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

  • 321 Replies
  • 18546 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30068
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #270 on: February 14, 2023, 07:43:23 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.
Just as I thought.
You don't know and neither does anyone else, and for good reason.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30068
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #271 on: February 14, 2023, 07:44:56 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.
Another one who has no clue at all.

*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #272 on: February 14, 2023, 12:04:35 PM »
Really.    How do locate an object in 3D.  The whole X,Y,Z thing.
In order to use that method to locate the object, you first need to confirm that you are looking at the same object.
Repeatedly ignoring this point wont help you.

*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #273 on: February 14, 2023, 12:06:42 PM »
Another one who has no clue at all.
Are you looking in the mirror again?

Not accepting your delusional BS doesn't mean we have no clue.
BTTV is documented to use the internet.
That means it uses an existing internet connection and doesn't need a satellite dish.

Your failure to understand orbital mechanics for satellites doesn't magically make you correct.

You cannot even provide a coherent argument.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #274 on: February 14, 2023, 12:52:53 PM »
Really.    How do locate an object in 3D.  The whole X,Y,Z thing.
In order to use that method to locate the object, you first need to confirm that you are looking at the same object.
Repeatedly ignoring this point wont help you.

Not ignoring it.

Spotting and positioning a geostationary satellite isn’t any different than moving my computerized telescope around the USA and having it “find” Mars. 

You set the telescope by aligning it with two to three reference stars, entering your latitude and longitude, and the time. It establishes its position. 

You establish your location in the celestial sphere.


Then the computer will point to Mars if its in Maine, or Southern California.  When told to position the telescope. 

Only the geostationary satellite is stationary relative to earth, and close enough to earth to figure out its height above the equator with spherical trigonometry.  Using the celestial sphere as a coordinate system. 

The concept is easy even if the math is hard.



https://planetary-science.org/astronomy/the-celestial-globe/

For EchoStar 16. On the celestial sphere. Is right on the equator (zero declination?), or the area above the equator represented by a belt in the celestial sphere.  At 61.5 W.  22,000 miles above the earth. 

These are you X,Y,Z coordinates.

If you’re In Iowa. At a specific spot.  You can do the spherical trigonometry and figure out where you can spot EchoStar 16.  But there are aids like the cellphone app that does the math for you.

Then pick a specific spot in Southern California, and in Maine. Convert the positions to something meaningful for the celestial sphere.  Calculate the directions and angles where to see EchoStar 16 in the celestial sphere. Go to those spots,  verify with the cellphone app.  Verify with a portable satellite dish.  Verify with a telescope and equatorial mount that EchoStar 16 is right where it is supposed to be. Using constellations as a reference also helps. 
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 01:24:37 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #275 on: February 14, 2023, 02:24:41 PM »
Really.    How do locate an object in 3D.  The whole X,Y,Z thing.
In order to use that method to locate the object, you first need to confirm that you are looking at the same object.
Repeatedly ignoring this point wont help you.



For a person right on the equator right at 61.5 west, it would be hard to tell the altitude of EchoStar 16




But if you took lots of data from many different points across the USA.  It would be very apparent if EchoSrat 16 wasn’t where it was supposed to be.



*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #276 on: February 15, 2023, 02:09:29 AM »
Not ignoring it.
Yes ignoring it.
You continue to use the assumption that they are looking at the same object.

The concept is easy even if the math is hard.
Yes, the concept is easy, IF you are determining the direction to the same object.
The question is how you determine that you are looking at the same object, and that it isn't multiple objects.

But if you took lots of data from many different points across the USA.  It would be very apparent if EchoSrat 16 wasn’t where it was supposed to be.
Again, if it is the same point they are all looking at.
If instead each are looking at a different object, it tells you nothing.

This is the point you keep on ignoring.
You keep clinging to it being a single object, without actually demonstrating it is.
Repeatedly explaining how to determine the location of it, under the assumption that it is a single object, in no way justifies this assumption.

The question you keep avoiding is how do you determine that it is a single object.
It is not how do you determine the location if it is a single object; nor how do you determine what way to look if it is a single object.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #277 on: February 15, 2023, 03:59:35 AM »

Yes ignoring it.


Long explanation blow.  The short common sense explanation.  You can find New Orleans by its elevation, longitude, and latitude.  A city near sea level.  Setting an X,Y,Z coordinate to a geostationary satellite in the celestial sphere to find it by directional antenna and visually is no different.

I am not ignoring it. The celestial sphere is no different if you set up a grid system for a room.

 Then you set up what the X,Y,Z coordinates are for the one light bulb in the center of the room.

  Then you solve for what direction and angles from each corner of the square room to see the one light bulb. 

Then you set your position from each corner from the calculations to look for the one light bulb. And the light bulb by angles is exactly where it’s supposed to be.  By cross referencing from seeing the light bulb from the four corners.

You can add lights to the walls, but your calculations from the four corners allows you to map in X,Y,Z coordinates like a celestial sphere to show the exact position of the one light bulb positioned in the center of the room. 

You can also set each corner of the ceiling as a “constellation”. Use each corner “constellation” and their relative position to the light bulb in the center of the room to verify you’re looking at the same spot.  And in the same spot is where the single stationary light bulb is supposed to be.


It’s no different when my telescope gets programmed to position to mars. After setting the telescope computer to two or three reference stars.  The telescope knows where mars should be.  It actually doesn’t watch Mars.  It just knows where Mars is supposed to be at a certain time in the celestial sphere.  It positions.  And lo and behold.  The little red planet is right there in view in the eye piece.  Out of all the planets and stars it’s right there.  Distinguishable because its right where it’s supposed to be with its know visual “broadcast” characteristics. 

Now.  Take three telescopes with really good mounts that have really clear markings to determine the data needed to solve for the positions of objects in the celestial sphere.  Might be a way to get the data from a computerized mount. Set them up 2000 miles apart in a triangle.  Have a little three person time.  Position them with their telescopes to view Mars. All looking at the little red planet using light it uses to broadcast its presence. Get all the data off the mounts for Mars at the same instant and record that data. Use the data to map out the position of Mars on the celestial sphere.  You will find all three positions were looking at the same X,Y,Z coordinate that was where Mars was.  Photos of Mars could be taken at the same time with the star field in the background. The star field yields reference stars that can be used to determine if they all were looking at the same “Mars”.


You can take a three person team and do the same thing for geostationary satellites.  Just arm the team with good telescope mounts and telescopes.  And portable satellite dishes.

It’s confirmed by spherical trigonometry and mapping out in the celestial sphere they are all visually and broadcast wise triangulate on the same spot. A spot that correlates to the same X,Y,Z coordinate in the celestial sphere.  Then they also could have taken photos of the satellite with the star field in the background when the data of the satellite was collected to verify they were all looking at the same geostationary satellite by using the known stars in the photos as reference. 

« Last Edit: February 15, 2023, 12:07:02 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #278 on: February 15, 2023, 04:17:09 AM »

Yes ignoring it.


I suggest you educate yourself and look up Marco Langbroek and spy satellites…


Quote
SatTrackCam Leiden (b)log
THE SECRET SPIES IN THE SKY - Imagery, Data Analysis, and Discussions relating to Military Space

SatTrackCam Leiden (Cospar 4353) is a satellite tracking station located at Leiden, the Netherlands. The tracking focus is on classified objects - i.e. "spy satellites". With a camera, accurate positional measurements on satellites of interest are obtained in order to determine their orbits. Orbital behaviour is analysed. This blog analyses Missile tests too.

https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/?m=1

Quote
Tuesday, 2 January 2018
2017 in a nutshell

I started to use new video software for the observations of objects in LEO in 2017, which increased the output and the accuracy of positions. Objects in HEO and GEO are still photographically imaged.

https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2018/01/2017-in-nutshell.html?m=1


Or you can just keep on being a jackass…
« Last Edit: February 15, 2023, 04:27:51 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #279 on: February 15, 2023, 06:06:47 AM »

This is the point you keep on ignoring.
You keep clinging to it being a single object, without actually demonstrating it is.
Repeatedly explaining how to determine the location of it, under the assumption that it is a single object, in no way justifies this assumption.



Another down and dirty way.  Use a telescope with enough zoom that only EchoStar 16 is in its field of view. Or mask the telescope so the field of view would only be on EchoStar 16 and some of the star field behind it.

Kind of a stupid step, it is documented how many geosynchronous satellites are around EchoStar 16, and their locations..


 Take a long exposure.  And see if the light that is supposed to be EchoStar 16 is the only object not leaving a star trail on the long exposure.  Or if there are more objects not leaving star trails than what can be accounted for.

And.  Again.  You can use the constellations or background stars to help determine if you’re looking at the same spot.

Again..

Quote




On September 11th at 10:50 p.m. CDT, I made this 3-minute exposure of central Aquarius and captured 11 geosynchronous satellites. Nimiq-4 is a Canadian satellite for digital TV services. The XM-3 provides digital audio for cars and homes and TKSAT-1 is Bolivia's first communication satellite.
Bob King

Each satellite occupies an orbital slot far enough away from the others to avoid communication interference or a potential collision.

There are over 500 geostationary satellites in orbit.

https://dewesoft.com/daq/every-satellite-orbiting-earth-and-who-owns-them

If it was a fraud, and there were really floating platforms.  Anywhere from 4 to 10 floating platforms to create the same broadcast footprint for each geostationary satellite.  That’s 2000 to 5000 floating platforms broadcasting and causing potential “communication interference” with each other.  It would be chaos. 


« Last Edit: February 15, 2023, 06:09:03 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #280 on: February 15, 2023, 12:23:10 PM »
I am not ignoring it. The celestial sphere is no different if you set up a grid system for a room.
Saying you aren't ignoring it wont magically mean you aren't ignoring it.

You are still clinging to the idea that it is 1 object, and explaining how to determine the location of that 1 object.
You are NOT explaining how you determine that it is actually 1 object rather than multiple.

Then you set up what the X,Y,Z coordinates are for the one light bulb in the center of the room.
Prove it is a single light bulb rather than multiple.

I suggest you educate yourself and look up Marco Langbroek and spy satellites…
I suggest you go back to preschool and learn how to read, so you can read what people say and try responding to their actual argument, rather than continuing to cling to irrelevant garbage.

That is yet again working on the basis of it being a single object that they are determining the position of.

Or you can just keep on being a jackass…
I'll leave that to you.

And.  Again.  You can use the constellations or background stars to help determine if you’re looking at the same spot.
Again, that allows you to determine the direction you are looking at. Not that you are looking at the same spot.

The only way you could ever hope to support such a claim is if you claim that there is a magical celestial sphere with the stars and the satellite and so on physically on that sphere, so that sphere determines the distance. But you would still need to demonstrate that, and it is pure nonsense anyway.

If I ignore that, then you are actually just trying to disprove yourself now.
Due to its close distance, it doesn't appear against the same background stars for all locations.

So if I just blindly carry out your experiment, I observe the satellite appears with different stars close around it, so it must be multiple different objects in multiple locations.

If it was a fraud, and there were really floating platforms.  Anywhere from 4 to 10 floating platforms to create the same broadcast footprint for each geostationary satellite.  That’s 2000 to 5000 floating platforms broadcasting and causing potential “communication interference” with each other.  It would be chaos.
And with this you go directly against the claim of how satellite dishes work, suggesting that someone could pick up a signal in a completely different direction.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #281 on: February 15, 2023, 01:12:35 PM »

You are NOT explaining how you determine that it is actually 1 object rather than multiple.



If one does a long exposure of the pinpointed spot using the coordinates on the celestial sphere from three different spots.  Like From California, Michigan, and Florida.  And you determine it’s all the same geostationary object from the referenced background stars and it’s not leaving a star trail.  It’s all the same geosynchronous satellite. 

Then while it’s night.  See if there is any other objects in the line of sight.  Then during the day, check again with telescopes and binoculars for anything visible in the line of sight.  Just don’t do it  while it would cause you to directly look into the sun with the binoculars or telescope.


If it was multiple objects in the same line of sight, just positioning from one spot to another about 200 miles apart is going to cause the object to start looking “double”. Or from two other spots from state to state, looking at the same time will show completely two different objects.

Jack your being stupid.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2023, 01:16:36 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #282 on: February 15, 2023, 01:27:23 PM »
If one does a long exposure of the pinpointed spot using the coordinates on the celestial sphere from three different spots.
They will be able to determine that each location can see an object in that direction.
It does not confirm it is the same object.

(And again, a geostationary satellite will not be on the same point on the celestial sphere for each observer).

And you determine it’s all the same geostationary object from the referenced background stars and it’s not leaving a star trail.
No, you don't.

You determine that it is stationary relative to Earth due to no background trail in the photo, and it is in a particular direction.
But that does not mean that everyone is seeing the same object.

If it was multiple objects in the same line of sight
They are different lines of sight.
A different one for each location.

looking at the same time will show completely two different objects.
Which could appear identical.
2 objects looking the same doesn't mean they are the same.

I can get 2 tennis balls, throw them onto a floor, and have people look at them, and see that they appear identical; but that doesn't mean they are the same object.

Jack your being stupid.
No, I will leave that one to you as well.
I'm not the one who appears to be incapable of understanding the issue, or pretending not to.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #283 on: February 15, 2023, 01:27:28 PM »


The only way you could ever hope to support such a claim is if you claim that there is a magical celestial sphere with the stars and the satellite and so on physically on that sphere, so that sphere determines the distance.

Jack.   What happens to the viewing angle, or the declination, if the altitude is cut from 22,000 miles to 11,000 miles?







The coordinates are greatly different on the celestial sphere if you cut the altitude from 22,000 miles to 11,000 miles.


The celestial sphere is the space version of latitude and longitude.  It’s a very real tool.

Quote
Beginner's Guide
Celestial Sphere
 
Understanding the Celestial Sphere


A basic understanding of our celestial sphere is necessary to know the sky, how the stars move, why the moon and planets are only seen in only a relatively small path in the sky, and how we mathematically designate the locations of the stars.
But a fundamental concept you need to know is what is a degree ( ° ) as in geometry. A circle has 360 degrees. When we look up into the sky we're seeing half of the sphere (horizon to horizon) which is half of a circle so 180°. From the horizon to the zenith (the point directly overhead) is 90° (aka right angle). As you can see from the image of the Big Dipper, you can use 3 of its stars to gauge smaller angles, in this case 5 and 10 degrees. And to give you an idea of a single degree, the full moon in the sky is about ½°.

https://milwaukeeastro.org/beginners/celestial_sphere.asp


You been on this site too long.  You need to hang it up.

*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #284 on: February 15, 2023, 01:29:29 PM »
Jack.   What happens to the viewing angle, or the declination, if the altitude is cut from 22,000 miles to 11,000 miles?
And again clinging to the idea it is a single object.

What happens to the viewing angle if you go from a single object at an altitude of roughly 35 000 km, to multiple objects at a much lower altitude, say 4000 km over a FE?

You been on this site too long.  You need to hang it up.
Follow your own advice.

You have given up on trying to make a rational argument, and are just spouting the same crap and ignoring the problems with it.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #285 on: February 15, 2023, 01:33:12 PM »

(And again, a geostationary satellite will not be on the same point on the celestial sphere for each observer).



I didn’t post plane.  I posted sphere.  As in..

Quote
Celestial Coordinates

 Celestial Coordinates - Wikipedia Commons As the picture to the left shows, the celestial grid is very much identical to the terrestrial grid with latitudes and longitudes. It's as if the terrestrial grid has just been projected onto the sky. Celestial coordinates, however, are designated with Declination and Right Ascension, often abbreviated as Dec and RA. Dec is analogous to latitude; RA to longitude. Every object in the sky has those two numbers which give its location.
Declination (Dec) values are almost identical to latitude values, but instead of the N or S indicators for north or south of the equator, the range goes from -90° (south celestial pole) to 0° to +90 (north celestial pole.)

Right Ascension (RA) values, however, are different because they're specified in hours, minutes, and seconds. The range of values goes from 0h 0m 0s to 23h 59m 59s - 24 hours. At the equator in the celestial grid, 1 hour of RA equals 15°. So 15° times 24 = 360°.

https://milwaukeeastro.org/beginners/celestial_sphere.asp

Only satellite are close enough you can assign altitude to them. 


Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #286 on: February 15, 2023, 01:37:52 PM »

And again clinging to the idea it is a single object.



Because people of have taken the time.  Have done the work.  And by observation, armature radio astronomy, photographing Star trails, and video analysis of the night sky.  There is no evidence EchoStar 16 is any other thing than a single satellite at 61.5W, zero declination, 22,000 miles above the earth.


« Last Edit: February 15, 2023, 01:40:02 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #287 on: February 15, 2023, 01:41:02 PM »
I didn’t post plane.  I posted sphere.  As in..
Yes, you continued to cling to your idea of what the world, using an argument to try to demonstrate Earth is round and satellites are real which relies upon people already accepting that Earth is round and satellites are real.

But going from round to flat is really only a minor point here.
The big issue is going from 1 object to multiple.

Only satellite are close enough you can assign altitude to them.
And ONLY if you can be sure it is just a single satellite.
If you don't know if 2 people are looking at the same thing, you cannot assign an altitude.

If you still insist on playing dumb, here is a simple example of 2 people observing a star shaped object in the sky:

These 2 people are observing 2 different objects, which appear identical.
Then they then falsely assume it is the same object and calculate an incorrect altitude for it.

How are these 2 observers meant to know if they are both observing the same object quite high above Earth, or if they are observing 2 different objects.

So far you just cling to the idea that it is a single object and look for observations consistent with that.

The only time you even attempted to consider multiple objects was having those multiple objects along a single line of sight, nothing like what is being suggested.

Because people of have taken the time
And if you are going to cling to that, you may as well drop it all and just say that Earth is round, because people have determined it is, and leave it at that.

Like I said, try reading what has been said and actually responding to that.
Otherwise you are no better than a FEer just boldly proclaiming Earth is flat because it looks flat and ignoring any issues with that argument.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #288 on: February 15, 2023, 01:43:02 PM »

And ONLY if you can be sure it is just a single satellite.
If you don't know if 2 people are looking at the same thing, you cannot assign an altitude.

If you still insist on playing dumb, here is a simple example of 2 people observing a star shaped object in the sky:



And what does it look like to a third person 1,000 miles away.  And what is the back ground reference stars for each person. 

You’re just being stupid. 
« Last Edit: February 15, 2023, 01:45:37 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #289 on: February 15, 2023, 02:20:03 PM »


The problem with your example is somehow no mater how random, how close, how far apart, no mater how many points of observation for a specific object there has to magically be a duplicate above each spot of observation.  Which if you start adding three, four, five spots of observation, the duplicates would start being revealed. 

People as a hobby world wide monitor the sky’s and have networks to note any new witnessed additions and abnormalities.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2023, 02:22:19 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #290 on: February 15, 2023, 02:59:43 PM »
I didn’t post plane.  I posted sphere.  As in..
Yes, you continued to cling to your idea of what the world, using an argument to try to demonstrate Earth is round and satellites are real which relies upon people already accepting that Earth is round and satellites are real.

But going from round to flat is really only a minor point here.
The big issue is going from 1 object to multiple.

Only satellite are close enough you can assign altitude to them.
And ONLY if you can be sure it is just a single satellite.
If you don't know if 2 people are looking at the same thing, you cannot assign an altitude.

If you still insist on playing dumb, here is a simple example of 2 people observing a star shaped object in the sky:

These 2 people are observing 2 different objects, which appear identical.
Then they then falsely assume it is the same object and calculate an incorrect altitude for it.

How are these 2 observers meant to know if they are both observing the same object quite high above Earth, or if they are observing 2 different objects.

So far you just cling to the idea that it is a single object and look for observations consistent with that.

The only time you even attempted to consider multiple objects was having those multiple objects along a single line of sight, nothing like what is being suggested.


So you have two locations that could be closer.

That can be checked from multiple other locations.

Mapping the proposed location and checking that location from multiple other locations should confirm the closer locations.

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.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #291 on: February 15, 2023, 03:27:37 PM »
Or you could pay attention to the signal ID, and see that you will not get a second, third, fourth, infinity other spots in the sky for that ID.  Then do it again in multiple places.  Oh wait, I think I did that and posted the data on it a few years ago.  I chose 4 of the places,  all across the US, I have installed directv antenna pointing at the 101 location.  But it wouldn't need that much of a change.  You could easily do this over a couple hundred miles, like installers who are responsible for an area kinda do daily.  If it were multiple sources, you would be able to detect multiple sources. 
Being that there is a set ID for that signal since anyone can move anywhere within the spot beam area using the same equipment with no aparent software changes shows that the signal must at the very least be consistent.  So you should easily be able to find another source for that signal ID, but noone has. 


*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #293 on: February 16, 2023, 01:10:15 AM »
And what does it look like to a third person 1,000 miles away.
Do you mean these 2 objects or a possible third one for them?

And what is the back ground reference stars for each person.
Again, this just shows direction. It doesn't help you.

You’re just being stupid.
Again, not going to take that away from you.

The problem with your example is somehow no mater how random, how close, how far apart, no mater how many points of observation for a specific object there has to magically be a duplicate above each spot of observation.  Which if you start adding three, four, five spots of observation, the duplicates would start being revealed. 
No, it depends entirely upon how close the 2 locations are, and how precise the position needs to be.

So you have two locations that could be closer.

That can be checked from multiple other locations.

Mapping the proposed location and checking that location from multiple other locations should confirm the closer locations.
This may depend on the specifics such as how high it is for if it is visible, and how easy it is to see it (or what else you are using to observe it). But this is at least vastly better than just saying look at the direction for where Echostar 16 is meant to be found.

And what the actual locations are of if you need to search for them.

Or you could pay attention to the signal ID, and see that you will not get a second, third, fourth, infinity other spots in the sky for that ID.  Then do it again in multiple places.  Oh wait, I think I did that and posted the data on it a few years ago.  I chose 4 of the places,  all across the US, I have installed directv antenna pointing at the 101 location.  But it wouldn't need that much of a change.  You could easily do this over a couple hundred miles, like installers who are responsible for an area kinda do daily.  If it were multiple sources, you would be able to detect multiple sources. 
Being that there is a set ID for that signal since anyone can move anywhere within the spot beam area using the same equipment with no aparent software changes shows that the signal must at the very least be consistent.  So you should easily be able to find another source for that signal ID, but noone has.
Depends on how it is broadcasting.
If it is using a directional antenna, then it could potentially only have multiple signals detected where 2 transmitters overlap.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #294 on: February 16, 2023, 02:51:22 AM »

Do you mean these 2 objects or a possible third one for them?


Let it go.

One.  If either person moves 50 to 100 miles and gathers data again.  The “illusion” is shot.

Two.  Yes.  If a third person working as a team with the other two people would take their observation from a random spot 1000 miles away.  Even if there was some magically appearing third object in the third persons line of sight, it still would be apparent with the techniques used by amateur astronomers, star gazers,  and satellite spy hunters what the original two people are looking at by the third person.

Now add a four and a fifth observation anywhere 200 to 500 miles away from the your two original observers.  What happens.

Again.  That is the problem with what you propose.  No matter how many random spots of observation you add. Say ten.  Then it takes ten magically appearing duplicate objects appearing directly in the line of sight.  An illusion shot if any of the ten observers (or one person traveling around) moves 50 to 100 miles to gather more data.  And somehow the other objects are magically invisible when moving spot to spot. 

With no evidence such objects exist with long exposures by amateur astronomers and star gazers. Or just them practicing their hobby. And as pointed out individuals that work with satellite TV for a living.


« Last Edit: February 16, 2023, 02:55:25 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #295 on: February 16, 2023, 12:57:49 PM »
Let it go.
Follow your own advice.

One.  If either person moves 50 to 100 miles and gathers data again.  The “illusion” is shot.
This depends entirely upon how accurately they can measure, and the height of the transmitter.
I demonstrated above that if the transmitters where 4100 km above a FE, and their measurements have an error of +- 5 degrees, 2 transmitters would cover almost the entire range.

Two.  Yes.  If a third person working as a team with the other two people would take their observation from a random spot 1000 miles away.  Even if there was some magically appearing third object in the third persons line of sight, it still would be apparent with the techniques used by amateur astronomers, star gazers,  and satellite spy hunters what the original two people are looking at by the third person.
Care to elaborate?
Just what technique allows them to confirm it?

Again.  That is the problem with what you propose.  No matter how many random spots of observation you add. Say ten.  Then it takes ten magically appearing duplicate objects appearing directly in the line of sight.  An illusion shot if any of the ten observers (or one person traveling around) moves 50 to 100 miles to gather more data.  And somehow the other objects are magically invisible when moving spot to spot.
Again, this varies depending upon how far apart they are, and how accurately they can measure the distance, and the height of the object.
But this is at least getting better than what you have provided before.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #296 on: February 16, 2023, 01:20:32 PM »

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

Hmmm, not entirely sure what you’ve done with this graph, but some of your numbers look significantly out to me:

Quote
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.

How do you get 1 “stratellite” per degree latitude if they are 100km high?

Take the simplest possible case, with it directly overhead.  You only need to move 1.7km for the angle to target to change 1 deg on flat ground.  It’s a bit further at lower elevation angle.  I make it 3.2km at an elevation angle of 42deg, which is about in the middle of the range. 

So even with the generous accuracy requirement of +/- 1 deg, each “stratellite” could only cover an area on average about 6.5km across.  (The observed change in elevation angle due to the real geometry over this distance is so small, we can effectively ignore it).  All while somehow perfectly focusing their transmissions to give  continuous coverage without overlapping, and all of them somehow keeping position.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2023, 01:22:03 PM by Unconvinced »

*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #297 on: February 16, 2023, 11:18:50 PM »
Hmmm, not entirely sure what you’ve done with this graph, but some of your numbers look significantly out to me
The x axis is latitude, the y axis is angle of elevation.
I plotted the angle required for a geostationary satellite at an altitude of 35 000 km in purple (I know that is very rounded).
Then I used the "sweep 5 degrees either side" to set the allowed tolerance to + or - 5 degrees, and plotted the angle required for a geostationary satellite plus 5 degrees in red, and the angle required - 5 degrees in black.

This gives us the range the stratollites would need to be at in order to meet the required tolerance of +- 5 degrees.
Plotted in blue are the angles required to reach these stratollites.

For the graph, I used a stratollite elevation of 4100 km as an example, as that worked well.
I started with one at the equator, tweaking the height until I got the best coverage, then cut it off as it passed the red line.
I then added another one, setup to match where the previous one stopped, and again and again, ending up with 4 stratollites.

How do you get 1 “stratellite” per degree latitude if they are 100km high?

Take the simplest possible case, with it directly overhead.  You only need to move 1.7km for the angle to target to change 1 deg on flat ground.  It’s a bit further at lower elevation angle.  I make it 3.2km at an elevation angle of 42deg, which is about in the middle of the range. 

So even with the generous accuracy requirement of +/- 1 deg, each “stratellite” could only cover an area on average about 6.5km across.  (The observed change in elevation angle due to the real geometry over this distance is so small, we can effectively ignore it).  All while somehow perfectly focusing their transmissions to give  continuous coverage without overlapping, and all of them somehow keeping position.
I used a tolerance of 5 degrees.
Also, the distance per degree increases with increasing separation between the stratollite and the area it is targeting.

If the stratollite is angled at an angle of a from straight down to the start of its range, and has a range of b, then the distance covered is given by:
h*(tan(a+b)-tan(a))

For a stratollite at 100 km directly above the equator, with b=2 degrees (for + or - 1 degree), this would give a range of roughly 3.5 km.
But with b=10 degrees, it would give 17.63 km, which is over 0.1 degree of latitude.
But if we go much further away, to say 60 degrees from straight down, we get 101 km, or close to 1 degree latitude.
But over 1 degree latitude change, we would also have the position to the geostationary satellite change by over 1 degree (which would continue until it drops below the horizon). Putting in an extra degree gives us 117.2 km. If instead we put in the angle corresponding to the distance from the first step we get 115.8 km. Either way, over 1 degree.

So faking it with stratollites becomes easier the further away from the equator you are.

But even with a range of 1 degree, you need a ridiculous amount of them to cover the contiguous US.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #298 on: February 17, 2023, 02:55:45 AM »

Follow your own advice.



All it takes is one person in the middle looking straight up and observing/data gathering to see what is really going on.



You fell into the flat earth trap of “possible”.

It’s possible all the moon landings were faked.  It’s possible the ISS is a projection, it’s possible all imaging from space are CGI hoaxes .

But.  There is no proof that these items are fakes and a deliberate conspiracy.  And the actual evidence supports that they are real.

Yes.  Somehow there might be a scenario where two objects might be perfectly aligned in the line of sight for two to cause some confusion.

But.  In real life.  There are enough people gathering a sample size large enough from everything from long exposures with photography, people that work with satellite dish installation as a career, from the best time to see satellites is after sunset until the satellites pass into earth’s shadow, to using background stars as reference.

The overwhelming evidence is EchoStar 16 is a single satellite, not a network of lower altitude platforms.  No evidence that EchoStar 16 is a deliberate conspiracy of a network where no matter how random and how large the sample size there is always a platform in your line of sight. 

Again.  Saying what might be is not actual evidence of what is reality. 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2023, 02:59:21 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #299 on: February 17, 2023, 01:50:11 PM »
All it takes is one person in the middle looking straight up and observing/data gathering to see what is really going on.
If they are looking straight up they wouldn't be looking towards the alleged location of the geostationary satellite, nor looking towards where the lower ones are.
If they look towards where the geostationary satellite should be and should be giving a signal and don't see one, and don't get the signal, then you have shown the geostationary satellite doesn't exist. But if it does see one, there is again the question of if it is the same object.

You fell into the flat earth trap of “possible”.
No, you have fallen into the religious trap of asserting you are correct and demanding others prove you are wrong.
And the trap of focusing on proof and debunking rather than evidence.

Again.  Saying what might be is not actual evidence of what is reality.
Again, asserting something exists places the burden on you to demonstrate it exists.
Not on others to demonstrate you are wrong.