« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Satellites

  • 9 Replies
  • 2296 Views
?

ceadda

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Satellites
« on: February 16, 2007, 06:17:43 PM »
Having fun reading the forums, notice the same discussion coming up a lot.

Satellites.

Seems to get the same answer most of the time. That being...
Oh, there's just a radio tower instead.

Two thoughts on this that seem worth of discussion?

1. Wow, that's a really, and I mean, REALLY, tall radio tower to pretend to be a satellite.

2. Many of the satellites we use are located above the countries that are using them.  Example of satellite tv and radio for USA seems to be located at 115 and 85 degrees or in this area to cover east and west coast.  Since most people would notice a huge radio tower in the middle of southern indiana, or even in north east nevada. There obviously isnt a tower for these satellites, it would have to be another method.

Please do not post about the signal "bouncing" off of the air or some invisible force blah blah. It's not an am or low frequency radio signal, it's not following atmosphere around the word There must be a man made solution to this?  :?:
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Satellites
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2007, 06:29:05 PM »
Airborne broadcasting systems.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

ceadda

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Satellites
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2007, 06:38:38 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Airborne broadcasting systems.


Nice fast reply but still a problem. You can take the angle that the satellite companies point the dishes at from various locations, and get the height of the broadcasting device.

Since we can climb a mountain or hop on a plane and see how quickly the atmosphere thins out as you go higher, your not convincing me, or anyone else for that matter, that there is anywhere near enough air for an "Airborne" system.

Nice try, strike 1.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Satellites
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2007, 06:39:33 PM »
Really?  Then why is it being done?
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

ceadda

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Satellites
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2007, 06:55:22 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Really?  Then why is it being done?


Alright then, prove it.

Oh, whoops. You can't. Because anything you show about vehicle designs or theories would be the same as me posting pictures of satellites.

So, once again. As we can logically conclude there isn't near enough air for an "airborne" device (and heck, if we had a huge balloon and an altimeter, prove). Lets have other theories instead of the same one over and over... That's what discussions are for afterall. A collection of many theories. Not just one. Surely you have more idea's that just... it's floating up there held up by air?
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Satellites
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2007, 08:32:02 PM »
Quote from: "ceadda"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Really?  Then why is it being done?


Alright then, prove it.

Oh, whoops. You can't. Because anything you show about vehicle designs or theories would be the same as me posting pictures of satellites.

So, once again. As we can logically conclude there isn't near enough air for an "airborne" device (and heck, if we had a huge balloon and an altimeter, prove). Lets have other theories instead of the same one over and over... That's what discussions are for afterall. A collection of many theories. Not just one. Surely you have more idea's that just... it's floating up there held up by air?

So, do you want me to prove it, or have you already dismissed it?
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

ceadda

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Satellites
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2007, 06:18:07 PM »
I want something new. Plain and simple. Not something that's been blah blah'd all over this place and is used as a drop in place answer. Some actual thinking needs to occur?
Logged
?

Tom Bishop

Satellites
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2007, 06:19:29 PM »
Quote from: "ceadda"
I want something new. Plain and simple. Not something that's been blah blah'd all over this place and is used as a drop in place answer. Some actual thinking needs to occur?


Look up "Stratellite."
Logged
?

Quarrior

  • 280
  • +0/-0
Satellites
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2007, 06:22:53 PM »
Quote from: "ceadda"
I want something new. Plain and simple. Not something that's been blah blah'd all over this place and is used as a drop in place answer. Some actual thinking needs to occur?


Sorry dude, they do exist in both FE and RE, we have weather balloons in the stratosphere. I'm an RE'er but these "airborne platforms" exist in reality.

However we can see satellites with telescopes, so they too exist, obviously. I'm not sure what purpse they actually serve other than to make the conspiracy more believable, and I'm not sure how they actually orbit, i assume like the sun in a circle above the surface of the FE, but what is powering this circular, non-orbital movement I have no idea. I'd like an FE'er to explain this to me.
Logged
Quote from: Dogplatter on December 20, 2007, 06:24:31 PM
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?
?

ceadda

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Satellites
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2007, 06:29:36 PM »
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"

Look up "Stratellite."


Ok, I did. Very first page that comes up specifically states they operate at 12-13 miles up.

Using math to point out the height of a satellite in geosync would put it at in the area of 19000 to 21000 miles up.

This would be the exact perfect example of why I was asking for just a little thinking and not sad old rehashed "oh it's just"...

Or are we suddenly saying that the flat earth model has a substantial amount of atmosphere extending 22000+ miles from the surface of the earth?

And thank you Quarrior for adding something intelligent. :) It was much appreciated. We can see something up there at a great altitude.

It's the what I'm asking. And I guess that, yes, I am dismissing a balloon. If a balloon could fly that high, we could fly that high. And you can't get every single person who's ever known how to fly a plane to shut their mouths.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »