Satellites don’t exist on an flat earth

Flat earthers deny the existence of space so they need to deny the existence of satellites also.

No Satellites, Just Ground Based Towers

The flat earth doctrine is that everything we think is being done by satellites is done by towers on the ground, like cell phone towers. They think there are no GPS satellites, no weather satellites, no communications satellites.

Flat Earthers don’t know How Things Work

They have no idea how things work. They do not know a satellite dish is a parabolic reflector that focuses on a very small point in the direction it is pointed at… Flat earthers see all these satellite dishes pointing up into the sky and they sit down and watch the cable television coming from their satellite dish and say it is all done with ground based towers. But my dear flat earther your parabolic satellite dish is not pointing towards a ground-based tower, your satellite dish is aimed at a point in the sky above the equator and it is are receiving a radio signal from that point which is being relayed from a ground station and your dish can also transmit a signal to that point which will be relayed to the ground station.

So it is an absolutely established fact that we can point our satellite dishes up into the sky, aim them at satellites, and send and receive radio communications from the satellites.

Sattelite Dishes don’t Point at Ground-Based Towers

So there is no question. Satellite dishes are not pointing at ground based towers and because they are not pointing at ground based towers they can not be getting their signals from or transmitting to ground based towers. They are sending their signals and receiving their signals from somewhere in the sky, typically somewhere directly above the equator. That is why, if you travel, you will see at the equator satellite dishes are pointing almost directly up into the sky, because typically the geosynchronous communications satellites are directly above the equator. And as you travel away from the equator north or south the further away you get from the equator the satellite dishes are set at a lower angle. If we say pointing directly up into the sky is at a 180 degree angle as you come towards the north or south pole you have to reduce the angle of your satellite dish down to almost 90 degrees to have it still point at the satellite above the equator. At some point before 60 degrees latitude it becomes impossible or very difficult to receive and transmit to satellites stationed over the equator because the angle of the dish becomes so low that the signal gets blocked by hills and trees, etc.

Types of Sattelites

There are two types of satellite:

  1. Geosynchronous satellites, typically used for communications, satellite television, etc. They remain fixed in a position above a certain point on the earth and remain there. They are placed in ‘geosynchronous orbit’, a magic distance from the earth (22,236 miles) where the satellite will stay put with only very minor adjustments from ground control. They become geostationary when placed directly above the equator and become very useful for communications in this position. At this distance geosynchronous satellites have a full view of the earth and could take photos of the full globe if someone ever things to put a camera on one of these things…
  2. Satellites in low earth orbit, generally used for weather, mapping, surveillance, etc. These are generally not higher than 250 miles. They do not have a full view of the earth, they can only photograph narrow strips which can be pasted together to produce a composite image of the earth projected on a globe, or projected on a flat plane also. We do have cameras on these low earth orbit satellites and the images are available online.

We are using both types of satellites and they are working for sure. Of course there is a possibility everything is not as they tell us it is, however, it is certainly possible to put objects in low earth orbit and to put instruments, cameras, etc on them and these objects travel on predictable orbits.

Many of the low earth satellites are transmitting radio signals which can be picked up and tracked by anyone who wants to point an antenna at them as they pass by overhead in the sky. And we are getting the images and data from these low-earth satellites and it is being used by scientists all over the world daily for many uses.

Suspicious Geosynchronous Satellites

There are aspects to geosynchronous satellites which could be suspicious. It is very suspicious that they have thousands of these geosynchronous satellites and have had them for 50 years or more but have never put a camera on them to give us a live high definition streaming video of the earth from space. That would be great. And would be so easy, just put a video camera on one of these geosynchronous satellites?

There are, of course, geosynchronous satellites, typically weather satellites which do have cameras and do provide some imagery which is posted on the internet. The most prominent being the United States GEOS weather satelites.

https://www.goes-r.gov/

They provide some animated image sequences of the earth from space, for example:

https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/GOES16_FullDisk_Band.php?band=GEOCOLOR&length=24https://www.goes-r.gov/

But it is unclear if these are actual photographs or if they are compilations of data produced sourced through various instruments and plotted onto the globe by supercomputers.

Because geosynchronous satellites are typically used only to relay communications they are mostly passive. It means the satellite is not really actually doing anything at all. It is just an antenna in space. You point your parabolic antenna at that point in space and transmit to it, the ground station points their parabolic antenna at the same point in space you are pointing at and receives the signal you are transmitting to that point in space. Then, using a different frequency, the ground station transmits its reply to you back up to that same point in space, your antenna picks that up from the same point in space and you have your communication. So if it was possible to reflect a radio signal off a point in space then there would be no need of geosynchronous satellites for satellite communication.

So there is a good chance they have discovered some property of a location in space 22,236 miles above the equator where you can transmit a radio signal to and focus another antenna at the same location in space from a different location on earth and receive that signal. In that case they would still need to have the communication gear for the satellite but it would be installed in the ground station, not in space. If you could reflect the radio signal in space like this then you wouldn’t need a satellite in the sky at all, you could do everything from the ground station.

 

Supporting Flat Earth Proofs

  • 166) The “geostationary communications satellite” was first created by Freemason science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and supposedly became science-fact just a decade later. Before this, radio, television, and navigation systems like LORAN and DECCA were already well-established and worked fine using only ground-based technologies. Nowadays huge fibre-optics cables connect the internet across oceans, gigantic cell towers triangulate GPS signals, and ionospheric propagation allows radio waves to be bounced all without the aid of the science-fiction best-seller known as “satellites.”
  • 167) Satellites are allegedly floating around in the thermosphere where temperatures are claimed to be upwards of 4,530 degrees Fahrenheit. The metals used in satellites, however, such as aluminum, gold and titanium have melting points of 1,221, 1,948, and 3,034 degrees respectively, all far lower than they could possibly handle.
  • 167) Satellites are allegedly floating around in the thermosphere where temperatures are claimed to be upwards of 4,530 degrees Fahrenheit. The metals used in satellites, however, such as aluminum, gold and titanium have melting points of 1,221, 1,948, and 3,034 degrees respectively, all far lower than they could possibly handle.
  • 169) So-called “satellite” TV dishes are almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle towards the nearest ground-based repeater tower. If TV antennae were actually picking up signals from satellites 100+ miles in space, most TV dishes should be pointing more or less straight up to the sky. The fact that “satellite” dishes are never pointing straight up and almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle proves they are picking up ground-based tower signals and not “outer-space satellites.”
  • 170) People even claim to see satellites with their naked eyes, but this is ridiculous considering they are smaller than a bus and allegedly 100+ miles away; It is impossible to see anything so small that far away. Even using telescopes, no one claims to discern the shape of satellites but rather describes seeing passing moving lights, which could easily be any number of things from airplanes to drones to shooting stars or other unidentified flying objects.
  • 171) NASA claims there are upwards of 20,000 satellites floating around Earth’s upper-atmosphere sending us radio, television, GPS, and taking pictures of the planet. All these supposed satellite pictures, however, are admittedly “composite images, edited in photoshop!” They claim to receive “ribbons of imagery” from satellites which must then be spliced together to create composite images of the Earth, all of which are clearly CGI and not photographs. If Earth were truly a ball with 20,000 satellites orbiting, it would be a simple matter to mount a camera and take some real photographs. The fact that no real satellite photographs of the supposed ball Earth exist in favor of NASA’s “ribbons of composite CG imagery,” is further proof we are not being told the truth.
  • 178) People claim Google Earth somehow proves the ball model without realizing that Google Earth is simply a composite program of images taken from high-altitude planes and street-level car-cameras superimposed onto a CGI model of a ball Earth.

54 Replies to “Satellites don’t exist on an flat earth”

  1. Ed kelley

    To simplify for those that need it…. Let’s say 400 days in a year…. Let’s say first satellite launched in 1960…. Let’s say it is the Lord’s year 2020 Jan1.

    So 60yrs*400 days=24000 days

    AGAIN FOR DISCUSSION NASA SAYS OVER 8000 SATELLITES IN OPERATION… THOSE ARE THE ONES THEY TELL US ABOUT….OK…SO…..

    24000 DAYS DIVIDED BY 8000 SATELLITES =
    3 DAYS.

    THAT MEANS WE HAD TO HAVE LAUNCHED… AGAIN FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION….A SATELLITE EVERY 3 DAYS STARTING IN 1960. THAT’S IF THE WEATHER … ALL VARIABLES THAT COULD DELAY THE LAUNCH…. WERE PERFECT !!!!

    DOES THAT SEEM LOGICAL? NO! IMO

    BEST….ED J KELLEY

    • theNegativeHunter

      this is why i hate flat earthers. they don’t know much math. their claims aren’t detailed.
      according to :
      http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/osoindex/search-ng.jspx?lf_id=
      Vostochny Cosmodrome, Russian Federation
      39 launches in a year (2018).. how can this be?
      you can drop the list and see that there is multiple launches in one single day.
      they launch multiple ones in one day.
      so how does a launch site get away with launching 28 satellites in one single day?
      it is actually one launch :
      https://www.planet.com/pulse/12-dove-satellites-successfully-launched-on-soyuz-rocket/
      https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/lemur-2.htm
      In December 2018, eight Lemurs were launched on a Soyuz-2-1a Fregat-M.
      in here :
      https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/soyuz-2-1a_fregat-m.htm
      you can see that a single rocket launched 32 satellites, 4 of which weren’t registered in the reference that tells you there was 8k sattelite launches. 20 of which i showed their website to you. that is if i counted the 28 correctly.

      so, shrink down your 8k to maybe 800 launches. in the world, in 60 years.
      i do agree that some sites are really busy launching once a month, BUT you have made a huge mistake ED J KELLEY, by not questioning yourself.

      is earth flat? is it round? i don’t know i haven’t seen it with my own eyes. what my eyes see, is flat earthers being stupid. and i see math adding up with a round earth, my bets are on a round earth.

      • Jake

        Satellites are allegedly floating around in the thermosphere where temperatures are claimed to be upwards of 4,530 degrees Fahrenheit. The metals used in satellites, however, such as aluminum, gold and titanium have melting points of 1,221, 1,948, and 3,034 degrees respectively, all far lower than they could possibly handle.

        • Dan Riley

          The thermosphere is nearly vacuum, the actual energy transfer is tiny despite the large formal temperature. Do the math, not on temperature but actual energy flows.

        • Northern1982

          Good point but, you need to go little deeper to know why. Despite the high temperature, an observer or object will experience cold temperatures in the thermosphere, because the extremely low density of the gas (practically a hard vacuum) is insufficient for the molecules to conduct heat. A normal thermometer will read significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), at least at night, because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. In the anacoustic zone above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the density is so low that molecular interactions are too infrequent to permit the transmission of sound.

  2. Upside Down

    i think the flat earthers would gain more credibility if they focused on rather than the earth being a flat disk, it should be more like spot on the side of a much larger earth this could explain a lot more of their conjecture having the sun and moon floating above a section of this larger planet providing light and life and that the Antartic ice wall is the barrier to the adjacent larger planet. One could even argue that the firmament encapsulates this area of the flat earth, kind of a pimple on the larger planet. The sun and moon could be held in place similar to magnets of similar polarity repel each other. Ironically this would mean the earth was not flat just less round. Maybe they should start the ‘Less Round Earth Society’

    • Flat Earth Facts

      But that wouldn’t work in the sense that it would not predict or describe the things we see happening in the sky and around us. You can’t just make up something and present it as a theory if the theory does not explain and predict the things we actually observe. That is why Globe Earth model is a good model and so for no other valid model has been presented. So it is not just about imagining something, you have to present the model and explain completely how if the earth was like you are proposing it would explain and predict our actual observations. Globe earth model does this, no other model can do it at the moment and the ones you are presenting also would fail miserably in this regard.

  3. TruthSeeker

    Antarctic ice wall ? Really ? Try that on the multiple individuals who have traversed the Antarctic continent from ocean to ocean. Ain’t no ‘ice wall’ there my friend.

    Oh, and great circle navigation doesn’t work on a flat earth.

    • On the Level

      Yes. They’re called Luna satellites. In fact, the US government proposed balloon satellites called Luna satellites in the early 1960’s. Orbiting space satellites are pure fiction.

      • On the Level

        Correction:
        Balloon satellites are not necessarily called luna satellites. In the 1960’s echo 1 project involved balloon satellites if I remember correctly. Project Loon and Bloostar are or were recent balloon satellite projects.

        • MichaelJohn

          Ye gods man, Echo was a REAL low earth orbit satellite launched on a rocket from Wallops Island, VA. It was NOT a balloon..high altitude balloons are not spherical.. it was an aluminum coated mylar SPHERE, inflated with compressed air after reaching orbit height. I WATCHED IT INFLATE FROM MY BACK YARD IN NJ WHEN IT WAS LAUNCHED. It then proceeded IN ORBIT, being used as a radio wave reflector for a trans Atlantic television broadcast.
          There appears to be a fine difference between gullibility and abject stupidity.

  4. peter windysz

    hahahahahahahaha love all the fake earth images…. it still boggles my mind, to this day, how any individual owning a pair of eyes and a brain can actually think these are legit SMH SMH SMH SMH etc etc etc

    • bobe

      Ask any hacker about websites and truth, and you will be told about the matrix. Truth on the internet is what they want you to see. It’s there, but you have to be capable of going real deep. And stay clear of fact-checkers. They exist to steer you away from the truth.

  5. Rachel

    Admittedly, you’re correct in assuming I don’t have any extensive knowledge about how wireless transmissions work. However, I can also guarantee you’ve never personally witnessed a floating satellite transmitting data in the manner you described either. So on to the debate: Cell phones don’t have to be pointed directly at a tower to receive signal from them so why would a tv satellite dish? If a ground based tower is emitting diagonally projected tv signal beams in many directions from a singular point, it makes sense a receiver dish, seemingly pointed at the sky, would actually be picking up signal from those diagonally projected ground-based beams. I have seen ground based towers and know my phone receives wireless signals from somewhere, so it seems logical to assume it would be coming from them. Why you would assume your TV service is traveling hundreds of thousands of miles through the sky from some floating contraption you’ve never seen before… idk?? Perhaps because u want to believe some incredible man-made force beyond your own comprehension is what’s powering the television your watching?..And if so, that’s fine, but it isn’t a logically based belief.

    • Flat Earth Facts

      Yes. Of course you don’t understand how satellite TV works Rachel. That dish is a parabolic reflector. It collects the signal from one very focused point, the point it is pointed at. So if you point it in the sky it will pick up a signal that is coming down from the sky, not a signal which is being broadcast from a land-based transmitter.

      On the other hand, the antenna in your phone that is omnidirectional. It will pick up and transmit signals in all directions. That is why you do not have to point your phone at the tower to make a call. It is you know, science.

      So the television signals for satellite TV, they are certainly coming down from the sky…

        • Flat Earth Facts

          Hi Jake

          Satellite phones use low-earth orbit satellites, about 500 miles up in the sky, they have 66 of them orbiting, so they are not stationary, that is why satellite phones do not use parabolic reflectors, because with a satellite phone you are not pointing at a particular satellite, it is just transmitting and receiving from the satellite which is closest to you at that time up in the sky. Similar to a cell phone that connects to the closest tower. So satellite phone connects to the closest satellite which is only about 500 miles up in the sky so it is quite easy to transmit/receive from that with an omni-directlional antenna.

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

          The parabolic antennas are used for the geosynchronous satellites, they are stationary in the sky, they say orbiting in syncronization with the spin of the earth, hard to believe, but that is what they say. There is a certain distance from earth where they can put a satellite and it will orbit in syncronization with the rotation of the earth. This geosyncrinous orbit is about 22,000 miles up, above the equator. So you need a parabolic antenna to communicate with these satellites, they are the ones typically used for satellite TV and satellite internet.

          There is some question in my mind about these geosyncrinous satellites as they really don’t do anything except reflect the radio signals. So if you could somehow find some natural thing out there in the sky that could reflect radio signals and stay in the same place in the sky then you wouldn’t need them.

          So there are 2 categories of satellite, the close low-earth orbit ones [400-500 miles up] and the geosyncronous communication ones [22,0000 miles up].

      • Jake

        You’re assuming that the “parabolic reflector” (satellite dish) actually works the way they claim. If they’re claiming that you can only receive a satellite television signal with a parabolic reflector OF COURSE they’re going to build the receiver in the shape of a parabolic reflector. In the center of the dish is an ANTENNA, which could, in theory, be receiving signals from ground based towers just like a “satellite phone”, or even a regular cell phone. What we know is that a “television satellite dish” receives a television signal from SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE, anything beyond that is conjecture and belief that known liars are telling the truth about tin cans in fake space.

        • Flat Earth Facts

          Why don’t you get a parabolic antenna yourself Jake and test it and see how it works? People are so stupid these days it is amazing, with all due respects Jake. Parabolic reflectors focus on the point that you point them in. They work very well, exactly as they are advertised to work and you can read about them and understand exactly how and why they work. Parabolic antennas focus on the point you point them at and get the signal from where you point it at. So if you point a parabolic antenna into the sky it is going to pick up a signal transmitted from a satellite in the sky or possibly from some possibly natural structure up there that can reflect radio signals. So there are only two possibilities if you point your antenna up in the sky and get a signal, the signal is coming down to you from the sky for sure, but there are things that radio signals can reflect off so it would be possible it could be transmitted from the earth and reflected off something up there in the sky and you are picking up the reflection. There is no other possibility as far as I am aware.

          • Jake

            Let’s see here…..

            You’ve done some name calling…

            You’ve made assumptions…

            However, you haven’t said anything to prove there are television signals coming from a tin can in fake space. Just because there is no other possibility that you’re aware of, doesn’t mean there aren’t other possibilities. Let me give you another possibility. I live in a very rural area. I have wireless internet in this rural area. It comes from a tower, this is a known fact. The company I have this service through is a small, family owned company. This is really good internet. As good as you’ll get with a basic plan in the city. I can stream HD movies and even game online with this service. According to my PS5 internet test, I’ve seen it reach speeds as high as 19. Now, this service uses a box for a receiver. It mounts to the side of my home. The funny thing about this box, is that in order for it to receive a signal, it must be pointed in the direction of the tower. I know this is a fact, because they had to put it on the front of my house and I wanted it on the back. I was told that wasn’t possible, because the receiver must face the tower in order to function, a tower actually owned by this very small, family owned company in a rural area. Now , if a very small family owned company, has a very good wireless internet service, that uses a tower, that you need to point a receiver at in order to get a signal, what do you think a company like Direct TV has? I mean, come on, no other possiblity?

            Your beLIEf in the impossible clouds your critical thinking skills. This is why there is no other possibility as far as you’re aware of.

            Tin cans in fake space is pure science fiction, plucked out of thin air by a science fiction writer.

          • Flat Earth Facts

            Why don’t you read what I said? I said there are television signals coming from space, you can not disagree with this. I suggested you try to understand how a parabolic antenna works and if you understand this you will know that if you point it to a very specific point in in the sky and get a television signal then that signal is coming from the direction you are pointing your parabolic antenna. Move it just a fraction of a degree in any direction and you will loose your television signal. So there is absolutely no question whatsoever the satellite television signals are coming down to you from a fixed point in the sky. If you disagree with this then you have no ability to think logically.

            And I, like you, are very doubtful that satellite TV is coming from a tin can in space. Actually even if there is a tin can in space it is only a reflector. The TV signal is coming from a ground based transmitter that is also pointing to that exact point in the sky, the same point that all the satellite TV dishes are pointing to. So the ground-based transmitter transmits to that point, the signal is reflected off that point in the sky and it is picked up by all the satellite TV dishes pointed at that point in the sky.

            So what that point is? That is the question. I am open to the possibility that there may be some natural occurance that they have discovered that can reflect radio signals from certain points in the sky. Otherwise it could be a tin can there reflecting the signal. But it is not doing anything, it is just a reflector, the signal is being transmitted from the ground and is being reflected off something in the sky at that point. That we know for a fact. It may be a tin can satellite or it may be some natural feature reflecting the radio signals, these are the only two possibilities.

            But the signal is coming to your from that point in the sky where you have your parabolic antenna pointed to.

          • ON THE LEVEL

            COSMIC POSITIONING SYSTEM

            Flat Earth Facts,

            In past comments on other threads you claimed denying existence of satellites as insane. –snipped–

        • Tim Andrews

          “In the center of the dish is an ANTENNA, which could, in theory, be receiving signals from ground based towers just like a “satellite phone”, or even a regular cell phone.”

          If your theory were true, satellite dishes would still be able to get reception when pointed away from their associated satellite, but they don’t.

    • Tim Andrews

      “Cell phones don’t have to be pointed directly at a tower to receive signal from them so why would a tv satellite dish? ”

      Because the satellite TV dish is a directional antenna, while the cell phone is equipped with an omni-directional antenna.

      It’s like the difference between a flashlight that makes a beam/spot of light and an unshielded lightbulb that shines in all direactions.

      The satellite dish uses a reflector, to focus the radio waves coming into it, exactly like the flashlight uses its reflector to focus the lightwaves coming out of its bulb.

      If your theory were true, you would still be able to watch TV through your satellite dish if you tilted the antenna down from pointing at a spot in geosynchronous orbit and towards ground based antennas.

      Try it. Do an experiment you can do yourself. What happens when you tilt a satellite dish down towards the horizon and the tops of ground based towers? You won’t be watching TV anymore, you’ll be watching an error message that says “Loss of signal.”

  6. Jake

    All I use is earth curvature chart. No one has expanded that one fact. With a telescope I can see the beach 26 miles away.

  7. InnerCynic

    Couldn’t you just surmise that the sky above is likewise a parabolic reflector and that ground based signals could be directed to “spots” on the reflector corresponding to so-called satellite locations? And by directing your own parabolic reflector to gather in the reflected signals from those spots you would then of course tune in to that band? Not much different than tuning in to varying frequencies on any radio.

    • Flat Earth Facts

      Yes. The theory is possible for geocentric satellites but it quite possibly doesn’t work at all, and it is quite possible they have got tin cans up there reflecting the signals. So it would be easy to test. Someone needs to test it, and then, if it works, then we can say something. But no one has tested it, and it does not work for low-earth orbit satellites, they absolutely exist for certain.

  8. bobe

    The satellite thing has been a thorn in this flatearther’s behind! The truth is, they don’t work on any flat and stationary model. I know helium balloons are used for communication. But the sheer number of satellites that NASA proclaims are in orbit is unrealistic. The electronic interference alone would make any communication difficult, at best.
    For me, the most viable argument against the existence of satellites is the failure of NASA to put a solar-charged digital camera on a suitable satellite, and broadcast a 24-7 video from space of the spinning ball earth and prove that they are not lying.
    They claim to some out there that could certainly handle that small task.

    • bobe

      The satellite issue is the same as the curvature issue, if it exists, prove it. Show us the ball. Measure the curved water.

      GGI is it. They showed us a picture of the earth over the moon horizon. Didn’t they know that the earth from the moon would be four times the size of the moon from earth!

      They can’t even get their own model right. They need to study their own “science”. It would have them spending more time with their therapist.

      • Tim Andrews

        “Didn’t they know that the earth from the moon would be four times the size of the moon from earth!”

        Yes they did, and it is.

        Have you ever noticed that the moon is larger relative to foreground objects in some pictures taken from Earth, and smaller than others? It all depends on how “zoomed” in the picture is.

        Shoot a 128mm film picture with an 80mm lens on the Earth and you’ll see the moon is about 1/4 the size of how you see the Earth in Apollo pictures.

      • ON THE LEVEL

        Bobe,

        You seem correct to me. Moreover, why couldn’t NASA with all it’s presumed tech wizardry film the supposedly large rotating Earth through their Geiss lensed video cameras with a telescopic lens attachment from the supposed lunar surface? All the school age baby boomers would have loved to see it, presuming it was real.

        Yet we’re now over half a century past the supposed first moon landing, NASA has lost the original supposed moon-landing telemetry data, apparently can’t complete Project Orion and design a craft able to breach the Van Allen Radiation belt and beyond, lost the technology to make it back to the moon and only seems willing to provide cgi cartoons in exchange for 54 million dollars a day budget.

        • ON THE LEVEL

          Correction to prior post. NASA apparently provides other services besides cgi cartoons like perhaps high altitude scientific services.

          • Flat Earth Facts

            Of course OTL, NASA provides real services also, there really are low-earth orbiting satellites and they really have the space station up there orbiting also and they really have cameras and all sorts of other sensors on these satellites that are really actually providing lots of very useful data.

            And their geocentric communication satellites actually work in the sense that you can point an antenna at a certain exact location in the sky from one place and get your television or connect to the internet using the satellite.

            So, as the flat earthers do, to claim satellites don’t exist, when so many people are using them daily and getting so much real data from them that would be impossible to get if they did not exist, that is insanity.

            I am not completely convinced about geocentric satellites, but they work, in the sense that we can transmit and receive data to a very specific location in the sky and it will come from or end up at the satellite ground station. There is some possibility that the signals are just being reflected from something up there in the sky that was already there that the scientists have just discovered. So it is not completely inconceivable that the geocentric satellite effect could be created by taking advantage of some naturally occurring structure that can reflect radio waves.

          • ON THE LEVEL

            FEF,

            My post simply clarified that I understood NASA had a purpose beyond making cgi ball Earth cartoons. However, you’ve extended that into a flight of fancy.

            NASA’s purpose has always been military domination of what some call space.

            “Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth’s weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the ultimate weapon. And that’s the ultimate position. The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space.
            —Lyndon B. Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation’s Defense and Race for Space, January 7, 1958”

            From Flat Earth Society: “One month later, Lyndon Johnson and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army’s Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

            NASA’s early rocket research is well documented to have been a complete failure, plagued by one disaster after another. At some point, perhaps after the Apollo 1 disaster, it was decided to fake the space program outright and use rockets which only needed to fly into the air until they disappeared from sight. NASA went from nearly every launch being a failure to a near flawless track record, able to land man on the moon multiple times without error, and with only two public spectacles of failure in 45 years.

            The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it’s round. They are not running a real space program, so they wouldn’t know what shape the earth truly takes. At the time of NASA’s creation the general population already believed that the earth was round, based on the handed down teachings of the Ancient Greeks, which is why it was depicted in that manner. As with everyone else in the country, the people at NASA were taught the fiction of a globe earth from the cradle, so there was no doubt in their mind as how to display it.”

            “Evidence for the Conspiracy
            “ All government agencies lie part of the time, but NASA is the only one I’ve ever encountered that does so routinely. ”
            —George A. Keyworth, Science Advisor to President Regan in testimony before Congress, March 14, 1985 (See Assorted Quotations)”

            There exists no evidence that what is commonly called satellites that follow the previously discussed Newtonian free-fall definition(s) exist.
            As I’ve stated high altitude platforms of various kind can exist but all must have a continuos means to sustain elevation, not simply curving their free fall path away from the Earth with a few puffs from attitude jets.

            NASA personnel themselves claim never to have gone beyond low Earth orbit. All pictures claimed from such distances are cgi. Imo, it’s doubtful any supposed NASA image beyond ~240 miles or ~350km is untouched by cgi manipulation. The ionization layer at that point becomes very strong, the heat is enormous and some barrier beyond a few ionized gas molecules bounces radio waves back to Earth. Imo, the US military prior to NASA’S start has tried to penetrate that barrier ( Operation(s) Dominique, Fishbowl, etc. ). Efforts continued with NASA’s Space Shuttle program and others. Anyone’s guess as to how far they’ve gone.

            As to geocentric satellites please explain how they can function 20-30k miles from Earth’s surface smack in the supposed middle of the Van Allen Radiation Belt? Wasn’t Project Orion supposed to solve that problem? As mentioned radio can bounce off the ionization layer or high altitude platforms. Do you have any evidence where the signals bounce from? Radio engineers can only guess. All they know is that they receive a signal either when their parabolic receivers point in a given direction or if from a non-parabolic receiver ( like your cell-phone ) when a strong enough signal reaches it. All attempts to derive source information involves guesses and conjecture, and or accepting other people’s claims. Only if one has 1st hand knowledge of the transmitter and means of propagation should one assert knowledge of it.

            Last but not least, the IFS may indeed exist ~240 mile, 350 km overhead, but what is it? No evidence people actually live up their except dubious Cgi / live action cartoons and nonsense from NASA itself. Further ground based observations of the drone don’t seem convincing to me. Have you verified your own observations and determined if they confirm to NASA claims?

          • Flat Earth Facts

            Yes, especially: “All attempts to derive source information involves guesses and conjecture, and or accepting other people’s claims. Only if one has 1st hand knowledge of the transmitter and means of propagation should one assert knowledge of it.” This is exactly my understanding and realization. We can guess and speculate, like the scientists do, for millions and millions of years, but still we will have no idea actually how the universe is working. The only way we can find actual knowledge of how the universe is working is by getting it from someone who has knowledge of it. And that is what the Vedas is. It is the knowledge of both the material and spiritual worlds, handed down to us from higher, transcendental sources. So ultimately that is the only way we are going to really find the answers, find a source of the knowledge from someone who actually knows the answers.

            “The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it’s round. They are not running a real space program, so they wouldn’t know what shape the earth truly takes.” Yes. That is also my understanding.

            As far as the low orbit satellites they exist and what is actually the mechanism, how they stay up there, that I don’t know. But they are certainly there and they orbit on regular predictable orbits and you can see them, even with the naked eye, you can see some of them, and certainly with a telescope. Space station, that is also a big satellite, same principal. We can see it, it is there in the sky, you can see it, you can see it is about the correct shape and size. So it is there for sure. And how it stays there in orbit exactly? I don’t know. But it does. The idea is generally objects would fall down to the earth but if they are going fast enough they will stay up there and orbit, going down a little bit over time of course. Exactly how it works? Who knows? But it works. That I can guarantee you.

            As far as space station is very obvious that the US astronauts prefer to do their live broadcasts in front of a green screen on earth. So I would be surprised if there are many, if any at all, Americans up there. But most likely it is possible to go up there and stay for some time, but of course very dangerous. Anything in space is very dangerous, anytime taking off or trying to land in a rocket is very dangerous, etc… But I do not doubt that, although very dangerous, it is most likely possible to go up there and stay for some time and come back down.

    • Flat Earth Facts

      There are 2 types of satellites, low earth and geosynchronous, and geostationary [a special type of geosynchronous]. So the low earth satellites, weather satellites, gps satellites, the space station, etc, realistically no intelligent person can seriously argue that they do not exist. They exist, we can see them at night, we can pick up the radio transmissions they are transmitting, we can track them as they pass over us. So it is totally insane to say low earth satellites don’t exist. They certainly do exist and are orbiting the earth in predictable orbits. They are typically only a hundred or a few hundred miles up.

      The other satellites, they are much more, I forget, maybe 23,000 miles, you can look it up. So it is those ones that should be sending us the beautiful high definition realtime streaming pictures of the beautiful globe earth in space, and it is those live feeds that are mysteriously absent. Yes. So there is some chance there is some other explanation for these geosynchronous satellites. They may be just bouncing radio signals off something up there that conveniently reflects radio signals, that was already there, that they did not have to put up there.

      But whatever the explanation, they work. You point your directional antenna into the sky directly at the correct satellite and you pick up your favorite television station. So that TV signal is being transmitted from an earth based ground station up into the sky and is being reflected off something up there. Now they say it is reflecting off a “tin can” they put up there. May be true. Also it is possible they found some spots up there that naturally reflect radio signals and are just beaming their signals up at these natural reflectors.

      But in any case both sorts of satellites work.

      • Flat Earth Facts

        Yes. Epic camera. That’s the best they have:

        https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

        Not continuous images actually. About one image every 2 hours… And super low resolution. 2048×2048 pixels. That’s all NASA can give us from their billion dollar camera in the sky? Once every 2 hours…

        The problem is the images are an earth underlay with clouds above it. And the cloud positions, at least because they only need to provide pictures once every 2 hours, the cloud locations they know from their many low earth satellites.

        So these images can be very easily simulated.

        And if they really did have a billion dollar camera in the sky they would be providing us high resolution continuous imaging. Which they don’t do. Instead they provided us with a super low resolution very easily to simulate image only once every 2 hours…

        So it would seem that Epic is a computer program running on some big computer somewhere taking input from the weather satellites and producing these simulated globe images.

        At least that is a much more likely scenario than NASA putting a billion dollar camera in the sky that can only provide super low resolution 2048×2048 pixel images…

        So the problem

  9. Erin

    Does no one consider how fast we are supposed to be spinning? Not to mention shooting through space while we spiral around the sun?? How can anyone think we have several stationary or “fixed” satellites thousands of miles anywhere above Earth? Do you have any idea how fast and wild they would need to be flying to keep up with us?!? All the while remaining “fixed” above a specific point?!? That’s CRAZY!

  10. ON THE LEVEL

    FEF,
    Well, it seems people haven’t posted much here in a while. There doesn’t appear to be many people trying to straddle two diametrically opposed models of the Earth and claim both must be true!
    Further, there appears to be evidence now posted online that apparently Esrange in Sweden that launches & tracks rockets & balloons from around the world lists many supposed US satellites as “balloons” as well as the Russian MIR space station which supposedly preceded the ISS better labeled the International Fake Station. As previously shown, the ISS should not be where they claim it is based on their own observation schedules and the claimed velocity of the supposed ISS. The information can be provided if you’re willing to post it or you can look it up.

    • Flat Earth Facts

      Hi On The Level. Actually I have not checked the comments for a while, that’s why there hasn’t been many comments…

      The low-earth orbit satellite are a provable reality. They are up there moving on predictable, regular orbits and you can observe many of them, some even with the naked eye, but certainly many with a telescope. And you can monitor the radio signals many of them are broadcasting by pointing a directional antenna at them and you can track the radio signals they are broadcasting across the sky as they pass above your head.

      So it is simply insanity to argue that satellites don’t exist. Satellites do exist and what is the point of me spending five minutes pointing out the obvious???

      There is no point presenting insanities like “satellites don’t exist.” It is crazy and that flat eathers believe this insanity is not a very good sign…

      Exactly what they are and how they work, that is irrelevant. They are physical objects that are somehow suspended above the earth and are moving on predictable orbits around the earth taking pictures and other measurements, transmitting their data back to earth based ground stations, etc, etc.

      So satellites do exist, you are trying to say satellites exist but they are balloons… So it does not matter what they are. They are there, they are working, they are sending us data and we are using that data. They exist… It is insane to say they don’t exist… Even if they are balloons, they are satellites and they exist…

      • ON THE LEVEL

        It seems the facts drip in no matter what. It appears Starlink ( supposed satellites ) in addition to internet and such service provides GPS navigation and positioning service! Wow, they’re supposedly LOE satellite orbitals! Does that mean geosynchronous GPS satellites were never needed? Are they actually grou< >

        • Flat Earth Facts

          OTL. Always confused…

          GPS satellites were NEVER geocentric and never stationary. They have always been low earth satellites and they have always been moving, but even though they are moving, they are on fixed orbits, so their location can always be calculated. And yes, StarLink Satellites are very similar to GPS satellites, they are moving but their position in the sky is known and they have a clock and could easily have a GPS transmitter on them and be used in the same way as GPS satellites.

          Yes. Of course ground based systems are possible. Your phone has a ground based system that is based on wifi triangulation. That works inside and in cities. So you don’t need that Australian company, your phone uses all the wifi routers around you to locate you in a similar way to the way you can get your location with the GPS satellites. But it works inside and in big cities. Also of course there is cell phone tower triangulation. That can give your location also, not so accurate as GPS, but the same principle is working.

          There are StarLink Satellites, there are GPS satellites, and the geocentric satellites that are for TV and communications [but not used much these days for communications, basically replaced by undersea cables], are also there, but may be just inert reflectors, and may even be some natural thing that reflects radio waves. And there are ground-based location systems also [like wifi triangulation and cell phone tower triangulation].

          So the point is satellites exist. No thoughtful person can deny that…

          • ON THE LEVEL

            Hi FEF,

            Just a few questions to see if you’re on the level.
            Why use GPS satellites that due to their supposed motion must constantly re-calculate their position in 4 dimensional space-time relative to the earth when a fixed position would merely require the satellite to transmit an unchanged known position?
            A fixed position relative to the earth surface can be almost anywhere in space-time. Why go through added expense and time to do what has always been unnecessary and locate them tens of thousands of kilometers above earth’s surface and move them at high velocity? Just to show off? To prove you can do it? Make contractors lots of money? If yes to any of these questions, why do you think a government would approve it?

            Imo, anyone honest must admit it never made sense. Proof of that is the fact that neither you nor anyone else confronted with the questions above have ever provided a reasonable answer including NASA. Hyberpolic navigation pre-dates NASA, supposed GPS satellites and the entire lot of nonsense. NASA claims it’s system to be developed from ( LORAN ) ground based hyperbolic navigation systems, which now they say can and/or will surpass satellites in capability. Once again do you have an answer or just idolize the ball, Elon Musk and all things pseudosciene?

            Have a great Thanksgiving?

          • Flat Earth Facts

            Your questions show that you don’t understand how things work. There is no way you can keep something stationary in low earth orbit except if you use a tethered lighter-than-air balloon, and they do use these sometimes, not for GPS but for surveillance generally, but in theory you could put GPS transmitters on fixed tethered balloons. But that is not what they do, they have satellites and they are not lighter than air and there is no weightlessness. The satellites in low-earth orbit are still falling towards the earth, being pulled down by gravity. So they are all constantly falling towards the earth. But if you can get them orbiting around the earth at a high enough speed then they fall around the curve of the earth. Which means they adjust themselves to the height above the earth where they are moving around the earth and falling and orbiting at the same time so they stay the same height from the earth.

            Now I know this sounds like a bit of a far-fetched story, but that is the story that NASA & Co. tell. That is how they explain how it is working. Now I have no idea actually, if that is how it works, but I can guarantee that you can’t put a satellite in low-earth orbit and have it stay in one place. If it is stationary it will just fall out of the sky. But if you put it up there at a high enough speed then it will just keep on orbiting the earth in its fixed orbit for a long time. Not forever. It will gradually slow down and get lower and eventually crash into the earth. But they seem to be able to stay up for a long time.

            So I really do not know how it actually works but it is a fact if you put a satellite up there and you can get it going fast enough it will stay up there on a predictable orbit for a long time. That is a fact.

            Yes, might be nice to have stationary GPS satellites in a fixed location, but that is not possible in low earth orbit. And GPS satellite has to be in low earth orbit, not more than a few hundred miles up, because GPS devices need to pick up the signals without directional antennas and without big antennas.

            You can have stationary geosynchronous satellites at about 22,000 miles up, but that is way too far away for GPS. If you want to pick up a signal from one of these you need a parabolic antenna and it has to be exactly pointed at the satellite, like a satellite TV antenna. So GPS has to be low earth satellites and low earth satellites have to be moving quite fast otherwise they fall out of the sky.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *