What now?

Quote from: Yendor on April 20, 2016, 10:07:02 AM

It seems obvious to me most REers on here live in an academia world and simply deny or won't allow themselves any thought of real life experiences that contradicts what they were taught or what they teach. I too fell into this trap for many years. However, I began to separate fact from fiction and realize that there could possibly be another side to the story. I'm not on here to push an agenda, when I say that I've experienced something I have no reason to lie about it. I didn't tell you the story about my days in the Navy because I was trying to fool you. If anyone on here was in the Navy or know someone who was in the Navy and stationed on a destroyer like myself and worked with fire control radar know if I'm telling the truth or not. Anyone can standing on a beach and looking out over the ocean and see ships go out of sight and grab a pair of binoculars and see the ship come back in view. I've experienced these things and many more. So, I'm not lying I'm just saying what I've experienced. If you don't believe me so be it. There is no need to be so combative about it.

Guess what?  Anyone with a pair of binoculars can track the satellites that are flying above the earth right now.  And as long as you believe in a flat earth, you will never be able to describe their motions to the extent that we can.  We can describe and predict effectively anything that orbits the earth, sun, Jupiter, or anything else in the solar system with just six Kepler elements.  The best you can do is make vague statements like "that's how non-euclidean space above the earth is shaped" or "aether currents move them around like that."  And not only do those statements completely lack mathematical or observational support, but they still can't explain all the different types of orbits.  Satellites are absolute, definitive proof that the earth is round and gravity exists, and no amount of bitching about the horizon or dark matter will ever change that.

How do you know they are satellites? Could they not be natural satellites in the form of meteoroid orbiting the earth that was tracked during Operation Moonwatch and NASA is telling us they are man made satellites. Show me a real picture of a geosynchronous satellite hoovering over the earth. That should be easy, just point your telescope where your satellite dish is pointed. You should get a good picture of it. Then present it to us so we all can see it.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 20, 2016, 11:43:21 AM

Quote from: Yendor on April 20, 2016, 10:07:02 AM

It seems obvious to me most REers on here live in an academia world and simply deny or won't allow themselves any thought of real life experiences that contradicts what they were taught or what they teach. I too fell into this trap for many years. However, I began to separate fact from fiction and realize that there could possibly be another side to the story. I'm not on here to push an agenda, when I say that I've experienced something I have no reason to lie about it. I didn't tell you the story about my days in the Navy because I was trying to fool you. If anyone on here was in the Navy or know someone who was in the Navy and stationed on a destroyer like myself and worked with fire control radar know if I'm telling the truth or not. Anyone can standing on a beach and looking out over the ocean and see ships go out of sight and grab a pair of binoculars and see the ship come back in view. I've experienced these things and many more. So, I'm not lying I'm just saying what I've experienced. If you don't believe me so be it. There is no need to be so combative about it.

Guess what?  Anyone with a pair of binoculars can track the satellites that are flying above the earth right now.  And as long as you believe in a flat earth, you will never be able to describe their motions to the extent that we can.  We can describe and predict effectively anything that orbits the earth, sun, Jupiter, or anything else in the solar system with just six Kepler elements.  The best you can do is make vague statements like "that's how non-euclidean space above the earth is shaped" or "aether currents move them around like that."  And not only do those statements completely lack mathematical or observational support, but they still can't explain all the different types of orbits.  Satellites are absolute, definitive proof that the earth is round and gravity exists, and no amount of bitching about the horizon or dark matter will ever change that.

How do you know they are satellites? Could they not be natural satellites in the form of meteoroid orbiting the earth that was tracked during Operation Moonwatch and NASA is telling us they are man made satellites. Show me a real picture of a geosynchronous satellite hoovering over the earth. That should be easy, just point your telescope where your satellite dish is pointed. You should get a good picture of it. Then present it to us so we all can see it.

Bam!


You can see the most of the satellites lined up along the earth's equator, and the others are following analemmas, as geosynchronous satellites do.  Each of these satellites can be tied to a specific launch.  They can't be natural satellites, because they only started appearing when we started launching them, and they are in orbits that were carefully chosen for their intended purpose, as are all artificial satellites.  It's much easier to observe lower satellites, though.  Geostationary satellites are too far away to get anything but a faint image. 

Quote from: Yendor on April 20, 2016, 11:57:26 AM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 20, 2016, 11:43:21 AM

Quote from: Yendor on April 20, 2016, 10:07:02 AM

It seems obvious to me most REers on here live in an academia world and simply deny or won't allow themselves any thought of real life experiences that contradicts what they were taught or what they teach. I too fell into this trap for many years. However, I began to separate fact from fiction and realize that there could possibly be another side to the story. I'm not on here to push an agenda, when I say that I've experienced something I have no reason to lie about it. I didn't tell you the story about my days in the Navy because I was trying to fool you. If anyone on here was in the Navy or know someone who was in the Navy and stationed on a destroyer like myself and worked with fire control radar know if I'm telling the truth or not. Anyone can standing on a beach and looking out over the ocean and see ships go out of sight and grab a pair of binoculars and see the ship come back in view. I've experienced these things and many more. So, I'm not lying I'm just saying what I've experienced. If you don't believe me so be it. There is no need to be so combative about it.

Guess what?  Anyone with a pair of binoculars can track the satellites that are flying above the earth right now.  And as long as you believe in a flat earth, you will never be able to describe their motions to the extent that we can.  We can describe and predict effectively anything that orbits the earth, sun, Jupiter, or anything else in the solar system with just six Kepler elements.  The best you can do is make vague statements like "that's how non-euclidean space above the earth is shaped" or "aether currents move them around like that."  And not only do those statements completely lack mathematical or observational support, but they still can't explain all the different types of orbits.  Satellites are absolute, definitive proof that the earth is round and gravity exists, and no amount of bitching about the horizon or dark matter will ever change that.

How do you know they are satellites? Could they not be natural satellites in the form of meteoroid orbiting the earth that was tracked during Operation Moonwatch and NASA is telling us they are man made satellites. Show me a real picture of a geosynchronous satellite hoovering over the earth. That should be easy, just point your telescope where your satellite dish is pointed. You should get a good picture of it. Then present it to us so we all can see it.

Bam!


You can see the most of the satellites lined up along the earth's equator, and the others are following analemmas, as geosynchronous satellites do.  Each of these satellites can be tied to a specific launch.  They can't be natural satellites, because they only started appearing when we started launching them, and they are in orbits that were carefully chosen for their intended purpose, as are all artificial satellites.  It's much easier to observe lower satellites, though.  Geostationary satellites are too far away to get anything but a faint image.

Do you honestly think I'm so naive to believe that you are showing me satellites streaking across the sky. Show me a real picture of one, I want to believe.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 20, 2016, 01:08:05 PM

Quote from: Yendor on April 20, 2016, 11:57:26 AM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 20, 2016, 11:43:21 AM

Quote from: Yendor on April 20, 2016, 10:07:02 AM

It seems obvious to me most REers on here live in an academia world and simply deny or won't allow themselves any thought of real life experiences that contradicts what they were taught or what they teach. I too fell into this trap for many years. However, I began to separate fact from fiction and realize that there could possibly be another side to the story. I'm not on here to push an agenda, when I say that I've experienced something I have no reason to lie about it. I didn't tell you the story about my days in the Navy because I was trying to fool you. If anyone on here was in the Navy or know someone who was in the Navy and stationed on a destroyer like myself and worked with fire control radar know if I'm telling the truth or not. Anyone can standing on a beach and looking out over the ocean and see ships go out of sight and grab a pair of binoculars and see the ship come back in view. I've experienced these things and many more. So, I'm not lying I'm just saying what I've experienced. If you don't believe me so be it. There is no need to be so combative about it.

Guess what?  Anyone with a pair of binoculars can track the satellites that are flying above the earth right now.  And as long as you believe in a flat earth, you will never be able to describe their motions to the extent that we can.  We can describe and predict effectively anything that orbits the earth, sun, Jupiter, or anything else in the solar system with just six Kepler elements.  The best you can do is make vague statements like "that's how non-euclidean space above the earth is shaped" or "aether currents move them around like that."  And not only do those statements completely lack mathematical or observational support, but they still can't explain all the different types of orbits.  Satellites are absolute, definitive proof that the earth is round and gravity exists, and no amount of bitching about the horizon or dark matter will ever change that.

How do you know they are satellites? Could they not be natural satellites in the form of meteoroid orbiting the earth that was tracked during Operation Moonwatch and NASA is telling us they are man made satellites. Show me a real picture of a geosynchronous satellite hoovering over the earth. That should be easy, just point your telescope where your satellite dish is pointed. You should get a good picture of it. Then present it to us so we all can see it.

Bam!


You can see the most of the satellites lined up along the earth's equator, and the others are following analemmas, as geosynchronous satellites do.  Each of these satellites can be tied to a specific launch.  They can't be natural satellites, because they only started appearing when we started launching them, and they are in orbits that were carefully chosen for their intended purpose, as are all artificial satellites.  It's much easier to observe lower satellites, though.  Geostationary satellites are too far away to get anything but a faint image.

Do you honestly think I'm so naive to believe that you are showing me satellites streaking across the sky. Show me a real picture of one, I want to believe.

I gave you what you asked for, and I explained why it was valid.  I didn't have to find you a GIF, but I went the extra mile and did anyway.  The exposure time on that GIF was four minutes per frame, and it had to be taken fairly close to dawn when the satellites were catching sunlight the most. 

Do you honestly think I'm so naive to believe that you are showing me satellites streaking across the sky. Show me a real picture of one, I want to believe.

In case you were confused about that: The moving "streaks" are not supposed to be the satellites - the stationairy dots are. They are hard to see at first, but if you look for a few seconds they are visible.

Quote from: Yendor on April 21, 2016, 09:11:25 AM

Do you honestly think I'm so naive to believe that you are showing me satellites streaking across the sky. Show me a real picture of one, I want to believe.

In case you were confused about that: The moving "streaks" are not supposed to be the satellites - the stationairy dots are. They are hard to see at first, but if you look for a few seconds they are visible.

Okay, I didn't see the dots. I'm sorry, that still doesn't convince me. Answer this for me. What is it about satellites that convinces you they exist other then NASA say they do?

Okay, I didn't see the dots. I'm sorry, that still doesn't convince me. Answer this for me. What is it about satellites that convinces you they exist other then NASA say they do?

What convinces me is, in short, that it makes sense. It explains the observations. What happens in this world - all my observations - is consistent with the fact that there are satellites. That includes the observation that people act and talk like satellites exist, including NASA. I have no reason to discount NASA, or anyone else, as a liar prima facie. Every other theory would have to somehow account for all the observations - pictures, like the one posted above, books, testimony, the orientation of satellite dishes etc. etc. Not least the fact that large parts of the history of the 20th century would have to be explained. I have never even seen such a theory attempted - have you?

Perhaps my reasoning can be further clarified by this counter question: What is the likelyhood that, in a world without satellites, everything would look the way it looks in our world?

Quote from: Yendor on April 21, 2016, 02:08:32 PM

Okay, I didn't see the dots. I'm sorry, that still doesn't convince me. Answer this for me. What is it about satellites that convinces you they exist other then NASA say they do?

What convinces me is, in short, that it makes sense. It explains the observations. What happens in this world - all my observations - is consistent with the fact that there are satellites. That includes the observation that people act and talk like satellites exist, including NASA. I have no reason to discount NASA, or anyone else, as a liar prima facie. Every other theory would have to somehow account for all the observations - pictures, like the one posted above, books, testimony, the orientation of satellite dishes etc. etc. Not least the fact that large parts of the history of the 20th century would have to be explained. I have never even seen such a theory attempted - have you?

Perhaps my reasoning can be further clarified by this counter question: What is the likelyhood that, in a world without satellites, everything would look the way it looks in our world?

Here is my view from the other side of the coin. Just because we are told rockets take satellites are into space where they orbit the earth doesn't make it necessarily so. If one is to believe Occam's razor approach to this, then the technology of High Altitude Platforms, (HAPs), would be the best choice. HAPs have been around for many years before satellites. The idea is simple enough. Rather than use a rocket that is very costly and has many parts that can fail or even blow up at launch, why not simply float the electronic package up to a high altitude in the earth's atmosphere? That would make a lot more sense to me and NASA wouldn't have to be involved. What you think is a satellite bringing you TV service could very well be a HAP floating in stratosphere. Be honest, wouldn't that make more sense to you?

Here is my view from the other side of the coin. Just because we are told rockets take satellites are into space where they orbit the earth doesn't make it necessarily so. If one is to believe Occam's razor approach to this, then the technology of High Altitude Platforms, (HAPs), would be the best choice. HAPs have been around for many years before satellites. The idea is simple enough. Rather than use a rocket that is very costly and has many parts that can fail or even blow up at launch, why not simply float the electronic package up to a high altitude in the earth's atmosphere? That would make a lot more sense to me and NASA wouldn't have to be involved. What you think is a satellite bringing you TV service could very well be a HAP floating in stratosphere. Be honest, wouldn't that make more sense to you?

Short post, since I am on my mobile:
This is a misuse of Occam's razor. In order to invoke Occam's razor, the theory must be general as well as simple. Partial theories cannot be put against general theories in this way. Remember that Occam's razor is based on the predictive power of the theory, so it cares about scope as well as simplicity.

Your theory does not account for all observations. Whether or not it's simpler is debatable, but irrelevant. So no, it does not make more sense to me.

Quote from: Ecthelion on April 21, 2016, 10:10:05 PM

Quote from: Yendor on April 21, 2016, 02:08:32 PM

Okay, I didn't see the dots. I'm sorry, that still doesn't convince me. Answer this for me. What is it about satellites that convinces you they exist other then NASA say they do?

What convinces me is, in short, that it makes sense. It explains the observations. What happens in this world - all my observations - is consistent with the fact that there are satellites. That includes the observation that people act and talk like satellites exist, including NASA. I have no reason to discount NASA, or anyone else, as a liar prima facie. Every other theory would have to somehow account for all the observations - pictures, like the one posted above, books, testimony, the orientation of satellite dishes etc. etc. Not least the fact that large parts of the history of the 20th century would have to be explained. I have never even seen such a theory attempted - have you?

Perhaps my reasoning can be further clarified by this counter question: What is the likelyhood that, in a world without satellites, everything would look the way it looks in our world?

Here is my view from the other side of the coin. Just because we are told rockets take satellites are into space where they orbit the earth doesn't make it necessarily so. If one is to believe Occam's razor approach to this, then the technology of High Altitude Platforms, (HAPs), would be the best choice. HAPs have been around for many years before satellites. The idea is simple enough. Rather than use a rocket that is very costly and has many parts that can fail or even blow up at launch, why not simply float the electronic package up to a high altitude in the earth's atmosphere? That would make a lot more sense to me and NASA wouldn't have to be involved. What you think is a satellite bringing you TV service could very well be a HAP floating in stratosphere. Be honest, wouldn't that make more sense to you?

If HAP's were used then we would be able to see them very easily and there would be multitudes of imagery online. HAp's have a massive shortcoming in that they must be replaced/recharged every 24-36 hours. With this in mind we would expect to see a large amount of traffic around the world. We don't.

Quote from: Yendor on April 22, 2016, 07:38:09 AM

Here is my view from the other side of the coin. Just because we are told rockets take satellites are into space where they orbit the earth doesn't make it necessarily so. If one is to believe Occam's razor approach to this, then the technology of High Altitude Platforms, (HAPs), would be the best choice. HAPs have been around for many years before satellites. The idea is simple enough. Rather than use a rocket that is very costly and has many parts that can fail or even blow up at launch, why not simply float the electronic package up to a high altitude in the earth's atmosphere? That would make a lot more sense to me and NASA wouldn't have to be involved. What you think is a satellite bringing you TV service could very well be a HAP floating in stratosphere. Be honest, wouldn't that make more sense to you?

Short post, since I am on my mobile:
This is a misuse of Occam's razor. In order to invoke Occam's razor, the theory must be general as well as simple. Partial theories cannot be put against general theories in this way. Remember that Occam's razor is based on the predictive power of the theory, so it cares about scope as well as simplicity.

Your theory does not account for all observations. Whether or not it's simpler is debatable, but irrelevant. So no, it does not make more sense to me.

Example: There is a device in the sky that sends to us TV signals. Think about these two possible explanations of how they got there:
1. A balloon floated them into space.
2. A rocket launched them into space.
Even though both are possible, only one explanation has been positively proven. It has been proven beyond all doubts that balloons can rise up in our atmosphere. It has never been proven that a rocket can fly in space. We only assume they can because we are told that. Besides that, we don't see rockets going straight up, we see them turn towards the ocean and go out of sight. Again, we can only assume they end up in space because we are told they do. We have to assume more to believe rockets get things into space and in my opinion it is probably the wrong answer. Occam's razor tells us that the device was put into space through the use of a balloon because that is the simplest answer and therefore probably the right one.

Example: There is a device in the sky that sends to us TV signals. Think about these two possible explanations of how they got there:
1. A balloon floated them into space.
2. A rocket launched them into space.
Even though both are possible, only one explanation has been positively proven. It has been proven beyond all doubts that balloons can rise up in our atmosphere. It has never been proven that a rocket can fly in space. We only assume they can because we are told that. Besides that, we don't see rockets going straight up, we see them turn towards the ocean and go out of sight. Again, we can only assume they end up in space because we are told they do. We have to assume more to believe rockets get things into space and in my opinion it is probably the wrong answer. Occam's razor tells us that the device was put into space through the use of a balloon because that is the simplest answer and therefore probably the right one.

Your example still suffers from the issues already pointed out. Your theory is manifestly incomplete. You have to account for, among others:

• The observation that there is widespread consensus that rockets exist and go to space
• The observation that there is technical documents and calculation that show how and why rockets work
• The obseravtion that actual rockets are, in fact, being launched and exhibit a trajectory that one would expect

Unless your theory accounts for all the observations it is a non-starter. You don't even get to the point where Occam's razor would be relevant. Occam's razor only applies between theories that have the same scope, that is, explain the same amount of observations. In order to fit the above mentioned observations into your theory, you will need to invoke massive amounts of fraud and deception. This will make the theory significantly more complex.

It is easy to see why this must be so: If it were permissible to use Occam's razor for partial theories, the result would only depend on what specific set of observations you chose, and hence be completely arbitrary. I could easily explain friction as tiny demons holding onto stuff and proclaim it's the simpler theory because it doesn't require complex assumptions about molecules and atoms. It simply requires tiny demons. Do you see how this is similar to what you are doing?

Quote from: Yendor on April 22, 2016, 08:44:12 AM

Example: There is a device in the sky that sends to us TV signals. Think about these two possible explanations of how they got there:
1. A balloon floated them into space.
2. A rocket launched them into space.
Even though both are possible, only one explanation has been positively proven. It has been proven beyond all doubts that balloons can rise up in our atmosphere. It has never been proven that a rocket can fly in space. We only assume they can because we are told that. Besides that, we don't see rockets going straight up, we see them turn towards the ocean and go out of sight. Again, we can only assume they end up in space because we are told they do. We have to assume more to believe rockets get things into space and in my opinion it is probably the wrong answer. Occam's razor tells us that the device was put into space through the use of a balloon because that is the simplest answer and therefore probably the right one.

Your example still suffers from the issues already pointed out. Your theory is manifestly incomplete. You have to account for, among others:

• The observation that there is widespread consensus that rockets exist and go to space
• The observation that there is technical documents and calculation that show how and why rockets work
• The obseravtion that actual rockets are, in fact, being launched and exhibit a trajectory that one would expect

Unless your theory accounts for all the observations it is a non-starter. You don't even get to the point where Occam's razor would be relevant. Occam's razor only applies between theories that have the same scope, that is, explain the same amount of observations. In order to fit the above mentioned observations into your theory, you will need to invoke massive amounts of fraud and deception. This will make the theory significantly more complex.

It is easy to see why this must be so: If it were permissible to use Occam's razor for partial theories, the result would only depend on what specific set of observations you chose, and hence be completely arbitrary. I could easily explain friction as tiny demons holding onto stuff and proclaim it's the simpler theory because it doesn't require complex assumptions about molecules and atoms. It simply requires tiny demons. Do you see how this is similar to what you are doing?

No

No

I cannot help you further without any information on where the problem is.

Quote from: Yendor on April 22, 2016, 12:15:22 PM

No

I cannot help you further without any information on where the problem is.

Because I mentioned Occam's razor you jumped on that and dropped the whole meaning of the point I was trying to make. This is what I said:

Here is my view from the other side of the coin. Just because we are told rockets take satellites into space where they orbit the earth doesn't make it necessarily so. If one is to believe Occam's razor approach to this, then the technology of High Altitude Platforms, (HAPs), would be the best choice. HAPs have been around for many years before satellites. The idea is simple enough. Rather than use a rocket that is very costly and has many parts that can fail or even blow up at launch, why not simply float the electronic package up to a high altitude in the earth's atmosphere? That would make a lot more sense to me and NASA wouldn't have to be involved. Would't you think a satellite bringing you TV service could very well be a HAP floating in the stratosphere. Be honest, wouldn't that make more sense to you?

Quote from: Ecthelion on April 22, 2016, 12:22:53 PM

Quote from: Yendor on April 22, 2016, 12:15:22 PM

No

I cannot help you further without any information on where the problem is.

Because I mentioned Occam's razor you jumped on that and dropped the whole meaning of the point I was trying to make. This is what I said:

Here is my view from the other side of the coin. Just because we are told rockets take satellites into space where they orbit the earth doesn't make it necessarily so. If one is to believe Occam's razor approach to this, then the technology of High Altitude Platforms, (HAPs), would be the best choice. HAPs have been around for many years before satellites. The idea is simple enough. Rather than use a rocket that is very costly and has many parts that can fail or even blow up at launch, why not simply float the electronic package up to a high altitude in the earth's atmosphere? That would make a lot more sense to me and NASA wouldn't have to be involved. Would't you think a satellite bringing you TV service could very well be a HAP floating in the stratosphere. Be honest, wouldn't that make more sense to you?

And as I said in my post, each of those satellites had a specific launch.  They are not "high altitude platforms," because our observations suggest that they are thousands of miles above the earth.  And your high altitude platform explanation only works for satellites that are observed to be around 17-22 km in altitude, and moving at <500 km/h.  This applies to a grand total of... zero satellites!  None at all! 

Quote from: Ecthelion on April 22, 2016, 12:22:53 PM

Quote from: Yendor on April 22, 2016, 12:15:22 PM

No

I cannot help you further without any information on where the problem is.

Because I mentioned Occam's razor you jumped on that and dropped the whole meaning of the point I was trying to make. This is what I said:

Here is my view from the other side of the coin. Just because we are told rockets take satellites into space where they orbit the earth doesn't make it necessarily so. If one is to believe Occam's razor approach to this, then the technology of High Altitude Platforms, (HAPs), would be the best choice. HAPs have been around for many years before satellites. The idea is simple enough. Rather than use a rocket that is very costly and has many parts that can fail or even blow up at launch, why not simply float the electronic package up to a high altitude in the earth's atmosphere? That would make a lot more sense to me and NASA wouldn't have to be involved. Would't you think a satellite bringing you TV service could very well be a HAP floating in the stratosphere. Be honest, wouldn't that make more sense to you?

The movement of stars and planets in the night sky were studied by every civilization on Earth to varying degrees throughout history. 

Why do you think they never mentioned and or contemplated those that seemed not to move?  When they tried to come up with answers and recorded Mars moving differently(retrograde) at times, the sun rise and direction changing throughout the year, etc.

So now you have to ask did people throughout history just ignore those stationary lights in the sky or are those lights something new. If they are new why do those new lights coincide with the advancement of technology?


So we have lights with no recorded observations prior to when we are told satellites started to be placed in orbits.

Those lights match up where people are told they need to point their satellite dishes.

LORAN had limited coverage and GPS can cover the entire globe. Which makes since when you think about where the transmitters are located.

Iridium flares were not observed until after the launches of the satellites.

There is the ISS.  Which clearly seems to be a man made object when viewed with binoculars or telescope.

Launches can be observed.

Pictures from Weather and other satellites.

Satellite radio signals can be tracked and distance and direction determined.
Something like this has been done and can be done by anyone interested:
https://amateurgeophysics.wordpress.com/earth-orbiting-satellites/the-doppler-shift-of-satellite-radio-beacons/

So if you isolate each of the above they may not prove to you satellites exist, but surely you must agree it is reasonable to assume satellites exist when considered collectively.




 

Because I mentioned Occam's razor you jumped on that and dropped the whole meaning of the point I was trying to make. This is what I said:

Here is my view from the other side of the coin. Just because we are told rockets take satellites into space where they orbit the earth doesn't make it necessarily so. If one is to believe Occam's razor approach to this, then the technology of High Altitude Platforms, (HAPs), would be the best choice. HAPs have been around for many years before satellites. The idea is simple enough. Rather than use a rocket that is very costly and has many parts that can fail or even blow up at launch, why not simply float the electronic package up to a high altitude in the earth's atmosphere? That would make a lot more sense to me and NASA wouldn't have to be involved. Would't you think a satellite bringing you TV service could very well be a HAP floating in the stratosphere. Be honest, wouldn't that make more sense to you?

I can see no point here.

You asked me why I believed satellites are real. I gave you my reasoning. You questioned my reasoning with the statement above, and I showed why your criticism is misguided.

What is left if you take the reference to Occam's razor out is a meaningless anecdote. "What if" stallites are HAPs? Well it doesn't fit the evidence, so it's idle speculation. "What if" the world is ruled by the unicorn princess Sparklypoo? One can make any number of hypothetical scenarios, but unless you give me a reason why your scenario is probable instead of merely possible, there's no point.