be straight up if the Geo-Sat was straight above. Still, these antennas should be on a "line" of consistant elevation that can't be verified from this picture without exact location and location of camera, I believe. There are some odd dish angles from photos at the equator (Africa, South America) but this proves nothing.
MrX
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: September 14th, 2011, 12:42 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby MrX on October 10th, 2012, 5:40 pm

Does this make sense from Abu Dhabi -

Image

Link: http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news ... ite-dishes

Seems awful low elevation - we're higher and I don't see anything that low. Some look 180 deg off in azimuth - but that's assuming they work.
MrX
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: September 14th, 2011, 12:42 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby reichstag fireman on October 10th, 2012, 9:07 pm

Latitude, Longitude and dish antenna Azimuth and Elevation are needed for any determination. And as you've already said, the azimuth of the skywave link could be parallel to the equator. Whether west to east, or east to west.

For skywave reception in Lushtoto, Tanzania, the transmitter could be in South America - Belize or Suriname - for example. Such a link would still use a refraction point above the tropics, somewhere above the mid-South Atlantic Ocean. Or alternatively, and again for RX in Tanzania, a viable TX could equally be in Indonesia to the east, also offering a refraction point above the tropics.

Mentioned earlier, the regions of higher electron density are always sought for the point of refraction. This is to increase the Maximum Usable Frequency of the skywave signal. The higher that frequency, the more information that can be modulated on the carrier wave. And more information means more garbage TV channels, higher video and audio definition, more simultaneous telephone connections, and greater backhaul bandwidth for IP traffic, etc.

Image
RX in Tanzania with TX in South America with refraction point over mid-South Atlantic?
Or TX in Indonesia with refraction above the Indian Ocean?


Due to quirks in the geomagnetic fields, there are equatorial "anomalies" in the ionosphere layer. The F2 layer - the ionosphere region with the highest electron density - is not uniform about the equator.

In the plot below, note over South America the 'dip' in the F2 layer peak to below the equator. And over west Africa, note the hump above. Quirks which need to be accommodated when selecting and establishing a TX site for skywave propagation.

Image
Ionospheric anomalies

As an aside, there is no technical reason - other than issues of climate, remoteness (and politics) - to prevent the use of Antarctica for skywave transmission. Offering valuable azimuth angles for reception across all continents, the polar continent may be extremely important for skywave transmitter sites. Does that function partly explain the territorial claims for the land - the so-called War for Antarctica? And during Antarctic exploration expeditions, does research into skywave propagation form part of the work undertaken?

EDIT: For the foF2 anomaly plot, see: http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/cl ... onbend.pdf
Last edited by reichstag fireman on October 29th, 2012, 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests