*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1002
    • View Profile
Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2018, 01:27:25 PM »
NASA figures are not 30 years old, thats a lie you are saying.  straight off their website, its says "TODAY, it costs $10k per lb"....unless you are saying NASA created this webpage 30 years ago and hasnt updated it???

link (source):  https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/astp.html

It's undated, and there's even a disclaimer at the top of the page stating it is being kept online for HISTORICAL purposes ...

Switch to "View Page Source" and there are three dates within - 2004, 2007, and 2008. 

So it seems to be over 10 years old.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 01:30:33 PM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2018, 02:18:37 PM »

You're presenting your numbers without a source. It's not on me to provide one. Also, once again, NASA's figures are 30 years old. No wonder it costed so much more per pound. They don't even technically launch their own shuttles anymore.

No, we have your claims, once again without evidence. Care to provide any?

NASA figures are not 30 years old, thats a lie you are saying.  straight off their website, its says "TODAY, it costs $10k per lb"....unless you are saying NASA created this webpage 30 years ago and hasnt updated it???

link (source):  https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/astp.html

who said anything about shuttles?  are you ignorant to the fact that NASA has many different rockets they use to launch payloads?  are you going to continue to provide false facts to try and support your sides of the argument?  its all very clear that NASA is lying

here is a link to the launch schedule by NASA, many of them are there own rockets:  https://www.nasa.gov/launchschedule/

try to verify your statements before posting to avoid these types of errors in the future.
Considering making deliberate errors in some things has been the only way to get ANY sort of sources out of you, I think I'll continue to do so thank you very much. Alternatively you could actually provide sources in some manner on your own next time and make this a LOT easier on both of us. How does that sound?

Now, when I'm talking about their figures being 30 years old, I mispoke somewhat as well, so I do apologize. I meant that their flight technology is relatively old when referring to that $10k/pound claim. The site you linked that gives it hasn't been updated in a decade for example. The Delta IV Heavy has a $5.5k/pound cost per launch (at it's cheapest). A slightly more modern rocket, with it's direct competitor in weight lifting being the Falcon Heavy. The SpaceX launches are cheaper as well in part due to their massive push towards reusable components. I would also note the Delta IV isn't used terribly often, seeing only 9 launches (one of which was it's maiden launch) since 2004. This ties into the list you provided, as it's the only NASA launch listed there. While they DO still do launches on their own, they are rare. That list suggests it's only the single Delta IV for this entire year in fact. All the rest are joint launches, and not one of the others uses NASA rockets or shuttles.

For the record, the 'worst case' costs per pound on both the Delta IV and the Falcon Heavy are as follows:
Delta IV: ~$11k/pound
Falcon: ~$4k/pound

Part of this is definitely due to the fact one was designed with re-usability in mind, and another part I suspect is because the Falcon Heavy is newer by a decade or more in it's technology/design, AND part of it's design/mission is to allow trips to Mars or further with cargo. As a note, a Mars trip (Delta IV can't go that far) costs ~$6.5k/pound. Welcome to the rapid advancement of technology.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1002
    • View Profile
Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2018, 02:38:48 PM »
here is a link to the launch schedule by NASA, many of them are there own rockets:  https://www.nasa.gov/launchschedule/

Twelve items listed.

Here's the global launch schedule for the rest of the year, from an independent source; https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

42 items therein, with 10 specified as NASA launch or involvement. That's less than one-quarter of the total. So three-quarters or more of the worldwide satellite effort is not NASA-specific.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1002
    • View Profile
Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2018, 02:45:26 PM »
playing devil's advocate on behalf of the FE'ers that havent responded here.  I think what you have actually proved is that NASA and others are utilized ground based weather radar in order to generate these CGI satellite images.  makes sense, instead of constant guessing, just use the data you already have from the flat ground.  then project  that information onto the made up "ball".  brilliant NASA.

You do realise that the analysis video I posted included only output from SpaceX and JAXA?  No NASA involvement at all.

So you reckon both SpaceX and JAXA had access to this ground radar data for the whole of the Falcon Heavy's orbital track, and for the whole spherical cap visible to the Himawari satellite, and they managed to assemble both datasets into two formats which matched EXACTLY, and that they both managed to do this within minutes of the SpaceX launch?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2018, 03:29:48 PM »
here is a link to the launch schedule by NASA, many of them are there own rockets:  https://www.nasa.gov/launchschedule/

Twelve items listed.

Here's the global launch schedule for the rest of the year, from an independent source; https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

42 items therein, with 10 specified as NASA launch or involvement. That's less than one-quarter of the total. So three-quarters or more of the worldwide satellite effort is not NASA-specific.

no argument here, we all know other agencies are in on the hoax, all of them to be exact.  how do you think they can afford to support all those troops at the ice wall? 
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #25 on: June 12, 2018, 03:31:53 PM »
playing devil's advocate on behalf of the FE'ers that havent responded here.  I think what you have actually proved is that NASA and others are utilized ground based weather radar in order to generate these CGI satellite images.  makes sense, instead of constant guessing, just use the data you already have from the flat ground.  then project  that information onto the made up "ball".  brilliant NASA.

You do realise that the analysis video I posted included only output from SpaceX and JAXA?  No NASA involvement at all.

So you reckon both SpaceX and JAXA had access to this ground radar data for the whole of the Falcon Heavy's orbital track, and for the whole spherical cap visible to the Himawari satellite, and they managed to assemble both datasets into two formats which matched EXACTLY, and that they both managed to do this within minutes of the SpaceX launch?

of course they have access, why wouldnt they??!.  no NASA involvement??? really?  look at NASA's list of launches along with the other agencies, all of them are paying SpaceX to launch their product.  SpaceX and others are a for profit company.  so yes, they are delivering the same payloads to antartica and getting paid to do so.  they can charge less than NASA since they are newer companies without all the legacy costs.  simple economics.

Do you really think they have a team of nerds sitting around pulling data from all the ground based radar and drawing the globe in MS Paint or something?!  Of course its all automated, thats fairly easy to do. 
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 03:38:18 PM by Round Eyes »
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2018, 03:34:40 PM »
Considering making deliberate errors in some things has been the only way to get ANY sort of sources out of you, I think I'll continue to do so thank you very much. Alternatively you could actually provide sources in some manner on your own next time and make this a LOT easier on both of us. How does that sound?

Now, when I'm talking about their figures being 30 years old, I mispoke somewhat as well, so I do apologize. I meant that their flight technology is relatively old when referring to that $10k/pound claim. The site you linked that gives it hasn't been updated in a decade for example. The Delta IV Heavy has a $5.5k/pound cost per launch (at it's cheapest). A slightly more modern rocket, with it's direct competitor in weight lifting being the Falcon Heavy. The SpaceX launches are cheaper as well in part due to their massive push towards reusable components. I would also note the Delta IV isn't used terribly often, seeing only 9 launches (one of which was it's maiden launch) since 2004. This ties into the list you provided, as it's the only NASA launch listed there. While they DO still do launches on their own, they are rare. That list suggests it's only the single Delta IV for this entire year in fact. All the rest are joint launches, and not one of the others uses NASA rockets or shuttles.

For the record, the 'worst case' costs per pound on both the Delta IV and the Falcon Heavy are as follows:
Delta IV: ~$11k/pound
Falcon: ~$4k/pound

Part of this is definitely due to the fact one was designed with re-usability in mind, and another part I suspect is because the Falcon Heavy is newer by a decade or more in it's technology/design, AND part of it's design/mission is to allow trips to Mars or further with cargo. As a note, a Mars trip (Delta IV can't go that far) costs ~$6.5k/pound. Welcome to the rapid advancement of technology.

real nice, making deliberate errors, nice debate style there.

worst case scenarios.  keep cherry picking data to suit your argument.

SpaceX isnt saying $4k/lb, as there most recent launches were way lower, which you already know.

You should request updated costs from NASA, all i can go off of what is publicized on there very own website...again, which uses the word TODAY

You do realize that you are arguing with me about minor details, a few hundred dollars per pound variance in different figures, but you are essentially proving the NASA hoax for me.  NASA says $10k/lb and you are saying its a fraction of that.  ok, i agree.  so why are they using double/triple/quadruple/etc figures for there budgetting?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 03:36:37 PM by Round Eyes »
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1002
    • View Profile
Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2018, 04:30:29 PM »
You should request updated costs from NASA, all i can go off of what is publicized on there very own website...again, which uses the word TODAY

... on a page which was clearly written more than ten years ago!
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2018, 05:18:06 PM »
Considering making deliberate errors in some things has been the only way to get ANY sort of sources out of you, I think I'll continue to do so thank you very much. Alternatively you could actually provide sources in some manner on your own next time and make this a LOT easier on both of us. How does that sound?

Now, when I'm talking about their figures being 30 years old, I mispoke somewhat as well, so I do apologize. I meant that their flight technology is relatively old when referring to that $10k/pound claim. The site you linked that gives it hasn't been updated in a decade for example. The Delta IV Heavy has a $5.5k/pound cost per launch (at it's cheapest). A slightly more modern rocket, with it's direct competitor in weight lifting being the Falcon Heavy. The SpaceX launches are cheaper as well in part due to their massive push towards reusable components. I would also note the Delta IV isn't used terribly often, seeing only 9 launches (one of which was it's maiden launch) since 2004. This ties into the list you provided, as it's the only NASA launch listed there. While they DO still do launches on their own, they are rare. That list suggests it's only the single Delta IV for this entire year in fact. All the rest are joint launches, and not one of the others uses NASA rockets or shuttles.

For the record, the 'worst case' costs per pound on both the Delta IV and the Falcon Heavy are as follows:
Delta IV: ~$11k/pound
Falcon: ~$4k/pound

Part of this is definitely due to the fact one was designed with re-usability in mind, and another part I suspect is because the Falcon Heavy is newer by a decade or more in it's technology/design, AND part of it's design/mission is to allow trips to Mars or further with cargo. As a note, a Mars trip (Delta IV can't go that far) costs ~$6.5k/pound. Welcome to the rapid advancement of technology.

real nice, making deliberate errors, nice debate style there.

worst case scenarios.  keep cherry picking data to suit your argument.

SpaceX isnt saying $4k/lb, as there most recent launches were way lower, which you already know.

You should request updated costs from NASA, all i can go off of what is publicized on there very own website...again, which uses the word TODAY

You do realize that you are arguing with me about minor details, a few hundred dollars per pound variance in different figures, but you are essentially proving the NASA hoax for me.  NASA says $10k/lb and you are saying its a fraction of that.  ok, i agree.  so why are they using double/triple/quadruple/etc figures for there budgetting?
Sorry, wasn't aware we were in debate. We're sitting here in general last I checked. Weird.

How is providing the 'worst case' cherry picking? I didn't use it to make any argument, I even put the best case scenario for the Delta right in the body of my post. The same for SpaceX has already been provided previously. I'm not attempting to do anything with it beyond presenting it as more information that could be of use.

I'm saying NASA's costs are higher, because their tech is older/aging. It doesn't have the same efficiencies that SpaceX was able to build into their rockets, because they didn't exist when the current 'fleet' of NASA rockets were created.

playing devil's advocate on behalf of the FE'ers that havent responded here.  I think what you have actually proved is that NASA and others are utilized ground based weather radar in order to generate these CGI satellite images.  makes sense, instead of constant guessing, just use the data you already have from the flat ground.  then project  that information onto the made up "ball".  brilliant NASA.

You do realise that the analysis video I posted included only output from SpaceX and JAXA?  No NASA involvement at all.

So you reckon both SpaceX and JAXA had access to this ground radar data for the whole of the Falcon Heavy's orbital track, and for the whole spherical cap visible to the Himawari satellite, and they managed to assemble both datasets into two formats which matched EXACTLY, and that they both managed to do this within minutes of the SpaceX launch?

of course they have access, why wouldnt they??!.  no NASA involvement??? really?  look at NASA's list of launches along with the other agencies, all of them are paying SpaceX to launch their product.  SpaceX and others are a for profit company.  so yes, they are delivering the same payloads to antartica and getting paid to do so.  they can charge less than NASA since they are newer companies without all the legacy costs.  simple economics.

Do you really think they have a team of nerds sitting around pulling data from all the ground based radar and drawing the globe in MS Paint or something?!  Of course its all automated, thats fairly easy to do. 
Disregarding the fact that you have yet to present a single shred of evidence for any of these claims, let's talk about one thing. "They can charge less than Nasa" and "For profit company". Alright, if they're in this for a profit (as is, so you claim NASA) and are having to WORK with NASA, why oh why are they presenting their costs as being 10-20% of those of NASA? How does this make any sense? Seeing as supposively these numbers are just made up, why not 80-70% of the cost to still look like it's progress, but keep a nice profit margin? Or hell, why worry about showing a reduced cost at all? I think you're just making word salad here.

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #29 on: June 13, 2018, 03:22:24 PM »
Sorry, wasn't aware we were in debate. We're sitting here in general last I checked. Weird.

How is providing the 'worst case' cherry picking? I didn't use it to make any argument, I even put the best case scenario for the Delta right in the body of my post. The same for SpaceX has already been provided previously. I'm not attempting to do anything with it beyond presenting it as more information that could be of use.

I'm saying NASA's costs are higher, because their tech is older/aging. It doesn't have the same efficiencies that SpaceX was able to build into their rockets, because they didn't exist when the current 'fleet' of NASA rockets were created.
.
.
.
Disregarding the fact that you have yet to present a single shred of evidence for any of these claims, let's talk about one thing. "They can charge less than Nasa" and "For profit company". Alright, if they're in this for a profit (as is, so you claim NASA) and are having to WORK with NASA, why oh why are they presenting their costs as being 10-20% of those of NASA? How does this make any sense? Seeing as supposively these numbers are just made up, why not 80-70% of the cost to still look like it's progress, but keep a nice profit margin? Or hell, why worry about showing a reduced cost at all? I think you're just making word salad here.

you really like to parse words to fit your argument.  we are going back and forth on something, so yes, for intents and pursposes...this is a DEBATE.  geez

anything the governement (NASA) is involved in is going to be more expensive than private companies....$10k toilet ring a bell?

Regarding decreased costs.  if they didnt offer a substantial savings over NASA costs they wouldnt get any contracts.  NASA is trusting them a lot to be able to deliver the payloads to the ice wall without the rocket blowing up, for them to not be in control there has to be a demonstrated reduction.  Remember these nonsense costs are based on going into orbit, not just to the ice wall, so there is already a huge inflation.  They can also play with the pounds of payload to increase profits, such as saying the payload weight 2x as much as it did.  put this all together and plenty of profit.

In the end, the rocket launces are just about keeping up the show the fund NASAs budget, the majority of the shipments are still going via ship delivery, but that isnt in NASA budgets so they need something to fund everything else..i.e. high altitude planes (satellites), CGI, etc etc.

BTW the proof that they are using planes as satelittes is not very well hidden on their own page.  high altitude planes (70,000 ft cruising altitude) that "test" satellite sensor development...lol, ok:    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-046-DFRC.html
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1002
    • View Profile
Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #30 on: June 13, 2018, 03:28:33 PM »
In the end, the rocket launces are just about keeping up the show the fund NASAs budget ...

BTW the proof that they are using planes as satelittes is not very well hidden on their own page.  high altitude planes (70,000 ft cruising altitude) that "test" satellite sensor development...lol, ok:    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-046-DFRC.html

That page says they have TWO planes of this type. Are you really suggesting that they form some nefarious programme to convince the world that there are satellites up there, when there's not? Really? With just two planes?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #31 on: June 13, 2018, 03:48:12 PM »
In the end, the rocket launces are just about keeping up the show the fund NASAs budget ...

BTW the proof that they are using planes as satelittes is not very well hidden on their own page.  high altitude planes (70,000 ft cruising altitude) that "test" satellite sensor development...lol, ok:    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-046-DFRC.html

That page says they have TWO planes of this type. Are you really suggesting that they form some nefarious programme to convince the world that there are satellites up there, when there's not? Really? With just two planes?

lets keep this on the other thread, i responded there.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #32 on: June 13, 2018, 04:04:12 PM »
If the satellites - and the ISS - weren't at the stated altitudes, but were really high altitude drones or planes, it could only possibly appear to work for a single observer, but whenever two or more were looking from different locations, the angles wouldn't add up. Like so:

If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #33 on: June 13, 2018, 04:12:07 PM »
If the satellites - and the ISS - weren't at the stated altitudes, but were really high altitude drones or planes, it could only possibly appear to work for a single observer, but whenever two or more were looking from different locations, the angles wouldn't add up. Like so:



of course it would work


question, have you ever called a friend that lived over a hundred miles away and gone out together and looked at the ISS at the same time?  how wide is the observable ISS path?
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2018, 04:26:12 PM »
question, have you ever called a friend that lived over a hundred miles away and gone out together and looked at the ISS at the same time?  how wide is the observable ISS path?

Not personally. But other people have.

Here's a video where two people just a kilometre apart were able to calculate the altitude of the ISS:



From these observations the video maker estimated that the ISS would be ~408 km above the flat-Earth and 414 km when including the Earth's curvature. He also determined that the ISS is about 109m in width and has a velocity around 7 km/s.

Pretty close for two guys with cameras.
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2018, 05:11:55 PM »

Not personally. But other people have.


Exactly
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

*

Offline nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 267
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2018, 05:13:28 PM »

Not personally. But other people have.


Exactly

Have you ever personally witnessed the ISS to be a drone, then?

And why completely dismiss the video that proves the ISS is at its claimed altitude?
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2018, 05:36:28 PM »

Not personally. But other people have.


Exactly
Have you personally verified they have a high altitude plane that looks exactly like the ISS?
Have you personally verified these high altitude planes even exist? (After all, your source is the NASA website, what if they're lies too just like satellites?)
Have you personally verified the military personnel patrolling Antarctica?
How about the flights that go there regularly to stock them back up?

If not, how can you claim any of these things are true by your logic?

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2018, 05:54:38 PM »

Not personally. But other people have.


Exactly

Have you ever personally witnessed the ISS to be a drone, then?

And why completely dismiss the video that proves the ISS is at its claimed altitude?

you guys are the ones claiming to know the exact height, speed and makeup of the satellite.  you provide claims about how easy it is to simply go out and triangulate the exact height of the ISS to verify.  it SOOOOO easy...yet not a SINGLE round earther on this website has ever done it.  hmmm....
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2018, 06:03:38 PM »
Have you personally verified they have a high altitude plane that looks exactly like the ISS?
Have you personally verified these high altitude planes even exist? (After all, your source is the NASA website, what if they're lies too just like satellites?)
Have you personally verified the military personnel patrolling Antarctica?
How about the flights that go there regularly to stock them back up?

If not, how can you claim any of these things are true by your logic?

you are the ones claiming to know everything about the ISS and present it as fact.  i have provided evidence that it is very likely a NASA (or other agency) high altitude jet, which their own wesbite includes many clues to help support that.   you RE'ers love to try and pose these questions, you act as if you know what you are talking about and you are just regurgitating what you have been told.   I can do the same to you:

1.  Have you worked for NASA and been involved in the design of satelittes
2.  Have you ever viewed the satelittes with high powered telescope and track individual satelittes and make out there exact shape
3.  have you ever determined the height of the ISS yourself and compared the geometry of its track with another person to triangulate the height?
4.  Have you ever inspected a satelitte before it was loaded into a rocket?

I mean, its ridiculous the extremes you guys go to to try and prove a point.  admit it, you have NO idea, other than what you have been told and/or read on the internet.

I question NASA and provide my thoughts.  you have no thoughts.  the thread topic was proving that satellites (and their images) are real.   I have provided critical thought on exactly how these images can be faked by NASA.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time