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.
Thierry Legault
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:32 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by Thierry Legault »

Transit duration final explanation: below, two possible configurations among hundreds.

Image

First configuration: Sun is at South, ISS goes from West to East. In this case, the ISS crosses the Sun “laterally” with regard to the observer and the transit duration is the easiest to calculate by hand. Let’s say the distance of ISS to observer is 765 km, at a speed of 8.7 km/s this gives an angular speed of 0.65° per second. The diameter of the Sun being 0.52°, the duration of a central transit is 0.80 second (all those calculations are basic college calculation, no need to detail more). This is the shortest possible duration for a transit at 765 km, but it can be longer in other configurations.

Image

Second configuration, which corresponds to my eclipse transit: Sun is at Est-South-East, the trajectory of the ISS is West-North-West to East-South-East. In this case the ISS does not cross the Sun laterally but is more or less “going away” from the observer. The apparent speed is slower, we have to take into account the angle of view above the horizon (projection of the real speed on celestial vault). The altitude of the Sun being 28.6° at the moment of the transit, the apparent angular speed of configuration 1 has to be multiplied by the sine of 28.6°, therefore the duration of the transit must be divided by the sine of 28.6°, which is 0.48. This gives 0.80 second divided by 0.48 = 1.66 second. Even if Calsky makes a more accurate calculation (taking into account the exact geometry, the roundness of the Earth etc.), its prediction is very close: 1.64 second.

A comparison for configuration 1: I am 100m away from a road and I look at the cars running at 100 km/h. The apparent (angular) speed of a car is maximal when it is passing by me (I see its lateral doors). For configuration 2: I am on the sidewalk of the road and I look at cars 100m from me, approaching or going away at 100 km/h (I see their front or their back). Obviously, their real speed and distance are similar to configuration 1 but their apparent speed is much lower.
simonshack wrote: Hence, we have a 207% discrepancy (225-18) between what we should expect in the real world - and what the two astrophotographers claim to be real, authentic imagery of the "ISS" transiting the sun's disc.
So: no discrepancy. Anyway in the real world, with real transits of the real ISS, the only possible discrepancies are the artificial ones created by (your) ignorance.

Dazza’s transit configuration is unknown to me. Comparisons are meaningless if configurations are unknown.

That’s the end of my reply on this forum. I’ll say it as clearly as possible: I’m not in charge of your education about the ISS, you can do it yourself as I did. Telescopes are available to anyone. Cameras are available to anyone. The know-how for solar or lunar transits is available in books and websites. All necessary calculations are already performed by Calsky or Heavens-Above. For less than 1000 euros/dollars and with work and perseverance, after a few months anyone can master the photography of transits. And can make experiments, for example placing two persons 1 or 2 km on each side of a transit line, and from both pictures determine with college level calculation (triangulation) the distance of the ISS to the observers, without any possible discussion. Instead of intellectually masturbating on this forum for years (sorry, I can’t find more appropriate words) and looking in other people’s work for discrepancies that do not exist, why haven’t you already done that? Why don’t you move your ass from your computer and experience the real world, checking ISS passages and transits by yourself? Because you are afraid. Afraid of what you could discover: the existence of the ISS. Then, your imaginary world would collapse.
Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by Critical Mass »

looking in other people’s work for discrepancies that do not exist
Well that's just the thing Thierry... this forum explores the discrepancies in the stories that do exist.

I don't doubt that, on occasion, errors have been made as a result of this much needed exploration... Simon & Hoi have locked threads, banned members, removed posts to the derailing thread & made retractions on multiple occasions so it certainly occurs. Are you aware that such things have happened here?

Either way the exploration must still continue and that exploration only takes place here.

For example where else on the internet will you find discussion on these 'non-existent*' discrepancies?
That’s the end of my reply on this forum.
It's kind of a shame that you can't stay. I, for one, would love to know what lux's space moth is meant to be? Surely a logical, rational man would want a logical, rational explanation for what that is? Perhaps you're simply unaware of that 'non-existent' discrepancy?
Because you are afraid. Afraid of what you could discover
I seriously doubt Simon is afraid of much... it takes a bold man to show that we live in a world of mostly imagined fears after all. Or do you still believe in such fantasies as 'Al-Qaeda' (cave fortresses & all), Isis 'scorpion bombs' & the 'White Widow'? Are you even aware of the concept that these things are fantasies?
Why don’t you move your ass from your computer and experience the real world, checking ISS passages and transits by yourself?
You're clearly unaware that Simon is one of the forums most (if not THE most) avid 'ISS spotters'... he regularly watches 'the thing' at night. A hobby which I've begun to pick up. We've been waiting for better weather but indeed intend to try & perform some of the experiments that you've suggested (again something you're clearly unaware of... despite that information being openly available on this very thread).

Finally I'd advise you to not get so 'emotional' over all this... Cluesforum is an international research forum not a sleepover. Contributors here are to present information & evidence in a manner that sways the neutral reader. You've answered questions & presented diagrams (which is good) but you've also flung insults around & highlighted your own ignorance (which is bad). If you must blithely remain unaware of so much then so be it but I assure you that it is to your own detriment to continue to be ignorant of the things you can learn & contribute here.



* Of course the reason they no longer 'exist' is because they've since gone down the memory hole. I don't doubt for a second that you're also unaware of this?
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by brianv »

I don't know anything about asstronomy or "equatorial mounts", but Lego Theory's image does not appear to be genuine. Is it supposed to be a still taken from a video? A Photograph? An Artist's Concept?

http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?i ... 97&fmt=ela

Could it be that he is a Salesman for an Optics crowd? A mere seller of telescopes to aspiring anoraks? Just asking <_<
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by simonshack »

*
I wish to thank Mr Legault, once again, for his time and patience in responding to our ('ignorant') questions - and can only hope he stays with us for a little longer. As it is, I had somehow anticipated / expected his last reply (regarding the perspective issues of the "ISS" as seen from different earthly observers) which partly - yet only partly - helps explain the apparent speed discrepancy between "his ISS" and "Dazza's ISS". So thanks for that, Mr Legault.

There is, however, another problem with his alleged depiction of the "ISS" transiting across the (partially eclipsed) sun disc, on March 20, 2015 - but before illustrating this problem, let me first make the following little preamble. As we can read / and view in the below-linked webpage, Legault is credited with a remarkably sharp image of the "ISS" - which he allegedly shot from Berne, SWITZERLAND - back in 2010:

"Learn from the Master with “Astrophotography” by Thierry Legault"
http://www.universetoday.com/114137/boo ... y-legault/

Legault's image of the "ISS captured from Berne, SWITZERLAND" - in 2010 (with my annotations):
Image

The point I wish to make here needs to be absolutely clear: YES, we can only visually approximate the apparent length of the "ISS" (said to be 108,5m) by looking at the above image. However, any error in this approximation CANNOT EXCEED the stated 108.5m-length of the "ISS".

Therefore, by assuming (as I do in in my below graphic) that what we see is the full 108.5m-length of the "ISS", I am actually 'being generous', so to speak. Now, as you can see, the distance covered by the "ISS" in the below, 13-frame image composite (credited to LEGAULT- as captured from Sevilla, SPAIN on March 20, 2015) cannot be any LONGER than 21,5 full lengths of the "ISS":
Image

So, as far as I can see, the above Legault depiction shows the "ISS" travelling at less than half of its reputed speed. If such an empirical photographic analysis is entirely wrong / flawed - for any reason - I am perfectly willing to retract it and stand corrected. This is hoping that Mr Legault will be so kind to set aside a few more minutes of his time to clarify this for me.


***********
An image - meant to be a real photograph ("March 3, 2010") - officially credited to the "STS 130 Space Shuttle crew" ...
Image
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100303.html
rusty
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by rusty »

Simon, this could easily be explained by perspective as well, e.g. if the ISS is moving away from the viewpoint or towards it faster than laterally, the covered distance is far greater than the apparent distance projected into the two dimensions of the image. If you want to verify if the image correctly depicts the official "model" of the ISS, you'd have to make a true 3D analysis.

But don't bother. My stance on this is, that with the aid of the proper software it's a cakewalk to simulate (read: fake) pictures like this and you'd not be able to argue against it with geometry, perspective or other mathematical aspects of the model. You should know that by now. I'm not saying all "fakes" are necessarily done like this, but faking something like this without suitable tools would be stupid. Even if you do and you fail...if proves you're a faker, but that doesn't prove the ISS is a fake. Do we need any more proof for this anyway?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by simonshack »

rusty wrote:Simon, this could easily be explained by perspective as well, e.g. if the ISS is moving away from the viewpoint or towards it faster than laterally, the covered distance is far greater than the apparent distance projected into the two dimensions of the image. If you want to verify if the image correctly depicts the official "model" of the ISS, you'd have to make a true 3D analysis.
Rusty, your point would be valid IF the 13 frames of the "ISS" - as presented in Legault's composite - showed noticeable differences of the "ISS" size / length, from frame to frame. This is, however, not the case. A "true 3D analysis", as you call it (and whatever you mean by that), would still give us the same length of the "ISS". As I see it, the only way Mr Legault can 'explain this away' - is by claiming that, when making his 13-frame composite, he erroneously oversized his images of the "ISS" silhouette.

And no, I personally don't need any more proof that the "ISS" - and NASA in its entirety - are gigantic / pathetic / galactic hoaxes. However, I cannot help myself questioning / taking on those folks (or entities) who evidently make a living out of this ongoing, shameless sham.

Here's one such clown playing along with what must be the biggest hoax of our modern times. And he's being 'sponsored' by the US taxpayers...

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo

Wouldn't it be great to have Chris Hadfield answering our questions here - just like 'Thierry Legault' has been kind enough to do?


*****
ps : I have to wonder whether Thierry Legault's mind masturbates (as he accuses our minds of doing here) while viewing - and listening - to this Chris Hadfield 'musical performance'. "Major Tom"? Nah... more like "Major Toon".
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

I can't help but wonder if amateur astronomers like Mr. Legault and others are actually taking real photographs of what they think is the ISS wizzing around in orbit at 400km, but in reality they are taking pictures of a very real, military aircraft at a much lower altitude than 400km (but perhaps a higher altitude than conventional commercial aircraft), and are completely duped and 100% invested in NASA's lies, simply because they can see this object through a telescope and photograph it for themselves.

Still, Simon's analysis makes sense to me and these questions should be answered. If there are legitimate answers to Simon's inquiries, backed up by solid mathematics, I am sure that most of the people on this forum are willing to accept those answers. But we know the ISS is an absolute fake, this much is clear and we have LOTS of evidence to support that position.

So, is it possible that this is just a much smaller aircraft at a lower altitude, traveling at a slower speed and shaped like the ISS? Surely there are thousands of NASA engineers, scientists and such who must know for sure in their hearts that the ISS is real because they are doing real work on it every single day of their very real careers.

I'm interested in exploring the psychological aspects of what could be a hoax with a real object involved. Amateur astronomers are, afterall, amateurs. Their explanations and answers (as displayed in this thread) are equally amateurish. These people are fully on board with NASA's lies. My guess is that the good folks at NASA have spent some serious time and effort attempting to fool the many amateur astronomers who want to view and perhaps photograph objects with a telescope.

If successful, these people would never question what they can see with their own eyes and it's understandable that they might think we're crazy for suggesting that the ISS is fake since they've seen it for themselves. Would they ever question what their lying eyes are telling them? Would they ever even pause for a moment and consider that this object they are viewing through their telescope might just be a smaller drone or other aircraft flying at a lower altitude?

Of course not! NASA is their God, they have no reason to question their claims, whatsoever!

This, to me, is the real fascinating aspect of the hoax. That you can have tens of thousands of very real and honest citizens working on projects that they think are happening in outer space, but in reality are working on projects containing real objects that are intended as nothing more than props to fool the very people who are working on them.
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by brianv »

anonjedi2 wrote:I can't help but wonder if amateur astronomers like Mr. Legault and others are actually taking real photographs of what they think is the ISS wizzing around in orbit at 400km, but in reality they are taking pictures of a very real, military aircraft at a much lower altitude than 400km (but perhaps a higher altitude than conventional commercial aircraft), and are completely duped and 100% invested in NASA's lies, simply because they can see this object through a telescope and photograph it for themselves.
Black OPs Military Conspiracy Theory much?

Never seen the "ISS". Can't comment. Maybe I should purchase a large telescope.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by simonshack »

brianv wrote:
Never seen the "ISS". Can't comment. Maybe I should purchase a large telescope.
Here's the thing, Brian: As our good forum member Critical Mass well knows, there actually IS an airborne object up there - which we can gaze up at from our gardens at dusk or dawn, whenever NASA alerts you (ONE day or so in advance) to its transit over your area. What does it look like? Well, you may say that it looks like a moving star (or asteroid) flying VERY close to earth - or you may say it looks like the spotlight from an aircraft flying SOMEWHAT higher - yet slower - than commercial flights.

(Note: From my garden, I can see commercial flights / or other jetplanes every single night flying overhead - so I should have developed, over the years, a decent 'feel' of their perceived altitude - as they appear and recede from my panoramic hillside view - within my local geophysical surroundings.)

Now, do we know of any aircraft capable of cruising at, say, 20.000 meters of altitude (about twice the standard cruise altitude of commercial flights) ? And do we know of any aircraft capable of staying aloft uninterruptedly, for years on end?

Yes indeed - well, that is to say, if we can believe the claims of this TITAN aerospace company ... recently acquired by Google:

Titan’s drones are able to run for five years [!!!] at an altitude of some 65,000 feet (19,800 meters). They can perform functions similar to geostationary satellites, but are less costly.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/0 ... et-access/

Image

As I have previously hypothesized in this thread, IF such a solar-powered aircraft exists - WHAT IF that thing we can see flying overhead (when alerted by NASA), sometimes for as long as 6 minutes across our skyline / viewing range, is simply one of those Titan aircrafts? (Just a handful of them - appropriately lit with solar-powered LED lights at given time-schedules - would be needed to uphold the illusion of a single-space-station-flying-over-populated-areas.) Mind you, it wouldn't exactly be a "covert BLACK-OP" as such - since these Titan drones could also perform the (quite useful and real) aerial photographic mapping / imaging of the earth - such as that presented as "satellite imagery" on Google Earth.

Just a last thought about the fact that I can sometimes see the "ISS" for as long as 6 minutes - drifting across my skyline / panorama. I always see it as a steady, non-flickering dot of light - as it drifts from one side of my skyline view to the other, usually & roughly West to East - but also occasionally from North to South ... something which obviously begs the question: how come the sun rays always illuminate the "ISS" solar panels EVENLY? Also, ponder about this other fact: in 6 minutes (at its claimed speed of 28.000 km/h) the "ISS" should be covering the distance of 2800km. This means that, the moment I see it appearing (and the moment it disappears from my view), it is - at least / and not accounting for its elevation - a staggering 1400km away from my eyes. Wow. Imagine that.

See, the furthest recognizable point / geographical feature visible from my hillside horizon view is roughly 50km away from my eyes. For instance, at night I can only barely see the faint / minuscule glimmer of a soccer field's powerful spotlights - only about 40km away from my house. How then could I possibly be able to clearly see an airborne object (or any solar-reflections-from-a few-solar-panels) such as the alleged "ISS" ,,, from as much as 1400km (i.e. 35X further away than the afore-mentioned football field)???

All of this defies reason and belief - in my honest opinion. More likely - or far more likely I would say, what I see when the "ISS" transits over my house is some aircraft cruising at some reasonable / physically & technically credible altitude, such as 20km or so. This would easily explain why I can see it slowly transiting - for as many as 6 minutes - across my skyline.

In any case, the "ISS" looks nothing like near-asteroids (tens of thousands of which have been observed by astronomers over the centuries) which I have personally witnessed throughout my lifetime - as a keen stargazer since early youth. The near-earth asteroids alwasys appear to be cruising far, far higher up - "among the stars".
rusty
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by rusty »

simonshack wrote: Rusty, your point would be valid IF the 13 frames of the "ISS" - as presented in Legault's composite - showed noticeable differences of the "ISS" size / length, from frame to frame. This is, however, not the case.
Simon, that's not correct. Let's say that (in favor of your argument) the ISS is about 500km away, then it moves another 5km away during the 0.6s transit. That's only a 1% difference of distance and thus in size, of course you wont notice this 1% in Legault's pixel miniature display.
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by brianv »

simonshack wrote:
brianv wrote:
Never seen the "ISS". Can't comment. Maybe I should purchase a large telescope.
Here's the thing, Brian:
So in fact it could be a large helium balloon with a muriel painted on the side and caught in the jetstream? :rolleyes:
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by simonshack »

brianv wrote: So in fact it could be a large helium balloon with a muriel painted on the side and caught in the jetstream? :rolleyes:
Brian,

I don't see you adding much to the rational discussion here. Or is 'rationality' also to be questioned ?
But ok - humor is always welcome when talking about NASA's 'exploit(ation)s'... <_<
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by brianv »

simonshack wrote:
brianv wrote: So in fact it could be a large helium balloon with a muriel painted on the side and caught in the jetstream? :rolleyes:
Brian,

I don't see you adding much to the rational discussion here. Or is 'rationality' also to be questioned ?
But ok - humor is always welcome when talking about NASA's 'exploit(ation)s'... <_<
Simon do you think inviting whack-jobs onto the forum to discuss their nerd fantasies is adding to our cause? My comment was no less valid than those already posted in this waste of space thread.
Undoctored
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:27 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by Undoctored »

Like Simon, I originally assumed that according to the photographic evidence provided by Legault and Dazza, the distance traveled by the ISS along the z-axis (along the line of sight, from or towards the viewer) was insignificant since the size image of the ISS was the same. But, as Rusty points out, the farther away an object is, the less it will shrink as it moves away (or grow as it comes nearer).

For the case of an ISS clip lasting 1 second or less, the constant size of the ISS image will tell you nothing about its movement along the z-axis, so there is no way to tell the relative speed of the ISS depicted by two such clips.

Consider the ISS at the nearer "Dazza" distance, 625km. If it is moving away, entirely along line of sight of the observer, at its normal speed of 7.7 km/s, then in one second, after having reached 632.7 km, it would have shrunk by hardly more than one percent (625 km / 632.7 km = 0.9878), completely unnoticeable. How much movement would you see during that time? None, because the object is moving along your line of sight.

The 1-second clip would show a completely stationary ISS, neither growing nor shrinking.

And that is the worst case. In the clips we are comparing, there was horizontal and vertical movement as well, and the clip was a fraction of a second, so the image size would change even less.

So it is entirely possible that the difference in perceived transit speed between the two clips could be completely accounted for by the Dazza ISS moving a greater distance along the undepicted z-axis than the Legault ISS.
simonshack wrote: If such an empirical photographic analysis is entirely wrong / flawed - for any reason - I am perfectly willing to retract it and stand corrected.
Simon, how do you stand now?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread post by simonshack »

Undoctored wrote: Simon, how do you stand now?
Dear Undoctored, I'd say I stand corrected on that z-axis issue - since we'd need more POV data to compute / resolve the matter with reasonable accuracy - point taken.
Post Reply