Are satellites real?

[Caduceus]

20,000km of which 100km is air and the rest mainly a vacuum

The other thing is that the GPS in phones seems to need 'help' from the mobile towers, "assisted GPS"

Assisted GNSS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's a bit to read in there about why but you probably do need a larger module for it to do it alone in an effective time period from a satellite in space only.

Not that the air it has to pass through is nothing - 10.3 tonnes air pressure per square metre, but the concrete just blocks more. The vacuum is not much of a barrier to it especially at those microwave frequencies of a bit more than 1 GHz.

That Russian space station Mir is worth seeing. You need to look up just what time of day and what part of the sky to look at. Yes, that is one known science which is centuries old, unlike a number of modern pseudosciences like psychology.

The MIR "space station" was destroyed by the Russians (by plunging it back to earth) more than 20 years ago.

That is if you believe it existed in the first place....

Mir - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pete345]

The MIR "space station" was destroyed by the Russians (by plunging it back to earth) more than 20 years ago.

That is if you believe it existed in the first place....

I'm old enough to remember Skylab falling back to Earth in the 70s. If it wasn't in space, then what was it? We all saw it happen, and we recovered some of the wreckage:

Skylab's Remains: NASA Space Station Debris in Australia (Photos)

Skylab, NASA's first space station, fell from space in 1979 and rained debris over parts of Australia. See photos of those Skylab remains as seen by veteran space photographer Ben Cooper.

www.space.com

 

[Caduceus]

I'm old enough to remember Skylab falling back to Earth in the 70s. If it wasn't in space, then what was it? We all saw it happen, and we recovered some of the wreckage, IIRC.

This is where you need to do self reflection on your beliefs.

You said:
"We all saw it happen"

No, thats not accurate.
What you "saw happen" was a blurry, out of focus, low quality resolution, 1970s TV show that spoon fed you what they wanted you to believe was happening.

Were you actually there in outer space ?
No

Can you go verify the televisions claims yourself in person in outer space back then, or even now ?
Of course not.

Can you replicate what allegedly happened yourself ?
Of course not.


The same test applies for the 6 moon landings, and all the other "outer space" nonsense they have been putting on TV for the past 60 years.

Impossible to be there in person, impossible to verify later on in person, and impossible to replicate.

For me that's not science... That's a religious cult.

 

[andy dufresne]

This is where you need to do self reflection on your beliefs.

You said:
"We all saw it happen"

No, thats not accurate.
What you "saw happen" was a blurry, out of focus, low quality resolution, 1970s TV show that spoon fed you what they wanted you to believe was happening.

Were you actually there in outer space ?
No

Can you go verify the televisions claims yourself in person in outer space back then, or even now ?
Of course not.

Can you replicate what allegedly happened yourself ?
Of course not.


The same test applies for the 6 moon landings, and all the other "outer space" nonsense they have been putting on TV for the past 60 years.

Impossible to be there in person, impossible to verify later on in person, and impossible to replicate.

For me that's not science... That's a religious cult.

Many people swear that they saw the actual Moon landing, when in fact all they saw was Walter Cronkite narrating the whole lie while they displayed an animation.

This is what they saw:



Cronkite was a globalist shill, a Freemason and a liar.

 

[paternos]

Many people swear that they saw the actual Moon landing, when in fact all they saw was Walter Cronkite narrating the whole lie while they displayed an animation.

This is what they saw:



Cronkite was a globalist shill, a Freemason and a liar.

This topic is so fascinating. As I have no clue where truth ends and lies start.

NASA for sure lied about the moon landing. I would place bets with 95% certainty.

With satellites I have so my doubts.

@Stadtaffe Thank for this link

Assisted GNSS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is fascinating. It basically says GPS is 50 bits per second. And that it would take 12.5 minutes to get your location of a "satelite".

Every GPS device requires orbital data about the satellites to calculate its position. The data rate of the satellite signal is only 50 bit/s, so downloading orbital information like ephemerides and the almanac directly from satellites typically takes a long time, and if the satellite signals are lost during the acquisition of this information, it is discarded and the standalone system has to start from scratch. In exceptionally poor signal conditions, for example in urban areas, satellite signals may exhibit multipath propagation where signals skip off structures, or are weakened by meteorological conditions or tree canopies. Some standalone GPS navigators used in poor conditions can't fix a position because of satellite signal fracture and must wait for better satellite reception. A regular GPS unit may need as long as 12.5 minutes (the time needed to download the GPS almanac and ephemerides) to resolve the problem and be able to provide a correct locatio

So radio towers work as intermediairies.......

So literally GPS in our phones is just a radio receiver and it's NOT connecting to a satellite.

So if we get our "GPS signal" from our intermediary tower it is no GPS. It's just triangulation on earth.

I really don't believe this GPS network of satellites 20.000km away. Or if there is something, only very high powered sensitive towers could receive these signals. (but anyhow what's the point?) Anyhow the 5mm receivers in our phones don't pick up the signal from a satellite.

I tried it in the air over the ocean a few times when I was flying and I couldn't find my position. This supports this idea that it's just cell tower triangulation.

@Thomas More What do you think on the GPS? Taking this assisted GNSS in account? Do our phones connect with satellites 20.000km away?

But makes we wonder what the ISS is or those "star link" trains many people have seen in the sky. There is too much lying going on in this "space exploration" that I'm very hesitant to believe anything NASA or SpaceX or any org tells me.

 

[Inter pares]

I think the first step is to recognize that most of what we 'know' is actually what we've been told. In other words, it's not knowledge i.e. knowing, because true knowledge can only come from oneself. You have to actually experience it to actually know it, everything else is in the category of information (information can of course be valuable but it's only information until you've done it yourself, at which point it becomes knowledge i.e. knowing)

If we look at it from this point of view, we can only conclude that most of use know absolutely...nothing.

As for GPS? Well, I happen to believe most of it is ground based, hence all these cell phone towers everywhere (it's like a forest of them at this point really) I sometimes call GPS ground positioning system opposed to global positioning system. Not to say or suggest satellites aren't real. I know cell phone towers are real though, in the sense that I can see them, I can interact with them if I wanted to and so on.

 

[paternos]

This is where you need to do self reflection on your beliefs.

You said:
"We all saw it happen"

No, thats not accurate.
What you "saw happen" was a blurry, out of focus, low quality resolution, 1970s TV show that spoon fed you what they wanted you to believe was happening.

Were you actually there in outer space ?
No

Can you go verify the televisions claims yourself in person in outer space back then, or even now ?
Of course not.

Can you replicate what allegedly happened yourself ?
Of course not.


The same test applies for the 6 moon landings, and all the other "outer space" nonsense they have been putting on TV for the past 60 years.

Impossible to be there in person, impossible to verify later on in person, and impossible to replicate.

For me that's not science... That's a religious cult.

What do you think is the ISS? Because many have seen it. Photographed it. And it is clearly not a meteorite. Seems a human structure with some solar panels attached.

 

[Caduceus]

What do you think is the ISS? Because many have seen it. Photographed it. And it is clearly not a meteorite. Seems a human structure with some solar panels attached.

I don't want to speculate what it could actually be, because it's impossible for 99.8% of humanity to up there and verify.
And that's the way the globohomo elites like it.....claim something in the sky is XYZ which no one can actually check for themselves.
All i know is that it's NOT what they are telling us it is.

The fact that people "see" "solar panels" and/or a "space station" in these telescope images to me, is the same as people who see images of religious figures in their burned toast.

Honestly, this blurry, out of focus grey blob, that keeps changing shape and form, could be ANYTHING.

 

[DanielH]

Can somebody explain me with all those satellites in the air, why the Google Earth photos of the Antarctica look this bad?

Most places is just a vague white with a density of 1 pixel per 1 kilometer, this is the part of antarctica close to Chile that people visit a lot. (check out yourself)

How does that work with satellites? Do they also fly over the south pole?

View attachment 57690

Allegedly these are the starlink satellites skipping antarctica.

Starlink satellite tracker

Live view of SpaceX starlink satellite constellation and coverage.

satellitemap.space

View attachment 57691

What would be the impetus to send satellites over Antarctica to take pictures freely available to the citizenry? People don't, and can't, live there, except for a few research stations. There's no commercial purpose for it. The main driver to satellite imagery would be military operations to keep an eye on the various research stations there, and there's obviously an incentive there to keep that imagery classified because you don't want your opponents to know how much you know.

 

[Thomas More]

This topic is so fascinating. As I have no clue where truth ends and lies start.

NASA for sure lied about the moon landing. I would place bets with 95% certainty.

With satellites I have so my doubts.

@Stadtaffe Thank for this link

Assisted GNSS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is fascinating. It basically says GPS is 50 bits per second. And that it would take 12.5 minutes to get your location of a "satelite".



So radio towers work as intermediairies.......

So literally GPS in our phones is just a radio receiver and it's NOT connecting to a satellite.

So if we get our "GPS signal" from our intermediary tower it is no GPS. It's just triangulation on earth.

I really don't believe this GPS network of satellites 20.000km away. Or if there is something, only very high powered sensitive towers could receive these signals. (but anyhow what's the point?) Anyhow the 5mm receivers in our phones don't pick up the signal from a satellite.

I tried it in the air over the ocean a few times when I was flying and I couldn't find my position. This supports this idea that it's just cell tower triangulation.

@Thomas More What do you think on the GPS? Taking this assisted GNSS in account? Do our phones connect with satellites 20.000km away?

But makes we wonder what the ISS is or those "star link" trains many people have seen in the sky. There is too much lying going on in this "space exploration" that I'm very hesitant to believe anything NASA or SpaceX or any org tells me.

I am an engineer, and my work involves using GPS signals directly from the satellites. I know people who worked on designing and implementing the GPS system, and who work on enhancements and upgrades to the system.

I have built airborne systems that use a GPS antenna to read the signals and use the data directly for UAV control. GPS is real.

It is true that cell phones use cell tower positioning, but there are plenty of devices that use the true satellite data.

 

[Caduceus]

I saw the ISS with the naked eye at night. I was on top of a building, and someone told me the ISS would be coming overhead at a specific time in a few minutes - they had a friend of a friend or such on board, it would be coming from there and going there. So we waited and lo and behold it appeared and went across the sky extremely fast. A balloon doesn't go that fast. A balloon travels with wind currents,

Did you really see a "space station" passing in the sky, or did you see an unclear, out of focus, blob of light passing by really quickly, that you are told to believe is a space station ? The difference is important.

 

[Thomas More]

Did you really see a "space station" passing in the sky, or did you see an unclear, out of focus, blob of light passing by really quickly, that you are told to believe is a space station ? The difference is important.

Could you elaborate on how the difference is important? What could appear as a blob of light moving at orbital speeds in the correct position indicated by its published orbital track, other than a real orbiting object?

@DanielH mentioned the person who told him about it had used the published information to know where the ISS would appear in the sky.

You know, position can be measured by triangulation. If DanielH sees the ISS passing by, and records its position in the sky at each second from his position, and you do the same from a location 10 miles away, you will each see it at a slightly different angle. If you use the azimuth and elevation measurements from the two locations to triangulation the "blob of light's" position, you can easily confirm it is at orbital altitude.

 

[Captain Gh]

I am an engineer, and my work involves using GPS signals directly from the satellites. I know people who worked on designing and implementing the GPS system, and who work on enhancements and upgrades to the system.

I have built airborne systems that use a GPS antenna to read the signals and use the data directly for UAV control. GPS is real.

It is true that cell phones use cell tower positioning, but there are plenty of devices that use the true satellite data.

Trust me most of us believe everything you just wrote. We just have a hard time believing these satellites are really in Space! Hate giving credit to these mofos... but The Elite did a fantastic job blurring the line of Round vs Flat Earth!!

 

[Caduceus]

Could you elaborate on how the difference is important? What could appear as a blob of light moving at orbital speeds in the correct position indicated by its published orbital track, other than a real orbiting object?

@DanielH mentioned the person who told him about it had used the published information to know where the ISS would appear in the sky.

You know, position can be measured by triangulation. If DanielH sees the ISS passing by, and records its position in the sky at each second from his position, and you do the same from a location 10 miles away, you will each see it at a slightly different angle. If you use the azimuth and elevation measurements from the two locations to triangulation the "blob of light's" position, you can easily confirm it is at orbital altitude.

There are thousands of things in the distant sky (sun, moon, stars, comets, eclipses, etc) that follow very distinct and precise schedules that can be measured, calculated, tracked and followed. None of these are man made. Some of these phenomena are "temporary" in that they only last a few decades.

The ISS may in reality be a natural phenomenon of the distant sky that has been "hijacked" by the globohomo elites so that people believe something temporary pertaining to nature (that is following a natural cycle) is actually a man made object. This would fit in with the satanic agenda of obscuring or hijacking of all God's communication symbols with mankind.

Unless I can go up there and see it myself, I'll never believe that blurry out of focus blob of light is a "space station."



Also, notice how they never bring these things back to earth to put in a museum so people can study them up close...it's always conveniently "destroyed" by re-entry towards earth. Russian MIR space station was "destroyed." Old satellites are all "destroyed." The ISS will also be "destroyed" soon.

If they can (allegedly) bring groups of astronauts from these space stations safely back to earth over and over again, then there's no reason not to bring at least a portion of these satellites and space stations back to earth to put in a museum. They could even bring back small sections in pieces in more than 1 trip, and then rebuild them on earth in a museum. But nope ! Always totally destroyed. How convenient. No evidence. No traces. No nothing left over.

They will even make sure the ISS "crashes" in the most difficult to reach and remote part of the pacific ocean so NO ONE CAN EVER check if it was actually a real thing or not.

On that note:

NASA reveals plan to destroy the ISS in January 2031

NASA will gradually de-orbit the facility, sending it hurtling through Earth's atmosphere before it plunges into the South Pacific Ocean near Point Nemo, the most remote place on the planet.

www.dailymail.co.uk

NASA Reportedly Plans to Destroy the Entire ISS Instead of Letting Museums Save Chunks

NASA plans to bring down the ISS in the Pacific Ocean but doesn't plan to retrieve or display historical artifacts from the space station.

futurism.com

What It Would Take to Bring the ISS Back to Earth in One Piece

NASA plans to deorbit the International Space Station in 2031 by crashing it into the ocean. But is there another way?

www.wired.com

 

[get2choppaaa]

Yes satellites are real.

I used them for target mensuration in the course of precision strikes.

While it's been 4 years since I taught get he class on the software and it's employment....it was clear to me then that: There is no other way to have done this based off current cartography techniques with out overhead satellite capabilities.

Some of you need to put the cool aid down and stop with the fed posting...next we will be back into flat earth territory.

 

[IM3000]

A friend of mine works for a company which meassures satellites' inertia to optimize their behaviour in space. He has physically touched them. They are very real.

 

[Ember]

Did you really see a "space station" passing in the sky, or did you see an unclear, out of focus, blob of light passing by really quickly, that you are told to believe is a space station ? The difference is important.

Three years ago, I described my sighting of the ISS passing over. It is real.

Another thing I forgot to say about the space station being real is that I have the official app that tracks it. One evening last year I noticed it was about to go over Southern England so rushed outside to have a look. Sure enough I saw it pass over as a bright light, on the correct trajectory, and way too fast to be an aircraft. It was clearly an object in orbit. There was no doubt left after that.

Did we land on the moon?

The space station is real. As it would be when it is several orders of magnitude easier to accomplish, and with the aid of modern tech. Putting stuff in orbit is a doddle compared to a moon trip.

www.rooshvforum.com

The idea that what I saw might not have been the ISS is utterly preposterous. I find this whole thread very silly, and within the bounds of 'well-poisoning'.

 

[Thomas More]

What would be the impetus to send satellites over Antarctica to take pictures freely available to the citizenry? People don't, and can't, live there, except for a few research stations. There's no commercial purpose for it. The main driver to satellite imagery would be military operations to keep an eye on the various research stations there, and there's obviously an incentive there to keep that imagery classified because you don't want your opponents to know how much you know.

Polar orbits are used for observation satellites, so their orbits will vary over different parts of the Earth. Consider that a satellite in an equatorial orbit will always fly over the equator, and never fly over Russia. If a satellite has an orbit at 30 degrees offset from the equator, then it's coverage will range from 30 degrees above the equator to 30 degrees below.

The only way to make a satellite cover high northern regions is to have a nearly polar orbit. Satellites in low earth orbit have an orbital period of about 90 minutes, so with this kind of orbit, the Earth rotates below the orbital path, and each new pass of the satellite over a given region will pass approximately one and a half time zones farther to the west than the previous pass.

 

[Stadtaffe]

So literally GPS in our phones is just a radio receiver and it's NOT connecting to a satellite.

So if we get our "GPS signal" from our intermediary tower it is no GPS. It's just triangulation on earth.

Yes! It is two-way with the towers but passive with the satellites. If you've ever installed de-googled android with MicroG you will have a closer feel for the concept of the tower-based and satellite-based positioning. That circle which appears on your map is the from the towers and the pin-point is from the satellites. Gets smaller as the number of GPS satellites connected increases. There are apps with which you can check how many and which satellites it is listening to.

I tried it in the air over the ocean a few times when I was flying and I couldn't find my position. This supports this idea that it's just cell tower triangulation.

This almost never works for me with a phone on flight mode but it did once and it was very exciting. I think if you bring a dedicated GPS unit like a Garmin unit for hiking or sailing or something.

Do our phones connect with satellites 20.000km away?

No but there are satellite phones which probably have larger antennas and more powerful transmitters -

Satellite phone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Use it to make calls from out on the ocean or in the desert.

I would have thought they only use the satellites a few hundred kilometres up but according to the article, some of them also use the more distant ones. I wonder why they would bother routing communication through a geostationary satellite which is so far away when they could just use a low-earth orbit one and switch between them as they move accross the sky.

By the way, a satellite takes something like 10 or 15 minutes to cross the visible sky. It's around sunset that you can best see them. Even smaller ones, does not have to be the space station. They move in a straight line.

There are also the Epirbs -

Emergency position-indicating radiobeacon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I used to have one, bright orange thing with a telescopic antenna. Mine was one of the first generation ones but they've come a long way since then. For me it was for remote area hiking, cycling etc but they are also for usage if your ship is sinking. The cheaper ones just send a "help" message with a position, the more upmarket ones allow you to send a message of what is wrong.

I never got to use mine, or my red marine distress flare, and eventually my Epirb was obsolete, they discontinued that particular emergency channel. Did however set off the distress flares one new years eve, wasn't going to waste that of course - had an extra excuse as they were passed their use-by date!

 

[Trident of Disillusion]

I'm quite sure there is SOMETHING there if I can see it through a telescope....but to automatically assume that blurry and out of focus tiny grey dot I'm seeing is a fully functioning outer space station is quite another thing.

I'm surprised that the picture is as clear as it is on the right, there is a lot of atmosphere full of dust and moisture between the telescope and the ISS.