Astra geostationary satellites through telescope

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 265

  • @jzerious4523
    @jzerious4523 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    My uncle was a Satellite Fuel Technician for the Astra 1F satellite and its cool to see.

  • @allenkemp3124
    @allenkemp3124 9 ปีที่แล้ว +19

    It's called Geostationary Oscillation. Not all geo sats are directly above the equator, they can be slightly inclined whether by design or insertion failure. The satellite's gyros will compensate for the movement to keep the footprint centered. Sirius XM sats do a huge "figure 8" from North to South and back to ensure a uniform footprint for moving vehicles. A. Kemp - Lockheed Martin Astronautics

    • @mingerone
      @mingerone 9 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      +Allen Kemp Oh my god are people really denying geostationary sats exists now?I hope I am being trolled hard. But nothing would surprise me these days.

    • @my3dviews
      @my3dviews 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      +Ming Lord Flat Earthers deny that all satellites exist.

    • @DreamingConcepts
      @DreamingConcepts 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@my3dviews as if there would be full of clear videos of satellites seen from earth...

    • @my3dviews
      @my3dviews 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@DreamingConcepts You can see satellites even with the naked eye if you look after sunset or before sunrise ISS is easy to spot.

    • @DreamingConcepts
      @DreamingConcepts 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@my3dviews so you can see satellites with naked eye but there's no clear video of any of them from anyone owning expensive telescopes that could capture close up footage of them like in all nasa CGI's

  • @Astrobrant2
    @Astrobrant2 8 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    Outstanding video! That was a lot of work, and so much appreciated.

  • @Gaubachis
    @Gaubachis 9 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Awesome video! From the list of satellites you give this seems to be the 19.2 degrees E orbital slot. I believe 1G, 1H and 2C have been retired or moved to other slots. Since these Satellites are co-located, they are not strictly stationary and each have a slight inclination and eccentricity that enables them to keep a safe distance from each other. As long as the satellites remain in their assigned "box" no re-pointing of the ground receiver is needed (the satellite dish) since the dish has a large enough beamwidth to cover the "box"
    In response to some of the comments below, the satellites in the video appear to be moving because
    -geostationary satellites are not strictly "stationary" since there are constant forces acting upon the satellite such as, moon's gravity, solar wind, non-uniform gravity of the earth etc.
    -the video appears to be shot at high magnification, which exaggerates the movements that would be seen to the naked eye

  • @nzoomed
    @nzoomed 11 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    why does it look like they are moving if they are geostationary, shouldnt they stay fixed from the point of view on the ground?

    • @CrowbarOwner
      @CrowbarOwner 11 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      I presume their orbits have a little "tilt" that does that.

    • @jacklegg21
      @jacklegg21 9 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      +nzoomed Because of inclination or orbital eccentricity. If you can trace their movement, they will make a figure 8. The closer to 0 degrees of inclination/eccentricity they have, the smaller the movement. This is why the large dishes (like the ones I work on) have AZ/EL motors, so they can track the path of these satellites.

  • @iamchyennechyenneiam
    @iamchyennechyenneiam 9 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    You could take a flat earther up to outer atmo, let him pilot the craft, put him in a suit, space him for a walk and he would still insist that he was drugged and the whole thing is a sham.
    For certain types of people, it is more important to be "right" than "correct".

    • @lorditsprobingtime6668
      @lorditsprobingtime6668 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      jony face. Holy fuck you're an idiot. Think about that, long and hard you moron.

    • @DreamingConcepts
      @DreamingConcepts 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      How can you compare seeing some lighted dots in the sky in a youtube video, to going in space yourself?
      get at least get some clear pictures of a satellite...

    • @Cittamatra
      @Cittamatra 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Projection at its finest mate, well done. Now apply your view to yourself. You're being lied to. It's beyond embarrassing...

  • @jcims
    @jcims 12 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Any idea what the angular width of the Astra cluster is? Seems very narrow.

  • @TelcoKen
    @TelcoKen 12 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Nice footage! I've been meaning to locate a geostationary in my 10" Dob. Per "Turn Left at Orion" it's an interesting phenomenon...if you see a star that doesn't move across a stationary eyepiece view like the others, it's likely a geostationary satellite!

  • @blafsen
    @blafsen 8 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great video! Observing geostationary satellites with my Dob is still on my bucket list ;)

  • @SamiJumppanen
    @SamiJumppanen 8 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Awesome video!

  • @kpn5000
    @kpn5000 8 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    This is really cool CGI. Thanks for posting.

    • @kelpkelp5252
      @kelpkelp5252 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      th-cam.com/video/JgY8zNZ35uw/w-d-xo.html

  • @paintmaster4831
    @paintmaster4831 ปีที่แล้ว

    Why are they so close together? Is it different companies?

  • @Mouatin_n
    @Mouatin_n 8 ปีที่แล้ว

    If moving, how the pickup TV channels remain fixed ???

    • @DavidBeczuk
      @DavidBeczuk 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      geostationary...it rotates at the same speed as the earth.

    • @Tyrael66
      @Tyrael66 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@DavidBeczuk no they don't. They move with 6500 mph dumbass.

    • @my3dviews
      @my3dviews 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Tyrael66 Why are you saying that. He is correct in that they make one orbit of the Earth per day (the same as the Earth's rotation), so appear to be stationary.

  • @steenodde77
    @steenodde77 13 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Fantastic!!

  • @Pit.Gutzmann
    @Pit.Gutzmann 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very good. I will try this this summer in a clear night. How long was the exposure time for each image?

    • @Pit.Gutzmann
      @Pit.Gutzmann 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Oh, yes! I totally forgot that we are looking at something that kinda "stays fixed" (at least against the star background). So within certain limits we have "all the time we need" with those satellites... I find it interesting that these satellites you photographed go up and down, so they are geosynchronous but not totally geostationary, right?

  • @jetsetjourneysofficial
    @jetsetjourneysofficial 9 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    How is it possible to see them at all with the size of them and the distance away from us? I think this video is fake.

    • @rodrigoappendino
      @rodrigoappendino 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Because the light decreases its intensity, but it's never zero.
      In a night with clear sky, you can see satellite with zoom, or by naked eyes (only of they have any kind of lantern, I guess).

    • @arjunvsharma
      @arjunvsharma 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      +rob b ok encyclopedia

    • @shegocrazy
      @shegocrazy 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      You can see them at night because they reflect the sun. During the day the sunlight "drowns" out the reflections. FFS I remember as a little kid watching Skylab en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab go over night after night.

  • @King-oy4or
    @King-oy4or 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Such a good video but so many sick people commenting. From what country do these people come from? If you have questions after this Video watch the Astra Pomotional Video. It will answer everything.

  • @diegorock561
    @diegorock561 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great vídeo! Without a telescope I can make a similar? Just by a câmera in timelapse setup?

    • @Sven-Wagner
      @Sven-Wagner 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      maybe by a very long longtime picture

  • @MyFlickflack
    @MyFlickflack 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thats so impressive!

  • @St4lkerBR
    @St4lkerBR 9 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    so earth telescope can see far away galaxys but cannot properly see satellites ? ... if they can plz link a video or image.

    • @diggledoggle4192
      @diggledoggle4192 9 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Satellites are tiny. Galaxies like Andromeda are visible with the naked eye. Learn the basics

    • @rodrigoappendino
      @rodrigoappendino 9 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Pictures of galaxies are taken by turning a huge telescope at the galaxy's direction, rotating the satellite accordingly with a proper software and the telescope needs to stay capturing the image during a long time, and the colors are aproximation. And galaxies are huge.
      Here, we have a guy with a camera filming with no softwares for allignment and trying to show someting that doesn't emit light, with miles of atmosphere between the guy and the satellite.

    • @jacklegg21
      @jacklegg21 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      +Rodrigo Appendino Also, the bodies of the satellites are the size of a pickup truck. They orbit 22,300 miles above the equator. Throw in the fact that there are atmospheric distortions when viewing from earth...

    • @St4lkerBR
      @St4lkerBR 9 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      how convenient ...

    • @Astrobrant2
      @Astrobrant2 8 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      +Sugoi !! Sugoi :D "how convenient ..."
      That's what you say when you get decent answers to your question?

  • @nicos7995
    @nicos7995 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    So youre telling me it’s hard to see a satellite that is 16 thousand miles away from us?
    But we can se the rings on Saturn that is 846 MILLION miles away from us ?
    And it’s suppose to be around 8700 satellite’s orbiting the earth
    How come we then only see the space station iss so clear but nothing more ?

    • @asiano3385
      @asiano3385 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Why not?

  • @Thund0rbird
    @Thund0rbird 8 ปีที่แล้ว

    Why do they move?

    • @xr280xr
      @xr280xr 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      How long does the fuel last? Once it's out of fuel, what happens to the satellite?

    • @NWOConspiracyGroup
      @NWOConspiracyGroup 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      They don't because this video is fake and so is the information you are told about satellites. Here is the truth www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/ballon_prep.jpg

    • @testcardsandmore1231
      @testcardsandmore1231 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      About 15 years. Just before the fuel runs out, the satellite is given a push (by firing the on board rockets) to a "grave yard" orbit.

  • @deepvoyager01
    @deepvoyager01 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    I don't know but I am feeling very proud

  • @MuddledMe
    @MuddledMe 8 ปีที่แล้ว

    There is meant to be thousands of satellites travelling at thousands of kph.
    Why is there never a collision with each other, ISS or with space junk?

    • @SweRaider1993
      @SweRaider1993 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      You're talking about a thousand sand grains in a stadium at least. The probability of anything colliding is infinitesimally small. Not to mention that space agencies track all the satellites and even the space junk.

    • @MuddledMe
      @MuddledMe 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      yeah i can picture that, but most satellites/junk dont have any way of correcting their orbit, so being tracked wouldnt really help them to avoid a collision. if something was travelling towards the ISS in the oposite direction at the same speed as the ISS total impact speed would be nearly 60,000 kph, i just find it hard to see how they could even have such precise locations of these objects and such speed very limited time to adjust the ISS course to avoid it?

    • @SweRaider1993
      @SweRaider1993 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Vendetta Vegan There are small dust particles that occasionally hit the ISS which puts small dents in it, but generally not enough to damage it significantly. Again, any large space debris are so far apart that there's little to no chance of them ever colliding. As for tracking larger space debris and satellites I don't know the details but it does allow them to avoid collisions with larger debris. You can go to the Astromaterials Research & Exploration Science website by NASA to read up on it.
      Peace, fellow vegan.

    • @MuddledMe
      @MuddledMe 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Cheers for your reply, even with very tiny odds of a collision i think i would worry too much aboard the ISS to enjoy it, . [vegan fist bump] respect. :)

    • @kelpkelp5252
      @kelpkelp5252 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      th-cam.com/video/JgY8zNZ35uw/w-d-xo.html

  • @internazionalemr6227
    @internazionalemr6227 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    you can see hool of the moon with 4k resolution .. why this is WTF light ?/???

  • @boxyice1017
    @boxyice1017 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    What's thr lifhtz

  • @nickmckeehan6428
    @nickmckeehan6428 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    if they are geostationary then why are they moving

  • @stevebano5874
    @stevebano5874 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    *....There isn't one Satellite phone, T.V. or Radio Company Which Can Send me a Link of a Geostationary or LEO Satellite in use.? Your Video is the Closest I've ever seen to a Real Satellite.. Why do you think this is...?*

  • @bonairecloudynightsobserva2297
    @bonairecloudynightsobserva2297 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Nice

  • @theone-ou1je
    @theone-ou1je 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    ? what / this dont show nothing but some shinny things moving about
    those could be shit under water in the ocean

  • @whatscookingresearch
    @whatscookingresearch 9 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    If there was such a thing as a geostationary sattelite buy definition it would not move. If it did then someone with a dish reciever would lose the signal unless the dish moved constantly. Lies that are stupid are easy to detect.

    • @fathinluqman4348
      @fathinluqman4348 9 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      +S&S Home Energy Research and Development what dish receiver? geostationary satellite are used for GPS and stuff. not communication. communication are handled with different satellite

    • @adrianflores8432
      @adrianflores8432 9 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      +S&S Home Energy Research and Development Geostationary satellites are not completely stationary. They can be designed to be inserted a little above the eq. plane (for several reasons) or maybe some didn't end up precisely where they were supposed too. For this reason they appear oscilate a little as they orbit the Earth. The satellite does move to counter this oscillation.
      I don't know if this video is real or not, but you didn't detect anything.

    • @kelpkelp5252
      @kelpkelp5252 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      th-cam.com/video/JgY8zNZ35uw/w-d-xo.html

  • @fauzanadrian4164
    @fauzanadrian4164 8 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    there is no satellite in galaxy..

    • @jarreddeforge8094
      @jarreddeforge8094 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      fauzan adrian Um yes satellites are orbiting the Earth and Earth is in the Milky Way wich is a Galaxy.

    • @awatchman5945
      @awatchman5945 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@jarreddeforge8094
      Milky Way is a candy bar. 😎
      Satellites are tethered to helium balloons in earth’s atmosphere.
      Earth is a spinning globe, and not
      FL___________________________AT
      and motionless.
      👉🏽 🗣👂🏼 2 out of 3 of those statements are true.

  • @taqwimachmad
    @taqwimachmad 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    oh come on, it's using timelapse camera

  • @honeytaters9889
    @honeytaters9889 9 ปีที่แล้ว

    1:02 X / Y

  • @narajuna
    @narajuna 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Little hard to know those are satellites at that distance, be drones in the ionosphere also.
    Supposedly; It does not take much to see or image them, buses at 23,000 miles.
    And It's orbital characteristics tells it's distance.
    And ground triangulation says the distance.
    The brightness confirms the size.
    Seen a toaster sized at 250 miles, called Flock....?

    • @my3dviews
      @my3dviews 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      You can see them with a telescope because they are bright compared to the black background. You can't see the actual size of the object. It is like seeing a lightbulb in the dark from several miles away. You can't actually see the size of the bulb, just the intense light as a pinpoint against the black background.

  • @HenryTirtayasa
    @HenryTirtayasa 8 ปีที่แล้ว

    look a like a star.. ahahahha

  • @greenteambc
    @greenteambc 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    You can see satellites moving with the naked eye! Or I have eagle vision.

  • @-TimZambra
    @-TimZambra 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    what did you use, a toy telescope? :DDD

  • @James-qr6fg
    @James-qr6fg 9 ปีที่แล้ว +30

    that was the worst proof of satellites. epic fail!

    • @Pit.Gutzmann
      @Pit.Gutzmann 7 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      Not sure if I have looked close enough but I have not seen or read the word "proof" in the video or description. I guess Holodroid just wanted to photograph satellites, nothing more. If you Flatearthers don't believe in them it is your problem. Holodroid tell you how it's done, so I suggest you try it yourself. You do not even need a telescope. A good camera with a f/2.8 telelens and some image stocking software should do. But you should read the manual first, otherwise you will get underexposed blurry pictures and call the blurry schemes "Jesus"...

    • @hernandemornay5295
      @hernandemornay5295 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Pit Gutzmann the is that you can fotograph those drones because they are reAly close, not un the outer space, because it doesnt exist

    • @ancelrick5396
      @ancelrick5396 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      no one said it was intended as proof, it's just fact

    • @kelpkelp5252
      @kelpkelp5252 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      th-cam.com/video/JgY8zNZ35uw/w-d-xo.html

  • @johnnylb
    @johnnylb 9 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Ok so we all just take your word for it?Ummm,lol,ok.But this collection of blurry white dots is the over 20,000 satellites in space?This is the best we could muster up?I could duplicate this crappy video with paint.net and numerous ways to animate it..Dont even need photoshop.A lil over 17 billion dollars a year goes to nasa and this is all we got?

    • @FreshWholeMilk
      @FreshWholeMilk 9 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Anyone can look through a telescope and see satellites, why don't you buy one yourself?

    • @maskemo1
      @maskemo1 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      +X-ray Devil Same for me, I can't see any of these supposed thousands of satellites or even the ISS with my own telescope. Stars could just end up being "luminaries" and we just happen to live in a snowball inside an ocean. Modern science is the religion of the Beast ( tilt of the Earth is 90.0 - 23,4 = 66.6 degrees) and Earth moves at near 66600 miles per hour around the sun. I mean WTF is going there? Science can't explain the existence of any of the 4 elementals force of nature. You know they were building houses, bridges and even pyramid even before they "fabricated" the concept of Gravity. The belief system is the only real truth of this world. I believe God was manifested in the person of Jesus Christ and no "science" can disprove that. Time to wake up!

    • @rickbrown2000
      @rickbrown2000 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      X-ray Devil, and maskemo1 -- Well, you guys are missing some fun! The ISS is easily visible with the naked eye; I've seen it countless times. Please visit www.heavens-above.com, and enter your location, and they'll generate a table indicating when it'll be visible at your location in the next 10 days. Occasionally there will be a "dry spell" when there won't be any passes at all, but be patient.

    • @maskemo1
      @maskemo1 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      +Rick Brown The ISS is a hologram technology, not reality just like the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. It is all fake like the recent "orange=33" Orlando gay shooting HOAX.
      This world is built on lies and deceptions. Indoctrinated and blinded by science can't see the LIGHT/TRUTH. Darkness is too heavy, dense and comfortable for them.
      BTW draw the locations of ISS path on the flat earth map, you'll observe an almost perfect circle. What a coincidence! LOL
      Your brainwashed fun ISS only serves a mind control agenda for domination over every nation of the world.

    • @WalterBislin
      @WalterBislin 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      +maskemo1: _BTW draw the locations of ISS path on the flat earth map, you'll observe an almost perfect circle. What a coincidence! LOL_
      walter.bislins.ch/work/index.asp?page=ISS+Tracks+on+Flat+Earth
      If you call this almost perfect circles than I can understand why you see the globe so flat! I think you need new glasses. LOL
      I admit this are "circle like" tracks. But what else should they be? Zig Zag lines? ISS orbits the globe earth on a great circle track as every satellite. On the globe model this IS ARE PERFECT CIRCLES. So the globe model must be right.

  • @JacobKnightRiderShop
    @JacobKnightRiderShop 9 ปีที่แล้ว

    Fail , you would think with technology we would have more zoom in features on these telescopes, cause this looks like stars I can see this with my own 2 eyes with out a telescope.

    • @FreshWholeMilk
      @FreshWholeMilk 9 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Stars don't move, idiot.

    • @kpn5000
      @kpn5000 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      +FreshWholeMilk Stars move, alright, I see them move every night. The whole universe is in perpetual motion according to the big brains like Stephen Hawking et al. Now, whom are you calling an idiot?

    • @FreshWholeMilk
      @FreshWholeMilk 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      +kpn5000 I should have clarified that, they don't move about in the sky like the satellites shown here, they rotate across the sky, slowly, over the course of a night.

    • @johnclair2269
      @johnclair2269 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      +FreshWholeMilk our sun is a star and and we move round the milkyway

  • @AntarcticWarrior
    @AntarcticWarrior 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Shiny weather balloons ANYONE?...

  • @hyecutie1
    @hyecutie1 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Why are all these supposed satellites the EXACT same size and brightness of the stars? Seems a bit too coincidental...

    • @nmarbletoe8210
      @nmarbletoe8210 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Someone kept making stars until they matched every possible brightness. That probably is a conspiracy of some kind

    • @astroroadshow
      @astroroadshow 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      At that distance, a satellite or a faint star will take up 1 pixel. Not a coincidence.

    • @hyecutie1
      @hyecutie1 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Mudkip909 not if the sun is on the other side of the earth… But that only works on around model. Azimuthal equidistance is the only model that really makes sense.

    • @hyecutie1
      @hyecutie1 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@astroroadshow Next time you see a jet at 5 miles, think of the size that you see. Then try to imagine that at 400+ miles away… You couldn’t see it buddy

    • @astroroadshow
      @astroroadshow 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@hyecutie1 Yes you would if the aircraft was in orbit reflecting sunlight and you are in the dark down here. Don't forget this clip is using a telescope too.

  • @davidbrainerd1520
    @davidbrainerd1520 9 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    high altitude drones...there's no such thing as satellites.

    • @eamonminges1541
      @eamonminges1541 9 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      +David Brainerd strangely for some reason i knew that this would be the first comment i saw. Lol

    • @DementedLemon486
      @DementedLemon486 9 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      Sure dude, your delusions are a perfectly valid way of summing up the last 60 years of spaceflight and aerospace engineering. /s

    • @rodrigoappendino
      @rodrigoappendino 9 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Proofs?

    • @eamonminges1541
      @eamonminges1541 9 ปีที่แล้ว

      Rodrigo Appendino Proofs of what? context please.

    • @rodrigoappendino
      @rodrigoappendino 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I'm asking proofs that there's no satellite.

  • @builderpj
    @builderpj ปีที่แล้ว

    Interesting. But shows nothing more than lights of some sort. Still waiting for a satellite telescope say hubble, to turn around and zoom in on all the boats planes and trains that are upside down and sideways.

  • @arjunvsharma
    @arjunvsharma 8 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    SSShhhhhhh !!! Let people believe this is real :P

    • @Sven-Wagner
      @Sven-Wagner 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      people don't believe it, they see and know ist

  • @codis9091
    @codis9091 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    they should be called geo semi-stationary satellites

  • @jhonwatchcollector7477
    @jhonwatchcollector7477 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Lol this is hilarious 😂 - it is a satellite - can’t see shit

  • @Naiklevel100
    @Naiklevel100 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    😂😂😂 Wtf

  • @neavo8421
    @neavo8421 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    "Geostationary"

    • @jarreddeforge8094
      @jarreddeforge8094 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Neavo The Moon's gravity has an influence on those satellites therefore their orbits aren't perfect like everything else in the Universe.

  • @n.chambers9511
    @n.chambers9511 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    You cannot be serious!!!!

    • @jarreddeforge8094
      @jarreddeforge8094 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      N. Chambers Why?

    • @nmarbletoe8210
      @nmarbletoe8210 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@jarreddeforge8094 Because being serious requires sporadic comments over many years.

  • @arya8341
    @arya8341 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    wkwkwkw di suhu blast furnace astronotnya kaga kebakar

  • @andrewraphael5000
    @andrewraphael5000 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    whats the point of having a telescope that doesn't magnify anything. Fail.

  • @afzpuppet
    @afzpuppet 9 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    LOL... Nice Try..... SATELLITES ONLY EXIST IN YOUR IMAGINATION....

    • @diggledoggle4192
      @diggledoggle4192 9 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      So does your intelligence

    • @Sharpless2
      @Sharpless2 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      +The Lol Waffle rekt

    • @Sharpless2
      @Sharpless2 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      +afzpuppet well how do you imagine to get phone signals/tv ? .... ........ fuking dont believe everything you read on the internet...

    • @awatchman5945
      @awatchman5945 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Sharpless2
      They’re called cell towers and antennas. 🤦🏻. GPS is a triangulation of 3 land based towers. Satellites are launched using helium balloons and are NOT in outer space.
      facebook.com/FlatEarthStationary/videos/1897215987203268/

    • @Sharpless2
      @Sharpless2 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@awatchman5945 explain starlink then. you have no idea what youre talking about, flatearther.

  • @bietenbakker8762
    @bietenbakker8762 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Geostationary? But you see them moving? Orbital path? They are supposed to be locked in orbit, derp. keep dreaming

  • @jimmyandersson6247
    @jimmyandersson6247 9 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    the first ones.... are not fckn satellites..

  • @matzyan8804
    @matzyan8804 8 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Flat earth

    • @Sven-Wagner
      @Sven-Wagner 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      so flat like a ball

    • @kelpkelp5252
      @kelpkelp5252 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      th-cam.com/video/JgY8zNZ35uw/w-d-xo.html

  • @etype333
    @etype333 9 ปีที่แล้ว

    #bullshit

  • @indycarr3964
    @indycarr3964 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    NASA gives us amazing pics of planets{allegedly}, far away, and you can't give us a clear shot of a tinfoil box that's much closer? Zoom in on those lights, and let's see what they really are!
    Image stacking? So it's CGI after all! See ya!!!!!!

    • @jarreddeforge8094
      @jarreddeforge8094 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Indy Carr The reason why images of planets are so clear is because the cameras are of high quality compared to amateur telescopes. Also, probes are in Space and in an atmosphere therefore there are no particles blocking.

    • @awatchman5945
      @awatchman5945 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      They’re clear because they are CGI.

  • @NWOConspiracyGroup
    @NWOConspiracyGroup 8 ปีที่แล้ว

    Now try this yourself using a telescope and you will not see any satellites or lights moving in such a manner. Remember the Satellite is meant to be fixed in position in order to obtain a locked signal for TV reception. (See Parabolic Receivers/Transmitters) So this is foolishness.

    • @DavidBeczuk
      @DavidBeczuk 8 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      no moron you don't understand how it works. you don't understand orbits you don't understand anything. the satellite can stay in position because it rotates at the same time with the earth...learn about it and stop spreading shit if you know nothing about how it works

    • @NWOConspiracyGroup
      @NWOConspiracyGroup 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      Now back up what you claim. Prove it by posting one authentic image or video footage of a satellite locked in Geostationary orbit. I can assure you that you cannot do this through a telescope linked to a recording or capture device. It is you who lacks understanding and you have the audacity to call people morons? According to these lying imbeciles satellites are locked and do not move and supposedly only move if they drift and are set to re-calibrate into position using thrust. What you can see in this video clearly are satellites moving, not locked in geostationary orbit.

    • @DavidBeczuk
      @DavidBeczuk 8 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      NWOConspiracyGroup​ I don't need to prove through video even if I can. All I need is to tell you that satellite TV dishes and satellite phones like Thuraya disprove your flat shit. Becuase you are ignorant and unlettered. If you don't know why it disprove s your theory is because you understand nothing about how it works or what it involves.

    • @NWOConspiracyGroup
      @NWOConspiracyGroup 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      Dragon Of Valachia - Actually again you are ignorant and that's why you rant and curse. Parabolic antennas have been in use BEFORE so-called Satellites existed. They are not and never were "Satellite Dishes". They are Parabolic antennas. Clearly you lack knowledge of this fact.

    • @DavidBeczuk
      @DavidBeczuk 8 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      NWOConspiracyGroup​ I know what a parabolic antenna is you fucking moron I didn't want to confuse your tiny brain. Obviously you don't understand how it works then. Of course there were parabolic antennas before satellites however the shape and orientation of those was totally different becuase the early ones were not communicating with a fucking satellite you moron.
      Do some research on it before you talk more shit.

  • @indygo513
    @indygo513 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Satellites my arse, more like BULL SHIT flying.

  • @entozshow___
    @entozshow___ 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    fake

    • @awatchman5945
      @awatchman5945 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @Mudkip909
      How 🤚🏽