Satellites : general discussion and musings

[Kham]

DO SATELLITES NEED TO EXIST

Do satellites exist or not? How about we ask if satellites need to exist at all. Nearly any spot on the globe that needs communication can get it with a combination undersea cable, terrestrial cables, radio signals, predictable bouncing of signals off of atmosphere and cell towers, and what ever else industry currently uses. We don't need satellites for anything.

But say, what if one were to want total communication secrecy. Problem with ground cables is they can be easily hacked into, I mean literally sawed into with a saw, to get access to that data stream that travels through those terrestrial fiber-optics. But say one were to declare that their cables were in outer space, meaning satellites, so their communication method was more nearly unhackable. This would only be a ruse though, to misguide would-be hackers. One could start their own communications company and pronounce their secure satellite communications are the safest, while in reality, they are just using a secure encrypted terrestrial and undersea cable network. By the way, data traveling through terrestrial and undersea cables travel the same exact routes in the exact same times as so called satellite data, actually, satellite data takes a bit longer, lol. We also should not ignore economics. Hitching a ride on a rocket is not cheap. Faking satellite communications would be much more economical for a business than actually making satellite communications.

Not only do satellites not need to exist, but it would be astronomically cheaper for them to be faked.

[simonshack]

Oops... just doing some more research I've found this vid of the Hispasat launch, a recent one from Jan 27th 2017.
.

Isn't it just beautiful? This Soyuz "mushroom-cloud-launch" goes straight into my rocketry artwork collection. I might just open - one fine day - a Rocket Launch CGI ART GALLERY, in Rome, Paris or London. Hey, I might even make a living out of it! Entrance fee: $11 (in honor of Apollo 11)



Seriously now: anyone be-LIE-ving that this is REAL imagery has to be severely-conditioned / mentally-wounded by Hollywood movies.

Please DO watch these other idiotic Soyuz CGI launches : viewtopic.php?p=2385791#p2385791

There really is NO difference between the blatant fakeness of alleged manned-rockets launch imagery - and the alleged satellite-carrying rocket imagery. To think that the former is fake - and that the latter is real - simply makes no logical sense.

[Altair]

Yes, it's funny that despite being so close to the launch site, those girls don't seem to be affected by the turbulence that such a xl-sized rocket would cause. Nor do the bushes in the Guyana launch, which are just being swayed by a gentle breeze. BTW, I've found some bloopers in the ISS guided tour by Spanish 'astronaut' Pedro Duque, but I'll post in the appropriate thread.

[pov603]

N-ass-a must piss themselves laughing when posting stuff like this for the MSM to pick up and parade as truth!

An Indian teenager has built what is thought could be the world's lightest satellite, which will be put into orbit at a Nasa facility in the US in June.
Rifath Shaarook's 64-gram (0.14 lb) device was selected as the winner in a competition co-sponsored by Nasa.
The 18-year-old says its main purpose was to demonstrate the performance of 3-D printed carbon fibre.
Rifath told local media his invention will go on a four-hour mission for a sub-orbital flight.
----
During that time, the lightweight satellite will operate for around 12 minutes in a micro-gravity environment of space.
"We designed it completely from scratch," he said. "It will have a new kind of on-board computer and eight indigenous built-in sensors to measure acceleration, rotation and the magnetosphere of the earth."
The satellite has been named KalamSat after former Indian president Abdul Kalam, a pioneer for the country's aeronautical science ambitions.
His project was selected in a challenge called Cubes in Space, organised by NASA and education company idoodle.
Newcomer scientist Rifath comes from a small town in Tamil Nadu and now works as lead scientist at Chennai-based Space Kidz India, an organisation promoting science and education for Indian children and teenagers.
The KalamSat is not his first invention: at the age of 15, he built a helium weather balloon as a part of nationwide competition for young scientists.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-39931556

Dont get me wrong, I am not by any stretch of the imagination slim so I am not having a 'pop' [no pun (or bun) intended...] at this entity being depicted as being overweight, just the fact that Nasa have these two together, as if they were made for eachother...like mac'n'cheese...

Just noticed too that he is 18 years old...hmmm...1+8 yada, yada, yada, and is also a 'lead scientist' at such a tender age.

Also, some anagrams of his name [Rifath Shaarook]:
- a far rakish hoot,
- hark, I shoot afar,
- hah, a risk too far,
- a rakish fart, ooh,
- sharia fart hook,
- oafish torah ark,
https://new.wordsmith.org/anagram/

Mods/Admin please move this to chatbox if needs be.

Edit: changed myself from slim to fat by "not" adding...

[molodyets]

I've been reading this thread and haven't found an answer to the following question: If radio signals bounce off the ionosphere from land based transmitters, how does the signal from space penetrate the ionosphere? If anyone has the answer to this question, please let me know. Or, if the answer is within this thread, please tell me where because I missed it.

Another question I've always had is about signal strength. What type of transmission signal would be required for a satellite in Geostationary orbit (~ 35,000km away) to communicate with Earth? Since the signal strength decreases with the inverse square of the distance, a rough calculation shows the signal to be too weak. If we say a satellite can send a signal of 5kw, the signal strength at Earth would be on the order of 1E-12watts. I know different frequencies have different penetrating power so I know it's not as simple. Not even the military has the capability to resolve such a weak signal so they would need a complicated relay pathway with signal booster satellites and such. Hmm, kind of funny, for satellites to be useful, you need more satellites.
Or, the above could just mean that they use modulated laser signals? But then you need to consider beam divergence which is pretty significant at such a long distance.

[Peter]

I've been reading this thread and haven't found an answer to the following question: If radio signals bounce off the ionosphere from land based transmitters, how does the signal from space penetrate the ionosphere? If anyone has the answer to this question, please let me know. Or, if the answer is within this thread, please tell me where because I missed it.

What signal from space? We obviously get light and UV but just because Jodrell Bank or whatever says we get radio signals doesn't make it so.

[Peter]

Another question I've always had is about signal strength. What type of transmission signal would be required for a satellite in Geostationary orbit (~ 35,000km away) to communicate with Earth? Since the signal strength decreases with the inverse square of the distance, a rough calculation shows the signal to be too weak. If we say a satellite can send a signal of 5kw, the signal strength at Earth would be on the order of 1E-12watts. I know different frequencies have different penetrating power so I know it's not as simple. Not even the military has the capability to resolve such a weak signal so they would need a complicated relay pathway with signal booster satellites and such. Hmm, kind of funny, for satellites to be useful, you need more satellites.
Or, the above could just mean that they use modulated laser signals? But then you need to consider beam divergence which is pretty significant at such a long distance.

Is there honestly not enough info already in this thread, and the rocketry thread, to end the satellite myth for you?

TX, RX all depends on this small device being in the exact right spot and orientation 35K km above us. Less easy for NASA to explain that, and how it gets there, than come up with some fantasy of how they overcome beam divergence and attenuation.

[molodyets]

Is there honestly not enough info already in this thread, and the rocketry thread, to end the satellite myth for you?

Ouch!

I found cluesforum after I had already become 95% convinced that satellites were all a hoax. This thread and the clueschronicle podcasts helped push me over the 99% convinced mark. My post had 2 purposes:
1) I was wondering if there was any official answer to them which I had never heard or considered.
2) If not already considered, I was offering what I consider to be a set of particularly damning questions for satellite proponents.

I'll try to be more clear next time.

[hoi.polloi]

There is an official answer to each (or at least, many) of the conundrums presented in our satellites discussions lately. They will talk about the thrust issues, the thermodynamics issues and all the mathematical possibilities of achieving the otherwise unachievable. Now that you are armed with an understanding of how those could merely be lies, you should certainly go explore the numerous web sites around the Internet which claim to have official responses to our question. You are intelligent. You can find these. I'd rather not waste too much space of our forum on anything that will turn out to just be a long winded excuse for the doctored imagery.

I am only interjecting and writing this because we have received comments from the occasional person who, while perhaps not willing to investigate our side for themselves, insists that the official story must be true and that we need to fully "disprove" the satellite mythology. It's a bit like asking us to "fully disprove" a religion. I am not sure we should waste our (or our readers') time.

Having said that, if you do find a single explanation you want to share — regarding the one-way ionosphere issue — please do feel free to post it. It could be a fascinating study of a worthy inquiry!

[agraposo]

molodyets,

no manmade device or spacecraft has ever gone into space. Period. For people that think the contrary, NASA has a special science to explain all their missions. All they have to do is apply the physic laws that work in the Earth to space. Nobody can demonstrate that they are wrong.

As hoi says, a lot of time can be wasted easily trying to find the answers. But I give you a short reply to your questions.

There are some 'windows' in the atmosphere so, depending on the frequency, the radiation emitted from Earth is reflected, propagated or escaped to outer space. The same goes for radiation coming from outer space. Then, the explanation goes like this:

- radio waves up to 30 MHz reflect in the atmosphere;
- radio waves with a frequency higher than 3 GHz escape through the atmosphere;
- in the middle, radio waves are propagated through the atmosphere;
- infrared radiation is mostly absorbed by the atmosphere;
- then visible light and some UV radiation pass through the atmosphere;
- the rest of the spectrum (X-rays, gamma rays) is blocked by the atmosphere.

That's all. You can search all the details and graphics that you want. And this explains radio astronomy, satellites communications, GPS, etc.

Regarding the strength signal sent from satellites, the GPS signal that supposedly reaches Earth has a power of the order of 1E-16 watts. You have also to consider the gains of the transmitting and receiving antennas, so this power can be much amplified. So no problem with that.

Other questions can be more difficult to explain: how is that radiation doesn't affect the satellites circuitry, why the same gravitational laws for planets and stars apply to artificial satellites and spacecraft, how signals from outer space emitted by probes in Jupiter or Saturn can reach the Earth, how the human organism can survive in no-gravity environments? NASA science is science fiction, a bunch of lies for people consumption.

I'm not American, but, where did all the hundreds of millions that the space missions cost go? (Well, in Europe we have the ESA!)

[molodyets]

molodyets,

no manmade device or spacecraft has ever gone into space. Period. For people that think the contrary, NASA has a special science to explain all their missions. All they have to do is apply the physic laws that work in the Earth to space. Nobody can demonstrate that they are wrong.

As hoi says, a lot of time can be wasted easily trying to find the answers. But I give you a short reply to your questions.

I was being lazy and could have looked up the radio frequency characteristics on my own, so thanks for taking the time to respond. In the future, I'll do my own research rather than waste people's time here. I just was hoping it was already written in this thread, but I did not see it. This topic is very interesting to me, but I do have higher priorities, like investigating what's really up there, so I don't have the time to really dig into disproving the lies. I suppose it was pretty rude of me to ask someone else to do the research. I'll continue in my search for easy answers.

Like you said, they have an explanation for everything and most of it we just have to swallow without ever having any hope of verifying for ourselves. I'm always looking for those questions which could be the most embarrassing for NASA. This is especially useful for when I'm discussing this subject with my nasaloving friends. One of those questions, I thought was the radio bouncing one but they could just claim to use a frequency which 'they claim' penetrates the atmosphere. The signal strength question to me has that potential. I don't think even NASA claims that cell phones are actually receiving gps signals, but they can probably claim that the military has that capability because like you already said, who can disprove it? To thoroughly answer these questions takes a lot of time, but that's what they want us to do, waste our time trying to disprove them, rather than looking beyond the lies.

So, I will swallow my pride and thank you all for your reprimands.

[hoi.polloi]

molodyets, thank you for understanding that we ask people to do their own research, but the encouraging thing should hopefully be that we also ask you to post and share it. (Sorry for any emotional injury/insult. I am sure nobody means that. I know I didn't! Text is a hard communication style.)

Also, thanks agraposo, for a very sound reply. Good points raised in the inquiry, after all!

[agraposo]

Thanks hoi. The fact is that I'm trained answering those questions, because I also have 'nasaloving friends', as molodyets says. Those friends usually argue against technical or scientific questions, but when confronted with NASA fakery, they don't say anything, as if they were stupid / brainwashed.

[patrix]

Hi everyone. I promised to never post again in this thread some months ago since I firmly believed satellites existed. And nothing I found in this thread or elsewhere could convince me otherwise. My line of reasoning was that even though the imagery and much of the facts surrounding satellites are problematic, they must exist because GPS and Satellite TV. I read about Skywave, but dismissed it since I’ve never heard of it before. I viewed that and “Rockets don’t work in vacuum” as contrived explanations much like Flat Earthers explain away the fact that a ship comes up over the horizon as an optic illusion.

But I have now looked more into the matter and can conclude that Simons research is certainly not just about the imagery. I read his posts again and listened to some episodes of Fakeologist radio where Simon and Ab discusses satellites, and he builds an excellent case against them. From the fake imagery to the fact that Skywave is a very real technology and that HAARP is likely used to increase its effectiveness. And I could verify this myself. For example I found a research paper describing how Skywave was used in 2003 to send data between Antarctica and Spain as a “backup/alternative
to the satellite link” http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/9/12/10136/pdf

I also agree that the satellite story bears the signature of a Pysop. It started as fear mongering with Sputnik and are now used to enforce other Psyops like Climate change.

So the problem here was not Simons and others research, but instead my arrogance and cognitive dissonance.

I just wanted to say this since I was so opposed to the idea before and I would also like to apologize for some harsh words in my posts. But I was sincerely convinced that satellites are real and that you guys were either duped or some kind of disinformation agents. Now I am instead very grateful that you have opened my eyes to the possibility that satellites may very well be yet another grand hoax.

[hoi.polloi]

Thank you patrix, for the kind words.

As someone who has crossed the threshold from "Satellites would be impossible to hoax" to "There is very likely some weird chicanery going on", it would be invaluable to get your feedback on what we can do to improve our thread.

Obviously, if you thought that when we posted earnest information to build a "credible doubt" (not sure if I should ever use that phrase again), that we were "disinfo", then others may feel the same way.

In that case, I fear we have some problem with our presentation. What can we do to improve our communication about satellites for the average reader?