[Tumeni]

... you have provided zero verifiable information ...

Please clarify what you, personally, would regard as "verifiable information".

The premise is that shortly before this satellite was launched, someone on the project thought "Let's put a camera on this thing, and feed the camera to one of the satellite channels that our subscribers get in their package. Might be fun." If I'm reading him correctly, secretagent says that he actually watched this, on his own TV, when it was broadcast.

I don't get the impression that this was intended as "science"

Would you accept verbal accounts from those who worked on the project?
Data from the project itself?
Your own personal stream of data from the satellite?
Why don't you take secretagent at his word that he actually watched it? How much more verifiable does it need to be?

Come on, there must come a point where even you say - "Yes, I accept that (verifiable information) as fact"

What type of information are you seeking that would satisfy you?

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.

I refer you to the account of the Bedford Canal Experiment, in the Wiki. You are taking Rowbottom as an authority.

I would suggest that nobody here, even you, has actually verified that Rowbottom even carried out the experiment, never mind got the result he claimed. All you have is his description and line drawing.

Other experiments carried out in different places with different criteria are not verification that Rowbottom actually did this.

Calling parts of the Wiki "sacred texts" sounds like a faith issue to me...

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

What has this got to do with NASA?

Dish Network run/ran the satellite.

The launch rocket was assembled and launched by Sea Launch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch

The rocket was a Zenit, don't see any indication NASA was involved... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenit-3SL

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.

Can you show that your Government had anything more than a passive, hands-off role in this launch, and in operation of this satellite?

[Pete Svarrior]

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?

You're very quick to assume malice. I thought you wanted us not to accuse people of lying with no evidence?

[AATW]

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?

You're very quick to assume malice. I thought you wanted us not to accuse people of lying with no evidence?

I see what you've done there.

I'm just interested in what you think is going on here. If you don't know then that's an acceptable answer.
Surely someone has to be lying here. Either my ex-colleague, or her bosses - or someone up the chain.
It's not about assuming malice, it's about not seeing how there is any other option. You said her being "wrong" is another option, but have not elaborated what you mean.

Unless you see a FE model where a craft could have landed on Mars and be sending back seismic data, that wouldn't work with most FE models I see presented though.

[Action80]

Pretty much anything is possible, the relevant question is whether it's plausible

Yeah, I agree.

Why would a private satellite, whose sole purpose is to broadcast signals of television to homes, be outfitted with a camera?

Failed to sell...but as Barnum said, "There is a sucker born every minute!"

[Tumeni]

Why would a private satellite, whose sole purpose is to broadcast signals of television to homes, be outfitted with a camera?

Does that mean you accept that the satellite did, and still does, broadcast signals to people's homes from an orbital location?

Like I said above, I get the impression it was tacked on for a bit of fun as an afterthought. Not a science experiment, not designed to last or future proofed....

However, do you realise that your argument is virtually the EXACT opposite of what flat-earthers in other arenas usually argue about satellites?  It usually goes - "If there's all these satellites, we should have pictures of the Earth, 24 hours a day! Why aren't there any?"     To which the RE response usually is - the satellites are sent there for a purpose, and that purpose is not photography.

[AATW]

Why would a private satellite, whose sole purpose is to broadcast signals of television to homes, be outfitted with a camera?

Well. If I was launching a satellite for whatever purpose then I'd sure as hell put a camera on it.
Do you have any idea how much money it costs to build and launch a satellite? We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars, adding a camera isn't going to cost anything relative to that.
What's your hot take, that they employ someone to fake pictures from it. Why would they do that?

[secretagent10]

What's your hot take, that they employ someone to fake pictures from it. Why would they do that?

Exactly. I don’t see how putting a camera on a satellite to add a satellite channel, as a television provider, is less plausible than having a constant feed be faked (while making sure it’s consistent with the world at all times!)
One is a one-time relatively cheap addition to a launch, one is a constant human labor cost.

(Also sort of bummed out by the lack of FE engagement lately except for Tom and Pete. Maybe everyone found out it’s not flat.)

[Tumeni]

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

So what if they did?

The Govt in the UK created the framework which regulates car manufacturers in the country, and it also created the Road Traffic Regulations, which dictate how cars shall be used once on the road, with regards to signage, speed limits, types of pedestrian crossing, etc. 

However, they have no actual involvement beyond that when I either buy a car, or get in it to drive somewhere.

Likewise, NASA may well have created a framework and laid down the groundwork for commercial space satellite launches, but they're not directly involved in every one.

[AATW]

(Also sort of bummed out by the lack of FE engagement lately except for Tom and Pete. Maybe everyone found out it’s not flat.)

There has never been that much really.
And on this particular topic I always find it disappointing that there seems to be a real lack of effort going in to investigate claims about space exploration.
Every launch and mission is an opportunity for scrutiny. Given that the ISS can be seen from the ground and ham radio operatives are able to communicate with it, that's another avenue for investigation.
And, specific to this thread, there are a load of satellite technologies and images which can be cross referenced with other data.
Instead it all seems to be put into a big box marked "FAKE" and not really thought about too much.

[stack]

Comparing a screenshot from the Echostar IX video to In-The-Sky.org's satellite tracking map, they seem to be identical:

[Action80]

Why would a private satellite, whose sole purpose is to broadcast signals of television to homes, be outfitted with a camera?

Does that mean you accept that the satellite did, and still does, broadcast signals to people's homes from an orbital location?

No, it means the exact opposite.

Like I said above, I get the impression it was tacked on for a bit of fun as an afterthought. Not a science experiment, not designed to last or future proofed....

For-profit companies aren't interested in fun.

However, do you realise that your argument is virtually the EXACT opposite of what flat-earthers in other arenas usually argue about satellites?  It usually goes - "If there's all these satellites, we should have pictures of the Earth, 24 hours a day! Why aren't there any?"     To which the RE response usually is - the satellites are sent there for a purpose, and that purpose is not photography.

I don't care about any FE statements or RE statements.

I am making my statement.

In regard to plausibility.

It is highly implausible for this to have occurred.

[Action80]

Why would a private satellite, whose sole purpose is to broadcast signals of television to homes, be outfitted with a camera?

Well. If I was launching a satellite for whatever purpose then I'd sure as hell put a camera on it.
Do you have any idea how much money it costs to build and launch a satellite? We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars, adding a camera isn't going to cost anything relative to that.
What's your hot take, that they employ someone to fake pictures from it. Why would they do that?

My hot-take is there is no camera.

Period.

There is no such place as 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Another hot-take is that only a fool would believe this is plausible.

[ichoosereality]

For-profit companies aren't interested in fun.

On the contrary. Satellite TV is a direct to consumer business.  Anything they can do to make their customers smile when they are thinking about the company or its service is good for business especially if its incremental cost is near zero, which this is.  While this likely was fun for the company engineers (which is also good for the company), its fun for their customers that the company was thinking about.

[ichoosereality]

There is no such place as 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth.

How is it then that you get the strongest signal when your directional antenna is pointed at that spot?

[secretagent10]

There is no such place as 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth.

How is it then that you get the strongest signal when your directional antenna is pointed at that spot?

It’s always something something “triangulation” with them.

[Tumeni]

There is no such place as 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Really? Tell us more. How have you verified this?

[Pete Svarrior]

I'm just interested in what you think is going on here. If you don't know then that's an acceptable answer.

I don't know, and I don't think I can know. I also don't know (but I hope I could know) how many times you want me to repeat this.

Surely someone has to be lying here. Either my ex-colleague, or her bosses - or someone up the chain.

Not necessarily. They could all be wrong.

You said her being "wrong" is another option, but have not elaborated what you mean.

I don't know what it is that needs elaborating. There is no need for anyone to lie. They could simply all believe something that's ultimately false.

Unless you see a FE model where a craft could have landed on Mars and be sending back seismic data, that wouldn't work with most FE models I see presented though.

You're extremely prescriptive all of a sudden. If only you treated RE'ers the same way...

[ichoosereality]

Surely someone has to be lying here. Either my ex-colleague, or her bosses - or someone up the chain.

Not necessarily. They could all be wrong.

If the person analyzing data is told it comes from a probe on Mars, but it is in fact being generated on earth and fed into the data stream somewhere, doesn't someone (actually many someones) have to be involved in making that happen?  That isn't just being wrong.

[stack]

Surely someone has to be lying here. Either my ex-colleague, or her bosses - or someone up the chain.

Not necessarily. They could all be wrong.

Isn’t it more plausible that you are wrong rather than the dozens or 100’s (and the 1000’s that came before them) that design, engineer, launch, & receive data from such space tech, all as expected with visible results, all the way down to the consumer level?

[Pete Svarrior]

but it is in fact being generated on earth and fed into the data stream somewhere

Seems like a strange assumption to make out of nowhere. I thought you were all about choosing reality?

Isn’t it more plausible that you are wrong

Pay attention, just this once, I beg of you. The question was whether or not someone lying is the only option. It's a "yes/no" question.