Satellites on the sky

No, I am literally not lying.  They do exist.  I am not in the habit of lying.

Iwas told it somebody else. But you are lying too.

It might be the case that you have never seen one but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  Denial on your part won't change that.

This is logical. Because you globularist/evolutionalst/atheist people majoritly denying the God because you did not see it. Same logic. Satellites are your God, think it so.

You don't seem to understand proof do you.

I do. But you globularists don't know what a proof is. You are asking it to people and proving all you are knowing it wrong, except Smoke Machine. He is a globularist too, but a sane one, a smart one.

You have no justification at all for your lie that satellites do not exist.

No, I have. If it exist, so prove. You are showing either cartoon network products or your own supposedly experiences never experienced actually are not evidence or proof of anything.

No, I have. If it exist, so prove.

Ok you tell me what 'proof' you would be willing to accept.  How do you prove that satellites exist?

At the moment in this discussion we have got Sandokhan who states that satellites do exist in FE but at 'lower altitude'

Satellites do exist: on a FE they orbit at a much lower altitude.

and you who are adamant that they don't exist.  Two people who would each deny they are ever wrong with opposing views. You can't both be right can you?!?

How do you prove that satellites exist?

By observing it live by another satellite, the plane, the balloon, that is, by something comparable and can observe it.

There should also be a video containing the entire time from the launch of the satellite to orbit. However, the rockets carrying the supposedly satellites leave the broadcast shortly after they are launched, and the video continues with cgi animation. However, we know very well that many cameras can be placed on a rocket easily.

Those full video shoots are generally belonging to Space-x company, Nasa yet discovered that technology. and at the end of the video, we see the rocket hits into the dome and stop within a second - ignoring the laws of physics.

Your Rockets do not go into your supposedly space.

a) Hits the dome and stop immediately at the moment
b) goes through Antarctica, the world's free rocket dump

That all sounds very expensive and I don't personally own any rockets.

I think I'll stick with the look up and watch them passing across the sky approach.  I know that won't suit you but you have to adapt your methods to suite your means don't you.

I don't know what the Space X annual budget is but I would hedge a bet that it is bigger than mine.

What is this dome that you are talking about made of anyway?  Must be made of pretty tough stuff if it can stop a rocket in its tracks.  Where can I get some?

I am looking same sky but not seing anything. It is just like your God only you can see and can not prove its existence.

SpaceX was just an amateur company tried to send rocket to space. They have discovered it hits the dome. NASA give them bribe actually. Those billions of dollar agreement means it. Also, NASA even have not that technology sending a rocket to the dome.

They do small rockets only go 100kms up. Their technology only includes to go up 100 kms is bigger than NASA technology goes supposedly millions of kms to the space but actually CN cgi.

Intense gas with liquid properties in some ways, I guess according to my observations.

I am looking same sky but not seing anything.

Again... just because you don't see something doesn't mean it isn't there.  I was once standing outside in a queue for a theatre show and watching the ISS pass over. Plain as anything.  No one else saw it because they weren't looking up at the sky.  They didn't see it but I did.

Again... just because you don't see something doesn't mean it isn't there.

Again... You are describing God. So you have became a believer, right?

I don't really know what 'God' is so how could I be describing God?  God to me is a concept and not an entity as such.  That's my understanding anyway.  I'm sure you have your own interpretation.

I am looking same sky but not seing anything. It is just like your God only you can see and can not prove its existence.

SpaceX was just an amateur company tried to send rocket to space. They have discovered it hits the dome. NASA give them bribe actually. Those billions of dollar agreement means it. Also, NASA even have not that technology sending a rocket to the dome.

They do small rockets only go 100kms up. Their technology only includes to go up 100 kms is bigger than NASA technology goes supposedly millions of kms to the space but actually CN cgi.

Intense gas with liquid properties in some ways, I guess according to my observations.

If I had the money I'd totally pay to strap you to the side of a rocket launch so you can see space and satellites first hand. 

So can you show me the mark on the dome where the rocket hit it? Got any evidence at all for any of your claims?

I've taken pictures of satellites. I've communicated with them directly. That's more direct evidence than anything you have claimed.

I don't really know what 'God' is so how could I be describing God?  God to me is a concept and not an entity as such.  That's my understanding anyway.  I'm sure you have your own interpretation.

We are describing God as somebody created everything. It is just like my view to satellites. Satellite is a concept describing a network and not an entity as such.

Quote from: wise on August 12, 2020, 05:06:06 AM

I am looking same sky but not seing anything. It is just like your God only you can see and can not prove its existence.

SpaceX was just an amateur company tried to send rocket to space. They have discovered it hits the dome. NASA give them bribe actually. Those billions of dollar agreement means it. Also, NASA even have not that technology sending a rocket to the dome.

They do small rockets only go 100kms up. Their technology only includes to go up 100 kms is bigger than NASA technology goes supposedly millions of kms to the space but actually CN cgi.

Intense gas with liquid properties in some ways, I guess according to my observations.

If I had the money I'd totally pay to strap you to the side of a rocket launch so you can see space and satellites first hand. 

So can you show me the mark on the dome where the rocket hit it? Got any evidence at all for any of your claims?

I've taken pictures of satellites. I've communicated with them directly. That's more direct evidence than anything you have claimed.

If I had enough mana point, I'd totally pay to strap you to the side of the otherside. 

You can't show me a real evidence of space because not exist, both we know it.

I can tell I have communicated with God and angels. Can not I? But I don't use it as an argument here.

That's more direct evidence than anything you have claimed.

You see your mistake? Your evidence is not more than mine, equal or less. Objectively equal and in my side, not equal, mine is more true. Hence, I don't use direct evidences.

Neither your being see the satellits, nor me seing God and angels are not valid evidences scientifically.

Do you get why you and others have not a chance to deceive me? I am not a believer, I am beyond a knower.

You see your mistake? Your evidence is not more than mine, equal or less. Objectively equal and in my side, not equal, mine is more true. Hence, I don't use direct evidences.

Yes, you don't use evidence, that is quite apparent.

My evidence counts more than your evidence because you are not actually presenting any evidence.

I have seen satellites. Taken pictures of them. Listened to them. Your counter evidence is nothing more than denial. You have no evidence of your own.

Quote from: wise on August 12, 2020, 05:42:58 AM

You see your mistake? Your evidence is not more than mine, equal or less. Objectively equal and in my side, not equal, mine is more true. Hence, I don't use them direct evidences.

Yes, you don't use evidence, that is quite apparent.

My evidence counts more than your evidence because you are not actually presenting any evidence.

I have seen satellites. Taken pictures of them. Listened to them. Your counter evidence is nothing more than denial. You have no evidence of your own.

Corrected. I have mistakenly not write the "them" word there. But it was clear I meant it. Anyway.

Reply the other parts or you have agreed as you admit the earth is flat!

Don't forget this! 

Quote from: JJA on August 12, 2020, 05:50:05 AM

Quote from: wise on August 12, 2020, 05:42:58 AM

You see your mistake? Your evidence is not more than mine, equal or less. Objectively equal and in my side, not equal, mine is more true. Hence, I don't use them direct evidences.

Yes, you don't use evidence, that is quite apparent.

My evidence counts more than your evidence because you are not actually presenting any evidence.

I have seen satellites. Taken pictures of them. Listened to them. Your counter evidence is nothing more than denial. You have no evidence of your own.

Corrected. I have mistakenly not write the "them" word there. But it was clear I meant it. Anyway.

Reply the other parts or you have agreed as you admit the earth is flat!

Stop changing already quoted posts.  If you want to correct yourself, just say so.

You still have zero evidence.  I've seen satellites. I've recorded data directly from them. taken pictures of them.

You say they are not real, yet I have direct, personal experience with them. You have no evidence other than just saying over and over they are not real. Why should I believe you over my own eyes?

Stop changing already quoted posts.  If you want to correct yourself, just say so.

You still have zero evidence.  I've seen satellites. I've recorded data directly from them. taken pictures of them.

You say they are not real, yet I have direct, personal experience with them. You have no evidence other than just saying over and over they are not real. Why should I believe you over my own eyes?

Proof? Where is your experience proofs? Who has verified them being real?

Have you believe on God also? If so, why; if not, why?

Compare my and your attitude about the existance of satellites and God depends on direct and belief experiences. Where is difference? Satellite is your God. You claim it exists, but can not prove.

Then you tell: "We are not simulation! We are not simulation!" You! Are! 100%! simulation! with this inconsistent attitude.

Quote from: JJA on August 12, 2020, 06:28:45 AM

Stop changing already quoted posts.  If you want to correct yourself, just say so.

You still have zero evidence.  I've seen satellites. I've recorded data directly from them. taken pictures of them.

You say they are not real, yet I have direct, personal experience with them. You have no evidence other than just saying over and over they are not real. Why should I believe you over my own eyes?

Proof? Where is your experience proofs? Who has verified them being real?

Have you believe on God also? If so, why; if not, why?

Compare my and your attitude about the existance of satellites and God depends on direct and belief experiences. Where is difference? Satellite is your God. You claim it exists, but can not prove.

Then you tell: "We are not simulation! We are not simulation!" You! Are! 100%! simulation! with this inconsistent attitude.

Well I've talked to astronauts on the ISS who commented on my pictures, and even asked me to take some more for them. That's pretty good proof for me.

What I believe in is between me and God, and none of your damn business.

The difference between your belief in God and my belief in satellites is I can point at a satellite and show someone else. I can take pictures and show them. I can point in the sky, and others can see what I see. That's the difference between science and religion.

If you can't deal with both of them, that's your problem.

I think I'll stick with the look up and watch them passing across the sky approach.  I know that won't suit you but you have to adapt your methods to suite your means don't you.

Credulity is not a good argument.

Well I've talked to astronauts on the ISS who commented on my pictures, and even asked me to take some more for them. That's pretty good proof for me.

The astro -nots on the ISS are the most lying people on the earth. If they tell something then the opposite of it becomes more true. If they like your pictures so your pictures are fake like themselves.

What I believe in is between me and God, and none of your damn business.

So what I believe in is between me and satellites, why do you feel it your damn business?

The difference between your belief in God and my belief in satellites is I can point at a satellite and show someone else.

No you can not. This is not a difference. I can claim same thing too. This does not make a sense.

I can take pictures and show them.

No you can not. You can show your pictures only liars like you, like astro-nots ready to accept your lies, because they are already liars, one more lie, no problem in their side.

Ironically the possiblity I take the picture of God is more than you take a picture of satellites. Because, at least mine is real and I can try my chance.

I can point in the sky, and others can see what I see.

Sky, yes sky. You can show stars staying on the sky dome and we can see too. So what?

That's the difference between science and religion.

Guess this is not an argument shows the difference of science and religion. According to same mentality, I can point in the sky, and others can see what I see. So, religion beats the supposedly science, right?

If you can't deal with both of them, that's your problem.

You still have many problems I have show them above. Even globularists here aware your mistakes.

Quote

What I believe in is between me and God, and none of your damn business.

So what I believe in is between me and satellites, why do you feel it your damn business?

Because you are telling me that I'm a liar and not seeing what I am seeing.

That's the difference you can't seem to get.

If you want to open your mouth and start yelling that I'm a liar, then you get yelled at right back.

I have not once told you not to believe in God. I've not once said you're lying when you say you talk to Him. That's religion, that's your business. I respect your beliefs.

The moment you start trying to shout down everyone else and claim YOUR beliefs must be MY beliefs, that's a problem.

Remember, you came into this thread and started denying things and calling us liars. That's the difference.

I agree.  You cannot start dictating what others should believe in, accusing others of being liars and then insist that whatever you believe in is right and everyone else should believe the same.

We all have our differences of opinion and that is what makes a debate. But downright attacks on others just because they have a different point of view is stepping across the line. 

I too respect the right of others to believe in God and have their own interpretation of what they think God is. I have spoken to many others who come from different religious backgrounds.  They respect my position and I respect theirs.  It's just a shame that some apparently cannot bring themselves to do the same.

I also respect whatever Wise wishes to believe about satellites or whatever.  As long as he understands that there is a difference between what he believes and what is real and true in some cases.

Ok so tell me what in your view would represent proof then.

Something that shows it is satellites rather than something else.

This is logical. Because you globularist/evolutionalst/atheist people majoritly denying the God because you did not see it. Same logic. Satellites are your God, think it so.

There is no evidence of gods except fictional stories. These gods and stories are mutually contradictory. Thus they cannot all be true. There is literally no other evidence for the existence of a god in reality. A god helps with no problem at all for reality. Thus there is no reason to believe in a god.
It is not merely a case of not seeing it. It is a case of there being no actual evidence for gods.

Unlike your imaginary fiend, there are mountains of evidence for satellites. Evidence you choose to ignore.

No, I have. If it exist, so prove.

You have been provided with plenty of evidence, evidence you choose to ignore.
So the burden now falls on you to disprove that evidence, something you have never done.

By observing it live by another satellite, the plane, the balloon, that is, by something comparable and can observe it.

You mean photos you would just dismiss as CGI?
Why not just be honest for once and admit that for NOTHING would be proof or evidence of the existence of satellites as that would show you are wrong.

we see the rocket hits into the dome and stop within a second - ignoring the laws of physics.

No, we have never seen that.
You have repeatedly asserted it, and even provided footage which you claim shows that, but they have been refuted every time.

I can tell I have communicated with God and angels. Can not I?

There is a big difference between just saying you can and actually being able to do it with others being able to test your claims.
Anyone can go out and get the required equipment (or build it themselves) and communicate with satellites and take photos of some.
Meanwhile, it is only believers that "talk" to gods, with believers in different, contradictory gods magically only "talking" to their god, with no way to show that they are actually talking to their god and no way for non-believers to replicate it.

Hence, I don't use direct evidences.

See, what that so hard to admit?
You don't care about evidence. You don't care about reality. All you care about is your false beliefs and pretending they are true. You will reject anything that shows they are false and happily misuse whatever you can to pretend they are true.

The astro -nots on the ISS are the most lying people on the earth.

Nope. Their lies are nothing in comparison to yours. You lie with every post you make.
They would just lie the same amount as normal people, with rare white lies.

If they tell something then the opposite of it becomes more true.

That makes no sense at all.
They say Earth exists, so according to you it doesn't?

Because, at least mine is real and I can try my chance.

That is just your baseless claim, with no supporting evidence. But again, there is plenty of evidence for satellites.

Quote from: Solarwind on August 12, 2020, 04:13:14 AM

Ok so tell me what in your view would represent proof then.

Something that shows it is satellites rather than something else.

If two people separated at a distance took pictures of the satellite at the exact same time and compared it's position against background stars to determine parallax for distance, would that work?

Something that shows it is satellites

Unfortunately the majority of satellites (well all but one actually) are simply too small given their height to be directly visible as satellites even in telescopes.  Only possible exception to this is during a transit of the Sun or Moon which turns the moving dot of light against the dark background of sky into a silhouette against a bright background.

http://astrophoto.fr/satellites.html

I wonder what other possibilities JB would like to suggest these moving stars that we all see in the sky (apart from Wise it seems) are if they are not satellites.

If two people separated at a distance took pictures of the satellite at the exact same time and compared it's position against background stars to determine parallax for distance, would that work?

Whilst that would provide an indication of height, I don't think it would 'prove' it was a satellite.

Unfortunately the majority of satellites (well all but one actually) are simply too small given their height to be directly visible as satellites even in telescopes.

You don't need a visual observation.
There are other methods of obtaining evidence.

Your eyes are not your only tools.

I wonder what other possibilities JB would like to suggest these moving stars that we all see in the sky (apart from Wise it seems) are if they are not satellites.

A plane or an asteroid/meteor skimming the atmosphere, just to name 2 options.

If two people separated at a distance took pictures of the satellite at the exact same time and compared it's position against background stars to determine parallax for distance, would that work?

Yes, a simple example would be the geostationary satellites used for satellite TV, with multiple receivers on Earth pointing to the same satellite and these paths indicating that each of these satellites is roughly 35 000 km above the equator of a round Earth.

You can get even better by using a camera to take a time-lapse photo of the night sky showing these presumed satellites in a ring around Earth, remaining stationary relative to the Earth, as they need to be to continue to have a fixed dish point to them, and more importantly, the lack of any such ring elsewhere in the sky, regardless of your location on Earth, ruling out the possibility of multiple such rings to try to produce the coverage of such satellites without using satellites.

That is far more compelling evidence than a faint dot moving across the sky.

You can get even better by using a camera to take a time-lapse photo of the night sky showing these presumed satellites in a ring around Earth, remaining stationary relative to the Earth, as they need to be to continue to have a fixed dish point to them, and more importantly, the lack of any such ring elsewhere in the sky, regardless of your location on Earth, ruling out the possibility of multiple such rings to try to produce the coverage of such satellites without using satellites.

OK so next could you either get that evidence for me and present it here or describe a method by which the average person with average equipment could do it for themselves. 

Because you are telling me that I'm a liar and not seeing what I am seeing.
That's the difference you can't seem to get.

Wait wait. If I tell you I have take photo with God and angels, but forget to save it, what will you tell me?

If I tell you I went to the dome and see everything is flat, so what will you do other than calling me a liar?

I am simply defining the situation. You are talking something you can impossible, no way but you are lying about it.

If you want to open your mouth and start yelling that I'm a liar, then you get yelled at right back.

No, I do not want. Because I am telling true. I want to open my mouth and start yelling you are a liar! But it seems a problem in your side. It is my mouth, my yell !

I have not once told you not to believe in God. I've not once said you're lying when you say you talk to Him. That's religion, that's your business. I respect your beliefs.

God is not a belief in my side. He is scientific reality of the world. This is our difference.

When issue comes to satellites you call it as scientific matter, but when issue comes to God you define it as religion or belief. No, in my side he is not less real than you. So your existance is a belief too. Are you religion?

The moment you start trying to shout down everyone else and claim YOUR beliefs must be MY beliefs, that's a problem.

Guess the case is equal here. I am not shouting out more than you. But you are more forcing me to accept your beliefs about satellites.

Remember, you came into this thread and started denying things and calling us liars. That's the difference.

You are liar in my side. But it is your belief, you are free to believe satellites, it is not so different. But you are still a liar even in this post. I have just told my opinion, there was nothing about your business. My belief about satellites is me and satellites problem, it is not your business.

I respect your missbeliefs on supposedly satellites, no problem. It is not my business.

get the point now? I don't think so.

I came the thread not to call you are liars. I have came thread and told "satellites are not exist" There was nothing about you. But you, who first tried to convince me to accept your beliefs.

Stop hypocrisy! If you have a right to deny the God, so I have a right to deny the supposedly satellites. No difference. I am not forcing you to accept the God reality, and you can not force me to believe your missbeliefs about satellites. But you are doing it! You are doing opposite of your talkings!

You are talking something you can impossible, no way but you are lying about it.

No, what he is talking about is entirely possible. You just reject all the evidence for it.

God is not a belief in my side. He is scientific reality of the world. This is our difference.

No, the difference is that you outright reject science and instead replace with delusional beliefs like Earth being flat and reject all evidence that shows your beliefs are false.

When issue comes to satellites you call it as scientific matter, but when issue comes to God you define it as religion or belief.

As already pointed out, that is because satellites have mountains of objective, scientific evidence for their existence. Your god has none.

You are liar in my side.

There is no "side" in if someone is a liar. Either they are or they are not.
People disagreeing with your false beliefs does not make them a liar no matter how much you want it to.

No, what he is talking about is entirely possible. You just reject all the evidence for it.

Your approving him does not make stronger his position, but makes it weaker. Because you are photocopy of same lying machine.

No,...

Replying everything with no proves you are nothing but a denying machine.

As already pointed out, that is because satellites have mountains of objective, scientific evidence for their existence. Your god has none.

Nope. That is because your bosses have made up many fake photos about supposedly satellites, but we did not it. That's all. If I create one, "our God" can has too. But I am not a liar or fraudent. I need to take God's approve before take him a photo. Even I was did it, I am sure you atheists would deny it a way.

There is no "side" in if someone is a liar. Either they are or they are not.

So both you are liar.

You are a liar in my side.

You are not a liar in your opinion.

Result: You are a liar in my side. What do you suggest anything else?

People disagreeing with your false beliefs does not make them a liar no matter how much you want it to.

So you have agreed I am not a liar because of denying your atheist missbeliefs about satellites, right?

Keep continue this way, without insulting, swearing or racist hate speech, okay? I know it is hard in your side because you have you have not a real argument at the moment but only these remained.

Replying everything with no proves you are nothing but a denying machine.

Is that your way of admitting you are a denying machine?

That is because your bosses have made up many fake photos about supposedly satellites, but we did not it.

Photos are not the only evidence, and they are not only able to be obtained by the "bosses".
Stop acting like there is no evidence for satellites just because you choose to ignore it.

You choosing to bury your head in the sand and ignore all the evidence doesn't magically mean there is none.

So if you want to LIE and claim there are no satellites, the burden is on you to prove it.

So both you are liar.

Nope still just you.
Again, there are no sides to liars.
People being against your side because you are wrong does not make them liars, no matter how much you want it to.