Discovery Launches at 11:38 EDT. Expects to Reach and Dock With ISS in 44 Hours!

Originally posted by rockets red glare

Iv'e offten wondered why they couldn'r sink up better with ISS on launches. what you say would make sence if there were others.

Outlandish conspiracies thrive on this kind of ignorance. They thrive on things that, to the average lay person, make sense without more thought and knowledge. This is why this forum is even able to stay afloat. I realize that calculating launch windows and even understanding why they need to is beyond what most people understand about space travel, however the fact that it is so involved lends itself to woo woo conspiracies articles because you can say things like this, that might make sense with passing attention and glancing thought.

I encourage you to deny ignorance, not to just sit there and wonder about things so readily verifiable with multiple sources of available information out there at the touch of a few buttons on the wonderful device sitting in front of you as you read this. You say you have "often wondered" yet you have not looked into it? And you think that the start of this magical journey should be on a conspiracy internet bulletin board where you will be fed whatever information might sound the best to your admitted ignorance concerning the complicated subject of orbital mechanics?

The above is an excellent example of why John and his ideas ever gain traction.

[edit on 18-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
This is why this forum is even able to stay afloat.

Oh come now don't be so modest... The main reason that this thread is so hot is that a handful of skeptics are so 'flustered' by what is presented that they post page after page of rebuttals and keep it alive and active...

Originally posted by zorgon
Oh come now don't be so modest... The main reason that this thread is so hot is that a handful of skeptics are so 'flustered' by what is presented that they post page after page of rebuttals and keep it alive and active...

Your ability to delude yourself is scarily impressive.

The skeptics here have laid out how absurd the notion of the Shuttle docking with an SSS is. You proponents have been called to task, shown how you can PROVE your theories, and yet you have come up empty. Again.

We'll keep posting facts and rational discourse so long as you:

1) purport that amorphous photography artifacts are Secret Space Stations.
2) make excuses for why you haven't bothered to buy a camera and a telescope which would show the Shuttle changing inclination, mated to SSS, etc.

Put up, or shut up.

Originally posted by rockets red glare

Iv'e offten wondered why they couldn'r sink up better with ISS on launches. what you say would make sence if there were others.

Thanks for the post rrg. The 'sink up game' or 'playing catch up' with the ISS has been a ruse in effect for a very long time. Its so established now that nobody gives it a second thought, they just think, "Oh yeah, we have a ten minute launch window so that we can spend 44 hours playing 'catch up ' with the ISS.

I would imagine that the truth is 9 minutes to orbit and 10 minutes to dock. All the rest is just obscurational folderal.

Thanks again for the post.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post rrg. The 'sink up game' or 'playing catch up' with the ISS has been a ruse in effect for a very long time. Its so established now that nobody gives it a second thought, they just think, "Oh yeah, we have a ten minute launch window so that we can spend 44 hours playing 'catch up ' with the ISS.

I would imagine that the truth is 9 minutes to orbit and 10 minutes to dock. All the rest is just obscurational folderal.

Thanks again for the post.

john,
I am curious as to what is driving your thought process on this one. Have you actaully studied orbital dynamics in any way, shape, or form? Can you use actual physics to show how it would be possible to launch whenever you feel like it, catch up to an object moving around 17, 5000 mph, and then successfully dock?

Perhaps if you could come up with something along those lines we will stop pestering you?

Originally posted by 1553B

1) purport that amorphous photography artifacts are Secret Space Stations.

They look 'amorphous' because of the limitations of the telescope. I am sure that larger telescopes will show secret space stations beyond our wildest imagination. (Well, not beyond mine.)

2) make excuses for why you haven't bothered to buy a camera and a telescope which would show the Shuttle changing inclination, mated to SSS, etc.

Now 1153B that is the silliest post you have made today. I have already explained what we need: 16 inch Cassegrain, equatorial mount co-located orbital mount and drive, video camera, power and time. I don't know about Zorgon's financial status but I know mine is extremely precarious. There is no way I could foot the bill for such an expensive endeavour.

Shame on you for insulting us in this manner.

Put up, or shut up.

And further shame on you for this additional uncalled for comment.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Perhaps if you could come up with something along those lines we will stop pestering you?

Thanks for the post COOL HAND. The T&C specifically prohibit this kind of conduct. You might want to take a look.

Your attempt to make orbital mechanics look complicated may play well with some. It has been the mainstay of the big NAZA lie for many years.

But let me respectfully suggest you take your 'pestering' attempts at obfuscation elsewhere, perhaps Baut might be more appreciative. They seem to be mainstream adaptable.

And, hey, found any more about the Fleet 21? Its a big secret like the secret space stations.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post COOL HAND. The T&C specifically prohibit this kind of conduct. You might want to take a look.

What are you talking about?

Your attempt to make orbital mechanics look complicated may play well with some. It has been the mainstay of the big NAZA lie for many years.

Then please commence with the explanation and be as detailed as you need to be.

But let me respectfully suggest you take your 'pestering' attempts at obfuscation elsewhere, perhaps Baut might be more appreciative. They seem to be mainstream adaptable.

Wait, let me guess here. You can't back up your claim so now you are resorting to throwing around big words.

And, hey, found any more about the Fleet 21? Its a big secret like the secret space stations.

Yep, I found out all kinds of info on it. It is all public domain so feel free to look it up yourself.

Hello John,

I'm happy to report that miraculously, my account seems to be operational again (thank you mods), so we can continue this scholarly and well balanced discussion.

Originally posted by johnlear
Your attempt to make orbital mechanics look complicated may play well with some. It has been the mainstay of the big NAZA lie for many years.

I think you might be missing a tremendous chance to educate us here, John. Some of us have training in natural sciences and should be able to comprehend the equations that need to be solved, along with numerical methods involved and the all-important analysis of errors and sensitivies to various parameters. You seem to be saying that it's a piece of cake, if so, great! Let's prove mathematically that it's trivial for the shuttle to reach the docking position in a couple of hours or whatever!

Oh, and don't forget to include the orbital nodal regression into your calculation. Don't let these "NAZA liars" get away with their bogus claims.
Thank you for reading this, John.




[edit on 19-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by johnlear
Your attempt to make orbital mechanics look complicated may play well with some. It has been the mainstay of the big NAZA lie for many years.

John, here is an excellent opportunity to explain, in detail, how orbital mechanics work...since you seem to know enough to make the above absurd statement (that caters only to the ignorant) Don't be afraid of using terms that might throw off your followers, go ahead, dazzle us with your higher education, and your ability to show us, mathematically, why your take on orbital mechanics makes not just NASA's, but every other space faring country on the planet incorrect. Come on John, don't pass up this opportunity to possibly gain new supporters....

But let me respectfully suggest you take your 'pestering' attempts at obfuscation elsewhere

Pestering...you mean asking for clarification on your abundant higher knowledge? John, you need to understand that your audience here is not completely full of ignorant believers, and those who know nothing of science and math. To ignore that group, the only group that can validate your absurd beliefs, should show your other half of followers how wrong you are.....I know, I know...you don't have to proof anything to us, lol. 2+2=4.137 where your from and you have enough sheeple following you to believe that

perhaps Baut might be more appreciative. They seem to be mainstream adaptable.

Your slight against another, respectable, forum should not be tolerated, and is against the T&C. But I see why you dislike them. They are full of scientists and smart people who poke holes in anything you say. You couldn't get an audience there if you paid them., And you hide behind the fact that you say they are touting "mainstream" science...using that word again because you know that majority of your blind followers are conditioned to consider anything mainstream as bad...you know...."screw the man, he's keeping me down" type of stuff. Ever consider that 2+2=4 might just be mainstream science, John?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? I wouldn't hang out at a place like BAUT if I were you either, you wouldn't be able to get the kind of attention you get here, nor would you have an entire website to back you up when you get stuck in a corner and can't fight your way out with knowledge. Prove me wrong..no, don't bother. Just come back with some goofy saying that you think will turn the tables on me and cast the light of reason away from your absurd mentality. (and if you take that as an insult, or T&C violation, then you only back up that statement...think about it)



[edit on 19-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

[edit on 19-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

The above is an excellent example of why John and his ideas ever gain traction.

You say that as if the idea displeases you. Disagreeing with someone is one thing, but having an agenda to disprove literally everything someone says, with believed facts is another thing entirely. The problem with facts is that they're notoriously difficult to grab ahold of and pin them down for a good looking over, that is why there's such fierce debate all over ATS.

One fact i do know, is that nobody here is in possession of all the facts about any of the topics for discussion, so inevitably that leads to guesswork, if people latch onto John's guesswork, why is that a bad thing? it just proves there are many people who have a like mind to him.

Some people require facts to believe, some people require none, some people are in possession of facts and still might not believe it anyway. That is the very nature of people, skeptical or gullible and many shades of grey inbetween that.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by unnamedninja]

------------------------------------
Fixed quote

[edit on 19/11/07 by masqua]

Dear Mr.Unnamed Ninja,

Originally posted by unnamedninja
Disagreeing with someone is one thing, but having an agenda to disprove literally everything someone says, with believed facts is another thing entirely.

I think it's hardly Mr.IgnoreTheFacts' fault that most of what Mr.Lear says does not square with the facts. Do you think if somebody is in favor of posting verifiable, solid data that does not contradict the facts observable by you, Mr.Ninja, this constitutes some kind of nefarious agenda? These are not "believed" fact, I must add. The rotation of the Moon around Earth in roughly 28 days is a fairly solid fact, won't you agree? There are more subtle but nevertheless proven facts such as nodal regression:

yarchive.net...

In our day and age, a lot of interesting information is there for asking! If you choose to intentionally ignore it, you hardly have an argument against people who don't.

The problem with facts is that they're notoriously difficult to grab ahold of and pin them down for a good looking over, that is why there's such fierce debate all over ATS.

I disagree with you about the facts being diffiult to grab (also the paragraph above). With a modicum of effort, one can find plenty of info on a variety of subjects, including such topics as cooling the interior of a spacecraft and keeping the heat balance in check. That's the reason, for example, why the Soviet "Polyus" craft was painted black (very few instruments on board, hence not a lot of heat and need to use solar energy for that), and that most other craft have radiators to dump unwanted heat into space. John Lear, however, elected to not avail himself to this info and created a branch in the thread that hints at a conspiracy surrounding Apollo-13 (astronauts getting cold). Was he lazy? Did he care at all about the quality of his posts? I don't know.

So the fierce debate, as you describe it, typically goes like that:

A. There is XYZ and that is weird and a conspiracy!
B. But look, Mr.A, there is an explanation for XYZ, which goes like that /insert a law of physics here/ due to these data /insert published data here/
A. Your "laws of physics" are a product of conspiracy! Your data is false! And you don't know the rest of the facts! And I don't have to prove anything to you anyway!

One fact i do know, is that nobody here is in possession of all the facts about any of the topics for discussion, so inevitably that leads to guesswork, if people latch onto John's guesswork, why is that a bad thing?

Again, if you prefer the guesswork, fine. It's just when we are trying to learn something we need to use something better than guesswork. When you are flying in an airplane, you sure do hope that the engineers who designed it used strict laws of physics and not some kind of wild guesses.


[edit on 19-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by unnamedninja why is that a bad thing? it just proves there are many people who have a like mind to him.

This is precisely what drives them, unnamedninja... they fear that we are forming a cult and leading the strays down a path to well you get the idea. It seems if someone happens to agree with ANYTHING John says... instantly you are branded a follower and it has actually been said in many threads... a cult

Some people require facts to believe, some people require none, some people are in possession of facts and still might not believe it anyway.

Yes very true, especially the last part... and that one puzzles me the most.. and some are in possession of the facts, admit it privately and still play the hard core skeptic...

But honor, the T&C's and the wish to know more keep me silent...

But Damn! It ain't easy

Originally posted by zorgon
This is precisely what drives them, unnamedninja... they fear that we are forming a cult and leading the strays down a path to well you get the idea. It seems if someone happens to agree with ANYTHING John says... instantly you are branded a follower and it has actually been said in many threads... a cult

zorgon,
In case you forgot, the purpose of this site is to deny ignorance. What could possibly be more ignorant that denying proven scientific facts?

We don't fear that you are forming a cult anymore, it is obvious that it has already happened and the Kool-Aid is already being passed around.

Hello Mr.Z,

Originally posted by zorgon
This is precisely what drives them, unnamedninja... they fear that we are forming a cult

I have to admit that blind faith in something against all facts and odds is a typical characteristics of a cult. Parallels are many.

But I don't fear that you are "forming a cult". If anything, I'm sad that some people choose a shortcut to the perceived "knowledge", even if it's verifiably false, instead of investing time and effort in learning.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Yep, I found out all kinds of info on it. It is all public domain so feel free to look it up yourself.

LOL A comedian in our midsts

Scream all day to provide proof on our side... then tell us to "go look it up ourselves"

We are amused...

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Yep, I found out all kinds of info on it. It is all public domain so feel free to look it up yourself.

LOL A comedian in our midsts

Scream all day to provide proof on our side... then tell us to "go look it up ourselves"

We are amused...

If I provide you with the info, then you will just scream that I can't find an unbiased source for it, or that it can't be right becuase it is from the government.

Here, let me make it easy for you. Fleet 21 is also know as Seapower 21. See what you can find with that.

Hello,

Just following this thread, and Lord Zorgon knows I've been guilty of throwing things off the rails. I wanted to chime in and say when the subject of 'cults' came up, I scrolled back to top to remind myself where I was on ATS. I know, it tends to de-volve sometimes as discussions get heated. However, I would like to see some more thoughtful discussion regarding the premise.

Thanks

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I know, it tends to de-volve sometimes as discussions get heated. However, I would like to see some more thoughtful discussion regarding the premise.

Quote frankly, Mr.Weewhacker, real discussions haven't even started because that would assume at least a modicum of expertise or simple erudition on both sides of the isle. My point (quite relevant to the topic) -- there are complex constraints on the launch time of a vehicle if it is to rendevouz with the ISS. It even goes as far as:

-- per recent policy, all launches have to be done in daylight so that the potential damage to thermal shield can be photographed and studied
-- solar beta angle must be observed (otherwise a docked shuttle would block the ISS' solar panels and there won't be enough power)

the list goes on and on, in addition to issues of nodal regression etc. There are even simpler facts that that, such as that the ISS is only passing over the launch point once a day (correct me if I'm wrong) or so, and if you multiply all the factors, possibilities of launch are limited.

there are multiple sources of info, for example check this out:
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

But trying to calculate the nodal regression is too boring or inaccessible to armchair scientists. It's just so much easier to say that this is false science, without lifting a finger.




[edit on 19-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
But I don't fear that you are "forming a cult". If anything, I'm sad that some people choose a shortcut to the perceived "knowledge", even if it's verifiably false, instead of investing time and effort in learning.

Well I admit I used "skeptics' in a lumped group... not ALL use these tactics...

As to the "verifiably false", Herein lies the problem... your sources tell you that you are absolutely correct... yet my sources tell me a different story... I have even posted a long post in this thread revealing a big secret about 'cloaking' tech and it was totally ignored because it was lost in the fervor to attack John's ideas...

You say you want us to hand you absolute proof... yet surely you must know how impossible that would be without breaking into DoD computers (Just in case you are confused I am discussing space stations, the purpose of this thread...)

As to the gravity and atmosphere on the Moon... that was an idea that I found 'difficult' to accept at the beginning, but now I am finding things that indicate that there is more to this than we have been told...

Japan and China both rushed out there with space craft that actually have some amazing equipment on board, and have nothing to do with taking pretty pictures...

As to the pictures... Japan is supposed to have an HD TV camera taking live video... so where is it? All they have shown is a view crappy images... One would think National pride would make them want to show off... not happening... won't be months before we see anything...

China says maybe a year before they release any images, though some reports say November... well still no pics and why would the Japanese having got their first let the Chinese scoop them?

Oh well time will tell...

Gravity on the Moon...

Has anyone seriously studied the antics of the Astronauts racing around in the Moon Buggy? I used to Rally... I have had my car airborne several times... Yet they seem to have no effort 'keeping it on the ground'