[inquisitive]

According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.

Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.

Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).

Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?

They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.

The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B.  Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites.  Prove otherwise with verified details.  My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.

You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.

You should try aligning a dish. 

This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/  Show it is wrong.

Could you give the location of eg.  119W DIRECTV 7S

You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.

If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at.  Or even yours.

[JRowe]

According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.

Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.

Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).

Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?

They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.

The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B.  Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites.  Prove otherwise with verified details.  My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.

You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.

You should try aligning a dish. 

This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/  Show it is wrong.

Could you give the location of eg.  119W DIRECTV 7S

You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.

If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at.  Or even yours.

Balloons, towers, aircraft, airships... I don't see why I need to follow radio waves for who-knows how long to show they are not coming from space. You are the one making the claim here, please provide actual proof.

[inquisitive]

According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.

Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.

Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).

Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?

They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.

The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B.  Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites.  Prove otherwise with verified details.  My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.

You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.

You should try aligning a dish. 

This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/  Show it is wrong.

Could you give the location of eg.  119W DIRECTV 7S

You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.

If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at.  Or even yours.

Balloons, towers, aircraft, airships... I don't see why I need to follow radio waves for who-knows how long to show they are not coming from space. You are the one making the claim here, please provide actual proof.

Please provide a link that describes the object your, or someone else's, dish is pointing at.  Be it Balloons, towers, aircraft, or airships.

[JRowe]

According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.

Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.

Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).

Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?

They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.

The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B.  Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites.  Prove otherwise with verified details.  My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.

You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.

You should try aligning a dish. 

This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/  Show it is wrong.

Could you give the location of eg.  119W DIRECTV 7S

You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.

If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at.  Or even yours.

Balloons, towers, aircraft, airships... I don't see why I need to follow radio waves for who-knows how long to show they are not coming from space. You are the one making the claim here, please provide actual proof.

Please provide a link that describes the object your, or someone else's, dish is pointing at.  Be it Balloons, towers, aircraft, or airships.

Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_masts_and_towers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

I have asked you to provide proof several times already. I am answering your questions, please answer mine. Radios predate space travel.

[inquisitive]

According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.

Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.

Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).

Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?

They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.

The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B.  Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites.  Prove otherwise with verified details.  My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.

You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.

You should try aligning a dish. 

This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/  Show it is wrong.

Could you give the location of eg.  119W DIRECTV 7S

You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.

If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at.  Or even yours.

Balloons, towers, aircraft, airships... I don't see why I need to follow radio waves for who-knows how long to show they are not coming from space. You are the one making the claim here, please provide actual proof.

Please provide a link that describes the object your, or someone else's, dish is pointing at.  Be it Balloons, towers, aircraft, or airships.

Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_masts_and_towers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

I have asked you to provide proof several times already. I am answering your questions, please answer mine. Radios predate space travel.

We know what they are, I would like you to explain where your satellite dish receives a signal from.  Frequency and location please.

As in http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/DirecTV-USA-119W.html  Any problems with that?

[JRowe]

According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.

Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.

Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).

Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?

They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.

The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B.  Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites.  Prove otherwise with verified details.  My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.

You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.

You should try aligning a dish. 

This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/  Show it is wrong.

Could you give the location of eg.  119W DIRECTV 7S

You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.

If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at.  Or even yours.

Balloons, towers, aircraft, airships... I don't see why I need to follow radio waves for who-knows how long to show they are not coming from space. You are the one making the claim here, please provide actual proof.

Please provide a link that describes the object your, or someone else's, dish is pointing at.  Be it Balloons, towers, aircraft, or airships.

Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_masts_and_towers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

I have asked you to provide proof several times already. I am answering your questions, please answer mine. Radios predate space travel.

We know what they are, I would like you to explain where your satellite dish receives a signal from.  Frequency and location please.

As in http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/DirecTV-USA-119W.html  Any problems with that?

It receives a signal from one of those entities, in the approximate direction it is faced. I am not capable of walking along radio waves, I'm not sure what else you're expecting.
You understand that the fact space travel is impossible is kept secret, right?

[inquisitive]

According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.

Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.

Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).

Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?

They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.

The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B.  Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites.  Prove otherwise with verified details.  My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.

You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.

You should try aligning a dish. 

This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/  Show it is wrong.

Could you give the location of eg.  119W DIRECTV 7S

You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.

If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at.  Or even yours.

Balloons, towers, aircraft, airships... I don't see why I need to follow radio waves for who-knows how long to show they are not coming from space. You are the one making the claim here, please provide actual proof.

Please provide a link that describes the object your, or someone else's, dish is pointing at.  Be it Balloons, towers, aircraft, or airships.

Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_masts_and_towers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

I have asked you to provide proof several times already. I am answering your questions, please answer mine. Radios predate space travel.

We know what they are, I would like you to explain where your satellite dish receives a signal from.  Frequency and location please.

As in http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/DirecTV-USA-119W.html  Any problems with that?

It receives a signal from one of those entities, in the approximate direction it is faced. I am not capable of walking along radio waves, I'm not sure what else you're expecting.
You understand that the fact space travel is impossible is kept secret, right?

Clearly the transmitter has to be stationary relative to the receiver so that rules out the last 3.  Dishes point upwards at a 90degree elevation near the equator so that rules out ground based transmitters.

No links about the technology then?  What about the lyngsat site?

[JRowe]

You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?

Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.

[inquisitive]

You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?

Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.

So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works.  Must have been difficult for the installer.

Maybe you just don't understand it.

[JRowe]

You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?

Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.

So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works.  Must have been difficult for the installer.

I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.

[inquisitive]

You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?

Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.

So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works.  Must have been difficult for the installer.

I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.

No, the angles only work on a round earth from many locations to geostationary satellites above the equator.

[JRowe]

You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?

Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.

So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works.  Must have been difficult for the installer.

I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.

No, the angles only work on a round earth from many locations to geostationary satellites above the equator.

Evidence?
I have also shown why geostationary satellites are absurd. Are you going to respond?

[inquisitive]

You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?

Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.

So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works.  Must have been difficult for the installer.

I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.

No, the angles only work on a round earth from many locations to geostationary satellites above the equator.

Evidence?
I have also shown why geostationary satellites are absurd. Are you going to respond?

Ask anyone in the industry.  You have not provided details of the transmitters you receive with your dish.

[JRowe]

You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?

Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.

So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works.  Must have been difficult for the installer.

I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.

No, the angles only work on a round earth from many locations to geostationary satellites above the equator.

Evidence?
I have also shown why geostationary satellites are absurd. Are you going to respond?

Ask anyone in the industry.  You have not provided details of the transmitters you receive with your dish.

They're transmitters. The transmitter isn't important, the vessel is.

If you're not going to answer any of the questions I ask you, why should I answer yours?

[inquisitive]

You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?

Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.

So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works.  Must have been difficult for the installer.

I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.

No, the angles only work on a round earth from many locations to geostationary satellites above the equator.

Evidence?
I have also shown why geostationary satellites are absurd. Are you going to respond?

Ask anyone in the industry.  You have not provided details of the transmitters you receive with your dish.

They're transmitters. The transmitter isn't important, the vessel is.

If you're not going to answer any of the questions I ask you, why should I answer yours?

Please state the actual location of a satellite transmitter you receive.

Not that difficult to calculate the angles and prove them ccrrect based on a round earth.

[JRowe]

You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?

Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.

So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works.  Must have been difficult for the installer.

I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.

No, the angles only work on a round earth from many locations to geostationary satellites above the equator.

Evidence?
I have also shown why geostationary satellites are absurd. Are you going to respond?

Ask anyone in the industry.  You have not provided details of the transmitters you receive with your dish.

They're transmitters. The transmitter isn't important, the vessel is.

If you're not going to answer any of the questions I ask you, why should I answer yours?

Please state the actual location of a satellite transmitter you receive.

How? It takes more than an angle. I'd need a dish which I knew was pointing at the same transmitter, and then even you could calculate it.
So, provide two angles, and a reason to think they're pointing at the same transmitter, and it'll be easy to supply. The problem is you can't be sure that any two dishes are indeed pointing at the same transmitter: some maybe, but then you're just left with a ridiculous amount of trial and error.
The fact is what you're asking is mathematicaly impossible. You should know that.

[inquisitive]

Provide details from a satellite broadcaster.  They give locations.  eg 119deg west above the equator. 35786km high.

[JRowe]

Provide details from a satellite broadcaster.  They give locations.  eg 119deg west above the equator. 35786km high.

Why don't you do it yourself? If it's feasible, and you can be sure two dishes are pointed at the same satellite, it's fairly basic trigonometry. You have the distance between the two, and two angles. You just need to extend the lines and find at what height they meet.

[Mickey Mouse]

Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers).  Triangulate the signals from different sources.  Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector.  All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers).  Next explanation, those do not work.
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now?  Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer?  I think so. 
Anyway, microwave signals are line of sight.  Meaning they do not bend around, the atmosphere has a low impact on them.  The wavelength for them is about as wide as a rain drop, hence heavy rainstorms blocking them.  They cannot travel through thick trees, and the dish has to be aligned very precisely to obtain a usable signal.  If you do not believe me, have someone watch the TV while you just push on the reflector a bit.  DO NOT BEND IT too much, try not to knock it off signal.

[markjo]

Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers). 

Actually, geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.  Not to mention the earth's orbit around the sun and the solar system's orbit around the galactic core, etc.