Chitchat The stationary flat Earth

flatearther · Aug 8, 2016

Ed Chigliak said:
Flatearther -

Why is the focus on satellites? This is probably due to the standard theory behind satt communication i.e. the satellite orbiting around a “globe” shaped earth. Debunk the theory of satellites and that opens the Pandora box of what actually the earth looks like (hence a point of argument for flat earthers).

As shown in many other videos in this thread, even without the existence of satellites, most people already think the Earth is a globe.
And yet, there are still so many other proofs that the Earth is flat and stationary.

[video=youtube;CuvPAm9XIsY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuvPAm9XIsY[/video]

[video=youtube;h5i_iDyUTCg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg[/video]

[video=youtube;j4-JWLjJcvs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4-JWLjJcvs[/video]

Ed Chigliak said:
I will assume the distances between the earth and the reference subject is generally correct. Please feel free to correct me, if they are inaccurate or wrong.

I obviously cannot know for sure, since I'm unable to measure those distances myself, right?

Ed Chigliak said:
From land looking up, does a plane exist if you can’t see it? From the plane looking down, if you can’t see cars, do cars exist?

Come on, millions of people have travelled in both planes and cars, right?

Ed Chigliak said:
The ISS at 400km sees the overall landmass called “earth”. What “earth” is…well that is subjective as we only have one reference point i.e. NASA.

But how many people have been to the ISS?

Ed Chigliak said:
Claims of why we can’t see “20,000 satellites” from the ISS: Does one think the ISS can get a view of the smaller satellites (size of a car/bus) which orbits around 160km (400-160 = 240km height different)?

Can't the "ISS" take at least one photo (or even better, a video) showing at least a thousand of these small "satellites" together in the same photo?

That's like a thousand buses in the same photo, right?

Ed Chigliak said:
Likewise, can ISS be able to see planes flying across (eg. An average 6,000 planes at given one time, 400-13 = 387km). Just because it is unable to see the planes/LEO satellites, does it mean the ISS does not exist? Think about it.

I've thought about it, and yes, not being able to see the "LEO satellites" is one of the best proofs that both the "ISS" and the "satellites" do not exist.

Ed Chigliak said:
There is a huge following of Space enthusiasts around the world who enjoy satellite watching.

Don't you mean a huge following of delusional people, fantasizing about watching "satellites", but end up literally seeing stars (:*

instead? :p

Ed Chigliak said:
PS: I didn’t want to comment on Apollo moon landings, astronauts, Van Allen belt, moon pics/vids which would do no service to the narrowed discussion on “satellites”.

I agree that they would do no service to defending the existence of "satellites", especially since they would offer even more support to the entire "satellite" hoax.

flatearther · Aug 9, 2016

zeebjii said:
I dont't care what you posted before..

Then you're not being fair to me, right?

Especially since you wrongfully accused me of saying that there are "no undersea cables".

zeebjii said:
Again, you didn't answer my simple question, I asked you a simple question and as expected you beat around the bush without giving an answer.

Well, I think I gave you at least a sufficient answer.

zeebjii said:
Same as in many other threads.

Please post the link to at least one of those threads.

Once again, if you can't, please don't lie, because this is the only thread in which you responded to me.

zeebjii said:
So enough is enough, not going to waste more time on you.

Let's see if you're a man of your word.

zeebjii said:
You are indeed an idiot and it's evident to all people here,

And yet at least eight other members (including the great Leongsam) voted that they think the Earth is flat and stationary, right?

zeebjii said:
and very likely very young and and a christian nutcase.

The Earth being flat and stationary has nothing to do with my age and my religious beliefs.

zeebjii said:
you would still be in denial if you were tied up to a satellite to be sent into space

Have you been to "outer space"? :confused:

Just as you deny the existence of the stationary flat Earth, I also deny the existence of the globular Earth and "satellites".

zeebjii said:
hopefully never to return to weaken the gene pool

Don't worry, even though I'm young (which you also think I am), there's also a good chance for me to die young.
I also have zero desire to produce children.

ginfreely · Aug 9, 2016

flatearther said:
As shown in many other videos in this thread, even without the existence of satellites, most people already think the Earth is a globe.
And yet, there are still so many other proofs that the Earth is flat and stationary.

[video=youtube;CuvPAm9XIsY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuvPAm9XIsY[/video]

I obviously cannot know for sure, since I'm unable to measure those distances myself, right?

Come on, millions of people have travelled in both planes and cars, right?

But how many people have been to the ISS?

Can't the "ISS" take at least one photo (or even better, a video) showing at least a thousand of these small "satellites" together in the same photo?
That's like a thousand buses in the same photo, right?

I've thought about it, and yes, not being able to see the "LEO satellites" is one of the best proofs that both the "ISS" and the "satellites" do not exist.

Don't you mean a huge following of delusional people, fantasizing about watching "satellites", but end up literally seeing stars (:* instead? :p

I agree that they would do no service to defending the existence of "satellites", especially since they would offer even more support to the entire "satellite" hoax.

If can't view the LEO satellites at few hundred km from earth is good enough proof of no existence of satellites then the GEO satellites geostationary at 36000 km should be good enough proof that can launch satellites to 36000 km surely can launch satellites to few hundred km, whether you can see them or not.

flatearther · Aug 9, 2016

ginfreely said:
If can't view the LEO satellites at few hundred km from earth is good enough proof of no existence of satellites then the GEO satellites geostationary at 36000 km should be good enough proof that can launch satellites to 36000 km surely can launch satellites to few hundred km, whether you can see them or not.

I would agree that "LEO satellites" exist IF "GEO satellites" truly exist.

Otherwise, if even "LEO satellites" don't exist, how can the "GEO satellites" exist? :confused:

ginfreely · Aug 9, 2016

flatearther said:
I would agree that "LEO satellites" exist IF "GEO satellites" truly exist.
Otherwise, if even "LEO satellites" don't exist, how can the "GEO satellites" exist?

Ships are using GEO satellites like Inmarsat so surely they exist.

flatearther · Aug 9, 2016

ginfreely said:
Ships are using GEO satellites like Inmarsat so surely they exist.

Ships are using something called "GEO satellites like Inmarsat", but are those things really located thousands of miles above the Earth's surface, or simply located somewhere on Earth?

ginfreely · Aug 9, 2016

flatearther said:
Ships are using something called "GEO satellites like Inmarsat", but are those things really located thousands of miles above the Earth's surface, or simply located somewhere on Earth?

The iridium satellites at few hundred km from earth already need 66 satellites to give coverage. While Inmarsat only has 11 (?) satellites according to their website to give global coverage. So they must be positioned much higher than the iridium ones and definitely cannot be located somewhere on earth. You will probably need thousands to give coverage if they are on earth, just like you need many cell towers for city mobile phone coverage.

flatearther · Aug 9, 2016

ginfreely said:
Another proof the earth is a sphere. Satellites don't fall from the sky due to the earth is a sphere.

"Satellites" don't fall from the sky because they don't exist in the sky:

flatearther said:
[video=youtube;W2jqtzCKKh8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2jqtzCKKh8[/video]

[video=youtube;pvV9zZktq28]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvV9zZktq28[/video]

[video=youtube;CCts6dtyhjw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCts6dtyhjw[/video]

The powers that be always mix lies with truth, in order to deceive as many people as possible into thinking that the lies are also truths, after gaining their trust by telling them much-easier-to-understand obvious truths and bribing them with sufficient security and material comforts.
Unfortunately, this kind of deception (or brainwashing/mind control) has been ongoing all over the world throughout the entire history of humanity in one form or another. :(

atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

"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.

168) So-called “satellite” phones have been found to have reception problems in countries like Kazakhstan with very few cell phone towers. If the Earth were a ball with 20,000+ satellites surrounding, such blackouts should not regularly occur in any rural countryside areas.

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."

flatearther · Aug 9, 2016

ginfreely said:
You will probably need thousands to give coverage if they are on earth, just like you need many cell towers for city mobile phone coverage.

That's probably why there are many more "satellite" stations located on Earth than is revealed publicly.

ginfreely · Aug 9, 2016

flatearther said:
That's probably why there are many more "satellite" stations located on Earth than is revealed publicly.

Your claim is not possible for ships communicating in the middle of ocean. Nothing there except the satellites in the sky.

ginfreely · Aug 9, 2016

flatearther said:
"Satellites" don't fall from the sky because they don't exist in the sky:

atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

"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.”

How about in the middle of ocean? Which gigantic cell tower can cover to middle of ocean?

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.

Not sure about this but the fireball at satellite launch looks quite huge too and the metal can survive that big fireball.

168) So-called “satellite” phones have been found to have reception problems in countries like Kazakhstan with very few cell phone towers. If the Earth were a ball with 20,000+ satellites surrounding, such blackouts should not regularly occur in any rural countryside areas.

20000 satellites but not all for same operator same purpose or even for telephone. Like iridium only 66 satellites, not sure their coverage good or not.

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.”

You know Malaysia has Astro satellite TV? I don't see any ground station at all in JB and the dish all point to the same direction in the sky . So they are definitely pointing to the sky.

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.

Can't see doesn't mean don't have. Just like there could be some stinky crime going on by mudlander dogs here behind.

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."

Too dark, satellites too small, no powerful enough cameras? You know I have home CCTV but I also can't capture my barbarian MALAYSIAN CHINESE neighbours littering as there are many blind spots and it's too dim and Cctv not powerful enough to capture small objects. So can't take pictures doesn't mean no satellites!

See my replies inserted in bold.

flatearther · Aug 9, 2016

ginfreely said:
Your claim is not possible for ships communicating in the middle of ocean. Nothing there except the satellites in the sky.

Normal mobile phones cannot work there, but the "satellite" phones on the ships can work there because those are simply more powerful mobile phones:

flatearther said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone
is simply a more powerful mobile phone, able to detect micro/radio waves that standard mobile phones cannot detect.

These "satellite phones" are deliberately not made available to the vast majority of the population to buy (or from another point of view, standard mobile phones are deliberately designed to be less powerful), in order to brainwash the actual users into thinking that since "satellite phones" are so exclusive, therefore they must "really" be using some kind of "satellite" technology!

ginfreely · Aug 9, 2016

flatearther said:
Normal mobile phones cannot work there, but the "satellite" phones on the ships can work there because those are simply more powerful mobile phones:

No please Google. Cell phone technology is based on land based towers. You need to have a cell tower nearby if not your signal will drop or cut off. In Malaysia you will experience this many times when signal gets cut off. Satellite phone is based on satellite in the sky so the coverage is definitely more powerful than cell phone but they are not cell phone.

ginfreely · Aug 9, 2016

http://www.getgds.com/blog/cellular-vs.-satellite-understanding-the-differences

You might be thinking “A cell phone and a satellite phone are the same thing, aren’t they?” The truth is they are not. Your cell phone carrier might have an extensive network that allows you to make calls to and from al-most any location, access the Internet or run applications, but cell phones transmit signals very differently than satellite phones.

Cellular phones transmit via land-based towers. Consider each signal — your call — to be a cell. When you are in a particular area, that cell is carried by the closest tower. If you move to a different area, the cell attaches a closer tower, and so on. That is why you might experience weak signals or dropped calls on your cell phone: There either isn’t a tower to support the cell nearby (leading to dropped calls or no service) or the tower is too far away, and the cell isn’t as supported as it could be.

Satellite phones, on the other hand, do not rely on towers, but instead transmit signals via satellites orbiting the earth. The signal from your de-vice transmits directly to the nearest satellite, which then sends the signal to the nearest gateway, or land-based center, which then transmits the signal to the receiving phone; the receiving phone can be a land line, cell phone or another sat phone.

The fact that satellite signals are transmitted far above the earth and do not rely on towers is what makes them useful in remote areas. It would be impossible to place cell phone towers everywhere to ensure continuous signals — for example, in the middle of the ocean or in the remote wilder-ness. This is why satellite phones are more useful than cell phones to those who are traveling to isolated areas.

flatearther · Aug 9, 2016

ginfreely said:
You need to have a cell tower nearby if not your signal will drop or cut off.

Unless both the cell towers and "satellite" phones are VERY powerful.

ginfreely · Aug 9, 2016

flatearther said:
Unless both the cell towers and "satellite" phones are VERY powerful.

I am not sure what you mean but you can't hide them. These cell towers need to be placed on top of buildings everywhere to have good coverage.

eatshitndie · Aug 9, 2016

satellite phones have higher transmit power and longer antennas than terrestrial cell phones because the signal has to reach one or few satellites out in space while signals of terrestrial phones only have to reach the nearest cell which is typically a few km away. the ping times will tell you the difference in propagation distances between the two. moreover, out on a ship in the middle of an ocean, the sat phone with cellular capability cannot reach a cell on the nearest coast as the radius of a "boomer" cell (high powered cell for coverage) is usually limited to 30 km depending on frequency and power, which is typically up to 60w. 80w cells are used these days for blanket coverage for some very ulu regions. it has to look up in the sky for satellite coverage. in microwave transmission between oil rigs and land, line of sight is necessary for effective comms as paths are engineered to accommodate the curvature of earth with k factor and at least 0.6 fraction of the 1st fresnel zone. outside of troposcatter, radio relays, diffraction and severe clipping of the 1st fresnel, a ship or rig far out at sea will need to rely on satellites for comms. talk to any modern sailor and navigator, although all they see is seemingly "flat" ocean, they will unequivocally tell you the earth is round as they see it with virtual vision from their eyes and instruments. what is obvious to the eyes can be entirely misleading.

ginfreely · Aug 9, 2016

Beautiful satellite launch. Why the satellite don't fall from the sky but goes into orbit upon successful launch? Becos the earth is a sphere.

ginfreely said:
Another proof the earth is a sphere. Satellites don't fall from the sky due to the earth is a sphere.

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2014/05/08/heres-why-satellites-dont-fall-to-earth

Here's why satellites don't fall to Earth

To understand why a spacecraft is able to orbit the Earth without falling down, at least under normal circumstances, you need to perform a thought experiment. Imagine that you are on a planet just like Earth, but there is no air surrounding the planet. We need to get rid of the air so we can make our model as simple as possible. Now, if you were to climb to the top of a high mountain with a large cannon, you will be in a position to understand why spacecraft stay in space.

Let's aim the cannon exactly horizontally and shoot a cannon ball toward the western horizon. The ball will leave the gun with a huge velocity and head west. As soon as the ball has left the mouth of the cannon, it will start to drop and fall toward the planet's surface.

Because the cannon ball is moving rapidly west, it will strike the ground at some distance from the top of the mountain. If we keep increasing the power of the cannon, the projectile will hit the ground farther and farther from the mountain. Because the planet is a sphere, each time the cannon ball is fired, it will fall farther because the surface of the planet is dropping away as the ball travels away from the gun.

Because this is a thought experiment, we can make the cannon more and more powerful. Eventually, you will get to a situation where the cannon ball is flying away so fast that the surface of the planet is dropping away from the cannon ball at exactly the same speed as the cannon ball is dropping.

At this speed, with no air resistance to slow it, the cannon ball will continue to "orbit" the planet forever as it continuously falls toward the planet, but the ground keeps dropping away at the same rate. This condition is called freefall.

Now, in real life, things are not as simple as in our thought experiment. Now we have to deal with air resistance that would cause drag that would slow our cannon ball, eventually robbing it of the speed that it needs to remain in orbit. That is why we can only orbit satellites in space, far above the majority of the atmosphere.

Even at a few hundred kilometres from the surface of the Earth, there is still some air resistance that acts on satellites and the space station to slow them. This drag will eventually cause the spacecraft to be dragged down into the thicker atmosphere where they usually burn up due to friction with the air. If it weren't for the space station and other satellites having boosters to push them higher in their orbits, they would all eventually be dragged back to the earth.

zhihau · Aug 9, 2016

ginfreely said:
Beautiful satellite launch. Why the satellite don't fall from the sky but goes into orbit upon successful launch?

Our dear TS is trying to convince you that the satellites can still orbit around a "you zar kueh"-like planet! Bwahahahahahahaa...

PretenderSam · Aug 9, 2016

ginfreely said:
Beautiful satellite launch. Why the satellite don't fall from the sky but goes into orbit upon successful launch? Becos the earth is a sphere.

why must be a sphere ?
can it goes round in a circle ?

Chitchat The stationary flat Earth

Do you think the Earth is flat and stationary?

Yes, especially after seeing so much evidence!

No, of course not!

I'm not sure...

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Super Moderator

Alfrescian

Similar threads