Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16

  • 321 Replies
  • 18243 Views
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #120 on: February 08, 2023, 08:30:13 AM »
An earlier proposed experiment of being able to track a single satellite with no disruption over a long journey is a potentially good experiment. Seeing if satellite dishes only ever align with one transmitter, across a decent variety of locations, could potentially be another, even if less feasible.

The OP kinda does what you mentioned: The "One of us lives on Ocean Isle Beach North Carolina.  The other one lives in Port Fourchon Louisiana," maps and such. Maybe that got lost in the mix.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #121 on: February 08, 2023, 08:34:35 AM »
An earlier proposed experiment of being able to track a single satellite with no disruption over a long journey is a potentially good experiment. Seeing if satellite dishes only ever align with one transmitter, across a decent variety of locations, could potentially be another, even if less feasible.

The OP kinda does what you mentioned: The "One of us lives on Ocean Isle Beach North Carolina.  The other one lives in Port Fourchon Louisiana," maps and such. Maybe that got lost in the mix.
That experiment is insufficient. It's the basis, but the two things needed to show a satellite is a more likely explanation are that a unique target is picked up by a dish, and that this uniqueness is shared at multiple disparate locations and isn't just a local quirk.
Anything else would be completely in line with even the most basic stratellite model. The case there's trying to do the triangulation thing, and running into the inevitable assumptions there, not testing for consistency and not even claiming to test for uniqueness.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #122 on: February 08, 2023, 08:57:14 AM »
An earlier proposed experiment of being able to track a single satellite with no disruption over a long journey is a potentially good experiment. Seeing if satellite dishes only ever align with one transmitter, across a decent variety of locations, could potentially be another, even if less feasible.

The OP kinda does what you mentioned: The "One of us lives on Ocean Isle Beach North Carolina.  The other one lives in Port Fourchon Louisiana," maps and such. Maybe that got lost in the mix.
That experiment is insufficient. It's the basis, but the two things needed to show a satellite is a more likely explanation are that a unique target is picked up by a dish, and that this uniqueness is shared at multiple disparate locations and isn't just a local quirk.
Anything else would be completely in line with even the most basic stratellite model. The case there's trying to do the triangulation thing, and running into the inevitable assumptions there, not testing for consistency and not even claiming to test for uniqueness.

Yeah, that's why I said "kinda". A start in the heading I think you're referring to.

I guess, using the OP as a start:

- The 2 dishes a 1000 miles apart are both pointing to the same place out toward open ocean - Presumably no antenna out there
- The two locations are watching the ball drop in Times Square on New Years eve at the same time and they are seeing the same thing - Coupled with someone in Times Square seeing the same simultaneous thing as well.

None of that proves a satellite in space, but starts to cut down on non-satellite explanations aside from pure speculation without evidence.

And yeah, could be in line of a stratelite model. However, it would be nice if any evidence was produced to support it. Like, so and so has captured footage of stratelites hovering above the Caribbean, or here's some documentation regarding an operational stratellite network in that area. Something. Otherwise, it's all just conspiracy, rockets don't exist, space doesn't exist, blah, blah, blah. Boring and never substantiated, even slightly.

We kinda have a double standard here. RE may present at least a modicum of evidence, documentation, whathaveyou. FE presents, "It's a lie". The standards for evidence should be equal, regardless of whether RE has the upper hand or not.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #123 on: February 08, 2023, 09:00:54 AM »

Maybe rather than plucking one line out of context,

Denying something that actually  exists in the context it can be found visually, photographed, found by its broadcast, provides a service to thousands, and found by radar is delusion and or a lie.

To deny the existence of an object that can be proven to exist to push a biased view is fraud. Intellectual dishonesty.  A con. 
« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 09:02:27 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #124 on: February 08, 2023, 09:11:41 AM »
Yeah, that's why I said "kinda". A start in the heading I think you're referring to.
Start is kinda my whole problem with that tactic. Doing the first step, and acting as though it's sufficient without going the rest of the way that's necessary.

And yeah, could be in line of a stratelite model. However, it would be nice if any evidence was produced to support it. Like, so and so has captured footage of stratelites hovering above the Caribbean, or here's some documentation regarding an operational stratellite network in that area. Something. Otherwise, it's all just conspiracy, rockets don't exist, space doesn't exist, blah, blah, blah. Boring and never substantiated, even slightly.

We kinda have a double standard here. RE may present at least a modicum of evidence, documentation, whathaveyou. FE presents, "It's a lie". The standards for evidence should be equal, regardless of whether RE has the upper hand or not.
There's also something of a double standard with respect to how evidence is applied - like, realistically speaking the act of receiving a signal from EchoStar 16 or such could be construed as evidence for stratellites as much as it is satellites. The reason we prefer satellites as the explanation is not inherent to any signal, it's due to the surrounding context of our knowledge and beliefs.
The problem you run into is that the tests of a model necessarily have to follow from a model - conspiracies, inevitably, are unfalsifiable. The lack of any solid documentation of a stratellite system is exactly the observation we would expect if it were true. It's part of why the whole falsification angle is such a futile one. (Like, the thing I say time and time again is that if you want to say "The evidence for the claims of FET are not compelling," I have no issue with that. But when you start doing, as this thread does, pivoting from "What's your justification?" to "That's not good enough, stratellites are impossible!" then you just go down a rabbithole).
The evidence for stratellites over satellites would have to be rooted in the rest of the context - ie, the "Space doesn't exist," or "Space travel is impossible," which, hypothetically, can be engaged with when you get to the specific claims and justification of that idea. It's logically coherent.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #125 on: February 08, 2023, 09:14:12 AM »

Maybe rather than plucking one line out of context,

Denying something that actually  exists in the context it can be found visually, photographed, found by its broadcast, provides a service to thousands, and found by radar is delusion and or a lie.

To deny the existence of an object that can be proven to exist to push a biased view is fraud. Intellectual dishonesty.  A con.
Cool.
And when you feel able to do more than assert, either say why stratellites can never explain those same observations without appealing to space agencies as 100% reliable sources, or prove space agencies can be trusted (ie: space travel exists) or shut up. It is honestly just boring to ask you questions at this point because you only ever ignore them, but hey. Sigh.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #126 on: February 08, 2023, 09:43:46 AM »
Yeah, that's why I said "kinda". A start in the heading I think you're referring to.
Start is kinda my whole problem with that tactic. Doing the first step, and acting as though it's sufficient without going the rest of the way that's necessary.

What may seem as insufficient to you may be sufficient to someone else. For FE, in some circumstances, "it's a lie," is sufficient.

And yeah, could be in line of a stratelite model. However, it would be nice if any evidence was produced to support it. Like, so and so has captured footage of stratelites hovering above the Caribbean, or here's some documentation regarding an operational stratellite network in that area. Something. Otherwise, it's all just conspiracy, rockets don't exist, space doesn't exist, blah, blah, blah. Boring and never substantiated, even slightly.

We kinda have a double standard here. RE may present at least a modicum of evidence, documentation, whathaveyou. FE presents, "It's a lie". The standards for evidence should be equal, regardless of whether RE has the upper hand or not.
There's also something of a double standard with respect to how evidence is applied - like, realistically speaking the act of receiving a signal from EchoStar 16 or such could be construed as evidence for stratellites as much as it is satellites. The reason we prefer satellites as the explanation is not inherent to any signal, it's due to the surrounding context of our knowledge and beliefs.

This one is a little sticky. I wouldn't necessarily say that we prefer satelittes as an explanation. In passing, sure. But when examining it against alternative explanations, evidence is introduced, however well or poorly. Doesn't matter. The bar moves from, "Yeah, satelites exist because Direct TV says so and satellite TV is cool," to, "Here's a bunch of evidence that it is a satellite and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary."

And like I said about the double-standard. Presenting evidence is not defaulted to just knowledge and belief. Not presenting evidence is a default to knowledge and belief.

Again, we can distill this all down to:

Space/rockets/satellites don't exist in FE because they can't. Not even solely from a physics standpoint, they just can't because that blows up FE.

A simple image of earth from space...FE=Toast. Image is fake because Space/rockets/satellites don't exist and, by the way, the earth is flat. Debate over.

The problem you run into is that the tests of a model necessarily have to follow from a model - conspiracies, inevitably, are unfalsifiable. The lack of any solid documentation of a stratellite system is exactly the observation we would expect if it were true. It's part of why the whole falsification angle is such a futile one. (Like, the thing I say time and time again is that if you want to say "The evidence for the claims of FET are not compelling," I have no issue with that. But when you start doing, as this thread does, pivoting from "What's your justification?" to "That's not good enough, stratellites are impossible!" then you just go down a rabbithole).
The evidence for stratellites over satellites would have to be rooted in the rest of the context - ie, the "Space doesn't exist," or "Space travel is impossible," which, hypothetically, can be engaged with when you get to the specific claims and justification of that idea. It's logically coherent.

I think we agree on this.

However, "straetiltes are impossible" is the same as "satellites are impossible". At least some evidence for the latter has been presented. As to the former, literally no evidence for actually putting alternatives at the scene of the crime.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #127 on: February 08, 2023, 09:45:22 AM »

Maybe rather than plucking one line out of context,

Denying something that actually  exists in the context it can be found visually, photographed, found by its broadcast, provides a service to thousands, and found by radar is delusion and or a lie.

To deny the existence of an object that can be proven to exist to push a biased view is fraud. Intellectual dishonesty.  A con.
Cool.
And when you feel able to do more than assert, either say why stratellites can never explain those same observations without appealing to space agencies as 100% reliable sources, or prove space agencies can be trusted (ie: space travel exists) or shut up. It is honestly just boring to ask you questions at this point because you only ever ignore them, but hey. Sigh.

All you do is assert.

The information available says that a satellite was launched and is in geosynchronous orbit at position x.

Signal triangulation, witness reports of the satellite launch, etc. confirm the information available.

You are asserting that it could still be something else such as a stratellite.  The burden of proof is on those claiming it isn't a satellite to show that is something else other than a satellite.  Where was the supposed stratellite launched from?  Who is maintaining it?  Why are there no pictures of it?  What is it's exact position?  How is it able to exist in a location closer to earth's surface without signal triangulation being contradictory?

Simply asserting that it could be something else and asserting that information from space agencies can't be trusted is about as useful as used toilet paper. 

« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 09:49:42 AM by NotSoSkeptical »
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #128 on: February 08, 2023, 10:23:20 AM »
Yeah, that's why I said "kinda". A start in the heading I think you're referring to.
Start is kinda my whole problem with that tactic. Doing the first step, and acting as though it's sufficient without going the rest of the way that's necessary.

What may seem as insufficient to you may be sufficient to someone else. For FE, in some circumstances, "it's a lie," is sufficient.
I'm not even touching soundness right now. An argument has to be logically valid before that's even worth discussing. Soundness would depend on the person, but logical validity is the case independent of personal belief.

This one is a little sticky. I wouldn't necessarily say that we prefer satelittes as an explanation. In passing, sure. But when examining it against alternative explanations, evidence is introduced, however well or poorly. Doesn't matter. The bar moves from, "Yeah, satelites exist because Direct TV says so and satellite TV is cool," to, "Here's a bunch of evidence that it is a satellite and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary."

And like I said about the double-standard. Presenting evidence is not defaulted to just knowledge and belief. Not presenting evidence is a default to knowledge and belief.
That gets into what I was saying about the interpretation of evidence - any evidence of satellites that is not explicitly impossible under stratellites, could be taken as evidence of stratellites. You wouldn't need evidence to the contrary. It would be just as coherent to say "Here's a bunch of evidence that this is a stratellite system attempting to create the illusion of a satellite system."
The reason that gets rejected is that it introduces undue complexity and too many assumptions - but that's only the case because of the surrounding context that we share with respect to space travel existing.
Hence:
Quote
Again, we can distill this all down to:

Space/rockets/satellites don't exist in FE because they can't. Not even solely from a physics standpoint, they just can't because that blows up FE.

A simple image of earth from space...FE=Toast. Image is fake because Space/rockets/satellites don't exist and, by the way, the earth is flat. Debate over.
Agreed.
People like to oversimplify science, but it's all a web of knock-on effects and implication. If you follow the rabbithole of any statement, you more than likely end up winding through multiple other fields. If someone finds the Bedford Level Experiment compelling and undeniable, that refutes photos of the Earth, etc. The way you'd argue for the veracity of the Blue Marble would be talking about a river in Cambridgeshire, science is fun like that.

However, "straetiltes are impossible" is the same as "satellites are impossible". At least some evidence for the latter has been presented. As to the former, literally no evidence for actually putting alternatives at the scene of the crime.
In the interests of pedantry, no evidence has been put forward for 'Stratellites are impossible,' but merely 'Stratellites are not feasible or likely.' Important distinction.
But yeah, you end up where we started. The arguments against satellites would be all the 'Space travel is impossible,' line, which if true would solidly refute satellites. In this case, the conclusion actually would be impossibility, which doesn't follow from any of the anti-stratellite arguments given. 'There is a giant honking dome that gets in the way' is a different class of response to 'Stratellites would need to be incredibly fine-tuned and incredibly numerous to not double-up signals and provide total coverage.'





You are asserting that it could still be something else such as a stratellite.  The burden of proof is on those claiming it isn't a satellite to show that is something else other than a satellite.  Where was the supposed stratellite launched from?  Who is maintaining it?  Why are there no pictures of it?  What is it's exact position?  How is it able to exist in a location closer to earth's surface without signal triangulation being contradictory?

Simply asserting that it could be something else and asserting that information from space agencies can't be trusted is about as useful as used toilet paper. 
The burden of proof is a) always on the one making the claim, b) inevitably a crap introduction to a discussion because it turns it into a game of pass the parcel and "I know you are but what am I?"
Someone who asserts stratellites cannot function has a burden of proof. Someone that asserts stratellites absolutely exist has a burden of proof. Someone who asserts satellites are possible has a burden of proof. Unless your position is "We don't actually know if there are satellites are not," you have a burden of proof in this discussion.
You have offered some observations. Without the legwork to showing that they cannot be in line with a stratellite model (which, see above, doesn't really happen - you can show implausibility, not impossibility) your claim is 'Satellites are a better explanation than stratellites.' Good, agreed.
But the burden of proof a FEer has to meet is unrelated to EchoStar 16 or any random satellite, as I've been into a lot of times. No one cares about one random satellite. They don't accept space travel, period, end of. That's the claim. That justifies a rejection of satellites, and provides credence to the notion of a lower-altitude alternative. That is the burden of proof here. Those questions are interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to the actual discussion.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #129 on: February 08, 2023, 10:59:33 AM »

The burden of proof is a) always on the one making the claim,

And proof has been given.

Who built the satellite.

Who launched the satellite.

Who rents / leases the satellite as a physical and legal asset.  To lease something other than a satellite to Dish Network would be fraud and maybe even embezzlement.

Evidence has been provided that the satellite can be verified visually in orbit by a telescope or photography.

Great detail has gone into the line of sight broadcast of the satellite, and how that points to the satellite’s position.

Web sites go into great detail on where the satellite is located in orbit, how its signal can be found, and how to point a directional dish to tune in the satellite.

Thousands of subscribers literally have directional antennas pointing to its position in the sky.

You can triangulate the satellite’s location by its continuous and active broadcasting.

The satellite can be, and is actively tracked by radar.

The burden of proof has been brought and the argument made.

Why don’t you Slime required the same burden of proof from FE’s.

Just hand waving and saying it can be something other than a geosynchronous satellite with providing no evidence to counter the present evidence is BS.


The evidence has been presented.

The burden of proof is now on FE’s not to say it’s a “lie” out of intellectual dishonesty and out of hand, but to provide evidence. 

The burden of proof is now on FE’s.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 11:35:29 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #130 on: February 08, 2023, 11:39:34 AM »
Why don’t you Slime required the same burden of proof from FE’s.
If a FEer made a thread saying "Debunk this stratellite system," and defended their model with nothing but circular arguments and shallow attempts and observations with explanations shown to conceivably hold under both models, I absolutely would.

Don't confuse the strength of your conclusion with the strength of your argument.
When you appeal to a gish gallop, and skip over any kind of depth or detail, or any actual acknowledgement or response to the FE position, you have not justified your claim. What you need to do, is either shut the hell up and stop pretending that we need your kind of bullshit to defend the most well-established and secure scientific theories in the world, or for you to slow the heck down and learn the basics of how arguments actually function.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #131 on: February 08, 2023, 12:01:28 PM »
You tried discussing a supposed point you made with me?  Nope.  All Ive seen is pathetic trolling from you.  It is surprising that you think anyone believes you are sincerely trying to improve the discussions here.  You have only discounted any explanation of how the technology actually works while pretending to be something other than a FE person trying to be subtle in your attempts to discredit the reality of things.  Sure, keep playing the part, we all can see the game though.
Maybe if you didn't invent a wholly fictitious person to argue against, you might find conversation is easier.

What?  Did you huff too much glue or something?  Now you roll off into dishonest gaslighting tactics.  I find honest discussions easier for conversation than meaningless trolling and gaslighting. 
How many times will we have to explain how something works, give examples that verify it and show how the alternatives cannot work at all before you stop trying to say we aren't considering it from the FE side.  How many times are you going to try to gaslight folks claiming we are making circular arguments?  I guess until you get tired of trolling, or your FE altered can swoop in and use your failed arguments to use as examples of how FE is discounted immediately.  Even if you aren't an FE in disguise, you are doing nothing but trying to give them fake ammunition. 

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #132 on: February 08, 2023, 12:20:32 PM »
Quote
Great, you accept satellites. Same here. But there is a reason for that, and that reason goes to the fact we don't inherently distrust space agencies, we don't have any reason to doubt them on the level FEers do. You need to be willing to question why you have the position you do, not just angrily assert it like it's gospel.

Dear God, the religion angle again.  Such horseshit.  Not not about gospel, its about evidence.  Examining the directions people need to point their dishes to pick up satellite signals from different locations is one of the best ways for the general public to verify that they are where they are supposed to be, without relying on what space agencies say.
...Have you never heard that idiom before? Kinda an overblown response.
Saying it's about evidence is one thing, but it means actually analysing said evidence rather than putting a kibosh on asking questions - which, intentionally or not, is what you have functionally been doing.

Sure I’ve heard of it.  Whenever it’s wheeled out here, it’s always bullshit.  And you’re not asking questions about the evidence, you are making claims.

Quote
You are the one who argued this whole topic is pointless and we should be talking about something else instead.  You are the one who apparently thinks that flat earthers shouldn’t be subjected to evidence based arguments because they’ve already made up their minds.   You are the one who gets judgy about about what arguments people present and feel the need to pull the “this makes REers look bad” card whenever you don’t approve.

Again, it’s not about whether I think space agencies lie or not.  It’s about whether an alternative can explain the evidence.  You made a completely half arsed attempt at an alternative explanation followed by a lot of crap to avoid talking about how bollocks it is.

If you’re not going expand on how a network of “stratellites ” could actually work, I’m out.

The problem is, as I've said, you are making two different points and jumping between them when one gets inconvenient. I agree with one of those points, that's why none of my arguments affect it, but the fact you somehow think it defends the other is my problem.
Forgive me if this comes off as patronising, I just have no idea how the heck else I'm meant to explain this without getting to basics.

There is a difference between logically valid and logically sound. A logically valid argument is one such that the premises imply the conclusion, regardless of the truth of those premises. Eg:

All cats are grey
Fred is a cat
Therefore Fred is grey


Logically valid, but not sound - as in, the first premise is not true. In the FE case, then

Space agencies cannot be trusted
The evidence for claims A, B and C are the claims of space agencies
A, B and C are not justified beliefs


Unavoidably, logically valid. The question is whether the first premise is true, which is its own rabbithole. More complexly, then:

Observations of satellites are most likely to be the result of space-based vessels
Stratellites are conceptually possible but highly, highly unlikely
Space travel does not exist
Therefore, space-based vessels are impossible
Therefore stratellites are a more likely explanation than space-satellites


Again, logically valid. Not sound, certainly, but the implication is there, and watertight, and inescapable. The way to rebut this would likely be to go after the second or third premises - you're in a weird middle-ground where you're making a half-hearted stab at both, and thereby leaving both on the table. You need to commit to rebutting one, because possibility is sufficient here.
The directions people point there dishes etc is something that has been gone into. All you have shown is that the stratellite explanation is unwieldy. Cool, great, agreed, but that doesn't touch the justification. Unless you have an actual disproof, then this just morphs into the space travel discussion.
The idea that disbelief in the satellite is unjustified only follows if you have shown that stratellites are an impossible explanation, or that space travel absolutely exists. You have done neither of these things. You have claimed unlikelihood, and used that to mean impossibility, which does not in any way attack the actual FE justification for this position.

Evidence is one thing, but you need to actually apply it without assuming your conclusion. Are you claiming impossibility of stratellites, or unlikelihood? You've previously said you have not argued for impossibility, so I don't see how your implication is even logically valid.
Which, again, gets to why this is a dumb topic. Unless you are claiming impossibility, which you have not and which realistically speaking is really damn tricky to do, this discussion gets subsumed entirely by the "Does space travel exist?" point. If yes, stratellites are harder to justify. If no, stratellites are inescapable. That's, like, just how logic necessarily works.

Maybe you need to turn your patronizing lessons in logic back on yourself and see if they check out?

I make NO claims except that the directions of satellite dishes correspond to the listed positions of the relevant satellites.

YOU make the clam that this can be explained by other means, but you have failed to justify that claim.  Beyond that, I merely pointed out some obvious problems with your half arsed attempt.  As well as your logic failures, such as this:

Quote
Evidence is one thing, but you need to actually apply it without assuming your conclusion

Which apparently you don’t think applies to flat earthers:

Quote
because they deny space travel, ergo it is impossible for satellites to exist.

 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #133 on: February 08, 2023, 12:46:47 PM »
You tried discussing a supposed point you made with me?  Nope.  All Ive seen is pathetic trolling from you.  It is surprising that you think anyone believes you are sincerely trying to improve the discussions here.  You have only discounted any explanation of how the technology actually works while pretending to be something other than a FE person trying to be subtle in your attempts to discredit the reality of things.  Sure, keep playing the part, we all can see the game though.
Maybe if you didn't invent a wholly fictitious person to argue against, you might find conversation is easier.

What?  Did you huff too much glue or something?  Now you roll off into dishonest gaslighting tactics.  I find honest discussions easier for conversation than meaningless trolling and gaslighting. 
How many times will we have to explain how something works, give examples that verify it and show how the alternatives cannot work at all before you stop trying to say we aren't considering it from the FE side.  How many times are you going to try to gaslight folks claiming we are making circular arguments?  I guess until you get tired of trolling, or your FE altered can swoop in and use your failed arguments to use as examples of how FE is discounted immediately.  Even if you aren't an FE in disguise, you are doing nothing but trying to give them fake ammunition.
Yeah, those are the tactics of someone that actually gives a damn about honest discussion. Accusations, and cutting out every point of consequence.
Like. You cannot claim you haven't just completely made up a person to argue against when you turn around and spin a whole paranoid narrative.

I am not the one giving FE ammunition. Relying on these shoddy arguments is what does that - FEers themselves have said that time and time again, that it is the horrible tactics of REers that renews their confidence. Discussions aren't one-and-dones, and maybe you've seen the anti-stratellite arguments done well, but it sure as heck hasn't been in this thread. Hence, asking questions, elaborating on a point, rather than making one-off vague remarks as you did and buggering off rather than fleshing them out.
The unfeasibility of stratellites has been shown. The impossibility has not.
Unfeasibility only justifies rejecting an option if there are alternatives. Under FET, there are not. This is why your argument is circular here. People don't go from believing in stratellites to believing in FET, hyper-focusing on trying to debunk stratellites while rejecting FE premises implicitly is a bad tactic, you have to see that. If A implies B, complaining that B doesn't imply A is not remotely logical.
Do you feel capable of actually responding to a single point raised, or are you just going to play up that "Anyone who disagrees with me is a troll," shtick?

Maybe you need to turn your patronizing lessons in logic back on yourself and see if they check out?

I make NO claims except that the directions of satellite dishes correspond to the listed positions of the relevant satellites.

YOU make the clam that this can be explained by other means, but you have failed to justify that claim.  Beyond that, I merely pointed out some obvious problems with your half arsed attempt.  As well as your logic failures, such as this:

Quote
Evidence is one thing, but you need to actually apply it without assuming your conclusion

Which apparently you don’t think applies to flat earthers:

Quote
because they deny space travel, ergo it is impossible for satellites to exist.

...Literally had me apologise and say that being patronising wasn't remotely my intent, but sure.
FEers absolutely need to do this too. The problem is that this thread began with a REer addressing FEers - like, I know you deny that somehow, but it's absolutely what happened. Data, and others, are claiming stratellites are impossible, and are not putting in the work to show that. Hence, I argue against that given their failure to provide arguments.
Okay, the directions of satellite dishes correspond to satellites. We're agreed on that. FEers could probably agree that they line up with the claimed location of satellites. There's no issue here. if this is your only claim, and this claim does not in any way claim exclusivity, is your position that other explanations are possible, if unlikely? Because, as I apparently need to keep reminding you, that is all I am saying. So we're in agreement, and the people claiming impossibility ought to stop?

Then, step two - what justifies this?
Well, yep, that's when you get to the space travel discussion. FEers would need to justify that claim, absolutely. But it would disprove satellites and necessitate other explanations, if it were the case. So, then, do you agree with me that this whole debate has been fundamentally futile and can be completely subsumed by the "Why is space travel impossible?" discussion.
Like, you're complaining about my posts, but when pushed you seem to just straight-up agree with everything so I'm saying, so what exactly is going on anymore?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #134 on: February 08, 2023, 01:31:49 PM »
Yeah, that's why I said "kinda". A start in the heading I think you're referring to.
Start is kinda my whole problem with that tactic. Doing the first step, and acting as though it's sufficient without going the rest of the way that's necessary.

What may seem as insufficient to you may be sufficient to someone else. For FE, in some circumstances, "it's a lie," is sufficient.
I'm not even touching soundness right now. An argument has to be logically valid before that's even worth discussing. Soundness would depend on the person, but logical validity is the case independent of personal belief.

I'm not sure how one arrives at logical validity other than by evidence. So I guess then the logical validity based upon overwhelming evidence is that space/rockets/satellites exist.

This one is a little sticky. I wouldn't necessarily say that we prefer satelittes as an explanation. In passing, sure. But when examining it against alternative explanations, evidence is introduced, however well or poorly. Doesn't matter. The bar moves from, "Yeah, satelites exist because Direct TV says so and satellite TV is cool," to, "Here's a bunch of evidence that it is a satellite and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary."

And like I said about the double-standard. Presenting evidence is not defaulted to just knowledge and belief. Not presenting evidence is a default to knowledge and belief.
That gets into what I was saying about the interpretation of evidence - any evidence of satellites that is not explicitly impossible under stratellites, could be taken as evidence of stratellites. You wouldn't need evidence to the contrary. It would be just as coherent to say "Here's a bunch of evidence that this is a stratellite system attempting to create the illusion of a satellite system."
The reason that gets rejected is that it introduces undue complexity and too many assumptions - but that's only the case because of the surrounding context that we share with respect to space travel existing.
Hence:
Quote
Again, we can distill this all down to:

Space/rockets/satellites don't exist in FE because they can't. Not even solely from a physics standpoint, they just can't because that blows up FE.

A simple image of earth from space...FE=Toast. Image is fake because Space/rockets/satellites don't exist and, by the way, the earth is flat. Debate over.
Agreed.
People like to oversimplify science, but it's all a web of knock-on effects and implication. If you follow the rabbithole of any statement, you more than likely end up winding through multiple other fields. If someone finds the Bedford Level Experiment compelling and undeniable, that refutes photos of the Earth, etc. The way you'd argue for the veracity of the Blue Marble would be talking about a river in Cambridgeshire, science is fun like that.

Isn't arguing for the veracity exactly this: Here is evidence from all over the place, different locations, systems, engineering, predictable outcomes, etc.? Essentially, here are 50 rivers that all show X. Here are 50 countries that all launch satellites....

However, "straetiltes are impossible" is the same as "satellites are impossible". At least some evidence for the latter has been presented. As to the former, literally no evidence for actually putting alternatives at the scene of the crime.
In the interests of pedantry, no evidence has been put forward for 'Stratellites are impossible,' but merely 'Stratellites are not feasible or likely.' Important distinction.
But yeah, you end up where we started. The arguments against satellites would be all the 'Space travel is impossible,' line, which if true would solidly refute satellites. In this case, the conclusion actually would be impossibility, which doesn't follow from any of the anti-stratellite arguments given. 'There is a giant honking dome that gets in the way' is a different class of response to 'Stratellites would need to be incredibly fine-tuned and incredibly numerous to not double-up signals and provide total coverage.'

Ok, so now we've ventured into pedantic philosophy. The argument seems to be that nothing is "impossible". Sure. Is it impossible that space/rockets/satellites don't exist. No. But one could literally say that about anything and everything. So I don't see how that's helpful.

So we'll go with improbable then. Is it improbable that space/rockets/satellites don't exist? No. Overwhelmingly improbable based upon evidence that space/rockets/satellites don't exist. No. So all I have to go on is evidence. Not philosophical pedantry.

Do you ever lecture FEr's on there claims that something doesn't exist simply because everyone is lying? Lecture them on the veracity of that "belief"? Maybe you should spend some time on coaching them on how to formulate arguments from logical validity instead of just, "Everyone is lying..."

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #135 on: February 08, 2023, 01:36:26 PM »

 with nothing but circular arguments

But we aren’t talking circular arguments.

You can take this.

Quote








This map shows the approximate location of the geosynchronous belt from latitude 42°N. When observing or taking photos, if one section of the belt has few geosats, move along the arc to look for others.
Stellarium

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/how-to-see-and-photograph-geosynchronous-satellites/

In addition to man changing the night sky I might add thank you very much….


If you are north of the equator.  Say Maine.

Pick a geostationary satellite over the equator visible from Maine.

Get the longitude and latitude of your position.  Take the angle of the visual sighting of the satellite.  A good equatorial mount and a small telescope will do.  Move 300 miles to the south.  Repeat the process.  Repeat as needed.

The angles logged off the equatorial mount should coincide with a spherical earth and a satellite 22,000 miles above the earth.

But this is how stupid flat earth is..

Quote
Equatorial Mounts WOULDN'T WORK on a Flat Earth




And…. Polaris isn’t perfectly aligned with the earths Pole. 

Quote
Thirdly, Polaris is not exactly lined up with earth's axis of rotation. There is very low probability that any star would end up exactly lined up with earth's axis. Polaris lies at a viewing angle that is 0.736 degrees away from exact North. Because the North Star does not lie exactly on earth's rotation axis, it actually arcs through the sky every night.

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/07/24/what-keeps-the-north-star-stuck-at-exactly-north/


« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 02:26:21 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #136 on: February 08, 2023, 01:49:14 PM »

...Literally had me apologise and say that being patronising wasn't remotely my intent, but sure.

But explaining the “basics” was.  What’s the problem now? You said it would come off as patronizing, and I agree.


Quote
FEers absolutely need to do this too. The problem is that this thread began with a REer addressing FEers - like, I know you deny that somehow, but it's absolutely what happened. Data, and others, are claiming stratellites are impossible, and are not putting in the work to show that. Hence, I argue against that given their failure to provide arguments.
Okay, the directions of satellite dishes correspond to satellites. We're agreed on that. FEers could probably agree that they line up with the claimed location of satellites. There's no issue here. if this is your only claim, and this claim does not in any way claim exclusivity, is your position that other explanations are possible, if unlikely? Because, as I apparently need to keep reminding you, that is all I am saying. So we're in agreement, and the people claiming impossibility ought to stop?

Then, step two - what justifies this?
Well, yep, that's when you get to the space travel discussion. FEers would need to justify that claim, absolutely. But it would disprove satellites and necessitate other explanations, if it were the case. So, then, do you agree with me that this whole debate has been fundamentally futile and can be completely subsumed by the "Why is space travel impossible?" discussion.
Like, you're complaining about my posts, but when pushed you seem to just straight-up agree with everything so I'm saying, so what exactly is going on anymore?

Er, no.

You made claims about other explanations to explain the data provided.  Where is your work to justify this position?

The whole point of the topic is the real world evidence, but for some reason you continue to tell people they should be talking about something else. 

And again you need to make up you mind whether saying that something is impossible is a valid argument or not.  You complain about REers allegedly doing this, while simultaneously using it as the basis of your argument from a FEer perspective.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #137 on: February 08, 2023, 02:45:47 PM »
Quote
Okay, the directions of satellite dishes correspond to satellites. We're agreed on that. FEers could probably agree that they line up with the claimed location of satellites. There's no issue here. if this is your only claim, and this claim does not in any way claim exclusivity, is your position that other explanations are possible, if unlikely? Because, as I apparently need to keep reminding you, that is all I am saying. So we're in agreement, and the people claiming impossibility ought to stop?

Then, step two - what justifies this?
Well, yep, that's when you get to the space travel discussion. FEers would need to justify that claim, absolutely. But it would disprove satellites and necessitate other explanations, if it were the case. So, then, do you agree with me that this whole debate has been fundamentally futile and can be completely subsumed by the "Why is space travel impossible?" discussion.
...
The whole point of the topic is the real world evidence, but for some reason you continue to tell people they should be talking about something else. 

And again you need to make up you mind whether saying that something is impossible is a valid argument or not.  You complain about REers allegedly doing this, while simultaneously using it as the basis of your argument from a FEer perspective.
The title of this thread is "Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific satellite." This is not a symmetrical situation.
The answer, from an FE perspective, is that space travel does not exist. That is the debunk. If you want to talk real world evidence, great, but it's real world evidence that has bugger all to do with EchoStar 16. The debunk is sufficient if it holds - logically valid, not sound.

If you want to argue it's impossible, then feel free. It's a valid argument if you can back it up. That's the important step. I don't think it can be, the arguments typically just end up geared around "This is why it would be hard," and there might be exceptions but it's like pulling teeth to get some users to actually give them so hey. there's no implicit reason a REer couldn't believe in stratellites - it'd be bloody weird and likely unjustified, but it isn't inherently as contradictory as a FEer who accepts space travel as given. Complaining when wildly different viewpoints function differently isn't the takedown you think it is.

You can call my basics breakdown patronising but it's kinda crucial here, and ignoring it doesn't help.
Quote
Observations of satellites are most likely to be the result of space-based vessels
Stratellites are conceptually possible but highly, highly unlikely
Space travel does not exist
Therefore, space-based vessels are impossible
Therefore stratellites are a more likely explanation than space-satellites


...The way to rebut this would likely be to go after the second or third premises...

Or, to summarise:
-Either stratellites are impossible, not merely unfeasible, and this becomes an argument against FET itself, which must be made and justified
-Or space travel can be shown to be impossible, and this whole discussion is futile
Objections to my manner aside, do you disagree with this summary? Do you think there's a third option, or are you committing to one of these positions?



I'm not even touching soundness right now. An argument has to be logically valid before that's even worth discussing. Soundness would depend on the person, but logical validity is the case independent of personal belief.
I'm not sure how one arrives at logical validity other than by evidence. So I guess then the logical validity based upon overwhelming evidence is that space/rockets/satellites exist.
Validity and soundness are different things. An argument can be logically valid without being true, so long as there is a line of implication from premises to conclusion (eg, All cats are grey, Fred is a cat, therefore Fred is grey. Logically valid, but not sound. Contrast: my cushion is round, my cushion is the same shape as the planet, therefore the planet is round. Correct conclusion, invalid argumentation, and so unsound).
The argument given here lacks the necessary implications to even be in contention for soundness.


Isn't arguing for the veracity exactly this: Here is evidence from all over the place, different locations, systems, engineering, predictable outcomes, etc.? Essentially, here are 50 rivers that all show X. Here are 50 countries that all launch satellites....
That's only persuasive if it wouldn't be what was expected under the 'Stratellite system where space agencies are trying to convince people space travel exists for their own ends.' The raw observations we have are:
-There was a launch in this location
-The claim was that the payload was a satellite bound for orbit
-This has happened many times
There's no inevitable conclusion that it actually was a satellite, if we go down the conspiracy rabbithole. Ergo, no logical implication to the existence of satellites at all.
There's an evidential one, certainly - you get into the whole question of why so many distinct agencies would be part of a deceit, why they'd do it, why they'd claim to be able to send up satellites... Which is interesting, but yeah, gets far afield. Without that, it just comes off as asserting the honesty of those organisations which is. An objectively terrible approach when debating FEers.

Ok, so now we've ventured into pedantic philosophy. The argument seems to be that nothing is "impossible". Sure. Is it impossible that space/rockets/satellites don't exist. No. But one could literally say that about anything and everything. So I don't see how that's helpful.

So we'll go with improbable then. Is it improbable that space/rockets/satellites don't exist? No. Overwhelmingly improbable based upon evidence that space/rockets/satellites don't exist. No. So all I have to go on is evidence. Not philosophical pedantry.

Do you ever lecture FEr's on there claims that something doesn't exist simply because everyone is lying? Lecture them on the veracity of that "belief"? Maybe you should spend some time on coaching them on how to formulate arguments from logical validity instead of just, "Everyone is lying..."
Pedantry, maybe, but it matters. The fact impossibility is bloody difficult to prove is known, which is why it is so damn weird when people get fixated on trying to demonstrate it. Like, it's inescapable. The fact that arguing that something is impossible is bordering on impossible itself is not something that can be ignored merely because it's inconvenient.
If you want to get to evidence, then I 100% support that - it's what I try to push for, the problem is when people get to arguments like these and obsess that it must be showing impossibility. If they didn't want to follow that conclusion, I wouldn't have an issue, but the fact that this is what happens is what necessitates debate. If we're agreed, then I'm glad.
Which then gets you to what I was saying about improbability - probability depends massively on one's preconceptions. The likelihood of satellites being fake is inevitably way more probable if you already believe space travel to be impossible. It's unavoidable. So to actually show the improbability of stratellites in a logically valid way, you have to follow the trail back to the root of the belief, rather than madly hacking at a branch and complaining when the whole tree doesn't topple.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #138 on: February 08, 2023, 02:46:47 PM »
And…. Polaris isn’t perfectly aligned with the earths Pole. 
Consider that when you need to completely replace the argument you are making, it doesn't function as well as you think it does.

Like. God. Slow down, stop, seriously think about the impression you are giving.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #139 on: February 08, 2023, 03:07:34 PM »



The title of this thread is "Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific satellite." This is not a symmetrical situation.
The answer, from an FE perspective, is that space travel does not exist. That is the debunk.

What does “space travel” have to do with a verifiable object actively broadcasting, can be located by its broadcasts, visible changing the night sky, can be located visibly by sight, and position located by radar.

Just because you don’t believe in something isn’t proof it exists.

Quote
How The Opposition Against Ignaz Semmelweis Reminds Us To Keep An Open Mind

The media slandered him and wrote that it was time to stop the nonsense about chlorine hand wash. Semmelweis sent publications on his discovery to prominent physicians, however the majority reacted negatively and believed that his method was ridiculous.

In 1856 Semmelweis was told to visit a psychiatric unit, there he was restrained and put into a straight jacket. During the time Semmelweis was alive, experts and authorities attacked and ridiculed him for his discovery

https://www.ticcersunite.com/post/how-the-opposition-against-ignaz-semmelweis-reminds-us-to-keep-an-open-mind

Funny people didn’t “believe” hand washing could saves lives.  It’s the same ignorance where people don’t  believe an object can be actively transmitting 22,000 miles above earth. 

To not “believe” in EchoStar 16 is a geostationary satellite broadcasting 22,000 miles above the earth.  You have to discard reality as a lie.  That’s a delusion.  Or fraud. 

You don’t get to disregard reality cause you don’t “believe”.   

When it comes to established science principles and evidence repeated dozens of times.  That can be varied.  Choosing to not believe in something real is a delusion. 
« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 03:10:59 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #140 on: February 08, 2023, 03:15:49 PM »

Consider that when you need to completely replace the argument you are making, it doesn't function as well as you think it does.



What?  You are a troll.

Please quote and cite how extra information “completely replace the argument”

Notice you are willfully lying about the context of the post.


 with nothing but circular arguments

But we aren’t talking circular arguments.

You can take this.

Quote








This map shows the approximate location of the geosynchronous belt from latitude 42°N. When observing or taking photos, if one section of the belt has few geosats, move along the arc to look for others.
Stellarium

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/how-to-see-and-photograph-geosynchronous-satellites/

In addition to man changing the night sky I might add thank you very much….


If you are north of the equator.  Say Maine.

Pick a geostationary satellite over the equator visible from Maine.

Get the longitude and latitude of your position.  Take the angle of the visual sighting of the satellite.  A good equatorial mount and a small telescope will do.  Move 300 miles to the south.  Repeat the process.  Repeat as needed.

The angles logged off the equatorial mount should coincide with a spherical earth and a satellite 22,000 miles above the earth.

But this is how stupid flat earth is..

Quote
Equatorial Mounts WOULDN'T WORK on a Flat Earth




And…. Polaris isn’t perfectly aligned with the earths Pole. 

Quote
Thirdly, Polaris is not exactly lined up with earth's axis of rotation. There is very low probability that any star would end up exactly lined up with earth's axis. Polaris lies at a viewing angle that is 0.736 degrees away from exact North. Because the North Star does not lie exactly on earth's rotation axis, it actually arcs through the sky every night.

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/07/24/what-keeps-the-north-star-stuck-at-exactly-north/


ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!

How is providing evidence by observations, calculations, and locating an object actively broadcasting “circular logic”.

Your just a sad individual 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #141 on: February 08, 2023, 03:32:31 PM »
What does “space travel” have to do with a verifiable object actively broadcasting, can be located by its broadcasts, visible changing the night sky, can be located visibly by sight, and position located by radar.
Everything that has been said and discussed with every other user in this thread. The fact you are incapable of developing a discussion beyond its most basic form is a you problem.
There is an object at the far side of the line drawn from every satellite dish that picks up a transmission. You throw a lot of words out there, but it's all just noise because you suck at justifying what matters the most here, being the height of said object. The arguments to justify would be triangulation, in which case you necessarily need to confidently determine that the observation made from elsewhere is pointing at the same object - hence, circular, because all you have ever done is evade this question or assert it, or trust the word of the very organisations that FEers take as under question.
(There is NSS' approach, which is more probabilistic/tackling feasibility so it doesn't get you to the conclusion you're so clearly after).
We have been over this. Repeatedly. You just suck at answering questions so we've been stuck at this stage when every other bloody person in this thread has been able to move past it.

You say a whole lot of stuff and none of it remotely matters. Give an observation stratellites would actually have a problem with, and demonstrate why it actually is a problem, or for once shut up and listen to the users that know this topic way better than you do and learn.


Consider that when you need to completely replace the argument you are making, it doesn't function as well as you think it does.



What?  You are a troll.

Please quote and cite how extra information “completely replace the argument”
In the bit I directly quoted. Christ you're not even trying.
And…. Polaris isn’t perfectly aligned with the earths Pole. 
Consider that when you need to completely replace the argument you are making, it doesn't function as well as you think it does.

Like. God. Slow down, stop, seriously think about the impression you are giving.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #142 on: February 08, 2023, 03:35:01 PM »
But this is how stupid flat earth is..
The Earth is round.
You are genuinely pathetic at arguing for that fact.
These two statements can co-exist. You seriously need to get over yourself. We do not need you to peddle straw men, circular arguments, and gish gallops, RET is plenty strong enough without your awful, awful tactics. Do you not realise how much harm you are doing?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #143 on: February 08, 2023, 03:50:16 PM »
Quote
Okay, the directions of satellite dishes correspond to satellites. We're agreed on that. FEers could probably agree that they line up with the claimed location of satellites. There's no issue here. if this is your only claim, and this claim does not in any way claim exclusivity, is your position that other explanations are possible, if unlikely? Because, as I apparently need to keep reminding you, that is all I am saying. So we're in agreement, and the people claiming impossibility ought to stop?

Then, step two - what justifies this?
Well, yep, that's when you get to the space travel discussion. FEers would need to justify that claim, absolutely. But it would disprove satellites and necessitate other explanations, if it were the case. So, then, do you agree with me that this whole debate has been fundamentally futile and can be completely subsumed by the "Why is space travel impossible?" discussion.
...
The whole point of the topic is the real world evidence, but for some reason you continue to tell people they should be talking about something else. 

And again you need to make up you mind whether saying that something is impossible is a valid argument or not.  You complain about REers allegedly doing this, while simultaneously using it as the basis of your argument from a FEer perspective.
The title of this thread is "Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific satellite." This is not a symmetrical situation.
The answer, from an FE perspective, is that space travel does not exist. That is the debunk. If you want to talk real world evidence, great, but it's real world evidence that has bugger all to do with EchoStar 16. The debunk is sufficient if it holds - logically valid, not sound.

That’s not a debunk, that’s an assertion.  Use of satellite services by the public IS evidence of space travel and it has everything to do with Echostar 16, along with every other similar satellite.


Quote
If you want to argue it's impossible, then feel free. It's a valid argument if you can back it up. That's the important step. I don't think it can be, the arguments typically just end up geared around "This is why it would be hard," and there might be exceptions but it's like pulling teeth to get some users to actually give them so hey. there's no implicit reason a REer couldn't believe in stratellites - it'd be bloody weird and likely unjustified, but it isn't inherently as contradictory as a FEer who accepts space travel as given. Complaining when wildly different viewpoints function differently isn't the takedown you think it is.

Jesus Christ, I don’t know how many I’ve said that I do not claim it is impossible?

Quote
You can call my basics breakdown patronising but it's kinda crucial here, and ignoring it doesn't help.
Quote
Observations of satellites are most likely to be the result of space-based vessels
Stratellites are conceptually possible but highly, highly unlikely
Space travel does not exist
Therefore, space-based vessels are impossible
Therefore stratellites are a more likely explanation than space-satellites


...The way to rebut this would likely be to go after the second or third premises...

Or, to summarise:
-Either stratellites are impossible, not merely unfeasible, and this becomes an argument against FET itself, which must be made and justified
-Or space travel can be shown to be impossible, and this whole discussion is futile
Objections to my manner aside, do you disagree with this summary? Do you think there's a third option, or are you committing to one of these positions?

Yes, I disagree.  How the hell is that an either/or question?  There are many other options, not limited to:
- Space travel can’t be shown to be impossible AND “stratellites” are possible.
- “stratellites”are possible, but don’t fit the available evidence.
- “stratellites” are possible, but not used.
- “stratellites” are used, but not in this case.
- “stratellites” are possible, but the earth is still round.

Etc.

I don’t need to commit to shit.  How about YOU justify your claims that “stratellites” can fit the evidence provided?  The OP simplified this by talking about just one identifiable signal.

Stop trying and failing to explain how logic works and get to it.


« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 03:53:07 PM by Unconvinced »

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #144 on: February 08, 2023, 04:02:36 PM »

 The fact you are incapable of developing a discussion beyond its most basic form is a you problem.


No.  I’ve learn not to let intellectually dishonesty people jerk me around.  Especially when they make false statements and accusations of what I post. 

You
Quote
You throw a lot of words out there,

No, myself and others have shown how the principles behind line of sight transmission and everyday use of satellite dish equipment can be used to show EchoStar 16 is exactly where it is advertised/documented as being.

How its location is documented.

How you can triangulate its position.  How everyday people verify its published location and aim their satellite dishes directly at EchoStar 16.

How you can visually verify EchoStar 16’s location, and how it differs visibly from stars of the night sky. Proving its geosynchronous. 

You can verify how EchoStar 16 had changed the night sky.

And the only way to deny it’s a geostationary satellite 22,000 miles above the earth actively broadcasting is to be delusional.

Or just willfully ignore reality which isn’t an argument.  It’s living a lie.

I have no idea what your problem is.  You have been caught time and time again in intellectually dishonest statements and arguments.  Especially regarding the context of what people post. 

What you claim you believe is part of this con where you try to give yourself legitimate standing, and then try to give legitimacy standing to flat earth ideas based on mythology, lies, and intellectual dishonesty. 

You make an ass of yourself where in your mind you’re calling out what in reality are sound arguments and evidence.

Then you show your hypocrisy by not calling out the false science, mythology, blatant lies of flat Earther’s.  The same ignorance that placed Ignaz Semmelweis in a straight jacket for showing/proving hand washing could save lives. 

You really have a sickness.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 04:09:01 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #145 on: February 08, 2023, 04:12:00 PM »
That’s not a debunk, that’s an assertion.  Use of satellite services by the public IS evidence of space travel and it has everything to do with Echostar 16, along with every other similar satellite.
By that logic it's also evidence for stratellites. The whole point of this discussion is to determine which better explains those specific observations.

Quote
If you want to argue it's impossible, then feel free. It's a valid argument if you can back it up. That's the important step. I don't think it can be, the arguments typically just end up geared around "This is why it would be hard," and there might be exceptions but it's like pulling teeth to get some users to actually give them so hey. there's no implicit reason a REer couldn't believe in stratellites - it'd be bloody weird and likely unjustified, but it isn't inherently as contradictory as a FEer who accepts space travel as given. Complaining when wildly different viewpoints function differently isn't the takedown you think it is.

Jesus Christ, I don’t know how many I’ve said that I do not claim it is impossible?
This was in response to your statement "And again you need to make up you mind whether saying that something is impossible is a valid argument or not.  You complain about REers allegedly doing this, while simultaneously using it as the basis of your argument from a FEer perspective." When you bring up the situation, I compare. Generic 'you' is a thing. Hence the final line explicitly talking about different viewpoints.

I don’t need to commit to shit.  How about YOU justify your claims that “stratellites” can fit the evidence provided?  The OP simplified this by talking about just one identifiable signal.

Stop trying and failing to explain how logic works and get to it.
And if you're annoyed by perceiving my statements as saying you think stratellites are impossible, imagine how it feels to read "The OP simplified this by talking about just one identifiable signal."
You know that's not how it works. It doesn't simplify a thing, it evades the whole issue. I've been addressing this a lot.

If space travel does not exist, satellites like EchoStar 16 cannot be in space. This is true. This is why I am hammering home the basics of logic, because from my perspective it seems as though you are outright ignoring this. This is the source of the belief. You can create some abstract situation of someone that believes in space travel but thinks stratellites exist, but that isn't what's going on. This is the Flat Earth Society.
Hyper-focusing on one satellite actively cuts off the important topic from discussion.
So, like I said, this whole conversation gets subsumed by whether space travel is possible. If no, satellites don't exist. Do you disagree?




No, myself and others have shown how the principles behind line of sight transmission and everyday use of satellite dish equipment can be used to show EchoStar 16 is exactly where it is advertised/documented as being.
No. You've asserted. Others have done better, but as of yet they've made arguments from feasibility that don't match your claims of proof at all. Unconvinced literally just said he isn't claiming stratellites are impossible.
You can say 'You can verify!' all you want, but it's only ever assertion because, as ever, you are incapable of responding to a question.
Two people on Earth. Both angle their transmitters. How do they know they are pointing at the same satellite? Do they just take the word of space agencies? Is there some aspect to the signal that cannot be faked? Do you need to physically travel hundreds of miles keeping a visual lock? Are you going to reply to this this time, or completely ignore it?
Give an observation that could not be seen in a stratellite system, and say why such a system could not give it. This is a really bloody basic request. Handwaved gish gallops are not a good look on anyone and they are all you ever offer, in every possible thread.


Then you show your hypocrisy by not calling out the false science, mythology, blatant lies of flat Earther’s.  The same ignorance that place Ignaz Semmelweis in a straight jacket for showing/proving hand washing could save lives. 

You really have a sickness.
Because there's a dozen other users on this site that do that. I don't get a chance.
I try, but it's completely impossible to carry on a conversation with them when the threads are polluted by users like you who are fundamentally incapable of having a discussion, because you have a pathological inability to respond to any question that you are ever asked, and you couch it all in a smug sense of arrogance because your conclusion is so solid that you think you can get away with utterly abysmal argumentation in favour of that point.
Christ. Do you think you're the first user who's had that whole 'crusade against anti-science' spiel? The problem is that science is a method, not a conclusion. If you object to anti-scientific notions, don't embody a laundry list of psuedoscience fallacies every fricking time you post. Just because your conclusion is correct does not mean you can get away with your perpetual steadfast refusal to justify your claims.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #146 on: February 08, 2023, 04:47:35 PM »

By that logic it's also evidence for stratellites.

How.  All satellite Dish subscribers utilizing EchoStar 16 pointing their directional dishes all to the same spot in the sky which is the only spot to tune in to EchoStar 16 that correlates to a geosynchronous satellite at 61.5 west 22,000 miles above earth.  That can be visually verified.  With no other proven areas in the sky that provides the broadcast of EchoStar 16. With no number of needed alternative platforms offered to provided the same coverage of the continental USA, from what altitude.  With no visible evidence that such platforms exist.  With no reported long term regional outages other than what is expected with weather.  Dish network would be pretty pissed if EchoStart 16 stopped broadcasting only to Texas with explanation given by the manufacturer of the satellite.  With no evidence of a support and maintenance program for platforms that would be taken out by storms, wind, lighting, and hail. With no indication of changing flight patterns from the launching, landing, crashing of such platforms.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 04:49:23 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #147 on: February 08, 2023, 04:54:33 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Grow up. If you actually want to discuss a point, I am happy to, but if all you want to do is bulldoze in lieu of replying, it's really kinda pathetic. Especially given, like, that's the line you opt to quote as opposed to the much more pertinent, and the one you repeatedly avoid:
Quote
Two people on Earth. Both angle their transmitters. How do they know they are pointing at the same satellite? Do they just take the word of space agencies? Is there some aspect to the signal that cannot be faked? Do you need to physically travel hundreds of miles keeping a visual lock? Are you going to reply to this this time, or completely ignore it?
Give an observation that could not be seen in a stratellite system, and say why such a system could not give it. This is a really bloody basic request. Handwaved gish gallops are not a good look on anyone and they are all you ever offer, in every possible thread.

If you genuinely care about anti-scientific ideas, relying on the pseudoscience playbook is not the look you want.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #148 on: February 08, 2023, 04:56:27 PM »
That’s not a debunk, that’s an assertion.  Use of satellite services by the public IS evidence of space travel and it has everything to do with Echostar 16, along with every other similar satellite.
By that logic it's also evidence for stratellites. The whole point of this discussion is to determine which better explains those specific observations.

Only if you can show that your “stratellites” fit the evidence.

Still waiting…

Quote
Quote
If you want to argue it's impossible, then feel free. It's a valid argument if you can back it up. That's the important step. I don't think it can be, the arguments typically just end up geared around "This is why it would be hard," and there might be exceptions but it's like pulling teeth to get some users to actually give them so hey. there's no implicit reason a REer couldn't believe in stratellites - it'd be bloody weird and likely unjustified, but it isn't inherently as contradictory as a FEer who accepts space travel as given. Complaining when wildly different viewpoints function differently isn't the takedown you think it is.

Jesus Christ, I don’t know how many I’ve said that I do not claim it is impossible?
This was in response to your statement "And again you need to make up you mind whether saying that something is impossible is a valid argument or not.  You complain about REers allegedly doing this, while simultaneously using it as the basis of your argument from a FEer perspective." When you bring up the situation, I compare. Generic 'you' is a thing. Hence the final line explicitly talking about different viewpoints.

So what you’ve saying this whole time about flat earthers not believing in space travel is not a valid argument after all?

Got it.

Quote
I don’t need to commit to shit.  How about YOU justify your claims that “stratellites” can fit the evidence provided?  The OP simplified this by talking about just one identifiable signal.

Stop trying and failing to explain how logic works and get to it.
And if you're annoyed by perceiving my statements as saying you think stratellites are impossible, imagine how it feels to read "The OP simplified this by talking about just one identifiable signal."
You know that's not how it works. It doesn't simplify a thing, it evades the whole issue. I've been addressing this a lot.

You’ve been spouting nonsense about it a lot.  The whole point of the topic is that focusing on one satellite means we can look at actual numbers instead of vague ideas. 

Quote
If space travel does not exist, satellites like EchoStar 16 cannot be in space. This is true. This is why I am hammering home the basics of logic, because from my perspective it seems as though you are outright ignoring this. This is the source of the belief. You can create some abstract situation of someone that believes in space travel but thinks stratellites exist, but that isn't what's going on. This is the Flat Earth Society.
Hyper-focusing on one satellite actively cuts off the important topic from discussion.
So, like I said, this whole conversation gets subsumed by whether space travel is possible. If no, satellites don't exist. Do you disagree?

I’m ignoring it because it’s a different topic.  You are avoiding this topic.  You can always start a new thread on what you do want to talk about instead of complaining about this one.

PS nothing here is important, expect maybe on the politics pages.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #149 on: February 08, 2023, 05:00:47 PM »


No. You've asserted.

No.  I have posted different way you can verify the position of EchoStar 16.  Things you can do.  Using a satellite dish from area to areas by using online aiming procedures from online installation guides.  To using a telescope and visually verifying the satellite’s position using an equatorial mount.

Items you falsely called circular reasoning.

And oddest enough, equatorial mounts prove the existence of spherical earth.


What you doing is ignoring sound principles that will pinpoint the location of EchoStar 16.  Then you trying to assert disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence, and choosing mythology is somehow evidence instead of delusion.