Real. You can see some with the naked eye.

Not finding missing planes is testament to how large the oceans are.

Because of confidentiality agreements and NDAs, I can't really provide you any proof that they are real. BUT, I do work for Echostar Technologies at the Cheyenne uplink. Echostar is the uplink and downlink for Dish Network, and I can assure you that satellites are very real.

We have one satellite that has an active camera pointed at the earth. We also have a few government contracts. Not really sure what goes on back there. It's hush hush. But as a systems administrator I do have to go in that area occasionally and there is a lot of satellite tracking systems and live video from the satellites.

A few years back i helped with Dish Network Brazil services. We had to get the broadcast signal from Brazil to Cheyenne for customers. That system works just like all of other satellite operations, and it is very different than any of the IP based systems that are used for the Hoppers/Joeys.

That's the best I've got for you. I've explained this to other people in the past. Some choose to take my word. Some don't. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Echostar is the uplink and downlink for Dish Network... We have one satellite that has an active camera pointed at the earth.

Dish has a channel that plays nothing but that satellite's video feed. It's pretty cool.

I love that channel, I used to leave it on in the back ground. Loved seeing the earth, you can also guess what the weather will be from that channel.

Do they still have that channel up for the public? I thought they had taken it down?

The ISS is a satellite.

The ISS is across the country from Maine.

The international space station is a satellite. Love the downvotes though.

When I was a kid, I used to star gaze all night. Had a telescope larger then me. I would look up the space station's. iss and mir ( that was still around then )

Everyday the iss orbits the earth 16 times. You can see it muiplte times thru out the day almost all across the earth.

look up your location and you can see it during early morning or sun set with your naked eye.

The ISS is 249 miles above the surface of the earth. You simply can not see an object the size of the ISS (slightly larger than a football field) from that distance. You also certainly can't see satellites with your naked eye.

Where are your supporting facts that the naked eye can't see a satellite?

If you tell me what state you live in, I can tell you when you can see the space station fly over you. I used to do this every day when I was in 5th grade. I have a telescope that's as tall as me. And I have been star gazing ever since I was a kid. I have seen multiple satellites in the sky. Best viewing takes place at sunrise and sunset.

Knowing the position of the ISS has nothing to do with object visibility at a distance. Just like how you can't see a bumble bee 100 feet away from you, you can't see an object the size of the ISS 249 miles away from you without telescopic aid. As an object becomes further and further away from you it appears to get smaller and smaller because of your perspective. The ISS would take up such a marginal portion of your field of vision that simple math can demonstrate how impossible an object that size would be to see at a distance of 249 miles. What you might be able to detect is the luminosity much like you do with stars, but that's not the same as seeing the object.

I'm saying where is your supporting evidence that you can not see the space station from that distance? You throw out miles and distances like you know this for certain and like this is physical laws at play. But all we have is you saying it can't be done.

I am willing to tell you what time of day you can go outside and I will tell you what direction you can look, and you can see something you have never seen before.

Seriously tell me roughly where you live, I will provide the time of day, and the direction of the area and sky you can literally watch the space station fly by at 17,500 mph across the sky. When you see it you will think it is a UFO

What have you got to lose?

I'm well aware of the blip of light that travels across the sky and can easily be tracked by googling "how to spot the ISS". You need to read what I said closer. I'm not going to explain the inverse-square law to you or do the math for you because I don't need to, you need to do that for yourself. You also can't see mars or any stars for the same reason, but you can detect their luminescence and that is what you see in the night sky when you're "looking at stars and planets". There is a huge difference in seeing an object and detecting its luminescence. This has been a fantastic chat though.

Wait what? So can you see mars? Or not? And can you see the space station?

If it is not the space station that is flying around us 16 times a day, what is it?

And what about Jupiter and its moons? I used to track their orbit around Jupiter with my telescope, what is Jupiter if the earth is flat? Clearly with a telescope you can track the solar system, and see planet and some of their moons. If the earth is flat what are they?

You aren't even reading my comments before you reply. Read them please. I never said the Earth was flat and here you are losing your marbles because you refuse to read what I actually said. This conversation is over, but feel free to keep angrily commenting it has become quite entertaining.

Editing a comment on me eh,
So you say you can't see the iss you see it's luminescence. I ask you what's the difference? Visualization of the space station of course is dependent on its reflection of light. I don't get your point then.

I know you don't and it's fun to watch you avoid learning the difference. You think I'm going to educate you?

Oh I get it. You don't have a point. You're a troll

That must be it. It's the only plausible explanation left.

The reason you can see it is because of the sun reflecting off of it. It has enormous solar panels, and is roughly the size of a football field.

Same way that someone lost in the wilderness can signal for rescuers in helicopters with a tiny mirror reflecting sunlight. Size of the mirror doesn't matter, just the sunlight that it reflects.

The space station is only visible with the naked eye when it is dark on the planet, but there's still sunlight reflecting off the station from below the horizon (this usually only happens around dawn or dusk). And similar to the mirror example above, all people can see is a light moving across the sky like an airplane (but not blinking). If someone has a really good telescope and good tracking, they can see a bit more detail, but not much.

This is exactly what I described in more technical terms. It doesn't matter how coherently you're speaking or how precisely technical you explain something, if the listener is navigating and skimming over your words emotionally trying to rapidly form a defense against what they perceive to be an argument. The light reflecting off of the solar panels and the small mirror in the forest are visible because as they reflect light they become more luminescent. Seeing light bounce off the surface of something is not the same as seeing the thing wouldn't you agree?

The moon is a satellite. So, yeah satellites are weird. The blimp thing is for an Ariel view. They're much cheapest for a company instead of building and launching a satellite.

you mean why don't we film the football game from a satellite instead of a blimp? There is a bit of difference in altitude for one. If satellites don't exist how did all those phones work wirelessly before cellular towers existed? How do they work now in areas with no cell towers? Why is there no footage of missing planes? a) how do you know there is no footage b) you have to actually point a camera at something to film it

you might want to educate yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mobile_phones

Edit: when you prove someone so wrong they have to nuke all their comments from the thread lol.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

oh man you're clever as fuck, asking how phones work wireless-ly before cellular towers existed.

" Hand-held radio transceivers have been available since the 1940s. Mobile telephones for automobiles became available from some telephone companies in the 1940s. Early devices were bulky, consumed high power, and the network supported only a few simultaneous conversations. Modern cellular networks allow automatic and pervasive use of mobile phones for voice and data communications."

What they had mobile phones in the 1940's?! Gee I wonder when the first Communications Satellite was launched "The first artificial Earth satellite was Sputnik 1. Put into orbit by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957, it was equipped with an on-board radio-transmitter that worked on two frequencies: 20.005 and 40.002 MHz. Sputnik 1 was launched as a step in the exploration of space and rocket development."

Oh but wait, that one wasn't used for satellite phones, the first time a satellite was used for phone communication was from the Telstar 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstar "Telstar 1 launched on top of a Thor-Delta rocket on July 10, 1962. It successfully relayed through space the first television pictures, telephone calls, and fax images, and provided the first live transatlantic television feed."

I wonder how all those phones worked wireless-ly before 1962, must be magic.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

you need to learn you can't tell people what to do. I would continue to argue with you but it's not worth the effort talking to someone who thinks they know something they don't.

"Iridium 1 First satellite for satellite telephone service May 5, 1997"

I don't know wtf they were doing in the 80's, just like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about now.

you mean why don't we film the football game from a satellite instead of a blimp?

It would require:

• The satellite to be geostationary for the duration of the football game

• Complete lack of cloud cover for the duration of the football game

It's not very feasible.

• drones are cheap
• blimps can carry ads
• that was the point

You mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGPuEDyAsU8

They're as real as the ground you walk on.

I'm not too sure.

This video allegedly shows a satellite as viewed from Earth.

It could easily be a plane, though.

There are videos of earth taken by satellites, but they could be CGI for all we know.

At any rate even if satellites are real, I doubt you could use them for surveillance.

At any rate even if satellites are real, I doubt you could use them for surveillance.

Um... what? Recon satellites have been in use for decades.

Seriously, my father worked for the CIA in the 70s. Said they could take someone's portrait photograph or a license plate from a satellite. the part that tripped him out was he said, that technology was available back then, he couldn't imagine what they had now.

Several years ago, the National Reconnaissance Office donated several spy satellite busses to NASA that they didn't need anymore... the satellites were very similar to Hubble, but much more advanced (I heard from someone at NASA who's worked with spy satellites and space telescopes that Hubble was heavily based off of a spy satellite design from the 70's. Even with the same prescription of mirror, but with different cameras and sensors).

...NASA has so little funding that they haven't even been able to do anything with those satellites. They're still sitting in storage. NASA barely even got Hubble off the ground, yet the NRO had spare more advanced 'Hubbles' just sitting in storage.

Recently I was talking to a recruiter who works with the NRO. He couldn't tell me what he does, but he said it "was some Tom Clancy shit"

Don't even bother with facts, this thread is related to that flat-earth psyop crap.

I just typed up an answer to your questions in another thread, so I'll just link to it here.

There are reports that the moon emits its own lighting. Alternatively, it is supposed to reflect the light of the sun. (Frankly, the moon is a pretty big indicator that the official story is ... inaccurate .. but that's another story.) There are apparently 2700 satellites in space. Never do you see any drift in front of this light source/reflector.

Good enough?

Never do you see any drift in front of this light source/reflector.

Except in all these images

lol gtfoh

Typical reaction from you to any evidence that goes against your views...

yeah it is weird, when I look directly into a bright spotlight at night from a distance I never see mosquitos fly quickly across it. Conspiracy?

Good enough for me... we should see these things in front of the moon if they were real.

Jesus

Maybe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEMathBJ_Tw

Exactly.

How is it exactly that meteorological information is gathered without the use of satellites? Or how do the millions of satellite TV/phone users get their service?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEMathBJ_Tw

What do you guys think about this guy's opinions?

The truth is, there is no "Z" axis. Even blimps and airplanes are a fraud.

Is that why I can only jump 2 feet off the ground?

No, that's because you're white and white men can't jump. A movie said so, so it must be true.

Fine, I'll bite. Are you being serious?

gotta play with the stupid once in a while

Y?

Y?

There is a Y axis. I can travel that one at will.

No, that's because you're white and white men can't jump. A movie said so, so it must be true.

Don't even bother with facts, this thread is related to that flat-earth psyop crap.

Seriously, my father worked for the CIA in the 70s. Said they could take someone's portrait photograph or a license plate from a satellite. the part that tripped him out was he said, that technology was available back then, he couldn't imagine what they had now.

That must be it. It's the only plausible explanation left.