Indeed. What i am really looking for is an FE explanation.
Most often cited FE explanation I've seen is "balloons".
I've seen claims of balloons as well. There are significant problems with this idea though. Balloons are blown around by the wind, balloons with directional control is possible, many football games have blimps floating over them. Perhaps a more advanced version of what blimps use. At high altitudes these winds are very strong. I can't imagine a balloon with strong enough stabilization.
Of course, these balloons don't answer the OP's question. It's about the things we can see with our eyes, cameras, or telescopes. These things are certainly visible.
You find a lot of what conspiracy theorists believe as to why satellites shouldn't exist. But literally, the only thing I can find to answer what those things in the sky are that one can see is the balloon theory. Of course, that leads to how exactly they stay in place if need be. Some claim the atmosphere is very calm at 100km or so. Then there's the need to keep them aloft. Seemingly, we'd have balloons dropping out of the sky all the time.
Of course, the other explanation is that what we see are satellites. Go figure. I wrote in some other thread that I'm confused as to why FET wouldn't just embrace the existence of satellites. Just weave them into similar explanations about how other heavenly objects rotate above a plane. No takers as of yet.
TL;DR - According to what I've been able to find, FET claims we are observing balloons, not satellites.
We do know for certain that air pressure decreases with altitude. This can practically be seen visiting Denver or Mt. Everest. There is no argument I've seen about this pressure gradient. At 100km, the pressure is terrifically small. The calculated pressure is 0.03torr or 0.0000394737atm, values have reportedly been measured lower at 0.0019 torr or 0.0000025 at 90km.
Source:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/barfor.html#c5Either way, at 100km, there isn't much air to maneuver with a propeller or jet. For this a balloon would require pressurized gas or small rockets. Both require consumable materials, limiting the lifespan. There needs to be a crew of people launching, monitoring, decommissioning, relaunching each balloon. There are quite a large number of these that would have to be maintained around a flat world. There are many TV based satellites at the very least.
The other problem is the location. If you triangulate the location of the DishTV satellite I posted about previously, you will find the altitude is not 100km, but, over 35,000km. As there are no known publicly claimed balloon altitudes over 60km, this would require massive breakthroughs in technology just to get to 100km.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Unmanned_gas_balloonhttp://www.isas.jaxa.jp/e/special/2003/yamagami/03.shtmlGiven the satellite height problem we now require many balloons all over the world to intercept the triangulation lines. Not just over major cities, but anywhere someone might point a DishTV dish. I've done this in rural Minnesota successfully at our family cabin. My dad used to drive a motorhome with an auto-calibrating dish on top, he used it everywhere. The number of these balloons required to cover the US is massive.
I can't see a way to resolve this. Balloons to service just DishTV is not tenable.
It's unfortunate there are no FE proponents to take part in any satellite discussion. It's a difficult conundrum, with no FE resolution I've ever seen. Hand waving about balloons and solar powered aircraft just make the FE position look foolish.