## Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

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.
lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

tak47 wrote:i think it is not possible to fake the ISS from low altitude because it wouldn't be visible from such (horizontal) distance. i live near stuttgart and on clear nights the thing becomes visible when it's over england. on standard airplane altitude the visibility radius would be way smaller.
Distance from Stuttgart to Eastbourne, England (near the channel) = 418 miles (674km) source

Distance from Stuttgart to Calais (E side of English Channel) = 359 miles (578km)

NASA Helios craft has flown at least as high as 96,863 ft (29,5km) source

Distance to horizon at 96,863 ft = 380 miles (612km) - source

So, theoretically, to someone in Stuttgart, an object at 96,863 ft (29,5km) over the closest part of England would be on the edge of visibility or very close to it. Especially if you add the factor of radiance of the object against a dark sky reflecting off atmospheric elements. And, this is using published altitude of one NASA solar craft. Other similar craft may fly higher. The current world's record for a conventional aircraft is about 23,5 miles (37,7km) (source) for an air-breathing jet. At that altitude the horizon is about 430 miles (692km) away. Solar drones don't need to "breathe" so they should be able to fly higher.

*******
Dear Lux (and ALL MEMBERS!) please use METRIC values on Cluesforum! I have converted all your pesky feet and miles to km. (simon)

simonshack
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

*

WHY IS NASA FALSIFYING THE HISTORICAL "ISS" DATA?

Fascinating 'factoid':

Did you know that 31 orbits of the "ISS" = 2 Earth revolutions (or 48 hours - or 2880 minutes) ?

See, the exact time it takes for of the "ISS" to orbit Earth (as stated by Wiki) is "92,89" minutes. If we multiply that figure by 31, we get pretty much exactly 2880 min (well, 2879,59 - to be precise). This would clearly mean that, for every 2 revolutions of Earth, the "ISS" would orbit around the world for exactly 31 times. Imagine that.

In fact, here follow a few 2013 examples from my collection of NASA "ISS alerts" - which I get as a subscriber to their Spot the Station e-mail service. These are Rome flyovers which I can (partially) certify - having witnessed a few of them myself. In any case, please know that the Rome flyovers I've been able to observe have all been pretty much reliably 'on schedule' - i.e. consistent with NASA's "Spot the Station" alerts data. Also, keep in mind that, as I've stated in a previous post, I have received FAR fewer "ISS" Rome-flyover alerts - than those now listed on the HEAVENS ABOVE archive. The red figures are the times in which the "ISS" appeared over Rome:
2013 Rome flyovers (as notified by NASA's "Spot the Station" to yours truly)

Nov 12 - 05:45, Max Height: 65°, Appears: SW, Disappears: ENE
Nov 14 - 05:46, Max Height: 47°, Appears: W, Disappears: NE

Nov 25 -06:31, Max Height: 60°, Appears: NW, Disappears: E
Nov 27 -06:30, Max Height: 49°, Appears: WNW, Disappears: SSE

***********

Dec 12 - 17:24, Max Height: 44°, Appears: SSW, Disappears: ENE
Dec 14 - 17:25, Max Height: 66°, Appears: W, Disappears: NE

Dec 25 - 18:14, Max Height: 48°s, Appears: NW, Disappears: ENE
Dec 27 - 18:14, Max Height: 64°, Appears: WNW, Disappears: SE

(Btw, this reads a bit like my local bus station's timetable ! )
You could put it this way - and you would be pretty much correct: "every other day, the "ISS" circles the earth as many times as there are days in a month". Fascinating, innit? Hmm - I guess we may surmise that this means either one of two things:

A: There is some 'magical Newtonian synchronicity' going on here - between the stated 28.000km/h orbital speed of the "ISS" - and the (commonly accepted) speed of planet Earth's spinning velocity (about 1670km/h at the equator).

B : NASA is taking us for a ride - and are quite simply managing their (logistically-constrained) solar drones operations on a two-day, military-style worksheet basis.

Please stay with me, because this gets more interesting still - I assure you.

So, let's see: if "B" is the correct answer, would the NASA hoaxers try to blur / falsify / obfuscate the historical record of the "ISS" flyovers? Would they try to hide from researchers / historians the above-mentioned, absurdly "coincidental Earth >< ISS synchronicity"? Of course they would.

This is where the "HEAVENS ABOVE" archive comes handy (for the NASA clowns). As far as I know, "HEAVENS ABOVE" is the only publicly available historic archive database of all past "ISS" flyovers. If you live in Rome, as I do, you can set their search engine to "Rome, Italy" - and you can browse back in time to read 'exactly when' the "ISS" (supposedly) flew over Rome in the past years.

So without further ado, let us now compare the "Rome-flyovers" data I've received from NASA'a official "Spot the Station" e-mail service - with the data to be found today over at "HEAVENS ABOVE", the NASA-endorsed archive of the "ISS" flyovers :

http://www.heavens-above.com/PassSummar ... =13&tz=CET

Well, I'm fairly sure I witnessed that last December 28, 2013 Rome flyover. Now, I certainly can't remember having to wait for all of 49 minutes for the "ISS" to appear in my skyline ! Something's gravely amiss here, folks... Or - in more urban language - it's pretty damn fucked up!

Will Chris Peat, the alleged founder of "HEAVENS ABOVE", be so kind to offer an explanation for the above discrepancies? I will try to contact him.

tak47
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:27 am

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

Given an airplane seen as just a point of bright light traveling at cruising speed of 900 km/h (or 15 km/min) takes — say — 4 minutes to cross Simon's entire field of vision, one could reasonably postulate his field of vision is no larger than 60 kilometers. Bear in mind this would be 60 visible kilometers of that airplane's own altitude of probably 11 km up.

You could see a larger and larger range the higher "up" you focus your eyes. The higher the level you look at from a single position, the larger the field, and presumably it's as formulaic as NASA claims. I have my doubts but for the purposes of assuming the less controversial semi-spherical world, the ISS still doesn't make sense as we can demonstrate from empirical observations. Please bear with my simplistic thought process, I realize a lot of this is just explication of the logical path Simon is leading us down.

Never mind that from your own scale of things at your own elevation, you can probably only see a point on the horizon 4 kilometers away if you're lucky. Maybe 20 kilometers if you are standing on a very high surface like 30 meters up with no obstructions. Given the very overly simplified formula of about 3700 meters x the square-root of one's elevation in meters (sorry to Simon who loathes imperial measurements, but for feet height it could be about a mile and a quarter times the square-root of one's height in feet), you can arrive at the conclusion that seeing 30 kilometers in either direction could safely put your effectual viewing height at 65 meters high. Even with all those mountains about, Simon gets quite a view!

Even if he were hiking on the very top of those Frascati rocks nearby, with an elevation of 600 meters, and the towering Ernicis nearly 2 kilometers high (to the East) were not an issue, the biggest theoretically visible range of a straight-flying 11 km cruising altitude would only be for 180 km. If he were on the very top of l'Ernici the very best conditions might give some 300 km of the airplane's path.

So what if the ISS "thingies" we see brightening up our night skies, and our hearts, were a dim but highly effective model of lightweight aircraft cruising a bit higher than an average jetliner?

If we were being very generous and suggested that the 6 minutes of an ISS passing were through 3-times the viewable airspace of a jetliner (or about 180 kilometers of airspace at its elevation), we could guess its speed at 1080 km/h. A swift beast, but a realistic speed. If it's fighting any strange air pockets or high powered winds, it probably has the power to do more if necessary. How high up is that? I'd say even less than 20 kilometers up could do the trick — maybe only 17 or so? (From an airplane's standpoint, looking up 6 km from an 11k height, a little ISS model with a bright light could still appear as just a distant sparkle.)

But just to continue this thought experiment, what if the ISS thingies' visible airspace were only twice what Simon knows about the 11 km passenger jet? Crossing 120 km in 6 minutes would give it a very casual 720 km/h average speed. How high up is that? Surely, we are still talking atmospherics and no need for "outer space" ...

Forgive my very crude illustration of "Simon's view". It is only some little musings on math, after all:
ISS_range.GIF
Perhaps they just have a fleet of these stealth "things" launched in secretive ways (from conventional aircraft? hidden locations?) so as to disguise the ISS's strange "light" until they are 'synched' with the official viewing areas, then turned on.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

I don't understand Lux last post but it inspired me to draw what I mean with "calculating angular velocity".

So you can see you don't need to know how high the thing is flying. It doesn't matter if it is very high (at the O's) or lower (where I drew ^). The only data you need is d, the distance between the 2 observers and T, the time it takes for the thing to travel from its position straight above observer 1 to the position straight above observer 2. r is the circumference of the earth.
This ignores the (apparent?) turning of the earth but I don't think that's a problem. If NASA is right then the turning of the earth is much slower than the velocity of the thing (about 360°/day). So if we want to prove that NASA's claim of 240°/hour is much exaggerated, the turning of the earth can be ignored.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

Seneca wrote:I don't understand Lux last post ...
Neither do I. Simon changed all the numbers to metric which is Greek to me.

But, I was just demonstrating that a high altitude aircraft could be visible in the sky for several hundred, uh, (fill in blank with your favorite distance measurement).

simonshack
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

lux wrote:
Seneca wrote:I don't understand Lux last post ...
Neither do I. Simon changed all the numbers to metric which is Greek to me.
.
Damn - I sincerely apologize, Lux ... I shouldn't have overwritten your original miles & feet figures. I have now put them back (hopefully without errors). Sorry about that.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

No problem -- thanks!

Libero
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

Fasten everything down for re-boost!

Perhaps this has been touched on before. Here is the explanation of how the astro-nots can achieve weightlessness.
It is a very common misconception that when astronauts are in orbit they are weightless because they are somehow far enough from the earth that the force of earth's gravity does not pull on them. This is totally INCORRECT! If they were that far away, earth's gravity would not pull on the shuttle either and it would be impossible for it to be in orbit around the earth.

The idea of a constant state of freefall may be hard to imagine at first.
• Begin by picturing what would happen if the shuttle had no horizontal velocity...it would simply accelerate to the ground.
• If it had a little horizontal velocity, (give it some by pressing the up arrow) it would move forward as it fell but would still hit the ground.
• With a little more horizontal velocity it would move farther before running into the earth.
• With just the right amount of horizontal velocity it would fall toward the earth but at the same time it would miss hitting the earth. This constant state of freefall is what gives the astronauts an illusion of weightlessness.
• Increasing the horizontal velocity even more would result in an elliptical orbit similar to that of a comet.

Notice that in all cases, the vertical acceleration is approximately 9.8m/s2 toward the center of the Earth. Only in the case of the eccentric elliptical orbit does the distance between the earth and the shuttle become large enough to dramatically reduce the acceleration due to gravity.
http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/phys ... gravsm.htm

It seems that if the ISS was technically in constant freefall, these so called re-boosts would be necessary all of the time, correct?
Is it sound math, in other words, that the constant horizontal velocity necessary to maintain orbit could have any relation to freefall whatsoever? The folks don't float in the "vomit comet" for instance until the plane starts to physically drop toward earth.

Here's another author trying to explain the point in a different way.
So, why doesn’t the Space Station or satellites in orbit fall to the Earth, and why do the astronauts and objects inside the ISS or other spacecraft appear to be floating?

Because of speed!

The astronauts, the ISS itself and other objects in Earth orbit aren’t floating, they are actually falling. But they don’t fall to the Earth because of their huge orbital velocity. Instead, they fall around Earth. Objects in Earth orbit have to travel at least 28,160 km/h (17,500 mph). So, as they accelerate towards the Earth, the Earth curves away beneath them and they never get any closer. Since the astronauts have the same acceleration as the space station, they feel weightless.

Let’s go back to the tower. If instead of just stepping off the tower, you took a running leap, your forward energy would carry you away from the tower at the same time that gravity pulled you down. Instead of hitting the ground at the base of the tower, you would land a distance away. If you ran faster, you could jump further from the tower before you hit the ground. If you could run as fast as the space shuttle and ISS orbits the Earth, at 28,160 km/h (17,500 mph), the arc of your jump would make a circle around the Earth. You would be in orbit and weightless. You would be falling without hitting the ground. Spacesuit and ample breathable air needed, however.

http://www.universetoday.com/95308/why- ... -in-space/

simonshack
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

*
I think that, from now on, I'm going to re-post the below two gifs (extracted from the Russian 1956 movie "ROAD TO THE STARS") each and every time a NASA animation featuring 'weightless' / floating asstruenots gets posted on this forum. I trust everyone will understand why I feel this is necessary.

"ROAD TO THE STARS" - by Pavel Klushantsev (1956-1957) : http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389416#p2389416

Libero
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

Yes.. I totally get that the video technology was available way back when and certainly don't consider the footage I posted to be authentic. I simply could never get my head around how they could even push such a theory as weightlessness in space. Using the 2nd author's example I posted, it sort of makes a little more sense to me now. (I'm picturing a theoretical re-boosting ISS with a big mouth creeping up behind me after I have leaped off this tower at orbit speed.)

It's hard to believe that mass plays such a small part in orbital science. I wonder how sound the math is.

Anyway, here was another ridiculous ISS related story that I caught recently from GrindTV who appears to have a partnership with Yahoo these days and whose stories are often featured on their home page. Among other amazing stories such as the one below, they had one the other day complete with video about an estimated 200 year old, 2400 pound shark that a guy allegedly caught in Norway from his kayak -- an "unofficial" figure of course.

Russian scientists conducting experiments on the outside surface of the International Space State made a puzzling discovery, one made all the more remarkable because it’s something that whales eat.

Samples taken from illuminators and the surface of the space station were found to have traces of sea plankton and other microorganisms, but scientists are baffled as to how they got there, the Russian chief of the orbital mission told the ITAR-TASS News Agency.

..The study shows that the sea plankton and organisms can live in space despite lack of oxygen, zero gravity, extreme temperatures, and cosmic radiation, and they proved these organisms can even develop.
Doesn't appear it takes much to support some types of life these days.

http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/nature/p ... e-station/

Off topic "fish tale" if interested
http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/excursio ... und-shark/

simonshack
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

*

So they found sea plankton on the outside of the ISS ? I'm not surprised - not at all surprised !

Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

Evil Edna wrote:
Hi, Simon, I have witnessed a few "ISS" flyovers. The last one I saw (2012, iirc) was unusual** - insofar as there were actually two visible flyovers within an hour of each other. The media reported it as unusual which is what prompted me to go outside (twice) to check on it.
If that had been true it would have basically disproven the official story of the ISS... twice in an hour equates to an orbital speed on that particular alleged night of ~27000 mph rather than its more usual 17000 mph! Either way I can find no media stories about such an event.

Still the double flyover thing within ~93 mins would be interesting to verify... where I am in Northern England there is currently a period of upcoming double flyovers.

Last night I saw the ISS for the first time* witnessing this event...

Apparently there'd been an earlier pass ending 91 minutes earlier but I wasn't out.

It would take a tricky combination of lucky timing, clear skies, persistent monitoring & synchronized timepieces but it should be possible for cluesforum members to verify the angular velocity as Seneca points out.

Tonight** I should be able to see the light at 20:08 to 20:11

UPDATE

I did see the latter part of this event even through the cloud... I could not confirm the next 4 second long pass.

* I was surprised at how bright it was and apparently it wasn't even a particularly bright pass. My first impression is that if that was a plane it was a very quick one.

** Looks like it'll be cloudy day for me though

EDIT

Deleted a calculation I made about a pass from Liverpool to Rome as I had gotten my times mixed up.
Last edited by Critical Mass on Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

ElSushi
Member
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:53 am

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

So they found sea plankton on the outside of the ISS ? I'm not surprised - not at all surprised !

HAHAHAHA, that's both criminally insane AND absolutely hilarious, oh my.
WHO IS WRITING THIS STUFF, seriously, give me a few names !!

simonshack
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

Critical Mass wrote:
Tonight** I should be able to see the light at 20:08 to 20:11

I did see the latter part of this event even through the cloud...

I could not confirm the next 4 second long pass.[scheduled for 21:44].
Dear CM, last night two passes of the "Thing" were scheduled (on the Heavens Above site) over Rome - 98 minutes apart:

PASS 1:12 Oct Appears:19:33:05 (W) > Disappears 19:38:57 (NE) Highest point 30°

and

PASS 2:12 Oct Appears:21:11:29 (NW) > Disappears 21:11:50 (NW) Highest point 11°

It was a splendid, cloudless night here in Rome - and stepping out in my panoramic garden at 19:33 (18:33 YOUR TIME) I saw the Thing for over five minutes (PASS 1), very clearly indeed - traveling from W to NE, just as advertised. So I eagerly looked forward to observe PASS 2, scheduled for 21:11:29 (20:11:29 YOUR TIME). Please note that this means that, when you saw the Thing disappearing last night, I would have seen it appearing.

Well, I didn't. There was nothing there. I simply could not confirm PASS 2 - although I went out early (to make sure not to miss it) and looked in the correct direction (NW) - something I have become quite good at over time, being an eager "ISS"-watcher...

Now, let's make a few considerations:

If I HAD seen PASS 2, that would have scored some points for NASA. In fact, at their claimed speed of 28.000km/h, the "ISS" would cover the Liverpool>Rome distance in about 3min30secs. The problem is, I did not see it.

So how might NASA explain this away? Well, please note that my PASS 2 was scheduled to be what I would like to call (for the purpose of our discussions) a "MICRO PASS", i.e. a fly-by visible for only a handful of seconds - appearing and disappearing in the NW section of my skyline. Just HOW such brief sightings would occur is still, in fact, pretty much a mystery to me. To this day, I have only witnessed what I will call "FULL PASSES", i.e. fly-bys that last for several minutes (and up to as many as 6 minutes). So I guess NASA would say: "too bad, you just missed it. Pay closer attention next time".

As it is, your PASS 2 was also scheduled to last for a mere 4 seconds and - unsurprisingly perhaps - you also failed to observe it.

But let us not draw any hasty conclusions from this first UK > ITALY team-work of ours. Let's try this again - next time we have a double-pass (and we both have clear / cloudless skies...).

Are you game?