Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,207
He's a looney!
Satellites Do Not Exist
- Thread starter Brian-M
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nasa conspiracies
He's a looney!
NoahFence
Banned
This stuff is exactly as plausible as explosives / therm*te being used to take down the Twin Towers.
Just so you know.
NoahFence
Banned
Thought I was seeing a UFO the first time I saw that. They go from super bright to too dark to see. Bizarre.
Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
Finally got around to watching the rest of the Satellites Do Not Exist video.
In the part I'd already watched before I posted it he was talking about how the temperatures in the thermosphere are equivalent to a blast furnace, and there's no way satellites could survive the heat.
I'd already figured out the solution to that while watching the video. The atmosphere at LEO is virtually nothing, it's a vacuum, so it'd have an incredibly low thermal conductivity. The rate of heat being absorbed from bumping into the occasional gas atom would be far less than the rate of heat being radiated away, so the satellites wouldn't heat up.
It turns out he wasn't ignorant of this explanation, about half way through the video he quotes some source which gives basically the same explanation, which also mentions that a regular thermostat would read a temperature far below zero.
But he completely fails to understand the explanation, and thinks it's a contradiction that the temperature of the gas at that altitude would be as hot as a blast furnace, and yet the effective temperature would be below zero because it's a vacuum.
He goes on for a bit demanding to know how, if that were true, it would be possible for us to feel the heat of the sun. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between heat transfer by direct contact and heat transfer by radiation.
What really blew my mind was his claim that rockets can't possibly work because there'd be nothing for the rockets to push against in space. Well, at least he understands that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction", but apparently the concept of "reaction mass" is alien to him.
According to him, GPS is actually done by phone towers triangulating your position, and satellite dishes are a scam, and are actually picking up the same broadcast TV signals your regular antenna can pick up. Oh, and satellite phones are just regular phones with a bigger antenna, allowing them to connect to distant phone towers that are too far away for regular phones to reach.
He goes on for a bit about how the internet and phone communications are done by fibre-optic cable, not by satellites, as if that were somehow relevant. He doesn't seem to realize that a single strand of optical fibre would have a far greater bandwidth than an entire satellite, and that laying a cable containing hundreds of strands of optic fibre across long distances is a far more cost-effective way of transmitting vast quantities of information than by satellite.
He has heard that satellites are visible to the naked eye, and he counters this by showing a brief video clip of the sky, and demands to know where the satellites are, saying that all he can see are stars and planets.
But I noticed that in the brief clip of the sky he shows, one of the "stars" is moving pretty fast relative to the other stars, and is almost certainly a satellite.
Not that he'd accept it as a satellite even if we pointed it out to him, because he also talks about how a satellite the size of a bus would be too small to see from a distance of over 90 miles away. He doesn't seem to realize that it'd also be shining brilliantly due to reflecting the light of the sun, and would look a lot like a star or a planet to the naked eye.
I think I'm going to need some time to rest and recover before I watch the one about the ISS being a hoax.
Oh, I'm pretty sure he's completely serious.
In the part I'd already watched before I posted it he was talking about how the temperatures in the thermosphere are equivalent to a blast furnace, and there's no way satellites could survive the heat.
I'd already figured out the solution to that while watching the video. The atmosphere at LEO is virtually nothing, it's a vacuum, so it'd have an incredibly low thermal conductivity. The rate of heat being absorbed from bumping into the occasional gas atom would be far less than the rate of heat being radiated away, so the satellites wouldn't heat up.
It turns out he wasn't ignorant of this explanation, about half way through the video he quotes some source which gives basically the same explanation, which also mentions that a regular thermostat would read a temperature far below zero.
But he completely fails to understand the explanation, and thinks it's a contradiction that the temperature of the gas at that altitude would be as hot as a blast furnace, and yet the effective temperature would be below zero because it's a vacuum.
He goes on for a bit demanding to know how, if that were true, it would be possible for us to feel the heat of the sun. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between heat transfer by direct contact and heat transfer by radiation.
What really blew my mind was his claim that rockets can't possibly work because there'd be nothing for the rockets to push against in space. Well, at least he understands that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction", but apparently the concept of "reaction mass" is alien to him.
According to him, GPS is actually done by phone towers triangulating your position, and satellite dishes are a scam, and are actually picking up the same broadcast TV signals your regular antenna can pick up. Oh, and satellite phones are just regular phones with a bigger antenna, allowing them to connect to distant phone towers that are too far away for regular phones to reach.
He goes on for a bit about how the internet and phone communications are done by fibre-optic cable, not by satellites, as if that were somehow relevant. He doesn't seem to realize that a single strand of optical fibre would have a far greater bandwidth than an entire satellite, and that laying a cable containing hundreds of strands of optic fibre across long distances is a far more cost-effective way of transmitting vast quantities of information than by satellite.
He has heard that satellites are visible to the naked eye, and he counters this by showing a brief video clip of the sky, and demands to know where the satellites are, saying that all he can see are stars and planets.
But I noticed that in the brief clip of the sky he shows, one of the "stars" is moving pretty fast relative to the other stars, and is almost certainly a satellite.
Not that he'd accept it as a satellite even if we pointed it out to him, because he also talks about how a satellite the size of a bus would be too small to see from a distance of over 90 miles away. He doesn't seem to realize that it'd also be shining brilliantly due to reflecting the light of the sun, and would look a lot like a star or a planet to the naked eye.
I think I'm going to need some time to rest and recover before I watch the one about the ISS being a hoax.
Oh, I'm pretty sure he's completely serious.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
How does he explain that you need to point the dish towards a fairly well-defined direction in the sky, and that this direction doesn't vary much if you move a hundred miles? And that you receive different bundles of programs from different regions in the sky, sometimes with programs in a foreign language that land-based broadcasts in your region don't carry?
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
I'll admit, I haven't watched the video, but I have a very hard time believing that this guy is serious. It's 2015, and everyone seems to be willing to do just about anything for their 15 minutes-whether it's eating bull testicles on Fear Factor, being a joke contestant on American Idol, or even looking like an idiot on Youtube. I've got to believe this guy probably had some inkling of doubt about a couple of these subjects, got some attention from it, and decided to just pick up the ball and run like hell.
Armitage72
Philosopher
Is this the same guy who earned a bunch of Stundie nominations from this claim, or is this a relatively common piece of nuttery?
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
He's got this backwards. CGI is a hoax. When Steven Spielberg wanted to make a movie about dinosaurs, he found out that computer technology just wasn't advanced enough. So he commissioning a team of scientists to grow dinosaurs and he used them in his film. Then he proclaimed huge (impossible?) leaps in computer technology as a means to increase the value of Industrial Light & Magic stock prices. Spielberg made huge sums of money off his trades.
Oh, one more thing. He is a joo.
Oh, one more thing. He is a joo.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
That he was a flat-earther was fairly evident by the whole "satellites are fake" thing. Does he think the planet is supported by four elephants on the back of a turtle, as well?
Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
Just watched the ISS hoax one. That video was done by someone else. The person who made this video thinks you can have satellites, but anything coming down from earth must burn up in re-entry, and that anybody going to space would be killed by radiation, and so all manned space travel is a hoax.
According to this video, there is a dummy ISS in orbit, but it's just an empty tin-can and all the footage from space is faked with aircraft in parabolic trajectories, and also on-stage using blue-screens with edited-out suspension wires and CGI, and spacewalks are faked with water tanks.
According to this video, there is a dummy ISS in orbit, but it's just an empty tin-can and all the footage from space is faked with aircraft in parabolic trajectories, and also on-stage using blue-screens with edited-out suspension wires and CGI, and spacewalks are faked with water tanks.
Last edited:
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 2,608
and the purpose for all this elaborate hoaxing by the government is...
We're all living in the Truman Show.
Well, the people who think this sort of stuff are...the rest of us are actors.
Exactly- if you are (or claim to be) a flat-Earther, then there cannot be satellites. Simple.
Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
Back to the Satellites Are A Hoax Video:
I honestly have no idea.
He doesn't. Here's what the video says (via on-screen text, as this part of the video isn't spoken):
(Text above is exactly as it appears in the video from 28:38 to 30:10, with no changes to spelling, punctuation, grammar or capitalization.)
I honestly have no idea.
He doesn't. Here's what the video says (via on-screen text, as this part of the video isn't spoken):
notice it is called sky or cable tv
not satellite or space tv
digital is analogue radio signal
digitized compressed and so
able to carry more information
you can still use your old analogue
Arial to pick up digital
or you can be conned into paying
for a satellite tv package
all they did is put a dish up which
picks up digital same as old arial
is not picking up signals from satellites
they do not exist
not satellite or space tv
digital is analogue radio signal
digitized compressed and so
able to carry more information
you can still use your old analogue
Arial to pick up digital
or you can be conned into paying
for a satellite tv package
all they did is put a dish up which
picks up digital same as old arial
is not picking up signals from satellites
they do not exist
(Text above is exactly as it appears in the video from 28:38 to 30:10, with no changes to spelling, punctuation, grammar or capitalization.)
Jango
Graduate Poster
No. Not even close. But thanks for trying anyway.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
And then I read this:
And now I'm like, who knows? Right?
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,202
If you want to know where the ISS is and when it will be visible Here is the ISS Tracker It shows it's position in real time with a projected track.
http://www.isstracker.com/
http://www.isstracker.com/
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
Rincewind
Philosopher
Sadly I suspect that he is serious.
I remember we had a poster on here a few years ago who was adamant that the earth could not be rotating because we would all be blown over by the wind.
At first it came across as a wind up (wind not wind), but after many here tried to educate the poster with science it became apparent that he desperately needed to believe in a geocentric model of the universe because that was part of his fundamental religious belief. All modern science and scientists were a ruse to deny his faith.
I suspect mr faked satellites has the same issue and nothing will convince him that he is wrong because to accept that would be to overturn his religious faith.
Best just to move on and leave him to his little corner of the internets.