Satellites : general discussion and musings

[whatsgoingon]

a

[Dmitry]

I picked the ones with identical perspective. Dmitry says they use a mounted camera but has no citation that the camera is mounted.

This supposition seems to me much more natural than a bunch of paparazzi running around and taking photos from different angles.

However, looking at the other pictures the perspectives change. Thus we are supposed to believe the camera mounting procedure was added for a few launches and then abandoned hastily.

Probably you are the one who suppose it.

Another perspective. Where is that little thingy that holds up the rocket ship:

I think it's below the bottom edge of the picture. There is much more fire, so the last photo shows a bit later moment than others. At this moment, the rocket should be lifted higher than that 'thingy'. And, yes, I violated Occam and do believe that there is more than just one camera at the launch site. It's a French space port after all, not Russian.

[hoi.polloi]

Hi Dmitry, I don't think we are getting much of anywhere with this, but I just want to hear your presumptions. They seem to tell us a lot about conventional excuses for bad imagery.

So the rocket's appearance in the last image - of its top being more toward the camera than the other images - is because this is a photograph of the rocket on a trajectory to pass over the photographer/camera or because the photographer/camera is higher than in the other pictures or because the photographer/camera is further away and zoomed in or because there is another difference such as the lens?

[simonshack]

And, yes, I violated Occam and do believe that there is more than just one camera at the launch site. It's a French space port after all, not Russian.

Dmitry,

What exactly is your point? Are you saying that the French are better at faking pictures than the Russians?

You are starting to make a fool of yourself, Dmitry - and I'm beginning to think that you are, in fact, a clown.

No matter how smart you are, Dmitry - if your eyes cannot send any useful information to your brain - you'll never be able to make any sense out of this world. Yes - I have grown mighty tired of your wishy-washy ways.

[simonshack]

*

Here's the Vostok rocket which allegedly put Yuti Gagarin in space:



Familiar-looking rocket design, huh?

Those sprocket scientists seem to be pretty conservative in matters of innovation!

**********************

Some definitions of "sprocket" :

sprocket : http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sprocket
camera, photographic camera - equipment for taking photographs (usually consisting of a lightproof box with a lens at one end and light-sensitive film at the other)

sprocket holes: http://en.mimi.hu/photography/sprocket.html
Perforations on both edges of 35mm film, which engage with the teeth of the film transport mechanism.



So I hereby submit a new entry to our Cluesforum dictionary:

sprocket scientists : professional photo-manipulators employed by NASA and other purported 'space' agencies to manufacture the imagery needed to enable said agencies to enact and uphold their fraudulent claims of space conquest and similar hoaxing schemes. Sprocket scientists are trained in CGI softwares* which can simulate real video and photography with sufficient realism to fool / befuddle /stupefy / hypnotize most of this planet's inhabitants.

*see also "Weapons of Mass Deception"

[iCONOCLAST]

ROFL

And as a Corollary, "it's Sprocket Science" = "you are too stupid to understand my fakery even If I showed you the reasoning and maths behind my contentions.

[Maat]

*

Here's the Vostok rocket which allegedly put Yuti Gagarin in space:



Familiar-looking rocket design, huh?

Those sprocket scientists seem to be pretty conservative in matters of innovation!

**********************

Some definitions of "sprocket" :

sprocket : http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sprocket
camera, photographic camera - equipment for taking photographs (usually consisting of a lightproof box with a lens at one end and light-sensitive film at the other)

sprocket holes: http://en.mimi.hu/photography/sprocket.html
Perforations on both edges of 35mm film, which engage with the teeth of the film transport mechanism.


So I hereby submit a new entry to our Cluesforum dictionary:

sprocket scientists : professional photo-manipulators employed by NASA and other purported 'space' agencies to manufacture the imagery needed to enable said agencies to enact and uphold their fraudulent claims of space conquest and similar hoaxing schemes. Sprocket scientists are trained in CGI softwares* which can simulate real video and photography with sufficient realism to fool / befuddle /stupefy / hypnotize most of this planet's inhabitants.

*see also "Weapons of Mass Deception"

Excellent, Simon! Sprechen Sie Raketentechnik ?

Btw, I initially thought that your spelling of Gagarin's first name was an accidental typo (per adjacent keys), but I now realize that Yuti is a girl's name

[whatsgoingon]

a

[Dmitry]

Hi Dmitry, I don't think we are getting much of anywhere with this, but I just want to hear your presumptions. They seem to tell us a lot about conventional excuses for bad imagery.

So the rocket's appearance in the last image - of its top being more toward the camera than the other images - is because this is a photograph of the rocket on a trajectory to pass over the photographer/camera or because the photographer/camera is higher than in the other pictures or because the photographer/camera is further away and zoomed in or because there is another difference such as the lens?

hoi.polloi,

I would have to excuse for bad imagery if:

1) I sold it to someone;
2) it was really bad.

In reality, both statements are false:

1) I know nothing about the nature of the pictures;
2) I see nothing there that proves some fakery.

My presumption is: if an image depicts a rocket and I see no evidently absurd details there (like photographers near the jet engine at the launch), I suppose it is an image of a real rocket (not photoshopped image, not a dream, not a hallucination) until somebody proves the contrary. It is based on such experience:

1) I travelled several times by jet air planes.
2) I know people involved in aeroindustry.
3) I know that a lot of inventions claimed to be used in space industry are applied in aeroindustry -- so it's real.
4) I personally know people that did some black market math in 1990s: they took technical data about satellites to be launched (from Indians and other foreign customers) and calculated the probability of success for the launch. Customers really wanted to know if their satellite is too heavy or too long to be launched together with another one or two. My friends' service was cheaper than official Roscosmos contract. It's very probable that no taxes were paid. But the numbers was real. It's very strange if this work was part of some hoax. I know how fake projects are made: this was apparently not the case.

You are not at all supposed to believe the above statements. I've just explained my point. I don't promise anybody to present the related materials etc. This is my friends' personal story.

But, having such memories, I was very interested by the non-satellite hypothesis. What if `whatsgoingon` happened to be expert in radio-electronics and geophysics? Much best expert than people I know?

For now, this question is clear to me.

[Dmitry]

Pardon the American Euro-trashing
But really are these Sprocket images of Satellite launch vehicles this banal!
To catch my joke you have to watch the videos.

whatsgoingon,

How about the mu coefficient? Are you too busy analysing all that media content?

[Dmitry]

What exactly is your point? Are you saying that the French are better at faking pictures than the Russians?

My point is French (and, in general, Occidental) companies are supposed to have more finances, better equipment and better staff than Russian ones. In general, Occidental people consider Russians like loosers, isn't it?

[brianv]

In general, Occidental people consider Russians like loosers, isn't it?

Do they? I presume you mean Losers!

A curious Welsh-ism from a Russian - isn't it?

[Heiwa]

Just for the sake of good order I must say that I believe in the small geostationary TV broadcasting satellites above the Equator, i.e. rotating exactly with the Earth thus appearing stationary, and that I don’t believe in a reflective Ionosphere putting the Europe broadcasting stations in the Sahara desert.

Rockets seem the only way to put these small satellites in place so I believe in those big rockets too. Imagine that you need say 2 000 tons of rocket fuel to put a little 1 ton satellite up in orbit.

I don’t believe in ICBMs and their rockets because I don’t believe the atomic bomb works and that’s apparently why the Russians used one supposed ICBM rocket (without bomb) to put its first satellite in low orbit 1957.

Moon and Mars travel are evidently not possible as NASA & Co have not solved the problem how to brake/stop at arrival and thus cannot explain how to do it.

[reichstag fireman]

Just for the sake of good order I must say that I believe in the small geostationary TV broadcasting satellites above the Equator, i.e. rotating exactly with the Earth thus appearing stationary, and that I don’t believe in a reflective [refractive?] Ionosphere.

In that case, ionospheric refraction must be a myth? But you must demonstrate that since there is 100 years of ionospheric research which states otherwise.

This seminal paper from 1926 authored by true pioneers (albeit American pioneers) Dr G. Breit and Dr M.A. Tuve.

http://astrophysics.fic.uni.lodz.pl/100 ... 13/011.pdf

In regard to the refraction point for the ASTRA 2D "satellite" TV signal, and moreover, the site of the "ASTRA 2D" transmitter, clearly we need to re-calculate. And we should look very much further south than France, or even Algeria for those points.

Are you like me? Do you whistle when you do math sums.. This is one of my favourites. Shall we whistle it together, in harmony, as we re-calculate the refractive index of an 11GHz signal, directed at the ionosphere with an angle of incidence that satisfies Appleton-Hartree, so as to refract with a footprint that covers the British Isles and Ireland?!

The maximum electron density found anywhere in the ionosphere - (a high density being necessary to propagate an 11GHz microwave "satellite" signal) - is found above the tropics. That was noted in 1932 if not earlier. Hence the Big Lie that (non-existent) "geostationary satellites" must hover above, erm, the tropics


fp, the plasma frequency, is a measure of the electron density in the ionosphere (F2 layer)

(note the anomaly, the peak plasma frequency isn't uniform across the tropics. The ionisation peak is somewhat south of the equator across South America, and north of the equator across Africa. This is apparently due to the influence of the Earth's magnetic field on the motion of the electrons in the ionosphere. A phenomenon that Appleton, as usual, claimed to have discovered!).

Also note that since Great Britain isn't at the centre of the plot, it was obviously drawn by some mischievous foreigner, probably another 'Merkin.

[nonhocapito]

Just for the sake of good order I must say that I believe in the small geostationary TV broadcasting satellites above the Equator, i.e. rotating exactly with the Earth thus appearing stationary, and that I don’t believe in a reflective Ionosphere putting the Europe broadcasting stations in the Sahara desert.

Rockets seem the only way to put these small satellites in place so I believe in those big rockets too. Imagine that you need say 2 000 tons of rocket fuel to put a little 1 ton satellite up in orbit.

I don’t believe in ICBMs and their rockets because I don’t believe the atomic bomb works and that’s apparently why the Russians used one supposed ICBM rocket (without bomb) to put its first satellite in low orbit 1957.

Moon and Mars travel are evidently not possible as NASA & Co have not solved the problem how to brake/stop at arrival and thus cannot explain how to do it.

At the moment I endorse this position of yours Heiwa. Most of the "space race" and the whole of the nuclear threat must be faked, but so far I am not convinced by all the arguments brought forward for the non-existence of satellites. I am also somewhat embarrassed by the excessive technological/specialized lingo that is being thrown around in this thread. I am worried this could all be pseudo-science used either as a leverage or as a smoke screen.

It is not enough if some of us tell us they are "experts" in this or other fields. Either their language is meant for everyone or it is just a weapon used against everyone.

Also citing "papers" as if they were facts might not always work, because there is good reason to think that the Academy normally pollutes scientific truths with propaganda. Especially when working for and with the military.