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.
reichstag fireman wrote: Described as "the longest wire on earth", it reportedly runs from England all the way to Japan!
Why would they bother? At first glance this just sounds silly. What in the world route did they take?
According to the Guardian newspaper, the 28,000km FLAG submarine cable is hauled ashore in south-west England at Skewjack, Cornwall. Not far from here, coincidentally.
This facility is near to another I have staked out from above on a hill side:
Google maps of second facility: Enter: 37.919934,-122.299536
These are on the same exact parallel more or less.
But all those dishes in facility 2 point due South. I thought this one was more interesting since some point due West and I figure those are not Satellite links at all and really ground to ground links to Asia as you say.
Skywave links (to distinguish them from groundwave point-to-point links).
It's likely a "satellite" (skywave) RX site, providing a feed for inter/nationally-syndicated broadcasts to a local cable TV headend. The TX for the broadcasts will be in the southern hemisphere. With a refraction point over the tropics someplace for maximum bandwidth (as many channels in highest definition as possible). Note the dishes have no mechanised elevation control. To track the constantly rising-and-falling ionosphere layer, the elevation of the TX or the RX dish must be automated. By convention it is the TX dish in a skywave link that tracks the ionosphere layer by adjusting its elevation. The TX relies upon real-time feedback from ionosonde probing data, sampled from the ground beneath the refraction point.
< 480 million copper needles circling the world...
If not, I'm sure you'll enjoy the read - and I'm curious as to what you make of it...
Excerpt:
"At the height of the Cold War in the late 1950s, all international communications were either sent through undersea cables or bounced off of the natural ionosphere. The United States military was concerned that the Soviets (or other “Hostile Actors”) might cut those cables, forcing the unpredictable ionosphere to be the only means of communication with overseas forces. The Space Age had just begun, and the communications satellites we rely on today existed only in the sketches of futurists.
Nevertheless, the US Military looked to space to help solve their communications weakness. Their solution was to create an artificial ionosphere. In May 1963, the US Air Force launched 480 million tiny copper needles that briefly created a ring encircling the entire globe."
(...) http://www.damninteresting.com/earths-a ... west-ford/
Here's a nice additional project that knocked out some 'satellite communication' for a spell evidently in the 60's -- for some reason I stumbled across this recently.
I'm not sure where to go with it, but if we could figure out how to knock this one out, it might be a 2 for 1. And also, there are inquisitive minds I have found on the web that are questioning that if this is real, then how did the space program specifically regarding the moon landings happen, afterall, wouldn't it have been too dangerous to send an astro-not through all of that man-made radioactivity? 3 for 1, maybe? Reminds me of the old saying, 'Have ones cake and eat it too.'
Starfish Prime nuclear test in space -- quote from Wickedpedia
...The weaponeers became quite worried when three satellites in low earth orbit were disabled. These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low earth orbit. Seven satellites failed over the months following the test as radiation damaged their solar arrays or electronics, including the first commercial relay communication satellite, Telstar.[12][13][14] Detectors on Telstar, TRAAC, Injun, and Ariel 1 were used to measure distribution of the radiation produced by the tests.[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuXPz1gRNbQ
"Atmospheric Nuclear Testing [- EMP - Project Starfish Prime - Jam...]" The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.
[ADMIN: This video about "Project Starfish Prime" or possibly "Operation Fishbowl" has been removed by YouTube. -HP Dec. 21, 2017]
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZoic9vg1fw
reichstag fireman wrote: Described as "the longest wire on earth", it reportedly runs from England all the way to Japan!
Why would they bother? At first glance this just sounds silly. What in the world route did they take?
...
From Cornwall, swing a left for the US of A
Sorry, I must be dense, but I still don't get it. Why would anyone bother stringing a wire from England to Japan? Why not string just to Newfoundland or Boston, connect to overland wiring, and then go underseas from Seattle to Tokyo?
Perhaps it is important for the general method of communications on our Planet to not be generally known.
Everything is vulnerable. Nothing is safe. That's what being alive is like.
Are we to assume that the knowledge being hidden is for the best and our quest for knowledge is not for the best? What kind of Religious belief is this, and where does it come from? At what price do we keep communications hidden?
The human self-destructive factor has clawed its way up the "politeness" of the hidden knowledge and manifested as a series of none-too-harmless "pranks" resulting in millions of innocents dead. I don't think we as a species have quite earned the right to be so trusting of a "keeper of knowledge" somewhere amongst us.
Knowledge should be liberated, I think. It should be free. It speaks to the highest values of humankind to trust one another with the very powers that define our humanity against our bestiality: the powers to alter the world around us for the benefit of the most diverse and highest numbers of lifeforms.
---
Back to the discussion at hand, I think it more likely that the critical discovery of just how our communication systems work, and sharing such discoveries with all our fellow human beings, can only lead to a more equitable, fair and just world.
So the questions currently remain:
1. What is the extent of "reality" in satellite systems?
2. What is the extent of "reality" in skywave systems?
3. What is the extent of "reality" in submarine cable systems?
Presently, the science of "economics" (and how I shudder to admit economics is even a science, when so much of it is corrupted by a lack of basic humanitarian principles) seems in favor of skywave systems. Satellites and submarine cables seem costly, inefficient and - in the case of satellites - a vast playground for the criminal elite banking and power cartels to exploit human fear and horror for personal benefit.
Perhaps it is important for the general method of communications on our Planet to not be generally known.
Everything is vulnerable. Nothing is safe. That's what being alive is like.
Are we to assume that the knowledge being hidden is for the best and our quest for knowledge is not for the best? What kind of Religious belief is this, and where does it come from? At what price do we keep communications hidden?
My thoughts too. And who are those who would destroy it? Rogue elements in rival governments? Are there any? Rival governments, I mean At certain levels in the telecommunications industry, all this is common knowledge. So it's only really the Gruntus gruntus (us) who are being fooled.
Nothing is hidden in many other networks for the sake of security or safety. The rail network for example. It's a sitting duck. Even more so, the water supply network. So what's special about the telco network? Other than being founded largely on a scam. When Arthur C Clarke and his handlers cooked up their 1940's fairytale of "rocket station radio relays" (aka "geostationary comms satellites"), their motives were profit-driven: to disguise the advances made in skywave propagation, so as to corner the market and deter rivals from setting up. They had no concern for security of the communications network. It was profit all the way for them.
It's a slippery slope when science plays second fiddle to security through obscurity. Before long, the phony threat of mushroom clouds terrorises the world, at great financial gain to the military industrial complex, with its demands for rearmament for war. We had to watch this garbage at school! It was part of the curriculum. Religious Studies, iirc!
N9aHT-IlkHo
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVq76YvTPMs
"WHEN THE WIND BLOWS" [EDIT: This propaganda cartoon was removed by YouTube. The replacement also failed. It is likely to be removed repeatedly, given YouTube's "inappropriate content" scrubbers who seem to have a strange new sensitivity about some matters. One wonders why. -HP Dec. 21, 2017]
Knowledge should be liberated, I think. It should be free. It speaks to the highest values of humankind to trust one another with the very powers that define our humanity against our bestiality: the powers to alter the world around us for the benefit of the most diverse and highest numbers of lifeforms.
Exactly!
Back to the discussion at hand, I think it more likely that the critical discovery of just how our communication systems work, and sharing such discoveries with all our fellow human beings, can only lead to a more equitable, fair and just world.
So the questions currently remain:
1. What is the extent of "reality" in satellite systems? No reality
2. What is the extent of "reality" in skywave systems? 100% real, extensive, sophisticated and critical to all modern trans-continental packet-based communications.
3. What is the extent of "reality" in submarine cable systems? Minimal - submarine cables bridge only small stretches of calm, shallow water, and definitely not oceans.
Presently, the science of "economics" (and how I shudder to admit economics is even a science, when so much of it is corrupted by a lack of basic humanitarian principles) seems in favor of skywave systems. Satellites and submarine cables seem costly, inefficient and - in the case of satellites - a vast playground for the criminal elite banking and power cartels to exploit human fear and horror for personal benefit.
So true. And scaremongering is endemic in other critical, high profit industries. The energy industry is full of frauds and scams. Not least the dubious claims over oil and its origins, its supposed sparsity, and its harm to the environment Only yesterday the BBC was ordering us to brace for power blackouts this winter! That's the spirit, Auntie: Invoke the Blitz Mentality!
edit: sparsity not sparcity
Last edited by hoi.polloi on Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason:Attempted to fix broken youtube link
Thank you Simon! Completely new to me. Never heard of it before! Though perhaps related was a story on the wacko forum, rumormillnews, iirc. About some nasty airborne fibres that were apparently being blown deliberately about the atmosphere, creating a host of dermatological disorders. Though I can't recall why it was supposedly being done! Possibly it is the same story.
Project West Ford (PWF) has all the hallmarks of a hoax. It was the early 60s and skywave propagation was just becoming critical to modern comms. PWF sowed the seed that skywave comms were very unreliable. So much so that drastic measures (like this one) were supposedly trialled to try and overcome its weaknesses. The official solution to percolate from those lies was the "artificial satellite".
In truth, skywave propagation is one of the most amazing advancements in science since radiowaves were discovered. I love the fact that Mother Nature is still very much in control of the ionosphere. The ionosphere is another organ of a living Earth. Man is just the surfer on the crest of an ionospheric wave!
The article you referenced cites a whole 1963 issue of Proceedings of the IEEE that was given over to the hoax. It would be good to try and find it
Perhaps it is important for the general method of communications on our Planet to not be generally known.
Everything is vulnerable. Nothing is safe. That's what being alive is like.
Are we to assume that the knowledge being hidden is for the best and our quest for knowledge is not for the best? What kind of Religious belief is this, and where does it come from? At what price do we keep communications hidden?
My thoughts too. And who are those who would destroy it? Rogue elements in rival governments? Are there any? Rival governments, I mean At certain levels in the telecommunications industry, all this is common knowledge. So it's only really the Gruntus gruntus (us) who are being fooled.
Nothing is hidden in many other networks for the sake of security or safety. The rail network for example. It's a sitting duck. Even more so, the water supply network. So what's special about the telco network? Other than being founded largely on a scam. When Arthur C Clarke and his handlers cooked up their 1940's fairytale of "rocket station radio relays" (aka "geostationary comms satellites"), their motives were profit-driven: to disguise the advances made in skywave propagation, so as to corner the market and deter rivals from setting up. They had no concern for security of the communications network. It was profit all the way for them.
It's a slippery slope when science plays second fiddle to security through obscurity. Before long, the phony threat of mushroom clouds terrorises the world, at great financial gain to the military industrial complex, with its demands for rearmament for war. We had to watch this garbage at school! It was part of the curriculum. Religious Studies, iirc!
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9aHT-IlkHo
Knowledge should be liberated, I think. It should be free. It speaks to the highest values of humankind to trust one another with the very powers that define our humanity against our bestiality: the powers to alter the world around us for the benefit of the most diverse and highest numbers of lifeforms.
Exactly!
Back to the discussion at hand, I think it more likely that the critical discovery of just how our communication systems work, and sharing such discoveries with all our fellow human beings, can only lead to a more equitable, fair and just world.
So the questions currently remain:
1. What is the extent of "reality" in satellite systems? No reality
2. What is the extent of "reality" in skywave systems? 100% real, extensive, sophisticated and critical to all modern trans-continental packet-based communications.
3. What is the extent of "reality" in submarine cable systems? Minimal - submarine cables bridge only small stretches of calm, shallow water, and definitely not oceans.
Presently, the science of "economics" (and how I shudder to admit economics is even a science, when so much of it is corrupted by a lack of basic humanitarian principles) seems in favor of skywave systems. Satellites and submarine cables seem costly, inefficient and - in the case of satellites - a vast playground for the criminal elite banking and power cartels to exploit human fear and horror for personal benefit.
So true. And scaremongering is endemic in other critical, high profit industries. The energy industry is full of frauds and scams. Not least the dubious claims over oil and its origins, its supposed sparcity, and its harm to the environment Only yesterday the BBC was ordering us to brace for power blackouts this winter! That's the spirit, Auntie: Invoke the Blitz Mentality!
Reichstag,
The funniest thing happened between the time I joined this forum and immediately after you accused me of being a shill or a co-mingled login of this forum (whatever... I don't care. I don't even care if anyone wants to befriend me or backs my evidence.. it is all verifiable.) I started to doubt that all the stuff you were saying as fact was indeed true. I have also commented on your ability to write (you have humored me on many an occasion) but, seriously... are you going to actually say that there is no chance that satellites exist with absolute and complete certainty based on your technical knowledge? That is a brash statement my fellow member. You had better hope that you have developed the rapport that you think you have to convince people. I would never make a statement so bold.
I started to doubt that all the stuff you were saying as fact was indeed true.
... are you going to actually say that there is no chance that satellites exist with absolute and complete certainty based on your technical knowledge?
That is a brash statement my fellow member.
You had better hope that you have developed the rapport that you think you have to convince people. I would never make a statement so bold.
Tell us that joke about the Nuclear Bomb, Libero! I loves that one!
Last edited by reichstag fireman on Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
I started to doubt that all the stuff you were saying as fact was indeed true.
... are you going to actually say that there is no chance that satellites exist with absolute and complete certainty based on your technical knowledge?
That is a brash statement my fellow member.
You had better hope that you have developed the rapport that you think you have to convince people. I would never make a statement so bold.
I started to doubt that all the stuff you were saying as fact was indeed true.
... are you going to actually say that there is no chance that satellites exist with absolute and complete certainty based on your technical knowledge?
That is a brash statement my fellow member.
You had better hope that you have developed the rapport that you think you have to convince people. I would never make a statement so bold.
Tell us that joke about the Nuclear Bomb, Libero! I loves that one!
Nice try, amigo. It's not what you say... it's how you say it. What I choose to believe is dependent on it... believe it or not
Libero wrote:What I choose to believe is dependent on it... believe it or not
*sigh*
What do you believe then, Libero, just for the record
Are you a partaker in the A-Bomb mythology? 911 and Bin Laden? The Space Shuttle? Artificial Satellites? the International Space Station? Trans-Oceanic Telegraphy Cables? The Apollo Missions? What else have we missed? Reptilian Royals, are they your thing, too?
(...) I have also commented on your ability to write (you have humored me on many an occasion) but, seriously... are you going to actually say that there is no chance that satellites exist with absolute and complete certainty based on your technical knowledge? That is a bold move my fellow member. You had better hope that you have developed the rapport that you think you have to convince people. I would never make a statement so bold.
Dear Libero,
Let me express a few thoughts as to the general principles I personally feel that we, on this forum, should observe while we go along debating any given topic. For instance, this particular one (titled "Satellites:general discussion and musings") is very much a 'work in progress', if you will. I trust you will agree that it has already raised a few valid and legitimate questions as to the "officially established knowledge" of man-made satellites. To be sure, I do agree in principle with you that - in the name of 'scientifical deontology' / 'intellectual correctness' - one should never jump to hasty/sweeping conclusions about such a complex subject.
However, I think we are all here entitled to state our varying degrees of belief/consolidated opinions about any space-related matter, given the snowballing evidence of massive, systematic fraud and deception on the part of the world's space community - headed by NASA. Thus, I find it unnecessary (as we go along in our common, bold quest for truths) to 'scold' any fellow member for nurturing seemingly premature, bold certainties - that is, providing this person has presented a reasonable amount of argumentations to back them up (which, imho, RF has done). Of course, your concern about RF making bold statements is legitimate too, but I find this sentence of yours ("You had better hope that you have developed the rapport that you think you have to convince people") a bit sententious. Why, are we not precisely pluckily combating on this forum the Grand Masters of Mass Convincement and Deception? Surely, you aren't implying that RF might be attempting to brainwash us all?
Think about it: if you walk out on the street today interviewing people about their beliefs in the existence of man-made satellites, I think you'll get more than 9 out of 10 responders firmly stating, and without the slightest hesitation, that they most certainly and unquestionably exist. In other words, the vast majority of the world population nurtures a 100%, complete and absolute certainty about something they have never seen with their own eyes - and of course, this rock-solid belief is generally 'backed up' with zero technical knowledge. I would say that this worries me much more than any 'eccentric mind' such as RF's expressing its opinions on these pages.
Let's just respect each others' minds and views as we explore the confines of reality in our 'thinking spaceship'. At this stage of our journey, it's not like anyone can throw it off course just by uttering a firm, personal belief.
And also, there are inquisitive minds I have found on the web that are questioning that if this is real, then how did the space program specifically regarding the moon landings happen, afterall, wouldn't it have been too dangerous to send an astro-not through all of that man-made radioactivity? 3 for 1, maybe? Reminds me of the old saying, 'Have ones cake and eat it too.' 
At certain levels in the telecommunications industry, all this is common knowledge. So it's only really the Gruntus gruntus (us) who are being fooled.
Only yesterday the BBC was ordering us to brace for power blackouts this winter! That's the spirit, Auntie: Invoke the Blitz Mentality!