Do some moon landing deniers doubt we ever left Earth's atmosphere?

Tinfoil Hater

Graduate Poster
Tinfoil Hater
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,440
Do moon landing deniers deny the reality of all exploration of our solar system? Do they doubt we sent probes to Venus and Mars, and out to photograph all of the other planets of our solar system? I wonder if some even reject that satellites were ever put into orbit- that would be most entertaining, as on clear nights some of them can be seen. I wonder if ignorance of science is what keeps this breed of CT going..
 
Tinfoil Hater said:
Do moon landing deniers deny the reality of all exploration of our solar system? Do they doubt we sent probes to Venus and Mars, and out to photograph all of the other planets of our solar system? I wonder if some even reject that satellites were ever put into orbit- that would be most entertaining, as on clear nights some of them can be seen. I wonder if ignorance of science is what keeps this breed of CT going..
Click to expand...


Such cockwomblery can easily be found.
And yes, satellites don't exist because our dishes aren't aimed straight upwards.
Have fun laughing.


Sent from my iNsomniPad using Tapatalk
 
We routinely see faith trump science, so actually seeing "something" flying overhead wouldn't bother the True Disbeliever at all. They could be airplanes.

They can be graded by how high they think we actually got. Some believe 'only in the atmosphere!" and the other end believe we've reached the Moon, but not with manned vehicles. They can slide up and down that scale depending on how well their meds are working.
 
I have seen one insist the ISS is a hoax, what we se go overhead is some kind of inflatable.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
There was a proposal at one point to send up huge balloons to use to bounce signals over the horizon. Don't recall if they ever tried that.
Click to expand...
This is from wiki on the discovery of the cosmic background radiation.
Working at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were experimenting with a supersensitive, 6 meter (20 ft) horn antenna originally built to detect radio waves bounced off Echo balloon satellites. To measure these faint radio waves, they had to eliminate all recognizable interference from their receiver. They removed the effects of radar and radio broadcasting, and suppressed interference from the heat in the receiver itself by cooling it with liquid helium to −269 °C, only 4 K above absolute zero.​
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I have seen one insist the ISS is a hoax, what we se go overhead is some kind of inflatable.
Click to expand...

One problem would be that an inflatable would not have such a regular schedule. There are tables of when and where it will appear. Another is that it moves very

I saw the International Space Station (ISS) once. It came right on schedule. It seemed to appear very suddenly, scute half way across the sky very quickly and then disappear.

The sudden appearance and disappearance was explained to me as being caused by the angle the sunlight light hit the ISS. The curvature of the earth limits the time that the space station is illuminated by the sun. There is a temporal window near dusk when it is illuminated. So in addition to moving, it seems to vary in brightness very quickly.

The variation of illumination was the most startling. I didn't check the math on the illumination. An inflatable would have to be really high to vary in brightness like that. It would also have to be propelled to go so fast. Think of a zeppelin with fast spinning propellers. Of course, I didn't hear anything. The ISS is sort of quiet. I like the airplane explanation a lot better.

There could be a high altitude jet that has a certain path all the time. However, it would have to be going along the same trajectory without stopping every day all year so it appear to be in orbit. Maybe a series of jets committed by some government agency to move in a way that mimics the orbit of the nonexistent ISS.

The ISS appeared to me very much like some UFO sightings where the vehicle disappeared into hyperspace. So maybe there is no ISS. Maybe what observers call the ISS is really an extraterrestrial vehicle with faster than light drive.

I wonder what moon landing conspiracy believers and UFO conspiracy believers say to one another? :confused:
 
Craig B said:
This is from wiki on the discovery of the cosmic background radiation.
Working at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were experimenting with a supersensitive, 6 meter (20 ft) horn antenna originally built to detect radio waves bounced off Echo balloon satellites. To measure these faint radio waves, they had to eliminate all recognizable interference from their receiver. They removed the effects of radar and radio broadcasting, and suppressed interference from the heat in the receiver itself by cooling it with liquid helium to −269 °C, only 4 K above absolute zero.​
Click to expand...

Dat's dem. :thumbsup:
 
Darwin123 said:
One problem would be that an inflatable would not have such a regular schedule. There are tables of when and where it will appear. Another is that it moves very

I saw the International Space Station (ISS) once. It came right on schedule. It seemed to appear very suddenly, scute half way across the sky very quickly and then disappear.

The sudden appearance and disappearance was explained to me as being caused by the angle the sunlight light hit the ISS. The curvature of the earth limits the time that the space station is illuminated by the sun. There is a temporal window near dusk when it is illuminated. So in addition to moving, it seems to vary in brightness very quickly.

The variation of illumination was the most startling. I didn't check the math on the illumination. An inflatable would have to be really high to vary in brightness like that. It would also have to be propelled to go so fast. Think of a zeppelin with fast spinning propellers. Of course, I didn't hear anything. The ISS is sort of quiet. I like the airplane explanation a lot better.

There could be a high altitude jet that has a certain path all the time. However, it would have to be going along the same trajectory without stopping every day all year so it appear to be in orbit. Maybe a series of jets committed by some government agency to move in a way that mimics the orbit of the nonexistent ISS.

The ISS appeared to me very much like some UFO sightings where the vehicle disappeared into hyperspace. So maybe there is no ISS. Maybe what observers call the ISS is really an extraterrestrial vehicle with faster than light drive.

I wonder what moon landing conspiracy believers and UFO conspiracy believers say to one another? :confused:
Click to expand...

The ISS runs on rails fitted to the Vapour Canopy...
 
There's someone on my Facebook who believes that as some shots of the ISS are CGI then ALL shots of space are CGI. I pointed out that this must mean advancements in computers since the 50's have been covered up as well which gave him "something to think about"
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Dat's dem. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

No its not! :p

The Echo was a satellite more than it was a balloon in that it was in orbit around the Earth not just floating high in the atmosphere.

Edit: Just like CORed posted.

I posted in another thread around here recently that I actually photographed the thing shortly after it was launched. Surprised you did not see my post since you are everywhere. Or do you have me on Ignore like every else? :o
 
Last edited:
Rincewind said:
The ISS runs on rails fitted to the Vapour Canopy...
Click to expand...

I have also seen the ISS zoom through the sky once. It was cool.

As others note, there are such detailed schedules of where and when to see it. You gotta figure, given all the contortions you have to go through to explain that, it would just be easier to base it on a model where the thing is flying in orbit around the earth.
 
It's remarkably easy, weather permitting, to see the ISS with your naked eyes.
I get a daily email from the tracking boffins that tells me what time to look, which direction to point my noggin at, elevation etc. and for how long it will be visible.

It's always too damned cloudy but I have seen it a few times ages ago.
It's quite Jaunty without adding any cockwomblery to the proceedings.

There are also apps that make the process even easier for simpletons like me who forget which way is which to locate it in real time by using your iNsomniPad as a magic looky through device.




Sent from my iNsomniPad using Tapatalk
 
The Don said:
I've wondered whether a cockwomble is an adult male womble (like Tomsk) and if the opposite is a henwomble (like Mme Cholet).
Click to expand...


I'm glad to say that over forty years later I still know all the words to the whole song.

And Great Uncle Bulgaria is not amused that you compare a cockwomble to a Womble. Two entirely different species.


Sent from my iNsomniPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom