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.