Many will already know the excellent app https://www.flightradar24.com which allows you to watch and follow almost every flight in the world. Flightradar24 is a Swedish internet-based service that shows real-time aircraft flight information on a map. It includes flight tracks, origins and destinations, flight numbers, aircraft types, positions, altitudes, headings and speeds. It aggregates data from multiple sources but, outside of the United States, mostly from crowdsourced information gathering by volunteers with ADS-B receivers. You can watch on your PC or download a mobile app. To see the sheer number of flights in the air, anywhere, at any given moment, on the zoomable scrollable maps is just mind-boggling. Anyway, what prompted this was the news that there is now an ADS-B receiver in the Antarctic, and earlier this afternoon it tracked its first landing at Troll Airfield in Queen Maud Land, Antarctica, a Boeing 737 from Cape Town to Troll.

Many will already know the excellent app https://www.flightradar24.com which allows you to watch and follow almost every flight in the world. Flightradar24 is a Swedish internet-based service that shows real-time aircraft flight information on a map. It includes flight tracks, origins and destinations, flight numbers, aircraft types, positions, altitudes, headings and speeds. It aggregates data from multiple sources but, outside of the United States, mostly from crowdsourced information gathering by volunteers with ADS-B receivers. You can watch on your PC or download a mobile app. To see the sheer number of flights in the air, anywhere, at any given moment, on the zoomable scrollable maps is just mind-boggling. Anyway, what prompted this was the news that there is now an ADS-B receiver in the Antarctic, and earlier this afternoon it tracked its first landing at Troll Airfield in Queen Maud Land, Antarctica, a Boeing 737 from Cape Town to Troll.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Many will already know the excellent app https://www.flightradar24.com which allows you to watch and follow=#FF0000 almost every flight in the world.'" Sorry but again Your analysis is wrong. All Southern hemispheric Oceanic flights drop of screen after 100 mile of take off and then magically reappear 100 mile before landing. This is due to it being a ground based triangulation Radar and not Satellite. MH-370 ring any bells. =#FF0000Almost is laughable

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Many will already know the excellent app https://www.flightradar24.com which allows you to watch and follow=#FF0000 almost every flight in the world.'" Sorry but again Your analysis is wrong. All Southern hemispheric Oceanic flights drop of screen after 100 mile of take off and then magically reappear 100 mile before landing. This is due to it being a ground based triangulation Radar and not Satellite. MH-370 ring any bells. =#FF0000Almost is laughable

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"Sorry but again Your analysis is wrong. All Southern hemispheric Oceanic flights drop of screen after 100 mile of take off and then magically reappear 100 mile before landing. This is due to it being a ground based triangulation Radar and not Satellite. MH-370 ring any bells. =#FF0000Almost is laughable '" My analysis is spot on. Of course in any ground based system, the signal drops off as the plane disappears. (It wouldn't be so bad if the Earth was flat, but hey). The track of this morning's flight was shown until it came out of range of S Africa and was then picked up by the new Antarctic ground station. It isn't magic, the coverage is simply whatever available, either from tracking stations or the various other sources they use, mainly in the US. The primary technology that Flightradar24 use to receive flight information is neither triangulation nor satellite, it is called automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B). The basics of how it works are: 1. Aircraft gets its location from a GPS navigation source (satellite) 2. The ADS-B transponder on aircraft transmits signal containing the location (and much more) 3. ADS-B signal is picked up by a receiver connected to Flightradar24 4. Receiver feeds data to Flightradar24 5. Data is shown on www.flightradar24.com Due to the high frequency used by the ADS-B system (1090 MHz) the coverage from each receiver is limited to about 250-450 km (150-250 miles) in all directions. The farther away from the receiver an aircraft is flying, the higher it must fly to be covered by the receiver. (Due to the curve of the globe). The distance limit is why it is very difficult to get ADS-B coverage over the majority of open ocean. However other methods are available, if you are interested then the info is here: https://www.flightradar24.com/how-it-works As the overwhelming majority of planes in the air are within reach of one of the systems at any given time, then yes, it is true to say that the vast majority can be tracked in pretty much real time - see the screenshot below which shows a number of planes crossing the Atlantic.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"Sorry but again Your analysis is wrong. All Southern hemispheric Oceanic flights drop of screen after 100 mile of take off and then magically reappear 100 mile before landing. This is due to it being a ground based triangulation Radar and not Satellite. MH-370 ring any bells. =#FF0000Almost is laughable '" My analysis is spot on. Of course in any ground based system, the signal drops off as the plane disappears. (It wouldn't be so bad if the Earth was flat, but hey). The track of this morning's flight was shown until it came out of range of S Africa and was then picked up by the new Antarctic ground station. It isn't magic, the coverage is simply whatever available, either from tracking stations or the various other sources they use, mainly in the US. The primary technology that Flightradar24 use to receive flight information is neither triangulation nor satellite, it is called automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B). The basics of how it works are: 1. Aircraft gets its location from a GPS navigation source (satellite) 2. The ADS-B transponder on aircraft transmits signal containing the location (and much more) 3. ADS-B signal is picked up by a receiver connected to Flightradar24 4. Receiver feeds data to Flightradar24 5. Data is shown on www.flightradar24.com Due to the high frequency used by the ADS-B system (1090 MHz) the coverage from each receiver is limited to about 250-450 km (150-250 miles) in all directions. The farther away from the receiver an aircraft is flying, the higher it must fly to be covered by the receiver. (Due to the curve of the globe). The distance limit is why it is very difficult to get ADS-B coverage over the majority of open ocean. However other methods are available, if you are interested then the info is here: https://www.flightradar24.com/how-it-works As the overwhelming majority of planes in the air are within reach of one of the systems at any given time, then yes, it is true to say that the vast majority can be tracked in pretty much real time - see the screenshot below which shows a number of planes crossing the Atlantic.

You're wrong again i'm afraid. I like your tactical nous by the way changing the subject thread in mid flow.

Right flight radars all belong to the same vendor. Meaning all flight/plane sites feed from one source. I have three Live flight radar screens open and there's not one southern hemispheric mid ocean flight between Australia, South America, and South Africa. Hmmm Fishy.

Firstly Planes do not have a Satellite feed MH-370 is bonafide proof of this.

Secondly you've contacted a copy and paste fetish, the picture you've supplied is a Northern hemispheric flight from Amsterdam all of these Northern hemisphere flights are tracked its southern hemisphere to Southern hemisphere which magically disappear.

Any flight route can be programmed into your own system. Simples

If you want to claim I'm "wrong", give us a clue about what?

Who said planes "have a satellite feed"? I simply explained that they get GPS data. Like I can. Or you.

Last, nothing "magically disappears", as I already explained if no data is picked up from the aircraft then simply there is nothing to display, it is simply out of range. Being out of range isn't a hard concept. Why do you suggest they WOULDN'T go out of range would be the question. They are not magic, and can only pick up signals from within the range I told you, on the frequency I told you, so what is hard for you to understand?

Where? The Bermuda Triangle? Narnia?

I think you're copy and pasting to much information and getting ahead of yourself in angst of attempting to prove me wrong, thats the way you're coming across anyway. Chill out.
The highlighted quote above contradicts your comment below:


All Northern hemisphere flights are tracked yeah.So why aren't these Southern hemisphere flights tracked. Southern Hemispheric flights disappear off screen not because there's NO triangulation radar system, its because they don't want the real genuine flight route exposing due to the true Geographical mapping errors of the globe. I've heavily researched this topic. Thats why Southern hemispheric flights trackers are switched off not because there's less radar coverage.

So we know GPS is essentially Ground Based Positioning triangulation after you arguing it was Satellite in another thread, And the Americans invented and control all the these systems. Now the Americans don't do anything small, so going by your reasoning they forgot to triangulate the Four Southern Oceans, i doubt this very much your reasoning is all frenzied copy and paste, and not your own true self opinion which is folly.

I am sort of replying to nutty Stan, but more in general, as I think the general topic of tracking aircraft around the globe is fascinating, and the information may interest a wider audience. (In fact, I doubt it will interest Stan at all, as his mind is firmly shut, but still).


One of us gets all excited and giddy whenever posting, usually going off into rants and abuse, and it ain't me



Pretty much veryone already knows 100% that you are wrong, and thinks you're nuts. There would be no point in trying to "prove" you are wrong, it would be as fruitful and pointless as trying to "prove" today is Thursday in the UK. All I'm doing is helpfully providing information, politely answering your less mad questions, and in a way guiding you towards the light, but I do know you have no wish to see it.


In what way? A plane gets its position via GPS same as you can in your car. Unless you believe that the satellite is also tracking your car, it isn't a hard concept. The satellite is not tracking your car. It is giving out its own time and position and your GPS software is calculating the rest.

You don't actually think your car GPS beams information back to the satellite, do you?


No. information is exchanged (ie actively), when possible. The plane is not tracked (passively) unless it is in range of tracking equipment, ie radar. it could be, but it isn't.

You clearly have no insight into the complexity of ATC (air traffic control) or the obstacles in receiving and exchanging data over vast expanses of ocean. Active communications from aircraft are to a considerable extent possible using HF (High frequency) radio, and Controller–Pilot Data Link Communication (CPDLC) using a data link to exchange information with air traffic control. If you are interested, google it. Then look up ACARS, FANS-1/A, ATN/CPDLC.

But what you need to understand is that while a plane's pilot knows where he is, because he gets that info from GPS, planes are not equipped to relay that information on to anywhere else. Ground controllers rely on active verbal broadcasts, data transmissions or automated, or passive radar. If the plane doesn't broadcast (MH370 switched off its transponder) then effectively once off the radar, it is invisible, save for the data pings it may then periodically send to satellites using ACARS.

You could Google ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast) - which over maybe the next 10 years will replace radar as the main plane location system for airports. To some extent this is already in use, the plane works out its position using GPS and then relays data to the ground, and to other planes, but ADS-B coverage still won't extend over the world's oceans, and the data won't be relayed back via satellite.

ACARS is the system that so far has provided the most clues to MH370. This is a data information system. The plane does periodically send a "ping" to satellites giving technical information about the plane's systems and any issues. The idea is to forewarn the airline of any maintenance work that might be needed at the next stop. But the ACARS ping again does not include any information about the aircraft's position - the track had to be worked out by triangulation from the information recorded by satellite.


The problem of constant plane position monitoring is not one of technology, but one of cost. A plane COULD be constantly tracked, over land, oceans, or whatever, if it was equipped (as it could be) to constantly upload updates to the satellite network. The reason this is not done is, simply, expense. the sheer volume of data that would constantly be being uploaded by all the planes in all the world to the satellite network would be ruinously expensive, and so is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Also, what would be the point? Once a plane is out of range of land, there would be 99.99999% of the time little or no advantage in having a satellite fix on it as it would add nothing ATC needed to know that current systems don't already provide.

Had MH370 had such a system, would it have solved the mystery? Probably not - since it seems the pilot/s switched off all the other comms systems, and so it can be presumed they would have switched off or disabled that one, too.




Stan - you said "globe"! Well done you!!







Was it me that convinced you the Earth's not flat? I do hope it was!

So, how do you explain the latest tracking station in Antarctica that I initially highlighted in this thread? This does indeed do exactly that which you claim can't be done, and which you claim there is a conspiracy not to do - it tracks planes incoming to land in that part of Antarctica. It puts them up on screen as soon as they signals are received. It could not do this if the planes switched them off. there was a regular flight from cape Town to Troll, and anyone who wanted to follow it could see it take off live from Cape Town and watch it on Flightradar24 as it merrily went on its way - then pick up its flight as soon as it came within range of the new tracking station, and 'watch' it land.


You do come up with idiotic statements, Stan. GPS is entirely based on SATELLITES which constantly broadcast o the ground. The network is set up so that wherever on the globe you are, a minimum of 3 or 4 satellites of the GPS network should be in line of sight. Each satellite constantly transmits data giving its position and the current time on the satellite's clock at regular intervals. These signals are picked up by any GPS receiver, which calculates how far away each satellite is, based on how long it took for the messages to arrive (the information states what time the signal was broadcast; your GPS knows the time now; it then simple deducts one from the other, and the distance that light travels in the resulting fraction of a second is the precise distance to that satellite).

Once it has information on how far away at least three satellites are, your GPS receiver can pinpoint your location, as there is only one place on the globe where all three of the measured distances intersect.

If you have info from 4 or more satellites, you can also work out your altitude.





No, the satellites do cover the globe. All of it. Even the southern oceans. Even the north and south poles. Every inch of the surface of the globe. Do I make myself clear?

Also, while it is sometimes helpful to cut and paste, in general I either don't, or if I do I usually quote it to make it clear. There is nothing cut n pasted in this post.

It really is a shame you cannot debate without personal infantile cranial insults. You lost the debate in your first sentence. The subject does interest me grossly as i've researched the Globular fallacies and deficiencies of the Southern Hemisphere flights. MH-370 Obliterate's your whole copy and paste concept Simples. There is nothing you can tell me about this topic



Again MH-370 Obliterates your concept hahahaha Heard you loud and clear...

I speak only the truth



You might actually believe that. Only a nutty person would believe that, and so QED.

Actually though it is just your standard defence mechanism - when you have no answer to a host of intelligent and specific points, just bluster your way out.

You never have any answer. To the most reasoned point. You have no wish at all to debate. So you just stick your fingers in your ears and go "nah nah nah".

It is no doubt irritating for you that I continually underline and demonstrate that you have nothing, except your bullcrap and bluster, and to that extent (if it really is true that you are out of the thread) my work is done.

Really: In Riddles you mean: Look Below.


Hahaha you speak in Riddles of contradiction

Is that really the best you've got? Really?

[/i
Hahaha you're getting all tangled up in your Copy and paste frenzy. Make your mind up. I don't need to prove you're wrong, you do a Grand job doing it yourself. Please carry on


As my research has indicated there are a plethora of platforms that can mimic satellite utility, so lets review.
=#BF00001. Land-based technologies. Loran (long range navigation)=#FF0000. 2. GPS uses Cell-tower triangulation not Satellites
=#FF00003. High Altitude Airships (HAA)=#BF0000 4. High Altitude Platforms (HAP)
=#FF00005. Lighter-than-air vehicles (LAV) =#FF00406. High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE)
=#BF00007. High Altitude Long Operation (HALO) =#FF00408. StratSat
=#FF00009. Airborne Relay Communication (ARC)=#FF0000 10. HeliPlat which connects to the HeliNet System
=#FF000011. High Altitude Shuttle System (HASS)=#FF0000 12. Small Balloon Systems (SBS)
=#FF000013. Nano Balloon Systems (NBS)=#BF0000 14. Google Loon System
=#FF000015. Stratospheric Platform Systems (SPS)=#FF0000 16. High Altitude Long Endurance Demonstrator (HALE-D)
=#FF000017 Undersea Cable=#FF0000 18. DARPA Integrated Sensor is Structure or ISIS

So as you see there are at least 18 platforms that can be used independently, in tandem or groups to provide all the services that satellites supposedly provide. The most glaring aspect of satellite fakery is cost. All 18 platforms I've mentioned are substantially more cost-efficient than satellites and inherently more reliable. It makes no sense to continually risk hurling satellites into space if more cost-efficient, reliable and readily maintainable terrestrial systems already exist, which they do, the dubious existence of satellites is even more definitive since NASA cannot furnish a single actual photo or video footage of real satellites.

Which is more probable. That satellites exist but NASA seems incapable of confirming their existence or simply they do not exist at all? =#BF0000Occam's Razor makes it simple, they don't exist at all.
I await the next batch of cranial insults and the tongue twisted comedy

Poor Stanley. You, of all people, praying Occam in aid must be one of the most ironic and amusing things I've read in a long while. You are to Occam what Toulouse Lautrec was to pole-vaulting. There are over 1,000 active satellites currently in orbit around the Earth, and over 2,500 more which no longer function. Careful watch is also kept on as many as possible of the tens of thousands of pieces of space junk/debris as these could pose a threat to live satellites and also for warning when larger debris is going to re-enter the atmosphere. On a clear night, any short spell of sky watching will enable you to see several of these satellites passing overhead. If you have the right app, you can easily identify them. There are a number of independent bits of software for you to identify track etc as many satellites as you want, for example www.satflare.com I would highly recommend stuffin.space/ Despite the tracking, given the sheer volume of metal whizzing around the globe, collisions are inevitable, and on 11 February 2009 Russia's Cosmos 2251 satellite collided with one of the network of 66 Iridium satellites at 0455 GMT over Siberia at an altitude of 490 miles (790 km). This would have been much less inconvenient for all concerned had the satellites not actually existed. Your convoluted net of cellphone masts etc and millions of balloons is obvious plain bollox given that 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean, and doesn't have either masts or tethered balloons or any of the other weird and wonderful figments of your mentors' imagination, which strangely no human eyes have ever seen, despite them running the entire world "satellite based" technology. Yet GPS works just as well in mid-Pacific or at the Poles as it does in Leeds. You are a special kind of gullible. "NASA incapable of confirming the existence of satellites"? That is one of your best ones yet. Any reasonably educated human on the planet can within seconds confirm the existence of any of the thousands of satellites as suggested above. And you can watch them with your own eyes when they are due to pass across. One of them - the International Space Station - often has a live feed and you can watch it's track around the globe all day and all night and when available, a live feed from its cameras. This afternoon as I posted earlier you can even watch Tim Peake's live spacewalk. If you are up at 05:46 in the morning, and the sky is reasonably clear, here's a good one for you. The ISS will emerge from Earth's shadow quite high in the South, and you can watch it until it disappears over the eastern horizon. A decent pair of binoculars and you will even me able to make out its shape. It will be exactly where the orbit prediction software in various apps and programs predicts it will be. Which enables astronomers/amateur photographers on Earth to take gazillions of photographs of it as it makes its way. For example, google "ISS crossing sun". Any number of photographers have indpendently taken images and here is a tiny sample of that search Similarly images of ISS crossing the moon - here is just one, but a very nice one, taken not by NASA or any science organisation, just an independent photographer called Dylan O'Donnell You could do it too. If it did not exist - how is any of this this possible?

Poor Stanley. You, of all people, praying Occam in aid must be one of the most ironic and amusing things I've read in a long while. You are to Occam what Toulouse Lautrec was to pole-vaulting. There are over 1,000 active satellites currently in orbit around the Earth, and over 2,500 more which no longer function. Careful watch is also kept on as many as possible of the tens of thousands of pieces of space junk/debris as these could pose a threat to live satellites and also for warning when larger debris is going to re-enter the atmosphere. On a clear night, any short spell of sky watching will enable you to see several of these satellites passing overhead. If you have the right app, you can easily identify them. There are a number of independent bits of software for you to identify track etc as many satellites as you want, for example www.satflare.com I would highly recommend stuffin.space/ Despite the tracking, given the sheer volume of metal whizzing around the globe, collisions are inevitable, and on 11 February 2009 Russia's Cosmos 2251 satellite collided with one of the network of 66 Iridium satellites at 0455 GMT over Siberia at an altitude of 490 miles (790 km). This would have been much less inconvenient for all concerned had the satellites not actually existed. Your convoluted net of cellphone masts etc and millions of balloons is obvious plain bollox given that 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean, and doesn't have either masts or tethered balloons or any of the other weird and wonderful figments of your mentors' imagination, which strangely no human eyes have ever seen, despite them running the entire world "satellite based" technology. Yet GPS works just as well in mid-Pacific or at the Poles as it does in Leeds. You are a special kind of gullible. "NASA incapable of confirming the existence of satellites"? That is one of your best ones yet. Any reasonably educated human on the planet can within seconds confirm the existence of any of the thousands of satellites as suggested above. And you can watch them with your own eyes when they are due to pass across. One of them - the International Space Station - often has a live feed and you can watch it's track around the globe all day and all night and when available, a live feed from its cameras. This afternoon as I posted earlier you can even watch Tim Peake's live spacewalk. If you are up at 05:46 in the morning, and the sky is reasonably clear, here's a good one for you. The ISS will emerge from Earth's shadow quite high in the South, and you can watch it until it disappears over the eastern horizon. A decent pair of binoculars and you will even me able to make out its shape. It will be exactly where the orbit prediction software in various apps and programs predicts it will be. Which enables astronomers/amateur photographers on Earth to take gazillions of photographs of it as it makes its way. For example, google "ISS crossing sun". Any number of photographers have indpendently taken images and here is a tiny sample of that search Similarly images of ISS crossing the moon - here is just one, but a very nice one, taken not by NASA or any science organisation, just an independent photographer called Dylan O'Donnell You could do it too. If it did not exist - how is any of this this possible?

Now I don't want to derail the subject here, just making an observation.

Anyone who holds a radically different view about something like the Earth's shape has to then squeeze and bend more and more associated things to fit the idea, rather than drop an idea based on overwhelming evidence. What I see on this thread is one of those things.

If you don't believe the Earth is a globe then you need to have other ideas about obvious things. Satellites, Gravity, Astronauts, GPS, Relativity, Mathematics, Climate, astrophysics, Stars, planets, Aircraft, communications. Then you have to find out a reason why Governments, corporations, universities, hobbyists, explorers, scientists, (A lot of which are not overly friendly with each other) and the general public are deliberately hiding the truth. Then you have to formulate a reason why they would do it.

It must be exhausting.

This is how I see it at least, and I'm sure they truly believe what they say.

What really interests me is why they have the core belief in the first place? Whatever drives it must be strong and underpin their whole world view. The only thing I can think of is a religious reason. Although, it is a fairly modern phenomena, contrary to the popular belief that religion always thought the earth was flat, which isn't strictly true. At least, not to the levels people think.

Anyway, sorry for the slight derailment.

Oh my word i'm in hysterics sat in my chair. Just look at the fake CGI on display. Hahahahaha

The above comment proves my last paragraph in my last post. 2500 Malfunctions Great value for money there. So as you see there are at least 18 platforms that can be used independently, in tandem or groups to provide all the services that satellites supposedly provide. The most glaring aspect of satellite fakery is cost.=#BF0000 [iAll 18 platforms I've mentioned are substantially more cost-efficient than satellites and inherently more reliable. It makes no sense to continually risk hurling satellites into space if more cost-efficient, reliable and readily maintainable terrestrial systems already exist, which they do, the dubious existence of satellites is even more definitive since NASA cannot furnish a single actual photo or video footage of real satellites.[/i

Gullible. You're the one who's believing the all the nonsense matey not me. NASA cannot supply one authentic Satellite shot.
And the CGI cartoon pictures are hilarious. Please take up a photography course my stomach aches through laughter. Duping you is a doddle



Here's a link to all supposed [url=https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/2110/width668/aapone-20090212000154539144-us-space-accident-satellite-original.jpgSatellites[/url that allegedly surround the alleged globe. How come the ISS pictures don't show these orbiting Satellites or stars in the background its because they're composites, any decent eye can figure that out.

And Freemason Twin Peake doing a space walk in a vacuum travelling 5 miles per second is double hilarious. I bet we don't see the orbiting Satellites below or any star constellation what you'll see is a pre recorded Green screen film aided by Hollywood.

Nail on head. Ever since the 1500's. Heliocentrism eliminates God. Heliocentrism is Sun worship. Who wants to hide God and Sun worships. ? Freemasonic Luciferian NWO doctrine. Full stop. The same people who run the World Governments, All Media and NASA Simples.

There is NO doubt - as in ZERO - that ANYONE, you included, can photograph the ISS as it passes by.

You ignore this. How could you do it? Does NASA transmit CGI into your visual cortex or what/

Why do you ignore the very obvious and very basic points put to you?



Space is an extremely harsh environment and all satellites have a limited shelf life. They must be VFM, though, as otherwise, why would all the major countries and many private companies continually launch 'em?


Of course it can. But even if provided with a billion photos or videos, you would say "Those are all fake".

Here's one for starters: a shuttle capturing the Hubble telescope, on a service mission


By the way, Hubble has produced squillions of images over many years, none of which could be obtained from Earth. If it did not exist, how could that happen?


if NASA or ESA wanted to create a fake scenario, your hypothesis relies on the odd idea that - oops-a-daisy - they would forget to "put the stars in" or whatever. Really? That is a dumb proposition even for you. (But oddly it does echo one of the more stupid "moon hoax" claims that you couldn't see the stars in the photos - have you learned nothing from those?) As it happens I do know quite a lot about photography. As you don't know the answer to such a simple question, you are clearly ignorant in the subject.


It's a pity you can't hear everyone laughing at you claiming the spacewalk is a grenscreen hoax. You do make yourself look naive, gullible and mad in equal measure with consummate ease.

But as ever you avoid the questions that you can't answer. Like, if there is no ISS - how come YOU can with your unaided eyes see the ISS?

Come on Stan, it's a simple challenge. Or do you even reject the evidence of your own eyes in favour of your barking bats[size=5=#FFFFFF.[/sizehit fabric of multilayered nonsense?

Ive been a silent viewer of these boards for many years. I was tickled into joining this particular forum as certain topics besides my beloved Leigh Centurions Thread tickled my fancy. I was obviously drawn to the Nuclear thread where I have a strong family interest within that field, but as I read through most of the off topic threads Its damn right clear as snow that theres a massive sway of anti Stanley screeches. The stick hes swallowed is absolutely diabolical. Theres an outright type of racism or bullying being portrayed throughout these threads with mainly one perpetrator pulling the strings just for having a varied outlook on life.

Oh by the way them photos look disputable. Im not laughing at you Stan Im laughing at the childish wiffle waffle. HeHe

Please take a photography course your gullibility levels are raging. just keep digging yourself deeper, You are so indoctrinated that you don't even trust your own God given senses. Copernicus made all of his observations with the naked eye and constructed his heliocentric model that all Academia received as Gospel truth for at least 200 years. Yes before Hot air Balloons and 400 years before planes were invented so that we could see the landscape we live on. On top of that he didn't even have a telescope, why because they weren't invented then. Just like the Hubble Telescope doesn't exist nor does the International space station. Oh but don't take time to do any of your own research just start a argument because you believe something exists. Congratulations you have won the Parrot of the year award. 

I'm not sure what your definition of racism is, but having never met Stanley and never discussed race, mention race, or say anything remotely connected to it at any point (Both him and me) or seen anyone else do so no matter how much they've argued. I'm struggling to think that you have a flair for the dramatic or a different definition.

As for bullying, well, I'm pretty sure Stanley can hold his own and has never, that I've seen, taken offence to the point of it causing mental harm. What actually happens is that Stanley and others become heated over a topic, idea, or point and passionately argue the finer points. If having your idea or beliefs mocked, questioned, or doubted offends you then it means your ideas and beliefs struggle to stand up to scrutiny. If people can't question an idea it leads to a rocky road where we all don't want to go down.

That's not bullying, it's common sense.

If you post something in a public forum then you are inviting discourse on that subject. If you don't like that then maybe a public forum isn't the place for you.

I invite someone to watch the ISS with their own eyes. They ignore the invitation, instead clinging to denial that it "doesn't exist". As anyone can see it, this really is the debating equivalent of fingers in ears and nah nah nah. hey ho

Anti-Stanley? That is a bit ridiculous. I am anti the idiotic nonsense he either believes or trolls, but obviously respond to the points that he chooses to make. If he's not trolling, he's deluded, and if so it does him no favours to pretend he isn't delusional. It's not a "varied outlook on life", it's just fruitbat drivel. But that blunt message apart, I address the issues, in quite a bit of detail, and not Stanley, whom I wouldn't know from Adam.

Yes, Stan does try to bully people, but that's his way, and his rudeness and bluster is an irrelevance really, he only does it to get out of responding to things he can't answer.

That said, I started this thread, dealing with the technology of flight tracking. It was Stanley who jumped in with his theories, not the other way around. I've just responded to them. Wasn't my idea to get into his stuff, but I don't have any obligation to let it pass unchallenged.

As for "racism" ... WTF?



PS - snow's not clear. It's pretty opaque. But it is made of ice, which is clear. I blame NASA for this hoax.

Firstly with the above abuse, you've just proven to everyone what a great example to the term immaturity.

Again more personal insult.and twisted angst. Bully hahaha i've never bullied anyone in my life, the above posts illustrate you're the aggressor. As for trolling i certainly expose the lies is that trolling. No..

I challenged and proved to you about Flight tracking data, then you got on your high horse about Satellites which again i proved are hoaxed, then you bring up Tim Peake, then you added fake google composites to the thread, The Butcher apologetically derailed the thread not me, so it's you who's getting muddled up with your tongue twisted copy and paste not me, i'm just pointing out your flawed reasoning.

Reading the hatred vitriol above and also other threads you've proven and continued a discriminative dialogue throughout our exchanges. I'm the one who's risen to just laugh off your childish sticks and stones. So there you go, your hole just keeps getting bigger with the tirades of vitriol abuse proving how weak your argument really is.

[iIcan't speak for (WTFIA) but i believe discrimination is the right analogy. Search the threads its pure vitriol angst. At first i foolishly lowered myself to his/her level, however now i just expose his/her reasoning and vitriolic immaturity.[/i

The latter part of the Paris thread proved his ignorance and discriminative attitude but i let by gones be by gones i don't bare grudges. I forgive his/her flawed traits.