THE DERAILING ROOM

[fbenario]

Don't sure if you need these information, but I find it quite interessting

It begs to question

It also begs the question why anyone would post anything here before familiarizing himself with the basic conclusions of the forum. This just wastes time.

[fbenario]

teenage sms shortcuts!

Also a (thankfully) rare abbreviation for smartass.

[brianv]

teenage sms shortcuts!

Also a (thankfully) rare abbreviation for smartass.

Oh dear!

[Thunder]

teenage sms shortcuts!

Also a (thankfully) rare abbreviation for smartass.

Oh dear!

That one hit
Ppl. is no new "SMS" or "Chat" Abbreviation, it was used officially even before those electronic texting. It's short for "people" and it's wide spreaded.

[brianv]

SMS is an acronym, ppl is not.

"and it's wide spreaded" ? Indeed !

[Terence.drew]

Geologists, Hydrologists, Biologists and Ecologists etc.

Is there room for another '....ist'? how about bullshitologist ? Just because you have so called 'experts' involved in something, and mix up this with large numbers, it does not necessarily hold that a premise is true. A little bit of argumentum ad verecundiam, a little bit of argumentum ad populum, and how could anybody deny the truth?

At one point there was nearly 500,000 people employed on the 'moon landings', a large proportion of these presumably being 'experts'. In the end, a cast and crew of maybe 50 and a studio was all was all that was needed.

[simonshack]

Again, I'm frankly embarrassed for ever taking Simons work seriously based on this whole section. What a joke.

-Perp # 124135135

Please point me to any post of mine in which I discuss/debate GPS satellites. This thread is called "Satellites: general discussion and musings" - it is open to all our forum members to further our understanding of what may be real/or false in the realm of space exploration (a realm notorious for a number of irrefutable hoaxes/and rampant monkey business).

Just one question for you, corncob2: Do you believe NASA went to the moon and back 6 times between 1969 and 1972?

[lux]

To Really dumb this down for those of you that deny the absolute fact of GPS satellites, I was working in a northern location where the ENTIRE survey crew would structure its coffee breaks around the location of satellites. This was based on standards set out by the oil company for whom we worked... you know, that multi-billion dollar entity with trained, educated people calling the shots based on legitimate information.

Structured coffee breaks, wow! That's some impressive evidence! Thanks so much for dumbing this down for us.

Let's forget the so-called bullshitologist and their reliance on modern remote sensing to inform their science and decision making, how about world governments that rely on the constantly-recorded images of the ever-changing earths surface from remote sensing systems? This ever-dynamic and accurate visual information is not created in a quantum computer on Venus, the Earths surface is CONSTANTLY measured and imaged and more importantly archived by satellite based technology such as Aster, IKONOS and Quickbird.

Here are images reportedly from ...

Aster:
http://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery.asp?catid=40

IKONOS:
http://www.satimagingcorp.com/gallery-ikonos.html

Quickbird:
http://www.satimagingcorp.com/gallery-quickbird.html

There are no images here that couldn't have been taken from a conventional aircraft. Please provide real evidence (not coffee break schedules) that they were taken from space.

To deny this is absolutely idiotic.

To accept it without question merely because someone said it is supremely foolish.

[simonshack]

To deny this is absolutely idiotic.

To accept it without question merely because someone said it is supremely foolish.

Thanks, Lux.

You just masterfully summed up in a single sentence the entire point of this forum's existence !

[Dcopymope]

As corncob2 has stated using verifiable, and consistently provable statements, the topical discussion of the existence of Space born satellites is ludicrous.
Besides having worked in the telecommunications industry for years, and having a basic grasp on the transmission of radio waves etc, I have used GPS receivers, and Smart phones (utilizing modern GPS) with great success. How do I know that 27 orbiting satellites exist in space creating the modern GPS network? Because it works. There are hundreds and thousands of documents explaining how in textbooks, and on the internet for those willing to study.

For an in depth yet digestable read on exactly how GPS in particular works see link: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/ga ... el/gps.htm

Anyone who has used a Garmin or similar brand GPS device should consider this argument null and void.
For the installation of Enhanced-911 tel-co system http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/t1035.htm for AT&T back in 2003, I would first use a GPS receiver to chart the exact latitude and longitude of the position for Antenna mounting. I could not proceed with installation until at least 5 or more satellites locked onto my location, this is how precise the orientation and placement of these systems must be... literally within a few feet margin of error. In order for the E911 based system to work correctly and accurately, all placement and obstruction considerations must be taken into account. The same goes with Azimuth positioning with satellite dishes and other point-to-point communications apparatus. http://www.satsig.net/azelhelp.htm

Just because we as a general population are not exposed to extremely high technologies and topologies does not mean they do not exist.
Take for example the modern automobile, or any motor driven vehicle. Just because we don't see, or actually hear violent, and powerful explosions taking place at thousands of times per minute does not negate the internal combustion engine, and the fact that it exists and works.
The same thing can be said for a kitchen appliance we all own, or have used, the microwave. How many visitors of this forum have seen a magnetron, or even know what the device is? Probably very little at best. http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/magnetron.html
However, the ever efficient and humbly serving magnetron gets little understanding or thanks when it comes to heating up veggies or popcorn etc. So, is the magnetron too just bunk, invisible jargon put into electrical engineering textbooks to waste paper?

The point I am stressing is that while it is of great importance to question and research the who, the how, and the why of earth, space and technology and such, it should be done from a scientifically based viewpoint. Simply not having the requisite mathematical or scientific knowledge to understand something's existence is not fair basis to discard its existence as true or real.

I do not post this as an argument intended to stir controversy, but rather a call to sound reasoning when exploring such questions. This forum seems to have lost the participation of some knowledgeable and regular members as of late. Perhaps they feel alone in their quest to add some equilibrium to these opening posts.
There seems to be a propensity here to "throw out the baby with the bath water", and that is unfortunate. Faking missions in space over 40 years ago is one thing, deciding that all space related technology and current endeavours henceforth can't exist either is insane.

So basically, you are proposing that space travel today is possible, despite the fact that these space agencies according to their own documents still haven't found a way to deal with the issue of cold welding, or metal objects being chewed up by the vacuum of space as discussed by members in the links below.

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p2367855

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p2367865

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p2367897

Certainly, you must have seen this info, right? Or maybe you haven't, which is why you would have us believe that satellites or any other metal objects can somehow function in space in any way shape or form. According to their own documents, it would be insane to put anything at all in space, so if you can't give us a credible answer showing the contrary, then your argument for space satellites is null and void.

[lux]

As corncob2 has stated using verifiable, and consistently provable statements, the topical discussion of the existence of Space born satellites is ludicrous.

Which of corncob's statements are you referring to? All I can see is that he said that coffee break schedules, statements by NASA and blips on monitors prove the existence of satellites, none of which is proof of anything except that some people use computers and drink coffee.

Like so many brainwashed hypnosis victims I believe you are confusing statements by "authoritative sources" as proof of something when it is nothing of the kind.

Since NASA has obviously been fooling the public about its hoax Apollo Mission for decades, it is logical to question all "authoritative" statements regarding space activities. The ludicrous ones are the fools who simply accept whatever their TV sets tell them about anything.

[simonshack]

There seems to be a propensity here to "throw out the baby with the bath water", and that is unfortunate. Faking missions in space over 40 years ago is one thing, deciding that all space related technology and current endeavours henceforth can't exist either is insane.

"DECIDING"? No, Mitch Matrixx. No one is "deciding" anything here. And no: I do not think that any member of this forum is "insane". I certainly encourage knowledgeable folks to join this forum and offer scientific/rational explanations to the myriad of questions raised by our international members.

For what it's worth, my personal opinion - at this moment - is that satellites exist. The question is: how many? And if the Space Shuttle program was a hoax - what credibility do the alleged satellites put in orbit by the Space Shuttles have?

[simonshack]

I will reiterate, that the abundance of documentation and theory is public domain, but while I posted adequate external links to back up my side of the debate, you merely pointed me back into the forum's cyclical and self-congratulating text. I will not spoon feed people answers.

Well,

"The abundance of documentation in the public domain" is exactly the stuff debated here on this forum.

There is an abundance of documentation in the public domain that NASA went to the moon, such as this:


NO ONE HAS PROVIDED AN ANSWER TO THIS ABSURD DOCUMENTATION IN OVER 40 YEARS.

There is also an abundance of documentation in the public domain about NASA's Space Shuttles, such as this:


NO ONE HAS PROVIDED AN ANSWER TO THIS ABSURD DOCUMENTATION EVER SINCE I POINTED IT OUT.

If we are to engage in any sort of scientific debate - to verify the authenticity of the above imagery purportedly documenting these alleged scientific achievements must be a priority. Anyone dodging this documentation cannot be a serious scientist.

I'm offering an alternative that is based is scientific logic and reason, something that seems to be sorely lacking in the world these days.

Yeah, Mitch Matrixx...so am I !

[lux]

Another arrogant, insulting fop expects us to take him seriously. I guess he doesn't realize that "documentation" isn't proof of anything.

[Kentrailer]

Into the Deep Blue Swimming Pool Yonder:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AGWROaW0Ks

Trying to sum up my thoughts on how the footage was created.. Seems the most logical.