Re: Flight tracking : Sun Jan 17, 2016 7:46 pm  

They could, if you had the slightest interest in debate. But you don't.

Unless you are going to reply what the "ISS" that you can see with your own eyes, really is, if it isn't the ISS?

I'm restricting myself to one, simple, question, but you won't tell me what you think that is. You refuse to look up into the sky and see the ISS go by, as seeing it would probably overload your denial circuits and you can't take the risk.

But it will predictably pass overhead again...and again...and again. How irritating of it for you.

Re: Flight tracking : Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:55 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: They could, if you had the slightest interest in debate. But you don't. Unless you are going to reply what the "ISS" that you can see with your own eyes, really is, if it isn't the ISS I really don't have an issue answering your questions its my questions that get greatly ignored, The simulated ISS is simply a Holographic Projection. Most people believe that the Space Station exists for 3 reasons 1. They can see what appears to be the space station through a telescope. Which is the Hologram. 2. They have seen what they are told in video interviews on Mainstream TV coming from the inside the Space Station (which are actually carefully choreographed Green Screen short events) The reason there isn't a live 24 hour webcam feed is because that would be nearly impossible for them to produce, because they are not in fact on the ISS. 3. Other countries have also participated in the project. Upon closer inspection, none of these arguments hold water. The images people are seeing through a telescope and by naked eye are very blurry, they fade in from a rainbow, and the ISS doesn't move at a uniform pace across the sky. The ISS through a telescope looks much more like a holograph than a solid object actually flying in space. Holographic arrays are commonplace today, and complex systems such as project Blue beam designed by the military show that projecting images in the sky is not difficult now. The "Norway Spiral" and the "rapture of Jesus Christ in Africa" are two other examples of this type of technology used. IF THE SPACE STATION WAS REAL WE WOULD SEE THE ABUNDANCE OF ORBITING SATELLITES FLYING ABOUT, WHICH ADDS MORE FUEL TO THE FRAUD KILLING TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE..

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: They could, if you had the slightest interest in debate. But you don't. Unless you are going to reply what the "ISS" that you can see with your own eyes, really is, if it isn't the ISS I really don't have an issue answering your questions its my questions that get greatly ignored, The simulated ISS is simply a Holographic Projection. Most people believe that the Space Station exists for 3 reasons 1. They can see what appears to be the space station through a telescope. Which is the Hologram. 2. They have seen what they are told in video interviews on Mainstream TV coming from the inside the Space Station (which are actually carefully choreographed Green Screen short events) The reason there isn't a live 24 hour webcam feed is because that would be nearly impossible for them to produce, because they are not in fact on the ISS. 3. Other countries have also participated in the project. Upon closer inspection, none of these arguments hold water. The images people are seeing through a telescope and by naked eye are very blurry, they fade in from a rainbow, and the ISS doesn't move at a uniform pace across the sky. The ISS through a telescope looks much more like a holograph than a solid object actually flying in space. Holographic arrays are commonplace today, and complex systems such as project Blue beam designed by the military show that projecting images in the sky is not difficult now. The "Norway Spiral" and the "rapture of Jesus Christ in Africa" are two other examples of this type of technology used. IF THE SPACE STATION WAS REAL WE WOULD SEE THE ABUNDANCE OF ORBITING SATELLITES FLYING ABOUT, WHICH ADDS MORE FUEL TO THE FRAUD KILLING TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE..

Re: Flight tracking : Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:31 pm  

Do you ever read back what you copy and paste Stanley? You're insane!

Re: Flight tracking : Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:02 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote: I really don't have an issue answering your questions its my questions that get greatly ignored, The simulated ISS is simply a Holographic Projection. Most people believe that the Space Station exists for 3 reasons 1. They can see what appears to be the space station through a telescope. Which is the Hologram. Can you explain to me the following then please: I can see the ISS from my location at a known, predictable magnitude (i.e. brightness). I say this is because the angle of the ISS to the Sun (which iluminates it and reflects the light that I can see) is known, predictable, and measurable. SO, for example, at my location the ISS might appear at magnitude -2.0 But another observer at a location further away, at the same time, might only see it at mag -1.0. And so on. The brightest appearance is along the centre of the reflected path. Observers away from the centre of the path naturally get a corresponding decrease in brightness. 1. How would a hologram project this much light? 2. How could a hologram appear bright to one observer, but faint to another observer? 3. Given that over time the ISS crosses most places, where are the millions of mega-projectors around the globe which project this moving "hologram" 24/7? WHAT PROJECTS YOUR HOLOGRAM?? 2. They have seen what they are told in video interviews on Mainstream TV coming from the inside the Space Station (which are actually carefully choreographed Green Screen short events) The reason there isn't a live 24 hour webcam feed is because that would be nearly impossible for them to produce, because they are not in fact on the ISS. 3. Other countries have also participated in the project. Upon closer inspection, none of these arguments hold water. FLAT STANLEY wrote: The images people are seeing through a telescope and by naked eye are very blurry No they are not. They vary greatly, depending on the degree of atmospheric distortion, and the equipment used. FLAT STANLEY wrote: .. the ISS doesn't move at a uniform pace across the sky. But OF COURSE it does! It moves at an absolutely dead-set unifrom pace! This is why it is PREDICTABLE. To the exact SECOND! Any day it comes your way, you can know in advance the second it will appear and (if it will cross into the Earth's shadow) the exact second it will quickly disappear. It does you arguments no favours to claim something so ridiculous as "it doesn't move at a uniform pace". It couldn't BE more uniform. FLAT STANLEY wrote: The ISS through a telescope looks much more like a holograph than a solid object actually flying in space. From someone who has never seen it, that seems an odd claim But, answer me this: How does this here "holograph" r whatever you claim it is, actually BLOCK the light of the Sun, when it crosses its path, then? Come on Stan, we all know a holograph is a projection, and not an actual material object. So tell us, how is that trick done? FLAT STANLEY wrote: IF THE SPACE STATION WAS REAL WE WOULD SEE THE ABUNDANCE OF ORBITING SATELLITES FLYING ABOUT, The reality of the ISS has nothing to do with the existence of other satellites. However, I have previously provided you with resources to discover the identity and exact (predictable) orbits (or locations, for geostationary satelites) and you can therefore on a clear night observe your fil of satellites, AND know which ones they are. How can that be possible, if they don't exist? Or does NASA also project moving holographs of thousands of satellites too? And how exactly does Sky tv (and other satellite based systems) work? All the millions of Sky dishes are all pointed precisely so that they aim at the relevant satellite. If you point your dish there, you get a signal. If you move it, the signal disappears. Given you think the Sky broadcasting satellites don't exist, how is this trick done? I await the "truth" with great interest

FLAT STANLEY wrote: I really don't have an issue answering your questions its my questions that get greatly ignored, The simulated ISS is simply a Holographic Projection. Most people believe that the Space Station exists for 3 reasons 1. They can see what appears to be the space station through a telescope. Which is the Hologram. Can you explain to me the following then please: I can see the ISS from my location at a known, predictable magnitude (i.e. brightness). I say this is because the angle of the ISS to the Sun (which iluminates it and reflects the light that I can see) is known, predictable, and measurable. SO, for example, at my location the ISS might appear at magnitude -2.0 But another observer at a location further away, at the same time, might only see it at mag -1.0. And so on. The brightest appearance is along the centre of the reflected path. Observers away from the centre of the path naturally get a corresponding decrease in brightness. 1. How would a hologram project this much light? 2. How could a hologram appear bright to one observer, but faint to another observer? 3. Given that over time the ISS crosses most places, where are the millions of mega-projectors around the globe which project this moving "hologram" 24/7? WHAT PROJECTS YOUR HOLOGRAM?? 2. They have seen what they are told in video interviews on Mainstream TV coming from the inside the Space Station (which are actually carefully choreographed Green Screen short events) The reason there isn't a live 24 hour webcam feed is because that would be nearly impossible for them to produce, because they are not in fact on the ISS. 3. Other countries have also participated in the project. Upon closer inspection, none of these arguments hold water. FLAT STANLEY wrote: The images people are seeing through a telescope and by naked eye are very blurry No they are not. They vary greatly, depending on the degree of atmospheric distortion, and the equipment used. FLAT STANLEY wrote: .. the ISS doesn't move at a uniform pace across the sky. But OF COURSE it does! It moves at an absolutely dead-set unifrom pace! This is why it is PREDICTABLE. To the exact SECOND! Any day it comes your way, you can know in advance the second it will appear and (if it will cross into the Earth's shadow) the exact second it will quickly disappear. It does you arguments no favours to claim something so ridiculous as "it doesn't move at a uniform pace". It couldn't BE more uniform. FLAT STANLEY wrote: The ISS through a telescope looks much more like a holograph than a solid object actually flying in space. From someone who has never seen it, that seems an odd claim But, answer me this: How does this here "holograph" r whatever you claim it is, actually BLOCK the light of the Sun, when it crosses its path, then? Come on Stan, we all know a holograph is a projection, and not an actual material object. So tell us, how is that trick done? FLAT STANLEY wrote: IF THE SPACE STATION WAS REAL WE WOULD SEE THE ABUNDANCE OF ORBITING SATELLITES FLYING ABOUT, The reality of the ISS has nothing to do with the existence of other satellites. However, I have previously provided you with resources to discover the identity and exact (predictable) orbits (or locations, for geostationary satelites) and you can therefore on a clear night observe your fil of satellites, AND know which ones they are. How can that be possible, if they don't exist? Or does NASA also project moving holographs of thousands of satellites too? And how exactly does Sky tv (and other satellite based systems) work? All the millions of Sky dishes are all pointed precisely so that they aim at the relevant satellite. If you point your dish there, you get a signal. If you move it, the signal disappears. Given you think the Sky broadcasting satellites don't exist, how is this trick done? I await the "truth" with great interest

Re: Flight tracking : Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:55 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark
You've give me a lot of questions there quite a lot of information, however if you hadn't of ignored the Project Bluebeam links, most of your questions would be answered their. I will reply to your long winded plagiarized post in due course but i'm sat here in hysterics knowing that you've Copied And Pasted these questions from the YouTube page of the Video i posted,

Also why do you continue to keep posting CGI composites.

Re: Flight tracking : Mon Jan 18, 2016 5:52 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Ferocious Aardvark
You've give me a lot of questions there quite a lot of information, however if you hadn't of ignored the Project Bluebeam links, most of your questions would be answered their. I will reply to your long winded plagiarized post in due course but i'm sat here in hysterics knowing that you've Copied And Pasted these questions from the YouTube page of the Video i posted,

Also why do you continue to keep posting CGI composites.

Sorry Stan, but my post was all my own work, and I certainly have no time to click on any more of your links, some time ago I had a look, but they are clearly all as or more deluded than you. They were all utter childish nonsense, and not worth a second of anyone's time.

But I do note you cannot advance an explanation as to why the ISS can be photographed crossing the face of the Sun, and so your last resort is to say therefore any image showing this must be a fake! That really is pathetic.

Anyway, whether you are for real or a troll, either way I think that is enough of your nonsense for me. Goodbye.

Re: Flight tracking : Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:08 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark WroteAnd how exactly does Sky tv (and other satellite based systems) work? All the millions of Sky dishes are all pointed precisely so that they aim at the relevant satellite. If you point your dish there, you get a signal. If you move it, the signal disappears.

Firstly i'll give a detailed TV view as i'll address your other million questions in due course. Digital is an analogue radio signal, digitized compressed and so they're able to carry more information. You can still use your old analogue aerial to pick up digital signals as an example,, or you can be conned into paying for a satellite TV package and all they did is put a dish up which picks up digital same as an old aerial connection it's definitely not picking up signals from satellites they do not exist. Satellite dishes are just digital signal antennas in disguise that receive directly from land based signal relay and Deep Sea Cables with repeaters to boost the signal. The whole dish thing is a diversion.Thought this was obvious.

So if anyone who wants to take a bit of time to look up the launch to satellite ratio..seriously have a look. If you are doing it to grasp the rip off then great. If you are doing it to come back at me to argue that is perfectly plausible, then don't waste your time with me, seriously. I don't want my mind poisoned with clap trap and stuff that should be ridiculously evident to a person with the basic of basic common sense to see it for what it is. Bullshit.

I'm quite sure that there's plenty of people who have satellite dishes on their walls who have had them there for maybe 15/20 years and never had them aligned since they were installed. Bear in mind that satellites are supposed to have lives of 10/15 years and some lately being longer. That's due to covering their arses. The point is, how come your dish has never had to be re-aligned when they change a so called satellite.

The sensible thinkers among us will have the answer easily. It's because satellites in space are a fantasy. They are a fantasy money maker so we have to pay for TV with the old excuse that it costs so much to send them up and maintain them. The silly thing is that once a satellite is in this 23,000 mile orbit. Yes, I said 23,000 mile orbit, just perfectly in Geo-synch with Earth, it cannot be repaired if anything goes wrong. Luckily they never ever need repairing until they fall out of orbit until the tefal headed fantasy merchants decide they fall. If people want to believe in all this crap then go right ahead, just don't try and convince me, because I'm done with the old "heads they win, tails I lose" bullshit. It's about time the coin has a heads and a tails and is tossed by fair means. Until that happens, we will always be slaves to the system.

For those who argue about GPS and such. It's all triangulation. It's a pretence of something special. Well just remember that when you're driving along with your Sat Nav stuck to your dashboard with no aerial or dish and yet you're getting told where you are. The voice that tells you to turn left or whatever is just following a pre-set map that is picked up as you drive to your destination between cells, just like your phone and even your radio. You notice your Sat Nav re-adjusts as you drive. As you hit another marker. Your radio re-tunes just the same. It's just a different set of frequencies and booster signals, etc.

The trouble with fantasy merchants who sell you bullshit is, they want more. they want to keep hitting you with more fantasy and sometimes they over do it. You see, one minute your satellite dish on your home is aligned perfectly to a Geo-synch satellite in 23,000 mile orbit and the next minute you've just bought a car satellite system that sits on your car roof and "Voiila" gives your kids the TV as you move about. And weirdly...no dish.

I understand that there will be many that are GENUINELY perplexed by some of this and will not accept it so readily. All I say to you people is, spend the time to sit back and think. Look up stuff. Do the jigsaw puzzle of the real picture and paint over the fantasy one that was set out for you. It can be slow and painstaking. I understand that. All I ask is, please learn to use your logic and your own common sense by not allowing the bullshitter fantasy merchants to bamboozle your mind and scramble it. Peer pressure and ridicule are two massive obstacles to overcome to even start to think. Do this and you have a chance to actually see through the blindfold's you/we were made to wear.

.As i said with GPS, TV the same, there is nothing that is allegedly done by 'communication satellites' that cannot be done with ground-based systems. Good luck and happy thinking.

Re: Flight tracking : Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:21 pm  

Map of new Flightradar24 receivers coming online in first 2 weeks of January Explanatory article http://www.flightradar24.com/blog/new-f ... uary-2016/

Map of new Flightradar24 receivers coming online in first 2 weeks of January Explanatory article http://www.flightradar24.com/blog/new-f ... uary-2016/

Re: Flight tracking : Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:01 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Map of new Flightradar24 receivers coming online in first 2 weeks of January

And ? Please elaborate. .

Re: Flight tracking : Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:51 am  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

And ? Please elaborate. .

I think he's getting back on topic rather than it be for your benefit.