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

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


EchoStar 16 was launched into space Nov 20, 2012, from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

The satellite was built by Space Systems/Loral.

The launch of EchoStar XVI was conducted by International Launch Services, using a Proton-M carrier rocket with a Briz-M upper stage.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EchoStar_XVI

Here’s the set up.  Myself, and a cousin both served in the Pacific Ocean.

From the middle of the Pacific Ocean, hundreds of miles from any landmass, we both used satellite based email and sat phones to contact home when allowed.

We both have a subscriptions that allows us to view programming broadcasted From EchoStar 16.

  We understand that EchoStar 16 is broadcasting in frequencies that are line of sight transmission. J band (IEEE Ku band)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EchoStar_XVI

One of us lives on Ocean Isle Beach North Carolina.  The other one lives in Port Fourchon Louisiana.

Here is the data to position the satellite dish at each location to receive the broadcast from the geosynchronous satellite Echostar 16.

https://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-usa.htmSatellite






Provide evidence, not speculation, that EchoStar 16 is not in earth’s orbit.

Provide evidence, not speculation, that individuals aiming their dishes at EchoStar 16 are receiving a broadcast from something other than a geostationary satellite.

Any "debunking" that you are looking for to establish your superior argument over an opponent's argument relies on you and an opponent agreeing on a common set of assumptions. Some you may see as given and unquestionable, but the opponent may not. That's why some of these arguments go on endlessly with no progress, and cause frustrations on both sides, as what seems an obvious assumption to one is disputed by the other.

A refutation of your approach that is common among Flat Earthers or Zeteticists is "if I don't experience it, i can't trust it" and "everyone else is lying and falsifying data."

I have no confirming evidence that anything in your message is true, and that is isn't all just made up. I can just as easily say "debunk 'The Lord of the Rings'."

I know you're trying the "Great Gotcha" on Flat Earthers, but if you don't agree on a basic framework of assumptions (e.g., the entire world is *not* conspiring to deceive me") it won't get you anywhere.

I know you're trying the "Great Gotcha" on Flat Earthers,

Not really trying to play “gotcha”.

Trying to provide a thread where it doesn’t drift off into satellites not built and launched by NASA are somehow a “lie” because of NASA, stealth technology, and the one time a helicopter landed on Mount Everest.

And also who will play, and who will ignore the thread….

Any "debunking" that you are looking for to establish your superior argument over an opponent's argument relies on you and an opponent agreeing on a common set of assumptions. Some you may see as given and unquestionable, but the opponent may not. That's why some of these arguments go on endlessly with no progress, and cause frustrations on both sides, as what seems an obvious assumption to one is disputed by the other.

A refutation of your approach that is common among Flat Earthers or Zeteticists is "if I don't experience it, i can't trust it" and "everyone else is lying and falsifying data."

I have no confirming evidence that anything in your message is true, and that is isn't all just made up. I can just as easily say "debunk 'The Lord of the Rings'."

I know you're trying the "Great Gotcha" on Flat Earthers, but if you don't agree on a basic framework of assumptions (e.g., the entire world is *not* conspiring to deceive me") it won't get you anywhere.

So the basic framework of assumptions is that anything flat eathers don’t like can be dismissed as a lie.

And yes, that is why arguments go on forever. 

So the basic framework of assumptions is that anything flat eathers don’t like can be dismissed as a lie.

And yes, that is why arguments go on forever.

It’s even funnier when you stop and realize the “framework” is based on facts from real life. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 22, 2023, 08:45:16 AM

So the basic framework of assumptions is that anything flat eathers don’t like can be dismissed as a lie.

And yes, that is why arguments go on forever.

It’s even funnier when you stop and realize the “framework” is based on facts from real life.

And this is why ignoring Curiouser's post is not a particularly good response, because you ended up replying to yourself. No one has ever given this one particular satellite a moment's thought. Does it exist? Well, according to FEers not in the same way as it does under RET - it's likely some in-atmosphere equivalent, signals come from a different source etc, so you're already off to a rocky start with "Debunk the existence and transmissions," but okay, focusing on the rest of the post, "show it's not in Earth orbit."
Again, no FEer does this by going through every individual satellite, any more than you need to know every individual user of this forum to believe none of us are aliens living in a teapot orbiting Mars. Such a notion would belong to a category of thing that you would need more evidence to believe in. So too, for FEers, are satellites in such a category.

If nothing exists in orbit - emphasis on if, we're playing hypothetical - then it is trivial and sound to conclude that no satellite is in orbit, including this one. So, in practice, this thread is overcomplicating a discussion because it's not about Echostar 16, that's not how the justification of this belief works as previously mentioned. It is about whether satellites exist as a concept. If they don't, then E16 is clearly not as we believe. If they do, then okay you're in a weird spot where they'd have to debunk it individually, but as I am unaware of any FEer with a grudge against this one specific satellite, we can reject that as a position probably no one holds.

So we have to replace the question with "Provide evidence, not speculation, that satellites do not exist as is commonly believed," because that is the support of the Echostar 16 objection. Ie, significantly more complicated than you wanted this to be:

Trying to provide a thread where it doesn’t drift off into satellites not built and launched by NASA are somehow a “lie” because of NASA, stealth technology, and the one time a helicopter landed on Mount Everest.

"I want to have this discussion, but I don't want FEers to give the responses I don't like," is not a helpful or remotely logical approach.
If you want to argue against the FE framework of beliefs, you have to be willing to engage with it. If you do not want to engage with it, find a better approach - like arguing for the actual evidence for satellites. You can talk about 'facts from real life,' but what makes them facts is not assertion, it is evidence. Seriously, dedicate more time to finding that than these weak takes.

And this is why ignoring Curiouser's post is not a particularly good response,
because you ended up replying to yourself.

It’s an open form.  It’s up to individual if they reply or not.

If I don’t reply to you, would you be replying to yourself?

How is quoting a replying to a post by another individual “replying to myself”?

No one has ever given this one particular satellite a moment's thought.

Except the people that invested in it, designed it, placed it orbit, the people that literally profit from the services and programming it provides, the company that probably insured it, the people that use the satellite so people can have access to their created programming, and the people at the satellite’s control center that monitor and control EchoStar 16.

And of course the people that have to align their satellite dishes to EchoStar 16 to receiver they’re paid for programming.

Hence this site..
Satellite dish pointing calculator: USA
https://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-usa.htm

Does it exist?

Do you exist?


We are referring to a documented designed, built, launched, placed in orbit, literally broadcasting its existence satellite.  Providing services to customers and generating a profit for its owners.

Well, according to FEers not in the same way as it does under RET - it's likely some in-atmosphere equivalent,

Speculation, not evidence.  Concerning a broadcasting object that requires satellite dishes across the continental USA to literally point to its potion/existence to receive programming provided by the satellite and its active broadcasting.

signals come from a different source etc, so you're already off to a rocky start with "Debunk the existence and transmissions,"

Only if you can justify flat earth myth and delusion.  And you think BS is evidence.

but okay, focusing on the rest of the post, "show it's not in Earth orbit.

I am focusing literally on an object that can be located and identified by its active broadcasting and services it provides. 

Again, no FEer does this by going through every individual satellite, any more than you need to know every individual user of this forum to believe none of us are aliens living in a teapot orbiting Mars.

Again.  That is not evidence people aligning their satellite dishes to receive signals from EchoStar 16 are actually receiving their broadcast from a network of floating platforms hovering across the USA.  Speculation that totally ignores how the line of sight frequencies used by EchoStar 16 works, no evidence you can point a dish to another point in the sky to tune into Echostar 16, to no evidence of the design/placement/maintenance infrastructure to create /maintain a floating platform network to duplicate the coverage provided by Echostar 16.

Such a notion would belong to a category of thing that you would need more evidence to believe in. So too, for FEers, are satellites in such a category.

They provide myth and BS, no evidence and no explanation concerning the actual signals broadcast by EchoStar 16

If nothing exists in orbit - emphasis on if, we're playing hypothetical - then it is trivial and sound to conclude that no satellite is in orbit, including this one. So, in practice,

We aren’t playing hypothetical.  We are referring to an object actively broadcasting that provides a tangible service, generating profit for it’s owner, and work for the space agency that placed it in orbit.

this thread is overcomplicating a discussion

How.  Provides a specific example.  A specific example that FE’s can not provide any alternative evidence.  Can’t hand wave away. Just outlined their delusional BS.  An example that isn’t dependent on NASA lies. 

because it's not about Echostar 16, that's not how the justification of this belief works as previously mentioned.

What does that have to do with EcoStar 16 is a real object actively broadcasting.  With no FE “scientists” showing any evidence that EcoStar is anything but an actively broadcasting satellite proving a signal and service from geosynchronous orbit.

It is about whether satellites exist as a concept.

And it’s dumbed down to EchoStar 16.  And if it’s really broadcasting from geosynchronous orbit.  And if it’s not, what could physical be duplicating the same coverage.  With actual evidence that such infrastructure exists.

Example. You could theoretically run a subway tube to each home throughout the USA.  Not likely to ever happen. 

If they don't, then E16 is clearly not as we believe.

Believing in myth doesn’t make reality go away.  Example, believing bullets are not a thing doesn’t make a person bullet proof.

If they do, then okay you're in a weird spot where they'd have to debunk it individually, but as I am unaware of any FEer with a grudge against this one specific satellite, we can reject that as a position probably no one holds.

Because the argument can outline the documented existence of a specific satellite, and FE’s can’t explain away the specific service provided by EchoStar 16.  A satellite placed in orbit independently of NASA so the NASA lies excuse cannot be used.

So we have to replace the question with "Provide evidence, not speculation, that satellites do not exist as is commonly believed," because that is the support of the Echostar 16 objection. Ie, significantly more complicated than you wanted this to be:

No.  We have been provided a example of a satellite who’s position is verified by satellite dishes through the USA, a satellite in orbit actually broadcasting, no credible evidence provided by FE’s EchoStar 16 broadcasts are anything other than broadcasts from a geostationary satellite.

Whining that FE’a can’t except the reality of a real object actively broadcasting from orbit is no excuse to legitimize their BS and delusions.


——- Funny you are in a thread FE’s so far have mostly ignored.  There is a reason FE’s avoid certain topics and threads—-

Taking individual sentences out of context to repeat yourself a dozen times and misrepresent, and hide the fact you're just repeating the contents of the post I was replying to, doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look desperate.
If either one of us is 'legitimising bs' here, it's the one that thinks they need to rely on dishonest tactics to make a case.

To re-iterate:

1. No FEer has a personal grudge against E16, they reject E16 as being in space/in orbit because of separate objections against space travel
2. The reason why this is an unreasonable position is not because you can assert the existence of space travel, it is because of actual evidence that can be directly given and explained as opposed to handwaved
3. Space agencies are not trusted by most FEers. Asserting that they are accurate makes you come off like a cult member. If that's not a road you want to go down, don't have a conspiracy discussion.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 22, 2023, 09:23:37 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 22, 2023, 08:45:16 AM

So the basic framework of assumptions is that anything flat eathers don’t like can be dismissed as a lie.

And yes, that is why arguments go on forever.

It’s even funnier when you stop and realize the “framework” is based on facts from real life.

And this is why ignoring Curiouser's post is not a particularly good response, because you ended up replying to yourself. No one has ever given this one particular satellite a moment's thought. Does it exist? Well, according to FEers not in the same way as it does under RET - it's likely some in-atmosphere equivalent, signals come from a different source etc, so you're already off to a rocky start with "Debunk the existence and transmissions," but okay, focusing on the rest of the post, "show it's not in Earth orbit."
Again, no FEer does this by going through every individual satellite, any more than you need to know every individual user of this forum to believe none of us are aliens living in a teapot orbiting Mars. Such a notion would belong to a category of thing that you would need more evidence to believe in. So too, for FEers, are satellites in such a category.

If nothing exists in orbit - emphasis on if, we're playing hypothetical - then it is trivial and sound to conclude that no satellite is in orbit, including this one. So, in practice, this thread is overcomplicating a discussion because it's not about Echostar 16, that's not how the justification of this belief works as previously mentioned. It is about whether satellites exist as a concept. If they don't, then E16 is clearly not as we believe. If they do, then okay you're in a weird spot where they'd have to debunk it individually, but as I am unaware of any FEer with a grudge against this one specific satellite, we can reject that as a position probably no one holds.

So we have to replace the question with "Provide evidence, not speculation, that satellites do not exist as is commonly believed," because that is the support of the Echostar 16 objection. Ie, significantly more complicated than you wanted this to be:

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 22, 2023, 08:34:53 AM

Trying to provide a thread where it doesn’t drift off into satellites not built and launched by NASA are somehow a “lie” because of NASA, stealth technology, and the one time a helicopter landed on Mount Everest.

"I want to have this discussion, but I don't want FEers to give the responses I don't like," is not a helpful or remotely logical approach.
If you want to argue against the FE framework of beliefs, you have to be willing to engage with it. If you do not want to engage with it, find a better approach - like arguing for the actual evidence for satellites. You can talk about 'facts from real life,' but what makes them facts is not assertion, it is evidence. Seriously, dedicate more time to finding that than these weak takes.

The point is obviously to pick a satellite that the public can get a signal from (it doesn’t matter which), and see if the direction you need to point the dish from different locations makes sense on a flat earth (spoiler: it doesn’t).

It doesn’t work unless you get specific.

The point is obviously to pick a satellite that the public can get a signal from (it doesn’t matter which), and see if the direction you need to point the dish from different locations makes sense on a flat earth (spoiler: it doesn’t).

It doesn’t work unless you get specific.

I mean, that's trivial though. Why would it be the same satellite? The hypothesis that satellites do not genuinely exist inevitably supposes some deceit in supposed satellite-reliant systems. This isn't a line of reasoning that will ever reach a FEer.
Like, sure, conspiracy, but it's kinda pointless to argue for something you know will be answered that way.

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 22, 2023, 12:34:51 PM

The point is obviously to pick a satellite that the public can get a signal from (it doesn’t matter which), and see if the direction you need to point the dish from different locations makes sense on a flat earth (spoiler: it doesn’t).

It doesn’t work unless you get specific.

I mean, that's trivial though. Why would it be the same satellite? The hypothesis that satellites do not genuinely exist inevitably supposes some deceit in supposed satellite-reliant systems. This isn't a line of reasoning that will ever reach a FEer.
Like, sure, conspiracy, but it's kinda pointless to argue for something you know will be answered that way.

Trivial, my arse.  I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

If there were multiple satellites transmitting the same signal, it would easy to triangulate their positions. 

Quote from: Slime on January 22, 2023, 12:39:07 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 22, 2023, 12:34:51 PM

The point is obviously to pick a satellite that the public can get a signal from (it doesn’t matter which), and see if the direction you need to point the dish from different locations makes sense on a flat earth (spoiler: it doesn’t).

It doesn’t work unless you get specific.

I mean, that's trivial though. Why would it be the same satellite? The hypothesis that satellites do not genuinely exist inevitably supposes some deceit in supposed satellite-reliant systems. This isn't a line of reasoning that will ever reach a FEer.
Like, sure, conspiracy, but it's kinda pointless to argue for something you know will be answered that way.

Trivial, my arse.  I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

If there were multiple satellites transmitting the same signal, it would easy to triangulate their positions.

Okay. Again, walk it through. How do you determine when a signal comes from the same source as another, if you are allowing for dishonesty of reporting? You have signals, they could be from the same source or from different sources and the signals sent do not convey this.
Certainly, it's non-trivial when you want to get into the nitty-gritty, but the argument presented immediately offers this response.

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 22, 2023, 12:55:13 PM

Quote from: Slime on January 22, 2023, 12:39:07 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 22, 2023, 12:34:51 PM

The point is obviously to pick a satellite that the public can get a signal from (it doesn’t matter which), and see if the direction you need to point the dish from different locations makes sense on a flat earth (spoiler: it doesn’t).

It doesn’t work unless you get specific.

I mean, that's trivial though. Why would it be the same satellite? The hypothesis that satellites do not genuinely exist inevitably supposes some deceit in supposed satellite-reliant systems. This isn't a line of reasoning that will ever reach a FEer.
Like, sure, conspiracy, but it's kinda pointless to argue for something you know will be answered that way.

Trivial, my arse.  I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

If there were multiple satellites transmitting the same signal, it would easy to triangulate their positions.

Okay. Again, walk it through. How do you determine when a signal comes from the same source as another, if you are allowing for dishonesty of reporting? You have signals, they could be from the same source or from different sources and the signals sent do not convey this.
Certainly, it's non-trivial when you want to get into the nitty-gritty, but the argument presented immediately offers this response.

Satellite dishes are directional.  You have to point them at the right bit of sky for your location (because the earth’s surface is curved).  Satellite TV companies provide this handy bit of information. 

If tens of thousands of people couldn’t find the signal or found it coming from where it shouldn’t be, that would be noticed.  They’d be all over internet complaining the instructions were wrong.  It would also be noticed if some people could find the signal from more than one location.

Quote from: Slime on January 22, 2023, 01:00:39 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 22, 2023, 12:55:13 PM

Quote from: Slime on January 22, 2023, 12:39:07 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 22, 2023, 12:34:51 PM

The point is obviously to pick a satellite that the public can get a signal from (it doesn’t matter which), and see if the direction you need to point the dish from different locations makes sense on a flat earth (spoiler: it doesn’t).

It doesn’t work unless you get specific.

I mean, that's trivial though. Why would it be the same satellite? The hypothesis that satellites do not genuinely exist inevitably supposes some deceit in supposed satellite-reliant systems. This isn't a line of reasoning that will ever reach a FEer.
Like, sure, conspiracy, but it's kinda pointless to argue for something you know will be answered that way.

Trivial, my arse.  I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

If there were multiple satellites transmitting the same signal, it would easy to triangulate their positions.

Okay. Again, walk it through. How do you determine when a signal comes from the same source as another, if you are allowing for dishonesty of reporting? You have signals, they could be from the same source or from different sources and the signals sent do not convey this.
Certainly, it's non-trivial when you want to get into the nitty-gritty, but the argument presented immediately offers this response.

Satellite dishes are directional.  You have to point them at the right bit of sky for your location (because the earth’s surface is curved).  Satellite TV companies provide this handy bit of information. 

If tens of thousands of people couldn’t find the signal or found it coming from where it shouldn’t be, that would be noticed.  They’d be all over internet complaining the instructions were wrong.  It would also be noticed if some people could find the signal from more than one location.

Yes. And a satellite-equivalent anywhere along said line would be read the same. There doesn't seem to be any significant contradiction here.
Plus there's the whole matter of directed signals/impractical tests.

Yes. And a satellite-equivalent anywhere along said line would be read the same. There doesn't seem to be any significant contradiction here.
Plus there's the whole matter of directed signals/impractical tests.

Hand waving.  Can you actually explain how multiple “satellite equivalent” signals on a flat earth could match that of a single source  in geostationary orbit around a round earth?

For example, multiple sources would be covering different areas.  If someone lives on boarder of best coverage between two transmitters, they should be able to find two or more signals, right? Unless the coverage is really patchy, which it isn’t.

Easy answer. Multiple “satellite equivalent” signals are achieved thusly. First and foremost, the satellite companies are in on it. They receive compensation from NASA to perpetuate the lie. A lie that needs to be perpetuated because of something to do with the Illuminati Free Masonic New World Order, or something like that.
To do so, the dishes are actually secretly engineered and manufactured to point to various low altitude balloons and ground based towers even though it appears that it's pointed up at a geostationary satellite overhead.

Conspiracy and lies. Oh, and NASA! Simple as that.

Quote from: Slime on January 22, 2023, 02:03:41 PM

Yes. And a satellite-equivalent anywhere along said line would be read the same. There doesn't seem to be any significant contradiction here.
Plus there's the whole matter of directed signals/impractical tests.

Hand waving.  Can you actually explain how multiple “satellite equivalent” signals on a flat earth could match that of a single source  in geostationary orbit around a round earth?

For example, multiple sources would be covering different areas.  If someone lives on boarder of best coverage between two transmitters, they should be able to find two or more signals, right? Unless the coverage is really patchy, which it isn’t.

I'd agree this is definitely where details are lacking, but that's always going to be inevitable when it comes to conspiracy. Narrow beam signals could mitigate a lot of that, but conceding that there might be places where someone can tilt their dish and manage to tune into signals from a couple of angles... That's not something that most people regularly do. It feels like a fundamentally untestable proposition without being able to pinpoint any such location.

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


EchoStar 16 was launched into space Nov 20, 2012, from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

The satellite was built by Space Systems/Loral.

The launch of EchoStar XVI was conducted by International Launch Services, using a Proton-M carrier rocket with a Briz-M upper stage.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EchoStar_XVI

Here’s the set up.  Myself, and a cousin both served in the Pacific Ocean.

From the middle of the Pacific Ocean, hundreds of miles from any landmass, we both used satellite based email and sat phones to contact home when allowed.

We both have a subscriptions that allows us to view programming broadcasted From EchoStar 16.

  We understand that EchoStar 16 is broadcasting in frequencies that are line of sight transmission. J band (IEEE Ku band)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EchoStar_XVI

One of us lives on Ocean Isle Beach North Carolina.  The other one lives in Port Fourchon Louisiana.

Here is the data to position the satellite dish at each location to receive the broadcast from the geosynchronous satellite Echostar 16.

https://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-usa.htmSatellite






Provide evidence, not speculation, that EchoStar 16 is not in earth’s orbit.

Provide evidence, not speculation, that individuals aiming their dishes at EchoStar 16 are receiving a broadcast from something other than a geostationary satellite.

What that satellite? Cuz I didn't satisfy you in another thread, you're gonna make an entire thread about it?

What nonsense.

What that satellite? Cuz I didn't satisfy you in another thread, you're gonna make an entire thread about it?

What nonsense.

Do you have any evidence that satellite dishes aimed specifically at the geostationary satellite EchoStar 16 are receiving anything other than the broadcast by EchoStar 16?

If you think something is broadcasting in the place of Echostar 16, then why do the satellite dishes tuning into Echostar 16 point to the same specific point in the sky.  Why are there no other “EchoStar 16” signals to triangulate position and altitude off of.  With there being no visible and no physical evidence something other than EchoStar 16 is proving the signal in this example. 

Do you have any evidence that isn't effectively hearsay and pictures straight from the Not Actual Science Association?

Do we know that these satellites are in space? This is what hearsay evidence is, when all you have is testimony. When there are no witnesses that can reliably verify the story. Since they are in conspiracy to spread this idea, you need a third party to back this up. But I highly doubt anyone here has personally visited outer space, and if so, they have conflict of interest working for systems involved in such things.

Using photoshop, I can cut the BG of a craft and put it in outer space. Even a naval ship from long ago.



Before photoshop, there was scissors and glue. Among other techniques, but if you want 100% low-budget, any idiot can make a doctored shot.

I don't have to debunk the existence of EchoSat 16. Only that it is where they say it is.

Do we know that these satellites are in space? This is what hearsay evidence is, when all you have is testimony. When there are no witnesses that can reliably verify the story. Since they are in conspiracy to spread this idea, you need a third party to back this up. But I highly doubt anyone here has personally visited outer space, and if so, they have conflict of interest working for systems involved in such things.

You don't need to go to space to verify it.

Instead, get a parabolic receiver (i.e. satellite dish), find the signal allegedly coming from the satellite, and then determine the angle to it from your position. Then move, tracking the satellite as you do.
Then once you have done that, plot how the angle to the satellite varies, and use that to determine its location.
You can even try both a RE and a FE and see what you get.

Do we know that these satellites are in space? This is what hearsay evidence is, when all you have is testimony. When there are no witnesses that can reliably verify the story. Since they are in conspiracy to spread this idea, you need a third party to back this up. But I highly doubt anyone here has personally visited outer space, and if so, they have conflict of interest working for systems involved in such things.

Using photoshop, I can cut the BG of a craft and put it in outer space. Even a naval ship from long ago.



Before photoshop, there was scissors and glue. Among other techniques, but if you want 100% low-budget, any idiot can make a doctored shot.

I don't have to debunk the existence of EchoSat 16. Only that it is where they say it is.

Do we know that these geostationary balloons and hovering platforms are in the sky? This is what hearsay evidence is, when all you have is testimony, from just you. When there are no witnesses that can reliably verify the story. Since you are in conspiracy to spread this idea, you need a third party to back this up. But I highly doubt anyone here has personally visited a geostationary balloon or hovering platform in the sky, and if so, they have conflict of interest working for systems involved in such things.

Using photoshop, I can cut the BG of a craft and put it in the sky. Even a a "satellite" repair helicopter with rappelling service specialists.



Before photoshop, there was scissors and glue. Among other techniques, but if you want 100% low-budget, any idiot can make a doctored shot.

I don't have to debunk the existence of geostationary balloons and hovering platforms. Only that it is where you say it is.

I don't have to debunk the existence of EchoSat 16. Only that it is where they say it is.

You haven’t even done that.

This is how you aim a satellite dish for a single satellite in geosynchronous orbit..

How to Point a Satellite Dish
After you have installed your dish and have calculated your Elevation and Azimuth angles from the above calculator then you are ready to align your satellite dish. These are the basic steps needed to point any satellite dish (4.8m or an 80cm TV sat dish) as the principles are the same:

Tip: A Compass or GPS, an Inclinometer and a Sat Finder will make pointing a lot quicker and easier.
1.    Elevation Adjustment. Place the inclinometer on the back  frame of the dish (taking in to account any dish offset if required – see Fig 5). Adjust the elevation up or down to the desired angle as accurately as possible. Snug the hardware to stop possible movement.

Tip: Typical satellite antenna offsets are 22.3º and 17.3° (i.e Calulated Elevation – Offset = Measured Elevation angle).
2.    Azimuth Adjustment. Rotate the dish to the azimuth bearing (use magnetic North bearing for a compass or True North if using a handheld GPS).

Tip: If using a GPS, walk out on the bearing a few times and place a marker on the point where the dish should point (Azimuth)
3.    Fine Alignment. The satellite dish should now be in rough alignment and will now require to be peaked up on the signal using a sat finder or the satellite modem. The satellite is about 35,000km away so make small adjustments.

Tip: If using the Sat Finder (see Fig 2 & 3) keep on increasing the attenuation when you are peaking up the signal. This inexpensive bit of kit (about $20) will peak the signal very well.

4.     Polarisation. Adjust the LNB skew, the adjustment figure given is from standing behind the antenna. Rotate the LNB in the indicated direction, this is the satellite polarisation angle offset. This is used to preform Cross-Pol isolation tests with the satellite operator and a typical isolation value is 30dB.

NB: LNB skew is not used with circular polarisation.

5.    Secure Antenna. Tighten all the hardware used for adjustment making sure that you do not move the antenna position.

6.    Testing. You should now complete an Isolation and compression test with your satellite operator to confirm correct operation and maximum efficiency of the link.

Tip: Isolation or XPOL is checking if you are transmitting (causing interference) on the oposite pol.
Tip: Compression test is sometimes refereed to as a 1dB test.  A Carrier Wave (CW) is transmitted from the remote to find the point where the Tx signal stops being linear.
Troubleshooting

I cannot find a Satellite Signal
Double check your Azimuth and Elevation calculations again;
Do you have a clear line of sight to the satellite? Make sure there are no buildings, trees, etc. in the way;
Move away from metal objects if using a compass;
Is your dish offset (like the picture above)? Double check your offset value;
Set your Elevation and move the dish through 180° in Azimuth;
Check your LNB (see below);
Remember your compass is correct – you are wrong!

https://satoms.com/dish-pointing/

Wonder what the instructions would be like if the satellite being aimed at wasn’t a satellite in geosynchronous orbit.  But hundreds of floating platforms covering the continental USA?

By the way.  Ever give a number how many floating platforms it would take to provide the same coverage of the continental USA as EchoStar 16?

This is the broadcast footprint of EchoStar 16.

https://satoms.com/dish-pointing/

How many floating platforms to guarantee 24 hour coverage and the same broadcast footprint as EchoStar 16? 

You keep posting about cost effectiveness and profit.  Why would anyone spend time and resources placing floating platforms in certain areas just to mimic where the satellite signal was weak and bleeds over? 

Nice.  Two flat earther level hand wavy explanations:

Easy answer. Multiple “satellite equivalent” signals are achieved thusly. First and foremost, the satellite companies are in on it. They receive compensation from NASA to perpetuate the lie. A lie that needs to be perpetuated because of something to do with the Illuminati Free Masonic New World Order, or something like that.
To do so, the dishes are actually secretly engineered and manufactured to point to various low altitude balloons and ground based towers even though it appears that it's pointed up at a geostationary satellite overhead.

Conspiracy and lies. Oh, and NASA! Simple as that.

Easy answer is it’s ALL LIES! 

But we don’t need to care about NASA.  Satellite dishes are cheap consumer equip and are really quite simple.  They are just a receiver mounted on a parabolic reflector.   

If anyone doubts how they work they can just take one apart and try to find the “secret engineering” that somehow points in another direction.   Or they could do some testing to see if it actually picks up signals in different directions.

If flat earthers or other space deniers actually found some evidence, that would be something, but why bother trying to find evidence of the great conspiracy when they can just claim it’s real while putting in zero effort?

I'd agree this is definitely where details are lacking, but that's always going to be inevitable when it comes to conspiracy. Narrow beam signals could mitigate a lot of that, but conceding that there might be places where someone can tilt their dish and manage to tune into signals from a couple of angles... That's not something that most people regularly do. It feels like a fundamentally untestable proposition without being able to pinpoint any such location.

Correction: All details lacking. 

So your idea is that instead of the thousands of balloons (or whatever) needed to seamlessly cover the vast areas by transmitting in all directions, TV companies would build orders of magnitude more, using narrow beam transmissions to create the illusion of one satellite?  They’d have to be absolutely everywhere, and if anyone discovered this improbably hidden massive network, the big lie would be exposed.

Yeah, all looking very trivial.

The chopper performing emergency repairs on a balloon looks pretty real actually. I'm gonna believe it.

Quote from: Slime on January 22, 2023, 02:46:55 PM

I'd agree this is definitely where details are lacking, but that's always going to be inevitable when it comes to conspiracy. Narrow beam signals could mitigate a lot of that, but conceding that there might be places where someone can tilt their dish and manage to tune into signals from a couple of angles... That's not something that most people regularly do. It feels like a fundamentally untestable proposition without being able to pinpoint any such location.

Correction: All details lacking. 

So your idea is that instead of the thousands of balloons (or whatever) needed to seamlessly cover the vast areas by transmitting in all directions, TV companies would build orders of magnitude more, using narrow beam transmissions to create the illusion of one satellite?  They’d have to be absolutely everywhere, and if anyone discovered this improbably hidden massive network, the big lie would be exposed.

Yeah, all looking very trivial.

Again, the 'trivial' was pointing out the incompleteness of the initial argument presented - it is still necessary to show that two people are receiving a signal from the same source in order to make that argument. Like, it just is, the logic does not follow without doing that. This goes a little way to objecting to one of the more common alternatives, but that's not the same statement.
But yes. Takes a lot of effort to fake something. I mean, not trivial to discover such a network and actually know that was what you'd discovered, but sure, no new information there.

The chopper performing emergency repairs on a balloon looks pretty real actually. I'm gonna believe it.

By the way.  Started thinking about rotor wash and static electricity generated by a helicopter…

Picture: Helicopter creates turbulence forcing down hot air balloon

https://www.flightglobal.com/picture-helicopter-creates-turbulence-forcing-down-hot-air-balloon/74202.article

Circling the balloon created turbulence and forced it to land in a field some 20 km (12 miles) from the venue.

Helicopter Rotor Downwash – Excessive wind, FOD and brownouts, what are the risks?
What is helicopter rotor downwash?

Rotor downwash is a commonly ignored phenomenon that occurs during helicopter hover in close proximity to a ground surface. It has the potential to cause significant damage to nearby vehicles and objects, as well as people. Figure 1 shows the impact of helicopter rotor downwash while hovering over water and while landing in a dusty environment.




https://jjryan.com.au/index.php/helicopter-rotor-downwash-excessive-wind-fod-and-brownouts-what-are-the-risks/

The Real Dangers Of Encountering Rotor Wash
By Swayne Martin07/30/2016PreviousNext
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
  Share via Email
You're probably familiar with the dangers of wake turbulence. It's powerful, invisible, and can linger in the air for several minutes.

But what you may not know is that wake turbulence caused by the rotor wash of a helicopter is something to be equally aware of. Watch the video below to see the result of a pilot encountering the wake turbulence caused by a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter at 27 seconds into the video...

https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/the-dangers-of-encountering-rotor-wash/

The static electricity represents a serious issue during helicopter hoist operations as the helicopter in hover builds up permanently huge electrical charge.
The way to solve the problem is to allow the static electricity to discharge before any person gets in contact with the helicopter.
For that reason, during hoist operation, it is recommended to connect to the hoist hook a wire long enough to discharge static electricity before personnel on ground grasps the hook or personnel on the hook touch the ground.

https://www.kong.it/en/product/staticdischarge/

Between rotor wash and static electricity around a platform of electronics.  How is a helicopter going to dock up to a balloon or lightweight floating platform.


So.  Now you have to show it’s possible to safely repair a light weight floating platform or balloon from helicopter time after time…


——And you still haven’t provided any physical evidence that something other than EchoStar 16 is broadcasting from a geosynchronous orbit above the earth.

——And you still haven’t provided any physical evidence that something other than EchoStar 16 is broadcasting from a geosynchronous orbit above the earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

The chopper performing emergency repairs on a balloon looks pretty real actually. I'm gonna believe it.

So you believe in things that are photoshopped? Do you have first hand knowledge of such a repair?