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.
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 greyLogically 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 beliefsUnavoidably, 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-satellitesAgain, 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.