ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« on: March 22, 2022, 12:10:44 AM »


I remember watching this years ago when I had DISH. Unedited feed from 22,000 miles up. When you watched the original broadcast it obviously wasn’t timelapsed. I mean, there it is. The image is right there. Scrub through the video and see the clouds moving, moon transit etc. Stationary over the US being in geostationary orbit for television.

Seems like as good of evidence as any.
Beautiful to look at.

I’m aware you can simply say “fake”, and of course I’m posting this to a flat earth forum so I know what to expect. Just wanted to bring this up as a rebuttal to those certain FE’ers that like to say “show one that’s not edited or CGI!”


Whether or not you can technically claim it is “fake”, the reasoning in the comments is infuriating. These include:
“Why can’t you see any satellites”? That’s like me asking you to see an ant from an airplane.
“Where is the moon?” It makes transit in the video and is clearly visible.
“Why aren’t the clouds moving?” They are moving, exactly as fast as you would expect them to. Scrub through the video.
“Why can’t I see any stars?” Exposure.
“Why isn’t it pear shaped?” Obviously misunderstanding why that was ever said in the first place.
“Why isn’t the earth rotating?” Geostationary orbit, the only way a television satellite could work.

There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water. Yes, I can just say it is fake because reasons, but the timelapse is exactly what you would expect to see. For this reason, I don’t know why this footage is insufficient.
I won’t argue against your ability to simply not believe in the timelapse, but the reasons for it being fake are either deliberate or ignorant misunderstandings.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2022, 12:39:47 AM by secretagent10 »

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2022, 07:15:04 AM »
Unfortunately I’ve found a lot of the people who simply shout “fake” have no experience in analysing images or video. Some of the things you mention above are common objections. Things like “why can’t you see satellites” or “why can’t you see the stars” show such ignorance that it’s basically just an argument from incredulitye.

I posted 2 threads on here some time ago, one from the people at NVIDIA who analysed a photo from the moon and showed why the lighting is exactly what you’d expect, given the reflections off other objects. And another thread where 3 VFX artists analyse some of the Apollo footage and basically say it would be impossible to fake in the days before CGI. Those threads got almost no FE response.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2022, 06:24:56 PM »
The "they fake it" claim is even more ridiculous for space telescope data.  While Hubble (and now JWST) are the well known ones, there have been around 100 special purpose telescopes launched, with more planned.  This started in the mid 60s and has covered the spectrum from radio to game rays.  Among the amazing achievements is a 3D map (including movement) of the 2 billion stars we can see plus nearby galaxies produced by Gaia.  The idea that this vast amount of data could be faked starting in the 60s and not only remain self-consistent throughout the decades and consistent with ever improving ground based observation but contain new things to be discovered by the thousands of researchers working in cosmology, astrophysics, theoretical physics etc, is simply not possible.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2022, 06:36:35 PM by ichoosereality »
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2022, 10:02:36 PM »
I do wonder what some FE people believe is going on with all this.
I lady I used to work with early in my career went on to academia and I heard a while back that she was working either for or with NASA, studying data from one of the probes on Mars and looking in to "Marsquakes". So what do they think is going on there? Is she a "shill", is she "in on it"? Or is she being fooled too and being fed fake data. If the last of those then is there a team in NASA whose job it is to produce all this fake data for this ex-colleague of mine to analyse? And they then employ someone to analyse it? I can't get my head around what their narrative is in this area.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15157
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2022, 10:50:50 PM »
I do wonder what some FE people believe is going on with all this.
Why must pointing out that someone wrong about something come with a detailed psychoanalysis? I know RE'ers love to do that (c.f. "people who disagree with me do so because they need to feel special, or like they belong somewhere!!!1!!1!"), but there is no rhyme or reason to this approach.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2022, 11:00:33 PM »
I do wonder what some FE people believe is going on with all this.
Why must pointing out that someone wrong about something come with a detailed psychoanalysis? I know RE'ers love to do that (c.f. "people who disagree with me do so because they need to feel special, or like they belong somewhere!!!1!!1!"), but there is no rhyme or reason to this approach.
If someone is attempting in good faith to access verifiable data and objectively analyze it with out bias yet comes to a clearly wrong conclusion, then showing them their error can be effective.  But if someone has a huge confirmation bias and will come to such a wrong conclusion no matter what, then that same approach will be fruitless.  Isn't that a worthwhile distinction to determine?
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2022, 11:02:51 PM »
I do wonder what some FE people believe is going on with all this.
Why must pointing out that someone wrong about something come with a detailed psychoanalysis?
While I am interested in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there was none of that there.
I'm just interested what you or other FE people imagine is going on here.
This ex-colleague of mine is apparently studying seismic data which comes from an instrument sitting on Mars. For most FE models that wouldn't be possible. So either she is lying about her job or being lied to. Is there another option?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2022, 11:12:35 PM »
Same question for the 1000s (10s of 1000s?) of folks that have worked on analyzing the huge amount of data from the 100 or so space telescopes claimed to have been launched.  Where do FEers think that all that data came from and how was it kept consistent yet contained new (still consistent) things to be discovered.  Are all those working in the various fields "in on it"?  or what?  I really do not see an answer other than its real.  How do FEers resolve this?
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10066
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2022, 11:29:26 PM »
Considering that you have provided zero verifiable information showing that the data is legitimate, your assertions are as easily dismissed as they are stated.

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2022, 11:40:10 PM »
Considering that you have provided zero verifiable information showing that the data is legitimate, your assertions are as easily dismissed as they are stated.

Tom, my original post was a little bit more than saying “here’s some footage, accept it”. It was a bit of a meta argument.

I’m completely admitting that you can just say it’s fake and I can’t do much about it. I’m asserting that the REASONING used by FE’ers in the comments are based on false interpretations/misunderstandings.

If these are the things that made them FE’ers, they got to their position for the wrong reasons. All that FET really has is desperate skepticism that you “technically” can’t disprove as long as you push the bar for evidence back enough.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2022, 11:48:27 PM by secretagent10 »

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2022, 11:50:26 PM »
Considering that you have provided zero verifiable information showing that the data is legitimate, your assertions are as easily dismissed as they are stated.
What do you mean by "legitimate" here?  Do you contend that the space telescopes I provided a link to (via the wikipedia) do not exist?  or that the scientists publishing papers on them over the last 50 years or so made up their data?  or what?
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2022, 11:55:00 PM »
Considering that you have provided zero verifiable information showing that the data is legitimate, your assertions are as easily dismissed as they are stated.
What do you mean by "legitimate" here?  Do you contend that the space telescopes I provided a link to (via the wikipedia) do not exist?  or that the scientists publishing papers on them over the last 50 years or so made up their data?  or what?

I don’t believe there’s much in this world that would cause the editors of the literal FE wiki to edit it to say “we have been disproven” (as hilarious as that would be)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10066
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2022, 12:32:28 AM »
Quote from: secretagent10
Tom, my original post was a little bit more than saying “here’s some footage, accept it”. It was a bit of a meta argument.

I’m completely admitting that you can just say it’s fake and I can’t do much about it. I’m asserting that the REASONING used by FE’ers in the comments are based on false interpretations/misunderstandings.

If these are the things that made them FE’ers, they got to their position for the wrong reasons. All that FET really has is desperate skepticism that you “technically” can’t disprove as long as you push the bar for evidence back enough.

NASA faking the data is sort of the underlying premise of this concept and website.

Most of the discussions resolve around the next step of whether FE/RE is possible. NASA's possible fakery is already part of the premise of the discussion and is typically conceded as possible even by RE'ers here to allow for further discussion.

The reality of the Round Earth should be irrefutable through mountains of functional evidence and not just at the whims of whether space agencies are possibly faking data or not. If you leave things as "possible" and argue through incredulity, then it remains "possible" that you are wrong.

As an empirical matter you should be also concerned that you believe in something which you have not seen verification for and that your belief is based on trust in authority. That sounds more like a faith issue to me.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2022, 12:57:25 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2022, 12:56:33 AM »

NASA faking the data is sort of the underlying premise of this concept and website.

NASA? Tom, this is about EchoStar and Dish Network. Why would I, as a private company, waste money on a fake satellite launch as well as perfectly craft a fake daily nonstop feed from the satellite’s fake perspective for no reason? I would much rather just put a camera on a useful piece of equipment launched into orbit.

It is the neutral, unbiased, independent research of this stuff that only solidified my knowledge (not belief) that the earth is a globe.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10066
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2022, 01:21:03 AM »
NASA? Tom, this is about EchoStar and Dish Network. Why would I, as a private company, waste money on a fake satellite launch as well as perfectly craft a fake daily nonstop feed from the satellite’s fake perspective for no reason? I would much rather just put a camera on a useful piece of equipment launched into orbit.

It is the neutral, unbiased, independent research of this stuff that only solidified my knowledge (not belief) that the earth is a globe.

They certainly did not design the rockets, which are controlled and classified as weapons under ITAR, meaning that they are partnered with the federal government or government contractors.

The government also created the underlying operating procedures for the commercial satellite industry:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SupportingCommercialSpaceDevelopmentPart1.pdf



So you are appealing to a system the government created and which government made procedures for, and are asking us to ignore that the government is involved.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2022, 01:38:55 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2022, 01:23:38 AM »
likewise for the position of the broadcast point of satellite TV.  Why does the signal strength max out when the antenna is pointed to the specified orbit point no matter where you are located?
Likewise for GPS, which is direct from the satellites to your phone/receiver and the system will not work if it is anything else.  Can you explain that?

A solar eclipse is when the moon gets between the earth and the sun (which in the FE case makes the sun very small so one might ask what makes it shine).  But a lunar eclipse is when the earth gets between the sun and the moon.  How does that happen for the FE?  (and you can observe both of these with no technology).

We see the sun, moon, and stars rise and set exactly as a rotating earth would show so you invent bendy light and claim it explains it despite not offering any direct evidence nor explanation in physics for it..  Not only is bendy light falsified by large solid state lasers, but even if it were true it would not make the day/night line be straight, but we observe it to be so.   Doesn't that make it clear that you have decided on the FE model first and are inventing things that you think will make that model consistent with observation?

Of course there is the fact that after extensive travel we find that the layout of the land matches the globe earth perfectly but not the flat earth and the little issue of the containment mechanism (a wall or dome or ice wall or infinite plane or whatever) never being found.

There is plenty of directly attainable data but you just ignore it Tom. 

As for NASA and all the other county's space agencies and private companies and universities faking all this data for decades yet making its all consistent and putting in things to be discovered, we are just not that smart.  It is NOT possible.

Of course your response will be some flip answer of "its not legitimate" or "read the far" or something having nothing to do with actual observation and analysis.  Something makes you want to (at least claim to) believe in the FE.  What is it?

Do you think you (as a layman, like me and everyone else here) know better than the worlds scientists on quantum mechanics, or chemistry, or materials science, or aerodynamics, or fluid mechanics or micro electronics any number of other areas?  I'm guessing not.  So why do you think so on the shape of the earth?
« Last Edit: March 23, 2022, 07:49:20 AM by ichoosereality »
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.

Offline scomato

  • *
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2022, 03:47:55 AM »
Quote from: secretagent10
Tom, my original post was a little bit more than saying “here’s some footage, accept it”. It was a bit of a meta argument.

I’m completely admitting that you can just say it’s fake and I can’t do much about it. I’m asserting that the REASONING used by FE’ers in the comments are based on false interpretations/misunderstandings.

If these are the things that made them FE’ers, they got to their position for the wrong reasons. All that FET really has is desperate skepticism that you “technically” can’t disprove as long as you push the bar for evidence back enough.

NASA faking the data is sort of the underlying premise of this concept and website.

Most of the discussions resolve around the next step of whether FE/RE is possible. NASA's possible fakery is already part of the premise of the discussion and is typically conceded as possible even by RE'ers here to allow for further discussion.

The reality of the Round Earth should be irrefutable through mountains of functional evidence and not just at the whims of whether space agencies are possibly faking data or not. If you leave things as "possible" and argue through incredulity, then it remains "possible" that you are wrong.

As an empirical matter you should be also concerned that you believe in something which you have not seen verification for and that your belief is based on trust in authority. That sounds more like a faith issue to me.

If not NASA, do you trust the Japan Meteorological Agency, and JAXA? Because they launched and operate Himawari 8, a weather satellite which you can tune into to see a new full-disc photo of the Earth every 10 minutes.

https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

You can prove the photo is real because it's corroborated by ground-based weather radar.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/au/darwin/13718/weather-radar/13718




If this were all a fakery, it would have to be an international conspiracy (no NASA in sight) between Japan, Australia, and everyone in between. It would need to be maintained forever, with no margin for error, updated every 10 minutes, accurately reflecting real cloud formation patterns, and smoke from forest fires. With all that would be required to fake this, it would be so much easier to just... put a geostationary earth-cam up in space to take real pictures.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15157
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2022, 10:40:51 AM »
So either she is lying about her job or being lied to. Is there another option?
Yes. She could just be wrong. We do not need to have, and we never will have, magical insight into what exactly is going on in her head. It baffles me that this needs explaining.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2022, 10:48:05 AM »
Most of the discussions resolve around the next step of whether FE/RE is possible. NASA's possible fakery is already part of the premise of the discussion and is typically conceded as possible even by RE'ers here to allow for further discussion.
Well of course it's possible, in the same way that it's possible that kangaroos don't exist (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19185.msg261502#msg261502)
Pretty much anything is possible, the relevant question is whether it's plausible. To determine that you need to think through the consequences if that were so. Because NASA are not just making vague claims, the building of the ISS involved multiple nations, you can literally see it from the ground and you don't need particularly expensive optics to make out its shape. And as has been posted elsewhere you can even try and contact it yourself as some radio hams have done.
There's lots to investigate here. The Shuttle was demonstrably a thing - I saw a launch myself one time I happened to be in holiday in Florida at the right time. Where did it go? There'd surely be some evidence if they were just landing somewhere. And how would they take off again to land at the time and place where the mission was supposed to end? Shuttles didn't have the ability to take off like a plane would.
I've seen pictures of the shuttle docked with the ISS taken from the ground.
And of course it's not just NASA who have launch capability. Multiple other nations do as do some private enterprises now.
Then you have stuff like GPS and Satelllite TV. These things demonstrably work and I have noticed on work trips in countries nearer the equator that the dishes are at a far steeper angle than they are here. This makes sense in the context of a geostationary satellite above the equator. The only way GPS can works - you have conceded it can accurately tell you your coordinates - is if it knows where those coordinates are in relation to other coordinates. So it must know how far apart those places are, which implies our maps are accurate. And that's a real problem for FE because it's simply not possible to plot those known distances accurately on a flat plane - this is why there is no working FE map.
Then you've got weather satellites and has been pointed out you can cross reference that data with other data - or just by taking your own observations locally. You don't have to take their word for the accuracy of the data, simply look out of your window.

Quote
The reality of the Round Earth should be irrefutable through mountains of functional evidence and not just at the whims of whether space agencies are possibly faking data or not. If you leave things as "possible" and argue through incredulity, then it remains "possible" that you are wrong.
But, again, you can do this with anything, like the existence of kangaroos. Space exploration is pretty much the killer blow for FE, which is why you have to dismiss it all as fake, but there is plenty of other evidence. But you operate in the sceptical context selectively depending on whether the evidence you're looking at fits your worldview. Evidence which does not is scrutinised to within an inch of it's life, you hold it up to a level of proof which nothing can ever satisfy. Evidence which you think backs up FE is readily and unquestioningly accepted. A good example is the emergency landings book. It was trivial to look at one of the examples in that book and show that the route he supposed from San Francisco to Dubai was completely wrong:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19222.msg261564#msg261564
Look at the actual flight path and a diversion to Moscow makes perfect sense. You didn't even reply to that post.

If you're doing this as a thought experiment or in the spirit of a debating society then I guess it's an interesting exercise, but beyond that I question the mindset of someone who does some tests of their own, gets results which doesn't fit with their understanding of a globe earth and concludes that they have discovered something that would overturn millennia of science rather than conclude that they either made a mistake or they don't understand the globe model as well as they thought they did.

When it comes to this thread there is lots you could check, there's lots of data you could cross reference against other data. Just saying "it could all be fake" is a lazy cop out.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2022, 10:56:27 AM »
So either she is lying about her job or being lied to. Is there another option?
Yes. She could just be wrong.
Can you expand on that? Wrong about what? She believes her job is to analyse seismic data coming from instruments sitting on Mars.
She was employed on that basis. If she is wrong about that then surely that's in the latter category, she is being lied to, no?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"