It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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



page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:22 PM
syrinx, Please don't be offended, but you've had ample time to digest my theory, so please excuse me from future replies to you. i luv ya buddi, but please sit down.

Originally posted by yeahright
May I? Just a sanity check to make sure I understand...

We live on the inside of a spherical earth. A glass sphere beginning about 300 miles up is enclosed within the Earth's sphere. EVERYTHING that we think of as "in space" exists within that glass sphere, including God Almighty. If you drill down through the Earth, you'd eventually pop out into the vast nothingness void where nothing exists. We're ALL (the cosmos, the universe, all celestial objects, and heaven itself), inside the sphere of a hollow Earth. Right?

Well, kind of, the glass orb is lower, the same height of the ionosphere. Actually, it IS the ionosphere.
Here's a grpahic depicting radio waves, which bounce of the glass(which the ionospher is compared to:

Greenhouse effect is also caused by the "glasosphere"

Global Change Issues - Greenhouse Effect I
Greenhouses are mostly made of glass
Glass is transparent to short wave-length (solar) radiation (lets it pass through)
Glass is almost opaque to long-wavelength radiation (reflects it back into green house)
Solar radiation enters greenhouse and heats up plants and other hard surfaces
Suraces re-radiate heat as long-wavelength (infrared) radiation but glass will not let this radiation escape
The result is greenhouse atmosphere gets hotter

Global Change Issues - Greenhouse Effect II
Certain gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor) behave like glass in the Earth's atmosphere and are called greenhouse gases
Human activities since the 19th century (beginning of Industrial Revolution) have dramatically increased carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere
Concern is that this will cause global warming of atmosphere
One problem is that we do not understand the Earth's climate system well enough to predict what will really happen

so, in effect, the reason why the Space Shuttle never leaves earth's orbit, is not because they are experiencing microgravity and falling, .....

...they're just trapped inside.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Plumbo]

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:31 PM
"syrinx, Please don't be offended, but you've had ample time to digest my theory, so please excuse me from future replies to you. i luv ya buddi, but please sit down. "

I'm not offended, this amusement takes me away from work.

Please answer the questions.

1) Whats beyond the glass ?
2) how large, in miles, is the diameter of the glasosphere ?
3) are you in a cult ?
4) who is that in your avatar ?
5) what is the revolution ?


posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Here is the proof that they could not send signal to the moon or anywhere else via satellite.

The Satellites sit in a Geostationary Orbit, in other words they follow the earth as it turns.

Which Satellites are we talking about exactly? Because not all sit in a Geostationary orbit. And although i'm not 100% sure on this, but when NASA sends a signal to something out in space, I don't think it goes through a satillite.

If you send anything into space that needs to be controlled from the earth, HOW DO YOU CONTROL IT WHEN THE EARTH IS FACING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION ?

Well you are aware that the Earth is round yes? One side of Earth is always facing the moon or a probe or whatever. NASA uses large dishes all around the globe. There is one in Australia I know for sure.

The Satellites do not always face the moon if they follow the earth, and the only way you could possibly get a signal from the moon would be when the reciever on the earth is facing the transmitter on the moon. This alignment would only last for a moment, for the earth is always moving and likewise the moon and you cannot possibly keep them aligned. Tell me how NASA solves this problem.

Well you do know that those large dishes can move and adjust themselves right? The moon always follows an orbital path, so we always know where it's going to be. So it's not hard to keep two dishes aligned. Hell you can get tripods that have a small motor on them that you can use to track stars and what not. Great for astonomy. So yes you can easily keep them aligned.


I don't find your lack of understanding and comprehension to be funny at all. Quite sad really.

EDIT: oh yeah... and what about that cigar shaped device you used to find satillites. Got any more info on that?

[edit on 15-8-2005 by jra]

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:33 PM
Make up your mind. Geosynchronus orbit is 23,000 miles. So how can they be in that orbit if they can't be more than 300 miles high?

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:22 AM
Ok, Lastday Prophet, all I can do is sit here and shake my head.

Are you really that myopic in your view of the world and all spherical things? Are you seriously a person who thinks there is one satellite in orbit? Are you seriously of the view that there is ONE transmitter (dish or dish array) on the planet? I don't know where to begin without ridicule and scorn, but I will attempt to keep my composure and diagram how you send a signal from one side of the Earth (to any object or location on the other side of the Earth) incase anyone else is wondering. Hopefully this will even educate you Prophet ...but I somehow doubt it will.

I will use the Moon as the "space target" for my 2 examples.

Earth relay Satellite to 'space target' transmission

Broadcast station, on earth on side opposite of moon. (Yellow demotes ground station)

Broadcast to geosynchronous satellite A (step 1)

Broadcast to geosynchronous satellite relay to satellite B or C or both (step 2)

Broadcast to moon from geosynchronous sattelite B or C or both (final step)

Transmission received on moon from other side of Earth. Total elapsed time, less than 2 seconds.

Earth relay transmission using 2nd Ground Station

Broadcast to geosynchronous satellite (step 1)

Relay through Geosynchronous satellite B to Ground Station 2 (step 2)

We went through satellite B because satellite C line-of-sight to Ground Station 2 was blocked by the Earth.

Broadcast from Ground Station 2 to target in space (in this case the Moon)

Signal received on Moon from Ground Station 2 - signal originated at Ground Station 1, was relayed through geosynchronous satellites and the 2nd Ground Station for retransmission at full power to Moon.

The above two examples work to ANY point in space from ANY location on Earth - period.

Surely this is clear to anyone on how this works...

The above graphics were created by me in about 10 minutes, so they are not to scale, but they are 100% accurate in principal. Certainly anyone on here with any knowledge in this area can correct me if I am wrong and I wholeheartedly invite anyone that works at NASA/ESA/CSA or in any astronomy or physics field to add to this post or correct me (no lunatics allowed please...)

Does this answer your question Lastday Prophet?

The SECOND example is how the vast majority of Earth to space target transmissions are carried out -- this relies on ground based high power transmission stations for final transmission. There are MULTIPLE transmitting dishes located around the world which are used by NASA and ESA (and other space agencies).

[edit on 16-8-2005 by CatHerder]

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 05:13 AM

Lunatic Prohpet:

What does the band of a satellite have to do with being able to see it through a tool the size of a cigar ? Again you are wrong and have very limited knowledge concerning the transmission of satellite signals, Satellite signals have always been broadcast using a pattern called a "FOOTPRINT"

You are so entertaining! It's like trying to carry on a conversation with a room full of monkeys on methamphetamines.

A satellite footprint is the AREA ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH WHERE THE SATELLITE SIGNAL IS BROADCAST TO. It has nothing to do with any pattern, it's the geographical AREA that the signal is targeted at. If a satellite signal could be targeted to only hit Maine then it would have a footprint the size of Maine -- if you retargeted that same satellite towards Texas it would still have a footprint the size of Maine (and cover only that smaller part of Texas). How you could get even this simple thing wrong is beyond me, I mean you claim to be a satellite dish/receiver 'expert'...

I was speculating on the satellite finder being some sort of tool that detects energy transmissions within the useable (assigned/allocated) spectrum. I cannot see how you can simply point a telescope (especially something that sounds like a 1 inch refractor) at the sky and immediately pick out a satellite -- I have a challenging time finding one with a 6 inch refractor, nevermind a 10 inch dob (reflector), it's a littler easier naling one down with some good binoculars, but it's tough to focus on one if you don't have a tripod.

Man you are hilarious. I've chosen to ignore most of the remainder of your post because it would be potentially adverse to my diaphram to chuckle and giggle for that long. Plus it's a complete waste of time to disect for the 10th time... You don't read ANYTHING anyone posts on here unless it's related to your one rediculous fantasy world view.

Here is a link you should investigate and follow up on immediately! Pick one at random in your area, anyone would be better than nothing...

Wrong again, the first IRD was a GI IQ160 (general instruments) there were no others brands available at that time, and Sony was not involved in the early days of TVRO. Sony did not come into the picture until the advent of DBS, Direct and Dish, which was in the 90's.
Scientific Atlanta was used exclusively at Uplink and Downlink Facilities.

Wrong, totally wrong. Sony's first IRD was for C band satellites in the early 80s. They had a model out within months of Chapparels (look up Emeritus H. Taylor Howard and Bob Taggart and see what they were doing in 1976) do-it-yourself satellite receiver kits. Panasonic, RCA, and many others also had receivers in the early 80's most of which were licenced technology from Chapparel.

Intelsat Standard A Earth stations used 26-metre or larger dishes; the Soviet Orbita terminals had 12-metre rigs to receive the inclined-orbit Molniya satellites. The US CATV head-ends needed at least a 6-metre antenna to give 3dB margin above threshold on the Satcom and Westar C-Band programme feeds, with the current 120K LNAs. All rather more than the average backyard could accommodate.

But in true American pioneer tradition, things were stirring down in the garage. Experimenters, enthusiasts, radio hams, were working on microwave front ends and FM demods, and beginning to realise that the satellite TV signals were not out of reach.

H Paul Shuch had designed microstrip low-noise converters for the radio amateur 2.3, 3.4 and 5.6 GHz bands, and it was a small step to adapt them to cover the 4 GHz satellite downlink band. Bob Taggart had designed a low-cost petallized antenna for S-Band community satellite reception. In 1977 H Taylor Howard, in between his work for NASA's JPL, built up a complete C-Band satellite TV receiver from standard microwave parts, with a 70 MHz FM demodulator.

Meanwhile in England RWT's co-founder Stephen J Birkill had taken time out in 1975 from his duties as a BBC transmitter engineer, to build an experimental system for receiving in England the SITE ( Satellite Instructional Television Experiment) TV transmissions beamed to Indian villages, from the NASA ATS-6 geostationary satellite at 860 MHz. At about the same time Arthur C Clarke, the acknowledged father (or was it grandfather?) of geosynchronous communications, had a standard SITE terminal installed at his home in Sri Lanka, courtesy of the Indian government.

Over the next three years Birkill extended his system to 4 GHz, receiving TV pictures from Intelsat, Raduga, Molniya and the new Russian Gorizont satellites, and 11 GHz, where the Italian experimental satellite Sirio and the European Space Agency's OTS, flying test bed for the Eutelsat series, were downlinking. All this work was done with home-built low-noise block downconverters (LNBs) and an ex-BBC 2.4-metre dish.

In 1978 Bob Cooper, a cable TV technical journalist and amateur radio enthusiast operating out of Oklahoma City, heard of Birkill's small dish work and invited him (and his receiver) over to CCOS-78 in Oklahoma, ostensibly a cable TV operators' conference and trade show but destined to become the world's first home satellite TV gathering. Cooper brought Birkill together with California's Taylor Howard and Rod Wheeler of Whitehorse, Yukon (later to form Norsat), Jim Vines (Paraframe), Bob Behar (Hero), Tom Humphries (SCI, M/A-COM), Royden Freeland (ICM), Oliver Swan and other pioneers who helped begin the US home TVRO revolution of 1979-82. At the 1978 show Birkill demonstrated clean NTSC pictures from a 3-metre dish, and Wheeler, together with engineer Steve Ritchie (Satco), presented the first prototype of a consumer TVRO receiver. CCOS-78 also saw the first private satellite TV uplink, when, with TV facilities provided by Dana Atchley III (ACE -- now D3 TV) and a borrowed "mobile" 10-metre 3-kilowatt 6 GHz uplink operated by the show's participants, the conference proceedings were double-hopped to cable head-ends across North America via US domestic satellites of the Satcom and Westar series.

On the way home from CCOS, Steve Birkill met up in Canada with ex-BBC engineering colleague Maurice J Lovelock, and they agreed to form Real-World Technology, to design tuners, feeds and LNAs and provide technical consultancy services for the coming home-satellite boom.

The next 2 years saw an explosive growth in TVRO interest. Bob Cooper was the driving force, writing numerous articles in the popular electronics press and being interviewed for major magazines including Playboy and Time, as well as appearing on national television to demonstrate the potential of small-dish TVRO for bringing high quality multichannel entertainment into rural homes poorly served by terrestrial TV. "Small dish" still meant 3 metres or more, as the US domestic satellites were limited to about 37dBW peak EIRP and commercial C-Band LNAs had only just begun to achieve noise temperatures as low as 85K. But in rural and suburban America a 10 or 12-foot dish in the backyard was no great problem.

Cooper's 1979 Oklahoma show (SPTS-79) was the first dedicated totally to satellite, to be followed by 3 shows in 1980: at Miami in January, San Jose in July, and Houston in November. Many more innovators were coming forward, with receivers -- Andy Hatfield (Avcom), Paul Shuch, John Ramsey (Sat-Tec), Clyde Washburn (Earth Terminals), Robert Coleman, David Barker, Norman Gillaspie; with antennas -- Jamie Gowen (ADM), Bob Taggart (Chaparral), Bob Luly (inventor of the umbrella antenna now used in L-Band transportable satellite telephones); with LNAs -- Dexcel; as well as suppliers of feeds, mounts and accessories. Professional broadcast and CATV suppliers also were seeing a new market, with Amplica, Avantek, Microwave Associates, SCI, Anixter, Microdyne, Scientific Atlanta and others taking an active interest.

RWT's Steve Birkill sent over a replica of his original circularly-polarized 90-degree scalar horn feed, for tests with US reception of the Russian Molniya and Gorizont satellites -- his studies of the Soviet space program (with Geoff Perry) and monitoring of their inclined-orbit operations meant he could instruct the Americans where in their northern sky to point their dishes (the western quasi-stationary point of the Molniya orbit, over Hudson Bay, Canada, was the one used by the Russians for TV distribution). The scalar horn concept, though not new, inspired others -- most successfully Chaparral, to develop their own scalars for the home market, replacing the rectangular pyramidal horns formerly used and leading naturally to the rotating-probe designs. Complete TVRO system prices fell below the $4000 mark; trade organisation SPACE (since supplanted by SBCA) and the first dealerships were established.

I could get into even more blah blah blah, but like I've said too many times Prophet, it's a waste of time. You may have a satellite receiver but you still do NOT KNOW how it works. You're like somebody who knows how to screw in a lightbulb and turn on the lights, but has no knowledge at all about how electricity works. Although I'm sure your theories on how electricity works would be another weeks worth of entertainment...

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:10 PM
CAT, you really amuse me with your misquided attempts to prove you could send a signal to the moon.
What you did not enter into your equation is that the "MOON" revolves just like the earth does, and there is no way to keep an alignment.

Firstly there are not enough uplinks/downlinks on the earth to stay within a footprint, and second how do you address the fact that there are no uplinks on the moon, even if there were one, how could you send/recieve from it while the transmission station located on the moon is not facing the earth ? Nice try but you are quite wrong and there are no satellites in orbit around the moon, so that blows a gaping hole into your misquided theory.

Also, your information is not accurate concerning Sony, please give me the model number, I have never seen or read about a Sony TVRO reciever that was used with an LNA.

The SECOND example is how the vast majority of Earth to space target transmissions are carried out -- this relies on ground based high power transmission stations for final transmission. There are MULTIPLE transmitting dishes located around the world which are used by NASA and ESA (and other space agencies).

Your own words betray you, if you need a high power transmission station on the earth, you would need the same on the moon to send the signal back. You need the same equipment on the moon to send/recieve a signal as you do on the earth unless you really want to make yourself look stupid by saying that one is not necessary on the moon, while it is necessary on the earth.

Where is the transmission station located on the moon?

Answer, there is none, and therefore there is no way to send a signal.

Your graphics were cute, but they only serve to further my point.

Could you do one for me ? you can use the first one, the only thing I want you to add is a yellow dot (you know, the earth station) and put it on the right side of the moon and again explain your theory.


[edit on 16-8-2005 by Lastday Prophet]

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:39 PM
You are aware of the fact that the moon rotates one time in 28 days right? The same amount of time it takes to orbit the Earth. It's called a locked orbit. The same side of the moon is facing Earth because of it.

A person standing in one spot on the moon would see the earth in the same part of the sky (directly overhead, for the person in the diagram on the right), unmoving. But, he/she would see the sun appear to move around the sky in about 29 earth days. The person would correctly deduce that the moon has a solar day of about 29 earth days. This person would also see that the stars appear to move around the sky in about 27 earth days. Again, the person would correctly deduce that the moon spins on its axis once in about 27 earth days.

You see the moon turns on its axis at a rate that means that it turns once
every 29.5 days - it also takes 29.5 days to travel around the Earth. As a
result, we always see the same face of the moon.

The Moon is in a synchronous rotation with Earth, which means that one side of the Moon (the "near side") is permanently turned towards Earth. The other side, the "far side", mostly cannot be seen from Earth, except for small portions near the limb which can be seen occasionally due to libration. Most of the far side was completely unknown until the era of space probes. This synchronous rotation is a result of torque having slowed down the Moon's rotation in its early history, a process known as tidal locking.

The far side is sometimes called the "dark side". In this case "dark" means "unknown and hidden" and not "lacking light"; in fact the far side receives (on average) as much sunlight as the near side, but at opposite times. Spacecraft are cut off from direct radio communication with the Earth when on the far side of the Moon.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:53 PM
Next time post all the info so that we get an accurate understanding, you left out this part:

The moon definitely rotates. It just doesn't look like it, from where we stand.
The moon rotates at a constant rate. But, it's distance from earth, and speed in its orbit, varies quite a bit. This means that we can see a little ways around the edge of the moon. So, over a period of time, we can see slightly more than 50% of the moon, from earth.

Leaving this part out would tend to be misleading.

Although we may see the same face of the moon , we do not see it from the same angle and satellites rely on accurate angles.

Example: if you move your direct or dish antenna 1/8 of an inch to the left or right, you will completely lose the signal, this is how critical alignment is concerning satellite transmissions.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Lastday Prophet]

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:00 PM
Oh, yeah that's right. Back in 1969 they were still chipping flint tools and were unable to work that precisely.

history of radio astronomy

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Example: if you move your direct or dish antenna 1/8 of an inch to the left or right, you will completely lose the signal, this is how critical alignment is concerning satellite transmissions.

Sure, if you have one of those 12" dishes that they send you for free when you sign a 1 year contract. NASA doesn't have the same budget you do. Their toys are on a totally different scale than what you are used to. For example, while you are building and launching an Estes rocket, they are launching a Titan IV that can reach mars.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by dbates]


posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Your own words betray you, if you need a high power transmission station on the earth, you would need the same on the moon to send the signal back. You need the same equipment on the moon to send/recieve a signal as you do on the earth unless you really want to make yourself look stupid by saying that one is not necessary on the moon, while it is necessary on the earth.

Now i'm no expert on the way satillite dishes work, but let me try to illustrate an example of how I understand them to work.

Say you have two people standing 5km apart. They can't hear one another normally without using a device that amplifies their voices (say like a megaphone), but say this thing can also pick up other sounds (like a shotgun mic with a parabolic dish).

So lets imagine these two people standing a fair distance apart. Each of them with this device. Lets say one of them (Person A) has a large, powerful one that can send the sound all the way to Person B 5km away. Now Person B has a small device that's not as big or powerful and the sound can't reach Person A. But since Person A has a bigger more powerful device, he/she can amplify Person B's sound so that he/she can hear it.

I hope that was a good example and I hope that made sense. If I have that wrong please correct me. (preferably CatHerder or some one knowledgeable) But that's how i'd imagine communications from the Earth (with the big dish) and the Moon (with the small dish) would work.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet

Example: if you move your direct or dish antenna 1/8 of an inch to the left or right, you will completely lose the signal, this is how critical alignment is concerning satellite transmissions.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Lastday Prophet]

And if NASa had a bigger satellite?

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
There are some alarming questions that come up with the current Discovery problems.

(1) How could we send a man to the moon in 1969 and yet in 2005 we can bearely send men 200 miles above the earth without disasters considering the current vastly improved technology that we have ?

(2) They send satellites up into an alledged 22,300 mile orbit on a regular basis and they seem to have no problem with tiles falling off. Why not use the same materials that the rockets that take the satellites into orbit are covered with ?

(3) Why has America or any other Country attempted to go to the Moon since 1969, if it was so important then, why is it no longer important ?

(4) With all the problems we have down here on the earth that we are not able to solve, why waste billions of dollars on a space program riddled with problems that the NASA techs are unable to correct ?

Something is wrong here, the facts don't add up, or is NASA going backwards ?

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Lastday Prophet]
*fixed caps lock title*

[edit on 1-8-2005 by dbates]

LDP, can you honestly say these questions haven't been answered for you ? Do you still belive in your initial theory ? Can you at least admit you weren't even aware of the 6 apollo manned mssions to the moon ?

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:02 AM
Priest, let me put it this way, I consider NASA to be the largest group of decievers on the face of the planet, I trust very little they have to say, only the things that can be proven.
My first assumption of anything they say is that it is a lie.

As far as I am concerned there is too much information that would suggest that their program is indeed an hoax.

For anyone of a sound mind to suggest or truly beleive that you don't need a uplink to send a signal from the moon would be laughable, if it were'nt so sad.

This is a FACT that you cannot get around, if NASA has a dish 200 ft. in diameter on the earth to recieve or send a signal, you would need a similar size dish on the moon. Further, you would also need electricity to power it, and there is nothing on the moon to provide a minimum of 200 amps, which is the amount necessary for an average uplink.

Above everything else I know for a fact that in my early days of satellite, I could look up into the skies and see the actual satellite.

It does not matter to me what you guys think, I know for a fact what I saw.
There is "NOTHING" that would ever convince me that they went to the moon or that they can send signals from there. "NOTHING"

Beleive what you will, I will never beleive their lies, there is no uplink on the moon and "NO ONE" can provide a picture of one.

NASA's 200 ft. dish is pointed at a satellite 22,300 miles up, you still have almost another 200,000 miles to go, " FOR-GEDD ABOUTT IT "

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Lastday Prophet]

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:20 AM
Can you at least concede that you didn't know we went 6 times when you stated we haven't been back since 1969 ?
Thats not asking much.

Can you at least admit you didn't do any of your own research to come to that conclusion, that you took at face value something you read on a website promoting the hoax ?

I mean missing 6 manned missions to the moon is a big oops.

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 12:40 PM
Despite your concerns, NASA will soon be communicating with the recently launched MRO all the way from Mars. The data rate for communication will be about 0.5 to 4 megabits per second. Not quite as good as 802.11b in the next room, but not that bad when you factor in the distance. Here's a pic of one of the recieving dishes. Now if you still wish to compare these things to the one you use to get satallite tv at your house then be my guest, but you'll look silly doing it.


posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
As far as I am concerned there is too much information that would suggest that their program is indeed an hoax.

Well lots of your "information" has been shot down repeatedly. Perhaps you aught to take another look?

Above everything else I know for a fact that in my early days of satellite, I could look up into the skies and see the actual satellite.

With the naked eye? Or with that cigar shaped thing? (which i'm still waiting for you to provide more infortmation on) Just how much detail could you see it in anyway? Just a little dot?

[edit on 18-8-2005 by jra]

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:55 PM
JRA, I do not remember the exact name of the device, it has been 20 years or more. If you can find a store in your area that still sells C-Band Satellite Antenna's, I am sure the owner could verify this, it was common in the early days.

I don't believe that NASA ever went to the moon, the only proof you could offer is that which NASA provides you with, and I don't believe anything they say concernng going to the moon or sending probes far out into space.

The part no one seems to understand is that although they may have large dishs on the earth to send and recieve signals, there is no method of sending a signal back, from the moon or a probe.

You would need a small uplink of some form to send a signal, even a small uplink requires power, more than a probe could possibly have.

It is all an "Illusion"

I can assure you of this much, NASA will never attempt to go to the moon again in our lifetime because there are too many ways to reveal the HOAX and they are smart enough to schedule planned trips to the moon 5 or 10 years from now. The world as we know it will not be around 10 years from now, whether you beleive it or not.

The use of those massive dishes further prove my point that satellite signals are not endless, that is why the size of dishes have increased, to extend the range.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by Lastday Prophet]

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:08 PM
My tiny little cell phone picks up the signal from the great big towers miles away, and those great big towers are able to receive the signal from my tiny little cell phone just fine. It's magic!

[edit on 19-8-2005 by nataylor]

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in