It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Most of what happens on this planet is being recorded.

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
Not possible.

Satellites in geostationary orbit hang nearly 23,000 miles above Earth's surface. That's three times the diameter of Earth itself. You can't much from up there. Satellites in lower orbits travel too fast to film anything, though still images are possible.


Yes, but it's a little more complex than that. There are Low Earth Orbit satellites, LEOs, and though they must travel fast to resist gravitational pull, at a point in their orbit, they are moving more slowly. This, below, explains how several satellites, using their orbits and points in their orbits, can cross-reference in order to exploit visual data gathered.

Satellites are used for a large number of purposes. Common types include military and civilian Earth observation satellites, communications satellites, navigation satellites, weather satellites, and research satellites. Space stations and human spacecraft in orbit are also satellites. Satellite orbits vary greatly, depending on the purpose of the satellite, and are classified in a number of ways. Well-known (overlapping) classes include low Earth orbit, polar orbit, and geostationary orbit.

About 6,600 satellites have been launched. The latest estimates are that 3,600 remain in orbit.[1] Of those, about 1,000 are operational;[2][3] the rest have lived out their useful lives and are part of the space debris. Approximately 500 operational satellites are in low-Earth orbit, 50 are in medium-Earth orbit (at 20,000 km), the rest are in geostationary orbit (at 36,000 km).[4]


You are, in fact acknowledging only one orbit classification, when there are, in fact, four.
This gets a little more specific:

Altitude classifications[edit]
Low Earth orbit (LEO): Geocentric orbits ranging in altitude from 0–2000 km (0–1240 miles)
Medium Earth orbit (MEO): Geocentric orbits ranging in altitude from 2,000 km (1,200 mi)-35,786 km (22,236 mi). Also known as an intermediate circular orbit.
Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO): Geocentric circular orbit with an altitude of 35,786 kilometres (22,236 mi). The period of the orbit equals one sidereal day, coinciding with the rotation period of the Earth. The speed is approximately 3,000 metres per second (9,800 ft/s).
High Earth orbit (HEO): Geocentric orbits above the altitude of geosynchronous orbit 35,786 km (22,236 mi).



But the people that starred you thought you nailed it, so…..
tetra
edit on 24-8-2014 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
@Atyanax:

So then, we have to address your other point that Low Earth Orbit satellites, or LEOs, must move very fast, approx. 17,000 mph, in order to escape the gravitational pull. This is accomplished, in order to provide weather, climate data and/or navigation information (as well as other possible surveillance gathering), by the orbit, itself, and/or combining information with many satelllites, in the same orbit, cross-referencing their data and pics. At some point in their particular orbits, they will be moving at a slower rate of speed, too.


Remember Kepler's second law: an object in orbit about Earth moves much faster when it is close to Earth than when it is farther away. Perigee is the closest point and apogee is the farthest (for Earth - for the Sun we say aphelion and perihelion). If the orbit is very elliptical, the satellite will spend most of its time near apogee (the furthest point in its orbit) where it moves very slowly. Thus it can be above home base most of the time, taking a break once each orbit to speed around the other side.



With the highly elliptical orbit described above, the satellite has long dwell time over one area, but at certain times when the satellite is on the high speed portion of the orbit, there is no coverage over the desired area. To solve this problem we could have two satellites on similar orbits, but timed to be on opposite sides of the orbit at any given time. In this way, there will always be one satellite over the desired coverage area at all times.



If we want continuous coverage over the entire planet at all times, such as the Department of Defense's Global Positioning System (GPS), then we must have a constellation of satellites with orbits that are both different in location and time.



In this way, there is a satellite over every part of the Earth at any given time. In the case of the GPS system, there are three or more satellites covering any location on the planet.

www.polaris.iastate.edu...
Visiting the link provides nice visuals to go along with the description of the orbits.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne
You may find this of interest, as well. It's from militaryaerospace.com. It hints, if you read between the lines, at what's already been in place and exploitable for a while.


ARLINGTON, Va., 2 Dec. 2012. Reconnaissance and surveillance experts at the Raytheon Co. Missile Systems segment in Tucson, Ariz., are helping a U.S. military effort to provide useful persistent-surveillance imagery on-demand to the lowest-echelon warfighter in the field from small low-cost satellites.

SeeMe will develop enabling technologies that eventually could help make relevant battlefield imagery available to front-line warfighters in real time using constellations of temporary and inexpensive orbiting satellites that are launched quickly enough to support fast-moving military operations.
The SeeMe satellites would fill gaps in battlefield situational awareness before, during, and after military engagements, DARPA officials say.
The SeeMe program would provide reliable persistent-surveillance data to front-line forces using small, short-lived, very-low-cost satellites operating at low altitudes that are networked to fielded military communications systems and handheld devices.


This is the part where some reading between the lines is necessary.

he SeeMe short-duration satellite constellations would compensate for today's weaknesses in gathering situational-awareness data that today does not provide the lowest-echelon warfighters with on-demand satellite imagery due to the unavailability of satellite overflight opportunities, lack of information distribution channels, priority conflicts, and classification restrictions.
At the same time, terrorists and other enemy forces have access to commercial imagery information that gives them an advantage. The SeeMe program would give small U.S. squads and fire-teams reliable information in remote and beyond-line-of-sight conditions, DARPA officials say.


What I mean about reading between the lines, here, and hinting at what's already available is, with a nod to what I put in bold text, this might be available to higher levels with higher security clearances in "lack of information distribution channels" and "priority conflicts." In other words, the implication, clearly, is that this information is available in specific "war rooms," to parties with the security clearances to be in those places, but not to low level troops, actually doing the military operation, whenever and wherever that's happening.

Also interesting, is the information that commercialapplications of visualization technology via satellite is giving enemy forces an advantage.

Here's the link, if anyone here is interested in reading more: www.militaryaerospace.com...

Also, Raytheon is the leading maker of satellite provided navigation for small, privately owned, vessels, ocean-going, and I'm sure, large, commericial cargo transport craft.
tetra50
edit on 24-8-2014 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

YES we do.and NO we won't. WHY would WE want any other country's people or land? America has the best stuff anyway to us I'VE been to Korea and Saudi Arabia and THEY can KEEP it.I wouldn't EXPECT an ACADEMICIAN to understand.

They had a working weapon better than theTHEL in KIRKLAND in the 80s at the LASER lab and what is in fact in ORBIT I have NO idea. BUT to assume America would take over the world IF we had the power is missing the fact we already DO.
edit on 24-8-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: WRONG THREAD STatEMENT!



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

That's an interesting reading, but "lack of overflight opportunities" and "priority conflicts" sounds to me like they have very limited coverage and can only observe high priority targets that they know enough about to schedule in advance.

The tech they say they are developing would seem to be a huge game changer and make this thread much more relevant to the future than the past.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: ErosA433

YES we do.and NO we won't. WHY would WE want any other country's people or land? America has the best stuff anyway to us I'VE been to Korea and Saudi Arabia and THEY can KEEP it.I wouldn't EXPECT an ACADEMICIAN to understand.

They had a working weapon better than theTHEL in KIRKLAND in the 80s at the LASER lab and what is in fact in ORBIT I have NO idea. BUT to assume America would take over the world IF we had the power is missing the fact we already DO.


Exactly, Cav. I agree completely. I would have written just that, but was bogged down trying to provide information.

If we assume that certain assertions are correct, that the leaders of countries are more aligned than they appear, that the world IS, in fact a stage, and a lot of the events vis a vis conflicts between countries are staged or played out just to keep control by leaders who are all part of the same cabal with an interest in controlling their human populations and keeping them dumbed down, distracted, and only able to struggle living their currently difficult lives just to survive, then you are looking at this through a different filter, so to speak…..

As I said in an earlier post, Reagan was the Star Wars initiative, which addresses some level of coming clean with what may have already been in space, and/or what was going to be put there and maintained. I find it interesting they funded and built a lot of the equipment, then said it didn't work, after all. Even while that was being said, much medical technology took a large leap through the development of said equipment: Nuclear medicine, and more advanced ability to visualize in testing and therefore, diagnose better.

Anyone who follows the development of technology and the transparency, or lack of it, surrounding this issue (what's admitted to, and what's not, or just what's alluded to, like Star Wars and then seemingly abandoned) knows that there's a particular pattern in play, here, with divulging secrets. You have to ask yourself about Star Wars, why they spent billions funding it, even after it was said they weren't going to launch any of this stuff, and then seemed to be trading off with certain scientific interests. That's what giving the medical community the strides in Nuclear Medicine amounted to, as though they likely needed certain of the science and medical community to continue working on technology, but that meant these people would necessarily know, then, about some classified stuff not previously known. Allowing them then to develop offshoot tech to use in their everyday work would then be the trade-off for their silence.

Just theorizing, IMHO.
tetra



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: tetra50

That's an interesting reading, but "lack of overflight opportunities" and "priority conflicts" sounds to me like they have very limited coverage and can only observe high priority targets that they know enough about to schedule in advance.

The tech they say they are developing would seem to be a huge game changer and make this thread much more relevant to the future than the past.


You are focusing, of course, on this part:

…. does not provide the lowest-echelon warfighters with on-demand satellite imagery due to the unavailability of satellite overflight opportunities, lack of information distribution channels, priority conflicts, and classification restrictions.



"The lack of," and "the unavailability of," at least to me, mean much different things. "Lack," says it isn't happening, while "Unavailability," especially combined with what follows:

lack of information distribution channels, priority conflicts, and classification restrictions.
means it's happening but not available to that level of clearance of people or troops, as is reflected in the term used previously in what I quoted:
"lowest-echelon warfighters."

As to "satellite overflight opportunities," this could mean something very different within the context, then you are taking it to mean. Combined with the information I quote to Astyanax about how the satellite reconnaisance works via the LEOs, their orbits and cross referencing data, including visual data, and then considering they are attempting to give troops on the ground real time information, the context would appear to mean that gaining that info at a specific TIME for a specific place of conflict, such as a spot not well populated or covered at certain times through satellite imagery, such as Afghanistan in some desert spot, indicates real time coverage for classified information at a certain level would be hard. It's much more complex than you are making it seem, and that directly applied to context.

Are you aware, for instance, that the specific group working years ago on locating Osama Bin Laden used high definition, detailed, satellite imagery to visualize in detail the compound in a Pakastani neighborhood they eventually sent the SEAL team into? They watched it for months and the comings and goings of the people there, before doing this. How is it you think they visualized in great detail, down to all the adults never being outside without totally being covered with a burkha?
tetra
edit on 24-8-2014 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2014 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2014 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2014 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2014 by tetra50 because: can't get the exterior and my writing separated. when trying to do this, half of the ex text just disappears. Just trying to get my response more readable, but it appears either the comp, or ATS isn't going to allow that



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I know there are many classified government programs as i was a federal security officer in a navy research base.

And i have seen a few things i don't know what program they were from.

like special DVD disks that are 12 inches across that hold over 50+GB of data



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I don't understand your hostility. I didn't say anything for or against adaptive optics.

The point of my post was to explain how a simple averaging algorithm can remove the majority of atmospheric refraction and distortion, and this averaging algorithm was been around for years, and is low cost.

Maybe you didn't understand that it is not just "temporal imaging", it is "averaging". Which are not the same thing. Maybe you should learn to read.

In fact, even with adaptive optics they would still use pixel by pixel averaging to remove noise.
edit on 24-8-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
They have tech beyond what we can imagine. Researchers concluded you could determine where someone was in a home and what they were doing through their wifi, imagine what they can do with a state of the art satellite, they are probably looking at your phone messages from inside your underground bunker. probably recording video of everyone from direct feed from your brain to their quantum computer setups. I set no limit to the tech, because the have been subverting our tech for 100+ years for their own personal gain.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I'd be more worried about the Google Earth like software they have, which has a blip / marker of every GPS enabled cell phone in existence on said 3D map.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Seeing some of these responses denying this as a possibility of reality takes me back to a long ago version of myself in what now seems like another life, being so comfortable in and feeling so educated about the world in which we live (or are told we live) and the level of technology "we" possess.

I'm sure there are a few on here that are familiar with a certain 75% rule. I'll leave it to you what is the 25% to leave out of the OPs original account.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

the slight hostility is to perceived hostility on your behalf when wading in with a generally "You don't know anything" like opener. It is true that all aspects of what we have discussed would be used to get the best result. What your original post said is in short "Your so dumb, you can do this with temporal averaging easily" and my response was simply. "To get the resolution posed by the OP, temporal averaging is not enough and you require adaptive optics (which i had already said before) to get even close. Things can move a lot in those microseconds required to produce these average images, and that would not result in being able to figure out if someone shaved in the morning or not.

Maybe a slight miss in how i should have interpreted the opening statement but fact still remains that the OP contains a lot of fantasy.

Well, to the other replies to my post, it is fairly amusing, first the use of capitals... i expect no less from such angry sounding posts, thats right, shouting even in text, make things more right doesn't it. Yeah, iv been to a lot of countries too, understand a lot about the various cultures around the world too... you know, things are not THAT different between different counties or people.

but maybe you both, Tetra and Cav missed my point. What is the united states? it is capitalist, now if the government had access to such leading tech in the 80s, it could have leaked small amounts of it and advanced its own market position far beyond any other country. Did this happen? No, no it didn't. Did it reap the benefits of all this advanced tech to make the US a better, richer cleaner more wonderful place, so dominating everyone else that it becomes a beacon of the world... No it didn't and if you think it did, you are patriotically blind. Yes its a big economy, but one that requires outside input, if it was so wonderfully perfect, it would not require as much in terms of high tech import as it does. Nearly every country in the world is the same.

It is kind of interesting that much of the most sought after technology is being produced not in the US but in Japan and Korea, and many advanced technologies in terms of physics and chemistry comes out of many places in the world, not just the US. LCD technology, and Graphene came out of the UK, (All with some collaboration) and if you look now, who is applying this technology to develop things further... mostly the east.

For all the technology boast it is interesting to know that only one country in the world is able to cast the containment vessels used in Nuclear power plants... oh and guess what? it isn't the US.

My point is this, much like lots of conspiracies, economic and historical evidence is against the claims made, now i expect some fairly stock responses to those, but thats ok.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

Yes absolutely... and that is an important point. The OP is way way off in what they think they can do with optics, but the reality is things are much more simplistic. You dont need to track people with optics
as you point out.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50




This is just downright silly. Go to Google maps, for goodness sakes, click on the satellite view of any area, and look how much detail you can see. And that's what's available to the public


Just a question,

I thought Google maps satellite view used images taken from aircraft or mostly from aircraft, are you certain that the satellite view are actual images from satellites in orbit?



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

It is a mixture of Satellite and Areal photography.

Oh yeah other question is this... why if Satellite imagery is so good, why bother waste money on the SR-71? which was brought back into service in the early 90s for Sorties over the middle east and North Korea, bit of a waste of money, risk and pilots don't you think if better, live streaming data is already available don't you think?



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: tetra50




This is just downright silly. Go to Google maps, for goodness sakes, click on the satellite view of any area, and look how much detail you can see. And that's what's available to the public


Just a question,

I thought Google maps satellite view used images taken from aircraft or mostly from aircraft, are you certain that the satellite view are actual images from satellites in orbit?


Open up google maps right now. In the left hand corner there will be a small box. Over the box, with a small view until you click on it, and choose "satellite," which will give you the map in "satellite view," just as the little box promises.
tetra



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

It uses a mixture of satellite and aerial photography. Neither are real-time, obviously.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433



Well, to the other replies to my post, it is fairly amusing, first the use of capitals... i expect no less from such angry sounding posts, thats right, shouting even in text, make things more right doesn't it. Yeah, iv been to a lot of countries too, understand a lot about the various cultures around the world too... you know, things are not THAT different between different counties or people.


I was kinda shocked to discover when you named me in the next paragraph, that you were referring to me, here, as well, I take it. I didn't capitalize anything except LEOs, which stands for Low Earth Orbit Satellites, and is capitalized that way both in the Wiki, and on NASA's site informing the public about satellites….as they have an Earth Observation System of satellites, all looking at earth….Huh, go figure. Kinda like what the OP is addressing….Huh.

Angry? I'm not angry at all. I kinda think it's funny, at this point, the whole thread. Then we get to the characterization of me as zealously patriotic. LOL That's incredibly hilarious. Wow. I don't know if there's a reading comprehension problem here, or what. I simply don't know what to make of it….writing, sourcing, writing, and no one getting anything your saying, no matter how many sources you provide. Not only that, but you're drawing conclusions of me that are so far off the mark, it's friggin incredible. Do you think I support what the OP says is happening? You are so far off the mark, it's beyond explanation.
There is absolutely no way you could have been reading what I've been writing and come up with any of the personal assumptions you are making. I've rarely seen people respond with this much prejudice on any thread I've participated in on ATS, ever, and I've been here a little while. I'm truly blown away.

As far as I can tell, I'm one of the only participants here who has sourced, deeply and repeatedly, from actual, very credible sites, every assertion I have made in this thread and have had almost no support from anyone, and very little replying to what I've said and backed up with scientific sources. And then, you come along and talk about the use of Caps by angry people.

This is incredibly funny. Really. The only thing I capitalized was a friggin scientific acronym, written that way on a site hosted by the science community that owns and operates these satellites, as well as disseminates the data from them to the public…..

If what's taken place on this thread in the way of informed discourse is usual, I wonder how scientists who disseminate such information to the public don't end up bruising their own foreheads with face palms on a daily basis.
It's absolutely ludicrous.

I'd go on to speak to your next paragraph, but I'm really hard put to string together what you're saying and how it applies to anything whatsoever in this thread, or to what I've asserted thus far and backed up with sources. But you have a good day.

I think I've provided along the lines of six or so different science and military aerospace websites as sources for information. If anyone wants to talk about facts on that level, I'd be glad to reply. If not, I'm outta here. It's a waste of time and energy, and I'm worn out.
tetra
edit on 25-8-2014 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tetra50

It uses a mixture of satellite and aerial photography. Neither are real-time, obviously.


This has got to be my last response on a thread that's a total waste of time and energy.
I don't know why you're replying to me about this. Yes, that's exactly what it says when you google "google maps."
But this is what I was answering, when I wrote about the little box on the left hand side of a google map having the satellite label:



are you certain that the satellite view are actual images from satellites in orbit?


Satellites, in order to be called satellites, must be in orbit. Even the ISS is termed a satellite, as it's orbiting. It's waht makes it a satellite. This is from the wiki:

In the context of spaceflight, a satellite is an artificial object which has been intentionally placed into orbit.

And, does it matter that it's in real-time or not, at least for the purposes of this question being answered? And really, the term "real time" is a big farse anyway. There is no such thing, in a sense, due to our technological advancements. We now rely upon digital computer provided "time." We no longer rely upon the rate of radioactive decay, and even if we did, if what we've recently discovered about neutrinos is true, it throws into question radioactive decay as a means of measuring time, as well as carbon dating, and just about everything else we ever thought defined or kept track of "time."

Now, I'd like to say one last thing here.
I'm not in favor of what the OP says is and has been done: i.e. taping everything we do, our lives,etc.

Yes, I believe it is being done, and has been for quite some time. I am certainly not in favor of it. It is meaningless in the scheme of anything, and this is why:
It gives the appearance and totally false impression that we have hard evidence of ….well, anything at all. When we don't. At all. Anything can be taped, retaped, taped over, acted out, spliced in, edited out….etc. I'm sure you get my point, surely. It's proof of nothing, but the act of doing it and having reels and years of tape makes it seem that a true record of events exists, when it doesn't, and never can….especially in the current state of our technology.

Our current state of technology has totally surpassed and therefore obliterated any sense or reality of "truth."
Due to that, there is almost no such thing as truth, any longer, because there is a way to bend it, splice it, spin it, fake it, make it seem whatever someone, or the majority, or TPTB, or the current psychopathic leadership of the times wishes it to be. Taping anything at all whatsoever, means absolutely nothing, in terms of voracity or truth…..JMHO.
Tetra50
edit on 25-8-2014 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join