Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

[brianv]

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc

Here is the proper video that PianoRacer posted, this one is blocked in the entity known as the "usa" apparently. Will somebody who understands, please make a video with the correct angles (provided by NR) plugged in, and show us what happens.

Correction: This is the previous video by the poster. (The other is a re-upload because one was blocked - copyright music.) Got that? Good.

[NotRappaport]

I found this video, which attempts (and fails) to triangulate the position of the sun, interesting as well:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te9nu6MgpCA

Anyway, I'd be interested in your thoughts, especially on the Sun position video and if there are any glaring problems with it (I couldn't find any, but I'm no "rocket scientist").

Not wanting to derail this thread, I put my detailed thoughts on the errors in that video here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1424&p=2404785#p2404785

[The_White_Lodge]

Even though he has not carried out his experiment yet, I would like to commend Nonrappaport for the amount of thought and preparation he has put into this and the thoroughness with which he is critically analyzing this topic.

I think of all that has been said and observed here, it is only reasonable to concede that some object does indeed exist up there at an altitude much higher than an airplane moving at speeds that must be considerably faster than any than even a supersonic jet.

I do not believe that the technological means by which this has been achieved is anything like the story we have been told, and I think before I can specular further as to how it may have been achieved I will need some form of confirmation one way or the other as to the shape and design of this object, so with that I eagerly await the findings of Nonrappaport come Monday.

[Altair]

A possible hypothesis: Could it be something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo? I'm not sure it could be put in orbit with just a ballistic rocket, but let's suppose it can be sent as a very lightweight deflated balloon which once in orbit would inflate to a very BIG size. That would explain its IMO abnormal brightness.

Or it's simply an asteroid circling the Earth, as could be the rest of satellites. It was mentioned somewhere here that there are witness accounts of such sightings well before the artificial sats rage began.

[kickstones]

.

Altair, I am more inclined to go with the view it will turn out something like this.....






https://web.archive.org/web/20101129185 ... bn006.html

[agraposo]

I'm wondering how some basic trigonometric calculations can demonstrate in any way that some light point crossing the sky is situated 400 km away or wherever. The object paths seen in the charts are independent of the distance of the object.

No, they are not independent of the object's altitude. All you have to do is check the path given for locations that are at various distances in a line perpendicular to the path.

I say that the object's path against the background stars for a given fixed location is independent of the object's distance. For location A the path will be P(A). For another location B, the path will be P(B), different than P(A). But P(A) is independent of the object's distance, and P(B) is independent of the object's distance. The object's distance can be calculated comparing P(A) and P(B) at the same time. Have you done this calculation, as a practical example, without resorting to Heavens Above charts?

To illustrate this, lets use a pass not too far from Simon's part of Italy that will take place on 01-Dec.

If it were 30 km overhead, it's maximum altitude as viewed from each of these locations would be:
A: atan(30/5) = 80.5°
B: atan(30/10) = 71.6°
C: atan(30/15) = 63.4°
D: atan(30/20) = 56.3°
E: atan(30/25) = 50.2°
F: atan(30/30) = 45.0°

If it were 400 km overhead, it's maximum altitude as viewed from each of these locations would be:
A: atan(400/5) = 89.3°
B: atan(400/10) = 88.5°
C: atan(400/15) = 87.9°
D: atan(400/20) = 87.1°
E: atan(400/25) = 86.4°
F: atan(400/30) = 85.7°

Can we ask Simon to do the experiment? He and a friend 30 km away from his house could measure the object's altitude at the same time and see if it is close to 45º or 85º

[agraposo]

If my above statements aren't clear enough, I will put it in another way. The observer at A cann't measure the object's distance, based on the path alone he is seeing (it could be at any distance). The same stands for the observer at B.

[simonshack]

Can we ask Simon to do the experiment? He and a friend 30 km away from his house could measure the object's altitude at the same time and see if it is close to 45º or 85º

Dear Agraposo,

I'll see what I can do. Unfortunately, weather forecast (for Dec 1) is "cloudy/rain". Anyhow, I'll be on the alert - and hopefully find a friend 30km-or-so away as you suggested.

[NotRappaport]

I eagerly await the findings of Nonrappaport come Monday.

As do I, but it looks as though the weather won't be cooperating.



It's supposed to rain Sunday, but hopefully it will clear up before evening. Otherwise the 26th is out.

Sky is currently 100% grey with nothing but diffuse sunlight ("mostly cloudy"). If that's what it looks like on Monday, the 27th is out too.

29th is supposed to be clear, but we'll see.

The object's distance can be calculated comparing P(A) and P(B) at the same time. Have you done this calculation, as a practical example, without resorting to Heavens Above charts?

I could enlist others to help, but I don't think anyone I know has a camera with a manual shutter that can take long exposure pictures (needed to show the path traced out against background stars). And in any event that level of involvement would be overkill compared to what is necessary to know (with reasonable certainty) that the charts on Heavens Above (and Calsky and Stellarium - which are all in agreement) are accurate.

If I check the predicted path shown on Heavens Above (or any of the others) for my location and it exactly matches observation, it is reasonable to assume it's charts for other locations would also match observation. Otherwise only one location's chart is accurate and all the rest are wrong .

Either the charts for all locations are accurate, or they are wrong for all locations except one, which by some amazing coincidence would always be the one that was checked via observation - and that is quite impossible (unless I am the Solipsist )

If I look up the chart for 3 or 4 different locations a few km apart, how would Heavens Above and Stellarium and Calsky all "know" from which location I would really make observations and hence which one they should show me accurate path data? And indeed for evening passes I have an alternate viewing location that is about 10km South-West of my main location. How would they know I won't observe from there?

[hoi.polloi]

If I look up the chart for 3 or 4 different locations a few km apart, how would Heavens Above and Stellarium and Calsky all "know" from which location I would really make observations and hence which one they should show me accurate path data? And indeed for evening passes I have an alternate viewing location that is about 10km South-West of my main location. How would they know I won't observe from there?

I think it's been suggested in the past that "the" ISS is an illusion maintained by multiple aerial objects in a global military formation and the few mistakes they make (let us generously assume for ourselves one in three hundred passes could require a break or refueling for some sort of arrangement, and they may or may not have the ability to put clouds over population centers during planned or even unplanned changes) will be overlooked by almost every single person on Earth. Who else is doing this anyway? If I were put in charge of such an illusion, I would be forced to maximize sightings and target primarily large population centers, which have all been mapped quite accurately.

I am not saying they have done this. It would be in the interest of a single "one world" military (which, I believe, could exist despite otherwise convincing evidence of vying imperial powers) to practice such an exercise as a demonstration (even just to themselves) of their ability to "cover the globe" with an illusion and dominance of air space. It might be more likely they have claimed a near earth object or actually put something on a consistent series of paths, or path. Or they are merely projecting something, which would also be a useful exercise of power. Again, who else is doing a project of this scale?

Have we considered coordinating a couple people, and taking a drive or two to more remote and more likely-to-be-clear viewing locations? I think the idea of maintaining few assumptions about what we are observing is wise, to a point. The idea of triangulating its location multiple times would not only be a very good idea. It would be essential to uncovering or confirming dimensional properties (if the object seems to even have features).

[NotRappaport]

If I look up the chart for 3 or 4 different locations a few km apart, how would Heavens Above and Stellarium and Calsky all "know" from which location I would really make observations and hence which one they should show me accurate path data? And indeed for evening passes I have an alternate viewing location that is about 10km South-West of my main location. How would they know I won't observe from there?

I think it's been suggested in the past that "the" ISS is an illusion maintained by multiple aerial objects in a global military formation

The problem with "multiple arial objects" at the previously postulated 30 km altitude is that any one of those objects viewed from locations only half a kilometer apart would show almost a full degree of parallax - very easy to discern when the path is viewed against the background stars. Locations 0.25 km apart would see parallax of half a degree - the angular width of the Moon.

It quickly becomes apparent that such a scenario involving "multiple arial objects" would require an enormous number of those objects (thousands? Millions?) with each one visible to only one very small radius (a few tens of meters?) on the ground and 100% invisible everywhere else, and also show no visibility gaps or overlaps (geometrically impossible with circles of visibility). And none of these objects could travel fast enough to pass overhead one location and a second later pass over another location 8 km away, so now we'd need even more rows of them extending forward in the direction of travel to spoof the velocity.

It might be more likely they have claimed a near earth object or actually put something on a consistent series of paths, or path.

That they have actually put something up there that at the claimed altitude and velocity is what seems to me to be the most likely. If this were not the case it would be very easy to prove through observation.

Or they are merely projecting something, which would also be a useful exercise of power.

Of all the other options, this one is interesting and seems like it could almost work (ignoring logistical concerns such as what 'screen' the light is being projected onto, where all the projectors are, and why we never see the light rays between the projectors and the 'screen'). But it would fail at the level of producing silhouettes during solar or lunar transits - those could only happen if an actual solid object is there.

Have we considered coordinating a couple people, and taking a drive or two to more remote and more likely-to-be-clear viewing locations?

Not me, although others are certainly welcome to perform such verifications. I am only out to see how reliable the chart is and also try to get a look at the thing to see how it compares to the many pictures we've all seen. If the charts are accurate, then positional and altitude data can be reliably deduced therefrom.

[The_White_Lodge]

Hoi Polloi,

You've done some excellent brainstorming on possible explanations of this phenomenon. I find it surprising that you have doubt that there is indeed a "one world" military power and I do not know of this evidence of vying imperial powers that you speak of, though I am interested to hear about it.

One issue I have with this idea that the whole thing is purely for show is that there are many other "satellites" which are also observable. It would seem extravagant to suggest that all these objects which I think at this point is safe to say cannot all be near Earth objects have been placed up there for appearances sake alone. This also, still fails to answer the question of how these objects sustain their altitude and motion.

I would like to also propose that we throw out this idea of a projection since that makes absolutely no sense from any technical standpoint. In fact, I would sooner believe the orthodox narrative than that.

I will give a more in-depth take on some of my admittedly rudimentary theories about what these objects possibly could be after I consider what Nonrappaport has said about its features when viewed in a telescope. I would attempt to personally view them myself, but I am still struggling to find adequate darkness since my town added those dentist-headlight-esq light emitting diode street lamps everywhere in late summer.

[hoi.polloi]

If you take issue with the idea of countless natural satellites, and I don't know why you are doing so, I suggest you take that complaint to our Satellites thread ... after reading the entirety, if you please.

The evidence for vying empires is apparent to me in the way that "citizenry" (ordinary people) are pitted against other "citizenry" (ordinary people) when they are convinced by their leaders to kill each other to squat on a bloodied resource that previously they weren't squatting on. I don't want to derail this topic. Let's continue it elsewhere, wherever it is most appropriate, if you want.

[The_White_Lodge]

Hoi Polloi,

You are right to suggest both of my statements are off topic for this thread, so I will confine this response to the notion that the "ISS" is a natural satellite.

The main problem I have with this theory is that it fails to account for why this object has only recently appeared, and to the best of my knowledge, no similar phenomenon was ever observed in the past, and given that we can roughly calculate it's altitude, it would be inexplicable why this natural object does not get slowed by the drag of friction and crash down to Earth. This last question is equally as perplexing to me for the orthodox narrative of the "ISS".

[NotRappaport]

Finally a clear night!

Observations:
At 23x magnification it looks like a tiny bright light.

At 67x magnification (had to refocus) I couldn't keep it in the frame long enough to get a good look. I think I saw the "H" shape, but I'm not sure because of the movement.

I think for future passes (tomorrow night if all goes well!) it will be easier to attach the camera to the scope at 67x and just track the thing using the well-aligned finder scope (larger field of view) on the side of the telescope. Then afterwards see what it shows.

I took a series of wide-angle (18mm) ten 10-second shutter pics:





(next four shots it was out of frame)
I moved the camera to the left just before the last shot, so there's some weird streaking caused by residual shake:


I'll post some details on the camera settings and also get the charts for comparison later, right now I've got some errands to run.