Pseudolites

So this proves what?  ...

It is an answer to a posed question. 

ok. Atmospheric satelites it is. So what "work" has been done as you claim?

It is conjecture offered as proof, but it is still conjecture.  And I might add a little speculation, with a touch of pseudoscience to pack it all in.

You are the one using the terms 'proof' and 'prove'.  I offered it as no such thing; I just gave the fellow some starting places to look for himself at the idea of the work being done regarding atmospheric satellites and the names of some of the companies claiming to be involved.  Terming that conjecture is odd.

You might think about opening a thread on this subject in the Debate board if you wish to initiate an argument about the subject.

I don't think that a thing such as "atmospheric satellite" can exist.

Whether they exist now or only exist as prototypes for the future or all these developers are total liars is of course debatable.  As near as I can find on a short search, the term 'atmospheric satellite' was suggested by Ray Morgan, president of AeroVironment Inc., but the term has been around for a while.

Mrs. Peach,

Your avatar is a perfect representation of you in this thread: Dancing around the points and arguments made by others, while avoiding all responsibility for your statements and claims.

This thread has been nonstop point dodging and FE derailing. This style is all too common of FE proponents and only serves to discredit anything they say. I cordially invite you to make a point and stay on topic.

Also I would like to know how current research into atmospheric satellite technology (that might someday serve a similar purpose even though currently mostly researchers show it to be a non economical alternative or addition to existing safelight technology) is in any way similar to a plausible pseudolite. Furthermore I am curious how this could have been done for the last 60 years while satellite technology has been the primary form of global communication.


The other FE zealots have abandoned this thread already. They know this is a slam dunk topic for RE. You may wish to do the same.

Whether they exist now or only exist as prototypes for the future or all these developers are total liars is of course debatable.  As near as I can find on a short search, the term 'atmospheric satellite' was suggested by Ray Morgan, president of AeroVironment Inc., but the term has been around for a while.

Yeah, the ideas, the term... Why don't you go back to the real life?

Mrs. Peach,

Your avatar is a perfect representation of you in this thread: Dancing around the points and arguments made by others, while avoiding all responsibility for your statements and claims.

This thread has been nonstop point dodging and FE derailing. This style is all too common of FE proponents and only serves to discredit anything they say. I cordially invite you to make a point and stay on topic.

Also I would like to know how current research into atmospheric satellite technology (that might someday serve a similar purpose even though currently mostly researchers show it to be a non economical alternative or addition to existing safelight technology) is in any way similar to a plausible pseudolite. Furthermore I am curious how this could have been done for the last 60 years while satellite technology has been the primary form of global communication.


The other FE zealots have abandoned this thread already. They know this is a slam dunk topic for RE. You may wish to do the same.

Let's be fair.  You widened the scope of this thread to include satellites.  See reply #111.

Let's be fair.  You widened the scope of this thread to include satellites.  See reply #111.

Lets be fair. The whole thread is about satelites and how they dont fit in FET. See the OP and the rest of the first page. The OP is a question of why he can find plenty of info on Satelites and not much on pseudolites.

I do like that you confirm my acusations by pointing me to a post where I was trying to get us all back on topic. Oh the irony of it all.

I'll refer you to my earlier post:

I cordially invite you to make a point and stay on topic.

Also I would like to know how current research into atmospheric satellite technology (that might someday serve a similar purpose even though currently mostly researchers show it to be a non economical alternative or addition to existing safelight technology) is in any way similar to a plausible pseudolite. Furthermore I am curious how this could have been done for the last 60 years while satellite technology has been the primary form of global communication.

Yeah, I agree so let's get get back to your topic of Peach dancing.  I am, as you can tell,  much influenced by the Isadora Duncan school.

The other FE zealots have abandoned this thread already. They know this is a slam dunk topic for RE. You may wish to do the same.

I'm sorry that I haven't had time to be online lately. What other than your refusal to believe in the existence of pseudolites would you like me to address?

Lack of data, that's far enough.

Yeah, I agree so let's get get back to your topic of Peach dancing.  I am, as you can tell,  much influenced by the Isadora Duncan school.

Hi.

You cannot see Pseudolites in a telescope that run the entire GPS and communications systems on our planet. Please create a new belief because you look foolish now.

Thanks

Lack of data, that's far enough.

Lack of realness, more accuratelly

Quote from: Sentient Pizza on November 08, 2011, 02:02:54 PM

The other FE zealots have abandoned this thread already. They know this is a slam dunk topic for RE. You may wish to do the same.

I'm sorry that I haven't had time to be online lately. What other than your refusal to believe in the existence of pseudolites would you like me to address?

Well Ski I suggest you re-read this thread. As we have been arround this one a few times already. I have never said pseudolites do not exist. I know there are a hand full of them arround the world. I'll not be baited again to repost the points from this thread.

Please if you would like to try a new point I am all ears.

Hi.

You cannot see Pseudolites in a telescope that run the entire GPS and communications systems on our planet. Please create a new belief because you look foolish now.

Thanks

If you wish to research U.S. Patent 5,345,238 you may understand how sky objects can be hidden.

Thousands of satellies can be detected in the sky.

Quote from: LinearPlane on November 09, 2011, 06:47:07 AM

Hi.

You cannot see Pseudolites in a telescope that run the entire GPS and communications systems on our planet. Please create a new belief because you look foolish now.

Thanks

If you wish to research U.S. Patent 5,345,238 you may understand how sky objects can be hidden.

Surely the government would have covered up the patent, wikipedia articles, and everything else that has connections to psuedolites if this information would blow their cover story.

The proof that you try to give only makes your case weaker.  The conspiracy can't cover up some facts, while leaving others untouched.  The fact that there is public knowledge about experiments with ground based or even air based transmissions means that the conspiracy is either not as good at coverups as FE'ers make them out to be, or that FE'ers take a little bit of fact and turn it into a conspiracy.

My vote is for the later.

If you wish to research U.S. Patent 5,345,238 you may understand how sky objects can be hidden.

Why would you even post this? did you read the patent information?

The whole patent is based on technology to disguise ORBITING satellites. Individual orbiting satellites, being disguised from detection.

I know I'm losing the game right now. I am being gently trolled into a rage. If your goal was to be so willfully stupid and get me to quit this thread for fear of smashing my keyboard....... Then you have won.

Pseudolites are a slam dunk win for RE. You know it. I know it. No amount of rage on my part will make it better.

I'm done here

You understand that orbiting would have a different meaning on a flat earth as opposed to a globular earth.  A geosynchronous orbit on a globe would correspond to a near stationary position on a flat, non-rotating earth.  If we were to take the word orbit in its wider meaning of circular (hovering around a central point), we will all be on the same page regarding definition.

As to the willful stupidity, sky stealth objects are sky stealth objects and deception and denial is a very old practice.  JUst because something manages to go unnoticed, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Really, IMO that's an somewhat untenable position to take and which is all the patent information was meant to convey.  And please, there's no need for anyone to get themselves into a rage here.  We're friendly folks. 

You understand that orbiting would have a different meaning on a flat earth as opposed to a globular earth. 

Yes.  We understand that around a sphere, orbit means going around 3 dimensionally.  On a disk, it means going in a 2 dimensional circle.  Please do not take us for idiots or morons.

JUst because something manages to go unnoticed, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 

Agreed, just like gravity.

Really, IMO that's an somewhat untenable position to take and which is all the patent information was meant to convey. 

I assume you meant this at me.  I asked why the government can coverup some things, like space shuttle flights, but not cover up other more simple things, like wikipedia.

And please, there's no need for anyone to get themselves into a rage here.  We're friendly folks. 

Who is getting into a rage?  SP is frustrated at the total disregard for logic, science, reasoning, and burden of proof.  However, the rest of us seem to be perfectly fine to argue kiddy facts.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on November 09, 2011, 08:40:55 AM

You understand that orbiting would have a different meaning on a flat earth as opposed to a globular earth. 

Yes.  We understand that around a sphere, orbit means going around 3 dimensionally.  On a disk, it means going in a 2 dimensional circle.  Please do not take us for idiots or morons.

Yes.  I know you understand.  That's the reason I said that you understand. 

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on November 09, 2011, 08:40:55 AM

Really, IMO that's an somewhat untenable position to take and which is all the patent information was meant to convey. 

I assume you meant this at me.  I asked why the government can coverup some things, like space shuttle flights, but not cover up other more simple things, like wikipedia.

You assume wrong.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on November 09, 2011, 08:40:55 AM

And please, there's no need for anyone to get themselves into a rage here.  We're friendly folks. 

Who is getting into a rage?  SP is frustrated at the total disregard for logic, science, reasoning, and burden of proof.  However, the rest of us seem to be perfectly fine to argue kiddy facts.

That was not directed at you either. 

Everything is directed at me.  I am the center of my flat universe.

Seriously, sorry for my assumptions.

Quote from: LinearPlane on November 09, 2011, 06:47:07 AM

Hi.

You cannot see Pseudolites in a telescope that run the entire GPS and communications systems on our planet. Please create a new belief because you look foolish now.

Thanks

If you wish to research U.S. Patent 5,345,238 you may understand how sky objects can be hidden.

yeah. Except planes and spacecraft would hit them. You're really reaching now.

Further you can invent anything you want to explain your pseudolites except you can't invent proof.

Thousands of satellies can be detected in the sky.

FE isn't real, no one is this ignorant nor could anyone create such ridiculous answers and FAQ's.

yeah. Except planes and spacecraft would hit them. You're really reaching now.

Further you can invent anything you want to explain your pseudolites except you can't invent proof.

Let's assume just for the purpose of this thread that people would have enough sense to place these objects in the higher altitudes of the stratosphere, maybe 25 miles up or so, and not in the lower reaches where some encounter would be anticipated.  Alternatively, we could assume they're incompetent fools.

Surely the government would have covered up the patent, wikipedia articles, and everything else that has connections to psuedolites if this information would blow their cover story.

The proof that you try to give only makes your case weaker.

Yet when I give evidence that the concept and technology has existed since the 1950's yet mysteriously disappears in open-source discussion with the advent of "satellites in perpetual free-fall", you say the evidence is weak because the trail dies in the fifties. You have your cake and eat it too by refusing to accept any evidence contradictory to your narrow world-view.

Evidence about pseudolites widely used is so weak and evidence about satellites is so strong that a so-called conspiration doesn't do the trick.

And satellites are not stealth, they can be easily observable.

Evidence about pseudolites widely used is so weak and evidence about satellites is so strong that a so-called conspiration doesn't do the trick.

And satellites are not stealth, they can be easily observable.

Let's be real, we're talking with a bunch of liars, the more I lUrK here the more I realize this whole site is fake and so are the sock puppets defending ridiculous flat earth "theory". 200 members strong and no one can make a map or buy a telescope. It's a huge huge failure of a fake site.

Evidence about pseudolites widely used is so weak and evidence about satellites is so strong that a so-called conspiration doesn't do the trick.

And satellites are not stealth, they can be easily observable.

Only the ISS is observable.