+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Where is the International Space Station?

  1. Link to Post #21
    Canada Avalon Member seah's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th August 2015
    Location
    ON
    Age
    52
    Posts
    357
    Thanks
    766
    Thanked 1,456 times in 319 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    Quote [...] lying defamatory sites like the one you just posted accuse them of faking it. I'm one of the many people listed on that site that they accuse of faking images.
    It's become increasingly more difficult to know who to trust but it doesn't mean we should go about accusing people of faking information and or photos that are simply asking for what should be everyone's right as citizens, to have truthful information about the world they live in, from their government agencies.

    We know NASA has not been honest with us, in fact, it has been postulated by many researchers that NASA is an agency that was established for the sole purpose of distributing propaganda. Does this mean that we should look at everything coming out of there as lies? of course not, disinformation is always easier to take in if it's mixed in with some truth, but some of what the FE community has brought to light does indeed need to be questioned. Why are we only being given CGI and cartoon like images? Why is data for satellites missing from international databases? Why so many inconsistencies with the global earth composite?

    What we see with our own eyes and take as truth is constantly being manipulated for us. We know this from false flag events and what MSM shows. What is up in the sky can also be fabricated, can you say with certainty that it is not? simply because you see an object that looks to be like the ISS (because they told you), it doesn't prove that object is what they said it is, but hey, that's just what some of us are thinking, and everyone has a right to question their reality, especially these days.

    See the following for how our skies can be used for "entertainment":

    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...Meteor-Showers
    “a complete understanding of reality lies beyond the capabilities of rational thought."
    ― Gary Zukav

  2. Link to Post #22
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    1st February 2015
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 40 times in 14 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    Quote Posted by seah (here)
    Quote [...] lying defamatory sites like the one you just posted accuse them of faking it. I'm one of the many people listed on that site that they accuse of faking images.
    It's become increasingly more difficult to know who to trust but it doesn't mean we should go about accusing people of faking information and or photos that are simply asking for what should be everyone's right as citizens, to have truthful information about the world they live in, from their government agencies.
    What part of this do you not understand? These are not innocent little snowflakes, they personally accused me of faking my images!!! They are defamatory liars and I will do whatever I can to expose them for what they are.
    Quote Does this mean that we should look at everything coming out of there as lies? of course not, disinformation is always easier to take in if it's mixed in with some truth, but some of what the FE community has brought to light does indeed need to be questioned. Why are we only being given CGI and cartoon like images?
    Says who? You? Like the same liars who accuse my images of being CGI and cartoons?
    Quote Why is data for satellites missing from international databases? Why so many inconsistencies with the global earth composite?
    You're speaking in vague general accusations without facts, without support, without proof.
    Quote What is up in the sky can also be fabricated, can you say with certainty that it is not?
    You have shown no such thing. I do not accept your a priori assumption.
    Quote simply because you see an object that looks to be like the ISS (because they told you),
    I can see it WITH MY OWN EYES THROUGH MY OWN TELESCOPE! They didn't have to "tell me" anything, I can see for myself it's the same object they show in their own images. Furthermore, its altitude, velocity, and position in orbit matches what it's supposed to be.
    Quote it doesn't prove that object is what they said it is, but hey, that's just what some of us are thinking, and everyone has a right to question their reality, especially these days.
    It doesn't give them the right to accuse me of lying and faking my images, which is exactly what that site has done. So help me god, if I ever find the person behind those accusations I'll file a defamation suit against them for every penny they're worth.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to astronomylive For This Post:

    Fellow Aspirant (16th July 2016)

  4. Link to Post #23
    Canada Avalon Member seah's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th August 2015
    Location
    ON
    Age
    52
    Posts
    357
    Thanks
    766
    Thanked 1,456 times in 319 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    I apologize for having set you off, unfortunately, when I come across a topic I am interested in, I write how I feel always assuming that I am having an exchange of ideas with opened minded individuals who value the preciousness that it truly is to have the opportunity to do this on an international level, and that on the other side of the exchange I am met with people who can communicate without their ego leading the way.

    My previous comments were not based on what ever personal experiences you are sharing here. They were based on Gaia's interesting thread.
    “a complete understanding of reality lies beyond the capabilities of rational thought."
    ― Gary Zukav

  5. Link to Post #24
    Avalon Member Hughe's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th November 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    801
    Thanks
    1,129
    Thanked 2,760 times in 638 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    @astronomylive

    Internet is wild wild west. I don't personally accuse or blame your photo images. Some individuals and experts fall into muddy information war. Each faction use their honest works to legitimize the truth or fact. There are hundreds of satellites flying around the Earth. You have taken so called ISS, the biggest manned satellite according to you. IMHO the image quality is poor compared to ISS images on the net. ISS is huge and there exists various types. Which one is real that contains six to eight astronauts? NASA knows it. Most general public believe it of course.

    Even if ISS is real, it's waste of huge tax money and resources of major countries that support the program. For instance, wearing a monkey suit and chasing each other is disgusting behavior of astronauts. There is no professionalism of the astronauts. Live feed from ISS can't have CGI models on the screen, but they do it all the time.

    NASA released high-resolution photos of Apollo Missions to silence NASA skeptics. Below is one of those photos.
    Some folks stupidly believe in it as actual spacecraft.
    Honestly it's a real size model made out cheap materials: papers, aluminum foils, wire, and etc.
    For free society!

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hughe For This Post:

    Daozen (16th July 2016), thunder24 (17th July 2016)

  7. Link to Post #25
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    26th September 2010
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 1,941 times in 376 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    Interesting with all the satellites in orbit we never see one from the ISS. Hmm.....
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Sat.jpg
Views:	49
Size:	158.1 KB
ID:	33817


  8. Link to Post #26
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    22,961
    Thanks
    83,315
    Thanked 285,040 times in 21,078 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    Quote Posted by Hughe (here)

    Honestly it's a real size model made out cheap materials: papers, aluminum foils, wire, and etc.

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/3...rinLM_full.jpg
    Of course, what's really curious about this photo is the seemingly non-parallel shadows, suggesting two different light sources, not just one (the sun). (It's possible that it's the angle of the left hand landing leg that creates a kind of illusion, but I'm not at all convinced.)

    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 17th July 2016 at 01:00.

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    nomadguy (25th July 2016), Rex (18th July 2016), Star Tsar (19th July 2016), Yetti (17th July 2016)

  10. Link to Post #27
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    28th December 2013
    Age
    61
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    737
    Thanked 983 times in 315 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    Why we can see stars everywhere in the sky even with an atmosphere in between, and the photos from the moon ....none. ??????

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Yetti For This Post:

    Star Tsar (19th July 2016)

  12. Link to Post #28
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    46
    Posts
    7,863
    Thanks
    25,244
    Thanked 32,951 times in 7,042 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    Quote Posted by Yetti (here)
    Why we can see stars everywhere in the sky even with an atmosphere in between, and the photos from the moon ....none. ??????
    It's called exposure levels. The human eye can see a range of brightness (exposure) of about eight or nine f-stops (f-stops (or just f) is the standard unit of measure for the range of light brightness measurable by any camera). The best camera sensors can only detect a range of about three or four f-stops, maybe five at the most. What does this mean? It means that if the range of light intensity is greater than 3 or 4 f, then elements from the photographed image outside of that range will be missing - they will be either "crushed" (official terminology) into pure black, or "blown out" (official terminology) into pure white. (depending on which end of the range)

    Starting to see the "picture"? - pun intended

    So when you are in space and say taking a photo of the Earth, moon, or ISS -- the sun has to be directly shining on the subject, as photos don't work in the dark at all - light is the information medium in this regard, and photos either need lots of it, or very long exposure times (which don't work well for moving targets). Since the difference in brightness between a subject lit by direct sunlight, and stars billion of miles away is likely closer to 15 or 20 f-stops, one has to adjust the cameras exposure range so as not to "blow out" the subject - (earth, ISS, moon, whatever) - this forces the exposure to compensate for the brightness and thus "crush" all the dimmer areas of the photos into black - anything that is dimmer than 3 or 4 F-stops than the sunlit subject - namely all the stars.

    This is easy to understand as the same phenomenon that keeps you from seeing stars in the day ... when the sun shines on the earth, everything is bright - human eyes are good for a range of about 9f but the difference between a sun lit object (earth for example) and the stars is far greater than that - as I said, probably in the 15f-20f range. That's why you can't see stars in daylight -- they don't turn invisible, there's no projector that turns them on at night, they get "crushed". It's all just natural light physics that have to do with the simultaneous light strength range of the receptor - whether that receptor is an eye or a camera.

    Qualifications: Amateur and semi-pro photographer and videographer enthusiast, knowledge of some light physics, understands internal detailed mechanics of eyes and cameras, also, a know-it-all.
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 20th July 2016 at 00:13. Reason: major clarity uplif and spelling
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Sierra (20th July 2016), Star Mariner (20th July 2016), Star Tsar (19th July 2016)

  14. Link to Post #29
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    46
    Posts
    7,863
    Thanks
    25,244
    Thanked 32,951 times in 7,042 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    Quote Posted by aviators (here)
    Interesting with all the satellites in orbit we never see one from the ISS. Hmm.....
    Attachment 33817
    Do you actually believe that image represents scale? It's an illustration for illustrative purposes only.

    Consider that LEO (low earth orbit) range from 160kms to about 2000kms above the earth and medium Earth orbits go out to 36,000 kms. There are ~2400 satellites in orbit - likely most are in LEO and MEO; we won't include geostationary orbits which are even much farther out - this will bias the results in your favour, but I'm ok with that - just keep it in mind . Let's do some rough math to see how much "space" each satellite would have if roughly evenly spaced within this area that they are known to occupy in LEO and MEO.

    I need to determine the total volume of the sphere space up to the top of MEO. Earth's radius is 8,672km and we need to add an additional 18,000 kms to that to get the radius we are after. We will then subtract the volume of the earth and the atmosphere up to where LEO begins, to leave us with our total volume of space that all satellites potentially occupy, and divide that by the number of satellites in orbit to see about how much space each satelite would have to itself if evenly spaced. This will give us a ballpark figure to evaluate the scale properly.



    Let's start with the large sphere representing total sphere volume to subtract earth and lower atmosphere from:
    volume = (4 Pi radius³) / 3 - solving for a radius of 26,672 units this calculates to: 79,479,542,169,554.44 cubic units.

    Now let's calculate the volume of the space to remove (satellites won't go lower than a certain point - we need to remove that volume from the calculated figure above)
    Using the same formula we need to solve for a radius of the Earth (8,672) + about half of altitude of the lowest LEO satellites (160/2=80). The result calculates to: 2,808,086,853,328.93 cubic units.


    79,479,542,169,554.44 - 2,808,086,853,328.93 = 76,671,455,316,225.51 cubic kms of potential volume for satellites in LEO and MEO.

    76,671,455,316,225.51 / 2400 = 31,946,439,715.09 km³of space for EACH satellite. Now when you take a picture with your camera, how far away in the background does a car size object become not visible in the photo? No more than 1km, I'd say, where you just wouldn't be able to see the car in the background of a photo.


    Keep in mind I kept the bias in your favour, - that number would actually be larger had I done this more accurately.

    ... 31 Trillion cubic kms for every satellite if they were evenly spaced around the planet within the area satelites can occupy while in orbit ... 31 TRILLLION ... TRILLION! How far can you see??

    I hope that answers your question. We don't need to "wonder" about all these things, people can, and have already figured it out, and I just did it again and explained my math (someone might want to double check my math though )

    Memes and psyops are powerful; just blatantly believing the opposite of what is expected to be believed is no strategy to find the truth.


    Qualifications: none needed - the math is pretty basic.
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 21st July 2016 at 22:26.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    avid (20th July 2016), Sierra (20th July 2016), Star Mariner (20th July 2016)

  16. Link to Post #30
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    46
    Posts
    7,863
    Thanks
    25,244
    Thanked 32,951 times in 7,042 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Hughe (here)

    Honestly it's a real size model made out cheap materials: papers, aluminum foils, wire, and etc.

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/3...rinLM_full.jpg
    Of course, what's really curious about this photo is the seemingly non-parallel shadows, suggesting two different light sources, not just one (the sun). (It's possible that it's the angle of the left hand landing leg that creates a kind of illusion, but I'm not at all convinced.)

    I may beg to differ with you on this one Bill (on your two light logic, not the real / fake argument) ... do you have a decent explanation as to why if there are two light sources why nothing has two shadows? Are you suggesting a composite image perhaps? I would be keen to point out that while it is difficult to determine FOV (and thus perspective ratio) of that photo, perspective lines do converge (drafting and design education surfacing here), and much more quickly as the FOV increases.

    looks like we derailed this thread pretty good ... hope OP doesn't mind
    Note from Bill, not derailing the thread any further! The more I think about it, the more I think I was quite wrong... re this one image. There are many other images which really do seem to show clear shadows from two strong, local (non-distant) light sources. But that's a totally different discussion.





    The Following User Says Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Updated Post:


    Dedukshyn (20th July 2016)
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 21st July 2016 at 01:04.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Star Mariner (20th July 2016)

  18. Link to Post #31
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    26th September 2010
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 1,941 times in 376 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    Quote Posted by aviators (here)
    Interesting with all the satellites in orbit we never see one from the ISS. Hmm.....
    Attachment 33817
    Do you actually believe that image represents scale? It's an illustration for illustrative purposes only.

    Consider that LEO (low earth orbit) range from 160kms to about 2000kms above the earth and medium Earth orbits go out to 36,000 kms. There are ~2400 satellites in orbit - likely most are in LEO and MEO; we won't include geostationary orbits which are even much farther out - this will bias the results in your favour, but I'm ok with that - just keep it in mind . Let's do some rough math to see how much "space" each satellite would have if roughly evenly spaced within this area that they are known to occupy in LEO and MEO.

    I need to determine the total volume of the sphere space up to the top of LEO. Earth's radius is 8,672km and we need to add an additional 18,000 kms to that to get the radius we are after. We will then subtract the volume of the earth and the atmosphere up to where LEO begins, to leave us with our total volume of space that all satellites potentially occupy, and divide that by the number of satellites in orbit to see about how much space each satelite would have to itself if evenly spaced. This will give us a ballpark figure to evaluate the scale properly.

    Let's start with the large sphere representing total sphere volume to subtract earth and lower atmosphere from:
    volume = (4 Pi radius3) / 3 for a radius of 26,672 units this calculates to: 79,479,542,169,554.44 cubic units.
    Now let's calculate the volume of the space to remove (satellites won't go lower than a certain point - we need to remove that volume from the calculated figure above)
    Using the same formula we need to solve for a radius of the Earth (8,672) + about half of altitude of the lowest LEO satellites (160/2=80). The result calculates to: 2,808,086,853,328.93 cubic units.

    79,479,542,169,554.44 - 2,808,086,853,328.93 = 76,671,455,316,225.51 cubic kms of potential volume for satellites in LEO and MEO.

    76,671,455,316,225.51 / 2400 = 31,946,439,715.09 km3 of space for EACH satellite. Now when you take a picture with your camera, how far away in the background does a car size object become not visible in the photo? No more than 1km, I'd say, where you just wouldn't be able to see the car in the background of a photo.


    Keep in mind I kept the bias in your favour, - that number would actually be larger had I done this more accurately.

    ... 31 Trillion cubic kms for every satellite if they were evenly spaced around the planet within the area satelites can occupy while in orbit ... 31 TRILLLION ... TRILLION! How far can you see??

    I hope that answers your question. We don't need to "wonder" about all these things, people can, and have already figured it out, and I just did it again and explained my math (someone might want to double check my math though )

    Memes and psyops are powerful; just blatantly believing the opposite of what is expected to be believed is no strategy to find the truth.
    I appreciate all your math efforts. What makes no sense is the the ISS makes a full earth orbit every 90 minutes. I think? Wouldn't we expect to see some stationary satellites on some of these passes ? The oblique camera angle (in the video above)
    would cover a vast variety of altitudes. Just saying..

  19. Link to Post #32
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    46
    Posts
    7,863
    Thanks
    25,244
    Thanked 32,951 times in 7,042 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    Quote Posted by aviators (here)
    ... trim ...

    I appreciate all your math efforts. What makes no sense is the the ISS makes a full earth orbit every 90 minutes. I think? Wouldn't we expect to see some stationary satellites on some of these passes ? The oblique camera angle (in the video above)
    would cover a vast variety of altitudes. Just saying..
    I'm fairly confident there are no stationary satellites in orbit.

    Large satellites are car sized, how far away would a car sized object need to be before it was out of the cameras resolution? ... 31 trillion cubic kilometers - let it sink in ... Also consider what I wrote in my previous post on camera exposure ranges. There is no mystery here.
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 20th July 2016 at 02:09. Reason: formatting
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    avid (20th July 2016), Sierra (20th July 2016)

  21. Link to Post #33
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    22,961
    Thanks
    83,315
    Thanked 285,040 times in 21,078 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    Quote Posted by aviators (here)
    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    Quote Posted by aviators (here)
    Interesting with all the satellites in orbit we never see one from the ISS. Hmm.....
    Attachment 33817
    [ ... a lot of sound, basic math ... ]
    I appreciate all your math efforts.
    No, you don't. You didn't seem to understand a word he was saying (taking quite some patience and effort to lay out the logic).

    If you'd understood, you'd not be asking those questions. And if you'd genuinely appreciated it but still not understood, you'd be asking different questions.

    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    Memes and psyops are powerful; just blatantly believing the opposite of what is expected to be believed is no strategy to find the truth.
    That nails it. One of the definitions of intelligence is the ability to evaluate data logically without reference to belief.

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    42 (21st July 2016), avid (20th July 2016), Carmody (20th July 2016), DeDukshyn (20th July 2016), Foxie Loxie (20th July 2016)

  23. Link to Post #34
    Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Posts
    1,716
    Thanks
    9,598
    Thanked 11,138 times in 1,637 posts

    Default Re: Where is the International Space Station?

    Having been a pro photographer for 10 years I also have the background knowledge to fully confirm what DeDukshyn said, re exposure levels. This can be demonstrated easily on earth. Just take any camera outside at night - capture an image with a lit foreground, and you will see no stars. It's all about contrast and the exposure levels.

    I also never bought the parallel shadow arguments in alleged moon fakery, quite as DeDukshyn points out as well. For a start, if the moon landing images were shot in a studio with more than one light source, there would be more than one shadow for each object, simple as that. But there aren't. The reason for non-parallel shadows (in any picture) is that firstly the scene is subject to the perspective/position of where and how it is being viewed, secondly the nature and shape of the object casting the shadow, and thirdly and most importantly by the surface or angle of the surface it is being cast on.



    I believe there is and was a lot a fakery/doctoring of Apollo images, but the non-parallel shadows/no stars side of the argument really doesn't hold any water.
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (20th July 2016), silvervioletrubie (22nd July 2016)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts