Sattelite TV

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 07:42:59 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 07:29:19 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 07:17:45 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 07:12:01 PM

If your claim is indeed that in that picture at that time those dishes were not aimed at the sky, you then have failed 1) to show your premise as the picture is inconclusive and 2) to show that an aim as you claim means anything.

1) My premise can be seen right above the picture. It is: "I have seen satellite dishes not pointing upwards many times.". The picture was used as a visualization of the premise.
2) That is TheJackel's claim. He's the one who claims that it means something. You've actually made a very good point there, and I shall join you in the waiting for evidence.

No, it cannot. Until you provide evidence of functioning satellite dish that doesn't get a better signal when aimed at the satellite's purported location, you have shown nothing.

Please read what my premise was once again. I said that such satellite dishes exist. Do you deny or doubt this?

I say that you have not proven that such satellite dishes exist, or even provided evidence that such (functioning satellite dish that doesn't get a better signal when aimed at the satellite's purported location) dishes.

"Or even provided evidence that such dishes."? I'm not sure what you were trying to say.
Also, please highlight the part of the premise "I have seen satellite dishes not pointing upwards many times." that suggests they have to be functioning, getting better/worse signal in situation x than y, and whatnot.
I believe you said that pictures are evidence. I presented a picture of such antennae as proof that they exist. How is that not evidence that they exist?

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 07:46:13 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 07:42:59 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 07:29:19 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 07:17:45 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 07:12:01 PM

If your claim is indeed that in that picture at that time those dishes were not aimed at the sky, you then have failed 1) to show your premise as the picture is inconclusive and 2) to show that an aim as you claim means anything.

1) My premise can be seen right above the picture. It is: "I have seen satellite dishes not pointing upwards many times.". The picture was used as a visualization of the premise.
2) That is TheJackel's claim. He's the one who claims that it means something. You've actually made a very good point there, and I shall join you in the waiting for evidence.

No, it cannot. Until you provide evidence of functioning satellite dish that doesn't get a better signal when aimed at the satellite's purported location, you have shown nothing.

Please read what my premise was once again. I said that such satellite dishes exist. Do you deny or doubt this?

I say that you have not proven that such satellite dishes exist, or even provided evidence that such (functioning satellite dish that doesn't get a better signal when aimed at the satellite's purported location) dishes.

"Or even provided evidence that such dishes."? I'm not sure what you were trying to say.
Also, please highlight the part of the premise "I have seen satellite dishes not pointing upwards many times." that suggests they have to be functioning, getting better/worse signal in situation x than y, and whatnot.
I believe you said that pictures are evidence. I presented a picture of such antennae as proof that they exist. How is that not evidence that they exist?

Again, I point out that unless you provide evidence that such dishes exist you have no basis to argue against the OP.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 07:55:20 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 07:46:13 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 07:42:59 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 07:29:19 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 07:17:45 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 07:12:01 PM

If your claim is indeed that in that picture at that time those dishes were not aimed at the sky, you then have failed 1) to show your premise as the picture is inconclusive and 2) to show that an aim as you claim means anything.

1) My premise can be seen right above the picture. It is: "I have seen satellite dishes not pointing upwards many times.". The picture was used as a visualization of the premise.
2) That is TheJackel's claim. He's the one who claims that it means something. You've actually made a very good point there, and I shall join you in the waiting for evidence.

No, it cannot. Until you provide evidence of functioning satellite dish that doesn't get a better signal when aimed at the satellite's purported location, you have shown nothing.

Please read what my premise was once again. I said that such satellite dishes exist. Do you deny or doubt this?

I say that you have not proven that such satellite dishes exist, or even provided evidence that such (functioning satellite dish that doesn't get a better signal when aimed at the satellite's purported location) dishes.

"Or even provided evidence that such dishes."? I'm not sure what you were trying to say.
Also, please highlight the part of the premise "I have seen satellite dishes not pointing upwards many times." that suggests they have to be functioning, getting better/worse signal in situation x than y, and whatnot.
I believe you said that pictures are evidence. I presented a picture of such antennae as proof that they exist. How is that not evidence that they exist?

Again, I point out that unless you provide evidence that such dishes exist you have no basis to argue against the OP.

Please answer the questions.

If your claim is indeed that in that picture at that time those dishes were not aimed at the sky, you then have failed 1) to show your premise as the picture is inconclusive and 2) to show that an aim as you claim means anything.

Asked and answered.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 07:12:01 PM

If your claim is indeed that in that picture at that time those dishes were not aimed at the sky, you then have failed 1) to show your premise as the picture is inconclusive and 2) to show that an aim as you claim means anything.

Asked and answered.

No, not those questions. Also, I have already replied to this post.
I'm particularly interested in this one:
"I believe you said that pictures are evidence. I presented a picture of such antennae as proof that they exist. How is that not evidence that they exist?"
No, at this stage I'm not interested what you believe to be the next step. If you want to add that, feel free to do so after answering the question. You shouldn't skip stages of a discussion when they're inconvenient to you.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 08:11:22 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 07:12:01 PM

If your claim is indeed that in that picture at that time those dishes were not aimed at the sky, you then have failed 1) to show your premise as the picture is inconclusive and 2) to show that an aim as you claim means anything.

Asked and answered.

No, not those questions. Also, I have already replied to this post.
I'm particularly interested in this one:
"I believe you said that pictures are evidence. I presented a picture of such antennae as proof that they exist. How is that not evidence that they exist?"
No, at this stage I'm not interested what you believe to be the next step. If you want to add that, feel free to do so after answering the question. You shouldn't skip stages of a discussion when they're inconvenient to you.

Again the picture does not demonstrate that satellite antennas that point below the horizon cannot be adjusted to function better by pointing at the statelite at the RET purported position. Until you document that, then you have no basis to argue against the OP. I'll just keep saying this verbatim, I guess, until you understand your error.

Again the picture does not demonstrate that satellite antennas that point below the horizon cannot be adjusted to function better by pointing at the statelite at the RET purported position.

That, however, has never been my claim.
Also, you still haven't answered the question. I guess I'll keep saying this verbatim until you do.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 08:22:26 PM

Again the picture does not demonstrate that satellite antennas that point below the horizon cannot be adjusted to function better by pointing at the statelite at the RET purported position.

That, however, has never been my claim.
Also, you still haven't answered the question. I guess I'll keep saying this verbatim until you do.

I did not say it was your claim, did I? That is what you have to do, by logic, to make a case against the OP. That you can't doesn't surprise us in the least.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 08:24:24 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 08:22:26 PM

Again the picture does not demonstrate that satellite antennas that point below the horizon cannot be adjusted to function better by pointing at the statelite at the RET purported position.

That, however, has never been my claim.
Also, you still haven't answered the question. I guess I'll keep saying this verbatim until you do.

I did not say it was your claim, did I? That is what you have to do, by logic, to make a case against the OP. That you can't doesn't surprise us in the least.

Yet again you speak of yourself in plural. Once again, you prove that you haven't thoroughly read the thread. I am not making a case against the OP. I'm making a case against TheJackel's claim.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 02:29:45 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 02:21:32 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 02:05:02 PM

That the picture doesn't establish that the antennae are working. Therein lies your logic error.

So you do claim that the antennae in that picture, as well as those I claim to have seen, are not functional, right?

I am not making a claim. You're just not supporting yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_dish

Quote

A satellite dish is a dish-shaped type of parabolic antenna designed to receive microwaves from communications satellites, which transmit data transmissions or broadcasts, such as satellite television.

Except for the "satellite" part, my claim is that the dishes are most often, if not always, used for what they're designed for. This is a yes/no situation. If you claim my claim to be untrue, you also claim the opposite of my claim. So yes, you are making a claim, and yes, you are not supporting it.

I have already explained to you that not believing your claim does not mean that I have to demonstrate the opposite. Furthermore, you would need to show just what I said for your point to have bearing on the OP: That there exists at least one satellite TV antenna that does not function better when pointed at the purported (in RET) location of the satellite.

Quote from: TheJackel on August 19, 2010, 11:52:51 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 19, 2010, 06:02:14 PM

Remember that there is not only the FAQ but you can also use the search function to look into your question(s).

If you understand how satellite dishes work, you wouldn't get a signal worth a shit by pointing it into the sky under FE. There is a reason why you have to actually aim the dish to that which is transmitting the signal. Hence under FE the Dish would not be pointing up into the sky. Sorry, but dish alignment matters!  If you think I am wrong, feel free to point your satellite dish to face the horizon in any direction. So when you learn that the direction of the signal is coming from space, you might just have an epiphany.  After you are done, you can call your provider to come out a fix your alignment because you thought the earth was flat lol.

(While I realize that pictures are not evidence, and that this one is a bit oddly colourful,) I have seen satellite dishes not pointing upwards many times. Like this:

Are you saying these people weren't very bright and probably had no TV reception in their houses?

Geostationary satellites are only directly upwards at the equator. everywhere else they must be pointed at an angle. Please learn more about being less retarded.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 12:50:04 PM

Quote from: TheJackel on August 19, 2010, 11:52:51 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 19, 2010, 06:02:14 PM

Remember that there is not only the FAQ but you can also use the search function to look into your question(s).

If you understand how satellite dishes work, you wouldn't get a signal worth a shit by pointing it into the sky under FE. There is a reason why you have to actually aim the dish to that which is transmitting the signal. Hence under FE the Dish would not be pointing up into the sky. Sorry, but dish alignment matters!  If you think I am wrong, feel free to point your satellite dish to face the horizon in any direction. So when you learn that the direction of the signal is coming from space, you might just have an epiphany.  After you are done, you can call your provider to come out a fix your alignment because you thought the earth was flat lol.

(While I realize that pictures are not evidence, and that this one is a bit oddly colourful,) I have seen satellite dishes not pointing upwards many times. Like this:

Are you saying these people weren't very bright and probably had no TV reception in their houses?

Geostationary satellites are only directly upwards at the equator. everywhere else they must be pointed at an angle. Please learn more about being less retarded.

According to the picture's source (the credibility of which I cannot guarantee) claims that this is a Dutch building, not the Equator. I have also observed the same in my home city in Poland, which is also not at the Equator.

According to the picture's source (the credibility of which I cannot guarantee) claims that this is a Dutch building, not the Equator. I have also observed the same in my home city in Poland, which is also not at the Equator.

You clearly have no grasp of what I just said. Your previous comment only stated exactly what I have said.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 08:44:12 PM

According to the picture's source (the credibility of which I cannot guarantee) claims that this is a Dutch building, not the Equator. I have also observed the same in my home city in Poland, which is also not at the Equator.

You clearly have no grasp of what I just said. Your previous comment only stated exactly what I have said.

PP does do that a lot.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 08:44:12 PM

According to the picture's source (the credibility of which I cannot guarantee) claims that this is a Dutch building, not the Equator. I have also observed the same in my home city in Poland, which is also not at the Equator.

You clearly have no grasp of what I just said. Your previous comment only stated exactly what I have said.

I believe such is the case with you. Yes, they will not be aimed directly upwards. Again, TheJackel claims that they will not be aimed at the horizon, which they are both in this picture and my observation. All I have done is pointed out how irrelevant your point was. Thank you.

Quote from: 2fst4u on August 21, 2010, 08:47:00 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 08:44:12 PM

According to the picture's source (the credibility of which I cannot guarantee) claims that this is a Dutch building, not the Equator. I have also observed the same in my home city in Poland, which is also not at the Equator.

You clearly have no grasp of what I just said. Your previous comment only stated exactly what I have said.

I believe such is the case with you. Yes, they will not be aimed directly upwards. Again, TheJackel claims that they will not be aimed at the horizon, which they are both in this picture and my observation. All I have done is pointed out how irrelevant your point was. Thank you.

There is absolutely no way of telling what angle they are pointed at. For all you know the building they are attached to is on it's side. Point still stands.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 08:50:22 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on August 21, 2010, 08:47:00 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 08:44:12 PM

According to the picture's source (the credibility of which I cannot guarantee) claims that this is a Dutch building, not the Equator. I have also observed the same in my home city in Poland, which is also not at the Equator.

You clearly have no grasp of what I just said. Your previous comment only stated exactly what I have said.

I believe such is the case with you. Yes, they will not be aimed directly upwards. Again, TheJackel claims that they will not be aimed at the horizon, which they are both in this picture and my observation. All I have done is pointed out how irrelevant your point was. Thank you.

There is absolutely no way of telling what angle they are pointed at. For all you know the building they are attached to is on it's side. Point still stands.

Finally a coherent argument. I concede (Well, except for the part where the building might be on its side. Look at the guy standing on the balcony). However, as you have just pointed out, TheJackel's point that satellite dishes would be pointed upwards in all/most cases is still incorrect. I thank you for your assistance.

Quote from: 2fst4u on August 21, 2010, 08:53:08 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 08:50:22 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on August 21, 2010, 08:47:00 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 08:44:12 PM

According to the picture's source (the credibility of which I cannot guarantee) claims that this is a Dutch building, not the Equator. I have also observed the same in my home city in Poland, which is also not at the Equator.

You clearly have no grasp of what I just said. Your previous comment only stated exactly what I have said.

I believe such is the case with you. Yes, they will not be aimed directly upwards. Again, TheJackel claims that they will not be aimed at the horizon, which they are both in this picture and my observation. All I have done is pointed out how irrelevant your point was. Thank you.

There is absolutely no way of telling what angle they are pointed at. For all you know the building they are attached to is on it's side. Point still stands.

Finally a coherent argument. I concede (Well, except for the part where the building might be on its side. Look at the guy standing on the balcony). However, as you have just pointed out, TheJackel's point that satellite dishes would be pointed upwards in all/most cases is incorrect. I thank you for your assistance.

Your conclusion is not supported. TJ's point that satellite dishes when working best are pointed upwards is correct. Please review your reasoning skills.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 02:05:02 PM

That the picture doesn't establish that the antennae are working. Therein lies your logic error.

So you do claim that the antennae in that picture, as well as those I claim to have seen, are not functional, right?

Since when do all the neighbors paint all their dishes.. It seems they are temporarily using them for decoration vs satellite reception. Is there some town celebration going on? What is that guy watching? Thus you have not established that they are in fact functioning as Satellite dishes. Like clockwork and I have told you many times already, anyone with a satellite dish can test this out.

Btw I looked up your picture and found out that these dishes are used for a purpose other than satellite tv.
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,1924,00.html#5_0

man watches from a balcony as satellite dishes are seen on buildings in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The project to 'pimp' the dishes is an initiative of a Dutch artist working with school children in an area of the city referred to as 'satellite city,' inhabited predominantly by first and second generation immigrants. The hooks on the roof are used all over the city to move furniture in and out of apartments using a rope and pulley, as the staircases are narrow.

http://www.geosatelectronic.com/

Hence, they were being showcased! Wow that was difficult! What's deceitful is that you probably knew this before posting the image.

Your conclusion is not supported. TJ's point that satellite dishes when working best are pointed upwards is correct. Please review your reasoning skills.

This stands in direct contradiction with:

Geostationary satellites are only directly upwards at the equator. everywhere else they must be pointed at an angle.

Please review your theory and let me know once you've reached a consensus.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 02:21:32 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 02:05:02 PM

That the picture doesn't establish that the antennae are working. Therein lies your logic error.

So you do claim that the antennae in that picture, as well as those I claim to have seen, are not functional, right?

Since when do all the neighbors paint all their dishes.. It seems they are temporarily using them for decoration vs satellite reception. Is there some town celebration going on? What is that guy watching? Thus you have not established that they are in fact functioning as Satellite dishes. Like clockwork and I have told you many times already, anyone with a satellite dish can test this out.

It's in Amsterdam. They were painted by a single artist. They are, indeed, satellite dishes. http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,1924,00.html#5_0

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 08:57:54 PM

Your conclusion is not supported. TJ's point that satellite dishes when working best are pointed upwards is correct. Please review your reasoning skills.

This stands in direct contradiction with:

Quote from: 2fst4u on August 21, 2010, 08:37:23 PM

Geostationary satellites are only directly upwards at the equator. everywhere else they must be pointed at an angle.

Please review your theory and let me know once you've reached a consensus.

Do tell me how my statement is in direct contradiction with 2F's. I do wonder again about your reasoning skills. (I do have to point out that 2F's statement is slightly wrong. Even at the Equator, dishes at most locations must still point to the sky at an angle other than straight up to account for the east-west differences.)

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 09:04:20 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 08:57:54 PM

Your conclusion is not supported. TJ's point that satellite dishes when working best are pointed upwards is correct. Please review your reasoning skills.

This stands in direct contradiction with:

Quote from: 2fst4u on August 21, 2010, 08:37:23 PM

Geostationary satellites are only directly upwards at the equator. everywhere else they must be pointed at an angle.

Please review your theory and let me know once you've reached a consensus.

Do tell me how my statement is in direct contradiction with 2F's. I do wonder again about your reasoning skills. (I do have to point out that 2F's statement is slightly wrong. Even at the Equator, dishes at most locations must still point to the sky at an angle other than straight up to account for the east-west differences.)

Ah, so they never point directly upwards. Then this has been clarified. Thank you.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 09:13:35 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 09:04:20 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 08:57:54 PM

Your conclusion is not supported. TJ's point that satellite dishes when working best are pointed upwards is correct. Please review your reasoning skills.

This stands in direct contradiction with:

Quote from: 2fst4u on August 21, 2010, 08:37:23 PM

Geostationary satellites are only directly upwards at the equator. everywhere else they must be pointed at an angle.

Please review your theory and let me know once you've reached a consensus.

Do tell me how my statement is in direct contradiction with 2F's. I do wonder again about your reasoning skills. (I do have to point out that 2F's statement is slightly wrong. Even at the Equator, dishes at most locations must still point to the sky at an angle other than straight up to account for the east-west differences.)

Ah, so they never point directly upwards. Then this has been clarified. Thank you.

No, some do point directly upwards. Do pay attention. If you'd asked with the qualifier in the first place, you'd saved a lot of effort.

Well, I'm glad we understand each other now.

It's in Amsterdam. They were painted by a single artist. They are, indeed, satellite dishes. http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,1924,00.html#5_0

Wrong, they were painted by school children with the help of a single artist. And who said they weren't satellite dishes? Or who said it didn't take place in Amsterdam lol? I think the links I provided you covered that. You do comprehend that this picture was taken to showcase project pimp the dishes correct? Perhaps you missed that? So you can not conclude that these dishes to which are pointing down are magically getting reception or quality reception.

[Edit (Thanks Martien): "The artist’s name is Peter Doeswijk. The drawings were actually made by children. In this specific part of Amsterdam live a lot of foreigners. They use the satellite dishes to receive the broadcasts from their country of origin. Doeswijk printed the drawings on stickers which he put on the dishes. The stickers will stay on for a couple of months. The project gained a lot of positive respons and publicity and the artist is considering making a business out of it."]

What this shows is your lack of research skills Pizzaplanet, and your magic ability to be deceitful. You have not shown a satellite dish to be operational when not pointing at a satellite. BTW, I have satellite TV, and so does my workplace.. And guess where they have to be pointing in order to get optimum reception

Yes, the picture was used as visualization for what I have seen with my own eyes. You would have known as much if you read the posts, and not just skimmed through pictures. I saw dishes positioned very similarly to those, and I'm sure so could you if you took a look around a larger city.
However, who or why painted the dishes in Amsterdam is not relevant to this thread. We have reached an agreement regarding your "point", and that is all that matters to me.

Yes, the picture was used as visualization for what I have seen with my own eyes. You would have known as much if you read the posts, and not just skimmed through pictures. I saw dishes positioned very similarly to those, and I'm sure so could you if you took a look around a larger city.

Unless you know which specific "satellites" those dishes are supposed to be pointing at, you have no way of knowing if they are aimed correctly or not.

Quote from: TheJackel on August 19, 2010, 11:52:51 PM

Quote from: gotham on August 19, 2010, 06:02:14 PM

Remember that there is not only the FAQ but you can also use the search function to look into your question(s).

If you understand how satellite dishes work, you wouldn't get a signal worth a shit by pointing it into the sky under FE. There is a reason why you have to actually aim the dish to that which is transmitting the signal. Hence under FE the Dish would not be pointing up into the sky. Sorry, but dish alignment matters!  If you think I am wrong, feel free to point your satellite dish to face the horizon in any direction. So when you learn that the direction of the signal is coming from space, you might just have an epiphany.  After you are done, you can call your provider to come out a fix your alignment because you thought the earth was flat lol.

(While I realize that pictures are not evidence, and that this one is a bit oddly colourful,) I have seen satellite dishes not pointing upwards many times. Like this:

Are you saying these people weren't very bright and probably had no TV reception in their houses?

How I would love to know the hight of this building, since the dishes are clearly situated near the very top of it?

I think the links I provided you covered that.

You edited the post and added your link 20 minutes after my reply. Useful

Quote from: TheJackel on August 21, 2010, 09:52:42 PM

I think the links I provided you covered that.

You edited the post and added your link 20 minutes after my reply. Useful

The useful part about this conversation is that your example is entirely useless. :/