Originally posted by sonhouseI have watched many, many interviews with astronauts on ISS.
I don't know which one you watched but the entire interviews with every astronaut I saw interviewed went by 100% with no dropouts.
So you figure a space station going around Earth at 18 thousand miles an hour, 5 miles a second, should have 100% coverage using radio waves or laser beams, 24/7 eh.
I gather you don't know much about radio waves or digit ...[text shortened]... 0 years.
Do you even know an OUTLINE of what it takes to communicate reliably to a satellite?
They contain glitches and cut-aways galore.
But that's not what I am pointing out here.
According to NASA, the transmissions are "only available when the space station is in contact with the ground."
Huh.
So when we see the images despite travel over vast areas of the oceans, can we assume they're able to maintain "contact with the ground?"
Last time I checked, there are THOUSANDS of satellites in that general vicinity, making 100% coverage not only feasible but expected.
Trust me on this: anyone who makes a claim based on their own authority probably has it wrong.
You can take my word on that one.
You keep on using that term "conspiracy" so much, I think you're just jonesing for there to be one.
Think about the government and your observations of it as well as any attention you may have paid to history of the same over the years.
Consider the many, many nefarious acts committed by those who run over government, including some of the more recent events where they have been engaged with election fraud and etc..
In general, they are a group of loosely-bound people, some good but mostly corrupt, with varying degrees of involvement.
Some of the deeds are just low-level pettiness while others run into high treason.
Without exception, there is not a single government agency which does not practice some form of corruption every day they're in operation.
Does the guy stealing ink cartridges in the Kansas City bureau of the IRS know about the president's shenanigans?
Of course not... or at least, not likely.
I don't distrust NASA on the basis of its connection to the government (although the affiliation certainly makes a case against it).
I distrust NASA because it has demonstrably and consistently lied since its inception.
Originally posted by SuzianneFunny you would use the term "stupid," which has original connotations for being easily amazed or confounded.
You and I were right the first time. I'm pretty sure he's just agitating everyone here for the giggles. No one's that stupid.
Unlike those who blindly accept certain things, I am not easily amazed nor am I confounded to the point that I 'just take their word for it.'
Unlike you, too, apparently, I attempt to think for myself weighing the facts as they are not as they are taken.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo you think 'contact with the ground' means what? It dangles a USB cable to Earth? Do me a favor, google 'line of sight' in RF communications and the frequencies used.
I have watched many, many interviews with astronauts on ISS.
They contain glitches and cut-aways galore.
But that's not what I am pointing out here.
According to NASA, the transmissions are "only available when the space station is in contact with the ground."
Huh.
So when we see the images despite travel over vast areas of the oceans, can we ...[text shortened]... nst it).
I distrust NASA because it has demonstrably and consistently lied since its inception.
For instance, the ISS is over India, and you figure all those thousands of satellites are all for NASA and ISS? So It's over India, how will it establish line of sight to Goddard Space flight center? In reality, it has to establish line of sight to SOMETHING either in orbit or on the ground, a ground space tracking station.
THAT station can send info to other satellites or through land lines if there is enough bandwidth but satellites if not.
Whether you want to believe it or not, there is no perfect comm line to ISS.
They will have glitches, sorry to burst your bubble but even here in century 21 you can't get perfect transmission to ISS or any other satellite 100% of the time. You can for instance, have 100% for a ground station to GEOSTATIONARY satellites, google it if you don't know what that is. It stays in the same place over Earth because it is in a geo stationary orbit 22,400 odd miles up where the orbital period is 24 hours, matching the 24 hour day so to an observer on the ground, if you could see it, it would always be in more or less the same spot 24/7 so it always has 'line of sight' unless there is some kind of really violent storm or solar wind or coronal discharge to add so much noise the data gets overwhelmed and it too loses contact for a while.
There is no such thing as 100% reliable ANYTHING.
That is the truth of it, long and short. So stop whining about the loss of data from ISS.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI could live with that. One thing nice about a flat Earth. Right now I have to deal with communications with countries around the globe or even from New Jersey where I work to California, for instance. California doesn't wake up till 11 AM our time so there are several hours of no communications possible, they are all asleep.
Could you tolerate living in such a universe if religion did not exist?
A flat Earth would not have that difficulty, if it was spinning around the sun there would only be one time zone so I could call California when I am at work at the start of my work day.
A spherical Earth sucks in that regard🙂
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am ready to admit that I could be wrong. Apparently there IS someone 'that stupid' right here in this thread.
I have watched many, many interviews with astronauts on ISS.
They contain glitches and cut-aways galore.
But that's not what I am pointing out here.
According to NASA, the transmissions are "only available when the space station is in contact with the ground."
Huh.
So when we see the images despite travel over vast areas of the oceans, can we ...[text shortened]... nst it).
I distrust NASA because it has demonstrably and consistently lied since its inception.
Originally posted by sonhouseFunny you would try to lecture on something which has little to no application to the argument and then turn around and insist that time zones exist because the world is a globe.
I could live with that. One thing nice about a flat Earth. Right now I have to deal with communications with countries around the globe or even from New Jersey where I work to California, for instance. California doesn't wake up till 11 AM our time so there are several hours of no communications possible, they are all asleep.
A flat Earth would not have ...[text shortened]... rnia when I am at work at the start of my work day.
A spherical Earth sucks in that regard🙂
Time zones are necessary because the sun's influence on the earth is time limited: it clearly does not rise everywhere at the same time, nor does it hold the same position in the sky for the entire earth at all times.
If, as is suspected and as it appears, the sun is actually rising, traversing the sky and then setting while the earth stands still, time zones are required to keep the world in synchronization in accordance with the sun and the moon's position in the sky.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI picked up on a website which could inform you a bit better on the subject.
Funny you would try to lecture on something which has little to no application to the argument and then turn around and insist that time zones exist because the world is a globe.
Time zones are necessary because the sun's influence on the earth is time limited: it clearly does not rise everywhere at the same time, nor does it hold the same position in the ...[text shortened]... keep the world in synchronization in accordance with the sun and the moon's position in the sky.
http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/2nd-biggest-conspiracy-flat-earth/
You still have to decide for yourself.
Originally posted by pawnpawI don't know why in the 21st century we are even having such a debate. Freak talks about satellites as fake, apparently all he is doing is listening to those other folks and he is just a parrot of the main conspiracy.
I picked up on a website which could inform you a bit better on the subject.
http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/2nd-biggest-conspiracy-flat-earth/
You still have to decide for yourself.
You can SEE ISS with a telescope. Amateur astronomers have taken images of it and one showing ISS and the shuttle in the same image as they were coming together.
The BS about Antarctica being the edge of the world flies apart when you can see aircraft going from Tierra Del Fuego all the way across the island known as Antarctica, seeing the whole thing.
What a crock of shyte.