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

  • 321 Replies
  • 18175 Views
*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Can the satellite be seen with a telescope?
Yes, it's easier a couple of hours before sunrise and sunset since it will be in the best position to reflect sunlight.  But yes, you can absolutely see it with a telescope, you can pretty much see and satellite orbiting Earth with a telescope if you look in the right place at the right time.  Geostationary ones like EchoStar are much easier(at least from NA) they are always at the same spot in the sky each night as before for the correct location determined by the location the observer is on Earth.

So this is just a complete slam dunk.  You aim a dish at something that can be seen.  If the dish is aimed at it there is a signal, if  not you miss the football game.  How can it be anything else but a satellite?  The FE denial is just silly.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2023, 08:21:37 PM by stankann »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
 You can definitely see satelites even without a telescope. The ISS being the easiest considering it's massive in comparison to comm and other types of satellites. There are a bunch of satellite apps that point out and name where each is at anytime given your location. My favorite ones to see are the Starlink trains. Those are awesome, just a string of lights cruising across the sky.


So this is just a complete slam dunk.  You aim a dish at something that can be seen.  If the dish is aimed at it there is a signal, if  not you miss the football game.  How can it be anything else but a satellite?  The FE denial is just silly.

You're right, it's aimed at something that can be seen.

Your outer space satellites cannot be seen. However, I can see at least three of these in a mile radius around my house.



Three is all you need to triangulate signals. But I'm pretty sure there are more I didn't notice. Outside the town center, signals get spotty. Shouldn't happen if EchoSat16 has out backs. But if it's a matter of enough celltowers, yes there is a legit cause of deadzones.

 Looney leftist California has celltowers on every city block.
https://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/08/cell-towers-every-city-block.html
If this many are needed for the level of surveillance they desire, there most definitely are not satellites doing spying.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
So this is just a complete slam dunk.  You aim a dish at something that can be seen.  If the dish is aimed at it there is a signal, if  not you miss the football game.  How can it be anything else but a satellite?  The FE denial is just silly.

You're right, it's aimed at something that can be seen.

Well done, you found a picture of a cell tower. Cellular is land-based. I guess I should stop aiming the 1 meter dish attached to my iphone at the sky - No wonder why I keep dropping calls...

*

JackBlack

  • 22457
Your outer space satellites cannot be seen.
Intentionally avoiding them doesn't mean they can't be seen.

However, I can see at least three of these in a mile radius around my house.
And are satellite dishes pointing to them? NO!
So it clearly isn't them.

Outside the town center, signals get spotty.
What signal?
Do you mean the signal from a poperly aligned satellite dish, or your phone?
We aren't talking about cell-phones here.

It clearly isn't a matter of enough cell towers, and you can have no cell coverage at all, yet quite good coverage from a satellite.

So this is just a complete slam dunk.  You aim a dish at something that can be seen.  If the dish is aimed at it there is a signal, if  not you miss the football game.  How can it be anything else but a satellite?  The FE denial is just silly.

You're right, it's aimed at something that can be seen.

Well done, you found a picture of a cell tower. Cellular is land-based. I guess I should stop aiming the 1 meter dish attached to my iphone at the sky - No wonder why I keep dropping calls...

It's not poinred at the sky. Take a look at most home satellite dishes.



This points far lower than "into space". And when you consider the tower is between 50 and 400 ft, this slight angle makes alot more sense.

Meanwhile, these big satellite dishes?



How likely is it that they would depend on other people's satelites, which in space could turn into debris? That is nonsense! You wouldn't shell out thousands for huge satellites, then have to rely on other people's signal. The people with big satellites like this in fact use weather balloons and other equipment themselves.


*

JackBlack

  • 22457
It's not poinred at the sky. Take a look at most home satellite dishes.
Your wilful ignorance does not change reality.
That is an offset dish. An imaginary line drawn from the dish to the receiver is not the direction it is pointing.
Instead, if you draw a line from the pickup, to any point on the dish, and follow the normal rules for specular reflection, you will find the direction it is pointing.
And the angle will vary depending on your latitude, with larger latitudes having lower angles.


How likely is it that they would depend on other people's satelites, which in space could turn into debris? That is nonsense! You wouldn't shell out thousands for huge satellites, then have to rely on other people's signal. The people with big satellites like this in fact use weather balloons and other equipment themselves.
Why wouldn't they use their own satellites?
They don't just magically turn into debris.

So yes, what you are spouting is nonsense.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
You were just saying I was conflating different things.  Now the distinction only makes a minimal impact?   Make up your mind.

So now we’re back to my point right at the beginning that calling an alternative explanation trivial is absurd.
Absolutely no relevance to anything that actually happened. Leaning into this slam-dunk shtick is tiresome. You offered clarifications to my summary, and said clarifications did not affect the core of my argument, I made a word of acknowledgement of that and you instead claimed I said something completely different.
Did the word 'trivial' kill your family or something? I used it once for one very specific context, and pointed out what that precise context was several times over, and you're insisting I'm saying it about everything. Seriously, grow up. This kind of shtick is what makes actual conversation bloody impossible and what makes FEers think we need to be dishonest.

Wow you’re really all over the place.

1.  Drawing conclusions specifically to fit your worldview is the very definition of motivated reasoning.

2.  The argument that for FEers the reason can’t be satellites because they don’t think space travel is real can be applied to just about everything- objects over the horizon, sunsets, time zones, seasons, tides, movement of the stars, eclipses, phases of the moon, gravity, etc, etc. 

There must be other explanations for all these things, because they think the world is flat, right?  And therefore no evidence should be considered other than whatever they think they have that the earth is flat.


3.  While I have not argued impossibility, you literally just did by saying space travel is impossible from a flat earther’s perspective.  Is that a “good tack” in your view?

4.  The feasibility of an alternative system somehow giving the same results has been my point all along.  What did you say about that again?
I think you're misunderstanding the situation here. A REer made an argument against FET. That is what began this. It isn't 'motivated reasoning' to say that it doesn't apply - if someone made an argument for FET that assumed the world wasn't round in its premises, that would be just as bad. But this is not a symmetrical situation, a person making an argument has to prove their premises, the person defending has just to reject them.
The possibility of there being an alternate explanation for the observation you gave is the only thing that I called trivial. You are conceding that there is an alternative explanation, so my point stands. You are, after that, saying that the alternate explanation is not feasible - which is going to come down to the person, whether the FEer in question thinks it's more or less feasible than a round earth.
And yes, this could happen on every topic. That's inevitable. All you need to hold to a position is one watertight argument in favour of it. If you have a solid proof of a position, and all anyone can offer is probabilistic arguments against that position, it's a good position. The response ought to be to not offer probabilistic arguments, or to go after each point supporting the position in turn. Refuting things is not meant to be easy - that's why typically speaking scientists don't give a damn about refuting every conceivable alternative model, but rather just focusing on if they can make predictions with the model they have. You're the one that chose this route, don't complain when you're held to the standards of it.

Do you have a point that isn't some vendetta against the word 'trivial?'
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

My point has been verified, just a troll.  Intentionally twisting how the signal works to justify a claim of multiple sources when zero evidence has ever been found of that.  Ignoring the people who have had extensive experience in that field trying to explain how your proposals are stupid.  Just another worthless troll.


Yes.  You are absolutely right. 

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #100 on: February 01, 2023, 10:20:40 AM »
So this is just a complete slam dunk.  You aim a dish at something that can be seen.  If the dish is aimed at it there is a signal, if  not you miss the football game.  How can it be anything else but a satellite?  The FE denial is just silly.

You're right, it's aimed at something that can be seen.

Well done, you found a picture of a cell tower. Cellular is land-based. I guess I should stop aiming the 1 meter dish attached to my iphone at the sky - No wonder why I keep dropping calls...

It's not poinred at the sky. Take a look at most home satellite dishes.

It depends upon your latitude. For things like Direct TV satellite, they are geostationary, hovering fixed in place some 22,000 miles above the surface of the Earth.

From Direct TV:
Dish alignment may be necessary to ensure better video quality and connection with the satellite signal. DirecTV uses satellites that are located in the Southern portion of the sky, thus the satellite dish must be pointing to the South in order to locate a signal.

My dish, as I am in North America on the northern west coast, points southwest toward Texas-ish at something like a 50° angle. It's mounted near the top of the roof and is aimed at the sky, not at any tower as there are none.


And notice here how even closer to the equator in Kuala Lumpur, the dishes have to be aimed even higher...


And most likely, you're aiming at the East Asia Sat 9:
AsiaSat 9 or Thaicom 7 is a geostationary communications satellite which is operated by the Asia Satellite Telecommunications Company (AsiaSat) and was launched into orbit on 28 September 2017.
The satellite carries 28 C-band transponders and 32 Ku-band and is positioned at a longitude of 122° East,[4] providing coverage over southern Asia, Australia and New Zealand.[5]

*

Alexei

  • レクシー
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 3128
  • Over it.
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #101 on: February 01, 2023, 11:47:54 AM »
You can definitely see satelites even without a telescope. The ISS being the easiest considering it's massive in comparison to comm and other types of satellites. There are a bunch of satellite apps that point out and name where each is at anytime given your location. My favorite ones to see are the Starlink trains. Those are awesome, just a string of lights cruising across the sky.



I went out a few nights ago and the only things I could see were planes in the night sky.
I couldn't even seen any stars or a satelite.
It could be my placement in Portland, Oregon, however.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #102 on: February 01, 2023, 02:06:02 PM »
You can definitely see satelites even without a telescope. The ISS being the easiest considering it's massive in comparison to comm and other types of satellites. There are a bunch of satellite apps that point out and name where each is at anytime given your location. My favorite ones to see are the Starlink trains. Those are awesome, just a string of lights cruising across the sky.



I went out a few nights ago and the only things I could see were planes in the night sky.
I couldn't even seen any stars or a satelite.
It could be my placement in Portland, Oregon, however.

The stars are fake. NASA has the ability to switch them on and off at will. Here is the main stars circuit box at Jet Propulsion Labs in Texas:


That's the ON position.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #103 on: February 02, 2023, 07:51:38 PM »
So this is just a complete slam dunk.  You aim a dish at something that can be seen.  If the dish is aimed at it there is a signal, if  not you miss the football game.  How can it be anything else but a satellite?  The FE denial is just silly.

You're right, it's aimed at something that can be seen.

Well done, you found a picture of a cell tower. Cellular is land-based. I guess I should stop aiming the 1 meter dish attached to my iphone at the sky - No wonder why I keep dropping calls...

It's not poinred at the sky. Take a look at most home satellite dishes.



This points far lower than "into space". And when you consider the tower is between 50 and 400 ft, this slight angle makes alot more sense.

Meanwhile, these big satellite dishes?



How likely is it that they would depend on other people's satelites, which in space could turn into debris? That is nonsense! You wouldn't shell out thousands for huge satellites, then have to rely on other people's signal. The people with big satellites like this in fact use weather balloons and other equipment themselves.
So you clearly don't know how los signals work then.  Or how the reflector of a satellite antenna works.  Or how really anything works huh. 
New levels of stupidity are discovered daily here. 

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #104 on: February 03, 2023, 04:38:08 AM »
[quote author=Stash link=topic=91397.msg2393649#msg2393649 date=1675225938

The stars are fake. NASA has the ability to switch them on and off at will. Here is the main stars circuit box at Jet Propulsion Labs in Texas:


That's the ON position.

No that is not the switch.  That is the switch for the cgi fake picture generator.  The actual switch is below.  The one on the right is for the stars, the one on the left is for the sun.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #105 on: February 03, 2023, 08:53:20 AM »
Must be an upgrade to the older system I had presented. Previously the Stars switch and the Sun switch were in two different buildings on the JPL campus managed by two completely different teams. Apparently, now they have consolidated the efforts and, rightfully, I might add, combined the functionality into one simple set up. Progress.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #106 on: February 03, 2023, 08:56:26 AM »
You were just saying I was conflating different things.  Now the distinction only makes a minimal impact?   Make up your mind.

So now we’re back to my point right at the beginning that calling an alternative explanation trivial is absurd.
Absolutely no relevance to anything that actually happened. Leaning into this slam-dunk shtick is tiresome. You offered clarifications to my summary, and said clarifications did not affect the core of my argument, I made a word of acknowledgement of that and you instead claimed I said something completely different.
Did the word 'trivial' kill your family or something? I used it once for one very specific context, and pointed out what that precise context was several times over, and you're insisting I'm saying it about everything. Seriously, grow up. This kind of shtick is what makes actual conversation bloody impossible and what makes FEers think we need to be dishonest.

There’s no “slam dunk shtick”.  Just me disagreeing with your arguments.  It’s not about the word, I disagree with your reasoning and I disagree with being called dishonest.   

Quote
Wow you’re really all over the place.

1.  Drawing conclusions specifically to fit your worldview is the very definition of motivated reasoning.

2.  The argument that for FEers the reason can’t be satellites because they don’t think space travel is real can be applied to just about everything- objects over the horizon, sunsets, time zones, seasons, tides, movement of the stars, eclipses, phases of the moon, gravity, etc, etc. 

There must be other explanations for all these things, because they think the world is flat, right?  And therefore no evidence should be considered other than whatever they think they have that the earth is flat.


3.  While I have not argued impossibility, you literally just did by saying space travel is impossible from a flat earther’s perspective.  Is that a “good tack” in your view?

4.  The feasibility of an alternative system somehow giving the same results has been my point all along.  What did you say about that again?
I think you're misunderstanding the situation here. A REer made an argument against FET. That is what began this.

Actually no.  He made a case for the existence of satellites in geostationary orbit and challenged people to refute it.  FE didn’t get a mention in the OP and is pretty much incidental to the argument, except for the fact that FEers don’t think they are real.


Quote
It isn't 'motivated reasoning' to say that it doesn't apply - if someone made an argument for FET that assumed the world wasn't round in its premises, that would be just as bad. But this is not a symmetrical situation, a person making an argument has to prove their premises, the person defending has just to reject them.
The possibility of there being an alternate explanation for the observation you gave is the only thing that I called trivial. You are conceding that there is an alternative explanation, so my point stands. You are, after that, saying that the alternate explanation is not feasible - which is going to come down to the person, whether the FEer in question thinks it's more or less feasible than a round earth.
And yes, this could happen on every topic. That's inevitable. All you need to hold to a position is one watertight argument in favour of it. If you have a solid proof of a position, and all anyone can offer is probabilistic arguments against that position, it's a good position. The response ought to be to not offer probabilistic arguments, or to go after each point supporting the position in turn. Refuting things is not meant to be easy - that's why typically speaking scientists don't give a damn about refuting every conceivable alternative model, but rather just focusing on if they can make predictions with the model they have. You're the one that chose this route, don't complain when you're held to the standards of it.

You made a piss poor argument for an alternative “explanation”, which you have neither proved nor offered anything besides a couple of sentences of the most vague hand waving.  And so, by these standards, I reject it.

The OP presented a method for regular people to verify where satellite TV signals come from and all you’ve done is complain that you don’t like it with a bunch of excuses.

Quote
Do you have a point that isn't some vendetta against the word 'trivial?'

Yes.  All the points I have made.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #107 on: February 03, 2023, 10:04:46 AM »
Actually no.  He made a case for the existence of satellites in geostationary orbit and challenged people to refute it.  FE didn’t get a mention in the OP and is pretty much incidental to the argument, except for the fact that FEers don’t think they are real.
Context. He's posting on this site, it's clear who the audience is.

Quote
It isn't 'motivated reasoning' to say that it doesn't apply - if someone made an argument for FET that assumed the world wasn't round in its premises, that would be just as bad. But this is not a symmetrical situation, a person making an argument has to prove their premises, the person defending has just to reject them.
The possibility of there being an alternate explanation for the observation you gave is the only thing that I called trivial. You are conceding that there is an alternative explanation, so my point stands. You are, after that, saying that the alternate explanation is not feasible - which is going to come down to the person, whether the FEer in question thinks it's more or less feasible than a round earth.
And yes, this could happen on every topic. That's inevitable. All you need to hold to a position is one watertight argument in favour of it. If you have a solid proof of a position, and all anyone can offer is probabilistic arguments against that position, it's a good position. The response ought to be to not offer probabilistic arguments, or to go after each point supporting the position in turn. Refuting things is not meant to be easy - that's why typically speaking scientists don't give a damn about refuting every conceivable alternative model, but rather just focusing on if they can make predictions with the model they have. You're the one that chose this route, don't complain when you're held to the standards of it.

You made a piss poor argument for an alternative “explanation”, which you have neither proved nor offered anything besides a couple of sentences of the most vague hand waving.  And so, by these standards, I reject it.

The OP presented a method for regular people to verify where satellite TV signals come from and all you’ve done is complain that you don’t like it with a bunch of excuses.

Quote
Do you have a point that isn't some vendetta against the word 'trivial?'

Yes.  All the points I have made.
The problem is that none of your points address what I'm saying, and it's kinda hard to keep having a good faith reading of your shtick when you keep repeating claims even after being called out and corrected on them.
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. Your 'points' are that you think it is more feasible that satellites function the way they do than it is for space agencies to lie. I have acknowledged this. No excuses. The problem is when someone lacks that preconception, and that's when we end up on the feasibility discussion, and the fact that FEers don't think satellites are fake and therefore the Earth is flat. This isn't an excuse, this is the problem with your argument - you have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand and declared everything beyond it above discussion, when those are the reasons why this satellite is taken as faked.
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 #108 on: February 03, 2023, 12:05:15 PM »

Great, you accept satellites.

Who “accepts” satellite’s?

The argument has gone into great detail using visual methods/evidence/confirmation, triangulation, published information, the large number of users, guides to set up your satellite dish, using the scientific principles of line of sight broadcasting, that EchoStar 16 is exactly where it is documented to be. Without any other evidence that something other than EchoStar 16 is proving the satellite transmissions attributed to EchoStar 16.  As in no evidence EchoStar 16 is not a satellite, but a network of towers or floating platforms. 


With no evidence EchoStar 16 wasn’t built.

No evidence EcoStar 16 wasn’t placed in orbit about 22,000 miles above the earth.

With no evidence that Dish Network is renting something other than the geostationary satellite EchoStar 16 to provide the slated coverage as advertised. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #109 on: February 03, 2023, 12:25:03 PM »

Great, you accept satellites.

Who “accepts” satellite’s?

The argument has gone into great detail using visual methods/evidence/confirmation, triangulation, published information, the large number of users, guides to set up your satellite dish, using the scientific principles of line of sight broadcasting, that EchoStar 16 is exactly where it is documented to be. Without any other evidence that something other than EchoStar 16 is proving the satellite transmissions attributed to EchoStar 16.  As in no evidence EchoStar 16 is not a satellite, but a network of towers or floating platforms. 


With no evidence EchoStar 16 wasn’t built.

No evidence EcoStar 16 wasn’t placed in orbit about 22,000 miles above the earth.

With no evidence that Dish Network is renting something other than the geostationary satellite EchoStar 16 to provide the slated coverage as advertised.
Jumping on turns of phrase and aggressively repeating yourself rather than responding to a single point raised against you doesn't make you look smart.
You do realise you are convincing people of FET when you act like we somehow need these pathetic tactics right?
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 #110 on: February 03, 2023, 02:22:06 PM »

Great, you accept satellites.

Who “accepts” satellite’s?

The argument has gone into great detail using visual methods/evidence/confirmation, triangulation, published information, the large number of users, guides to set up your satellite dish, using the scientific principles of line of sight broadcasting, that EchoStar 16 is exactly where it is documented to be. Without any other evidence that something other than EchoStar 16 is proving the satellite transmissions attributed to EchoStar 16.  As in no evidence EchoStar 16 is not a satellite, but a network of towers or floating platforms. 


With no evidence EchoStar 16 wasn’t built.

No evidence EcoStar 16 wasn’t placed in orbit about 22,000 miles above the earth.

With no evidence that Dish Network is renting something other than the geostationary satellite EchoStar 16 to provide the slated coverage as advertised.
Jumping on turns of phrase and aggressively repeating yourself rather than responding to a single point raised against you doesn't make you look smart.
You do realise you are convincing people of FET when you act like we somehow need these pathetic tactics right?
You made a point?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #111 on: February 03, 2023, 03:05:35 PM »
You made a point?
Yep. Tried to discuss it with you, but you opted to back out and rely on snark rather than reply.
Insisting that you are right and they are wrong without being willing to justify each step of your reasoning is a strategy that will just solidify the view of anyone that disagrees with you.
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 #112 on: February 03, 2023, 03:42:51 PM »

Great, you accept satellites.

Who “accepts” satellite’s?

The argument has gone into great detail using visual methods/evidence/confirmation, triangulation, published information, the large number of users, guides to set up your satellite dish, using the scientific principles of line of sight broadcasting, that EchoStar 16 is exactly where it is documented to be. Without any other evidence that something other than EchoStar 16 is proving the satellite transmissions attributed to EchoStar 16.  As in no evidence EchoStar 16 is not a satellite, but a network of towers or floating platforms. 


With no evidence EchoStar 16 wasn’t built.

No evidence EcoStar 16 wasn’t placed in orbit about 22,000 miles above the earth.

With no evidence that Dish Network is renting something other than the geostationary satellite EchoStar 16 to provide the slated coverage as advertised.
Jumping on turns of phrase and aggressively repeating yourself rather than responding to a single point raised against you doesn't make you look smart.
You do realise you are convincing people of FET when you act like we somehow need these pathetic tactics right?


No.  I listed sound evidence and scientific principles that verifies beyond a reasonable doubt for a lack of a better term the existence of EchoStar 16. The active broadcasting that literally points and pinpoints EchoStar 16’s existence and location.  The satellites that is in geosynchronous orbit actively broadcasting 24/7 for all its subscribers to utilize.

With no credible evidence provided otherwise. 

You look like a troll because you can’t handle actual science, technology, and sound evidence.  But it’s beyond simple evidence.  Thousands of normal people utilize and use EchoStar 16.  EchoStar 16 exists and acts as advertised.  Literally broadcasting its existence and revealing its location. 

Saying EchoStar 16 doesn’t exist is like posting Soldier Field doesn’t exist.  Or the good year blimp doesn’t exist.

You argument is just stupid. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #113 on: February 03, 2023, 03:54:38 PM »
No.  I listed sound evidence and scientific principles that verifies beyond a reasonable doubt for a lack of a better term the existence of EchoStar 16. The active broadcasting that literally points and pinpoints EchoStar 16’s existence and location.  The satellites that is in geosynchronous orbit actively broadcasting 24/7 for all its subscribers to utilize.
And, as I have been repeating a truly tiresome number of times, your idea of 'reasonable doubt' is irrelevant. You have consistently been making the worst arguments out of all the users in this thread, and only occasionally piggybacked off of what people smarter than you said. Your evidence has been to claim it works as functioned and link to the sites behind it and dodge requests for justification. Other users made and fleshed out the triangulation argument, and made it several times better than you ever did, and you eventually learned to copy them clearly not understanding a word of it. Mikey at least tried to justify it, albeit didn't respond to requests for clarification. You, however, just angrily asserted and kicked up a fuss when asked to support yourself.
What the smarter users have shown is that faking the satellite would be hard. Yep, absolutely, agreed with that all along. But then you get to your original question of "Prove that it is faked," and you run into the problem.

The problem is that you have not shown impossibility, because science doesn't work like that. It seems generally agreed that the stratellite system is not impossible, merely highly, highly unlikely - like you say, 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' But if someone thinks a round earth is more unlikely, that is a meaningless statement. Hence, this is an excercise in futility, and not nearly as strong a case as you are making it. You have shown the satellite can reasonably be believed to be up there if the Earth is round, and that necessarily is not up there if the Earth is flat. That's how justification works.
That would be why you've been propping it up with appeals to authority and assertion, rather than face up to the fact that you are perpetually incapable of ever answering a question, in any thread you have ever been a part of.

Logic does not change just because you find it inconvenient. Suck it up and move on.
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 #114 on: February 03, 2023, 04:20:50 PM »

 a truly tiresome number of times, your idea of 'reasonable doubt' is irrelevant.


We are discussing a satellite that can be visually sighed, pinpointed, photographed, used by thousands of subscribers, broadcasts so its position can be located and pinpointed, online guides help one find its exact location, thousands of satellite dishes point to its location,
no credible evidence provided otherwise, no evidence the satellite wasn’t build/launched/placed in orbit as advertised/documented.


Not my problem if you can’t handle reality.  Not my problem if you want to troll by creating an argument where there is none.  Other than you wanting this wishy washy thing you want things to be true in both FE and spherical earth. 

But the verified existence of EchoStar 16 and the pinpointed source of its broadcasts 22,000 miles above the earth that destroys the FE model of the sun only 3,000 miles away, and there is a dome.  And destroys space travel is impossible.

And it’s sad and silly to think some things can be “true” in both models.

Face it.  Flat earth is dumb. 


*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #115 on: February 03, 2023, 05:09:20 PM »
You made a point?
Yep. Tried to discuss it with you, but you opted to back out and rely on snark rather than reply.
Insisting that you are right and they are wrong without being willing to justify each step of your reasoning is a strategy that will just solidify the view of anyone that disagrees with you.
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.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #116 on: February 03, 2023, 05:18:06 PM »
Actually no.  He made a case for the existence of satellites in geostationary orbit and challenged people to refute it.  FE didn’t get a mention in the OP and is pretty much incidental to the argument, except for the fact that FEers don’t think they are real.
Context. He's posting on this site, it's clear who the audience is.

The audience is irrelevant.  Neither you or me are flat earthers.  A case was made specifically about the existence of satellites. 

Quote
Quote
It isn't 'motivated reasoning' to say that it doesn't apply - if someone made an argument for FET that assumed the world wasn't round in its premises, that would be just as bad. But this is not a symmetrical situation, a person making an argument has to prove their premises, the person defending has just to reject them.
The possibility of there being an alternate explanation for the observation you gave is the only thing that I called trivial. You are conceding that there is an alternative explanation, so my point stands. You are, after that, saying that the alternate explanation is not feasible - which is going to come down to the person, whether the FEer in question thinks it's more or less feasible than a round earth.
And yes, this could happen on every topic. That's inevitable. All you need to hold to a position is one watertight argument in favour of it. If you have a solid proof of a position, and all anyone can offer is probabilistic arguments against that position, it's a good position. The response ought to be to not offer probabilistic arguments, or to go after each point supporting the position in turn. Refuting things is not meant to be easy - that's why typically speaking scientists don't give a damn about refuting every conceivable alternative model, but rather just focusing on if they can make predictions with the model they have. You're the one that chose this route, don't complain when you're held to the standards of it.

You made a piss poor argument for an alternative “explanation”, which you have neither proved nor offered anything besides a couple of sentences of the most vague hand waving.  And so, by these standards, I reject it.

The OP presented a method for regular people to verify where satellite TV signals come from and all you’ve done is complain that you don’t like it with a bunch of excuses.

Quote
Do you have a point that isn't some vendetta against the word 'trivial?'

Yes.  All the points I have made.
The problem is that none of your points address what I'm saying, and it's kinda hard to keep having a good faith reading of your shtick when you keep repeating claims even after being called out and corrected on them.

You might think you’re calling me out and correcting, I do not. I see a bunch of problems with your reasoning.  That’s not shtick and I’m about done with your accusations about my honesty.

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.

Quote
Your 'points' are that you think it is more feasible that satellites function the way they do than it is for space agencies to lie. I have acknowledged this. No excuses. The problem is when someone lacks that preconception, and that's when we end up on the feasibility discussion, and the fact that FEers don't think satellites are fake and therefore the Earth is flat. This isn't an excuse, this is the problem with your argument - you have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand and declared everything beyond it above discussion, when those are the reasons why this satellite is taken as faked.

I’ve drawn a line in the sand?  LOL

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.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #117 on: February 08, 2023, 07:59:15 AM »
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.
The Earth is round. I do not want people to think the Earth is flat. Satellites exist. My contention is that the reason we can be confident in the existence of satellites, is that we have good arguments to support them. Do you disagree?
The problem is that this thread began with someone who asked FEers to debunk a specific satellite - okay then, the answer to that is easy, it's because they deny space travel, ergo it is impossible for satellites to exist. But he didn't want to discuss the conspiracy, so he arbitrarily dismissed the FE refutation. Whichever way you cut it, that's sloppy argumentation.
Asserting that satellites exist is a bad argument. Claiming that two transmitters on the ground must be pointing at the same satellite with no further elaboration, that is a bad argument. However you cut it, they do not function as arguments. That is not to say that there aren't good arguments out there, but you have to give them. Otherwise you have FEers coming face to face with people making five terrible arguments and one competent one, and it ruins the credibility of the one by association.
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.
"Satellites exist because space agencies say so," is not a good argument and people seriously using that tack need to strongly be discouraged unless they want to just confirm that FEers think we're a cult. It's not just 'true because they say so,' it is evidentially supported and justifiable. Do you disagree?

Hence, when you made your earlier post, I asked clarifying points to see if the arguments would function. You decided, nah, dismiss the person you're talking to as a troll so you don't need to justify your points. If that's your speed, have fun with that, but don't get shocked when you come off as pathetic.

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.

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. 
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 #118 on: February 08, 2023, 08:15:05 AM »

The problem is that this thread began with someone who asked FEers to debunk a specific satellite - okay then, the answer to that is easy, it's because they deny space travel, ergo it is impossible for satellites to exist. 

Again.  Believing bullets isn’t a thing doesn’t make one bullet proof.

For the existence of EchoStar 16 to be ignored, the argument relies on ignoring science and reality. 

This must be ignored, or lied about.

A satellite that can be photographed and causes different effects than stars in photos. 

A device placed in orbit by a group other than NASA.

A device placed in orbit from a country other than the USA.

A device that can be confirmed as built, launched, placed in orbit.

A orbit that is verified by thousands of users.

A orbit that can be verified by using a satellite dish.  As documented by web sites that outline how to find satellites and aim a directional antenna to catch a line of sight transmission. 


A orbit that is based on scientific principles used by a satellite utilizing the electromagnetic spectrum.

An orbit verified visually by a corresponding broadcast. 

A object that can be found and located by its broadcast.

An object that can be verified and tracked by radar.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 08:16:50 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #119 on: February 08, 2023, 08:24:49 AM »
Maybe rather than plucking one line out of context, you learn how to actually reply to an argument rather than pretending that all RET has is assertion and not, y'know, actual evidence.
You are lagging about five posts behind every other person in this thread. Your weak presentations of observation have been responded to, and everyone except for you is capable of actually moving the conversation forward to how we know we can trust those observations. You, however, seem to think just insisting that we can is sufficient.
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. 
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!