Hoi on the satellite hoax

Be the 1st to vote.

Hoi Polloi helps out with explaining how satellites are safer to simulate than actually launch.

“Patrix” and a very in sync Göteborg friend recently came on Fakeologist.com… to discuss their apparently indefensible opinion (which perhaps we might call the “Göteborg defense” from now on?) that satellites must be in existence because they cannot explain the power of signals any other way.Why did they treat their position so weakly? Why did people who claim to have expertise in signals not give one single layman’s explanation or even a technical explanation of how the signals work? They had given themselves at least an hour to speak and said virtually nothing, and Ab easily countered with reasonable opinions that they didn’t wish to discuss.

Source: View topic – Satellites : general discussion and musings • Cluesforum.info…

20 thoughts on “Hoi on the satellite hoax

    1. xileffilex

      I got round to watching the video – yes, there’s something definitely odd about the workers there. The workforce seems to be composed of a few laughing cockneys . There’s a knockabout comedy feel to it, I don’t see too many physics and engineering PhDs about. Oh, it’s only a factory…

  1. Justsayin DudeJustsayin Dude

    I’m not sure whether Jon Le Bon had any intention of including my comment to Patrix as a “subtle” accusation of being an agent or not, but wanted to take the opportunity of clarifying so as not to be misunderstood just in case.

    After all, one wouldn’t want one to be misconstrued, would one?

    In the paragraph where I referred to Mark Tokarski’s accusation in a comment that Crrowe777 was an agent because he (Crrowe777) did not accept the NASA spinning ball model I stated that something smells fishy. I was referring to Mark Tokarski’s attitude, and the concept that failure to accept the NASA promoted spinning ball, billions of years, big bang, stellar coalescence, goo to you by way of the zoo, your grand daddy was a fish whose grand daddy was a lump of granite model equates to agent status.

    I reject that concept completely, and reiterate that it smells all wrong to me. That is in no way supposed to be a defence of Crrowe777 or anything he holds to.

    I do think that I tried pretty hard to encourage you Patrix to think about some stuff by way of a few simple questions, questions that fall flat in the face of the standard model, at least in my opinion.

    Patrix I listened to your conversation with Ab and genuinely enjoyed it. I did not get the impression you were an agent, and have not made that accusation. That said, I am deeply confused by your logical trajectory in relation to satellites. You have stated the following:
    1-You believe the moon landing was faked
    2-You believe the ISS and all manned space flights are faked
    3- You believe that the explorer one/sputnik imagery etc was faked
    4-You believe that ALL imagery of ALL rocketry and satellites are faked
    5-You say that most, or ALL of what they tell us about satellites is untrue (verbatim)

    Yet despite all of that, you say that the information provided by the liars who provided the lies above must be trusted on the basis that

    6-Rockets must work, because we know that
    7-Satellites must be up there, which we can tell because
    8-Data streams to us from the sky, more particularly from a precise location

    I hope you can tell why that logical pathway is much harder to accept from someone who provided points 1-5. Points 6-8 are accepted by everyone out in the world on average BECAUSE they accept points 1-5 as all being truth based in fact, which makes points 6-8 a logical conclusion. Failure to accept 1-5 makes 6-8 illogical at best.

    Anyway, as I attempted to do the first time, I encourage you to ask more questions.

    To JLB, wonderful to hear that you are hoping to see people encouraged more often. I am sure Patrix has been encouraged by hearing from you that his current belief is laughable, and dumber than Santa. Woops, more ludicrous than Santa. Encouragement and subtlety from JLB? Baby hoaxers rejoice.

    One is reminded of a poem, isn’t one?

    One-one was a race horse
    Two-two was one too
    One-one won one race
    Two-two won one too

    1. John le BonJohn le Bon

      @JD:

      My comment was not directed at you, but I can see why you may have inferred that it was.

      As for your snide remarks towards the end of that post, you can take offense to my comments on Patrix’ behalf if you like. I won’t personally buy your sanctimony but I would imagine that others might. My own former beliefs are laughable to me now, and I am on the record laughing at them. That my former beliefs remain some peoples current beliefs does not change this fact.

      When I air these sentiments, might others who still maintain those (laughable) beliefs take offense? Some likely will. That is up to them. Cheers.

  2. Justsayin DudeJustsayin Dude

    I was a satellite TV technician for about 5 years. I have installed thousands of dishes, accurately pointing them at the point in the sky where the signal is coming from (finding the bird, as we called it). So I used to be reasonably up to speed with the technology as it was claimed to be. With all of that experience I have no problem saying that I do not believe for one second that there are any man made objects in “space” as it has been described to us, no satellites, and no satellite communications.

    Do you know Patrix that we have been using geostationary balloons for some decades now? The Brits freaked out a while back after losing a balloon which was responsible for detection of inbound missiles. Why would they use a balloon if satellites existed? Did you know that balloons can launch payloads in the multiple tons range, and are being used/considered for so called “satellite” launches from Antarctica?

    Have you considered the fact that in all of recorded history, however long or accurate that is, all known observations of the moon have only ever seen one face of it, from all points on earth at any and all times? Just think, how can a ball present the same image to every point of another ball at all times? Does the ball moon rotate on it’s axis, and if so what is the orientation of that axis to earths?

    Has it occurred to you that you, and almost everyone you have ever met has no doubt witnessed dozens of shooting stars, or “meteorites” falling from the sky, through our atmosphere and burning up, yet in all of history with all of the thousands of observers and observatories no-one anywhere has ever recorded a NEW crater on the moon. Not one.

    Has it occurred to you that we are told the moon phases due to earths shadow, and yet for several months now (in New Zealand that is) we have watched the moon phasing repeatedly through every phase up in the blue sky, in daylight, with the sun alongside it?

    You acknowledge the fakery coming from pathological liars, yet accept the cosmological model they provide you? I am reminded of Mark Tokarski who commented on Ab’s Crowe 777 that Crowe must be an agent BECAUSE he failed to accept the NASA provided spinning ball model. Something smells fishy. There is always more bait than there is hook.

    And you don’t believe in mind control? Seriously? Does that mean that all the people that surround you believe in fake shootings, fake terrorists and the official 9/11 story, fake nukes because they all were given the real truth and came to that conclusion themselves? That the world is voluntarily deceived, self deceived. Not believing in mind control is exactly the same as saying you don’t believe the media exists.

    One thing most people don’t know about “satellite” broadcasts is that they are constantly changing the so called “transponder” on the “satellite”. If you were sitting there watching your programming (yes programming) you would never know that it had happened, because the receiver self adjusts as it get’s reflashed by the system. As a tech you have to know because you have to set it to the correct transponder. The reason given is that there is limited lifetime on the transponders, multiple backups on the satellite so as they go off line they switch to another.

    Personally, I think there is more to it than that, and it is a part of the technology that is used to overcome issues with the real system they are using. Even if you look at the theoretical height ranges of the geostationary satellites, along with their lack of ability to control their position pointing a dish at one spot and walking away for years while it continues to work makes NO sense at all. Sky switched to multi LNB dishes years ago I believe to overcome some of the signal related issues.

    For a man who claims an engineering background (not implying that I doubt it) and who clearly is intellgent, it seems to me there are many questions that you have failed to ask yet.

  3. xileffilex

    I’m not qualified to write about the science of communication but these launches look pretty suspicious to me – , indicative of one great hoax Note the “scared birds” in the most recent video from remotest Kazakhstan…
    www.ilslaunch.com…

    www.jsati.com…

    www.sea-launch.com…

    and this very recent “event” from remote French Guiana complete with santa hats
    www.youtube.com…
    @44.00 [accompanied by the usual inane subdued congratulations] “Star1 D1 making her way away from the mother ship pushed away by a series of springs and she will be making her way to her orbital position…” [animation] LOL! Just this palpable nonsense does it for me. Go to 58:20 for the full NASA style spontaneous applause on “separation” of JCSAT15
    It certainly looks a very complex scam though, this satellite lark
    www.jsat.net…
    www.jsat.net…
    www.intelsat.com…

    1. ab Post author

      The creepy narrator sounds like a comedian. I didn’t hear him describe the satellite imagery as a model or animated representation – so how do they get those pictures? From the ISS? A companion satellite? Does AP have its own reporter satellite up there?

      The flashing Santa hat is a wonderful trick of misdirection. Good find X!

      Patrix: you sound sincere and like a nice guy, but how can you beLIEve this animation show? There are just too many clues that this is pseudo science fakery. Again, it’s the only thing that makes all this silliness make sense: they’re actors and faking it – badly.

      1. patrix

        Patrix: you sound sincere and like a nice guy, but how can you beLIEve this animation show?

        Thanks 🙂

        I don’t! But I believe this:
        We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.– William Casey, CIA Director

        And I think there are lies planted everywhere and for everyone. I don’t give much for pizzagate, satanism, mind control or Illuminati. I think most of it is planted to keep us busy. But I do believe that the things you point out here and at Cluesforum are some of the real conspiracies going on.

        And as for rocket launches and space, I think all imagery of it is fake to keep things consistent. But that does not mean that satellites don’t exist. It means what they show us is fake.

    2. John le BonJohn le Bon

      Yes, any objective person with the ability to think critically, who has sufficiently deprogrammed their mind out of conditioned trust in the authorities, will eventually realise that satellites are not only fake, but laughably so. More ludicrous than Santa. Those who have been around fakeology for long enough are likely to already be aware of this.

      That said, why the ‘subtle’ suggestions that Patrix and friend are agents, working together to propagate the hoax? What purpose do these implications serve? More importantly, what does it say about one’s mind that one would so quickly form such an opinion?

      Cluesforum are notorious for their paranoid delusions, my favourite of which being their claim that my nom de plume ‘John le Bon’ was chosen specifically to to target Simon Shack, via the name association/degree of separation Simon le Bon. Yes, that was claimed on Cluesforum, and has not been (so far as I am aware) refuted by any of the brainiacs who call that place home.

      Does this delusion and paranoia help them, or other would-be researchers, in any way whatsoever? If so, I am all ears. Seriously, fire away. Let me know what good purpose is served by allowing oneself to indulge in belief that they are important enough to be targeted in such a way.

      In the meantime, I would suggest that if one truly wants to encourage new people to participate in this kind of online forum, one might want to reconsider one’s propensity to imply that new people are agents, no matter how ‘subtle’ one might believe one’s suggestions to be.

      1. simonshacksimonshack

        John Le Bon wrote:

        “Cluesforum are notorious for their paranoid delusions (…)”

        “Cluesforum are…?”

        Oh well, JLB – you’re not alone in ‘writing off’ Cluesforum as a place fit only for deluded paranoiacs – believe me. In fact, your above sentence seems to be borrowed straight out of the standard MSM textbook – whenever the subject of “conspiracy theorists” is broached in their (toilet) ‘news’papers and TV ‘debates’. You’re in ‘good company’, it seems…

        So let me get this right: is your above statement meant to describe “Cluesforum as a whole“? If so, let me ask you – out of curiosity – a few, dispassionate questions, JLB dear:

        What purpose does it serve for someone like yourself, a self-professed / independent cutting-edge thinker, to utter such a ‘sweeping’ statement? Do you see Cluesforum as some sort of compact / monolithic entity – wherein yours truly (or indeed the bulk of all registered / active forum members) necessarily endorses everything that gets written / speculated there? Are you hurt because someone on our forum once ‘dared’ speculate that your chosen “John Le Bon”moniker might be an insider joke / word play – in the same vein as the “Flat Earth Clues”? If so, can you even imagine what I have gone through (for over a decade now) what with countless inane speculations as to my own persona? I’ve dealt with that shit, I think, as graciously and patiently as possible. I advise you to do the same, JLB – if you are the wise / honest / braniac man of integrity that you appear / or claim to be. Btw, here’s that old post you are referring to (by our member ‘Painterman’) :

        cluesforum.info…

        Moreover, is your above (‘paranoid delusions’) sentence really your ‘best tribute’ to a forum which, I dare hope and surmise, surely must have contributed at some stage / and in some way or form – to your own ‘awakening journey’ and current world view? Doesn’t your entire, above post inherently contradict itself, since you seem to advocate a ‘wider / wiser tolerance’ towards newcomers to this realm of knowledge – while, in the same breath, ‘thrashing’ Cluesforum as “the home of brainiacs afflicted by paranoid delusions”? Thanks for answering this question to the best of your “honest-intellectual” capacities.

        You then wrote :

        “Let me know what good purpose is served by allowing oneself to indulge in belief that they are important enough to be targeted in such a way.”

        I spent some time trying to make sense of that sentence of yours, JLB. Please clarify. What exactly is your (apparent) lament about? Who is ‘targeting’ whom, here? I’m stumped. 😛

        Thanks

        1. John le BonJohn le Bon

          Oh well, JLB – you’re not alone in ‘writing off’ Cluesforum as a place fit only for deluded paranoiacs

          That is not even close to what I said. As for how ‘conspiracy theorists’ are perceived by the masses, perhaps there is some truth to the stereotype that ‘truthers’ (by whatever guise or name) do indeed have a tendency towards paranoia. Again, look at the claims made by members of your own forum. My interest in helioskepticism makes me an agent? Really? My nom de plume was chosen (by who is the big mystery) specifically to target the great leader of cluesforum? What utter nonsense. If you guys really believe this crap, then the stereotype might be closer to the truth than any of you would ever want to consider possible.

          I have said many times how much I personally benefited from cluesforum back when I was still relatively new to the scene. More than once or twice did I stay up far too late for my own good, into the wee hours of the night, reading through threads on things like satellites and dinosaurs and atomic weapons. I remain thankful for the good work which can be found on your forum, and I have made this clear more times than I can remember. I have also promoted the forum, and your film, many, many times.

          That said, it wasn’t cluesforum who first exposed the utter absurdity of the Cavendish experiment. A two-year-old thread dedicated to the concept of gravity had somehow failed to attract any posts on the linchpin of the theory in question i.e. the heavy-balls-in-a-shed-to-weigh-the-earth experiment. Conspicuous indeed. No Cavendish, no Big G, no magical (reverse-engineered) mathematical formula, no ‘theory’ of gravity. How did you guys miss that one? All of those brilliant minds in one place but, apparently, not one of them decided to inspect the gigantic and stinking elephant in the room. If I were the suspicious type I might begin to speculate out loud just how this might be possible.

          Imagine for a moment that I am actually a ‘paid agent’ sent here by the people who run the show. How embarrassing for the internet’s greatest alternative researchers that it should be up to me to point out that fundamental truth taught to children and accepted as 100% fact – that we live on a giant spinning ball hurtling through space – is entirely founded upon an ‘experiment’ by a guy who weighed the earth with heavy balls in a shed. If a paid agent can do more to expose and mock the official story of official stories – the heliocentric model – in just a few months, than the best ‘independent’ minds can do in years, then you might all be better off giving the game away. Seriously.

          If you are a genuine person, an honest, independent researcher who stumbled upon a gigantic deception and took the time to show the world (and I want to believe that you are), then I reiterate my earlier and sincere sentiments about my appreciation for what you have done. September Clues helped me. Cluesforum helped me. But if you are that genuine person, then I also strongly encourage you to reconsider your cynicism towards people like myself, not for our (my) benefit, but for your own. I don’t know who runs the show and I don’t know their ultimate goal, but I don’t see any wisdom in myself or those like me living under the belief that TPWRTS are sending agents to disrupt us. Moreover, I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that they would need to: look how quickly ‘truthers’ turn on their peers.

          With friends like these…

  4. patrix

    To hoi.polloi and whom it may concern,

    I am deeply thankful and supportive of your and others work in Cluesforum. It has helped me immensely in my quest for truth. I am sorry if I have offended you or anyone else in the community. I want to help out as best I can in this, but I guess good intentions aren’t always enough.

    As for the satellite discussion it was not a coordinated thing. I talked with Frolle the other day on the Fakeology chat and satellites was one of the things we discussed. He then happened to drop by just before I was about to talk with ab and agreed to join, and the talk around satellites was kind of a repeat of what we said the day before. But I understand if it seemed fishy.

    I’ve read your last comment regarding satellites and I appreciate that you took the time to make your case again. I must however conclude that I still think the most plausible explanation for the observable phenomenons discussed is satellites. I do not doubt that most or all of what they tell us about satellites is untrue, but I still don’t find a better explanation because of what I know (or at least think I know) about the world in terms of radio waves and other things.

    The same goes with the September Clues theory. It is the most plausible theory I’ve come across. I have not found any better explanation on what transpired that day than what you and Simon has laid out. Why use real planes and have real victims and risk that things go wrong when you have the means to simulate the entire thing? And while at it lets have a lot of conflicting theories and testimonies so that people like us will dig and argue endlessly at the wrong places. So thank you again so much for sorting that out for me.

    I hope its ok that we disagree on satellites. Feel free to remove my comments on Cluesforum if you wish.

    Best Regards /Patrik

    1. smj

      the american response to sputnick was explorer one. the army documented the launch for posterity…

      m.youtube.com…

      …patrix, would you mind watching the video and then telling me what you find “plausible” about it?

      1. patrix

        I do not doubt that video is faked in its entirety but that doesn’t prove, at least to me, that satellites don’t exist. And if there are observable phenomenons where the most rational explanation is the existence of satellites, then I think satellites are real. You might be able to do what satellites does with balloons or whatever but that is a more improbable explanation to me. They would deteriorate and fall down etc. I think it is doable to shield a device and power it with solar panels and put it into orbit. But I also think that is about it in terms of mans activity in space right now.

        1. smj

          so you acknowledge that both sputnick and explorer one are fakes; yet you insist that satellites are real because we can communicate and find our position anywhere in the world; because it is more “plausible” that the same organizations that told you they went to the moon (which you also believe to be a hoax) actually built world-circling spaceships, even though you acknowledge that they lied to you about their first (and most famous) examples of the technology and even though cyrus field laid the first transatlantic cable in 1858 and the real bruce wayne, alfred loomis, invented long range location in the early forties (according to the narrative); because it’s more “plausible” that liars built spaceships instead of tweaking antique technologies that you can go see with your own eyes and touch with your own hands.

          really bro?

          1. patrix

            Really! 🙂

            I think it’s possible to get stuff into orbit with rockets and I think the earth is round and orbits the sun. Apart from that I’m on the same page as fakeologists with Nukes and manned space travel being fake. Much of science being fake like relativity and quantum physics. Most businessmen, actors and artists being actors, etc.

            Why don’t satellites deteriorate and fall down in your world?

            Because they are in orbit, like the moon.

            1. ab Post author

              Sorry, but your equivocation of satellites with the moon is an immense logical fallacy. If nothing else, flatearth.fakeologist.com… has shown me that we don’t have a clue what the nature of the moon is, let alone know it’s a functioning satellite. Do you understand the science fiction origin of satellites?

  5. smj

    here’s a blog post that does an excellent job of presenting the nuke, satellite, and ballistic missile hustle. it’s an homage to the writer’s dear ole jewish dad who had worked for the defense contractor that made the so-called titan missiles. she believes the bullpsience of course and she now frets about nukes in space andwhatnot; but it’s a good succinct review of the hustle nonetheless…

    helenhighly.com…

    …the outer space treaty was inspired by a shit-ton of needles in space of course…

    en.m.wikipedia.org…
    en.m.wikipedia.org…

Leave a Reply