satellite fakery

"He can't fly up there and inspect the satellites he is supposedly tracking, can he? He is going by what he is TOLD about them and so are you."

There are other forms of knowledge he can have, I think you are using a kind of radical skepticism, for lack of a better phrase. Forgive me if you find that offensive and suggest another phrase. He could have helped build the satellite, or a part of it. He could have inspected it on the ground, but I think what is key is that satellites I AM TOLD send data back to earth by radio, also they receive radio and are automated machines. Similar to a cell tower I suppose.
Would you accept such data: type of radio emission, content of radio signal, direction, timing, secret response received. Is there another device that could mimic that and show a satellite is not necessary? A plane for instance?

As for the other question, I don't think an applicant would get through the interview if they were unwilling to take somebody's word for something somewhere. Perhaps they would think the job interview advertised was not real, they might show up to confirm it really is happening. They might scrutinize credentials, it could be CIA fake interview, In a NASA facility, how much evidence its real would one need?

You are not interested in discussing the truth of satellites it seems.

I believe one doesn't need to fly up and inspect a satellite to know something about it. I gave you several examples. Radio emissions from satellites can be measured and even interacted with from the ground, its the whole point of satellites since you can't fly up and collect the data. You are sidestepping with these ad homs of blathering and troll it seems.

I'm getting an idea why Josh would shut down the "satellites are fake" discussions at CTTF, as we can all see at the bottom of this page: cuttingthroughthefog.com/comment-troubleshooting-policies/

"I didn't say one couldn't know something about it. But, knowing SOMETHING about it won't tell you if it is fake or not."

You claimed the bsd guy just took somebody's word for it. Your offered explation was that he couldn't fly up and inspect it. But BSDguy could on the ground before launch, he could confirm cryptographic secrets by radio, you have no way of knowing what his knowledge is.

"How do you know they are what we are told they are? How do you know they aren't simply dummies with the real work being done by conventional aircraft or some other means? --snip-- How does HE know what those objects up there really are? --The answer is he doesn't know and neither do you. You and he are taking somebody else's word for what they are."

an antenna/transmitter/receiver can give you data that distinguishes it from a plane. If a sat is bouncing or relaying, thats still "work" that is real and can be measured against what behavior is "advertised". Of course I can't verify the hardware in space, even if its advertised in a fake way.

Sat tv, sat radio, gps all provide radio emissions that function beyond what A BIG fleet of planes with impeccable fligh schedules cannot. Planes can't linger aligned with sat tv dishes around the country, they all point somewhere specific in the sky.

I don't think its wrong to discuss the subject, I won't discuss it ad nauseam like Josh says happened at CTTF.

More ad homs, more sidestepping. You just assume I rely on what the space agencies say, you don't know what knowledge BSDguy has and you don't know my knowledge. Just admit it. Its real basic philosophy that you have no reliable internal view into a stranger's knowledge. I think you are biased to say we have no knowledge and are just taking the word of someone. A fleet of planes can't deliver sat tv and sat radio and gps, it would be an enormous endeavor better you should just side step than attempt an actual discussion!

How would you even know the reasons of Josh? Do you have a citation? If I was too argumentative he could have just set guidelines or told me to stop. I'm not compelled to argue. Argumentation was never banned on CTTF or here! Ad homs were banned on CTTF though, it seems just talking about satellites caused you to start quite a bit of hot-talk that doesn't pertain to satellites. Here is something I re-read recently

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation:

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. [or morons, blatherers, trolls, see its easy to spot RKIN] This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. [like I just want to be argumentative, or have done something deserving of being booted].

I mentioned a satellite is like a cell tower. Two way radio communication, but you are telling me I have to go find the actual tower and inspect its hardware or I might be falling for some lies and propaganda from the phone company! That argument isn't very good Rkin.

Well something is up there, I've seen it with my own eyes several times. You can bet it has more to do with domestic spying or some form of control and certainly not for providing internet to people in rural areas though imho.

I saw a magician saw a lady in half once. Then he put her back together and she was fine. I saw it with my own eyes.