The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Pythagoras on December 17, 2012, 09:38:01 AM
-
for the sake of my argument im going to us sky tv for example but their are many more satellite based tv services.
so satellites don't exist and instead their are transmitting towers that broadcast the singles instead. so sky pretend to use satellite to broadcast their programs to millions of uk residence, all oh who also require a satellite dish on their homes all pointing at the same point in the sky.
why all the trouble? why not just say they use broadcast towers instead? why lie and say they use satellites which which require duping all its customers which must cost allot especial considering all the houses need dishes that on the most part are included in the installation package? all the staff would need paying off for thier silence plus hidden broadcast towers.
plenty of other company's use broadcast towers or cable networks to provide tv services at the same price and in some cases cheaper than sky tv. so what is it in for sky to pretend to use satellites when it would be cheaper to just tell the truth?
also and i actually dont know the answer to this but can a satellite dish even pick up a signal from a ground based broadcast tower? do they use the same kind of signals?
-
Strattelites?
-
Their is 0 evidence of stratilites existence. I'd be more inclined to believe that towers broadcast the signal, which I don't believe either.
-
Their is 0 evidence of stratilites existence. I'd be more inclined to believe that towers broadcast the signal, which I don't believe either.
When you say Zero evidence, you mean no evidence at all and apart from the fact that a company called Sanswire (http://www.sanswire.com/stratellite.html) make them and show them to people, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Please do not look at the picture below. Its totally irrelevant.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/First_Stratellite%2C_tethered_down_in_hangar%2C_seen_from_the_back.jpg)
As is the wiki page on stratellites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite)
Nothing to see here. Zero evidence. Move along to another thread please.
-
Your own evidence says that this is not a commercially avalible service and has spent many years in development. Sat tv had been around for decades. Sats in general have been around for 50 years and this stratilite company has only just come up with a commercially viable device that even now isn't avalible for use? Why can't wee se these devices all over the place? At sunset and sunrise would be extremely visible plus where are they built? Who builds them? Their must be hundreds if not thousands dotted all over the globe yet like I said, no credible evidence. Nice try.
-
Your own evidence says that this is not a commercially avalible service and has spent many years in development. Sat tv had been around for decades. Sats in general have been around for 50 years and this stratilite company has only just come up with a commercially viable device that even now isn't avalible for use? Why can't wee se these devices all over the place? At sunset and sunrise would be extremely visible plus where are they built? Who builds them? Their must be hundreds if not thousands dotted all over the globe yet like I said, no credible evidence. Nice try.
Whoa, why are you trying to move the goal posts?
You just said there was zero evidence for Stratellites. Not 2 minutes later you are now an expert and telling me whether or not they are commercially viable.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,51351.msg1259442.html#msg1259442 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,51351.msg1259442.html#msg1259442)
^ That post is over a year old. So I've known about them for more than a year at least. Actually several. I'm clearly much more of an expert on them than you and won't be putting any stock into your 2 minute assessment of something you thought was imaginary but 3 minutes ago.
-
Okey my mistake for not bieng clear no evidence of stratilites in commercial use. The wiki says that they could need regular maintiace and multiple units to cover large areas continuously. So where is the support infrastructure for all the many stratilites construction and maintiace facilities? Crashes, because at some point in certain one would have. The wiki says that this texh is a long way off and te unit in your pic is a display model ( mock up)which was dismanteld shortly after the exhibition.Ad this still dosent answers origional question. Why the deception? Why not just say they use stratilites or broadcast towers, they are a comercial company just interested in profit. The medium it transmits in makes no difference to them.
-
Whoa, why are you trying to move the goal posts?
Not at all.
You just said there was zero evidence for Stratellites. Not 2 minutes later you are now an expert and telling me whether or not they are commercially viable.
Since stratellites were given as an answer to the question posed in the OP, it's up to you to provide evidence that stratellites are being used to simulate satellite television service.
-
Their is 0 evidence of stratilites existence.
I'd happily provide evidence for them being used as well, but we have a fundamental problem here. I was challenged to prove something. I did. That was not acknowledged. Round Earthers just shabbily tried to change the subject rather than conceding that they were mistaken. And you are doing it again.
-
How can they already be in use? ??? Thier is no infrastructure maintenance facilities, construction facilities, breaker yards, command centres. None have ever been spotted in flight ( they are massive when ever discussed by ther designers )or on the ground ( the pic you used is a mock up used at tech shows) so let's have a look at your evidence should be interesting? Plus Answer my original question. Why does sky lie? Why not just tell the truth what do they gain from saying its from a satellite if its not? They charge about the same as virgin give it take a pound or two.
-
I have a lovely idea. Maybe we should have a "search" function where one could type in "stratellite" and it would display the dozens of threads wherein this had been discussed before...
-
Thork baught it up. I know they don't exist. So can anyone Anserw my origional question?
-
http://www.moveutilities.com/cable_vs_satellite.html (http://www.moveutilities.com/cable_vs_satellite.html)
-
That site is assuming sats are real but in flat earth they are not. They use broadcast towers just like free view does. Free view provide hundreds of tv channels over normal airwaves using old style aerials. Why does sky pretend to use sats when you can obviously send hundreds of tv channels over normal airwaves.
Plus can sat dishes even pick up signals from a broadcast tower? I actualy don't know? If they can the why do free view use aerials?
-
The dish simply amplifies a weak signal.
-
Okay fair enough but why do sky lie? They don't charge a premium for the fact they use sats so why say they use them if infact they don't? What do the gain? If anything it cost them more to lie because they have to hide all the evidence pay off all the staff that know about it. It dosent make sense when all they have to do is say they use broadcast towers. The only reason I can see is that they do infact use sats.
-
Well, first satellite TV costs more than cable. So they charge more money. Second, the stratellite allows them a much broader footprint for coverage with less power output for transmission than any broadcast tower would make possible.
-
Well my sky subscription is cheaper than virgin cable tv i had before it so not sure about that one. And a if a single stratilite was used over England then depending on where you were you would have to point the dish at a different angle to get a singnal because its only a few miles in the air instead of 23,000 miles which is where geo orbit sats are locate. So that doesn't realy work either. Plus all the stuf i said about stratilites not existing dent help their case either.
-
Well that would really depend on the location of the stratellite, wouldn't it?
-
Well that would really depend on the location of the stratellite, wouldn't it?
You really need a class on Trigonometry. What you are saying is such an insult to your own intellect and knowledge that if any one else said it, moderators would have to be called.
-
Well that would really depend on the location of the stratellite, wouldn't it?
You really need a class on Trigonometry. What you are saying is such an insult to your own intellect and knowledge that if any one else said it, moderators would have to be called.
Ironically, personal attacks are not allowed and a moderator should be called for your post.
-
Their is 0 evidence of stratilites existence. I'd be more inclined to believe that towers broadcast the signal, which I don't believe either.
When you say Zero evidence, you mean no evidence at all and apart from the fact that a company called Sanswire (http://www.sanswire.com/stratellite.html) make them and show them to people, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Please do not look at the picture below. Its totally irrelevant.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/First_Stratellite%2C_tethered_down_in_hangar%2C_seen_from_the_back.jpg)
As is the wiki page on stratellites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite)
Nothing to see here. Zero evidence. Move along to another thread please.
Good work Thork this is very interesting.
-
Well that would really depend on the location of the stratellite, wouldn't it?
You really need a class on Trigonometry. What you are saying is such an insult to your own intellect and knowledge that if any one else said it, moderators would have to be called.
Really? Perhaps you can check my math for me. But if a stratellite was at a height of 12 miles and the receivers are at a distance of 700 miles and 400 miles, the elevation changes less than a degree. That's less than one pinky width at arm's length.
-
Well that would really depend on the location of the stratellite, wouldn't it?
You really need a class on Trigonometry. What you are saying is such an insult to your own intellect and knowledge that if any one else said it, moderators would have to be called.
Really? Perhaps you can check my math for me. But if a stratellite was at a height of 12 miles and the receivers are at a distance of 700 miles and 400 miles, the elevation changes less than a degree. That's less than one pinky width at arm's length.
Of course at 400 miles, that works out 1.7 degrees above the horizon. At 700 miles, it's .98 degrees. How much signal do you suppose will be lost due to ground clutter, hills, buildings, trees, etc.?
-
That's probably why you need a dish.
-
Using your triganomatry then where is the stratilite located that sky use? Should be quite easy to figure out then. Baring in mind that every tv receiving satailite in Western Europe points the the same satellite. Plus your saying that this stratilite is at 63,000 feet. That's only twice as high as a jet. Baring in mind you can quite easily see a jet at 30,000 feet and a stratilite is many times te size of a jet then it would be very easy to see especially at sun set and sun rise?
-
That's probably why you need a dish.
A dish that has to have a direct line of view to the satellite. Have you seen any antennas pointed almost horizontally? Also, the signal at that frequency cannot pass through a building. Long gone are the times when you had antennas that had to have a visual to the transmitter on the ground, and people had to have posts, sometimes several meters long, on the ceilings of their homes to get the signal. Have you ever seen a dish on top of a pole several meters long? Because in a modern city most people do not have a visual to places just a degree or two above the horizontal line.
And 400 or 700 kilometers is nothing compared with the size of the countries that are totally covered with satellite signal. Where I live there are places with less than ten people per square kilometer. Are you suggesting that they have a stratellite for just a few thousand potential customers? Maybe for just a few tens of actual customers, each one paying a few bucks per month?
Anyhow, since my basic objection is about your egregious pretended ignorance about trigonometry, lets look at any antenna in your own neighborhood. Does it have the receptor near the top of the dish, or near the bottom? I can assure you that the receptor is near the bottom of the dish because the dish is pointing at a place high up in the sky, not to a place just a degree or two above the horizontal.
-
okey so i have done a bit or research and made a funky picture to entertain you all and to help illustrate my point.
a stratillite cannot replicate what is seen in the real world. im sorry but it just cant and i will show you bellow. i used a website called dish pointer which uses your location and your choice of satellite to find where to point you dish. the website is ( http://www.uksatellitehelp.co.uk/2007/08/01/alignment-calculator-for-sky-digital/ (http://www.uksatellitehelp.co.uk/2007/08/01/alignment-calculator-for-sky-digital/) ) feel free to replicate my results. im sure you cant but will accept if you can. bellow is a picture i created using the info from the website. i tried to copy the picture from the website but couldn't so transposed the lines roughly onto a map. like i said you can replicate it yourself using the website.
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5310/satalitedirection2.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/satalitedirection2.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
notice how all the lines seem to converge further south down near the equator. in Minsk a dish points almost adsactly south but in Madrid you have to point it south east. and varying degrees between the two points. the adsact directions required can be found by putting these locations into the website provided. feel free to double check. (im using 2E Astra 2A-B-D)
also look at the coverage of the same satallite
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/astrafootprint2a.gif/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/astrafootprint2a.gif/)
how does one stratillite cover such a large are? remembering that all dishes are pointing towards a point over the equator just of the coast of Africa.
more importantly this wasn't my original question. i asked why sky would lie. the only reason given so far is they can charge more money. but this simply isn't true either.
this is sky charges.
Monthly costs
Sky TV £21.50
- Sky Entertainment
One off costs
Sky+ box Free
TV standard set-up Free Free: Sky+ Install
Benefits and extras
On Demand Free
£25 M&S eVoucher Free Your voucher will be emailed to you within 45 days of activating your service.
Monthly cost £21.50
One off cost £0.00
this is virgin tv
One off cost Monthly cost
Broadband L
£18.00
TV M
Phone M
Extras
Virgin Media Super Hub
TiVo 500GB box
Virgin Phone line
Virgin Phone line
£14.99
Set up costs
Installation, set up and demo
£49.95
Total cost
Monthly total £32.99
One off payment added to first bill £49.95
One off payment to be paid today
£0.00
so in fact sky is far cheaper than its competitors. so it defintly isn't racking in more cash. but to pretend to use satellites would cost vast amounts of money paying off employees to keep the quiet. and hiding the real source of its signals and all the secret stratilites required to cover such a large are ( which my diagrams also prove impossible)
so any thoughts and sugestions?
-
Hmmm all the flat earthers ran away. Shame.
-
A dish that has to have a direct line of view to the satellite. Have you seen any antennas pointed almost horizontally?
(http://www.constructionphotography.com/ImageThumbs/A088-02463/3/A088-02463_Terraced_houses_with_satellite_dishes_England_UK.jpg)
how does one stratillite cover such a large are?
It could not. It's been stated many times that you would need more stratellites than satellites. This entire discussion has taken place before, which is why I directed you to the search function.
-
A dish that has to have a direct line of view to the satellite. Have you seen any antennas pointed almost horizontally?
(http://www.constructionphotography.com/ImageThumbs/A088-02463/3/A088-02463_Terraced_houses_with_satellite_dishes_England_UK.jpg)
Where are these houses located? What satellite are the dishes (allegedly) pointing at?
-
how does one stratillite cover such a large are?
It could not. It's been stated many times that you would need more stratellites than satellites. This entire discussion has taken place before, which is why I directed you to the search function.
[/quote]
Iv done my research and proven that all dishes are pointing to a single object. Not many spread over all of Europe. Notice all lines converge on a single point? Did you not see the post? You can replicate the results yourself and can see the evidence before your own eyes on every house in the country. And I thought flat earthers were all about evidence you could see in person?
-
I saw your post. Pointing dishes at one point in space does not mean the transmissions originate at that point.
-
Sky is one of the most powerful companies in the world if such a conspiracy existed the guys at the top would be in on it anyway. This is another flat earth loop hole you can't prove right or wrong.
-
I saw your post. Pointing dishes at one point in space does not mean the transmissions originate at that point.
then where doses the signal originate from? behind it? a sat dish has to be pointing at the source. this is provable by going outside and
moving you dish. go give it a go and see what happens and let me know. has happened to me so i know this a true.
further to this. people keep on mentioning stratilites. well i have been making some more illustrations. the wiki on stratilies states that they could cover an area the size of France so that is what i am going with. also included overlap to makes sure their is no gaps in Europe alone requires 19 statilites. plus spares to cover for maintenance or accidents. i have also included red lines to indicate the directions that satellite dishes would need to point. notice that because of overlap in many locations two signals can be revived by pointing your dish in two different locations. image below
(http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/829/mapofeuropelargestratin.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/803/mapofeuropelargestratin.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
also in the image below i have photos of satellite dishes near the equator. notice how they are pointing almost straight up. the same thing would have to be the case at all latitudes where a receiver is almost under a stratillite high up in the atmosphere.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/833/359p1130587.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/833/359p1130587.jpg/)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/equatorialsatellitedish.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/equatorialsatellitedish.jpg/)
none of what i have said is observable in real life. in real life all satellites point to a single point over the equator the image below is what we encounter in real life.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/satalitedirection2.png/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/satalitedirection2.png/)
-
in real life all satellites point to a single point over the equator the image below is what we encounter in real life.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/satalitedirection2.png/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/satalitedirection2.png/)
I would have replied sooner, but I was too busy laughing. It seems you are suggesting that all of Europe's TV is serviced by a single point. As though one stinking satellite is responsible for all the TV in all of the countries. If we had a system like that, what would happen if that satellite had a problem? The whole continent loses TV? One measly satellite is busy churning out all the German channels, English channels, Spanish channels, French channels etc etc? And all the rival providers share the same satellite? Come on.
From a warfare point of view, do you think Europe would be stupid enough to have its main propaganda outlet serviced by a single washing machine in the sky which would be the first thing to go in a war?
Are a few solar panels going to be enough to power such a thing? Really? Its obviously not how it works.
-
Lol. Read this link http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_1N (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_1N) and see how wrong everything you just said is.
-
And all the rival providers share the same satellite?
[/quote]
How many electrical company's are their in the uk? How many distribution networks?
Gas company's? Gas networks? Phone company's? Landline networks?
And this isn't a single satellite. It's a tight constellation of 4 separate satellites
-
A dish that has to have a direct line of view to the satellite. Have you seen any antennas pointed almost horizontally?
(http://www.constructionphotography.com/ImageThumbs/A088-02463/3/A088-02463_Terraced_houses_with_satellite_dishes_England_UK.jpg)
These dishes are NOT pointing horizontally. Look at the position of the LNB - it's not in the middle of the dish, it's down at the bottom. If it was in the middle, then the dish itself would need to be perpendicular to the satellite, but the off-centre LNB means that the dish needs to be at a slight angle.
This looks like a street in England, and the dishes are pointing 20 to 25o or so.
AT THE SKY !!!!!! WHERE THE SATELLITES ARE !!!!!
-
I saw your post. Pointing dishes at one point in space does not mean the transmissions originate at that point.
The dishes are highly directional - what else could it possibly mean - since radio waves travel in straight lines
-
I saw your post. Pointing dishes at one point in space does not mean the transmissions originate at that point.
The dishes are highly directional - what else could it possibly mean - since radio waves travel in straight lines
So, now radio waves only travel in straight lines? What are you RE'ers going to try to convince us of next?
-
So, now radio waves only travel in straight lines? What are you RE'ers going to try to convince us of next?
[/quote]
Do you know something we don't because this is what the rest of the world thinks.
electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light (300,000,000 meters/second). While mechanical waves need something to move in e.g., air or water, electromagnetic waves can travel in a vacuum. Another important characteristic of electromagnetic waves is that they will travel in a straight line unless something changes their course (e.g., think of a laser beam). Electromagnetic waves have many uses and span an enormous range of frequencies and corresponding wavelengths as you can see in the diagram below.
-
I wonder if thork read my link? ??? He seams to have disappeared
-
I wonder if thork read my link? ??? He seams to have disappeared
Bloody hell! Is it alright if I have my dinner and watch a bit of telly? ::)
Lol. Read this link http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_1N (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_1N) and see how wrong everything you just said is.
Oh, so now there's 4 satellites and the dishes don't all point at the same thing? Is that your final version or do you want to change it again before I pick holes in it?
-
So, now radio waves only travel in straight lines? What are you RE'ers going to try to convince us of next?
Do you know something we don't because this is what the rest of the world thinks.
electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light (300,000,000 meters/second). While mechanical waves need something to move in e.g., air or water, electromagnetic waves can travel in a vacuum. Another important characteristic of electromagnetic waves is that they will travel in a straight line unless something changes their course (e.g., think of a laser beam). Electromagnetic waves have many uses and span an enormous range of frequencies and corresponding wavelengths as you can see in the diagram below.
So, how does an omnidirectional transmitting antenna work if waves can only be propagated in a straight line? Also, if a wave can only travel in a straight line, then why does a radio wave spread out as it travels?
-
All 4 sats are in a parking spot in geo orbit. Close enough so that over the 10s of thousands of miles the signal travels that the angle a dish needs to be pointed at is irelivent. But yeah go for it pick holes. Anything to say about different suppliers using the same sats? U didn't seen to mention that after I gave a comparison to utilities company's. maby you could plot on a map how stratilites could work and still have all dishes pointing at a single point? I went through the trouble of plotting it on a map to prove that theory wrong. Seems to me that if I am blatantly wrong then it should be pretty easy for you to show me on a map? Anyhin less than this can only be a admision that in right . Does everyone else agree? Map map map map map map map! ;D
-
So, how does an omnidirectional transmitting antenna work if waves can only be propagated in a straight line? Also, if a wave can only travel in a straight line, then why does a radio wave spread out as it travels?
[/quote]
im noy quite sure you know actualy. il give you the link to the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnidirectional_antenna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnidirectional_antenna) but hear is the important bit. omnidirectional antenna is an antenna which radiates radio wave power uniformly in all directions in one plane, with the radiated power decreasing with elevation angle above or below the plane, dropping to zero on the antenna's axis hear is a picture of the radio wave propergation .
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/lover2radpatper.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/lover2radpatper.jpg/)
now below is my own drawing depicting a cross section of the above picture notice the radio waves travel in a straight line equally in all directions whilst travailing in a straight line. the black dote being the source and the ring being how far the signal has traveled.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/radiowavepropigation.png/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/radiowavepropigation.png/)
now below is how signals cannot travle. they cannot just bend the fit your theory that stratilites exist. they travel in straight lines.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/441/wrongmoddel.png/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/441/wrongmoddel.png/)
-
I saw your post. Pointing dishes at one point in space does not mean the transmissions originate at that point.
The dishes are highly directional - what else could it possibly mean - since radio waves travel in straight lines
It means only that there is a transmitter/transmission along that line.
-
im noy quite sure you know actualy. il give you the link to the wiki
Is it conceivable that you are not really in a position to tackle a subject if you are learning/making it up as you go along?
-
im noy quite sure you know actualy. il give you the link to the wiki
Is it conceivable that you are not really in a position to tackle a subject if you are learning/making it up as you go along?
Preaty sure I'm not making it up as I go along. Iv provided links to everything iv said. If iv missed anything I can supply it. I have also drawn diagrams to help describes what I'm saying. Iv asked thork to do the same and to be fair he may yet be doing it so i give him a chance to reply. Can you point out a part that I have got wrong because from my point of view I can't see any. Maby you could supply a diagram showing how stratilites work while still having all dishes pointing to a Single point in the sky?
-
It means only that there is a transmitter/transmission along that line.
Exactly. And if someone else is pointing at it from another location, then it will be found at the intersection of those two lines.
My dish points 240 up in the sky. I live on the southern edge of my village, and in the direction of where my dish is pointing, there is nothing but farmland for about 10 miles. Unless you wish to propose a vast network of invisible transmitters, now is the time to accept that I'm pointing at a satellite.
You can see these satellites through a telescope by the way. They are easier to find than faint stars because they don't move as the earth rotates.
http://www.satobs.org/geosats.html (http://www.satobs.org/geosats.html)
-
So, how does an omnidirectional transmitting antenna work if waves can only be propagated in a straight line? Also, if a wave can only travel in a straight line, then why does a radio wave spread out as it travels?
It works the same way a lightbulb works - by sending out electromagnetic waves in straight lines in all directions.
I think you are getting confused between electromagnetic field lines (which are generally curved) and electromagnetic waves (which travel in straight lines unless refracted by passing into a different medium, diffracted by passing through a gap whose width is of a similar magnitude to its wavelength, or gravitationally deflected by very massive object - something that happens whether you believe in gravity or not.)
-
thork denies ever being on this thread? ??? lol he actual said it
.
PS how is your diagram coming. im looking forward to it. ;D
What diagram? Just because you may have requested something in a thread I haven't read doesn't mean I'm either obliged to humour you or very likely to. I post what I want to post and when I want to post it. I often respond to requests, but never to demands.
-
It means only that there is a transmitter/transmission along that line.
Exactly. And if someone else is pointing at it from another location, then it will be found at the intersection of those two lines.
You are exceptionally dense today, Herr Major.
-
You are exceptionally dense today, Herr Major.
No - I can see exactly where you are going - you are trying to suggest that there are many transmitters hanging in the sky beaming out TV signals in such a way that the public are fooled into thinking that it's a geostationary satellite.
Either provide evidence of their existence or give up on that line of reasoning.
-
Thousands of people are receiving transmissions using their dish antennae. That's pretty conclusive.
-
Thousands of people are receiving transmissions using their dish antennae. That's pretty conclusive.
It's millions & the signals are coming from a satellite.
Please tell me what else it could be. My dish points into the sky, and there is nothing but farmland in that direction for miles. What is is that I'm getting my signal from.
-
Thousands of people are receiving transmissions using their dish antennae. That's pretty conclusive.
It's millions & the signals are coming from a satellite.
Please tell me what else it could be. My dish points into the sky, and there is nothing but farmland in that direction for miles. What is is that I'm getting my signal from.
The TV company might just as well have told you they are pointing your dish at God. "With God comes sports channels, shopping channels, 24 hour news and subscription porn. We just point your dish at heaven and all for just £24.99 a month". You've really no idea what your dish points at.
Its 2012 so they took a gamble that you're more likely to believe in satellites than God. Seems they were right.
-
The TV company might just as well have told you they are pointing your dish at God. "With God comes sports channels, shopping channels, 24 hour news and subscription porn. We just point your dish at heaven and there you go". You've really no idea what your dish points at.
Maybe it's the fact that I can see a clutch of 4 satellites through my telescope in the same location that the TV company says that they are, and the same location that my dish is pointing at.
-
The TV company might just as well have told you they are pointing your dish at God. "With God comes sports channels, shopping channels, 24 hour news and subscription porn. We just point your dish at heaven and there you go". You've really no idea what your dish points at.
Maybe it's the fact that I can see a clutch of 4 satellites through my telescope in the same location that the TV company says that they are, and the same location that my dish is pointing at.
No you can't. I wish you would stop lying. there are 3 reasons I know you are lying.
1) The first is that there are supposedly 7 satellites in that position. You read on wiki there were 4 and lied you could see them.
(http://www.eurastro.de/observ/mr/aststat.jpg)
2) As you can see from the image above the stars seem to be flying past. The photographer has claimed to have got the camera moving at the same speed as the earth rotates in order to take the photo. You and your telescope without his clever imaging would see
(http://www.eurastro.de/observ/mr/astmov.jpg)
3) and how on earth do you know that those dots (images taken with a medium size telescope apparently) are satellites and not anything else? Weather balloons, stratellites or anythign else.
The upshot is that you continually lie on this forum claiming things that are false. Then claim you cannot possibly be wrong because you have seen whatever with your own eyes. You are a disgusting liar and yet you have the audacity to accuse others of such things.
Astronomers do not predict the position of celestial bodies based on Kelpean orbits. They use pattern-based analysis like the ancients did.
LIAR !
http://www.davidcolarusso.com/astro/ (http://www.davidcolarusso.com/astro/)
http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/ellipse.html#twig02a (http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/ellipse.html#twig02a)
Your stock is low Twang. I will not be responding to anything else you claim to have 'seen'. You are untrustworthy and unreliable.
-
the signals are coming from a satellite.
Please tell me what else it could be. My dish points into the sky, and there is nothing but farmland in that direction for miles. What is is that I'm getting my signal from.
there are many transmitters hanging in the sky beaming out TV signals in such a way that the public are fooled into thinking that it's a geostationary satellite.
Why are you taking the conversation in circles?
-
No you can't. I wish you would stop lying. there are 3 reasons I know you are lying.
1) The first is that there are supposedly 7 satellites in that position. You read on wiki there were 4 and lied you could see them.
(http://www.eurastro.de/observ/mr/aststat.jpg)
2) As you can see from the image above the stars seem to be flying past. The photographer has claimed to have got the camera moving at the same speed as the earth rotates in order to take the photo. You and your telescope without his clever imaging would see
(http://www.eurastro.de/observ/mr/astmov.jpg)
3) and how on earth do you know that those dots (images taken with a medium size telescope apparently) are satellites and not anything else? Weather balloons, stratellites or anythign else.
The upshot is that you continually lie on this forum claiming things that are false. Then claim you cannot possibly be wrong because you have seen whatever with your own eyes. You are a disgusting liar and yet you have the audacity to accuse others of such things.
Thork, when you provide pictures as "evidence" that someone is lying, perhaps you should include a link to the source so that we can decide for ourselves who is lying.
http://www.eurastro.de/observ/mr/GEOSTAT.HTM (http://www.eurastro.de/observ/mr/GEOSTAT.HTM)
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_19.2%C2%B0E#Satellite_craft_in_use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_19.2%C2%B0E#Satellite_craft_in_use)
-
Thork where is your evidence that stratilites exist? Remember I asked you for a diagram to show how signals in real life originate from a signal point but still some hiw come from atleast 19 stratilites? So far I have proven they don not exist with no evidence to the country from you? So until that point I think you should stop saying the signal comes from a stratilite.
Also remember that geo sats are stationary in relitive to the earth, so they stay over the same point of the earth.they are in geo stationary orbit remember, so then why would they appear to move as you aluded to in your photos? Care to explain? Or just say you dont even read this thread again?
-
Also what are the financial gains of sky saying they use sats if they don't? They dnt charge extra money? Infact they are cheaper than other non sat using companies. Care to take a stab because FETs seem to be skimming over that fact?
-
They have yet to produce any evidence that even one working stratelite exists.
-
Thork where is your evidence that stratilites exist? Remember I asked you for a diagram to show how signals in real life originate from a signal point but still some hiw come from atleast 19 stratilites?
I'm never sure when you are being deliberately obtuse ???
Also remember that geo sats are stationary in relitive to the earth, so they stay over the same point of the earth... so then why would they appear to move as you aluded to in your photos?
Again, are you serious? They appeared to move in relation to the stars. The difference in the photos is whether the camera is following the motion of the stars or not. Markjo even gave you the link. Unbelievable.
-
Thork where is your evidence that stratilites exist? Remember I asked you for a diagram to show how signals in real life originate from a signal point but still some hiw come from atleast 19 stratilites?
I'm never sure when you are being deliberately obtuse ???
For confuse being obtuse with being right. But if i bother you that much then prove me wrong. I mean you are so certain I am then please, prove me wrong. Draw a diagram like I did showing how almost all tv sat dishes in Europe point at a single point in the sky an be receiving a signal from stratilites. Show me evidence of a stratilite in real life. Not a picture of a mock up that thork did (lol thork) show me launch facilities or command and control centres show me one in broadcast position at 60 thousand feet which iv been told that they are at. One at that altitude would be easily observable. Show me any evidence. I will happily take a look at it and If its real and seems to work with what we observe in the real world then I will accept I'm wrong. This goes for any flat earther.
-
Ps sorry if that sounded a bit angry wasn't ment to. Just want some actual evidence ad not just told I am wrong. Low you all realy! ;D
-
2) As you can see from the image above the stars seem to be flying past. The photographer has claimed to have got the camera moving at the same speed as the earth rotates in order to take the photo.
Thork do you realise that the photographer "claiming to have got his camera moving at the same speed the earth rotates" simply means he took an unguided exposure? It's hardly an outrageous claim.
-
Also remember that geo sats are stationary in relitive to the earth, so they stay over the same point of the earth... so then why would they appear to move as you aluded to in your photos?
Again, are you serious? They appeared to move in relation to the stars. The difference in the photos is whether the camera is following the motion of the stars or not. Markjo even gave you the link. Unbelievable.
[/quote]
yeah i didnt read that post corectly. was like 5AM my bad sorry
-
Thork where is your evidence that stratilites exist?
Wrong question. You should be asking where is his direct evidence that stratellites (or any other type of areal pseudolites) are currently in use.
-
i dont expect an anserw from him any way. lol. or any flat earther. if all thork can show is a picture of a mock up that says it is a mock up in the caption then you know he is on to a looser. but id love him or anyone else to have a go at proving me wrong. i eagaly await a respoce.
-
Thork where is your evidence that stratilites exist?
Wrong question. You should be asking where is his direct evidence that stratellites (or any other type of areal pseudolites) are currently in use.
I've noticed there's a lot of this sort of arguing from the flat side - "oh you said they don't exist rather than they aren't used for that, so therefore we're right and you're wrong."
I think it's kinda childish, myself.