Wrong.
"What proof do you have disproving GVD or AVHRR corner reflectors?"
These are user based tests ran to make sure the imagery is not made up by suits.
The swath width and existence of AVHRR imagery proves satellites to exist. GVD and corner reflectors prove the imagers aren't fake.
Now, you are going to have to find proof supporting your claims, and/or disproving my claims.
I don't expect to hear from you after this post 
Please read:
Land images is your data you're bringing to the table. You are asking us to "disprove this" or prove that it was not collected how they say it was collected. That's called proving a negative. Debate doesn't work that way. The burden is always on the claimant to prove a positive, not on anyone else to "prove a negative" or "prove it didn't happen". When you present data you need the evidence to back it up.
You have not demonstrated that your evidence comes from your claimed source in the first place. When you can prove that your images came from satellites orbiting the earth and none other, we can proceed with discussion.
No Tom, you have to prove your point that the images are made by suits.
GDV and AVHRR data is tested, and proven to be from satellites. HOW IS THIS NOT EVIDENCE? HOW IS GDV AND AVHRR DATA NOT EVIDENCE?
You have no evidence to prove the images are fake. You have nothing to back your hypothesis.
And you are incredibly thick/uneducated if you think disproving something is proving a negative. That's how science should be executed - to prove a point. There isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa
So you hypothesis looks something like this:
1)Satellite imagery is created by men in an office.
Prove it.
I have already brought to the table evidence showing how YOU can test satellite data to show it is from satellites. You have to provide counter-evidence, or some evidence to show that satellite imagery is faked. Otherwise all the evidence you have is "because I say so". I don't need to tell you how that isn't scientific.