Satellite Hoax - Satellites Do Not Exist!

NASA & EU (Copernicus) launch Jason-3 on a Falcon 911 for Ocean Surface Topography Data
Fake it till you make it… see: http://ifers.123.st/t52p25-satellite-hoax-satellites-do-not-exist#2974

Brilliant and funny post vortexpuppy!!!

I was looking at the SpaceSeX Webshite http://www.spacex.com/, their careers page is jammed packed with exciting Job Postions:
here's one:
Director of Launch Operations at SLC-4, Vandenberg
it reads one of your main Responsibilities: May include "ACTING" as a Launch Director for SpaceX launches.

Just noticed they have an online shop selling stuff as well, shameless:-)
SpaceX Shop

YouTube: SpaceX - NOT Falcon 9 Launch and successful On-Shore Landing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YvQ-BTwI_II#t=539
What strikes me here is that they have imported a brand new generation of paid cheerers!!! They look like a Facebook Event "Rent a Crowd" or the folks that wait for days outside an Apple Store just to be the first to buy the new phone or a Participants at a Google Seminar. WTF.

This is about the MATHEMATICAL impossibility of geostationary and geosynchronous satellites. And it leads to very critical conclusions (not beliefs).
At university, I learned to solve many problems based on gravity and centripetal force (the force to exert on an object to make it go 'round', in short). So I know what I'm talking about, but you can check it out with anyone with a basic training in physics.

For a satellite to stay at the same altitude without fuel, the centripetal force must be provided by gravity pull, hence gravity = centripetal force (see article below), which gives an altitude of 35,000 kms. Btw, no need to say they could have taken a non-photoshopped non-eye-fished picture of the Earth from there by now, we're still waiting on that one.
However, in mathematics, x=y, means that if x changes by 0,0001%, the balance between those two forces is broken. In short, move a geostationary satellite by ONE MILLIMETRE up or down, the Earth gravity will take it back to the ground, or it will be ejected in space. How they can position those satellites with mathematical perfection is a mystery honestly, but let's assume they can.

Here's the problem... there are other forces at play on a geostationary satellite, which will move the satellite by one millimetre in various directions 24x7 ...
For instance, the gravity of the sun and moon, which also acts on satellites, the rotation of the earth around the sun, the rotation of the solar system in the galaxy. The moon can lift oceans according to delusional scientists, so it will surely pull satellites as well, even a bit, but it's not even taken into account in the equations because it's impossible to do since the moon moves all the time, so the gravity force exerted by the moon will vary at every second, and the equation would have no solution. Same for the sun.
So, it is a mathematical impossibility to have anything geostationary. There's nothing that globe earthers can say about this.

So, why do they say we have geostationary satellites?

Easy. To convince us that gravity works, is real, that the Earth is a globe rotating on itself, perpetuating the lie of globe earth. Also, to scam corporations to pay a fortune for satellite communications when it can (and is) actually done through cheap base stations.
It's the same scam as skimming hundreds of billions from humanity through space agencies fake missions, shuttles etc, or the IRS sucking americans of personal income taxes when the Constitution says it's forbidden. Yet, look at them all paying their taxes and accepting their houses being sized if they refuse to pay. But I digress.

Finally, you can't cool down anything in space because you can't exchange heat with empty space. This also cannot be contested. Cosmonauts on the Moon should have fried in a matter of hours, actually fried even before reaching the moon.
So, anything above the atmosphere will heat up constantly, and will NOT cool down even when it's in the shadow of the Earth. See the problem? Electronics stops working above about 125˚C only.
See this article saying electronic components used in the Moon mission were tested at 125˚C.
Imagine being in an aluminum box 24x7 in the heat of afternoon sun, without never cooling down... That's what the cosmonautes supposedly endured for days. Wahaha, what a JOKE!

Maybe that's why we never see those 2,000 or 20,000 (hard to get a number) satellites when Nasa takes pictures of the Earth? They could brush out some colors etc, but brushing out hundreds of satellites would be a waste of time and nonsensical.

All satellites look like another gross hoax.
You believe that the gps signal comes from 300 geosynchronous satellites or so, but, then, why is it that there is no gps signal at the border of USA, at Tijuana? Kinda weird huh? Maybe because the USA doesn't share their radio towers with Mexico?

Big countries have their own space programs to also steal billions of tax payers' money, all these thiefs are in it together.

In fact, the ONLY way we could have satellites, would be on a flat non rotating Earth, without the law of gravity, so they could be in the atmosphere and not melt from the sun energy. Believing in satellites means believing in FE. That's a delicious irony, isn't it?

Ok, so Blue Ballers claim "molicules of matter do not exist in space".

I have searched for many answers on the subject and come across this one more often I suppose making this the real Slim Shady, maybe not but it's about the result, not the story. The reason why the article is because I cannot see how they claim the sun would be 92 500 000 Miles away when "our shuttles" and astroNOTS remain un-scorched in outer space but here on earth, life is peachy for we have an Atmosphere (actually, an AtmosPlane) . If they're theory of "No Molecules of Matter in Space" exists which I suppose could make sense regarding the temperatures that SSI Station and shuttles and NOTS would have to endure otherwise...safe against extreme heat... coming all the way from 92 500 000 Miles away... Say that 10 times fast! Ludicrous, how stupid do they think we are? Actually many of us are super stupid if we have actually believed what we were taught for so many years and many people will still not believe even if they are knocked with the truth in their face!!! Luckily, we are not so...

So, back to my Molecule in Outer Space subject. If there are no Molecules in Outer Space, then why, oh why do they claim that we have satellites which transmits and receives signals almost 60 000 Miles away which caters for many things including Satellite TV, GPS's, etc... and all in realtime... No need to wait for that signal bouncing back through eons of time through "Non-Molecular" space which cannot carry temperature molecules but certainly can carry out the latest American Idol signal show right here in South Africa at exactly 8:00PM on a Sunday Evening...

Ok, so, I actually haven't found a straightforward answer or plausible explanation regarding why the sun's rays are not carried through space and affects outer space...etc. Maybe space is a time machine and the rays are broken up by the sun and then travels through "molecular-less space" and reconstructs itself once it reaches our atmosphere... That is a joke by the way...and a sad one but they could sell that theory to any hobo who lives on the street and everyone would believe it coming from a scientist..

So, do Satellites exist in Space? If that half ass explanations I keep getting about the sun's rays are true then this almost proves no satellites in space! Regardless though, there is enough evidence to prove that there are no satellites, but I just found the above argument fun and interesting.

All the best to ALL on IFERS - Till NeXT Time - Meister

SpaceSeX Falcon 9 blasts off successfully but crash lands  ( how convenient )

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket delivered a commercial communications satellite to orbit Friday evening, blasting off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station just after a striking sunset on the mission’s fifth try in ten days.

http://www.wort.lu/en/business/ses-9-satellite-spacex-satellite-launch-succeeds-but-rocket-crash-lands-56da9b0f1bea9dff8fa73f30

SATELLITES were created by Science Fiction writer, Arthur C Clarke

In February 1945 Clarke starts circulating copies his letter to the editor of Wireless World magazine, which proposes using "space satellites" for "global communications".  By October 1945 Clarke follows up with with an article in Wireless World titled, “Extra-Terrestrial Relays: Can Rocket Stations Give World-wide Radio Coverage?” This paper discusses "using German V-2 Rocket technology" to launch satellites into low Earth orbit.

Arthur C Clarke was best known as a science-fiction author, penning such classics as 2001 A Space Odyssey, and Childhood’s End.

Historical Time-line:

• 1945, Clarke through his science fiction writing invents global communication satellites.
  
• 1957, First satellite was heard communicating from low earth orbit, this cold war creation called Sputnik, launched by the USSR (red menace).
  
• 1962, Telstar satellite joint venture is launched, this multi-national agreement between AT&T (USA), Bell Telephone Laboratories (USA), NASA (USA), GPO (United Kingdom) and the National PTT (France) to sell television, telephone, and fax service communications over the Atlantic Ocean".
  
• To date, The Goddard Space Flight Center's lists 2,271 satellites currently in orbit. Russia has the most satellites currently in orbit, with 1,324 satellites, followed by the U.S. with 658.
  

Facebook and Microsoft laying giant undersea cable across the middle of the Atlantic

Dubbed MAREA—Spanish for “tide”—this giant underwater cable will stretch from Virginia to Bilbao, Spain, shuttling digital data across 6,600 kilometers of ocean. Providing up to 160 terabits per second of bandwidth—about 16 million times the bandwidth of your home Internet connection—it will allow the two tech titans to more efficiently move enormous amounts of information between the many computer data centers and network hubs that underpin their popular online services.

“If you look at the cable systems across the Atlantic, a majority land in the Northeast somewhere,” says Najam Ahmad, Facebook’s vice president of network engineering. “This gives us so many more options.”

RELATED STORIES
Facebook’s Massive New Antennas Can Beam Internet for Miles
Inside Facebook's Ambitious Plan to Connect the Whole World
Revealed: The Secret Gear Connecting Google's Online Empire

The project expands the increasingly enormous computer networks now being built by the giants of the Internet as they assume a role traditionally played by telecom companies. Google has invested in two undersea cables that stretch from the West Coast of the United States to Japan, another that connects the US and Brazil, and a network of cables that connect various parts of Asia. Rather than just leasing bandwidth on undersea cables and terrestrial connections operated by telecoms, the likes of Google, Facebook, and Microsoft are building their own networking infrastructure both on land and across the seas.

The fact that these Internet giants are laying their own cables—at their own expense—shows just how much data these giants must move. Consider the services they run: Google offers its eponymous search engine, Gmail, Google Docs, Google Maps, and so many more. Microsoft offers Bing, Office365, and its Azure cloud services. Facebook has its social network along with Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram. The data moved by just a few online giants now dwarfs that of most others, so much so that, according to telecommunications research firm Telegeography, more than two thirds of the digital data moving across the Atlantic is traveling on private networks—namely networks operated by the likes of Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. That’s up from 10 percent just a few years ago. “It’s a tremendous change,” says Telegeography analyst Tim Stronge.

With so much data flowing across their systems, these companies are scrambling to build new infrastructure. In addition to building its own undersea cable, Facebook is buying up what’s called “dark fiber”—unused terrestrial cables—so that it can control how its data moves from place to place and move it more efficiently. According to Ahmad, Facebook is now using dark fiber “pretty much everywhere” as the company expands its network into new regions. And the same likely goes for Google and Microsoft.

“We’re starting to see more of the large Internet content providers looking to build more of their own networks—whether they are leasing dark fiber or laying down new cables to build new routes,” says Michael Murphy, president and CEO of telecom consultancy NEF. “It makes sense.”

MAREA Overview Schematic
MAREA Overview SchematicMICROSOFT/FACEBOOK
Going It Alone(ish)
In the past, Facebook has joined consortia that operate other undersea cables—groups typically made up of telecom companies—but this project is different. Rather than letting a group build and control the cable—that is, rather than sharing lines with others—the company is laying its own dedicated lines and it has the power to use them however it sees fit. In the end, this allows Facebook to expand its online empire much quicker than in the past. “The consortium model is much slower than what we would like,” Ahmad says.

Much the same applies to Microsoft. That said, the two Internet giants aren’t abandoning the telecom industry altogether. The pair have brought in another partner: Telxius, a subsidiary of Spanish telecom Telefónica. Telxius will operate the cable, and Facebook and Microsoft services will command most of its bandwidth. But Telxius will sell some capacity to other companies in need of trans-Atlantic connections.

The location of the cable also suits the specific needs of Facebook and Microsoft. Myriad undersea cables connect North America with Europe, but they don’t typically originate in Virginia. Even though Northern Virginia has long served as a major hub for Internet data centers, including facilities used by Facebook as well as dedicated data centers built by Microsoft and Amazon, the data itself typically flows through cables anchored in the New York area. With MAREA, Facebook will be able to more efficiently move information not only from facilities in Virginia but from its Facebook-owned and -operated data center in Rutherford County, North Carolina.


“To have a direct connection from Virginia lowers latency,” says Murphy—that is, the time it takes for data to flow from data centers to its ultimate destination. “And that probably provides better quality service.” Other companies are planning cables anchored in this same area, but MAREA will likely be the first. Construction is set to begin in August and completion is expected in October 2017.

Connecting Its Own Way
In connecting to Bilbao in Spain, Ahmad says, the cable will provide a more efficient path not only to Europe but to Africa, the Middle East, and even Asia. All three geographies are increasingly important to Facebook and other Internet giants as they seek new audiences and new sources of revenue. Spanning more than 1.5 billion people, the Facebook social network has saturated the US and European markets, so now the company must focus on new frontiers. And in many respects, that involves building new infrastructure.

Facebook is also working to fashion all sorts of new hardware that more rapidly pushes the Internet into those parts of the world that don’t already have it, from solar-powered high-altitude drones to a new breed of wireless antenna. Rather than relying solely on the world’s telecoms and telecom hardware makers, the company is fashioning its own hardware. And in the hopes of pushing this gear into the market, it intends to open source the designs, freely sharing them with the rest of the world.

A similar dynamic is at play with the new undersea cable. Rather than just use what the telecoms provide, the company is building on its own. And a key aspect of the project is that it’s free to use whatever equipment it pleases to plug into the cable. This isn’t necessarily the case with the consortium model. “You’re stuck with whatever system was built initially. And if there has to be an upgrade, all the partners in the consortium have to agree to that upgrade,” Ahmad says. “[The MAREA Project] gives us more control of our own destiny.”

The Real Telecoms
In some ways, this eats into a market once controlled by the big telecoms. “It’s going to get interesting. Who is the real telecommunications provider?” Murphy says. “It’s going to take some of their business away.”

Murphy compares this shift to how Amazon has gained greater and greater control of the infrastructure needed to ship physical packages from place to place, building its own distribution centers, launching its own fleet of trucks, and even exploring the possibility of delivering packages via drone. “The move is similar in the data space, where companies get to an economy of scale where it makes sense for them to handle their own traffic.”


But it should also be said that the Facebooks and the Googles and the Microsofts aren’t taking existing business from the telecoms. They’re just taking potential business. “This does mean that telecoms are carrying somewhat less of the content provider traffic than they would in the past,” says Telegeography’s Stronge. “But a lot of this capacity wasn’t even around a few years ago.”

When you consider that these Internet giants are also using their own dark fiber on land, the upshot is that they are, more and more, taking control of their own destiny. As Murphy points out, if they aren’t beholden to the telecoms, they aren’t beholden either to the whims and the prices of the telecoms or to any disputes over net neutrality (the notion that no company should receive preferential treatment on shared Internet lines.)

With its Fiber division, Google has even gone so far as to become an Internet service provider itself, laying down faster lines all the way to American homes. That means it can potentially control the length and breadth of the network, from you to its many data centers in many parts of the world, and back again. Google doesn’t quite control the entire path from its own data centers to everyone’s front doors. But that’s the direction it’s headed. And, well, so are Facebook and Microsoft.

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2017/01/30/this-is-how-indias-space-agency-plans-to-launch-a-record-104-satellites-in-one-go/

India’s space agency will next month attempt to launch 104 satellites from a single rocket, a mission that could land it in the record books.

The Indian Space Research Organization plans to use its workhorse, the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle, to carry three satellites from India, and 101 smaller nano satellites from five countries—the U.S., Netherlands, Israel, Kazakhstan and Switzerland into orbit.

If successful, ISRO’s mission would deploy the most satellites by any country in a single launch, surpassing the current record of 37 satellites sent into orbit in 2014 from a single Russian space launch vehicle. A National Aeronautics and Space Administration rocket carried 29 satellites in 2013.

This is the same ISRO that alleges they put a satellite around Mars - a mission which they claim cost less than what it took to produce the Hollywood movie 'Gravity' - go figure.

We are all led to believe satellites are real and they are used to allow the functioning of mobile (cell) phone communications.
This is a LIE!
When mobile (cell) phones were conceived they had to utilize the following frequencies:

1800MHz
2100MHz
2600MHz

The higher the frequency, the poorer the distance and penetration and the smaller the wavelength.
This is why when mobile (cell) phones exploded in the 1990's you always had reception issues and the famous 'no signal' issue in certain areas.
So to combat this we saw the explosion of mobile (cell) towers in the millennium.
As the number of users increased the number of towers required to support coverage increased.
If satellites truly existed and were being used for mobile (cell) phone communication you would not need a cell tower every few miles!

Now on to the Digital TV Switchover. (DSO)
The Digital TV Switchover is ongoing and is happening worldwide, the only exception being North Korea (lol)

So how does this tie in to there being no satellites?
Well the DSO had adapted all transmitters to work with packed bit streams, it's still an analogue radio wave at the same frequency, but allows the transmission of binary data (1 & 0) the underlying protocol behind all digital data transmission.

The TV spectrum was/is from 450mz to 800mhz, this is because the lower the frequency the better the distance and penetration.
Now mobile (cell) phone operators want these frequencies, this is because the TV transmitters cover 98% of most countries and saves installing cell base towers every few miles, we have already seen the 800mhz band sold off in the UK for 4G and from 2018 the 700mhz band will be sold off for 5G.

So why if we have thousands and thousands of satellites in orbit allowing connectivity of the mobile (cell) phones, then why do the cell companies want the 700 & 800mhz bands which provide better distance and penetration than the 1800, 2100 & 2600mhz bands they were, and still are using?

BECAUSE SATELLITES DO NOT EXIST

Anyone still not convinced satellites are fake? Here is a story published just a couple of weeks ago on Zdnet claiming satellite phone encryption is hackable.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/encryption-satellite-phones-unscramble-attack-research/

This is a blatant propaganda story to push the satellite lie, note the stock picture of a satellite phone (in the article), why is the antenna so big? It is because satellite phones can work over vast distances and require such a large antenna to reach the closest cell towers, which could be over 1000 miles away.

If these phones really contacted satellites, then way are Garmin GPS computers not equipped with anywhere near as large an antenna, cause they use satellites, right?

http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.imdserve.com/images/bikes-and-gear/accessories/gadgets/gps-devices/garmin-edge-bike-computers-1485343758517-a5el6yjezxic-630-80.jpg

Anyone who believes satellites exist is a moron, sorry, but you really are a moron

Hey guys very new here.
Everything 'unexplicable' made much more sense when I realised that gravity is bs.

My 2 cents on the sattelites matter:

Haven't done that much research but a quick wikipedia runthrough made me realise something.

-The A-Gps: as Assisted gps is what our mobiles and tablets are equiped with and completely skip the satellites system by using towers and ground receptor (these towers are said to communicate with satellites but they could just aswell not be as they going to give a relative position as of where we stand)

Then I thought but what about planes.
There are 4 mains tracking devices boarded on planes
-ACARS: is a digital datalink system for transmission of short messages between aircraft and ground stations via airband radio or satellite. (same again could aswell not use satellites)
-GSM: not satellites related
-Transponder Mode S: One major improvement of Mode S is the ability to interrogate a single aircraft at a time. and Mode S, despite being called a replacement transponder system for ATCRBS, is actually a data packet protocol which can be used to augment ATCRBS transponder positioning equipment (radar and TCAS).
-The last tracking system is satellites (which could aswell not be as we have 3 other tracking way and they all seems very proud of the transponder Mode S)

It just seems funny that satellites is never mandatory and is always an option. And it would explain why you can't get gps tracking on your phone in a plane but they can track the plane.

Funny enough military plane do not use their so called satellites (excuse being in a nuclear war they would be unusable) nor do they use ground based trackers (which would definitely not be reliable in case of war) but a star tracking device. Can't remember the source but i'm 95% sure of the info

Hope it makes sense and i haven't gone to quick to conclusion. Not sure if somebody went through that before me neither.

All the infos and quote are from wikipedia itself.

EDIT: After reading i realised i haven't stressed enough the main point. When you tell people satellites don't exist they ask but what about GPS. It looks like they don't use their own satellites.

Hi Ann, welcome to the forum and thanks for such a great post!
I was unaware of the planes and your information is great!

In reply to your last point:
EDIT: After reading i realised i haven't stressed enough the main point. When you tell people satellites don't exist they ask but what about GPS. It looks like they don't use their own satellites.

Most people think GPS is delivered from satellites :p But this is simply not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS
The GLONASS system and GPS, which both claim to use satellites are in fact delivered from cell towers on the 1575mhz band
1575mhz - GNSS L1 band—GPS (funny that, I thought GPS was done by satellite lol)

Just 25 years ago consumer GPS devices did not exist, because there were not enough cell towers for them to function, this was back when 1G cellular phones had just become available, Garmin were at the forefront of the GPS development and there first customer was the US Army in 1991 just a few years after cellular phones appeared

Another thing to consider is the increased proliferation of "GPS" sensors/devices integrated into smartphones and mobile tablets, etc., which nowadays also participate in the overall triangulation processes (location services).

The denser the network of such devices on the ground the more accurate the triangulation becomes. Certainly no satellites at work here, just ground based towers and an ever denser network of idiot machines that make the satellite fiction stories appear to work better.

https://support .mozilla.org/fr/kb/ameliorer-le-service-de-localisation-de-mozilla-en (look at the 2nd or 3rd screenshot)

They using our wifi signal to give relatives position and acting like gps is satellites related.

My iphone always ask me to turn on my wifi 'for a better accuracy' when i try to get a direction on google map.
I thought that with all these satellites in the sky they would be able to tell whether i'm in the toilet or not.

More proof satellites do NOT exist.

In professional cycling they use motorbikes with cameramen to get 'live' pictures on the road, most would incorrectly assume the video is fed to a satellite and then relayed back to be transmitted by the broadcasters.
However, because satellites do NOT exist then how do they manage to get 'live' pictures?

Well, the cameramen on the motorbikes rely on a plane flying above which has the receiver to capture the video before it is relayed to a truck on-site and then transmitted to the host broadcaster over the cellular network.

So if satellites exist, then why was the Tour De Yorkshire in 2016 unable to show any live coverage because the plane had technical problems?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/30/womens-tour-de-yorkshire-itv-live-blackout

It came unstuck on the morning of the race when there was a technical fault with the light aircraft which flies over the event collecting and retransmitting images from the television cameras on motorbikes and the helicopter which transmits panoramic images. This sort of trouble is rare enough to be described as a freak event, which explains why – because this race is run by the Tour de France organisers Amaury Sport Organisation – the nearest back-up plane was in France, and took time to prepare and to fly over.

Satellite TV should be called cellular TV, because no such thing as satellite exist It's all transmitted over the cellular network at a higher frequency, which is why they require big dishes, higher the frequency the lower the penetration (which is why your wi-fi at 2.6ghz can barely fill your home) - hence the need for such big dishes and antennas.

"experimental" indeed lol
https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/09/project-loon-delivers-internet-100-000-people-puerto-rico/

Has anyone ever "mapped" the coordinates where people in various countries have to point their satellite dishes to, using a flat earth model, and wherever in the sky their particular satellite is supposed to exist, and where these satellite signals could then "reflect" off of some sort of dome etc., and where this signal could end up? I have the sneaking suspicion that, wherever it ends up, we the general public are forbidden to go.

Watched from 1:00:00 onward, shows satellites exist but are either connected to balloons or aircraft. Was a good find.

rellimnosaj wrote:Watched from 1:00:00 onward, shows satellites exist but are either connected to balloons or aircraft. Was a good find.

Yes, I would hazard to guess most of the "satellite imagery" and "communications", if not served via planes or ground based communications respectively, are likely serviced by these balloons.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/30/opinions/hertling-why-military-uses-blimps/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2890570/US-Army-s-controversial-seeing-surveillance-blimps-ahead-guard-against-cruise-missiles-spot-objects-small-person-340-MILES-away.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_balloon

The same reason they still launch weather balloons every day, all weather information is provided by ground based radar, and weather balloons.

Also found this article on recent news site:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/science/cubesat-buccaneer-australia-takes-its-first-steps-towards-rejoining-the-space-race/news-story/4f97dcb5155394fb43b7934380dc2654

Some of the images they use are absolutely hilarious:

A generic cubesat is seen in orbit with the International Space Station in the background. These small, standardised satellites offer an affordable stepping stone into space for businesses and universities.

Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) - these 250,000 cubic-foot blimps, are part of a 30+ year Air Force program, with sites all along the U.S. borders.  As an example, just one Florida based blimp (Fat Albert) rises to 10,000 Feet / 3048 Meters, and is capable of monitoring Ship and Aircraft activities as far away as Texas down to South America.  It's roles include Weather, Radar, TV broadcasting, and other line-of-sight communications not documented.

EDITED:
Somehow fixing the [ quote ] tags caused me to double-post

I was talking to a friend about how there seems to be NO empirical evidence for satellites.
He is a cyclist and was adamant that satellites are used for 'live' TV and telecommunications,
So I had to find him some evidence to prove that 'live' TV does not use any satellites whatsoever:

All of these mobile cameras, including the helicopters, relay footage via VHF to two higher-flying helicopters which follow the length of the Tour. These in turn beam the footage to a plane which slowly circles the Tour high above. It does slow loops to stay as near as possible to the cameras, meaning the turbulence can be extremely rough. A second, back-up plane circles even higher, above any potential weather problems, to ensure coverage is consistent.

This may seem like overkill, but it ensures that the chance of an outage is negligible. “Twenty years ago, we had some transmissions that didn’t work, but not now,” says Martin.

These planes transmit the footage using proprietary radio chips to an antennae suspended high above the finish line on a crane. On mountain stages where this line-of-sight is impossible, organisers fall back on intermediate lorries which relay the signal. Eventually, it travels into a lorry outfitted as a full television studio. Here a director chops and switches between various feeds to create a live stream that “tells the story of the race”, says Martin.

One of the directors in the studio is an ex-professional racer who makes sure that nothing is missed, that all subtle struggles and battles are caught. He knows what to look for, what's important. Today television viewers have an insight and view which would have been impossible just a decade ago - virtually nothing is missed.


All video footage passes through a single Orange truck.

To help fill the broadcast time during the long stages researchers pick landmarks they want to get aerial footage of and feed their GPS coordinates through to video helicopters at the right moment to add some local context. For the London stage this will include shots of the Olympic park and Canary Wharf. It has become a tradition during the Tour that small French villages will create large field-sized montages in an effort to get on TV.

This finished feed is then sent along to one of two identical trucks provided by Orange, which provides all the communications infrastructure for the Tour. It is piped into high-bandwidth fibre optic lines and sent back to France, from where it is beamed to 185 countries and broadcast live with a delay of less than a second. Networks can add their own commentary on top.

Even the picture they used has the satellite up in the top right corner, completely redundant and not anything to do with how the system really works!




So if satellites exist then why do they insist they are used?
As demonstrated above satellites have nothing to do with 'live' TV whatsoever!

What's even more interesting, is that this Telecommunications Truck and my iPad compete for Satellite band-width.  

I remember one day back in the mid 80s, we were told in my high school physics class that on a particular night a satellite would be flying directly overhead and that we would be able to see it.  I went outside on the set night, at the proposed time, and watched the satellite fly over.  It basically looked a lot like an airplane flying at night -- that is, a small light moving across the sky, except that instead of a blinking airplane light it remained steady.  I couldn't wait until the next day when I could report the sighting to the class.  I had actually seen a satellite!

I have gone out on many nights since then hoping to see another satellite.  To this day I have never seen another.

Why not?  Aren't there thousands, and even tens of thousands, of satellites?  Surely in all those years I should have been able to see again what I had seen on that night.  After hearing all the explanations of why it is the naked eye can't just see satellites, then why could I have seen that one, that night?  What was special about that one?  It had a bright light?  Why was that the only satellite ever installed with a bright light?  And has that light gone out?  If the technology that existed 30+ years ago could produce a visible satellite, and predict when I would be able to stand on my porch and watch it fly by, then today there should exist satellites visible every night.

And surely, in all those years someone would have installed a half-decent camera on a half-decent satellite that would take half-decent pictures of the earth.  Pictures of storms as they happen.  Pictures of the earth itself.  Sunrises.  Sunsets.  Life as it happens everyday.  Pictures of, well, anything.  Videos even.

I now believe -- and I'm sure of it -- that what I saw that night was not at all a satellite, but was a high-flying airplane of some kind.  It might not have even been that high.  I now believe there are no satellites, and there can never be satellites.

But I also believe that the same powers of deception that existed 30 years ago are still in play and have much better technology to fool us.  It would not surprise me that one of these days a physics teacher -- not an intentional liar himself necessarily, but one duped just like the rest of us -- will tell his or her students that on a particular night they would be able to watch a "satellite" fly by, and lo and behold one actually does, just like one appeared to do so for me.  It won't be any more a satellite that what I saw, but it will be just as convincing, if not more.