Satellite TV

  • 202 Replies
  • 8361 Views
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #90 on: June 25, 2019, 02:47:19 PM »
Stop lying about who is posting.

Quotemining little snippets to pretend there is a contradiction doesn't magically make a contradiction. It just shows you have no argument and that you have resort to lying to pretend you have a case.

When you stay far to base stations then your GSM or satellite phones do not work. Need more explanation?
Yes, you need evidence of such a claim.
So far, all the available evidence indicates they do work in remote areas. All we have is your baseless claim that they don't.

Nope. I've explanaied and you've agreed it, here:
Stop lying. You are yet to provide any explanation.
So far all you have done is lied and said that the coverage is provided by cell towers.
Quoting rab and lying and saying it is me just further proves your dishonesty.

Nope. A name means nothing. If you sincere of this decide so you have to accept me being wise.
Why would I accept you as wise when all you have been able to do is spout a bunch of pure stupidity?
Not everyone is as dishonest with naming as you.

No need to magic. We are calling it as "changing its name". Magicians are working to your side.
It isn't a simple name change. It works fundamentally differently.
This is easily shown by regions where a cell phone has no coverage but a sat phone does, and vice versa.
If it as just a name change, then they would have identical coverage.

Oh, at last you've get it. So you have accepted you are talked out off topic.
No, I accept that you repeatedly run away from the topic because you cannot deal with it at all.
Rather than focus on the topic you need to look for pathetic excuses to pretend that you haven't been repeatedly refuted.

But if you like, I will not just dismiss anything you say on satellite phones as off topic garbage.

Your baseless claims do not magically satellites exist. Either prove their existance or stop this baseless claim. Base stations do not magically your claims have some bases.
Satellite TV proves they exist.
Being able to photograph them with time lapse photography proves they exist.
You being wilfully ignorant doesn't magically change it.

If you would like to object to this proof, explain what satellite TV uses other than these satellites.

*

rabinoz

  • 22667
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #91 on: June 25, 2019, 03:44:04 PM »
You mean you have ignored it many times.
I did not post that, JackBlack did!

Quote from: wise
Nope. I've explanaied and you've agreed it, here:

your explanation is incorrect
JackBlack did not post that, I posted that!

Quote from: wise
So, stop saying lie. Contradicting yourself isn't an argument mister Rabblack!

The phone being called a sat phone is dependent upon what it uses.
I did not post that, JackBlack did!

Quote from: wise
Nope. A name means nothing. If you sincere of this decide so you have to accept me being wise. But you are sometimes calling me unwise and not scientist although management gave me scientist rank and I've assigned the name wise to this membership. But these names mean nothing to you. So names mean nothing. Stop to contradict yourself.

If it just uses cell towers, it is a cell phone (or one of the other names for them).
I did not post that, JackBlack did!

Quote from: wise
You mean GSM phone?

Having more towers doesn't magically convert a cell phone into a sat phone.
I did not post that, JackBlack did!

Quote from: wise
No need to magic. We are calling it as "changing its name". Magicians are working to your side.

But this thread is about satellite TV.
I did not post that, JackBlack did!

Quote from: wise
Oh, at last you've get it. So you have accepted you are talked out off topic. Do not repeat it. Shame on you.
But who was the one that introduced phones into this thread? Was it YOU?
I like people calls my land based wireless phone as GSM.

Quote from: wise
They use geostationary satellites, with no ground station anywhere near where they are pointing.
I did not post that, JackBlack did!

Quote from: wise
Your baseless claims do not magically satellites exist. Either prove their existance or stop this baseless claim. Base stations do not magically your claims have some bases.
When are you going to learn that JackBlack and I are different people who live in quite different parts of Australia and have never even seen each other?

Keep this silly business for Complete Nonsense or Angry Ranting thank you, Mr Wise! Now run away and don't come back until you learn how to make an honest post.


*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18645
  • Backstage
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #92 on: June 25, 2019, 11:29:04 PM »
:'( :'(
 :'( :'(
I can't reply you. The arth is flat
 :'( :'(
 :'( :'(
Get stop to cry and reply the statements like a man!
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18645
  • Backstage
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #93 on: June 26, 2019, 12:35:20 AM »
Stop lying about who is posting.

Stop lying about what I post! I did not post anything like (  :'(  :'( ) but you and rabinoz two are doing it by changing my posts. This is its name. If you want to play, so don't cry when you concede a goal! If you want to play fair, so just get yourself play fair! You get this Jackblack?

Who did post this lie? (example 1)


:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
I'm a big cry baby
 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Sorry, I have to do it because of bot protection. Unfortunately our management could not achieved to defend us from bots. You know what I mean.
If you want to do it for bot protection you need to obfuscate the text.

You posted it! You have changed my words! So, stop to cry and endure this reality! You are rabinoz when I want!

Quotemining little snippets to pretend there is a contradiction doesn't magically make a contradiction. It just shows you have no argument and that you have resort to lying to pretend you have a case.
if you are uncomfortable with this, stop splitting my posts. then I take this into consideration. Because this is a contradiction. In the one hand you are splitting my posts, on the other hand you are critizing me to I do it. You can't do it. Your argument is null. Until you continue to split my post, so you have to get used to see your posts being splitted to less parts.
Yes, you need evidence of such a claim.
Nope. The evidence is enough. Your can not get it because of being ignorant is your own problem.
So far, all the available evidence indicates they do work in remote areas.
Lie! There is no evidence about it. Your claiming there is evidences them working in remote areas does not magically the evidences exist. Stop to talk baseless.
All we have is your baseless claim that they don't.
Again, All we have is your baseless claim that they do.
Stop lying.
You are the only liar in this conversation.
You are yet to provide any explanation.
Your partner rabinoz has agreed I have made an explanation. And he has denied my explanation. I have made many explanations but your denying the explanations do not magically them absent.
So far all you have done is lied and said that the coverage is provided by cell towers.
And this is true. Prove its being lie.
Quoting rab and lying and saying it is me just further proves your dishonesty.
So you have admitted your own dishonesty now.

I did not send this post at all:


:'(
You have provided no actual justification for a pilot to record their flight.

Do you see what you did? So you have admitted your dishonesty. Don't you have a shame?

Why would I accept you as wise when all you have been able to do is spout a bunch of pure stupidity?

Your denying the facts are not making my arguments stupidy but yours. Your agreing or denying the wisdom can not change the reality.

Not everyone is as dishonest with naming as you.

You are for the first time meeting a real wise. You have meeted the fake ones earlier, so you have confused what is what.

It isn't a simple name change.
Nope, it is so.
It works fundamentally differently.
Yeah. It works different. if he can access more base stations, you call it as satellite phone. but it can be expressed differently: "dome phone", "flat phone", shell phone "," Longer phone ", "strong phone"... etc. My appeal is its being a perception management. Being a strong phone does not magically do it as a satellite phone. Actually this is relevant with your money. If you pay more then your GSM can turn to a satellite phone too. But I will still use dome phone. It used all of dome particles.  ;)

This is easily shown by regions where a cell phone has no coverage but a sat phone does, and vice versa.
But you cant. So it can not be shown. Stop to say lie. Your lying can not magically do it exist.
If it as just a name change,
You have admitted the truth. It is just a name change. If you don't change its name its already an ordinary GSM, just a bit stronger because of you have payed more money for it.

then they would have identical coverage.
It is relevant with your money.

If it as just a name change, then they would have identical coverage.
Again and again; when you pay more, your phone is called a "satellite phone", but this does not magically make it a satellite phone.
I accept that I repeatedly run away from the topic because you cannot deal with it at all.
Glad to see you admit what you do. See example 1.
Rather than focus on the topic you need to look for pathetic excuses to pretend that you haven't been repeatedly refuted.
This is what you are constantly doing and suggesting to me. No, you can free to re try your pathetic claims without evidences.
But if you like, I will not just dismiss anything you say on satellite phones as off topic garbage.
No you. If you like, I will not just dismiss anything you say on satellite phones as off topic garbage.

Satellite TV proves they exist.
Calling something as "satellite TV" does not magically them "satellite" TV. You can call it satellite TV or Zeus TV. Like Zeus continues being absent although you claim it as "Zeus TV", so satellites so. They are still absent how ever you call objects with its name.
Being able to photograph them with time lapse photography proves they exist.
Can you provide a solid evidence shows their photograph? With a photo fair, unobjectionable, and, repeatable! Where is photo? Your claiming them being exist do not magically them exist! Stop to use rabinoz for photo service, this is your job! You are not his GSM phone! Show us real, not manipulated photo! Or stop your childish baseless claims.
You being wilfully ignorant doesn't magically change it.
Your baseless insults do not change the fact that you have not provided an evidence and I am right to deny your baseless childish claims. Sorry, I am not a silly man accept your BS. Change your behave.
If you would like to object to this proof, explain what satellite TV uses other than these satellites.
Sorry? Where is proof? What kind of a man you are seing halutination. You have just claimed you have proved anything. You have said "satellites tv" is a proof with only its name being satellite. You can call yourself satellite but you are still a land based ignorant.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 01:12:30 AM by wise »
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #94 on: June 26, 2019, 12:44:29 AM »
[off topic BS]
The topic of disucssion for this thread is satellite TV.
As a reminder, people use satellite dishes to pick up signals from satellites in space to watch TV.
These dishes are fixed relative to Earth, requiring the satellites to be fixed relative to Earth.
This requires Earth to be rotating, and due to the numerous satellites which exist, needs to be roughly spherical (or at least cylindrical).
These satellites are also observable with cameras, which can easily time lapse pictures of the night sky showing these satellites in a belt.
The angles involved make no sense for a land based transmitter to be faking it. Nor does the requirements to have a signal.

Now if I recall correctly, the last thing you said on topic was that geostationary satellites were impossible because satellites need to move relative to Earth or they would fall down.
But I demonstrated that that is not the case. If Earth is rotating, there exists an orbit where satellites remain stationary relative to Earth because the orbital period is the same as Earth's rotational period, so there is no longitude drift, and it is on the equator, so there is no latitude drift.
So in fact it is further evidence that Earth rotates.

So are you going to accept that satellites can remain stationary relative to Earth, or will you try and back up your claims for once?

Stop lying about what I post! I did not post anything like (  :'(  :'( )
Then post in text.
If you post an image instead of text I will remove it and put in the cry face.
That is because you are making it so I can't easily quote the text I want to respond to.
That isn't lying about what you are saying.
That isn't changing what you said as you had no words there, just an image.

Can you provide a solid evidence shows their photograph?
You will just dismiss it as not solid evidence, dismissing the photo as fake.
All you need to do is go out at night and take a timelapse photo pointed towards the equator.
If you are happy with other people's photos, there are plenty on line.

Here is one with several satellites indicated:
https://s22380.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/Geosync-A-Sept-12-at-3_50-UT-ANNO_ST.jpg
Here is another:
https://s22380.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/Geosync-B-Sept-12-at-3_23-ANNO_ST2.jpg
and another:
http://www.sws.bom.gov.au/IPSHosted/neo/img/rdos/geosat3.jpg

If you just reject them don't bother asking for more as it is clear you don't actually want the photos, and just want to pretend they don't exist.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18645
  • Backstage
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #95 on: June 26, 2019, 01:08:48 AM »
I am a cry baby.  :'(  :'(  :'(  :'(  :'(
:'(  :'(  [I am talking off topic BS] :'(  :'(
I am a cry baby.  :'(  :'(  :'(  :'(  :'(
Stop to be a cry baby and Reply all the statements one by one.
Stop lying about who is posting.

Stop lying about what I post! I did not post anything like (  :'(  :'( ) but you and rabinoz two are doing it by changing my posts. This is its name. If you want to play, so don't cry when you concede a goal! If you want to play fair, so just get yourself play fair! You get this Jackblack?

Who did post this lie? (example 1)


:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
I'm a big cry baby
 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Sorry, I have to do it because of bot protection. Unfortunately our management could not achieved to defend us from bots. You know what I mean.
If you want to do it for bot protection you need to obfuscate the text.

You posted it! You have changed my words! So, stop to cry and endure this reality! You are rabinoz when I want!

Quotemining little snippets to pretend there is a contradiction doesn't magically make a contradiction. It just shows you have no argument and that you have resort to lying to pretend you have a case.
if you are uncomfortable with this, stop splitting my posts. then I take this into consideration. Because this is a contradiction. In the one hand you are splitting my posts, on the other hand you are critizing me to I do it. You can't do it. Your argument is null. Until you continue to split my post, so you have to get used to see your posts being splitted to less parts.
Yes, you need evidence of such a claim.
Nope. The evidence is enough. Your can not get it because of being ignorant is your own problem.
So far, all the available evidence indicates they do work in remote areas.
Lie! There is no evidence about it. Your claiming there is evidences them working in remote areas does not magically the evidences exist. Stop to talk baseless.
All we have is your baseless claim that they don't.
Again, All we have is your baseless claim that they do.
Stop lying.
You are the only liar in this conversation.
You are yet to provide any explanation.
Your partner rabinoz has agreed I have made an explanation. And he has denied my explanation. I have made many explanations but your denying the explanations do not magically them absent.
So far all you have done is lied and said that the coverage is provided by cell towers.
And this is true. Prove its being lie.
Quoting rab and lying and saying it is me just further proves your dishonesty.
So you have admitted your own dishonesty now.

I did not send this post at all:


:'(
You have provided no actual justification for a pilot to record their flight.

Do you see what you did? So you have admitted your dishonesty. Don't you have a shame?

Why would I accept you as wise when all you have been able to do is spout a bunch of pure stupidity?

Your denying the facts are not making my arguments stupidy but yours. Your agreing or denying the wisdom can not change the reality.

Not everyone is as dishonest with naming as you.

You are for the first time meeting a real wise. You have meeted the fake ones earlier, so you have confused what is what.

It isn't a simple name change.
Nope, it is so.
It works fundamentally differently.
Yeah. It works different. if he can access more base stations, you call it as satellite phone. but it can be expressed differently: "dome phone", "flat phone", shell phone "," Longer phone ", "strong phone"... etc. My appeal is its being a perception management. Being a strong phone does not magically do it as a satellite phone. Actually this is relevant with your money. If you pay more then your GSM can turn to a satellite phone too. But I will still use dome phone. It used all of dome particles.  ;)

This is easily shown by regions where a cell phone has no coverage but a sat phone does, and vice versa.
But you cant. So it can not be shown. Stop to say lie. Your lying can not magically do it exist.
If it as just a name change,
You have admitted the truth. It is just a name change. If you don't change its name its already an ordinary GSM, just a bit stronger because of you have payed more money for it.

then they would have identical coverage.
It is relevant with your money.

If it as just a name change, then they would have identical coverage.
Again and again; when you pay more, your phone is called a "satellite phone", but this does not magically make it a satellite phone.
I accept that I repeatedly run away from the topic because you cannot deal with it at all.
Glad to see you admit what you do. See example 1.
Rather than focus on the topic you need to look for pathetic excuses to pretend that you haven't been repeatedly refuted.
This is what you are constantly doing and suggesting to me. No, you can free to re try your pathetic claims without evidences.
But if you like, I will not just dismiss anything you say on satellite phones as off topic garbage.
No you. If you like, I will not just dismiss anything you say on satellite phones as off topic garbage.

Satellite TV proves they exist.
Calling something as "satellite TV" does not magically them "satellite" TV. You can call it satellite TV or Zeus TV. Like Zeus continues being absent although you claim it as "Zeus TV", so satellites so. They are still absent how ever you call objects with its name.
Being able to photograph them with time lapse photography proves they exist.
Can you provide a solid evidence shows their photograph? With a photo fair, unobjectionable, and, repeatable! Where is photo? Your claiming them being exist do not magically them exist! Stop to use rabinoz for photo service, this is your job! You are not his GSM phone! Show us real, not manipulated photo! Or stop your childish baseless claims.
You being wilfully ignorant doesn't magically change it.
Your baseless insults do not change the fact that you have not provided an evidence and I am right to deny your baseless childish claims. Sorry, I am not a silly man accept your BS. Change your behave.
If you would like to object to this proof, explain what satellite TV uses other than these satellites.
Sorry? Where is proof? What kind of a man you are seing halutination. You have just claimed you have proved anything. You have said "satellites tv" is a proof with only its name being satellite. You can call yourself satellite but you are still a land based ignorant.

Are you really believing I agree this so called image as a proof of satellites being exist? This is a simple drawing can be drawn by many softwares:



This one too.



If you pay attention, the so called star trail passing inside tree and behind of it.  ;D  ;D  ;D

What kind of retard thinks we agree this BS?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 01:20:13 AM by wise »
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18645
  • Backstage
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #96 on: June 26, 2019, 01:18:26 AM »


All we are satellites now. You agree this, Jackstar? ;D
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #97 on: June 26, 2019, 03:02:08 AM »
Are you really believing I agree this so called image as a proof of satellites being exist?
You asked for a photo so I gave you one.
Thanks for proving my point.
You had no interest in getting a photo. You were just using it as an excuse to dismiss reality.
If you want to doubt the authenticity of the photo, go take one yourself.

Now care to comment on the rest of my post?
Do you accept that satellites do not need to move w.r.t. Earth to remain up? That they can remain in a geostationary orbit?

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18645
  • Backstage
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #98 on: June 26, 2019, 03:48:30 AM »
Are you really believing I agree this so called image as a proof of satellites being exist?
You asked for a photo so I gave you one.
It was half photo and half cartoon network. And I have proved how easy to manipulate it without remains any doubt.
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #99 on: June 26, 2019, 04:18:07 AM »
I have proved how easy to manipulate it without remains any doubt.
No.
You have proven that you have no intention of ever accepting evidence provided by others.
What was the point in asking for a photo when you will just dismiss it as fake?

So stop asking people for evidence and go and get it yourself.

Now address the issue raised.
Do you accept that geostationary satellites can exist?
If not, back up your claim that satellites need to move relative to Earth to stay up.

*

rabinoz

  • 22667
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #100 on: June 26, 2019, 04:25:17 AM »
And herd are more photos of geostationary satellites at this German site:
Quote from: M. Rudolf
Geostationary satellites Astra and Hot Bird 12.3.2002
Sure you have already heard about the Astra telecommunication satellites; perhaps you even receive radio and TV programs from Astra with your satellite dish. Then you might be interested to see images of the geosynchronous Astra satellites which I shot on 12.3.2002:

The first image shows seven Astra satellites (as far as I know they are Astra 1B,1C,1E,1F,1G,1H,1K) as pointlike objects against the night sky. The streaks in the image are the trails of stars which have moved during this 15-second exposure.



The next image was shot with the camera following the movement of the stars, therefore the satellites appear as short trails whereas the stars remain pointlike.



If you receive your favorite TV/radio programs from Eutelsat - Hot Bird, have a look at the third image: it shows the Hotbird 1-5 satellites.



The Astras as well as the Hotbirds are in a geostationary orbit in a distance of ca. 36000 kms, straight above the terrestrial equator and at a longitude 19į east (Astra), or 13į east (Hotbird).

The above images have been obtained with a CCD camera and a lens with 900 mm focal length. Exposure time was 15 seconds, field of view is approximately 45x30 arcminutes.

As the geostationary satellites orbit around the Earth, they occasionally immerse into the Earth's shadow. The sequence below shows the Astra satellites disappear. The Earth's shadow approaches from the left (east) and gradually hides the satellites.



Note also that the positions of the Astra satellites relative to each other have changed, compared with the above pictures of the Astras which have been taken ca 2 hours earlier. The images were shot with 1 sec exposure time; some stars drift through the field of view from left to right during the exposures).

The animated GIF below shows the immersion of the Astra satellites into the Earth's shadow from 22:17:35 to 22:20:43 UT.
Images with 1 second exposure times were taken every 5 seconds for this animation.


*

rabinoz

  • 22667
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #101 on: June 26, 2019, 04:34:38 AM »
And a motion gif showing the stars appearing to move past the geostationary 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.
Those TV satellites are up there all right!

And a time-lapse video of 4 more "geostationary" satellites:

2018-03-19 Geostationary satellites (timelapse about 700x) by Amrum astronomer
.

Note that while there are called "geostationary" satellites, most wander slightly because the orbits are not precisely circular and often have a slight inclination to the equator.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 05:58:41 PM by rabinoz »

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18645
  • Backstage
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #102 on: June 26, 2019, 05:29:33 AM »
And a motion gif showing the stars appearing to move past the geostationary satellites


Like this? pay attention to all the satellites.



I've added an affect to fakesat001, it disappears sometimes like how yours do. Do you accept now we have 4 more satellites on orbit?
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

rabinoz

  • 22667
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #103 on: June 26, 2019, 05:50:38 AM »
And a motion gif showing the stars appearing to move past the geostationary satellites


Like this? pay attention to all the satellites.


I've added an affect to fakesat001, it disappears sometimes like how yours do. Do you accept now we have 4 more satellites on orbit?
Have you? I don't see any! And if you are so ignorant that you don't realise what the photo represents there's not much that I can do.

But satellite dishes point UP at the correct angle to receive signals from those satellites - if you don't believe it well too bad!

You might convince a few gullible Flat Earthers but you won't convince anybody that understands a little bit about antenna design!


*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18645
  • Backstage
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #104 on: June 26, 2019, 06:22:54 AM »

 :'(  :'(

I am a liar

 :'(  :'(


Like this? pay attention to all the satellites.


I've added an affect to fakesat001, it disappears sometimes like how yours do. Do you accept now we have 4 more satellites on orbit?
Have you? I don't see any! And if you are so ignorant that you don't realise what the photo represents there's not much that I can do.

But satellite dishes point UP at the correct angle to receive signals from those satellites - if you don't believe it well too bad!

You might convince a few gullible Flat Earthers but you won't convince anybody that understands a little bit about antenna design!

I guess I see what photo represents. There are so called stars are rotating as an estimation. There are some satellites there can be done by everybody with a very bit working. And you are trying to prove something with this worthless image. It clearly means nothing in the name of being an evidence of anything.

I don't have to convince antenna designers because they are already cooperatives of land based networks. I don't think they accept anything I say because of their benefits. I'm not sure simple workers know the truth. because when they come, only angles are told to them. these angles do not necessarily represent what they are told. For example, "eutelsat 42 degrees" does not mean eutelsat being there, but there is a station in that angle. He does not have to know this but only know "turn antenna to 42 degrees eutelsat". I hope you get this.
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #105 on: June 26, 2019, 08:47:19 AM »
Wise said 'For example, "eutelsat 42 degrees" does not mean eutelsat being there, but there is a station in that angle. He does not have to know this but only know "turn antenna to 42 degrees eutelsat". '

There are 2 angles, horizontal and vertical that an installer needs to know, and it varies for every home.  The 42 degrees refers to the satellite location over the equator, not the pointing angles.  I have set up a dish so I know it points to something in the sky.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 09:01:55 AM by inquisitive »

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 364
  • Weather Pegasus
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #106 on: June 26, 2019, 08:59:49 AM »
Ha ha, I did not expect such a turn from the "balls". How interesting it all comes out, when I talk about satellites, then believers in the ball throw their hooves like they do not understand me. Ha ha And now they themselves have found all these photos and prove their case to them.
And now the question for rabinoz and JackBlack ... Show me on your photos the satellites that move along the meridians (RPS satellites) - and do not say that their radiation frequencies are invisible on the sky radar. They almost coincide with the range of TV. And can not be filtered by the receiver. All satellites hang over the equator or move only in a circle along the equator! We see a lot of Iridium satellites that are moving in different directions ... but on radar, we do not see them! Why? Who can explain this phenomenon to me?

Are you sure that the earth is not such?

Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #107 on: June 26, 2019, 09:05:33 AM »
Ha ha, I did not expect such a turn from the "balls". How interesting it all comes out, when I talk about satellites, then believers in the ball throw their hooves like they do not understand me. Ha ha And now they themselves have found all these photos and prove their case to them.
And now the question for rabinoz and JackBlack ... Show me on your photos the satellites that move along the meridians (RPS satellites) - and do not say that their radiation frequencies are invisible on the sky radar. They almost coincide with the range of TV. And can not be filtered by the receiver. All satellites hang over the equator or move only in a circle along the equator! We see a lot of Iridium satellites that are moving in different directions ... but on radar, we do not see them! Why? Who can explain this phenomenon to me?
What radar?  GPS satellites are not over the equator.

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 364
  • Weather Pegasus
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #108 on: June 26, 2019, 10:13:11 AM »
Oh you ... forever everyone does not want to think. Or maybe this is a component of the conspiracy? When do ponies just speak memorized phrases? I am becoming more and more convinced that I am just wasting my time when I try to tell anything here ...
Comrades teach " матчасть " and you will be happy.
I turned around and waving my tail in frustration, flew in my own business ..

Are you sure that the earth is not such?

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 859
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #109 on: June 26, 2019, 01:08:32 PM »
If there were 'antennas' instead of satellites in orbit responsible for satellite TV, etc. Then why South? Our TV satellite dishes point South. Wouldn't it be far more practical to place the antennas at or near the North Pole? You'd need less of them and they could serve the entirety of the Flat Earth. Shouldn't our TV dishes point North?
Nullius in Verba

Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #110 on: June 26, 2019, 02:46:46 PM »
And you are trying to prove something with this worthless image.
This image isn't worthless.
It shows you are wrong and that you have no interest in the truth.
You asked for photos of these satellites which remain stationary relative to Earth.
They were provided.
And what do you do?
You just reject the photos.

What was the point in asking for photos you had no intention of accepting?

If you didn't want to accept any photo provided, the honest thing to do would have been to not have asked for any and instead obtained them yourself.
All you are doing is showing you have no concern for the truth.
GROW UP!

Again, you can easily go and obtain pictures like this yourself.
You can even pick a particular satellite, then go take a picture like this showing where it is, and point a satellite dish at it and check that you get a signal from it.
You can even go one step further and see how the position varies around Earth, to confirm that all these dishes pointing to the same satellite are in fact pointing to a satellite roughly 35000 km above the surface of a round, rotating Earth.

You choosing to remain wilfully ignorant of this fact by ignoring the evidence presented and refusing to get any evidence yourself just means you are wilfully ignorant.
It doesn't refute a round Earth or magically make Earth flat.

Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #111 on: June 26, 2019, 02:52:56 PM »
Show me on your photos the satellites that move along the meridians
These photos are time-lapse photos with the camera stationary relative to Earth.
The satellites they show are those that remain in place.
Satellites in polar orbits would be nothing more than brief streaks or series of dots, if the camera can pick it up.

This is a thread for discussing satellite TV, which uses geostationary orbits.
If you want to discuss satellites in polar orbits, do so elsewhere.

If you want to try and take a photo of it, your best bet is a complex mount that will keep the camera stationary relative to it.
Failing that you should get an equatorial mount telescope and see if you can observe it then.

And yes, you do seem to be wasting your time, coming in with a baseless claim, then running away.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18645
  • Backstage
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #112 on: June 26, 2019, 03:03:55 PM »
If there were 'antennas' instead of satellites in orbit responsible for satellite TV, etc. Then why South? Our TV satellite dishes point South. Wouldn't it be far more practical to place the antennas at or near the North Pole? You'd need less of them and they could serve the entirety of the Flat Earth. Shouldn't our TV dishes point North?

It is generally south but not everytime. In order to avoid confusion when the base stations are installed, the transmitter direction is turned to the north. in other words, the radio wave comes from the south. so you must turn the antenna south. but this is not always the case. In rare cases, the base station is misplaced and you may see the antenna in a different direction.
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18645
  • Backstage
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #113 on: June 26, 2019, 03:05:26 PM »
And you are trying to prove something with this worthless image.
This image isn't worthless.
It shows you are wrong and that you have no interest in the truth.
Your imaginary, fake, manipulated gif photos can not be magically an argument. I've added there something shows you are wrong, so you have accepted there are fake satellites, right?

Look at there is a fakesat 001. Are you happy with it?

The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #114 on: June 26, 2019, 03:33:20 PM »
It is generally south but not everytime. In order to avoid confusion when the base stations are installed, the transmitter direction is turned to the north. in other words, the radio wave comes from the south. so you must turn the antenna south. but this is not always the case. In rare cases, the base station is misplaced and you may see the antenna in a different direction.
Care to provide some examples of these "misplaced" satellites dishes, which still allegedly use satellites.
All I have seen point to the equator.

I've added there something shows you are wrong
You have shown nothing to be wrong with the image.
All you have done is shown that you have no interest in ever accepting evidence that shows you are wrong.

*

rabinoz

  • 22667
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #115 on: June 26, 2019, 06:13:45 PM »
And a motion gif showing the stars appearing to move past the geostationary satellites

And a time-lapse video of 4 more "geostationary" satellites:

2018-03-19 Geostationary satellites (timelapse about 700x) by Amrum astronomer
.

Note that while they are called "geostationary" satellites, most wander slightly because the orbits are not precisely circular and often have a slight inclination to the equator.
Like this? pay attention to all the satellites.



I've added an affect to fakesat001, it disappears sometimes like how yours do. Do you accept now we have 4 more satellites on orbit?
No I don't! Now stop your dishonest and amateurish attempt to deceive people with fake fotoshopping!
The real satellite images are not steady like your fakes and if you look carefully you might see that some  wander slightly.

The time lapse video that I added that post shows that slight movement more clearly.

Maybe you can't see it, well tough! At least you can't try your deceptive but childish fakery on that.

Now, Mr Wise, if you have real evidence please present it! Your silly deceptions are too crude to fool anyone!
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 07:39:54 PM by rabinoz »

Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #116 on: June 26, 2019, 06:45:50 PM »
If there were 'antennas' instead of satellites in orbit responsible for satellite TV, etc. Then why South? Our TV satellite dishes point South. Wouldn't it be far more practical to place the antennas at or near the North Pole? You'd need less of them and they could serve the entirety of the Flat Earth. Shouldn't our TV dishes point North?

It is generally south but not everytime. In order to avoid confusion when the base stations are installed, the transmitter direction is turned to the north. in other words, the radio wave comes from the south. so you must turn the antenna south. but this is not always the case. In rare cases, the base station is misplaced and you may see the antenna in a different direction.
Please explain the vertical angles needed to align a dish.  Where do I find a list of transmitter locations?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 12:36:57 AM by inquisitive »

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 364
  • Weather Pegasus
Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #117 on: June 26, 2019, 08:31:47 PM »
Listen my dear - "Proffessor
Flat Earth Scientist ". You are very wise, but wise - from this world ... that's enough to carry complete nonsense. Iíve given you an example - the sea Gyrocompass has already argued that you have no idea where you live. And you donít know how to lose. How are you debunk, you come up with new, even more fantastic stories. This is not good. Now I understand why you do not want to write to you in the mail. I think you wise - you are not worthy of being called a flat earthling. You're a shame!
You cannot deny real-life satellites!
I am also 100% sure that you wise cannot explain how lunar eclipses occur - above flat earth. Just do not invent new stories for children.

Are you sure that the earth is not such?

Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #118 on: July 01, 2019, 06:37:10 AM »
With no other explanations we can now all agree how satellite tv works with geosynchronous satellites in orbit above the equator.

Re: Satellite TV
« Reply #119 on: July 01, 2019, 08:35:48 AM »
If there were 'antennas' instead of satellites in orbit responsible for satellite TV, etc. Then why South? Our TV satellite dishes point South. Wouldn't it be far more practical to place the antennas at or near the North Pole? You'd need less of them and they could serve the entirety of the Flat Earth. Shouldn't our TV dishes point North?

It is generally south but not everytime. In order to avoid confusion when the base stations are installed, the transmitter direction is turned to the north. in other words, the radio wave comes from the south. so you must turn the antenna south. but this is not always the case. In rare cases, the base station is misplaced and you may see the antenna in a different direction.

You've been shown the locations of the satellites as per "round earth". You have called them all fakes.

Can you now tell us where the "flat earth" ground station fake satellite transmitters are please? I presume you have found some of them near where you live. What techniques did you use to detect them so we can go looking for the ones near us? Do you have photos of the transmitter dishes? Have you been able to confirm the satellite TV signal strength increases in an inverse square as you approach the transmitter, that should be quite apparent as you are able to get close to them.
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."