If, if, satellite tv came from balloons or similar you would see dishes pointing in different directions. However in the northern hemisphere they all point southish.
And there might be some documentation explaining how it works...
So balloons/airships/towers are to the south. Unless you have some reason why that's impossible, that seems to be a pointless admission.
Establishing it's possible under your worldview is nowhere near enough. You're insisting that this makes Flat Earth Theory impossible: so, why is it impossible for an in-atmosphere system to function? That's the question you need to answer.
If it's predictable, they can compensate: that means nothing.
The receiver would have to compensate. Are you aware of any such compensating mechanism in a home satellite dish or are you just asserting?
Or the transmitter could compensate by synchronizing signals, or altering in a specific way. I don't profess to know every detail of how it works, that is what a conspiracy is. The fact is, however, an in-atmosphere system will work just fine.
Why should there be a conspiracy about how satellite tv works? Who is in on it?
The conspiracy is the satellites: space travel. It would likely just be the higher-ups who launch the satellites that are in on it: they know the position, they can compensate. All the mechanisms would be simple to adapt.
Any details of any (just one is a start) positions of these objects. Triangulation of dish angles shows satellite positions.
Higher-ups? What about the engineers and scientists who design, build and maintain satellites?
Who builds the other objects? Company name please.
Triangulation of dishes pointed at the same transmitter will show the location. How else do you expect me to get an answer?
If you cannot think of any possible way to find an answer to a question, why ask it?
Those who design and build satellites are responsible for the crucial mechanisms. It's compartmentalized: everyone would think someone else was behind the "go to space," section.
This is just speculation, mind you. I am not in on the conspiracy, I do not know the details, why are you acting as though I should?
Many companies make balloons and airships. I do not know which one is employed.
I don't profess to know every detail of how it works, that is what a conspiracy is. The fact is, however, an in-atmosphere system will work just fine.
How do you know? You seem to not know a lot of things about how this would work, yet claim to know for a fact that it would. This is a big problem.
I know that my satellite dish must point at a very narrow point in the sky. If it moves a mm or two, no reception whatsoever; not a gradient of reception quality, like you get from a radio receiver moving in and out of a reception area. There is no tower or other such land-based fixture in its line of sight, so you can disqualify that notion. I can see no balloons or airships hanging in view either. Perhaps an air borne transmitter would be too small for me to see, but how do you keep it geo-stationary in a turbulent atmosphere? I don't know. How does it stay fuelled? It requires much more fuel to remain airborne in the atmosphere than it would in space. All these land based solutions are incredibly problematic to me Can you answer any of these concerns? Even hypothetically?
I do not know the details of how a combustion engine works: I know my car goes.
I do not know the location of a balloon: and they may be clear, or sky-colored, so it would be hard to see. It would not take too much fuel to remain aloft, much less have a small motor to keep it in roughly the same position. Don't forget, satellites are made to be as light as possible: supposedly to make ascesion to space easier. It would not take too much fuel to keep something so light up.
They may be solar powered: in that case, it would keep going. Or perhaps they use wind power, so the more turbulent it is, the easier it will be for them to keep in a fixed location.