All Space Fakery Totally Exposed
1 2018-05-03 by alexander7k
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to drop the hammer and expose the Space fakery. I have researched a lot of conspiracy theories but perhaps the most shocking was the one oriented around Space. Space as we know it is fake, or atleast the material we have been given is absolutely fake and CGI, all of it.
Now before this thread get's invaded by Flat Earth shills, a disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A FLAT EARTHER, THE EARTH IS A GLOBE, SO FUCK OFF SHILLS!
The flath earth movement is a disinformation campaign meant to make everyone look crazy that questions physics related conspiracies. And the truth is always in the middle, now this is mostly true, it's not an middleground fallacy, stop parrotting that, whenever I bring up centrism people always shove that in my face as a knee-jerk response, the truth is, due to the massive disinformation, is that almost all extremist positions are wrong, and the truth is indeed somewhere in the middle.
So that being said, Space as we know it is fake. I could not find a single original photo of any celestial object that was real, every single one of it is either a:
- composite
- an artistic illustration
- or a CGI footage in case of a video
The funny thing is that they even admit it, so I challenge anyone to find me real footage or real pictures, you won't find any. All of it is fake, and there is a very good reason why it is, because it ties into even bigger conspiracies. So let's detail it:
Satellites
Satellites simply don't exist. That's it.
-
The GPS system is basically just radio towers. There is no GPS signal in the oceans. You can track commercial planes, they all dissapear over oceans. (Interestingly the flat earthers also use this argument but it is actually something different) Basically if there were satellites up there, couldn't they just rotate like a few degrees to give signal to planes over oceans? No they can't all signal magically dissapears once you are out the cover zone of the nearest radio tower network. Check it out yourself, no GPS far from radio towers: https://www.flightradar24.com
-
Military satellite phones just use flying drones or multiple flying drones above to relay the signals to the nearest radio tower.
-
Civilian "satellite phones" are not really satphones, they are probably just lying, and I bet they also don't work on the middle of the oceans. Ships and boats probably use long range radio. Or perhaps they also use the Skywave effect and it's not available in bad weather incidentally, while the military must always have connection, so they use drones to guarantee the signal.
-
If the weather is clear then due to the Skywave effect you get the exact same kind of relay system as if you would use satellites, so what is the point of satellites anyway? The ionosphere reflects radio waves that you shoot up , so you can have global communication if the weather is clear. If it isn't then you don't have signal do you.
-
Every major city has a radio tower to relay signals to longer distances.
-
Phone networks now all use the internet, and the internet is run in underground cables. They even bother themselves to lay cables across oceans, so cable connections are more reliable. Before that the phone network used radio towers.
-
So nothing really uses satellites, and anything that claims they do, can just use radio towers instead which would be more reliable, so there is not even a point in doing it via satellites, and the interference in the stratosphere/ionosphere would probably make that very inefficient form of communication.
Space Telescopes
- The Hubble telescope doesn't exist. It's actually the SOFIA , it's basically just a camera on an airplane. The photos from SOFIA match identically those of Hubble, only the colors are offset a little, any graphical artists can just offset the colors from the SOFIA and claim that it's photos from Hubble.
This guy exposed all of it: https://hooktube.com/watch?v=SIfp0lIpyxs
- Probably all other "space telescopes" are either just photos from ground observatories where "artists" have "worked" on them, or similar airplane based cameras.
Space Stations
-
The Mir was cold war soviet propaganda just as the Moon Landing was US propaganda. There was absolutely no proof of it's existence whatsoever. They just faked all of it, and given how censored the media was back then, no skeptic information was leaked then.
-
The ISS doesn't exist. Some people claim they can see it on their telescopes, well it might just be some meteorite. I have seen no high resolution photo of it. Analog telescopes only show you a blurred spot and digital telescopes could just be hacked to show you want you want to see. So no image of the ISS from Earth.
-
The ISS life footage loops after a certain time and it looks like horrible CGI, they didn't even put the effort into faking it at least in HD mode.
-
The videos where astronauts jumps up and down, in some frames you can see their harness. And of course the whole permed up hair of that woman is just ridiculous.
-
The width of the ISS is just as wide as an airplane so it could just be filmed in a RGA .
-
They never show you uncut videos of of ISS interior. So given that RGA could create reduced gravity for only 10-15 minutes as the plane tilts downwards, that is probably as long as a continuous video sequence can be seen in any ISS video, then the plane goes back up and then down again so they could film another 15 minutes of low gravity and they just merge those segments and it looks like as if we would see a continuous footage them floating in space.
-
There are of course bubbles in space in many videos when they go out. They do admit that they have underwater pools that they use for "training". Well they might as well just film all of outer space in these pools and then edit the footage with CGI to remove the water.
Space Launches
-
Launch sites are closely guarded and who knows they may not let anyone film it. Or they just fill up the launch sites with paid shills, and if you want to buy a ticket they will just say that there are none left. So that would give them cover to create CGI fake footages of space launches, and nobody would have real footages. There might not be anything launched there, who knows how much they are lying about.
-
But on the eventuality that launch sites are real, you can see in many launch videos, that the rocket goes up and then it goes in an arc, and it probably crashes back into the ocean.
-
Rockets are probably too heavy and can't go to space, and balloons pop out due to the pressure problem, so nothing can be launched up from ground.
-
It's illegal to launch up things, so your average person can't even verify these claims. You can only launch with a special permit, but who knows they might co-opt anyone who would do that and make them a shill too. Give them 100,000$ and they will push the official narrative, how hard it would be?
Pictures of Planets / Galaxies
-
Look at this allegedly original photo of Saturn and try to not laugh. The fucking rings around it are supposed to be gas and meteorites yet here it looks like it was drawn with a pencil. Also look at the edge of the planet, it's damn weird, very blurred and not even circular, it is definitely a hand drawn photo.
-
Other photos are all illustrations in graphical animation programs, and they even admit it. Look here an admitted animation and an allegedly real photo , I mean the animation looks more real than the real one.
-
All galaxy photos are fake illustrations. Search in any search engine for real galaxy photos, you won't find any. All of them are fake and they even admit it. It's to mesmerize people with cool graphics and artwork and colors, but it's fake at the end of the day.
-
There is an organization that now wants to make the first real picture of a Black Hole, it started in 2017 and by now they promised good photos. So I got excited naturally, I really wanted to see how a real Black Hole looks like, because obviously everything in search engine images are fake. They did make photos, the entire gallery is here . No fucking black hole photos instead we get lame ass groupy photos for Facebook and a few shots of the observatories. No photo of a black hole whatsoever. Instead we get animations here which is just more CGI fakery. So they said they will give us "real photos" of black holes and instead of that we get lame CGI animations. Awesome.
-
So basically ground based observatories are just magnifying glasses. Somebody pointed it out earlier that binoculars, magnifying glasses (because that is what these observatories are basically) are just magnifying the light on the lense. So they can't realy see anything more than what you can see with your naked eye without going closer. They just see it more clearly since the lense is much wider. So yes a spider has probably bad vision because it has a small eye, and an observatory lense can see better, but it's nothing magical, as the light converges over a distance so the only thing we could do is to go closer to it. Wonder why we don't have HD pictures of the Moon? That is why, because probably all Moon photos were done in the observatories and they just zoomed it in to take a shot, we didn't got close to it.
Newtonian Model
- The Newtonian Model is certainly flawed, to what degree and how I don't know I am not a physicist, but the evidence coming from Quantum Phyisics will probably slowly override it. There is basically no evidence for it, things like the Cavendish Experiment are just horrible insults to our intelligence.
Moon Landing
-
Naturally this concludes that the Moon landing was a Hoax.
-
Footage: 3rd camera anomaly, shadow orientation, dim light based short shadows instead of long shadows from distant light source, wind blowing the flag, lunar lander made of tinfoil, lack of energy to transmit radio signals very far away compared to what radio towers use, too short antenna for transmission, too heavy rocket to lift off , ridiculous jump moves, knee bending issue, harness showing, etc etc... many many plotholes!
-
I think the control room probably ran fake software so that the operators were either in on it, or they had no clue that they were fooled and they thought the numbers they saw on the screen was real.
-
It was simply wool puller over all humans eyes, even the people working there could have not realized that they have been totally fooled, it was probably a masterpiece of deception.
-
Allegedly Kubrick filmed the footage in a studio, there might be some evidence for this. The "2001: A Space Odyssey" movie made in 1968 by him was probably predictive programming for the moon landing and may have some hints about it, I haven't watched it but have heard many people talk about it.
Shape of Earth
-
The Earth is a globe despite all of this fakery. Why? Because there is overwhelming actual evidence for this, that anyone can verify, while there is literally 0 evidence for the "Space stuff".
-
So many Flat Earthers will just look at all the fake evidence and think that it's all fake, yet they fall into a trap this way. Just because all evidence in a theme is fake that doesn't mean that you can jump 1 step ahead and make a totally illogical connection. There are other explanations. So we know for sure that the space stuff is fake, simply because there is no evidence for it, and all evidence relies on a trust for an authority figure and people at home can't verify the claims. The shape of the Earth on the other hand is easy to verify, literally you only need 2 sticks in the ground, so anyone who questions that is really crazy.
-
I think the Flat and Concave Earth movements are disinformation run by paid shills.
Conclusion
The conclusion is that all images of space are fake illustrations and CGI videos. Humans can't go to space, or atleast yet, not with our current primitive technology and certainly not with that of 1969. I personally even think that the German V2 rockets were fake, it looks like it was just a fake decoy to mislead the Allies. Still many rockets fall into the ocean, so I find it extremely unlikely that rocket technology in 1969 was more than the level of a confetti rocket. (As for the Nuclear ICBM scaremongering of the Cold War, I think that was extremely exagerated to keep people in fear).
So either rockets are too heavy and we don't have the fuel, rocket design or thrust capacity to launch anything into space or maybe outer space is really a hostile environment.
They claim that there is close to 0 Kelvin out there, well any metal would freeze and become very weak in that temperature, so given the friction it has to go through the atmosphere, it's likely that anything going up would disintegrate.
Of course the radiation, the Van Allen belt would totally make it impossible for humans to go up there even if we would perfect some kind of durable material for it. And of course the ionosphere/magnetosphere radiation would make communication near impossible up there, let alone as far as the Moon.
Even the SETI project all they can hear is just noise, even if there are Aliens trying to talk with us, the magnetic shield of the Planet might be so strong that weak radio signals from far distance can't go through. We only see the Stars because they are extremely strong radiations, but anything with a power of a power plant simply can't go through that shield.
Others have claimed that there are endless microasteroids moving faster than bullets out there. They do incinerate in the atmosphere so they are not harmful to humans, though some scientists have found fist sized asteroids falling down into deserts. Up there micro asteroids like the size of your fist would bombard any space shuttle with speeds faster than a bullet or a cannon ball. No material can resist that siege in the long term, so that immediately puts the ISS claims in question, let alone when they go out in space and repair it from the outside, the space suit can't protect them against that, they would become Swiss cheese if they step outside.
Others have raised the issue that if space is really an empty vacuum, then how can you move there? We can only move on Earth because we have molecules to push ourselves against, but in empty space how do you move? This might lend credibility to the Aether theories, and it might actually be space moving around us, not us moving in space. Might explain the Dark Energy issue, who knows.
So all of it is fake, they all take out tax money and in return we only get lame ass CGI and artistic illustrations. It is the most astonishing conspiracy out there.
96 comments
1 zave_ 2018-05-03
So every planet is fake and every new planet scientists discover is fake also?
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
I didn't said that, most of astronomy is based on ground observatories, the space telescopes aren't even needed, and the stuff that comes out of those are probably fake.
1 zave_ 2018-05-03
So your saying telescope images are fake?
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
The Hubble telescope images are identical to the ones made by SOFIA or other ground observatories but the offset of the color.
Any photoediting software can just shift the color balance a little bit and claim that that photo is from a different "space telescope".
1 MaximinusDrax 2018-05-03
That's absolutely false. There are many parts of the EM spectrum that don't penetrate the atmosphere, or get diffused along the way. It is impossible, for example, to make x-ray observations from the ground.
Says who?
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Look I am just looking at the pictures and really the only difference between the pictures in supposedly different wavelength recordings is just the color balance and the smoothness. That can be easily changed with a photo editor. I have even tested it, took a Hubble photo and played around with the color and it looks like a SOFIA photo.
Any photoediting expert can just thinker with that and claim that the "new" photo is now of a different wavelength, but it's the same photo, just manipulated.
1 MaximinusDrax 2018-05-03
Hubble probes the visible part of the spectrum. It makes use of the fact that lower earth orbit allows for longer, uninterrupted periods of exposure that are crucial for some observations that cannot be made from the ground (e.g the Hubble deep field). It can also, though, make redundant observations that can also be made from the ground (I assume that's what you were referring to). So it's inclusive in a way.
Then you have telescope like Chandra that look at parts of the spectrum that are well outside the visible (no "color tinkering" can shift what the observe to something seen on the ground). I was talking about those. Luckily, they cannot be made from the ground since otherwise life on earth wouldn't survive the radiation levels.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
I understand your theory of it, but I am simply just pointing out that the photos are just artwork, not real recordings. Just look at all the gorgeous space wallpapers you can find on the internet, how hard it is to fake all the "real" photos too?
1 MaximinusDrax 2018-05-03
I wasn't giving you a theory, but rather pointing to a direct counter to your argument.
So the essence of your claim is that you think any observations of outer space are just artwork and that the are "probably" (as you used elsewhere in your post) fake simply because it's possible to fake them. You'll have to add more substance to that. Otherwise, this premise alone can be used to deconstruct pretty much any aspect of what you consider reality (which can all easily be faked).
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Well I have given plenty of evidence in my post, read it and then come back and discuss it.
1 Jaxraged 2018-05-03
So when the new lames Webb telescope launches will you believe that there are space telescopes? It’s much more powerful than Hubble.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
No. I'd like to see a live interior feed from the ISS, that constantly shows the public parts of the space station, and have people examine that footage to even consider that it's real. Then I could accept satellites and telescopes as plausible.
1 Jaxraged 2018-05-03
That would be cool, but the astronauts deserve some privacy. There are live feeds on the outside.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
They deserve privacy in their sleeping zone but not in the zone they work on and do scientific experiments. It's our tax money after all. That would be sufficient proof for it's existance, but we don't get any.
1 Jaxraged 2018-05-03
Lol saturns rings aren’t gas. That doesn’t even make sense. It’s mainly ice. The van allen belts are mainly alpha and beta particles. Alpha particles can be stopped by a few layers of fucking paper. And beta by some plastic or aluminum. Also the van Allen belts aren’t constant, they are large and variable. There are regions with lesser radiation and the inner belt can be bypassed entirely.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Dust, gas, ice, meteorites ,whatever, the point I made is that those lines look too sharp, as if it would have been drawn by a pencil with an engineering compass.
There is no way real celestial objects are that sharp and edgy and smooth, I think they should be a lot more dispersed and objects in different elevations because that disk looks awfully flat to me, it should be way more dispersed.
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-05-03
So anything that does not look the way you imagine it, is fake? Wouldn't the fallacy lie in the data you use to construct your vision?
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
The data that most people base their visions on are the TV programs and movies.
Anything overly sensationally looking and overworked is probably fake, so there goes the ISS live footage.
But the older photos of planets look simplistic, because they were photographed 40 years ago allegedly so they didn't had the technology to fake HD footage then.
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-05-03
Certainly doesn't answer the questions I raised. Just save your money, buy a ticket into space, then come back down and stare at your feet for the rest of your life.
Or, just use a telescope to see human footprints on the moon with your own naked eyes. Let me guess, the moon is a hologram?
1 showrun 2018-05-03
You can't see a y human footprints on moon with any telescope. That's absurd
1 [deleted] 2018-05-03
[removed]
1 showrun 2018-05-03
You look at that and you think to yourself
Like seriously? That looks like it could be anything.
I mean... Look at this http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/M104662862R_a12.png
I don't even know what to say. That is not proof lol that looks hilarious
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-05-03
Like I said get a telescope. Quit doubting and observe the world around you
1 showrun 2018-05-03
Lol I have one. Pointed to at moon for hours. Never saw any '' landing sites'' and those pictures you send me are insulting. You think I'm a 12 year old?
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-05-03
You will need to view a specific and known location under the right optics.
1 showrun 2018-05-03
for shiz! don't forget the massive mental bias you must also hold, along with the giant false pride.
1 Jaxraged 2018-05-03
Relative to the scale of Saturn they are relatively flat, that doesn’t mean it is perfectly. The number various from place to place on the rings but it’s generally around a few hundred feet. That is remarkably flat when compared to Saturn, but that is because of the conservation of angular momentum.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Well that is awfully thin, how did it get so thin, I guess Saturn is wider at the center so that the gravity pulls the particles closer to itself there and squeezes the disk until get gets shape, but a few hundret feet still sounds extremely tiny, I was expecting a few kilometers wide considering how bigger Saturn is compared to Earth.
1 Rockran 2018-05-03
Physics.
Like why are planets so round to within mere percentages of perfection?
Physics.
It's just a matter of time.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Alright, on an offtopic question, I have always wondered about this erosion thing.
If Earth spins around it's vertican axis, then why isn't the Eath looking like an "eye-shaped" thing but with the two ends smooth, like a symmetrical egg shaped thing.
Like a ball would become a sphere because it spins in all directions randomly like a soccer ball for instance. But the Earth rotates only in 1 direction across 1 axis, why are planets becoming spherical then instead of egg shaped?
1 Rockran 2018-05-03
Great question. The spin and tilt of the Earth DOES have an effect on it's shape.
Due to these factors the Earth is actually 'pear shaped' - an 'oblate spheroid'
https://youtu.be/FS0SP8R90rM?t=140 - (Vid should start at 2:20, unfortunately the flat earthers have misinterpreted Neil Tyson words to meaning the Earth looks like an obvious pear)
These overall shapes however, are less then 1% off of perfection. Which is why if you went to space and looked at the earth you won't notice them.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
So it will never become a sphere then, due to the imbalance of forces, and would probably become egg shaped like a bird egg, just like when you make a pot from clay, as you rotate the pot it is shaped by the force you put on it.
1 Rockran 2018-05-03
Planets will never be perfect spheres, but they will be within <1% of perfection.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Okay, thanks for good answer.
1 showrun 2018-05-03
I can't wait until they show us a cgi picture of a pentagram on the bottom pole of uranus.
1 Jaxraged 2018-05-03
Woah, it’s a hexagon which obviously relates to 666.
1 skorponok 2018-05-03
Good effort, don’t totally agree but then again it isn’t my field. Archaeology- now that shit I know is fake. Human civilization is far older and the years are all fucked up. Many civilizations are flat out given the wrong names and dates and some probably didn’t exist at all. The pyramids are waaaaaaay older. Each one built after a 25,000 year age.
1 Machinevartin 2018-05-03
We are living inside hollow Earth, whole Earth is many times bigger than they told us, so thats why sets of islands (continents) looks flat.
This post is pure bullshit to trick people.Space is real, but only selected people are allowed to leave hollow Earth and see surface Earth.
1 ogrelin 2018-05-03
Inside or on?
1 Machinevartin 2018-05-03
On hollow Earth.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Any scientific evidence for that? The hollow earth theory sounds even more crazy than the flat earth.
1 inteuniso 2018-05-03
Iron Sky: The Coming Race goes into inner earch pretty well. believing we're on the inside of some giant sphere that encompasses the entirety of the universe is a pretty trippy thought and a fun thought experiment, I have to admit.
1 Rockran 2018-05-03
ACKCHYUALLY you can see the ISS with the naked eye.
Here's a tour of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Really? Well many people say this but has anyone put forth any evidence? I can't find any.
I'll check it out later but from what I have seen so far it looked very unreal to me.
1 Rockran 2018-05-03
I wasn't aware the naked eye could record...
Lulz aside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsOifg4Mm0
If you think it's a drone, or plane, you'd have to explain how that drone or plane is capable of going around the earth every 90 minutes.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Funny but you know I was referring to a camera, if the eye can see it, then a quality 50 MP camera can see it as well. I will search for move photos but so far I have only found blurry photos, so that can be anything, a meteorite a comet or a tiny moon in a farther distance...
1 Rockran 2018-05-03
That's hilarious.
It's a satellite. You can find out when it will be overhead next, because its tracked.
1 Igotlazy 2018-05-03
What, you didn't get that update?
1 Rockran 2018-05-03
Nah
1 showrun 2018-05-03
I saw George Clooney and Mrs bullshit fly around too
1 Rockran 2018-05-03
On a screen.
1 showrun 2018-05-03
Just like the guys you link. On the screen.
1 Rockran 2018-05-03
I've seen the ISS with my own eyes, outside!
So no, nice try.
1 showrun 2018-05-03
I'll believe you random guy / bot on the internet.
1 Rockran 2018-05-03
Don't have to put your faith in me, check this site http://www.isstracker.com/
And just go outside at the right time.
1 showrun 2018-05-03
I've been trying for months. No luck. Cloudy. Also that site only lets you check one month in the future. Because calculating 3 month is impossible. Reasons.
1 Rockran 2018-05-03
Months? You're doing something terribly wrong then. You can get SEVERAL sightings each month.
1 showrun 2018-05-03
Nope. Not true.
1 Rockran 2018-05-03
Where are you viewing from?
Lets try a different website, and check out Las Vegas: https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/view.cfm?country=United_States&region=Nevada&city=Las_Vegas
That's a lot of sightings.
1 showrun 2018-05-03
I'll try that site when I'm not on a phone. Thanks. I'll let you know when the next one is.
1 Velhar 2018-05-03
that looks like an awfull lot of work and energy spent on something that has been proven a bajilion time over and over.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
I wanted to reiterate my position, I haven't seen here much people talking about satellites being fake. Moon landing and ISS hoax is just the surface, the lies go much deeper.
1 MotherNaturesBrother 2018-05-03
what about the retro reflectors we left on the moon? also this video is interesting. give it a look if GPS is really just a radio relay network, why would there be a need to have a cover story that its really satellites? what is the purpose of a seemingly outlandish explanation when the "truth" would suffice?
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
How do they work, I am not familiar with that.
To further the myth of space. Now they want to go to the Mars more billions of $ into the space program. It's a giant scam.
There is really 0 use case of satellites after half a decade of them supposedly existing. You'd think that by now everyone would have their own private mini sattelite up there. If they commodified telephones why wouldn't they commodify space?
1 justinxduff 2018-05-03
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
1 MotherNaturesBrother 2018-05-03
Moon retroreflectors I'm not an expert, but there's plenty of info out there about them, and the experiment is reproducible. In order to argue that man has not been to the moon, you have to have some explanation for why lunar ranging works.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
I haven't heard of them, but it's true it's interesting ,this gives some legitimacy to the moon landing ,but there are a pile of other things that don't make sense, so the scale is still very unbalanced.
1 TheUnmashedPotato 2018-05-03
Here is a great video explaining how the retro reflectors on the moon work, and how we're still using them today.
TL;DW: If you have three mirrors, all at right angles to each other, a beam of light shined on it will return to its source. If you stick this on the moon, a laser will bounce back to where it came from. Normally, if you shine a laser on the moon, it'll just scatter randomly, but there are several spots where the Americans and Russians left retro reflectors.
Typically, for the experiment, a color that isn't common in space is used for the laser, like a particular green. The laser is shined on the moon, and then the systems waits for photons of that particular color to come back. We get consistent results from multiple different sources, all agreeing with the time it takes for the photons to come back. Toss in the speed of light, and you now know, very accurately, the distance to the moon.
1 ThaFresh 2018-05-03
You can see the iss quite well with a decent telescope
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Analog or digital?
1 showrun 2018-05-03
I've been trying to catch the transit for months. No luck so far
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
What kind of telescope can be used, analog or digital?
1 showrun 2018-05-03
I have a flat earther standard issue nikon p900
1 Drnkz 2018-05-03
Digital telescope? Wtf are you talking about. Through a “analog” telescope you can see so much. The universe is full of wonder. With a simple telescope you can see the moons of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, the crescent of Venus, the iced capes poles of mars. Buy yourself a decent “analog” telescope and go to the desert for a good view. It is fucking incredible what you can see out there.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Okay I will ,people recommended it to me already, and I am thinking about it, though I don't have a good view here, I would probably have to use it at my brothers house.
Digital telescope is one that magnifies pictures electronically not with lenses, just like an electron microscope is compared to a regular one.
1 Igotlazy 2018-05-03
O_o that is NOT how an electron microscope works.
1 ThaFresh 2018-05-03
Analog, just lenses & mirrors directing light that's bounced off the iss to your eyeball
1 wile_e_chicken 2018-05-03
GPS is one-way. It's basically a beacon signal with a location and timestamp. Sent from multiple transmitters, you can triangulate your own location upon reception.
It works over oceans, so the pilot and passengers can tell where they are. But if the planes have no way to communicate their location back to flighttrackers.. well there you go.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Well don't they have a radio system to communicate that back? How do flight control agencies know where the planes are then?
But then again why it doesn't show up above the oceans, don't they have 3 satellites that they can spare to locate a plane?
1 wile_e_chicken 2018-05-03
I can't speak to any radio communications -- just saying GPS doesn't work as a 2-way system, so you can't use this as a disproof of satellites. I fly internationally all the time and we see a little map showing our location over the ocean. Works on mobile phone too.
1 camel-On-A-Kebab 2018-05-03
How far do you think radio signals travel through the atmosphere?
Long-range radar and flight plans. Funny thing, even in this day and age planes still disappear because we don't have a good solution to this problem
No, they don't. That's not what satellites are designed for and even if it were it takes a lot of time and money to gain access to a satellite for anything more than relaying a signal
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Well depends on the power they add to it, I don't think radio signals with a couple of kilowatts of power in them can travel more than a tens of thousands of kilometers. Certainly didn't reach the Moon, probably half of the Earth with that kind of power I don't know.
1 camel-On-A-Kebab 2018-05-03
Satellites
1) GPS works by using signals from multiple satellites to triangulate your position relative to them. That's all it does. To track something that's not yourself, the plane would have to be able to send the signal to an observe which is impossible once it goes out of radio range. It takes a lot of power to broadcast through the atmosphere.
2) How did they work before we had drone technology? What's to stop the enemy from disrupting our communications by destroying radio towers? If we're sending a signal halfway around the world by jumping between radio towers then it would be trivial to disrupt our comms by bombing a few towers.
3) "Probably" and "I bet" is not the kind of language I'd use if I wanted to convince people to believe my insane ramblings.
4) Explain how VHF works then
5) Radio waves are incredibly inefficient over long distances and take a ton of power. They work fine for a hundred miles or so, but if you want people on the other side of the planet to hear you without loss (especially if you want to encrypt your signal) then it just doesn't work.
6) Cell phones still use radio dummy. Also, what does this have to do with satellites?
7) Blah blah blah, still no evidence for your assertion and you obviously don't even have an elementary grasp on telecoms
8) More of the same mindless garbage
Seriously dude, that's just the first section. I could literally do this to every point in your inane gibberish. Please read some articles or research papers. Learn some physics. Something. I'm begging you
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
But the Apollo 11 motherboard could have done that across 300,000 kilometers of space + the atmosphere with just a few batteries on board.
Nothing, in WW2 there were entire regiments that laid down cables and repaired radio towers. So there were many issues there with communication, many battles were lost because the radio didn't work, for instance the D-Day and the subsequent Allied invasion of Europe had many battles delayed due to communication problems.
Now we didn't had any major wars since WW2 and there were drones from the 70's. So that covered the Vietnam war, or they could have just used submarines or whatnot. Vietnam was a thin country so they could have used neighboring countries radio network to broadcast stuff.
I said that because I don't want to pose an authoritarive theory here because I don't know the details, I may not be entirely correct, so there is room for speculation and skepticism. But I am skeptical enough and given the evidence, to doubt the existance of these space things.
What about it?
But it's not like 1 tower is sending it all across, but more like using radio towers as a relay, like a network of communcation. Each tower sends the message to the nearest one and it hops around until it reaches the end. That would be pretty efficient and less power consumer.
I was talking about long distance communication between relays. The cell phone itself has a very short range, that is why they put cell towers every few hundred meters. In rural areas they just have a big radio tower nearby to collect all signals.
Why do you think they don't have communication in africa? Since it's not developed yet. Bullshit they don't have satellite phones there, because it does't exist.
I have made pretty good points but this kind of dismissal is very dishonest.
1 camel-On-A-Kebab 2018-05-03
The Earth's atmosphere is only 300 miles thick and only the first 50 or so miles are substantially denser than space. The difficulty of broadcasting into space isn't much more difficult than broadcasting 50 miles
And you think we just said fuck it and didn't do anything to address that issue? Also, vietnam era drones had a relatively short flight time and were incapable of carrying the equipment necessary for reliably relaying radio signals. What evidence have you seen to the contrary?
That doesn't solve the issue even the slightest or make the question go away.
How about instead of wildly guessing and speculating based on what "feels" right, that you instead actually learn about the subject?
Higher frequencies are not reflected by the ionosphere, so why do they work so well for long-range communication?
It would also be incredibly easy to prove if that were happening, yet nobody has yet. I wonder why...
No, that's just not how cell networks work at all. You could find this information out from any number of sources.
What are you even talking about? Is that racism or just plain ignorance?
No, you didn't and your last two comments were nothing but you stoking your own ego with a false sense of superiority
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Well as I said they could have used nearby allied countries to relay messages like Thailand or just put a few ships at the coastline to relay it...
How is this relevant for the satellited discussion? I don't get your point.
So just dismiss my claims and provide no counterevidence...
No what I was saying is that satellite phones or for that matter any cellphone doesn't work in remote African areas because it is not developed, it doesn't have tower networks. Hence you can only communicate if you have towers, and the supposed satellites don't help at all.
You'd think Kenya or some richer African country would bother launching at least 1 satellite up there to fix that issue, but no they don't. And putting up towers for smaller remote villages is not cost effective, hence no mobile network.
So satellites are avoided again, it's almost like they have no use case whatsoever.
Ah so now throw in ad hominems.
1 camel-On-A-Kebab 2018-05-03
That doesn't solve the problem. Also, you propose that the army sets up a chain of radio relays from wherever they are deployed all the way back to central command at the pentagon?
Because we objectively broadcast VHF signals into space and they are received on the other side of the planet. How do you think that works?
You've presented literally 0 evidence for any of your claims
Satellite phones work literally anywhere. They work in the middle of the ocean. Cellphones require towers because their frequencies are only short range and only work in line of sight
Kenya launched their first satellite in 1970. Are you racist or just willfully ignorant? Here's a Verizon coverage map for international travel: http://www.verizonwireless.com/wcms/overlays/international-travel-coverage-map.html
Kenya has 4G in their cities. Also, once again, what the fuck do satellites have to do with cell phones?
Because you've given me absolute nothing to argue about. You have yet to present any researched or supported evidence for any of your claims
1 Drnkz 2018-05-03
Lol, buy yourself a telescope man, a nice one. It is amazing. You can actually watch the moons of Jupiter in orbit around the planet.
1 3attheelephant 2018-05-03
Quantity in a post =\= quality of a post.
Good try, though. You may get a better response from people if you didn't show the depth of how much you didn't understand some scientific concepts.
1 skrub55 2018-05-03
Rent an 8 inch dobsonian telescope and aim at Jupiter at 100×magnification and tell me that. Aim at Orion Nebula with a widefield eyepiece next. If you still believe space is fake after that I don't know what to say to you. Check out r/astrophotography to see stacked images made with autotracking telescopes.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
I didn't said space is fake, that is very misleading for you to say that, I have said that the "space fakery" is fake, as in the whole humans going to space and sending objects up there is fake, but not the place itself.
Lol, those nebula pictures there are 100% CGI, what were you thinking?
1 skrub55 2018-05-03
Have you ever looked through a large teleacope? Those nebula pictures are not fake. They are stacked images, so they are extremely clear and the atmosphere's turbulence doesn't mess up the photo like it might a short viewing.
Do you by any chance live in an urban area with heavy light pollution? That would explain you thinking that so much stuff is fake, if you've never seen the milky way you'd probably be less understanding of space.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
No I live in a pretty rural area but still barely see anything. There are stars, I can see stars, and I have watched the Moon with binoculars, but I don't have a telescope yet, so I can't comment on the moon pictures.
But all the other planets and the galaxies just look totally fake to me.
See, so they are not even original ones. They are all composites, as I told.
Now sure the explanation is to average out the noise, but still it's a tinkered photo. Who knows what it really looks like?
1 skrub55 2018-05-03
I do, I've used an 8 inch Dobsonian telescope and seen unstacked pictures taken with it. Orion Nebula is really not far off from what you see in stacked images, a lot less impressive and less of a clear shape with a bit less detail, but I was looking in an area with redzone light pollution, in the suburbs or a rural area you'll be able to see how it actually looks.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Alright because I was about to say that mathematically there exists no algorithm that can filter out noise without hurting the signal, the ratio can be improved, but overall both will be cut off, I know this because I was in math.
So the composite by definition is not real as it removes the useless noise in the original at the expense of the overall accuracy of the image.
Though they never publish the raw photos, I wonder why?
1 skrub55 2018-05-03
No one is interested in raw photos as they aren't very impressive, but you can find it online quite easily.
1 slapstellas 2018-05-03
Actually lots of people are only interested in raw photos. Please provide some.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Show me one then.
1 skrub55 2018-05-03
Which space object are you looking for?
1 Jaxraged 2018-05-03
Go though that sub sorted by all time. It’s a lot of the moon but there are some good Saturn and Jupiter pictures as well as the iss.
1 WhydoesNASAlie 2018-05-03
Excellent post
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Thanks at least somebody has read through my work.
1 WhydoesNASAlie 2018-05-03
Lots of people see what you see. NASA does lie. Your thread is brigaded. Go through my post history and check the threads. All the accounts are present in this very thread. It’s a literal defense team paid to be here. Maybe from Elgin Air Force base, maybe not, but there are agents here specifically to fuck up threads questioning NASA/space. It’s how I go going down the rabbit hole. So many accounts acting like assholes regarding this subject. Normal people would post in r/space and yet the accounts in this thread patrol r/conspiracy. At this point it’s obvious to most authentic accounts what is going on with this topic. Shit check out last weeks sticky, many who posted on the first day being assholes are in your thread now. Just recognize the accounts and tactics. Downvote these fucks :)
1 Jaxraged 2018-05-03
Yes I am in multiple conspiracy treads because I think they’re interesting. I only stick with space related because I some what know it.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Yes I feel like a lot of paid shills are here, I have 0 upvotes probably sensitive topics are automatically flagged by keywords. A lot of crazy posts get 100+ upvotes yet my completely rational description gets none, I must have touched some really sensitive topics here.
1 WhydoesNASAlie 2018-05-03
Nice to see the usual suspects in here with fucked up upvotes. Sup NASA defense team?
1 BrettLefty 2018-05-03
How does GPS work on boats?
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Radio antennas from nearby ships triangulating the other ship's positions.
1 BrettLefty 2018-05-03
I guess that would work. What if there aren’t any nearby ships, and what about planes?
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Well maybe there is a network between planes, ships, antennas on artificial islands , naval buoys with antennas on them , who knows.
There could be many other explanations other than satellites.
1 kissmymsmc 2018-05-03
You should check out one of my favorite author’s blog: Allan Weisbecker. I’ve been seeing a flurry of his posts where he is up in arms about Musk faking the launch and all. You might enjoy. Allan is a fascinating author with a colorful past. His books are awesome (completely unrelated to the instant topic) but he is consumed as of late about some of the fakery in the space program as you discuss. Check him out.
1 slapstellas 2018-05-03
When nasa said they deleted the original Apollo because they needed to reuse the tapes due to budget cuts was all I needed to hear to know space is a scam.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Wow did they really do that?
A multi billion dollar agency can't spare a couple thousand bucks for some extra tapes. Besides aren't magnetic tapes permanent, how can they rewrite that?
1 slapstellas 2018-05-03
Good point I’ve never heard of magnetic tapes but I also have never looked into it. Or how they ‘lost’ the technology to go back to the moon. Or how jfk made a phone call to the moon lol did realize phones in the 60s could call people a quarter of a million miles away. Get a clue nasa
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
It wasn't even magnetic tapes back then, it was just sensitive material to light, like casette tapes or whatnot, back in the 70's. That is not rewritable.
I had a casette recorder (I'm old enough to lived throug that) as a kid in the 80's, and I recorded myself singing and asked the store owner whether it can be rewritten and he said it can't. There were special tapes that could have been but they were rare and needed a different equipment, more expensive.
If they were so cheap, they probably used the cheap tapes, so I don't think they could have had the ability to rewrite that.
I guess they referred to the equipment, a lot of the stuff is now in museums, though they didn't put the original there allegedly but a replica, probably to make it look more genuine as the original was just too silly for 21 century standards.
1 slapstellas 2018-05-03
Yeah I just don’t understand how everyone knows/thinks the CIA/mob killed Kennedy but won’t believe those same people would lie about the moon. Last time I checked it was Kennedy who wanted to go to the moon so it was an operation to distract people from the assassination. Or it was a psyop to show we were superior to Russia so it makes sense to why they did it but it’s time to stop playing the charade.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
I think Kennedy was killed by an underground Nazi shadow government, I have wrote about this, but it's not related to the moon landing.
He already wanted to expose some corruption and he probably didn't know that the moon landing is impossible, and if it would have happened on his watch, then he would have exposed it for the lie that it was, so perhaps they waited with the moon landing hoax until they had their guy in the office, whoknows.
I think they were all in on it, every country knows how fake space is, but it's not a grand conspiracy by choice, like many people would argue.
I think it's in all of their best interest to not out eachother, they could use that information as leverage. Even recently Russia started some investigation about the moon landing, as a sort to mock the US and use that as some kind of leverage probably. They know it, and they won't out eachother, instead they just blackmail eachother probably.
And now that this scam is established, every country can now have it's own "space program". So why would they expose eachother, when they can all benefit from this.
1 crestind 2018-05-03
I agree there's some anomalous stuff in alleged space videos, some of which do seem to be faked, but I think you are drawing unsound conclusions from fake videos.
GPS does work in the ocean. It is used commonly. Satellites are real, would be amazed if they weren't. Too lazy to address your other points.
1 slapstellas 2018-05-03
The thing about the Nazis is that they were funded by American bankers and globalist so I think the cabal is a little more complex than that (but that’s my opinion). You should really watch the documentary “JFK to 911 Everything is a rich mans trick” it was posted on here the other day and is one of the best docs I’ve watched on the subject.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
I know, i watched that documentary but I don't agree with all parts of it, it all blames it on big industrialists while totally ignoring the leftist subversion that has been happening since the 1700's in Europe, in fact the American Revolution was part of it, it was a liberal revolution basically, while Britain at the time wasn't even bad.
The Nazis were basically leftists, now many people deny this but looking at the actual policies it was a weird combination of leftism and militarist nationalism, hence the National Socialist name. The Bolsheviks, the nazis were all the same Gang perhaps in rivalry, but the Mao Chinese were also in rivalry with Stalinist Soviets, so it's just 3 different flavors of totalitarian leftism like in Orwell's 1984: Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia.
1 slapstellas 2018-05-03
Good point but look how the leftist agenda is being pushed today and it’s the same bloodlines making those decisions. The industrialist don’t care about the political spectrum as long at the profits keep rolling in. I mean look at the German philosopher Karl Marx who wrote the communist manifesto and I’m pretty sure was funded by the Rothschilds.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
I am pretty sure he wasn't. For multiple reasons: * The Rothschilds were basically British allied. * A lot of the Rothschild influence is overly exagerated in conspiracy circles especially due to Nazi influence.
I know about the Rothschilds funding Britain in the Napoleonic Wars, but that was normal as Napoleon was a crazy maniac like Hitler, of course they would fund against that. I also think they helped the British in WW2.
So actually I think the Rothschilds were the good guys, or at least the better ones, and whatever bad you hear of them is probably Nazi propaganda, they were enemies of the Nazis.
But they are not the man behind the curtain, there are much more sinister Elites out there, who we probably don't even know their names of. They would certainly not reveal themselves, and are the actual ones having the power. It's not the Rothschilds, it's not the Jews, it's not the Illuminati, it's something else entirely....
1 sacredsolis 2018-05-03
I can’t tell if this post is a joke or not.
1 showrun 2018-05-03
You look at that and you think to yourself
Like seriously? That looks like it could be anything.
I mean... Look at this http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/M104662862R_a12.png
I don't even know what to say. That is not proof lol that looks hilarious
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
I didn't said space is fake, that is very misleading for you to say that, I have said that the "space fakery" is fake, as in the whole humans going to space and sending objects up there is fake, but not the place itself.
Lol, those nebula pictures there are 100% CGI, what were you thinking?
1 skrub55 2018-05-03
No one is interested in raw photos as they aren't very impressive, but you can find it online quite easily.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
Radio antennas from nearby ships triangulating the other ship's positions.
1 alexander7k 2018-05-03
I know, i watched that documentary but I don't agree with all parts of it, it all blames it on big industrialists while totally ignoring the leftist subversion that has been happening since the 1700's in Europe, in fact the American Revolution was part of it, it was a liberal revolution basically, while Britain at the time wasn't even bad.
The Nazis were basically leftists, now many people deny this but looking at the actual policies it was a weird combination of leftism and militarist nationalism, hence the National Socialist name. The Bolsheviks, the nazis were all the same Gang perhaps in rivalry, but the Mao Chinese were also in rivalry with Stalinist Soviets, so it's just 3 different flavors of totalitarian leftism like in Orwell's 1984: Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia.