4 Points FE falls down on *Still waiting on a valid response*

To keep things simple, you can tell the satellite exists as you can directly alter the imagery minutes before it is taken of an area by using a corner reflector:

Have you ever done this?

Do you own a corner reflector?

Why should I have to upload a picture to imageshack or whatever site when you would most likely just scream "SHOOPED"?
If you did the analysis yourself, it means you have 1st hand evidence. How can you complain about that?

Your persistant refusal to back up your opinions with any evidence means that either:

1. You are very arrogant, or

2. You are a very stubborn, or

3. You are highly anti-social, or

4. You do not really know what you are talking about.

Which of these are true?

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 11:08:23 AM

Why should I have to upload a picture to imageshack or whatever site when you would most likely just scream "SHOOPED"?
If you did the analysis yourself, it means you have 1st hand evidence. How can you complain about that?

Your persistant refusal to back up your opinions with any evidence means that either:

1. You are very arrogant, or

2. You are a very stubborn, or

3. You are highly anti-social, or

4. You do not really know what you are talking about.

Which of these are true?

Congratulations for a) going off topic and b) showing you have no understanding of what you are on about so are resorting to hilarious personal attacks.
Get back on topic. The methods mentioned require nothing more than the right software and a quick google. If you simply want to troll then go ahead, I'll just ignore all further posts by you until they actually mentioned the initial points.

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 10:57:51 AM

To keep things simple, you can tell the satellite exists as you can directly alter the imagery minutes before it is taken of an area by using a corner reflector:

Have you ever done this?

Do you own a corner reflector?

I'm going to ignore this comment due to the bullsht argument of "have you done it before" when it is proven by physics that the result will be brighter due to the direct reflection caused by the reflector.
However, this is the EXACT reason I am telling you to do the image analysis YOURSELF so you can't use this inane, childish argument.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 11:08:59 AM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 10:57:51 AM

To keep things simple, you can tell the satellite exists as you can directly alter the imagery minutes before it is taken of an area by using a corner reflector:

Have you ever done this?

Do you own a corner reflector?

I'm going to ignore this comment due to the bullsht argument of "have you done it before" when it is proven by physics that the result will be brighter due to the direct reflection caused by the reflector.

The question was not bullshit (you rude and arrogant person).

You said:

"You can tell the satellite exists as you can directly alter the imagery minutes before it is taken of an area by using a corner reflector."

So I asked if you had ever done this.

My perfectly valid question was, therefore, in order to determine if you are talking from first-hand experience or not.

Guys, please stop with the personal attacks and profanity in this thread right now.

Guys, please stop with the personal attacks and profanity in this thread right now.

OK.

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 11:19:11 AM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 11:08:59 AM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 10:57:51 AM

To keep things simple, you can tell the satellite exists as you can directly alter the imagery minutes before it is taken of an area by using a corner reflector:

Have you ever done this?

Do you own a corner reflector?

I'm going to ignore this comment due to the bullsht argument of "have you done it before" when it is proven by physics that the result will be brighter due to the direct reflection caused by the reflector.

You said:

"You can tell the satellite exists as you can directly alter the imagery minutes before it is taken of an area by using a corner reflector."

So I asked if you had ever done this.

My perfectly valid question was, therefore, in order to determine if you are talking from first-hand experience or not.

I should have said: "You can tell the satellite exists as you can directly alter the imagery minutes before it is taken of an area by using a corner reflector, through understanding how radar works."
Hope that clarification clears things up.

Hope that clarification clears things up.

No.

It makes no sense (as ever).

Edit:

It makes no sense because you have not answered my question.

Have you done this experiment yourself or not?

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:23:39 PM

Hope that clarification clears things up.

No.

It makes no sense (as ever).

Well I'm not going to go into the vast explanation of explaining how radar works as I shouldn't have to as I've already explained how AVHRR works. If you want to refute the point, you are going to have to learn the physics behind how radar works.
Again, I'm wouldn't argue about a subject which I am not educated in.
Either way, all the main arguments still stand.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:34:27 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:23:39 PM

Hope that clarification clears things up.

No.

It makes no sense (as ever).

Well I'm not going to go into the vast explanation of explaining how radar works as I shouldn't have to as I've already explained how AVHRR works. If you want to refute the point, you are going to have to learn the physics behind how radar works.
Again, I'm wouldn't argue about a subject which I am not educated in.
Either way, all the main arguments still stand.

Your answer makes no sense because you have not answered my question.

Have you done this experiment yourself or not?

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:39:08 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:34:27 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:23:39 PM

Hope that clarification clears things up.

No.

It makes no sense (as ever).

Well I'm not going to go into the vast explanation of explaining how radar works as I shouldn't have to as I've already explained how AVHRR works. If you want to refute the point, you are going to have to learn the physics behind how radar works.
Again, I'm wouldn't argue about a subject which I am not educated in.
Either way, all the main arguments still stand.

Your answer makes no sense because you have not answered my question.

Have you done this experiment yourself or not?

No I haven't but I have used radar images with corner reflectors in and the physics behind it is sound.
First hand experience of the method is irrelevant, I don't understand why you are going on about it.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:42:00 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:39:08 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:34:27 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:23:39 PM

Hope that clarification clears things up.

No.

It makes no sense (as ever).

Well I'm not going to go into the vast explanation of explaining how radar works as I shouldn't have to as I've already explained how AVHRR works. If you want to refute the point, you are going to have to learn the physics behind how radar works.
Again, I'm wouldn't argue about a subject which I am not educated in.
Either way, all the main arguments still stand.

Your answer makes no sense because you have not answered my question.

Have you done this experiment yourself or not?

No I haven't but I have used radar images with corner reflectors in and the physics behind it is sound.
First hand experience of the method is irrelevant, I don't understand why you are going on about it.

Because first-hand experience is always more believable than 'I read it once in a book'.

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:43:38 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:42:00 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:39:08 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:34:27 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:23:39 PM

Hope that clarification clears things up.

No.

It makes no sense (as ever).

Well I'm not going to go into the vast explanation of explaining how radar works as I shouldn't have to as I've already explained how AVHRR works. If you want to refute the point, you are going to have to learn the physics behind how radar works.
Again, I'm wouldn't argue about a subject which I am not educated in.
Either way, all the main arguments still stand.

Your answer makes no sense because you have not answered my question.

Have you done this experiment yourself or not?

No I haven't but I have used radar images with corner reflectors in and the physics behind it is sound.
First hand experience of the method is irrelevant, I don't understand why you are going on about it.

Because first-hand experience is always more believable than 'I read it once in a book'.

Not with physics, as physics and almost all science is not subjective.
Either way, the results are very clear in the imagery etc, proving the satellite exists.

Why a countdown? And Mazty, your arrogance is apalling.

Why a countdown? And Mazty, your arrogance is apalling.

Elaborate.
I don't see why I need to explain something which can be researched on the internet, not to mention:
a) Most points prove the earth is round. Argue with it all you like, but scepticism is not evidence
b) Not a single FE believer has been able to refute the points with a scientific argument, but instead attack it from a non-scientific point e.g. Journals are not evidence....
c) I'm not a lecturer. I have explained in enough details each point, but I am not here to educate the forum on how radar works as wikipedia can do it for them.
d)Being right isn't arrogance, it's just being right.

Quote from: ogeitla on July 05, 2009, 05:22:47 PM

Why a countdown? And Mazty, your arrogance is apalling.

Elaborate.
I don't see why I need to explain something which can be researched on the internet, not to mention:
a) Most points prove the earth is flat. Argue with it all you like, but scepticism is not evidence

I thought you were a rounder not a flatter :S

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 05:56:32 PM

Quote from: ogeitla on July 05, 2009, 05:22:47 PM

Why a countdown? And Mazty, your arrogance is apalling.

Elaborate.
I don't see why I need to explain something which can be researched on the internet, not to mention:
a) Most points prove the earth is flat. Argue with it all you like, but scepticism is not evidence

I thought you were a rounder not a flatter :S

Uhoh what a hideous typo. Thanks for pointing it out & it is now corrected.

Uhoh what a hideous typo. Thanks for pointing it out & it is now corrected.

np.

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:43:38 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:42:00 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:39:08 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:34:27 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:23:39 PM

Hope that clarification clears things up.

No.

It makes no sense (as ever).

Well I'm not going to go into the vast explanation of explaining how radar works as I shouldn't have to as I've already explained how AVHRR works. If you want to refute the point, you are going to have to learn the physics behind how radar works.
Again, I'm wouldn't argue about a subject which I am not educated in.
Either way, all the main arguments still stand.

Your answer makes no sense because you have not answered my question.

Have you done this experiment yourself or not?

No I haven't but I have used radar images with corner reflectors in and the physics behind it is sound.
First hand experience of the method is irrelevant, I don't understand why you are going on about it.

Because first-hand experience is always more believable than 'I read it once in a book'.

You've personally performed the Bedford Level Experiments?  Please post your photos.

Either way, the results are very clear in the imagery etc, proving the satellite exists.

How can an image with a single bright pixel that you didn't collect yourself be conclusive?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:46:06 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:43:38 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:42:00 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:39:08 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:34:27 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:23:39 PM

Hope that clarification clears things up.

No.

It makes no sense (as ever).

Well I'm not going to go into the vast explanation of explaining how radar works as I shouldn't have to as I've already explained how AVHRR works. If you want to refute the point, you are going to have to learn the physics behind how radar works.
Again, I'm wouldn't argue about a subject which I am not educated in.
Either way, all the main arguments still stand.

Your answer makes no sense because you have not answered my question.

Have you done this experiment yourself or not?

No I haven't but I have used radar images with corner reflectors in and the physics behind it is sound.
First hand experience of the method is irrelevant, I don't understand why you are going on about it.

Because first-hand experience is always more believable than 'I read it once in a book'.

You've personally performed the Bedford Level Experiments?  Please post your photos.

No. Never said I had.

That's why Matzy88's radar pictures are just as inconclusive as Blount's photos - nobody around here has reproduced them.

That's not to say it's poor evidence - just not the best.

Besides, Matzy88 is the kind of annoying person who expects everyone else to provide his evidence for him ("you" can use a corner reflector, but not "I") which is what I was trying to point out.

Quote from: bendy_samuel on July 05, 2009, 08:42:57 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:46:06 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:43:38 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:42:00 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:39:08 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 05, 2009, 03:34:27 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 05, 2009, 03:23:39 PM

Hope that clarification clears things up.

No.

It makes no sense (as ever).

Well I'm not going to go into the vast explanation of explaining how radar works as I shouldn't have to as I've already explained how AVHRR works. If you want to refute the point, you are going to have to learn the physics behind how radar works.
Again, I'm wouldn't argue about a subject which I am not educated in.
Either way, all the main arguments still stand.

Your answer makes no sense because you have not answered my question.

Have you done this experiment yourself or not?

No I haven't but I have used radar images with corner reflectors in and the physics behind it is sound.
First hand experience of the method is irrelevant, I don't understand why you are going on about it.

Because first-hand experience is always more believable than 'I read it once in a book'.

You've personally performed the Bedford Level Experiments?  Please post your photos.

No. Never said I had.

That's why Matzy88's radar pictures are just as inconclusive as Blount's photos - nobody around here has reproduced them.

That's not to say it's poor evidence - just not the best.

Besides, Matzy88 is the kind of annoying person who expects everyone else to provide his evidence for him ("you" can use a corner reflector, but not "I") which is what I was trying to point out.

The bright pixels are not a one off occurrence. As I said, and you happily ignored, you can predict this effect by knowing how radar works. It is not subjective. You literally may as well to argue that until you personally work out the theory of GR, then it may all just be a lie (Pointless scepticism).
Go learn physics and radar. Your ignorance is outstanding and becoming more trollish with every post.

Plus everyone CAN use a corner reflector. Saying "I" would be incorrect as everyone can use a reflector and order imagery if they wanted to.
Not to mention I have never ordered AVHRR imagery myself which I have placed a corner reflector in, but have seen/used imagery which has had one in placed by another person.
Plus, it works due to physics, so I can't see how you are trying to argue that doing it 1st hand accounts for anything. I'm not sure you fully understand how it works.

Your ignorance is outstanding and becoming more trollish with every post.

The next personal attack I see from you Matzy, anywhere on this forum, will result in a two-week ban. I'm only letting this go because it's only borderline personal. You've been warned already, so stop behaving like a child.

Quote from: mazty88 on July 06, 2009, 05:50:24 AM

Your ignorance is outstanding and becoming more trollish with every post.

The next personal attack I see from you Matzy, anywhere on this forum, will result in a two-week ban. I'm only letting this go because it's only borderline personal. You've been warned already, so stop behaving like a child.

You should also give this warning to 3 Tesla then.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 06, 2009, 06:31:50 AM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 06, 2009, 05:50:24 AM

Your ignorance is outstanding and becoming more trollish with every post.

The next personal attack I see from you Matzy, anywhere on this forum, will result in a two-week ban. I'm only letting this go because it's only borderline personal. You've been warned already, so stop behaving like a child.

You should also give this warning to 3 Tesla then.

3 Tesla, and everyone else responding to Mazty has been taking that level of near-abuse for 8 pages now. Even so, they already have and have stopped doing so.

Quote from: mazty88 on July 06, 2009, 05:50:24 AM

Your ignorance is outstanding and becoming more trollish with every post.

The next personal attack I see from you Matzy, anywhere on this forum, will result in a two-week ban. I'm only letting this go because it's only borderline personal. You've been warned already, so stop behaving like a child.

It's what matzy does, maybe it's all he can do.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 06, 2009, 06:31:50 AM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 06, 2009, 05:50:24 AM

Your ignorance is outstanding and becoming more trollish with every post.

The next personal attack I see from you Matzy, anywhere on this forum, will result in a two-week ban. I'm only letting this go because it's only borderline personal. You've been warned already, so stop behaving like a child.

You should also give this warning to 3 Tesla then.

We already gave that warning to 3 Tesla, and you'll notice that he listened. Now quit with the memberating.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 06, 2009, 06:31:50 AM

Quote from: mazty88 on July 06, 2009, 05:50:24 AM

Your ignorance is outstanding and becoming more trollish with every post.

The next personal attack I see from you Matzy, anywhere on this forum, will result in a two-week ban. I'm only letting this go because it's only borderline personal. You've been warned already, so stop behaving like a child.

It's what matzy does, maybe it's all he can do.

Please point out the personal attacks I made with my OP 

That's why Matzy88's radar pictures are just as inconclusive as Blount's photos - nobody around here has reproduced them.

That's not to say it's poor evidence - just not the best.

Unless I'm missing something, you contradicted yourself here.