Satellite Media?

Stratellites are relatively new developments and are not yet widely used.  Also, how many stratellites would be required to provide the same coverage as a single geostationary satellite?

They are not. They are decades old technology.
And several.

And even at 60000 feet they would be visible.  So...kindly calculate the angle of your local satellite dish, peer down that same bearing with a telescope, and give us a picture.  Thanks.

I see no reason that they must be visible. This has been discussed at length.

Because 60,000ft is not that far, and if they can maintain position as you say, should be an easy target for you then.

Assuming a generous 20' diameter for the gondola, the angular size at closest proximity (immediately below) would be too small for the human eye to resolve. Distances of course, would increase the farther from the stratellites' location(s).

Did I say that naked eye was the only acceptable method of observation.  I thought I was pretty specific enough for you.

And I've covered in several threads why I don't think a satellite must needs be discernable even to other media. You are re-covering old terrain.

And I've covered in several threads why I don't think a satellite must needs be discernable even to other media. You are re-covering old terrain.

So instead you fruitlessly answer a question by saying"Ive already answered it" and not even being mature enough to post a link. 

The existence of geostationary satellites is proven by observations of the angle of satellite dishes on houses, which exhibit an angular variation exactly in keeping with getting a signal from an object 35,786km away above the equator.
FET has no explanation of this.

Is this post invisible or something?

After reading through the other thread that Ski (finally) provided, it really looks like a classic case of special pleading.

Special pleading would be my saying that the only reason you can't understand is that you are a thick-minded globularist. Like I just did.

No, special pleading is when you have to resort to cloaking devices to explain why they can not be observed with modest magnification. In order for stratelites to be viable there are a few things that first have to be proven.
1: That they can hold position while still in the atmosphere in a manner similar to the fixed positions of the proposed satellites.
2: That they carry RF equipment capable of duplicating the signals observed from satellites
3: A method of concealment that is demonstrable.
By the way, why dont you look up special pleading to see what it actually is, and drop the insulting attitude.

There is nothing magical or inexplicable about transparent envelopes or yehudi lights. The concepts are both simple and demonstrable. If I told you the reason they cannot be discerned was a sort of cloaking device the workings of which are beyond your comprehension, then it would be special pleading.

1. There is nothing especially complex about station-keeping.
2. There is nothing particularly fancy or special about radio-repeating equipment.
3. Clear envelopes and yehudi lights are both demonstrable. Neither are magical "cloaking devices".

A simple telescope could not only see if there is a stratylite, but would also prove from simple observation that there is an obvious existence of a satellite.

Again, I don't suspect it would.

Then try it.  And you will see yourself a satellite.  Maybe take some pictures too.

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 30, 2012, 10:51:29 AM

The existence of geostationary satellites is proven by observations of the angle of satellite dishes on houses, which exhibit an angular variation exactly in keeping with getting a signal from an object 35,786km away above the equator.
FET has no explanation of this.

Is this post invisible or something?

Hello? Proof of geostationary satellites and disproof of stratellites? Anyone?

Yehudi lights would only disguise objects observed with the naked eye or low magnification to an observer who does not know precisely where to look.  Like any camouflage, it fails if you know precisely where to look.  However, it raises an interesting point: if the canopy is perfectly clear, what do the yehudi lights reflect off of?

This was already discussed on thousands of topics. And RE won

Quote from: The Knowledge on April 01, 2012, 04:58:19 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 30, 2012, 10:51:29 AM

The existence of geostationary satellites is proven by observations of the angle of satellite dishes on houses, which exhibit an angular variation exactly in keeping with getting a signal from an object 35,786km away above the equator.
FET has no explanation of this.

Is this post invisible or something?

Hello? Proof of geostationary satellites and disproof of stratellites? Anyone?

They already lose that battle, and they are just ignoring you and everybody with a minimal knowdlege about radio.

Hello? Proof of geostationary satellites and disproof of stratellites? Anyone?

I'm still waiting for proof of geostationary satellites as well.

Yehudi lights would only disguise objects observed with the naked eye or low magnification to an observer who does not know precisely where to look.  Like any camouflage, it fails if you know precisely where to look.  However, it raises an interesting point: if the canopy is perfectly clear, what do the yehudi lights reflect off of?

It might be observable under sufficient magnification. I'm not sure what power of magnification one might need to see a relatively small object at the distance of dozens of miles despite atmospheric glare and counter-illumination, but yes, it is possible.
Yehudi lights need not reflect off of anything 

I'm still waiting for proof of geostationary satellites as well.

What's the point?  You're just going to dismiss it because you didn't observe it yourself, as you've already done with observations of satellite dish angles.

If you're actually interested in seeing them, this website might help

http://www.satobs.org/geosats.html

Below is a link to a high-res picture taken using a long exposure of the night sky.  The bands are stars.

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/images/sat_sky_close_lg.jpg

You'll notice that the satellites don't appear as bands, because they're in geostationary orbit and don't move across the sky.

Quote from: Ski on April 04, 2012, 11:00:52 AM

I'm still waiting for proof of geostationary satellites as well.

What's the point?  You're just going to dismiss it because you didn't observe it yourself, as you've already done with observations of satellite dish angles.

If you're actually interested in seeing them, this website might help

http://www.satobs.org/geosats.html

Below is a link to a high-res picture taken using a long exposure of the night sky.  The bands are stars.

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/images/sat_sky_close_lg.jpg

You'll notice that the satellites don't appear as bands, because they're in geostationary orbit and don't move across the sky.

I just see little dots. How does that picture prove that there are satellites in orbit around the earth?

Thank you, Tom, for beautifully illustrating why there's no point in engaging FEers seriously.

Quote from: The Knowledge on April 03, 2012, 05:22:13 AM

Hello? Proof of geostationary satellites and disproof of stratellites? Anyone?

I'm still waiting for proof of geostationary satellites as well.

It's out there staring you in the face. Look at every satellite dish on every house. Your refusal to observe the proof doesn't mean it is not there.

The dishes only prove that they are pointed at something broadcasting. It tells us nothing about what the transmitter is.

The dishes only prove that they are pointed at something broadcasting. It tells us nothing about what the transmitter is.

Lol, ok then, believe your stratellites are somehow floating beyond the boundary of the atmosphere.

I'm not sure how you could possibly derive that from what I said...

Oh, then what is transmitting these signals?  Towers going miles up?