Okay, I looked at that joke of a website. you must believe in every pie plate ufo hoax, as well, eh?
This coming from a guy that links to flattard sites, claiming satellites don't exist. Versus a site that explains how hobbyists track satellites and shows pictures of them through telescopes, giving you the information to perform the same feat yourself (which you never will, because you're a retarded monkey). More turd flinging at the zookeepers.
Why the fuck are the photos so low res? Low res is much easier to fake.
Because, you retard, there's a limit to how much resolution you can get when looking at a distant object through a telescope. Also, the object is streaking across the sky, so you can't have a long exposure. And finally, there's atmospheric distortion. If you weren't a retarded monkey, you'd know these things. Or at least have the self-awareness to not sound like a braying jackass when talking about things you know nothing about.
Right.
Maybe go look through a telescope some day.
Or don't, I really don't give a fuck.
Satellites are real, that's why we have all these expensive to construct and maintain radio towers, and under sea cables.
Daddy government is here to do all your thinking for you.
Maybe go look through a telescope some day.
You're a retard. You think looking through a telescope to peer at your neighbor's house is the same as trying to resolve a satellite over 300,000 meters away, through the entire Earth's atmosphere, while it's moving across the sky?
Satellites are real, that's why we have all these expensive to construct and maintain radio towers, and under sea cables.
Holy fuck, you're retarded. First of all, all the evidence points to satellites being real, whether it's GPS signals, triangulation, or actual observations, which you can verify yourself (but you never will, because you're a turd-flinging, retarded monkey). But after flailing about and failing to address those claims, you just drop it and move on to EVEN DUMBER ARGUMENTS. Being the retarded monkey that you are, you can't come up with reasonable answers on your own.
1) Satellites are more modern, so all those towers that were built before satellites became common served a purpose.
2) Satellites provide wide area coverage, but have limited bandwidth.
3) Satellites are expensive to launch, but a tower is relatively cheap to build.
4) Undersea cables provide lower latency and a higher bandwidth.
In short, there's tradeoffs, and no one-size fits all solution.
Daddy government is here to do all your thinking for you.
Unlike you, I can think for myself. You rely on flattard sites to do the thinking for you.
The towers were all built prior to 1958?
Why would a satellite have lower bandwidth capacity than a radio tower?
You didn't even look at the list of balloon launched satellites, eh?
Okay, so satellites are less effective than radio towers, and are very expensive. That's why there are supposedly thousands of them up there. Thousands.
So, effectively, satellites exist because they are really cool for nasa to draw pictures of.
(post is archived)