What about the stars that move?

Pseudolites are ground-based, you morons.  The question is, "what are those things that cross the sky".  The more I read about the FE model, arguments, workarounds, and excuses, the more I have to shake my head.  Furthermore, the term was coined by scientists--which means you idiots are not entitled to use it.

TheEngineer is a pilot and mechanical engineer. He has more of a right to use it than you, certainly.

Furthermore, as I believe Gulliver asked on this same thread, how is it that those things in the sky can be predicted in advance, ala http://www.heavens-above.com/?  Where is the prediction website for FE-described phenomenon?

They can't be predicted because all satellites, except for the ISS, are invisible to eye and telescope. It requires significant mass for a celestial body to be seen

They can't be predicted because all satellites, except for the ISS, are invisible to eye and telescope. It requires significant mass for a celestial body to be seen

No, they're not.

Quote

Furthermore, as I believe Gulliver asked on this same thread, how is it that those things in the sky can be predicted in advance, ala http://www.heavens-above.com/?  Where is the prediction website for FE-described phenomenon?

They can't be predicted because all satellites, except for the ISS, are invisible to eye and telescope. It requires significant mass for a celestial body to be seen

Tom, a celestial body doesn't require mass to be seen, but light. The more light it radiates the better it can be seen.
Jeez, talk about dumb...

Quote

Pseudolites are ground-based, you morons.  The question is, "what are those things that cross the sky".  The more I read about the FE model, arguments, workarounds, and excuses, the more I have to shake my head.  Furthermore, the term was coined by scientists--which means you idiots are not entitled to use it.

TheEngineer is a pilot and mechanical engineer.

(Praying he is not piloting or mechanically engineering anything my family relies on!  ...And on that note, are you assuming I would find that impressive?)

They can't be predicted because all satellites, except for the ISS, are invisible to eye and telescope. It requires significant mass for a celestial body to be seen

Wow.  Tom, you've said some really stupid things before.  I dare say, this tops it.  And it pretty much demonstrates how fantastically isolated and insulated you are form the real world.  It's crystal clear you never got out much as a child...or adult.

Here's what you need to do.  On the next clear night--say, after this round of early winter storms we're having (or you soon will), drive somewhere away from the city lights--for you, just head a reasonable distance southest (if I remember correctly), not more than a two or three hour round-trip.  Time it to arrive about 120 minutes after sunset.  Take a lawn chair and a warm coat, lean way back, and observe. 

These are the viewing tips I give to the 8-20 year olds in my extended family: Don't do anything to ruin your night vision (which will take 10 minutes to minimally kick in.)  Pick one spot to look at, straight up and a little West.  Stare at the same spot, but don't become fixated--let your gaze dart and drift naturally.  Your peripheral vision will pick a satellite up first, as it is very sensitive to motion.  Then you can look at it directly and track it.  If it is too dim, you will lose it by looking directly at it, as you have fewer cones there.  If that's the case, let it drift just outside center, and you'll pick it back up.  Satellites move in all directions.  The ones that travel easterly will eventually disappear behind the earth's shadow before reaching the horizon.

If it is dark and clear enough, you'll see roughly one clearly visible satellite per minute.  The all look like stars--exactly single points of light, and move at about the speed a medium-altitude (~15k ft or so) jetliner would, only without the dual wingtip lights and strobes.  Some will be brighter than others.  Some just barely visible, in the positive magnitudes.  Others will be as bright as Saturn or even Jupiter (~mag -6 or so).  Some aren't functioning satellites but space junk, and you can "see" them tumble (lighter, darker, lighter, etc.)

You need to do this Tom.  You will see what a f'ing idiot you sound like, when speaking to someone who gets out into the big world fairly often.  Trust me, when you are snowshoeing in CO at 14k ft on a moonless night 100 miles from the nearest city, the sky looks as if it were zooming with fireflies.  But don't trust me, go see even half the spectacle for yourself.

You might even become addicted to doing this, and if so will become interested in visiting Heavens Above (the website), and verifying prediction with reality.  Science is fun, Tom.  Try it some time.

They can't be predicted because all satellites, except for the ISS, are invisible to eye and telescope. It requires significant mass for a celestial body to be seen

Bubbles is right on this one.  Although the ISS is the largest (and consequently, brightest) object on orbit, there are hundreds of other satellites that are visible to the naked eye.  Any amateur astronomer will attest to this, but you don't have to take their word for it.  Go out and see for yourself!

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 08, 2007, 12:02:41 PM

Pseudolites are not satellites, they serve the function of satellites.

Pseudolites are ground-based, you morons.

Really?  Why must they be ground based, exactly?

Praying he is not piloting or mechanically engineering anything my family relies on!

And why would that be?

Quote from: bubbles on October 09, 2007, 07:05:10 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 08, 2007, 12:02:41 PM

Pseudolites are not satellites, they serve the function of satellites.

Pseudolites are ground-based, you morons.

Really?  Why must they be ground based, exactly?

Maybe my memory is failing...show me where I said "must be"?

Quote from: TheEngineer on October 09, 2007, 08:43:22 PM

Quote from: bubbles on October 09, 2007, 07:05:10 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 08, 2007, 12:02:41 PM

Pseudolites are not satellites, they serve the function of satellites.

Pseudolites are ground-based, you morons.

Really?  Why must they be ground based, exactly?

Maybe my memory is failing...show me where I said "must be"?

So you are retracting your earlier statement? 

Quote from: bubbles on October 09, 2007, 09:06:19 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on October 09, 2007, 08:43:22 PM

Quote from: bubbles on October 09, 2007, 07:05:10 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 08, 2007, 12:02:41 PM

Pseudolites are not satellites, they serve the function of satellites.

Pseudolites are ground-based, you morons.

Really?  Why must they be ground based, exactly?

Maybe my memory is failing...show me where I said "must be"?

So you are retracting your earlier statement?

Why do you keep saying I've said things I haven't?  Is this your schtick?  Just make shit up and attribute it to someone?

How about you explain your position that pseudolites are ground based?  You were quite confident on the point, so let's hear it. 

Tom, a celestial body doesn't require mass to be seen, but light. The more light it radiates the better it can be seen.
Jeez, talk about dumb...

Mass is required for significant light to be reflected. The less mass, the less light that will be reflected.

The ISS is the only body visible from earth. You have no evidence showing otherwise to prove me wrong. Go ahead and search the internet.

Go out and see for yourself!

I look at the night skies regularly and I have never seen satellites which streak across the sky.

And I bet you believe the tales of people seeing sputnik, too?

How about you explain your position that pseudolites are ground based?  You were quite confident on the point, so let's hear it.

I would, if you told me what part of my simple statements you don't understand.  You seem to be trying to make a point, and playing some kind of childish game doing it.  I don't care what it is but as you can tell, I'm not going to play it.

I suggest you do some research on the word pseudolite.  Look up the definition, look up the its origin, who coined the term and why.  Research what it is used for, in the field, in practical use, right now.

I know you believe pseudolites can be in the air, you've said so early in this thread--and I'd wager that's the source of your game-playing, and trying to get me to use absolute terms such as "must".  It is theoretically possible for differential GPS signals to be broadcast from the air.  But that is a huge nut to crack and is not in practical use now, or possibly ever.  The US military is experimenting with drone-based GPS relays, which are sometimes, arguably, incorrectly referred to as "pseudolites" (incorrect because they aren't differential signals).  No dice there either, son.  The fact is, the term "pseudolite" was coined to describe ground based differential GPS signals to augment the satellite GPS signals and drastically improve accuracy around a local area (e.g. an airport).  Drone-based GPS relays are not differential signals--they are high-amplification, high-gain relays to overcome GPS signal jamming and/or support use of GPS equipment indoors in urban operations--not for differential accuracy improvement.  Nor, ostensibly, are these drones necessarily even off the drawing board, and there are myriad technical problems to overcome, as you might imagine.

The US Navy is drawing up plans for--possibly experimenting with--pseudolite GPS augmentation on carriers to improve and possibly even automate landings.  The psuedolites are (to be) fixed to the ship.

NASA is experimenting with pseudolite designs, to be deployed by rovers--on the ground--for enhanced rover navigation.  (Again not fitting the original definition of pseudolite but a cool idea nonetheless.)

All of which is why I refused to let you insert the exclusionary word "must" into my mouth.

But either way, the only use of pseudolites that you and I can go out and verify to exist, are on the ground.  Now, I'm no expert on pseudolites.  I was well aware of their use in science and aviation.  But not military uses, I read about all that today (before my original post--I don't like to talk out of my ass like you and TomB do).  You should give "research" a shot some day.  It's fun.
 
Bottom line, this has been a fantastic dodging of the question by you, and waste of time.  The original question of this thread, as you should refer to, is how do you explain satellites visibly crossing the sky at night.  The answer given was "psuedolite".  That's right, "pseudolite" was the answer given as to what those things in the sky were.  My challenge was, "that's bullshit".  And you apparently would rather play semantic games, just as you did from the start, than debate the issue.  Instead of directly rebutting the FE position on this thread of "those zooming lights are pseudolites", you just kept repeating, "pseudolites are not satellites".  That, my friend, is called "Intellectual Fraud".

Any more stupid questions?  Good.  Next.

Mass is required for significant light to be reflected. The less mass, the less light that will be reflected.

So...are you suggesting that a 1 cubic ft. lump of lead reflects more light than 10 sq ft of flat, smooth aluminum foil?

Where do you come up with these laws of nature?

The ISS is the only body visible from earth. You have no evidence showing otherwise to prove me wrong.

Repeating an ignorant assertion does not increase it's truthiness.

And we have provided all the evidence you need, including predictions that are stupifyingly easy to generate and test.  And the best evidence?  Your own fucking eyes.  It's not our fault you choose to keep the shut and not even try to validate a damn thing.

Go ahead and search the internet.

And are you suggesting that "the internet" is viable proof?  I can refute that with one simple statement: "This forum is on the internet."

I look at the night skies regularly and I have never seen satellites which streak across the sky.

Just because Tom Bishop hasn't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Tom, I swear to God, you are the biggest f'ing imbecile I've ever met.  And by "you", I do mean your forum personna and arguments--I hope to god you are not really this stupid and phenomenally close-minded as a real human being.

I told you, step by step, precisely how you can see satellites--lots of them.  All it involves is being out in the country on a clear cold dark night, and not huddled scared in a tent with a flashlight pointed in your eyes.  Do not take a damn tent. 

It is ridiculously obvious you have never experienced the great outdoors much.  Because it's nigh impossible to do so and not see satellites.  I'm really getting a more complete picture of the pathetic life that is Tom.  You never got out much and experienced the wonders and amazement of nature.  You spent almost your entire life isolated, insulated inside.  You've never had that fire of raw hunger for knowledge that nature ignites.  And it's clear that the light of curiosity has gone out long ago, replaced by the smug certainty of absolute fucking lunacy.  Jesus H. Christ on a Popsicle Stick this is just sad.

Tom, follow my instructions for seeing satellites.  I swear on everything that is meaningful to me, that while it is mildly exciting for most kids to see for the first time, it may be the most eye-opening experience you will have in your entire lifetime.  I know you are probably afraid of that.  But just do it.

You are getting kicks out of getting me wound up, aren't you?  I have to remind myself that this is further evidence you are a troll.  Nobody--and I mean nobody--can be this stupid and close-minded.

Mass is required for significant light to be reflected. The less mass, the less light that will be reflected.

Well Tom, this really strengthens my suspicions that you are in fact a highschool dropout, hiding behind 'works of great scientific value', trying to explain things you can not even begin to understand
You do however a nice job of generatig traffic for the site.
For a troll, that is.

Mass is required for significant light to be reflected. The less mass, the less light that will be reflected.

That makes absolutely no sense.  Less mass doesn't mean less light will be reflected.  It's all about how reflective the surface of the object is.  How can a mirror be losing to a boulder in terms of light reflections?

Why are people arguing over the simple definition of the pseudolite?? The reason it was invented does not detract from its definition, nor its applicability to other things.

Why are people arguing over the simple definition of the pseudolite?? The reason it was invented does not detract from its definition, nor its applicability to other things.

I couldn't agree more.  Nothing is more tedious than arguing over subtleties of definition...especially when such subtleties aren't relevant to the topic.  Kind of like your tedious divito-invented "distinctions" between gravity and gravitation, that exist in your head and not within the scientific community, or credible dictionaries.

The definition of a pseudolite does become relevant, however, when invoked by FE'ers as an explanation for the points of light that cross the sky in the night.  (That is the topic of this thread, remember?)  And when other FE'ers that know better and have chimed in in other ways to the thread and very topic of pseudolites, remain conspicuously silent in correcting that assertion.

So...are you suggesting that a 1 cubic ft. lump of lead reflects more light than 10 sq ft of flat, smooth aluminum foil?

Where do you come up with these laws of nature?

No. I am implying that satellites have low mass, are quite small, and thus do not reflect enough light to be seen at sea level.

As for reflectivity, I am assuming that all satellites have about the same amount reflectivity.

Repeating an ignorant assertion does not increase it's truthiness.

I've told you that I look at the night sky regularly, and I've never seen a satellite streak across the sky.

And are you suggesting that "the internet" is viable proof?  I can refute that with one simple statement: "This forum is on the internet."

If satellites are truly visible from sea level then it should be pretty easy to find us an image of a satellite hovering in the air, as seen from the ground.

Tom, follow my instructions for seeing satellites.  I swear on everything that is meaningful to me, that while it is mildly exciting for most kids to see for the first time, it may be the most eye-opening experience you will have in your entire lifetime.  I know you are probably afraid of that.  But just do it.

Many of these satellites are about the size of a basketball. They are hundreds or thousands of miles away from the observer. If you can produce reference or evidence showing that a basketball sized object at that distance can be seen from goundlevel, then I retract my statements.

Nothing is more tedious than arguing over subtleties of definition...especially when such subtleties aren't relevant to the topic.

But...you are the one that...did it.

  Kind of like your tedious divito-invented "distinctions" between gravity and gravitation, that exist in your head and not within the scientific community, or credible dictionaries.

There is a huge difference between gravity and gravitation, which exists in the scientific community.

No. I am implying that satellites have low mass, are quite small, and thus do not reflect enough light to be seen at sea level...As for reflectivity, I am assuming that all satellites have about the same amount reflectivity.

I see.  Now you are implying things and injecting assumptions.  Your original hard-line assertion was quite simply, "Mass is required for significant light to be reflected. The less mass, the less light that will be reflected."  No muss, no fuss, no qualifications.

You are entitled to change your position (encouraged, even), but in the future I would recommend being more careful in your choice of phrasing bold, outrageous assertions.  It would save everyone alot of time.  As it is, you sound like a backpedaling idiot.  (Or perhaps replace "sound like" with "are".)

I've told you that I look at the night sky regularly, and I've never seen a satellite streak across the sky.

And I've told you, you need to look up for more than a few seconds, at a clear moonless night sky away from light pollution, during a certain time, and a certain area of the sky.  I've outlined it all for you.  But it is just not getting through your unfathomably rigid skull.  I'd guess that 95 percent of the time you look up at the sky (or perhaps 90 percent if you also include early morning), the conditions will not allow you to see a satellite.  Nor will you likely see anything if you just glance up now and then.  But the right conditions aren't random--I've spelled them out very clearly.

Until you follow the incredibly simple steps I have provided (or that you can find in books, satellite visibility prediction sites, or friends and family that got out as kids and aren't morons), you will be considered an ignorant moron unwilling to even try expanding his horizons.  Not that you aren't considered that already.

If satellites are truly visible from sea level then it should be pretty easy to find us an image of a satellite hovering in the air, as seen from the ground.

Sigh.  (Shaking head in hands.)  You are a complete, unmitigated, brain-diseased idiot.  Nor can you apparently read and comprehend.  This is such a pointless argument.  If you don't even understand what I'm telling you, why bother continuing?  Tom, your assertion will be quite rebutted (before you even said it), if you try to read and comprehend what was written earlier in this utterly pointless debate.

Many of these satellites are about the size of a basketball. They are hundreds or thousands of miles away from the observer.

Now it is just getting silly.  Tom, the "[dog = artificial selection] ergo [artificial selection = symbiosis]" smackdown should have taught you that just because an idea makes sense to your mangled mush of a brain, doesn't mean it has any bearing whatsoever on reality.  In fact, by now you should know that quite the opposite is true. 

And I thought you believed that the ISS was the only satellite?  Now, you suddenly believe there are "many" satellites?  Please reconcile.

The typical size of a satellite, not including solar panels, is closer to a passenger van, not a basketball (!!!).  (Jesus where do you get your facts?)  In fact, they have been fairly standard sizes for decades, dictated by the size of the space shuttle cargo bay.  That's just most US satellites--many european and russian satellites are not so constrained.  And the solar panels can be many times the size of the satellite.  There do exist smaller satellites, but the ones we see floating serenely by, depending on altitude, are almost certainly the larger ones.  (One exception is Iridium satellites.  Although big, they are far smaller than the brightness of their reflections would suggest.  Iridium "flares" can be so bright off their mirror-smooth solar panels, they can be seen in broad daylight, and trust me, it's an impressive sight especially when you see it exactly when and where predicted.)

Here are some visualization aids for you:

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&q=satellite+before+launch&btnG=Search+Images

As for orbiting distance, most satellites (I'm guessing) are in low earth orbit, which is roughly within 1,500 miles.  Not "hundreds of thousands".  (The moon's orbit is "hundreds of thousands of miles" away.)  Even geostationary orbits--typically the highest to my knowledge and outside the Van Allen radiation belt--are about 20k miles.

Can we pull our head out of our ass now?

You are entitled to change your position (encouraged, even), but in the future I would recommend being more careful in your choice of phrasing bold, outrageous assertions.  It would save everyone alot of time.  As it is, you sound like a backpedaling idiot.  (Or perhaps replace "sound like" with "are".)

I did not change my position. I still maintain that it takes quite a bit of mass for man-made objects to be seen thousands of miles away.

As for orbiting distance, most satellites (I'm guessing) are in low earth orbit, which is roughly within 1,500 miles.  Not "hundreds of thousands".  (The moon's orbit is "hundreds of thousands of miles" away.)

Learn to read. I did not say "hundreds of thousands."

Here are some visualization aids for you:

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&q=satellite+before+launch&btnG=Search+Images

Your source only backs up my claim of many, but not all, satellites being about the size of a basketball. From page one of that Google search we see the following:

And I thought you believed that the ISS was the only satellite?  Now, you suddenly believe there are "many" satellites?  Please reconcile.

If you will review, I said that the ISS was the only man-made object visible from the ground. I did not deny that other satellites exist above the earth. I am only denying that those bodies can be seen from the ground.

And I've told you, you need to look up for more than a few seconds, at a clear moonless night sky away from light pollution, during a certain time, and a certain area of the sky.

I've specifically looked for satellites in the night sky. And, unfortunately, none could be seen.

Sigh.  (Shaking head in hands.)  You are a complete, unmitigated, brain-diseased idiot.  Nor can you apparently read and comprehend.  This is such a pointless argument.  If you don't even understand what I'm telling you, why bother continuing?  Tom, your assertion will be quite rebutted (before you even said it), if you try to read and comprehend what was written earlier in this utterly pointless debate.

If you cannot provide evidence, photographic or otherwise, demonstrating your claim of satellites being visible from earth, then you may as well stop posting.

If you will review, I said that the ISS was the only man-made object visible from the ground.

If you'll permit me a 'TheEngineer' moment': At face value that is the single most erroneous comment I have ever seen.

Learn to read. I did not say "hundreds of thousands."

Huh, so you didn't.  That was a "r", not an "f" in the middle.  Point conceded, good job Tom, you have said something that makes sense.

Your source only backs up my claim of many, but not all, satellites being about the size of a basketball. From page one of the Google search we see the following

It's not "my" source, but thanks.  Your source (and subsequent claim) does not challenge mine, but your distinction is duly noted.  Since we are both then clearly discussing only satellites that are readily visible to the naked eye, I think we can safely, logically rule out picosatellites from the conversation.

...I said that the ISS was the only man-made object visible from the ground.

You did in fact say that.  Another point conceded.  Nice catch.

Quote

And I've told you, you need to look up for more than a few seconds, at a clear moonless night sky away from light pollution, during a certain time, and a certain area of the sky.

I've specifically looked for satellites in the night sky. And, unfortunately, none could be seen.

You need to reword that.  Change it from "And, unfortunately, none could be seen", to "And, unfortunately, I could not see any".  There is a universe of difference.

If you cannot provide evidence, photographic or otherwise, showing that satellites are visible from earth, you may as well stop posting.

You've said this more than once.  I've ignored it, because I was under the impression you did not consider photographs as evidence.  Which is it?  Now, suddenly, if I provide photographic evidence, you will shut the fuck up? 

OK, here you go:

Photos of satellites
Video Astrography (with photos)
Iridium Flare Photos
Tumbling Satellites (with photos)
Imaging Satellites in Space From the Ground (via telescope)

Satellite-watchiing
satellite beginner-level overview
Visual Satellite Observer's Home Page (dive in, Tom)
everything you wanted to know about Iridium flares
Wired article (satellite watchers finding classified military satellites)

Satellite prediction
Heavens Above (most popular and well-maintained prediction site)
AMSAT Online Satellite Pass Predictions


Now, stop posting.

(Edit: fixed broken URL formatting)

Perhaps satelites don't actually go in orbit but instead are caught up in predictable Aether Eddies.

Perhaps satelites don't actually go in orbit but instead are caught up in predictable Aether Eddies.

I can appreciate that attempt at a rational explanation while leaving the invitation open for comment.  (TomB would have just said "Rowbotham!")  One thing I would point out, is that the SE model makes testable predictions about the future location and apparent vector of visible satallites.  On that point, I wouldn't even (necessarily) have to assert that the SE model is "correct", but just point out the readily testable predictions it makes, and ask where are the readily testable predictions made by the FE model.  In a "prediction shoot-out", the SE model would win, I think.

I would also point out that the origin, existence, and behavior of satellites are very well understood and explained in the SE model.

Quote

Pseudolites are ground-based, you morons.  The question is, "what are those things that cross the sky".  The more I read about the FE model, arguments, workarounds, and excuses, the more I have to shake my head.  Furthermore, the term was coined by scientists--which means you idiots are not entitled to use it.

TheEngineer is a pilot and mechanical engineer. He has more of a right to use it than you, certainly.

Really?  Then what is this all about then:

TheEngineer, a 20 something year old with his bachelor's degree in engineering, neglects to consider the very basics and observable of Flat Earth Theory. Instead, this child is content with arguing...about the difference between gravity and gravitation. That's all he ever does here...trapped in his own little world of babbling pretension.

?

Really?  Then what is this all about then:

I see no contradiction.

You've said this more than once.  I've ignored it, because I was under the impression you did not consider photographs as evidence.  Which is it?  Now, suddenly, if I provide photographic evidence, you will shut the fuck up?

I personally will consider photographs for most things as evidence. The general rule of thumb on this forum, however, is that photographs of the earth are not considered evidence.

OK, here you go:

Many of those images are not of the visible spectrum. They are radar images. And the ones which are visible require specialized equipment to see properly. None of this shows that satellites visibly streak across the sky as you've claimed.

I can appreciate that attempt at a rational explanation while leaving the invitation open for comment.

As for how satellites stay aloft without orbit around the earth; in the FE model the satellites are actually in orbit around the hub of the earth. Satellites are captured geometrically by the multiple system which the stars and celestial bodies of the skies rotate around. The underlying cause for this rotation is due to vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of mass - an imaginary point completely compliant with the Newtonian system. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement. Each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through gravitational vectors. Formation is created through gravitational capture - at least three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another.

Alternative forms of satellite buoyancy include lagrange points between the earth and stars, where the satellite is held aloft where the influences of gravitation and acceleration cancel out.

One additional possibility is what I like to call the "skipping stone mechanism" where satellites skip across the surface of the atmosphere like skipping stones over water:

In order for this to work - as the satellite hits the atmosphere it must be tilted up somewhat or at least the front edge must be beveled.  Otherwise, it can dig its way into the atmosphere, ending its skipping career. Then when the satellite strikes the upper air, it pushes the air down.  By Newton's Third Law (For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction force) the air exerts an upward and slightly backward force on the satellite. The upward force pushes the satellite back up into space and the backward force slows the satellite, hopefully slightly.

And if the satellite is given a strong spin it can, like a gyroscope, better keep and maintain its orientation.

Many of those images are not of the visible spectrum. They are radar images. And the ones which are visible require specialized equipment to see properly. None of this shows that satellites visibly streak across the sky as you've claimed.

You are wrong.  The photos of the iridium flare events did not require any specialized equipment to see.

They required a camera to record the event, but I take it you are not calling a camera specialized equipment.

Many of those images are not of the visible spectrum. They are radar images. And the ones which are visible require specialized equipment to see properly. None of this shows that satellites visibly streak across the sky as you've claimed.

You are dyslexic, aren't you!  This explains alot.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  But I know the exact text where you got the idea that they are "radar images".  They are not radar images, Tom.  They are visible spectrum.  READ THE FUCKING CAPTIONS MORE CAREFULLY. 

Furthermore, about half the images I've sent you are 70mm or wider (70mm 35mm equiv being roughly what the human eye sees).  The "special equipment" are either 1) tripods [Tripods!  Oooohh!  Special equipment!], 2) very low-power telescopes [smaller than your POS], and in some cases equatorial mounts are used, which you can buy at Costco for $200.  These are used only for clarity's sake, having nothing to do with actually imaging the satellites.  The mounts cancel out star motion, which would create thousands of lines on the image thus making it more difficult to find the satellite.  The satellite, meanwhile, still makes exactly the same kind of streak across the exposure with or without an equatorial mount, because it is moving significantly faster than the apparent star motion.  A satellite crosses the sky within a minute, typically.  The images could have just as easily been made setting the camera on time exposure on the hood of a car.  But these are enthusiasts, Tom.

In a few cases, which I threw in purely for interesting effect at the end of the list, are some very high-powered telescopic images.

And besides that, since goddamned when is there suddenly a prohibition on "special equipment", and who defines the acceptable use of "special equipment" or even what it fucking is in the first place?  You lay down a simple challenge, I wipe your face in it, then you suddenly throw out new requirements that never existed before.  You are fucking pathetic.

WHY DID I WASTE MY TIME ON THIS FUCKTARD?

I am furious, you fucking moron, for leading me to believe that some photographic evidence would be all that you need.  (And for believing it.)  You wasted my goddamned time that I could have been using to secure my family farther into the financial future.  You are an intellectual goddamned fraud.  You are a fucking cowardly weasel of a man. 

You know what, whatever.  You are a jackass, utterly, impotently ignorant, and you are never going to get it.   You just keep squeezing your eyes as tightly shut as you can.  Fuck this retarded forum that you somehow thrive in (when you ordinarily wouldn't thrive your way out of a wet paper sack).  You are what's wrong with this world; fucktards like you are why America has lost her way and why we're in the middle east for good.  People like you "elected" G.W. (or believe he was elected), because you are too fucking ignorant and scared to do anything about it.  You are a fucking coward.  You are intellectually dishonest.  Gullible people like you are why there are suicide bombers that can be convinced to kill themselves (just citing a different fervent dogma).  People like you are why there are so many goddamn scam artists preying on fucktards like yourself. 

You, Tom Bishop, are why this species is absolutely, totally FUCKED in the long run.  (You know what we need?  Some goddamned artificial selection to make sure maggots like this never, ever breed.  It is our species' only hope.)

But in the mean time, keep on believing the Earth is flat.  That's just more of the pie for me and my offspring.  Enjoy your imbecilic forum.