Originally posted by weedwhacker
In a simple world, could a shuttle be launched into an orbit that would be X number of minutes (behind) the target, then whilst on station use the RCS system 'catch-up', as it were? Too much additional thrust would boost to a higher orbit, so this is a delicate thing. However, using the RCS would allow a 'fine-tuning' as the more maneuverable Shuttle approached the ISS. Once in the vicinity, the Shuttle would be 'steered', that is, re-oriented graduslly and slowly coaxed into position for the docking.

Having said this, as a thought excerise...one still must find a way to reconcile why it takes approx 29 orbits (44 hours at 90 minutes, or so, per orbit).

Dear Mr. Ww,

imagine that the ISS has its orbit in a plane that is at the 51.63 degrees angle to the equatorial plane. The Earth is rotating with the respect to the orbital plane of the ISS (try to visualize that). The shuttle must launch while it's positioned in or close to that plane, and the launch (velocity vector) must be in that plane. There are small adjustments that can be made via thrust vectoring, which opens a total of 10 minute launch window (which otherwise would be ridiculously small). However, when the shuttle does launch in that plane, the ISS is lnot guaranteed at all to be directly in its line of ascent. Now, as you say, both objects must be in the same orbit to successfuly dock... A particular altitude (or radius, if you like) of the orbit dictates corresponding speed due to basic mechanics of ballistic flight.

That means that the speeds of the two vehicles must be very close, and hence their relative speed is bound to be tiny. Therefore, with such little relative speed, it takes a while to catch up then the shuttle is already in the right orbital plane and at the right altitude.

I would like to thank John Lear in advance for giving careful consideration to the facts as I laid them out here, even though I had to omit things like nodal regression to make things a little easier for John.


[edit on 20-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Having said that - you may consider me a nut, if you must - if there is ANY possiblity of extraterrestrial technology having been obtained/negotiated in any way, and being used by Governments while being kept secret for whatever reason, then I feel a sense of outrage at the prospect.

Mr.Ww,

"ANY possibility"? As many have noted, there are possibilities and there are plausibilities. There may be a dinosaur living in the lake next to my village. Possible? Yes. Plausible? Hardly. The Moon can be a holographic projection created by all-powerful alien entities. John Lear can be a reptilian. I may turn out to be a latent homosexual, however, while technically possible, I don't believe that for a second.

There is a reason people who really move the knowledge forward like to use Occam's razor. Historically, it works. Einstein based his work not on unbased fantasies, but on solid experiments such as one by Michelson and Morely.

I wrote somewhere else, regarding Einstein, wondering what HE would think of modern Physics theory, i.e., string theory for one, if he were alive today? Point is, knowledge and are boundaries of learning should keep marching on.

As I said, our scientific tradition (pretty successful, I might add) is based on reason even if reason involves hard to comprehend and abstract logic tools. Consider elementary particles: scientists use relativistic quantum field theory to try and describe their properties; John Lear would probably refer to these particles as microscopic demons controlled by a giant pulsating brain in the center of Sun, while deriding Einstein's lack of understanding all the way.

I don't know what Einstein would think of string theory because I'm not an expert in it (I am an experimentalist), but I'd wager he'd be excited by where we are now in our understanding of the Universe and things like Dark Matter, as a specific example.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

John Lear would probably refer to these particles as microscopic demons controlled by a giant pulsating brain in the center of Sun, while deriding Einstein's lack of understanding all the way.

Thanks for the post BS but this statement is untrue.

I've always said that the smallest unit of matter known is the smu or singular mass unit.



Chargons, which have a charge of -1/3 or +1/3 bind to SMU's by the Gravity "A" wave of 7.46 Hz in orbits separated by 120 degrees.

All full atoms have exactly the same number of positive chargons as negative chargons.

All matter is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons which themselves are made up by quarks. The quarks are either an up quark or a down quark and themselves are made up of one smu and 2 positive chargons for the up quark and 1 smu and 1 negative chargon for the down quark.

An electron is made up by 3 negative chargons by themselves (without an smu) which gives it a net charge of minus 1. (3 x -1/3).

A neutron is made up of 1 upquark and 2 down quarks. The up quark is made up of 1 smu and 2 positive chargons. The down quark is made up of 1 smu and 1 negative chargon. So for the neutron we have:

1 up quark=2 positive chargons (2x +1/3) and 1 smu
2 down quarks=2 negative chargons (2 x -1/3) and 2 smu's
for a total of 3 smu's

This gives us a net charge of 0 and a net mass (at rest) of 3.

The proton is made up of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, which gives us:

2 up quarks=4 positive chargons (4x +1/3) (2 smu's each with 2 chargons)
1 down quark=1 negative chargon (1x -1/3) (1 smu with 1 negative chargon)
for a total of 3 smu's

This gives us a net charge of +1 and a net mass (at rest) of 3.

A neutrino has 3 negative chargons and 3 positive chargons for a net charge of 0 and a net mass (at rest) of 0. Like the electron it has no smu.

These are from notes I kept when Bob Lazar worked at S-4. I could understand when Bob explained all this but I doubt whether I could hold forth in a debate with a 'real' physicist which I am not.

But in any case I have never referred to "these (elementary) particles" as "microscopic demons controlled by a giant pulsating brain in the center of Sun".

But thanks for the post BS and giving me a chance to clear this up.

Thanks for the info Fastwalker! That paper fills in several gaps in my HARRP material...

Originally posted by weedwhacker I was simply thinking that THIS thread is about something else, that's all.
Perhaps you'd consider posting/starting a thread on the subject of chemtrails?

Oh yes by all means,, wouldn't want to interrupt your discourse on Lunar gravity here in the shuttle thread...

By all means carry on

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...AND, what, exactly does HAARP have to do with this thread, Zorgon?

That is for me to know and you to find out... later Has to do with 'hiding things' When I find the 'safe' way to go into that you will be the first to know...

BUT, will we ever reach the top?

No because as soon as we uncover one piece of the puzzle there are 10 more...

According to Capt Lear and Zorgon there will never be Full Disclosure, not officially anyway. We have to fill in the blanks,

We are trying to help you fill in the blanks, but you have to learn to 'read between the lines' and spend hours following leads. Don't expect it handed on a silver platter. Research is meaningless if you don't seek it out yourself. If you have true curiosity, you will be driven to find your own answers. Nothing we say or show you will ever convince you until YOU find the key that unlocks your mind... until then you will only see 'fuzzy pictures of rocks'

and certain threads are specific to certain subjects, no?

NO In our threads there are times when things are posted that may or may not tie in to the specific subject but fit into the general plan... the 'big picture'

There are also certain people that no matter what thread John is in... feel it their mission in life to challenge him on issues already covered in many threads... Its human nature for others to get drawn in... we all love a good fight.

Then there are also times when you run out of material specific to the topic... it happens... its not easy digging up new stuff to meet the 'demand' So add something else or let the thread die are the options...







[edit on 21-11-2007 by zorgon]

Good point. I too am waiting to hear how they are preparing to investigate this during the mission.

Most conspiracies are about things that have happened in the past, and are relegated to bickering points on woo woo bulletin boards, but here we have one that is happening in real time, in full view of the public, and with such outstanding claims being made about it I would imagine there is no way they would let the opportunity to prove their views pass them up.

People would give their left nut to go back in time to the day before the "Roswell crash" and gather data. Here we have an opportunity to do something like that right now...............

And it could be done on the cheap, too. But money should not be an issue. If they could prove this outlandish theory, then they would have access to large sums of cash as a result, and ATS would be on the map, so to speak. So I would imagine ATS should pony up a few dollars for their "Conspiracy Masters" to make history. View it as an investment. And if you listen to the sales pitch, it's a sure thing. So what do they have to loose? I would imagine the investors would be happy if they actually managed to prove something, right?

But, then again everybody knows there is nothing substantial here to prove, so they would never think of backing a real investigation into a conspiracy that they claim is happening right now, before out very eyes.

Let the excuses begin.........