Better than GPS? BAE navigator uses Wi-Fi, radio signals

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by -PLB-

 

If you find them so uninspiring feel free to abandon the thread.

Thank you sir, for allowing me to leave this thread

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by gunblaza

 

What you have written about explains the receiver's ability to accept a broader band of signls it does not really
say how or why the use of satellites is even necessary given as you say not only the millions to develop,
but also the cost of rockets to deliver.

It's absurd especially when you consider that not nearly enough rockets have ever been to launched to account for the alleged number of satellites. How they are parked? Where the rocket goes after deployment.

Very true and I will explain. Multiple satellites can be launched from a single rocket. The most I have heard of is 5 on a single payload. Cape Canaveral launches rockets a few times a month, Vandenberg maybe 3-5 times a year, also we have Europe, Russia (launches all the time), China, a few down at the equator.

Humanity launches things all the time. We just store the rockets in parts and compile them about a month or two before a launch. Then some parts fall back into the ocean for reuse.

It's an unwieldy and absurd premise to receive radio, TV and phone communication which could still be carried over standard radio waves as was always done.
Ham radio is wireless.

Do you get what I am saying?

I totally understand, but some communication, radio, and data need to be accessible from anywhere at anytime with enough protection to prevent it from being intercepted. Easier to hack into a radio tower, but not as easy as a Satellite. Which I can't go into full detail.

reply to post by gunblaza


I am speaking of common radio, tv and telecommunications. Nothing DoD related.

I noticed that BAE as sited in the OPs article is merely the new name for Marconi Co.

I looked into this a couple years ago and spoke with several companies regarding their "satellite TV" versus
cable and analog broadcast. Let me just tell you that the exchanges were very edifying.

It would not be economically feasible for these companies to be launching satellites and choosing orbits to place them in and rockets to fly them. My goodness, it would be an enormous financial undertaking.
Fortunately for them, they don't. But, it gives them an alleged reason to charge an enormous amount of money for subscriptions for a system that used to be and could be offered for free as radio still is and TV is if you use rabbit ears.

The secret they tell me is all about the receivers, not any alleged satellites.

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
It would not be economically feasible for these companies to be launching satellites and choosing orbits to place them in and rockets to fly them. My goodness, it would be an enormous financial undertaking.
Fortunately for them, they don't. But, it gives them an alleged reason to charge an enormous amount of money for subscriptions for a system that used to be and could be offered for free as radio still is and TV is if you use rabbit ears.

The secret they tell me is all about the receivers, not any alleged satellites.

This source would seem to confirm the satellites are only alleged:

www.theflatearthsociety.org...

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites cannot orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites.

However, some people don't consider this to be a reliable source.

But since you haven't offered any source at all about these "alleged satellites", at least it's something.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Was the first time I told you that this had nothing to do with "flat Earth society" not sufficient?

I told the thread I personally talked to representitives of the cable, "satellite" and analog TV companies.
I asked them pointed questions and took my research from there.
Into looking at who, what and where companies are claiming to have launched how many, and when
satellites.

It is a huge finanacial conspiracy.

I have researched the cellphone and the towers as well as fiber optic cable.
If you would like to understand my position better you should look into the cable companies vs. "satellite" companies and also whether or not you think that remote broadcast news vans are accessing "satellites" in their uplinks or merely using Marconi technology to transmit.


I

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Was the first time I told you that this had nothing to do with "flat Earth society" not sufficient?

No, and neither is this time.

Why? Because it's the only source I can find to corroborate your claims.

So even if you didn't intend for it to be related, it is, even if just by accident.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


My research stemmed from a discussion with a relative when she had to go to get the "free" digital converter box.
I personally don't own a TV.

The discussion she had with the people handing out the box made me want to follow up on it though and led to the queries I posed to "satellite" providers and a search of the web to trace it further.

If a group looked into it and came to the same conclusions, I am not surprised.
For whatever reason they were looking into it. It is what it is. Not satellite based.
But, based solely on the receiver's capability range.

I personally ascribe to a Helical Solar System as explained by Dr. Bhat, and have no personal knowledge of
what flat Earthers believe except that I presume it is self-explanatory. I think that it's ridiculous.

I have enjoyed following this conversation, though it has gotten a bit frustrating at times.

reply to post by PaperbackWriter


What you describe is very interesting, but as the saying goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
So I am going to have to side with the rest of the posters on this thread.

But if you are so inclined, I would recommend documenting your research into this satellite conspiracy. I believe it would make a very interesting thread.

But until that time, you are just making claims that you cannot substantiate. That kind of thing holds no water on ATS.

reply to post by watchitburn


That's fine. There is a terrific thread with people a lot more savvy about the non-feasibility issues of using satellites for ordinary communication, people with military radio backgrounds and so forth, than me
It's on the net. But, I am a guest here and it would not be gracious to invite the readers here to go elsewhere.

I used a common sense approach and asked basic questions and was satisfied that Marconi technology is ALL that is needed and used in everyday TV, radio and telecommunications even today.
Call the tech support of your own 'satellite" provider and ask your own questions.
They don't have a clue.
They told me that the only difference in old fashioned analog TV and current "satellite" or cable (which has been around before the advent of "satellites"), is the receiver, as I have said repeatedly.

Imagine the logistics and why you were told we even "needed" satellite communication.
We don't NEED it.
WI-FI being sold as the cutting edge is Marconi technology. All TV and radio is STILL Marconi technology.

I agree it is a very important and interesting topic.

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
what flat Earthers believe except that I presume it is self-explanatory. I think that it's ridiculous.

Yes of course it's ridiculous, meaning you're not in very good company since they are making similar claims. But as OP said if you want to share your research with us, by all means do so.

Here is a recent TV satellite called echostar XVI that launched not quite 2 weeks ago. There is video evidence of the satellite in construction, the people that assembled it, and even video of the launch, so if this is a hoax it's an elaborately well documented one:

EchoStar XVI Successfully Launched


But there is a way to test if it's a hoax, and that would be to point the receiver in the sky where the "alleged satellite" is located, and measure signal strength. Then, watch signal strength while changing the aim of the satellite dish away from the alleged location of the satellite. If the satellite is really there, then signal strength will become lower as the aim of the receiver is moved away from the location of the satellite. This is something a home experimenter could do.

The locations of the satellites are found here, and it even provides aiming information for your local area based on your IP:

www.lyngsat.com...

They are still positioning Echostar 16 into its final position, but there are plenty of other satellites listed there you could test, to see if they are really located in those positions.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yeah. So I went to the Space System Loral homepage to look at the "satellite".

fotoforensics.com...

Please examine the metadata for the photo. HA!

Which resulted in this monstrosity of photoshop.

fotoforensics.com...

Now why did they need to do this if the satellite in the photo is real?

Here's the website I got the pic from:

www.ssloral.com...

Here's one from their website showing the workspace/lab.

fotoforensics.com...

fotoforensics.com...


Obviously shiny video to sell their products is in question.

reply to post by PaperbackWriter

Get serious and do what Arb said. If it's a radio signal why does the dish need to point towards the satellite?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Like the one depicted in the post above yours? LoL.

Look at any 'dish' on somebody's roof and tell me you think those are pointed at a satellite.
Most face south toward a relay/propagation station.

You were rude just now to barge in here and start ordering me around.

Matter of fact, caveat emptor and all that jazz.
If you want to "pay" for your "satellite" TV and cellphones and GPS, you go right ahead.
It's no skin off me.

Nvm. You don't care.

reply to post by PaperbackWriter

Like the one depicted in the post above yours? LoL.

No, like this

But there is a way to test if it's a hoax, and that would be to point the receiver in the sky where the "alleged satellite" is located, and measure signal strength. Then, watch signal strength while changing the aim of the satellite dish away from the alleged location of the satellite. If the satellite is really there, then signal strength will become lower as the aim of the receiver is moved away from the location of the satellite. This is something a home experimenter could do.

Look at any 'dish' on somebody's roof and tell me you think those are pointed at a satellite.

I think those are pointed at a satellite. Now stop ordering ME around.

You may want to think a bit more about what you learned from your conversations with the satellite TV reps.

I have just discovered that the last 20 years have all been wasted, as I designed satellite telecommunications equipment and GPS systems. Now you are telling me that I have been living a lie???? That all the mathematics I've done in designing these systems, spending endless hours at field trials aligning satellite dishes was just a dream????

Please tell that to somebody that has never been involved with satellite systems, as they might believe you. I definitely do not believe the crap that some posters on this thread posted.

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter

Why would cell and GPS service ever be "spotty" if they are truly linked by satellites that "blanket" the Earth?
This does not surprise me that they would say that they can use "radio signals" instead.

Because you might be in an area where you don't have line of sight to enough satellites to get a good fix.

Generally what we call the "canyon effect" in MOUT.

I was just writing about this on the Iridium thread.
They have always used radio signals.

One might expect them to, since they are LEO radio communication satellites.

The thought is that whether analog or digital that they still both utilize radio waves that bounce off the Ionosphere.

If it's a satellite, choosing a downlink frequency that will "bounce off the ionosphere" would be a bit counterproductive, no?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Did you look at the ELA forensics?

An obvious photoshop not explained by "saving" an image over and over and over.

But, like I said, anybody on here who wants to pay for the "satellites", can knock theirselves
out.