B flat B♭

[Apple Sky]

The sun doesn't rise or set, it just appears too go up & down due too our perspective.

Believe it or not this is what happens.

 

[Phil G]

Either believe it or don't believe it, makes no difference to me.

It's not about belief. It's about rational explanations that fit the facts. Don't tell me to either believe it or don't when you are telling me irrational explanations which don't fit the facts. Your flat earth gurus are either lying or they have no clue what they are talking about.

You are on here making claims and I'm asking you to back up those claims with facts. You clearly can't and now you're trying to avoid facing that fact. You are making it all about belief when it isn't. Believing nonsense that doesn't fit the facts is pure folly.

So I challenge you gain to please give me a rational explanation for where satellite tv signals come from if not from satellites in geostationary orbit over the earth. All you're doing is regurgitating what other flat earthers say and what they say is utter nonsense.

 

[Apple Sky]

Don't tell me to either believe it or don't when you are telling me irrational explanations which don't fit the facts.

Well I reckon they do.

 

[Phil G]

Well I reckon they do.

How do they? that's what I've been asking. Explain how they fit the facts. I've given you clear rational thought-out reasons as to why they don't fit the facts. All you say is "Well I reckon they do."

So explain it. If you can't all you're doing is providing evidence for the globe earth.

Once again, please give me a rational explanation for where satellite tv signals come from if not from satellites in geostationary orbit over the earth. And explain to me clearly in a way that fits the facts why it is so.

 

[Apple Sky]

Once again, please give me a rational explanation for where satellite tv signals come from if not from satellites in geostationary orbit over the earth. And explain to me clearly in a way that fits the facts why it is so.

If Tartaria could receive signals from the Ionosphere, why couldn't we do today, after all the Elite knew all about Tartaria and it's free energy from the Ionosphere.

What they have done is just use Tesla's knowledge on the subject & have just put a cash meter on it.

 

[Phil G]

If Tartaria could receive signals from the Ionosphere, why couldn't we do today, after all the Elite knew all about Tartaria and it's free energy from the Ionosphere.

What they have done is just use Tesla's knowledge on the subject & have just put a cash meter on it.

Because the ionosphere is notoriously unreliable for long term signal transmission and reception. Anybody can receive and transmit signals skipped off the ionosphere, I've received them myself with short wave radio for example. But anybody who has done so can tell you that the ionosphere's properties are very dependent on conditions, even the time of day and solar flares affect its reliability.

My satellite equipment has given me years of reliable reception. The only problem I had was a number of years ago when I lost some channels when other people were still getting them. The problem was at my dish which I resolved.

But apart from that, and the change over to HD signals as opposed to SD, I have had more than twenty years of reliable and consistently clear pictures, any time day or night. The ionosphere cannot provide that consistency.

As for a cash meter, I don't pay anyone for the free channels. I just bought the equipment, installed it and all the channels I get are provided free.

You seem to like AI overviews, so here's one for the ionosphere:

"Reliability of radio signals from the ionosphere is highly variable due to its constantly changing nature, making communications prone to disruption. Factors like solar activity, daily cycles, season, and geographic location significantly impact the ionosphere's ability to reflect radio waves, which can lead to signal degradation, blackouts, or unpredictable performance. Reliability can be improved by choosing the correct frequency and using modern models to predict ionospheric conditions, but it remains a significant challenge for consistent communication."

 

[Apple Sky]

But anybody who has done so can tell you that the ionosphere's properties are very dependent on conditions, even the time of day and solar flares affect its reliability.

Not on a flat earth they don't, there are no solar flares on the flat earth sun.
This is why people need to reeducate themselves when it comes to the sun in more ways than one.

 

[Phil G]

Not on a flat earth they don't, there are no solar flares on the flat earth sun.
This is why people need to reeducate themselves when it comes to the sun in more ways than one.

You have completely ignored the fact that it is the experience of people, including myself, that the signals are unreliable. That is a fact beyond dispute.

You are now trying to change the subject to being about the sun and the shape of the earth. Deal with the fact that the ionosphere cannot provide consistent communications for it to reliable enough to use for satellite transmissions.

I have been asking you to do this many times, but you keep avoiding it and trying to change the subject.

Give me any explanation for the source of satellite tv signals if they don't come from satellites in geostationary orbit over the earth. And give me an explanation that fits the facts, not just one that requires blind faith in something that doesn't fit the facts.

 

[Apple Sky]

Deal with the fact that the ionosphere cannot provide consistent communications for it to reliable enough to use for satellite transmissions.

Okay I've dealt with it - Next .......

 

[Phil G]

Okay I've dealt with it - Next .......

No you haven't. You've claimed things and have been unable to back them up with facts. I'm going to keep asking you to explain your claims with actual facts.

Ignore the question whether satellites exist or not. Ignore the shape of the earth. Ignore the shape of the sun. Now give me a rational explanation for where satellite tv signals come from that fits the facts.

I will consider it and respond as to whether it makes sense or not according to the facts of the equipment, the direction of dish alignment, the reliability of the signal.

 

[Apple Sky]

I'm going to keep asking you to explain your claims with actual facts.

And I'm going to keep on explaining the same ol.

This should be interesting - Not.

 

[Phil G]

And I'm going to keep on explaining the same ol.

This should be interesting - Not.

You're just showing yourself up then. What I am asking is not unreasonable.

I have a satellite receiver and dish. I have the direction in which the dish faces toward the sky. I have my experience of setting the equipment up. I have a short wave radio receiver which receives signals skipped off the ionosphere. I have the evidence of the reliability of the satellite signals and the spurious nature of signals skipped off the ionosphere.

So I am asking you, not just to repeat claims, but to explain those claims in a rational way so that they make sense.

That is not being unreasonable. You started this thread up. You made various claims which go against established facts. So it is up to you to explain them in such a way that they make sense.

You have made the claim that satellite signals come from underground cables, aerial masts and the ionosphere. None of that fits with the facts. So it is up to you to explain why you say they do, and not just claim belief. Believing something which doesn't fit the facts is pure folly.

I have said that I will consider any explanation you have and respond by giving rational thought out answers. If I can't answer because something has got me thinking that there might be another explanation other than satellites, then I will say so. But if the explanation doesn't make sense I will explain why it doesn't make sense.

I have done this throughout my involvement about satellite tv with you. You however have just answered with claims that make no sense, and then when you can't answer, you either try to change the subject or resort to mockery.

 

[Apple Sky]

You're just showing yourself up then. What I am asking is not unreasonable.

I have a satellite receiver and dish. I have the direction in which the dish faces toward the sky. I have my experience of setting the equipment up. I have a short wave radio receiver which receives signals skipped off the ionosphere. I have the evidence of the reliability of the satellite signals and the spurious nature of signals skipped off the ionosphere.

So I am asking you, not just to repeat claims, but to explain those claims in a rational way so that they make sense.

That is not being unreasonable. You started this thread up. You made various claims which go against established facts. So it is up to you to explain them in such a way that they make sense.

You have made the claim that satellite signals come from underground cables, aerial masts and the ionosphere. None of that fits with the facts. So it is up to you to explain why you say they do, and not just claim belief. Believing something which doesn't fit the facts is pure folly.

I have said that I will consider any explanation you have and respond by giving rational thought out answers. If I can't answer because something has got me thinking that there might be another explanation other than satellites, then I will say so. But if the explanation doesn't make sense I will explain why it doesn't make sense.

I have done this throughout my involvement about satellite tv with you. You however have just answered with claims that make no sense, and then when you can't answer, you either try to change the subject or resort to mockery.

Okay they get there signals from these supposed satellites orbiting space. - Happy now ?

 

[Phil G]

Okay they get there signals from these supposed satellites orbiting space. - Happy now ?

No, because now you’re behaving like a child in a sulk.

That is not what you have been claiming all along. I’m asking you to be reasonable and rational in your explanations.

 

[Strong in Him]

Not by hear say, prove it.

You've watched the proof.

You've seen a video of Charles Duke giving his testimony - and it, momentarily, changed your life.
You DID post on these forums saying that you thought Flat Earth was a load of rubbish. You DID write a prayer saying "sorry" to God for doubting the astronauts.
It could be said that, last year, or whenever, YOU were the proof. Why else would you have done a 180 degree turn and slammed Flat Earth - unless that is what you really believed?

 

[Apple Sky]

Why else would you have done a 180 degree turn and slammed Flat Earth - unless that is what you really believed?

Maybe I just couldn't believe that man had walked on the the moon, My unbelieving came from what I found out then to a better understanding of the subject.

 

[Phil G]

Maybe I just couldn't believe that man had walked on the the moon, My unbelieving came from what I found out then to a better understanding of the subject.

Stop trying to claim "a better understanding of the subject". The reality is you believe conspiracy theorists and that's it. You have repeatedly shown that your "understanding" of a variety of topics on this thread alone is nothing more than beliefs, not an understanding. Beliefs which make out other Christians with eyewitness testimony to be liars.

The trouble is, when it comes to satellite tv, I have my own personal experience of it. If you can come up with a clear rational explanation as to where the satellite tv signals come from, I will consider it based on my own experience.

So short of accusing me of telling "fairy stories" or such like, you have no answer.

 

[Strong in Him]

Maybe I just couldn't believe that man had walked on the the moon,

But you did.

Prior to that you had been saying that the moon landings were false and that nothing would change your belief in a Flat Earth.
Then you watched Charles' testimony - which some of us commended you for.
Then you wrote on here that you "hand on heart believed every word", wrote a prayer saying "sorry" for doubting the astronauts and said that Flat Earth was a load of rubbish and "I can't believe I said that."

I don't believe yours was the only life that was changed by that testimony. It's quite possible that people became, and are still becoming, Christians as a result of it. You were already a Christian but you became a moon landings believer.

And then you weren't.
Had your mind previously been completely changed by a lie? Were you lying when you said "hand on heart"? Or did you just change your mind again and decide that posting FE YouTube videos and winding everybody up was more fun?

 

[Phil G]

Or did you just change your mind again and decide that posting FE YouTube videos and winding everybody up was more fun?

This for sure. I see no other logical reason for her continued posting of this. She has also claimed she won't post anything about flat earth again, or to not post any more Dubay videos again (twice), and yet here we are!

 

[Apple Sky]

You have repeatedly shown that your "understanding" of a variety of topics on this thread alone is nothing more than beliefs, not an understanding.

I do have an understanding, more than most.