[ajax2000]

i spend quite a bit of time outside at night. i have noticed several polar orbit satellites. in fact, i have used these satellites for communication, and needed to time my calls for the space of time it takes one or the another to travel over the horizon. i would be super interested to know who's job it is to sit at the ice wall in the south and launch these satellites in "rapid" succesion in order to maintain consitent (to the fraction of a second) satellite traverses. how many satellites do we lose each year over the ice wall, and who funds the replacement satellites?

[FLAT_IS_TRUTH]

Satellites aren't real. They are debris from the Firmament, which float in currents on the ether, which creates the illusion of ordered flight. NASA simply claims that these objects are satellites, when in reality they are completely natural.

[RightRoundBabyRightRound]

Satellites aren't real. They are debris from the Firmament, which float in currents on the ether, which creates the illusion of ordered flight. NASA simply claims that these objects are satellites, when in reality they are completely natural.

Use a backyard telescope to view the details of the ISS and tell me it is natural and just debris.

[FLAT_IS_TRUTH]

Satellites aren't real. They are debris from the Firmament, which float in currents on the ether, which creates the illusion of ordered flight. NASA simply claims that these objects are satellites, when in reality they are completely natural.

Use a backyard telescope to view the details of the ISS and tell me it is natural and just debris.

I was talking about satellites. I agree that the ISS isn't debris, and is probably man-made, but it is not a space station, because space does not exist. The ISS is an aircraft or balloon of some kind, which NASA has launched into the ether-pools on which the heavenly bodies move. Its movements are not caused by orbital mechanics, but are dictated by the movement of the ether.

[Hmmm]

(...)
“Do satellites exist? If yes, then the earth is round...” You can easily see the details of the ISS with a backyard telescope.

RightRoundBabyRightRound,
I hope i won't get Deja Vu`s from this!...
How do you know, if what you see up there in the sky, and think of as ISS or satellites, is not a hovering or projected "plasmahologram", just like the moon and the sun??



Also, i haven't seen any high-altitude (weather) balloon videos that would show satellites...Maybe because these balloons fly too low? Or maybe because of daylight being too bright to detect anything of the size of satellites?...

(...)
my reply to "THE SUN " topic
my reply to "What are stars?" topic
"Is THIS the sun/moon/stars/planets?" topic
(...)

[RightRoundBabyRightRound]

(...)
“Do satellites exist? If yes, then the earth is round...” You can easily see the details of the ISS with a backyard telescope.

RightRoundBabyRightRound,
I hope i won't get Deja Vu`s from this!...
How do you know, if what you see up there in the sky, and think of as ISS or satellites, is not a hovering or projected "plasmahologram", just like the moon and the sun??



Also, i haven't seen any high-altitude (weather) balloon videos that would show satellites...Maybe because these balloons fly too low? Or maybe because of daylight being too bright to detect anything of the size of satellites?...

(...)
my reply to "THE SUN " topic
my reply to "What are stars?" topic
"Is THIS the sun/moon/stars/planets?" topic
(...)

First, the weather balloon thing... the highest a weather balloon has ever gone is around 32 miles high in 2002. The space station orbits around 250 miles above the earth’s orbit, and the lowest a satellite can orbit without burning up is around 120 miles above the surface. So yeah just simply too low, with cameras that are usually faced or slanted downward anyways.

As for the space station:
Well philosophically speaking, you’re right..... can I be completely sure the space station exists without ever seeing it up close or touching it to make sure it’s not some sort of large, rigid, balloon that moves 5 miles/s on a very predictable and observable path? No, not really. But there is enough reason for me to believe that NASA isn’t lying about the existence/nature of the space station? Yes, here’re just a few reasons:
1. Russia uses the space station too.. what would they have to gain by corroborating with the US?
2. The twins study. Why fake an entire huge research project, data, etc? Literally pointless.
3. Skylab’s descent and debris
4. The entire space shuttle program, and flights/descents of shuttles that I have both heard and watched


Is the idea of a space station (as NASA explains it) more scientifically plausible than the idea of something manmade that can “hover” and move in predictable flight paths without any sort of energy source or planetary orbit to keep it aloft? Yes. Space station more believable than a 20 year holographic hoax? Yep.

Please let me know if this gave you deja vu.

[ajax2000]

Satellites aren't real. They are debris from the Firmament, which float in currents on the ether, which creates the illusion of ordered flight. NASA simply claims that these objects are satellites, when in reality they are completely natural.

lol, that gave me a good belly laugh. thank you :-) maybe they aren't natural phenomena but actually projections of a forced upon us reality straight into out heads using the haarp antenna array. maybe vaccinations are actually micro recievers that lodge in our nueral cortex to make us more susceptible to those transmissions and thats why they are pushing the manditory vaccinations. maybe whenever the arrl raises funds to put an amatuer communications radio in orbit, a piece of floating natural phenomena appears that was never there before and follows the path of the proposed sattelite and then for some as of yet unexplained etheric reason begins to function like the aforemention sattelite was supposed too. maybe all the ham radio operators in the world are in on the conspiracy. it makes sense; honestly, have you ever seen the types of people who show up at ham conventions? is it any coincidence that humans taste a lot like ham? i think not.

[AATW]

Satellites aren't real. They are debris from the Firmament, which float in currents on the ether, which creates the illusion of ordered flight. NASA simply claims that these objects are satellites, when in reality they are completely natural.

So I guess GPS, Satellite TV, weather satellites are part of the "conspiracy" too?

[ajax2000]

If you are magnanimous enough to consider how small humans actually are, then it makes sense that we are part of the "natural" order of things. Every innovation we have, every new idea, is really just mother nature taking her course. In that light, every sattelite is in fact a bit of naturally occuring space debris following complex etheric currents providing function and repeatability. What appears to be a "rock" to one person can in fact function quite well as a hammer for another. What one person considers to be "debris" can in fact be "state of the art" to another person. perhaps instead of trying to argue the "truth" we should be handing out trophies for participation.

[douglips]

Satellites aren't real. They are debris from the Firmament, which float in currents on the ether, which creates the illusion of ordered flight. NASA simply claims that these objects are satellites, when in reality they are completely natural.

Why were they never observed by anybody in thousands of years of recorded history until the Soviets launched Sputnik? Is the firmament breaking down or something?

[exadon]

Satellites aren't real.

How does GPS work then?

[JohnAdams1145]

exadon - The FE theory has a rather implausible, but still possible, explanation of GPS -- it gets the location information from somewhere else. Before GPS, there was LORAN which worked quite well too. Trilateration does not require orbiting satellites.

As for the obvious, I'm sure someone has taken a telescope to observe a polar orbit satellite. Doesn't that completely discount the unproven assertion that they're natural space debris? Clearly solar panels don't seem to be natural space debris or whatever hand-wavy source of light you think they are.