Moon Landings

[wolfy 12]

Why do you believe what google comes up with? Is everything not a lie?

I don;t know...is everything a lie?

I tend to concentrate on the blatant bullshit. You know...the stuff the magicians at N.A.S.A come up with.

 

Most other things I can accept as par for the course EARTH technology and such.

[Renton 21985]

No! You said it not me.

You need to read posts a bit better.

 

I paraphrased but yep, you said it. Read back.

[The Fish 10963]

You do not know where your signal comes from except from maybe a transmitter . You certainly don't know it's from any satellite, only MAYBE that you are told it comes from a satellite.

Yes I know how radar works and anyone who cares to want to know can google it.

What are you talking about? I know where the radio transmissions come from. I've been there and seen the effects of changing power setting, tilting the antenna, altering the frequency, and so on and so forth. I know Radio networks enough to state, categorically, the service we receive from satellites could not be replicated by a ground based radio network.

 

Ok, explain to me how RADAR works in your own words, without googling.

[wolfy 12]

Being so bored I'm conversing with you gives me no comfort.

Well I'm extremely comfortable conversing with anyone, no matter who they are. Sorry about your discomfort.

[wolfy 12]

I paraphrased but yep, you said it. Read back.

I don't need to read back but I think it might be better if you do.

[Meenzer 15716]

Back in the early 1990s, THEY kidded a generation of horny teenagers into believing in the existence of Red Hot Dutch.

[Renton 21985]

What I've done to come to my conclusions is read up and view all of what N.A.S.A claims to have done to get to the moon. If you haven't looked it up, then , as I said before, take some time out and have a look.

 

You can start anywhere but if you start at the beginning from when Kennedy gave that speech of ," We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things. Not because they are easy...but because they are hard"

 

From that speech alone it all becomes silly as it goes on because they didn't have jack shit technology to even contemplate a venture into actual space, never mind a moon mission, yet in 7 years, they managed to figure it all out, yet to this day we cannot figure out how to land a man on the moon and we were (up until a few months ago) hoaxing space shuttle dockings with a fake ISS.

 

Anyway, start from scratch and make your way through everything they supposedly done, right up until the moon missions abruptly stopped and see what you make of it.

 

The choice is entirely up to you whether you choose to or not but it will give you a better insight if you study it all.

 

Btw wolfy, this fake ISS. Have you not even bothered to take people's advice and look at it yet with binoculars. Rhetorical question of course, because it doesn't suit your 'theories'.

[wolfy 12]

What are you talking about? I know where the radio transmissions come from. I've been there and seen the effects of changing power setting, tilting the antenna, altering the frequency, and so on and so forth. I know Radio networks enough to state, categorically, the service we receive from satellites could not be replicated by a ground based radio network.

 

Ok, explain to me how RADAR works in your own words, without googling.

I could be on google right now, so there's no point in me explaining radar to you is there.

[trophyshy 7084]

Wolfy what do you make of the testimony of Bob Lazar?

[The Fish 10963]

I could be on google right now, so there's no point in me explaining radar to you is there.

Well, explain it in your own words then.

 

And what about the rest of my post where I state that your theory about a relay of radio transmitter providing the service that Satellites do, is hokum? What about that Wolfy?

Edited August 13, 2012 by The Fish

[wolfy 12]

Btw wolfy, this fake ISS. Have you not even bothered to take people's advice and look at it yet with binoculars. Rhetorical question of course, because it doesn't suit your 'theories'.

It doesn't suit my theories because I know there's nothing up there outside of our atmosphere.

 

Anything anyone sees is a blob of light and anything else spotted that has any shape is a high altitude plane or balloon inside of the atmosphere.

 

The stuff that does any job for Earth is made up of objects in OUR atmosphere whether it's high altitude planes or high altitude weather balloons or whatever.

Edited August 13, 2012 by wolfy

[wolfy 12]

Wolfy what do you make of the testimony of Bob Lazar?

Nothing.

[Meenzer 15716]

[The Fish 10963]

It doesn't suit my theories because I know there's nothing up there outside of our atmosphere.

 

Anything anyone sees is a blob of light and anything else spotted that has any shape is a high altitude plane or balloon inside of the atmosphere.

 

The stuff that does any job for Earth is made up of objects in OUR atmosphere whether it's high altitude planes or high altitude weather balloons or whatever.

 

So there's a website that tells you exactly when and where to look for the ISS so that is visible through binoculars. You're suggesting that this site either gets lucky, EVERY TIME, or has paid for a high altitude impossible plane (because it doesn't look like a balloon it looks like a non-aerodynamic man-made sturcture) to fly exact paths, just to satisfy the curiosity of a handful of people on the planet?

 

This is your theory.

[Meenzer 15716]

THEY want you to be looking at the skies so you don't notice THEM installing a radio transmitter in your back yard.

[wolfy 12]

Well, explain it in your own words then.

 

And what about the rest of my post where I state that your theory about a relay of radio transmitter providing the service that Satellites do, is hokum? What about that Wolfy?

All I can say, is, you have accepted what you are told and you believe gadgets that you hold and use at work, use satellites. That's fair enough as it's what you believe. I happen to disagree and I've stated why many times.

 

You know about relays and bouncing signals off the atmosphere and what not, which is more advanced now because of better electronics...no need for fake satellites.

 

As for the Radar. As I've said! I can google it anytime and give you my version, so I don't see the point of explaining something which is pointless in proving a moon landing was faked.

[wolfy 12]

So there's a website that tells you exactly when and where to look for the ISS so that is visible through binoculars. You're suggesting that this site either gets lucky, EVERY TIME, or has paid for a high altitude impossible plane (because it doesn't look like a balloon it looks like a non-aerodynamic man-made sturcture) to fly exact paths, just to satisfy the curiosity of a handful of people on the planet?

 

This is your theory.

Nope, I'm saying that anything man made is inside the atmosphere.

Anything you see with binoculars is either inside the atmosphere or it's a meteor.

 

One thing for certain...you wouldn't be able to make out any shape of an object whizzing by at a so called 17,000 mph speed just a few hundred miles up.

 

The reason why people see streaks of light and are told they are satellites is because meteroids whizz by regular at speed making them glow.

 

The ISS glows even though it's as black as can be in the sky lol....obviously the sun peeps up and slings it's sunny glare on it mind. haha

[The Fish 10963]

Nope, I'm saying that anything man made is inside the atmosphere.

Anything you see with binoculars is either inside the atmosphere or it's a meteor.

 

One thing for certain...you wouldn't be able to make out any shape of an object whizzing by at a so called 17,000 mph speed just a few hundred miles up.

 

The reason why people see streaks of light and are told they are satellites is because meteroids whizz by regular at speed making them glow.

 

The ISS glows even though it's as black as can be in the sky lol....obviously the sun peeps up and slings it's sunny glare on it mind. haha

So if the universe rotates around us, how come we can make out the Sun, the Moon, etc. I mean, they're all whizzing past us too?

 

You don't understand geosynchronous orbits, you don't understand physics, you don't understand radio, you don't understand the structure of arguments, you don't understand gravity, you don't understand magnetism (be it electro or otherwise) you don't understand static-electricity.

 

Can't you see how all these failings make you more likely wrong than right on this topic?

 

Put it this way, if you're driving at 90 mile an hour ad see a Pylon in the distance, you look at it and can see it in stark contrast, yet you're travelling at 90mph.

 

If you're in a plane, you can look out of the window and see the Sydney Harbour Bridge, despite you traveling at hundreds of miles an hour. What aren't you understanding? I'm trying to make this as simple as possible.

 

and again, the radio relay network you propose takes the place of the satellite network is impossible.

[@yourservice 67]

Taken the night of August 7, 2012. One more of the ISS. Both sets of solar panels visible edge on.

http://www.flickr.co...ol-spacestation

 

Edited August 13, 2012 by @yourservice

[The Fish 10963]

Nope, I'm saying that anything man made is inside the atmosphere.

Anything you see with binoculars is either inside the atmosphere or it's a meteor.

 

 

So, either this site has plotted a route for an aircraft to follow precisely, or the are meteors that are in a geosynchronous orbit which resemble a man-made irregular shape? instead of the commonly observed roughly round shape we're used to seeing?

[wolfy 12]

So if the universe rotates around us, how come we can make out the Sun, the Moon, etc. I mean, they're all whizzing past us too?

 

You don't understand geosynchronous orbits, you don't understand physics, you don't understand radio, you don't understand the structure of arguments, you don't understand gravity, you don't understand magnetism (be it electro or otherwise) you don't understand static-electricity.

 

Can't you see how all these failings make you more likely wrong than right on this topic?

 

Put it this way, if you're driving at 90 mile an hour ad see a Pylon in the distance, you look at it and can see it in stark contrast, yet you're travelling at 90mph.

 

If you're in a plane, you can look out of the window and see the Sydney Harbour Bridge, despite you traveling at hundreds of miles an hour. What aren't you understanding? I'm trying to make this as simple as possible.

 

and again, the radio relay network you propose takes the place of the satellite network is impossible.

If you drive at 90mph and look at at telegraph pole , it's gone in the blink of an eye, so what are you getting at here.

Distance is the key to anything in seeing it moving at speed or not and the ISS is supposedly a few hundred miles up.

 

If satellites whizz by like people say, then so will the ISS if they were there that is. Except it's meteoroids at a distance and at speed is what I believe people see.

What they believe they see is entirely up to them.

 

Nobody understands gravity, all we know for sure is that we jump up and are pulled back down. It's all theory after that.

 

As for your geosynchronous satellites... I know the theory behind them but don't believe it and it's as simple as that.

 

Magnetism and electromagnetism coupled with planets and stars, plus sun orbiting the stationary centralised Earth is as a better theory for me than a stupid spinning Earth around the centralised sun.

[wolfy 12]

So, either this site has plotted a route for an aircraft to follow precisely, or the are meteors that are in a geosynchronous orbit which resemble a man-made irregular shape? instead of the commonly observed roughly round shape we're used to seeing?

Nope, I'm saying that anyone seeing something which looks like it has a shape is looking at something inside the atmosphere, randomly.

 

All the N.A.S.A or astronomy guide line and times for so called satellites and the ISS are simply made up times to suit passing meteroids glowing past.

 

Simple as that.

[Renton 21985]

The speed of an objects Movement is relative to its distance. So objects further away appear to move slower. Can you not even grasp this? Your as bad as Dougal in the cow perspective argument ffs. Thick as mince.

[The Fish 10963]

Nope, I'm saying that anyone seeing something which looks like it has a shape is looking at something inside the atmosphere, randomly.

 

All the N.A.S.A or astronomy guide line and times for so called satellites and the ISS are simply made up times to suit passing meteroids glowing past.

 

Simple as that.

So you're stating that the man-made shape that is exactly where it is predicted to be, is something within the atmosphere?

OR that the very obviously man-made shape is a meteor whizzing past?

 

Also, Meteors don't glow.

[The Fish 10963]

If you drive at 90mph and look at at telegraph pole , it's gone in the blink of an eye, so what are you getting at here.

Distance is the key to anything in seeing it moving at speed or not and the ISS is supposedly a few hundred miles up.

 

If satellites whizz by like people say, then so will the ISS if they were there that is. Except it's meteoroids at a distance and at speed is what I believe people see.

What they believe they see is entirely up to them.

 

Nobody understands gravity, all we know for sure is that we jump up and are pulled back down. It's all theory after that.

 

As for your geosynchronous satellites... I know the theory behind them but don't believe it and it's as simple as that.

 

Magnetism and electromagnetism coupled with planets and stars, plus sun orbiting the stationary centralised Earth is as a better theory for me than a stupid spinning Earth around the centralised sun.

Pretty sure I stated if you see a pylon in the distance, wait a minute let me check, yup definitely in the distance. Also I gave the Sydney Harbour bridge example. Neither of those stack up with your theory.

 

Um, I understand gravity, loads of people do. You don't and that's a different matter.