Satellites : general discussion and musings

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.

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby Terence.drew on Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:01 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
Image


Where did you get this image from hoi polloi???
Terence.drew
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby Unleashed on Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:23 am

I am no techie. So I try to apply what I consider logic that makes sense to me.
When I see an airplane reflecting light the best, it is usually during the hour before sunset/dusk.

It would seem to be logical that any satellites passing overhead might similarly be reflective then and even a little later. I don't see them. Just the airplanes. Which are in the atmosphere and maybe 6 miles up. We are talking an object, that is smaller than the average passenger jet and about 600 to a thousand miles up!! For the geostationary orbits in the equatorial ranges.

The other thousand upon thousand we are told are in orbit can be as high as 32,000 MILES up, not feet. How are you supposed to witness the reflection from this with the naked eye?

I still need one of the other posters to explain about the debris from the two satellites that crashed into one another, supposedly. Where did the debris go, and wouldn't it have posed a danger to other satellites in orbit? I thought that this crash material would have kept moving through space infinitely until it was stopped by crashing into something else. Which might have in turn caused that satellite to break up, continuing the chain reaction.

If radiowaves are still as viable and dependable as always, why set up the proposition of the eventuality that all this stuff will drop out of the sky at some point possibly wreaking havoc on their own important cities and installations?
Unleashed
Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:27 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby nonhocapito on Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:07 am

Unleashed wrote:I am no techie. So I try to apply what I consider logic that makes sense to me.
When I see an airplane reflecting light the best, it is usually during the hour before sunset/dusk.
It would seem to be logical that any satellites passing overhead might similarly be reflective then and even a little later. I don't see them. Just the airplanes. Which are in the atmosphere and maybe 6 miles up. We are talking an object, that is smaller than the average passenger jet and about 600 to a thousand miles up!! For the geostationary orbits in the equatorial ranges.
The other thousand upon thousand we are told are in orbit can be as high as 32,000 MILES up, not feet. How are you supposed to witness the reflection from this with the naked eye?


The way I understand it, it is the other way around. Geo satellites are supposed to be the ones further away from the earth.
See this picture, from just a few posts above:
Image
See the earlier post for the links to the page where all the exact distances of satellites constellations are given.

And well, I am sorry that you or others don't see these objects going by! I don't know what to tell you! I have seen them since when I was a kid.

As to the reflections, well, light travels far, apparently, considering we can see the reflecting light from planets and planetoids that are much further away. We can assume a powerful reflection from these objects, due to the shiny materials we can suppose they are composed with.

Unleashed wrote:I still need one of the other posters to explain about the debris from the two satellites that crashed into one another, supposedly. Where did the debris go, and wouldn't it have posed a danger to other satellites in orbit? I thought that this crash material would have kept moving through space infinitely until it was stopped by crashing into something else. Which might have in turn caused that satellite to break up, continuing the chain reaction.


This has been discussed already. We are told there are 17,000 pieces of debris flying in orbit. 17,000 is nothing. Space is vast. Also, it certainly does not fly infinitely. Instead, it descend into progressively lower orbits until it falls into the atmosphere. Logic dictates this, considering that we are told how satellites themselves need to correct their path periodically not to fall over to the earth. I guess orbits are almost, but not entirely, free from friction.

The idea that "orbits are full of debris that can fall on our heads" seems more likely to be part of the daily psyop that wants us to be scared about everything, than to be a real fact.

Unleashed wrote:If radiowaves are still as viable and dependable as always, why set up the proposition of the eventuality that all this stuff will drop out of the sky at some point possibly wreaking havoc on their own important cities and installations?


I doubt satellites have or will ever cause havoc on cities and installations. As you probably know, we have mocked the alleged risks from the fall of satellites only recently, and we have a thread dedicated to this psyop in particular. Of course the great part of material is consumed in the atmosphere (this seems logical), while on the other hand the earth is vast and mostly uninhabited (oceans, deserts, etc). So the risks must be lower than being struck by lightning, as the classic comparison want.

If instead here you mean to say that, because satellites "die" sooner or later, we should exprience disruption in our communication systems: I guess this is true, however, we can also imagine that such systems are designed to compensate for accidental disruptions. Until, I guess, solar eruptions of unprecedented force will not fry up all the satellites altogether. Which incidentally, could turn out to be a happy day, since it would force a lot of people far from TV. :)

So these above are my hopefully logic answers to you. I am no techie either. Allow me, though, to be the annoying moderator again, and remind you and myself and everyone that once again this discussion seem to be repeating itself a little bit: I feel like I have responded to the above arguments already a zillion times. :P
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby Jonathan on Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:08 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:...
Of course the equator would also allow light at times because the Earth is tilted on its axis and there would even be periods where something going around the dark of the Earth via the equator line would peek into the sunlight. It would have to be a very specific orbit that allows a satellite to always stay in the exact position opposite the sun.


It was a bit of a challenge to get me to see what this orbit would be like.
Maybe others find it helpful in seeing how special such an orbit would be.
Certainly nothing usual.

To always stay on the night side of the earth a satellite would need to revolve around earth exactly once a day.

That would be a similar orbit as a geostationary orbit - they also revolve once a day and thus appear to be at the same location when viewed from earth.
The direction such satellite flies would however need to go counterclockwise (meaning the exactly opposite direction) to that of a "normal" geosync orbit - and its axis would need to be tilted 23,5 degree to compensate for earths axis tilt relative to its path around the sun.

Viewed from earth it would come and go, just as night and day.

Then it would have a position which would keep it always at the same position relative to the line Sun - Earth
(consistently in the shadow - or consistently anywhere else)

Actually it would need to be a little slower - meaning a little farther out - than a geosynchronous satellite because we need to compensate for the fact that earth revolves around the sun once a year and thus the satellite need only do 364 revolutions around earth per year.
(the "missing" one is done by earth around sun once a year).

A pretty special case.

On a related note:
satellites in "ordinary" geostationary orbit would be the ones not easily recognizable as such even if visible - because they are NOT moving relative to earth.
They could be recognized with long exposure times - stars appear to move because of earths rotation - these satellites don't.
Last edited by Jonathan on Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jonathan
Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:13 pm

Terence.drew wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:
Image


Where did you get this image from hoi polloi???


I made it in GIMP. It's very speculative as you can see. B)
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby Terence.drew on Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:30 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
Terence.drew wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:
Image


Where did you get this image from hoi polloi???


I made it in GIMP. It's very speculative as you can see. B)


I wouldn't say speculative man I would say wildly inaccurate.
Why would you exaggerate to such a degree the distance from the earth of orbits of the 'satellites' so that it fits into the sun reflection paradigm ??

Take a basketball. It is 30 inches wide. Satellites as we are told would be only 2/3 to 1 and 1/3 inch off the surface? Repeat. Impossible to reflect light on the far side at virtually every point????

These things can happen ... but whats the story with the 666 glyph in your pic?

Image
Terence.drew
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby simonshack on Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:59 pm

Hey everyone,

I am, and I believe many more are following this topic with serious interest. Can we please keep the discussion calm and civil? Thanks! :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6763
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby Jonathan on Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:05 am

Sorry - no pictures.
Have no experience in creating such.

And my trigonometry is rusty.

If I'm not gravely mistaken the angular difference between the gray and the black areas
(in the picture terence.drew introduced and which has subsequently being used...)
are exaggerated by orders of magnitude!

The actual angular difference between gray and black would be well under or at most one (1) degree.

Sun's diameter: 1.4 million km
Earths diameter: 12.000 km or 0.012 million km
Distance: 150 million km

Do the math yourself instead of relying on something found somewhere?
Am I wrong?

Also, hoi.polloi's sketch is not off too much.
Depends on the satellite...

Earth's diameter is 12.000 km

GEO is 35.800 km in altitude - that is about 3 times or 300% the diameter of earth in height.

For ISS it is only 380 km or roughly 3% and for the infamous Hubble it is only 600 km - or 5% of earths diameter.

Many things in between - hoi's picture is off in both ways - exaggerated and way too close as well.
A rough sketch to make a point...

All that would make for an entirely different picture.
We should use more accurate pictures - or none at all.

As we all know they can be deceiving ;)
Jonathan
Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:11 am

Oh my god, please bear in mind this was a sketch. It doesn't even purport to be anything more. You could probably find bin Laden in there if you squinted at the right angle.

Next time I will methodically use a circular shape so it doesn't frighten you. I just jotted them quickly so that I could change the size of the circle by drawing it rather than drawing different sized ones by changing the brush size, which would feel redundant. Bleh, whatever. Point taken, I guess?

I absolutely do not create any 666's in my scribbles, but now that you point them out, I think you are innocently projecting your fears, which we all can do sometimes in this research. Well, if you are well-intentioned. If you are ill-intentioned you could be trying to paint me as some kind of mythical Christian evil or evil-worshipper at worst? I guess that's so bizarre you might be trying to discredit yourself because you want to stop our investigation of this matter?

If you are genuinely trying to peg 666's on me, let me recommend you take a break from the forum for a while. Let's stay on task please.

Anyway, Jonathan is right that my exaggeration is not really all that necessarily off from the projections shown at the satellite tracking site. That is, of course, if you can believe that site. Not saying you can. Also, I am fine with being more exact in the future. I expect that of forum goers so I should be expected to provide the same. Sorry for the distraction.

Examples of curious orbits:
http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.as ... ied&TZ=CET
http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.as ... ied&TZ=CET
http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.as ... ied&TZ=CET

Oh just one more thing ...

Image

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

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:49 am

Take a basketball. It is 30 inches wide. Satellites as we are told would be only 2/3 to 1 and 1/3 inch off the surface? Repeat. Impossible to reflect light on the far side at virtually every point????


Here is an example of a satellite apparently passing on the dark side that appears too close to the Earth to receive sunlight. Is this model really accurate or is it just a sketch?

How is the visibility magnitude so high (4) even in the dark?

http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.as ... ied&TZ=CET

I agree with you that this is quite a stretch unless the satellites are emitting light from their bodies. How can sunlight be hitting them all the time?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby nonhocapito on Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:57 am

Hoi: Who says the sunlight hits them all the time? It hits them the moment we see them and they are visible to us, which usually lasts but a number of seconds. Who says what happens to those lights once they leave our sight? How long they stay in the sun or stay in the shadow? They probably enter "day" and "night" several times in 24 hours.

As i tried to point out already in this thread more than once, I think that the steadiness of those lights is an important clue in favor of those light being reflected. Lights that are result of reflection are steadier than direct lights, simply because they are softer. If they were generated by some sort of (frankly unthinkable) light beacon (that would require unthinkable amounts of energy) they would flicker.

Frankly I don't understand the need to keep this particular point alive. It is not as if caving on the fact that these objects can occasionally reflect light and be visible to us, means accepting the reality of satellites completely and according to the official narrative. It simply means we can finally move this discussion on. <_<

Terrence: You are not being intellectual honest. You decided to point out the alleged errors in Hoi's sketch, but you completely ignored my sketch, draw on top of an "official" diagram showing in scale the distances of satellites constellations from the earth.

Image

How about commenting the above picture? Ignoring the arguments that hurt you is not going to help what apparently has become your cause. it is only going to waste everyone's time.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby simonshack on Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:06 pm

*

Just a quick question - to all. Sorry for drifting slightly "off topic" here...

Let us suppose for a minute that the International Space Station exists.

With respect to everyone's calculations as to how far up a satellite must orbit in order for the sunlight to reflect on it - what are we to make of this?
"The ISS is maintained in a nearly circular orbit with a minimum mean altitude of 278 km(173 mi) and a maximum of 460 km (286 mi)". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ce_Station


So what would illuminate the ISS in these images? Sunlight? Moonlight perhaps?
Image


Image

I would like to make it clear that i have matured no firm, personal opinion on the issue of satellites being real or not. We just need to keep in mind that NASA, ESA and the wider scientific community appears to have no problem diffusing gigantic lies concerning their activities. Hence, from a jurisdictional point of view the "False in one, false in all" principle would apply - were it only to maintain a healthy critical 'filter' through which all (or the little) we are told about space exploration/exploitation must pass :

"In a case where numerous discrepancies in defendant’s financial information were brought to light during trial, the “False in One, False in All” principle applies; i.e., if the court found that defendant had testified untruthfully in one instance, the court could find his entire testimony to be untruthful." http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues ... principle/


Judiciary/state.nj.us PDF file: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/crimin ... n2c008.pdf
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6763
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:55 pm

Hoi: Who says the sunlight hits them all the time? It hits them the moment we see them and they are visible to us, which usually lasts but a number of seconds. Who says what happens to those lights once they leave our sight? How long they stay in the sun or stay in the shadow? They probably enter "day" and "night" several times in 24 hours.

[...]

Frankly I don't understand the need to keep this particular point alive. It is not as if caving on the fact that these objects can occasionally reflect light and be visible to us, means accepting the reality of satellites completely and according to the official narrative.


I think the point of keeping it alive is to assure that we can all agree on a point that we can collectively build upon. It is clear that some satellites may pass into the umbra at times and some may not - assuming we are observing satellites. Disproving light sources on the objects themselves would be a matter of roughly guessing the sun's position from our position on the Earth (an extremely simple matter if the moon happens to be in your sky) and seeing if the satellite you are observing could conceivably be at a distance that places it within or without the Earth's umbra. If it is and you find that - after careful study - you have watched an autoluminescent object pass into the Earth's shadow, then you can begin questioning what the light source is. Reflection seems like the best argument so far (for what I have observed) since I am on the latitude of Northern Italy and when I look "up" I am frequently looking enough towards the "North Pole" to be observing space completely outside from Earth's umbra.

We might even be able to coordinate some observations because of our conveniently shared sky.

As it stands, it is obvious that "orbits" of many sorts are possible and appear to be happening. It is unclear if we can spot an unlit satellite in the umbra, but if we can, it would certainly lend credence to the 'reflection' argument.

Anyway, I am with Simon in that I want to investigate this for myself and I want to be able to spot a satellite through a large telescope. I will try to coordinate this activity for myself soon. I am pretty sure I will be able to see a conventional "satellite" and I would love it even better if I could trace an unlit one in the darkness of space using a purely mechanical, non-digitally enhanced telescope.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby Jonathan on Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:49 am

This is only to further try to clarify my viewpoint, not meant as proof...

I was actually trying to create a picture which represents the true dimensions we are dealing with here.
And I might even succeed creating one of Earth with satellites orbits in its true dimensions relative to each other - and to the shadow Earth creates, projecting it onto the satellites orbits.

I failed to create a faithful representation of the size- and distance ratios of Earth and Sun.
This time not because of lack of skill, but because of the actual vast ratios.
The picture would need to be vast too - wide, especially.
It just would not fit on screen while actually showing any detail.

So I once again resort to description and comparison.

And I chose the Basketball to represent the Sun ;)

If Sun is the size of a Basketball then:
Earth's diameter is 2.1 mm (Millimeter!) or 0.085 inches -
and
the distance between them is (rounded) 26 m (Meters!) or 85 feet.

If you try to reduce that distance to something you can grasp yet more easily - your arms span for instance - the Sun's size would shrink dramatically - and Earth's size would be so tiny that it would be almost invisible.

The values I used to calculate:
Sun's diameter: 1.4 Million Kilometer
Earths diameter: 12.700 Kilometer
Distance Sun - Earth: 150 Million Kilometer (slightly rounded up value of one AU)
Diameter of Basketball: 24 cm (derived from a circumference of about 75.4 cm)
The previously introduced value of 30 inches diameter for a Basketball was obviously not correct - that was its circumference ;) (for a standard NBA ball).

What we could take from that is:
it would be a good approximation of the shadows shape to just take it as extending parallel beyond Earth.
It actually narrows by less than 1 degree.
Same for the penumbra - less than 1 degree off parallel, but outwards instead.

hoi.polloi wrote:As it stands, it is obvious that "orbits" of many sorts are possible and appear to be happening. It is unclear if we can spot an unlit satellite in the umbra, but if we can, it would certainly lend credence to the 'reflection' argument.


Sorry but I do not understand.
To me that would mean the opposite.
If it is in the shadow, how can it reflect sunlight?
It does not catch any to reflect to anywhere.

The point is more like this:

- the shadow of Earth is certainly vast - it covers everything in the line Sun - Earth which lays behind Earth at any moment
but: it is only as large as Earth's diameter projected outward and it is getting slightly but steadily more narrow the more outward we go

- satellites orbits are only sometimes, more often than not (that is: probably and for all I know) almost never, going through this shadow

- even equatorial orbits would only be a short time in shadow (if at all), depending on how far out the orbit is
(equatorial means tilted about 23 degree just like earth's axis - therefore about 23 degree out of axis relative to the line Sun - Earth, which represents the direction of the shadow)

- the higher up an orbit goes, the longer into the night a satellite could potentially be seen, because it is in sunlight and we down here still have line of sight at it
- the lower an orbit the closer to sunrise or sunset such satellite could potentially be seen, while not being observable later at night - we just loose line of sight sooner.

Thats what I had in mind trying to visualize as said above.
But the picture nonhocapito used is a very good one to go with in visualizing this.

IMO
Jonathan
Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby Terence.drew on Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:11 pm

Nonho I respect you, But that does not mean I think you are an expert on every topic. In the same fashion, I don't think I am an expert on every topic. It is not my 'cause' to discuss these issues regarding satellites but more something I am interested in. I have made many videos on youtube regarding the real world physical interactions of things 911, including the impossibility of the alleged speed of the aircraft and their physical characteristics, and this thread fits into that general line of inquiry.

Sunlit Satellites did not form any part of my initial argument - yes or no. It was based on the impossibility of anything man made in space surviving passing through the millions of miles of space dust and debris known as 'Meteor showers'. The Earth passes through a number of these every year. I mentioned one of the most famous meteor showers ever known which took place just as the space race was at its zenith towards the end of the 60s. 40 shooting stars a second where visible from anywhere in the united states for a couple of nights. These were only the impacts seen from the Earth. Millions and millions of dust particles and lumps fallen off asteroids impacting the Earth's atmosphere at speeds of over 150,000 miles an hour.
This is my main reason for not believing in anything orbiting the Earth or space travel. Space is not empty. In parts it is absolutely filled with dust and particles. This can be seen and verified. I also pointed out someone from the ISS talking about being safe from these meteor showers because the ISS was at a higher orbit than the impacts seen below it. Incredible and misleading bullshit.
I mentioned the first satellites being round metal disks. The Russians seemed to have thought about what might happen to something orbiting the Earth.
Modern looking satellites look like metal Arhimanic angels. Disneyland. These debris fields which the Earth must pass through are one thing. The other thing which has been mentioned is the radiation/heat differences/Sun mass ejections which fill the void we know as 'space'. Another nail in the satellite haute couture
I have gone into some detail here Nonho because you ignored all this.

To get back to sun lit satellites.

nonhocapito wrote:Who says the sunlight hits them all the time? It hits them the moment we see them and they are visible to us, which usually lasts but a number of seconds.


You said it I believe.

"I too am pretty sure satellites are real. Not only we see results of their existence in our everyday life (GPS, Satellite TV, Weather, etc), but they can actually be seen from the ground at night, without telescopes of sorts."

/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=935&p=2354643&hilit=shower#p2354643

I am not getting at you here Nonho, but to exclude other possibilities for lights in the sky and to say that these lights must be satellites is a major error. This is called the false dilemma fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I don't doubt that you and others have seen these things and that you earnestly believe what you see are satellites. I don't see them here.
I postulated that maybe what was seen was a blackbird aircraft or something like that. Italy is a NATO country and perhaps super fast military aircraft flying 25 to 3 0kms up with fire coming out their rear ends could be a fast moving light in the night. It's just a possibility.

I think the Earth's shadow argument against seeing satellites is very sound. Even if something were to pass out of the Umbra it is still in the 'Penumbra' section of the Earth's shadow. See illustration below. The penumbra only partially blocks out light but it is not like a satellite will come out of the Umbra and then be magnificently illuminated. It is now in the 2nd part of the Earth's shadow.


Image
http://students.bugs.bham.ac.uk/astrosoc/special_events/lunareclipse030307.php


From Zionepedia ..

* Low Earth orbit (LEO): Geocentric orbits ranging in altitude from 0–2000 km (0–1240 miles)
* Medium Earth orbit (MEO): Geocentric orbits ranging in altitude from 2,000 km (1,200 mi) to just below geosynchronous orbit at 35,786 km (22,236 mi). Also known as an intermediate circular orbit.
* High Earth orbit (HEO): Geocentric orbits above the altitude of geosynchronous orbit 35,786 km (22,236 mi).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite

I don't buy seeing something reflecting the sun if it is in the umbra of the Earth. I don't really buy it either if it is in the penumbra.
I don't but either seeing reflected light from something the size of a delivery van from hundreds of miles away.

I totally discount seeing anything with the naked eye from medium/high earth orbit.

Lets take the farthest 'low' earth orbit.

I am in Ireland. The Earth is flat (I don't really believe this!). It is all dark. A bright light is shone on something the size of a delivery van in Poland. Could I see that? No. Now rotate this van up into sky could I see that? No. Poland is 1800 km away from Ireland.

Take the nearest 'low' Earth orbit.

I am in Ireland. The Earth is flat. It is all dark. A bright light is shone on something the size of a delivery van in London. The distance from Dublin to London is 450 km(55 mins in a plane) Could I see this light in london (given no other lights around). Rotate this light up into the sky could I see now? No.

I have posted already that there should be multiple photos of satellites from telescopes/passing through photographic plates from telescopes but there is not in Google images. Make of this what you will. I take this for what it seems at it's simplest level..no such thing exists.

Hoi polloi 666? Perhaps it is my mind projection fallacy lol!

The funny thing is you see this everywhere and the last place I expected to see it was here on a post from a contributor but as I said of course can be accidental.

Keeping it real Simon! ..keeping it civil and calm..keeping it bright and bubbly too . I hope!
Terence.drew
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest