Just how many space stations are there ?

reply to post by zorgon

And this proves your point how?

Hey Zorgon,

He can't even figure the connection.

Why do you think that is?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Hey Zorgon,

He can't even figure the connection.

Why do you think that is?

I guess you didn't bother to read why I say the story doesn't make the case that the government could run manned space stations undetected. Let me sum it up again, even the soviet's "secret" space stations that actually flew were known to be manned space stations and were tracked by amateurs to the point that they even knew who was aboard and how many were there. There was no secrecy about these being manned space stations. You've ignored these important facts, and strangely decided that my first sentence was the only important one. I wonder why?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter
When you look at his ISS image in motion it's clear that it isn't just a blurring double image effect in a single frame. If those aren't arrays then the configuration makes even less sense from an ISS standpoint.

I believe he has a video out somewhere pointing out what is what on the ISS.

In any case, I give you this. Look familiar? It's the ISS without the solar arrays showing.

Considering that the vast majority of mundane satellites barely look like anything larger than point light sources, even with an 8" SCT's 2 meter focal length, it seems a much less likely explanation for most of these objects. Here's the hubble space telescope at moderate magnification (12mm eyepiece) in a scope identical to his:
speur.tripod.com...
The tin foil theory, on the other hand, has been independently confirmed to produce identical results.

I could also film a very highly detailed stop motion model town, add in plane noises, and claim it was footage I took while flying over the country. That doesn't disprove that planes don't exist.

The mere fact that he has difficulty picking up solar arrays in his blurry images actually suggests that the objects might very well be mundane satellites with some manner of distortion in his less than stellar setup. Satellites can be as huge as double decker busses and size is relative in space.

The brightness of the object being filmed as a bokeh (in conjuction with how far out of focus it is) determines its apparent opacity. I don't have any extremely bright star bokehs just laying around on my hard drive. Why? Because for very bright stars I can look straight through the camera's viewfinder and reduce the focus error far enough to make the bokeh shrink to a ball before doing the "trial and error" method to refine the focus. For dim stars like the above, it's impossible to spot the bokeh by eye and so you must use trial and error from the start. I could easily produce a bokeh just as solid looking though by intentionally defocusing on a brighter star. Would that satisfy you?

It could. But it'll only prove it's a bokeh. It won't prove that he knew this or was too stupid to realize it.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Kojiro]

I guess you didn't bother to read why I say the story doesn't make the case that the government could run manned space stations undetected.

You know its funny you say that... I bet I could go back through the posts over the past few years and before Astrospies was released I am sure I can find some of your posts with the others stating there were no secret astronauts etc and being very adamant about it... now your saying there was no secret and everyone knew

Read my signature... fits you to a T...

Funny thing is there are a few here working on such 'projects' but I did promise not to tell... it's too bad but what the heck... there are few on here that have a true 'need to know'

Originally posted by Kojiro
I believe he has a video out somewhere pointing out what is what on the ISS.

The picture of the ISS you posted from him is NOT what the ISS looks like in any configuration. It simply isn't ISS.

In any case, I give you this. Look familiar? It's the ISS without the solar arrays showing.

It looks intimately familiar to me because I've personally seen and photographed the ISS at that phase of its construction as well (farm1.static.flickr.com...) and I can see the sole main solar array just fine in that image.

I could also film a very highly detailed stop motion model town, add in plane noises, and claim it was footage I took while flying over the country. That doesn't disprove that planes don't exist.

If someone presented video claimed to be from a plane that showed a slew of fictional towns much larger than any known to man, towns that are claimed to be known cities but have buildings and streets the real city doesn't have, and in some cases just photos of well-known optical reflections, fake models of one kind or another would be the most likely explanation.

The mere fact that he has difficulty picking up solar arrays in his blurry images actually suggests that the objects might very well be mundane satellites with some manner of distortion in his less than stellar setup. Satellites can be as huge as double decker busses and size is relative in space.

The Hubble is as big as a large bus, but it still looks like a point light source, even to a telescope with exceptional resolution and magnification. His ISS image doesn't appear to show magnification beyond what any normal person would be using, so I fail to see how he could be getting objects that large out of tiny point light sources.

It could. But it'll only prove it's a bokeh. It won't prove that he knew this or was too stupid to realize it.

You can be that generous if you want, but I really don't see how anyone who has spent the time and money to choose and acquire that kind of telescope with that much equipment could possibly mistake his telescope's bokeh for a real object. It just screams deliberate deception. He would know that every time he sets up his telescope and has to focus it, the object he focuses on will look just like that regardless of what he's using as a focus point. I honestly can't see how anyone would be that stupid and still be capable of properly assembling and starting an LX anything without breaking it.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by zorgon
You know its funny you say that... I bet I could go back through the posts over the past few years and before Astrospies was released I am sure I can find some of your posts with the others stating there were no secret astronauts etc and being very adamant about it... now your saying there was no secret and everyone knew

We have the recordings, we have the testimonies from the amateurs that tracked them; the fact that the soviets had these space stations and were trying to conceal their true purpose was not a secret at all. Your story doesn't prove that it's possible to run secret manned space stations without anyone detecting them, in fact it proves just the opposite; determined amateurs worked out an amazing level of knowledge of the space stations and their staffed nature. These weren't "secret space stations" the way you wish they were. As for secret astronauts, the correct term is actually astronaut candidates; you don't become a full-fledged astronaut until you've gone into space. In fact, for a long time even mission specialists were not considered full astronauts since they didn't do any of the flying of the spacecraft (that has since changed). None of these so-called "secret astronauts" went into space while their status was still classified, and the launch of the test article was anything but undetected. Even your own story states that it was the true purpose of the program that was hidden, not the existence of a space station test launch.

Read my signature... fits you to a T...

Believe whatever you want about me, I really don't care. I don't consider countering handwaving with hard facts and evidence to be "ridicule."

Funny thing is there are a few here working on such 'projects' but I did promise not to tell... it's too bad but what the heck... there are few on here that have a true 'need to know'

Let me know when you can actually back up the claim of undetected manned space stations with some evidence.

Originally posted by ngchunter

In any case, I give you this. Look familiar? It's the ISS without the solar arrays showing.

It looks intimately familiar to me because I've personally seen and photographed the ISS at that phase of its construction as well (farm1.static.flickr.com...) and I can see the sole main solar array just fine in that image.

Really? Because I can't. I can easily guess where it's suppose to be with the CG image to the side as a frame of reference, but I otherwise do not see it.

I wonder if JLW spotted some of the Competion

Originally posted by ngchunter
Let me know when you can actually back up the claim of undetected manned space stations with some evidence.

I could but then someone would have to shoot you

Not to worry in about 40 years time they will tell you what we have out there today

reply to post by zorgon


Y'know, quite a few of those do look like some of the junk he's filmed, minus solar panels of course.

reply to post by zorgon


Hey Zorgon,

In a few years, maybe they'll come out and tell us we knew that all the Progress and Soyuz craft weren't burning up over the ocean and that we knew that that all along.

Maybe we'll find out that we even knew what they were being used for:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b0f996149803.jpg[/atsimg]
(Something like this perhaps...)

Originally posted by zorgon
I wonder if JLW spotted some of the Competion

I can promise you that all but one of those, MKC (russian for ISS), would appear as nothing more than point light sources to an 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain. The image is definately not "to-scale." In fact, I ought to track some of them and save the videos just to prove it. At least one of them is making a good pass overhead tonight while near periapsis (МОЛНИЯ, to be exact), I'll have to try to catch it if the weather allows. The nice thing is that these are communication satellites, so their high orbits are very slow and allow for easy tracking.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by Kojiro
Really? Because I can't. I can easily guess where it's suppose to be with the CG image to the side as a frame of reference, but I otherwise do not see it.

It's a pair of amber lines (in my image I only resolve it as a single dim line) parallel to the main truss behind the habital sections of the station.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
In a few years, maybe they'll come out and tell us we knew that all the Progress and Soyuz craft weren't burning up over the ocean and that we knew that that all along.

Maybe we'll find out that we even knew what they were being used for:

(Something like this perhaps...)

So you're saying all those progress spacecraft never left orbit, they're still somewhere in the vicinity of ISS's orbital plane all docked together as a secret space station no one has noticed. That's about as implausible as it gets. If amateurs can spot floating toolbags in the same orbital plane as ISS, they can definately spot floating space stations.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Kojiro
Really? Because I can't. I can easily guess where it's suppose to be with the CG image to the side as a frame of reference, but I otherwise do not see it.

It's a pair of amber lines (in my image I only resolve it as a single dim line) parallel to the main truss behind the habital sections of the station.

I don't see what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Kojiro
I don't see what you're talking about.

They're hard to make out, but the tips of them are visible.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e9b1263f562e.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by ngchunter
I can promise you that all but one of those, MKC (russian for ISS), would appear as nothing more than point light sources to an 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain. The image is definately not "to-scale." In fact, I ought to track some of them and save the videos just to prove it. At least one of them is making a good pass overhead tonight while near periapsis (МОЛНИЯ, to be exact), I'll have to try to catch it if the weather allows.

Just a quick update, I'm out here with the scope and I just nailed the tracking on one of the МОЛНИЯ satellites (МОЛНИЯ 2-9 to be exact). Sure enough, it's just a tiny star-like object. The only way you can tell it's a satellite is in the way it moves against the other background stars. It's extremely dim too; it's not even visible in the viewfinder, so there's no way the image zorgon posted was to-scale. I'll post the photo later once I get it downloaded from the camera's memory card.

*Edit to add: Here's the image of МОЛНИЯ 2-9 that I tracked this evening. It's the "star" in the image; the streak is an actual star that the satellite is passing by during the 30 second exposure.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f61b66b73653.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 16-9-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Kojiro
I don't see what you're talking about.

They're hard to make out, but the tips of them are visible.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e9b1263f562e.jpg[/atsimg]

Ah. Okay.

Anyway, compare that to Mr. Walson's footage. That image is practically HD quality when standing next to John's.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Don't forget the private space stations like Bigelows I am tracking two modules right now on my website...



Notice who he is using





NASA = No Access to Space for Americans - Robert Bigelow

Q- You've written before about the need to commercialize space. What does that mean, and how does it compare to the prevailing attitude abut space, especially NASA's perspective?

A- It's quite insidious. NASA's version of commercialization is not privatization. Those are two very different words in NASA's mentality. NASA's view of commercialization is: "We, NASA, own everything. We own all the hardware. We own the facilities to move people back and forth, and when they get there, we own that facility too."

So in our scheme of commercializing things, we intend to be in business. They are a federal agency that's tax exempt and that gets $14 billion a year. And so they are paying no income taxes and here they are absolutely in business. They take 100 percent of the revenue of any company that pays them to do anything. And that's wrong; that's absolutely dead wrong. And it's a huge competitor to free enterprise.

Q- Why do you think NASA has been reluctant to allow tourists in space, like Dennis Tito, for example?

A- Well, it's the mentality that "we own space." NASA stands for "No Access to Space for Americans" -- that's what it stands for to me and to most Americans. NASA has exclusive control and a lock on everything having to do with space, except for the Russian side. And they were just beyond belief in being rude and obnoxious [in response to Dennis Tito's trip]. It was just embarrassing to this country.

dir.salon.com...

[edit on 17-9-2009 by zorgon]

[edit on 17-9-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Coming to you live from the southeast Asian Capital city of the Philipines, It's Art bell....

Interviewing Bob Bigelow.

Mr Bigelow and Mr bell discuss the various problems and issues he has had getting his modules and craft orbited. They also discuss NiDS.



(Hey aren't the NID the bad guys in Stargate.... )