NOTE added 18 Feb 2016 by Rerev:
'LORAN' (=Long Range Navigation or Long Range Navigation Aid) was a WW2 radio system, in which ships could find their location fairly accurately by cross referencing radio beams. These beams were suited to spreading below the horizon. This of course meant the use of transmission stations; I don't know if these were all on land. In the US case, they were dotted around the Pacific. Maybe this sort of thing is what 'satellite navigation' really is. I'm told the southern hemisphere, to this day, is not navigable by satellite. It could also explain if countries the USA's ruling clique dislikes may not be able to get 'satellite navigation'. It could explain why LORAN is much less well known than RADAR and SONAR.
'LORAN' (=Long Range Navigation or Long Range Navigation Aid) was a WW2 radio system, in which ships could find their location fairly accurately by cross referencing radio beams. These beams were suited to spreading below the horizon. This of course meant the use of transmission stations; I don't know if these were all on land. In the US case, they were dotted around the Pacific. Maybe this sort of thing is what 'satellite navigation' really is. I'm told the southern hemisphere, to this day, is not navigable by satellite. It could also explain if countries the USA's ruling clique dislikes may not be able to get 'satellite navigation'. It could explain why LORAN is much less well known than RADAR and SONAR.
What follows is extracted from archives; the posts were in 'there are no satellites orbiting the earth' started by robertk13, a French-speaking Canadian, on 23 March 2100. I deleted the thread by mistake ... I'm far too polite to say the forum instructions are badly written. Anyway in this reconstruction I've done my best to separate out the relevant threads, as there were at least 3 topics at once. A little tidying-up has been done. Some topics (e.g. fake pictures in astronomy books) didn't appear.
_______________________________________________
by robertk13 » 23 Mar 2011 02:17
hello,
l've tried to find just one image of a REAL satellite orbiting the earth, l've found not even one picture. It supposedly begins with SPUTNIK but all the photos are fake. Since l know that all of the space missions are hoaxes,that not even GAGARIN ever orbited the earth..., there never were any space station orbiting the earth, again it's all video simulation or miniatures models, that all of the spacewalks were filmed in a giant water pool at Johnson space center with a fake rotating plastic earth, that we see air bubbles rising, going upwards...... Saliout, Skylab, apollo-soyouz, MIR, ISS have never orbited the earth. So l said to myself it would be reasonnable to ask this simple question: What is the indelible proof of just one satellite over supposedly 8000 that we can see with our own eyes circulating around the earth ? l find none, check it out and you will see that is another myth.... the Hubble Space Telescope too...all the NASA exploration into our solar system must be scrutinize with great care. l really think that the scientific reality that we know today comes from many sources and seems to be unreliable. Help me please debunked this false reality.
_______________________________________________
by rerevisionist » 23 Mar 2011 05:17
Do you mean all satellites? Or just manned ones? Surely satellites exist - the type that satellite dishes pick up.
There also doesn't seem any reason why orbiting space things couldn't exist - although the difficulties of getting them into space aren't to be underestimated. (I don't think anyone's done an expose of the biological difficulties of going to the moon (oxygen, water, food, excretion, temperature, safety... but a space station well above the atmosphere would need precautions against the outside vacuum as well as full biological support over an extended period - more difficult than in an airplane.)
_______________________________________________
by NUKELIES » 23 Mar 2011 11:51
robertk13 - I've thought about that too. I believe we can fly in airplanes because I can see the clouds outside the window and the earth below, and when I get on in New York everybody has American accents and when I get off in London everyone has British accents.
rerevisionist mentioned satellite dishes and I've wondered about that as well. If we can't get through the hot outer atmosphere without burning up then how do they get satellites through? I believe there are airplanes which can go up extremely high. Maybe satellites go up that high and can stay up for some reason? Who knows...
_______________________________________________
by robertk13 » 25 Mar 2011 00:12
[...]
Again the public doesn't know that Rocket science engineering in America comes from a devoted catholic german named Werner van Brown a high rank Nazy officer who met in the 50's another high rank devoted asset of the Vatican by the name of Walt Disney, etc.....Together they have created this gigantic fairy tale of Space Exploration... fake Satellites launches with rocket booster...fake stations orbiting the earth... and video computer animation of fake buidings,fake planes, fake dust, fake smokescreens on the day 11 sept 2001.
_______________________________________________
by FirstClassSkeptic » 25 Mar 2011 08:55
robertk13 wrote:
hello,
l've tried to find just one image of a REAL satellite orbiting the earth,l've found not even one picture .
I did the same search, on the internet almost a year ago. I limited the search to geo-synchronous satellites. There was one picture I found by an amateur astronomer. His picture showed five bright dots in a line, closely spaced together in the center of a rather large picture. They were not distinguishable as satellites, and could have been five light bulbs, for all I could tell. They looked much too close together, according to my intuition. Geo-synchronous satellites are spaced two degrees apart to an antenna on earth. How far apart would that be once you get out 23,000 miles from earth?
Some pictures, and how it's done:
https://ottawa-rasc.ca/articles/earl_mike/Satellite_Tracking/Amateur/Amateur_Astronomers_Satellite_Tracking.html
https://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread4eb8.html?t=23887
How big is a satellite? What would it look like from 23,000 miles away? Could you see a refrigerator five miles away? Could you see it sixty miles away with a telescope? I don't know. Satellites supposedly have large panels of solar cells that unfurl in space. Could you see a locomotive 23,000 miles away? How about Notre Dame cathedral? It just seems like a long ways off to see something, even a reflection from something. This suggests to me that the satellites are much closer than what is claimed.
Another thing is, what about the Van Allen belts? Wouldn't that interfere with communications?
As for your other comments: Yes, we live in a world of created reality, meant to keep us deceived and subjugated.
In case you've ever read the Bible, the book of Exodus, where God tells Moses, about three different times, "Go down to the river in the morning and meet Pharoah." What was Pharoah doing at the river in the morning? From what I gather, from other sources, Pharoah went to the river every morning and commanded the sun to rise. They had the people believing that if he didn't do this, the sun wouldn't rise. They also had the people believing that he commanded solar eclipses. This sort of deception has been going on for thousands of years. Notice the people helping Pharoah were called 'magicians'. Today, we would call those people 'scientists'. (There's a little passage in Albert Pike's book, Morals and Dogma alluding to the magi disquising themselves as scientists. I'll see if I can dig that out.)
_______________________________________________
by NUKELIES » 25 Mar 2011 12:37
So when the no-plane theory on 911 begins to emerge on internet saying that ABC like all the others tv stations have used computer animation planes faking hitting the WTC...
The no-planes theory is a ruse and a red herring. Whether or not there were planes is immaterial. The WTC was demolished one way or another and the only question is who did it?
[...]
_______________________________________________
by FirstClassSkeptic » 29 Mar 2011 13:07
robertk13 wrote:
Help me please debunked this false reality.
Do you have any ideas about how NASA is faking the satellites?
_______________________________________________
by robertk13 » 30 Mar 2011 04:04
to FirstClassSkeptic..... l'm not sure on anything but, today they use computer simulation with fake audiences or actors paid for...c heck for yourself... l assure you there is not even a single man made satellite revolving around the earth... since Sputnik 1.... Who do you think owns COMSATS.... AT&T, Bell, Boeing, GE, etc. and some of them were and are acquainted with the NASA hollywood fakery and media news corp. Why l'm saying that? ... because there is no proof at all that rocket boosters can reach a speed of 17000 mi-h....l will do some more research on that...
_______________________________________________
by robertk13 » 30 Mar 2011 06:22
l have found something very interestingly on you tube the STS-125 launch from T-2 to MECO - High Definition
they change the background in a split of a second at 1:58
....
to be frank l had no big proof of NASA faking the STS launch but now l have one irrefutable proof that they're using video simulation. the STS-125 atlantis HD version at 1:58 we see big cumulonimbus(totally motionless), clouds everywhere with piercing blue sky...at 1:59 a big zoom out with a no cloud sky, within a second static clouds no clouds.... Gotcha NASA
_______________________________________________
by FirstClassSkeptic » 30 Mar 2011 13:51
COMSAT was started by John Kennedy when he was President. It was a government agency, I guess, like NASA, or quasi governmental. I used to go by the ComSAT headquarters building every day on the commute to work. It's near Germantown, Maryland, along I70. About 30 miles from Washington, DC. Has silvered mirrored glass all over.
Can you go into more detail on the rocket speed limit of 17,000 mph? And what does that mean? Does that mean there's not enough velocity to lauch a rocket into orbit as per Newtonian gravity theory? This sounds interesting, and I hadn't considered it before.
The DeLaval nozzel on the rockets has been perplexing to me. NASA explains it somewhat thusly: At supersonic speeds, difusers become nozzels, and nozzels become defusers. Thus the constriction accelerates the exhaust to supersonic speed, and then the expansion accelerates it to hypersonic speed.
However, the DeLaval nozzle only makes sense in an atmosphere.
Can you post a link to that video?
_______________________________________________
by rerevisionist » 30 Mar 2011 17:15
Are you counting sat nav and comms satellites? Do you think they don't exist in orbit?
As I understand it, sat navs were used by ships first, where there's an obvious need. Only later did they think of adding digitised road maps on land. I doubt if this could work at sea without orbiting satellites.
_______________________________________________
by robertk13 » 30 Mar 2011 21:35
to FirstClassSkeptic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtrB9bELGSY
'' ...the magnetic and electric field might be so strong as to support some metal structure, such as a satellite. ''
so tell me why NASA use video simulation on their STS-125 atlantis to hubble last mission ??? and taking in consideration their fake spacewalks with a fake earth spinning in a giant waterpool at Johnson space center...take a look
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdtqk1 ... onale_tech ......at 2:43 the spheric shape behind the spaceshuttle...again at 2:51 it's suppose to be glowing from the inside of the fake earth, when they pretend to be orbiting in space.... at the speed of 17000 mi-h that's ridiculous !
so l'm asking you if it's feasable to launch a satellite around the earth maintaining it's orbit simply and only by the magnetic and electric field of the earth....Why faking it ???
_______________________________________________
by robertk13 » 30 Mar 2011 22:12
to FirstClassSkeptic
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdtqk1... onale_tech
if you freeze the shot at 3:36 you'll see a clear visible spheric earth in the water pool...at 4:53 take a look near the orbiter, air bubbles going vertical...they're suppose to be in full space.....NASA astronauts of today are only actors playing the same role of those of the past decades like the Apollo mission with their three greatest stars Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins.
_______________________________________________
by FirstClassSkeptic » 31 Mar 2011 21:18
I know that Ed White's space walk in 1965 was faked. I can tell he is hanging by a wire. Suspiciously enough, this space walk was done right after the Disney movie Mary Poppins where Julie Andrews was flying around England. I notice that as movie special effects improve, space travel likewise improves.
I think you misunderstand what I said about the magnetic field.
I am not disagreeing with you, robert, I suspect the satellites are faked somehow also. And the space shuttle.
And, by the way, about the rocket engines: They claim that a rocket can go faster than the exhaust, which sounds to me like saying they can push their little red wagon faster than they can run. I just kind of doubt it.
_______________________________________________
by robertk13 » 01 Apr 2011 17:22
to FirstClassSkeptic...Exactly Disney are co-producer of this fairy tale of Space Exploration...and if we go deeper into the rabbit hole : the CEOs and board of directors like VIACOM(CBS) ,Sumner Redstone : jesuit-trained Georgetown university graduate... Chairman and CEO's NEWS CORP. LTD. (FOX NEWS): Rupert k Murdoch a Knight of the Order of St. Gregory the Great...(Jesuit-controlled)BBC director general Mark Thompson was jesuit-trained at Stonyhurst college....DISNEY's (ABC) v.pres on 911 Alan n. Braveman attended a jesuit-catholic University of Missouri-Kansas City...GE and COMCAST by a joint venture owns NBC Universal and CEO's Robert Charles "Bob" Wright was a graduate from the jesuit college of the Holy Cross... (CNN) Time Warner chief executive officer Ted Turner a well known knight of malta member....,etc. All roads lead to ROME
_______________________________________________
by robertk13 » 01 Apr 2011 23:08
to rerevisionist ....l know a little bit on first MANNED space mission( l simply use wikipedia) : Vostok 1 (USSR) Yuri Gagarin 12-Apr-61, Mercury-Redstone 3 (USA) Alan Shepard 5-May-61 , Mercury-Redstone 4 (USA) Virgil Grissom 21-Jul-61...,etc.
UNMANNED spacecraft categorized by program like : CAssini , spacecraft Cassini-Huygens launch October 15, 1997 ; earth observing system , ACRIMSAT launch 20 December 1999 : Explorer, Explorer 1-78 , Explorer 1 was launch January 31, 1958 : Lunar Orbiter , Lunar Orbiter 1-5 was placed in an Earth parking orbit on August 10, 1966 : isis , isis 1 was launch on January 30, 1969 : mariner , mariner 1-10 , mariner 1 Launched on July 22, 1962 ...,etc.
_______________________________________________
by mooninquirer » 02 Apr 2011 19:39
[...]
There might be a few other instances of faked events, like a US-Soviet mission in which they connected in space and the astronauts from these two countries shook hands and greeted each other in space. But these are VERY peripheral to the really big, fat, juicy morsel lying there ---- that no man has landed upon the moon. It IS so big, because it looms so large in the minds of the public, by constant reference to it. That other mission is just NOT referred to. I happen to remember seeing it on TV in the 70s when it was said to have happened, but I have heard absolutely nothing about it since.
There is overwhelming evidence that man has never gone to the moon, and I think it was a lousy production with bad acting ON PURPOSE. It could have been much more realistic. My theory is that the purpose of the faked moon missions was to act as a SOCIAL EXPERIMENT, to test the public's acceptance of an historical event over time. In this respect it is similar to the "War of the Worlds" as is stated in this documentary ----- google : PHENOMENON FEDERAL RESERVE. Initially, about 30 % of the American public doubted in happened, but by the media's constant reference to it, as well by its inclusion in other things like being on coins, and it having entered the language in such expressions as " if we can put a man on the moon, then why can't we do this or that ?" people have come to accept it as an absolute "FACT."
Even though the moon landing makes no sense, and we do not see any evidence of one-sixth gravity in the Apollo footage, and even though I have been told by professors that I greatly respect that the moon landing is a LAUGHABLE hoax, I still accepted it because I thought " how can so many people be wrong ? How can a lie be so big ? " But what the moon landing being a hoax shows is this ---- the enormous power of the media's impact upon the thinking and emotions of "the sheeple." It also shows that there is a 100 % monopoly of all of the mainstream media. Sure, with a few things, an open debate is permitted to give the public the impression that there is a free press, but with a large number of things, like 911 being an inside job, nuke bombs being a hoax, AIDS / HIV being a hoax, etc., they do NOT permit any dissenting voices ---- these voices are totally dismissed as "wackjobs." Really, the MEDIA is the national religion and faith of America. The faith is far stronger than that of supposed Muslim terrorists, who supposedly believe in getting 72 virgins.
I suspect that initially, after 1945, the American public in general doubted nuclear bombs to a much greater extent than currently. It took time for this to sink in. And it has sunken in, even though the photo damage of Hiroshima is very spotty and unconvincing. It had to become ingrained in the culture, and in the language, and it had to be used as an analogy for other very powerful, awesome events. For example, in 1998, Jewish congressman ( at the time ) Chuck Schumer repeatedly said, " why should we drop the nuclear bomb of impeachment upon the president [ Bill Clinton ] for having a private sexual affair ?" Of course, the biggest event was the talks between the US and the Soviet Union on nuclear arms reduction. However, the moment one realizes that the Cold War itself was a hoax, in which the Jews controlled both of these countries, this particular "foundation" for nuclear arms being a reality crumbles. A purpose of the Cold War was so that the world would be polarized, so that America would have a PERCEIVED ally in Israel, against the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union. Now, of course, with the fall of the [ ZOG controlled ] old Soviet Union, 911 was necessary to convince Americans that Israel is an ally of America in the fight against "Islamofascism"
[...]
_______________________________________________
by robertk13 » 17 Apr 2011 17:11
The point l want to make : Is it possible to fake satellite communication by using other sources of wireless transmission like the cell phone Towers , microwave communication dish, laser transmission...???
[...]
_______________________________________________
by rerevisionist » 17 Apr 2011 21:02
robertk, as far as I know, ships (and private yachts etc) use satellite navigation. In fact (I'm told) 'Navman' brand were originally designed for ships; it was only later that someone decided to add virtual roadmaps. It's true that radio waves to some extent curve around the surface of the earth, but I'd say satellites might be easier. (I admit this isn't proof - during WW2, a long time ago, bombers used to fix their positions by triangulating from radar sources).
_______________________________________________
by FirstClassSkeptic » 18 Apr 2011 06:48
[...]
I think that what you are trying to get at, RobertK, is that the earth is flat, and therefore there can be nothing orbiting the earth. The idea of a flat earth is a relatively recent theory. Most of the ancient societies considered the earth to be a sphere. As I said before, the shadow of the earth on the moon is round. The ancients could observe the moon, which looks like a ball, or a least a disk, hanging in the sky. And they could see the sun, which also looks like a ball, and engendered Baal worship, hanging in the sky. It didn't take much of a logical stretch to imagine that the earth itself was also a ball hanging seemingly on nothing, just like the moon and sun.
[...]
_______________________________________________
by rerevisionist » 24 May 2011 01:39
Apollo 11, photo no. AS11-37-5448 NASA
NASA said that the footage from the window of the control module (colombia) with supposedly on board, Armstrong, Aldrin buzzz, Collins' s approach the crater Schmidt ..... I said that picture is a model of the moon, and the installation comes from the studios of Disney, and shows half of a cartoon dog face - this is a computer translation of robertk13 which I found on a website. He seems to be French, assuming he's the same person.
Here's a much larger version; is it part of a cartoon dog..?
________________________________________________________________
by robertk13 » 24 May 2011 16:03
to rerevisionist ... l'm glad to hear you again...what can l say? yes l'm french...yes the corporation of canada without my consent have created with the birth certificate my PERSON and imprison me into status and parlementary acts...Yes l've listened again and again taking notes of Robert Arthur Menard's '' the magnificient deception ''...l know it's really off topic but at the end all the road lead to ROME....l live into this illusionnary faith of the catholic church, omnipresent, omnipotent (quebec) Who controls everything with the help of the Jesuit Order who controls our political and consequently our educationnal system..... the Knights of Colombus... The Salvation Army...who rape and steal my people, under the pretense of charity...,etc. YES l live into a matrix of corporate board members interest...not my society...their Society...with their commercial juridiction... facto courts...not under Oaths...
About the Apollo 11, photo no. AS11-37-5448... fascinating picture don't you agree? They are not scientists at Nasa but instead Artists...and l clearly see in this photo the artistry behind it...the beauty of it ...at first sight you don't see it...they try to deceive me with this hidden half cartoon dog face...or they simply try to tell me something here...: don't take this seriously ...it is only a Walt disney BS movie...
________________________________________________________________
by rerevisionist » 24 May 2011 17:41
Hi Robertk13 - I'm delighted we're international, and it's nice to hear from you again. What I find suspicious about that photo is the wispy white cloudlike bits - the moon has no atmosphere, so the whole thing should be pin-sharp, just as the shadows are pin-sharp.
I googled for cartoon dogs, but I couldn't find one with jagged ears, or jowls, and a big eye etc. I don't suppose you could post what might be the original cartoon?
_______________________________________________
