satellite dishes and the conspiracy theory

I have seen many instance on these forums where people say that satellites do not exist, at least not as we know them.  I have seen theories that there are antennas around the ice wall and that is why we point our satellite dishes towards the south.  However, that does not explain why people in the southern hemisphere point there dishes towards the north.  That would mean that the antennas are actually at the equator.  Yet, no one can provide proof of this even though we are all free to go to the equator.  Also, why are the dishes pointed at a certain angle?  If you are even a tiny bit off, no signal.  Maybe bendy radio waves now?

Others have suggested that the satellites are held up by balloons.  This makes no sense because the balloons, even if tethered to the ground, would be moving all over the place due to wind in the atmosphere.  We would never be able to lock in a signal.

Others have suggested that they float in the whirl pool of the sky.  Yet, this does not explain why some satellites have a geosynchronous appearing orbit, while others have a predictable non-geosynchronous one.  I don't think you can place anything in a whirlpool and accurately control its movement.

Still others, who believe in gravitational forces in a flat earth, will say that they do believe that satellites do orbit the earth.

I have used the search function on this site and have not found any post that shows a credible theory other than the one I was taught, much less an even remotely consistent one.  Apparently, zetetics do not need proof, you just see the effects and draw your own conclusions, no testing or evidence necessary.  It must be true because it appears that way, and it suites our needs at this time, or masks some holes in our theory. 

You clearly are confused. We don't have any conclusions, other than the Earth being flat. The reason we have so many theories is that we don't know which is correct. Having five possible, working explanations for a phenomenon is significantly more credible than having one, when none of them are proven.

Also, I never said anything about satellites when I was talking about my Aetheric Wind model. I was strictly referring to the Sun and Moon. And my model is still in progress, so I'll get back to you regarding the conspiracy.

I am not saying that having several different versions of a theory is necessarily wrong, but to say for certain that we are being lied to, then giving no evidence about the lie other than it must be true so that the space agencies can make money, and then throwing theories around left and right that try to fill the void of the lie is just reckless and under no definition scientific.  No proof required, just conjecture is good enough.

Also, I do not know if I referring to you about the whirl pool,  but I did read a post where someone suggested that maybe satellites are suspended in a whirl pool in the sky.  I'll see if I can dig up the post.

I am not saying that having several different versions of a theory is necessarily wrong, but to say for certain that we are being lied to, then giving no evidence about the lie other than it must be true so that the space agencies can make money, and then throwing theories around left and right that try to fill the void of the lie is just reckless and under no definition scientific.  No proof required, just conjecture is good enough.

Those who claim to be certain in their beliefs are the ones to be wary of.

Please show me in the post that you quoted where I claim to be certain in my beliefs.  I do not see it.  I was pointing out that the common theme here is to say we are being lied to, but so far as I have read, no one has given the smallest amount of proof.  If I am being lied to, I want to know it for sure.  I do not want to just convince myself that it must be true.

Please show me in the post that you quoted where I claim to be certain in my beliefs.  I do not see it.  I was pointing out that the common theme here is to say we are being lied to, but so far as I have read, no one has given the smallest amount of proof.  If I am being lied to, I want to know it for sure.  I do not want to just convince myself that it must be true.

That was in reference to FET, not you. I'm saying that if someone here claims that, for instance, the DE model is perfectly accurate and true, they are probably trolling you.

Well, I have seen many threads where it is claimed that for absolute certainty that there is a conspiracy and we are being lied to.  I gave the satellite example hoping that someone could point me to something that would make me say, "Well, there is no denying that!", but I can not find it for either the round or flat earth models.

Others have suggested that the satellites are held up by balloons.  This makes no sense because the balloons, even if tethered to the ground, would be moving all over the place due to wind in the atmosphere.  We would never be able to lock in a signal.

Altitudes over 60,000' are relatively calm and without wind, being above weather. Tethered systems would introduce more problems than they would be worth.

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2011, 07:07:59 AM

Others have suggested that the satellites are held up by balloons.  This makes no sense because the balloons, even if tethered to the ground, would be moving all over the place due to wind in the atmosphere.  We would never be able to lock in a signal.

Altitudes over 60,000' are relatively calm and without wind, being above weather. Tethered systems would introduce more problems than they would be worth.

I think that you are correct about this.  But, would it not make more sense to go even higher, to an altitude in which the air is almost non-present?

Certainly. A balloon can be effective up to roughly 50km. Above this the rarefied air makes positive buoyancy difficult. Balloons with payloads are rather more limited. The upper limit for usable payload would be roughly 125,000 feet.

Certainly. A balloon can be effective up to roughly 50km. Above this the rarefied air makes positive buoyancy difficult. Balloons with payloads are rather more limited. The upper limit for usable payload would be roughly 125,000 feet.

I see your point.  I know that you have said that this is impracticable, but I was wondering if anyone else still believes that satellites are attached to or are really balloons floating above the equator or Antarctica?

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2011, 07:07:59 AM

Others have suggested that the satellites are held up by balloons.  This makes no sense because the balloons, even if tethered to the ground, would be moving all over the place due to wind in the atmosphere.  We would never be able to lock in a signal.

Altitudes over 60,000' are relatively calm and without wind, being above weather. Tethered systems would introduce more problems than they would be worth.

However, there still remains the problem of coverage.  You would need dozens, if not hundreds, of balloons to provide the same coverage as one geostationary satellite.  Far more if you need to make it look like all of the dishes are pointing to the same spot about 22,000 miles above the equator.

You would, indeed, need several of them. Fortunately, while building a stratellite and payload costs about 20 million dollars, allegedly simply launching a satellite can cost 120 million, not including the cost of the actual satellite.

You would, indeed, need several of them. Fortunately, while building a stratellite and payload costs about 20 million dollars, allegedly simply launching a satellite can cost 120 million, not including the cost of the actual satellite.

While the costs of launching a stratellite are (predicted to be) a sixth of the cost of launching a satellite, the area covered by a stratellite is about a 50th of the area covered by a satellite. The cost of using stratellites is more overall.

There's also the problem of how much of that 120 million is available for turning into stratellites. The payload and rocket are still built and the rocket is still launched. After covering the cost of faking the launch, what money would be left over to pay for the array of stratellites?

Having five possible, working explanations for a phenomenon is significantly more credible than having one, when none of them are proven.

this is fundamentally untrue just because both are unproven which they aren't does not mean they are equally valid and just because one has more explainations doesn't mean it is more valid validity comes with evidence.

You would, indeed, need several of them. Fortunately, while building a stratellite and payload costs about 20 million dollars, allegedly simply launching a satellite can cost 120 million, not including the cost of the actual satellite.

Do you have any clue as to how much coverage a 60,000 ft high stratellite can provide vs. a 22,000 mile high satellite?  Stratellites might be good for local to regional coverage (let's be generous and say a 500 mile radius), but geostationary satellites provide coverage to nearly 1/2 of the world at a time.  Not to mention the slew of low earth orbit satellites that provide a host of other services such as imagery and telecommunications.