Mars Rover

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:37:52 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Stephen Fels" came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

It's not a "motor failure". The main engine is intentionally stopped at
about 8 minutes into the flight. That is because, by that time, the Shuttle
has gained all the speed necessary to orbit the Earth. At that point and at
that height, the horizon is still a few minutes away.

Actually, the trcking motor on my telescope decided to die as we were
tracking the shuttle. It did this with a jerk that took it off the
target. So it was my motor failure that stopped our observation.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:37:52 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Stephen Fels" came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

It's not a "motor failure". The main engine is intentionally stopped at
about 8 minutes into the flight. That is because, by that time, the Shuttle
has gained all the speed necessary to orbit the Earth. At that point and at
that height, the horizon is still a few minutes away.

Actually, the trcking motor on my telescope decided to die as we were
tracking the shuttle. It did this with a jerk that took it off the
target. So it was my motor failure that stopped our observation.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"

"Stephen Fels" wrote in message m...

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

It's not a "motor failure".

This is what Douglas Berry wrote:
"However, it was in orbit and back in view within 100 minutes of launch
through the telescope at my one night launch. (We had a motor failure
that stopped the smooth tracking during launch.)"
IT ARE HIS OWN WORDS!

Why doesn't Douglas answer the question?


The main engine is intentionally stopped at
about 8 minutes into the flight. That is because, by that time, the Shuttle
has gained all the speed necessary to orbit the Earth. At that point and at
that height, the horizon is still a few minutes away.

what a coincidence...

No coincidence. MECO is generally scheduled at approximately T+ 8 minutes 28
seconds. At 28,164kph, the horizon is still a few minutes away. Your
argument is also blown by observers on the other side of the Atlantic, who
see the Shuttle, right on schedule, as it passes over them. Tristain Cools,
an amateur observer, has even taken a picture of STS99 as the external tank
was falling away and burning up, on it's way to the bottom of the Indian
Ocean. Here's the picture...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...3070/sts99.htm

I think the conclusion is simple.

"THE SPACE SHUTTLE DOES NOT
DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON,
WHEN IT IS LAUNCHED....,

although it must disappear
if it has a velocity of 28,164kph...,

so I must conclude that the Space Shuttle
does not have the claimed velocity..."

"Nothing is more unbelievable,
than the reality we are now living in!"

www.geocities.com/markpeeters96/a.html

"Stephen Fels" wrote in message m...

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

It's not a "motor failure".

This is what Douglas Berry wrote:
"However, it was in orbit and back in view within 100 minutes of launch
through the telescope at my one night launch. (We had a motor failure
that stopped the smooth tracking during launch.)"
IT ARE HIS OWN WORDS!

Why doesn't Douglas answer the question?


The main engine is intentionally stopped at
about 8 minutes into the flight. That is because, by that time, the Shuttle
has gained all the speed necessary to orbit the Earth. At that point and at
that height, the horizon is still a few minutes away.

what a coincidence...

No coincidence. MECO is generally scheduled at approximately T+ 8 minutes 28
seconds. At 28,164kph, the horizon is still a few minutes away. Your
argument is also blown by observers on the other side of the Atlantic, who
see the Shuttle, right on schedule, as it passes over them. Tristain Cools,
an amateur observer, has even taken a picture of STS99 as the external tank
was falling away and burning up, on it's way to the bottom of the Indian
Ocean. Here's the picture...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...3070/sts99.htm

I think the conclusion is simple.

"THE SPACE SHUTTLE DOES NOT
DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON,
WHEN IT IS LAUNCHED....,

although it must disappear
if it has a velocity of 28,164kph...,

so I must conclude that the Space Shuttle
does not have the claimed velocity..."

"Nothing is more unbelievable,
than the reality we are now living in!"

www.geocities.com/markpeeters96/a.html

"bart janssens" wrote in message
om...
And they also use "asteroids IN ORBIT" for GPS.
It reflects the radiosignal as you probably know!

Throughout history, the great astronomers didn't notice that there were 24
satellites with orbits at 55 degrees inclination and precise 12 hour
periods, spaced around the Earth with geometric precision? With all the
attention to comets, you'd think such a precise constellation would have
attracted some attention.

You probably also know that TV-radiosignals are reflected
on the ionosphere...(ask mister Marconi)

So, when the Olympics were in Australia, everyone around the world had
crystal clear reception on their satellite feeds, because of TV-radio
signals bounced off the ionosphere? With no dropouts due to all of the
weather in between? And the whole Television industry, from the
broadcasters, to the guys building and launching the satellites, to the
rockets launching them into the sky are all there to pretend that it is
really satellites? Can you pickup television from neighboring cities that
clearly and reliably?

Why would you uses "artificial satellites",
if you can uses "natural satellites",

Well, the need for thousands of precisely placed satellites, doing thousands
of different jobs, is a compelling reason. An asteroid can't take pictures,
like Hubbel, or triangulate the position of a ship at sea, like the NOSS
triplets. The Iridium "Asteroids" are evenly spaced, all around the Earth,
at mathematically precise positions. When one fails, amateur observers can
see them placed in a "parking" orbit and a new one moved into its place.
They have perfectly flat mirrored surfaces that create intense specular
reflections, brighter than the brightest stars, at times that can be
predicted with a bit of math, due to the precision of their orientation with
respect to the Earth. And the ancients never once mentioned this?!? The
complexity of satisfying your worldview would be orders of magnitude more
difficult than actually launching satellites into orbit ever was.

like the moon (in orbit) and asteroids (in orbit)...

Otherwise it is just a religious chant.

Are you a scientist? Or a priest?

I am a scientist!

You are proving beyond a doubt, that you are anything but.
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com

"bart janssens" wrote in message
om...
And they also use "asteroids IN ORBIT" for GPS.
It reflects the radiosignal as you probably know!

Throughout history, the great astronomers didn't notice that there were 24
satellites with orbits at 55 degrees inclination and precise 12 hour
periods, spaced around the Earth with geometric precision? With all the
attention to comets, you'd think such a precise constellation would have
attracted some attention.

You probably also know that TV-radiosignals are reflected
on the ionosphere...(ask mister Marconi)

So, when the Olympics were in Australia, everyone around the world had
crystal clear reception on their satellite feeds, because of TV-radio
signals bounced off the ionosphere? With no dropouts due to all of the
weather in between? And the whole Television industry, from the
broadcasters, to the guys building and launching the satellites, to the
rockets launching them into the sky are all there to pretend that it is
really satellites? Can you pickup television from neighboring cities that
clearly and reliably?

Why would you uses "artificial satellites",
if you can uses "natural satellites",

Well, the need for thousands of precisely placed satellites, doing thousands
of different jobs, is a compelling reason. An asteroid can't take pictures,
like Hubbel, or triangulate the position of a ship at sea, like the NOSS
triplets. The Iridium "Asteroids" are evenly spaced, all around the Earth,
at mathematically precise positions. When one fails, amateur observers can
see them placed in a "parking" orbit and a new one moved into its place.
They have perfectly flat mirrored surfaces that create intense specular
reflections, brighter than the brightest stars, at times that can be
predicted with a bit of math, due to the precision of their orientation with
respect to the Earth. And the ancients never once mentioned this?!? The
complexity of satisfying your worldview would be orders of magnitude more
difficult than actually launching satellites into orbit ever was.

like the moon (in orbit) and asteroids (in orbit)...

Otherwise it is just a religious chant.

Are you a scientist? Or a priest?

I am a scientist!

You are proving beyond a doubt, that you are anything but.
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com

"bart janssens" wrote in message
om...
"Stephen Fels" wrote in message
m...

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

It's not a "motor failure".

This is what Douglas Berry wrote:
"However, it was in orbit and back in view within 100 minutes of launch
through the telescope at my one night launch. (We had a motor failure
that stopped the smooth tracking during launch.)"
IT ARE HIS OWN WORDS!

Why doesn't Douglas answer the question?

My apologies, when you said motor failure, I thought you were referring to
Main Engine CutOff of the Shuttle.

The main engine is intentionally stopped at
about 8 minutes into the flight. That is because, by that time, the
Shuttle
has gained all the speed necessary to orbit the Earth. At that point and
at
that height, the horizon is still a few minutes away.

what a coincidence...

No coincidence. MECO is generally scheduled at approximately T+ 8
minutes 28
seconds. At 28,164kph, the horizon is still a few minutes away. Your
argument is also blown by observers on the other side of the Atlantic,
who
see the Shuttle, right on schedule, as it passes over them. Tristain
Cools,
an amateur observer, has even taken a picture of STS99 as the external
tank
was falling away and burning up, on it's way to the bottom of the Indian
Ocean. Here's the picture...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...3070/sts99.htm

I think the conclusion is simple.

Because you've ignored all the evidence.

"THE SPACE SHUTTLE DOES NOT
DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON,
WHEN IT IS LAUNCHED....,

Yes it does. As Mr. Berry explained in his response, he just missed that
opportunity. There are thousands of others who've seen it dissappear below
the horizon and others on the other side of the Atlantic, who've seen it
appear right on schedule.

although it must disappear
if it has a velocity of 28,164kph...,

so I must conclude that the Space Shuttle
does not have the claimed velocity..."

You're ignoring the fact that it does indeed dissappear.

"Nothing is more unbelievable,
than the reality we are now living in!"

Well, the one you're living in, apparently...
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com

"bart janssens" wrote in message
om...
"Stephen Fels" wrote in message
m...

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

It's not a "motor failure".

This is what Douglas Berry wrote:
"However, it was in orbit and back in view within 100 minutes of launch
through the telescope at my one night launch. (We had a motor failure
that stopped the smooth tracking during launch.)"
IT ARE HIS OWN WORDS!

Why doesn't Douglas answer the question?

My apologies, when you said motor failure, I thought you were referring to
Main Engine CutOff of the Shuttle.

The main engine is intentionally stopped at
about 8 minutes into the flight. That is because, by that time, the
Shuttle
has gained all the speed necessary to orbit the Earth. At that point and
at
that height, the horizon is still a few minutes away.

what a coincidence...

No coincidence. MECO is generally scheduled at approximately T+ 8
minutes 28
seconds. At 28,164kph, the horizon is still a few minutes away. Your
argument is also blown by observers on the other side of the Atlantic,
who
see the Shuttle, right on schedule, as it passes over them. Tristain
Cools,
an amateur observer, has even taken a picture of STS99 as the external
tank
was falling away and burning up, on it's way to the bottom of the Indian
Ocean. Here's the picture...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...3070/sts99.htm

I think the conclusion is simple.

Because you've ignored all the evidence.

"THE SPACE SHUTTLE DOES NOT
DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON,
WHEN IT IS LAUNCHED....,

Yes it does. As Mr. Berry explained in his response, he just missed that
opportunity. There are thousands of others who've seen it dissappear below
the horizon and others on the other side of the Atlantic, who've seen it
appear right on schedule.

although it must disappear
if it has a velocity of 28,164kph...,

so I must conclude that the Space Shuttle
does not have the claimed velocity..."

You're ignoring the fact that it does indeed dissappear.

"Nothing is more unbelievable,
than the reality we are now living in!"

Well, the one you're living in, apparently...
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:37:52 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Stephen Fels" came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

It's not a "motor failure". The main engine is intentionally stopped at
about 8 minutes into the flight. That is because, by that time, the
Shuttle
has gained all the speed necessary to orbit the Earth. At that point and
at
that height, the horizon is still a few minutes away.

Actually, the trcking motor on my telescope decided to die as we were
tracking the shuttle. It did this with a jerk that took it off the
target. So it was my motor failure that stopped our observation.

I don't think I had seen your actual post at that point, due to a
crossposting filter on this end. When I saw our little friend's quote above,
I thought he was referring to MECO as a motor failure.
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:37:52 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Stephen Fels" came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

It's not a "motor failure". The main engine is intentionally stopped at
about 8 minutes into the flight. That is because, by that time, the
Shuttle
has gained all the speed necessary to orbit the Earth. At that point and
at
that height, the horizon is still a few minutes away.

Actually, the trcking motor on my telescope decided to die as we were
tracking the shuttle. It did this with a jerk that took it off the
target. So it was my motor failure that stopped our observation.

I don't think I had seen your actual post at that point, due to a
crossposting filter on this end. When I saw our little friend's quote above,
I thought he was referring to MECO as a motor failure.
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com