Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!

Quote from: jroa on August 20, 2013, 06:54:55 AM

They are simply wrong.

No, they are not. They sometimes make mistakes, but nothing in their work disprove a round Earth.

It would be nice if you could offer some evidence or something that would help make your statement credible. 

Wow. For this theory to work, you'd need a massive conspiracy involving all cable (and TV) providers, not to mention all the weird technical and physics hoops you have to jump through to make it work. If common sense tells you nothing else, it should tell you that a secret like this could never be kept by so many people. Oh, and Google Earth. I suppose they just cover every square inch of the flat Earth by plane, right?

Yes.

Dear Zetetic FEers,

I know it is not easy but please try your best to stick to the topic by answering to my original questions.....

Thank you

Quote from: Fizzy Logic on August 20, 2013, 11:45:05 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 20, 2013, 06:54:55 AM

They are simply wrong.

No, they are not. They sometimes make mistakes, but nothing in their work disprove a round Earth.

It would be nice if you could offer some evidence or something that would help make your statement credible.

Why didn't you start with providing evidence?

Everything, apart from a book, a website with people who wouldn't reconize their arse at night and quite a handfull of zealous bigots points to a round Earth. I mean everything. Scientists to start with. People with methodology and logic. People who don't say "Duh, this video is faked because (insert there silly arguments).

Quote from: Cartesian on August 21, 2013, 12:47:17 PM

Dear Zetetic FEers,

I know it is not easy but please try your best to stick to the topic by answering to my original questions.....

Thank you

Please refrain from low-content posts in the upper fora.

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 22, 2013, 07:42:32 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on August 21, 2013, 12:47:17 PM

Dear Zetetic FEers,

I know it is not easy but please try your best to stick to the topic by answering to my original questions.....

Thank you

Please refrain from low-content posts in the upper fora.

I am not sure whether your post was addressed to me or not but I was just trying to moderate my thread. This thread has been here for four months and 16 pages but yet, there hasn't been a single person (not even one) who gave a solid explanation which is corroborated by sensible arguments to answer a very simple question about dish. An object which you can see and touch for yourself. I really cannot believe that the entire society does not have an answer for this already.

Or maybe each FE believer actually accepts that geostationary satellites do exist but is too embarrassed to admit it openly here.

Am I wrong? Then prove me wrong.

Please.

Quote from: Junker on August 22, 2013, 07:50:51 AM

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 22, 2013, 07:42:32 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on August 21, 2013, 12:47:17 PM

Dear Zetetic FEers,

I know it is not easy but please try your best to stick to the topic by answering to my original questions.....

Thank you

Please refrain from low-content posts in the upper fora.

I am not sure whether your post was addressed to me or not but I was just trying to moderate my thread. This thread has been here for four months and 16 pages but yet, there hasn't been a single person (not even one) who gave a solid explanation which is corroborated by sensible arguments to answer a very simple question about dish. An object which you can see and touch for yourself. I really cannot believe that the entire society does not have an answer for this already.

Or maybe each FE believer actually accepts that geostationary satellites do exist but is too embarrassed to admit it openly here.

Am I wrong? Then prove me wrong.

Please.

Cartesian Don't be too frustrated or disappointed. I had the same experience as you. My thread ran for 19 pages with the same results you are having. It ended up in the "hung threads list." I doubt if even Sandra Pullman and her UCOS would have any better luck . Lotsa luck ! 

EDITED: P.S. Consider yourself lucky that at least you haven't seen any posts from sandokhan.
Uh-Oh ! I hope that didn't open up a can of worms. 

Cartesian Don't be too frustrated or disappointed. I had the same experience as you. My thread ran for 19 pages with the same results you are having. It ended up in the "hung threads list." I doubt if even Sandra Pullman and her UCOS would have any better luck . Lotsa luck ! 

EDITED: P.S. Consider yourself lucky that you haven't seen any posts from sandokhan.
Ub-Oh ! I hope that didn't open up a can of worms. 

It's true that I am kind of disappointed. The main reason that attracted me to this site was because this society claimed to be zetetic. But my experience here proves otherwise. Their behaviour is not zetetic at all. It looks more religious to me. They believe their faith blindly and refute everything else even if they cannot explain it.

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 22, 2013, 11:09:56 AM

Cartesian Don't be too frustrated or disappointed. I had the same experience as you. My thread ran for 19 pages with the same results you are having. It ended up in the "hung threads list." I doubt if even Sandra Pullman and her UCOS would have any better luck . Lotsa luck ! 

EDITED: P.S. Consider yourself lucky that you haven't seen any posts from sandokhan.
Ub-Oh ! I hope that didn't open up a can of worms. 

It's true that I am kind of disappointed. The main reason that attracted me to this site was because this society claimed to be zetetic. But my experience here proves otherwise. Their behaviour is not zetetic at all. It looks more religious to me. They believe their faith blindly and refute everything else even if they cannot explain it.

If sceptimatic can have his theories, maybe I am entitled to mine, too .
Although FE's will vehemently deny it.
But here is my theory :
They are really just good actors. They just think of ways to get a thread off topic or de-rail it.
They're probably really sane people with just a penchant with a weird sense of humour for making up things about a flat earth and denying anything about a round earth in the process  .
And as such they really do know that the earth is not flat. But of course they are never going to admit it.
Just my opinion. I suppose this might be akin to the zetetic method. Just from what I have observed.

EDITED: And I might add just their way of keeping the forum going on.

Quote from: Cartesian on August 22, 2013, 11:28:14 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on August 22, 2013, 11:09:56 AM

Cartesian Don't be too frustrated or disappointed. I had the same experience as you. My thread ran for 19 pages with the same results you are having. It ended up in the "hung threads list." I doubt if even Sandra Pullman and her UCOS would have any better luck . Lotsa luck ! 

EDITED: P.S. Consider yourself lucky that you haven't seen any posts from sandokhan.
Ub-Oh ! I hope that didn't open up a can of worms. 

It's true that I am kind of disappointed. The main reason that attracted me to this site was because this society claimed to be zetetic. But my experience here proves otherwise. Their behaviour is not zetetic at all. It looks more religious to me. They believe their faith blindly and refute everything else even if they cannot explain it.

If sceptimatic can have his theories, maybe I am entitled to mine, too .
Although FE's will vehemently deny it.
But here is my theory :
They are really just good actors. They just think of ways to get a thread off topic or de-rail it.
They're probably really sane people with just a penchant with a weird sense of humour for making up things about a flat earth and denying anything about a round earth in the process  .
And as such they really do know that the earth is not flat. But of course they are never going to admit it.
Just my opinion. I suppose this might be akin to the zetetic method. Just from what I have observed.

EDITED: And I might add just their way of keeping the forum going on.

I agree. The FES is a conspiracy.

OK, I have added a summary of this discussion to the first page

Only two reasonable hypothesis have been proposed so far by FE proponents:

• Some sort of stratellites exist. They are caught up in the wake of the UA, causing them to circle the Earth just as the celestial objects. Flaw: the dishes don't move so those stratellites don't circle the Earth neither. They are stationary. Unanswered questions from this hypothesis include why they don't circle the Earth like other celestial objects and why they have to be above the equator (and most of the time above the ocean)
• Equatorial towers sending the signals upward and to get the signals bounced back by ionosphere. Flaw: there is what we call critical angle and critical frequency. Only the lower end of HF signals (in the order of MHz) can be bounced back to Earth by the atmosphere. The higher the frequency the lower the incidence angle has to be for the signal to be bounced back. Moreover, those dishes are designed for GHz signals, way above bounceable HF signals. One unanswered question from this hypothesis is that in most cases those towers would have to be in the middle of the ocean.

I do not include baseless arguments in the list above. They don't count as hypothesis as they simply fail observation such as

• Those dishes are rain water collector. → the photos show dishes which are clearly made of meshed material
• Those dishes are solar power dishes. → solar power dishes are always shiny to reflect solar radiation
• The feedhorn of the dishes are actuality tiny black holes used as "light magnets" to pull signals from space. → you don't observe anomaly around the feedhorn
• And finally, satellites simply don't exist without any further explanation. → this is an attitude which I cannot accept in this thread

Is there anything else apart from geostationary satellites that can explain why those dishes point upward?

It could be a combination of the two hypothesis that you listed.  Possibly, other methods could be added, such as relay stations or relay ships.  It could be a big mix of all of these.

It could be a combination of the two hypothesis that you listed.  Possibly, other methods could be added, such as relay stations or relay ships.  It could be a big mix of all of these.

Then your proposal has the flaws and unanswered questions of both

I'd also like to add that one important question that must first be answered by anyone who proposes a hypothesis is why equator. Why does it have to be above the equator (equatorial lands or equatorial oceans). This is simple to answer in RE model, but in FE model?

These so called satellite dishes in those poor countries. What exactly are those dishes receiving?
Are they allowing the people to watch Satellite TV?
The reason I ask, is, every home/shack appears to have one. Many homes where I live do not have one and did not have one, even before cable was introduced, (just in case that was going to be used)..
So what's the deal here? are they for so called satellite TV or what?

These so called satellite dishes in those poor countries. What exactly are those dishes receiving?
Are they allowing the people to watch Satellite TV?
The reason I ask, is, every home/shack appears to have one. Many homes where I live do not have one and did not have one, even before cable was introduced, (just in case that was going to be used)..
So what's the deal here? are they for so called satellite TV or what?

They are indeed for satellite tv, and again you show a complete lack of knowledge as they're not on every shack. The quality of the basic stations in Africa is poor (I've been there and watched it ) and one of the first luxury items people buy when they can afford it is satellite tv.

These so called satellite dishes in those poor countries. What exactly are those dishes receiving?
Are they allowing the people to watch Satellite TV?
The reason I ask, is, every home/shack appears to have one. Many homes where I live do not have one and did not have one, even before cable was introduced, (just in case that was going to be used)..
So what's the deal here? are they for so called satellite TV or what?

Yes they are satellite TV dishes. Oh dear sceptimatic, you started to sound like a broken record here .. I thought we were past this already. At one moment, you even thought of visiting the place to check it for yourself. Read your previous posts in case you've forgotten already.

Oops .... sorry I forgot that you already deleted your previous posts from this thread.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2013, 05:05:07 AM

These so called satellite dishes in those poor countries. What exactly are those dishes receiving?
Are they allowing the people to watch Satellite TV?
The reason I ask, is, every home/shack appears to have one. Many homes where I live do not have one and did not have one, even before cable was introduced, (just in case that was going to be used)..
So what's the deal here? are they for so called satellite TV or what?

Yes they are satellite TV dishes. Oh dear sceptimatic, you started to sound like a broken record here .. I thought we were past this already. At one moment, you even thought of visiting the place to check it for yourself. Read your previous posts in case you've forgotten already.

Oops .... sorry I forgot that you already deleted your previous posts from this thread.

I'm hardly going to go to see a bunch of dishes am I. I mean, if they turn out to be dishes, the transmitting tower will be perched on a hill somewhere.
It sure as hell isn't satellites 23,000 miles in space, that's for absolute certain.

I mean, if they turn out to be dishes, the transmitting tower will be perched on a hill somewhere.
It sure as hell isn't satellites 23,000 miles in space, that's for absolute certain.

Scepti, this thread is about where the dishes pictured in the OP are getting their signals assuming satellites don't exist. By saying satellites don't exist you're only iterating the premise without adding anything to the thread.

For them to be getting a signal from a tower, the tower's height must be a function of its distance from the reciever such that height = distance * tan(angle of the dish above the horizon). A few of those dishes are pointing straight up--90 degrees--meaning anything farther than directly over the transmitter would need to be of infinite height.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2013, 10:30:25 AM

I mean, if they turn out to be dishes, the transmitting tower will be perched on a hill somewhere.
It sure as hell isn't satellites 23,000 miles in space, that's for absolute certain.

Scepti, this thread is about where the dishes pictured in the OP are getting their signals assuming satellites don't exist. By saying satellites don't exist you're only iterating the premise without adding anything to the thread.

For them to be getting a signal from a tower, the tower's height must be a function of its distance from the reciever such that height = distance * tan(angle of the dish above the horizon). A few of those dishes are pointing straight up--90 degrees--meaning anything farther than directly over the transmitter would need to be of infinite height.

Exactly ... 90 degrees up throughout the country ... And btw he said exactly the same thing before he deleted all his previous posts (maybe he deleted them so that he can repeat the same arguments when he runs out of idea). It feels like déjà vu.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 23, 2013, 11:20:02 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on April 23, 2013, 11:18:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 23, 2013, 11:17:16 AM

I look about for the towers.

And if you don't find one?

Oh, if they are really dishes, I will find one a transmitter.

Where? In the sky above your head?

Sceptic 1 photos appears to have a hill in the background. The rest do not. And all appear to have the same sat dish? Have you ever walked down a uk street? Ever noticed how all sat dishes seem to be of the same design? Funny that. And if you want to see more examples of these photos then go on google and look. Why are you once again asking people to do your research for you? You do like to be spoon fed don't you. Lol

It is clear someone hasn't done their research:

Offset dish:


But pictured in OP are prime focus dishes. They are pointed directly at the satellite they are receiving from.

Prime focus dish:



Has there been any discussion on retired satellites that have been given up for use by ham radio enthusiasts?
That's got to open a can of worms here because either it doesn't work (all the hobbyists are lying),
all of the hobbyists are in on the conspiracy, or all of the hobbyists are being fooled somehow,
and I guess the last one is the easiest picking for the uneducated here.

Earth stations are extremely high powered only to prevent ordinary people interfering with them.
When a ham operator does it, it happens with only the required power, and equipment.
Then you have an isolated group of technically minded people having to be fooled over
time delay, deterioration, and location.

This is me in 2007 receiving TV from an Optus satellite.
It works because the opening of the gorge faces North where
the satellite is. Anywhere else the gorge twists, and turns,
it doesn't work because the cliffs are high enough.




Me again, don't know the exact year, but is exactly the same place.
This works until anyone sits in, or on the car, putting the dish out of alignment.



Me again at Border Ranges National Park, where I achieved the near impossible task,
of watching the Melbourne Cup live from my tent there.
These are all KU band offset dish (looking higher than they appear to).
This works because there is one single hole in the tree canopy within
a few square kilometre radius where the dish can focus North at the correct elevation.
This is the only position in the park it's possible.
When this dish is set in this position, nobody else gets TV unless I give it to them,
which is fair, because guess who discovered it?




YouTube Video:
Nothing special about the following setup instance,
except it was live olympic games, but the thing works.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bush Programming Tent

and the first one I already mentioned:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bush Sat TV Setup

It's funny that people are using stuff that doesn't exist every day.

Hi Art

It's good to see someone from southern hemisphere here too, especially when you seem to be more experienced in dealing with satellite TV. BTW may I know which satellite you get the signal from?

Hi,
I think it was first Optus B3, then C1, then D2.
The satellite was replaced over the years I used it.
Instead of having everyone re-align their pay TV dish,
they turned on the thrusters of the existing sat to move it,
and moved the new one into the same position.

This is not pay TV in the video, but free TV from the same satellite.

I am able to communicate with people who have legally TXed satellites as well,
even though I have not done it myself. They would know the specifics about the time delays
which you could only experience if you can both transmit and receive, or be in contact with
the party at the receiving end via some other communication means.

Optus B3 is at 164°E. Your dish must have been directed to the location above the Pacific ocean as shown in the below URL. If it was transmitted by a tower as claimed by some flat earthers then that tower would have to be in the middle of the Pacific ocean (nightmare from cost, logistical and maintenance point of view). They still haven't replied why these so called equatorial towers would have to be on or above equator, and most of them on or above the water.

http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=164

Is that even relevant if you must point the dish through a hole in a canopy, or move it only slightly to lose signal, etc. ?
... and can block the signal with an object close to the dish, from the direction the signal is coming from?

Optus B3 is at 164°E. Your dish must have been directed to the location above the Pacific ocean as shown in the below URL. If it was transmitted by a tower as claimed by some flat earthers then that tower would have to be in the middle of the Pacific ocean (nightmare from cost, logistical and maintenance point of view). They still haven't replied why these so called equatorial towers would have to be on or above equator, and most of them on or above the water.

http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=164

Is that even relevant if you must point the dish through a hole in a canopy, or move it only slightly to lose signal, etc. ?
... and can block the signal with an object close to the dish, from the direction the signal is coming from?

Quote from: Cartesian on August 29, 2013, 01:24:46 AM

Optus B3 is at 164°E. Your dish must have been directed to the location above the Pacific ocean as shown in the below URL. If it was transmitted by a tower as claimed by some flat earthers then that tower would have to be in the middle of the Pacific ocean (nightmare from cost, logistical and maintenance point of view). They still haven't replied why these so called equatorial towers would have to be on or above equator, and most of them on or above the water.

http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=164

That's only relevant to show that there is signal coming from the direction the dish points to and that the signal must not be obstructed. But it doesn't explain what object transmits that signal. Flat earthers don't accept that the signal originates from geostationary satellites but they don't offer any alternative explanation that survives simple scrutiny.

You don't need anything I posted to demonstrate that.
You can drive far enough in a car so that the elevation angle of the dish mount is slightly different.

You could have a few pay TV customers with the same service provider that live across a country
verify the elevation angle on their dish mount, so long as the mast is mounted level.
The same service provider will use the same hardware for a period of time,
and the dish mount usually has a protractor marked on it.
Same as your pictures, it looks like more or less the same hardware...
Not too many different satellite TV installers in a small area over there I'd say.

It is the same with the prime focus dishes you pictured, though in that area, it might be
difficult to travel far enough in any hurry, for any kind of data collection.

Quote from: Art on August 29, 2013, 03:06:02 AM

Is that even relevant if you must point the dish through a hole in a canopy, or move it only slightly to lose signal, etc. ?
... and can block the signal with an object close to the dish, from the direction the signal is coming from?

Quote from: Cartesian on August 29, 2013, 01:24:46 AM

Optus B3 is at 164°E. Your dish must have been directed to the location above the Pacific ocean as shown in the below URL. If it was transmitted by a tower as claimed by some flat earthers then that tower would have to be in the middle of the Pacific ocean (nightmare from cost, logistical and maintenance point of view). They still haven't replied why these so called equatorial towers would have to be on or above equator, and most of them on or above the water.

http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=164

That's only relevant to show that there is signal coming from the direction the dish points to and that the signal must not be obstructed. But it doesn't explain what object transmits that signal. Flat earthers don't accept that the signal originates from geostationary satellites but they don't offer any alternative explanation that survives simple scrutiny.

You don't need anything I posted to demonstrate that.
You can drive far enough in a car so that the elevation angle of the dish mount is slightly different.

You could have a few pay TV customers with the same service provider that live across a country
verify the elevation angle on their dish mount, so long as the mast is mounted level.
The same service provider will use the same hardware for a period of time,
and the dish mount usually has a protractor marked on it.
Same as your pictures, it looks like more or less the same hardware...
Not too many different satellite TV installers in a small area over there I'd say.

It is the same with the prime focus dishes you pictured, though in that area, it might be
difficult to travel far enough in any hurry, for any kind of data collection.

The reason I chose those areas is that most people there tend to use prime focus dishes and those dishes point completely upward .. which means that the signal comes straight from right above your head. It makes it much more difficult for flat earthers to deny that the signal can only come from geostationary satellites.

It seems likely they only have a single free C-Band service available.

This is the satellite I was talking about that gets pinged every day by ham radio operators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMSAT-OSCAR_7
The time delay is about 1/2 second, or 1 second for round trip,
so distance measurement is possible.