Tinfoil Hat Chemtrails.

Please learn what evidence is. It would really help..

What like the evidence you have consistently NOT provided for the existence of satellites?

Or for anything man-made being in 'shpayze' whatsoever?

LOL!!!

Also, please stop mirroring my phrases; it would really help you not look like a retarded psychopathic creep.

That goes for all of you btw...

Quote from: sokarul on April 28, 2016, 07:00:18 AM

Radio won't go out with cloud cover. Also one can simple place an object in from of a satilite dish or simply move it out of alignment. This would still allow for a signal if it worked like a radio antenna.

*Yawn!*

First it was 'bad weather', now it's 'cloud cover', now the fact that you need to align a dish with a signal means satellites exist...

It's all done by bouncing radio waves around the sky one way or another; no need for magical flying trashcans 20,000 miles away in 'shpayze'.

Quote from: sokarul on April 28, 2016, 07:00:18 AM

I see now you can't visualize objects in your mind. Explains a lot.

I see now you can visualise objects that don't exist in your mind. Nobody cares.

Please explain in detail.  Look at the link about dish alignment.  It's used by installers to align dishes.

There are not multiple transmitter masts for satellite TV channels, dishes point at satellites and give a greater coverage and channel set than would be possible with any ground based service. 

'I know you are but what am I?'

Are you unable to describe the kind of point-to-point communication required for radio triangulation, or are you just unwilling?

If you're unable to, then there is no shame in admitting it.

If you're unwilling to, then that just confirms that it's utterly futile to try to engage in a productive discussion with you.

Then again, we already know what the answer is, don't we?

Are you unable to describe the kind of point-to-point communication required for radio triangulation, or are you just unwilling?

The kind of point to point communication required for radio triangulation is...

Wait for it...

Radio!

Kinda think I might've mentioned this already?

Poor old markjo; doesn't know that radio triangulation needs radio in order to work...

0800 323-9976: Alzheimers Hotline.

What kind of person considers it to be a suitable idea to say to Papa Legpants things like

Quote from: markjo on Today at 09:23:03 AM

    Are you unable to describe the kind of point-to-point communication required for radio triangulation, or are you just unwilling?

What kind of idiot doesn't know that the kind of point-to-point communication required for radio triangulation is radio itself?

What kind of idiot asks such insane, circular questions in the first place?

And what kind of idiot would then come running to the aid of such an idiot to try & blame someone else for their idiocy?

The idiotic Clown Derfer shill-posse; that kind of idiot.

Thanks for proving yet again that you are a shill hive-mind, idiots; have a LMFAO to wipe away your idiotic tears with...

TAKE-DOWN-THE-GUN!

Quote from: markjo on April 28, 2016, 09:23:03 AM

Are you unable to describe the kind of point-to-point communication required for radio triangulation, or are you just unwilling?

The kind of point to point communication required for radio triangulation is...

Wait for it...

Radio!

How well does point to point radio triangulation work when the receiver is a moving target?

Quote from: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 07:33:36 AM

Quote from: sokarul on April 28, 2016, 07:00:18 AM

Radio won't go out with cloud cover. Also one can simple place an object in from of a satilite dish or simply move it out of alignment. This would still allow for a signal if it worked like a radio antenna.

*Yawn!*

First it was 'bad weather', now it's 'cloud cover', now the fact that you need to align a dish with a signal means satellites exist...

It's all done by bouncing radio waves around the sky one way or another; no need for magical flying trashcans 20,000 miles away in 'shpayze'.

Quote from: sokarul on April 28, 2016, 07:00:18 AM

I see now you can't visualize objects in your mind. Explains a lot.

I see now you can visualise objects that don't exist in your mind. Nobody cares.

Yawn

So now it's back to bouncing waves...


Please learn what evidence is. It would really help.


The cloud cover is what causes the signal loss in bad weather.

Satellites don't require magic. Perhaps if you had a greater education level you could see this.

Are you claiming that radio waves can not pass through things?  Is that why radios and TVs don't work indoors? 

Quote from: sokarul on April 28, 2016, 07:37:03 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 07:33:36 AM

Quote from: sokarul on April 28, 2016, 07:00:18 AM

Radio won't go out with cloud cover. Also one can simple place an object in from of a satilite dish or simply move it out of alignment. This would still allow for a signal if it worked like a radio antenna.

*Yawn!*

First it was 'bad weather', now it's 'cloud cover', now the fact that you need to align a dish with a signal means satellites exist...

It's all done by bouncing radio waves around the sky one way or another; no need for magical flying trashcans 20,000 miles away in 'shpayze'.

Quote from: sokarul on April 28, 2016, 07:00:18 AM

I see now you can't visualize objects in your mind. Explains a lot.

I see now you can visualise objects that don't exist in your mind. Nobody cares.

Yawn

So now it's back to bouncing waves...


Please learn what evidence is. It would really help.


The cloud cover is what causes the signal loss in bad weather.

Satellites don't require magic. Perhaps if you had a greater education level you could see this.

Are you claiming that radio waves can not pass through things?  Is that why radios and TVs don't work indoors? 

Would you rephrase the question but this time take out your GED.

How well does point to point radio triangulation work when the receiver is a moving target?

Pretty damn well, seeing as that's how GPS works.

It just doesn't need satellites.

Which you still haven't provided any empirical evidence for btw...

Perhaps it's time for you to pretend you have?

As usual.

Quote from: markjo on April 28, 2016, 02:52:27 PM

How well does point to point radio triangulation work when the receiver is a moving target?

Pretty damn well, seeing as that's how GPS works.

It just doesn't need satellites.

Which you still haven't provided any empirical evidence for btw...

Perhaps it's time for you to pretend you have?

As usual.

You use the word 'need', meaning it might be possible to design and implement a global navigation system with ground based transmitters.  However the GPS system we use uses satellites.

Empirical evidence is the output of receivers, the system documentation from the US, Russian and European systems and direct observation of the performance in different locations across the world.

To show this is wrong you will need to come up with specific details such as documented transmitter locations and design information.

Empirical evidence is the output of receivers, the system documentation from the US, Russian and European systems and direct observation of the performance in different locations across the world.

No it isn't.

To show this is wrong you will need to come up with specific details such as documented transmitter locations and design information.

No I don't.

Because satellites defy all the laws of physics; ergo they cannot exist.

Ergo, some other method must be used to produce the results attributed to them.

I have given a valid hypothesis for this method, based upon known technology & empirically observable phenomena.

But thank you for trying to shift the onus of proof & attempting to send me on a wild goose chase examining vast amounts of data which I have no means of ascertaining the veracity of.

It makes you look very sincere indeed & not at all a time-wasting hive-mind disinfo-shill.

Quote from: inquisitive on April 29, 2016, 01:07:33 AM

Empirical evidence is the output of receivers, the system documentation from the US, Russian and European systems and direct observation of the performance in different locations across the world.

No it isn't.

Quote from: inquisitive on April 29, 2016, 01:07:33 AM

To show this is wrong you will need to come up with specific details such as documented transmitter locations and design information.

No I don't.

Because satellites defy all the laws of physics; ergo they cannot exist.

Ergo, some other method must be used to produce the results attributed to them.

I have given a valid hypothesis for this method, based upon known technology & empirically observable phenomena.

But thank you for trying to shift the onus of proof & attempting to send me on a wild goose chase examining vast amounts of data which I have no means of ascertaining the veracity of.

It makes you look very sincere indeed & not at all a time-wasting hive-mind disinfo-shill.

The observations of the operation of GPS and satellite TV prove the operation of satellites.  They are known technology.

A hypothesis of 'it must be ground based' is not sufficient.  Examine some of the data, like the screen of GPS apps that show the number of satellites received at any one time and how it changes.

The observations of the operation of GPS and satellite TV prove the operation of satellites.

Complete garbage; they prove only that signals are being sent & received.

They prove nothing about the source of that signal.

Stop wasting my time.

Quote from: inquisitive on April 29, 2016, 03:05:21 AM

The observations of the operation of GPS and satellite TV prove the operation of satellites.

Complete garbage; they prove only that signals are being sent & received.

They prove nothing about the source of that signal.

Stop wasting my time.

Looking at a cell tower proves nothing about what kind of signals may or may not be coming from that tower.  You need a directional antenna and a frequency analyzer to be certain.

Looking at a cell tower proves nothing about what kind of signals may or may not be coming from that tower.

 
Never said it did.

Just said all the 'satellite TV' dishes near me point at one.

Meh; just a co-incidence I guess?

You need a directional antenna and a frequency analyzer to be certain.

Fantastic.

Lend me yours then.

I'll return it when you provide genuine empirical evidence of GPS satellites existing.

(lol it'll go straight on Ebay - PROFIT!)

Quote from: markjo on April 29, 2016, 06:27:50 AM

Looking at a cell tower proves nothing about what kind of signals may or may not be coming from that tower.

 
Never said it did.

Just said all the 'satellite TV' dishes near me point at one.

Meh; just a co-incidence I guess?

Yes, that is entirely possible, assuming that you aren't lying about the whole thing in the first place.

Yes, that is entirely possible, assuming that you aren't lying about the whole thing in the first place.

Here markjo; have a week's supply: 

Don't use em all at once!

Quote from: markjo on April 29, 2016, 12:25:14 PM

Yes, that is entirely possible, assuming that you aren't lying about the whole thing in the first place.

Here markjo; have a week's supply: 

Don't use em all at once!

Ha!! This is pointless with zero substance..... Still laughed you cheeky bastard.

I bet you were the kid that built lego buildings 3 feet high, but knocked it over because you couldn't control yourself.

. . . satellites defy all the laws of physics; ergo they cannot exist.

Moon?

Hey Stanton - loving your new strawman!

Or straw-moon?

Remember when you sent me grovelling PMs trying to find the source of my info on aerodynamics?

And threw a little hissy-fit when I laughed at your disinfo-ass?

Tried to claim that if I didn't tell you it'd negate all the laws of physics, or some such Clown Derf tomfoolery?

Good times...

And now your illiterate Clown cohort unluckyfred has started a thread on the very same subject!

More coincidences from the hive-mind?

Nah.

Now; how about some genuine empirical evidence for the existence of GPS satellites?

Looks like you struck a nerve with him, Stanton.  He cranks up the insults to try and hide his creeping doubts. 

Hey Stanton - loving your new strawman!

Or straw-moon?

Remember when you sent me grovelling PMs trying to find the source of my info on aerodynamics?

And threw a little hissy-fit when I laughed at your disinfo-ass?

Tried to claim that if I didn't tell you it'd negate all the laws of physics, or some such Clown Derf tomfoolery?

Good times...

And now your illiterate Clown cohort unluckyfred has started a thread on the very same subject!

More coincidences from the hive-mind?

Nah.

Now; how about some genuine empirical evidence for the existence of GPS satellites?

Again, the receiver output and you have not explained how you think it works.  In detail, with references to documentation.  You know it works, explain how, beyond it must be ground based.

Again, the receiver output and you have not explained how you think it works.

Sorry can you repeat that in the language of Sanity please?

It's like an Esperanto for Sane people.

Quote from: inquisitive on April 30, 2016, 12:33:29 AM

Again, the receiver output and you have not explained how you think it works.

Sorry can you repeat that in the language of Sanity please?

It's like an Esperanto for Sane people.

The receiver output.  Such as - $GPGSV – Detailed GPS satellite information such as azimuth and elevation of each satellite being tracked.

Nope, still not getting it.

You seem to be having trouble with the concept of 'empirical evidence'...

Unlike the concept of 'time wasting', at which you are indeed expert.

Nope, still not getting it.

You seem to be having trouble with the concept of 'empirical evidence'...

Unlike the concept of 'time wasting', at which you are indeed expert.

Say what you want.

'evidence relating to or based on experience or observation'

Observe the received data with the example above, experience the operation across the earth, including the centre of oceans where 20 satellites are received.  All proves exactly how GPS works.

Where is your empirical evidence as to how GPS works?  You have none.

Say what you want.

Thanks, I will!

You are a word-twisting, time-wasting Liar.

Goodbye!

Nope, still boring.