Re: Flight tracking : Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:32 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I speak only the truth

Really: In Riddles you mean: Look Below.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
If you want to claim I'm "wrong", give us a clue about what? Who said planes "have a satellite feed"

Ferocious Aardvark Wrote1. Aircraft gets its location from a GPS navigation source (satellite)

Hahaha you speak in Riddles of contradiction

Re: Flight tracking : Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:48 pm  

Is that really the best you've got? Really?

Re: Flight tracking : Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:31 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark Wrote: GPS is entirely based on SATELLITES which constantly broadcast to the ground.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:If you want to claim I'm "wrong", give us a clue about what? Who said planes "have a satellite feed"

Hahaha you're getting all tangled up in your Copy and paste frenzy. Make your mind up. I don't need to prove you're wrong, you do a Grand job doing it yourself. Please carry on
As my research has indicated there are a plethora of platforms that can mimic satellite utility, so lets review.
1. Land-based technologies. Loran (long range navigation). 2. GPS uses Cell-tower triangulation not Satellites
3. High Altitude Airships (HAA) 4. High Altitude Platforms (HAP)
5. Lighter-than-air vehicles (LAV) 6. High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE)
7. High Altitude Long Operation (HALO) 8. StratSat
9. Airborne Relay Communication (ARC) 10. HeliPlat which connects to the HeliNet System
11. High Altitude Shuttle System (HASS) 12. Small Balloon Systems (SBS)
13. Nano Balloon Systems (NBS) 14. Google Loon System
15. Stratospheric Platform Systems (SPS) 16. High Altitude Long Endurance Demonstrator (HALE-D)
17 Undersea Cable 18. DARPA Integrated Sensor is Structure or ISIS

So as you see there are at least 18 platforms that can be used independently, in tandem or groups to provide all the services that satellites supposedly provide. The most glaring aspect of satellite fakery is cost. All 18 platforms I've mentioned are substantially more cost-efficient than satellites and inherently more reliable. It makes no sense to continually risk hurling satellites into space if more cost-efficient, reliable and readily maintainable terrestrial systems already exist, which they do, the dubious existence of satellites is even more definitive since NASA cannot furnish a single actual photo or video footage of real satellites.

Which is more probable. That satellites exist but NASA seems incapable of confirming their existence or simply they do not exist at all? Occam's Razor makes it simple, they don't exist at all.
I await the next batch of cranial insults and the tongue twisted comedy

Re: Flight tracking : Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:18 pm  

Poor Stanley. You, of all people, praying Occam in aid must be one of the most ironic and amusing things I've read in a long while. You are to Occam what Toulouse Lautrec was to pole-vaulting. There are over 1,000 active satellites currently in orbit around the Earth, and over 2,500 more which no longer function. Careful watch is also kept on as many as possible of the tens of thousands of pieces of space junk/debris as these could pose a threat to live satellites and also for warning when larger debris is going to re-enter the atmosphere. On a clear night, any short spell of sky watching will enable you to see several of these satellites passing overhead. If you have the right app, you can easily identify them. There are a number of independent bits of software for you to identify track etc as many satellites as you want, for example http://www.satflare.com I would highly recommend http://stuffin.space/ Despite the tracking, given the sheer volume of metal whizzing around the globe, collisions are inevitable, and on 11 February 2009 Russia's Cosmos 2251 satellite collided with one of the network of 66 Iridium satellites at 0455 GMT over Siberia at an altitude of 490 miles (790 km). This would have been much less inconvenient for all concerned had the satellites not actually existed. Your convoluted net of cellphone masts etc and millions of balloons is obvious plain bollox given that 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean, and doesn't have either masts or tethered balloons or any of the other weird and wonderful figments of your mentors' imagination, which strangely no human eyes have ever seen, despite them running the entire world "satellite based" technology. Yet GPS works just as well in mid-Pacific or at the Poles as it does in Leeds. You are a special kind of gullible. "NASA incapable of confirming the existence of satellites"? That is one of your best ones yet. Any reasonably educated human on the planet can within seconds confirm the existence of any of the thousands of satellites as suggested above. And you can watch them with your own eyes when they are due to pass across. One of them - the International Space Station - often has a live feed and you can watch it's track around the globe all day and all night and when available, a live feed from its cameras. This afternoon as I posted earlier you can even watch Tim Peake's live spacewalk. If you are up at 05:46 in the morning, and the sky is reasonably clear, here's a good one for you. The ISS will emerge from Earth's shadow quite high in the South, and you can watch it until it disappears over the eastern horizon. A decent pair of binoculars and you will even me able to make out its shape. It will be exactly where the orbit prediction software in various apps and programs predicts it will be. Which enables astronomers/amateur photographers on Earth to take gazillions of photographs of it as it makes its way. For example, google "ISS crossing sun". Any number of photographers have indpendently taken images and here is a tiny sample of that search Similarly images of ISS crossing the moon - here is just one, but a very nice one, taken not by NASA or any science organisation, just an independent photographer called Dylan O'Donnell You could do it too. If it did not exist - how is any of this this possible?

Poor Stanley. You, of all people, praying Occam in aid must be one of the most ironic and amusing things I've read in a long while. You are to Occam what Toulouse Lautrec was to pole-vaulting. There are over 1,000 active satellites currently in orbit around the Earth, and over 2,500 more which no longer function. Careful watch is also kept on as many as possible of the tens of thousands of pieces of space junk/debris as these could pose a threat to live satellites and also for warning when larger debris is going to re-enter the atmosphere. On a clear night, any short spell of sky watching will enable you to see several of these satellites passing overhead. If you have the right app, you can easily identify them. There are a number of independent bits of software for you to identify track etc as many satellites as you want, for example http://www.satflare.com I would highly recommend http://stuffin.space/ Despite the tracking, given the sheer volume of metal whizzing around the globe, collisions are inevitable, and on 11 February 2009 Russia's Cosmos 2251 satellite collided with one of the network of 66 Iridium satellites at 0455 GMT over Siberia at an altitude of 490 miles (790 km). This would have been much less inconvenient for all concerned had the satellites not actually existed. Your convoluted net of cellphone masts etc and millions of balloons is obvious plain bollox given that 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean, and doesn't have either masts or tethered balloons or any of the other weird and wonderful figments of your mentors' imagination, which strangely no human eyes have ever seen, despite them running the entire world "satellite based" technology. Yet GPS works just as well in mid-Pacific or at the Poles as it does in Leeds. You are a special kind of gullible. "NASA incapable of confirming the existence of satellites"? That is one of your best ones yet. Any reasonably educated human on the planet can within seconds confirm the existence of any of the thousands of satellites as suggested above. And you can watch them with your own eyes when they are due to pass across. One of them - the International Space Station - often has a live feed and you can watch it's track around the globe all day and all night and when available, a live feed from its cameras. This afternoon as I posted earlier you can even watch Tim Peake's live spacewalk. If you are up at 05:46 in the morning, and the sky is reasonably clear, here's a good one for you. The ISS will emerge from Earth's shadow quite high in the South, and you can watch it until it disappears over the eastern horizon. A decent pair of binoculars and you will even me able to make out its shape. It will be exactly where the orbit prediction software in various apps and programs predicts it will be. Which enables astronomers/amateur photographers on Earth to take gazillions of photographs of it as it makes its way. For example, google "ISS crossing sun". Any number of photographers have indpendently taken images and here is a tiny sample of that search Similarly images of ISS crossing the moon - here is just one, but a very nice one, taken not by NASA or any science organisation, just an independent photographer called Dylan O'Donnell You could do it too. If it did not exist - how is any of this this possible?

Re: Flight tracking : Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:36 pm  

Now I don't want to derail the subject here, just making an observation.

Anyone who holds a radically different view about something like the Earth's shape has to then squeeze and bend more and more associated things to fit the idea, rather than drop an idea based on overwhelming evidence. What I see on this thread is one of those things.

If you don't believe the Earth is a globe then you need to have other ideas about obvious things. Satellites, Gravity, Astronauts, GPS, Relativity, Mathematics, Climate, astrophysics, Stars, planets, Aircraft, communications. Then you have to find out a reason why Governments, corporations, universities, hobbyists, explorers, scientists, (A lot of which are not overly friendly with each other) and the general public are deliberately hiding the truth. Then you have to formulate a reason why they would do it.

It must be exhausting.

This is how I see it at least, and I'm sure they truly believe what they say.

What really interests me is why they have the core belief in the first place? Whatever drives it must be strong and underpin their whole world view. The only thing I can think of is a religious reason. Although, it is a fairly modern phenomena, contrary to the popular belief that religion always thought the earth was flat, which isn't strictly true. At least, not to the levels people think.

Anyway, sorry for the slight derailment.

Re: Flight tracking : Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:37 pm  

Oh my word i'm in hysterics sat in my chair. Just look at the fake CGI on display. Hahahahaha There are over 1,000 active satellites currently in orbit around the Earth, and over 2,500 more which no longer function The above comment proves my last paragraph in my last post. 2500 Malfunctions Great value for money there. So as you see there are at least 18 platforms that can be used independently, in tandem or groups to provide all the services that satellites supposedly provide. The most glaring aspect of satellite fakery is cost. All 18 platforms I've mentioned are substantially more cost-efficient than satellites and inherently more reliable. It makes no sense to continually risk hurling satellites into space if more cost-efficient, reliable and readily maintainable terrestrial systems already exist, which they do, the dubious existence of satellites is even more definitive since NASA cannot furnish a single actual photo or video footage of real satellites. Ferocious Aardvark Wrote You are a special kind of gullible. "NASA incapable of confirming the existence of satellites"? That is one of your best ones yet. Any reasonably educated human on the planet can within seconds confirm the existence of any of the thousands of satellites as suggested above. And you can watch them with your own eyes when they are due to pass across. Gullible. You're the one who's believing the all the nonsense matey not me. NASA cannot supply one authentic Satellite shot. And the CGI cartoon pictures are hilarious. Please take up a photography course my stomach aches through laughter. Duping you is a doddle Here's a link to all supposed Satellites that allegedly surround the alleged globe. How come the ISS pictures don't show these orbiting Satellites or stars in the background its because they're composites, any decent eye can figure that out. And Freemason Twin Peake doing a space walk in a vacuum travelling 5 miles per second is double hilarious. I bet we don't see the orbiting Satellites below or any star constellation what you'll see is a pre recorded Green screen film aided by Hollywood.

Oh my word i'm in hysterics sat in my chair. Just look at the fake CGI on display. Hahahahaha There are over 1,000 active satellites currently in orbit around the Earth, and over 2,500 more which no longer function The above comment proves my last paragraph in my last post. 2500 Malfunctions Great value for money there. So as you see there are at least 18 platforms that can be used independently, in tandem or groups to provide all the services that satellites supposedly provide. The most glaring aspect of satellite fakery is cost. All 18 platforms I've mentioned are substantially more cost-efficient than satellites and inherently more reliable. It makes no sense to continually risk hurling satellites into space if more cost-efficient, reliable and readily maintainable terrestrial systems already exist, which they do, the dubious existence of satellites is even more definitive since NASA cannot furnish a single actual photo or video footage of real satellites. Ferocious Aardvark Wrote You are a special kind of gullible. "NASA incapable of confirming the existence of satellites"? That is one of your best ones yet. Any reasonably educated human on the planet can within seconds confirm the existence of any of the thousands of satellites as suggested above. And you can watch them with your own eyes when they are due to pass across. Gullible. You're the one who's believing the all the nonsense matey not me. NASA cannot supply one authentic Satellite shot. And the CGI cartoon pictures are hilarious. Please take up a photography course my stomach aches through laughter. Duping you is a doddle Here's a link to all supposed Satellites that allegedly surround the alleged globe. How come the ISS pictures don't show these orbiting Satellites or stars in the background its because they're composites, any decent eye can figure that out. And Freemason Twin Peake doing a space walk in a vacuum travelling 5 miles per second is double hilarious. I bet we don't see the orbiting Satellites below or any star constellation what you'll see is a pre recorded Green screen film aided by Hollywood.

Re: Flight tracking : Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:54 pm  

TheButcher wrote:

What really interests me is why they have the core belief in the first place? Whatever drives it must be strong and underpin their whole world view. The only thing I can think of is a religious reason. Although, it is a fairly modern phenomena, contrary to the popular belief that religion always thought the earth was flat, which isn't strictly true. At least, not to the levels people think.

Nail on head. Ever since the 1500's. Heliocentrism eliminates God. Heliocentrism is Sun worship. Who wants to hide God and Sun worships. ? Freemasonic Luciferian NWO doctrine. Full stop. The same people who run the World Governments, All Media and NASA Simples.

Re: Flight tracking : Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:36 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Oh my word i'm in hysterics sat in my chair. Just look at the fake CGI on display.

There is NO doubt - as in ZERO - that ANYONE, you included, can photograph the ISS as it passes by.

You ignore this. How could you do it? Does NASA transmit CGI into your visual cortex or what/

Why do you ignore the very obvious and very basic points put to you?

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

The above comment proves my last paragraph in my last post. 2500 Malfunctions Great value for money there.

Space is an extremely harsh environment and all satellites have a limited shelf life. They must be VFM, though, as otherwise, why would all the major countries and many private companies continually launch 'em?

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

NASA cannot furnish a single actual photo or video footage of real satellites.

Of course it can. But even if provided with a billion photos or videos, you would say "Those are all fake".

Here's one for starters: a shuttle capturing the Hubble telescope, on a service mission


By the way, Hubble has produced squillions of images over many years, none of which could be obtained from Earth. If it did not exist, how could that happen?

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

How come the ISS pictures don't show these orbiting Satellites or stars in the background its because they're composites, any decent eye can figure that out.

if NASA or ESA wanted to create a fake scenario, your hypothesis relies on the odd idea that - oops-a-daisy - they would forget to "put the stars in" or whatever. Really? That is a dumb proposition even for you. (But oddly it does echo one of the more stupid "moon hoax" claims that you couldn't see the stars in the photos - have you learned nothing from those?) As it happens I do know quite a lot about photography. As you don't know the answer to such a simple question, you are clearly ignorant in the subject.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

And Freemason Twin Peake doing a space walk in a vacuum travelling 5 miles per second is double hilarious. I bet we don't see the orbiting Satellites below or any star constellation what you'll see is a pre recorded Green screen film aided by Hollywood.

It's a pity you can't hear everyone laughing at you claiming the spacewalk is a grenscreen hoax. You do make yourself look naive, gullible and mad in equal measure with consummate ease.

But as ever you avoid the questions that you can't answer. Like, if there is no ISS - how come YOU can with your unaided eyes see the ISS?

Come on Stan, it's a simple challenge. Or do you even reject the evidence of your own eyes in favour of your barking bats.hit fabric of multilayered nonsense?

Re: Flight tracking : Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:30 pm  

Ive been a silent viewer of these boards for many years. I was tickled into joining this particular forum as certain topics besides my beloved Leigh Centurions Thread tickled my fancy. I was obviously drawn to the Nuclear thread where I have a strong family interest within that field, but as I read through most of the off topic threads Its damn right clear as snow that theres a massive sway of anti Stanley screeches. The stick hes swallowed is absolutely diabolical. Theres an outright type of racism or bullying being portrayed throughout these threads with mainly one perpetrator pulling the strings just for having a varied outlook on life.

Oh by the way them photos look disputable. Im not laughing at you Stan Im laughing at the childish wiffle waffle. HeHe

Re: Flight tracking : Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:51 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Please take a photography course your gullibility levels are raging. just keep digging yourself deeper, You are so indoctrinated that you don't even trust your own God given senses. Copernicus made all of his observations with the naked eye and constructed his heliocentric model that all Academia received as Gospel truth for at least 200 years. Yes before Hot air Balloons and 400 years before planes were invented so that we could see the landscape we live on. On top of that he didn't even have a telescope, why because they weren't invented then. Just like the Hubble Telescope doesn't exist nor does the International space station. Oh but don't take time to do any of your own research just start a argument because you believe something exists. Congratulations you have won the Parrot of the year award.