It seems it would be logical to verify this from two or more relatively distant points – simultaneously. I do not know but think that such a thing has never been done; NotRappaport for example, has not mentioned any though he discussed the matter rather lengthily and in many posts. I think also that without this verifying process the using trigonometry mentioned above is simply an "imaginary" one – or invalid as to the matter in hand. I mean: Is it completely out of the question (and so another silly thought by me) that some cunning trick has been and is being used as the basis of the Internet dataset?rusty wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 4:31 pm ...However, there are a couple of problems with the high-altitude plane theory, especially if we hold on to the convex spherical model of the earth and light traveling in straight lines. In this case there is no way to get around the fact that this object is actually flying at about the height we are told it is, ~400km above ground. I arrived at this conclusion by doing the geometry math, when you go to heavens above and find out at which location this thing is directly overhead and then calculate the elevation above the horizon for your point of view. If we are to additionally accept the "mainstream" atmospheric and gravitational properties of our earth, there is simply no way any plane could fly at this altitude.
Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
Anyone can verify this internet dataset at any time from his own location - simultaneously or not - and always find that those dots are visible approximately at the indicated location and that the math for the accepted earth model gives a consistent location for all vantage points across the earth. So if this is indeed the same object we are witnessing from everywhere, you don't need to travel to different locations in order to verify the "internet model" (except maybe for very remote locations where we suspect they might fail to "cover" the area correctly somehow). And trigonometry then tells us its whereabouts. If this is some sort of trick it must be a "trick of the light", some sort of projection as in the Shanghai sky (if those are not really drones), as suspected by Simon. Real objects would either confirm the "orbit" model (though they would almost certainly be unmanned) or else require some kind of "black", "UFO" technology, allowing those objects to travel at this break-neck speed. Or maybe there are some kind of special properties of our "universe" which allow them to do so.Mansur wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 8:23 pm It seems it would be logical to verify this from two or more relatively distant points – simultaneously. [...] I mean: Is it completely out of the question (and so another silly thought by me) that some cunning trick has been and is being used as the basis of the Internet dataset?
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
*
BALL DROPS ON THE ISS
Dear all, it would appear that 'zero gravity' acts in - uh - opposed directions - depending on which side of the Earth the ISS is traveling...
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2NY36GlKiE
full link: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qAtdxTEgh7J6/
BALL DROPS ON THE ISS
Dear all, it would appear that 'zero gravity' acts in - uh - opposed directions - depending on which side of the Earth the ISS is traveling...
![:lol: :lol:](./images/smilies/laugh.gif)
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2NY36GlKiE
full link: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qAtdxTEgh7J6/
-
- Member
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:20 am
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
Dear Simon, thanks for the enormous laugh!simonshack wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 2:12 pm *
BALL DROPS ON THE ISS
Dear all, it would appear that 'zero gravity' acts in - uh - opposed directions - depending on which side of the Earth the ISS is traveling...![]()
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2NY36GlKiE
full link: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qAtdxTEgh7J6/
I think there's few posts as effective as a couple of short clips to make the point! Absolutely incredible.
The body language in the second video is delightful. Most see the cock-up and react instintctively, bodily and then regain composure rapidly as the show must go on!
The studio like broadcasts from the ISS have always bothered me. Why are so many bodies cramped together in accordance with the cameras focal plane, devoid of any real movement or freedom that could be so easily demonstrated within this weightless environment?
There's no sense of fun, freedom or spontaneity! And in almost every single video I have ever seen, there is a microphone that is floated with great delictation to another as the almost singular evidence of weightlessness! It's always the same! I first noticed this amazing lifeless comparison when looking at Tony Hawks performing aboard a 'vomet comet'.
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0nHSMM_69w
The 'ball drop' is a new favourite!
-
- Member
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
Is the end of I$$ near?
International Space Station Alarms Triggered After "Burning Plastic Smell"
Less than one week after Russian cosmonauts discovered small cracks on the aging International Space Station (ISS), smoke alarms were triggered on the station in the early hours of Thursday, according to AP. Crew members reported dark smoke and the smell of burnt plastic coming from the Russian segment of the space station.
Russia's space agency, Roscosmos, said the incident unfolded at 0155 ET in the Russian-built Zvezda module during an overnight recharge of the station's batteries. French astronaut Thomas Pesquet said, "the smell of burning plastic or electronic equipment" made its way through the station into the US segment, RIA Novosti reported, citing a NASA broadcast.
Pesquet and other crew members turned on air filters to scrub the station's air of smoke/smell. There was no word on how much smoke was emitted, but reports indicate astronauts went back to sleep after air quality levels returned to normal.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... stic-smell
International Space Station Alarms Triggered After "Burning Plastic Smell"
Less than one week after Russian cosmonauts discovered small cracks on the aging International Space Station (ISS), smoke alarms were triggered on the station in the early hours of Thursday, according to AP. Crew members reported dark smoke and the smell of burnt plastic coming from the Russian segment of the space station.
Russia's space agency, Roscosmos, said the incident unfolded at 0155 ET in the Russian-built Zvezda module during an overnight recharge of the station's batteries. French astronaut Thomas Pesquet said, "the smell of burning plastic or electronic equipment" made its way through the station into the US segment, RIA Novosti reported, citing a NASA broadcast.
Pesquet and other crew members turned on air filters to scrub the station's air of smoke/smell. There was no word on how much smoke was emitted, but reports indicate astronauts went back to sleep after air quality levels returned to normal.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... stic-smell
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
Let's all hope and pray that the nasty burning plastic stench emanated from a BS-detector exploding on the ISS movie set.kickstones wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:11 am Is the end of I$$ near?
International Space Station Alarms Triggered After "Burning Plastic Smell"
![;) ;)](./images/smilies/wink.gif)
![Image](https://mumbrella.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/bullshit.png)
-
- Member
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
Ha Ha, yes, Simon, if you want to see some more BS then check the first 60 secs of this latest video clown show and notably the woman in pink hair....
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFPWjQca9bY
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFPWjQca9bY
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
I came across this photo today:
![Image](https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/International-Space-Station/6544089?qsp=eJwtjDsOwkAMRO%2FimiaKRJEOcgAouIC1HsFKIbuyzWcV5e5YK7o3b0azUSqr4%2Bu3VkETGVjTgw5UWflpNG0k7DilhOqQWAxRWlE%2FtwjvjM9cXqv%2F5UUFGl5gqZ%2Fc43QIgF4703gML9nqwq0PnfNC%2B%2F4DbZ0tGA%3D%3D&fbclid=IwAR2qZWSEo4TR_VWRD8Ag8sLs5rjGFA4hblSO1zShgz1IqzzJAEGa65XL_-8)
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitle ... EGa65XL_-8
The is supposed to be a photo of the ISS orbiting at 400km and passing in front of the moon. How can this possibly be legit, given that the moon's average distance from Earth is 384,399km or about 30 Earths away?
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitle ... EGa65XL_-8
The is supposed to be a photo of the ISS orbiting at 400km and passing in front of the moon. How can this possibly be legit, given that the moon's average distance from Earth is 384,399km or about 30 Earths away?
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
*
Does anyone STILL believe in the I$$ ?
https://thesocialservice1.bandcamp.com/ ... ce-station
Back in 2015, I wrote (and recorded) this song about it...
Does anyone STILL believe in the I$$ ?
https://thesocialservice1.bandcamp.com/ ... ce-station
Back in 2015, I wrote (and recorded) this song about it...
SPACE STATION
Far up in the sky
I see a satellite
Flying slowly over the horizon
Oh How I wonder
Wonder what it is
Is it a bird?
Is it a plane?
Maybe it’s Superman?
I’m told it is
The “INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION”
The “INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION”
Anyone can see
It’s all a fantasy
Just a lame computer animation
Oh how I wonder
Wonder why this is
THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
You’ve gotta be crazy
To believe
You’ve got to be crazy
You’ve got to be – craaazy
I’m told it is
The “INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION”
You’ve got to be crazy
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
*
Dear all, I am hereby re-posting an old (yet slightly updated) post of mine from August 2014.
I believe it still has its merits and that it may well go to answer a long-standing question that we've debated for years on this forum, namely: "WHAT exactly is that little speck of light that we can see passing in our skies - and that NASA claims to be the "International Space Station?"
**************************************************
IS the ISS "impersonated" by solar-powered drones?
![Image](https://septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/ISS_seen_from_Earth_01.jpg)
There comes a time when - as we research the hoaxes & illusions of this world - we need to offer a plausible, no-nonsense alternative explanation of the frauds that we diligently keep calling out. I will now 'take the plunge', and offer my personal, reasonable and observational-founded supposition as to exactly how the "INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION" fraud may well be upheld. Here follows the little we know for certain - and can empirically verify - about the "ISS":
- It appears in our night skylines at time intervals no shorter than 18.2 hours - as verified by myself and others over the years.
- Its visual appearance is that of a moving (yet un-flickering) speck of light that can employ up to 7 minutes (or more) to traverse our visible West-to-East celestial arc.
- It would seem to be (intuitively) consistent with an aircraft moving higher - yet slower - than a commercial airliner (whose standard cruise altitude and speed are about 11km and 900km/h).
Now, here's some info about the SOLARA - an American-built solar-powered drone :
Now, what if the most advanced drones of this type (i.e. military-classified) are capable of speeds of, say, 740km/h at, say, 22km of altitude? Well we don't know that, but this will be, for the purpose of my following argumentation, the working postulation upon which I will base my present thesis. Not being an aeronautics expert, I will defer to such experts the question of whether the aforementioned speed & altitude are realistic / feasible or not. For the little I know, I believe that our current technology would allow us to build an aircraft which can easily achieve this. At 22km of altitude, "where the air is idyllically calm" (see above quote from the Solara article) and its density quite low, a high-tech solar-powered aircraft should be able to reach these speeds (740km/h is, after all, only slightly more than twice the top speed of a Lamborghini supercar). Moreover, the size of such an "ISS-impersonating" aircraft need not be very large at all - since it would fly almost twenty times lower than the alleged "400km" altitude of the "ISS".
Please read a little about NASA's Helios solar drone (1999-2003): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroViron ... _Prototype
The Helios solar drone made its maiden flight on September 8, 1999 (i.e. right around the time that the ISS was starting to attract public attention):
" The first ISS component was launched in 1998, and the first long-term residents arrived on 2 November 2000 after being launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome on 31 October 2000." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... ce_Station
We were then told that NASA's Helios Prototype catastrophically crashed into the sea on June 26, 2003...
![Image](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Pages_from_64317main_helios-2.jpg)
So, without further ado, here is my (graphically-illustrated) speculation as to how the "International Space Station" deception may have been concocted.
Could the "ISS" possibly be impersonated by a few (perhaps only 3) high-speed solar drones of the "Helios" type?
Those three solar-powered drones cruising at about 740km/h at an altitude of 22km (where the air is idyllically calm) would then be made trackable on websites such as "Heavens Above" - and sold to the public as "ISS passages". Is it technically feasible? I would say that the answer to this last question is "yes".
Or perhaps you prefer to buy into NASA's official story, i.e. that the "ISS" is a football-field-size machine weighing 450 tons (408,000 kg) which was built piecemeal thanks to several Space Shuttle missions - and that now keeps revolving around Earth every 90 minutes at hypersonic speeds, without fuel nor engines - and without ever being reclaimed by Earth's gravity? By all means, you are free to buy it - and eat it too! Would you like some cream-topping on that?![<_< <_<](./images/smilies/dry.gif)
At this point, you will not want to miss reading this short 2019 article from the techexplorist. com website...
Dear all, I am hereby re-posting an old (yet slightly updated) post of mine from August 2014.
I believe it still has its merits and that it may well go to answer a long-standing question that we've debated for years on this forum, namely: "WHAT exactly is that little speck of light that we can see passing in our skies - and that NASA claims to be the "International Space Station?"
**************************************************
IS the ISS "impersonated" by solar-powered drones?
![Image](https://septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/ISS_seen_from_Earth_01.jpg)
There comes a time when - as we research the hoaxes & illusions of this world - we need to offer a plausible, no-nonsense alternative explanation of the frauds that we diligently keep calling out. I will now 'take the plunge', and offer my personal, reasonable and observational-founded supposition as to exactly how the "INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION" fraud may well be upheld. Here follows the little we know for certain - and can empirically verify - about the "ISS":
- It appears in our night skylines at time intervals no shorter than 18.2 hours - as verified by myself and others over the years.
- Its visual appearance is that of a moving (yet un-flickering) speck of light that can employ up to 7 minutes (or more) to traverse our visible West-to-East celestial arc.
- It would seem to be (intuitively) consistent with an aircraft moving higher - yet slower - than a commercial airliner (whose standard cruise altitude and speed are about 11km and 900km/h).
Now, here's some info about the SOLARA - an American-built solar-powered drone :
"Solara, the Atmospheric Satellite"
"The Solara—a line of solar-powered robotic airplanes capable of staying aloft for years at a time."
"The aircraft is meant to carry a small payload to altitudes around 20 kilometers into the stratosphere, where the air is idyllically calm."
"INTRODUCING SOLARA, THE ATMOSPHERIC SATELLITE - Titan Aerospace’s high-flying drones could deliver satellite services without leaving the atmosphere."
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/avia ... -satellite
Now, what if the most advanced drones of this type (i.e. military-classified) are capable of speeds of, say, 740km/h at, say, 22km of altitude? Well we don't know that, but this will be, for the purpose of my following argumentation, the working postulation upon which I will base my present thesis. Not being an aeronautics expert, I will defer to such experts the question of whether the aforementioned speed & altitude are realistic / feasible or not. For the little I know, I believe that our current technology would allow us to build an aircraft which can easily achieve this. At 22km of altitude, "where the air is idyllically calm" (see above quote from the Solara article) and its density quite low, a high-tech solar-powered aircraft should be able to reach these speeds (740km/h is, after all, only slightly more than twice the top speed of a Lamborghini supercar). Moreover, the size of such an "ISS-impersonating" aircraft need not be very large at all - since it would fly almost twenty times lower than the alleged "400km" altitude of the "ISS".
Please read a little about NASA's Helios solar drone (1999-2003): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroViron ... _Prototype
The Helios solar drone made its maiden flight on September 8, 1999 (i.e. right around the time that the ISS was starting to attract public attention):
" The first ISS component was launched in 1998, and the first long-term residents arrived on 2 November 2000 after being launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome on 31 October 2000." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... ce_Station
We were then told that NASA's Helios Prototype catastrophically crashed into the sea on June 26, 2003...
![Image](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Pages_from_64317main_helios-2.jpg)
So, without further ado, here is my (graphically-illustrated) speculation as to how the "International Space Station" deception may have been concocted.
Could the "ISS" possibly be impersonated by a few (perhaps only 3) high-speed solar drones of the "Helios" type?
![Image](http://www.septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/ISS_IMPERSONATED_BY_DRONES_01.jpg)
Those three solar-powered drones cruising at about 740km/h at an altitude of 22km (where the air is idyllically calm) would then be made trackable on websites such as "Heavens Above" - and sold to the public as "ISS passages". Is it technically feasible? I would say that the answer to this last question is "yes".
Or perhaps you prefer to buy into NASA's official story, i.e. that the "ISS" is a football-field-size machine weighing 450 tons (408,000 kg) which was built piecemeal thanks to several Space Shuttle missions - and that now keeps revolving around Earth every 90 minutes at hypersonic speeds, without fuel nor engines - and without ever being reclaimed by Earth's gravity? By all means, you are free to buy it - and eat it too! Would you like some cream-topping on that?
![<_< <_<](./images/smilies/dry.gif)
At this point, you will not want to miss reading this short 2019 article from the techexplorist. com website...
I will stop here - and let you ponder for yourselves what all of this may imply... (hint: are ALL "man-made satellites" just solar drones?)"Nasa is about to test a giant solar drone that broadcasts 5G"
Read more here: https://www.techexplorist.com/nasa-test ... -5g/21473/
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
Dear Simon and Cluesforum readers,
this explanation to what the "ISS-lights" could be make perfect sense.
First off, what we know for sure is that it's not possible to put anything into orbit the way NASA claims since the laws of physics/nature do not allow for rockets creating thrust in space just as the laws of geometry/nature do not allow for a heliocentric Solar system. There are some who promote the theory that NASA is placing things into space by secret means a.k.a. "Black NASA" but I'd say that is disinformation tactics just as Flat Earth is.
Furthermore, a speed of about 700 km/h for a solar powered airplane might sound high but it actually makes good physical sense (although I'm certainly no aeronautics expert either). The top speed of an airplane increases with altitude since the air resistance decreases. This will continue to a point where it is no longer possible to climb higher since the air becomes so thin that the wings are unable to provide lift. This is the max altitude of the airplane which is in turn dependent on two factors - the surface of the wings and the efficiency of the engines at high altitude. A regular combustion or jet engine will have problems at high altitude because the atmosphere simply won't contain sufficient oxygen to keep them running efficiently. So in that sense an electrical engine that the aircrafts in question are fitted with, makes sense since they don't need oxygen to operate optimally. It's for the same reason that a submarine is fitted with electric engines (as well as regular combustion ones). When submerged the combustion engines cannot get the oxygen they need from the atmosphere.
The drawback of electrical engines as any electric car owner know is that the battery requires frequent charging. But at an altitude above the clouds this can be solved with solar panels.
So with solar powered electrical engines and a sufficient wingspan a plane would be able to reach much higher altitudes than any regular plane is capable of.
And as usual (if this is indeed how they fake the ISS), the lie is in plain sight. Just as the ass-through-knots train in water tanks for no sane reason, since water is a medium that is very different from being in the vacuum of space. So the actual reason for this odd choice of training environment is likely that water can create the appearance of weightlessness in front of a camera.
These planes are supposedly used for "high altitude research" and as "atmospheric satellites". The actual reason that they've been developed can well be as a means to provide illusory confirmation of NASAs alleged space activity.
As a side note this may also explain why the Nutwork has put resources into battery and solar panel research (that they also peddle as a solution to their imaginary problem with carbon emissions). And why NASA actually have a big-ass vacuum chamber:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs
https://youtu.be/E43-CfukEgs
They need to simulate high altitude to test these planes out. It could also be used to confirm that a rocket won't create thrust in a vacuum, but that will of course never happen.![:) :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
Thank you dear Simon for yet another remarkable article and congratulations again for putting the cherry on the cake on your historical Halley's comet research by finding confirmation of your suggested orbit for every passage including that of 1985-86.
All the best. Reason will prevail. /Patrik
PS. feel free to correct any language mistakes in my post, I'm not that good at English grammar but I hope the meaning gets through anyway![:) :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
PPS Would you buy a used car from Brian Cox?![:lol: :lol:](./images/smilies/laugh.gif)
this explanation to what the "ISS-lights" could be make perfect sense.
First off, what we know for sure is that it's not possible to put anything into orbit the way NASA claims since the laws of physics/nature do not allow for rockets creating thrust in space just as the laws of geometry/nature do not allow for a heliocentric Solar system. There are some who promote the theory that NASA is placing things into space by secret means a.k.a. "Black NASA" but I'd say that is disinformation tactics just as Flat Earth is.
Furthermore, a speed of about 700 km/h for a solar powered airplane might sound high but it actually makes good physical sense (although I'm certainly no aeronautics expert either). The top speed of an airplane increases with altitude since the air resistance decreases. This will continue to a point where it is no longer possible to climb higher since the air becomes so thin that the wings are unable to provide lift. This is the max altitude of the airplane which is in turn dependent on two factors - the surface of the wings and the efficiency of the engines at high altitude. A regular combustion or jet engine will have problems at high altitude because the atmosphere simply won't contain sufficient oxygen to keep them running efficiently. So in that sense an electrical engine that the aircrafts in question are fitted with, makes sense since they don't need oxygen to operate optimally. It's for the same reason that a submarine is fitted with electric engines (as well as regular combustion ones). When submerged the combustion engines cannot get the oxygen they need from the atmosphere.
The drawback of electrical engines as any electric car owner know is that the battery requires frequent charging. But at an altitude above the clouds this can be solved with solar panels.
So with solar powered electrical engines and a sufficient wingspan a plane would be able to reach much higher altitudes than any regular plane is capable of.
And as usual (if this is indeed how they fake the ISS), the lie is in plain sight. Just as the ass-through-knots train in water tanks for no sane reason, since water is a medium that is very different from being in the vacuum of space. So the actual reason for this odd choice of training environment is likely that water can create the appearance of weightlessness in front of a camera.
These planes are supposedly used for "high altitude research" and as "atmospheric satellites". The actual reason that they've been developed can well be as a means to provide illusory confirmation of NASAs alleged space activity.
As a side note this may also explain why the Nutwork has put resources into battery and solar panel research (that they also peddle as a solution to their imaginary problem with carbon emissions). And why NASA actually have a big-ass vacuum chamber:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs
https://youtu.be/E43-CfukEgs
They need to simulate high altitude to test these planes out. It could also be used to confirm that a rocket won't create thrust in a vacuum, but that will of course never happen.
![:) :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
Thank you dear Simon for yet another remarkable article and congratulations again for putting the cherry on the cake on your historical Halley's comet research by finding confirmation of your suggested orbit for every passage including that of 1985-86.
All the best. Reason will prevail. /Patrik
PS. feel free to correct any language mistakes in my post, I'm not that good at English grammar but I hope the meaning gets through anyway
![:) :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
PPS Would you buy a used car from Brian Cox?
![:lol: :lol:](./images/smilies/laugh.gif)
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
*
Dear Patrik,
Back in 2014, I spent many nights watching and monitoring the "ISS" (with my NAKED EYES) passing over my house in Rome, stopwatch in hand. As you know, I live on a hillside with a wide, panoramic view over the "Eternal City". I should probably resume such continuous observations of the "ISS" today - but for now, let me just share with you what puzzled me at the time...
I well remember that the longest "ISS" passages (from West to East in my skyilne) lasted for about 6 minutes - or slightly longer. In fact, the official websites (such as Heavens Above that tell you when the "ISS" will pass above your location, have the longest visible passages at about 6 minutes. And yes, I did indeed witness a number of 6-minute passages of the "ISS" with my NAKED EYES.
So let's see: if the big "ISS" spaceship truly moves - as we are told - at 128,000km/h (i.e. about 23X the speed of sound!), it would cover about 3000km in 6 minutes of time. This means that, when I first saw it appearing in the West, it would have been located somewhere above Paris / France (or even a bit further away). When I then saw it disappearing in the East - 6 minutes later - it would have been located somewhere above Alexandria / Egypt. Moreover, the luminosity of that speck of light (meant to be the "ISS") hardly varied much over those 6 minutes. It remained quite stable and never flickered - and was only slightly brighter as it passed overhead of my location.
Well, 3000 kilometers is roughly 1/15th of the circumference of the "ISS's" (alleged) orbit around Earth (43000km). To give you an idea of what this means, here's how those 6-minute passages that I witnessed from Rome can be illustrated (assuming that the wondrous and engine-less "ISS" truly moves at 23X the speed of sound - as claimed by NASA) :
![Image](https://septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/ISS_supposed_viewability_from_Rome_01.jpg)
Do you see why I have a problem with this? This would mean that, as I saw it appearing in my western sky, it would have been roughly 1500km away (somewhere over Paris / France) ! Yet, I clearly saw it with my NAKED EYES. When it then disappeared from my view in my eastern sky, it would also have been located about 1500 km away (somewhere over Alexandria / Egypt!).
You may now ask: "does NASA say that the ISS spaceship is equipped with some sort of powerful navigational flood-lights similar to those of airliners we may see landing at airports (at about max. 100km away from us)? No. What they claim is that the solar panels of the ISS reflect the light of the sun. Yet, there exists NO image of the ISS's solar panels that show them reflecting much light at all...
The "ISS" is a pathetic joke. Whatever it is, it is anything but what we're told - and that is the bottom line of this decade-long collective research of ours - here at Cluesforum. In fact, I'd like to take this occasion to warmly thank each and every contributor to this massive thread. Your time has certainly not gone to waste - that's for sure!![:) :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
Dear Patrik,
Back in 2014, I spent many nights watching and monitoring the "ISS" (with my NAKED EYES) passing over my house in Rome, stopwatch in hand. As you know, I live on a hillside with a wide, panoramic view over the "Eternal City". I should probably resume such continuous observations of the "ISS" today - but for now, let me just share with you what puzzled me at the time...
I well remember that the longest "ISS" passages (from West to East in my skyilne) lasted for about 6 minutes - or slightly longer. In fact, the official websites (such as Heavens Above that tell you when the "ISS" will pass above your location, have the longest visible passages at about 6 minutes. And yes, I did indeed witness a number of 6-minute passages of the "ISS" with my NAKED EYES.
So let's see: if the big "ISS" spaceship truly moves - as we are told - at 128,000km/h (i.e. about 23X the speed of sound!), it would cover about 3000km in 6 minutes of time. This means that, when I first saw it appearing in the West, it would have been located somewhere above Paris / France (or even a bit further away). When I then saw it disappearing in the East - 6 minutes later - it would have been located somewhere above Alexandria / Egypt. Moreover, the luminosity of that speck of light (meant to be the "ISS") hardly varied much over those 6 minutes. It remained quite stable and never flickered - and was only slightly brighter as it passed overhead of my location.
Well, 3000 kilometers is roughly 1/15th of the circumference of the "ISS's" (alleged) orbit around Earth (43000km). To give you an idea of what this means, here's how those 6-minute passages that I witnessed from Rome can be illustrated (assuming that the wondrous and engine-less "ISS" truly moves at 23X the speed of sound - as claimed by NASA) :
![Image](https://septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/ISS_supposed_viewability_from_Rome_01.jpg)
Do you see why I have a problem with this? This would mean that, as I saw it appearing in my western sky, it would have been roughly 1500km away (somewhere over Paris / France) ! Yet, I clearly saw it with my NAKED EYES. When it then disappeared from my view in my eastern sky, it would also have been located about 1500 km away (somewhere over Alexandria / Egypt!).
You may now ask: "does NASA say that the ISS spaceship is equipped with some sort of powerful navigational flood-lights similar to those of airliners we may see landing at airports (at about max. 100km away from us)? No. What they claim is that the solar panels of the ISS reflect the light of the sun. Yet, there exists NO image of the ISS's solar panels that show them reflecting much light at all...
The "ISS" is a pathetic joke. Whatever it is, it is anything but what we're told - and that is the bottom line of this decade-long collective research of ours - here at Cluesforum. In fact, I'd like to take this occasion to warmly thank each and every contributor to this massive thread. Your time has certainly not gone to waste - that's for sure!
![:) :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
As I asked at the top of this page: if the thing has to be over Paris at a particular moment, what does Jacques or Jacqueline see at the same time?simonshack wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 10:22 pmDo you see why I have a problem with this? This would mean that, as I saw it appearing in my western sky, it would have been roughly 1500km away (somewhere over Paris / France) ! Yet, I clearly saw it with my NAKED EYES. When it then disappeared from my view in my eastern sky, it would also have been located about 1500 km away (somewhere over Alexandria / Egypt!).
For those who like to check things out, it seems to me a plausible option to do a simultaneous experiment or observation.
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
Indeed Simon. ISS is a pathetic joke and so is all of NASA since they are based on something that is physically impossible - Rockets creating thrust outside an atmosphere. But as we know, lies at this magnitude are hard to crack since they've been made the common truth through controlled media, education and science during generations. And it's frustrating to witness how logical fallacy is used to "prove" them even though they can be readily disproven. "Oh, so you say viruses are unconfirmed? Well I won't buy that until you show me a confirmable theory on what measles/influenza is. "Oh so you say that speck of light isn't a satellite/space station? I won't accept that until you present a solid theory on what those lights are. It's just as irrational as saying that in order to claim Santa doesn't exist, you have to prove who puts christmas presents under the tree.
Good point Mansur. That gave me an idea. Wouldn't it be great to set up some kind of "International astronomical critics association" or something? Where amateur astronomers all over the world can do joint observations and report their findings to verify their theories/models. Anyone that wants a theory confirmed/disproven could present it and what observations that is needed to confirm it. And of course they need to be reasonable. I do know that official records already disprove the Heliocentric model which Simon explains in great detail in his Tychos book, but something like this could help spread the word and create a better understanding of how science actually should work.
Good point Mansur. That gave me an idea. Wouldn't it be great to set up some kind of "International astronomical critics association" or something? Where amateur astronomers all over the world can do joint observations and report their findings to verify their theories/models. Anyone that wants a theory confirmed/disproven could present it and what observations that is needed to confirm it. And of course they need to be reasonable. I do know that official records already disprove the Heliocentric model which Simon explains in great detail in his Tychos book, but something like this could help spread the word and create a better understanding of how science actually should work.
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
Maybe that would be really great, but that ’would be’ is the very point! Because 'if my grandmother had a wheel, she would be the Paris express' - as they say in my country. Before setting up associations there must be there individuals, concrete individuals…
But you are here already speaking in fact about something else and not the ISS, namely about astronomical issues. Why, please, to confuse and jumble these two utterly different things, space travel debunking and astronomical things?
Not only astronomers are interested in debunking space travel hoaxes. Nay, what is more, I think, or guess ninety-nine per cent of ‘amateur astronomers’ wouldn’t even like to hear of that - or they are rather eager to debunk conspiracy nuts. Which indicates that the world wide web works exclusively for shills and trolls – willy-nilly.
For my part, I am rather believing in Santa (in my region the presents at Christmas aren’t brought by him), if for no other reason simply because I would not want to offend the little ones with my disbelief. But there are really many-many reasons to do that. So many there are indeed that the rationalists seem to throw the very ‘reason’ itself overboard first.
Santa is not a ‘hoax’ by the way (although the term is probably correct for the American version of him, as he has been made the central figure for the most cardinal holiday in Christianity, - with its coca-cola ’image’). He is a liturgical figure, his day is the sixth in December, and, in my era, it is a feast of the youngest folks getting goodies (brought by Santa). But you are a Scandinavian, you must know…
That parents, and adults in general, mime to children that they 'believe in Santa' and in so doing corrupt the poor little ones by their very mime, could perhaps indeed be used -as a metaphor, in a way- in relation to things here, but certainly not in the sense and manner that is currently very much in vogue and as you do yourself above. I cannot put it any other way: perhaps one should be able to go back to 'believing in Santa Claus'...