Re: Not working rockets!!! Fake Satellites!!! Fake Astronauts!!! Fake Moon Images!!!Fake Mars rover!!! Its all Fake fake fake

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 5:24:
> In article <l4v9vr$v36$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 4:07:
>>> In article <l4v4si$9ps$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> work in darkness to install their NWO over our heads and nations... yeah
>>>
>>> Over our head where?
>>>
>>
>> In the UN... ha ha ha yeah there!!!!
>
> There are no UN buildings here.
>
>> Siri Cruz, I do not think that question is warranted, given that I have
>
> Because you don't like the answer. Maybe you actually answerred all these
> questions you dislike, you might better.
>
>> repeatedly and respectfully referred to Newton's laws throughout this
>
> Which has nothing to do with the UN.
>
>> If mass A (50.000kg) were ejected at 8km/s from a mass B+rocket body
>> (50.000kg) - would this not propel the rocket forward at 8km/s - as of
>> Newton's laws? And just like a man throwing a pumpkin of his own weight
>> away from him? If so, how is this very same result achieved in a vacuum
>> with a small, trickling flow/mass of a rocket's exhaust expelled at a
>> velocity of 4.4km/s - as claimed by NASA?
>
> The fastest baseball pitch is 105 mph which is 0.05 kps. So, yeah it's similar
> in that you have a moving object. The velocities however differ by a factor of
> 80. At that's for a hardball, not an awkward pumpkin. Anything else stupid you
> want to say?
>


No, thats Not the answer about the above graphic is or is not in respect
Newton's laws question I was awaiting... but it won't gone stop me to
explain it again until you become a scientific...

Newton's 3rd Law: action/reaction only works if you have two separate
objects, as you mention a hardball and a baseball. More specifically
these two objects have to be external to each other.

The reason you can't pull yourself off of the floor by your belt is that
you are one object even though you are made of many parts: internal
organs, muscles, arms, legs, clothes, etc...

You can pull a weight off the floor that weighs as much as you because
it is external to you.

The combustion chamber of a rocket in space is internal to the ship.
They are one object just like your arms are internal to your body and
are one object when it comes to Newton's 3rd Law.

If you want to lift yourself by your arms you have to pull or push on
something external to your body, like the floor or a rope, etc...

The rocket has to do the same thing if it wants to move. It has to push
or to pull on something external to the ship. There is nothing in space
to push against or to pull on.

You can exert as much energy as you want trying to lift yourself off the
floor but if you don't connect to an external system you're not going to
move. You may shake but you won't rise off the floor.

Same goes for a ship in space. You can burn and combust all the gases
you want. If you don't generate an external force you're not going
anywhere. People say "the ship is pressing on the gases" but the gases
don't exist outside the ship. Gas doesn't exist in the vacuum. So the
ship is left pressing against itself. A space ship is like a car with an
engine but no wheels.

Every machine that moves is mechanical: relies on friction, pressure,
exchanging energy with objects external to it. Everything except space
rockets, that is. NASA might as well scrap rockets and go straight to
saying we can teleport to the moon and other planets.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 6:35:
> In article <l4vbnd$5kr$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Does NASA shot her rockets with a gun in the air??? ha ha ha
>> tell me, is a detonation is a magical forces or an explosion??? doesn't
>
> It's a combustion, not a detonation.
>
>> an explosion create a pressure in the gun cartridge ?? A pressure that
>> shot the bullet out the barrel... But rocket isn't contained in any
>> barrel and can't push against a a gun in vacuum space......
>
> And what about the pressure with rocket nozzle?
>
>> Listen a bullet never will be rocket... and there is where your points
>
> Sorry, kid, but combustion continues in the barrel, when the bullet is no longer
> in contact with the cartridge and only contacting the rifling which causes
> friction. And still accelerating. What is the bullet pushing against to
> accelerate?
>
>> I would like to make one more point that sometimes gets lost in the
>> sauce: a vacuum is an effect, not a force.
>
> Actually it's neither. You really are quite the idiot.
>


Sigh... calling names now too??? wow... thank you.

Is that another worn-out canard/parable relentlessly rehashed by NASA
nerds to 'explain' how rockets work in the void of space, much like the
"gun/bullet or firehouse recoil theory" and the "medicine ball thrown
from wheeled office chair" - we've heard them all before, thank you very
much. I'd rather not see further vapid NASA moonshine being posted and
diffused on this thread, Sera cruz. Please.

I am posting this video halfheartedly - with a Parental Advisory
warning: do not show this to your kids!

http://youtu.be/L0AMQ6kRNMA

Strawman coming: rockets do not use springs to eject solids. They propel
gases.

I hope you did understand / approve my graphics (THE POWER OF AIR) and
reasonings on the previous pages of this thread - all respectful of
Newton's laws, yet not addressed by the nerds. I dare trust you won't
wish to disprove the well-known aerodynamic fact that (the REACTION of)
air resistance increases exponentially with (the ACTION of)
speed/motion. See, the NASA boys claim that air/atmosphere has NO role
whatsoever in propelling their rockets. Is this your contention too? you
seem not to understand that this thread discussing whether or not
rockets may work in the vacuum of space, seems to be an annoyance to you
for some reason.

magic wordspeak = Newton

Let's evaluate your Calling on Newton

1. Newton didn't consider gases, only solids. The gas/chemistry pioneers
like Joule, Thompson, Boyle and others generated results which disagree
with rocketry. That's why NASA types keep going back to Newton in the
1600's instead of going forward to Joule in the 1800's.

2. Newton's 3rd Law, equal and opposite forces, action/reaction, only
applies if you have the necessary net external force. An object can't
move itself. Not understanding or ignoring this principle leads to a
misapplication of Newton.

3. Newton's 2nd Law, Force = Mass x Acceleration only applies if the
ship is already accelerating (changing velocity) when its mass is reduced.

4. You don't specify which Newton you are going for, 2nd Law, 3rd Law, both?

5. NASA folk only seem to know Newton as far as NASA wants them to. For
instance completely ignore the fact that gases are not solids and that a
different set of equations are used to evaluate the work done by and
forces generated by gases.

Continuing on with the Strawman
You've described a bullet that uses a solid propellant in a container
and now, of course, you'll switch it to using gases without any
consideration of the different physical properties of a gas or the fact
that gases are undefined in space. Nearly 200 years of gas/chemistry
research in the vacuum nullified by NASA without any reason given
except, trust us, we're scientists.


Strawman complete The difference between gas and solid is ignored.

Let's just say...this may be your blind spot in the analysis...

You cannot eject gases into space. Why not?

Because free expansion states that no work is done by a gas entering a
vacuum.

Ejecting something requires work.

If the gases do no work in space they cannot help move the ship once
they enter vacuum space ot thin air in the ionosphere.

So the only force available to move the rocket are the accelerated gases
in ship itself which cannot move it because it is not a net external
force (proper application of Newton's 3rd Law).

This is another misapplication of Newton
Force = Mass x Acceleration only works if you are already accelerating.
If Acceleration = 0 then Force = 0 no matter how much Mass you release.

In space, when you release exhaust gas, that gas is just going to drift
away. Yes, the gas will drift away very, very quickly, at many km/s but
it's still just drifting off. It's not pushing the rocket because it
imparts no force. Acceleration = 0, Force = 0.

[Warhol]

Government Shill #2 schreef op 1-11-2013 8:02:

> "Sigh... calling names now too???"
>

> If the dunce cap fits...
>

the high-flying tale...

Most fairy tales begin with 'once upon a time...' There Was a Rocket.

After all, on January 13, 1920, the New York Times editorialized, in a
reaction to a research paper published by Robert Goddard, that ”a
rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.”

My key point?

Space rockets, among other things, are, indeed fantasy.

Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum.

... In any case, it should be obvious that when air/atmosphere gradually
thins out and eventually goes missing altogether(vacuum), no more
counter-force (as of Newton's laws)is available for the rocket to keep
ascending. Much like a dolphin jumping out of the sea - and briefly
flying before gravity brings it plunging back into its own, denser
ambient for which it was 'designed for'. Just like a rocket attempting
to leap into the void of space.

****
An interesting article about aerodynamic drag:

The Physics of Racing,
Part 6: Speed and Horsepower

http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm

This is the essence of science. You don't really know until you run the
experiment. Until then all you have are hypotheses.

As far as I can see nobody, not even NASA, has ever run a serious space
rocket experiment. Where are the zero-gravity vacuum chambers big enough
to fly rockets? There's a 17-mile long supercollider but the largest
vacuum chamber is 120 feet.

And nobody can ever go out and investigate NASA claims around rockets in
the vacuum independently of NASA.

Space science is like a cult run by ancient priests who speak to the
Gods in private. We're not supposed to think for ourselves. We only wait
until the NASA oracle tells us the great truths divulged only to them.
This is not how science, nor modern, information-based, educated society
is supposed to function. The goal of education is for us to learn how to
figure things out for ourselves; to examine, to evaluate and to reason
with the facts and data. What good is that training if, in the end, we
can only shut up and believe what we are told with no proof, no solid
theory behind it and no way to check the results or repeat their
experiments ourselves?

Rocketry is not unique in this regard. Pretty much all the big results
in science follow this pattern. Anyone who challenges the status quo is
labeled an "idiot" or a "religious nut" which is ironic because science
is behaving more and more like a religion based on faith and less and
less of a method based on observation.

Who was it who said : "The art of thinking and reasoning in strict
accordance with the limitations and incapacities of men misunderstanding." ?

A big problem with rockets in space continues to be
how does the gas expelled through the nozzle contribute any force to the
system?
when:

1. Free Expansion says gas does no work entering the vacuum

2. The Laws of Gases say gas can't exist in the vacuum

3. The Laws of Gases say gas can't do any work in the vacuum

(note that 1., 2. and 3. above all agree with and support each other)

If the gas expelled from the ship in space produces no force how does
the ship move?

First, there should be a theoretical reason why I am wrong/mistaken
about how gases work in the vacuum or how they are used by the ship.

Second, there should be reasonable experimental evidence that supports
the above theory. Pictures of the Space Shuttle don't count.

Come on Rocketry believers / NASA supporters. Show me how I have been
mistaken. Can you do this using science? Without strawmen and ad hominem
arguments? Let's stick to gases in the vacuum, please. That's where my
doubts stem from.

Why I don't think anyone can answer me: In my opinion, space rocketry is
unproven, unscientific conjecture. A fantasy world that has captured the
imagination of many and led otherwise rational and intelligent persons
to abandon logic and fall under its spell, which is pretty much the
story of "advances in science" in the 20th century. Engineering has done
pretty well for itself, but science seems to be going backwards.

I'm often finding that the 19th century was the last time experiments
were conducted which produced results going against our esteemed
priests' doctrines. They locked down science pretty well after that.

I feel like I am at the renaissance of 16th century reason. We're doing
a good job at calling out their bullshit. The next step is doing a few
experiments of our own perhaps.

around or just after the turn of the century, a number of scientific
disciplines were "locked down" through the adoption of paradigms to
which all future research would have to conform. Anthropology and
archeology are particularly gross examples. These paradigms have since
served as "knowledge filters", preventing alternative world views and a
lot of solid facts and findings from being evaluated, published and
discussed by researchers and laymen alike.

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 9:35:

> In article <l4voo3$nug$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And nobody can ever go out and investigate NASA claims around rockets in
>> the vacuum independently of NASA.
>

> Except the USSR. And China. And Germany. And England. And Russia. And France.
> And Japan. And Brazil. And Iraq. And ....
>

Yeah they are all liars and deceivers who shall sink in the ground of
shame soon... very soon... their nakedness shall be seen by the whole
planet and beyond the galaxy... The nakedness of the frogs, yids,
chineese, russians, indians etc etc... Japan I don't know yet what to
think of them yet...

But I leave certainly Iraq out that evil list of lying space agencies
and even Germany to, both nations have been cowardly defeated by an
unjust war imposed on them... Saddam Hussein was working on a good
propulsion system to get men made object into vacuum space..

With The Super Gun... The Big Gun.
http://chrislejarzar.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/trip_to_the_moon1.jpg

In the late 1980s Iraq had a space program. Iraq even got so far as to
develop a 50-kilogram test satellite.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is one of the great foreign policy
deadly mistakes the United States administration has made in the recent
past. But whereas historians will be asking questions about the war for
decades to come, it also offers the opportunity to answer some questions
as well. Among the big questions are: What happened to Iraq’s weapons of
mass destruction and why? Why was the CIA so bad at intelligence about
the weapons?

But there are also some questions with less immediate impact, but that
still retain historical significance. What exactly did supergun genius
Gerald Bull do for Iraq during the 1980s? And what was the Iraqi space
program?

The Man who made the Super Gun
http://youtu.be/T08LK3RHawo

The program operated under several names, including the declared name of
Al Abid as well as alternate names such as Bird (“Al Ta’ir” in Arabic)
and Comet.

The project was carried out under the overall direction of the Ministry
of Industry and Military Industrialization. In mid-1988 the Space
Research Corporation (SRC) began studying development of a launch
vehicle capable of placing a 100–300 kilogram payload into a 200–500
kilometer orbit.

Which made of Saddam had a much better formula then NASA's car driving
throe empty vacuum space...

http://media4.jimcarroll.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FutureRocket.jpg

Saddam Hussein project would have endangered existing space agencies
lies & deceive ... why they invaded Iraq and destroyed its scientific
research of putting an object in orbit around the planet and they also
killed everybody who was working on the super gun project... Engineers,
technicians and scientific researchers... all got killed in one way or
another... and secret was gone from public view.

Now all guns point from Warhol in Brussels... And I decide to destroy
NASA or any other space agency claiming it can propulse rockets in
vacuum space... Yeah see it as a Moorish revenge against those who
killed my Grand Baptizer, Saddam Hussein and his genius engineers...

I will send the murderous scum to hell with all their lies & deceive
with my own propulsions system working with eternal hell fire...

the Plank...
http://www.jimmyholder.com/motor/data/media/2/pirate_plank.jpg

and a lot of people know this, yet billions don't, because it's the
classic magicians trick of people being employed to be the face of bull
shit.

Any rational thinking, clear minded, unbiased person who has the ability
to push aside peer pressure will know that a rocket can not kick itself
up its own arse and fly into the sky, which is what they are being told
to accept as gospel truth.

http://streetsofsalem.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/balloon-voyage-a-la-lune.jpg?w=490

If only space rockets were really hot air balloons with a basket full of
cannonballs around a man in a space suit, I could be more persuaded by
the arguments that it works and goes higher because the space man is
throwing cannon balls out of the basket, until his balloon folds up in
no atmosphere that is. :D

It would be akin to seeing Wile E Coyote trying to light a match and
blowing it back up as he's falling to his doom.

[Metspitzer]

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:49:54 +0100, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Ha ha ha ha really??? and what about all those dark organization who

>work in darkness to install their NWO over our heads and nations... yeah

>what about them??? Do you think they are telling you the truth... ain't
>they operating like pigs in animal farm changing the laws... man man
>man... I feel so sorry for you all who fell for the fairytale...
>
You should download Stellarium
http://www.stellarium.org/
Set it to your location and then press ctrl Z to turn on satellite
hints. Set the time to just after dark and see if you can explain
away all of the satellites you can see with a pair of binoculars.

Are you saying all those are planes deployed by NASA to fool the
public? Go to...well............anywhere on the planet and use that
for an excuse not to look at the sky.

[Warhol]

Op 1-11-2013 21:45, Metspitzer schreef:

Wrong... ha ha ha ha is that all you have... stellarium doesn't answer
the question... Try again... you need to do better your best, or you
will fail... we need evidence here with hard facts.

BTW the question is; Just HOW exactly do rockets work in space in a vacuum?

When there is nothing in space to push against to move the rocket forward?

I have been told that the propellant inside the rocket pushes the
rocket, and makes it move, but it doesn't make any logical sense... Am I
missing something?

Is it done by Coke and Mentos?

Is this how rockets work...kinda? I couldn't get why the rocket moves in
a vacuum with nothing to push against... Friction against nothingness
and vaccum???? That rocketship makes sense within our atmosphere... but
NOT in thin air or in vast emptiness of space.

[Metspitzer]

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 22:26:54 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Op 1-11-2013 21:45, Metspitzer schreef:
>> On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:49:54 +0100, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ha ha ha ha really??? and what about all those dark organization who
>>> work in darkness to install their NWO over our heads and nations... yeah
>>> what about them??? Do you think they are telling you the truth... ain't
>>> they operating like pigs in animal farm changing the laws... man man
>>> man... I feel so sorry for you all who fell for the fairytale...
>>>
>> You should download Stellarium
>> http://www.stellarium.org/
>> Set it to your location and then press ctrl Z to turn on satellite
>> hints. Set the time to just after dark and see if you can explain
>> away all of the satellites you can see with a pair of binoculars.
>>
>> Are you saying all those are planes deployed by NASA to fool the
>> public? Go to...well............anywhere on the planet and use that
>> for an excuse not to look at the sky.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Wrong... ha ha ha ha is that all you have... stellarium doesn't answer
>the question... Try again... you need to do better your best, or you
>will fail... we need evidence here with hard facts.
>
>BTW the question is; Just HOW exactly do rockets work in space in a vacuum?
>

No the question is; How are the satellites up there if rockets do not
work in space? I can show them to you. You just won't look.

Do you have the program Stellarium? Just answer that question.

[Mahipal]

On Friday, November 1, 2013 5:26:54 PM UTC-4, Warhol wrote:
> Op 1-11-2013 21:45, Metspitzer schreef:
>
> > On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:49:54 +0100, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Ha ha ha ha really??? and what about all those dark organization who
> >> work in darkness to install their NWO over our heads and nations... yeah
> >> what about them??? Do you think they are telling you the truth... ain't
> >> they operating like pigs in animal farm changing the laws... man man

> >> man... I feel so sorry for you all who fell for the fairytale…

Fairytale?! Ha… they sold me a fairy story, they sold me a silent night… I should stop singing. Lest I be heard. Shhh… a fairy stor(y)… shh… squared math and all that.

> > You should download Stellarium
> > http://www.stellarium.org/
>
> > Set it to your location and then press ctrl Z to turn on satellite
> > hints. Set the time to just after dark and see if you can explain
> > away all of the satellites you can see with a pair of binoculars.
>
> > Are you saying all those are planes deployed by NASA to fool the
> > public? Go to...well............anywhere on the planet and use that
> > for an excuse not to look at the sky.
>
> Wrong... ha ha ha ha is that all you have... stellarium doesn't answer
> the question... Try again... you need to do better your best, or you

> will fail… we need evidence here with hard facts.

Hard facts?! ARGO fuck yourself! Newtonian D(y)namics need no rockets to apply to the Universe -- inside it or outside it. O wait…

> BTW the question is; Just HOW exactly do rockets work in space in a vacuum?

That may be the question, but we do not want your GrandPappys to know of your ED. In fact, if you could jerk yourself off enough, you could send your self into low Earth orbit (aka constellation LEO). Now you know. Go Pla(y) and ARGO…

> When there is nothing in space to push against to move the rocket forward?

Aliens and comets. I mean Aliens come on Come ETs. Come ETs come… on youKnow… comets. Hurry, we're all dyeing here! Some dyeing red, some dyeing blue. Everything is so colored, shifted! Hurry come ETs. The One Stone awaits you. And the hungry Alien ate. While the children cried. Holly Holy orphaned child… sing Sing SINGH…

> I have been told that the propellant inside the rocket pushes the
> rocket, and makes it move, but it doesn't make any logical sense... Am I
> missing something?

A brain with a sense of humor is what you Warhol are missing. NSA pays well? I've been told, NSA ( == No True Agency) spies well and deep. Pay? I don't know about. Do tell.

> Is it done by Coke and Mentos?

You forgot to mention Doritos and #Nachos. Away to your marketing cubicle! You were mandated to mention …youKnow… and you did not. To the dyeing chambers War Hole!

> Is this how rockets work...kinda? I couldn't get why the rocket moves in
> a vacuum with nothing to push against... Friction against nothingness
> and vaccum???? That rocketship makes sense within our atmosphere... but
> NOT in thin air or in vast emptiness of space.

You are so right! Nothing exists or happens in the vacuum of space. Nothing. No Moon, no Earth, no Sun, no Stars. It's known as the "No MESS" Theory. Shhh… don't tell all your Pappys, grand actual or otherwise.

-- Mahipal "Such Means True… in one of them Sanskrit Languages"
Holly holy eyes, dream of only me
Where I am, what I am
What I believe in
Holly holy -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f5spy3-9XM

[Warhol]

Op 1-11-2013 22:58, Metspitzer schreef:

Don't try to the turn the question... I ask the questions here.. and you
are a suspect in this investigation...

I ask you again... Has NASA ever tested their rocket engines in an
artificial vacuum environment before actually sending rockets/shuttles
into space? thats the question... A very technical question!!!

I did used to have stellarium installed in my computer, when I was
seeking to find satellites... but I sought for years and I never found
one... Never!!!

I even send different times my Iphone into the highest level of the
ionosphere with a balloon to record if there is anything seen, there at
102,800ft feet above my head, to observe the thermosphere... and
guess... there is nothing there above... yes there is the Moon,
cometh's, the planets, the Sun, stars, the Galaxies but no man made
object to be observed... sorry people... nothing...

even on video of CNN there are no man made objects observed in thermosphere.

http://youtu.be/H5zSWQwpjPg
http://youtu.be/veqJART9XBA

Where are the 22,000+ Satellites in Space?

So if my Iphone can't record anything, how do you want me to observe
something which is hidden by clouds, you see... I live in Belgium and
its not so sunny here and clouds hide the stars & the sun...

Anyway rocket propulsion is based on Newton Law of action and reaction,
the rockets moves because of the opposite force applied to the
surrounding mass of air (atmosphere), but in the space there is nothing
(supposedly), Is there a Engineer or a scientific?

This a technical question... for this modern physics book BS and this is
more profound question... The action-reaction principle needs a point of
reference, for example; when a car moves , it does because the wheels
applies force coming from the engine, to the pavement on the street, the
friccion between the wheel and the road is what makes possible the
movement (see Icy road).

Surely NASA would have tested a small scale model of their rocket
engines in an artificial vacuum environment to see whether it will work
in space or not?


Or do they test them out in big swimming pools?


So please post the link or video showing whether NASA tests their
rockets or not in an artificial vacuum environment to see if they will
work in space.


It's not rocket science...

[Warhol]

Op 2-11-2013 4:46, joeturn schreef:

> Warhol is a firm believer in the vacuum.Until he is converted to not believe in mythology,he is a useless case.I once sent him this link http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/satellite.html and he said they were UAV spy planes.
> The US Government financed SETI out of the tax payers money for years trying to convert the noise from cosmic radiation into intelligible communication,so converting warhol into an intelligible being is an impossible task.
> The reason you cant teach an old dog new tricks is because its mind and body is worn out.Too many years believing in the here after,has taken its toll.
>

Warhol this... Warhol that... doesn't answer the question at hand joe...
So you say there is no vacuum there above. Is that correct???

You see, NASA claims that their rockets do NOT push against air ( "at
all!") - and this is why they can also operate in the vacuum of space.
They claim that their rockets are propelled by "recoil force" - the same
force which a bullet exerts on a gun as it gets ...

And since you didn't reply to my previous question I addressed you...
NASA has been lying about the vacuum in space... Right? Does the agency
have any credibility at all?

BUT if there is no vacuum or thin air, then it must be easy for you to
explain us why a balloon explode, when it reaches air poor zone of our
atmosphere...

Anyway It isn't NASA who discovered the Vacuum of space... In the 17th
century already they knew of the vacuum of heaven, since rocket weren't
at all discovered in 20th century as the current scientific world dare
claim Goddard as the father of space exploration...

Multi-stage rockets, from Artis Magn� Artilleri� pars prima

http://s2.blomedia.pl/figeneration.pl/files/2012/08/siemienowicz05-1917.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siemenowicz_rocket.png

http://owni.pagesperso-orange.fr/OWNI%202006/Espace/Conquete/Imageconquete/chine5.gif

http://rocketry.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ks-2.jpg

Already in the sixteen century men have send three stages rockets up...
and I should ad here that it were my direct ancestors who invented the
rockets principles...

And Now let this boy teach you a bit more... the satellites that NASA
claims to launch, are as fake as the rocket missions in vacuum space.

A couple things to consider, one the ones that NASA claims are placed in
the exosphere via missiles are subject to an array of various solar
radiations that would interrupt and interfere with transmission of
signals to the point of negating their being useful at all. Not to
mention they never bother to explain how or where the fuel is stored for
decades to do the necessary almost constant corrections to keep up with
the Earth's transit around the Sun. They are not attracted in any
meaningful way according to NASA to Earth's gravitational field.

Then the one's that would be supposedly geosynchronous at 300 to 500
miles up, have the same problem of needing constant corrections to keep
it from merely falling to Earth because of having to fight the
gravitational forces.

In essense, we are still using old fashioned ground radio waves to send
and receive signals off the ionosphere. I tested this myself by calling
a tech support group for a national cable system and asking them some
pointed questions, which after passing me around to several guys, never
could give me answers to my questions. Basically, I was asking if
'rabbit ears' and antennae still work, and if so why? I said, on the one
hand you are telling me your signal has to travel out to a relay
satellite a thousand miles up. How does the signal "know" that it
doesn't have to just bounce off the ionosphere anymore? Or how does it
know that some of it needs to bounce off the ionosphere and part of it
still needs to hit a relay a thousand miles out? They were stumped.

I finally got one to admit what the receiver box is REALLY for. It has a
broader frequency band so that it can hit 300 points on the range
instead of 13 that comes standard with your TV. The satellite is a scam.
If you will notice almost nobody's "dish" is pointing up into space but
outward to receive a slanted signal at a much lower altitude.

http://youtu.be/umgL9hP_Wl8
http://youtu.be/7npaW-UH9g0

[Warhol]

Op 2-11-2013 12:43, Siri Cruz schreef:

> In article <l52n66$8bd$2...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Warhol this... Warhol that... doesn't answer the question at hand joe...
>> So you say there is no vacuum there above. Is that correct???
>

> I'm just wonderring how many days it would take you to differentiate e^x.
>

Wrong answer... try again!!!

Here more NASA lies for you boys...

From the Science Channel:

SPACESUIT TESTING
"The instantaneous effects on a human when exposed to near-vacuum
conditions"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO8L9tKR4CY

This OSHA report of a death in a vacuum chamber seems to disagree with
the NASA video

OSHA GE Accident Report wrote:Employee #1 went into a vacuum
chamber testing area to look through the porthole opening in a
pressurized vacuum chamber and observe the condition of a nose cone that
was being tested. The 12 in. diameter glass in the porthole opening
imploded, causing Employee #1's head and one arm to be pulled into the
vacuum chamber. He died of crushing head injuries and asphyxia.


So, with the NASA vacuum chamber just open the door and run on in, no
wait, no fuss, no problem. Also, there doesn't seem to be any indication
of air flowing into the vacuum (re-pressurization), seen either in the
technician's clothing or on the hose dangling off to the side. So what
happened to the studies that say air flows into the vacuum at 2 km/s?
(Note that because of free expansion this fast moving air doesn't create
thrust).

With the GE chamber if there's a pressure failure and you're anywhere
near the vacuum, you're dead. I tend to think that NASA is more likely
to fake a vacuum chamber test than GE is to fake an employee death
(Peter Lanza notwithstanding... :P )

Good call on the Ridiculum Absurdum Siri Cruz.
https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=14321087

"ROCKETS DO NOT PUSH AGAINST AIR"

I would like to dedicate this post to those who still embrace the absurd
notion that "rockets do not push against air", a trite NASA-promoted
quackery - tediously parroted by their many 'apollogists'. As it is, it
appears to be the most audacious and aggressively-guarded fallacy ever
concocted - in order to uphold in our minds the very feasibility of
(outer) space travel. Here it is proclaimed once again, this time in an
'educational' article from major space contractor Northrop Grumman:

Does the rocket push down on the surrounding air?
A common misconception regarding rockets is that they push against
the air surrounding them. In fact, rockets work best [!] in a vacuum
like outer space. There�s no air or atmosphere in a vacuum. Fortunately
for us, we are surrounding by a breathable atmosphere. Unfortunately for
the rocket, our atmosphere pushes against its movement upwards.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/CorporateResponsibility/CorporateCitizenship/Education/Documents/pdfs/Rocketry_Guide.pdf



"Unfortunately for the rocket, our atmosphere pushes against its
movement upwards".

Well, yes - dear Northrop Grumman 'educators'... : this is, in fact,
what is commonly known as aerodynamic drag. It is air resistance exerted
on the frontal area of the rocket - PUSHING against it. It is a force -
and it increases exponentially with speed. And yes, this pesky force
unfortunately slows the rocket's progress through the air. Luckily
though, if a rocket is travelling at, say, 3000km/h in the atmosphere -
this exponentially increasing air drag will always be far inferior to
the formidable power of the rocket thrust (a massive "counter-drag", if
you will) which undoubtedly PUSHES against the air below it - with a
high-speed 'wall' of burning propellants ejected at 16.000km/h (4,4km/s).

http://i43.tinypic.com/2py1hkk.jpg

To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while,
at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement
exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in
terms and a crude offense to common sense. If this were to be true (that
"rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable,
explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air
resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was
one. Instead, as the NASA quackery goes, we are asked to believe that
rockets are propelled solely by the "recoil force" generated by the
rapid expulsion of fuel mass from rocket tanks. If this were true, we
should all hover above our toilet seats when stricken with explosive
diarrhea - yet I doubt that anyone has ever had the (mixed) fortune of
experiencing such a thrill.

To be sure, if one were to supply propellant to a tankless rocket from a
container anchored on Earth (via a very, very long hose), the rocket
would take off just as well - and indeed, much better and faster - given
its considerably inferior weight. The truth is that, to uphold the idea
that rockets can be niftily propelled in the vacuum of outer space,
NASA's propaganda wizards have had no option but to hammer into our
brains the absurd notion that rocket jets "do not push against air"! It
is now time for this mainstay of NASA's hypnotic brainwashing machine to
be flushed out of our skulls.

"Does not push against air" (NASA claims):
http://youtu.be/uxgMhHOaUSY

http://youtu.be/sQw_C5KLhFM

Yeah it coast millions of ponds to catch images, amateur do for a few
dollars...

http://youtu.be/XAeKKofQvtc

looney toon physics comparisons:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~gsparson/Physics/forces.html

[Metspitzer]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:50:21 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I did used to have stellarium installed in my computer, when I was
>seeking to find satellites... but I sought for years and I never found
>one... Never!!!
>

Really? You sought for years (more than one) to find them? How often
did you look? So you are not trying to deny they are up there? You
are just saying you are not smart enough, or can't see well enough to
find them.

Try again. You should be able to see two or three tonight. Take
binoculars and someone with good eyesight with you. Stellarium will
tell you where to look. Maybe you should take a compass too. You may
have been looking in the wrong direction.

Or you could try to see NASA's big one once or twice a month. Sign up
for this:
http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/ and this:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.runar.issdetector&hl=en

If you just look, there is no way you can explain them all away like
you would like to. There are over 1000 operational satellites in
orbit today.
http://www.universetoday.com/42198/how-many-satellites-in-space/

[Warhol]

Op 2-11-2013 18:59, Metspitzer schreef:

Wrong answer... try again!!!

Are you playing stupid, or are you seriously stupid?

I don't see anything, I said and my question isn't about if you see
something or not... Please read the thread carefully.

My question is a very simple technical question;

Has NASA ever tested their rocket engines in an artificial vacuum
environment before actually sending rockets/shuttles into space?

push against vacuum = zero force

equal and opposite... remember these gases are expanding into a vacuum
or thin air, as quickly as it expands it is also being "SUCKED" out.
Cancels each other out.

Result is zero force in one direction.

physics comparisons:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~gsparson/Physics/sp3.jpg

It is disheartening to see how dumb people have become. remember people,
physics classes only teach you to remember what you've been told and not
taught to think for yourselves.

I'll check back on you pioneers later.

be good if someone could find me that video I was asking for.

Warhol, Son of Atlas.
http://youtu.be/Wqr_cAxKEv8

[george152]

On 03/11/13 14:04, Warhol wrote:
> Op 2-11-2013 18:59, Metspitzer schreef:
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:50:21 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I did used to have stellarium installed in my computer, when I was
>>> seeking to find satellites... but I sought for years and I never found
>>> one... Never!!!
>>>
>> Really? You sought for years (more than one) to find them? How often
>> did you look? So you are not trying to deny they are up there? You
>> are just saying you are not smart enough, or can't see well enough to
>> find them.
>>
>> Try again. You should be able to see two or three tonight. Take
>> binoculars and someone with good eyesight with you. Stellarium will
>> tell you where to look. Maybe you should take a compass too. You may
>> have been looking in the wrong direction.
>>
>> Or you could try to see NASA's big one once or twice a month. Sign up
>> for this:
>> http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/ and this:
>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.runar.issdetector&hl=en
>>
>> If you just look, there is no way you can explain them all away like
>> you would like to. There are over 1000 operational satellites in
>> orbit today.
>> http://www.universetoday.com/42198/how-many-satellites-in-space/
>>
>
> Wrong answer... try again!!!
>
> Are you playing stupid, or are you seriously stupid?

Oh you have the floor in the stupidity stakes.
And a couple of the walls.
Man is in space.
Build a bridge and get over it

[Warhol]

Op 3-11-2013 2:40, george152 schreef:

And who told you man is in space??? do you have evidence? Sorry you must
prove that they are in space...

Here's a short and simple question which I'd like to submit to ESA (if
they actually do take questions, that is) - but maybe you can help me
out and double-check my question's pertinence and validity, as I may
well just be missing something :

�����������

Dear ESA,

According to the pdf linked below (describing the specs of the ARIANE 5
rocket), I read that the main stage of the rocket burns for 535 seconds
(or almost 9 minutes):

"The main stage burns continuously for about 535s, and delivers the
essential part of the kinetic
energy required to place the payloads into orbit."
http://www.astrium.eads.net/media/document/flight-191.pdf



I have also read that the Ariane 5 ejects 2000kg of propellant every
second - and that each of the two boosters contains 240 tons solid
propellant - for a total of 480tons. Now, since 480tons of propellant
ejected at a rate of 2000kg/s will only last for 4 minutes, what keeps
the ARIANE 5 going for the remaining 5 minutes?

***********************

Again, George152, I may be missing something right now - but please let
me know exactly what!

I guess that their numbers are 'right' and that, most likely, this part
of the ongoing Space Scam would be well covered from a strictly
technical perspective. I should probably (and ideally, all of us
non-rocket scientists) stick to exposing the ridiculous imagery of these
rocket launches which, technically speaking, are way below any
acceptable / believable standard. The imagery seems to be the weakest
point of the Grand Space Hoax - so let us (mere observers) keep pointing
out this utterly laughable visual data.

I'm sorry but, at this point, NO technical 'evidence' of the feasibility
of launching rockets in space - as advertised by NASA and ESA - can
possibly convince me that their proposed rocket launches - and
subsequent space explorations - are in any manner real / truthful /
legit / authentic. Any number of people is of course free to believe
that NASA and ESA do what they say they do - but just count me out of
that number.

THE HOAX ABOVE THE HOAX

I'd almost forgotten about this - lol: the ultimate, most astronomically
phony 9/11 "amateur" video of the highest order!

"9/11 world trade center footage from space station"
http://youtu.be/mkx-Z28Mv4I

There really is no end to this bullcrap. Or maybe there is: IF WE ALL
START LAUGHING OUT LOUD ENOUGH! B)

9/11 HOAXERS - NASA HOAXERS - BANKER HOAXERS - GLOBAL WARMING HOAXERS -
WAR ADDICTS - ETC... - all intimately intertwined?

[Metspitzer]

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 03:25:05 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>And who told you man is in space??? do you have evidence? Sorry you must
>prove that they are in space...
>

Call Frank De Winne and ask him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_De_Winne
Or call Dirk Frimout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Frimout
Or call Marianne Merchez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne_Merchez

Or..........stick your head back in the sand.

[Warhol]

Op 3-11-2013 3:43, Metspitzer schreef:

I did ask Frank the question... but he did as if he didn't hear me or my
simple question. The coward turned his head and started to walk away
doing as if he was talking with someone... and gone he was.

So what exactly are they up to up there? Today, on the 9th day of the
VERY LAST SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION IN HISTORY, this is the sort of
information you get ...(if you live in Italy) :
BEYONCE' WAKE-UP CALL:

http://video.repubblica.it/tecno-e-scienze/beyonce-sveglia-gli-astronauti-dell-atlantis/72811?video=&ref=HREC2-1

Yes - because you see, as Wikipedia explains: "NASA began a tradition of
playing music to astronauts during the Gemini program, which was first
used to wake up a flight crew during Apollo 15. Each track is specially
chosen, often by their family, and usually has special meaning to an
individual member of the crew, or is applicable to their daily activities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-118

It looks like those ...uh... families have a pretty quirky sense of humor.

Here's a selection of "Wake-Up calls" that were played, all during one
particular mission (STS118):

- "Mr. Blue Sky" by Electric Light Orchestra
- "Gravity" by John Mayer
- "Up!" by Shania Twain
- "Outa-Space" by Billy Preston
- "Learn to Fly" by Foo Fighters
- "Flying" by Long John Baldry Trio
- "Where My Heart Will Take Me" (theme song of the Star Trek: Enterprise
series).

Just a reminder...

The ISS (the International Space Station) is supposed to orbit at least
200 miles above Mother Earth.

Now, have you ever sat in a window seat of a commercial passenger plane
(max 7 miles altitude) - and looked down?

http://i40.tinypic.com/17340x.jpg

Here is a inside tour of the ISS (taken down on Earth?) + some music:

http://youtu.be/Uk9ptueTDwY

It may not be anything, but one thing that struck me about the 'tour' of
the ISS was that all of the Astro-naughts were in the same position
relative to up/down ie the Japanese guy was standing the same direction
relative to the Russians who were in a totally different part of the ISS.

It may be coincidence but as there should technically be no up or down
one would not expect the A-Ns to be in the same positions.
Also when the Cameram-A-N goes to the guitarist he seemingly puts on a
360 degree twist to the viewer almost to impart and accentuate the
'non-gravity' after which, when they both converse, they say they are
the 'highest people in the universe' as they are at the 'top' of the ISS
which is presumably the furthest part away from Earth.

I notice that objects float around ie his necklace and the strap to the
right of the picture but if this is furthest away from Earth surely
there would still be some exertion of gravity on objects [how else is it
held in orbit] and if so the objects would be floating 'downwards'
towards the Earth rather than trying to get away and float 'upwards'.
I am no Physics expert so please feel free to correct my ambiguous
observations.

But next time If I have a question I will ask it to Robonaut; if he
really went into orbit... ha ha ha.

http://youtu.be/Hkagxtiy1-M

Here's some more "gee, ain't we having fun!" videos from NASA from July
2011.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/07/video-world.html


TAKE 1 - Action!
Hey Ronnie, whats a Soyeuz ?
Its this 'spaceship', idiot !
Oh ! sure ! sure it is, Ronnie !
We're 'in Space', dont forget !
Oh, Yeah! sure! sure you are !"

CUT !!! Idiots ! Read the script !
Stand by... and...

TAKE 2 - Action !
"Hey Ronnie, hey sorry, sorry to interrupt ya, i've been lookin' all
over the place for ya man!"
"I'm just ah, loosed up here man, just up here in my place..."
"You, you, you're 'in your Soyeuz' ?"
"I'm 'in my Soyeuz', right !"
"Well, what are you doin' up here ?"
"Well, this is, this is our spacecraft, this is our spacecraft that
we're gonna be, er,
going home,; we're going back to home in !"
"Well, yeah! sure! sure you are !"

Fantastic !

[Metspitzer]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 22:43:33 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
wrote:

Here are a couple more.
Call or email these two and ask them why they are planning on building
a satellite that can never be deployed.
http://www.spacebel.be/contact/

Clear up one thing for us. Are you saying that there are no
artificial satellites or is it that the weather is too bad in Belgium
for you to find them?

Either they are up there are they are not. Which do you think it is?

BTW when you contact them, I wouldn't tell them about your space
program if you plan on getting a serious reply.

quote:

I even send different times my Iphone into the highest level of the
ionosphere with a balloon to record if there is anything seen, there
at
102,800ft feet above my head, to observe the thermosphere... and
guess... there is nothing there above... yes there is the Moon,
cometh's, the planets, the Sun, stars, the Galaxies but no man made
object to be observed... sorry people... nothing...

end quote:

Which is it? No satellites, or you can't find them?

Don't say rocket! We are focused on whether there are or there are
not satellites in space that can be seen with the naked eye (or
binoculars)

Don't say rocket.

[george152]

That's his copout. A change of word, a move of goalposts and his
deliberate ignorance of the world

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 3-11-2013 16:52:

So stupid asshole who eyes are you trying to turn from the facts...

Now go see your mama if she has any fishes for you idiot.

[Warhol]

Warhol schreef op 2-11-2013 13:40:

> like outer space. There’s no air or atmosphere in a vacuum. Fortunately

40 MILLION HP
The Wondrous Power of Air

I woke up this morning wondering: "how much horsepower would a Porsche
Carrera sports car (which is shaped a bit like a rocket plume) need to
reach a speed of *16.000km/h* (4.4km/s) in our atmosphere?" Remember,
that's the velocity at which hydrogen/oxygen propellant is ejected from
a rocket nozzle.

To my delight, I found a handy Drag Coefficient/to Horsepower
calculator. It basically calculates for you how much horsepower a given
car (with a given Cx /aerodynamic drag - and a given weight) would need
to reach a given speed. Wonderful! This calculator was just what I was
looking for:

http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calculate%20HP%20For%20Speed.php

I then looked up the drag coefficient of a Porsche, and found it here :

http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/911/911-carrera-s-cabriolet/featuresandspecs/

the Cx of a Porsche is 0.3. For the frontal area of the car, I used the
figure of 20 Sq/Ft - which I found here.

http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm

Ok, so it's that of a Chevrolet Corvette - but it should be pretty
similar to that of a Porsche. It also approximately matches the stated
area of a Space Shuttle main engine nozzle:

Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Main_Engine
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Shuttle_Main_Engine_Test_Firing.jpg

Then, I looked up the weight of a Porsche Carrera, and found that it is
3230lbs. But I decided to 'cheat' a little, and went with the weight of
the larger Porsche Cayenne
http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayenne/cayenne/featuresandspecs/

(4400lbs- or 2000kg) - since it perfectly matches the weight of the fuel
mass claimed to be released every second* by large rockets such as
Ariane and the Space Shuttle.

*°*(To be sure, a horsepower unit is defined as a force produced over
one second of time. One metric horsepower, for instance, is the power
needed to raise a mass of 75 kg against the earth's gravitational force
over a distance of one meter in one second).

So, these are the figures I inserted into my wonderful calculator:

Drag coefficient: 0.3 (Cx of Porsche Carrera)
Frontal area of car (think rocket nozzle area): 20Sq/Ft)
Weight of car (think fuel mass ejected per second): 4400Lbs(2000kg)
Velocity of car (rocket exhaust velocity of 4,4km/s): 9941mph (16.000km/h)

Here's what the calculator came up with:

http://i44.tinypic.com/a48rcn.jpg

40.239.275 HP - or roughly 40million HP ! Wow! it certainly looks like
the REACTIVE FORCE of air, fighting the ACTIVE POWER of a car traveling
at hypersonic speeds produces an awful lot of resistance/ counter-power!
I honestly didn't think it would amount to as much as 40million HP. But
then again, NO Porsche - nor any car - can go as fast as 16.000km/h...
^ NOTE that the rolling resistance (1,516) is absolutely negligible in
comparison to the colossal force of AIR. ^

http://i41.tinypic.com/kakc2q.jpg

So finally, I decided to look up how much horsepower NASA claims the
Space Shuttle engines produce...and... LO AND BEHOLD ! - it isn't far
off my above, approximated figure of "40million HP"! Here's from the
official NASA website:

"The engines' exhaust is primarily water vapor as the hydrogen and
oxygen combine. As they push the Shuttle toward orbit, the engines
consume liquid fuel at a rate that would drain an average family
swimming pool in under 25 seconds generating over 37 million horsepower."
http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SSME.html


Or, if you prefer:

Standing about the same height as the Statue of Liberty but
weighing three times as much,
the two white Solid Rocket Boosters ignite in anger and push out a
combined 6.6 million pounds of thrust (equivalent to 44 million horsepower.)

http://www.roadandtrack.com/special-reports/space-shuttle-test-nasa-endeavour-ov-105



So I guess we can now tranquilly say - without fear of sounding stupid
or ignorant - that rockets do indeed push against air - or rather - air
pushes against the rockets to propel them up through our atmosphere.
Yet, one mystery remains: NASA claims that their rockets reach speeds of
8km/s - almost DOUBLE the 4.4km/s exhaust velocity. Yet, NASA clearly
states that their rockets LOSE efficiency as they reach higher
altitudes. They even have a name for it: "UNDEREXPANSION":

http://i44.tinypic.com/kcmlox.jpg

Source of original rocket nozzle over/under expansion diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

Oh well, that's NASA for you I guess... In any case, it should be

obvious that when air/atmosphere gradually thins out and eventually goes
missing altogether(vacuum), no more counter-force (as of Newton's
laws)is available for the rocket to keep ascending. Much like a dolphin
jumping out of the sea - and briefly flying before gravity brings it
plunging back into its own, denser ambient for which it was 'designed
for'. Just like a rocket attempting to leap into the void of space.

****
An interesting article about aerodynamic drag:

http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm

Space rockets, among other things, are indeed fantasy...

Therefore, in absence of water, air - or any other adequate reaction
force...

http://i39.tinypic.com/333yczd.jpg

[Metspitzer]

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:24:14 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Which is it? No satellites, or you can't find them?

Do you think that each and every planetarium and observatory on the
planet is in on the hoax? What do you think would happen if you just
called a few of them and asked them if they had seen artificial
satellites. Would that convince you that there are satellites up
there we can see with the naked eye?

Be sure to tell us how often you try to find them yourself. That way
we can know you are making an honest effort to locate them.

[Odd Bodkin]

Just last summer a year ago, I stood in my driveway with a pair of
decent binoculars and watched both the space station and the space
shuttle pass overhead. Both of them are very recognizable to the eye.

A few years ago, I was in a similar situation with a conspiracy nutjob
who was trying to tell me this was impossible. We had a cheap telescope
set up on a roof. When the shuttle came up over the horizon and we were
tracking it, he literally refused to bend down and look in the eyepiece.
He knew what his eyes would tell him, and he'd have to quickly come up
with an explanation about how the hoax had spread to our little rooftop
observation. He just stood there and stared at us, saying, "Why should I
look? I know it's not there." Of course, it was also visible to the
naked eye, a bright spot traversing the sky over the course of several
minutes. All he needed to do was look up. We invited him to look up. He
refused to look up in the sky. Our fingers were pointing to the bright
spot, and he refused to look up. Such is the rusty lock on the
perceptions of the closed-minded.

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 16:21:

I hope the following answer is straightforward enough for you.

First of all... this thread isn't about if you can or not see
satellites... this thread is about rockets, can they fly in vacuum or
can't they fly... how does this sound in your empty ears now? ...Does
that sound as satellites?? or Rockets!!!

Second... I have started a new thread about other fakery and there I am
talking about the visibility of the ISS and who does see it fly and who
doesn't see it fly... so if you have any input you can join me in the
Fakery in Orbit thread!!!

Third... why are you trying so hard to change the subject of the thread?

How do rockets work in the vacuum of space?
"The truth is that the rocket have nothing to push against when they
reach the ionosphere"

I may be starting to wrap my head around the notion of free expansion.
Of course, I'm no rocket scientist and am only doing my best here to
grasp some basic rocket-propulsion principles, so please bear with me as
I think aloud - hopefully making some progress along the way. I've now
read a fair amount of literature concerning rocket nozzles - and
specifically as what concerns their primary design dilemma for operating
at various altitudes/air densities.

In other words, wouldn't the rocket plume eventually expand so much as
to simply nebulize in all directions, thus ceasing to provide the
necessary thrust/force to counter the pull of gravity? (This, of course,
unless you believe that beyond a 'certain altitude', gravity ceases to
be a force - and the spaceship gets 'flung' by its sheer momentum into
'free-fall' orbit...)

Lastly, you may ask, what type of rocket nozzle is used on modern
spacecraft? Amazingly, it seems that the old De Laval design (1888 !) is
still very much the (fixed)rocket nozzle widely used today... so much
for technical innovation, NASA!
"Very nearly all modern rocket engines that employ hot gas combustion
use de Laval nozzles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle

Links for reference:
"Rocket Nozzle Design: Optimizing Expansion for Maximum Thrust"
http://www.braeunig.us/space/sup1.htm
"ROCKET PROPULSION": http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm
"Rocket engine nozzle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle
"Rocket engine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine
.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 10:21 AM, Warhol wrote:

>
> First of all... this thread isn't about if you can or not see
> satellites... this thread is about rockets, can they fly in vacuum or
> can't they fly... how does this sound in your empty ears now? ...Does
> that sound as satellites?? or Rockets!!!

My understanding is that rockets work on the principle of conservation
of momentum.

If you were in space, holding a pistol and you fired the pistol, the
bullet would head in one direction, and you and the gun would head in
the other direction. Every amount of momentum transferred to the bullet
is transferred in the other direction to the gun and you. Fire again,
and the same would be true.

For that matter, if you were out in space with a bag full of baseballs
and you just threw the baseballs, then every bit of momentum transferred
to the baseballs as they left your hand would be reflected in a change
in momentum in you in the opposite direction. Throw another ball, and
the same would happen.

When a rocket is fired, it is simply throwing or firing mass in one
direction, giving it a certain amount of momentum, and an equal amount
of momentum is given to the thrower or firer in the opposite direction.

I don't think there is anything more complicated than that going on.

[Metspitzer]

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:21:14 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 16:21:
>> On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:24:14 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Which is it? No satellites, or you can't find them?
>>
>> Do you think that each and every planetarium and observatory on the
>> planet is in on the hoax? What do you think would happen if you just
>> called a few of them and asked them if they had seen artificial
>> satellites. Would that convince you that there are satellites up
>> there we can see with the naked eye?
>>
>> Be sure to tell us how often you try to find them yourself. That way
>> we can know you are making an honest effort to locate them.
>>
>
>I hope the following answer is straightforward enough for you.
>
>First of all... this thread isn't about if you can or not see
>satellites... this thread is about rockets, can they fly in vacuum or
>can't they fly... how does this sound in your empty ears now? ...Does
>that sound as satellites?? or Rockets!!!
>

Yeah well I am kind of bored this week. I am going to see if I can
just pin you down enough to answer the question you are trying so
desperately to avoid.

Do you think artificial satellites exist? You have said that you are
willing to look. Just let us know how often you look. Don't forget
to re install Stellarium. It is much easier than sending a camera
tied to a balloon into space. (Which you have admitted doing more
than once)

Do you think every planetarium and observatory in the world is lying
when they say satellites can be seen by the naked eye?

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 16:47:

Amazing... you claim that you can see the ISS just fine... what I see is
perfect round light flying over me like an airplane, nothing that proves
that its the ISS... thats what is is seen... a light... a cheap ancient
trick...

yeah right!!!! what about this... astronomer who says that he sees "a
perfectly round object is revealed presenting no angular projections
whatsoever."

http://www.webspawner.com/users/shuttlehoax/

And let me ask you... is this the ISS seen through a telescope???
http://youtu.be/nsc80evqJ88

Now my question is does the ISS spin??? if anyone can answer this
question it would be kind... does she spin or doesn't she?

http://i.imgur.com/3LgQK.gif

[Odd Bodkin]

Try a pair of good binoculars. Not your naked eyes. Binoculars.

You can't of course do this with the space shuttle anymore, since there
are no more flights, but you can do this with the space station.
I could clearly see the wings and fuselage of the shuttle, and I could
clearly see the panels and chambers of the space station.

You can still try this. Getting a pair of binoculars and look at the
orbital pattern of the ISS to see when it's going overhead in your area.

Here's a picture from a rather cheap ground telescope in the hands of an
amateur.

>
> yeah right!!!! what about this... astronomer who says that he sees "a
> perfectly round object is revealed presenting no angular projections
> whatsoever."
>
> http://www.webspawner.com/users/shuttlehoax/
>
> And let me ask you... is this the ISS seen through a telescope???
> http://youtu.be/nsc80evqJ88
>
> Now my question is does the ISS spin??? if anyone can answer this
> question it would be kind... does she spin or doesn't she?

I didn't see the ISS spin when I looked at through binoculars for
several minutes as it passed overhead.

>
> http://i.imgur.com/3LgQK.gif

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 17:55:

So you still don't want to believe me when I say there is nothing man
made in heaven...

In meantime its raining here so... no stars are visible right now... but
next spring I will do what you advised and even more... Me and a few
friends are gone triangulate the socalled ISS... then we shall see at
what altitude that light we observe really flies... you see, then I
shall share here the results... but can we get back to the subject of
the tread... Do rockets fly in vacuum??? do you have any input about
that part? or are you just trolling and trying to trash the threads
questions?

Are Rockets swimming through the air like fish?

So, these are rockets then?

http://youtu.be/vIJINiK9azc

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 11:44 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

Sorry, missed a couple links.

> You can still try this. Getting a pair of binoculars and look at the
> orbital pattern of the ISS to see when it's going overhead in your area.

http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/

>
> Here's a picture from a rather cheap ground telescope in the hands of an
> amateur.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 17:49:

Does a rocket throw bullets to fly??? or canon-balls maybe? is that the
principle?

ha ha ha I see... But, would it work?

first of all it is my understanding that liquid can't exist inside a
vacuum. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas
and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion
would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum
in the strict sense.

Secondly, you mention the possibility of opening one side of a
container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combustion gases inside the
container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur
anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being
instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void
via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the
container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it
can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as
the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about
2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with
over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about
1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

Speaking of Saturn V rockets, after looking at some data provided by the
Smithsonian I have some questions...

Times and distances traveled by a Saturn V

Stage 1: 912 mph (38 miles in 2.5 minutes)
Stage 2: 770 mph (77 miles in 6 minutes)
Stage 3: 17,500 mph (achieved in 2.75 minutes) an acceleration of
nearly 372,000 m/h^2


Questions:

1. Why does the rocket slow down between stages 1 and 2? I would expect
it to pick up speed if it were powered by thrust because

a. the thinner atmosphere reduces wind resistance
b. it is now lighter, having discarded stage 1
c. the pull of gravity against it's climb is reduced the higher it goes
d. ...what is the point of stage 2 if does not increase the speed
of the rocket?

2. How does stage 3 accelerate at such a tremendous rate without

a. killing the astronauts?
b. ripping apart the capsule?

http://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/topics/apollo/saturnv.htm

[george152]

Inability to answer the question noted

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 12:28 PM, Warhol wrote:
> Does a rocket throw bullets to fly??? or canon-balls maybe? is that the
> principle?
>
> ha ha ha I see... But, would it work?

Well, yes. That's the principle and it does work. Any mass thrown
backwards at high momentum will impart the same momentum forward on the
thrower.

>
> first of all it is my understanding that liquid can't exist inside a
> vacuum. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas
> and any gas is immediately spread out into the void.

I don't think that's accurate. Boiling commences once the pressure drops
below vapor pressure, but it's inaccurate to say that the conversion is
immediate.

It's academic anyway, because rocket fuel combustion isn't done in the
LIQUID state, any more than gasoline combustion in your car is done in
the liquid state. The fuel is CARRIED in liquid or solid state, but
liquid fuel is allowed to vaporize before ignition.

> So any combustion
> would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum
> in the strict sense.

And that's not what happens. The chamber where the ignition occurs is
filled full of the gases of fuel vapor. It's not a vacuum at all,
because of that.

>
> Secondly, you mention the possibility of opening one side of a
> container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combustion gases inside the
> container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur
> anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being
> instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void
> via free expansion.

Again your time scales are skewed. You think that vaporization of a
liquid is instantaneous in a vacuum. It's not. Secondly you think that
the dispersal of the gas at the opening is instantaneous. It's not. All
you have to worry about is that combustion occurs where the density of
the gases is sufficiently high to be complete, which means it has to
happen before expansion (which is slow compared to combustion) carries
unburnt fuel away.

> When combustion occurs at the far side of the
> container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it
> can be combusted.

And that's not what happens.

> This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as
> the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.
>
> Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about
> 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with
> over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about
> 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

You've not taken into account that the 1,000,000 liters of fuel are in
LIQUID form. When this is converted into gas, especially hot, dilute
gas, the volume of gas is literally millions of times larger than this.
I can't believe you're missing obvious facts like this.

Plus, your calculations are just full of shit. If the fuel were depleted
as you say in 1/100th of a second, this is a push rate of 100,000,000
liters PER SECOND. Even at 2000 meters per second, this would correspond
to a cross-section of of the pillar of fuel being 50,000 square meters
across. The aperture of the engine is not 50,000 square meters.

>
> Speaking of Saturn V rockets, after looking at some data provided by the
> Smithsonian I have some questions...
>
> Times and distances traveled by a Saturn V
>
> Stage 1: 912 mph (38 miles in 2.5 minutes)
> Stage 2: 770 mph (77 miles in 6 minutes)
> Stage 3: 17,500 mph (achieved in 2.75 minutes) an acceleration of
> nearly 372,000 m/h^2
>
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Why does the rocket slow down between stages 1 and 2? I would expect
> it to pick up speed if it were powered by thrust because
>
> a. the thinner atmosphere reduces wind resistance
> b. it is now lighter, having discarded stage 1
> c. the pull of gravity against it's climb is reduced the higher it
> goes
> d. ...what is the point of stage 2 if does not increase the speed
> of the rocket?

The point of stage 2 is to continue the burn, after the fuel in stage 1
is exhausted. It is to get it even higher in the atmosphere, so the
final stage can get the rocket to orbital or escape velocity.

>
> 2. How does stage 3 accelerate at such a tremendous rate without
>
> a. killing the astronauts?
> b. ripping apart the capsule?

That's not such a huge acceleration. The acceleration we feel is 1g. 1g
is 9.8 m/s^2 = 36,000 m/h^2. The acceleration quoted is about 10 g's,
which is something that fighter pilots routinely do in sorties. Even
roller coasters regularly pull 6 g's. Nobody gets killed, and planes and
roller coasters don't get ripped apart.

It seems to me you are easily wow'ed by numbers without having any idea
how big they really are.

>
> http://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/topics/apollo/saturnv.htm

[Metspitzer]

It is OK that it is raining today. What are your best times to try to
see the ISS? Right before morning or right after dark?

Hard to predict what the weather is going to be like on the 14 of
November, but that will be a good time for Brussels to see the ISS.
One should go directly over your head starting at 7:20:57. Look WSW.
It goes from WSW to SSE. It will last over 6 min. MAG -3.1 (which
will be very bright if it is not cloudy) I have a reminder set on my
calendar to check the weather that day. I will do it for you. If you
would rather do evenings, let me know.

What happens then? Do you believe it is really the space station or
NASA trickery?

Remember, there are so many satellites that you can see them with
binoculars every hour or so. Are you prepared to explain all those
away? Here are the daily predictions for the brighter satellites
November 4, 2013 for Brussels. Let us know if the weather clears
before the 14th. I can show you some of the smaller ones.
http://www.heavens-above.com/AllSats.aspx?lat=50.8503&lng=4.3517&loc=Brussels&alt=27&tz=CET

[Warhol]

george152 schreef op 4-11-2013 19:46:

ha ha ha... really?

The SpaceX Dragon space vehicle returns to Earth from its rendezvous
with the ISS and splashes down. This momentous occasion is recorded in
crystal clarity with the best photo technology and equipment the media
can provide so that every detail of this complex operation is clearly
visible to the public:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es3ZYd85XbA

Isaiah66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth
is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is
the place of my rest?

Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong
sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that
crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Revelation 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in
them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil
is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he
hath but a short time.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

From what I remember studying, the sea is referring to the
non-believers (of the truth). Refer to the below verses.

Isaiah 57
20 But the wicked are like the tossing sea,
which cannot rest,
whose waves cast up mire and mud.
21 �There is no peace,� says my God, �for the wicked"

http://youtu.be/nXgboDb9ucE

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 18:44:

>> that its the ISS... thats what is seen... a light... a cheap ancient

>> trick...
>
> Try a pair of good binoculars. Not your naked eyes. Binoculars.
>
> You can't of course do this with the space shuttle anymore, since there
> are no more flights, but you can do this with the space station.
> I could clearly see the wings and fuselage of the shuttle, and I could
> clearly see the panels and chambers of the space station.
>
> You can still try this. Getting a pair of binoculars and look at the
> orbital pattern of the ISS to see when it's going overhead in your area.
>
> Here's a picture from a rather cheap ground telescope in the hands of an
> amateur.
>
>
>>
>> yeah right!!!! what about this... astronomer who says that he sees "a
>> perfectly round object is revealed presenting no angular projections
>> whatsoever."
>>
>> http://www.webspawner.com/users/shuttlehoax/
>>
>> And let me ask you... is this the ISS seen through a telescope???
>> http://youtu.be/nsc80evqJ88
>>
>> Now my question is does the ISS spin??? if anyone can answer this
>> question it would be kind... does she spin or doesn't she?
>
> I didn't see the ISS spin when I looked at through binoculars for
> several minutes as it passed overhead.
>
>>
>> http://i.imgur.com/3LgQK.gif
>

Well if you so clearly could see the thing, why don't you document your
claims??? It's should be easy for you take pictures with your pair of
binoculars to show us... You know what? take some pictures and come than
here back so we can analyze what you have seen exactly... Until now I
have only seen a perfect round light at low altitude... not the altitude
the ISS is supposed to be...

ALL the ISS imagery is fraudulent garbage. Here's some more. Just watch
the solar panels flickering (poor digital rendering):

http://youtu.be/nsc80evqJ88

and does it spin???

Mickey Mouse is real too. I saw him at Disneyland. I shook his hand and
everything.

http://blogs.whatsontv.co.uk/movietalk/files/2010/11/Fantasia_Mickey_Mouse__Leopold_Stokowski.jpg

HOW TO BRUSH YOUR TEETH IN THE ISS

With this, I only wish to demonstrate the staged nature of these "LIFE
IN THE ISS" videos - and the level of editing/cutting/post-production
they betray. Needless to say, this toothbrushing-in-ISS lesson is
ridiculous in itself - a cynical mockery of the taxpayers' money. In
fact, we could stop right there (in our analysis & judgment of this
video) and call out NASA/ESA for the clowns that they are. But please
bear with me for a little longer. Now, some may think that the
cut/editing issue is not such a big deal : we all edit our home videos,
to make them look better. However, watch carefully this 30-second
segment (sped up at 2X speed) which is obviously meant to be a
continuous take of the Belgian Toothbrush Professor's speech :

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4015135/toothbrushscene1-o.gif

We may observe that:
- The guy in the background is all over the place: sometimes hovering in
the air, sometimes facing towards the right, sometimes facing towards
the left. There is also a brief close-up of the Toothbrush Professor -
which either means that two cameras were used, or that the
cameraman/astronot decided to make an artsy job of this toothbrushing
demonstration... Also, the white wires (hanging behind the left shoulder
of the Toothbrush professor) suddenly take the shape of a noose - in the
close-up shot.

Each one of these observations, of course, betray as many cuts /
different takes in the filming of this little toothbrushing lesson. Now,
my point is: do these cinematic multiple takes and edits look more like
the work of NASA/ESA astronauts - or of a film crew, attempting/failing
to make it all look like a spontaneous video shooting ? Whatever your
opinion is of all this, I hope that this farcical "LIFE IN THE ISS"
video will make you laugh - or weep - a little!

FULL TOOTHBRUSHING (in-spinning-ISS) LESSON :

http://youtu.be/pSTp2KOxlOM

Btw I posted this Toothbrushing video because it begins with a spinning
ISS animation... So again I ask you the question does the ISS spin or
not? Because I have links of video where astronuts say the ISS spin 1
time every 91 minutes.

Funny how �donuts� & �coffee breaks� seems to be a common 'it-was-real'
narrative ploy with NASA gatekeepers, eh?

[benj]

And the way you KNOW it was the shuttle was? Oh that's right your
government told you that the bright light was the shuttle and that was
good enough for you! So you've got a great story there, but you need to
now tell the story of your OWN closed mind! So with your theory that
governments and politician never lie and ALWAYS tell the truth, you
simply close your eyes and refuse to look at the out and out nosense of
the "official" explanations for everything. You are a willing
participant in nonsense science that the gullible ignorant accept
because they know no better. Tim McVeigh's truck cut the reenforced
concrete supports. The Third 9/11 tower that wasn't struck fell out os
"sympathy" for it's compatriots. A fuel oil fire melts steel. And on and
on. If you are waiting for the guilty to admit their guilt you are going
to have a long wait!

So if I tell you that one can drive to the space station as easy as to
the corner carry-out you just turn your head and tell me that everybody
"knows" that ancient Russion rockets are being used for the job because
they are so high-tech and reliable. It's so funny that all the gullible
always accuse others of being like they are themselves. NEXT time I
suggest you play Sherlock Holmes and open your eyes and take a hard look
at the EVIDENCE and try to make sense of it. Calling others who are
acting like YOU "nutnobs" is just too easy a way out. Not to mention
unscientific.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 2:21 PM, benj wrote:
> And the way you KNOW it was the shuttle was? Oh that's right your
> government told you that the bright light was the shuttle and that was
> good enough for you!

No, I knew it was the shuttle because I looked at it through binoculars,
and I could see the distinctive wings and the fuselage. It's easily
resolvable with decent binoculars.

Now, I suppose it could have been a star or a planet shaped like the
space shuttle, but, it was also traveling across the sky.

I suppose it could have been a plane, but it was much smaller than any
plane I've ever seen before. Seeing planes with binoculars is pretty
straightforward and you can even tell what kinds of planes they are, and
this didn't have any jet engines on its wings.

I suppose it could have just been a flying model of the space shuttle
traveling from horizon to horizon, but it would have seemed odd that it
was traveling right on the trajectory that the TV weatherman said it was
going to have. Do you suppose that someone arranges to fly little flying
models of the space shuttle at low altitude, at many places across the
country, just so that TV weathermen will all be party to the conspiracy?

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 18:48:

Your link is CGI image... fake computer generated image... This is what
you claim to have seen, beyond our reasoning into how you have done so.

...And these ridiculous, supposed ISS "amateur videos" are getting more
and more stoopid :

http://youtu.be/e293HrP2gow

'Earth from I$$' the movie � disco balls & all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r7UfMq-b0Uo

Get off my planet. Give me my space.

Get real with Reel NASA.

Space travel always has been the stuff of science fiction movies. NASA,
however, has picked up where the likes of Jules Verne and Stanley
Kubrick left off--remaking the story of space exploration in fact.

NASA made its boots for walking on the moon. Those boots not only left
an impression on the moon's dusty surface but also on the minds of
millions of people.
The men and women of the space program are working hard to build upon
those historic steps. The once giant leap of mankind will now be the
stepping stone for even greater giant leaps as the moon one day becomes
a pit stop on the road to beyond.

Pink Floyd dared to ask: is anybody out there? NASA dares to answer this
question.

Roll cameras! These reels show the action behind the real story at NASA.
That's one small click.

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 20:03:

In a vacuum water boils and then freezes as illustrated here:

http://youtu.be/pOYgdQp4euc

As you can see the water is not converted into a gas in a vacuum. As the
narrator notes ...

At atmospheric pressure water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. That's
because that is the point where water vapor pressure is equal to
atmospheric pressure and water begins to change phase from liquid to vapor.

Notice that he says "At atmospheric pressure ...at 100 degrees C ...
water begins to change phase from liquid to vapor" but as you can see
the vapor stage does not occur in a vacuum at lower temperatures.

The narrator says that in a vacuum water converts to a gas.

0:10 "by using a vacuum we're making water change from liquid to vapor"

The video shows that in a vacuum water converts to a gas.

I said that in a vacuum water converts to a gas.

You say water is not converted to a gas in a vacuum. Why?

I am interested in understanding how NASA's space rockets work
theoretically. As of now I have seen nothing that convinces me that
their liquid fueled rockets will work in space.

This thread has shown me that it is quite possible that the people who
believe NASA's stories about rockets in space don't even have an
understanding of the basic problems that need to be solved before a
rocket operates can a vacuum much less how they might be (or how they
are) solved.

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 20:15:

The only thing I have seen until now of NASA is trickery and fakery...
fake fake fake... its all fake... even their control rooms are fake...
all illusion and deceive!!!

Suggest you film the ISS with a Soyuz rocket module docking or
un-docking. And show us your evidence here... That would be fabulous.

I've seen attempts to fake ISS tracking videos. They sucked. They made
several critical errors and failed to recreate all the aspects of a real
video accurately.

the fact that there are clowns out there who produce fake imagery and
pass it off for authentic. This is a very interesting development - and
I hope we can entertain a meaningful and constructive discourse from now on.

With this in mind (that fakery-clowns do exist) and assuming that you
are not one of them, as you claim - I have a few questions for you which
I hope you will respond to in due course. In the meanwhile, I will
kindly ask all forum members to refrain from accusing you of being a
fraud. Fair deal? Hoping you'll approve - here are my first few questions:

Q1: As a registered member of Cluesforum, would you assist us in
exposing any forged ISS imagery out there? Wouldn't this be in your best
interest, in order to preserve the credibility of your own endeavors?

Q2: In your opinion, would this be an authentic ISS shot? (I trust you
are familiar with this Mike Tyrrell?)

http://youtu.be/q8Wp-CuJksk

now does the ISS spin or not?

Q3: Here is a CGI attempt of simulating an ISS tracking video (by CGI
artist "Fakinghoaxer" - who openly states that this is CGI, btw.). Are
there any critical errors which betray that this is not an authentic
video? If so, could you point them out for us?

http://youtu.be/xjAR85LJAJM

Thanks in advance for taking time replying to the above questions.

**************
ps: I would also appreciate if you could provide us a link to what you
consider being your very best ISS tracking video. Thanks!

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 2:15 PM, Warhol wrote:
> Well if you so clearly could see the thing, why don't you document your
> claims??? It's should be easy for you take pictures with your pair of
> binoculars to show us...

Why settle for a picture? It would seem better to me that you look
yourself through your own binoculars. This way you can rub your own
eyes, tell yourself that you're crazy and can't possibly be seeing what
you're seeing.

Like I said, I once watched a conspiracy nutjob simply REFUSE to look
through the eyepiece of a telescope because he did not want to see what
he feared.

> You know what? take some pictures and come than
> here back so we can analyze what you have seen exactly... Until now I
> have only seen a perfect round light at low altitude... not the altitude
> the ISS is supposed to be...
>

> Mickey Mouse is real too. I saw him at Disneyland. I shook his hand and
> everything.

So maybe there's a paper mache space shuttle floating up there at 200
miles altitude.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 2:40 PM, Warhol wrote:
>
> Your link is CGI image... fake computer generated image... This is what
> you claim to have seen, beyond our reasoning into how you have done so.

My testimony is about what I saw with my own eyes through binoculars.
Any photo can be questioned as fake, so don't ask for something you'll
just dismiss. Look with your own eyes through binoculars or through a
telescope. That way, you'll have to either flat out deny that you see
what you see, or you'll have to extend your conspiracy idea to your own
eyes lying to you.

But I wouldn't be surprised if you balk. I once watched someone refuse
to look up in the sky. Stared at us right in the face and denied that
anything was moving across the sky at that moment. Same person was
standing right next to a telescope and he simply refused to look into
the telescope. He was nutso, of course.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 2:54 PM, Warhol wrote:
>
> In a vacuum water boils and then freezes as illustrated here:
>
> http://youtu.be/pOYgdQp4euc
>
> As you can see the water is not converted into a gas in a vacuum. As the
> narrator notes ...
>
> At atmospheric pressure water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. That's
> because that is the point where water vapor pressure is equal to
> atmospheric pressure and water begins to change phase from liquid to vapor.
>
> Notice that he says "At atmospheric pressure ...at 100 degrees C ...
> water begins to change phase from liquid to vapor" but as you can see
> the vapor stage does not occur in a vacuum at lower temperatures.
>
> The narrator says that in a vacuum water converts to a gas.

Right. That's water. Not rocket fuel.
And the process for water took 90 seconds, notice.
How long does it take for combustion to take?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 3:04 PM, Warhol wrote:
> The only thing I have seen until now of NASA is trickery and fakery...
> fake fake fake... its all fake... even their control rooms are fake...
> all illusion and deceive!!!

So don't look at NASA materials. Don't look at anybody else's photos,
either. Check it out for yourself. With binoculars, looking up at the
night sky at the time they suggest you look.

Then tell yourself that your eyes are filled with trickery and fakery...
fake fake fake.

[Metspitzer]

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 21:15:36 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Well if you so clearly could see the thing, why don't you document your
>claims??? It's should be easy for you take pictures with your pair of
>binoculars to show us... You know what? take some pictures and come than
>here back so we can analyze what you have seen exactly... Until now I

Why would anyone want to furnish you photos? Is there any photo you
would not be able to dismiss as fake?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/2013 2:15 PM, Warhol wrote:
>> Well if you so clearly could see the thing, why don't you document your
>> claims??? It's should be easy for you take pictures with your pair of
>> binoculars to show us...
>
> Why settle for a picture? It would seem better to me that you look
> yourself through your own binoculars. This way you can rub your own
> eyes, tell yourself that you're crazy and can't possibly be seeing what
> you're seeing.
>
> Like I said, I once watched a conspiracy nutjob simply REFUSE to look
> through the eyepiece of a telescope because he did not want to see what
> he feared.

You do realize that you are attempting to have a rational discussion with
a person that is obviously severely mentally unbalanced?



--
Jim Pennino

[Metspitzer]

Your logic has to extend to every planetarium and observatory on the
planet. Every professional and citizen astronomer as well. Are you
willing to include them in the grand hoax?

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 22:06:

What a curious response... "Amazing! Lots of details visible, I just
got a blurry spot...."

However, it seems that this guy Dirk Ewers had rather better luck/or
equipment than you, back in 2007/2008:

http://youtu.be/EDlRm87fQaY

Now, regarding the colors of the solar panels. That's an interesting
question indeed... There are only suppositions and some hypotheses based
on the doctored images. We are just trying to figure out why there are
so many.

You demand respect but you give none. You claim the ISS is real but you
haven't acknowledged the fake pictures. You imply all of it is real by
failure to address this crucial question. That is why you are full of
bullshit.

By bullshit, I mean your fake attitude. You claim to have absolute proof
of something, but all you've demonstrated is that you stand by a story
you've produced. Did you even make a picture? We don't and can't know.
That is the freedom and limitation of Usenet. It is bullshit that you
claim to have earned any respect or trust by your attitude. That is the
bullshit you are being asked to stop peddling.

Finally, by bullshit, I mean the general feeling that the picture you
posted in that link is fake by virtue of your desperation, your apparent
(and unfounded) anger at the world, your fake character and your poorly
thought-out attitude. Nobody can fix the problems with your heart and
soul but yourself.

What sense would that make? You come on here, claiming to have some
truth. We doubt it. You are defaming yourself by even claiming our doubt
is somehow defamation. It's a joke - a laugh! Nobody here can, or has
the power to, "defame" you. By virtue of trying to stand up for your
apparent "beliefs", you are also defending what appears to be a massive
hoax.

The fact is you are promoting false information. And unless you can
disprove that, then the fact is you are supporting the false information.

It isn't so much that you are just presenting your information and it's
over. You are presenting your information and saying, "this is my proof
that the other information is legit and above critique." Since you do
not say you work for NASA, you are claiming expertise you don't have.
You may be better at operating some kind of equipment to produce the
picture you claim possible. Or you don't know.

[Odd Bodkin]

Possibly.
Given that he has the opportunity to look for himself through a pair of
binoculars, and given how that will compare with the behavior of an
obvious nutjob who refuses to look up in the sky to see what's there, he
has himself to be accountable to.

Marginally unbalanced people can come to the point where they say, "I'm
in trouble here, aren't I? I'm not all together, am I?"

[Metspitzer]

I suggest you get up and go outside and look at the sky. No film or
photo will ever convince you of anything. Furnishing you with either
would be a waste of time.

Just don't go back to sending your phone into the sky with balloons.
Tell us again how you managed that. How were you able to locate your
phone again? How often have you done this? Tell us more about your
attempts to photo the satellites. That will be an interesting story.
You often talk about Disney. That is about the biggest Mickey Mouse
astronomy I have ever heard of.

You have yet to tell us whether it is more convenient for you to do
your satellite viewing in the morning or at night.

[Metspitzer]

The only information I will be providing you with is times when you
can go out and look at the sky yourself. You have shown time and time
again that nothing else is proof.

Morning viewing or night?

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 22:59:

Your are ridiculous:

You: "Here ye! Here ye! I made this picture. Believe this imagery is real."
Response: How can we do that? Show us how it was made.

You: "First, build the system I used from hints and clues and do what I
did to produce a picture."
Response: Okay, how did you do that? How does your system work? How did
a picture come out of this?

You: "First, buy these things."
Response: We're not buying anything until you explain the full system.
How does your system work?

You: "I'm not telling, and if you can't spend money on the equipment
I've listed thus far, figure it out and produce one yourself, then it's
defamation. Huzzah!"

HUH?!?!

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 3:54 PM, Warhol wrote:

>
> You demand respect but you give none. You claim the ISS is real but you
> haven't acknowledged the fake pictures. You imply all of it is real by
> failure to address this crucial question. That is why you are full of
> bullshit.

I don't care one way or the other about the pictures. If we focused on
the pictures, we could spend an eternity yammering back and forth about
their fakery or their veracity. The purpose of showing you the picture
was only to convey visually what is available to be seen in person,
using your own eyes and a pair of binoculars on an appropriate night. I
do not offer it as proof of anything. No evidence will satisfy you
besides your own eyes.

Once you've looked with your own eyes, and you get done saying "Son of
gun, there it is," then we can talk about your mistrust of other
people's documents about something you just saw yourself.

I don't want you to take my word for it, either. I want you to look for
yourself. With your own eyes and with a pair of binoculars.

Now, if you're going to stand there and refuse to look and instead rant
at me about your mistrust of me, your mistrust of NASA, your mistrust of
your neighbor across the street, then I think we both know what that
says about you.

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 22:24:

We're not going to beg you to comply for your amusement. You've just
failed to show real character. Go and be in your "safety" in numbers of
deluded individuals, but I'm happier seeking real knowledge. Thanks.

Let it go on record that the person or persons, trying to defend a
picture up for question, repeatedly refused to explain how the picture
was produced! and only offered to demonstrate their device, in a
controlled, riggable, limited environment in person rather than putting
their system to the test of the Internet public!

What else can we conclude but this person or persons is/are hucksters,
frauds and charlatans?

Look, fakers. Please. It's not that difficult.

Just set up one page on eHow, YahooAnswers, Instructables, WonderHowTo,
HowStuffWorks, HowToDoThings, HowCast, WikiHow, DoItYourself,
ExpertVillage, VideoJug, SoYouWanna or anywhere else that gives a full
Do-It-Yourself breakdown of how the average person can spot and film a
zoomed-in shot of the object alleged to be an International Space
Station flying high above the Earth.

Something like this only actually scientific and more than following a
NASA chart of rare sightings:

http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Spot-the-International-Space-Station-Pass-B/

You hoaxers need to step up the media production game or your ISS is all
going to come crashing down on you, isn't it? :lol:

... on the other hand, you could start admitting your lies and come
clean with the world for the benefit of all humankind.

[Metspitzer]

Morning viewing or night?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 4:19 PM, Warhol wrote:
> We're not going to beg you to comply for your amusement. You've just
> failed to show real character. Go and be in your "safety" in numbers of
> deluded individuals, but I'm happier seeking real knowledge. Thanks.

I want you to have real knowledge too. Real knowledge you get by looking
through binoculars with your own eyes.

>
> Let it go on record that the person or persons, trying to defend a
> picture up for question, repeatedly refused to explain how the picture
> was produced! and only offered to demonstrate their device, in a
> controlled, riggable, limited environment in person rather than putting
> their system to the test of the Internet public!
>
> What else can we conclude but this person or persons is/are hucksters,
> frauds and charlatans?
>
> Look, fakers. Please. It's not that difficult.
>
> Just set up one page on eHow, YahooAnswers, Instructables, WonderHowTo,
> HowStuffWorks, HowToDoThings, HowCast, WikiHow, DoItYourself,
> ExpertVillage, VideoJug, SoYouWanna or anywhere else that gives a full
> Do-It-Yourself breakdown of how the average person can spot and film a
> zoomed-in shot of the object alleged to be an International Space
> Station flying high above the Earth.

You don't have to do any of this.
1. You go here (http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/) to find out
when the ISS is going to pass overhead in your neighborhood.
2. You borrow a decent pair of binoculars.
3. When you see the bright light moving across the sky, you look at it
-- yourself -- through binoculars.

I would have similar advice to anyone that didn't believe that the
Washington Monument exists. My advice would be
1. Drive to Washington DC.
2. Look at it.

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 22:26:

Notice he says: "At atmospheric pressure ...."

And, as you can see the water turns to ice and is shown to remain as ice
even after it is removed from the vacuum. Did you not view the video?
Does that look like gas to you in the beaker at the end?

In vacuum of space its happen instantly... the rocket fuel freezes.. ha
ha ha NASA is stupid... if they had used solid fuel the joke would be
more believable... you see how you know so little about rocketry and you
come here pretending you know anything about space technology...

NASA is a hoax factory so I wouldn't use their alleged methods as a
standard for anything.

In this thread is a discussion of the feasibility of rocketry in space
regardless of what NASA says.

The Power of Air...
http://youtu.be/ECOMAbLI1V4

The problem with a rocket engine is the interface between the
accelerated gases in the nozzle and the vacuum of space. From what I can
tell, as soon as we open the nozzle to space even if for a a little
while, to let out some accelerated gases, those gases are captured by
the vacuum of space via free expansion and leave without doing work.
Thus, we have burned fuel yet done no work. Eventually the ship runs out
of fuel without ever moving under its own power.

In every system that does work there is a transfer of energy from the
object containing the engine/power to some other object/entity. In space
there is no other object to receive the energy transfer energy. The
vacuum of space neither receives nor delivers energy, it is an insulator.

The functioning of their rocket engines in space is yet another one the
NASA space program claims that has not been satisfactorily explained.

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 22:28:

Twerp-perps like Odd Bodkin might amuse us by explaining why 'amateurs'
(fraudsters) can apparently capture moving footage of the non-existent
ISS spaceship. Yet professional astronomers with access to multi-million
pound apparatus, cannot achieve the same..

Over the past few months, a lynchpin figure in the local astronomical
society - a club that boasts access to an impressive hill-top
observatory and £1m telescope of its own, has finally turned!

It's been an arduous process, lots of heated discussion - but the good
fellow is now 100% sceptic. :) A whistle-blower on all the main NASA
dirty-money swindles: the Apollo Hoax, the ISS fraud, the Shuttle
claptrap and of course the recent Mars fake mission. And for good
measure, he's another 911 Myth-buster.

Salvation for another Soul!

Though at times it was very painful. But he finally came through which
was a joy to observe. Like watching someone recover from serious head
trauma. Confusion and delusions giving way to mental exhaustion,
disillusionment and, finally, anger and bitterness at the life and money
he allowed NASA to steal in its Trillion Dollar Larceny of Public Funds.

Ironically, his wife, a Russian and the 'non-scientist' of the two, was
much more receptive to clear-thinking. And best yet, they've got another
child on the way, so there's another liberated mind soon to grace this
earth!

Up yours NASA - you thieving cretins!

[Warhol]

Epitomizer schreef op 4-11-2013 22:39:

For those that want to spend some time on this, because you know for a
fact that we're being too skeptical, give us the missing details of this
account:

Take a Meade 8" LX200 Classic Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope, a Meade
Lunar Planetary Imager [somehow, presumably fitted nice because it's the
same manufacturer] strapped to the viewfinder, a [somehow] "modified"
Samsung SDC-435 at prime focus [prime focus? does that mean "focused"?],
a 2x barlow, a video capture card [presumably doesn't matter, but what
brand? how? no doubt attached to a computer?], anti-vibration pads
[attached where?] and do the following:

Let Brent Boshart's software take a two-line element set and use it to
predict the path of our given satellite: in this case, ISS. If you need
ISS's orbital data, "load" [somehow] this into the software. Track by
clicking a button or link called "track."

[missing steps].

ISS is found automatically [by something].

Put [something] in a viewfinder [which?].

Then, simply use your mouse to adjust [something's] tracking [of
something] to compensate for errors. The errors could be "pointing" or
"timing" errors, though we are not told what those mean or refer to.

Then, finally, the last instruction is, "put ISS in the main camera",
which really doesn't make any sense at this point, since we've never
been informed of the context of the steps.

It all seems like it should work, somehow. But why was the explanation
so vague and useless for the average person? It's almost like he doesn't
actually know how it works at all, or he's trying to make it seem more
difficult than it is. Why can't it just have been explained easily?

Surely, there must be something up there floating about and getting
captured by the odd, embittered, people-hating astronomer of this sort.

I might not have $3000 to blow on a project like this, but -- your
astronomer friends. Don't they have a telescope and can't they do
something like this? Eptomizer may be a blowhard, but this seems like a
very simple experiment to deduce for one's self, given the equipment.
Surely there is something up there that looks like the ISS? And lasers
can confirm for us how far it is from the Earth? I don't believe our
skepticism is enough to be skeptical of all astronomers.

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 23:23:

>> >
>> >
>> >Your are ridiculous:
>> >
>> >You: "Here ye! Here ye! I made this picture. Believe this imagery is real."
>> >Response: How can we do that? Show us how it was made.
>> >
>> >You: "First, build the system I used from hints and clues and do what I
>> >did to produce a picture."
>> >Response: Okay, how did you do that? How does your system work? How did
>> >a picture come out of this?
>> >
>> >You: "First, buy these things."
>> >Response: We're not buying anything until you explain the full system.
>> >How does your system work?
>> >
>> >You: "I'm not telling, and if you can't spend money on the equipment
>> >I've listed thus far, figure it out and produce one yourself, then it's
>> >defamation. Huzzah!"
>> >
>> >HUH?!?!
>> >
> Morning viewing or night?

I don't care... just produce something we can believe in...

"As impossible as it may sound at first, and I have been studying this
phenomena for several years now, but it would appear that the
International Space Station (ISS) and the Space Shuttle are a complete
hoax. I have managed to prove this by directly viewing the ISS through a
privately owned telescope (a Newtonian of 6 inch aperture at low
magnification and using manual tracking). On every occasion I have
viewed the ISS, and I am an experienced observer, a perfectly round
object is revealed presenting no angular projections whatsoever. This
entirely goes against what we have officially been told regarding the
exact configuration of the ISS which could loosely be described as
shaped somewhat like an ‘aeroplane’." quote link here

Please do read the full article:
http://www.webspawner.com/users/shuttlehoax/

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 23:06:

So this bat-thing (larger than two football fields) allegedly circling
the earth 15 times a day at the measly altitude of about 380km can only
be seen as a dot in powerful telescopes ??? Whereas we can clearly see
all the craters of the Moon (at about 380,000km) with a pair of cheap
binoculars?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8hVeo-tidFI/R0ocjkpGYEI/AAAAAAAAAGI/N3oAH1DFlNY/s400/ISS+Completa.jpg

Three new cosmo-nots arrive at the ISS and are introduced to us in yet
another incredibly boring video:

http://youtu.be/K6CPCByf3Bo

Might just be the new 'space-age' electronic toothbrushes.

This is from The Big Bang Theory, it was interesting to see, I hope
we'll get a "Behind the scenes"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Z5CzAb-Qg

The "ISS" scenes are interesting. Not much different from the NASA ISS
videos. In fact, not different at all.

I take back what I said about the ISS videos being shot on an RPM. :)

BTW, is that crappy sit com supposed to be funny?

I think we can call it a day, yes? If you meet people telling you that
"it is impossible to animate people floating in the air in a realistic
manner" - just show them this Howard Wolowitz character seen 'floating
around the ISS' in this unfunny sitcom.

May I say "GAME OVER"?

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 22:59:

http://youtu.be/v5Z5CzAb-Qg

Chuck Lorre, creator of the above show, also attended the VIP event at
JPL during the Mars Curiosity "Landing" along with NASA chief Charles
Bolden and a number of Hollywood celebs:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/05/tech/mars-rover-curiosity/index.html

What surprise!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kKDUQEZsvfE/TvWajCMpNdI/AAAAAAAAJMk/2W_g2lC-ubY/s1600/chuck+3.JPG

Chuck Lorre (born Charles Michael Levine)

I would like to send Chuck a symbolic $1 donation on behalf of Our
Usenet Groups - for providing us conclusive proof that Hollywood can
easily simulate seemingly weightless actors floating around - without
having to send them up in space...

Does anyone know where I can find a Chuck Lorre donation button? ^_^

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/files/2012/10/wolowitz.jpg

ps: Oh, and warm sitcom clip with the Wolowitz clown!
"Tis just like the REAL THING!" :P :rolleyes:

"And here’s the good news: According to [NASA asstronot] Massimino, the
show does a really, really good job of portraying space and NASA’s
activities accurately.

“They really care about the details,” Massimino said. “The accuracy of
the spacecraft, and the mock-up of the space station set, they have
exactly the same dimensions as the real thing. The lighting and sound
are exactly like the real ones.”

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/10/is-nasa-getting-its-best-publicity-from-a-tv-sitcom-these-days/

Silly clowns. Of course they're exactly like the real ones. They're the
same movie studios!...

...only difference is that the producers in charge of manufacturing the
purportedly "real ISS imagery" are waayyy overdoing it:

[Metspitzer]

Well that is a change from yesterday's story isn't it? Yesterday you
were using an Iphone tied to a balloon and hadn't seen anything.

[george152]

Following his lies and trying to untangle what ever warped crap he
spouts is never ending ......

[Metspitzer]

It is pretty funny that he is pretentious enough to call the ISS a
hoax and then disclose he is using an Iphone tied to a balloon to
search for satellites. (In a cloudy, rainy environment) (spent years
searching and found nothing)

That was yesterday, of course. Today he has (a Newtonian of 6 inch
aperture at low magnification and using manual tracking) and he still
thinks the ISS a hoax.

Maybe tomorrow he will be director of The Planetarium of the Royal
Observatory of Belgium and he still thinks the ISS is a hoax.

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 5-11-2013 0:47:

You: Morning viewing or night?
>>
Me: I don't care... just produce something we can believe in...

Ha ha ha what change??? I just said whatever!!!... Warhol never changes
his story... dream on shills... its you who change all the time the
subject and snip all question which were asked in all honesty...

http://www.webspawner.com/users/shuttlehoax/
Btw read link here above... It are not my words; "no angular
projections"... but someone who say just like me he sees nothing (no
shit!!!)drifting there above.... See how you serpents are turning words
to fit your disillusion... But in this thread you kooks fail and I think
your boss isn't gone be happy with you guys... ha ha ha...

Now try defend your point with honesty... But I don't believe in
fairytale science... so you have to find something better to make me
look as a fool... because the facts I presented in this thread will be
your downfall shills and that of NASA/ESA or what ever these space
agency call them self... all you who fail to grasp that, you can fool me
ones but not fool me twice... Shame on you!!!

Is NASA getting its best publicity from Warhol these days?

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/10/is-nasa-getting-its-best-publicity-from-a-tv-sitcom-these-days/

I like this quote from Massimino from the same article:

"So what we have is a television show watched by millions of
Americans educating them about what NASA’s actually doing in space."



We sure do!



I did send My Iphone there above to check this below pictures were
correct or not... because on that image you can see the maximum altitude
they really get with a launch of a man made object with rocket
technology... 90km altitude... there where very thin air finish to exist...

http://s3.postimg.org/pu5go07pm/Student_Balloon_Photographs_Shuttle.jpg

http://s3.postimg.org/4khw0p3xu/Student_Balloon_Photographs_Shuttle2.jpg

All NASA can do is lie about it and skirt the issue.

*NO STARS WARS II - EPISODE FAIL*

LOL!

WHEN NASA STARTS MESSING WITH STARS

Here's why NASA tends to leave the stars alone.
When their compositing clowns starts messing with them, they get busted
faster than you can say "twinkle twinkle" !

"When Starfields are fake":

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/184/fake-starfield.htm

(I believe the credit for this finding goes to one Sander Mulder from
the Netherlands. You may want to skip reading the contorted musings on
that 'Marsanomaly' website as to why this silly star-cloning occured... ).

And yup - NASA still has that image shamelessly posted in their galleries:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-106/html/s106e5052.html

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 5-11-2013 4:51:

Oo... I said what??? Tell me, do you have reading comprehension
problems??? where did I say I have a newton Newtonian of 6 inch aperture????

See how you shills try to turn around the point of this whole rocketry
thread?

And where will we get with such a communication???

Again I qoute;

"As impossible as it may sound at first, and I have been studying this
phenomena for several years now, but it would appear that the
International Space Station (ISS) and the Space Shuttle are a complete
hoax. I have managed to prove this by directly viewing the ISS through a
privately owned telescope (a Newtonian of 6 inch aperture at low
magnification and using manual tracking). On every occasion I have
viewed the ISS, and I am an experienced observer, a perfectly round

object is revealed presenting no angular projections whatsoever. This
entirely goes against what we have officially been told regarding the
exact configuration of the ISS which could loosely be described as
shaped somewhat like an ‘aeroplane’." quote link here

Please do read again the full article:
http://www.webspawner.com/users/shuttlehoax/

This are not my words... but a quote from the author of the shuttle hoax
article in the above link.

really who do you think you are fooling with your words of deceive???
Me? or your own?

I am interested in understanding how NASA's space rockets work
theoretically. As of now I have seen nothing that convinces me that
their liquid fueled rockets will work in vacuum space.

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 23:36:

> On 11/4/2013 4:19 PM, Warhol wrote:
>> We're not going to beg you to comply for your amusement. You've just
>> failed to show real character. Go and be in your "safety" in numbers of
>> deluded individuals, but I'm happier seeking real knowledge. Thanks.
>
> I want you to have real knowledge too. Real knowledge you get by looking
> through binoculars with your own eyes.
>
>>
>> Let it go on record that the person or persons, trying to defend a
>> picture up for question, repeatedly refused to explain how the picture
>> was produced! and only offered to demonstrate their device, in a
>> controlled, riggable, limited environment in person rather than putting
>> their system to the test of the Internet public!
>>
>> What else can we conclude but this person or persons is/are hucksters,
>> frauds and charlatans?
>>
>> Look, fakers. Please. It's not that difficult.
>>
>> Just set up one page on eHow, YahooAnswers, Instructables, WonderHowTo,
>> HowStuffWorks, HowToDoThings, HowCast, WikiHow, DoItYourself,
>> ExpertVillage, VideoJug, SoYouWanna or anywhere else that gives a full
>> Do-It-Yourself breakdown of how the average person can spot and film a
>> zoomed-in shot of the object alleged to be an International Space
>> Station flying high above the Earth.

snipped BS with no connection with what was said

>>
>> Something like this only actually scientific and more than following a
>> NASA chart of rare sightings:
>>
>> http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Spot-the-International-Space-Station-Pass-B/
>>
>>
>>
>> You hoaxers need to step up the media production game or your ISS is all
>> going to come crashing down on you, isn't it? :lol:
>>
>> ... on the other hand, you could start admitting your lies and come
>> clean with the world for the benefit of all humankind.
>

How squids propel themselves in water wasn't quite what I was asking you
about.

You shill really think you are clever... don't you? Now if you have any
real input concerning the topic of this thread, I invite you to post
your arguments... but I see you spam this thread with your repitive
binoculars stuff that has no connection to the topic of the thread... I
do NOT care, I said, if you see what I see not... POINT. if you have any
evidence of your sightings, I explained you in the above post how you
can document your point for us, feel free to do so... but as long you
continue to Spam the thread with the same bs we are not advancing in the
topic of not working rockets in thin air due to the free expansion or in
the vacuum space where no liquids can exist...

http://youtu.be/74wTirFTxvA

Now I will also start to do as you guys do;

Please correct me if I'm wrong or if it has already been mentioned...

Oh well, Bodkin - I've gotta give it to NASA : it is undeniably a
wide-open, liberal and indiscriminative workplace !

http://i39.tinypic.com/dqnmu1.jpg


( All testimonial faces used for the making of this ad were extracted
from the NASA STAFF group pictures published here and there )

Here
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-134/ndxpage62.html

There
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-134/ndxpage64.html

It feels good that such an eclectic & international bunch of folks are
ensuring the continuing success-Disney-story of outer space conquests

here is one with the Pope popping in at the space center;
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-134/med/jsc2011e046603.jpg

I then compared two other "NASA STAFF group photos" - obviously MEANT to
have been shot on two slightly different timelines of the same photo
session. Well, I am awestruck by the apparent discipline of most of
these NASA employees - keeping an almost identical pose, expression and
position - between the two photo shoots which, evidently, required
everyone to stay put during the timelapse required for inviting and
placing / removing different people into the crowd ! I really hope this
comparison make you all laugh a big, hearty laugh!

http://i41.tinypic.com/2i7a72x.gif

You are welcome to believe that these are quite legit/authentic
photographs. And I am welcome to believe that they are complete frauds !

Cloths the same, check... Cravat, the Same check... face; oeps
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/8572/comparisonlo.jpg

Small random changes? Comparing again:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-134/hires/jsc2011e048501.jpg
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-135/hires/jsc2011e063635.jpg

Did I say somewhere "probably"? Hmm, wait a minute... Allow me to state
that we have now proved that these "NASA STAFF group photographs" are
fake - beyond any shadow of doubt. This other question, of course,
remains: why does NASA feel the need to fake/composite/digitally
manipulate the imagery of their own (alleged) employees? Should we
perhaps ask NASA this question?

The conspiracy: They create the illusion that many more people are
involved in these projects then there actually are.

This then creates the idea that "all those people can't possibly all be
in on it" that the brainwashed masses love to cite as a reason that NASA
couldn't possibly be involved in hoaxes.

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/8572/comparisonlo.jpg

It's late, worms flail me!

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 23:06:

Why don't you go out... I prefer to stay here in front of my computer
screen where the world seems to be so small... While my thoughts travel
around the world and I like that!!!

Yes, Metspitzer - although it appears that the staff "group portraits"
include a few real persons (i.e. flesh-and-blood NASA actors) such as,
for instance, that merry asstronot/entertainer Mike Massimino who
appears in many of those ever-informative, educational NASA videos.
Here's Mike removing the lid off of another momentous mystery of space
travel:

"how do you take a crap in space"?
http://youtu.be/m1wwzwvfsC0

In other words - and unsurprisingly you might say - it seems that the
NASA's staff imagery mixes a few real (existing) individuals with a
bunch of computer-created (non-existing) virtual individuals. Of course,
blurring the line between fiction and reality is the name of the 'game'...

Please do not derail the topic with your "less than understanding" of
binoculars, it's discussed sufficiently!

Do you need Binoculars to see this?
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/8572/comparisonlo.jpg

I certainly prefer such forensic evidence!

[Warhol]

george152 schreef op 5-11-2013 4:19:

yeah tangle them in their lies... thats what I am doing here...

Well... Science Fiction movies like Star Wars have some rules. I mean:
some things are possible- some not. NASA seems not to have any rules.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eldlKDso9o

The old Indian Rope Trick comes to mind.

This movie doesn't show it but it suppose to be attached to satellite or
to ISS. Now it makes a lot of sense no?

"EUROPE PLACES ITS BETS IN SPACE - IN SPITE OF CRISIS"


L'Europa scommette sullo spazio, nonostante la crisi
Investe 10 miliardi in tre anni, 1,2 miliardi dall'Italia

"Il dibattito è stato lungo e faticoso, con discussioni che si sono
protratte fino a tarda notte, ma alla fine l'Europa ha confermato
la sua determinazione a fare dello spazio un settore strategico
per lo sviluppo e la competitività a livello internazionale."

http://www.ansa.it/scienza/notizie/rubriche/spazioastro/2012/11/22/Europa-scommette-sullo-spazio-nonostante-crisi_7837440.html



My best translation:
"The debate has been long and tiresome, with discussions which went long
into the night, but at last Europe has confirmed its determination to
make space a strategic sector for development and competitively at an
international level."

And this is their chosen illustration for the article - an "artist's
impression of the ISS"...stars included! :rolleyes:

Any diehard casino gamblers in the room? Wanna place your bets in space
too?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/5/2013 4:54 AM, Warhol wrote:
> but I see you spam this thread with your repitive binoculars stuff that
> has no connection to the topic of the thread... I do NOT care, I said,
> if you see what I see not...

The only reason you don't see is that you haven't looked. Maybe you're
afraid to look. Maybe raising a pair of decent binoculars to the night
sky will show you plain as day something you don't want to be true, and
so you refuse to look.

I stood right next to someone else who did the very same thing. He was nuts.

[Metspitzer]

On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:52:42 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Ha ha ha what change??? I just said whatever!!!... Warhol never changes
>his story... dream on shills... its you who change all the time the
>subject and snip all question which were asked in all honesty...
>
>http://www.webspawner.com/users/shuttlehoax/
>Btw read link here above... It are not my words; "no angular
>projections"... but someone who say just like me he sees nothing (no
>shit!!!)drifting there above.... See how you serpents are turning words
>to fit your disillusion... But in this thread you kooks fail and I think
>your boss isn't gone be happy with you guys... ha ha ha...
>

OK. I mistakenly thought you were claiming you had seen the ISS with
a telescope. Sorry

Now I know, the only searching you have done is using an Iphone tied
to a balloon. Do you feel that little piece of "technology" is enough
to dismiss the ISS as a hoax?

I am just going to watch the weather in Belgium and let you know when
you can see the satellites on your own.

The 14 of November will be your chance to see the ISS with the naked
eye. Do bring binoculars.

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 5-11-2013 15:32:

I wonder if you are blind or what... I don't search for things which
don't exist or do I believe in fairy tales... you say you see clearly
the ISS... I say there is nothing up there... so why wouldn't you start
to provide us some evidence?

It seems you cannot really see the ISS from Earth for the simple reason
it doesn’t exist.

After the MSL Curiosity's "We're NASA and we know it" there is now
NASA's "Johnson Style" ("Gangnam Style" Parody). NASA seems to be
turning more and more into a popular music production company.

Our tax euro's/dollars hard at work.

http://youtu.be/zulxSCb4ZVk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KnTpm9Y77E

So the experiments they do serve to better understand the space industry
itself.

It is a self-included hoax industry, so that we never risk to actually
see with our eyes, in our everyday lives, the good useful effects of our
great scientists spending our money up in space.

And here's another special effect where NASA is good at:

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n510/nonhocapito/waterblob3_zpse5e54de5.gif

the water blob is CGI. The image of Cady that it contains seems quite
fake and doesn't match her movements. It also has no mouth.

If you look at the video, she goes on drinking up the whole thing, to
impress her public like a good trained circus monkey.

Here's the blob upside down:
http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n510/nonhocapito/waterblob4_zpse469ba99.gif

This is very poorly executed chroma key, an obviously two dimensional
layer of a completely different color temperature, imposed on the video
of the lady with the immovable hair. The perspective of the image inside
the bubble doesn't change as she moves toward it. It should be rotating
as the distance narrows, and it only stretches on one side. Why would
floating water collect into a single ball? Are there no drops that have
escaped into the "cabin"? It's not at all convincing. This GIF alone
should be enough to tumble the whole shaky house of cards.

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 5-11-2013 15:33:

The only reason I haven't see anything is because there is nothing to
see... only a light attached beneath an airplane flying very high but
not at the altitude the ISS is supposed to be... nothing worth to spend
my time tracking it...

ISS asstronot Cady Coleman explains that people in space lose bone mass
(called osteoporosis) at 10 times the rate of the average osteoporotic
woman on Earth but also says, “I came back with literally no bone loss.”

Gosh, Cady, I guess you're just lucky, huh? 1m:07s
http://youtu.be/Rsj__C7cQak

Canadian Singernot...
"Chris Hadfield's first recording from the International Space Station.
You can hear the slight buzz of the station's fans in the background."
... whatever you say Chris.

One can assume that NASA prohibits astronots from making their own video
recordings from "orbit" and uploading them to their personal youtube
channels without "processing". Don't quit your day job Chris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YufsbE4-jmY

I wonder how he does it to play guitar while he flies... ha ha ha...
this Singernot didn't play that song in orbit... lol...

I inadvertedly found this page searching for some other 3D models the
other day. If you have often thought that the ISS imagery looks like
CGI, then this could be the reason why.... :P

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/models.html

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/5/2013 9:55 AM, Warhol wrote:
> The only reason I haven't see anything is because there is nothing to
> see... only a light attached beneath an airplane flying very high but
> not at the altitude the ISS is supposed to be... nothing worth to spend
> my time tracking it...

That's exactly what the nutjob standing right next to me said as the
shuttle passed straight overhead. He refused to look up because he
"knew" it wasn't up there, even though nine other people and me could
see it going overhead with our naked eyes, and we all looked through the
telescope to see its shape and orientation. Some people are so committed
to their beliefs that they won't even look at something in plain sight
that would contradict those beliefs. These people are crazy, of course.

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 5-11-2013 17:57:

But, of course, the imagery they give us from inside the International
Space Station MUST BE REAL, right?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs5/2752889_l.gif

Good Heavens. Can anyone honestly lend an ounce of credence to this crap?

http://www.space.com/17774-big-bang-theory-on-iss-wolwitz-reprimanded-by-mom-video.html

yeah vehicle is going up... ha ha ha

NASA's comin' in hot with some robonaut action (and stolen away the best
name) with todays ISS multi-media update.

http://youtu.be/BU1ePn18vjs

Of course, walking your billion dollar, 500 kilo robot around the inside
of the ISS would be tricky, so they've come up with a typically elegant
NASA solution: They bolted the fucker to the floor.
At 18 seconds, the robot is shown with a finger moving toward (as if to
flip) a switch. Above his robot finger is the toggle switch from what
appears to be a 65 Mercury.

See 5 min. mark:
They show (and re-show and re-show) these same few frames of this most
worthy endeavour. It's just that good. No other footage is really necessary.
Observe the astro-not in the background (he's the scientist, wearing
tennis shorts and flip-flops, ). He appears busy, tending to some nuts
or wires when all of a sudden the Robonaut raises his arm - slightly.
That's it! Nothing more. This automaton's sole contribution to space
exploration is a slight 'harumph' at the shoulder.

Finally, toward the end, the 'engineer' deals with the obvious question
of how the robot will navigate through the station, what with the
gravitational forces and what-not. (paraphrased) "We're gonna build
climbing legs, so Robonaut can walk around the station." Of course!

Here's Motortrend's pithy PR piece for GM....
http://wot.motortrend.com/general-motors-robonaut-2-going-international-space-station-after-super-bowl-appearance-34837.html#axzz2HMmPEBAd

Nasa would like you to know that this is all about cost savings....
"Once the testing and development is over, R2 will become the mechanical
janitor of the ISS, performing menial tasks and maintenance astronauts
have had to perform in the past, but are too expensive to hire for."
It must be a union thing that flicking a switch has become so expensive
that its more cost effective to build a billion dollar robot.

When we look at real robots doing real work in the real world in which
we live, we notice that none of these real robots resembles anything
like a bi-pedal anthropoid. For obvious reasons. I'm no geni-a-mus, but
I'm pretty sure that no serious NASA/GM engineer would go the way of I,
Robot-esque anthropoids for practical use in space or anywhere.

In the NASA video above one of the real, practical tasks they had the
robot perform was to "...hold an airflow meter in front of one of the
air vents to measure the airflow..." Again, I'm no genius but, wouldn't
a normal person put a US$25 airflow sensor into every air vent before
they send it into space, thereby negating the need for asstronuts,
robotic or otherwise, to waste space-time on such a banal, yet critical
task?

I'd venture to say that a more meaningful task would be to remove the
masses of Cady Coleman's hair that must be clogging the vents before
everybody suffocates.

but consider the long-term cost savings for the NASA movie productions,
once they replace all asstronots with Robonauts... :P

Think about it: No more million$ to maintain in hush mode the
asstro-actors and their families. No more expensive CGI animations of
humanoids bobbing around the ISS in semi-realistic fashion with costly
hairdressers and silicon-gel keeping their hair erect. And best of all
(for us weary NASA viewers), no more 'zero-gravity' toothbrush
tutorials, yecchy canned-food eating scenes - or "how we all crap and
pee on the ISS" demos...
.
...only Robonauts switching switches !

http://youtu.be/vfDXzkFHnz0

...on 'futuristic-looking' NASA switchboard panels!
http://i39.tinypic.com/2drgylc.jpg

************************************************************************************************************
http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/

"Spot the International Space Station with NASA"

"Here's something new from NASA. The space agency will send you an email
when the
International Space Station is visible flying over your house..."

"According to NASA: The space station looks like a fast-moving plane in
the sky ..."

************************************************************************************************************

Oh, really? Could that be because it IS a fast moving plane in the sky?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 4:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> I would have similar advice to anyone that didn't believe that the
> Washington Monument exists. My advice would be
> 1. Drive to Washington DC.
> 2. Look at it.

I'm fairly certain Warhol would say that he has no interest in driving
to Washington DC to look for something that doesn't exist. He'd rather
sit in his chair at home, quietly refusing to move his butt to
investigate on his how, and loudly demanding other people attempt to
provide evidence of the Washington Monument that he wouldn't be able to
dismiss out of hand. That's called a bullshit bullhorn.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/5/2013 11:32 AM, Warhol wrote:
> Oh, really? Could that be because it IS a fast moving plane in the sky?

No, I really don't think so.

The strategy of a thinking person is to push away all the evidence that
you don't believe, simply ignore it, and go gather your own evidence
yourself. Which is easy to do.

Only a crazy person goes on a binge like what you're doing, saying "Feed
me! Feed me stuff that I push away! I will refuse it all, watch me! But
try to feed me anyway!"

It's related to illnesses like anorexia and Munchausen Syndrome, which
are pathological attention-craving disorders associated with breaks from
reality.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/5/2013 11:32 AM, Warhol wrote:

> Odd Bodkin schreef op 5-11-2013 17:57:
>> On 11/5/2013 9:55 AM, Warhol wrote:
>>> The only reason I haven't see anything is because there is nothing to
>>> see... only a light attached beneath an airplane flying very high but
>>> not at the altitude the ISS is supposed to be... nothing worth to spend
>>> my time tracking it...
>>
>> That's exactly what the nutjob standing right next to me said as the
>> shuttle passed straight overhead. He refused to look up because he
>> "knew" it wasn't up there, even though nine other people and me could
>> see it going overhead with our naked eyes, and we all looked through the
>> telescope to see its shape and orientation. Some people are so committed
>> to their beliefs that they won't even look at something in plain sight
>> that would contradict those beliefs. These people are crazy, of course.
>
>
> But, of course, the imagery they give us from inside the International
> Space Station MUST BE REAL, right?

C'mon, you know that you're not well, right?
You know that you've got problems. I know it's hard to slow down and
confront them, especially when you've got NASA and the dinosaur-fossil
conspirators and the plate-tectonics conspirators and
God-knows-what-else government agency threatening you. And it's much
more comforting to direct attention to NASA rather than to spend a few
minutes with attention focused on you, and on the fact that you would
rather clamp your eyes shut than look at something obvious that everyone
else can easily see.

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 5-11-2013 18:36:

Ha ha ha... what a joke you are...

It appears as a *round light* that crosses the night sky,

http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/

"Here's something new from NASA. The space agency will send you an email
when the International Space Station is visible flying over your house..."

"According to NASA: The space station looks like a fast-moving plane in
the sky ..."

Could that be because it IS a fast moving plane in the sky? :lol:

I have seen what is supposed to be the ISS several times flying across
the sky above my roof terrace here in Brussels. NASA alerts me when it
is supposed to happen at dusk - low sun in the west - and as weather is
always good here - clear sky no clouds, something is seen now and then.
It looks like a plane or a dot suddenly appearing over the northwest
horizon and moving across the sky and suddenly disappearing again ...
over the horizon at the southeast horizon. I showed it to a friend the
other day who said that it is impossible to see anything with lenght
<100m at 400 000 m altitude from my terrace. I even took a photo of the
light dot in the sky. No doubt it was there. But what could it be? A
plane? if NASA claims on their own website that it looks like an
airplane... then it must be a airplane... it certainly wasn't a bird!!!

The great NASA ISS hoax!!! BTW don't forget that this thread is still
about rockets don't function in thin air or in vacuum space...

BTW... Did you know that Airwaves(Radio) don't functions in a
environment where is no medium to carry the waves, namely Air aka
aether... ha ha ha can you explain me how they do to communicate with
all those socalled flying objects I fail to see in orbit...

Robonaut will become the 'janitor of the ISS"
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3117/3103065905_5de0a21932.jpg

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/5/2013 12:10 PM, Warhol wrote:
> Odd Bodkin schreef op 5-11-2013 18:36:
>> On 11/4/2013 4:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> I would have similar advice to anyone that didn't believe that the
>>> Washington Monument exists. My advice would be
>>> 1. Drive to Washington DC.
>>> 2. Look at it.
>>
>> I'm fairly certain Warhol would say that he has no interest in driving
>> to Washington DC to look for something that doesn't exist. He'd rather
>> sit in his chair at home, quietly refusing to move his butt to
>> investigate on his how, and loudly demanding other people attempt to
>> provide evidence of the Washington Monument that he wouldn't be able to
>> dismiss out of hand. That's called a bullshit bullhorn.
>
> Ha ha ha... what a joke you are...
>
> It appears as a *round light* that crosses the night sky,

Nope. Not through binoculars. Through binoculars, it looks exactly like
the Space Station.

Don't want to look through binoculars? Then you're just the kind of guy
that would claim the Washington Monument is a fake and there's no way
you'd go to Washington to look for yourself because you know there's
nothing there.

>
> http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/
>
> "Here's something new from NASA. The space agency will send you an email
> when the International Space Station is visible flying over your house..."
>
> "According to NASA: The space station looks like a fast-moving plane in
> the sky ..."
>
> Could that be because it IS a fast moving plane in the sky? :lol:

Don't think so. It doesn't look anything like a plane through binoculars.

>
> I have seen what is supposed to be the ISS several times flying across
> the sky above my roof terrace here in Brussels. NASA alerts me when it
> is supposed to happen at dusk - low sun in the west - and as weather is
> always good here - clear sky no clouds, something is seen now and then.
> It looks like a plane or a dot suddenly appearing over the northwest
> horizon and moving across the sky and suddenly disappearing again ...
> over the horizon at the southeast horizon. I showed it to a friend the
> other day who said that it is impossible to see anything with lenght
> <100m at 400 000 m altitude from my terrace. I even took a photo of the
> light dot in the sky. No doubt it was there. But what could it be? A
> plane? if NASA claims on their own website that it looks like an
> airplane... then it must be a airplane... it certainly wasn't a bird!!!

Or it's a space station. Which you'd see if you look with binoculars.

>
> The great NASA ISS hoax!!! BTW don't forget that this thread is still
> about rockets don't function in thin air or in vacuum space...

Oh, but they do. We've already discussed the law of conservation of
momentum. We've also already discussed that you can't calculate your way
out of a paper bag and you present numbers like "the Saturn V would lose
1,000,000 liters of liquid fuel in 1/100 second" as though they have any
bearing on reality.

>
> BTW... Did you know that Airwaves(Radio) don't functions in a
> environment where is no medium to carry the waves,

There's another one. Did you know that we get radio waves from the sun?
Is there air between here and the sun?
Did you know that electromagnetic waves of all kinds (light, radio,
x-ray, gamma-ray, microwaves, shortwaves, infrared, ultraviolet) make
their way through vacuum with no problems?

If you're going to talk physics, then at least learn high school physics
before making idiotic claims.

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 5-11-2013 18:45:

So... you coward are attacking the messenger but not the message...

I will explain you out what your ISS consist.

40' shipping container
http://www.container-house.org/files/2012/10/container40ft-inside.jpg

Here's Kibo (the Japanese section) from Wiki:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Kibo_PM_interior.jpg/800px-Kibo_PM_interior.jpg

Speaking of utterly ridiculous...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGvzV8I5AZI

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 5-11-2013 18:51:

Nobody is threatening me... But I am threatening them and you asshole
with hell fire!!!

Put that in that small braincell you have left... ha ha ha threatening
Warhol ha ha they finish in hell... if they would dare!!!

i asked, via the "ask Robonaut" facebook site, how the ISS copes with
meteor showers. I asked this question and have received no reply yet.

Now I am gone File an FOIA... So they will be forced to answer my
questions... ha ha ha... threatening Warhol ha ha ha... what a joke!

i just asked again via the "Ask NASA" page. The site says to allow 10-15
days for an answer. So, I will give it another wait.

If they do manage some sort of answer I thought I'd start an "Ask NASA"
thread where we can all post NASA's answers to questions we pose via
that site. I think it would be interesting to have lots of questions
from members here being answered by NASA. :D

Or, of course, someone else can start the thread if they manage to get
an answer to some question from NASA first.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/5/2013 12:53 PM, Warhol wrote:
> Odd Bodkin schreef op 5-11-2013 18:45:
>> On 11/5/2013 11:32 AM, Warhol wrote:
>>> Oh, really? Could that be because it IS a fast moving plane in the sky?
>>
>> No, I really don't think so.
>>
>> The strategy of a thinking person is to push away all the evidence that
>> you don't believe, simply ignore it, and go gather your own evidence
>> yourself. Which is easy to do.
>>
>> Only a crazy person goes on a binge like what you're doing, saying "Feed
>> me! Feed me stuff that I push away! I will refuse it all, watch me! But
>> try to feed me anyway!"
>>
>> It's related to illnesses like anorexia and Munchausen Syndrome, which
>> are pathological attention-craving disorders associated with breaks from
>> reality.
>
>
> So... you coward are attacking the messenger but not the message...

The message is that you won't look up in the sky with binoculars,
because you're afraid of what you'll see.

>
> I will explain you out what your ISS consist.
>
> 40' shipping container
> http://www.container-house.org/files/2012/10/container40ft-inside.jpg

Oh, so that's amazing. So when I look up in the sky with binoculars,
what I'm seeing is a SHIPPING CONTAINER? How did they get it up there
without a rocket?

[Metspitzer]

Why don't you tell us again how you 'proved' the ISS and all the other
satellites are fake.

quote
I even send different times my Iphone into the highest level of the
ionosphere with a balloon to record if there is anything seen, there
at 102,800ft feet above my head, to observe the thermosphere... and
guess... there is nothing there above... yes there is the Moon,
cometh's, the planets, the Sun, stars, the Galaxies but no man made
object to be observed... sorry people... nothing...
end quote

There you have it folks! Using the state of the art technology,
Warhol has proven beyond any doubt there is nothing up there.

Let us know next time the weather clears in Brussels. I know we can
count on you to update us on anything you observe.

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 5-11-2013 21:18:

Right its amazing... when you look up the sky, and you see that light
fly like a plane over your head, well that is an airplane flying 20
times lower then the supposed ISS...

The reality of the ISS is that its a giant hoax!!! A so great hoax,
which shall lead all lunatics straight to the lake of fire... only a
*complete confession* can maybe save a few lunatic from falling in fire...

Here Kevin Ford mentions the IIS interior at 18:50, saying "it's about
the volume of a 747..."
http://youtu.be/HIARFZseD6Y

Again, on the Canadian Space Agency's site:

Fully assembled, the ISS will be 108 by 74 metres. It will have
1,250 cubic metres of living and working space, which is the equivalent
of the interior of a Boeing 747, about the size of three average
Canadian houses.


Source: http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/iss/facts.asp
http://members.liwest.at/gerys/boeing747-400.htm

Minutes To Go...

According to this below link, the ISS crew could see the launch from
orbit! Unless they post a video of the launch taken from the ISS, I will
suspend belief

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPUmI1WO-R8

At 17:52 in above "Soyuz launch" video, the commentator goes:

"Velocity is now approaching 1100 miles per hour".

Good Heavens... I have lost count of just how many times I've heard that
exact same line - in dozens of NASA, ESA and Soyuz videos...


Cosmonauts reach ISS in six hours, rather than two days (hint: it was a
short drive to the studio backlot):

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/latest-flight-iss-sets-speed-record-did-200133858.html

And yes, a successful docking at 17,500 mph.

"How long it takes to reach international space station?
i just wonder why it takes so long to reach international space station
when the satellite is only 400 km above earth (geostationary orbit) as
compared to traveling from one place to other on earth takes so much
longer ?????

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
The ISS is moving at about 5 miles/second. You can't just fly up to it
because it isn't stationary. Plus to dock you have to move in real slow
for safety and to not affect the orbit."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060920101853AAzKiPr


So, to catch up with the ISS, you must slow down...



BTW I want also to warn you NOT to look in that light with your
binoculars... that artificial light may blind you!!! but anyway the real
thing happens under water in swimming pools, not there above in space...
hi hi hi or in parabolic airplanes.

Interesting video of NASA's neutral buoyancy lab during an astronot, or
is that aquanaught, rehearsal for a "Columbus" Spacewalk! ;)

At 18 seconds the voice says "I'm hoping the real thing will be obvious...."

At around 1 minute the voice says " so Tim, you need to be BETWEEN the
camera and the platform" and then how the astronot "Tim" should have the
"boom" on the other side of him, relative to the AVFR.

Sounds like the guy speaking is the Video Director for the EVA and is
relaying the importance of not getting the camera boom in the shot,
especially when they remove the ankle weights and go live for the REAL
event, with the Earth, stars, and/or inky blackness of space
superimposed in the background.

link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTU8U7y0CUI

Oh, Bodkin - you just don't seem to understand, do you?

http://youtu.be/q8Wp-CuJksk?t=27s

But one of the more hilarious aspects of these NASA videos has got to be
the constantly incomprehensible NASA jargon the actornauts use to
communicate with Houston (and with each other). Now, have I gone deaf
(or mad) or do I really hear Nespoli saying: "Houston station,
eehmm...the corridor from 37 mast camera...white strobe...it is within
the crawboard corridor limit...FECAL SIZE is...matches the vehicle
outline..." ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NII8YLtINE4 (at 3:26)

Here Chris Hatfield fools the fools and wraps a joke with a hoax.

https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/318705878838702080/photo/1

Can you spot the fakery?

I've only increased the backlight

http://www.myalbum.co.uk/GroteFoto-3YBZJLYN.jpg

To compare with the real black sky

http://www.myalbum.co.uk/GroteFoto-RUBKVBDY.jpg

It remains black

Is that supposed to be a UFO / flying saucer in the middle window?

Hadfield's caption for this image posted on April first

"The view from where we fly the Canadarm2, with some orbital debris off
in the distance."

yeah... yeah... yeah... and when you think this is all... then we get
more surprises;

Wow! NASA just announced that the space station that doesn't exist just
discovered evidence of some stuff that no one can see and no instrument
can detect! :o

Dark Matter!

Well ... they say that maybe they did and maybe they didn't ... but
looking for the invisible stuff only cost about 2 billions dollars (so
far) and they're pretty certain that they'll know for sure if the stuff
really exists or not in only about ... 20 more years!

Gosh -- isn't that great?

http://youtu.be/BiSx9TzzLt4

You know, I think I can smell some dark matter right now ...

the International Space Station aboard a Russian Soyuz spacecraft,
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/files/2012/10/120927-BigBangPhoto-hmed-0915a_files.grid-6x2.jpg

This as my Gran'Da'Dy says; Nothing is true, everything is permitted

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 5-11-2013 23:30:

It seems your comments are becoming more and more simple contradictions.
Perhaps you could contradict me on one of my main theses?

But I love you shill... and I also must thank you for bumping of my
thread... Now I have said what must be said about this topic... My next
thread will be about radio waves in vacuum space... I hope you join me
in that thread too to bump it...

Looks like Singer David Bowie himself has been looking for satellites at
least since the release of his album "Earthling" in 1997. Is Bowie on
board with us regarding the sordid satellites " issue " ? Could
be...especially when we look into the lyrics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2FUhqM85bM

Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop
Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop

Where do we go from here?
There's something in the sky
Shining in the light
Spinning and far away

Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, Boy's own
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop, (Satellite)
Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, (Satellite), Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop, (Satellite)
Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, (Satellite), Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop
Looking for satellites
Looking for satellites

Where do we go to now?
There's nothing in our eyes
As lonely as a moon
Misty and far away

Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop, (Satellite)
Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, (Satellite), Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop, (Satellite)
Nowhere, Shampoo, TV, Combat, (Satellite), Boyzone
Slim tie, Showdown, Can't stop
Looking for satellites
Looking for satellites

Satellite, Satellite, Satellite, Satellite

Looking satellites
Looking satellites

Where do we go from here?

Bowie is clearly referring to the dumb programs endlessly broadcasted by
the World Bullcrap TV Incorporation but could this be also related to
the so-called satellites ? Is Bowie giving us some sort of subtle hint ?

[gyans...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 8:16:36 PM UTC+13, Warhol wrote:
> Not working rockets!!! Fake Satellites!!! Fake Astronauts!!! Fake Moon
>
> Images!!! Its all Fake fake fake
>
What a complete dickhead!! Did you ever study even school physics? A rocket does not push against anything. That is a common misunderstanding and a schoolboy howler. It just needs the action (thrust) to produce the opposite action - a forward force. The analogy with a car on ice is rubbish. if the car on ice fired a rocket out the back it would go forward all right! A wheel does not give thrust like a rocket, it just relies on friction and torque. Take away the friction and you are stuck. In fact without an friction a skater would also be stuck but if he farted he would be propelled along.

A rocket can and frequently does act in a vacuum. I see India is going to Mars - you think they will also fake it you twat!!