satellites don't exist

Post Reply New Topic

More proof: cubesats & the potential problems that lie ahead for the since they can't de-orbit.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/30/nasa-tracking-cubesats-is-easy-but-many-stay-in-orbit-too-long/

In other words, satellites aren't even the domain of super large powerful corporations any more so the conspiracy angle tends to fall apart. They are part of business and a bureaucracy surrounds their creation, launch, use and demise.

But here's more proof: out of the 23,000 pieces of debris in orbit, a few come back down each year if they are decommissioned or are in a low enough orbit to start with. It's predictable, since we know where they are, as to where and when they will re-enter (except for when they are out of control, but even then a range is predictable). And they do so right on time and place, creating a nice show.

For the sake of argument I will say that everything in your last post is correct (which is not to say that I believe that). Why would NASA be necessary if this were the case? Science is ~1% of the budget, NASA is about half of that, that VAB doesn't look cheap, and between the costs of allegedly faking rocket launches (which anyone can attend), allegedly faking more media then most large movie companies combined, and paying their many employees which are allegedly kept in the dark they can only ever hope to take a fraction of that. If I were optimistic and assumed that they were able to do that with $8 billion per year then they would be able to covertly take about $10 billion dollars per year. This is out of the trillions of dollars spent annually by the United States, and this alleged massive space travel conspiracy could take about 0.3% of it.

If they are cooking the books, then why would they need space travel as an excuse to fund NASA? Again this brings up the question of why they need to fake space travel to achieve what that can do. Why not just make 0.3% of the budget "magically disappear" and use it for whatever NASA is allegedly funding, then cook the books to hide it? Why the alleged big (and no doubt expensive) show? Why are so many other nations and companies doing the same thing? What about space tourism and civilian cube satellites? If satellites and space ships don't exist then why can I see them with my own eyes passing over me?

Alright, apparently, I need to clarify a few things. I am really more putting my attention to the idea that all large corporations/governments are inefficient with their use of funds compared to optimum-results. This includes NASA, but is not limited to NASA, and so my argument is not so much whether or not NASA is faking Space-Travel or not, but as to whether the money is being used in an efficient manner or not. Not that money is as relevant to accomplishing things as believed (you do not need money for food if you can grow your own food, nor for electricity if you can generate your own, and same things with having access to advanced robot-workers for automatic-mining of the raw-materials for space-equipment, etc).

Also, I would be a complete hypocrite if I claimed that anything was impossible, and this includes the possibility of the existence of Satellites or Space-Travel; I do not think that either are necessarily impossible, and if one were to take into consideration and believe that this Material-Universe is really 13.8 Billion years old, then consider how many different things have manifested into existence since since that time ago. Even if something does not exist now, that is still not a guarantee that it may not necessarily manifest into existence tomorrow, and many things in human-history were thought to be non-existence (some things are still thought to be non-existent but the fact that "material" has "manifested" from microwave-particles, according to top-prevailing astronomer-theory, has actually been one of my primary reasons for not being able to rule anything out from existing, even para-normal).

Regarding your other posts and statements and questions, NASA is probably not necessary, but it gets plenty of support, always claiming that it lacks the funding to do X or Y. Considering that within America alone there has been allegedly 60+ years worth of scientific and technological advancements, allegedly, but an apparent economic Dark-Age, what that tells me is that somebody is getting paid too much to be too inefficient; something like being paid to hold up a telephone-pole that would stand up on its own anyway (regardless of how big the pay-cheque, unless the work is somehow contributing to the maintenance or economic-advancement of civilisation/society, the work is fundamentally useless, even if one is being paid to push the pole hard enough to work up a sweat by the end of the day). Also, that is not to say that every agency on earth cannot be hi-jacked, especially if there is one really powerful but extremely clandestine agency/organisation, and in that case, that sort of an operation can instigate and perpetuate a gigantic conspiracy, even to the point of getting multiple nations/countries/corporations to co-operate for purposes of deception, forcing all of these seemingly International-Entities into a very sinister Hostage-Situation (reasoning : I am not religious, but if I were to believe that there really is such a thing as an Ultimate Deceiver of All, perhaps once referred to as Satan or The Devil or Shetani in the past, then this is one of the methods I have been able to think up in order to deceive if I had such a capability to do so myself; only one out of many methods of deception I could devise).

You mentioned that you may soon work for NASA so maybe you can contribute to some improvements. For the record, just in case you were not aware yet, a large number of NASA-Scientists seemed to have died since something like a couple of years ago, with numbers increasing, according to multiple sources. Whether it is related to conspiracy or not, I have no idea, for all we know it may be related to some sort of radiation contamination-leak, but I digress.

Anyway, Mike, I made a thread on Aliens recently, with plenty of Dialogue that I would like for you to review.

OK here is the biggest piece of evidence:
In 1978 the British army set up a troposcatter tower in England and beamed television into Germany which is about 500 miles away.

https://books.google.com/books?id=h08Di ... on&f=false


A few years later satellite television came to the UK and used the same equipment and frequencies as the troposcatter towers already being used
The British satellite TV company was called sky TV cos it uses the sky....not space

The person who set it up is Rupert Murdoch, the guy behind fox news, that really trustworthy news source.
The cube SATs 'burn up on the atmosphere' so all evidence is destroyed.
They take pictures of the earth...but not the whole earth just high altitude shots, planetlabs is a company that launches high numbers of cubesats...it was founded by ex-nasa employees....

Um, that's evidence of bouncing signals; it is not evidence that satellites don't exist. That's like saying that trains exist, therefore buses do not.

If your only arguing that the government is inefficient then what are we disagreeing about? Yeah, the United States government is an unoptimized mess. Space travel is still real though (including the Moon landings) and there is no conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth, that's what I'm saying.

Also, I will try to find the alien thread you speak of. While we are suggesting threads to each other, I made one about a video debate that I will be doing with Jeranism starting in the next few days: http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=320705

EDIT: I can't find the thread you speak of, can you give me a link?

Troposcatter uses the same frequencies and dishes as satellite TV so the bus\train analogy doesn't hold up.

I don't know...? I was not trying to necessarily argue but I did say I distrust public financial-reports. That is fine that your stance is on no conspiracies for, for all I know, getting people to argue about the shape of the Earth may itself be a distraction. A Protocol-Method of determining and detecting events/structures can be done via Remote-Viewing by the way (although it is more credible to get the releases directly from the FarSight Institution Channel than from most of the other sources).

I should clarify that I am actually neither and opponent nor a proponent of any particular model; for all I know the very shape of earth may be changing or even be simultaneously all models depending on parameters (Quantum-Weirdness and all).

Sure - viewtopic.php?t=320808

I'm just saying this: proof that troposcatter exists and is practical for certain uses is not proof against satellites existing. They are not mutually exclusive.

How do you argue against being able to predict when a satellite will be overhead based on it's known orbit, speed, etc. and then testing that by direct observation both visual and by triangulated radio? There's really no way to fake it, especially given the number of directly observable, independently verifiable objects in orbit.

I agree,it doesn't prove satellites don't exist, but I think it creates a lot of doubt.

The fact that everything can be done just as well ,for less money, by using towers and balloons but no company decided to make a television service based on troposcatter towers? Even thought the tech. Was used by the army for that specific purpose in 1978?

Another piece of evidence:
GPS doesn't work over 60,000ft.
so this makes me think it is a bunch of super-pressure balloons because they are hovering around 100,000ft
There is an official excuse for this (it can be used by enemy aircraft and weapons)
but the government decided to lift the accuracy limits recently....which were put there for security reasons.

There is an official excuse or reason for every anti-satellite argument but I choose to doubt the excuses.

Does the ability to predict when a certain satellite will be overhead affect the average person? Do WE see the results of these predictions? Or just a tiny minority of people who can produce photos of dots.
I have only known people to take photos of stationary satellites and produce dots, i thought moving satellites can't be photographed because a long exposure is needed.

Also there desnt seem to be any footage of the ISS under construction even though that would have made for some epic pictures.

Here is some possible evidence for the existence of at least one of those alleged satellites...

...just to note, Remote-Viewing does not necessarily prove anything, but skeptics can no longer laugh at R-V.

I just thought of yet another alternate-answer whilst trying to figure out a response for this... they may actually be using much more advanced technology than what they are telling us in the public. Talking about probes or levitation-craft with cloaking technologies that can remain suspended, and stationary, within any designated or specific point in the sky.

Before dismissing this idea, please click on the "...because Aliens !" link at the end of my Forum-Signature and read through the thread so that you can understand that I am able to reference evidence for the possible existence of being able to suspend relays within the Earth's electro-magnetic flux-lines (similarly to how water becomes a solid when frozen, when combining the principles of Lenz Law with a gelling of an atmospheric electro-magnetic flux-location [whatever the word is in reference to turning something into a gel], that a technological-object can remain suspended in that part of the atmosphere, similarly to how an object will become stationary within a part of a co-ordinate in water if the water-viscosity were to be solidified).

Not to mention the fact that I am aware of hologram-projection technology. Are they solid or holograms ?

Footage of the construction of the ISS certainly would give less reason to be skeptical of its existence.