Satellites : general discussion and musings

[smj]

first, occam's famous razor is just a heuristic. it requires the want-a-be-philosopher type who wields it to employ the fewest assumptions possible.

second, history is narrative and it is a waste of time to ascribe motives to it. it's like trying to figure out why hamlet was such a miserable prick.

luckily for you, in this instance the narrative provided the motive in the form of bill pickering, the head of jack parson's lab who oversaw the u.s.' response to the s.u.'s little beeping ball in the sky with van allen and von braun...

“It was only the beeping reality of Sputnik that suddenly made the threat of intercontinental atomic warfare with ballistic rockets more than a science fiction story.”
http://www.nzedge.com/legends/william-pickering/

...hopefully your logic can kick in from here seeing as you don't believe in nukes.

bythefeckinway, your boats were/are using loran to navigate at sea. loran was invented by the real bruce wayne we're told. his name was alfred loomis and he was a one man rand corporation. he also invented sonochemistry in his castle in tuxedo park. acoustic bubble cavitation is the real chain reaction...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Lee_Loomis

"The modern ultrasonics era arose from Professor Paul Langevin's 1917 invention of the quartz sandwich transducer for underwater sound transmission in submarine detection. Loomis renewed the wartime acquaintance with Professor Robert Wood and offered to collaborate and underwrite any joint research ventures. In 1926, Wood told Loomis of Langevin's experiments and suggested the subject offered a wide field for research in physics, chemistry, and biology. It was this group that had allegedly introduced ultrasound to chemistry in 1927. When a liquid is exposed to ultrasonic waves bubble growth is created which is known as cavitation. Sound waves stress these bubbles, causing them to grow, contract and eventually to implode. With implosion, immense heat and pressure are produced that speed reactions. Every imploding bubble is a microreactor in itself. This is due to the extreme heat released upon implosion that creates a local hot spot. Temperatures can reach 5000°C with pressures of several hundred atmospheres. These benefits make sonochemistry has in recent times became a useful tool for the synthesis of chemicals, pharmaceuticals and the production of new materials with unusual properties."
http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/loomis.html

...i'm no psientist but 5000º celsius sounds plenty hot enough to make steam to me; and when all those bubbles are imploding they give off a pretty blue light that just so happens to look just like the pretty blue lights given off by the so-called cherenkov radiation at the bottom of nuclear reactors. feel free to use your logic once again to connect the dots.



http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-conte ... s/2012/07/

loomis is on the far right. he financed the dude's on the far left cyclotrons, the atom-smasher is sitting next to arthur compton (luis fuckin alvarez' thesis advisor), arthur is sitting next to vannevar bush, james conant is in front of bush (he made his first fortune with a dude named chauncey loomis and his granddaughter wrote best-selling bios of loomis and oppenheimer), the other dude is arthur's hustling brother karl...

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/tag/james-b-conant/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennet_Conant

loomis' first cousin and mentor was henry stimson, fdr's secretary of war of course...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_L._Stimson

...loomis' son would be head of v.o.a. and his greatgrandson started netflix...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03752.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Hastings

[smj]

so-called cherenkov radiation:


sonoluminescence:

https://ask.extension.org/questions/292863#myModal85200
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/31/scien ... -uses.html

[patrix]

Hi smj

Thanks for your reply but I must say I find it hard to follow your reasoning. I don't claim it's intentional but you come off as a bit condescending and nonsensical.

I find it hard to explain for example GPS, global TV broadcasts and sattelite phones.

Surely fiber cables are doing most of the distribution of content today but that wasn't the case before and those disc antennas must pick up something.

What I meant with Occam's Razor is that sattelites is a way to explain what I mention that requires the least assumptions.

Anyway I don't think we get much further. I am not convinced sattelites is a hoax.

[brianv]

Hi smj

Thanks for your reply but I must say I find it hard to follow your reasoning. I don't claim it's intentional but you come off as a bit condescending and nonsensical.

I find it hard to explain for example GPS, global TV broadcasts and sattelite phones.

Surely fiber cables are doing most of the distribution of content today but that wasn't the case before and those disc antennas must pick up something.

What I meant with Occam's Razor is that sattelites is a way to explain what I mention that requires the least assumptions.

Anyway I don't think we get much further. I am not convinced sattelites is a hoax.

Uh-oh! This does not bode well!

Patrix, is English your first language?

[patrix]

Um no, but I'm fairly good at English and pretty much meant what I wrote.

Does not bode well? Sounds omnious. This place seems pretty wound up and strange to be honest. I think I'll just lie low in fear of breaking some forum or english grammar rules

[SacredCowSlayer]

I'm new here and like to be controversial by saying I DO believe satellites exist. It felt funny to write that . I am with you on 9/11, NASA and Nukes but not this and I don't think this thread brings up strong arguments against man made satellites.

Okay. So I guess watching the Sputnik reports sounded authentic to you? Or perhaps The Big Bounce made strong arguments in support of man made satellites?

Maybe you've watched these giant hunks of metal get launched into the vacuum? If you did, and were able to capture it on a camcorder, then please post it. I would love to see it.

If you simply believe in man made satellites then that's at least an honest position. We aren't here to tell people what to believe.

And please don't read my reply as being condescending. I'm simply asking you to look at the evidence in support of your belief, and if you have something new to add in that regard, then please share it with us.

I also think Occam's razor is relevant here. I see the reason and motivation behind the 9/11, NASA and Nukes hoaxes. But why fake Sats?

You might want to read through this topic [ viewtopic.php?f=28&t=953&p=2401085&hilit=cold+war#p2401085 ] so you can see how these satellites tie in quite neatly with numerous scams that have played out for a long time now.

As for this forum being a "strange place"?

Well, if you know of a more civil, thoughtful, and critically discerning forum on the web, then please let me know where that is. I would definitely be interested to learn of such a place.

And do try Not to take things around here personally. Maybe just take some time to read and think things through before just going on and saying "I believe in _____".

[hoi.polloi]

Satellites are best suited for broadcasting.

What evidence can you provide that satellites are suitable for anything at all besides employing and spying on the best engineers, and luring them with cushy jobs?

And why, exactly, would signals need to be sent into outer space before returning to Earth, when it's much more efficient to send them through pipelines, route through antenna, through the atmosphere or bounce them of the ionosphere?

What good would an invisible speck above the sky be for a broad wave of terrestrial information in any case? And if it's about having some kind of stationary portal why would you spend the money to launch something into extremely unreliable regions with junk flying around ostensibly at thousands of miles per hour, radiation, incredibly extreme temperatures and so on; when a balloon at the tranquil top of our atmosphere's surface could do?

I just don't understand your rationale for blindly believing in insanely expensive, falling clattertraps with no reasonable mode of vehicle doing vaguely distantly what terrestrial technology does cheaply, precisely and well enough. The concept alone is insane, let alone the unbelievable marketing and public relations campaigns used to bring people into an irrational belief in their perfection.

[patrix]

@S.C.S and hoi.polloi

Good points and questions from both of you. I will look into it. And to be clear I truly see this place as a gold mine and a friendly place and you are right that I should read more and get a feel of this place before I voice my "beliefs" (a bad choice of word I agree). Most of my thoughts on space, Nukes and terror was confirmed when I found this place, as well as my notion that Flat Earth is a psyop. And I've spent some time figuring those out. I guess I'm frustrated because I think many in these circles claim things I think I have looked into and dismissed and I don't like to run down dead ends. But then again many things I thought was dead ends was not.

And a thing I've also learned is that forums are a way to get and give information, but really bad for opinionated discussion. I'll think I'll try that voice chat sometime.

And I really truly appreciate what you people are doing here. Thank You soo much for that.

/Patrik

Oh and please derail or tuck this away since it has little to do with sattelites anymore

[CluedIn]

Patrix - I see you have been commenting throughout the board, but did forget to introduce yourself here viewtopic.php?f=32&t=838, as required. This may clear up some questions.

[patrix]

Satellites are best suited for broadcasting.

What evidence can you provide that satellites are suitable for anything at all besides employing and spying on the best engineers, and luring them with cushy jobs?

Since I share the view that we’re being lied to on a major scale of I cannot. Any source I reference can be a lie. And I think the research here and elsewhere shows that imagery of space activity is fabricated on a massive scale. That of course also puts satellites into serious question. All I can offer is my line of reasoning for thinking satellites are real.

I agree that the Sputnik was a psyop to start the cold war and space race and that the imagery of it was fabricated. But that does not prove that there wasn’t something in orbit transmitting a radio signal. A satellite was an extra ordinary claim back then and the media encouraged people to listen to it on short wave receivers that was pretty common. If it was a media hoax I doubt people would have bought it if it could not be confirmed by radio amateurs. I think satellites may have been the nugget of truth they used to sell the Grand Space Hoax

As for satellites being more suited for broadcasting is because of the time delay (http://www.satsig.net/latency.htm). So it’s not very practical to use them for two way communication. Especially not those in the higher geostationary orbit

And why, exactly, would signals need to be sent into outer space before returning to Earth, when it's much more efficient to send them through pipelines, route through antenna, through the atmosphere or bounce them of the ionosphere?

Because running cable and building antennas also cost money. A communication satellite solves the problem of line of sight. A high frequency radio wave passes through most matter, including the atmosphere.

Yes, radio waves can be bounced off the atmosphere but in order to do that they need to be of low frequency. And to be able to get around the earth, a powerful transmitter is required (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_wave). At medium frequency you can bounce off the ionsphere, but you cannot get around the earth curvature that way without multiple transmitters that relays and amplifies the signal.

Not far from where I live there is a preserved Long Wave radio transmitter that was used for trans atlantic messaging (http://grimeton.org/?lang=en). As you can see it’s a pretty large piece of machinery, and they soon became obsolete when the first trans atlantic cables became operational.

What good would an invisible speck above the sky be for a broad wave of terrestrial information in any case? And if it's about having some kind of stationary portal why would you spend the money to launch something into extremely unreliable regions with junk flying around ostensibly at thousands of miles per hour, radiation, incredibly extreme temperatures and so on; when a balloon at the tranquil top of our atmosphere's surface could do?

Not sure if the top of the atmosphere is such a particular tranquil place. What makes you conclude that? And you would have the problem of keeping the ballon up and it seems not a small feet assuming those amateur GoPro flights are not hoaxes. Satellites do seem to break, but I figure space is vast and that makes the likeliness of being hit by something smaller.

I just don't understand your rationale for blindly believing in insanely expensive, falling clattertraps with no reasonable mode of vehicle doing vaguely distantly what terrestrial technology does cheaply, precisely and well enough. The concept alone is insane, let alone the unbelievable marketing and public relations campaigns used to bring people into an irrational belief in their perfection.

[/quote]

I think there’s a good case for satellites, even though they are questionable because of the Grand Space Hoax. GPS and Satellite TV for example becomes hard to explain without them. But the communication satellite is becoming obsolete because of the world being rapidly wired up by fiber optic cables. Just like the long wave transmitters was made obsolete by underwater copper cables in the early 20th century.

And there are documentation from other places than NASA that looks credible. I found this regarding Swedish satellites for example http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Swef ... ummary.htm

[sharpstuff]

Quote:
patrix wrote:
Satellites are best suited for broadcasting.

Quote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

What evidence can you provide that satellites are suitable for anything at all besides employing and spying on the best engineers, and luring them with cushy jobs?

And why, exactly, would signals need to be sent into outer space before returning to Earth, when it's much more efficient to send them through pipelines, route through antenna, through the atmosphere or bounce them of the ionosphere?

What good would an invisible speck above the sky be for a broad wave of terrestrial information in any case? And if it's about having some kind of stationary portal why would you spend the money to launch something into extremely unreliable regions with junk flying around ostensibly at thousands of miles per hour, radiation, incredibly extreme temperatures and so on; when a balloon at the tranquil top of our atmosphere's surface could do?

I just don't understand your rationale for blindly believing in insanely expensive, falling clattertraps with no reasonable mode of vehicle doing vaguely distantly what terrestrial technology does cheaply, precisely and well enough. The concept alone is insane, let alone the unbelievable marketing and public relations campaigns used to bring people into an irrational belief in their perfection.

Personally, I agree with Hoi on this. I could not have put it better, myself.

It occurred a long time ago to me that any object released into the void must necessarily be infintisimal in regard to the size of the planet. What on earth (!) would be the point? 'Signal' up, 'signal' back. And just what is the 'signal'?

patrix wrote:

Quote:

And I think the research here and elsewhere shows that imagery of space activity is fabricated on a massive scale.

I think your sentence should have read: 'And I think the research here shows that imagery of space activity is fabricated.'

[patrix]

It occurred a long time ago to me that any object released into the void must necessarily be infintisimal in regard to the size of the planet. What on earth (!) would be the point? 'Signal' up, 'signal' back. And just what is the 'signal'?

Some of the points would be to enable existing technologies like GPS and Satellite TV. The signals are high frequency radio. A type of signal that has the benefit of being able to travel long distances with low energy/wattage and that requires a small receiver. But with the drawback that it can only go straight and not bounce off the atmosphere as opposed to long and medium waves.

patrix wrote:

Quote:

And I think the research here and elsewhere shows that imagery of space activity is fabricated on a massive scale.

I think your sentence should have read: 'And I think the research here shows that imagery of space activity is fabricated.'

Thanks for reviewing, but I meant what I wrote. Cluesforum is not the only site analyzing space imagery and pointing out problems with it. See http://www.aulis.com/ for example.

I'm curious: Would there be any interest to get together and do a skype call or similar to discuss the satellite question and similar things?

[bongostaple]

Patrix, the points that you raised are all, at several points, discussed in quite some detail in the 54 pages of this thread. Your posts sound like you haven't read all of this thread - if you were to do so, you will find lots of pertinent information to digest, especially regarding skywave transmission of radio waves through bouncing them off the ionosphere.

[patrix]

I happen to know some about radio and have problems with explaining GPS and Sattelite TV with radio waves bouncing off the ionosphere. A portable mid wave radio can only do one bounce so you will not get around the earth with that. To do that you need low frequency and very high wattage and a large receiving antenna. GPS receivers are small.

I essence I find it very hard to dismiss sattelites based on the material I find here. But if it's not up for discussion anymore I'll leave it at that

[bongostaple]

It is up for discussion - but there are often areas where it becomes a highly technical discussion and we look back and realise we are miles away from starting with fake media, and not entirely sure about the technical subject.

I am not convinced that higher frequency signals are never bounced by the ionosphere - there is a definite lack of information freely available on the upper limits of this technique.

I have a lot of questions about GPS, but before muddying the waters here I have a considerable amount of research to do, starting with properly understanding how it is supposed to work, especially the decoding of signals by GPS receivers.

There are many other areas where I can't work out how satellites could be real, the main ones being the impossibility of getting there, slowing down, turning, stopping, and of course not burning to a crisp due to the vast amount of radiation. In relation to the above, I would see a terrestrial alternative to satellites as being very feasible indeed compared to satellites. But I don't know for sure, so I'm (slowly) doing some research.