## 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.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

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

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. Only comparing the position of the object in the paths at the same time from different locations could give us an estimation of the object's distance, but I haven't seen any proof here. Possibly the computer generated charts are not accurate enough to determine if the object's distance is 30 km or 400 km. Besides, any theoretical calculation should use spherical trigonometry, the hypothetical ether's drag, atmospheric aberration and other effects, no?

I don't believe there is any manmade object outside our atmosphere at that distance (400 km) or beyond. What has been proved in this forum is that some clowns are simulating that they are orbiting the Earth.

NotRappaport
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:01 pm

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

agraposo » November 18th, 2017, 6:23 am wrote:
NotRappaport » 16 Nov 2017, 15:50 wrote: I looked out the window this morning and it was pouring rain. Its still raining now over an hour later. First really good rain we've had in months and it happens today!

Now waiting for the next good pass, which is tomorrow morning (even earlier). After that the next one is the 26th (evening - yay).
Still raining, or didn't you have time for some computer processing?
No, I later realized I don't have a good view (tall trees and such) to the North and East where that passing was scheduled to be mostly visible. That's why I didn't include it in the original schedule, but when I was disappointed by the rainy morning I just looked up the next reasonably bright pass without noticing the direction was unfavorable for viewing. I'm planning to stick with the original schedule that I carefully worked out for passes in the evening on the 26th, 27th, and 29th.
agraposo » November 18th, 2017, 6:40 am wrote: 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.

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

Now in the map below I put a red line to indicate the path it will take (the ground locations it passes directly above, based on above image). Perpendicular to that path I placed a yellow line that has increments of 5 km. Each increment has a letter designation: A, B, C, D, E, and F. So "A" is 5 km away from the place it passed directly overhead, "B" is 10 km away, "C" is 15 km, and so on.

Calculating the maximum altitude (in degrees) as viewed from any of these locations is very straightforward. Simply divide the object's altitude (either 30 km or 400 km) by the distance at that location, then take the arctangent of the result.

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°

And what does Heavens Above show?

Clearly the charts are based an object that has an altitude of 400 km as they exactly match the calculations (rounded to the nearest whole degree) based on that.
FYI if anyone wants to check that upcoming 01-Dec pass, I used these coordinates for the locations on Heavens Above:
A: 41.6731° N 12.8585° E
B: 41.7070° N 12.8200° E
C: 41.7426° N 12.7826° E
D: 41.7715° N 12.7469° E
E: 41.8084° N 12.6988° E
F: 41.8412° N 12.6621° E
agraposo » November 18th, 2017, 6:40 am wrote:Besides, any theoretical calculation should use spherical trigonometry
For these short distances the distortions arising from curvature are negligible (For the farthest distance, 30 km, the curvature is only 70 meters, which translates to an apparent angular altitude difference of 0.14°).
agraposo » November 18th, 2017, 6:40 am wrote:the hypothetical ether's drag, atmospheric aberration and other effects, no?
Nothing will get you from 45.0° to 85.7° for the angular altitude viewed from a location 30 km away. Nothing, that is, except the thing's altitude being 400 km instead of 30 km.

Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:43 pm

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

Totaly randomly stumbled on this video over the weekend and made me think of this thread. I ventured to witness the eclipse this year myself, so I was probably not too far from where this guy was.

Impressive capture. I was surprised how fast the ISS (or whatever) zipped by the sun. Skip to 3:29 to see the transit.
Composite of frames at 6:38

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

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

Trevor Mahlmann? His brain turned off?

NotRappaport
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:01 pm

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

hoi.polloi » November 20th, 2017, 7:35 pm wrote:Trevor Mahlmann? His brain turned off?
No it was the other guy, "Dustin" (didn't catch his last name). It looks like he left the solar filters on his scope and camera during totality, thereby completely missing the opportunity to photograph the best part of a total solar eclipse.

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

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

NotRappaport » November 21st, 2017, 4:37 am wrote:
hoi.polloi » November 20th, 2017, 7:35 pm wrote:Trevor Mahlmann? His brain turned off?
No it was the other guy, "Dustin" (didn't catch his last name). It looks like he left the solar filters on his scope and camera during totality, thereby completely missing the opportunity to photograph the best part of a total solar eclipse.
I caught that explanation for the video. Thanks. My questions were over different bits about this story from the eye of someone looking at it skeptically. Sorry if that was not apparent. (Please adjust eyes to title of forum, bearing in mind corporate media has entirely dominated social media).

ObamaSinLaden, and any others failing to grasp this, are you aware of what exactly was just posted to this thread?

What do you make of the photography of the ISS? Looks pretty "legit" no? Cool how Destin was able to interview President Obama, explain the drill we sent "to Mars", give a tour of a ground based version of the International Space Station and all sorts of things that help us get "smarter every day". Fascinating how for all his NASA promotion, he hasn't done a single video in 10 years about helping people understand how special effects have helped NASA out immensely in selling their fables. Do you suppose he'll one day make an explicit video explaining how government conspiracy theories are the very best and most logical?

Unfortunately, it seems as though that YouTube channel is not an entirely trustworthy source of information, unless you are looking at it with at least the slightest amount of critical thinking.

There are different kinds of videographers on the Internet. Some present authentic things. Many seem delighted to invent, post and repost false documentation. I think we are all eager to see just what sort of style NotRappaport's report will resemble, and we are trusting it will be authentic. Is that prudent, given all we have read from the account known as NotRappaport? I believe this is a sober question to ask ourselves. Let us hope the answer is yes.

Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:43 pm

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

hoi.polloi » November 21st, 2017, 11:02 am wrote:
NotRappaport » November 21st, 2017, 4:37 am wrote:
hoi.polloi » November 20th, 2017, 7:35 pm wrote:Trevor Mahlmann? His brain turned off?
No it was the other guy, "Dustin" (didn't catch his last name). It looks like he left the solar filters on his scope and camera during totality, thereby completely missing the opportunity to photograph the best part of a total solar eclipse.
I caught that explanation for the video. Thanks. My questions were over different bits about this story from the eye of someone looking at it skeptically. Sorry if that was not apparent. (Please adjust eyes to title of forum, bearing in mind corporate media has entirely dominated social media).

ObamaSinLaden, and any others failing to grasp this, are you aware of what exactly was just posted to this thread?

What do you make of the photography of the ISS? Looks pretty "legit" no? Cool how Destin was able to interview President Obama, explain the drill we sent "to Mars", give a tour of a ground based version of the International Space Station and all sorts of things that help us get "smarter every day". Fascinating how for all his NASA promotion, he hasn't done a single video in 10 years about helping people understand how special effects have helped NASA out immensely in selling their fables. Do you suppose he'll one day make an explicit video explaining how government conspiracy theories are the very best and most logical?

Unfortunately, it seems as though that YouTube channel is not an entirely trustworthy source of information, unless you are looking at it with at least the slightest amount of critical thinking.

There are different kinds of videographers on the Internet. Some present authentic things. Many seem delighted to invent, post and repost false documentation. I think we are all eager to see just what sort of style NotRappaport's report will resemble, and we are trusting it will be authentic. Is that prudent, given all we have read from the account known as NotRappaport? I believe this is a sober question to ask ourselves. Let us hope the answer is yes.
As I said, I only posted it, because I had read about Non Rappaports plan to photograph the ISS. It came to me, I didn't go looking for it and merely sharing it. I've got no horse in the race here. As a photographer myself who witnessed the eclipse, I found it interesting just how fast "it" transited the sun, which also is amplified somewhat by the zoom of the lens, but nonetheless impressive photography to capture such a high speed object in daytime in "space". Now I know why he was wanting to shoot at 1/1000 sec. Just thought it helped his case that "It" (ISS or whatever it really is) can be predicted in "its" orbit to a high degree of accuracy and thought it might be helpful in his endeavor.

No doubt NASA fakes shit. No argument there. I can also understand him forgetting to take the lens caps off, trying to focus on capturing multiple events at once and seeing how he had about 1 second to capture "it" moving so fast. My intent was to just experience the eclipse...I took a few handheld shots, knowing I wasn't going to top any other photographers composite shots. That 2:25 went by in a blink of awe. I didn't want to be fussing around with a camera on a tripod on my first full eclipse.
I had set up a 2nd camera to record a video on the roof of my car to record the horizon and I had totally forgotten about it. In fact, when I got home a week later, I almost deleted it thinking I must have hit the record button when I put it in my bag

NotRappaport
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:01 pm

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

hoi.polloi » November 21st, 2017, 9:02 am wrote: What do you make of the photography of the ISS? Looks pretty "legit" no?
It could be. There was an eclipse that day, and there was supposedly an area where a transit would be visible too. However I have not yet seen the ISS through a telescope (although I soon will) so I can't say for certain that it looks legit. Magnified, telescopic views would help resolve details about it's structure. But there is no record of that being attempted within this thread. I'm going to try just so I'll know for sure. I'm also going to try to get pictures just to see how difficult that is to accomplish with my cheap setup.

As far as the YouTube channel, I already intensely dislike "SmarterEveryDay" and watched the video with the sound off and skipped most of it because I don't care what they have to say other than showing the footage of the eclipse.

Look, I get that the "space station" with people on board is a hoax. That much is obvious from absurd actors pretending to be astronauts and the occasional SFX glitches and other telltale clues that trickery is being used in those videos - not to mention the absolute filth that would be all over everything if people were living in a sealed can for years on end. And of course no one but Official space agencies can make those videos.

But that is a completely separate issue from whether or not "something" is actually up there that can be seen from the ground. Everyone in this thread who has used services such as Heavens Above, Astroviewer, Spot the Station, etc, and tried to observe it with the naked eye has succeeded.

Some simple calculations (parallax, triangulation) based on it's apparent position as viewed from more than one location can unquestionably prove it's altitude - even if we cannot see any detail besides a tiny light, we can tell how high up that light is. I'm not happy that the results of those calculations are what they are. I, too, used to believe the ISS was being spoofed by high-altitude planes and I would like nothing more than to show that the parallax angles or triangulation proves it is at a much lower altitude than 400 km. But the calculations don't show that at all.

hoi.polloi » November 21st, 2017, 9:02 am wrote:There are different kinds of videographers on the Internet. Some present authentic things. Many seem delighted to invent, post and repost false documentation. I think we are all eager to see just what sort of style NotRappaport's report will resemble, and we are trusting it will be authentic. Is that prudent, given all we have read from the account known as NotRappaport?
Hopefully it is recognized that I'm only using logic and a little trigonometry to show how the altitude of the "ISS" (or anything else with an observable parallax) can be calculated.

Please understand that I am not going through all the bother with the telescope and camera to try and convince others (although I do promise and solemnly swear that any pictures I post of the event will be 100% authentic and untouched). I cannot conceive of any picture that would convince anyone who already believes all pictures of it are fake. One has to look for themselves in order to know. If anything, I hope to at least demonstrate that it is possible to look.

I'm only out to prove these things to myself: how difficult (or not) it is to look at through a 102mm telescope at varying levels of magnification and how hard it is to document using a DSLR stuck to the back of that scope. And of course I'm also attempting to find out by first-hand observation what it looks like at those magnifications.

The first clear pass (tentatively scheduled for the 26th) I will document with a simple long-exposure picture (taken with the camera and tripod) to show the path against the background stars. This is to assess the accuracy of the charts on Heavens Above. I will also try to see the thing through the telescope using a couple of different eyepieces so I can get an idea of what kind of detail can be seen along with how hard it is to track at 23x and 67x magnification.

Passes after that first one (tentatively, on the 27th and 29th) I will attempt to video through the telescope. It is at this point I will know if the exposure settings are correct or not.

The easiest way to get a picture of it's shape would probably be during a transit. This eliminates a lot of the exposure difficulties because you would only need settings capable of seeing the Sun or Moon while the "ISS" would just be a small silhouette. Aiming at either of these targets is also a lot easier. The only problem with transits is you usually have to travel some distance to a location they will be visible from (and for solar transits you would need an ND5 filter). There's supposed to be a lunar transit on the 27th visible about 30 km away from me and another on 02-Dec about 65 km away (neither of these are close enough for me to travel to with the scope in order to get video of it).

PianoRacer
____
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:13 am

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

Thank you NotRappaport for your contributions, I look forward to the results of your experiment when you are able to obtain them!
NotRappaport » November 21st, 2017, 5:12 pm wrote: Some simple calculations (parallax, triangulation) based on it's apparent position as viewed from more than one location can unquestionably prove it's altitude - even if we cannot see any detail besides a tiny light, we can tell how high up that light is. I'm not happy that the results of those calculations are what they are.
I do have a question about this statement - it seems that you are making an assumption here, which is that light always travels in straight lines, even over very long distances. You may be of the opinion that that is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make - and you may even be correct - but can you confirm that this is indeed an assumption that must be made when making this argument? Trigonomtry requires straight lines, does it not?

I only ask because I have personally witnessed, and seen other compelling evidence presented on the Internet, that light will often travel in a non-linear fashion over even moderate distances. Here are a few examples of what I am describing:

I think that this brief YouTube video demonstrates the concept that light can bend under different conditions depending on the medium through which it travels fairly succinctly:

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

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"). I'd love to think that we could achieve the level of certainty that you espouse in the quoted text, but I remain quite uncertain indeed of things like the distances and sizes of celestial objects, and your trigonometrical argument doesn't sway me due to the uncertainty of the path that light travels over long distances, and our inability to ascertain that definitively.

patrix
Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

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

I also look forward to NotRappaports results. Great initiative!

Two thougts on the ongoing discussion:

An observable light in the sky does not confirm something physical is up there moving at that speed. We can conclude through physics that it is impossible to put something into Earth orbit by rockets which in turn makes it likely that satellite TV is achieved by reflecting radio waves on the ionosphere. And if the ionosphere can reflect radio waves it is probably a good light reflector. So an hypothesis is that a moving light in the sky, perhaps even with a particular shape, could be achieved by projecting a strong light/laser beam onto the ionosphere.

As for the calculations of the Sun positions, I would say astronomical navigation is pretty reliable proof that the movements of the Sun and the planets in relation to Earth are correct along with their sizes and the shape of our planet itself for that matter. An entirely different matter is how the Earth itself moves in the universe.

NotRappaport
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:01 pm

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

PianoRacer » November 21st, 2017, 5:42 pm wrote:Thank you NotRappaport for your contributions, I look forward to the results of your experiment when you are able to obtain them!
Thank you, I'm looking forward to it too. Clouds better stay away on Sunday night!
PianoRacer » November 21st, 2017, 5:42 pm wrote:
NotRappaport » November 21st, 2017, 5:12 pm wrote: Some simple calculations (parallax, triangulation) based on it's apparent position as viewed from more than one location can unquestionably prove it's altitude - even if we cannot see any detail besides a tiny light, we can tell how high up that light is. I'm not happy that the results of those calculations are what they are.
I do have a question about this statement - it seems that you are making an assumption here, which is that light always travels in straight lines, even over very long distances.
Yes, this is a necessary assumption for the calculations to hold true - that the apparent position of the objects are an extremely close approximation of their true position. By all measures it seems to be correct unless the object is very near the horizon (as in the examples you posted). However I did the calculations for high angles (near zenith) due to the greater degree that angle changes with small increases in distance. At these angular altitudes atmospheric refraction might make stars twinkle, but it won't alter their apparent position by any meaningful amount.

See for example this page on astronomical refraction as well as the chart below which shows refraction (measured in arcminutes) vs. altitude (measured in degrees above the horizon). At near zero degrees above the horizon the refraction might be 35 arcminutes (a little over 0.5°) but once you get to 45° above the horizon its about 0.5 1 arcminutes (0.008 0.017°) and continues decreasing.
Last edited by NotRappaport on Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

NotRappaport
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:01 pm

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

patrix » November 21st, 2017, 7:35 pm wrote:So an hypothesis is that a moving light in the sky, perhaps even with a particular shape, could be achieved by projecting a strong light/laser beam onto the ionosphere.
An interesting idea and it might be possible if the ionosphere were reflective to visible light, but it doesn't seem to be since we can see right through it to make astronomical observations, and the daytime sky color doesn't vary according to the terrain (desert, forest, ocean) below. Also the sun's reflection off large bodies of water should create some interesting effects on an ionosphere reflective to visible light. But more problematic would be explaining solar or lunar transits as I can't think of any way for a reflection to create a silhouette in front of a bright object like the sun or sunlit moon.

Assuming it is an actual physical object up there, I would guess there is still enough atmospheric pressure (air density) for rockets to generate thrust. There is, after all, enough to cause drag so the corollary would be that there is enough for a rocket engine to create a pressure gradient at the nozzle and thereby generate thrust.

NotRappaport
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:01 pm

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

PianoRacer » November 21st, 2017, 5:42 pm wrote: Anyway, I'd be interested in your thoughts, especially on the Sun position video and if there are any glaring problems with it
Sorry I missed that in my last reply. It was a little difficult to figure out exactly what he was doing in the video, but now I see that he was using locations in a great (semi-)circle starting in the tropic of cancer, going through the equator and ending at the tropic of capricorn then looking up NOAA sun position data for points along that line on the summer solstice. Doing this he found it predicted divergences of up to 2 degrees.

The discrepancy disappears if you use points along the equator during the equinox or different latitudes along the same meridian the sun is above (I tried it), so it would seem to be an artefact of comparing varying latitudes and longitudes where there will be different rates of curvature throughout the arc (see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_rad ... _curvature). Its also possible the points he used were not all separated by the same angle.

EDIT: ok, I figured out the answer: The videomaker is a clown because he used these coordinates for checking sun position. In particular notice the second coordinate in each point, the longitude.
A 9.5546306 22.8333833
B 17.0514972 45.0000250
C 21.8857083 67.8334722
D 23.4500000 90.0000000
E 21.7912111 112.8334528
F 17.0539000 135.0000056
G 9.2891083 157.8333361
Those longitudes are all evenly separated by about 22.8 degrees - but longitudes are only the same width when measured along the same line of latitude (widest at the equator, and zero at the poles). So these longitudinal widths vary according the latitude. That's where his funny little "discrepancy" comes from. I doubt this was unintentional, since the graphic used in the video carefully obscures this by showing a top-down picture with longitudinal lines originating at the center instead of being offset for the solstice angle.
Last edited by NotRappaport on Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

patrix
Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

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

NotRappaport » November 22nd, 2017, 7:44 am wrote: An interesting idea and it might be possible if the ionosphere were reflective to visible light, but it doesn't seem to be since we can see right through it to make astronomical observations, and the daytime sky color doesn't vary according to the terrain (desert, forest, ocean) below. Also the sun's reflection off large bodies of water should create some interesting effects on an ionosphere reflective to visible light. But more problematic would be explaining solar or lunar transits as I can't think of any way for a reflection to create a silhouette in front of a bright object like the sun or sunlit moon.
Assuming it is an actual physical object up there, I would guess there is still enough atmospheric pressure (air density) for rockets to generate thrust. There is, after all, enough to cause drag so the corollary would be that there is enough for a rocket engine to create a pressure gradient at the nozzle and thereby generate thrust.
If we go by the laws of fluid dynamics which is the applicable physics here, rockets are likely to be less efficient than a jet plane at high altitude. A rocket does not generate lift with wings and are not very energy efficient. The early rocket planes in the fifties that might have been real and not just showbiz, was towed to a high altitude and the rocket engine only lasted a couple of minutes. I find the rockets that supposedly sends things into space from ground level to be absurd for that reason. They cannot possibly perform as shown and claimed. And how come no high altitude planes use rockets if they are supposed to be so efficient in thin air/vacuum? But let’s discuss this in the Rockets thread. I’m looking forward to your photos NotRappaport

simonshack
Posts: 6953
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

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

patrix » November 21st, 2017, 7:35 pm wrote:So an hypothesis is that a moving light in the sky, perhaps even with a particular shape, could be achieved by projecting a strong light/laser beam onto the ionosphere.
(...)
Patrix wrote: Good points. My bad.
Dear Patrix, I wouldn't throw that hypothesis of yours in the dustbin just yet:
"Researchers at Aerial Burton are working to perfect a new kind of display technology that uses lasers to produce 3D pixelated images that appear to hang in mid-air and are still visible no matter how bright it is outside."

"The projector technology itself uses a 1kHz infrared laser (so it's invisible to the human eye) that's fired into a rapidly moving mirror that reflects and focuses the pulse onto specific points in the air. The area where the laser is focused becomes ionized which then causes visible photons to be released creating the bright white dots."

https://gizmodo.com/new-laser-projector ... 1652174565
One can only wonder what can be achieved with \$328 Million ...
"The Pentagon Is Pouring \$328 Million Into High-Tech Laser Weapons"
https://www.seeker.com/the-pentagon-is- ... 76705.html