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

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.

And again, the information provided is the listed position of the geostationary satellite and the direction customers need to point their dishes in.  Tens of thousands of people use these numbers to set up their TVs.  Without evidence of those people complaining that the satellite isn’t where it’s supposed to be, I think we can reasonably assume that the angles are correct.

Of course anyone is free to try it themselves for confirmation.

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

When you provide an observation that matches multiple worldviews,

An astronomical image marred by trails caused by satellites of SpaceX's Starlink megaconstellation. (Image credit: Victoria Girgis/Lowell Observatory)

When you provide an observation that matches multiple worldviews, you can't use it as evidence for one and not the other.

You can't just say that faking it wouldn't work. You can argue it'd be a heck of an investment or very complicated - you can even propose individual oddities…

but there's a difference between "The satellite isn't where it's supposed to be," (which was never even your response, really kinda silly to bring that in) and "There's another satellite where it's not supposed to be." If you get the latter, you're more likely to conclude that you messed up measuring the angle - and honestly, even granting this, one could concede it and say it could happen.

You're proposing something that is functionally untestable because you'd never be able to identify the specific places, and claiming it doesn't happen just because you don't believe it does.

Not every argument with a correct conclusion has accurate premises.

Personally I think anyone curious about flat earther claims deserve a proper explanation for such things, but you seem to be defending the idea that conspiracy theories and half arsed excuses are good enough.

You seem keen on telling people how they should be making their case, as per your initial reply.

 There are specific claims at play here. The idea that satellites are impossible under FET

Where this thread started, and the point you keep backing up to, is the more interesting question - why accept the FE answer?
And the answer is, well, nothing to do with satellites. No one goes "Hm, the satellites must be balloons or stratellites, therefore the world is flat." They go from the Earth's shape, or moon landing doubts, or whatever, and the dubiousness of satellites does not follow from the properties of a satellite, it comes from general distrust of the space industry as a whole. You have to engage with it on that front. Anything else is actively missing the point, and to a FEer is going to come off as straw manning because it is doing the utmost to put their actual response off the table for no reason except personal distaste.

...because you first have to prove that 'space' exists, and nobody has ever done THAT yet.

Nobody CAN, or ever WILL, because it is entrirely made up, to start with...It's nonsense to argue about what IS or ISN'T in 'space', when 'space' doesn't exist, or have any PROOF of existing at all! 

Quote and cite where anyone posted “satellites” are impossible in the flat earth model?

Yeah, I would agree that a lot comes from the distrust of the space agencies of the world, predominantly NASA. However, it also works the other way around.

Some FErs go from flat earth to space is impossible, or doesn't exist, etc., you know, domers/firmament folks, so by proxy, a distrust in space agencies and their endeavors. Furthering the by proxy distrust is that, especially for the pre-Apollo FEr's, orbiting Sputnik, et al, and any images from space that would show the earth a globe, must be faked. Otherwise, FE would be wrong. Therefore, all space endeavors must be fake. They literally have to be.

And, of course, you have FEr's prior to the space age with no agencies to have distrust in yet.

So no, it doesn't all come from a general distrust of the space industry as a whole. FE = Zero Space Endeavors are real, period.

And then you get their ultimate default, going back to the domers, space just doesn't exist.

Quote from: turbonium2 on December 24, 2022, 09:35:39 PM

...because you first have to prove that 'space' exists, and nobody has ever done THAT yet.

Nobody CAN, or ever WILL, because it is entrirely made up, to start with...It's nonsense to argue about what IS or ISN'T in 'space', when 'space' doesn't exist, or have any PROOF of existing at all! 

So, in light of that hammer being slammed down, the only thing left is to start to pick out spacey things individually and show how they exist, work, etc., ex., satellites. Because there's no real argument against space not existing as a whole other than the things we put up there.

Quote from: Stash on January 23, 2023, 03:56:13 PM

Yeah, I would agree that a lot comes from the distrust of the space agencies of the world, predominantly NASA. However, it also works the other way around.

Some FErs go from flat earth to space is impossible, or doesn't exist, etc., you know, domers/firmament folks, so by proxy, a distrust in space agencies and their endeavors. Furthering the by proxy distrust is that, especially for the pre-Apollo FEr's, orbiting Sputnik, et al, and any images from space that would show the earth a globe, must be faked. Otherwise, FE would be wrong. Therefore, all space endeavors must be fake. They literally have to be.

And, of course, you have FEr's prior to the space age with no agencies to have distrust in yet.

So no, it doesn't all come from a general distrust of the space industry as a whole. FE = Zero Space Endeavors are real, period.

And then you get their ultimate default, going back to the domers, space just doesn't exist.

Quote from: turbonium2 on December 24, 2022, 09:35:39 PM

...because you first have to prove that 'space' exists, and nobody has ever done THAT yet.

Nobody CAN, or ever WILL, because it is entrirely made up, to start with...It's nonsense to argue about what IS or ISN'T in 'space', when 'space' doesn't exist, or have any PROOF of existing at all! 

So, in light of that hammer being slammed down, the only thing left is to start to pick out spacey things individually and show how they exist, work, etc., ex., satellites. Because there's no real argument against space not existing as a whole other than the things we put up there.

Generally agreed - I probably oversimplified, but I think it's fair to say that a disbelief in space travel doesn't imply a belief in a FE, while a belief in a FE very much implies disbelief in space travel. If someone thinks the world is flat, they have that whole bevy of evidence they perceive as supporting that, thus distrust of claims that appear to contradict that.
So trying to argue for individual things as being in space, I get that as an argument, but like you say the hammer gets slammed down - by default, they'd go for the explanations that don't require space travel, because independent of likelihood they take those options to at least be possible. I think you can do a lot in regards to finding the necessary extent of the conspiracy, but yeah space travel centric arguments have a lot of hurdles to jump over if they're meant to do more than that.

but yeah space travel centric arguments have a lot of hurdles to jump over if they're meant to do more than that.

And.  Again.  Having “faith” bullets aren’t a thing doesn’t make a person bulletproof.


It’s not my problem if somebody can’t accept demonstrable reality.  Especially if they can’t come up with an alternative explanation that has more proof, and provides better “results”.

The reality is EchoStar 16 is a geosynchronous satellite broadcasting with a collection of satellite dishes subscribing to its services, aimed at its one position in the sky.  Literally triangulating its position.  With no evidence something else is creating the broadcasts.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 23, 2023, 03:48:08 PM

Quote and cite where anyone posted “satellites” are impossible in the flat earth model?

Satellites, defined within the context of this thread as objects in space - if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements you object to - require space travel. That's very consistently something FEers object to - whether it's the "Movement in vacuum is impossible," "Dome gets in the way," "Forces will tear an object apart," etc. Stash had a good breakdown:

Ditto, 'Demonstrable reality' is not reality just because you can assert it. If you are unwilling to put the legwork in to show that demonstration with more than "I'm right and you're wrong," as a basis, make a different argument.

Quote from: Slime on January 24, 2023, 03:34:14 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 23, 2023, 03:48:08 PM

Quote and cite where anyone posted “satellites” are impossible in the flat earth model?

Satellites, defined within the context of this thread as objects in space - if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements you object to - require space travel. That's very consistently something FEers object to - whether it's the "Movement in vacuum is impossible," "Dome gets in the way," "Forces will tear an object apart," etc. Stash had a good breakdown:

Pretty much. And it's like you say "if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements." I don't object to atmospheric satellites , though I do think just as often, celltowers just ping out a direct signal when a long distance signal is not needed. For example GPS just requires you to be near three celltowers, and it used the phone as the fourth locator. Of course, making an RPG, it was actually even more simple, Map ID, Map X, Map Y. As for sending signals across the world, there's no model of satellite deflection that requires a distant range to deflect.

I’m not asserting anything.  I’m pointing to a real world situation. The fact that satellite dishes triangulate the position of EchoStar 16.  The fact that published data shows how to aim and tune into the location that EchoStar 16 is in geosynchronous orbit to catch its broadcasts.

Please tell me you can recognise the implications you are drawing that don't follow under FET.

Logic isn't optional, poor logic gets pointed out.

There are specific claims at play here. The idea that satellites are impossible under FET is refuted by possibility

- this is a different topic to 'Why should I accept the FE explanation?'

and dancing between the two is not helping anyone, because there is no way that the answer to one will answer the other.

The FE explanations offer possibility - unlikely possibility, sure, there's a lot of weird stuff to work with, and some assumptions you have to make, but your objections have been untestable or non sequiturs.

This is not a strong statement. The number of things that can actually, categorically be disproven practically speaking is not really all that great, you can always take a step back and tweak and find some at least possible approach. Maybe not in as much detail, sure, a conspiracy is involved. Arguing against FET by asking for the blueprints of a conspiracy is not a good approach.

Where this thread started, and the point you keep backing up to, is the more interesting question - why accept the FE answer?

And the answer is, well, nothing to do with satellites. No one goes "Hm, the satellites must be balloons or stratellites, therefore the world is flat." They go from the Earth's shape, or moon landing doubts, or whatever, and the dubiousness of satellites does not follow from the properties of a satellite, it comes from general distrust of the space industry as a whole.

You have to engage with it on that front. Anything else is actively missing the point, and to a FEer is going to come off as straw manning because it is doing the utmost to put their actual response off the table for no reason except personal distaste.

That EchoStar is located 22,000 miles above the earths equator in a stationary position relative to the ground.  An altitude that puts it beyond the altitude of the sun to earth’s surface in the majority of the flat earth models.  The sun is never between the earth and the Satellite.

Maintains altitude with no form of balloon or by generating uninterrupted lift. 

It only fires its only means of propulsion on the rare occasion to maintain its position above earth. To maintain its orbit.

No, I don’t.  I’m under no obligation to only ask things on FEers terms.  I’d prefer to ask challenging questions. 

Perhaps it’s you that’s actively missing my point?

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 24, 2023, 08:09:11 AM

No, I don’t.  I’m under no obligation to only ask things on FEers terms.  I’d prefer to ask challenging questions. 

Perhaps it’s you that’s actively missing my point?

Perhaps. This is why I try to address more than one reading of your posts. Taking sentences out of context to argue against them is a dumb tactic because posts function as a unit. What I expressed may not be the arguments you wanted to make, but they are the arguments you need to make if your conclusions are to have any meaning.

If your claim is that satellites cannot work under FET (I am aware you said this was not what you sought to prove, rather than pluck a sentence out of context try engaging with the actual content of my post), then you need to provide actual evidence against the possibility. Your attempt to do this is 'satellite dishes get a signal from anywhere along one particular line.' We have already been through this, and apparently you now think the further details you had to provide are irrelevant to the point. But, again, if we take this argument in the strongest form that you previously supplied, you could not remove the possibility of FET, you merely demonstrated that it is complicated and unlikely. Ergo, your claim cannot be straightforward impossibility - this is fine, basically nothing can conclusively be shown to be impossible. FE explanations have been proposed. Flawed ones? Sure, but all that's been established so far is possibility, however remote.
Then we are left with your claim as it being unreasonable to think satellites function under FET. That's an interesting claim. However, this is where the irrelevancy enters into it - satellite dishes exist, no FEer denies that. If the world is flat, then satellites must co-exist with FET. That's necessarily true. The question then becomes if the world is flat, and that's where you get onto the actual comparison here - is the unlikelihood of the FE explanation of satellites more compelling than the perceived likelihood of a flat Earth? That is, the justification for the FE position on satellites can ultimately be rooted in the arguments for the Earth being flat. This is inescapably logical. If the world is flat, then the FE explanations for what we observe must be sufficient.
This is why I point out the "Satellites are impossible," as a necessary argument for you to make - you are attacking a branch as thought it is a trunk.

To reiterate: "The question is how could that be possible on an allegedly flat earth where apparently satellites don’t exist?"
Answered. The answer is one you and I both do not accept as sufficient or reflective of reality, but the reasons for that are rooted in the fact that neither of us are flat earthers. If we became convinced that the weight of evidence supported a flat Earth, then necessarily it would follow that we would have to accept their explanation for satellites because those observations would happen on a flat earth.
Again: people do not become flat earthers just because they are skeptical of space travel, it is possible to distrust space travel and think the world is round. It is not possible to think the world is flat and also totally trust space agencies.

Cool. And if you could give the evidence of that in a way that didn't rely on a basis that FEers will object to, you would have a point.

Where are there a million passangers? Simple answer that query.

You have not evidence about their returning. Just numbers.

There is a claim, a query, true? In ordinary conditions Qantas has to provide the name of list of passangers, then has to prove they have aliving.

In our country, when a claim arises, even by internet, our internet detectives detect it and a prosecutor starts an investigation without any appealing, automatically. We are talking about a country that are blamed by others have not enough human rights. But our public prosecutors start instantly when a serious claim arrive them.

But Australia is different, true? for some reason, no prosecutor sees this as a serious claim. or in Australia the system does not work this way. Somehow, there is something missing in Australia. I had previously claimed a lot about chemtrails, but no investigation was initiated.

As far as I see, there is no public prosecutor in Australia who respect human life.

This is a thought. I wonder what happens people boarding Qantas Sydney-Santiago flights.

Maybe Qantas taking money from both NASA for deceive world and from Australia government for reducing number of homeless people. This may be a great monetization method. This meanwhile destroys flat earthers who want to try existance of this route.

win-win-win strategy. minimum fuel maximal gain. As a Qantas pilot, All you have to do is go and back from Antarctica and say, "I went and came back from Santiago."

Pretty much. And it's like you say "if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements." I don't object to atmospheric satellites

For example GPS just requires you to be near three celltowers

That’s a lot of words saying basically nothing.

The question remains, how can satellite TV be explained on a flat earth given the directions that customers need to point their dishes.

Do you have an feasible explanation or not?

It’s fine if you don’t, but I remind you again that I only got into this because you apparently couldn’t see how the original post was “helpful” in focusing on a specific satellite.

So second question, do you see the point of this topic or not?

I get what you’re trying to push.  And where I agree it’s good to question.  But it’s sad to see arguments by flat Esther’s are at times right out slander.  And nothing more than slander. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 24, 2023, 04:50:21 AM

Pretty much. And it's like you say "if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements." I don't object to atmospheric satellites

Which means they wouldn't be in the same location, and by determining the direction to it from multiple locations you can determine where it is, so you should be able to show it is lower down.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 24, 2023, 01:36:54 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 24, 2023, 04:50:21 AM

Pretty much. And it's like you say "if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements." I don't object to atmospheric satellites

Which means they wouldn't be in the same location, and by determining the direction to it from multiple locations you can determine where it is, so you should be able to show it is lower down.

I don't know if this is necessarily a good line of argumentation. Like, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if we're looking at it from a perspective where there are lies at play, how could you determine the direction from multiple locations? That seems to imply you know that each receiver is receiving a signal from the same source - that feels like something that could easily be disguised. Two dishes supposedly pointing at the same satellite, are actually pointing at two different, lower transmitters etc.
Like, maybe there is an answer, I just haven't seen anyone explain how we can know that they're pointing at the same satellite unless we just take the agencies under question at their word.

And appeals to emotion are a tactic of conmen. Is that really the ideal you want to push?

EchoStar-16 is a Direct Broadcast Service (DBS) commercial communication satellite manufactured by Space Systems Loral of Palo

https://spaceflight101.com/spacecraft/echostar-16/

The spacecraft will be permanently leased to the DISH Network as part of its Direct-To-Home DTH services in the US.

https://spaceflight101.com/spacecraft/echostar-16/

I don't know if this is necessarily a good line of argumentation. Like, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if we're looking at it from a perspective where there are lies at play, how could you determine the direction from multiple locations? That seems to imply you know that each receiver is receiving a signal from the same source - that feels like something that could easily be disguised. Two dishes supposedly pointing at the same satellite, are actually pointing at two different, lower transmitters etc.
Like, maybe there is an answer, I just haven't seen anyone explain how we can know that they're pointing at the same satellite unless we just take the agencies under question at their word.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 24, 2023, 01:36:54 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 24, 2023, 04:50:21 AM

Pretty much. And it's like you say "if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements." I don't object to atmospheric satellites

Which means they wouldn't be in the same location, and by determining the direction to it from multiple locations you can determine where it is, so you should be able to show it is lower down.

I don't know if this is necessarily a good line of argumentation. Like, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if we're looking at it from a perspective where there are lies at play, how could you determine the direction from multiple locations? That seems to imply you know that each receiver is receiving a signal from the same source - that feels like something that could easily be disguised. Two dishes supposedly pointing at the same satellite, are actually pointing at two different, lower transmitters etc.
Like, maybe there is an answer, I just haven't seen anyone explain how we can know that they're pointing at the same satellite unless we just take the agencies under question at their word.

Ok, would the specific signal frequency, polarity, and embedded ID into the signal work for you?  You keep trying so hard to misrepresent what is said to appear as if you are taking a moral high ground in a debate. 
If you do not understand how microwave signals work, then stop speaking until you do get a little understanding.  No the signal cannot come from multiple sources because it does have identifying attributes, couple that with how microwave transmissions propagate, aka LOS, and the fact that you cannot find a place where you have to point the dish in any direction other than the geostationary location.  There are never 2 spots, there are no areas where you can't get the same signal strength as another towards a clear sky.  The angle of intercept for the reflector.  The knowledge and prior testing, by me as just one person, of how the LOS signal works at multiple, aka more than 4, different places separated by many hundreds of miles in the US alone.  These are why talking about how known things like Sat communications cannot work on a FE model.  Not at all.  Please, come prepared if you wish to challenge further on how these work.  I've got almost 8 years of practical in the field experience with sat coms, from TV to Internet to military systems.  I'm not relying on what anyone told me, I tested things to better understand how the systems worked, so I would always know how to either ensure my customers had almost zero rain fade or me and my soldiers wouldn't lose vital coms in Iraq.  I'm not a commo guy, I'm was a recon guy, scrape, scrounge, do for yourself because the help ain't out there with you.
But yeah, keep acting like it is possible to simulate 24/7 microwave band satellite communications with a bunch of balloons.  It's laughable at best, it makes you sound d like a complete idiot at worst.  I get what you want, but learn and try to understand things before you try to improperly use them failing to shame someone else.

EchoStar 16 is leased by Dish Network to provide Direct To Home service.

Is it a lie that Dish Network is leasing EchoStar 16 from EchoStar where Echostar 16 is a geostationary satellite 22,000 miles above the equator located at 61.5° west longitude which was built to, and is broadcasting 24/7 programming to the continental USA?