Admission that they don't use satellite for internet

OK the way the wikipedia article is worded is misleading , ducting seems to be an unintended effect that happens but isnt relied upon because of seasonality.

Scattering has been used to create several military networks across several countries using few stations. Im looking into how much bandwidth it allows.

The military networks have been disbanded, they could have been removed to allow a new network of blimps and stations to take over.

GPS using the exact same frequency as these reflective clouds has to be significant.

As well as appearing 50 degree latitude north to the north pole
the clouds are supposed to also appear at 50 degrees latitude South to the south pole
so HAARP probably isnt creating the clouds, unless those antarctic research centres are doing something.

lolx2
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/4431
If the US decides to create a backup system for GPS by going back to Loran it would only cost $50 million a year,

1/6 of the cost of one satellite....

The GPS satellites have a life span of 7.5 years so, every seven years on average it will cost seven billion dollars to replace 24 satellites,

This is one billion dollars per year!

Sometimes a GPS satellite will last twice as long but this is still half a billion dollars

The USA and Russia were integrating their LORAN systems together even though they are supposed to be enemies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C

In 2010 the US and Canadian systems were shut down, along with shared Loran-C/CHAYKA stations with Russia

lolx2
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/4431
If the US decides to create a backup system for GPS by going back to Loran it would only cost $50 million a year,

1/6 of the cost of one satellite....

The GPS satellites have a life span of 7.5 years so, every seven years on average it will cost seven billion dollars to replace 24 satellites,

This is one billion dollars per year!

Sometimes a GPS satellite will last twice as long but this is still half a billion dollars

Again, LORAN is not as accurate as GPS.  It also uses different mathematics.  And remember, LORAN is a completely separate system from GPS and cannot be used to emulate it.  You may be able to fool laypeople with it, but there are enough people knowledgable on the operations of GPS that the secret won't last.  Remember that. 

Loran was improved with portable units to 20 feet in the 1960's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C#Loran-D_and_-F

GPS is about the same accuracy but it depends on the reciever you use,

LORAN is the same, it depends if you use a portable unit to get more accuracy.

https://www.quora.com/How-are-major-undersea-cables-laid-in-the-ocean

This article is quite interesting.  I was just reading through trying to figure out exactly how many miles of cable were laid and I came across this quote. 
"We don't use satellites because they can't carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line."
Satellites are fake ISS is a lie k thx bai

I find myself unsure as to how to respond to this.  I can agree that, at least as far as the main trunks are concerned, cable is superior to satalite for bulk data transmission.  I fail to see where the causal relationship between cables being more prominent in bulk transmission and satellites are fake.  Certainly, there's an arguement there for a corrolative relationship, I just don't see anything in this article that could really be used as proof of causation.

Oh, & ignore 'Papa Legba'; I'm undecided if it's some kind of bot or not, but it's definitely a time-waster.

Loran was improved with portable units to 20 feet in the 1960's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C#Loran-D_and_-F

GPS is about the same accuracy but it depends on the reciever you use,

LORAN is the same, it depends if you use a portable unit to get more accuracy.

Still, all you have is guessing! And there are so many observations with the use of GPS that fit the implementation using satellites and not a ground based system.
Does Loran measure altitude - IN an aircraft? Where ARE the Loran stations, etc, etc.

Then with satellite phones (and to some extent GPS) why do they fail miserably when there is a metal roof overhead, while a ground based system (such as mobile phones) carries on fimne?

All you STILL have is guesswork - you do not have any evidence that the GPS systems uses Loran or that "satellite" phones and TV uses ground based towers of "little floaty things".

Sure, the GPS system can be disabled, by destroying satellites or by blocking the signals locally, so the US military wants a backup system.

If satellite phones used some kind of atmospheric bouncing like shortwave radio or airship then a metal roof would block both

LORAN is just proof of concept, it is a separate system but is proof that GPS is possible without satellites.
Y
GPS could be reflected off noctilucent clouds at latitudes higher than 50 North and 50 south,
or if none are available some other technology already discussed.

Its weird how GPS is the right frequency to be reflected by these highly reflective clouds but the satellites have no problem getting through them.

If satellite phones used some kind of atmospheric bouncing like shortwave radio or airship then a metal roof would block both

LORAN is just proof of concept, it is a separate system but is proof that GPS is possible without satellites.
Y
GPS could be reflected off noctilucent clouds at latitudes higher than 50 North and 50 south,
or if none are available some other technology already discussed.

Its weird how GPS is the right frequency to be reflected by these highly reflective clouds but the satellites have no problem getting through them.

A GPS system cannot use moving clouds, it has to be direct.

As well as appearing 50 degree latitude north to the north pole
the clouds are supposed to also appear at 50 degrees latitude South to the south pole
so HAARP probably isnt creating the clouds, unless those antarctic research centres are doing something.

Fair enough.

Like I said, HAARP just looks like a giant radar to me, so guess it was a research centre for this kinda tech as much as anything.

But it supposedly had the capability to heat the Ionosphere so I thought that may tie in with the appearance of noctilucent clouds somehow?

Whatever; no matter their origin, noctilucent clouds exist & are highly reflective.

If satellite phones used some kind of atmospheric bouncing like shortwave radio or airship then a metal roof would block both

LORAN is just proof of concept, it is a separate system but is proof that GPS is possible without satellites.
Y
GPS could be reflected off noctilucent clouds at latitudes higher than 50 North and 50 south,
or if none are available some other technology already discussed.

Its weird how GPS is the right frequency to be reflected by these highly reflective clouds but the satellites have no problem getting through them.

"Weird", really?

Noctilucent clouds are known to exhibit high radar reflectivity, in a frequency range of 50 MHz to 1.3 GHz.

The only reference I has so far found on the frequency range puts the upper limit at 1.3 GHz.

All GPS satellites broadcast at the same two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal)
and the Russian GLONASS system uses a band around 1602 MHz. (A couple of "GPS" units I have do receive GLONASS too.)

Really, it is ridiculous to suggest that GPS (or GLONASS) would use reflection from noctilucent clouds that:

• are very transient,
• are only at all common in the 50° to 70° N or S latitude range,
• have a top limit of reflected frequency that does not cover the frequencies used.

All GPS satellites broadcast at the same two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal)

No 'GPS satellites' broadcast anything, Geoff.

Because they don't exist.

Because the laws of physics & principles of aerodynamics won't let them.

Let me tell you something, Geoff; I have an acquaintance who worked on designing the guidance systems for drones.

Similar job to what you & your sock-puppet 'Rayzor' claim to have in fact.

He made a shed-load of money out of it, has the Official Secrets Act up the wazoo, & will not talk in any detail about anything connected to it under any circumstances.

The very last thing he would do is spend 16 hours of every day, 7 days a week, trolling & shilling & thought-policing all over the web...

Like you do.

He does not do this because he is a decent man, with a very comfortable existence, doing things that matter, in the real world.

You are not who you claim to be, Geoff, for the simple reason that people like you do not behave in that manner.

You are just a massively obvious disinfo-drone, & I cannot imagine what you did to be reduced to such a miserable existence.

I would say I pity you; but you are too far gone for pity...

That would imply humanity; & I see none in you.

Toodle-pip, Geoff!

Quote from: rabinoz on May 29, 2016, 02:44:30 AM

All GPS satellites broadcast at the same two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal)

No 'GPS satellites' broadcast anything, Geoff.

Because they don't exist.

Because the laws of physics & principles of aerodynamics won't let them.

Let me tell you something, Geoff; I have an acquaintance who worked on designing the guidance systems for drones.

Similar job to what you & your sock-puppet 'Rayzor' claim to have in fact.

He made a shed-load of money out of it, has the Official Secrets Act up the wazoo, & will not talk in any detail about anything connected to it under any circumstances.

The very last thing he would do is spend 16 hours of every day, 7 days a week, trolling & shilling & thought-policing all over the web...

Like you do.

He does not do this because he is a decent man, with a very comfortable existence, doing things that matter, in the real world.

You are not who you claim to be, Geoff, for the simple reason that people like you do not behave in that manner.

You are just a massively obvious disinfo-drone, & I cannot imagine what you did to be reduced to such a miserable existence.

I would say I pity you; but you are too far gone for pity...

That would imply humanity; & I see none in you.

Toodle-pip, Geoff!

Simply put, you are wrong.  Regardless of whether the earth is flat or round, or even the specific forces that are in play, the moon and sun clearly maintain a relationship in regards to Earth's position.  If forces can act on those two objects and keep them in place, then it also has to be possible for a man made object to be kept in place.  Scattered throughout this site is the assertion of observable phenomena.  Can you refute that the sun is not maintaining it's position relative to earth?  Can you refute the moon is maintaining it's position relative to earth?  Or any one of the other observable planets, comets, and asteroids. 

Simply put, you are wrong.

Simply put, I am not.

As for your 'teh munn exists therefore GPS satylytes iz reel' argument: LMFAO!!!

Grow up, Walter Mitty.

Quote from: Katdoral on May 29, 2016, 05:01:44 AM

Simply put, you are wrong.

Simply put, I am not.

As for your 'teh munn exists therefore GPS satylytes iz reel' argument: LMFAO!!!

Grow up, Walter Mitty.

Ahh, so you have nothing then.  Fair enough, there's no shame in not knowing an answer.  I'm a little confused as to why you couldn't just say as much, but that's people I suppose.  Though, I was under the impression that these boards were strictly moderated, and your response doesn't really seem to further the conversation.

Wtf are you babbling on about now, Walter?

Are you really threatening to report me because I laughed at you for comparing teh Munn to a 'GPS satylite'?

Good luck with that!

Wtf are you babbling on about now, Walter?

Are you really threatening to report me because I laughed at you for comparing teh Munn to a 'GPS satylite'?

Good luck with that!

Do you have a reason as to why forces that work on celestial objects would not also work on fabricated objects?

Do you have a reason to believe that teh Munn was created by human beings & placed in orbit with rockets?

Cos if you don't then take your stupid time-wasting strawman & GTFO.

Or report me, or whatever your shilling 101 handbook commands you do next...

Nobody cares.

Do you have a reason to believe that teh Munn was created by human beings & placed in orbit with rockets?

Cos if you don't then take your stupid time-wasting strawman & GTFO.

Or report me, or whatever your shilling 101 handbook commands you do next...

Nobody cares.

Oh.  So, that answer seems contradictory.  Do you believe the moon is artificial and placed into orbit with rockets?  Me, no, I don't believe that.  But if I don't then I'm wasting my time, according to you, so that leads me to reason that you do...Which is really odd since you've been supporting that satellites aren't possible.  Also, it appears you don't seem to know what a strawman rebuttal is, like I haven't covertly replaced one arguement with something else, I've been consistant in that whatever forces are in operation should remain in operation uniformly.  But, admittedly, that's just semantics. 
Also, I would love to see the 'shilling handbook'.  I have no idea what shilling is, so if I am to be a .... shiller?  would that be the right usage?  Anyways, I should probably be certain I am performing that duty adaquately.

The best accuracy I have read anywhere for new eLORAN system was 300m3.
Very specifically designed as a back up to GPS for shipping.
If anyone can show any articles claiming better it would be great.

"eLoran meets the requirement for non-precision approaches; this means that although eLoran (which has no means of measuring height) will not provide any vertical guidance, it will provide sufficient horizontal guidance.  Specifically eLoran meets the requirements for Area Navigation (RNAV) non-precision approaches to Lateral Navigation (LNAV) minimums. For non-precision approaches aviation has the following stringent requirements"

Further

"For non-precision approaches, eLoran will have at least 307m position accuracy 95 percent of the time to account for all sources of errors to meet the 556 meter alarm limit. "

for some light reading

So what?

Imprecision can easily be built into a system.

In fact, when the first civilian 'GPS' units were brought out the manufacturers stated that they were deliberately made less accurate than military units so they could not be used for nefarious purposes.

I remember this well, as mountaineering magazines stated in reviews that they should never be trusted for micro-navigation in hazardous terrain.

Funny how quickly stuff like this is forgotten, eh?

That old internet memory-hole is a beauty, ain't it?

"The actual accuracy users attain depends on factors outside the government's control, including atmospheric effects, sky blockage, and receiver quality. Real-world data from the FAA show that their high-quality GPS SPS receivers provide better than 3.5 meter horizontal accuracy" link

Seeing that I had a surveyor survey a very large urban area recently with over 1000 GPS plotted both co-ordinates and elevation. And that they very closely (within 1m)  match up to actual ground measurements, I can say 3.5m is fair.

Also, go speak to an actual surveyor ask them what happens when they take their GPS staff under a roof.

LORAN can not measure altitude, GPS can.

Did all that actually mean anything?

Sounded like pointless evasive garbage to me.

Wanna try again?

"Wanna try again?"

No. Was hoping to have a fun debate, but you don't bring any actual information, just disgruntled complaining.

Don't let me stop you. Carry on as you where.

"Wanna try again?"

No.

Good.

See ya!

So what?

Imprecision can easily be built into a system.

In fact, when the first civilian 'GPS' units were brought out the manufacturers stated that they were deliberately made less accurate than military units so they could not be used for nefarious purposes.

I remember this well, as mountaineering magazines stated in reviews that they should never be trusted for micro-navigation in hazardous terrain.

Funny how quickly stuff like this is forgotten, eh?

That old internet memory-hole is a beauty, ain't it?

How did they achieve imprecision?

Quote from: Papa Legba on May 29, 2016, 08:17:42 AM

So what?

Imprecision can easily be built into a system.

In fact, when the first civilian 'GPS' units were brought out the manufacturers stated that they were deliberately made less accurate than military units so they could not be used for nefarious purposes.

I remember this well, as mountaineering magazines stated in reviews that they should never be trusted for micro-navigation in hazardous terrain.

Funny how quickly stuff like this is forgotten, eh?

That old internet memory-hole is a beauty, ain't it?

How did they achieve imprecision?

It was known as selective availability and was discontinued in May 2000.
http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/sa/

Loran C was made precise by using additional handheld units, there is no reason eLoran cant be augmented in exactly the same way.

Loran C was made precise by using additional handheld units, there is no reason eLoran cant be augmented in exactly the same way.

But it wasn't, and instead we use GPS satellites.  Face it: you can't fool everyone by using ground-based units instead of satellites. 

Loran C was made precise by using additional handheld units, there is no reason eLoran cant be augmented in exactly the same way.

Do you mean?

Loran-D and -F
When Loran-C became widespread, the USAF once again became interested in using it as a guidance system. They proposed a new system layered on top of Loran-C, using it as the coarse guidance signal in much the same way that pulses were the coarse guidance and phase-comparison used for fine. To provide an extra-fine guidance signal, Loran-D interleaved another train of eight pulses immediately after the signals from one of the existing Loran-C stations, folding the two signals together. This technique became known as "Supernumary Interpulse Modulation" (SIM). These were broadcast from low-power portable transmitters, offering relatively short-range service of high accuracy.

or this?

eLORAN
With the perceived vulnerability of GNSS systems, and their own propagation and reception limitations, renewed interest in LORAN applications and development has appeared. Enhanced LORAN, also known as eLORAN or E-LORAN, comprises an advancement in receiver design and transmission characteristics which increase the accuracy and usefulness of traditional LORAN. With reported accuracy as good as ± 8 meters, the system becomes competitive with unenhanced GPS. eLORAN also includes additional pulses which can transmit auxiliary data such as DGPS corrections. eLORAN receivers now use "all in view" reception, incorporating signals from all stations in range, not solely those from a single GRI, incorporating time signals and other data from up to 40 stations. These enhancements in LORAN make it adequate as a substitute for scenarios where GPS is unavailable or degraded.[/size]

But, I can't find any reference to "Loran C was made precise by using additional handheld units".

You will note becomes competitive with unenhanced GPS, but for surveying applications there is "Differential GPS" available.

Differential GPS
Transportable DGPS reference station Baseline HD by CLAAS for use in satellite-assisted steering systems in modern agriculture
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) is an enhancement to Global Positioning System that provides improved location accuracy, from the 15-meter nominal GPS accuracy to about 10 cm in case of the best implementations.
DGPS uses a network of fixed, ground-based reference stations to broadcast the difference between the positions indicated by the GPS satellite systems and the known fixed positions. These stations broadcast the difference between the measured satellite pseudoranges and actual (internally computed) pseudoranges, and receiver stations may correct their pseudoranges by the same amount. The digital correction signal is typically broadcast locally over ground-based transmitters of shorter range.

Keep up the guesswork, in the meantime I'll keep using my satellite based GPS.