The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: J-Man on February 23, 2018, 04:14:59 AM

Title: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on February 23, 2018, 04:14:59 AM
Flying around looking for sats, I could find none, no one can. They are a hoax. Gps is simply ground based. Enjoy, and hit this guys videos and learn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS4jPjs6JPw
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: retlaw on February 23, 2018, 04:35:50 AM
You can track them here
http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25861
pick which one click on it and watch it travel over the area you live in on a clear night and see if they match up.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on February 23, 2018, 10:51:41 AM
planewavemedia have tracking videos.  In one screen shot, you can see the output from the telescope (the satellite itself, with the starfields moving behind it), the telescope itself in motion as it tracks the satellite, a stellar map showing where the telescope is pointing, and a data window, showing the raw data relating to the track

This is just their most recent tracking video - there's around half a dozen more at their channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ


Asserting that GPS is "ground-based" is merely a diversion tactic, for most of the sats up there are not GPS satellites

Domestic Satellite TV/Radio
Fleet Tracking
Weather Monitoring/Mapping
General Mapping
General Communications
News Gathering
Event Relay & Broadcast
Military Apps
etc
etc



The Space Geodesy Facility in the UK specialises in bouncing lasers off the passing satellites to track them. They are part of the wider International Laser Ranging Service. I'll leave you to look up the other member organisations

http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/


I've watched the ISS go by myself. I have, on more than one occasion, seen it twice in one evening, separated by around 90 mins. Do I need to tell you why that proves it to be a satellite, and not a balloon/aircraft/hologram?

This guy uses auto tracking software to video the ISS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sclc5iDyWjE
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on February 24, 2018, 12:49:18 AM
Saw the ISS a few nights ago too. Saw it once through a friends' telescope. It wasn't any balloon or plane or whatever else FEs claim.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on February 24, 2018, 03:25:00 AM
as Elon Musk said "(Feb. 6). "You can tell it's real because it looks so fake, honestly."

Were all laughing in your faces for believing all the nonsense of space. There's a dome, no one is going anywhere.

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on February 24, 2018, 12:55:40 PM
Were all laughing in your faces for believing all the nonsense of space. There's a dome, no one is going anywhere.

I genuinely can't tell if you missed out the sarcasm emoji or not.

Are you being serious?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Skeptic on February 25, 2018, 10:01:54 PM
I've seen a couple satellites zooming overhead with my naked eye before. If those weren't satellites, then they must have been alien space-ships!  :P
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on February 26, 2018, 01:08:37 AM
as Elon Musk said "(Feb. 6). "You can tell it's real because it looks so fake, honestly."

Were all laughing in your faces for believing all the nonsense of space. There's a dome, no one is going anywhere.

And you know they're laughing in our faces... how?

It's funny how you didn't include the rest of that quote.

Quote
We’d have way better CGI if it was fake.

And you know, the colors all kind of look weird in space, there’s no atmospheric occlusion – everything looks too crisp.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on February 26, 2018, 02:56:35 AM
“Its not a flat Earth vs globe matter, its exposure of the fraud and mockery. This affects us all.”

“For all of you, who watched the Falcon Heavy. Saw a car go to space, saw NO satellites, NO ISS, NO space debris, NO oblate spheroid, NO spinning Earth, NO escape velocity, NO speeds of 20kmph, NO stars, just stationary blackness.”

“People who believe that the Earth is a globe because ‘they saw a car in space on the Internet’ must be the new incarnation of ‘It's true, I saw it on TV!’

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/915948/spacex-flat-earth-falcon-heavy-launch-fake-elon-musk

A book over 2000 years old explains the flat earth and a dome. We or you don't listen and eat apples.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Skeptic on February 26, 2018, 05:13:58 AM
How do meteors get past the Dome? What keeps it clean of space debris?  ???
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on February 26, 2018, 11:08:53 AM
“...saw NO satellites, NO ISS,

Out of camera range.

NO space debris,

Well, we did, except Team Hoax insist it was 'bubbles' ....

NO oblate spheroid

Most folks are watching on PCs or smaller devices; too small to see the oblatemness

NO spinning Earth

Why would you, when the craft is rotating and orbiting far faster?

“People who believe that the Earth is a globe because ‘they saw a car in space on the Internet’ must be the new incarnation of ‘It's true, I saw it on TV!’

... but there's a whole tranche of folk who not only saw it on TV and webcasts, they tracked it with their telescopes and found it exactly where it should have been. 

SpaceX have fourteen launches lined up for the remainder of this year. Since the Tesla, they've already done another standard launch from Vandenberg. These fourteen include TWO MORE Falcon Heavy launches, wherein they will be launching commercial payloads for paying customers.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on February 27, 2018, 12:38:53 AM
“Its not a flat Earth vs globe matter, its exposure of the fraud and mockery. This affects us all.”

And yet there is no mockery or fraud. In a post on a different thread I showed that the footage matched the available data used by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and other cloud cover data sources.

Quote
NO satellites, NO ISS

Too small to be seen, and the Earth and car were too bright.

Quote
NO space debris

Yes we did. It was ice particles coming from the car after the moisture in it turned into a gas, then sublimated into ice.

Quote
NO oblate spheroid

The difference between the diameter at the equator (12,756.27 km) and that at the poles (12,713.56 km) is 42.77 km, or just .3%. Too small to be detected by laptop screens, even HD TV screens. You'd need a really good photo of Earth, and then measure it using something like photoshop.

Quote
NO spinning Earth

I showed in my previous post, as mentioned above, that there was spinning. Earth spins once every 24 hours. It may be moving at 1000mph, but it's all about relativity. It's just spinning too slowly to be seen normally. Besides, the car was moving much faster than the Earth was rotating, so it would be even harder to see.

Quote
NO escape velocity, NO speeds of 20kmph

What does this mean?

Quote
NO stars, just stationary blackness

Again, the Earth and car are far too bright to allow the camera to expose the stars, and still expose the former objects.

Quote
“People who believe that the Earth is a globe because ‘they saw a car in space on the Internet’ must be the new incarnation of ‘It's true, I saw it on TV!

And people who believe the Earth is flat because 'they saw a video on youtube' are just the same.

Quote
A book over 2000 years old explains the flat earth and a dome. We or you don't listen and eat apples.

And that book is BS. Besides, we've had people know it was round for the same amount of time.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Ironman on February 28, 2018, 04:45:54 AM
ok so tell me where is the dome... why is it that none of you have any proof of the dome or a proper map of the flat earth but yet we want others to believe us.. neither do we even have a picture of the flat earth..
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on February 28, 2018, 10:52:23 AM
as Elon Musk said "(Feb. 6). "You can tell it's real because it looks so fake, honestly."

Were all laughing in your faces for believing all the nonsense of space. There's a dome, no one is going anywhere.
Please explain how satellite broadcasting and GPS works according to you, with evidence.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on February 28, 2018, 11:03:12 AM
as Elon Musk said "(Feb. 6). "You can tell it's real because it looks so fake, honestly."

Were all laughing in your faces for believing all the nonsense of space. There's a dome, no one is going anywhere.
Please explain how satellite broadcasting and GPS works according to you, with evidence.
I was in Sri Lanka last week with work (it really is lovely there by the way). I noticed that the satellite dishes there noticeably point upwards in a way they don't really in England.
Which is what you'd expect if the satellites are geostationary ones above the equator, which they are according to people who know what they are talking about.
I too would like to hear how the FE community suppose this works.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Uetzicle on February 28, 2018, 09:59:49 PM
If there's a dome, how does heat escape the earth? It would trap the heat that's generated by the (supposedly 50 mile wide, 3000 mile high) sun. Is there an air-conditioning or ventilation system built into the dome? Or maybe the stars and moon zap us with ice rays?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on March 01, 2018, 03:35:53 AM
If there's a dome, how does heat escape the earth? It would trap the heat that's generated by the (supposedly 50 mile wide, 3000 mile high) sun. Is there an air-conditioning or ventilation system built into the dome? Or maybe the stars and moon zap us with ice rays?

The good preacher will explain the dome to you.

http://www.peterwallace.org/old/essays/flatearth.htm
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on March 01, 2018, 08:41:52 AM
I never understand why some people think that the Bible should be read or understood like a science book.
There are deeper truths than this.

GPS works. Satellite TV works. The ISS can be seen from earth. There really is nothing else to discuss here.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on March 01, 2018, 09:58:32 AM
I never understand why some people think that the Bible should be read or understood like a science book.
There are deeper truths than this.

GPS works. Satellite TV works. The ISS can be seen from earth. There really is nothing else to discuss here.

And of course you believe there is a Tesla roadster now floating around as space junk.

I've never understood why so many people don't understand what creates a rainbow.

There is no deeper truth than our creator.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on March 01, 2018, 10:55:02 AM
And of course you believe there is a Tesla roadster now floating around as space junk

What reason is there to disbelieve it?

SpaceX have launched some 40 or so satellites for a wide variety of paying customers already. Just a few days after the Falcon Heavy launch, they sent another one up. They have 14 launches planned for 2018, which will include two more Falcon Heavy missions, just like the one that launched the car.

Unless you believe that all their paying customers; the corporations whose names are on the satellites, along with their subcontractors, suppliers, and operators, their financial backers and insurers; are all "in on the hoax, too" ......
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on March 01, 2018, 10:57:57 AM
And of course you believe there is a Tesla roadster now floating around as space junk.
Well. There is a lot of video of the launch, hundreds of eye witnesses and it was all live-streamed.
If you think it was all faked then I'd say you need to provide some evidence for that. Do you have any?

Quote
I've never understood why so many people don't understand what creates a rainbow.
I'm not sure what you think creates a rainbow but basically it has to be sunny and raining at the same time, sun shines on the rain drops, the water refracts the light which split it into the different colours of the spectrum and bounces into your eyes. I believe the sun and rain have to be at a certain angle for this to work which is why you don't always see a rainbow when it rains with the sun out. I'm a little hazy on why it's a "bow" although I know as much as in reality a rainbow is a circle or part thereof.

Quote
There is no deeper truth than our creator.
I actually agree, but I don't think the Bible is to be read like a science book. To me it contains deeper truths about where we come from and our purpose. The mechanics of it all (like the mechanics of a rainbow), we can leave those to science.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Ironman on March 02, 2018, 10:11:46 AM
If there's a dome, how does heat escape the earth? It would trap the heat that's generated by the (supposedly 50 mile wide, 3000 mile high) sun. Is there an air-conditioning or ventilation system built into the dome? Or maybe the stars and moon zap us with ice rays?

The good preacher will explain the dome to you.

http://www.peterwallace.org/old/essays/flatearth.htm

come on is that the only reply u have... u all are fake as u never have proof.. never never.. come one u can do fucking better
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: juner on March 02, 2018, 03:18:57 PM
come on is that the only reply u have... u all are fake as u never have proof.. never never.. come one u can do fucking better

Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Zanz on March 04, 2018, 06:30:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeah3fFYlnA

This video proves satellites exist, heck, why the hell are you even pointing a satellite dish towards the sky if they didn't exist?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Frocious on March 05, 2018, 07:05:10 AM
why the hell are you even pointing a satellite dish towards the sky if they didn't exist?

This is a very good question. Have you, the OP, ever watched TV using Dish or DirecTV?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on March 05, 2018, 10:53:23 AM
This video proves satellites exist, heck, why the hell are you even pointing a satellite dish towards the sky if they didn't exist?

This video essentially is a home-built version of what planewavemedia do commercially

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Uetzicle on March 05, 2018, 04:31:22 PM
If there's a dome, how does heat escape the earth? It would trap the heat that's generated by the (supposedly 50 mile wide, 3000 mile high) sun. Is there an air-conditioning or ventilation system built into the dome? Or maybe the stars and moon zap us with ice rays?

The good preacher will explain the dome to you.

http://www.peterwallace.org/old/essays/flatearth.htm

Um...that essay explains how the ancient biblical authors were doing the best they could to interpret their environment. That while they may have taken the earthly descriptions somewhat literally, that we should by no means take it literally today. That 'general revelation' (no doubt meaning modern observations of the natural world) gives us new ways of interpreting scripture. That we should take these things figuratively and find the deeper meaning.

So yes, I like that essay. It does a good job of disproving your point.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on March 05, 2018, 05:48:04 PM
Please lets be clear what one is really seeing ! One of the 1,800 so called weather balloons released every single day, day in and day out. They appear as a blip on the tele's or radar.

You can call them satellites if you wish. No one is leaving the flat earth, no one.

Here's your first fake satellite, notice Von Braun Giggling....Psalm 19:1: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_1#/media/File:Explorer1_people.jpg
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: StinkyOne on March 05, 2018, 05:51:40 PM
Please lets be clear what one is really seeing ! One of the 1,800 so called weather balloons released every single day, day in and day out. They appear as a blip on the tele's or radar.

You can call them satellites if you wish. No one is leaving the flat earth, no one.

Here's your first fake satellite, notice Von Braun Giggling....Psalm 19:1: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_1#/media/File:Explorer1_people.jpg

Except they are not able to travel at anywhere near the speed attained by what we see in the night sky. Further, they would be riding on the winds aloft. That is a real problem for your hypothesis when satellite orbits are unaffected by wind currents. Particularly polar orbits.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on March 05, 2018, 05:57:05 PM
Those are moths on the videos presented.

God told us all about shooting stars, maybe you're seeing God's handy work, Braun style, giggles and trillions wasted for the people who can't think. The dumbed down ones.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: StinkyOne on March 05, 2018, 06:01:55 PM
Those are moths on the videos presented.

God told us all about shooting stars, maybe you're seeing God's handy work, Braun style, giggles and trillions wasted for the people who can't think. The dumbed down ones.

I'm not referring to any video. I'm talking about the satellites I've seen with my own eyes. I've seen shooting stars. Very fast, brief and come from various angles and headings depending on the source. Completely different than satellites. You're trying to pass weather balloons off as satellites. I'd recommend putting more thought into your ideas as that one was very easy to debunk.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on March 05, 2018, 06:10:49 PM
You my friend have the empty shack. You cannot produce anything but a cgi of a bright light in the sky. Sooo fake. Anyone can reference weather balloons and see how many we are told are launched eveyday. Just double or triple it for telecommunications GPS, defense systems yada yada.

There is a reason everyone at places like JPL, NASA or science comps are compartmentalized. You can't know the truth......
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: StinkyOne on March 05, 2018, 06:24:44 PM
You my friend have the empty shack. You cannot produce anything but a cgi of a bright light in the sky. Sooo fake. Anyone can reference weather balloons and see how many we are told are launched eveyday. Just double or triple it for telecommunications GPS, defense systems yada yada.

There is a reason everyone at places like JPL, NASA or science comps are compartmentalized. You can't know the truth......

I've already explained to you that I am not referring to any video. I've also pointed out that weather balloons can't move like you are claiming. I don't care if the sky is full of weather balloons (it isn't), they are not an explanation for satellites. You have a non-standard view of Biblical texts and therefore are unable to see thing for what they are. Good luck to you.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Spycrab on March 07, 2018, 05:32:07 PM
J-Man, just... ...stop. I get it, you like your book, most people do, but what does that have to do with this conversation? Because your wonderful god wrote an old book about how he's great, satellites don't exist?

Think about it like this: Let's say I absolutely love the Godzilla movies. I've got the movies, I've watched them all, I love this colossal lizard.
Does that mean Japan was actually smashed to bits by a dinosaur? Of course not.

Plug in other nouns for that, however: Let's say I absolutely love god. I've got the scriptures, I've read them all, I love my creator.
Does that mean He actually made everything including the 'dome'? Of course not.

And suddenly the second one is crazy to think about. Don't use the bible as proof, my dude. You're doing yourself a disservice by tying your arguments to nonexistent evidence. Now please, get back on topic on how satellites are a lie, thanks. You've already gotten yourself some good jumping off points. Proof for ground based GPS? Proof for those weather balloons? Proof of compartmentalizing? Proof of the Tesla not being up there? Proof of any kind that isn't cherry-picked Bible quotes? That'd be great. ;)
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on March 07, 2018, 11:16:39 PM
You my friend have the empty shack. You cannot produce anything but a cgi of a bright light in the sky. Sooo fake. Anyone can reference weather balloons and see how many we are told are launched eveyday. Just double or triple it for telecommunications GPS, defense systems yada yada.

There is a reason everyone at places like JPL, NASA or science comps are compartmentalized. You can't know the truth......
Details please of balloons used for multi channel TV broadcasting,
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on March 08, 2018, 02:32:02 PM
Please lets be clear what one is really seeing ! One of the 1,800 so called weather balloons released every single day, day in and day out. They appear as a blip on the tele's or radar.

Let's be clear what we're seeing in the planewave video -

The telescope, which you can see moving as it tracks the satellite.
A star-field map, showing where the telescope is pointing.
The output from the telescope, showing the satellite centralised in frame, with star-fields moving rapidly in the background, an optical effect due to the rapid movement of satellite and telescope.
Lastly, a data window showing attributes for satellite and telescope.

planewavemedia are not tracking them with radar, they're tracking them with a telescope. How do they know where to point the telescope? The satellites have predictable trajectories. Balloons don't behave like that. Balloons go where the weather takes them.

planewavemedia can tell us which satellite they are looking at, who launched it, etc.

If you're so sure they are weather balloons, could you enlighten us as to which one(s) planewavemedia have been tracking, and who you think launched those particular balloons?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on March 18, 2018, 11:02:25 AM
I've never understood why so many people don't understand what creates a rainbow.
Many people don't understand how an eclipse works either.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on March 18, 2018, 11:11:34 AM
Anyone can reference weather balloons and see how many we are told are launched eveyday.
This one had a camera attached. Made it to 143,000 ft. That's about 43km high. Then it popped. I don't think they go much higher. It concerns me a bit that I don't see any other weather balloons in the video???!!! There should be thousands?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMp0d8rKRfQ

One of the 1,800 so called weather balloons released every single day, day in and day out.
Sorry read your post again, so it's 1,800 per day. How long have they been doing this now, perhaps at least ten years? So if you are right there should be 6,600,000 weather balloons up there. Now I'm really concerned that I don't see any. What do you think?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on March 18, 2018, 02:52:32 PM
Anyone can reference weather balloons and see how many we are told are launched eveyday.
This one had a camera attached. Made it to 143,000 ft. That's about 43km high. Then it popped. I don't think they go much higher. It concerns me a bit that I don't see any other weather balloons in the video???!!! There should be thousands?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMp0d8rKRfQ

One of the 1,800 so called weather balloons released every single day, day in and day out.
Sorry read your post again, so it's 1,800 per day. How long have they been doing this now, perhaps at least ten years? So if you are right there should be 6,600,000 weather balloons up there. Now I'm really concerned that I don't see any. What do you think?

I can't even see them from the surface of Earth. Shouldn't they be super visible? It's almost as if they're all very small relative to the atmosphere, and the atmosphere is really far away!!
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on March 19, 2018, 12:16:28 AM
Thanks all for providing more proofs of the satellite hoax. This thread is beginning to really deliver the goods. This last video is very special as we see the young scientist in training continue with the "fisheye" lens, showing the fake curvature. When the balloon pops we clearly see the so called "globe" horizon invert proving these youngens are all looking for yobs with nasa, spacex, jpl and the like.

When the balloon pops, you distinctly hear the familiar sound of the rattle reverberation against the glass molten dome. The sound is unique isn't it.

I remember back in the 80's looking at a microsoft patent where implantable chips could be powered off your glucose for communications. We don't need satellites as adhoc networks can be created from literally the smallest things.

Whether its glucose or tesla's free energy, we got the power, it's free, the tech is known, you can bounce data off the nano particles in the air, thousands of miles, look up, they're seeding the skies but they will never get thru the dome !
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Dither on March 19, 2018, 12:33:45 AM
Let's say I absolutely love god. I've got the scriptures, I've read them all, I love my creator.
Does that mean He actually made everything including the 'dome'? Of course not.

If you thought this way you would believe God created the world,
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on March 19, 2018, 12:47:49 AM
... these youngens are all looking for yobs with nasa, spacex, jpl and the like.

... what about those looking to work at, say,

The Space Geodesy Facility
The International Laser Ranging Service
Plane Wave Media?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Frocious on March 19, 2018, 03:46:05 AM
Pretty sure J-Man is a troll at this point.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on March 19, 2018, 07:56:57 AM
Thanks all for providing more proofs of the satellite hoax.
Thank you. I think it shows it too. But I'm also very concerned that you said there were so many balloons up there, but the video shows none. Somewhere else you said that not seeing any satellites in the video proved there were no satellites, but should wenow say that seeing no balloons in the video means no balloons???

This last video is very special as we see the young scientist in training continue with the "fisheye" lens, showing the fake curvature.
I have used a fisheye lens on my photocamera and it deliberately distorts the picture, which is the reason I bought it. Should Flat Earthers not buy fisheye lenses?

When the balloon pops, you distinctly hear the familiar sound of the rattle reverberation against the glass molten dome. The sound is unique isn't it.
I don't hear anything familiar at all, but then I haven't been close to a glass dome when a balloon pops. So you have been close to the glass dome and know what it sounds like? Can you tell me where that was and take me with you next time? I'd like to hear it so I can expose more RE videos.

I remember back in the 80's looking at a microsoft patent where implantable chips could be powered off your glucose for communications. We don't need satellites as adhoc networks can be created from literally the smallest things.

Whether its glucose or tesla's free energy, we got the power, it's free, the tech is known, you can bounce data off the nano particles in the air, thousands of miles, look up, they're seeding the skies but they will never get thru the dome !
I don't follow. It sounds like what you are proposing is much more complicated than building a rocket or a satellite.

And you said before that there were satellites suspended from balloons, but now you say there are no satellites needed? It's hard to take you serious when you change your story all the time. Doesn't sound like a Flat Earther, but like a child rather.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on March 19, 2018, 08:21:45 AM
Thanks all for providing more proofs of the satellite hoax. This thread is beginning to really deliver the goods. This last video is very special as we see the young scientist in training continue with the "fisheye" lens, showing the fake curvature. When the balloon pops we clearly see the so called "globe" horizon invert proving these youngens are all looking for yobs with nasa, spacex, jpl and the like.

When the balloon pops, you distinctly hear the familiar sound of the rattle reverberation against the glass molten dome. The sound is unique isn't it.

I remember back in the 80's looking at a microsoft patent where implantable chips could be powered off your glucose for communications. We don't need satellites as adhoc networks can be created from literally the smallest things.

Whether its glucose or tesla's free energy, we got the power, it's free, the tech is known, you can bounce data off the nano particles in the air, thousands of miles, look up, they're seeding the skies but they will never get thru the dome !
Satellites are used for broadcasting and navigation. Well documented.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on March 20, 2018, 12:58:10 AM
Phony as a 3 dollar bill. If sats could exist, why would anyone use them? They would have about a 5-6 second delay with major packet loss, degradation of the transmission is not acceptable to .gov, business, gamers, tv, voice, video you name it. BK sat comps are purchased for their ownership rights to bandwidth spectrum, nothing more.

We have a bogey inbound N by NE at mach 2 general, opps were dead. Damn delay. What did you say son? We have Tiger Woods shooting a bogey in the masters at hole two?

There isn't an inch of this Flat Earth that doesn't have transmission towers and repeaters everywhere. They're even floating in the ocean, they're on planes circling the pie plate, balloons hoovering above us. There's metallic nano particles being sprayed everywhere to place a metal layer that stays afloat almost a year so we can bounce data signals across great distances.

Please save the satellite Hoax for low IQ zombies, they don't, can't and wouldn't exist. The tech is Dinosaurus.

Sat dishes are pointed at towers in the southern area because transmissions are pointed north.

Under Beam Technology it wouldn't make a difference. Point it at the beam, straight up more or less. Just hit the beam, that's where the data lies.

I heard a couple little office fires brought 3 steel buildings straight down?
And how did a guy with a .22 cal AR, with Nato rounds intended to maim only achieve 100% kill rate at Sandy when Sniper man in Vegas had a 10% kill rate?

Pass the tooth fairy and Dr. Seuss books, sats fall for 15-20 years and never crash to earth......RIGHT !
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: douglips on March 20, 2018, 01:21:55 AM

Where do you get your information from? None of these ideas would stand up to the least bit of critical thinking.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on March 20, 2018, 01:52:34 AM
  • Where do you get 5 second delays? Geostationary satellites are about 22000 miles away, and the speed of light is 186000 miles per second.
  • What is Beam technology?
  • You don't think that fire weakens steel? Why do blacksmiths heat metal before striking it?
  • Are you really comparing kill rates in the Sandy Hook attack, where the shooter was in the same classrooms as his victims and shot them multiple times to Las Vegas, where the shooter was very far away?

Where do you get your information from? None of these ideas would stand up to the least bit of critical thinking.

You don't really know much about analog and digital packet transmissions now do you. They just magically zoom down to earth in this imaginary scenario you were taught. No they must be prepared for transmission and go thru compression, identification and switches then blasted up 22k miles then deciphered and resent back down to this fake spinning ball without jitter or packet loss which causes lag or latency. Try to send data packets 44k miles and not loose packets or degrade them on compression and decompression.
You're clueless my friend. The latency is seconds and unacceptable to anyone.

Beam tech allows the transmission to stay compact and not spread out losing digital packets. But the area of transmission is compact also, not some blanket of grab your data.

Office fires won't bring a steel building down and if the planes weren't cgi the fuel exploded on impact. Nothing to burn. Building were built to sustain exactly those types of impacts.

A bullet comes out of an AR at about 3300 fps and loses very little velocity traveling downhill a football field length. Look up ballistic on that round. 55 gr. 65 gr. I don't care. You ain't getting 100% kill ratio. The bullet is traveling at approx. same speed at either distance and is a spire boat tail, so it's a clean wound, if one can call it that.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: StinkyOne on March 20, 2018, 02:49:16 AM
  • Where do you get 5 second delays? Geostationary satellites are about 22000 miles away, and the speed of light is 186000 miles per second.
  • What is Beam technology?
  • You don't think that fire weakens steel? Why do blacksmiths heat metal before striking it?
  • Are you really comparing kill rates in the Sandy Hook attack, where the shooter was in the same classrooms as his victims and shot them multiple times to Las Vegas, where the shooter was very far away?

Where do you get your information from? None of these ideas would stand up to the least bit of critical thinking.

You don't really know much about analog and digital packet transmissions now do you. They just magically zoom down to earth in this imaginary scenario you were taught. No they must be prepared for transmission and go thru compression, identification and switches then blasted up 22k miles then deciphered and resent back down to this fake spinning ball without jitter or packet loss which causes lag or latency. Try to send data packets 44k miles and not loose packets or degrade them on compression and decompression.
You're clueless my friend. The latency is seconds and unacceptable to anyone.

Beam tech allows the transmission to stay compact and not spread out losing digital packets. But the area of transmission is compact also, not some blanket of grab your data.

Office fires won't bring a steel building down and if the planes weren't cgi the fuel exploded on impact. Nothing to burn. Building were built to sustain exactly those types of impacts.

A bullet comes out of an AR at about 3300 fps and loses very little velocity traveling downhill a football field length. Look up ballistic on that round. 55 gr. 65 gr. I don't care. You ain't getting 100% kill ratio. The bullet is traveling at approx. same speed at either distance and is a spire boat tail, so it's a clean wound, if one can call it that.

J-man, you seem more agitated than usual. Hang in there. This, too, shall pass.

Wireless packet transmission works just fine. Most internet traffic is wired, so latency and your other concerns about satellite transmission are irrelevant. Try making a phone call from a ship to land - the satellite latency is definitely noticeable.
CGI planes don't have eye witnesses and unconstrained jet fuel doesn't explode, it burns.  That is why the lingering fires heated the steel enough to weaken it.
.223 rounds pack very little punch. They are lethal up close, but are less so when fired from a distance. I can shoot you in the head at close range and kill you easily, but using a bump-stock from a tall building means the rounds will hit wherever. Arms, legs, shoulders. Not an effective tool. School shootings are completely ineffective as a tool for anything more than a couple weeks of pointless arguing thanks to the NRA, so, like usual, your attempted point falls flatter than your imaginary planet.

Good luck to you with all the things.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: douglips on March 20, 2018, 07:27:16 AM
  • Where do you get 5 second delays? Geostationary satellites are about 22000 miles away, and the speed of light is 186000 miles per second.
  • What is Beam technology?
  • You don't think that fire weakens steel? Why do blacksmiths heat metal before striking it?
  • Are you really comparing kill rates in the Sandy Hook attack, where the shooter was in the same classrooms as his victims and shot them multiple times to Las Vegas, where the shooter was very far away?

Where do you get your information from? None of these ideas would stand up to the least bit of critical thinking.

You don't really know much about analog and digital packet transmissions now do you.

I know a fair amount about them. You don't seem to.

Quote

 They just magically zoom down to earth in this imaginary scenario you were taught. No they must be prepared for transmission and go thru compression, identification and switches then blasted up 22k miles then deciphered and resent back down to this fake spinning ball without jitter or packet loss which causes lag or latency.

All the compression, identification, switches, deciphering, decompression, etc. all have to happen for bits travelling between your computer and computers at Google. The only difference is the transmission medium (fiber vs. open space microwave) and distance.

If you want to say there's complicated signal processing happening in the satellite, it's no more complicated than what happens when fibers meet on Earth.

Quote
Try to send data packets 44k miles and not loose packets or degrade them on compression and decompression.
You're clueless my friend. The latency is seconds and unacceptable to anyone.
It's clearly not just the distance. We send packets across the pacific ocean in a fiber optic cable. There's a 13,000 km fiber from Hong Kong to LA. https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/hong-kong-americas-hka

I think you're saying that the signal from the satellite is dispersed by a large amount by the time it gets to Earth.
Quote

Beam tech allows the transmission to stay compact and not spread out losing digital packets. But the area of transmission is compact also, not some blanket of grab your data.

Are you saying that a low power transmission from a satellite would be hard to detect on earth? Because that's true. That's why they use high gain parabolic antennae to receive the signal. Signal-to-noise ratios are easily calculated, for example:
http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/spacelink/spcomcalc.htm

If you have calculations that show differently, please link to them, but gains of 30-40dB for dish antennae are not uncommon. That's a lot.

Note that weather related signal losses are known and expected: https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/directv/KM1045590
Quote


Office fires won't bring a steel building down and if the planes weren't cgi the fuel exploded on impact. Nothing to burn. Building were built to sustain exactly those types of impacts.

Why wouldn't office fires bring a steel building down? Why do we have fire departments with hoses if buildings won't collapse or burn?
Why do blacksmiths heat metal before striking it?

Steel loses half its strength at 500 degrees C.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html

[/quote]
Quote
A bullet comes out of an AR at about 3300 fps and loses very little velocity traveling downhill a football field length. Look up ballistic on that round. 55 gr. 65 gr. I don't care. You ain't getting 100% kill ratio. The bullet is traveling at approx. same speed at either distance and is a spire boat tail, so it's a clean wound, if one can call it that.

I thought Sandy Hook was the 100% kill ratio and Las Vegas was much lower?

In Sandy Hook, the murderer shot each of his victims multiple times from close range.
In Las Vegas, the murderer was so far away and shooting randomly into a crowd. He couldn't be aiming for an individual person or be able to intentionally target a torso vs. extremity.

Still not sure where you're going with this.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on March 20, 2018, 11:51:54 AM
There isn't an inch of this Flat Earth that doesn't have transmission towers and repeaters everywhere. They're even floating in the ocean, they're on planes circling the pie plate, balloons hoovering above us. There's metallic nano particles being sprayed everywhere to place a metal layer that stays afloat almost a year so we can bounce data signals across great distances.

Sat dishes are pointed at towers in the southern area because transmissions are pointed north.
Thank you for the video's J-man. They are insightful, but also a little confusing, and not really professional. Do you know of an article somewhere that proves the same thing?

Now in regard to your earlier statements, which were quite bold if I may say so. I asked if you were sticking to Flat Earth principles as it seems to me you are not. But I will ask you again, have you ever sensed (seen, observed) any of what you speak about. True Flat Earthism, observes and experiences, and makes direct conclusions from that, otherwise it is nothing but rationalization - speculation and conjecture.

We know from the creator that the dome is like molten glass ... This is how the return of Christ will be seen by all mankind as his image is magnified in the sky via the dome.
Can you tell me how you know this from the creator? Other than that 'he has told you', as that would immediately categorize it to the realm of paganism.
Further you seem to draw conclusions that the creator needs the glass dome to make Christ visible to everyone when he returns. The Sun certainly is not visible to everyone all the time, or the moon, or other planets. So I think it's better to leave the subject unknown, rather than jump to conclusions. It is not as if God needs a dome to do His works, would you agree? As He is Omnipotent.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on March 20, 2018, 05:13:08 PM
Phony as a 3 dollar bill. If sats could exist, why would anyone use them? They would have about a 5-6 second delay ...

Why not use them for applications where the delay is not an issue?  Weather mapping, earth observation, fleet tracking, etc. 


Sat dishes are pointed at towers in the southern area because transmissions are pointed north.

I'm in the UK, and have a satellite TV system. I know where my local TV transmitters are, and I know where the local towers are. My dish doesn't point to any of them. It actually points away from the nearest TV transmitter, which is to my North.

Look at google street view for the UK's south coast, and in towns all along this coast you see satellite dishes pointing south, out to sea. Where would you suggest the transmitters were? Spain? Portugal?     Really?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on March 20, 2018, 06:43:15 PM
While we are here, what would be the issue with a few second delay (I have no idea if that is accurate).
If you’re watching live sport and it’s a few seconds behind the actual action then how would you know?

I’m also in the UK too, was recently in Sri Lanka with work and noticed the dishes there point noticeably more upwards which makes sense as TV satellites are in geostationary orbit above the equator and Sri Lanka is much nearer the equator than chilly old London.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on March 21, 2018, 01:01:21 AM
FE continues to grow and get more precise as to how the earth is made. We know from the creator that the dome is like molten glass and in as much would reflect light of the sun and moon. Rainbows are arched as the dome. This is how the return of Christ will be seen by all mankind as his image is magnified in the sky via the dome.

Here is a couple good videos explaining math of both FE and globe models and how easy it is for you to get it wrong again and again.

Sats can't exist, they're just a lie of satan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdo_Pl_Ev5Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOdfn0CgRrg
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: StinkyOne on March 21, 2018, 01:31:52 AM
FE continues to grow and get more precise as to how the earth is made. We know from the creator that the dome is like molten glass and in as much would reflect light of the sun and moon. Rainbows are arched as the dome. This is how the return of Christ will be seen by all mankind as his image is magnified in the sky via the dome.

Here is a couple good videos explaining math of both FE and globe models and how easy it is for you to get it wrong again and again.

Sats can't exist, they're just a lie of satan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdo_Pl_Ev5Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOdfn0CgRrg

What is with you and Satan, anyway? You seem obsessed and see the little demon everywhere you look. Sats are real, aren't the work of the devil, and I can tell from the thumbnail that the video isn't worth wasting my time. Implying there is an up and down in space because the Earth is tilted? Let me blow your mind. If you're on a tablet/phone/laptop, turn the screen upside down - look, the Earth is still tilted and you can draw an equally valid xy coordinate plane on it that way, too. It's almost like there is no up/down in space. You would be a much better troll if you at least thought about the garbage you post.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on March 21, 2018, 02:13:59 PM
We know from the creator that the dome is like molten glass and in as much would reflect light of the sun and moon.

And how can you confirm this yourself?

Quote
Rainbows are arched as the dome.

Rainbows are actually just circles. The only reason you don't see the full circle is because you aren't high enough. Here's an example:
(http://en.es-static.us/upl/2014/06/rainbow-full-circle-Colin-Leonhardt-Birdseye-View-Photography-e1498229281151.jpg)

Quote
Here is a couple good videos explaining math of both FE and globe models and how easy it is for you to get it wrong again and again.

Mind giving me a TLDW?

Quote
Sats can't exist

Why?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on March 21, 2018, 06:10:02 PM
Stinky you might want to check yourself at the door. Only you could be the troll. When you look up in the top left corner you should see Flat Earth Society not roundies trying to prove facts of the flatness wrong. You are the one out of place, I am FE believer and all truth teller. satan is the evil side of all and for the purposes of this exercise, the one who tricked eve and RE goofballs.

Now back to satellites and there being no way they can circle above a FE with a dome. Books thousands of years old describe our flatness and the dome covering. You can't leave, God made you and is watching you, he might even love you.

Here's another video that shows how sats can't exist and the masses are living a lie, a big lie. Stinky needs to wake up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cApXPTrOf7A

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: StinkyOne on March 21, 2018, 06:31:55 PM
Stinky you might want to check yourself at the door. Only you could be the troll. When you look up in the top left corner you should see Flat Earth Society not roundies trying to prove facts of the flatness wrong. You are the one out of place, I am FE believer and all truth teller. satan is the evil side of all and for the purposes of this exercise, the one who tricked eve and RE goofballs.

Now back to satellites and there being no way they can circle above a FE with a dome. Books thousands of years old describe our flatness and the dome covering. You can't leave, God made you and is watching you, he might even love you.

Here's another video that shows how sats can't exist and the masses are living a lie, a big lie. Stinky needs to wake up.

Nope, I'm here to be a snarky voice of reason and point out the obvious flaws in FEH. As far as your dome goes, it isn't there, it isn't in the Bible, it is only in your head. Yes, books thousands of years old do describe the Earth as flat. Fortunately, most of us have advanced in our understanding of the world. Good luck.

There are services that require satellites to function. They work.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on March 21, 2018, 10:33:54 PM
Now back to satellites and there being no way they can circle above a FE with a dome.

That's not the same as "Sats can't exist", which you were quoted saying above. 

If your FE and dome doesn't exist, your first statement disappears in a puff of logic.

I can show you three separate sources, none of which are space agencies, who independently confirm the presence of satellites by at least two different methods. 

Wanna see? 
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on March 22, 2018, 06:56:44 AM
Rainbows are arched as the dome.
This is a topic that is still a mystery to me. Rainbows are almost always in front of the cloud, which means the shape of the dome has no impact on the rainbow. Would you mind explaining to me how you came to know this part of our theory? I have been waiting to resolve this for quite a while now and been pondering about it.

(https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2772/5848446640_f7acd58ca2_b.jpg)

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on April 01, 2018, 12:29:00 AM
Now we have the China space station satellite crashing back to earth when? April Fools sucker day. Who makes this stuff up, Musk? "you can tell it's real because it looks so fake".

The Arizona observatory got a pic  of the China Sat ISS and you know what? It looks like a picture of a flashlight in a blacked out room.

Then Tesla recalls almost half the cars it ever produced in this, come on down, we'll fix it, yet I'm supposed to believe they can send a rocket to space or Mars. I don't think so.

People are soooooo dumbed down. Next we'll hear "Starman" is bringing the Roadster in for a recall too.

I don't want any Tesla's on the road, seems they run over and crash causing "issues", but hey, lets go to space, so much easier when you make it look fake.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on April 01, 2018, 12:40:13 AM
Which brings us to "In Russia, Space looks so FAKE, it must be real....

How anyone could believe in the satellite hoax is beyond me.

Probably NSFW, they say the F word....FAKE !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLRUxFC_MLk
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on April 01, 2018, 03:27:33 AM
Now we have the China space station satellite crashing back to earth when? April Fools sucker day.

Actually it's been pushed back by 16 hours.

Quote
Who makes this stuff up, Musk? "you can tell it's real because it looks so fake".

And this is evidence... how?

Quote
The Arizona observatory got a pic  of the China Sat ISS and you know what? It looks like a picture of a flashlight in a blacked out room.

How do you know this? What's your evidence? it matches the pictures of the station very accurately if you take the time to compare the two.

Quote
Then Tesla recalls almost half the cars it ever produced in this, come on down, we'll fix it, yet I'm supposed to believe they can send a rocket to space or Mars. I don't think so.

Tesla and SpaceX are two separate companies. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Quote
People are soooooo dumbed down.

Proof?

Quote
I don't want any Tesla's on the road, seems they run over and crash causing "issues"

That's one incident. The Tesla has a near flawless record. If you want Teslas off the road, might as well take all cars off. They cause far more issues than Tesla.

Quote
but hey, lets go to space, so much easier when you make it look fake.

How are they making it look fake? What's your evidence? It certainly isn't easier, but it could be. This is what we're trying to do.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on April 01, 2018, 03:28:30 AM
Which brings us to "In Russia, Space looks so FAKE, it must be real....

How anyone could believe in the satellite hoax is beyond me.

Probably NSFW, they say the F word....FAKE !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLRUxFC_MLk

Russia never claimed that animation to be real. It was that, an animation. The launch is the real-looking part. Eventually, the cameras can no longer resolute the rocket, so they have to resort to other ways to show what's happening.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on April 01, 2018, 05:10:30 AM
April Fools sucker day. Who makes this stuff up, Musk? "you can tell it's real because it looks so fake".
J-Man, hi, welcome back.

I have wondered whether there would be an answer to your earlier statements that I thought would be good for me to get some more explanation about?

When the balloon pops, you distinctly hear the familiar sound of the rattle reverberation against the glass molten dome. The sound is unique isn't it.
I haven't been close to the glass dome when a balloon pops. So you have been close to the glass dome and know what it sounds like? Can you tell me where that was and take me with you next time?

There isn't an inch of this Flat Earth that doesn't have transmission towers and repeaters everywhere. They're even floating in the ocean, they're on planes circling the pie plate, balloons hoovering above us. There's metallic nano particles being sprayed everywhere to place a metal layer that stays afloat almost a year so we can bounce data signals across great distances.

Sat dishes are pointed at towers in the southern area because transmissions are pointed north.
Now in regard to your earlier statements, which were quite bold if I may say so. I asked if you were sticking to Flat Earth principles as it seems to me you are not. But I will ask you again, have you ever sensed (seen, observed) any of what you speak about. True Flat Earthism, observes and experiences, and makes direct conclusions from that, otherwise it is nothing but rationalization - speculation and conjecture.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2018, 09:25:53 AM
Which brings us to "In Russia, Space looks so FAKE, it must be real....

It's an animation. If you read the comments on the video, there are numerous repeats of this statement. Nobody claims it to be real footage of a real spacecraft, except FEers who are trying to make your misplaced claim. 

Honestly, I'm shocked that any reasonable adult would even try to claim this as a 'fake' ....
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on April 01, 2018, 11:22:19 AM
laughable video
If you want to contribute, please respond to my post, 2 posts up. Thank you.

But I think you just not real flat earth, troll. You pretend to be FE, but you always draw conclusion from conjecture and speculation. Proper flat-earthism doesn't. It limits itself to what can be shown.

Video maker must be troll also. Just silly. He himself says it's computer generated (CGI) in his subtitle 55sec. Then at 1:21s he asks how can they film from this or that angle...?!? Because you said it's CGI 'mate'! (as we say in Australia).

Not worth linking on this respectable forum.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2018, 04:46:50 PM
Stinky you might want to check yourself at the door. Only you could be the troll. When you look up in the top left corner you should see Flat Earth Society not roundies trying to prove facts of the flatness wrong. You are the one out of place ...

... but the blurb under 'Forum' on the home page encourages everyone to participate, not just your own echo chamber ....
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on April 02, 2018, 01:27:05 PM
el diablo did in fact supposedly drop a school bus named Heavenly Palace on God's resurrection day, which corresponded with April Fools Day, so cute A-hole. You see this so called Palace has been proved to be a fake like all the rest (satellites), with air bubbles, pool current jets etc. how they film with scubba and scubbie do do around. No photos or video of this bus coming down, just like skylab yada yada. Im sure Russia and US said no China you're not good at fakery like us, we'll handle it as we drown our nuts. 2022 we'll give you another try.

Jesus rose from the dead on Easter as prophesied, sorry satan, you're the fool here, with a few billion other suckers dragging their knuckles.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on April 02, 2018, 03:10:30 PM
You see this so called Palace has been proved to be a fake like all the rest (satellites), with air bubbles, pool current jets etc. how they film with scubba and scubbie do do around.

Proved... when? By whom?

No photos or video of this bus coming down, just like skylab yada yada.

Why would you expect any? It went into the ocean off Tahiti. How many photographers do you think would have been able to get there?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on April 03, 2018, 09:30:34 AM
el diablo cute A-hole. suckers
What Jesus have to do with you I wonder. Probably nothing.

Prov 10:8 ESV The wise of heart will receive commandments, but a babbling fool will come to ruin.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on April 03, 2018, 01:06:42 PM
Try to stay on topic as we discover more lies of satellites.

for He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son. For it is By Grace you have been saved, through faith that his WORD is true, which the earth is flat and immobile.

Now if you excuse me my sword of the Spirit must slay more demons, you might duck......quack quack
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on April 03, 2018, 01:37:02 PM
Try to stay on topic as we discover more lies of satellites.

for He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son. For it is By Grace you have been saved, through faith that his WORD is true, which the earth is flat and immobile.

Now if you excuse me my sword of the Spirit must slay more demons, you might duck......quack quack

How is this 'on topic'? 

What have your religious musings got to do with the presence or absence of satellites?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on April 03, 2018, 08:09:11 PM
Try to stay on topic as we discover more lies of satellites.

Yet you haven't presented anything to back your argument. We're waiting.

Quote
for He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son. For it is By Grace you have been saved, through faith that his WORD is true, which the earth is flat and immobile.

God isn't real, sorry.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Parallax on April 03, 2018, 09:11:52 PM
Try to stay on topic as we discover more lies of satellites.

Yet you haven't presented anything to back your argument. We're waiting.

Quote
for He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son. For it is By Grace you have been saved, through faith that his WORD is true, which the earth is flat and immobile.

God isn't real, sorry.
That's quite a statement, I'm sure you have proof of this?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on April 03, 2018, 11:39:36 PM
That's quite a statement ("God isn't real, sorry"), I'm sure you have proof of this?

Next time you're passing a church with a high steeple, look to see if there's a lightning conductor on it.

If those within lack faith in their God to that extent ....
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on April 04, 2018, 07:44:42 AM
Try to stay on topic as we discover more lies of satellites.
Thank you for staying on topic. Appreciate.

When the balloon pops, you distinctly hear the familiar sound of the rattle reverberation against the glass molten dome. The sound is unique isn't it.
I haven't been close to the glass dome when a balloon pops. So you have been close to the glass dome and know what it sounds like? Can you tell me where that was and take me with you next time?

There isn't an inch of this Flat Earth that doesn't have transmission towers and repeaters everywhere. They're even floating in the ocean, they're on planes circling the pie plate, balloons hoovering above us. There's metallic nano particles being sprayed everywhere to place a metal layer that stays afloat almost a year so we can bounce data signals across great distances.

Sat dishes are pointed at towers in the southern area because transmissions are pointed north.
Now in regard to your earlier statements, which were quite bold if I may say so. I asked if you were sticking to Flat Earth principles as it seems to me you are not. But I will ask you again, have you ever sensed (seen, observed) any of what you speak about. True Flat Earthism, observes and experiences, and makes direct conclusions from that, otherwise it is nothing but rationalization - speculation and conjecture.

Would really help me to get some explanation as I would like to understand your earlier statements in this topic about satellite hoax.

el diablo cute A-hole. suckers
Prov 10:8 ESV The wise of heart will receive commandments, but a babbling fool will come to ruin.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on April 04, 2018, 10:06:28 AM
There isn't an inch of this Flat Earth that doesn't have transmission towers and repeaters everywhere. They're even floating in the ocean, they're on planes circling the pie plate, balloons hoovering above us. There's metallic nano particles being sprayed everywhere to place a metal layer that stays afloat almost a year so we can bounce data signals across great distances.

Sat dishes are pointed at towers in the southern area because transmissions are pointed north..RIGHT !

Sorry, this just doesn't add up in the real world.

I'm old enough to remember, in the UK, the days of (1) analogue TV broadcasting in the UK, the switch to (2) terrestrial digital b/casting, and to (3) satellite.

In (1), the country had a network of TV transmitters, and these were typically on high ground. The broadcast spectrum was divided into channels, and each broadcast channel was allocated to one of the spectrum channels. In order to avoid interference at the receiver from adjacent transmitters on the same spectrum and broadcast channel, the broadcast channels were allocated different spectrum channels on adjacent transmitters.

Point of note; TV aerials pointed at their nearest or most visible transmitter, which was not always to the South of the household.

Come (2), the same transmitter network is used, but now each digital multiplex is allocated to each spectrum channel, and because of the nature of the signal, cross-transmitter interference is less of an issue. Receivers which use this system still use the same transmitter network

Point of note; TV aerials still pointed at their nearest or most visible transmitter, which was not always to the South.



Come (3), every satellite dish in the land points South, without exception. Even those on the south coast of the land.

Point of note; If this was being done from land-based transmitters, then it's clearly not being done from the existing transmitter network that took decades to build across the land. Satellite TV was, in practical terms, available overnight from the launch date, with no apparent construction of a new transmitter network, and, in marked contrast to the previous systems, no need to point dishes at either high ground, nor at the nearest local transmitter.


Sorry, but merely claiming that it's done from towers all over the land does not compute. Where would the towers be for the dishes on the south coast? They point south, too. Out to sea. 

The English Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, if there were TV transmitters there, someone would have noticed by now. There would be images online. They would be on shipping charts.

Where would you suggest they would be? France? Spain? How would that work? Would these countries allow the UK to site their transmitters there? Is there any proof they have?

If your next suggestion is that the signal comes from cell towers, that doesn't wash either. Sat dishes don't point at cell towers.

What's left?  Metal particles in the sky? Sorry, that would have sat dishes pointing in different directions.

Inescapable conclusion; all these satellite dishes are pointing at a satellite (group) in geostationary orbit.       
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on April 04, 2018, 11:42:58 AM
Come (3), every satellite dish in the land points South, without exception. Even those on the south coast of the land.

Point of note; If this was being done from land-based transmitters, then it's clearly not being done from the existing transmitter network that took decades to build across the land. Satellite TV was, in practical terms, available overnight from the launch date, with no apparent construction of a new transmitter network, and, in marked contrast to the previous systems, no need to point dishes at either high ground, nor at the nearest local transmitter.   
And just to reiterate, on a recent trip to Sri Lanka which is significantly closer to the equator than the UK I noticed that the satellite dishes were pointed up at a significantly steeper angle than those in the UK. They're pointing at something. The something is in the sky. Anyone who has knocked their dish will know how precisely they have to be aimed.
So there is something up there...
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on April 04, 2018, 02:53:58 PM
People are lazy and want to be handed unfo so this makes them easily fooled. Like believing in satellites. Communications have been perfected and you don't need line of sight for every instance although that is what is mostly used. There is Skywave, Meteor burst communications where you communicate off the ionized meteor trails. This should explain chemtrails if you allow it. Nano metallic particles disbursed in the atmosphere then charged via haarp to communicate bouncing off the sky. The dome shape is explained in the Meteor burst communications, duh. We all know it's there and you're not leaving, ever !

Your repeated rhetoric sounds like Col. Klink show..."I know nothing"

https://mvprogress.com/2015/02/25/usaf-radio-tower-monitors-earths-atmosphere/

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QST%2520Binaries/nt0z.pdf
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on April 04, 2018, 03:00:44 PM
People are lazy and want to be handed unfo so this makes them easily fooled. Like believing in satellites. Communications have been perfected and you don't need line of sight for every instance although that is what is mostly used. There is Skywave, Meteor burst communications where you communicate off the ionized meteor trails. This should explain chemtrails if you allow it. Nano metallic particles disbursed in the atmosphere then charged via haarp to communicate bouncing off the sky. The dome shape is explained in the Meteor burst communications, duh. We all know it's there and you're not leaving, ever !

Your repeated rhetoric sounds like Col. Klink show..."I know nothing"

https://mvprogress.com/2015/02/25/usaf-radio-tower-monitors-earths-atmosphere/

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QST%2520Binaries/nt0z.pdf
What you write above does not exclude satellites.  Please provide links or details of specific transmitters for broadcast which we use satellite dishes for.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on April 04, 2018, 04:33:02 PM
From the first link "Radio signals can bounce off these layers making global communications possible. "

They CAN, but that's not a statement that all radio signals DO.

There seems no relevance to satellites here.

Second link states "These modes aren’t always casual. That is, many require robust stations, high power and more than a little patience. " - so, out of the scope of a standard household installation, then, and solely the province of the dedicated radio ham.

It also suggests that these techniques are only valid during meteor showers. Again, my satellite TV receiver works 24/7, not at limited times, so these meteor-scatter techniques don't seem appropriate for the average household.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on April 04, 2018, 06:50:32 PM
That's quite a statement, I'm sure you have proof of this?

Well, you can't prove a negative, so no. But, everything I've seen that has come from science has led me to the conclusion that a god is not necessary, and the deities we describe are terrible people (based on holy books).
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 04, 2018, 10:07:02 PM
you can't prove a negative
This is strictly incorrect. I can easily prove that I am not wearing a hat right now, and that there are no US dollars in my wallet.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Macarios on April 05, 2018, 03:48:22 AM
Try to stay on topic as we discover more lies of satellites.

The greatest lie about satellites is claim that they don't exist.

Take, for example, your common satellite TV.
Have you ever tried to move your dish for more than one degree?
Don't do it, or you will have to pay technician to aim it to the satellite again.

Knowing that receiving angle of dish is very narrow and direction setting is very sensitive,
we have proof of the precise direction of the signal source.
To receive the signal from other source we should aim the dish in the direction of that other sourse.

Considering that no tower can be that tall, and no ballon can stay still in the sky, especially not for years,
we have proof that signal comes from geostationary satellites.

That is the only remaining possibility.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Orleans is 30 degrees north.
If people want to receive signal from 91W GALAXY 17, they have to point their dishes 55 degrees up.
They know it because there is online calculator that shows them where they can see it from their location.
One of those calculators is "dishpointer.com".

For signal source to have elevation of 55 degrees from one mile south it has to be 1.43 miles high.
For another home at one mile to the west you would need another source at 1.43 miles up.
Another source, because previous one wouldn't be seen at the same azimuth from new location.

Why we don't see tons of such sources / towers all over the USA?

Now try to tell us that online calculators are "lies", and people "don't use them" to point their dishes.

Bear in mind that this forum is public and everyone, including those people, can read what would your answer be.

(You can use any calculator yourself, including DishPointer, to get the picture.
Play with locations and see where pointing directions intersect.
You can also see if their intersecting points can be consistent if the Earth was flat.
For example choose several cities at 90 degrees west at different latitudes.)

(http://i68.tinypic.com/zmhxkl.png)
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on April 05, 2018, 05:50:15 AM
So much goofyness going on here with Dish TV crap. A 2000 year old book has described the dome over the earth as molten glass. Now check your foolish self at the door. Analog and digital waves have been bouncing off this glass for, well since the creation of man and the earth. As early as 1930 Bell Labs was picking up noise from the dome area. Even back then shortwave communication was bouncing off the dome. NO SATELLITES were supposedly aloft yet.  You encrypt and decode a transmission against this glass dome and it projects back down at a specific angle. POINT THE DISH dat a way...NO DUH  Take one of those old 10' dishes we used to use and point it at the MOON and bounce transmissions. There is a club for that.

We are stationary, the dome is stationary, you create programming and blast it up to the dome, it reflects back, you point your trusty decoder dish at it, boys chasing a little white ball around kicking it in nets. God is good, everyone watch FUTBOL !!
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Macarios on April 05, 2018, 08:29:01 AM
So much goofyness going on here with Dish TV crap. A 2000 year old book has described the dome over the earth as molten glass. Now check your foolish self at the door. Analog and digital waves have been bouncing off this glass for, well since the creation of man and the earth. As early as 1930 Bell Labs was picking up noise from the dome area. Even back then shortwave communication was bouncing off the dome. NO SATELLITES were supposedly aloft yet.  You encrypt and decode a transmission against this glass dome and it projects back down at a specific angle. POINT THE DISH dat a way...NO DUH  Take one of those old 10' dishes we used to use and point it at the MOON and bounce transmissions. There is a club for that.

We are stationary, the dome is stationary, you create programming and blast it up to the dome, it reflects back, you point your trusty decoder dish at it, boys chasing a little white ball around kicking it in nets. God is good, everyone watch FUTBOL !!

Ok, explain to yourself:
- how that signal bounces only off the few spots and not off the whole area around them?
- why signal delay reveals 35 786 km to geostationary satellite, and not 6 305 km to "dome"?

Or read only the book made by Roman emperor Constantine and his men 325 AD in Nicaea, and ignore all other books written later, when humanity had more data.

Dare you to go to nearest church and ask priests if the Biblical model is Flat Earth or Geocentrism.
Then, if you are not happy with the explanation, go to another church and compare.

Do you even know the difference?

1 - Flat model (ancient local model, xxx - 500 BC) - Flat Earth is at the bottom, with one dome on top.
2 - Geocentrism (Biblical model, 500 BC - 1650 AD) - Globe Earth is static in the center, with several crystal spheres around, each carrying own set of celestial bodies.
3 - Heliocentrism (Copernican model, 1650 AD - present) - Celestial objects in Solar system revolve Sun, and Solar system revolves Milky Way galactic core.

Quote
3000 years ago Flat model was still in place. But then ancient civilisations expanded
their knowledge of the Earth's surface by travel, trade and ground measurements. They found out that
on gretaer distances it becomes more obviously curved. Flat model simply had Earth down in the middle,
seas around it and "dome" above it. "Dome" was made of velvet and had little holes (stars) so when Sun
didn't shine those holes let in the light from outside of the "dome".

2500 years ago they expanded enough to start thinking "out of the Flat". That is why they eaxpanded Flat
into Geocentric.
This time Earth was static in the center of heavens.
Everything on Earth tends to center of heavens compressing it into sphere. Heavens were spinning concentric
crystal spheres around the Earth, each of them carrying own set of celestial bodies. They noted some changes
in relations in the sky and they had to explain it somehow.

Some 700 years later Roman emperor Constantine and his men in Nicaea 325 AD created Bible. Church accepted
static Earth and Geocentric system based on it, but they incorporated it in Dogma and it was forbidden to question it,
even worse to try to change the perception of it. New info poured in and people tried, but were silenced as brutally
as needed. Some by threats, some by force.

400 years ago there was enough data for the most brave people to stand up more loudly. Transition was painful,
Giordano Bruno was burnt at stake, Galileo forced by court to renunce his teachings and never try again.
But leaving the court he still said "eppur si muove".

Anyway, mankind once again went thinking "out of the Geocentric" and expanded the system into Heliocentric.
Some religious conservatives still didn't want to let go, but soon lot of them understood why new, broader view
is more accurate.

Not all of them.

150 years ago "Dr" Samuel Birley Rowbotham saw his chance to exploit stubborn ones and take money from them.
He revived old Flat model and during "lectures" in small towns in England developed rehtoric designed to confuse,
silence, or discredit anyone who would ask "inconvenient" questions. Developed and tested for couple of decades.

100 years ago Wilbur Glenn Voliva did the same thing in USA, also for money. He took role of little tyrant in Zion, IL,
including big radio station heard even in Australia. (Fortunately, Aussies have night sky in their backyards and saw
easier than "Northerners" that Flat Earth hypothesis has zero coverage in reality. Same goes for others in southern hemisphere.)

Right now some YouTubers still muddy the water using same rhetoric, fishing for naive victims to increase
their subscriptions and views. They know the Earth is not flat, but they don't care. Revenue is dripping in.
In case of any legal action taken against them, they can always say "It is fantasy the same way as LOTR or
Justice League. I'm just trying to make it convincing for my audience. I thought everyone knew that."
(from: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74779.msg2040528#msg2040528 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74779.msg2040528#msg2040528))
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on April 05, 2018, 08:31:20 AM
So much goofyness going on here with Dish TV crap.

Well, I don't get anything from Dish TV.  They only broadcast to the USA.

A 2000 year old book has described the dome over the earth as molten glass.

Yes, but we've moved on since it was written


Analog and digital waves have been bouncing off this glass for, well since the creation of man and the earth. As early as 1930 Bell Labs was picking up noise from the dome area. Even back then shortwave communication was bouncing off the dome.

... but satellite signals are not Short Wave.


NO SATELLITES were supposedly aloft yet.  You encrypt and decode a transmission against this glass dome and it projects back down at a specific angle.

But it can't be a specific angle unless there's one transmitter for every receiver....


POINT THE DISH dat a way...NO DUH  Take one of those old 10' dishes we used to use and point it at the MOON and bounce transmissions. There is a club for that.

Can't be bouncing off the dome if it's going through the dome to bounce off the Moon ....

T
=============================================================================
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on April 05, 2018, 10:54:10 AM
There is Skywave, Meteor burst communications where you communicate off the ionized meteor trails. This should explain chemtrails if you allow it. Nano metallic particles disbursed in the atmosphere then charged via haarp to communicate bouncing off the sky. The dome shape is explained in the Meteor burst communications, duh. We all know it's there and you're not leaving, ever !
So dome only exists for few seconds. Ok, didn't expect you to believe that, but ok, thank you. That is new information.

When the balloon pops, you distinctly hear the familiar sound of the rattle reverberation against the glass molten dome. The sound is unique isn't it.
I haven't been close to the glass dome when a balloon pops. So you have been close to the glass dome and know what it sounds like? Can you tell me where that was and take me with you next time?

There isn't an inch of this Flat Earth that doesn't have transmission towers and repeaters everywhere. They're even floating in the ocean, they're on planes circling the pie plate, balloons hoovering above us. There's metallic nano particles being sprayed everywhere to place a metal layer that stays afloat almost a year so we can bounce data signals across great distances.

Sat dishes are pointed at towers in the southern area because transmissions are pointed north.
You keep babbling like a fool, but not communicate. I would still like to know if you ever sensed (seen, observed) any of what you speak about. True Flat Earthism, observes and experiences, and makes direct conclusions from that, otherwise it is nothing but rationalization - speculation and conjecture.

Would really help me to get some explanation as I would like to understand your earlier statements in this topic about satellite hoax.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: StinkyOne on April 05, 2018, 12:33:39 PM
So much goofyness going on here with Dish TV crap. A 2000 year old book has described the dome over the earth as molten glass. Now check your foolish self at the door. Analog and digital waves have been bouncing off this glass for, well since the creation of man and the earth. As early as 1930 Bell Labs was picking up noise from the dome area. Even back then shortwave communication was bouncing off the dome. NO SATELLITES were supposedly aloft yet.  You encrypt and decode a transmission against this glass dome and it projects back down at a specific angle. POINT THE DISH dat a way...NO DUH  Take one of those old 10' dishes we used to use and point it at the MOON and bounce transmissions. There is a club for that.

We are stationary, the dome is stationary, you create programming and blast it up to the dome, it reflects back, you point your trusty decoder dish at it, boys chasing a little white ball around kicking it in nets. God is good, everyone watch FUTBOL !!

More word stew from J-man. Radio waves don't bounce off of glass, they pass through it. Sorry for blowing up your silly theory, but hey, you don't really believe it anyway.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on April 06, 2018, 08:02:15 PM
Good, everyone is happy that satellites exist because nobody can produce details of how they might otherwise work with links to manufacturers, broadcast companies etc.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Macarios on April 06, 2018, 08:32:34 PM
Here are some of them:

Name     Common name                Orbit inc 

04016A  DIRECTV 7S                -119.1  0.0
10010A  ECHOSTAR 14               -118.9  0.0
02006A  ECHOSTAR 7                -118.8  0.0
07009A  ANIK F3                   -118.7  0.0
16038B  EUTELSAT 117 WEST B       -117.0  0.0
13012A  EUTELSAT 117 WEST A       -116.8  0.0
13058A  SIRIUS FM-6               -116.1  0.0
06049A  XM-4 (BLUES)              -115.2  0.0
11059A  VIASAT-1                  -115.1  0.0
15010B  EUTELSAT 115 WEST B       -114.9  0.0
12075B  MEXSAT 3                  -114.8  0.0
15056A  MORELOS 3                 -113.1  6.2
06020A  EUTELSAT 113 WEST A       -113.0  0.0
06054A  WILDBLUE-1                -111.2  0.0
04027A  ANIK F2                   -111.1  0.0
09035A  TERRESTAR-1               -111.0  2.7
06003A  ECHOSTAR 10               -110.2  0.0
02023A  DIRECTV 5 (TEMPO 1)       -110.1  0.0
08035A  ECHOSTAR 11               -110.0  0.0
99059A  TELSTAR 12 (ORION 2)      -109.2  1.4
96022A  MSAT M1                   -107.5  8.1
13014A  ANIK G1                   -107.3  0.0
05036A  ANIK F1R                  -107.3  0.0
00076A  ANIK F1                   -107.3  0.0
12035A  ECHOSTAR 17               -107.1  0.0
04041A  AMC-15                    -105.1  0.0
17063A  SES-11 (ECHOSTAR 105)     -105.0  0.1
06054B  AMC-18                    -104.9  0.0
09033A  GOES 14                   -104.3  0.1
95019A  AMSC 1                    -103.3 10.3
11035A  SES-3                     -103.0  0.1
05015A  SPACEWAY 1                -102.9  0.0
07032A  DIRECTV 10                -102.8  0.0
09075A  DIRECTV 12                -102.8  0.0
15026A  DIRECTV 15                -102.8  0.0
10005A  SDO                       -101.9 29.0
10061A  SKYTERRA 1                -101.3  3.0
01052A  DIRECTV 4S                -101.2  0.0
06043A  DIRECTV 9S                -101.1  0.0
10016A  SES-1                     -101.0  0.0
05019A  DIRECTV 8                 -100.9  0.0
14078B  DIRECTV 14                 -99.2  0.0
08013A  DIRECTV 11                 -99.2  0.0
05046B  SPACEWAY 2                 -99.1  0.0
06023A  GALAXY 16 (G-16)           -99.0  0.0
08039A  INMARSAT 4-F3              -98.0  3.0
16079A  ECHOSTAR 19                -97.1  0.0
08045A  GALAXY 19 (G-19)           -97.0  0.0
00038A  ECHOSTAR 6                 -96.2  4.6
14062A  INTELSAT 30 (IS-30)        -95.0  0.0
16035A  INTELSAT 31 (IS-31)        -95.0  0.0
02030A  GALAXY 3C (G-3C)           -95.0  0.0
07036A  SPACEWAY 3                 -94.9  0.0
97026A  GALAXY 25 (G-25)           -93.1  0.0
08016A  ICO G1                     -92.8  3.8
00046A  BRASILSAT B4               -92.0  2.1
12026A  NIMIQ 6                    -91.1  0.0
07016B  GALAXY 17 (G-17)           -91.0  0.0
05022A  GALAXY 28 (G-28)           -89.0  0.0
13075A  TKSAT-1 (TUPAC KATARI)     -87.2  0.0
11049A  SES-2                      -87.0  0.0
99027A  NIMIQ 1                    -86.5  0.0
03033A  ECHOSTAR 12 (RAINBOW 1)    -86.4  0.0
09034A  SIRIUS FM-5                -86.1  0.0
10053A  XM-5                       -85.2  0.0
05008A  XM-3 (RHYTHM)              -85.1  0.0
04048A  AMC-16                     -85.0  0.0
97002A  AMC-2 (GE-2)               -84.9  4.7
16082B  STAR ONE D1                -84.0  0.0
00067A  AMC-6 (GE-6)               -83.0  0.0
08044A  NIMIQ 4                    -81.9  0.0
15054B  ARSAT 2                    -81.0  0.0
15026B  SKY MEXICO-1               -78.8  0.0
08055A  VENESAT-1                  -77.9  0.0
11054A  QUETZSAT 1                 -77.0  0.0
10006A  INTELSAT 16 (IS-16)        -76.2  0.0
16071A  GOES 16                    -75.2  0.0
12062A  STAR ONE C3                -75.0  0.0
17023B  SGDC                       -74.8  0.0
06018A  GOES 13                    -74.6  0.3
14011A  AMAZONAS 4A                -74.0  0.1
94070A  ASTRA 1D                   -73.0  7.9
09050A  NIMIQ 5                    -72.7  0.0
97050A  AMC-3 (GE-3)               -72.0  0.8
14062B  ARSAT 1                    -71.8  0.0
15034B  STAR ONE C4                -70.0  0.0
08018B  STAR ONE C2                -70.0  0.0
95016A  BRASILSAT B2               -68.0  7.5
17017A  SES-10                     -66.9  0.0
16014A  EUTELSAT 65 WEST A         -65.2  0.0
07056A  STAR ONE C1                -65.0  0.0
98006A  BRASILSAT B3               -63.2  4.4
11021A  TELSTAR 14R                -63.0  0.0
88091B  TDRS 3                     -62.5 14.4
10034A  ECHOSTAR 15                -61.7  0.0
12065A  ECHOSTAR 16                -61.5  0.0
16039B  ECHOSTAR 18                -61.3  0.0
09054A  AMAZONAS 2                 -61.0  0.0
17053A  AMAZONAS 5                 -61.0  0.0
13006A  AMAZONAS 3                 -61.0  0.0
12045A  INTELSAT 21 (IS-21)        -58.0  0.0
15039A  INTELSAT 34 (IS-34)        -55.5  0.0
15005A  INMARSAT 5-F2              -55.0  0.0
98006B  INMARSAT 3-F5              -54.0  3.0
12057A  INTELSAT 23 (IS-23)        -53.0  0.0
16004A  INTELSAT 29E (IS-29E)      -50.0  0.0

(from: http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm (http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm))
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on April 10, 2018, 08:40:08 AM
Yes I asked this question in other topic, but no flat earth answer unfortunately  ???

I would expect to have to change my dish all the time during my Formula One race, I loose signal and I need to change the angle.

But no, it’s always there, the source for my tv show, always at the precise single spot in the sky. What’s up there?

(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9240.msg144653#msg144653 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9240.msg144653#msg144653))
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Helios11 on April 10, 2018, 04:02:07 PM
So now they're even saying satellites are hoaxes?!?!?! HOAXES?!?!? Alright here goes another upper fora post.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on April 12, 2018, 02:23:37 AM
When you know where the information bounces off the dome, it's very easy to require someone to use that area to broadcast their signals. Charge them 10's of millions for satellite time or even a whole one blasted up to this imaginary space in the universe. Point your round funny disks at the reflection and boom, futbol.....

Who would know the diff?

Not any of the knuckle draggers here.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on April 12, 2018, 02:28:30 AM
Here are some of them:

Name     Common name                Orbit inc 

04016A  DIRECTV 7S                -119.1  0.0
10010A  ECHOSTAR 14               -118.9  0.0
02006A  ECHOSTAR 7                -118.8  0.0
07009A  ANIK F3                   -118.7  0.0
16038B  EUTELSAT 117 WEST B       -117.0  0.0
13012A  EUTELSAT 117 WEST A       -116.8  0.0
13058A  SIRIUS FM-6               -116.1  0.0
06049A  XM-4 (BLUES)              -115.2  0.0
11059A  VIASAT-1                  -115.1  0.0
15010B  EUTELSAT 115 WEST B       -114.9  0.0
12075B  MEXSAT 3                  -114.8  0.0
15056A  MORELOS 3                 -113.1  6.2
06020A  EUTELSAT 113 WEST A       -113.0  0.0
06054A  WILDBLUE-1                -111.2  0.0
04027A  ANIK F2                   -111.1  0.0
09035A  TERRESTAR-1               -111.0  2.7
06003A  ECHOSTAR 10               -110.2  0.0
02023A  DIRECTV 5 (TEMPO 1)       -110.1  0.0
08035A  ECHOSTAR 11               -110.0  0.0
99059A  TELSTAR 12 (ORION 2)      -109.2  1.4
96022A  MSAT M1                   -107.5  8.1
13014A  ANIK G1                   -107.3  0.0
05036A  ANIK F1R                  -107.3  0.0
00076A  ANIK F1                   -107.3  0.0
12035A  ECHOSTAR 17               -107.1  0.0
04041A  AMC-15                    -105.1  0.0
17063A  SES-11 (ECHOSTAR 105)     -105.0  0.1
06054B  AMC-18                    -104.9  0.0
09033A  GOES 14                   -104.3  0.1
95019A  AMSC 1                    -103.3 10.3
11035A  SES-3                     -103.0  0.1
05015A  SPACEWAY 1                -102.9  0.0
07032A  DIRECTV 10                -102.8  0.0
09075A  DIRECTV 12                -102.8  0.0
15026A  DIRECTV 15                -102.8  0.0
10005A  SDO                       -101.9 29.0
10061A  SKYTERRA 1                -101.3  3.0
01052A  DIRECTV 4S                -101.2  0.0
06043A  DIRECTV 9S                -101.1  0.0
10016A  SES-1                     -101.0  0.0
05019A  DIRECTV 8                 -100.9  0.0
14078B  DIRECTV 14                 -99.2  0.0
08013A  DIRECTV 11                 -99.2  0.0
05046B  SPACEWAY 2                 -99.1  0.0
06023A  GALAXY 16 (G-16)           -99.0  0.0
08039A  INMARSAT 4-F3              -98.0  3.0
16079A  ECHOSTAR 19                -97.1  0.0
08045A  GALAXY 19 (G-19)           -97.0  0.0
00038A  ECHOSTAR 6                 -96.2  4.6
14062A  INTELSAT 30 (IS-30)        -95.0  0.0
16035A  INTELSAT 31 (IS-31)        -95.0  0.0
02030A  GALAXY 3C (G-3C)           -95.0  0.0
07036A  SPACEWAY 3                 -94.9  0.0
97026A  GALAXY 25 (G-25)           -93.1  0.0
08016A  ICO G1                     -92.8  3.8
00046A  BRASILSAT B4               -92.0  2.1
12026A  NIMIQ 6                    -91.1  0.0
07016B  GALAXY 17 (G-17)           -91.0  0.0
05022A  GALAXY 28 (G-28)           -89.0  0.0
13075A  TKSAT-1 (TUPAC KATARI)     -87.2  0.0
11049A  SES-2                      -87.0  0.0
99027A  NIMIQ 1                    -86.5  0.0
03033A  ECHOSTAR 12 (RAINBOW 1)    -86.4  0.0
09034A  SIRIUS FM-5                -86.1  0.0
10053A  XM-5                       -85.2  0.0
05008A  XM-3 (RHYTHM)              -85.1  0.0
04048A  AMC-16                     -85.0  0.0
97002A  AMC-2 (GE-2)               -84.9  4.7
16082B  STAR ONE D1                -84.0  0.0
00067A  AMC-6 (GE-6)               -83.0  0.0
08044A  NIMIQ 4                    -81.9  0.0
15054B  ARSAT 2                    -81.0  0.0
15026B  SKY MEXICO-1               -78.8  0.0
08055A  VENESAT-1                  -77.9  0.0
11054A  QUETZSAT 1                 -77.0  0.0
10006A  INTELSAT 16 (IS-16)        -76.2  0.0
16071A  GOES 16                    -75.2  0.0
12062A  STAR ONE C3                -75.0  0.0
17023B  SGDC                       -74.8  0.0
06018A  GOES 13                    -74.6  0.3
14011A  AMAZONAS 4A                -74.0  0.1
94070A  ASTRA 1D                   -73.0  7.9
09050A  NIMIQ 5                    -72.7  0.0
97050A  AMC-3 (GE-3)               -72.0  0.8
14062B  ARSAT 1                    -71.8  0.0
15034B  STAR ONE C4                -70.0  0.0
08018B  STAR ONE C2                -70.0  0.0
95016A  BRASILSAT B2               -68.0  7.5
17017A  SES-10                     -66.9  0.0
16014A  EUTELSAT 65 WEST A         -65.2  0.0
07056A  STAR ONE C1                -65.0  0.0
98006A  BRASILSAT B3               -63.2  4.4
11021A  TELSTAR 14R                -63.0  0.0
88091B  TDRS 3                     -62.5 14.4
10034A  ECHOSTAR 15                -61.7  0.0
12065A  ECHOSTAR 16                -61.5  0.0
16039B  ECHOSTAR 18                -61.3  0.0
09054A  AMAZONAS 2                 -61.0  0.0
17053A  AMAZONAS 5                 -61.0  0.0
13006A  AMAZONAS 3                 -61.0  0.0
12045A  INTELSAT 21 (IS-21)        -58.0  0.0
15039A  INTELSAT 34 (IS-34)        -55.5  0.0
15005A  INMARSAT 5-F2              -55.0  0.0
98006B  INMARSAT 3-F5              -54.0  3.0
12057A  INTELSAT 23 (IS-23)        -53.0  0.0
16004A  INTELSAT 29E (IS-29E)      -50.0  0.0

(from: http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm (http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm))

These are nothing more than reflection coordinates off the dome. You act like this is science, no it's spooky demon BS.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on April 12, 2018, 05:08:45 AM
When you know where the information bounces off the dome, it's very easy to require someone to use that area to broadcast their signals.
You state it can be done very easy, very cheaply. You state there is a glass dome. Have you ever sensed (seen, observed) any of what you speak about. True Flat Earthism, observes and experiences, and makes direct conclusions from that, otherwise it is nothing but rationalization - speculation and conjecture.

Also, we know that glass does not reflect these radio waves like you speculate they do. After all, we would see the reflection of the earth in the glass, and not be able to see through it. Radio waves and light waves are both electromagnetic waves. I think you are still just babbling away. Not helpful. (Proverbs 10:8 ).
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on April 12, 2018, 07:59:56 AM
When you know where the information bounces off the dome, it's very easy to require someone to use that area to broadcast their signals. Charge them 10's of millions for satellite time or even a whole one blasted up to this imaginary space in the universe. Point your round funny disks at the reflection and boom, futbol.....

Who would know the diff?

Not any of the knuckle draggers here.
Satellite transponders have tightly defined coverage areas, how would that work in your scheme?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on April 12, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Who would know the diff?

The designers and builders, along with their subcontractors.
The operators, engineers, their subcontractors and clients.
Anyone who knows anything about microwave communications.

Anyone who actively looks for, tracks, and takes video of satellites;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ

If you think this video is a 'hoax', then please explain why you think this, and what you think the telescope maker is actually doing....
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Macarios on April 12, 2018, 09:49:23 AM
Here are some of them:

Name     Common name                Orbit inc 

04016A  DIRECTV 7S                -119.1  0.0
10010A  ECHOSTAR 14               -118.9  0.0
02006A  ECHOSTAR 7                -118.8  0.0
07009A  ANIK F3                   -118.7  0.0
16038B  EUTELSAT 117 WEST B       -117.0  0.0
13012A  EUTELSAT 117 WEST A       -116.8  0.0
13058A  SIRIUS FM-6               -116.1  0.0
06049A  XM-4 (BLUES)              -115.2  0.0
11059A  VIASAT-1                  -115.1  0.0
15010B  EUTELSAT 115 WEST B       -114.9  0.0
12075B  MEXSAT 3                  -114.8  0.0
15056A  MORELOS 3                 -113.1  6.2
06020A  EUTELSAT 113 WEST A       -113.0  0.0
06054A  WILDBLUE-1                -111.2  0.0
04027A  ANIK F2                   -111.1  0.0
09035A  TERRESTAR-1               -111.0  2.7
06003A  ECHOSTAR 10               -110.2  0.0
02023A  DIRECTV 5 (TEMPO 1)       -110.1  0.0
08035A  ECHOSTAR 11               -110.0  0.0
99059A  TELSTAR 12 (ORION 2)      -109.2  1.4
96022A  MSAT M1                   -107.5  8.1
13014A  ANIK G1                   -107.3  0.0
05036A  ANIK F1R                  -107.3  0.0
00076A  ANIK F1                   -107.3  0.0
12035A  ECHOSTAR 17               -107.1  0.0
04041A  AMC-15                    -105.1  0.0
17063A  SES-11 (ECHOSTAR 105)     -105.0  0.1
06054B  AMC-18                    -104.9  0.0
09033A  GOES 14                   -104.3  0.1
95019A  AMSC 1                    -103.3 10.3
11035A  SES-3                     -103.0  0.1
05015A  SPACEWAY 1                -102.9  0.0
07032A  DIRECTV 10                -102.8  0.0
09075A  DIRECTV 12                -102.8  0.0
15026A  DIRECTV 15                -102.8  0.0
10005A  SDO                       -101.9 29.0
10061A  SKYTERRA 1                -101.3  3.0
01052A  DIRECTV 4S                -101.2  0.0
06043A  DIRECTV 9S                -101.1  0.0
10016A  SES-1                     -101.0  0.0
05019A  DIRECTV 8                 -100.9  0.0
14078B  DIRECTV 14                 -99.2  0.0
08013A  DIRECTV 11                 -99.2  0.0
05046B  SPACEWAY 2                 -99.1  0.0
06023A  GALAXY 16 (G-16)           -99.0  0.0
08039A  INMARSAT 4-F3              -98.0  3.0
16079A  ECHOSTAR 19                -97.1  0.0
08045A  GALAXY 19 (G-19)           -97.0  0.0
00038A  ECHOSTAR 6                 -96.2  4.6
14062A  INTELSAT 30 (IS-30)        -95.0  0.0
16035A  INTELSAT 31 (IS-31)        -95.0  0.0
02030A  GALAXY 3C (G-3C)           -95.0  0.0
07036A  SPACEWAY 3                 -94.9  0.0
97026A  GALAXY 25 (G-25)           -93.1  0.0
08016A  ICO G1                     -92.8  3.8
00046A  BRASILSAT B4               -92.0  2.1
12026A  NIMIQ 6                    -91.1  0.0
07016B  GALAXY 17 (G-17)           -91.0  0.0
05022A  GALAXY 28 (G-28)           -89.0  0.0
13075A  TKSAT-1 (TUPAC KATARI)     -87.2  0.0
11049A  SES-2                      -87.0  0.0
99027A  NIMIQ 1                    -86.5  0.0
03033A  ECHOSTAR 12 (RAINBOW 1)    -86.4  0.0
09034A  SIRIUS FM-5                -86.1  0.0
10053A  XM-5                       -85.2  0.0
05008A  XM-3 (RHYTHM)              -85.1  0.0
04048A  AMC-16                     -85.0  0.0
97002A  AMC-2 (GE-2)               -84.9  4.7
16082B  STAR ONE D1                -84.0  0.0
00067A  AMC-6 (GE-6)               -83.0  0.0
08044A  NIMIQ 4                    -81.9  0.0
15054B  ARSAT 2                    -81.0  0.0
15026B  SKY MEXICO-1               -78.8  0.0
08055A  VENESAT-1                  -77.9  0.0
11054A  QUETZSAT 1                 -77.0  0.0
10006A  INTELSAT 16 (IS-16)        -76.2  0.0
16071A  GOES 16                    -75.2  0.0
12062A  STAR ONE C3                -75.0  0.0
17023B  SGDC                       -74.8  0.0
06018A  GOES 13                    -74.6  0.3
14011A  AMAZONAS 4A                -74.0  0.1
94070A  ASTRA 1D                   -73.0  7.9
09050A  NIMIQ 5                    -72.7  0.0
97050A  AMC-3 (GE-3)               -72.0  0.8
14062B  ARSAT 1                    -71.8  0.0
15034B  STAR ONE C4                -70.0  0.0
08018B  STAR ONE C2                -70.0  0.0
95016A  BRASILSAT B2               -68.0  7.5
17017A  SES-10                     -66.9  0.0
16014A  EUTELSAT 65 WEST A         -65.2  0.0
07056A  STAR ONE C1                -65.0  0.0
98006A  BRASILSAT B3               -63.2  4.4
11021A  TELSTAR 14R                -63.0  0.0
88091B  TDRS 3                     -62.5 14.4
10034A  ECHOSTAR 15                -61.7  0.0
12065A  ECHOSTAR 16                -61.5  0.0
16039B  ECHOSTAR 18                -61.3  0.0
09054A  AMAZONAS 2                 -61.0  0.0
17053A  AMAZONAS 5                 -61.0  0.0
13006A  AMAZONAS 3                 -61.0  0.0
12045A  INTELSAT 21 (IS-21)        -58.0  0.0
15039A  INTELSAT 34 (IS-34)        -55.5  0.0
15005A  INMARSAT 5-F2              -55.0  0.0
98006B  INMARSAT 3-F5              -54.0  3.0
12057A  INTELSAT 23 (IS-23)        -53.0  0.0
16004A  INTELSAT 29E (IS-29E)      -50.0  0.0

(from: http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm (http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm))

These are nothing more than reflection coordinates off the dome. You act like this is science, no it's spooky demon BS.

Yes, and all of those reflecting points have tons of different transmitters directed to them.
Put small mirror on ceiling and see from how many points you have to shine small laser to cover the whole floor.

So, for satellite above Congo receivers in Libya have transmitters in Soth Africa and vice versa. :)
And to cover reception in Saudi Arabia they had to put tons of transmitters in South Atlantic. :)

And then explain how they managed to make those "reflection points" look like they are 35 786 kilometers above the Equator, if "dome" is only 6305 kilometers high.

You are not trying to prove anything.
You are only trying to convince those who don't know enough.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: StinkyOne on April 12, 2018, 12:20:51 PM
When you know where the information bounces off the dome, it's very easy to require someone to use that area to broadcast their signals. Charge them 10's of millions for satellite time or even a whole one blasted up to this imaginary space in the universe. Point your round funny disks at the reflection and boom, futbol.....

Who would know the diff?

Not any of the knuckle draggers here.

You can't bounce radio waves off of glass. They pass right through glass. Ever wonder how you're able to listen to the radio in your home? The radio waves passed right through the wood and glass of your house. You should stick to things you know about instead of just spouting nonsense. The spouting makes you look unintelligent and hurts any point you're trying to make.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on April 12, 2018, 01:01:30 PM
The 2000 year old documents suggest the dome is of sapphire stone which we all know has tremendous communication features. Also has aluminum oxide contents, where do we hear of those also? Chemtrails, those nano particles you suck in and eat everyday. Thanks for playing stinker.....
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on April 12, 2018, 01:33:52 PM
Yeah. Who needs modern science when we have 2000 year old documents which are clearly not written to be scientific texts?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: StinkyOne on April 12, 2018, 02:47:36 PM
The 2000 year old documents suggest the dome is of sapphire stone which we all know has tremendous communication features. Also has aluminum oxide contents, where do we hear of those also? Chemtrails, those nano particles you suck in and eat everyday. Thanks for playing stinker.....

So now it is sapphire and not glass? Why do we need chemtrails to bounce radio waves off of if we have a sapphire dome that does the job? Would you like to make any more weird unfounded pronouncements?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Spycrab on April 12, 2018, 03:53:39 PM
The 2000 year old documents suggest the dome is of sapphire stone which we all know has tremendous communication features. Also has aluminum oxide contents, where do we hear of those also? Chemtrails, those nano particles you suck in and eat everyday. Thanks for playing stinker.....
Well, J-man...
Have you observed any of this?
Can you link to anyone who has?
What are these nano particles made of? Aluminum oxide?
Where are they manufactured? Do they form naturally?
How are they distributed? Are they distributed?
Are they spread equally? By whom?
Where are the most/least of them?
How do they function? Who invented them?
What do they do within the body to poison someone?
How to aviod them if they are in the air? Can they be avoided?
When was the dome discovered? By whom?
How long has it been used for communication? What method? Who invented that method?
When was it created?
How was it created?
Who created it?
and please provide proof.

Also, "as we all know" yeah no.
I looked around on google and found nothing about sapphire being good for communications.
And aluminum oxide is most often used as 'corundum' in its crystalline form for sandpaper and exfoliation, as well as an ingredient in dental cements.
It's not poisonous, we use it all the time.
By the way, it turns out the sapphire dome is also made out of chemtrails, as one of Al2O3 crystalline forms is the titular sapphire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxide)
Have fun, J-man.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Macarios on April 12, 2018, 11:36:32 PM
The 2000 year old documents suggest the dome is of sapphire stone which we all know has tremendous communication features. Also has aluminum oxide contents, where do we hear of those also? Chemtrails, those nano particles you suck in and eat everyday. Thanks for playing stinker.....

So, if every part of the "dome" reflects radio waves that well, why we lose signal when move dish for more than one degree? :)
Why do we have to aim so precisely?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on April 13, 2018, 08:29:45 AM
I wonder how heavy a dome made of sapphire would be. Is there any way that material (or any material we know about) is strong enough to be that big and not fall apart?
Beyond my abilities to work that out but I suspect not.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: SpaceCadet on April 13, 2018, 10:27:54 AM
I wonder how heavy a dome made of sapphire would be. Is there any way that material (or any material we know about) is strong enough to be that big and not fall apart?
Beyond my abilities to work that out but I suspect not.

That would be because apparently the dome was created by someone with much greater abilities than yours.
As to the sapphire, we can blame that on Apple trying to use sapphire glass for their communication devices. The best I could find was using saphire as a substrate in semi conductors because of its excellent electrical insulating properties and high thermal conductivity.

So, no. A sapphire dome doesn't help you bounce radio signals.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Morgenstund on April 14, 2018, 12:46:51 PM
I wonder how heavy a dome made of sapphire would be. Is there any way that material (or any material we know about) is strong enough to be that big and not fall apart?
Beyond my abilities to work that out but I suspect not.
[parody/]
Easy. A vacuum surrounding the dome prevents it from collapsing. Yes, it sucks on the outside!
[/parody]
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Stagiri on April 14, 2018, 01:51:21 PM
I wonder how heavy a dome made of sapphire would be. Is there any way that material (or any material we know about) is strong enough to be that big and not fall apart?
Beyond my abilities to work that out but I suspect not.

There are too many variables, we would have to know the diameter, the height and the thickness of the dome.
Nonetheless, I think it is quite unrealistic.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: JohnAdams1145 on April 15, 2018, 10:08:54 AM
Unrealistic, but not impossible. It's true that such a structure could hardly be self-supporting; the materials would need to have (literally) astronomical compressive strength. I would even chance that no material known to man has the requisite strength to build such a large dome. But you can solve all of these problems much like how they're solved in a Dyson sphere: just keep everything in orbit.

It also turns out that if we just randomly assert (without proof and contrary to many observations and logic) that the air pressure is high up there, the air could keep it inflated, like a balloon.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Macarios on April 15, 2018, 07:02:33 PM
Unrealistic, but not impossible. It's true that such a structure could hardly be self-supporting; the materials would need to have (literally) astronomical compressive strength. I would even chance that no material known to man has the requisite strength to build such a large dome. But you can solve all of these problems much like how they're solved in a Dyson sphere: just keep everything in orbit.

It also turns out that if we just randomly assert (without proof and contrary to many observations and logic) that the air pressure is high up there, the air could keep it inflated, like a balloon.

The air would from one side have "dome" and from the other what?
What would keep the pressure?

If "dome" is 6305 kilometers high, where is the air at more than 100 kilometers above the ground?
Density of air drops and can support balloons only for up to 32.9 miles, which is the world record for now.

Knowing that one cubic meter of air has mass of 1.293 kilograms, and one cubic meter of helium 0.1785 kilograms, it would
allow helium balloons to go all the way up to "dome" if the air pressure/density wasn't decreasing too much above 50 kilometers.
Balloon travellers would also have what to breathe.

In reality air pressure is way too low to breathe, with or without oxygen.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on April 16, 2018, 02:52:28 AM
Couple things we know. If the earth were stable, immovable, stationary, still, not moving then of course satellites couldn't and don't exist. They would be a hoax by none other than the devil and his demons trying to make us believe we were not created by God and are not very very special. But alas this sweet Dr. has some words for you which confirm what I've been saying. Some parts of the Bible (God's Word) are over 3400 years old and the creator has promised all of us that this word would never be changed throughout time and death is the punishment for even trying sucker. So the Bible is the same as it has always been not like the lies of the globe model goofs. If a satellite or a Tesla were shot up in the air really really high, guess what? The fall back to earth........

Turn the volume waaaay up ! It just might stink in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn6DM3ZNfSA

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Stagiri on April 16, 2018, 05:36:45 AM
Some parts of the Bible (God's Word) are over 3400 years old and the creator has promised all of us that this word would never be changed throughout time and death is the punishment for even trying sucker. So the Bible is the same as it has always been not like the lies of the globe model goofs.

And what proof do you have that this interpretation is correct?

Just the sole fact someone uses words of the Bible doesn't necessarily make his/her argument correct.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on April 16, 2018, 07:59:13 AM
Couple things we know. If the earth were stable, immovable, stationary, still, not moving then of course satellites couldn't and don't exist. They would be a hoax by none other than the devil and his demons trying to make us believe we were not created by God and are not very very special. But alas this sweet Dr. has some words for you which confirm what I've been saying. Some parts of the Bible (God's Word) are over 3400 years old and the creator has promised all of us that this word would never be changed throughout time and death is the punishment for even trying sucker. So the Bible is the same as it has always been not like the lies of the globe model goofs. If a satellite or a Tesla were shot up in the air really really high, guess what? The fall back to earth........

Turn the volume waaaay up ! It just might stink in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn6DM3ZNfSA

Well, he sounds 50 Shades of Crazy.
Even the Catholics have admitted they got this wrong.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

The Bible is not a science book, dude.

"The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go..."
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on April 16, 2018, 08:02:21 AM
none other than the devil and his demons trying to make us believe we were not created by God and are not very very special. Some parts of the Bible (God's Word) are over 3400 years old and the creator has promised all of us that this word would never be changed throughout time and death is the punishment for even trying sucker. So the Bible is the same as it has always been not like the lies of the globe model goofs.
I guess you have missed the memo that Christians disagree with you.

I don't know where you claim this knowledge from, unless you can let us know how you have observed or experienced this.

0.00018% of Christians believe in Flat Earth, so your rambling whilst in accordance with Proverbs 10:8 is only shared by who exactly? Now I would like if you were to help me, but your behaviour if unfortunately very unhelpful.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Macarios on April 16, 2018, 09:37:24 AM
Couple things we know. If the earth were stable, immovable, stationary, still, not moving then of course satellites couldn't and don't exist. They would be a hoax by none other than the devil and his demons trying to make us believe we were not created by God and are not very very special. But alas this sweet Dr. has some words for you which confirm what I've been saying. Some parts of the Bible (God's Word) are over 3400 years old and the creator has promised all of us that this word would never be changed throughout time and death is the punishment for even trying sucker. So the Bible is the same as it has always been not like the lies of the globe model goofs. If a satellite or a Tesla were shot up in the air really really high, guess what? The fall back to earth........

Turn the volume waaaay up ! It just might stink in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn6DM3ZNfSA

Yes: GEOCENTRIC.
Not Flat.
Do you even know the difference?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: douglips on April 17, 2018, 07:21:49 AM
Some parts of the Bible (God's Word) are over 3400 years old and the creator has promised all of us that this word would never be changed throughout time and death is the punishment for even trying sucker. So the Bible is the same as it has always been...

Which bible? The Catholic bible? The Protestant bible? King James or International Standard or something else?

Before the new testament, the bible was just the old testament. The new testament changed it, so the bible is not the same as it has always been. The entire point of Jesus' life was to change the bible.

English didn't exist when Jesus lived. Which bible exactly are you talking about that has never changed?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on April 20, 2018, 01:01:52 AM
There is well over a dozen good fake satellite videos. One of the problems with flat earth research is you tube deletes many every month. There is a guy who tracks the deletion, do your research and call Alice.

The White Alice Secret base bouncing signals off dome in Alaska. Feed your Mind...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iibeTxX7CCI

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Macarios on April 20, 2018, 02:47:39 AM
There is well over a dozen good fake satellite videos. One of the problems with flat earth research is you tube deletes many every month. There is a guy who tracks the deletion, do your research and call Alice.

The White Alice Secret base bouncing signals off dome in Alaska. Feed your Mind...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iibeTxX7CCI

Now make yourself a diagram:
How many of those "secret bases" are needed to cover every receiver with appropriate angle of reception?
Where each of them should be for each receiver?
hehehe
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: keith richmond on April 20, 2018, 08:41:37 AM
arent satalites in space how could you see them on earth?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Stagiri on April 20, 2018, 08:49:58 AM
arent satalites in space how could you see them on earth?

Telescopes
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on April 20, 2018, 08:57:54 AM
There is well over a dozen good fake satellite videos.

I'm tempted to say "Is that ALL?"

There's a satellite industry in every civilised country of the world, with designers, manufacturers, operators and end-users employing uplink hardware, fixed and portable dishes, downlink stations, and all manner of other hardware and software.

You can hire your own uplink truck.

http://www.sngbroadcast.com/ - in the UK
https://www.productionhub.com/directory/profiles/rentals-satellite-uplink-equipment-sat-trucks-ku-band/us/florida - in Florida
http://www.cameracrew.it/uplink_sat.html - in Italy
etc
etc

You can rent time for uplinking to satellites;
https://www.sislive.tv/solution/satellite-solutions/

You can calculate how much your satellite bandwidth will cost you, depending on your data configuration;
https://www.satcomresources.com/tools/satellite-bandwidth-calculator

I could go on like this all day, finding more and more independent links to other operators and users elsewhere in the world, adding to the absolute mountain of real-world proof that tramps all over those dozen or so mis-informed YouTube videos...... but I get the feeling that none of this will convince you.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on April 20, 2018, 09:00:50 AM
arent satalites in space how could you see them on earth?

Are satellites in space.

You could see them with binoculars, telescopes, and with the naked eye, in the case of the ISS

Here's a couple of independent operators who track them with telescopes and with lasers;

Telescope; Planewavemedia on YouTube

Laser; http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on April 21, 2018, 08:12:13 AM
There is well over a dozen good fake satellite videos. One of the problems with flat earth research is you tube deletes many every month. There is a guy who tracks the deletion, do your research and call Alice.

The White Alice Secret base bouncing signals off dome in Alaska. Feed your Mind...
J-Man I ask, have you ever seen observed any of what the man with the fake voice in the video talks about. (Actually he is not even in the video he just pretends the video tells what he believes, he says this over and over again: "I believe")

Have you visited the Alaska sites you talk about and seen that they are true? Spreading conjecture and speculation is against Flat Earth principles.

I am being told the sites are no longer in use, are vandalised and no longer considered safe.

Also have you ever seen, observed the troposcatter links that make me watch my Formula 1 show when I point my dish at the precise single spot in the sky?

You state communications can be done very easy, very cheaply. Where are the large numbers of entrepreneurs that enter this low-cost market to broadcast all over the earth? The expensive rocket and satellite business would be outcompeted before long. Have you ever seen, observed this to be done easily, cheaply, other than your abandoned, vandalised, dismantled Alaska site?

Occam's Razor leads us to believe that you are still just babbling away. Not helpful. (Proverbs 10:8 ).
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on April 21, 2018, 09:25:37 AM
They are a hoax. Gps is simply ground based.
Breaking news: Uber is part of the conspiracy!

Uber website - Rethinking GPS (https://eng.uber.com/rethinking-gps/): "GPS is a network of 30 satellites."

Uber states they have next-gen location technology based on where they think satellites are:
(https://eng.uber.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/image3.gif)

Uber:
(https://eng.uber.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/image8-768x432.jpg)







Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Pickel B Gravel on April 29, 2018, 04:05:14 AM
Flying around looking for sats, I could find none, no one can. They are a hoax. Gps is simply ground based. Enjoy, and hit this guys videos and learn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS4jPjs6JPw

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of satellites existing. It wouldn't debunk a flat earth. However, there simply is no evidence for satellites. Round earthers will often cite sources that list the time and location to track certain satellites. However, this doesn't prove that the objects seen are heavier-than-air objects floating around a spherical earth. These objects could very well be balloons that NASA routinely deploys into the atmosphere in order to give viewers the impression that satellites are real.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on April 29, 2018, 04:48:18 AM
Flying around looking for sats, I could find none, no one can. They are a hoax. Gps is simply ground based. Enjoy, and hit this guys videos and learn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS4jPjs6JPw

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of satellites existing. It wouldn't debunk a flat earth. However, there simply is no evidence for satellites. Round earthers will often cite sources that list the time and location to track certain satellites. However, this doesn't prove that the objects seen are heavier-than-air objects floating around a spherical earth. These objects could very well be balloons that NASA routinely deploys into the atmosphere in order to give viewers the impression that satellites are real.
Clearly satellites exist for communication, broadcast and navigation.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on April 29, 2018, 07:17:51 AM
there simply is no evidence for satellites.

 ???

What the f*** is my satellite dish pointing at then? And how does GPS work? And where do all those satellite photos used in weather reports come from.
And how come you can SEE the ISS if you know what you're doing, exactly where NASA say it's going to be and going at significant speed?
And where are all those rockets going which people keep witnessing the launches of?
No evidence? Behave.

Quote
Round earthers will often cite sources that list the time and location to track certain satellites. However, this doesn't prove that the objects seen are heavier-than-air objects floating around a spherical earth. These objects could very well be balloons that NASA routinely deploys into the atmosphere in order to give viewers the impression that satellites are real.

OK, to play your game...there is no evidence that they are balloons. I'm pretty sure it would be technically impossible to have balloons which float around in unpredictable ways depending on wind providing things like GPS, Satellite TV, meteorology photos and faking the ISS and all in locations accurate enough to do all this. 
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on April 29, 2018, 07:46:48 AM
These objects could very well be balloons that NASA routinely deploys into the atmosphere in order to give viewers the impression that satellites are real.

Hogwash. Balloons don't behave like that. If they were balloons, they would not stick to defined paths. They would be at the mercy of wind and weather.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ

Also,

http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/



.... and why is it always and only about NASA, when most of the satellite launches in the past, and upcoming, are/were non-NASA craft?

... and, as I posted elsewhere;

There are a host of independent operators who track these craft.
There's a satellite industry in most all civilised countries of the world.
You can buy the radio amateur equipment to listen in to transmissions from the ISS as it goes by.
You can hire/buy your own satellite uplink/downlink truck, in pretty much any locale of the world.
You can buy/rent a portable satellite rig, such as that used by remote news gathering crews, and buy/rent airtime on comms satellites to transmit whatever you want to a remote location elsewhere.
You can buy tracking telescopes, which can track moving satellites across the sky for you.
You can photograph the geostationary satellites with the most basic consumer-grade cameras.
etc
etc
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Bobby Shafto on April 29, 2018, 02:59:44 PM
Public company duping it's shareholders by pretending that it is using satellites in order to cover up its secret method for providing a communications service to its customers:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/viasat-2-high-speed-internet-satellite-network-comes-online.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/viasat-2-high-speed-internet-satellite-network-comes-online.html)

Seems quite a lot of trouble to go through. Not just the public and shareholders, but the employees are being duped too.

Really?



Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on April 30, 2018, 01:14:38 PM
These objects could very well be balloons that NASA routinely deploys into the atmosphere in order to give viewers the impression that satellites are real.

Impossible. It is impossible to keep balloons moving in a steady, unchanged direction, like satellites do. Balloons will be moved around by the wind and blown in every direction, you cannot keep it steady. This is not only a problem for those tracking satellites (which thousands do every night), but also those using GPS, satellite TV, etc.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Spycrab on April 30, 2018, 05:23:04 PM
These objects could very well be balloons that NASA routinely deploys into the atmosphere in order to give viewers the impression that satellites are real.

Impossible. It is impossible to keep balloons moving in a steady, unchanged direction, like satellites do. Balloons will be moved around by the wind and blown in every direction, you cannot keep it steady. This is not only a problem for those tracking satellites (which thousands do every night), but also those using GPS, satellite TV, etc.
Now hang on there nick, let's play some devil's advocate.
You see, this is plausible in the flat earth model. Whatever force makes the sun and moon spin also could rotate the balloons.
Being lighter than air, they could sit on top of the atmosphere and rotate. (though pressure becomes a problem, they'd pop)
Also there's no wind in space.

In actuality though, balloons cannot replicate satellites.
Plus, if they can send up fake satellites that can hang in the air perpetually, rotating over the earth, couldn't they just send up real satellites?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on May 01, 2018, 01:52:51 AM
These objects could very well be balloons that NASA routinely deploys into the atmosphere in order to give viewers the impression that satellites are real.

Impossible. It is impossible to keep balloons moving in a steady, unchanged direction, like satellites do. Balloons will be moved around by the wind and blown in every direction, you cannot keep it steady. This is not only a problem for those tracking satellites (which thousands do every night), but also those using GPS, satellite TV, etc.
Now hang on there nick, let's play some devil's advocate.
You see, this is plausible in the flat earth model. Whatever force makes the sun and moon spin also could rotate the balloons.
Being lighter than air, they could sit on top of the atmosphere and rotate. (though pressure becomes a problem, they'd pop)
Also there's no wind in space.

Of course! How could I be so stupid?

Quote
In actuality though, balloons cannot replicate satellites.
Plus, if they can send up fake satellites that can hang in the air perpetually, rotating over the earth, couldn't they just send up real satellites?

Also a good point. Why can't they just put real ones up? Why go through the whole process of faking it?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: iamcpc on May 01, 2018, 07:10:07 PM
Flying around looking for sats, I could find none, no one can. They are a hoax. Gps is simply ground based. Enjoy, and hit this guys videos and learn.



Did you know that you can an object most commonly referred to as the international space station with the naked eye?
If you use binoculars or a telescope you can really see it.

Since satellites don't exist what is this thing that the government is calling the "international space station" that I am able to see?

It was not there in 1980. When did it get there? How did it get there? If it's man made then it's a satellite by definition.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Pickel B Gravel on May 03, 2018, 12:36:32 AM
Flying around looking for sats, I could find none, no one can. They are a hoax. Gps is simply ground based. Enjoy, and hit this guys videos and learn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS4jPjs6JPw

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of satellites existing. It wouldn't debunk a flat earth. However, there simply is no evidence for satellites. Round earthers will often cite sources that list the time and location to track certain satellites. However, this doesn't prove that the objects seen are heavier-than-air objects floating around a spherical earth. These objects could very well be balloons that NASA routinely deploys into the atmosphere in order to give viewers the impression that satellites are real.
Clearly satellites exist for communication, broadcast and navigation.

Why do you believe that?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Pickel B Gravel on May 03, 2018, 01:05:15 AM
Allaroundthewlrld,
Quote
???

What the f*** is my satellite dish pointing at then?
G
The sky. More specifically, equipped balloons or a specific location in the sky where local radio towers send signals that bounce off the ionosphere.

Quote
And how does GPS work?

GPS doesn't need satellite.

Quote
And where do all those satellite photos used in weather reports come from.


In some cases, high altitude balloons. In other cases (like NASA earth images), faked images.

Quote
And how come you can SEE the ISS if you know what you're doing, exactly where NASA say it's going to be and going at significant speed?

The ISS could very well be a natural space object (like an asteroid). It could be anything really. You could also see Venus exactly where NASA says it can be seen. Movements of heavenly bodies can be predicted with amazing accuracy.

Quote
And where are all those rockets going which people keep witnessing the launches of?
No evidence? Behave.

They're cheap rockets for show. They probably land in some remote location on earth. Have you actuallly observed a rocket on the moon?

Quote
OK, to play your game...there is no evidence that they are balloons.

They may or may not be balloons. I just offered balloons as an alternative explanation. They could very well be be little asteroid-like objects with the ability to reflect microwaves and radio waves.

Quote
I'm pretty sure it would be technically impossible to have balloons which float around in unpredictable ways depending on wind providing things like GPS, Satellite TV, meteorology photos and faking the ISS and all in locations accurate enough to do all this.

That's your opinion.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 03, 2018, 01:16:13 AM

The sky. More specifically, equipped balloons or a specific location in the sky where local radio towers send signals that bounce off the ionosphere.


Ionosphere?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Pickel B Gravel on May 03, 2018, 01:31:08 AM
iamcpc,

Quote
Since satellites don't exist what is this thing that the government is calling the "international space station" that I am able to see?

It could very well be an abnormally shaped asteroid-like space object.

Quote
It was not there in 1980. When did it get there? How did it get there? If it's man made then it's a satellite by definition.

If it's a natural space object, then it was always there. We just didn't discover it until 1980. Or possibly it was captured by the earth around that time.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Pickel B Gravel on May 03, 2018, 01:36:10 AM

The sky. More specifically, equipped balloons or a specific location in the sky where local radio towers send signals that bounce off the ionosphere.


Ionosphere?

It's a natural layer of the earth's atmosphere that can reflect radio waves. It's used to send radio signals around world.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Pickel B Gravel on May 03, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
Tumeni,
Quote
Hogwash. Balloons don't behave like that. If they were balloons, they would not stick to defined paths. They would be at the mercy of wind and weather.

Some balloons like blimps can be maneuvered on a defined path quite nicely actually.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on May 03, 2018, 07:28:54 AM
Tumeni,
Quote
Hogwash. Balloons don't behave like that. If they were balloons, they would not stick to defined paths. They would be at the mercy of wind and weather.

Some balloons like blimps can be maneuvered on a defined path quite nicely actually.
But are not used for broadcast, satellites are.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: douglips on May 03, 2018, 07:48:50 AM
Tumeni,
Quote
Hogwash. Balloons don't behave like that. If they were balloons, they would not stick to defined paths. They would be at the mercy of wind and weather.

Some balloons like blimps can be maneuvered on a defined path quite nicely actually.

I know you don't like to be accused of ad hoc fallacies, so I'm sure you've already accounted for this, but blimps travel at about 70 miles per hour, and can only travel mostly in a straight line, not exactly in a straight line. Compare to the ISS that travels a straight path predictably at tens of thousands of miles per hour.

Blimps also have endurance issues due to fuel consumption or helium leaks.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on May 03, 2018, 08:15:03 AM
iamcpc,

Quote
Since satellites don't exist what is this thing that the government is calling the "international space station" that I am able to see?

It could very well be an abnormally shaped asteroid-like space object.

Quote
It was not there in 1980. When did it get there? How did it get there? If it's man made then it's a satellite by definition.

If it's a natural space object, then it was always there. We just didn't discover it until 1980. Or possibly it was captured by the earth around that time.

OK. I'm outta here. You're either a troll or off your meds or both.
You have the temerity to say there is "no evidence" for satellites (which is bullshit, there's a ridiculous amount of evidence) and then spout a load of conjecture about balloons or natural space objects which you literally have no evidence for.

 ???
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Spycrab on May 03, 2018, 01:10:12 PM
iamcpc,

Quote
Since satellites don't exist what is this thing that the government is calling the "international space station" that I am able to see?

It could very well be an abnormally shaped asteroid-like space object.

Quote
It was not there in 1980. When did it get there? How did it get there? If it's man made then it's a satellite by definition.

If it's a natural space object, then it was always there. We just didn't discover it until 1980. Or possibly it was captured by the earth around that time.

OK. I'm outta here. You're either a troll or off your meds or both.
You have the temerity to say there is "no evidence" for satellites (which is bullshit, there's a ridiculous amount of evidence) and then spout a load of conjecture about balloons or natural space objects which you literally have no evidence for.

 ???
Also, if they're balloons lauched by the 'space travel conspiracists', then they're satellites by definition.
Also also, if there's an ionosphere, there's an atmosphere, so there's a sphere.
Also also also, how does ground-based gps work? We know the logistics of satellite gps, but mysteriously the """""""true""""""" method is unexplained.
Also also also also,
It's a natural layer of the earth's atmosphere that can reflect radio waves. It's used to send radio signals around world.
seems like you don't believe the flatness you preach.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on May 04, 2018, 12:42:04 PM
They're cheap rockets for show.
Hi Pickel B. I like you don't accept things without evidence. Our knowledge is gained by what we see and observe. Otherwise we must leave subject unknown.

I just want to say that not 'cheap' as you say. Look at list of members involved in public faking of space travel (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9475.msg147958#msg147958).

They probably like you not taking them seriously, because allows them to continue their faking without too much attention.

Also, be careful when you engage in rationalization - conjecture and speculation. Balloons etc. asteroids, you have not seen them either. Might be better to just leave subject unknown rather than speculate what you think is.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tontogary on May 06, 2018, 08:23:54 AM
Allaroundthewlrld,
Quote
???

What the f*** is my satellite dish pointing at then?
G
The sky. More specifically, equipped balloons or a specific location in the sky where local radio towers send signals that bounce off the ionosphere.

Quote
And how does GPS work?

GPS doesn't need satellite.

Quote
And where do all those satellite photos used in weather reports come from.


In some cases, high altitude balloons. In other cases (like NASA earth images), faked images.

Quote
And how come you can SEE the ISS if you know what you're doing, exactly where NASA say it's going to be and going at significant speed?

The ISS could very well be a natural space object (like an asteroid). It could be anything really. You could also see Venus exactly where NASA says it can be seen. Movements of heavenly bodies can be predicted with amazing accuracy.

Quote
And where are all those rockets going which people keep witnessing the launches of?
No evidence? Behave.

They're cheap rockets for show. They probably land in some remote location on earth. Have you actuallly observed a rocket on the moon?

Quote
OK, to play your game...there is no evidence that they are balloons.

They may or may not be balloons. I just offered balloons as an alternative explanation. They could very well be be little asteroid-like objects with the ability to reflect microwaves and radio waves.

Quote
I'm pretty sure it would be technically impossible to have balloons which float around in unpredictable ways depending on wind providing things like GPS, Satellite TV, meteorology photos and faking the ISS and all in locations accurate enough to do all this.

That's your opinion.

So it is your claim that GPS doesn’t need satellites to work. You will need to back that up.

Exactly how does a person, lets say 1000 miles west of Perth Australia get their position from the “magic” box that is called GPS?
There are no land based towers out there, no cell phone reception, just water for 1000 miles all around.
You obviously know how it works in order to make such a statement, so please enlighten me?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on May 19, 2018, 02:54:16 AM
More flat earth fake sats with employee interviews.  Bonus points for Antarctica

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bAa09jSR2I
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on May 19, 2018, 05:38:11 AM
More flat earth fake sats with employee interviews.  Bonus points for Antarctica

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bAa09jSR2I

How can we prove the person actually worked at NASA?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on May 19, 2018, 07:33:18 AM
More flat earth fake sats with employee interviews.  Bonus points for Antarctica

VID

Read the comments on the video. There are multiple contributors who assert the male is an out-an-out imposter, and that he's never been where he says he's been.

The lady's Linkedin profile shows that she last worked for anyone in 2012, a full six years ago.

She worked for NASA as a Computer Specialist Level II, from Nov 1996 – May 2000 

"IT Responsibilities; worked under the guidance of senior technicians, reviewing NASA’s computer systems, operating equipment and machinery. Examined customer requests, identified potential defects in machinery and provided routine maintenance support. Documented and resolved client operating problems. Communicated with customers to ensure operating systems and equipment was functional, learned about technical product features. Directly supported and interacted with computer servers and archival databases. Supported hardware and technical issues; such as computer tool kits, wire crimpers, screwdrivers and disaster recovery software. Served as a technical team member to support the needs of computer users at NASA. Responded to trouble calls logged into the Dryden provided reporting system. Diagnosed and repaired customer desktop applications. Logged, assigned and tracked all customer queries and trouble tickets.

As a computer and documentation specialist, developed clear, concise and accurate procedures, end-user instructions and system documentation as required. I worked with unique equipment at NASA. Some examples are: the SR-71 (Black Bird) Maintenance Data Processing (MDP), using a digital equipment corporation (DEC) VAX 8350 and a Versatec plotter. Operated maintained, serviced and supported installation and diagnosed problems with SNA printers and printers connected to Marshall Space Flight Center. Contacted service providers for equipment support as needed.

Served as System Administrator for computer backup/restore using Retrospect Software. Maintained the software and hardware used for the back-up system for entire NASA Center. Restored data, reviewed and updated client database daily."


Honestly, does this give her realistic credentials to pronounce whether or not satellites exist?

Her more recent employments have been as secretaries and admin assistants. Nothing of any substance.

And again... why is all about NASA? Most of the current and future satellite launches are not NASA craft. Most of the satellites already up there were not put there by NASA.

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/)
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Treep Ravisarras on June 04, 2018, 09:16:37 AM
I've started to build a picture of hoax (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9475.0). See here. You are correct, it is much bigger than NASA.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on June 04, 2018, 04:18:59 PM
I've started to build a picture of hoax (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9475.0). See here. You are correct, it is much bigger than NASA.

Interesting article. To me, a conspiracy that large would be impossible to keep secret, much less even coordinate.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on June 10, 2018, 12:49:01 AM
It's time for a couple good video's. The first proves without a doubt it's all fakery. You really can't convince someone with a working mind, the earth is a globe. Trust your senses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXUJbfD61fE



Bonus Video, treat yourself to Rob Skiba and all his good FE stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A1MuBapuWw
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on June 10, 2018, 12:59:20 AM
It's time for a couple good video's. The first proves without a doubt it's all fakery.

6.20 in the first one alleges that Peake is in front of a Chromakey Screen. It's blue with white gridlines.

I've searched for chromakey screens for sale, and general image searches for them, and I can't find any which are blue with white gridlines.

Conclusion; it's not a chromakey screen.

If this is the typical 'proof' offered by these videos, it's not worth having
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: nickrulercreator on June 10, 2018, 01:53:58 AM
There is no new evidence in those videos that hasn't been debunked.

Number three isn't even evidence. He just shows an astronaut flipping forward, and then a montage of people doing flips on wires. He provides no actual proof the astronaut is using wires.

Disappointing. I was hoping for something new.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: douglips on June 10, 2018, 03:38:05 AM
I love the video about how there is an ice wall so you can't fall off, but in the first clip it shows people being lifted from a boat onto the top of the ice wall.

If you can get on top of the wall and walk, why again can't you fall off?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: iamcpc on June 13, 2018, 12:04:11 AM


It could very well be an abnormally shaped asteroid-like space object.



This is what I saw with my telescope:
(I didn't personally take this picture but this is the same thing that I was able to see)

(https://i.imgur.com/xfmeOqc.jpg)

It's funny because it looks very similar to the pictures of the ISS that I've seen online. It's clearly highly reflective and large. It almost looks man made as no asteroids that I know of have large wing shaped solar panel looking things.

If it's a natural space object, then it was always there. We just didn't discover it until 1980. Or possibly it was captured by the earth around that time.

It's pretty hard to miss being visible to the naked eye and HIGHLY visible using any sort of telescope or binoculars. This would suggest that it was not there in the 80's .
Unless human eyes became 20 times stronger since then.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Round Eyes on June 13, 2018, 03:25:51 PM
not sure why people are talking about balloons, etc.

NASA doesnt even hide the fact they are using high altitutude planes.  website says 70,000 foot cruising altitude.  and also says they use them to "test" satellite sensor data, lol, ok.  even says they can fly for 6,000 miles at 410 knots (470 mph).  geez, sure does sound like a satellite.  the one they show even is similar to ISS, i am sure its just a different version of the same plane:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-046-DFRC.html


look at the second picture on that website the one on the right side of the page showing a pilot getting in the plane.  look at the large panel about him, looks just like the ISS picture's panel
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on June 13, 2018, 03:32:10 PM
not sure why people are talking about balloons, etc.

NASA doesnt even hide the fact they are using high altitutude planes.  website says 70,000 foot cruising altitude.  and also says they use them to "test" satellite sensor data, lol, ok.  even says they can fly for 6,000 miles at 410 knots (470 mph).  geez, sure does sound like a satellite.  the one they show even is similar to ISS, i am sure its just a different version of the same plane:

.. but there's only two of them.

look at the second picture on that website the one on the right side of the page showing a pilot getting in the plane.  look at the large panel about him, looks just like the ISS picture's panel

Looks nothing like it.

What are you suggesting? That when I aim my satellite dish from the UK to the south, that there's one of these NASA planes floating around over Portugal, Malta, or Africa to fill in the signal?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Round Eyes on June 13, 2018, 03:47:39 PM
not sure why people are talking about balloons, etc.

NASA doesnt even hide the fact they are using high altitutude planes.  website says 70,000 foot cruising altitude.  and also says they use them to "test" satellite sensor data, lol, ok.  even says they can fly for 6,000 miles at 410 knots (470 mph).  geez, sure does sound like a satellite.  the one they show even is similar to ISS, i am sure its just a different version of the same plane:

.. but there's only two of them.

look at the second picture on that website the one on the right side of the page showing a pilot getting in the plane.  look at the large panel about him, looks just like the ISS picture's panel

Looks nothing like it.

What are you suggesting? That when I aim my satellite dish from the UK to the south, that there's one of these NASA planes floating around over Portugal, Malta, or Africa to fill in the signal?

ok, sure, there's only "two" of them, if you believe that i got some waterfront property to sell you.  there is a huge fleet of them.  why do you think NASA and all the other space agencies budgets are so big?

it does look like it, at least the picture i referenced.  Are you really thinking NASA will have a picture of the exact one??  wow.

this is in response to the ISS and other low/medium and geosynchronous satelittes , not the geostationary ones (directv, etc).  thats a different system and i have not studied up on those.  I can only address the satelittes the closer ones
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on June 13, 2018, 06:21:24 PM
not sure why people are talking about balloons, etc.

NASA doesnt even hide the fact they are using high altitutude planes.  website says 70,000 foot cruising altitude.  and also says they use them to "test" satellite sensor data, lol, ok.  even says they can fly for 6,000 miles at 410 knots (470 mph).  geez, sure does sound like a satellite.  the one they show even is similar to ISS, i am sure its just a different version of the same plane:

.. but there's only two of them.

look at the second picture on that website the one on the right side of the page showing a pilot getting in the plane.  look at the large panel about him, looks just like the ISS picture's panel

Looks nothing like it.

What are you suggesting? That when I aim my satellite dish from the UK to the south, that there's one of these NASA planes floating around over Portugal, Malta, or Africa to fill in the signal?

ok, sure, there's only "two" of them, if you believe that i got some waterfront property to sell you.  there is a huge fleet of them.  why do you think NASA and all the other space agencies budgets are so big?

it does look like it, at least the picture i referenced.  Are you really thinking NASA will have a picture of the exact one??  wow.

this is in response to the ISS and other low/medium and geosynchronous satelittes , not the geostationary ones (directv, etc).  thats a different system and i have not studied up on those.  I can only address the satelittes the closer ones
My satnav shows the direction and movement of GPS satellites.  No doubt.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on June 14, 2018, 12:04:01 AM
ok, sure, there's only "two" of them, if you believe that i got some waterfront property to sell you.  there is a huge fleet of them. 

Hogwash. You're cherry-picking the pieces of the webpage that support you, and speculating variations on it to suit your viewpoint. NASA says they have these high-altitude planes. You believe that.  NASA says there's two of them. You disbelieve that and come out with unsupported assertion that there's many of them.  Where's your evidence  of more than two?

it does look like it, at least the picture i referenced. 

So you believe that picture, but not the other two in the webpage, which show the craft in flight? There's that selectiveness again. It looks NOTHING like an ISS solar panel. It's a pitched sunshade, to keep the pilot out of the sun while he boards the craft.....


Are you really thinking NASA will have a picture of the exact one??  wow.

Oh, wow - so they put up that webpage with a bunch of INEXACT ones, just to throw us off the scent? Really?

this is in response to the ISS and other low/medium and geosynchronous satelittes , not the geostationary ones (directv, etc).  thats a different system and i have not studied up on those.  I can only address the satelittes the closer ones

OK.

I used this site (https://in-the-sky.org/ (https://in-the-sky.org/)) to determine when to observe the ISS. It shows the path it will take across the sky, and also shows when it will disappear from view, as it goes into Earth's shadow. I look at this in advance, and it's never wrong. The ISS turns up, bang on time, every time. Never runs out of fuel, never deviates in its course, never varies from the path laid out in advance by the website.

I've even seen it twice in one evening, the two occurrences separated exactly by the published and predicted orbit time.

I've heard all the counter-arguments before - it's just a luminary, it's just a light in the sky, it's a plane/jet/balloon/hologram, etc etc. None of these fit with what I saw.

Got any new or less predictable ones?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: douglips on June 14, 2018, 02:25:33 AM
not sure why people are talking about balloons, etc.

NASA doesnt even hide the fact they are using high altitutude planes.  website says 70,000 foot cruising altitude.  and also says they use them to "test" satellite sensor data, lol, ok.  even says they can fly for 6,000 miles at 410 knots (470 mph).  geez, sure does sound like a satellite.  the one they show even is similar to ISS, i am sure its just a different version of the same plane:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-046-DFRC.html


look at the second picture on that website the one on the right side of the page showing a pilot getting in the plane.  look at the large panel about him, looks just like the ISS picture's panel

How long does it take an airplane travelling at 410 knots at 70,000 feet to cross the sky? How long does it take the ISS to cross the sky? Why are we able to predict exactly where the ISS will appear, day in and day out? http://www.isstracker.com/

Why can we never see two ISSs in the sky at the same time?

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on June 14, 2018, 10:25:25 AM
look at the second picture on that website the one on the right side of the page showing a pilot getting in the plane.  look at the large panel about him, looks just like the ISS picture's panel

Google image search "NASA ER-2 pilot"

Sunshade over cockpit, looks nothing like ISS solar panels;

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QZ8BWrOUzaI/U4pOUe-R-zI/AAAAAAAAVk8/WbQ1q2BBWuw/s1600/NASA+709.+80-1097+ER2.+CH+15-04-94.JPG)

Frame for sunshade

(https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/1-highflyingna.jpg)

..and the frame again

(https://jcet.umbc.edu/files/2018/04/ACEPOLgroup_Figure4.jpg)

...and the whole sunshade again

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MDC9G_SKaz0/U4xEv3I0fuI/AAAAAAAAVnQ/Cr2O-49BBO8/s1600/P1840778.JPG)
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Round Eyes on June 14, 2018, 12:30:46 PM
I used this site (https://in-the-sky.org/ (https://in-the-sky.org/)) to determine when to observe the ISS. It shows the path it will take across the sky, and also shows when it will disappear from view, as it goes into Earth's shadow. I look at this in advance, and it's never wrong. The ISS turns up, bang on time, every time. Never runs out of fuel, never deviates in its course, never varies from the path laid out in advance by the website.

I've even seen it twice in one evening, the two occurrences separated exactly by the published and predicted orbit time.

I've heard all the counter-arguments before - it's just a luminary, it's just a light in the sky, it's a plane/jet/balloon/hologram, etc etc. None of these fit with what I saw.

Got any new or less predictable ones?

everything you are saying can be explained with it being a high altitude plane that has very long flight durations.  they keep a plane in the air constantly with the nuclear launch codes as well.  an airport is much more complicated and they are able to keep thousands of flights pretty close to on schedule.  you can go outside and see an airplane on a projected path at a given time as well. I understand you flatly deny flat earth and my opinions, but you should try and be more rational.  everything you noted can be explained easily, which i have done.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Round Eyes on June 14, 2018, 12:33:58 PM
Google image search "NASA ER-2 pilot"

i am about done going back and forth with you on this, you are grasping here.  yes, thats an picture of the ER-2 airplane, great job.  Do you think its completely out of the realm that there is are multiple configurations of the plane, a newer version, more advanced versions that they wouldnt put on an internet page?  do you really thing NASA and the Gov't are open source and all technology is available with a google search??!  shoot, i bet you can just pull up the specs/design on all our nuclear weapons as well? 
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on June 14, 2018, 12:52:14 PM
everything you are saying can be explained with it being a high altitude plane that has very long flight durations.

Not consistent with what I saw. The ISS crossed my sky once, and then did it again, 90 mins or so later, moving in exactly the same direction as the first time. 90mins is not a 'very long flight duration'. Planes cannot cover that distance at that speed. The ISS is NEVER seen to change direction, nor go in an East-West direction. It's always going (roughly) West to East.

It wouldn't be possible for a plane to cross my sky, go back to its starting point, then cross my sky again, without either (1) going around the planet, or (2) changing direction and flying back to its starting point. If it did (2), then someone somewhere would have seen it do this. And why would it do this exclusively for me, at my observing position? If it did change direction out of my sight, it would have been in plain sight for someone somewhere else, surely?


"they keep a plane in the air constantly with the nuclear launch codes as well.  an airport is much more complicated and they are able to keep thousands of flights pretty close to on schedule.  you can go outside and see an airplane on a projected path at a given time as well."

I also see aircraft not going to schedule. I'm fairly close to an international airport, and when there's been disruption or emergency, I've seen stacks of planes in holding patterns around the airport. Nobody ever sees any deviation in the ISS trajectory. Never. Anywhere in the world. Besides which, the ISS is not "pretty close to on schedule" - it's bang on schedule, every day of the year. See the instances where amateur and pro photographers have used its "on schedule-ness" to capture it in transit over the sun and the moon.

I understand you flatly deny flat earth and my opinions, but you should try and be more rational.  everything you noted can be explained easily, which i have done.

No, you've merely introduced speculation about what you think COULD be done. You've provided no evidence it is actually done this way.

By all means, tell me which specifics I am being "irrational" about.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Curious Squirrel on June 14, 2018, 12:55:20 PM
Google image search "NASA ER-2 pilot"

i am about done going back and forth with you on this, you are grasping here.  yes, thats an picture of the ER-2 airplane, great job.  Do you think its completely out of the realm that there is are multiple configurations of the plane, a newer version, more advanced versions that they wouldnt put on an internet page?  do you really thing NASA and the Gov't are open source and all technology is available with a google search??!  shoot, i bet you can just pull up the specs/design on all our nuclear weapons as well?
No, it's not 100% guaranteed not possible. But you have yet to present a shred of evidence that such a plane exists beyond "Well, if it DID, it could totally do exactly what I'm saying." Do you not see the difference? You're the one grasping here. You have zero evidence of your claims of a high altitude plane that looks like the ISS. Multiple planes in fact. Yet you keep insisting that, just because there is a tiny sliver of a chance they could exist, you are absolutely positively right.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on June 14, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
i am about done going back and forth with you on this"

Well, that didn't take long ...

yes, thats an picture of the ER-2 airplane, great job.  Do you think its completely out of the realm that there is are multiple configurations of the plane, a newer version, more advanced versions that they wouldnt put on an internet page?

You're the one who claimed the sunshade "looked like an ISS panel" - all I'm doing is showing you that it really is JUST A SUNSHADE.

No, it's not impossible that there are more than two of these craft. But until you show that there are, it's (again) just speculation and "What if..." on your part.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Round Eyes on June 14, 2018, 02:03:52 PM
i am about done going back and forth with you on this"

Well, that didn't take long ...

yes, thats an picture of the ER-2 airplane, great job.  Do you think its completely out of the realm that there is are multiple configurations of the plane, a newer version, more advanced versions that they wouldnt put on an internet page?

You're the one who claimed the sunshade "looked like an ISS panel" - all I'm doing is showing you that it really is JUST A SUNSHADE.

No, it's not impossible that there are more than two of these craft. But until you show that there are, it's (again) just speculation and "What if..." on your part.

i have provided my proof and backup, go back and re-read my posts.  you are so quick to want to yell that you are right that you gloss over the posts and dont try to see the other side of the argument.  you ask for more clarification, i provide it, you then ignore it and keep yelling.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Round Eyes on June 14, 2018, 02:10:25 PM
Google image search "NASA ER-2 pilot"

i am about done going back and forth with you on this, you are grasping here.  yes, thats an picture of the ER-2 airplane, great job.  Do you think its completely out of the realm that there is are multiple configurations of the plane, a newer version, more advanced versions that they wouldnt put on an internet page?  do you really thing NASA and the Gov't are open source and all technology is available with a google search??!  shoot, i bet you can just pull up the specs/design on all our nuclear weapons as well?
No, it's not 100% guaranteed not possible. But you have yet to present a shred of evidence that such a plane exists beyond "Well, if it DID, it could totally do exactly what I'm saying." Do you not see the difference? You're the one grasping here. You have zero evidence of your claims of a high altitude plane that looks like the ISS. Multiple planes in fact. Yet you keep insisting that, just because there is a tiny sliver of a chance they could exist, you are absolutely positively right.

so you agree that its possible.  how can i prove a plane exists that they dont acknowledge exists?  are you asking me to try and hack into a government website in order to pull classified documents?  i mean come on guys.  High altitude, long duration planes are not some wacko conspiracy theory.  there are plenty of articles available that talk about the active design and development of unmanned solar powered planes that would have a theoretical unlimited flight time.

I get it, you believe in a round earth and satellites.  But the explanation i have provided is 100% possible and do-able.  can you at least admit that, or would doing that open the door to you potentially questioning everything?  its ok to be scared
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Curious Squirrel on June 14, 2018, 02:20:08 PM
Google image search "NASA ER-2 pilot"

i am about done going back and forth with you on this, you are grasping here.  yes, thats an picture of the ER-2 airplane, great job.  Do you think its completely out of the realm that there is are multiple configurations of the plane, a newer version, more advanced versions that they wouldnt put on an internet page?  do you really thing NASA and the Gov't are open source and all technology is available with a google search??!  shoot, i bet you can just pull up the specs/design on all our nuclear weapons as well?
No, it's not 100% guaranteed not possible. But you have yet to present a shred of evidence that such a plane exists beyond "Well, if it DID, it could totally do exactly what I'm saying." Do you not see the difference? You're the one grasping here. You have zero evidence of your claims of a high altitude plane that looks like the ISS. Multiple planes in fact. Yet you keep insisting that, just because there is a tiny sliver of a chance they could exist, you are absolutely positively right.

so you agree that its possible.  how can i prove a plane exists that they dont acknowledge exists?  are you asking me to try and hack into a government website in order to pull classified documents?  i mean come on guys.  High altitude, long duration planes are not some wacko conspiracy theory.  there are plenty of articles available that talk about the active design and development of unmanned solar powered planes that would have a theoretical unlimited flight time.

I get it, you believe in a round earth and satellites.  But the explanation i have provided is 100% possible and do-able.  can you at least admit that, or would doing that open the door to you potentially questioning everything?  its ok to be scared
I said it's possible they have more than the 2 they claim to have, but I don't know, why do you appear to believe so fervently that said plane(s) exist. Is it because you require them to for the rest of your beliefs to work? Or because you have actual evidence they do? If the latter, why don't you present it? If the former, at least admit it so I can stop wasting my time debating groundless speculation here.

Possible is another story altogether. See the information posted earlier on the difficulty of using a lower altitude drone/vehicle (lower than stated height of ISS) to emulate the ISS to multiple viewers, without any being able to see more than one in the sky. As well, even at posted speed of the plane, it does not fly fast enough to emulate the ISS anyway. Your explanation does NOT work, but at least you appear to admit you have absolutely zero evidence for it. No point in debating against something that can only be very generously called a hypothesis.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on June 14, 2018, 02:48:06 PM
so you agree that its possible.  how can i prove a plane exists that they dont acknowledge exists? are you asking me to try and hack into a government website in order to pull classified documents?  i mean come on guys.  High altitude, long duration planes are not some wacko conspiracy theory.  there are plenty of articles available that talk about the active design and development of unmanned solar powered planes that would have a theoretical unlimited flight time.

... so all you have is "talk"?

But the explanation i have provided is 100% possible and do-able.  can you at least admit that, or would doing that open the door to you potentially questioning everything?

No, I disagree. Not possible and do-able, given my personal observations, and those of millions of others. Your "possible and do-able" doesn't fit, as I outlined above. So I don't admit your possibility.

Even if such a plane had unlimited flight time, the only way it could cross my sky twice in one evening is either to go around the planet (which it cannot do at plane speeds) or change direction. Since nobody sees the ISS change direction ..... ever .....  then logic suggests it's going around the planet at orbital speeds.

I also refer you back to my earlier replies in this thread, #2 to start with...
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 28, 2018, 09:31:35 AM
It is a high altitude aircraft. Looks as though it has wings to me.

Any stranger looking than

(http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/882065/84491923.jpeg)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlKGZYcrsoom70zL-iPTI9MiJPrxmL9K0CmVeJXt5jLc1mEbry)

(https://i0.wp.com/militaryhistorynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Pancake.jpg)

(https://res.cloudinary.com/engineering-com/image/fetch/w_600,f_jpg,c_fill/http://image.engineering.com/77/1214/jl1.jpg)

?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Ofcourseitsnotflat on July 28, 2018, 10:17:56 AM
Cannot be a plane. Look at the many (hundreds of) videos of "ISS lunar/solar transit"; these events are predicted well in advance, for specific locations. It's not photographers looking up to the sky at random times.

The only way this could occur with this degree of precision is for the object to be an orbital spacecraft, unfettered by considerations of weather, atmospherics, fuelling, piloting/remote control, maintenance, and all the rest. An object with a consistent, predictable orbit, the path of which is known in advance.

Planes cannot do this.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 28, 2018, 11:22:46 AM
Cannot be a plane. Look at the many (hundreds of) videos of "ISS lunar/solar transit"; these events are predicted well in advance, for specific locations. It's not photographers looking up to the sky at random times.

The only way this could occur with this degree of precision is for the object to be an orbital spacecraft, unfettered by considerations of weather, atmospherics, fuelling, piloting/remote control, maintenance, and all the rest. An object with a consistent, predictable orbit, the path of which is known in advance.

Planes cannot do this.
You moved the goal posts. The objection was that it doesn't LOOK like an aircraft.

If you concede is looks like it could be an aircraft, we can go on to look at your objection.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on July 30, 2018, 07:04:33 AM
Google image search "NASA ER-2 pilot"

i am about done going back and forth with you on this, you are grasping here.  yes, thats an picture of the ER-2 airplane, great job.  Do you think its completely out of the realm that there is are multiple configurations of the plane, a newer version, more advanced versions that they wouldnt put on an internet page?  do you really thing NASA and the Gov't are open source and all technology is available with a google search??!  shoot, i bet you can just pull up the specs/design on all our nuclear weapons as well?
Flying at 20,000km for GPS or 400km for the ISS?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on July 30, 2018, 07:51:12 AM
The objection was that it doesn't LOOK like an aircraft.

Whose 'objection' was this? You said that it does, but I see nobody objecting that it doesn't...
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 30, 2018, 09:33:25 AM
The objection was that it doesn't LOOK like an aircraft.

Whose 'objection' was this? You said that it does, but I see nobody objecting that it doesn't...

That's because the part I was replying to has been stripped out and sent to the dustbin.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10265.0
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: timterroo on July 31, 2018, 09:48:07 PM
I hope I'm not out of line here, because I skimmed over the last half of this thread... But I really wanted to say that I, too, have seen satellites with my naked eye. They appear as a star that is steadily moving across the night sky. It is easily distinguished from an airplane because airplanes look like flying cars in the night sky with their headlights. Can someone provide an alternative explanation to what the "moving star" is? (Again, sorry if I missed a previous post explaining this). I have also witnessed a space shuttle launch off of cape Canaveral when I was a kid. I can't say the exact moment it reached space because it was too far away from my perspective by the time it reached that altitude.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 31, 2018, 09:58:49 PM
I hope I'm not out of line here, because I skimmed over the last half of this thread... But I really wanted to say that I, too, have seen satellites with my naked eye. They appear as a star that is steadily moving across the night sky. It is easily distinguished from an airplane because airplanes look like flying cars in the night sky with their headlights. Can someone provide an alternative explanation to what the "moving star" is? (Again, sorry if I missed a previous post explaining this). I have also witnessed a space shuttle launch off of cape Canaveral when I was a kid. I can't say the exact moment it reached space because it was too far away from my perspective by the time it reached that altitude.
???


They just draw them ...

https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on July 31, 2018, 10:37:41 PM
They just draw them ...
https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

That's the guidance assistance for a telescope in Chile. What if someone is watching satellites from, say, Japan, or India? They can't be seeing the lasers from this.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 31, 2018, 10:48:26 PM
They just draw them ...
https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

That's the guidance assistance for a telescope in Chile. What if someone is watching satellites from, say, Japan, or India? They can't be seeing the lasers from this.

That's not the only laser.
https://www.newscientist.com/gallery/laser-guide-star/

And those are only the ones we know about. Not the ones we don't know about.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on July 31, 2018, 11:04:57 PM
They just draw them ...
https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

That's the guidance assistance for a telescope in Chile. What if someone is watching satellites from, say, Japan, or India? They can't be seeing the lasers from this.

That's not the only laser.
https://www.newscientist.com/gallery/laser-guide-star/

And those are only the ones we know about. Not the ones we don't know about.

OK, do you have any observations, from any astronomer, professional or amateur, who has actually observed the results from these lasers and seen them show the same motion as an orbital satellite? Or the lack of motion of a geostationary one?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2018, 11:18:56 PM
They just draw them ...
https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

That's the guidance assistance for a telescope in Chile. What if someone is watching satellites from, say, Japan, or India? They can't be seeing the lasers from this.

That's not the only laser.
https://www.newscientist.com/gallery/laser-guide-star/

And those are only the ones we know about. Not the ones we don't know about.
(https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/gallery/laser-guide-star/0044834cfc6.jpg)
Right, because no one would question the beam of light pointing to those stars. ::)
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: timterroo on August 01, 2018, 12:25:20 AM
I hope I'm not out of line here, because I skimmed over the last half of this thread... But I really wanted to say that I, too, have seen satellites with my naked eye. They appear as a star that is steadily moving across the night sky. It is easily distinguished from an airplane because airplanes look like flying cars in the night sky with their headlights. Can someone provide an alternative explanation to what the "moving star" is? (Again, sorry if I missed a previous post explaining this). I have also witnessed a space shuttle launch off of cape Canaveral when I was a kid. I can't say the exact moment it reached space because it was too far away from my perspective by the time it reached that altitude.
???


They just draw them ...

https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

That's interesting, really. Do you know when the telescope laser was invented? The article is dated 2012, but I observed these "moving stars" as far back as the early 90s.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Dr David Thork on August 01, 2018, 12:31:37 AM
The SR-71 was in service from 1966. It was only disclosed to the public in 1999.

Just because the first reports are from 2012 doesn't mean the government haven't been using them longer. The laser was invented in 1960. I would be quite confident they have had lasers capable of drawing stars in the sky since before 2012.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: markjo on August 01, 2018, 12:53:39 AM
The SR-71 was in service from 1966. It was only disclosed to the public in 1999.
Incorrect.  LBJ announced the SR-71 to the public in 1964.
https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: timterroo on August 01, 2018, 02:50:26 AM
The SR-71 was in service from 1966. It was only disclosed to the public in 1999.

Just because the first reports are from 2012 doesn't mean the government haven't been using them longer. The laser was invented in 1960. I would be quite confident they have had lasers capable of drawing stars in the sky since before 2012.

Forgive me, but what does the SR-71 Blackbird have to do with the telescope laser used by the ESO?

Addition: OH, did you just mean that the government has a knack for hiding technology from the public? Gotcha...
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on August 01, 2018, 06:01:06 AM
The laser was invented in 1960. I would be quite confident they have had lasers capable of drawing stars in the sky since before 2012.

The first satellite, watched and listened to worldwide, was launched in 1957, pre-dating the laser by three years, then ..... with at least four Russian and American satellites being deployed before 1960.

Lasers in the sky cannot generate a radio signal such as that emitted by Sputnik. This was received worldwide, at intervals dictated by its orbital period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_crisis

"The signals of Sputnik 1 continued for 22 days"
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on August 02, 2018, 12:56:32 AM
The hocus pocus of satellites. As many know we are told to believe sats are falling back to earth constantly in their description of how they orbit this fake ball. They time their fall just exactly right so they never really crash back to earth while rotating around and around, year after year defeating the gravitational pull by pointing just a tiny bit into open space. Wait some have a little booster gas nozzle to correct the fall which is so ridiculous. But wait a second, we can have it anyway we want in this fairy tale.

This pear shaped earth now or oblate sphere doesn't change gravitational pull at the fatty sections, oh no, that would screw this unbelievable story up even more. The sat rides the pull and hits the fatty bump with NO EFFECT. It's Disney time, close your eyes, and go to sleep little ones. No sats crash tonight...well EVAR !
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on August 02, 2018, 06:27:11 AM
The hocus pocus of satellites. As many know we are told to believe sats are falling back to earth constantly in their description of how they orbit this fake ball. They time their fall just exactly right so they never really crash back to earth while rotating around and around, year after year defeating the gravitational pull ...

Yup, you got it.

Here's some footage of some orbital sats, just to keep you going in your belief. Not from NASA, nor any other space agency, just a lil' company who make telescopes and tracking software for them;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ

Here's the Space Geodesy Facility. They verify the presence of sats by bouncing lasers off them. Again, not NASA, not any other space agency, just a bunch of UK scientists;

http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/

Here's an amateur who downloads data from weather satellites (there's plenty of others on YT);

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmO3KFceogI

What possible reason could there be for such radically different organisations and people to agree on the fact that we have orbital satellites above us, by such different methods, other than the fact that they are genuinely tracking them?

Methods;

1; Physical observation
2; Laser ranging
3; Data reception from satellite

How much more proof would anyone need?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: timterroo on August 02, 2018, 02:11:23 PM
What is the explanation for how ground-based GPS works? Consider the fact that GPS even works when you are deep in the mountains away from cellular towers and wifi signals. Where does the GPS signal come from if not from a satellite?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: mikeyjames on August 03, 2018, 09:24:44 AM
saw NO satellites,

Because space is really big - even if you evenly spread all satellites on the surface of the earth each would have around 138,000km2 to itself. now think about the massive extra area created by the orbital heights of the satellites, with many over 35,000km up, it would be more surprising to see one than not.

NO ISS

It's like saying you shot a rocket from New York to LA and didn't see a school bus in Sydney, Australia. Why would you expect to see it unless it was aimed at it?
No Space Debris

There was some spotted.

NO oblate spheroid.

Why would you expect to see a difference of about 3%?

NO spinning earth


Take a beach ball and attach it to something that rotates it once every 24hrs and then tell me how impressive the spinning looks

NO escape veolocity

Not sure what this looks like? Can you explain a little bit further?

NO speeds of 20kmph

See previous remark/question

NO stars


Go out tonight and take a nice clear picture of a bright object in the sky (such as the moon) and show me how many stars end up in the picture. To show you the stars the other video/images would have had to have been massively overexposed.


Just stationary blackness.


What did you expect? Sounds like you expected satellites shooting past, stars, galaxies, space junk all over the place, the earth looking like a fast spinning ball extensively bulging at the equator, and some kind of massive sign reading "you have exceeded escape velocity.


I actually feel sorry for you. I hope it's not too late to repeat 3rd grade.


Cheers

Mick



Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: timterroo on August 03, 2018, 05:59:30 PM
Here is a really cool video about the International Space Station.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4

As I watched it, I kept asking myself, "What lengths would someone have to go to to fake this?" Everything looks genuine. The movements of everyone and everything in a 0 gravity environment. You would not be able to replicate this on earth. Perhaps you could get away with it in a jet that flies parabolas (emulating 0g), but you wouldn't be able to maintain a parabolic decent that lasts for the length of this video.

Also, check out the video of earth here. I know the lends effect is real, but usually you can notice an inconsistent or exaggerated curve or a curve that moves with the camera lends. You see none of that here. It all looks consistent, curved, and beautiful.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: JHelzer on August 03, 2018, 08:06:05 PM
Here is a really cool video about the International Space Station.
There is another recent topic dedicated to discussing that video here.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10232.0

I have seen the space shuttle land at Edwards Airforce Base and tracked it at night with my naked eye as it approached the ISS.  Both were very cool opportunities.
I see no reason why man-made low earth objects can't exist in FET.   
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on August 03, 2018, 08:22:14 PM
I see no reason why man-made low earth objects can't exist in FET.

...except the observations and data I mentioned above don't match FE.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: BillO on August 03, 2018, 09:29:21 PM
NO oblate spheroid.

Why would you expect to see a difference of about 3%?

Just a point of accuracy - the difference is actually only 0.34%.

It could never be seen with the naked eye.  I too am not sure why anyone with a modicum of knowledge would expect to see it at all.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on August 16, 2018, 07:04:45 AM
Breaking News; alarm in the USA over the rogue behaviour of a Russian satellite;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45194333 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45194333)

If there were no satellites, what could be going on here? The Americans are mistaken about whether or not they're tracking a satellite or a balloon? The Russians are projecting a hologram up there?

C'mon, seriously ... the only reasonable explanation is that there is genuinely a Russian satellite up there in orbit. 

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Round Eyes on August 16, 2018, 04:45:09 PM
The SR-71 was in service from 1966. It was only disclosed to the public in 1999.

Just because the first reports are from 2012 doesn't mean the government haven't been using them longer. The laser was invented in 1960. I would be quite confident they have had lasers capable of drawing stars in the sky since before 2012.

thats not correct BT. i went and personally saw a SR71 back in 1988-89
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on August 18, 2018, 01:42:54 AM
They just draw them ...
https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

That's the guidance assistance for a telescope in Chile. What if someone is watching satellites from, say, Japan, or India? They can't be seeing the lasers from this.

That's not the only laser.
https://www.newscientist.com/gallery/laser-guide-star/

And those are only the ones we know about. Not the ones we don't know about.

"Frickin' Lasers"

The “satellites are fake” thing in FET has always been a conundrum for me. I have read through this post and other material on the subject, but I’m unclear as to the bother of whether satellites do or do not exist.

In FET, why not satellites? You’ve got theories about the sun and moon circulating around a unipolar or bi-polar disc. Why not embrace satellites doing the same? Why buck up against a preponderance of evidence that satellites exist and just simply absorb it and explain it out into FET. Seems like an easy fix.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tumeni on August 31, 2018, 07:48:37 AM
OK, so the news is full of the story regarding the ISS springing a leak in the last day or so, and how one of the Russian astronauts put his 'finger in the dyke' to borrow a fable, so .....

What do those who disbelieve make of this? Do you think that NASA and Roscosmos conjured up the story as a diversion to make the "ISS hoax" look more plausible?   

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on August 31, 2018, 01:39:21 PM
OK, so the news is full of the story regarding the ISS springing a leak in the last day or so, and how one of the Russian astronauts put his 'finger in the dyke' to borrow a fable, so .....

What do those who disbelieve make of this? Do you think that NASA and Roscosmos conjured up the story as a diversion to make the "ISS hoax" look more plausible?   
I’m interested in this.
There was another story about how the Curiosity rover was programmed to hum “Happy Birthday” to itself on the first anniversary (earth year) of its landing.
It made me wonder whether it is supposed there are people in NASA whose job it is to make up stuff like this to keep a “storyline” going.
And what of all the teams of people whose full time job it is to work on this project. Are they “in on it” or are NASA fooling them too?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Round Eyes on August 31, 2018, 03:31:41 PM
OK, so the news is full of the story regarding the ISS springing a leak in the last day or so, and how one of the Russian astronauts put his 'finger in the dyke' to borrow a fable, so .....

What do those who disbelieve make of this? Do you think that NASA and Roscosmos conjured up the story as a diversion to make the "ISS hoax" look more plausible?   

its just the drip drip drip of stories created by the PR depts for these space agencies.  if there are not constant little stories then people forget about the space programs and interest ($$$$) fades.   we are due for more "breaking news" on a Mars discovery in about 5 months, right on schedule.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: timterroo on August 31, 2018, 05:08:06 PM
OK, so the news is full of the story regarding the ISS springing a leak in the last day or so, and how one of the Russian astronauts put his 'finger in the dyke' to borrow a fable, so .....

What do those who disbelieve make of this? Do you think that NASA and Roscosmos conjured up the story as a diversion to make the "ISS hoax" look more plausible?   

its just the drip drip drip of stories created by the PR depts for these space agencies.  if there are not constant little stories then people forget about the space programs and interest ($$$$) fades.   we are due for more "breaking news" on a Mars discovery in about 5 months, right on schedule.

It looks like USA's beloved (cough cough) leader is trying to get US back to the moon:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/01/09/nasa-is-going-back-to-the-moon-if-it-can-figure-out-how-to-get-there/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.03191bd9bc35

I'm not trying to offer this as an argument for or against space travel, rather trying to add to the previous post about media hype. It would make sense that if you want to create hype about space travel, soliciting news about going to the moon would work.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: BillO on September 05, 2018, 10:00:34 PM
its just the drip drip drip of stories created by the PR depts for these space agencies.  if there are not constant little stories then people forget about the space programs and interest ($$$$) fades.   we are due for more "breaking news" on a Mars discovery in about 5 months, right on schedule.
Let's suppose for a second that NASA is not making it all up - I mean, just for argument.  They would still need to publish information and data, and they would still need to keep the public informed of the going's on.  They would still need to keep relevant, and yes, they would need to do it to keep their funding.  They are a research and development arm of the government and as such would need to keep the info, data and exploration advances coming.

None of this is evidence of anything in particular other than they are doing their job and/or pulling the wool over our eyes.  It's not specific enough for either side to use as evidence.  None of what I've seen on this board (or anywhere else for that matter) regarding NASA is.

I'll be the first to admit they are wasteful, not as much as they used to be, but still are.  However, I choose to accept that they are not hoaxing us as I can't see the conspiracy as being viable.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on September 07, 2018, 06:35:59 PM
Space X will be launching more satellites this weekend...he he right after Joe Rogan allows Musk to puff more mary jane on U tube and he get accused of Acid taking. Gotta love the whole going private hoax too, is that like Mars and landing on a barge farce? How's StaRMan doing he he...

Seems to me this guy was given the keys to the secret of the dome enclosed flat earth and has gone a little wacked over it.

Anyone who believes in these silly wonder wild stories of interplanetary travel needs to go on Joe's show too.

Musk will most likely come out soon about reality, then die from a nailgun or fall out a 13 story building.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: juner on September 07, 2018, 08:44:52 PM
Space X will be launching more satellites this weekend...he he right after Joe Rogan allows Musk to puff more mary jane on U tube and he get accused of Acid taking. Gotta love the whole going private hoax too, is that like Mars and landing on a barge farce? How's StaRMan doing he he...

Seems to me this guy was given the keys to the secret of the dome enclosed flat earth and has gone a little wacked over it.

Anyone who believes in these silly wonder wild stories of interplanetary travel needs to go on Joe's show too.

Musk will most likely come out soon about reality, then die from a nailgun or fall out a 13 story building.

Please keep the ranting in AR. Criticizing SpaceX is fine as long as you contribute to the topic.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on September 07, 2018, 09:08:25 PM
Space X will be launching more satellites this weekend...he he right after Joe Rogan allows Musk to puff more mary jane on U tube and he get accused of Acid taking. Gotta love the whole going private hoax too, is that like Mars and landing on a barge farce? How's StaRMan doing he he...

Seems to me this guy was given the keys to the secret of the dome enclosed flat earth and has gone a little wacked over it.

Anyone who believes in these silly wonder wild stories of interplanetary travel needs to go on Joe's show too.

Musk will most likely come out soon about reality, then die from a nailgun or fall out a 13 story building.

Please keep the ranting in AR. Criticizing SpaceX is fine as long as you contribute to the topic.

I believe this is well within the topic I started: Satellite Hoax...SpaceX launching...To prove a Hoax you must show the intent to deceive. While not proven yet in court thru securities fraud allegations this goes directly to substantiation of Hoaxing. You hoax one thing you tend to be a hoaxer thru and thru. Not anywhere near an AR. Just facts of a hoaxer.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: juner on September 07, 2018, 09:15:27 PM
Space X will be launching more satellites this weekend...he he right after Joe Rogan allows Musk to puff more mary jane on U tube and he get accused of Acid taking. Gotta love the whole going private hoax too, is that like Mars and landing on a barge farce? How's StaRMan doing he he...

Seems to me this guy was given the keys to the secret of the dome enclosed flat earth and has gone a little wacked over it.

Anyone who believes in these silly wonder wild stories of interplanetary travel needs to go on Joe's show too.

Musk will most likely come out soon about reality, then die from a nailgun or fall out a 13 story building.

Please keep the ranting in AR. Criticizing SpaceX is fine as long as you contribute to the topic.

I believe this is well within the topic I started: Satellite Hoax...SpaceX launching...To prove a Hoax you must show the intent to deceive. While not proven yet in court thru securities fraud allegations this goes directly to substantiation of Hoaxing. You hoax one thing you tend to be a hoaxer thru and thru. Not anywhere near an AR. Just facts of a hoaxer.

So this post is fine, as you are making an argument. The previous post is ranting. Stick to posts like this and you will be fine. No warnings, just asking you to tone it down in the upper fora.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Ofcourseitsnotflat on September 07, 2018, 09:39:13 PM
To prove a Hoax you must show the intent to deceive.

Where has this been shown?

While not proven yet in court thru securities fraud allegations this goes directly to substantiation of Hoaxing.

How can something as yet unproven be taken to substantiate anything? Surely it must be proven first?

You hoax one thing you tend to be a hoaxer thru and thru.

Says who, apart from you?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: WROOOOOOOONG on September 23, 2018, 09:56:00 PM
If satellites are "Fake", explain why there are so many pictures of them from space missions and the ISS?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Round Eyes on September 24, 2018, 06:48:28 PM
If satellites are "Fake", explain why there are so many pictures of them from space missions and the ISS?

i am not aware of any pictures taken of satellites from the ISS, care to provide a link?  what pictures of satellites from space missions?  you mean the pictures they show of them deploying them?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: BillO on September 25, 2018, 01:54:21 PM
i am not aware of any pictures taken of satellites from the ISS, care to provide a link?

The only ones I've seen from ISS were those that were launched from it.

Compared to the scale of things out there, satellites are pretty small.  I'm sure they 'could' equip the ISS with a camera that could take pictures of satellites, but why would they?  It would be expensive and of little value.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on September 28, 2018, 01:36:34 AM
To prove a Hoax you must show the intent to deceive.

Where has this been shown?

While not proven yet in court thru securities fraud allegations this goes directly to substantiation of Hoaxing.

How can something as yet unproven be taken to substantiate anything? Surely it must be proven first?

You hoax one thing you tend to be a hoaxer thru and thru.

Says who, apart from you?

Lets now look at Mr. Satellite man with a supposed looks so fake it must be real car in the universe. He's in very hot water with SEC and I highly doubt he will ever be managing SpaceX going forward. Can't let the pot smoker release the flat earth info seeing as he has security clearances.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-27/elon-musk-sued-sec-tesla-stock-tumbles-here-full-complaint

Here's a good article on Hoaxers which is what this thread is about, the whole Hoax games by none other than the "Evil" one and his demons.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201705/the-psychology-hoaxing

"A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth."

After you read the article, you, like most, will walk away with yes, these hoaxers continue to hoax.

Sats are fake, the earth is flat as a pancake, most are accepting the ultimate HOAX by the Devil himself.....

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 06, 2018, 04:59:21 PM
I believe that satellites are real.  This evidence comes not from what a see or read for others, but what I have seen myself.  Before I retired, I worked on ships.  Each day I would monitor many different satellites and use them for communications and navigation.  Each year I would be at sea about 6 months.  That's 180 days of depending on satellites for our safety and for making a living.  I could see the actual position of the satellites using instruments to measure both azimuth and elevation above the horizon.  The ONLY way any of my day to day measurements made any sense is if there were satellites above a spherical earth.  I could also give plenty of evidence regarding our radars that could only work in the observed ways if the earth were a sphere.  Again this evidence is first hand in nature and is unbiased by anything that I've read on the internet.  Of course I may also be a very ignorant engineer. 
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 07, 2018, 02:02:52 PM
I believe that satellites are real.  This evidence comes not from what a see or read for others, but what I have seen myself.  Before I retired, I worked on ships.  Each day I would monitor many different satellites and use them for communications and navigation.  Each year I would be at sea about 6 months.  That's 180 days of depending on satellites for our safety and for making a living.  I could see the actual position of the satellites using instruments to measure both azimuth and elevation above the horizon.  The ONLY way any of my day to day measurements made any sense is if there were satellites above a spherical earth.  I could also give plenty of evidence regarding our radars that could only work in the observed ways if the earth were a sphere.  Again this evidence is first hand in nature and is unbiased by anything that I've read on the internet.  Of course I may also be a very ignorant engineer.

Your ship stayed afloat because it is buoyant. A satellite is continuously falling back to earth we are made to believe. I don't believe but obviously you do. We are asked to believe a sled ride down hill where the frozen snow path never ends. Or a bike coast down hill, no peddling where the road never ends. If it weren't for our 1st hand knowledge that roads aren't this long or snow paths don't go down hill forever I might be tricked. Better yet you sled down hill and magically stop, no hands ma or brakes and never move from this position on the ice. Awesome trick there Mr. magician.

No there are 1000's of balloons aloft at any moment and digital signals bouncing off the dome back to specific spots on flat earth. You can pick up these points in the sky and call them falling fake sats if you like.

I have first hand evidence it's all fakery.....0ver 2000 years worth!
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Mysfit on October 07, 2018, 02:08:55 PM
I have first hand evidence it's all fakery.....0ver 2000 years worth!
Either first-hand is misused or you are over 2000 years old.
I am assuming it's information from a book, which has been translated, re-written and had chapters removed. I'm unsure how many hand that is.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 07, 2018, 02:24:06 PM
I have first hand evidence it's all fakery.....0ver 2000 years worth!
Either first-hand is misused or you are over 2000 years old.
I am assuming it's information from a book, which has been translated, re-written and had chapters removed. I'm unsure how many hand that is.

 1 Corinthians 2:12-14   

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on October 07, 2018, 04:29:44 PM
J-Man, you really need to stop reading the Bible like a science book, it contains much deeper, more important truths than that.

Where is your evidence for these thousands of balloons that just happen to behave exactly like satellites. How are TV satellites being faked by balloons in such a way that you have to precisely align your dish at them?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 07, 2018, 09:57:46 PM
I only believe what I see for myself.  The equipment I ran could lock on and track a signal from a another piece of equipment somewhere above the ship.  I could see the azimuth and elevation of our antenna relative to the horizon.  You could tell how far away it was by the time it took for the signal to go from the ship to the satellite and back to the ground again.  The main issue of this post is not what kind of vehicle carries the electronic equipment that we were using, but the fact that the the only way the basic geometry would work was if the earth was round.  If the earth was flat, I wouldn't loose the signal below the horizon.  I could track and use a single 'balloon' on the whole trip between Shanghai, China and Long Beach, CA.  Unfortunately, on each trip I was forced to switch the equipment over and lock onto another signal that had coverage over Asia.  Our ship wouldn't have to navigate on a great circle route.  This would make it easier for the navigator.  We wouldn't have a 'top of the world' party though.  That would be bad.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 08, 2018, 12:02:32 AM
J-Man, you really need to stop reading the Bible like a science book, it contains much deeper, more important truths than that.

Where is your evidence for these thousands of balloons that just happen to behave exactly like satellites. How are TV satellites being faked by balloons in such a way that you have to precisely align your dish at them?
Mr. World you too can have eternal life and travel through God's heavenly very narrow gates. Understand that its not works that allows you passage but FAITH. Belief in the truth that God the Father sacrificed his only son Jesus on the cross for all our sins. The only way to the Father is through his Son Jesus. Pretty easy and once that is complete he sends himself down as the Holy Spirit to teach us, protect us and answer all these questions most have about everything. He explains it all. You see I got the creator in my pocket so to speak, he is with me always, when I explain to you something, it is truth from the creator. The Bible isn't a science book, it's the word of God.

Maybe you will have an awakening like I believe Mr. Sat man is having, more like OMG there is a GOD and we're trapped here. Smoke a Jay,,,,,,,, Money means zip only Faith !
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 08, 2018, 02:29:42 AM
Don't believe that the GPS system is ground based.  While at sea you could be 1000 miles from the nearest land.  The GPS antennas are directional and we always point the antennas straight up when mounting them on the ship.  When doing this we are able to receive the signals from 3 or 4 of the many GPS satellites that are in orbit above the earth.  If the earth were flat, we could always see the same satellites on our whole trip, but this isn't the case.  Satellites come up over the horizon, provide us with our position data, and then go down into the horizon while another satellite takes it's place.  There is a whole satellite constellation out there for us.  If it were not the case, we would then have to resort to the old technology of the sextant, which we still carry aboard ship.  Even while using the sextant you have to believe in the spherical earth, or that system wouldn't work either.  All this comes from my every day work experience, not something that I read in a book, or saw on the internet.  If someone believes this is a hoax, please tell me.  I still have many friends at sea trying to make a living for themselves and their families.  They might need to know what the true facts are so to protect them from any potential danger.  I'm just a retired Merchant Marine officer and I sit at home now collecting a pension.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 08, 2018, 02:54:19 AM
Here's three vids of crashed satellites. With a trillion $ budget, you can launch one everyday forever and not put a dent in the budget. People will believe almost anything. Sats are fake. Nothing falls continually or stays stationary in the sky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAiq6Pggfy4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO0VKtFmJ0M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHBxxnuXTJ4
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 08, 2018, 02:58:40 AM
Don't believe that the GPS system is ground based.  While at sea you could be 1000 miles from the nearest land.  The GPS antennas are directional and we always point the antennas straight up when mounting them on the ship.  When doing this we are able to receive the signals from 3 or 4 of the many GPS satellites that are in orbit above the earth.  If the earth were flat, we could always see the same satellites on our whole trip, but this isn't the case.  Satellites come up over the horizon, provide us with our position data, and then go down into the horizon while another satellite takes it's place.  There is a whole satellite constellation out there for us.  If it were not the case, we would then have to resort to the old technology of the sextant, which we still carry aboard ship.  Even while using the sextant you have to believe in the spherical earth, or that system wouldn't work either.  All this comes from my every day work experience, not something that I read in a book, or saw on the internet.  If someone believes this is a hoax, please tell me.  I still have many friends at sea trying to make a living for themselves and their families.  They might need to know what the true facts are so to protect them from any potential danger.  I'm just a retired Merchant Marine officer and I sit at home now collecting a pension.

The dome is like molten glass. If one where to aim and bounce data off it from a specific location it bounces back to land or sea to a specific spot based on years of diagnostics of the angle of dangle. Happy engineering....
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Bobby Shafto on October 08, 2018, 03:22:49 AM
Watched SpaceX Falcon 9 transit the night sky tonight toward the south.

Nice light show for a fake satellite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAOCOM) deployment:

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/11t06sz.jpg)

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 08, 2018, 03:48:49 AM
SpaceX looks so fake it must be real eh?  Did you see the last one where no camera footage of the landing on ocean platform? Or deployment of sat? Ya we can put men on moon and talk about a colony on Mars but photos are tough he he.

I like that picture, tipping over heading right for the drink !
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 08, 2018, 04:38:04 AM
If the earth is flat and there's a dome above it that will reflect my data signals back to the earth then I wouldn't have to switch to a different 'satellite' while on the trip to Asia.  I should be able to lock onto a single spot on the dome and that spot should be visible to my satellite dish's signal anywhere on the flat earth.  That scenario would really make my job easier.  Additionally a dome over the flat earth would require a very good mount.  I'm sure such a mount would require maintenance like any other mechanical device.  Who is doing the maintenance ?   They probably require plenty of engineers and would be a good job if my pension fund goes bankrupt in a couple of years.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Bobby Shafto on October 08, 2018, 04:49:44 AM
The US government pulls the satellite scam on its own military?

http://science.dodlive.mil/2017/08/02/protected-communications-go-polar/ (http://science.dodlive.mil/2017/08/02/protected-communications-go-polar/)

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 08, 2018, 05:11:52 AM
Just who put up the dome over the earth?  How long has it been there?  Was it a government project?  Who does the maintenance?  Where is the mounts on the Earth?  I presume that it's somewhere around Antarctica.  Somehow I was never given these answers in school.  Perhaps a change in the educational system will be required.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on October 08, 2018, 09:05:34 AM
The Bible isn't a science book, it's the word of God.
Correct. And is intended to teach us deeper truths than the shape of the earth or the age of the universe.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on October 08, 2018, 09:39:30 AM
SpaceX looks so fake it must be real eh?  Did you see the last one where no camera footage of the landing on ocean platform? Or deployment of sat? Ya we can put men on moon and talk about a colony on Mars but photos are tough he he.

I like that picture, tipping over heading right for the drink !
Launching a satellite for Argentina.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 08, 2018, 01:59:23 PM
The article points out the problem with a global satellite system.  Commonly used INMARSAT satellites are over the equator.  We used them daily, along with another companies 'birds' to communicate.  The biggest problem with those is that they only work to about 70 degrees North or South latitude.  This is due to the curvature of the global earth.  A flat earth with a dome above it would be a good idea and would be easier for every seaman to communicate, even near the poles.  Alas, this is not what a seaman actually experiences with his own two eyes.  All our charts are based on a global earth.  We navigate, daily, with these charts.  What we see outside our windows matches what is seen on the charts.  If it were not so, we would run aground, loose cargo, and get fired from our job.  How could we not believe in a global earth?   
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 09, 2018, 06:25:49 AM
The article points out the problem with a global satellite system.  Commonly used INMARSAT satellites are over the equator.  We used them daily, along with another companies 'birds' to communicate.  The biggest problem with those is that they only work to about 70 degrees North or South latitude.  This is due to the curvature of the global earth.  A flat earth with a dome above it would be a good idea and would be easier for every seaman to communicate, even near the poles.  Alas, this is not what a seaman actually experiences with his own two eyes.  All our charts are based on a global earth.  We navigate, daily, with these charts.  What we see outside our windows matches what is seen on the charts.  If it were not so, we would run aground, loose cargo, and get fired from our job.  How could we not believe in a global earth?

Please understand you were using one of these downed sats and after you data mined it for so long it abruptly quit. Computers can do that, you think you are tLKING TO THE  sat and it goes sleepy time because you have been dialed in too long. Time to find a new sat.  Fakery has an easy explanation.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on October 09, 2018, 06:45:57 AM
The article points out the problem with a global satellite system.  Commonly used INMARSAT satellites are over the equator.  We used them daily, along with another companies 'birds' to communicate.  The biggest problem with those is that they only work to about 70 degrees North or South latitude.  This is due to the curvature of the global earth.  A flat earth with a dome above it would be a good idea and would be easier for every seaman to communicate, even near the poles.  Alas, this is not what a seaman actually experiences with his own two eyes.  All our charts are based on a global earth.  We navigate, daily, with these charts.  What we see outside our windows matches what is seen on the charts.  If it were not so, we would run aground, loose cargo, and get fired from our job.  How could we not believe in a global earth?

Please understand you were using one of these downed sats and after you data mined it for so long it abruptly quit. Computers can do that, you think you are tLKING TO THE  sat and it goes sleepy time because you have been dialed in too long. Time to find a new sat.  Fakery has an easy explanation.
This topic seems too complicated for you.  Satellites work.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on October 09, 2018, 05:40:58 PM
Here's three vids of crashed satellites. With a trillion $ budget, you can launch one everyday forever and not put a dent in the budget. People will believe almost anything. Sats are fake. Nothing falls continually or stays stationary in the sky.

Not exactly.

Video - Satellite Crashes in Brazil:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/project-loon-crash-in-brazil-jpg.27606/)

Video - NASA Balloon Satellite:


Hardly a secret:

"NASA Releases Report About Australia Balloon Mishap

NASA was attempting to launch the balloon carrying a gamma-ray telescope belonging to the University of California at Berkeley. The Nuclear Compton Telescope, which was partially destroyed in the accident, was designed to look for distant galaxies from a vantage point high in Earth's upper atmosphere."

https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/oct/HQ_10-269_Balloon_Mishap.html

Video - Flat Earth, Satellite Crashes:

See Google’s Project Loon again.

Lastly, where in the Bible does God say we are not allowed to have satellites, or rockets, or computers, or GPS, or Direct TV, etc.?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2018, 06:21:22 PM
Here's three vids of crashed satellites. With a trillion $ budget, you can launch one everyday forever and not put a dent in the budget. People will believe almost anything. Sats are fake. Nothing falls continually or stays stationary in the sky.

Not exactly.

Video - Satellite Crashes in Brazil:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/project-loon-crash-in-brazil-jpg.27606/)

Video - NASA Balloon Satellite:


Hardly a secret:

"NASA Releases Report About Australia Balloon Mishap

NASA was attempting to launch the balloon carrying a gamma-ray telescope belonging to the University of California at Berkeley. The Nuclear Compton Telescope, which was partially destroyed in the accident, was designed to look for distant galaxies from a vantage point high in Earth's upper atmosphere."

https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/oct/HQ_10-269_Balloon_Mishap.html

Video - Flat Earth, Satellite Crashes:

See Google’s Project Loon again.

Lastly, where in the Bible does God say we are not allowed to have satellites, or rockets, or computers, or GPS, or Direct TV, etc.?

The fact that NASA wrote an article about it on its own website strongly implicates NASA as being involved with the project. It is no secret that NASA does not employ any engineers at all for its own projects and uses contractors to do its bidding.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on October 09, 2018, 06:48:46 PM
The fact that NASA wrote an article about it on its own website strongly implicates NASA as being involved with the project. It is no secret that NASA does not employ any engineers at all for its own projects and uses contractors to do its bidding.

Yes, it was a NASA project, that's why they wrote the article. I'm not sure what your point is, but:

Professional, Engineering and Scientific (60% of NASA's positions)

https://nasajobs.nasa.gov/jobs/occupations.htm

"The United States government agency known as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employs engineers in various disciplines."

https://www.degreequery.com/degree-need-work-nasa-engineer/
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 09, 2018, 06:59:24 PM
I have a great idea to raise money for the Flat Earth Society.  You can view the KVH satellite communication advertisement video and then sue them for false advertising.  They clearly say that they have many different satellite communications vessel stations that can provide phone or internet to you while you are on your boat.  I would testify that I have used the KVH system on ships before and have used both the phone and internet services they advertise.  Of course if they really don't have a satellite system with all the geosynchronous satellites they claim, then they would be liable for a substantial fraud claim.  Additionally, the shipping company that I worked for was paying them about $ 9500 a month for the service.  I saw the bill when the system was first installed.  If there are no real satellites up there, that indicates fraud. 
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on October 09, 2018, 07:19:07 PM
Did you see the last one where no camera footage of the landing on ocean platform? Or deployment of sat? Ya we can put men on moon and talk about a colony on Mars but photos are tough he he.
So...if there are pictures then they are fake which proves it’s all fake and if there aren’t pictures then it shows it’s all fake, right?

It’s good, confirmation bias, isn’t it?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Mysfit on October 09, 2018, 08:02:49 PM
I have a great idea to raise money for the Flat Earth Society.  You can view the KVH satellite communication advertisement video and then sue them for false advertising.  They clearly say that they have many different satellite communications vessel stations that can provide phone or internet to you while you are on your boat.  I would testify that I have used the KVH system on ships before and have used both the phone and internet services they advertise.  Of course if they really don't have a satellite system with all the geosynchronous satellites they claim, then they would be liable for a substantial fraud claim.  Additionally, the shipping company that I worked for was paying them about $ 9500 a month for the service.  I saw the bill when the system was first installed.  If there are no real satellites up there, that indicates fraud.
I agree that there is a lot of money to be made with proving a flat earth theory, but I assumed the main money would be in selling books etc.
I had not had the thought of the endless lawsuits this would cause. Gold mine.
Thanks RonJ

Edit: Put something for the wrong article here. Fixed
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 10, 2018, 05:46:43 PM
Of course in order to win in court you would have to prove the non existence of the satellites.  Maybe the launch sites for the balloons and drone aircraft could be found.  I can attest that the KVH system does work well and from what I could see, each and every day, sure looked like a geosynchronous satellite.  The logistics and infrastructure required for such trickery should employ thousands. They seem to offer a good high speed internet connection and telephone service in the important shipping lanes in the Pacific Ocean.  Additionally the antenna pointing (azimuth and elevation) data perfectly mimics a satellite in each and every way.  I would really like to find out how they could keep those balloon and/or drones in a fixed spot day after day, month after month, year after year.  My hat is off the KVH.           
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on October 10, 2018, 09:10:10 PM
Don't believe that the GPS system is ground based.  While at sea you could be 1000 miles from the nearest land.  The GPS antennas are directional and we always point the antennas straight up when mounting them on the ship.  When doing this we are able to receive the signals from 3 or 4 of the many GPS satellites that are in orbit above the earth.  If the earth were flat, we could always see the same satellites on our whole trip, but this isn't the case.  Satellites come up over the horizon, provide us with our position data, and then go down into the horizon while another satellite takes it's place.  There is a whole satellite constellation out there for us.  If it were not the case, we would then have to resort to the old technology of the sextant, which we still carry aboard ship.  Even while using the sextant you have to believe in the spherical earth, or that system wouldn't work either.  All this comes from my every day work experience, not something that I read in a book, or saw on the internet.  If someone believes this is a hoax, please tell me.  I still have many friends at sea trying to make a living for themselves and their families.  They might need to know what the true facts are so to protect them from any potential danger.  I'm just a retired Merchant Marine officer and I sit at home now collecting a pension.

The dome is like molten glass. If one where to aim and bounce data off it from a specific location it bounces back to land or sea to a specific spot based on years of diagnostics of the angle of dangle. Happy engineering....
Satellite broadcasting involves receivers over a large accurately defined area which would not work with a bounce.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 11, 2018, 01:35:28 AM
Don't believe that the GPS system is ground based.  While at sea you could be 1000 miles from the nearest land.  The GPS antennas are directional and we always point the antennas straight up when mounting them on the ship.  When doing this we are able to receive the signals from 3 or 4 of the many GPS satellites that are in orbit above the earth.  If the earth were flat, we could always see the same satellites on our whole trip, but this isn't the case.  Satellites come up over the horizon, provide us with our position data, and then go down into the horizon while another satellite takes it's place.  There is a whole satellite constellation out there for us.  If it were not the case, we would then have to resort to the old technology of the sextant, which we still carry aboard ship.  Even while using the sextant you have to believe in the spherical earth, or that system wouldn't work either.  All this comes from my every day work experience, not something that I read in a book, or saw on the internet.  If someone believes this is a hoax, please tell me.  I still have many friends at sea trying to make a living for themselves and their families.  They might need to know what the true facts are so to protect them from any potential danger.  I'm just a retired Merchant Marine officer and I sit at home now collecting a pension.

The dome is like molten glass. If one where to aim and bounce data off it from a specific location it bounces back to land or sea to a specific spot based on years of diagnostics of the angle of dangle. Happy engineering....
Satellite broadcasting involves receivers over a large accurately defined area which would not work with a bounce.

We don't need or use these fake sats. Lets go over some info shall we? Stay tuned in here Marine Merchant since you've been at sea so long but have yet to mention "Loran" system that I know of in your 4 days here. Radio signals like Data bytes travel at the speed of light or better. 186,000 miles per SECOND. Did you get that? This will help you understand why operation "Fishbowl" was used. Understanding the dome because it is "Skywave", the ability for "Loran" to bounce data off the sky or dome and travel distances that are disclosed of at least 1,500 miles. With the tech today, I believe it's easily possible to bounce thousands and thousands of miles from ("master") stations in nanoseconds off repeater stations(slaves as Loran calls them) fixed or at sea. Line of sight on the Loran system is 400 to 700 miles..SAY WHAT? Yep..NO Curve Bozo's just read the facts. Today the Loran system has been upgraded numerous times and is what we all use. Towers baby...thats your sats unless you bounce off Gods molten glass dome. Deal with it ! You been fooled !

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/popular-electronics/radar-and-loran-july-1959-popular-electronics.htm
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 11, 2018, 04:42:49 AM
I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but LORAN isn't used too much anymore, at least by the merchant marine.  On my last ship we did have a LORAN C receiver, but it had been shut off for the last 4 years I was aboard.  I have no objections with using LORAN and have done so on other vessels.  The accuracy was good.  GPS made LORAN unpopular and had become the preferred method of navigation.  The main objection to GPS is the ability of an enemy to jam or spoof it.  My understanding is that military ships carry LORAN in case of an attack  on the GPS system in an opening salvo of a major war.  I'm hoping that won't happen.  There are several other ways to transmit and receive data at sea.  I rode herd on 4 different satellite systems.  One gave me full internet and telephone service worldwide.  If you don't believe satellites are real, it really doesn't matter.  Data was coming in and going out, somehow.  That was the important thing.   My guess is that all the LORAN stations you mentioned have secret locations at sea.  If not I would be interested to find out where they are so we can make sure that they are navigational charts.  I wouldn't want to hit a tower with a 1000 foot ship and so any damage.   
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on October 11, 2018, 05:10:33 AM
I wouldn't want to hit a tower with a 1000 foot ship and so any damage.

Just so you don’t slam into any towers.

Loran-C Coverage (2006):

(https://i.imgur.com/jqRe3sL.jpg)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 11, 2018, 01:08:23 PM
You said some of the loran stations were fixed and some where 'at sea'.  The diagrams you show had all the fixed stations.  We had publications on the ship that showed all that.  What I don't see is the repeater stations located 'at sea'.   I don't think we need to worry too much about hitting anything on an island. We use very accurate satellite based GPS.   
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 11, 2018, 02:29:49 PM
You said some of the loran stations were fixed and some where 'at sea'.  The diagrams you show had all the fixed stations.  We had publications on the ship that showed all that.  What I don't see is the repeater stations located 'at sea'.   I don't think we need to worry too much about hitting anything on an island. We use very accurate satellite based GPS.

GPS is owned and Governed by the United States, same folks that stole 21 trillion recently and said so what, it's national security, you can't know what we did with it. They tell you that data comes from sats, it;s just another lie. Kinda like the moon landing in Hollywood. Or the 21 box cutter boys, or the most secure building in the world Pentagon doesn't have video of the missile hitting it? You love Disneyland and Pixie dust.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 11, 2018, 03:30:05 PM
I suppose that the US 'authorities' could be colluding with the Chinese, Russians, Japanese, and some other countries to keep all their sham GPS systems under wraps.  What they should do is parole Bernie Madoff and put him to work for the government.  It's a great lie, my hat is off to them.  All the technical data observed perfectly match what I would see if the information was actually coming from an object in orbit.  This occurs even on a moving object like a ship.  Data transit times are perfectly adjusted and always match the expected values.  Maybe I'll have to get back to all the physics teachers in high school, and all my former college engineering professors and tell them that they need to adjust their curriculum.  It really doesn't matter much. I can ignore what I've learned about physics.  We always got the emails we needed and could make the necessary phone calls.  The cargo got hauled and I got a paycheck.  That's all that counts. 
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on October 11, 2018, 06:20:58 PM
You said some of the loran stations were fixed and some where 'at sea'.  The diagrams you show had all the fixed stations.  We had publications on the ship that showed all that.  What I don't see is the repeater stations located 'at sea'.   I don't think we need to worry too much about hitting anything on an island. We use very accurate satellite based GPS.

GPS is owned and Governed by the United States, same folks that stole 21 trillion recently and said so what, it's national security, you can't know what we did with it. They tell you that data comes from sats, it;s just another lie. Kinda like the moon landing in Hollywood. Or the 21 box cutter boys, or the most secure building in the world Pentagon doesn't have video of the missile hitting it? You love Disneyland and Pixie dust.
Where are the 15 US and Russian transmitters that my receiver sees?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 17, 2018, 02:23:06 AM
(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/isssoyuz.jpg)

Recently the dependable Russian Soyus rocket with two astro's aboard 1 american 1 russian failed at 31 miles up on the way to the make believe ISS. The Nuts in the ISS at 254 miles up took this pic of the failed launch. Now you tell me, does this photo look like it was taken from a height almost 10 times higher?

Lies, Lies and more hoax..... The Nuts crash landed, first time in about 30+ years as I recall, both safe and sound in Hollywood.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/on-thursday-a-rocket-failed-three-humans-remain-on-the-iss-whats-next/

BTW hold a ruler up...NO CURVATURE AT ALL>>>Pancake FLAT
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on October 17, 2018, 02:43:40 AM

Recently the dependable Russian Soyus rocket with two astro's aboard 1 american 1 russian failed at 31 miles up on the way to the make believe ISS. The Nuts in the ISS at 254 miles up took this pic of the failed launch. Now you tell me, does this photo look like it was taken from a height almost 10 times higher?

Lies, Lies and more hoax..... The Nuts crash landed, first time in about 30+ years as I recall, both safe and sound in Hollywood.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/on-thursday-a-rocket-failed-three-humans-remain-on-the-iss-whats-next/

BTW hold a ruler up...NO CURVATURE AT ALL>>>Pancake FLAT

I'm not sure what this has to do with satellites.

Aside from that, if it's fake, as you claim, then holding a ruler up is neither here nor there. Because, well, it's fake. I guess maybe it's a fake shot, from a fake ISS, showing a fake flat earth.

As for satellite launches, they are typically unmanned.

Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 17, 2018, 02:51:33 AM

Recently the dependable Russian Soyus rocket with two astro's aboard 1 american 1 russian failed at 31 miles up on the way to the make believe ISS. The Nuts in the ISS at 254 miles up took this pic of the failed launch. Now you tell me, does this photo look like it was taken from a height almost 10 times higher?

Lies, Lies and more hoax..... The Nuts crash landed, first time in about 30+ years as I recall, both safe and sound in Hollywood.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/on-thursday-a-rocket-failed-three-humans-remain-on-the-iss-whats-next/

BTW hold a ruler up...NO CURVATURE AT ALL>>>Pancake FLAT

I'm not sure what this has to do with satellites.

Aside from that, if it's fake, as you claim, then holding a ruler up is neither here nor there. Because, well, it's fake. I guess maybe it's a fake shot, from a fake ISS, showing a fake flat earth.

As for satellite launches, they are typically unmanned.

You may want to try a refresher course on another website first before you post here. The ISS is a fake satellite, ie "satellite" and the rocket was going to the fake ISS station.
Run along now.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 17, 2018, 03:44:38 AM
Actually, on a spherical earth, the picture that was shown was a reasonable representation of what I would expect.  The ISS could be coming from about a quarter of the distance around the globe and for that reason actually would be on a lower plane.  Give the ISS some time and that view would change rapidly as the distances between the two objects close.  On a flat earth, you would be correct.  Maybe the whole failure thing was just 'part of the script'.  The budget for the 'play' would have to be substantial because I'm sure that even you wouldn't claim that the rocket launch was fake.  Any event like a rocket launch always has plenty of witnesses including the local news people who expect some footage for the 6 O'clock news. 
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on October 17, 2018, 04:48:30 AM

Recently the dependable Russian Soyus rocket with two astro's aboard 1 american 1 russian failed at 31 miles up on the way to the make believe ISS. The Nuts in the ISS at 254 miles up took this pic of the failed launch. Now you tell me, does this photo look like it was taken from a height almost 10 times higher?

Lies, Lies and more hoax..... The Nuts crash landed, first time in about 30+ years as I recall, both safe and sound in Hollywood.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/on-thursday-a-rocket-failed-three-humans-remain-on-the-iss-whats-next/

BTW hold a ruler up...NO CURVATURE AT ALL>>>Pancake FLAT

I'm not sure what this has to do with satellites.

Aside from that, if it's fake, as you claim, then holding a ruler up is neither here nor there. Because, well, it's fake. I guess maybe it's a fake shot, from a fake ISS, showing a fake flat earth.

As for satellite launches, they are typically unmanned.

You may want to try a refresher course on another website first before you post here. The ISS is a fake satellite, ie "satellite" and the rocket was going to the fake ISS station.
Run along now.

You are correct, the ISS is a ‘satellite’, a manmade object orbiting earth. I was speaking more in terms of unmanned satellites, which seems to have been the bulk of the discussion as of late.

I just thought that it was odd that you remarked on the earth looking flat, “pancake FLAT”, in a photo you claim to be fake to begin with. Just, well, odd. That’s all. Somewhat counter intuitive and counter productive to your argument. Almost contradictory. I get that you were trying to be ironic, but you may want to try a refresher course in how to effectively render ‘irony’. 

I was going to go into the possible explanation that Ronj so aptly laid out. But that would have required an explanation of how objects orbit around the globe and I feared that it would have been lost on you, much like irony is.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Mysfit on October 17, 2018, 07:14:47 AM
You may want to try a refresher course on another website first before you post here. The ISS is a fake satellite, ie "satellite" and the rocket was going to the fake ISS station.
Run along now.
I like the "you're too stupid to understand" argument. It plays into my strengths.
I'm unsure I can argue with Jman though, as his basis is religion.
Religion normally has a reward system for believing, which is hard to outpace. Normally something along the lines of the more good and faithful you are, the more rewarded you are.
I can't think of a way around that, as I am stupid, but it causes a heavy clash with literally anyone who does not believe the same way.
To win this argument would cause a crisis of faith, and I would not like to attempt to inflict that on anyone.

I agree that using a photo from a satellite to disprove another seems illogical. But this is faith, not logic. Faith is bulletproof. Whereas logic can be debated. I'll run along now.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on October 17, 2018, 09:55:20 AM
BTW hold a ruler up...NO CURVATURE AT ALL>>>Pancake FLAT
So...you're suggesting they faked the photo (as the ISS doesn't exist) and they did so in a way to make the earth appear flat?
Why on earth would they do that?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 17, 2018, 02:32:58 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpqq0i4w_fM

Boy the NASA, JPL, SpaceX fanboys are out it abundance. Guess that's why this thread is so popular. They come out and make ridiculous claims about how the info is not a continued HOAX. First this video proves the rocket was doing it normal tilt over and heading for the ocean. It landed 250 miles down range in 2 minutes of flight. This means it was well on its way in a sideways flight path, not a straight up shot like the picture from fake ISS shows. Also this shows its above a cloud layer but none is visible in rocket crash video. More phony baloney. As the commentator in this video is explaining, NASA is reading off a script as the Russian control is already talking to Nuts in weightlessness fall. NASA = Hollywood. Cut to animation. Similar to the BBC reporter claiming tower 7 had already fell when it was visible in background still standing. No "PULL IT" yet.

The Fanboys come up with, oh the Fake ISS is just coming up the side of the ball earth thus the same height. heh heh yet not a tilt to rocket trajectory, no explosion photo, add non existent cloud layer and forget to erase flat horizon...amateur hour, they don't even care anymore, the sheep are too accepting of the Hoax now.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on October 17, 2018, 07:19:36 PM
The Fanboys come up with, oh the Fake ISS is just coming up the side of the ball earth thus the same height. heh heh yet not a tilt to rocket trajectory, no explosion photo, add non existent cloud layer and forget to erase flat horizon...amateur hour, they don't even care anymore, the sheep are too accepting of the Hoax now.

Somehow I think an explanation that presumes a globe earth wouldn't satisfy your assessment. Nor photo evidence of, for example, an explosion, would suffice because it's just fake anyway.

It feels like we're at an impasse, as Mysfit pointed out. It's NASA, JPL, SpaceX fanboys versus a Bible Fanboy.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: FlatEarth86 on October 18, 2018, 05:54:10 AM
And of course you believe there is a Tesla roadster now floating around as space junk

What reason is there to disbelieve it?

SpaceX have launched some 40 or so satellites for a wide variety of paying customers already. Just a few days after the Falcon Heavy launch, they sent another one up. They have 14 launches planned for 2018, which will include two more Falcon Heavy missions, just like the one that launched the car.

Unless you believe that all their paying customers; the corporations whose names are on the satellites, along with their subcontractors, suppliers, and operators, their financial backers and insurers; are all "in on the hoax, too" ......

Only the global elite are in on the hoax. All the people who are buying the "satellites" are all in on it.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 18, 2018, 05:16:01 PM
The only reason for the imaginary satellite launches are for the publicity gained by the corporations that do it.  News people are always around during the launch and just enhances the brands of the launch companies.  Any signals can easily (and cheaply) just be bounced off the dome and made to look like they came from the fake 'satellites' that aren't really up there.  Money for nothing, chicks for free, it's all better than MTV.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on October 18, 2018, 06:43:50 PM
The only reason for the imaginary satellite launches are for the publicity gained by the corporations that do it.  News people are always around during the launch and just enhances the brands of the launch companies.  Any signals can easily (and cheaply) just be bounced off the dome and made to look like they came from the fake 'satellites' that aren't really up there.  Money for nothing, chicks for free, it's all better than MTV.
Please explain 'made to look' with technical details.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 18, 2018, 06:58:49 PM
Well, I'm really not sure how 'they' do it.  I've pinged geo-synchronous satellites before, and based on my position on the earth and the stated position of the satellite, the travel times come back about as expected.  There's no published data on the actual position of the dome so I'm assuming that 'they' are somehow manipulating the radio signal travel times to make it look like there's a satellite up there when I've been told it was just a fake. 
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 19, 2018, 05:34:25 AM
Satellite technology is really quite easy to understand on a flat earth. Lets first look at the Dome. The King James Bible explains it in Job 37:18 as "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?" Now we have all heard of fiber optic cables right? They carry data, voice and video, they travel in glass the size of a human hair...You following? They travel at the speed of light because the data packets are turned into light.

Now we have all heard of HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), this was the .gov's all around the world sending radio waves up to the dome to try and change the weather or maybe send communications too? It's secret stuff. Back to Sat TV you're all excited about. It's elementary my dear Watson. Operation fishbowl they got a pretty good idea of it's make up, the dome that is. Now they send light which contains DATA packets up to this glass dome, lets call it Fiber Cable Dome and now this light is illuminating in a spot up there. Your dish has a focal point which is powered up by DC power pointed and sucking on that light source in the Fiber Optic Dome. It reads the light and configures it back into data packets at your TV set box and walla your watching "Little house on the prairie". No SpaceX sat dump in the sky, no thousands of sats falling back to earth burning up, no no, just plain out wireless tech.

We know all this is possible, we have LORAN which bounces radio signals off SKYWAVE :fact We know the Russians admitted in a 1950's declassified CIA report the earth was flat and the firmament projected it's own light. It's glass...duh ! We know the Earth is flat, Loran radio waves travel in a straight line for at least 500 miles about the height of the Fiber Optic Dome then bounce off to a repeater or slave and back up again traversing the entire FLAT planet.

Can we put this to rest yet or are you going to continue to believe Satans lie?

Now you have J-Man giving you the God version as I have always promised, truth, the answers are all there in the Bible. 
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on October 19, 2018, 06:30:41 AM
Satellite technology is really quite easy to understand on a flat earth. Lets first look at the Dome. The King James Bible explains it in Job 37:18 as "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?" Now we have all heard of fiber optic cables right? They carry data, voice and video, they travel in glass the size of a human hair...You following? They travel at the speed of light because the data packets are turned into light.

Depending upon which version you cotton to, it seems you can pick from a looking glass, metal mirror or bronze mirror:

Job 37:18 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV):

18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong,
and as a molten looking glass?

Job 37:18 New King James Version (NKJV):

18 With Him, have you spread out the skies,
Strong as a cast metal mirror?

Job 37:18 New International Version (NIV):

18 can you join him in spreading out the skies,
    hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

Now we have all heard of HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), this was the .gov's all around the world sending radio waves up to the dome to try and change the weather or maybe send communications too? It's secret stuff. Back to Sat TV you're all excited about. It's elementary my dear Watson. Operation fishbowl they got a pretty good idea of it's make up, the dome that is. Now they send light which contains DATA packets up to this glass dome, lets call it Fiber Cable Dome and now this light is illuminating in a spot up there. Your dish has a focal point which is powered up by DC power pointed and sucking on that light source in the Fiber Optic Dome. It reads the light and configures it back into data packets at your TV set box and walla your watching "Little house on the prairie". No SpaceX sat dump in the sky, no thousands of sats falling back to earth burning up, no no, just plain out wireless tech.

Who maintains this dome? Has anyone seen the dome? Is there any evidence (aside from a shout out from the Bible) that the dome works as a substitute for supposed satellite technology? If so, do share.

Can we put this to rest yet or are you going to continue to believe Satans lie?

Until any evidence to support all that you state is presented, I'm sticking with Satan's lie.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on October 19, 2018, 06:58:54 AM
Satellite technology is really quite easy to understand on a flat earth. Lets first look at the Dome. The King James Bible explains it...
Gonna have to stop you right there, fella.
How many times, the Bible is not a science book.
Look at Job 38:

4 Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
    Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
    Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
    or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
    and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors
    when it burst out from the womb,
9 when I made clouds its garment
    and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10 and prescribed limits for it
    and set bars and doors,
11 and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
    and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?"

God is putting Job in his place but not in a way which is meant to make any sense scientifically. The language is clearly poetic.
I think Satan has better things to do than try and convince people that the earth is round when it's really flat.
I always think it odd that some Christians, when presented with scientific ideas which challenge their understanding of Scripture, immediately conclude that the science is wrong and don't consider that their understanding of Scripture must be wrong. Even the church apologised to Galileo in the end and admitted they were wrong.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 19, 2018, 01:40:32 PM
Take a look at the Flat Earth Theory / Bumpiness of the Flat Earth / Reply #4.  Yesterday I got a rebuke from  Junker (Planar Moderator) for mentioning the DOME.  I was told to check the Wiki.  According to that 'there ain't no dome'.  In the Wiki under Form and Magnitude / Atmolayer, There's some kind of a Dark Energy Field that is holding the air from rushing off the flat earth into the void.  Since there air't no dome, a different explanation for getting all my signals back to the flat earth will be needed.     
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: AATW on October 19, 2018, 02:25:03 PM
There is no known material which could form a dome that size and not collapse on itself.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 19, 2018, 03:00:39 PM
Since the subject of this section is 'satellite hoax', and the moon is technically just another satellite of the earth, there's another issue that I have.  Many radio people have effectively used the moon as a passive satellite.  Signals were bounced off of it, and then back to the earth.  For many years the current technology has allowed moon bounce communications.  The problem is, according to the wiki on this site, the moon is 32 miles in diameter and is approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.  Unfortunately, the measured transit times (as the speed of light) just don't match the distances stated.  Is this just another satellite hoax?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 19, 2018, 03:25:18 PM
Since the subject of this section is 'satellite hoax', and the moon is technically just another satellite of the earth, there's another issue that I have.  Many radio people have effectively used the moon as a passive satellite.  Signals were bounced off of it, and then back to the earth.  For many years the current technology has allowed moon bounce communications.  The problem is, according to the wiki on this site, the moon is 32 miles in diameter and is approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.  Unfortunately, the measured transit times (as the speed of light) just don't match the distances stated.  Is this just another satellite hoax?

The moon is in the firmament, approx. 400-500 miles up. Read the Bible and claim the word of God for full understanding. The moon is not a satellite, it is light created by God, any bounce is off the Fiber Cable Dome :)
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 19, 2018, 04:55:03 PM
The wiki on this site says that the moon is about 3000 miles above the flat earth and there is NO dome.  Hopefully you will point out those errors to the moderators of this site so they can fix the discrepancy.  I am getting totally confused with all the different explanations I see for how the flat earth really works.  How can I decide which is the correct theory? 
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: juner on October 19, 2018, 05:16:16 PM
The wiki on this site says that the moon is about 3000 miles above the flat earth and there is NO dome.  Hopefully you will point out those errors to the moderators of this site so they can fix the discrepancy.  I am getting totally confused with all the different explanations I see for how the flat earth really works.  How can I decide which is the correct theory?

The wiki/FAQ can be considered the "official" position of this community. Individuals may have ideas that differ from the FAQ/wiki, which is fine. It really isn't all that confusing.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on October 19, 2018, 06:46:56 PM
Since the subject of this section is 'satellite hoax', and the moon is technically just another satellite of the earth, there's another issue that I have.  Many radio people have effectively used the moon as a passive satellite.  Signals were bounced off of it, and then back to the earth.  For many years the current technology has allowed moon bounce communications.  The problem is, according to the wiki on this site, the moon is 32 miles in diameter and is approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.  Unfortunately, the measured transit times (as the speed of light) just don't match the distances stated.  Is this just another satellite hoax?

The moon is in the firmament, approx. 400-500 miles up. Read the Bible and claim the word of God for full understanding. The moon is not a satellite, it is light created by God, any bounce is off the Fiber Cable Dome :)

What about the bronze?

Job 37:18 New International Version (NIV):

18 can you join him in spreading out the skies,
    hard as a mirror of cast bronze?


And if the moon is 400-500 miles up, seems like we could get there quite easily. That's like San Francisco to San Diego. I can do that by car in about 8 hours. By plane in 1. Why haven't we done so?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 19, 2018, 08:25:33 PM
If NASA designed and executed a mission to the moon and it was only 400 miles away and that fact got out, they would be totally BUSTED.  All the advertised moon missions were for a distance of about 239k miles.  That could be sold as long, hard and expensive.  A short trip may have actually been done, but sold as an expensive one.  They could have been producing the 239k trip in the studio while the real trip of 400 miles was actually being conducted.  Just think of all the money that they could have pocketed with the difference in the advertised price and what was actually needed for the real thing.  You have to hand it to NASA, they know how to put a suction your wallet.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 19, 2018, 09:44:53 PM
Since the subject of this section is 'satellite hoax', and the moon is technically just another satellite of the earth, there's another issue that I have.  Many radio people have effectively used the moon as a passive satellite.  Signals were bounced off of it, and then back to the earth.  For many years the current technology has allowed moon bounce communications.  The problem is, according to the wiki on this site, the moon is 32 miles in diameter and is approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.  Unfortunately, the measured transit times (as the speed of light) just don't match the distances stated.  Is this just another satellite hoax?

The moon is in the firmament, approx. 400-500 miles up. Read the Bible and claim the word of God for full understanding. The moon is not a satellite, it is light created by God, any bounce is off the Fiber Cable Dome :)

What about the bronze?

Job 37:18 New International Version (NIV):

18 can you join him in spreading out the skies,
    hard as a mirror of cast bronze?


And if the moon is 400-500 miles up, seems like we could get there quite easily. That's like San Francisco to San Diego. I can do that by car in about 8 hours. By plane in 1. Why haven't we done so?

You're just being silly now without any effort on your part to learn a hoot. Job was around most likely 1500-2000 BC, the book possibly written by Moses in Hebrew translating Aramaic. Mirrors of that time were mostly for rich folks like Job made of polished bronze. Water and polished granite were also used as image reflectors. God said the firmament held back the waters above. That takes a sold form to do so like molten glass to still see the wandering stars, Stars, Moon, Sun.... I would like you to walk outside and see if you see BRONZE or a color of the sky that resembles deep blue water? Grow up now and fight the urge to sink in the molten flames. Now go drive your Tesla to the moon and back, well wait. BTW a friend said come watch my Tesla drive itself out of the garage...I wasn't impressed, it never made it, the rear stayed about 2 ft. inside the garage. All smoke less mirrors !!
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on October 19, 2018, 10:10:14 PM
Since the subject of this section is 'satellite hoax', and the moon is technically just another satellite of the earth, there's another issue that I have.  Many radio people have effectively used the moon as a passive satellite.  Signals were bounced off of it, and then back to the earth.  For many years the current technology has allowed moon bounce communications.  The problem is, according to the wiki on this site, the moon is 32 miles in diameter and is approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.  Unfortunately, the measured transit times (as the speed of light) just don't match the distances stated.  Is this just another satellite hoax?

The moon is in the firmament, approx. 400-500 miles up. Read the Bible and claim the word of God for full understanding. The moon is not a satellite, it is light created by God, any bounce is off the Fiber Cable Dome :)

What about the bronze?

Job 37:18 New International Version (NIV):

18 can you join him in spreading out the skies,
    hard as a mirror of cast bronze?


And if the moon is 400-500 miles up, seems like we could get there quite easily. That's like San Francisco to San Diego. I can do that by car in about 8 hours. By plane in 1. Why haven't we done so?

You're just being silly now without any effort on your part to learn a hoot. Job was around most likely 1500-2000 BC, the book possibly written by Moses in Hebrew translating Aramaic. Mirrors of that time were mostly for rich folks like Job made of polished bronze. Water and polished granite were also used as image reflectors. God said the firmament held back the waters above. That takes a sold form to do so like molten glass to still see the wandering stars, Stars, Moon, Sun.... I would like you to walk outside and see if you see BRONZE or a color of the sky that resembles deep blue water? Grow up now and fight the urge to sink in the molten flames. Now go drive your Tesla to the moon and back, well wait. BTW a friend said come watch my Tesla drive itself out of the garage...I wasn't impressed, it never made it, the rear stayed about 2 ft. inside the garage. All smoke less mirrors !!

Thanks for the history lesson on mirror tech.

So in the book they were writing about mirror technology of the day - bronze dome. Makes sense. Then when humans developed better mirror technology, the book was re-written to include the new developments - glass dome. Makes sense, I suspect ancient knowledge should be updated as humanity gets more knowledgeable. Maybe the book needs to be updated to a fiber optic dome.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 19, 2018, 10:33:44 PM
Since the subject of this section is 'satellite hoax', and the moon is technically just another satellite of the earth, there's another issue that I have.  Many radio people have effectively used the moon as a passive satellite.  Signals were bounced off of it, and then back to the earth.  For many years the current technology has allowed moon bounce communications.  The problem is, according to the wiki on this site, the moon is 32 miles in diameter and is approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.  Unfortunately, the measured transit times (as the speed of light) just don't match the distances stated.  Is this just another satellite hoax?

The moon is in the firmament, approx. 400-500 miles up. Read the Bible and claim the word of God for full understanding. The moon is not a satellite, it is light created by God, any bounce is off the Fiber Cable Dome :)

What about the bronze?

Job 37:18 New International Version (NIV):

18 can you join him in spreading out the skies,
    hard as a mirror of cast bronze?


And if the moon is 400-500 miles up, seems like we could get there quite easily. That's like San Francisco to San Diego. I can do that by car in about 8 hours. By plane in 1. Why haven't we done so?

You're just being silly now without any effort on your part to learn a hoot. Job was around most likely 1500-2000 BC, the book possibly written by Moses in Hebrew translating Aramaic. Mirrors of that time were mostly for rich folks like Job made of polished bronze. Water and polished granite were also used as image reflectors. God said the firmament held back the waters above. That takes a sold form to do so like molten glass to still see the wandering stars, Stars, Moon, Sun.... I would like you to walk outside and see if you see BRONZE or a color of the sky that resembles deep blue water? Grow up now and fight the urge to sink in the molten flames. Now go drive your Tesla to the moon and back, well wait. BTW a friend said come watch my Tesla drive itself out of the garage...I wasn't impressed, it never made it, the rear stayed about 2 ft. inside the garage. All smoke less mirrors !!

Thanks for the history lesson on mirror tech.

So in the book they were writing about mirror technology of the day - bronze dome. Makes sense. Then when humans developed better mirror technology, the book was re-written to include the new developments - glass dome. Makes sense, I suspect ancient knowledge should be updated as humanity gets more knowledgeable. Maybe the book needs to be updated to a fiber optic dome.

Not quite, 4500 years before Job, that would be 6000 BC there were mirrors made of "black volcanic glass obsidian". Notice the word GLASS and volcano's are hot which is how glass was made in the first century, hot sand dripped molten glass. You see when Job was asked if he was around when "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?" God knew exactly what a molten glass was all about. Then he painted the back with GOLD< SILVER and made mirrors. Sats don't exist and the Earth is FLAT.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on October 19, 2018, 10:55:53 PM
Not quite, 4500 years before Job, that would be 6000 BC there were mirrors made of "black volcanic glass obsidian". Notice the word GLASS and volcano's are hot which is how glass was made in the first century, hot sand dripped molten glass. You see when Job was asked if he was around when "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?" God knew exactly what a molten glass was all about. Then he painted the back with GOLD< SILVER and made mirrors. Sats don't exist and the Earth is FLAT.

Still confused. The book has many versions with various descriptions of the dome.

I’ve found:

Cast metal mirror
Molten looking glass
Cast bronze
Molten mirror
Molten brass
Heated brass

Most are describing the tensile strength of the dome, not necessarily the composition. As in “...making it as hard as a mirror made from heated brass.”

Also, if it’s a ‘mirror’, then it would reflect back on us. We wouldn’t be able to see through it to the blue waters above.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Curiosity File on October 20, 2018, 12:58:49 AM
If NASA designed and executed a mission to the moon and it was only 400 miles away and that fact got out, they would be totally BUSTED.  All the advertised moon missions were for a distance of about 239k miles.  That could be sold as long, hard and expensive.  A short trip may have actually been done, but sold as an expensive one.  They could have been producing the 239k trip in the studio while the real trip of 400 miles was actually being conducted.  Just think of all the money that they could have pocketed with the difference in the advertised price and what was actually needed for the real thing.  You have to hand it to NASA, they know how to put a suction your wallet.

As the moderator said. it's not confusing.
Certain people will bring to the table any old story that makes their theory fit the frame.
FES position stated in their wiki is there is no dome and the moon 3,000 miles away.

No dome certainly busts up any theory that the signal comes back to your vessel from anything other than these satellites as you ,Ron , described.

You also brought up another very good point. Even 3,000 miles is very very close for something that flies at 17 to 22,000 mph.
How do we know they travel that fast?  Same way we track aircraft. We also track asteroids, we know how far away there are and how fast they are traveling.

But even a commercial airliner traveling at 500 mph would make it to the moon in 6 hrs.
A rocket would hit the moon in, off the top of my head about 15 to 20 minutes depending on exact speed.

Calculated 3,000 nautical miles at 17,000 mph = 12 minutes 11 sec. Add minutes it takes to get up escape velocity and chasing the moon because it's moving pretty fast =? but you get the point.   

Kind of sounds ridiculous.

With today's advanced technology we would have found the edge of the earth if were flat and certainly would have colonized the moon if it were only 3,000 miles away, or at least would have multiple radio repeater station on the moon.     


     
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 20, 2018, 02:43:36 AM
You really don't need any repeater stations to use the moon for useful radio communications.  Amateur radio operators bounce their signals off the moon on a regular basis today.  They have been doing that for more than 50 years.  The well known delay in getting a signal back & forth at the speed of light confirms the actual distance to the moon in the vicinity of 239k miles.  There have been many laser reflectors placed on the moon as well.  One of them was by the Russians in one of their unmanned missions.  Since there is a good reflector now in place, a laser range finder can be used to very accurately measure the distance to the moon to well under a meter of accuracy.  It's really not confusing at all.  Any person, world wide can do a little study, obtain a license as a amateur radio operator, and conduct all the experiments he wants and can verify any of the claims I've made.  I've been told, repeatedly, that all the signals are being bounced off the dome.  Then when I mentioned the dome in one of my posts I was rebuked by a moderator that there was no dome.  Yes, I agree with that, there is NO dome mentioned in the wiki for this site that I could find other than a small drawing that kind of looked like a dome.  Since there is no dome, then a geosynchronous satellite is certainly possible. INMARSAT claims to have many satellites in orbit above the earth's equator.  KVH claims to have many more.  The satellites were in the category of 25000 miles above the equator. My measured travel time up to the satellite and back confirmed that distance.  While I was on cargo ships traveling around the world I was using these satellite systems all day, every day for routine communications with the company office and agents world wide.  It wouldn't be unusual for us to have 500 million worth of cargo on at any given time.  With that much valuable cargo aboard you can be sure everyone was wanting constant updates as to our progress.  Some of the containers on the top rows even had their own satellite beacons that were completely separate from anything under our control.  This was especially true when we were transporting military cargo.   Years ago all the ship's routine traffic was handled by high frequency radio communications via morse code.  A radio officer aboard the ship will communicate with another operator at a shore station and handle the messages.  Now the captain, or anyone really, can pickup the phone and call home, the office, or anyone, worldwide.  I had a computer with a full internet connection that I could use when necessary.  This kind of technology would not be possible with any kind of passive reflector, like a dome.  It can't be fiber optic, it can't be an undersea cable, we were on a moving ship traveling at about 25 knots.  If the folks out there who claim that what I'm saying is false and can prove it, then they could make a small fortune.  Satellites are very expensive for the shipping companies.  They pay anywhere from 9000 to 35000 per month for the level of service that they require.  All this is necessary because satellites are expensive to build, launch, and maintain.  A passive reflector would be so much cheaper.  It's a golden opportunity for the non-believers.  For those who have the proof, the world is at your disposal, go out and make your fortune.       
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Curiosity File on October 20, 2018, 04:00:27 AM
You really don't need any repeater stations to use the moon for useful radio communications.  Amateur radio operators bounce their signals off the moon on a regular basis today.  They have been doing that for more than 50 years.  The well known delay in getting a signal back & forth at the speed of light confirms the actual distance to the moon in the vicinity of 239k miles.  There have been many laser reflectors placed on the moon as well.  One of them was by the Russians in one of their unmanned missions.  Since there is a good reflector now in place, a laser range finder can be used to very accurately measure the distance to the moon to well under a meter of accuracy.  It's really not confusing at all.  Any person, world wide can do a little study, obtain a license as a amateur radio operator, and conduct all the experiments he wants and can verify any of the claims I've made.  I've been told, repeatedly, that all the signals are being bounced off the dome.  Then when I mentioned the dome in one of my posts I was rebuked by a moderator that there was no dome.  Yes, I agree with that, there is NO dome mentioned in the wiki for this site that I could find other than a small drawing that kind of looked like a dome.  Since there is no dome, then a geosynchronous satellite is certainly possible. INMARSAT claims to have many satellites in orbit above the earth's equator.  KVH claims to have many more.  The satellites were in the category of 25000 miles above the equator. My measured travel time up to the satellite and back confirmed that distance.  While I was on cargo ships traveling around the world I was using these satellite systems all day, every day for routine communications with the company office and agents world wide.  It wouldn't be unusual for us to have 500 million worth of cargo on at any given time.  With that much valuable cargo aboard you can be sure everyone was wanting constant updates as to our progress.  Some of the containers on the top rows even had their own satellite beacons that were completely separate from anything under our control.  This was especially true when we were transporting military cargo.   Years ago all the ship's routine traffic was handled by high frequency radio communications via morse code.  A radio officer aboard the ship will communicate with another operator at a shore station and handle the messages.  Now the captain, or anyone really, can pickup the phone and call home, the office, or anyone, worldwide.  I had a computer with a full internet connection that I could use when necessary.  This kind of technology would not be possible with any kind of passive reflector, like a dome.  It can't be fiber optic, it can't be an undersea cable, we were on a moving ship traveling at about 25 knots.  If the folks out there who claim that what I'm saying is false and can prove it, then they could make a small fortune.  Satellites are very expensive for the shipping companies.  They pay anywhere from 9000 to 35000 per month for the level of service that they require.  All this is necessary because satellites are expensive to build, launch, and maintain.  A passive reflector would be so much cheaper.  It's a golden opportunity for the non-believers.  For those who have the proof, the world is at your disposal, go out and make your fortune.     
Ron you have a plethora of knowledge and real world physical experiences rare a unique stuff that makes FET cringe when they see it.
I have a questions that is of personal curiosity but is relevant to the subject.
#1 do you know the difference in height,(stories above water including the smoke stack) between cargo ships and Cruise ships?
I know cruise ships are 10 to 20 stories plus the stack making them near 30 stories above water. I could be wrong but here's what I remember.
I worked in San Diego on high raise buildings and we use to watch the cruise ships come into port.
This was an awesome sight for many reasons.
One being that their smoke stakes appeared to be level with the 24th an even the 37th floors.
What I remember was watching them raise from the sea, stack first then the rest of it as it got closer to port.
This happened rapidly and we even brought powerful binoculars and you could see with naked eye everything you could see with the B-nocs. Same as you described in opposite as you approached the shore.
On a clear day with calm seas you can easily see the horizon probably not even 20 miles out.. As fast as those cruise ships popped up out of the ocean we expected to see water dripping off them like submarines popping up out of the water.
You could calculate the distance if you wanted to by how fast they made it from first sight of the stack to the end of Point Loma prior to coming into the harbor where you could see them slow down a bit.
   
   
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 20, 2018, 04:25:56 AM
The #1 thread on this site which garners viewers from around the world to learn there is more than meets the eye or what NASA fanboys tell us has turned into a catch all for RE crybabies to post their nonsense which has nothing to do with the Satellite Hoax. Mods need a little clean up here. The Earth is FLAT and God rules !
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 20, 2018, 05:13:34 AM
To stay a little on the subject, a typical satellite antenna could be 130 to 140 feet above the water line.  This can improve the coverage just a little as it raises the distance to the horizon.  As we leave the coverage area of one satellite I would always see the needed elevation of the dish antenna get lower and lower until the signal was no longer usable.  At that point I would need to switch to another satellite that was visible at a higher elevation at the longitude where we were at the time.   Sometimes if the satellite was only about 15 degrees above the horizon and our ship was on a particular course the satellite could be blocked by the ships stack.  I can't say for sure about the size of a cruise ship, because I've never been aboard one.  A typical cargo ship would have a height of eye on the bridge of about 130 to 150 feet above the water.  Stacks or masts could easily add another 50 feet to 75 feet.  They like to keep these heights at a minimum because you have to get under bridges on a lot of voyages.     
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on October 20, 2018, 05:38:08 AM
To stay a little on the subject, a typical satellite antenna could be 130 to 140 feet above the water line.  This can improve the coverage just a little as it raises the distance to the horizon.  As we leave the coverage area of one satellite I would always see the needed elevation of the dish antenna get lower and lower until the signal was no longer usable.  At that point I would need to switch to another satellite that was visible at a higher elevation at the longitude where we were at the time.   Sometimes if the satellite was only about 15 degrees above the horizon and our ship was on a particular course the satellite could be blocked by the ships stack.  I can't say for sure about the size of a cruise ship, because I've never been aboard one.  A typical cargo ship would have a height of eye on the bridge of about 130 to 150 feet above the water.  Stacks or masts could easily add another 50 feet to 75 feet.  They like to keep these heights at a minimum because you have to get under bridges on a lot of voyages.   

To attempt to stay on point, it seems like either all of the world's maritime efforts are being unnecessarily forced to go to extraordinary efforts to navigate the oceans or satellites exist.

Point being, every nation, every shipping entity within which, is and has been, going through needless exercises, expenses, time, for decades in order to maintain the guise that they are navigating via satellite. Seems, well, cost prohibitive, at a minimum.

I guess the argument persists that GPS is all land based, Loran, etc. Or perhaps bounced off of the underside of a brass dome.

But if you simply remove one book from the equation out of 10's of thousands of various publications, experiments, observations, implementations, real world experiences, that show otherwise, sanity, logic, evidence and acumen dictate that satellite technology is real. The preponderance of evidence is not on the side of the book.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Curiosity File on October 20, 2018, 05:42:19 AM
The #1 thread on this site which garners viewers from around the world to learn there is more than meets the eye or what NASA fanboys tell us has turned into a catch all for RE crybabies to post their nonsense which has nothing to do with the Satellite Hoax. Mods need a little clean up here. The Earth is FLAT and God rules !

This is most certainly relevant to the subject of whether satellites are a hoax or not.
Knowing that the ships or shoreline vanish due to the curvature of the earth validates the information that satellites are needed to send and retrieve signals when you don't have line of sight or is blocked by solid objects.

Might I add too that I have witnessed satellites cross the night sky like clock work right on schedule on location night after night from the mid 80s on.
You can also see the ISS with your naked eye or with a telescope right on schedule like clockwork.
There is a plethora of physical proof that satellites are real. There is no proof of any kind that they are a hoax.

Moderators should warn people about insulting people by calling them crybabies, which BTW seems like what you are doing.       
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: Mysfit on October 20, 2018, 06:25:54 AM
The #1 thread on this site which garners viewers from around the world to learn there is more than meets the eye or what NASA fanboys tell us has turned into a catch all for RE crybabies to post their nonsense which has nothing to do with the Satellite Hoax. Mods need a little clean up here. The Earth is FLAT and God rules !
I get the feeling that J-man has been repeating religious views in a scientific argument for attention, rather than believing in earnest.
This bragging over popularity and their sig seems to be evidence, but all I have is belief... Which can be used as scientific proof.
Should we be quoting older religious texts to settle this? I don’t know how to win a religious argument about science that came about after a book.
I doubt the most recent version mentions internet. Yet, here we are. Believers and other folk. Bragging about Internet popularity like pride isn’t a sin.

Long story short, I am unsure J-man is arguing genuinely.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: stack on October 20, 2018, 07:49:59 AM
The #1 thread on this site which garners viewers from around the world to learn there is more than meets the eye or what NASA fanboys tell us has turned into a catch all for RE crybabies to post their nonsense which has nothing to do with the Satellite Hoax. Mods need a little clean up here. The Earth is FLAT and God rules !
I get the feeling that J-man has been repeating religious views in a scientific argument for attention, rather than believing in earnest.
This bragging over popularity and their sig seems to be evidence, but all I have is belief... Which can be used as scientific proof.
Should we be quoting older religious texts to settle this? I don’t know how to win a religious argument about science that came about after a book.
I doubt the most recent version mentions internet. Yet, here we are. Believers and other folk. Bragging about Internet popularity like pride isn’t a sin.

Long story short, I am unsure J-man is arguing genuinely.

Good point and I agree. It seems to be going nowhere and has been that way for pages. Any and all arguments/evidence is simply met with the book. And there's no getting around the book. The book is boring.

I think it's time to let the #1 thread die. I'm out.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 20, 2018, 12:52:27 PM
If the earth is flat, if there's a dome or if the earth is round won't be solved here.  I am a believer that a flat earth with a dome (or without) would make communications at sea a whole lot easier and cheaper. Shipping companies pay a small fortune to the companies that claim to have satellites.  For the flat earth entrepreneurs out there there's a golden opportunity out there for you to make a better, cheaper, more reliable communications system for the shipping companies.  Much of the merchandise in stores these days comes across the oceans from Asia on thousands of container ships.  These all need good communications.  If the flat earth theory really is viable, then revamp the satellite communications systems to use shore-based systems that are cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain, and cheaper for the shipping companies to use.  The technology would allow you to do that.  You could make a fortune driving all the 'satellite companies' out of business with your cheaper technology.  Henry Ford and Edison built their fortunes on using the technological advances of their day.  If flat earth theory is viable, today is your day.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: inquisitive on October 20, 2018, 05:12:44 PM
To stay a little on the subject, a typical satellite antenna could be 130 to 140 feet above the water line.  This can improve the coverage just a little as it raises the distance to the horizon.  As we leave the coverage area of one satellite I would always see the needed elevation of the dish antenna get lower and lower until the signal was no longer usable.  At that point I would need to switch to another satellite that was visible at a higher elevation at the longitude where we were at the time.   Sometimes if the satellite was only about 15 degrees above the horizon and our ship was on a particular course the satellite could be blocked by the ships stack.  I can't say for sure about the size of a cruise ship, because I've never been aboard one.  A typical cargo ship would have a height of eye on the bridge of about 130 to 150 feet above the water.  Stacks or masts could easily add another 50 feet to 75 feet.  They like to keep these heights at a minimum because you have to get under bridges on a lot of voyages.   
Whar were you using the satellite for?
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 20, 2018, 06:32:45 PM
These days ships depend heavily on satellites for communications and navigation.  One satellite system we used would periodically transmit our current position, received by another satellite system, GPS.  This way governments, the shipping company office, or really anyone who needed our current position, course, or speed would have access to that information.  On that same system I would receive safety bulletins for known dangerous conditions such as typhoons, vessels adrift, mayday calls, hijackings, or we even had a bulletin when the North Koreans launched their last missile. We were in the area at the time.  Since the system has our position, via GPS, the information we received was only relevant for our particular area.  Another satellite system we used would allow us to send and receive emails.  All the ships paperwork was usually completed electronically.  The countries where we went into port all had customs requirements and any cargo, supplies or crew changes had to be declared in advance of our arrival if we didn't want to be delayed.  Ships are very expensive and the carried cargo was even more expensive so delays are costly.  Of course we had satellite telephones that would allow the crew members to call home if desired.  Company business was also conducted.  There was a distress alert system on board that would allow us to immediately communicate with the outside world if there was an emergency or hijacking.  There were several buttons in a few locations around the ship and all we needed to do was press one to send out an automatic distress alert with our ships name, location, course and speed.  On my desk, I had a computer with a good internet connection.  I could use that to look up information, file a report, or anything else that was required by the captain or chief engineer.  The captain and chief engineer also had computers with the same connection and was hooked up via the ships internal data network.  Some shipping companies also allowed complete engine room monitoring of all their systems by a shore based office.  All this data went back & forth via a satellite system.  In a few years I would expect to see fully autonomous vessels out there hauling cargo world wide on the high seas.  There will be no human on board.  Everything will be controlled via the shore over a satellite connection.  As outlined the data needs of ships is vitally important and growing each day.  If the flat earth theory is viable and the system can be made simpler and cheaper by using just shore based systems for transmitting this data instead of the complex and expensive satellites, then the door is wide open.  It's time for the entrepreneurial spirit of the flat earthers to emerge and revolutionize the communications system world wide.  Opportunities await, go for it.
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: J-Man on October 20, 2018, 07:23:41 PM
Some people just don't stay up with the times or intentionally try to deceive. Microsoft owns a patent where a chip can be placed under the skin, powered by the glucose in ones body. What good is this? Well it's been around about 30 years or so and creates an ad-hoc network or MANET. Literally every human would be an access node for communications on the flat plane. Today satellites are not needed at sea as much as the old men in the sea thinks. MANET's are active and been used for decades, sometimes without the node even knowing, so we won't blame you old guy. Sats are dinosaurs, did they ever exist?

Navy ad hoc networks

Navy ships traditionally use satellite communications and other maritime radios to communicate with each other or with ground station back on land. However, such communications are restricted by delays and limited bandwidth. Wireless ad hoc networks enable ship-area-networks to be formed while at sea, enabling high speed wireless communications among ships, enhancing their sharing of imaging and multimedia data, and better co-ordination in battlefield operations.[27] Some defense companies (such as Rockwell Collins and Rohde & Schwartz) have produced products that enhance ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore communications.

Thanks for playing:
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 20, 2018, 08:17:28 PM
Yes, I am aware of what is going on with US Navy ships.  United States Merchant Marine officers can work as crew on ships owned by the United States Navy.  I've done that on many occasions during my career.  Some were research missions for the US Navy involving nuclear submarines that were classified in nature.  All of us were vetted and held the required paperwork for those missions.  We also delivered a lot of cargo to war zones to support ground troops.  Fairly recently crews were involved in the disarming of chemical weapons in the Middle East.  I wasn't involved in that operation but I did do the sea trials on the ship that was involved.  Satellite communications and HF radio communications is what I did to conduct the ship's business while on these operations. I wasn't ever implanted with a chip under my skin, that I know of.  That kind of thing is commonly done to dogs and cats.  I know someone who did get their runaway dog back because of the chip.  It does work, but is not hooked to a satellite, yet. 
Title: Re: satellite hoax
Post by: RonJ on October 20, 2018, 08:27:14 PM
I found this announcement recently.   Nothing like this was given out when I graduated from the academy. 


KINGS POINT, N.Y., October 17, 2018 – Today, the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) began issuing personal satellite communication devices to Midshipmen who will be signing-on to vessels as Cadets participating in Sea Year training.

The water-resistant devices, which are being distributed for the first time, work in areas where there is no cell phone service. The device which connects to GPS, allows Cadets to send SMS messages to cell phones or email. Each device is preprogrammed to communicate with Academy Training Representatives (ATRs), the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC), or Sexual Assault and Harassment Prevention and Response contractors. It also allows the recipient to respond directly to the Cadet.

Distribution of these devices satisfies requirements established in the National Defense Authorization Act by  “ensuring that each cadet from the United States Merchant Marine Academy who is participating in the Sea Year program is provided a functional satellite communication device.”

Updated: Wednesday, October 17, 2018