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

  • 321 Replies
  • 18564 Views
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #240 on: February 11, 2023, 03:37:35 AM »
[
And you want to start with the assumption that it is one platform at some ridiculous measurement in archaic units, and demand that people provide evidence it isn't a single platform.

Which has what to do with a documented built, launched, placed in orbit satellite, a satellite being leased as physical property, monitored by various agencies by radar, providing services to thousands of subscribers, its constantly broadcasting, the fact it can be pinpointed by its broadcasting, with directional antenna called satellite dishes literally pointing to its location, and can be visibility located, and produces a different characteristic than stars when photographed with a long exposure. 

Any proof anything in this post is a lie? 

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #241 on: February 11, 2023, 01:24:58 PM »
And you want to start with the assumption that it is one platform at some ridiculous measurement in archaic units, and demand that people provide evidence it isn't a single platform.

Which has what to do with a documented built, launched, placed in orbit satellite, a satellite being leased as physical property, monitored by various agencies by radar, providing services to thousands of subscribers, its constantly broadcasting, the fact it can be pinpointed by its broadcasting, with directional antenna called satellite dishes literally pointing to its location, and can be visibility located, and produces a different characteristic than stars when photographed with a long exposure. 

Any proof anything in this post is a lie?
And there you go again. You start with the claim/assumption that it is all true, and demand others prove it wrong.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #242 on: February 11, 2023, 02:13:32 PM »
I thought we were on the same page on this point?  You know that just saying "land towers or balloons" not does adequately explains this, right?
I think such towers or balloons would be horribly impractical.
But it is at least hypothetically possible for a fleet of balloons to support a collection of transmitters which could replace the single satellite.

The issue is how you demonstrate that it is a single source rather than multiple.

How hpothetically possible it is remains to be demonstrated. 

And why isn’t the issue to demonstrate multiple sources instead of a single one?

Quote
There is evidence for satellites, there is no evidence for God.  Regardless of burden of proof arguments, bringing religion into it is daft.  It's just a good way to wind people up.
Some people would claim otherwise.

Not you though, right?  And not the people you tend to aim this argument at. You could pick literally any example to make a point a about burden of proof, but it’s always God isn’t it? 

Quote
Certainly within a degree.  Think it depends on the dish, the satellite and location, but these installation instructions for a consumer dish in the UK say within 0.1 deg.  The required angles are usually quoted to 2 decimal places, which is a hint.

https://www.sparksdirect.co.uk/download/SKYKIT1-manual.pdf

If you want some numbers to start working how many towers/balloons/whatever are required, shall we be super generous and say initial alignment +/- 5 deg, fine alignment +/- 1 deg?
Quickly reading the manual, you have this:
Quote
Slowly scan the sky with the satellite dish (side to side movement) from around 5˚ either side of the correct
azimuth angle. The number of LEDs lit and the pitch of the tone will increase/decrease, if it does not then adjust
the elevation by half a degree and repeat the scan.
That gives a horizontal angle of 10 degrees.
It is only when it gets to fine tuning that it requires 0.1 degree.

I might do the math tomorrow.

Yeah, but the fine tuning is still required to get a good enough signal to watch.  Remember this is just a method to find the signal for joe public.  As I understand, it’s far easier to accurately set the elevation angle against a spirit level first (often one build into the mount) than eyeballing the dish against compass readings.  Not to mention that the instructions might also accommodate people who forget to account difference between true north and magnetic north, which in the UK is about 3-5 degs.

The satellite finders people use for this stage only need to detect a very weak signal against the background.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #243 on: February 11, 2023, 03:20:11 PM »

And there you go again. You start with the claim/assumption that it is all true, and demand others prove it wrong.

This is an assumption?  Any proof anything in this post is a lie?

A statement is made.  Then it’s either a lie and a fraud. Or truth and reality. 

If you claim a statement made by someone is a lie with no proof, then that is something approaching slander.

If you want to be technical, much of flat earth arguments are approaching slander.

NASA lies. Newton lies.  Spherical earth is pushed by evil people.

The opening post listed certain facts.  Who built the satellite, where it was placed in orbit, who leases EchoStar 16 to provide a service to customers.  Can you provide any evidence the facts of how EchoStar 16 ended up in geosynchronous orbit are a lie to facilitate a fraud? 



*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #244 on: February 11, 2023, 05:46:33 PM »

And there you go again. You start with the claim/assumption that it is all true, and demand others prove it wrong.
This is an assumption?  Any proof anything in this post is a lie?

A statement is made.  Then it’s either a lie and a fraud. Or truth and reality. 

If you claim a statement made by someone is a lie with no proof, then that is something approaching slander.

If you want to be technical, much of flat earth arguments are approaching slander.

NASA lies. Newton lies.  Spherical earth is pushed by evil people.

The opening post listed certain facts.  Who built the satellite, where it was placed in orbit, who leases EchoStar 16 to provide a service to customers.  Can you provide any evidence the facts of how EchoStar 16 ended up in geosynchronous orbit are a lie to facilitate a fraud?
Again, why should the burden be to prove the statement is a lie.

Say a theist claims a God exists, and an atheist says don't believe them.
Is that approaching slander?

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #245 on: February 11, 2023, 10:13:49 PM »
How hpothetically possible it is remains to be demonstrated. 

And why isn’t the issue to demonstrate multiple sources instead of a single one?
This depends on what is being done, but the burden can be on either or both.
If someone is trying to claim this satellite exists and proves Earth is round, the burden is primarily on them, as providing an alternative where Earth doesn't need to be round where the signals are still received means that it receiving the signals doesn't prove Earth is round.
Conversely, if someone is claiming that satellites are fake and this can all be down with low down towers, then the burden is on them to demonstrate that, not just that it is possible, but that it is actually happening.

This is also one reason why science primarily deals with evidence rather than proof.

Not you though, right?  And not the people you tend to aim this argument at. You could pick literally any example to make a point a about burden of proof, but it’s always God isn’t it?
It is something where we would both say is a completely ridiculous thing to do, where the person asserting the claim should have the burden of proof.
This is not always God. I wouldn't use God as an example for a theist.

But would you prefer it if I just switched sides?
If I gave a hypothetical example of a FEer claiming there is a grid of stratolites providing these signals, and demanded others debunk them?

Yeah, but the fine tuning is still required to get a good enough signal to watch.  Remember this is just a method to find the signal for joe public.  As I understand, it’s far easier to accurately set the elevation angle against a spirit level first (often one build into the mount) than eyeballing the dish against compass readings.  Not to mention that the instructions might also accommodate people who forget to account difference between true north and magnetic north, which in the UK is about 3-5 degs.

The satellite finders people use for this stage only need to detect a very weak signal against the background.
However, if we are using the everyday use of satellites as evidence, we are focusing on Joe Public, poorly aligning it and then fine tuning with the signal rather than checking direction.

And if it is to account or magnetic declination, you would be screwed in Sydney, with a 12 degree offset.
However, I think it is more so people can pick a location they are near and use that rather than having to do math or use a computer.

Anyway, I did some math, on desmos, focusing purely on north-south, rather than azimuth:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/zqfsmf6w2s

The y axis is angle of elevation of the dish. The x axis is latitude. The purple line is the line expected for a RE with a satellite at 35 000 km altitude, the red and black lines are the + and - 5 degree. The blue lines are the angles required to hit a series of stratollites.

This is an example where I used a height of 4100 km, just to see the difference between FE vs RE.
By using 4 stratollites it can cover from the equator to 84 degrees.

If instead we drop the altitude to 100 km, and I only focus on the main region of USA, from 26 degrees in Texas to 49 degrees at the Canadan border, I get that a stratollite set up to match perfectly at 26.103 degrees would only cover from 26 to 26.218 degrees.
At the other end, a satellite set up to match 59.18 degrees would cover from 58.706 to 60 degrees.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/suemzvwyiv

If we are generous and take the wider end, and get roughly 1 degree per satellite, to cover the US from 26 to 60 degrees would require 34 stratollites for a single longitude.
And as a maximum (taking the shorter range of 0.2 degrees) we get 170.

The other way of putting it is that each stratollite would cover a distance of between 24.2 km to 145 km. If we assume a hexagonal area based upon that diameter, we end up with needing between just 43 000 to 257 000 stratollites at an altitude of 100 km.
(And more importantly, lots of regions where you can find another stratollite just by going up or down a bit more.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #246 on: February 12, 2023, 03:19:18 AM »

And there you go again. You start with the claim/assumption that it is all true, and demand others prove it wrong.
This is an assumption?  Any proof anything in this post is a lie?

A statement is made.  Then it’s either a lie and a fraud. Or truth and reality. 

If you claim a statement made by someone is a lie with no proof, then that is something approaching slander.

If you want to be technical, much of flat earth arguments are approaching slander.

NASA lies. Newton lies.  Spherical earth is pushed by evil people.

The opening post listed certain facts.  Who built the satellite, where it was placed in orbit, who leases EchoStar 16 to provide a service to customers.  Can you provide any evidence the facts of how EchoStar 16 ended up in geosynchronous orbit are a lie to facilitate a fraud?
Again, why should the burden be to prove the statement is a lie.

Say a theist claims a God exists, and an atheist says don't believe them.
Is that approaching slander?

One, don’t really care what people choose what spirituality is their right path.

And again.  Are you saying there is conclusive evidence god exits, or is all evidence of god blind faith.

The whole point of believing in God is to have faith for spiritual reasons.


EchoStar 16 is a physical object documented as built, launched, placed in orbit.  Listed by companies as a physical asset to lease, and be leased. Where signals can be transmitted up to the satellite where the satellite acts like a relay and actively broadcasts to the continental USA.  An object monitored by a control room.  Monitored by various agencies with radars. Providing a broadcast service in J band where in this case a directional antenna called a satellite dish points to the object of transmission to receive the broadcast.  Where EchoStar 16 is visible in the night sky and acts different than star trails in long exposures.  What part of this paragraph is impossible to verify as truthful and being reality.  By the those that conclude off physical evidence satellites are real and for those that think satellites are a lie?

Simple solution for FE’s if EchoStar 16 is a fraud.  Subscribe to dish network, and sue dish for the fraud of claiming to use satellites.

People have sued Dish before and won….

Quote
Court orders $280 million from Dish Network, largest ever Do Not Call penalty

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/06/court-orders-280-million-dish-network-largest-ever-do-not-call-penalty

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #247 on: February 12, 2023, 12:13:36 PM »
One, don’t really care what people choose what spirituality is their right path.
Of course, why would you care about a simple exposure of the ridiculousness of your position.

And again.  Are you saying there is conclusive evidence god exits, or is all evidence of god blind faith.

The whole point of believing in God is to have faith for spiritual reasons.
Are you saying that all theists who claim a god exists are liars, slandering them in the process?

Or is it acceptable to reject a claim, without it amounting to slander?

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #248 on: February 13, 2023, 01:52:29 AM »

Or is it acceptable to reject a claim, without it amounting to slander?

As long as it’s not approaching the legal definition of slander…

But making claims like spherical earth is a NASA lie to control sheep with no credible evidence goes far into the camp of slander….

Or claiming satellites are a lie to trick people into believing space.  So all the organizations that build and place satellites into orbits are willfully pushing a fraud?  That seems like a statement in the camp of slander if there is no supporting evidence to show the existence of satellites in space orbit are a lie. 

People should question.  But it’s intellectually dishonest to make claims it’s a lie with no actual evidence it is a lie.  Claiming it’s a right out lie is very different than splitting hairs over the results of an experiment or study. 

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #249 on: February 13, 2023, 02:55:31 AM »
Or is it acceptable to reject a claim, without it amounting to slander?
As long as it’s not approaching the legal definition of slander…
i.e. a FEer can reject the claim that echostar16 is a satellite in GSO providing transmissions from a single satellite to cover the entire US; without it being slander.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #250 on: February 13, 2023, 03:00:46 AM »
Or is it acceptable to reject a claim, without it amounting to slander?
As long as it’s not approaching the legal definition of slander…
i.e. a FEer can reject the claim that echostar16 is a satellite in GSO providing transmissions from a single satellite to cover the entire US; without it being slander.

Like can they prove airlines were killing the homeless?  Without slander…


Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #251 on: February 13, 2023, 03:04:13 AM »

i.e. a FEer can reject the claim that echostar16 is a satellite in GSO providing transmissions from a single satellite to cover the entire US; without it being slander.

What’s the best physical based evidence which is testable provided so far by FE’s? 
« Last Edit: February 13, 2023, 10:25:11 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30068
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #252 on: February 13, 2023, 05:05:52 AM »
A friend of mine changed over to sky from BT and I asked where they had their new dish installed. The friend told me there is no dish and the signals come from the aerial on her roof to the new small set-top box.

Why no more dishes?
Because they have no idea how it works and are just making crap up?
BT connects to the internet, through an existing broadband connection.

As it uses an existing connection, there is no need for any new satellite dish.
And that means this has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.
Her sky TV will not work unless she connects the aerial lead to her roof aerial.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30068
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #253 on: February 13, 2023, 05:09:22 AM »
Can anyone answer the question as to how this Echostar gets into an orbit that no craft can take it to?
How does it get to distance and to orbit at the exact same speed as a rotating Earth?
What speeds it up and what slows it down to geo sync orbit and what keeps it in that orbit for 15 to 20 years with zero maintenance?

Magic is what I call it. Or sci-fi.
Can anyone turn it into fact?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #254 on: February 13, 2023, 07:04:39 AM »
A friend of mine changed over to sky from BT and I asked where they had their new dish installed. The friend told me there is no dish and the signals come from the aerial on her roof to the new small set-top box.

Why no more dishes?
Because they have no idea how it works and are just making crap up?
BT connects to the internet, through an existing broadband connection.

As it uses an existing connection, there is no need for any new satellite dish.
And that means this has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.
Her sky TV will not work unless she connects the aerial lead to her roof aerial.

I don't know how it works there, but here's how it works in the States. By law, consumers must have the ability to connect to local affiliate stations, e.g., ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and a few others, without having a "cable" connection, in other words, without having to pay. That local affiliate non-cable connection is via antenna, indoor or outdoor depending upon signal strength. This goes way back. Something to do with freedom to access local news and such as well as the Emergency Broadcasting System.

So, if I buy a TV and don't want cable or satellite or streaming of any sort, I can get about 8-10 local stations via antenna. That's it. If I want HBO, ESPN, etc., any sort of non-local "cable" station, I need subscriptions to a provider, whether it be cable, fiber, satellite or streaming (Internet).

I'm assuming it works the same way there. She can get her local stations via antenna, but anything more requires a "physical" connection to a box of some sort which is then connected to the aforementioned pay services.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #255 on: February 13, 2023, 07:10:26 AM »
Can anyone turn it into fact?

No. At least not for you.

No matter the number of books, papers, articles, reports, schematics, documents, images, video, experiments, measurements, tests, eye witnesses, participants, engineers, pilots you could be presented with, you'll just turn around and say it's all lies for the severely indoctrinated.

So why are you even insulting anyone's intelligence by even asking the question? Why waste anyone's time? Evidence means nothing to you.

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #256 on: February 13, 2023, 11:51:40 AM »
A friend of mine changed over to sky from BT and I asked where they had their new dish installed. The friend told me there is no dish and the signals come from the aerial on her roof to the new small set-top box.

Why no more dishes?
Because they have no idea how it works and are just making crap up?
BT connects to the internet, through an existing broadband connection.

As it uses an existing connection, there is no need for any new satellite dish.
And that means this has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.
Her sky TV will not work unless she connects the aerial lead to her roof aerial.
Who cares about sky, you brought up BT TV.

Can anyone answer the question as to how this Echostar gets into an orbit that no craft can take it to?
That is an entirely ridiculous question.
Just what makes you think no craft can take it to it?

How does it get to distance and to orbit at the exact same speed as a rotating Earth?
Either by using a rocket to get it there, or by using its on board manoeuvring system to make the final corrections.

What speeds it up and what slows it down to geo sync orbit and what keeps it in that orbit for 15 to 20 years with zero maintenance?
What makes you think it needs to speed up and slow down?

Can you make a coherent argument that shows understanding?

Magic is what I call it. Or sci-fi.
Can anyone turn it into fact?
OF course you would, because you hate reality, and want to dismiss it at all costs.

It already is a fact. You not liking that and pretending it is magic wont change that.

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #257 on: February 13, 2023, 11:52:47 AM »
Or is it acceptable to reject a claim, without it amounting to slander?
As long as it’s not approaching the legal definition of slander…
i.e. a FEer can reject the claim that echostar16 is a satellite in GSO providing transmissions from a single satellite to cover the entire US; without it being slander.
Like can they prove airlines were killing the homeless?  Without slander…
Why can't you deal with what people have said?
Why do you need to keep jumping to something completely different?

Is it because you have no confidence at all in your position, so you feel the need to demand your position is true and that is taken as the default with others needing to disprove it, rather than you needing to support your position?

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #258 on: February 13, 2023, 12:29:34 PM »

Why can't you deal with what people have said?

What.  That I’m interested in what the hardcore FE’s post.  And the similar tactics they take?  Looking for patterns of behavior?  More data the better. 

I have a friend.  Her niece has been sucked up by a flat earth cult.  The cult has it driven in to the niece the more the family proves her wrong, the more the niece must be right.  It’s only truth that is oppressed.


Quote
Why do you need to keep jumping to something completely different?

Because the cultish behavior of flat earther’s is tied to patterns behavior, and tactics of propaganda.  It up to individuals if they want to keep bumping threads. 


Quote
Is it because you have no confidence at all in your position,

Very confident the best way to navigate this old world is to treat it as spherical.

As far as you.  You’re very hostile to the Bible.  Can we say you’re not confident on being humble, a sinner, needing salvation?  Many governments, including one’s that suppress all forms of religion, have committed many atrocities throughout history.  Why no be equally judgmental of government as religion.  Both are murderous and threats to personal civil liberties.

Quote
so you feel the need to demand your position

How is stating a specific statement then ask to be proven wrong “demand” your position. 

To debate, one must make a statement. 

And what is the most credible and testable physical evidence provided by flat earther’s.  I think they failed any figurative baptism by fire on debating their “evidence”. 


Quote
is true and that is taken as the default with others needing to disprove it, rather than you needing to support your position?

How did you answer the question at the end of this post?

“EchoStar 16 is a physical object documented as built, launched, placed in orbit.  Listed by companies as a physical asset to lease, and be leased. Where signals can be transmitted up to the satellite where the satellite acts like a relay and actively broadcasts to the continental USA.  An object monitored by a control room.  Monitored by various agencies with radars. Providing a broadcast service in J band where in this case a directional antenna called a satellite dish points to the object of transmission to receive the broadcast.  Where EchoStar 16 is visible in the night sky and acts different than star trails in long exposures.  What part of this paragraph is impossible to verify as truthful and being reality.  By the those that conclude off physical evidence satellites are real and for those that think satellites are a lie?”


Or… why don’t FE’s do the below?

Simple solution for FE’s if EchoStar 16 is a fraud.  Subscribe to dish network, and sue dish for the fraud of claiming to use satellites.

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #259 on: February 13, 2023, 01:01:05 PM »
Why can't you deal with what people have said?
What.  That I’m interested in what the hardcore FE’s post.
So that's a "No" then.

And you wonder why Slime has been posting against you for so long.

Because the cultish behavior of flat earther’s is tied to patterns behavior, and tactics of propaganda.
So you just imitate them, trying to make the RE position look just as bad.

Very confident
If you were confident in your position then you would deal with what people have actually said.
You wouldn't need to construct strawmen to knock down to pretend you are correct.

Your actions show you are not confident.

How is stating a specific statement then ask to be proven wrong “demand” your position.
To debate, one must make a statement.
Debating requires more than just making a statement.
You need to make a statement and back it up.
But that isn't what you want to do here.
Instead, you demand the starting position is that your statement is true.
That if someone doesn't accept it, they need to prove the statement is false (i.e. you are shifting the burden of proof), and you accuse them of slander.

How did you answer the question at the end of this post?
“EchoStar 16 is a physical object documented as built, launched, placed in orbit.  Listed by companies as a physical asset to lease, and be leased. Where signals can be transmitted up to the satellite where the satellite acts like a relay and actively broadcasts to the continental USA.  An object monitored by a control room.  Monitored by various agencies with radars. Providing a broadcast service in J band where in this case a directional antenna called a satellite dish points to the object of transmission to receive the broadcast.  Where EchoStar 16 is visible in the night sky and acts different than star trails in long exposures.  What part of this paragraph is impossible to verify as truthful and being reality.  By the those that conclude off physical evidence satellites are real and for those that think satellites are a lie?”
Again, this is shifting the burden of proof.

You shouldn't be asking others what part is impossible to verify as truthful. You should start by explaining what parts can be verified as correct, and how.
And then you need to respond to what is said.

A big part of your claim has been that people in different locations can point to a particular direction in the sky and observe the signal.
But that doesn't show they are both coming from the same transmitter.
So the question is how do you verify that these different people in different locations are actually getting the signal from the same transmitter?

Simple solution for FE’s if EchoStar 16 is a fraud.  Subscribe to dish network, and sue dish for the fraud of claiming to use satellites.
Again, this is shifting the burden of proof.
This requires FEers to prove it is a fake, rather than you proving it is real.
Again, if you were confident in your position you wouldn't need to shift the burden of proof.

But another issue is what the actual claim would be.
Does the contract actually specify satellite? Would the court even care? Or would the court just care about if the service is provided?

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #260 on: February 13, 2023, 02:16:29 PM »

And you wonder why Slime has been posting against you for so long.


Slime?  That individual wants this model where sometime like a satellite at 22,000 miles can be true for all models.  The only problem is the majority of FE thought / works places the sun 300 miles to 7,000 miles above the earth.  Changing circular orbit size on its path over the seasons.  That would place the sun between the home dish and the satellite.



So you just imitate them, trying to make the RE position look just as bad.



Made the comment before.  Can expand on it.  How does flat earth help me in my life.  From my time in the military, my hobbies of photography, Star gazing, and using a telescope?  To my use of an 8 foot satellite dish in the 1980’s to get satellite TV?  Vs cable claiming they would never be in the area, and only 3 other over the air TV Stations.


If you want to debate, you have to have a position.


And look bad to whom. To the flat earther niece my friend has.  The niece that now spends more time with her cult and family because her family is supportive of “evil” globalist.

Other than that.  Live and let live. But if you want to keep bumping the thread…


So you just imitate them, trying to make the RE position look just as bad.



I don’t care what people “believe”.  It is interesting to see how they react.  And again.  Nobody is forcing anyone to post in this thread.

If you were confident in your position then you would deal with what people have actually said.
You wouldn't need to construct strawmen to knock down to pretend you are correct.


FE BS is flat earth BS



Your actions show you are not confident.

Ok.  You just keep telling yourself that.

Talk about straw men.  What does that have to do with the opening post of listing verifiable facts. 


Debating requires more than just making a statement.

But we are not posting about FE’s that want an honest debate.  Most here want to con, troll, push flat earth propaganda, can’t handle reality, or are delusional.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2023, 02:42:03 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #261 on: February 13, 2023, 02:38:07 PM »


A big part of your claim has been that people in different locations can point to a particular direction in the sky and observe the signal.
But that doesn't show they are both coming from the same transmitter.


No.  The argument grew into you can visually spot EchoStar 16 in its orbit.  And you can cross reference that with the position of a satellite dish.  With no other points transmitting the same signal attribute to EchoStar 16.  A satellite dish on the east coast, west coast, at the Canadian border, at the southern border, along the Mississippi with point to the same point in the sky.  At night can be visually verified to the same object.  And object that can be varied with an equatorial mount.


With what evidence offered the signal is coming from another spot in the sky with an accompanying object that can be visually verified. 
« Last Edit: February 13, 2023, 02:43:19 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #262 on: February 13, 2023, 11:38:44 PM »
Slime?  That individual wants this model where sometime like a satellite at 22,000 miles can be true for all models.
No, the individual that has pointed out that for the simple observations you are focusing on, you don't know the distance. All you know is the approximate direction to the transmitter.
If you assume it is a single transmitter, this gives you a satellite in geostationary orbit.
But if you don't it could be multiple transmitters potentially significantly lower down.

Even if you had it above the sun, it would only ever be directly above for a short time.
I also see no reason why you would bother bringing that up.
Here is a wiki page to help you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_outage

It doesn't really matter if the sun is behind the satellite or in front of it.
In order for it to matter the satellite would need to either entirely block out the sun, or have a signal that is stronger than the sun.

Made the comment before.  Can expand on it.  How does flat earth help me in my life.
This doesn't address the comment.
You don't need FE to help you in life.
You are presenting RE in a manner which makes it look hopeless and desperate.

And look bad to whom.
To anyone looking on who might then be more easily swayed into BS by FE conmen.

No.  The argument grew into you can visually spot EchoStar 16 in its orbit.
That is just the same argument.
You can observe the direction to it.
The question remains if it is a single source, or multiple sources.

A satellite dish on the east coast, west coast, at the Canadian border, at the southern border, along the Mississippi with point to the same point in the sky.
For a RE model, which FEers would reject, and even with them all pointing to a single point, that doesn't actually mean a single source.

At night can be visually verified to the same object.
How?
Just what are you doing to confirm that everyone is seeing the same object?

With what evidence offered the signal is coming from another spot in the sky with an accompanying object that can be visually verified.
Again, this is attempting to shift the burden of proof.
The question is what evidence is offered to demonstrate the signals are all coming from the same source?

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #263 on: February 14, 2023, 01:32:00 AM »

No, the individual that has pointed out that for the simple observations you are focusing on, you don't know the distance. All you know is the approximate direction to the transmitter.

Wait.  What?  If you took the  positioning data from your satellite dish.  Then was able get a visually with a telescope and positioning data off its equatorial mount.

Then took the gear because you had a portable satellite dish 200 miles west and 200 miles south.  Repeated the data gathering. That wouldn’t give you enough data to give you a rough idea if the equipment was pointed to the same spot in the sky.  Pinpointing the same location.

Then you fine tune your data by driving another 200 miles west and 200 miles north.  Repeat the data gathering.  That wouldn’t better confirm if the same spot was being pinpointed?

Then if you wanted to be very specific.  You drive 1000 miles west.  Completed the data gathering.  That wouldn’t complete the process of determining if the same location was being pinpoint, with a pretty accurate determination of its altitude above earth.  That it wouldn’t match the document location and visual location of EchoStar 16.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 01:34:23 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #264 on: February 14, 2023, 01:55:15 AM »
Wait.  What?  If you took the  positioning data from your satellite dish.  Then was able get a visually with a telescope and positioning data off its equatorial mount.

Then took the gear because you had a portable satellite dish 200 miles west and 200 miles south.  Repeated the data gathering. That wouldn’t give you enough data to give you a rough idea if the equipment was pointed to the same spot in the sky.  Pinpointing the same location.
Are you observing the same point, or a different point? How can you tell?

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #265 on: February 14, 2023, 01:58:50 AM »

 All you know is the approximate direction to the transmitter.


Might dig more into how people find and track satellites.

But it seems simple to use basic document data of satellites to consistently find them by telescope..

Quote
Observing Geostationary Satellites

http://www.satobs.org/geosats.html


Two line elements can be obtained for nearly all these satellites, bar the classified US military ones such as the MAGNUM/VORTEX signals intelligence and the DSP early warning satellites. Grouped elsets of geosats are available from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)'s Space-Track.org website, and T.S. Kelso's site. These elements can be used to generate a series of positions for the satellite in right ascension and declination (RA and dec) for the time of observation. Keep in mind that these geosats are basically fixed above a given point in the sky and as the Earth moves, the RA and dec will be continually changing. This can then be plotted on star map to form a finder chart; the guide stars will help identify the satellites location.

An alternative is to find the satellite's azimuth and altitude above the local horizon in your prediction program and set your optical aid to this constant value.

Turning off the motor of a driven telescope will maintain the satellite in the field of view whilst the stars drift in and out courtesy of the Earth's rotation.




Hmm.  I know for my telescope that is motorized.  I place my longitude and latitude into the computer.  This and in conjunction with the cited article. I wonder why this would point the telescope to the same spot in the sky if you were on the east coast of the USA or the west coast of the USA? 

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #266 on: February 14, 2023, 02:11:22 AM »
Wait.  What?  If you took the  positioning data from your satellite dish.  Then was able get a visually with a telescope and positioning data off its equatorial mount.

Then took the gear because you had a portable satellite dish 200 miles west and 200 miles south.  Repeated the data gathering. That wouldn’t give you enough data to give you a rough idea if the equipment was pointed to the same spot in the sky.  Pinpointing the same location.
Are you observing the same point, or a different point? How can you tell?

The quick and dirt way. For the visual. Use a star predictor program.  Find out what Star constellation the satellite will be in for the time, longitude, and latitude the observation will take place.  Use the constellations as reference. 

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #267 on: February 14, 2023, 02:58:03 AM »
Hmm.  I know for my telescope that is motorized.  I place my longitude and latitude into the computer.  This and in conjunction with the cited article. I wonder why this would point the telescope to the same spot in the sky if you were on the east coast of the USA or the west coast of the USA?
The quick and dirt way. For the visual. Use a star predictor program.  Find out what Star constellation the satellite will be in for the time, longitude, and latitude the observation will take place.  Use the constellations as reference.

Again, this is just determining the direction.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #268 on: February 14, 2023, 04:07:20 AM »
Hmm.  I know for my telescope that is motorized.  I place my longitude and latitude into the computer.  This and in conjunction with the cited article. I wonder why this would point the telescope to the same spot in the sky if you were on the east coast of the USA or the west coast of the USA?
The quick and dirt way. For the visual. Use a star predictor program.  Find out what Star constellation the satellite will be in for the time, longitude, and latitude the observation will take place.  Use the constellations as reference.

Again, this is just determining the direction.

Really.    How do locate an object in 3D.  The whole X,Y,Z thing.  When the computer points the telescope to say Mars.  Say from Iowa,  then from say Honduras. You think the computer is only going to know the direction? But you think it has no idea how to locate Mars a certain distance in “height” in the sky?  To get proper angle of “height” for the telescope? 

 Funny, the positioning computer on my telescope can locate a specific star in an equatorial constellation with the proper “height” or elevation. If you’re in Iowa or Honduras. 



Well anyway.

The easiest way is to use a satellite tracking app…


https://southernstars.com/products/


It’s like the app can determine some sort of “3D math”.  It seems to know if you’re in Iowa or Honduras?  And the relative “height” in the sky.  Like if it’s known a satellite at 61.5 west and 22,000 miles above the earth you could do some sort of spherical trigonometry. To find the specific spot no matter where you are in the continental USA.

Maybe something like this?

Quote
WHAT ARE THE "AZIMUTH AND ELEVATION" OF A SATELLITE?

https://www.celestis.com/resources/faq/what-are-the-azimuth-and-elevation-of-a-satellite/





And in conjunction with this…

Quote
LOCATING GEOSYNCHRONOUS SATELLITES

https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/track/locgsat.htm





And run your data through a spherical trigonometry calculator..

Quote
Spherical Trigonometry Calculator

https://www.had2know.org/academics/spherical-trigonometry-calculator.html#calc




Soo.  Take your data from the satellite dish setup.  From the equatorial mount.  The data from your star predictor program using the equatorial constellations as reference. The data from your satellite locator app.  The data from your different locations. Get data in the right format for distances and angles.  Then run the data through the spherical trigonometry calculator solving for “hight” above the earth.  And mapping the data out in 3D.  I bet it would all point to the same point above the earth for a satellite at 61.5 west 22,000 miles above the earth. With the “viewing” angles very different for a satellite only 4,000 miles above the earth’s equator. 



And probably the same calculations used by the satellite locator app at your different locations, and the computer Star predictor software, and the computer for the telescope. 
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 06:36:06 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #269 on: February 14, 2023, 04:19:53 AM »
Hmm.  I know for my telescope that is motorized.  I place my longitude and latitude into the computer.  This and in conjunction with the cited article. I wonder why this would point the telescope to the same spot in the sky if you were on the east coast of the USA or the west coast of the USA?
The quick and dirt way. For the visual. Use a star predictor program.  Find out what Star constellation the satellite will be in for the time, longitude, and latitude the observation will take place.  Use the constellations as reference.

Again, this is just determining the direction.


Which has what to do if you need a quick reference to know of you’re looking at the same location in the sky?