Here’s more proof that there’s no satellites in space taking constant pictures of the ground. We are told that all the views Google gives us from the sky are from a satellite.
My theory is that they’re just low planes flying over in a methodical fashion and stitched together to create our overhead views of the ground. This is the method that NASA uses to show us our Earth allegedly.
Google Street view is simply a Google car driving around with a 360° camera and then using software to stitch the images together seamlessly. This would have been too difficult with traditional photography but it’s super easy with a computer program. No this is not AI either. It’s just repetitive painstaking work that’s made easy by computer.
Here’s a simple example where we have a warehouse that’s been finished for years but the “satellite” view is just a pile of stripped dirt former farmland.
I can understand it takes quite a bit of time to get another plane to do another pass of the area to stitch it together with the other strips of photography but a satellite should be able to grab a shot every hour of every day or at least once a week.
As much as it pains me to say.
I have to agree with the Barb comment.
The ‘new’ format of the blog looks like a pile of dog shit.
Send me a screenshot because the blog updated overnight and I don’t know what everyone is looking at.
hello there,
it’s been a while since I posted here the last time. I’m sorry to dissapoint you but satellites are real. Even the ISS is a real “satellite”, of course just an empty relector, but still. If you try astrophotography and make long time exposures in the night, you’ll almost always get a satellite on your picture. I even recently made fresh pictures of the ISS, two flights in one night. I knew the exact time a week in advance. How’s that possible? Also the TV satellites, which are still working fine since the 80’s. How do you explain this? I’ve seen satellite dishes in the middle of Sahara in Tunisia where the Barbers live. There are not towers or anything (a fake argument often being used) I could send you my recent ISS pictures if you like. Simon analyzed my older ISS pictures once a few years ago. I still use the old Nikon P900 for this. I also saw the ISS in the Dominican Republic last year. Now I’m curious if my comment gets through here. Cheers. Barb Müller.
Could these be continuously flying (solar powered) planes, rather than space tech?
Bonus question: Can you see car sized objects at a distance of 160-2000kms?
https://www.groundcontrol.com/knowledge/guides/satellite-orbit-heights-impact-satellite-communication/
planes have to fly with increasing speed at higher altitudes. So no, solar powered planes cannot fly that fast and that high. I knew the exact time to the minute a week before. The altitude of the ISS is about 400km which can be calculated back from the reported times and positions in different places via trigonometry, etc. And from this 400km maybe only 30km contain enough dust to create disturbance of the view. Higher than 30km there is almost no air and no dust. The view is undisturbed. It’s not the same as when you look at objects on the surface of the Earth from a distance. I can easily see the lights from the Frankfurt skyline at 50km distance though. Satellites reflect the very strong sunlight and they always fly a very straight line which planes cannot do. You don’t see the details (except of the ISS, which was IMO build exactly and only for this purpose) , only the reflected light and not in the middle of the night because of the Earths shadow. Especially the TV satellites are familiar to me since the 80’s and the dishes have to be pointed very accurate to the geostationary orbit in every location. TV signals cannot be reflected from the stratosphere, only low frequency waves LW do that. And they cannot modulate TV signals, only bad quality audio tone. You can observe other rotating objects, like the moons of Jupiter for instance (they change visibly the position within hours) and even see their shadows on the planet, but this requires some skills. The sun rotates too, just watch the sunspots for a few days in a row. Cheers. B.
I would also add that there is lots of garbage information about satellites which makes no sense to me and I’m only focusing on the things I’m familiar with and which make sense IMO. Lies don’t prove anything wrong.
Statements, if shown to be lies, do tell you that you are dealing with a liar. Do you weigh statements from someone you know to be a liar as highly as those from another?
why takes this blog so long to load and it then looks horrible? I’m seeing large symbols now and have to look for the places with something to read.
You ignoring my points, dear alex. Lies don’t contain any useful information. I ignore them and don’t use them to prove anything. I told you my points and you’re ignoring them. I actually remember now why I chose to ignore this blog a few years ago. It’s wasting of time. If you want to know about satellites, etc., try to watch them, try to photograph the ISS, do some astrophotography yourself. It’s not that hard.
Thanks.
Yes, planes are fast, but they are nothing like as fast as the ISS is meant to be travelling.
I doubt you can see a car at 10km, nevermind 30km, or 400km, nevermind dust. I don’t think you can typically see light from lighthouses that far, and they are designed to be seen.
Seeing the Frankfurt skyline at 50kms is also not equivalent to seeing a car at the same distance – a city is very big/wide.
Perhaps you can explain why satellite always reflects sun light to earth; why it always catches the light. Surely it’s not reflective except when the panels are lined up such they are reflecting light back to earth? The terrestrial equivalent, is when something glints in the distance as it catches the sun, then disappears.
And then can you explain why Elon’s satellites adjusted their panels so that they would no longer reflect and be seen in earth (so they would no longer bother astronomers).
Yes, dear Ab, man-made satellites that supposedly orbit the Earth are as fake as 3-dollar bills. Perhaps you could remind your readers that my Cluesforum (as far as I know) was indeed the very first place where this question was raised over the internets – way back in 2011. Our thread dedicated to this particular topic (“Satellites: general discussion and musings”) now has more than 1.5 million views: https://cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=23&sid=92de7924f309755806cef1f3d5843eca
Oh, and I’m still waiting for that chunk of donations you promised during our September Clues watch party (which I thoroughly enjoyed, thanks again for your continuous efforts diffusing my SC research over the years). I now have a Stripe account – but my donate buttons have other options too (Paypal / credit cards / and whatnot.) 🙂
Sincerely yours – Simon
Where is the donorbox link? I sent you a link to click so we could both benefit from donorbox bonus. Stripe is their processor but I need a proper donorbox link as I told you from the beginning.
This topic is a perfect example of “physic driving,” everyone I hear in the media or my neighborhood talking about the “new satellite phones” speak as if “orbiting satellites ” are as obvious and real as the nose on your’ face. This is the most fascinating/depressing aspect of our so called media dominated “culture.” I don’t think it’s a stretch that at least 90 per cent of our “history and present news” is and has been completely made up. And what’s worse is at least 90 per cent think it’s all real.
Why even use the word “theory”? These planes labelled prominently “SURVEY” can be seen on cloudless days flying back and forth over the city, you can even see their “ploughing” of the sky on FlightRadar24. That’s why the “satellite” imagery stays constant for a few years then suddenly changes, as detected by new buildings, roads etc.
have to agree with you on this one. not that i don’t usually agree with you but, yeah. i think this one is a no-brainer. the demons who are running this clown world don’t need satellites. that being said, i would like to add that it is much more productive to disarm the shooters than to eternally dodge their bullets. and that being said, disarming the shooters can be accomplished by not buying in to their…games. watch from 2:44 to the end. it is not overly simplistic it is real and it is truth . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1arzN4Dkx8
we cannot fight our way out, we cannot vote our way out, we can
only remember our way out.
~ flannery o’connor