[Dr David Thork]

I hope I'm not out of line here, because I skimmed over the last half of this thread... But I really wanted to say that I, too, have seen satellites with my naked eye. They appear as a star that is steadily moving across the night sky. It is easily distinguished from an airplane because airplanes look like flying cars in the night sky with their headlights. Can someone provide an alternative explanation to what the "moving star" is? (Again, sorry if I missed a previous post explaining this). I have also witnessed a space shuttle launch off of cape Canaveral when I was a kid. I can't say the exact moment it reached space because it was too far away from my perspective by the time it reached that altitude.

They just draw them ...

https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

[Tumeni]

They just draw them ...
https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

That's the guidance assistance for a telescope in Chile. What if someone is watching satellites from, say, Japan, or India? They can't be seeing the lasers from this.

[Dr David Thork]

They just draw them ...
https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

That's the guidance assistance for a telescope in Chile. What if someone is watching satellites from, say, Japan, or India? They can't be seeing the lasers from this.

That's not the only laser.
https://www.newscientist.com/gallery/laser-guide-star/

And those are only the ones we know about. Not the ones we don't know about.

[Tumeni]

They just draw them ...
https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

That's the guidance assistance for a telescope in Chile. What if someone is watching satellites from, say, Japan, or India? They can't be seeing the lasers from this.

That's not the only laser.
https://www.newscientist.com/gallery/laser-guide-star/

And those are only the ones we know about. Not the ones we don't know about.

OK, do you have any observations, from any astronomer, professional or amateur, who has actually observed the results from these lasers and seen them show the same motion as an orbital satellite? Or the lack of motion of a geostationary one?

[markjo]

They just draw them ...
https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

That's the guidance assistance for a telescope in Chile. What if someone is watching satellites from, say, Japan, or India? They can't be seeing the lasers from this.

That's not the only laser.
https://www.newscientist.com/gallery/laser-guide-star/

And those are only the ones we know about. Not the ones we don't know about.

Right, because no one would question the beam of light pointing to those stars.

[timterroo]

I hope I'm not out of line here, because I skimmed over the last half of this thread... But I really wanted to say that I, too, have seen satellites with my naked eye. They appear as a star that is steadily moving across the night sky. It is easily distinguished from an airplane because airplanes look like flying cars in the night sky with their headlights. Can someone provide an alternative explanation to what the "moving star" is? (Again, sorry if I missed a previous post explaining this). I have also witnessed a space shuttle launch off of cape Canaveral when I was a kid. I can't say the exact moment it reached space because it was too far away from my perspective by the time it reached that altitude.

They just draw them ...

https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

That's interesting, really. Do you know when the telescope laser was invented? The article is dated 2012, but I observed these "moving stars" as far back as the early 90s.

[Dr David Thork]

The SR-71 was in service from 1966. It was only disclosed to the public in 1999.

Just because the first reports are from 2012 doesn't mean the government haven't been using them longer. The laser was invented in 1960. I would be quite confident they have had lasers capable of drawing stars in the sky since before 2012.

[markjo]

The SR-71 was in service from 1966. It was only disclosed to the public in 1999.

Incorrect.  LBJ announced the SR-71 to the public in 1964.
https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/

[timterroo]

The SR-71 was in service from 1966. It was only disclosed to the public in 1999.

Just because the first reports are from 2012 doesn't mean the government haven't been using them longer. The laser was invented in 1960. I would be quite confident they have had lasers capable of drawing stars in the sky since before 2012.

Forgive me, but what does the SR-71 Blackbird have to do with the telescope laser used by the ESO?

Addition: OH, did you just mean that the government has a knack for hiding technology from the public? Gotcha...

[Tumeni]

The laser was invented in 1960. I would be quite confident they have had lasers capable of drawing stars in the sky since before 2012.

The first satellite, watched and listened to worldwide, was launched in 1957, pre-dating the laser by three years, then ..... with at least four Russian and American satellites being deployed before 1960.

Lasers in the sky cannot generate a radio signal such as that emitted by Sputnik. This was received worldwide, at intervals dictated by its orbital period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_crisis

"The signals of Sputnik 1 continued for 22 days"

[J-Man]

The hocus pocus of satellites. As many know we are told to believe sats are falling back to earth constantly in their description of how they orbit this fake ball. They time their fall just exactly right so they never really crash back to earth while rotating around and around, year after year defeating the gravitational pull by pointing just a tiny bit into open space. Wait some have a little booster gas nozzle to correct the fall which is so ridiculous. But wait a second, we can have it anyway we want in this fairy tale.

This pear shaped earth now or oblate sphere doesn't change gravitational pull at the fatty sections, oh no, that would screw this unbelievable story up even more. The sat rides the pull and hits the fatty bump with NO EFFECT. It's Disney time, close your eyes, and go to sleep little ones. No sats crash tonight...well EVAR !

[Tumeni]

The hocus pocus of satellites. As many know we are told to believe sats are falling back to earth constantly in their description of how they orbit this fake ball. They time their fall just exactly right so they never really crash back to earth while rotating around and around, year after year defeating the gravitational pull ...

Yup, you got it.

Here's some footage of some orbital sats, just to keep you going in your belief. Not from NASA, nor any other space agency, just a lil' company who make telescopes and tracking software for them;



Here's the Space Geodesy Facility. They verify the presence of sats by bouncing lasers off them. Again, not NASA, not any other space agency, just a bunch of UK scientists;

http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/

Here's an amateur who downloads data from weather satellites (there's plenty of others on YT);



What possible reason could there be for such radically different organisations and people to agree on the fact that we have orbital satellites above us, by such different methods, other than the fact that they are genuinely tracking them?

Methods;

1; Physical observation
2; Laser ranging
3; Data reception from satellite

How much more proof would anyone need?

[timterroo]

What is the explanation for how ground-based GPS works? Consider the fact that GPS even works when you are deep in the mountains away from cellular towers and wifi signals. Where does the GPS signal come from if not from a satellite?

[mikeyjames]

saw NO satellites,

Because space is really big - even if you evenly spread all satellites on the surface of the earth each would have around 138,000km2 to itself. now think about the massive extra area created by the orbital heights of the satellites, with many over 35,000km up, it would be more surprising to see one than not.

NO ISS

It's like saying you shot a rocket from New York to LA and didn't see a school bus in Sydney, Australia. Why would you expect to see it unless it was aimed at it?

No Space Debris

There was some spotted.

NO oblate spheroid.

Why would you expect to see a difference of about 3%?

NO spinning earth

Take a beach ball and attach it to something that rotates it once every 24hrs and then tell me how impressive the spinning looks

NO escape veolocity

Not sure what this looks like? Can you explain a little bit further?

NO speeds of 20kmph

See previous remark/question

NO stars

Go out tonight and take a nice clear picture of a bright object in the sky (such as the moon) and show me how many stars end up in the picture. To show you the stars the other video/images would have had to have been massively overexposed.

Just stationary blackness.

What did you expect? Sounds like you expected satellites shooting past, stars, galaxies, space junk all over the place, the earth looking like a fast spinning ball extensively bulging at the equator, and some kind of massive sign reading "you have exceeded escape velocity.


I actually feel sorry for you. I hope it's not too late to repeat 3rd grade.


Cheers

Mick

[timterroo]

Here is a really cool video about the International Space Station.



As I watched it, I kept asking myself, "What lengths would someone have to go to to fake this?" Everything looks genuine. The movements of everyone and everything in a 0 gravity environment. You would not be able to replicate this on earth. Perhaps you could get away with it in a jet that flies parabolas (emulating 0g), but you wouldn't be able to maintain a parabolic decent that lasts for the length of this video.

Also, check out the video of earth here. I know the lends effect is real, but usually you can notice an inconsistent or exaggerated curve or a curve that moves with the camera lends. You see none of that here. It all looks consistent, curved, and beautiful.

[JHelzer]

Here is a really cool video about the International Space Station.

There is another recent topic dedicated to discussing that video here.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10232.0

I have seen the space shuttle land at Edwards Airforce Base and tracked it at night with my naked eye as it approached the ISS.  Both were very cool opportunities.
I see no reason why man-made low earth objects can't exist in FET.   

[Tumeni]

I see no reason why man-made low earth objects can't exist in FET.

...except the observations and data I mentioned above don't match FE.

[BillO]

NO oblate spheroid.

Why would you expect to see a difference of about 3%?

Just a point of accuracy - the difference is actually only 0.34%.

It could never be seen with the naked eye.  I too am not sure why anyone with a modicum of knowledge would expect to see it at all.

[Tumeni]

Breaking News; alarm in the USA over the rogue behaviour of a Russian satellite;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45194333

If there were no satellites, what could be going on here? The Americans are mistaken about whether or not they're tracking a satellite or a balloon? The Russians are projecting a hologram up there?

C'mon, seriously ... the only reasonable explanation is that there is genuinely a Russian satellite up there in orbit. 

[Round Eyes]

The SR-71 was in service from 1966. It was only disclosed to the public in 1999.

Just because the first reports are from 2012 doesn't mean the government haven't been using them longer. The laser was invented in 1960. I would be quite confident they have had lasers capable of drawing stars in the sky since before 2012.

thats not correct BT. i went and personally saw a SR71 back in 1988-89