WELCOME TO MY SITE AND HERE IS MY DISCLOSURE
PLEASE VISIT "ABOUT THE SITE" FIRST AND THEN VISIT "RELIABLE INFORMATION".
MY INTENTION IS NOT TO PROVE ANYTHING. THE SITE IS JUST A PLACE TO SAVE MY RESEARCH AND CREATE AWARENESS OF THE TOPIC. I WANTED TO PROVIDE A RESOURCE TO EXPLAIN MY POINT OF VIEW TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY INSTEAD OF CONSTANTLY RETYPING AND PROVIDING LINKS. ALL REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. DO NOT BELIEVE ME AND RESEARCH THE BELOW FOR YOURSELF.
IF SOMETHING IS MY OPINION I WILL STATE IT OTHERWISE I ATTEMPT TO JUST LAY OUT THE INFORMATION FOUND. I MAY ON OCCASION PROVIDE MY CONCLUSION AT THE END BUT ULTIMATELY ITS UP TO YOU MAKE YOUR OWN JUDGEMENT.
USE DISCERNMENT WHEN READING ANY INFORMATION SOURCE.
SPUTNIK
SUBJECTS BELOW REQUIRE FURTHER RESEARCH OR ORGANIZATION
AS ALWAYS....... EXERCISE CAUTION WITH THE BELOW INFORMATION.
I MAKE NO GUARANTEE'S OF IT'S ACCURACY OR SOURCE RELIABILITY AND OFTEN PUT VERY BLATANT COMMENTS IN TO REMIND ME WHAT IT MEANS OR WHAT IT IS FOR
http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/s/Sputnik_1.htm
Controversy surrounding re-entry
Long-standing official accounts state that, based on the degradation of Sputnik 1's orbit, the satellite re-entered the atmosphere on or about 4 January 1958, whereupon it is assumed to have burned up completely. The Sputnik 1 rocket booster re-entry was expected to occur somewhere above Alaska, or the West coast of North America, according to Soviet predictions in December 1957.
There are dubious claims however, that certain components did survive: Per recent news reports, on the morning of 8 December 1957, Earl Thomas of Encino, California, was leaving his home to go to work, when he noticed something glowing beneath a tree in his back yard. The source turned out to be several pieces of plastic tubing, which he claimed matched structural diagrams of the Sputnik 1 satellite. A local Los Angeles radio DJ, Mark Ford of KDAY Radio, was at the same time offering a $50,000 reward for anyone who had found Sputnik, which reportedly had gone down in the L.A. area. When Thomas tried to claim the reward, he was met by a representative of the United States Air Force, who received the pieces Thomas found, and wrote a receipt on Air Force stationery. Later, after the radio station denied having offered a reward, Thomas brought the receipt back to the Air Force, where the sergeant on duty gave the pieces back to Thomas. The family wrote to government officials at all levels in an attempt to collect the reward, but were told that the government had not offered a reward. Of particular interest, however, was a reply from Colonel W.G. Woodbury of the Air Force, which includes the statement "At the time you recovered the Sputnik parts..." Currently, the disputed parts are in the possession of Bob Morgan, Thomas' son. An exhibit about the parts is currently on display at The Beat Museum, in the North Beach neighbourhood of San Francisco.
The below is a metal arming key and is the last remaining piece of the first Sputnik satellite. It prevented contact between the batteries and the transmitter prior to launch. Currently on display at the National Air and Space Museum.
IS THAT IT? THATS WHAT THEY SHOW TO PROVE IT WAS MADE, ESPECIALY CONSIDERING IF THE ABOVE CONTROVERSY IS TRUE
started looking at the below while looking into the different theories of earths shape on the home page (ellipsoid, pear, sphere, geiod ) because it is said that sputnik orbital data provided an idea of earths irregular shape (even though sputnik had nothing but a radio transmitter to perform such a survey and beeps on a radio were used to prove it is in orbit, not to mention that people claim to have seen this tiny satellite in orbit with binoculars but they state they sent 2 other objects into orbit ahead and behind it so you can see where it was between the 2, but you couldn't actually see sputnik. thought i should store the links here as they are based on sputnik but will add them where it is relevant on other pages
The Earth's Gravitational Potential, deduced from the Orbits of Artificial Satellites
site source https://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/Supplement_1/3.refs?related-urls=yes&legid=gji;4/Supplement_1/3
paper https://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/Supplement_1/3.full.pdf+html
references listed for the above paper were.....
Motion of a satellite in the Earth's gravitational field
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/254/1276/48
pdf http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/254/1276/48.full.pdf
The Effect of the Earth's Oblateness on the Orbit of a Near Satellite
FREE
full pdf http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/247/1248/49.full.pdf
lol........was a laugh reading this PDF. going to use this every where. assumption after assumption, constants that are variable when needed, possible, could, in principal and so on. literally goes around in circles with double speak. the below is a screen shot of a section but the whole thing was the same. i was going to highlight the key points but would have to highlight the whole thing. A good example on how you can use math to prove anything but it is not reality if you are choosing the figures to suit what you are trying to prove. Before this section they cover how Newtonian gravity is used as the principal because if Eisenstein's was used there would be of the major axis of the orbit and then go on to say its a negligible difference (so why worry and love how they use what every gravitational theory they need, because gravity must automaticaly know which one to stick to) since the major axis MAY rotate as much as a million times faster as a result of earths oblateness. sound like a good, realistic number
Analysis of the orbits of the Russian satellites. Paper presented at Royal Society conference
Vanguard measurements give pear-shaped component of Earth's figure.