What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 08:28:27 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:19:51 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 08:11:11 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:01:29 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 06:39:35 PM

Alaso, are you saying that you estimated the hight of the ISS based on its relative size to the sun and moon?

Based on the angular size of the Sun, ISS and ISS's actual length, you can figure out its altitude, yes.

You would have to make an assumption on the length of the ISS in order for that to work.

356' per documentation - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65210.msg1743577#msg1743577

If you are going to take their word for it, then you might as well not even calculate the altitude.

Well, you can see the size of the shuttle vs the ISS against the Sun. We can measure the shuttle on Earth. So, probably the 356' is close...

Again, you would be taking their word for the size of the shuttle. 

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:33:51 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 08:28:27 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:19:51 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 08:11:11 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:01:29 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 06:39:35 PM

Alaso, are you saying that you estimated the hight of the ISS based on its relative size to the sun and moon?

Based on the angular size of the Sun, ISS and ISS's actual length, you can figure out its altitude, yes.

You would have to make an assumption on the length of the ISS in order for that to work.

356' per documentation - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65210.msg1743577#msg1743577

If you are going to take their word for it, then you might as well not even calculate the altitude.

Well, you can see the size of the shuttle vs the ISS against the Sun. We can measure the shuttle on Earth. So, probably the 356' is close...

Again, you would be taking their word for the size of the shuttle.

Maybe you could just go to https://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/topics/discovery/index.cfm and measure one!

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:33:51 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 08:28:27 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:19:51 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 08:11:11 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:01:29 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 06:39:35 PM

Alaso, are you saying that you estimated the hight of the ISS based on its relative size to the sun and moon?

Based on the angular size of the Sun, ISS and ISS's actual length, you can figure out its altitude, yes.

You would have to make an assumption on the length of the ISS in order for that to work.

356' per documentation - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65210.msg1743577#msg1743577

If you are going to take their word for it, then you might as well not even calculate the altitude.

Well, you can see the size of the shuttle vs the ISS against the Sun. We can measure the shuttle on Earth. So, probably the 356' is close...

Again, you would be taking their word for the size of the shuttle.

Probably not... compared to a 747... lots of these:

Or, one of these. 

Just measure the parallax. The online data for the path of the station seems to be accurate, someone should use it to calculate the parallax of the station. Then the burden of proof is on the flat earthers to show that the data is wrong.

Then the burden of proof is on the flat earthers to show that the data is wrong.

Any data that goes against their model is wrong. They don't have to show that. They just say "It's wrong"

It's the only way they can keep their dream alive. Ignore data and experiences of millions of people.

One of them even went to outback Canada where there is no cell phone reception, but his GPS still worked, because satellites provide GPS signal.

Still refused to believe in satellites.

Or, one of these. 

Yep, 0.5 / 5280 / tan(56.06") = 0.35 mi up, definitely not in space. It's not even to the local store

Quote from: ergovivo on December 29, 2015, 11:06:23 AM

Then the burden of proof is on the flat earthers to show that the data is wrong.

Any data that goes against their model is wrong. They don't have to show that. They just say "It's wrong"

It's the only way they can keep their dream alive. Ignore data and experiences of millions of people.

One of them even went to outback Canada where there is no cell phone reception, but his GPS still worked, because satellites provide GPS signal.

Still refused to believe in satellites.

I know they have a habit of ignoring evidence, they still can't explain the point in my sig.

Since sustained space flight is not possible with the accelerating FE, satellites would not be able to remain in 'orbit', thus satellites could not exit, but for short periods of time.

Here are 2 interpretations of this statement.
1. Sattelites can't fly in accelerating FE model. Accelerating FE model is correct (assumption). Sattelites don't fly in space.
2. Sattelites can't fly in accelerating FE model. Sattelites fly in space (Assumption). Accelerating FE model is false.

From what I have seen, the real answer to the question "What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?" is simply that:
The existence of satellites allows photos to be taken that would disprove the Flat Earth.
Hence satellites cannot exist and any photos that purport to show a Globe Earth are by definition faked.
                                             Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Mind you numerous actual reasons are given:
1) Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.
2) There is an invisible shield that would block any rocket - er, what about meteors?
3) Satellites cannot orbit a Flat Earth - oops back to square one.

From what I have seen, the real answer to the question "What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?" is simply that:
The existence of satellites allows photos to be taken that would disprove the Flat Earth.
Hence satellites cannot exist and any photos that purport to show a Globe Earth are by definition faked.
                                             Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Mind you numerous actual reasons are given:
1) Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.
2) There is an invisible shield that would block any rocket - er, what about meteors?
3) Satellites cannot orbit a Flat Earth - oops back to square one.

Well we have plenty of proof of lying bullshiters
http://www.gizmag.com/alan-eustace-world-record-skydive-stratex/34423/pictures#1 no smoke & mirrors there, yer right 
Maybe we could ask this honest jerk off for some satalite photos to change our unbelieving ways . 

Quote from: rabinoz on January 02, 2016, 05:10:07 PM

From what I have seen, the real answer to the question "What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?" is simply that:
The existence of satellites allows photos to be taken that would disprove the Flat Earth.
Hence satellites cannot exist and any photos that purport to show a Globe Earth are by definition faked.
                                             Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Mind you numerous actual reasons are given:
1) Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.
2) There is an invisible shield that would block any rocket - er, what about meteors?
3) Satellites cannot orbit a Flat Earth - oops back to square one.

Well we have plenty of proof of lying bullshiters
http://www.gizmag.com/alan-eustace-world-record-skydive-stratex/34423/pictures#1 no smoke & mirrors there, yer right 
Maybe we could ask this honest jerk off for some satalite photos to change our unbelieving ways .

Every satellite photo presented has been claimed to be false for numerous imaginary reasons, so what's the use?
I stand by what I said.  Photos from anywhere in space are always claimed as fake, and in every case I have seen the reasoning behind the claim is just utter rubbish, in most cases simply pure ignorance of how the globe works.
We get people saying photos must be fake because of things like:

• "The continents are different sizes on different photos" - answer: It depends on the distance the photo was taken from.
• "The equator is not in the centre" - answer: The photo was taken from north (or south) of the equator.
• In a video "The clouds aren't moving" - answer: The video is only a few minutes long, the clouds move slowly on that scale.
• "I can't see any other satellites" - answer: Of course not, they are tiny, moving fast and are thousands of miles away!
• "I can't see any space debris" - answer: Same thing.
• In a sequence from roughly 1,000,000 miles away "The moon is too big compared to the earth" - answer: The moon is about 240,000 miles closer, that changes the apparent size.
• "The similar cloud patterns are made by cut-and-paste, it must be a fake" - answer: Similar cloud patterns are often seen in close proximity.
• "I can see a pattern in the clouds, it must be a fake" - answer: You sometimes do.

And so the silly objections go on!  Do you wonder that it is no point showing satellite photos.

But, here is one you have never seen before because it was taken just about 18 minutes ago at 03:00 UTC on 03 Jan 2016. Of course you will say it's a fake, but no-one yet has come up with a reasonable explanation of how the manage to get the cloud patterns right of half the earth! http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/smallc.html?area=6&element=1&time=201601030300

If that land mass is ment to be Australia. Where's Tasmania vanished to ?
Tasmania's area is 68,401 km2 (26,410 sq mi), of which the main island covers 64,519 km2 (24,911 sq mi).
Ireland's area, 84,421 km2  (32,595 sq mi) 
http://www.mapsofworld.com/australia/

If that land mass is ment to be Australia. Where's Tasmania vanished to ?
Tasmania's area is 68,401 km2 (26,410 sq mi), of which the main island covers 64,519 km2 (24,911 sq mi).
Ireland's area, 84,421 km2  (32,595 sq mi) 
http://www.mapsofworld.com/australia/

So you accept that link to be correct. Interesting.

No its not correct , far from it .

No its not correct , far from it .

Please explain.

No its not correct , far from it .

You have just proved one of my previous points.  By definition any photo that disproves the Flat Earth is automatically a fake.
Also, I have noticed that any evidence that supports the Globe is a lie (according to Geranium, or whatever he calls himself).
And those that try to prove satellites can be launched are satanic sci-fi cultists,  mind you this is Papa Legba's effort, so not unexpected!

And those that try to prove satellites can be launched are satanic sci-fi cultists,  mind you this is Papa Legba's effort, so not unexpected!

You shouldn't have to 'try to prove' that satellites can be launched, slow-poke.

It should be easily verifiable & based upon sound science.

But it isn't, is it?

Which is why all you Clown Derfers fail so hard & often.

As for the Satanic sci-fi cultists; well, I was discussing this in depth on another thread & I noticed you all kept your traps firmly shut on the subject...

Just tried to divert & derail as much as possible.

So yeah; that wasn't suspicious, was it?

Lol yes it was!

So please don't lecture Legba on Voodoo, Twelve-Steps...

Toodle-pip, not-ausGeoff/Rayzor/ZennerOne/Soulblood/etc/etc!

Quote from: rabinoz on January 03, 2016, 02:15:18 AM

And those that try to prove satellites can be launched are satanic sci-fi cultists,  mind you this is Papa Legba's effort, so not unexpected!

You shouldn't have to 'try to prove' that satellites can be launched, slow-poke.

It should be easily verifiable & based upon sound science.b

But it isn't, is it?

Which is why all you Clown Derfers fail so hard & often.

As for the Satanic sci-fi cultists; well, I was discussing this in depth on another thread & I noticed you all kept your traps firmly shut on the subject...

Just tried to divert & derail as much as possible.

So yeah; that wasn't suspicious, was it?

Lol yes it was!

So please don't lecture Legba on Voodoo, Twelve-Steps...

Toodle-pip, not-ausGeoff/Rayzor/ZennerOne/Soulblood/etc/etc!

How do we receive tv with a satellite dish?

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 02, 2016, 05:46:48 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 02, 2016, 05:10:07 PM

From what I have seen, the real answer to the question "What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?" is simply that:
The existence of satellites allows photos to be taken that would disprove the Flat Earth.
Hence satellites cannot exist and any photos that purport to show a Globe Earth are by definition faked.
                                             Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Mind you numerous actual reasons are given:
1) Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.
2) There is an invisible shield that would block any rocket - er, what about meteors?
3) Satellites cannot orbit a Flat Earth - oops back to square one.

Well we have plenty of proof of lying bullshiters
http://www.gizmag.com/alan-eustace-world-record-skydive-stratex/34423/pictures#1 no smoke & mirrors there, yer right 
Maybe we could ask this honest jerk off for some satellite photos to change our unbelieving ways .

Every satellite photo presented has been claimed to be false for numerous imaginary reasons, so what's the use?
I stand by what I said.  Photos from anywhere in space are always claimed as fake, and in every case I have seen the reasoning behind the claim is just utter rubbish, in most cases simply pure ignorance of how the globe works.
We get people saying photos must be fake because of things like:

• "The continents are different sizes on different photos" - answer: It depends on the distance the photo was taken from.
• "The equator is not in the center" - answer: The photo was taken from north (or south) of the equator.
• In a video "The clouds aren't moving" - answer: The video is only a few minutes long, the clouds move slowly on that scale.
• "I can't see any other satellites" - answer: Of course not, they are tiny, moving fast and are thousands of miles away!
• "I can't see any space debris" - answer: Same thing.
• In a sequence from roughly 1,000,000 miles away "The moon is too big compared to the earth" - answer: The moon is about 240,000 miles closer, that changes the apparent size.
• "The similar cloud patterns are made by cut-and-paste, it must be a fake" - answer: Similar cloud patterns are often seen in close proximity.
• "I can see a pattern in the clouds, it must be a fake" - answer: You sometimes do.

And so the silly objections go on!  Do you wonder that it is no point showing satellite photos.

But, here is one you have never seen before because it was taken just about 18 minutes ago at 03:00 UTC on 03 Jan 2016. Of course you will say it's a fake, but no-one yet has come up with a reasonable explanation of how the manage to get the cloud patterns right of half the earth! http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/smallc.html?area=6&element=1&time=201601030300

Hence why I try to demonstrate the satellites in space from known ground-based equipment that typical people can have/use (i.e. binoculars, cameras with zoom lens, telescopes)(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65210.msg1743577#msg1743577).

As anyone can do this, we are removing a layer of complexity. For example, using TV dish installation software for the angles needed, you can set up a camera with a zoom lens on a tripod and take a picture of geostationary satellites. With any type of "long" exposure (a couple minutes - the more magnification, the less time needed), stars will streak (making star trails) and the geostationary satellite will appear as a dot.





(http://www.am.ub.edu/bnc/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=78)

I find it hypocritical that FEers want pictures of the Earth from space (they are setting-up REers for failure), then when provided, call them "fake". Since they don't know what pictures of the Earth from space are supposed to look like, I don't know how they know ALL pictures are fake (REAL hurricane pictures are used for early warning so these claims are totally bogus). This is just a ploy to derail a thread into rockets, gravity, etc. and proving/disproving RET/heliocentricity - as most threads devolve into. THEY can't provide REAL pictures of the Earth AT ALL since the FE is a fantasy (they can't even specify why the N.Pole is in the center of their disk instead of the S.Pole - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65369.0). There is really nothing to discuss. All this is is a debate tactic to avoid real discussions.

How do we receive tv with a satellite dish?

All the ones near me are pointing at the nearest cell-phone tower.

But hey, you derfers need your flying trash cans so believe what you like.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 03, 2016, 04:00:19 AM

How do we receive tv with a satellite dish?

All the ones near me are pointing at the nearest cell-phone tower.

But hey, you derfers need your flying trash cans so believe what you like.

How far away is the tower?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 02, 2016, 07:21:07 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 02, 2016, 05:46:48 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 02, 2016, 05:10:07 PM

From what I have seen, the real answer to the question "What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?" is simply that:
The existence of satellites allows photos to be taken that would disprove the Flat Earth.
Hence satellites cannot exist and any photos that purport to show a Globe Earth are by definition faked.
                                             Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Mind you numerous actual reasons are given:
1) Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.
2) There is an invisible shield that would block any rocket - er, what about meteors?
3) Satellites cannot orbit a Flat Earth - oops back to square one.

Well we have plenty of proof of lying bullshiters
http://www.gizmag.com/alan-eustace-world-record-skydive-stratex/34423/pictures#1 no smoke & mirrors there, yer right 
Maybe we could ask this honest jerk off for some satellite photos to change our unbelieving ways .

Every satellite photo presented has been claimed to be false for numerous imaginary reasons, so what's the use?
I stand by what I said.  Photos from anywhere in space are always claimed as fake, and in every case I have seen the reasoning behind the claim is just utter rubbish, in most cases simply pure ignorance of how the globe works.
We get people saying photos must be fake because of things like:

• "The continents are different sizes on different photos" - answer: It depends on the distance the photo was taken from.
• "The equator is not in the center" - answer: The photo was taken from north (or south) of the equator.
• In a video "The clouds aren't moving" - answer: The video is only a few minutes long, the clouds move slowly on that scale.
• "I can't see any other satellites" - answer: Of course not, they are tiny, moving fast and are thousands of miles away!
• "I can't see any space debris" - answer: Same thing.
• In a sequence from roughly 1,000,000 miles away "The moon is too big compared to the earth" - answer: The moon is about 240,000 miles closer, that changes the apparent size.
• "The similar cloud patterns are made by cut-and-paste, it must be a fake" - answer: Similar cloud patterns are often seen in close proximity.
• "I can see a pattern in the clouds, it must be a fake" - answer: You sometimes do.

And so the silly objections go on!  Do you wonder that it is no point showing satellite photos.

But, here is one you have never seen before because it was taken just about 18 minutes ago at 03:00 UTC on 03 Jan 2016. Of course you will say it's a fake, but no-one yet has come up with a reasonable explanation of how the manage to get the cloud patterns right of half the earth! http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/smallc.html?area=6&element=1&time=201601030300

Hence why I try to demonstrate the satellites in space from known ground-based equipment that typical people can have/use (i.e. binoculars, cameras with zoom lens, telescopes)(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65210.msg1743577#msg1743577).

As anyone can do this, we are removing a layer of complexity. For example, using TV dish installation software for the angles needed, you can set up a camera with a zoom lens on a tripod and take a picture of geostationary satellites. With any type of "long" exposure (a couple minutes - the more magnification, the less time needed), stars will streak (making star trails) and the geostationary satellite will appear as a dot.





(http://www.am.ub.edu/bnc/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=78)

I find it hypocritical that FEers want pictures of the Earth from space (they are setting-up REers for failure), then when provided, call them "fake". Since they don't know what pictures of the Earth from space are supposed to look like, I don't know how they know ALL pictures are fake (REAL hurricane pictures are used for early warning so these claims are totally bogus). This is just a ploy to derail a thread into rockets, gravity, etc. and proving/disproving RET/heliocentricity - as most threads devolve into. THEY can't provide REAL pictures of the Earth AT ALL since the FE is a fantasy (they can't even specify why the N.Pole is in the center of their disk instead of the S.Pole - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65369.0). There is really nothing to discuss. All this is is a debate tactic to avoid real discussions.

So is it falling around the earth ?  Or is it travelling with the inertia of the spherical spun BS. Maybe its just a well made balloon, thats caculated to rise & hovering at 110,000ft - 120,000ft . Suspending relay devices .

If that land mass is ment to be Australia. Where's Tasmania vanished to ?
Tasmania's area is 68,401 km2 (26,410 sq mi), of which the main island covers 64,519 km2 (24,911 sq mi).
Ireland's area, 84,421 km2  (32,595 sq mi) 
http://www.mapsofworld.com/australia/

Tasmania is visible in the first picture, what was your question?

Quote from: inquisitive on January 03, 2016, 04:00:19 AM

How do we receive tv with a satellite dish?

All the ones near me are pointing at the nearest cell-phone tower.

But hey, you derfers need your flying trash cans so believe what you like.

LOL really dude? Draw a line from the center of the dish, through the receiver, and see if it still points to a tower.

It's pointing to space because that's where the satellites are. 

I would like to hear your explanation of how GPS works. GPS doesn't use phone towers, it's all satellites.

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 03, 2016, 11:46:20 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 03, 2016, 04:00:19 AM

How do we receive tv with a satellite dish?

All the ones near me are pointing at the nearest cell-phone tower.

But hey, you derfers need your flying trash cans so believe what you like.

LOL really dude? Draw a line from the center of the dish, through the receiver, and see if it still points to a tower.

It's pointing to space because that's where the satellites are. 

I would like to hear your explanation of how GPS works. GPS doesn't use phone towers, it's all satellites.

You realy are a stuped , its not just an act. Do you know what a ground plane is ? Do you know how many different ways you can create one . 

Um, YOU can take these pictures with a stationary camera with a zoom lens and a tripod or a telescope NOT tracking the sky (motor turned off) TODAY. These are not one shot deals but are available ALL THE TIME.

NSS-5 50.5E is geostationary above the equator. You can use (http://www.satellite-calculations.com/Satellite/lookangles.htm) to find out how to find it from your location. You will see a dot like the picture above with the stars steaking. The other satellites in that software are also geosynchronous geostationary. They will show up as dots too.

NAVSTAR is a GPS satellite (one of several at a time). These are inclined to the equator at 55° so that at least 4 are available at one time. A picture here will show a streak instead of a dot (above picture was tracking it) against streaking stars. You can track it here (http://www.n2yo.com/?s=27704)

COSMOS 2333 is also a satellite that you can track here (http://www.n2yo.com/?s=24297). It will also show a streak instead of a dot (above picture was tracking it) against streaking stars.

The Fabra-ROA telescope at Montsec (TFRM) was tracking the all these satellites so they appear as dots in all the images with stars streaking. This explains the telescope (http://www.am.ub.edu/bnc/index.php)

Quote from: yobbo on January 03, 2016, 07:36:17 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 03, 2016, 11:46:20 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 03, 2016, 04:00:19 AM

How do we receive tv with a satellite dish?

All the ones near me are pointing at the nearest cell-phone tower.

But hey, you derfers need your flying trash cans so believe what you like.

LOL really dude? Draw a line from the center of the dish, through the receiver, and see if it still points to a tower.

It's pointing to space because that's where the satellites are. 

I would like to hear your explanation of how GPS works. GPS doesn't use phone towers, it's all satellites.

You realy are a stuped , its not just an act. Do you know what a ground plane is ? Do you know how many different ways you can create one .

Do you have any idea how a satellite dish works? It is very specific in the area it receives a signal from. From the center of the dish to the receiver draw a straight line. It points up into the air right? Not anywhere near any phone towers.

Still the best examples of satellites is iridium flares. Explain Iridium flares if you can.

Quote from: yobbo on January 03, 2016, 07:36:17 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 03, 2016, 11:46:20 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 03, 2016, 04:00:19 AM

How do we receive tv with a satellite dish?

All the ones near me are pointing at the nearest cell-phone tower.

But hey, you derfers need your flying trash cans so believe what you like.

LOL really dude? Draw a line from the center of the dish, through the receiver, and see if it still points to a tower.

It's pointing to space because that's where the satellites are. 

I would like to hear your explanation of how GPS works. GPS doesn't use phone towers, it's all satellites.

You realy are a stuped , its not just an act. Do you know what a ground plane is ? Do you know how many different ways you can create one .

Explain how you think GPS works in detail.