B flat B♭

[Apple Sky]

So come on, tell us, as you have been asked to many times, where the signals come from that are picked up by fixed domestic satellite dishes to produce constantly good-quality pictures on television sets. You have suggested things which move, like balloons and aeroplanes, things which don't give constant reception, like the ionosphere, but nothing that would feed constant signals to a fixed dish. You must have a viable alternative to be able to say that the satellites don't exist.

You don't seem to understand that a supposed orbiting satellite would be constantly on the move, they wouldn't be in a fixed position.. How could they be on a spinning globe ?

 

[Phil G]

You don't seem to understand that a supposed orbiting satellite would be constantly on the move, they wouldn't be in a fixed position.. How could they be on a spinning globe ?

Its speed matches that of the globe earth’s rotation. Thats why it’s called “geostationary orbit”.

Geostationary orbit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And you should be focusing more on where else the satellite tv signals could be coming from if satellites don’t exist. Because it is that research which will lead either to a viable alternative that fits reality or a realisation that there is no other viable alternative.

 

[David Lamb]

You don't seem to understand that a supposed orbiting satellite would be constantly on the move, they wouldn't be in a fixed position.. How could they be on a spinning globe ?

But I have already replied to you on this very matter, that the satellites are geostationary, that is, their speed is set to equal the speed at which the earth rotates, so with respect to the earth, they are stationary.

 

[Apple Sky]

Its speed matches that of the globe earth’s rotation. Thats why it’s called “geostationary orbit”.

Unlike the supposed ISS then ?

 

[Phil G]

Unlike the supposed ISS then ?

The ISS is not in geostationary orbit, no.

But communications satellites are, otherwise, as you say, they would be constantly moving across the sky.

 

[Strong in Him]

Do people care what I think ?

Yes, but in your case, it's only what you think.
There is well documented evidence that the earth is a globe - and people who know more than I do have been explaining it to you. But your response always is "fake", "lies", or "that's what THEY want you to believe".

Do people debate over the probabilities ?

What probabilities?
The earth is a globe. Sunsets, sunrises and no doubt many other things happen because the earth is a globe.
These are facts; we can see them every day.
People went to Antarctica and saw a 24 hours sun; fact.
Those flat earthers who saw it and who are honest are now saying, "oh. Well we'll have to rethink our position." Some flat earthers who didn't see it are stubbornly refusing to accept it and are insisting that the experiment was faked. Either they refuse to consider anything that will challenge their beliefs or they're going around like a child with its fingers in its ears - "la, la, la; can't hear you."

No, people just laugh & scorn & are always in demand of the evidence.

Would you care to count how many posts we have written where your response has been, "prove it"?

This is the same ol story what ever I post.

It's not surprising.
i) you have said that you are addicted to conspiracy theories.
ii) You will not consider evidence contrary to your position - you've just said it, "evidence or not; there are no satellites."
iii) If you don't have an answer to a question you change the subject,
iv) or maybe say, "THEY have faked it", "THEY want us to believe ....", "you can't trust anything THEY say."
v) you won't Google anything that we suggest you check - because THEY are lying to you and will tell you more lies.
vi) if you can't answer a post you pick one sentence, or bit of it, and comment on, or laugh at, that.
vii) to have a debate, you would need to be prepared to look at the evidence both for, and against, your position. Such evidence might then strengthen your argument, or it might contradict and smash it to pieces.
viii) Even if someone set up a formal debate on the subject of flat earth with a whole mountain load of evidence to illustrate that it is real, you would refuse to accept it.

I've no doubt that, even after reading all that, you will still believe that you are correct and it's everyone else who is against you.

 

[Apple Sky]

But communications satellites are, otherwise, as you say, they would be constantly moving across the sky.

Like the sun does -hey ?

 

[Phil G]

Like the sun does -hey ?

Not quite, a satellite orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun.

A satellite’s orbit around the earth means it moves across the sky, rising and setting.

The earth’s rotation means the sun appears to move across the sky, causing it to also rise and set.

Two different reasons.

 

[Apple Sky]

But your response always is "fake", "lies", or "that's what THEY want you to believe".

Not always.

The earth is a globe. Sunsets, sunrises and no doubt many other things happen because the earth is a globe.
These are facts; we can see them every day.

I'd like someone to show me a real picture of the earth from space without a fish eyed lens, it shouldn't be that hard to do with all this paraphernalia they have in space.

People went to Antarctica and saw a 24 hours sun; fact.
Those flat earthers who saw it and who are honest are now saying, "oh. Well we'll have to rethink our position." Some flat earthers who didn't see it are stubbornly refusing to accept it and are insisting that the experiment was faked.

They were faked & just because F/E's don't believe it, doesn't make it any the less true.

Either they refuse to consider anything that will challenge their beliefs or they're going around like a child with its fingers in its ears - "la, la, la; can't hear you."

to have a debate, you would need to be prepared to look at the evidence both for, and against, your position. Such evidence might then strengthen your argument, or it might contradict and smash it to pieces.

True.

Even if someone set up a formal debate on the subject of flat earth with a whole mountain load of evidence to illustrate that it is real, you would refuse to accept it.

Like I said, if they can produce a picture from space without a fished eyed lens then I might consider accepting it all.

One thing though, I have to applaud you on your posts.

 

[Apple Sky]

A satellite’s orbit around the earth means it moves across the sky, rising and setting.

 

[Strong in Him]

Not always.

Often.

I'd like someone to show me a real picture of the earth from space without a fish eyed lens, it shouldn't be that hard to do with all this paraphernalia they have in space.

You won't accept that it wasn't a fish eye lens.

They were faked

There you go.
You didn't go; you have no idea.
You claim it's faked because Dean Odel says it was faked - oh, and because it destroys your position and argument.

just because F/E's don't believe it, doesn't make it any the less true.

Flat earthers went, saw with their own eyes and now have the courage, and integrity, to reconsider their position.
You didn't go and didn't see. It proved what you didn't want it to prove, therefore it must be fake.

That's not a logical argument.

Like I said, if they can produce a picture from space without a fished eyed lens then I might consider accepting it all.

Like I said, you won't accept that it isn't one.

One thing though, I have to applaud you on your posts.

Thank you.

 

[Phil G]

I'd like someone to show me a real picture of the earth from space without a fish eyed lens, it shouldn't be that hard to do with all this paraphernalia they have in space.

Well here's one from Apollo 16. No fish eye lens, no cutting and splicing, no editing of any sort. It's the same mission where Charles Duke was the Lunar Module pilot.

Apollo Image Atlas

Images from the Apollo missions

www.lpi.usra.edu

But of course, you won't believe that's it's real. And that's the problem. You've said you will never believe that the earth is a globe. You have said that you will never believe that satellites exist, with or without evidence. So your request is not really a sincere request, is it?

 

[Phil G]

They were faked & just because F/E's don't believe it, doesn't make it any the less true.

And that's just another statement. There's the TFE YouTube channel with videos of real on the spot eyewitness evidence. But you won't believe that either.

The fact is not that we haven't shown you any evidence. It's that you continuously dismiss the evidence as fake, and then just post videos yourself of statements and claims, as if any of that is evidence, which it isn't. It’s just people making statements and claims.

 

[Apple Sky]

Well here's one from Apollo 16. No fish eye lens, no cutting and splicing, no editing of any sort. It's the same mission where Charles Duke was the Lunar Module pilot.

Lol'z, They are either CGI images or have been Photo - shopped

"It is photo-shopped...but it, it has to be"

Rob Simmon is a prominent data visualizer and information designer who worked at the NASA Earth Observatory for many years. He is widely recognized for his work in creating stunning, true-color images of Earth, most famously the "Blue Marble" image that was used as the default wallpaper for the first phone.

 

[Phil G]

Lol'z, it's a CGI image, they all are, can't you see it ?

"It is photo-shopped...but it, it has to be"

See what I mean? Immediately you claim it's fake.

So here's another one from the European Meteosat Third Generation Imager-1 weather satellite.

See the first image of Earth from a new weather-monitoring satellite

A recently launched weather satellite has sent back its first image of Earth, showing our planet in gorgeous detail.

www.digitaltrends.com

This has nothing to do with NASA but is a European weather satellite in geostationary orbit about 22,000 miles above the earth.

And guess what? You are going to call this one fake too!

You wanted someone to show you one real picture of earth from space, and when I do, you just claim it's fake.

How do you expect anyone to treat you with respect when that's all you do?

 

[Strong in Him]

Lol'z, They are either CGI images or have been Photo - shopped

Did they have CGI and Photoshopping in 1972?

 

[Apple Sky]

And guess what? You are going to call this one fake too!

Good guess

 

[Apple Sky]

Did they have CGI and Photoshopping in 1972?

No, we didn't have the internet either.

 

[Phil G]

Good guess

So answer me, how do you expect people to treat you with respect when you keep claiming evidence is fake?

You ask for evidence, you're given it, and you just ridicule it as fake.

You're the one not wanting to debate. You're the one who mocks and sneers.

 

[Strong in Him]

No, we didn't have the internet either.

Exactly.
So how can a photo from Apollo 16 be a CGI image from a computer?