So if we give ground photos of satellites, flat Earthers responses will be:You may want to see my earlier topic "Why do satellites follow elliptical paths?"
"It's a speck of light, how does that supposed to prove a spaceship circling the Earth?".
Well then, what the heck is that speck of light supposed to be?
And why does it's movement matches with websites tracking satellites?
https://www.google.com/search?q=photos+of+satellites+from+earth&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSksDlu_XLAhXB7CYKHbk-DIEQ_AUIBygB&biw=1536&bih=754And you don't have the slightest curiosity as to what these specks of light might be? The way to find out the TRUTH is to question these things and find out just what they are.
Oh yeah, tons of people uploading their personal photos of these specks of light aren't they.
Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel. The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told. It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed. Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from. In the photograph (not an amateur one) anyone with any curiosity and knowledge on astronomy might wonder why there are the long streaks of various colours and brightnesses and just 3 tiny points of light labelled "Sat Mex 5", "ANIK F3" and "ECHOSTAR 7" (and one meteor!). | (http://www.ctcameraeye.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/sats-meteor-m42.jpg) FEers just don't have the curiosity to question the significance of the little stationary "lights in the sky" amid the streaks of the star trails. |
Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it. I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky. How much can we expect to ever know about them?Not even the slightest trace of curiosity, no desire to learn anything.
You obviously didn't even click the link rabinoz. It's all that terrible cgi of the thousands of satellites swarming the earth, you know the ones not visible from the international space station, or visible from the DISCOVR satellite "photograph" of Earth. I don't see a single photograph that is referencing any single satellite from earth in that Google search result.OK, which of those images are claimed to be photographs. No-one claims that the images showing thousands of satellites are photographs! Don't be utterly ridiculous.
You obviously didn't even click the link rabinoz. It's all that terrible cgi of the thousands of satellites swarming the earth, you know the ones not visible from the international space station, or visible from the DISCOVR satellite "photograph" of Earth. I don't see a single photograph that is referencing any single satellite from earth in that Google search result.OK, which of those images are claimed to be photographs. No-one claims that the images showing thousands of satellites are photographs! Don't be utterly ridiculous.
On a photo showing the whole earth those satellites would be a tiny fraction of a pixel in size!
Most satellites are well under 10 m across (the ISS is much bigger) so from a range of even 100 km they would completely invisible.
The DISCOVR satellite is about 1,000,000 miles away and you are complaining that you can't see a 30 ft satellite!
Look, just think for yourself a bit sometimes and stop being so completely biased.
Do a little working out for yourself. Would you expect to pick out say a person in a photo taken 20 km away!
You obviously didn't even click the link rabinoz. It's all that terrible cgi of the thousands of satellites swarming the earth, you know the ones not visible from the international space station, or visible from the DISCOVR satellite "photograph" of Earth. I don't see a single photograph that is referencing any single satellite from earth in that Google search result.
Answer this then: WHY would you expect a satellite to be visible from ISS, let alone on a photo taken from ISS?You obviously didn't even click the link rabinoz. It's all that terrible cgi of the thousands of satellites swarming the earth, you know the ones not visible from the international space station, or visible from the DISCOVR satellite "photograph" of Earth. I don't see a single photograph that is referencing any single satellite from earth in that Google search result.OK, which of those images are claimed to be photographs. No-one claims that the images showing thousands of satellites are photographs! Don't be utterly ridiculous.
On a photo showing the whole earth those satellites would be a tiny fraction of a pixel in size!
Most satellites are well under 10 m across (the ISS is much bigger) so from a range of even 100 km they would completely invisible.
The DISCOVR satellite is about 1,000,000 miles away and you are complaining that you can't see a 30 ft satellite!
Look, just think for yourself a bit sometimes and stop being so completely biased.
Do a little working out for yourself. Would you expect to pick out say a person in a photo taken 20 km away!
You completely gloss over the lack of a single satellite seen from aboard the ISS. There's also no actual photos of a satellite, just phony cgi, and of course I didn't think that graphic of the 20k satellites was photo that's why I called it horrible cgi. I'm a graphic artist by trade, I guess it's more obvious to me what is fake and what is real. I can hardly watch most modern movies because the obvious cgi kills it for me.
You completely gloss over the lack of a single satellite seen from aboard the ISS. There's also no actual photos of a satellite, just phony cgi, and of course I didn't think that graphic of the 20k satellites was photo that's why I called it horrible cgi. I'm a graphic artist by trade, I guess it's more obvious to me what is fake and what is real. I can hardly watch most modern movies because the obvious cgi kills it for me.
Here's a photo of a satellite from space: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01294/satellite_1294450c.jpg
There are a few more, though for obvious reasons they usually capture the satellite as it is released.
Here's a photo of a satellite from space: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01294/satellite_1294450c.jpg (http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01294/satellite_1294450c.jpg)
There are a few more, though for obvious reasons they usually capture the satellite as it is released.
What leads you to believe that photograph is even genuine?
What about all these ones? (https://www.google.com/search?q=satellite+in+space&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq1oio5PfLAhXKQiYKHRvSAv8Q_AUIBygB&biw=1303&bih=730#imgrc=_) The artists went to great length to make them. Some are even purported as real. Obviously it's a great undertaking to photograph an object moving over 16,000 mph with a camera also moving 16,000 mph, so I understand the need to fake these graphics. But the problem is, people with less critical sets of eyes look at them and actually believe them to be real, without thinking about the technical difficulty of taking such a photograph, or without noticing the cartoonish features of the graphics. It's propaganda. So other than the flares supposedly caused by that one type of satellite, and ISS high altitude pass overs, what other proof do we have satellites exist the way we're told they do?
Here's a photo of a satellite from space: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01294/satellite_1294450c.jpg
There are a few more, though for obvious reasons they usually capture the satellite as it is released.
What leads you to believe that photograph is even genuine?
What about all these ones? (https://www.google.com/search?q=satellite+in+space&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq1oio5PfLAhXKQiYKHRvSAv8Q_AUIBygB&biw=1303&bih=730#imgrc=_) The artists went to great length to make them. Some are even purported as real.
Obviously it's a great undertaking to photograph an object moving over 16,000 mph with a camera also moving 16,000 mph, so I understand the need to fake these graphics. But the problem is, people with less critical sets of eyes look at them and actually believe them to be real, without thinking about the technical difficulty of taking such a photograph, or without noticing the cartoonish features of the graphics.
It's propaganda. So other than the flares supposedly caused by that one type of satellite, and ISS high altitude pass overs, what other proof do we have satellites exist the way we're told they do?
What leads you to believe that photograph is even genuine?
But the problem is, people with less critical sets of eyes look at them and actually believe them to be real, without thinking about the technical difficulty of taking such a photograph, or without noticing the cartoonish features of the graphics. It's propaganda.
So other than the flares supposedly caused by that one type of satellite, and ISS high altitude pass overs, what other proof do we have satellites exist the way we're told they do?
Just look where the image comes from, it's not usually Rocket Science!
Here's a photo of a satellite from space: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01294/satellite_1294450c.jpg
There are a few more, though for obvious reasons they usually capture the satellite as it is released.
What leads you to believe that photograph is even genuine?
What about all these ones? (https://www.google.com/search?q=satellite+in+space&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq1oio5PfLAhXKQiYKHRvSAv8Q_AUIBygB&biw=1303&bih=730#imgrc=_) The artists went to great length to make them. Some are even purported as real. Obviously it's a great undertaking to photograph an object moving over 16,000 mph with a camera also moving 16,000 mph, so I understand the need to fake these graphics. But the problem is, people with less critical sets of eyes look at them and actually believe them to be real, without thinking about the technical difficulty of taking such a photograph, or without noticing the cartoonish features of the graphics. It's propaganda. So other than the flares supposedly caused by that one type of satellite, and ISS high altitude pass overs, what other proof do we have satellites exist the way we're told they do?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/GPS_Satellite_NASA_art-iif.jpg/263px-GPS_Satellite_NASA_art-iif.jpg) Artist's conception of GPS Block II-F satellite in Earth orbit. From: wiki Global Positioning System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System) | xxxxxx | (http://www.esc-aerospace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/3-MTG-300x225.jpg) Bit of a clue in the "will comprise"!Quote The MTG series will comprise four imaging and two sounding satellites.From: (http://www.esc-aerospace.com/?page_id=2928)esc aerospace | xxxxxx | (http://www.satellite-evolution.com/group/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Mexsat-370x290.png) This one does not specifically say it is a representation, but I think common sense would indicate that it was not a photograph!From: Satellite Evolution (http://www.satellite-evolution.com/group/site/?p=11207) |
No.https://www.google.com/search?q=photos+of+satellites+from+earth&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSksDlu_XLAhXB7CYKHbk-DIEQ_AUIBygB&biw=1536&bih=754And you don't have the slightest curiosity as to what these specks of light might be?
Oh yeah, tons of people uploading their personal photos of these specks of light aren't they.
The way to find out the TRUTH is to question these things and find out just what they are.I would be curious if the satellite-makers put a GoPro camera ---- even with a fish-eye lens --- on their "satellites" and showed us a live-stream of their travels. That would be cool!
You did look at the pictures TheTruthIsOnHere referenced? They are certainly not of " tons of people uploading their personal photos of these specks of light" as he seems to hint! As far as I can see most are just "artist's impressions", and say so!No.https://www.google.com/search?q=photos+of+satellites+from+earth&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSksDlu_XLAhXB7CYKHbk-DIEQ_AUIBygB&biw=1536&bih=754And you don't have the slightest curiosity as to what these specks of light might be?
Oh yeah, tons of people uploading their personal photos of these specks of light aren't they.
Pics or it did not happen. GoPro cameras are cheap!The way to find out the TRUTH is to question these things and find out just what they are.I would be curious if the satellite-makers put a GoPro camera ---- even with a fish-eye lens --- on their "satellites" and showed us a live-stream of their travels. That would be cool!
Heck, I am sure these "satellite" companies could make a lot of money selling GoogeAds with their transmission...... oh, wait! Maybe the GoogleEarthMan might have a problem......
You did look at the pictures TheTruthIsOnHere referenced? They are certainly not of " tons of people uploading their personal photos of these specks of light" as he seems to hint! As far as I can see most are just "artist's impressions", and say so!
So, I really don't know what on earth you are talking about! And, I doubt the you know either.
I would be curious if the satellite-makers put a GoPro camera ---- even with a fish-eye lens --- on their "satellites" and showed us a live-stream of their travels. That would be cool!
It was sarcasm. I was taking something you obviously consider to be some kind of widespread phenomenon of people locating, looking at, and photographic specks of light, and showing that it isn't nearly as common as you think. I'm sure I could go to satellite watching specific forums, that have about 6 active members to learn more about these specks of light, but an overwhelming majority of people just take it for granted that they exist and can be seen.Actually you can blame google for that, here's a dozen photograph of the ISS from the ground
That's the kind of blind trust I can't fathom. Most people are just willing to accept whatever is told to them without doing the research or having the first hand experience to verify it. Not that I haven't been guilty of that in the past.I did research this, i looked through many website tracking the ISS and i saw it on my location just on time like the website predicted,
It was sarcasm. I was taking something you obviously consider to be some kind of widespread phenomenon of people locating, looking at, and photographic specks of light, and showing that it isn't nearly as common as you think. I'm sure I could go to satellite watching specific forums, that have about 6 active members to learn more about these specks of light, but an overwhelming majority of people just take it for granted that they exist and can be seen.Actually you can blame google for that, here's a dozen photograph of the ISS from the ground
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ground+pictures+of+ISS&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj84bD5x_3LAhXPBo4KHVQmCkoQ_AUIBigB
not that there isn't photos of other satellites in the internet, but because our search engine is imperfect.That's the kind of blind trust I can't fathom. Most people are just willing to accept whatever is told to them without doing the research or having the first hand experience to verify it. Not that I haven't been guilty of that in the past.I did research this, i looked through many website tracking the ISS and i saw it on my location just on time like the website predicted,
the ISS is about as bright as Venus/Jupiter, it doesn't blink or twinkle, it doesn't leave a trail, it rises in west and sets in east and it's motion is noticeable.
Now this thread here is to discuss what that speck of light supposed to be, which no flat Earthers seem to show interest of knowing.
My point wasn't that no one had ever seen the ISS, and I'll guess I'll have to take your word for it. My point was most people generally accept it's existence without ever seeing it. The blind trust I referred to.
I really don't know why I bothered.You posted a bunch of cookie-cutting sniffing sites.
You did not post a live stream of anything.