Geostationary satellites

Now we are finally getting to the meat and potatoes. Because there is no free-fall orbiting in the super hot, super charged, super energetic “outer space”; coupled with a hundred and one orbiting satellite animations and composite Earth “globes”, it would be very easy to dismiss satellites out of hand as bogus (and I did do just that for those very reasons). Yet, the commercial effects said to be caused by this technology seem hard to explain without them; but all is not as it seems. Instead of the usual nonsense heliocentric mechanisms for satellite deployment given to us by the marketing departments of the agencies, let’s throw that out but keep all the other technical data and see how this could fit in a concave Earth.

Speculative history
Satellite television
Geostationary weather satellites
Satellite phones
Observed satellites

Speculative history

Excluding speculative exotic anti-gravity technology, how do satellites stay up there, especially in a concave Earth? The only answer we have so far discovered must be the glass firmament at 100km altitude. Attaching them to the underside of the glass sounds far too difficult for logistical reasons. Firstly, you would have to get the altitude exactly right to within meters and eject the satellite up with some force (compressed gas?). Too low and you miss, too high and you break the fairly delicate satellite or the glass. Secondly, the deployment vehicle (rocket or shuttle) is travelling way too fast laterally. The shear force on the object that attaches the satellite to the glass would be absolutely enormous and the inertial stop of the satellite would surely break it… at the very least. This means that all geostationary satellites (and possibly others) are on the upper side of the glass not moving at all.

When did mankind find out for sure about the glass? Only by sending something physical up there to hit it. The only vehicle to do that is rockets, and who invented the rocket and when? The Germans invented rockets in the 1930s. Supposedly, the first test rockets were launched in 1934 and reached 2.2 km and 3.5 km altitude. And “In early September 1943, von Braun promised the Long-Range Bombardment Commission that the A-4 development was practically complete/concluded“. The A-4 rocket reached a height of 80km. Why 80km? Why not send it a bit higher? Because the glass is at 100 km. Sometime in 1943, the Germans had probably hit the glass with one of their A-4 rockets during testing.

The war unofficially ended for the Germans in early May 1945. A lot of the German rocket scientists were captured by the allies and then subsequently worked for NASA, including Wernher von Braun himself. (On a side note, Hitler believed in the concave Earth, according to the book The Gods of Eden). However, “by the beginning of 1945 (Author’s note: January), it was obvious to von Braun that Germany would not achieve victory against the Allies, and he began planning for the postwar era.” In other words, he was probably communicating a deal with the Allied forces. Is it a coincidence then that in the February 1945 edition of the magazine “Wireless World”, a letter to the Editor by Arthur C. Clarke puts forward the proposal that thanks to the V2 rocket technology, three “repeater stations” can be put in geostationary orbit around the Earth to give us global radio and TV coverage? I think not. Don’t forget, the allies already knew about the V-2 rockets when 3000 of them were launched on London in September 1944. So what new information promoted Clarke to come up with such a great idea? Wernher blabbed, and the allies were then quickly thinking about how to put the glass sky to practical use.

arthur c clarke geostationary satellites 1945
February 1945 edition of Wireless World with Arthur C. Clarke’s “amazingly” predictive technological idea.

Despite Werhner emigrating to the United States with his team of pioneering rocket scientists, Russia was supposedly the first to send a satellite in space in 1957 with Sputnik. Was this Soviet propaganda, or did the Soviets also acquire their own German rocket scientists? A few years later there were apparently a couple of hundred satellites in “orbit” from different countries around the world. However, it wasn’t until 1966 that the head of Rocketry himself, Herr von Braun, launched his first Applications Technology Satellite to test the idea of putting satellites on the glass:

The Applications Technology Satellites (ATS) were a series of experimental satellites launched by NASA, under the supervision of, among others, Wernher von Braun. The program was launched in 1966 to test the feasibility of placing a satellite into geosynchronous orbit on the glass.


The first Applications Technology Satellite, ATS-1, is said to have been put in a permanent transfer orbit above the Earth. In the heliocentric model, this Hohmann transfer orbit is elliptical and caused ATS-1 to move Westward in the 12 years of its operation from 1966 to 1978.

Steven Christopher proposes that rather than an elliptical transfer orbit, this westward movement was due to the slow moving glass sky on which ATS-1 was placed… and I agree. It is very likely that the glass sky does rotate westward. This is the same direction as the Sun and it is the same direction as my theoretical magnetic (aether) h-field in the centre of the cavity spinning on its vertical axis. Everything caught in this field rotates east to west, and that includes the glass. The glass would maintain its position by being balanced enough so that pushing gravity does not cause one side to hit the Earth. I’ve also theorized that inverted push gravity must be stronger at higher altitude, therefore if the glass layer does get closer to the Earth on one side, gravity becomes stronger on the other side thereby pulling back the low side away from the Earth into its previous position. This would induce an oscillation effect and may be the main reason behind tides and the varying barometric air pressures over the Earth at different times. It is worth researching this topic.

How fast is the glass rotating? Theoretically, it won’t be rotating fast at all as the h-field is an attractive magnetic vortex. All non-solid vortices are irrotational, meaning that the periphery spins a lot slower than the core. To determine the speed of the rotation we just have to know how far ATS-1 drifted in those 12 years.

ATS-1 was placed in a transfer orbit directly over the equator over Ecuador. The transfer orbit meant that the satellite would drift slowly westward with time. The satellite eventually reached 151 degrees west (just east of Christmas Island) where it was deactivated on December 1,1978.


On December 7th 1966, ATS-1 was launched over the equator over Ecuador and finished just East of Christmas Island on December 1st 1978. That is 4,377 days or 105,048 hours. The distance approximately between Ecuador and Christmas Island is 18,773.427 km (11,665.266 miles). Therefore, the speed of the glass rotation is 0.1787128455563171 km/h or about 3 metres (9 feet) a minute. Very slow. At 100 km high, the glass layer is a smaller ellipsoid (sphere) than the Earth so its speed would be even less than 3 meters per minute. Notice that ATS-1 was a fair bit below the equator in 1978. This would mean that the glass not only rotates horizontally, but also vertically. It looks to follow, at least to some degree, the Sun’s angle as it points up then down on the solstices. I postulate this is perhaps due to all the magnetic meteoric particles from the Sun (iron/nickel alloy) trapped in the glass layer which allow it to follow the iron/nickel Sun’s variation to some degree. If the glass follows a sine wave up and down, then it must be moving a little faster than 3 metres a minute to accommodate ATS’s purely westward 12 year shift, but not a massive amount. Does the “sine wave increase in speed” cancel out the “slower lesser diameter of the glass ellipsoid”? Don’t know. Three metres per minute is just a very rough estimate anyway.

Wernher von Braun died in 1977 before the end of ATS-1’s deactivation in 1978. Unsurprisingly, Wernher was not an atheist. A glass sky within a concave Earth can really only mean one thing – an engineer, or engineers.

Von Braun, a life-long Lutheran, was a believer in intelligent design in the Universe long before it became a catch phrase and a lightning rod of debate.

“For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design,” he wrote in a letter to the California State Board of Education in September 1972. He added, “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.”

His gravestone reads: WERNHER VON BRAUN 1912-1977 Psalms 19:1. That scripture is: “The heavens are telling the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.


So in a concave Earth with a glass sky how does a modern geostationary satellite become geo-synchronous, i.e. not move 3m a minute with the glass, but stay stationary with the ground? The satellite uses thrusters to keep it in its original place. This lasts for about 10 years before it runs out of thruster fuel whereby the satellite enters an inclined orbit. This orbit is said to be geo-synchronous, i.e. not move westward, but instead move up and down only, in an analemma shape (figure of eight) north and south. The analemma shape means that the glass rotational speed is not constant, but is affected by the Sun’s wobble, i.e the glass also “wobbles” to some degree. The glass is still moving westward though, so we will have to take transfer orbits and inclined orbits as the same thing and that neither are really geo-synchronous, but instead move with the glass.

Interestingly, wiki also says

At the end of the satellite’s lifetime, when fuel approaches depletion, satellite operators may decide to omit these expensive manoeuvres to correct inclination and only control eccentricity. This prolongs the life-time of the satellite as it consumes less fuel over time, but the satellite can then only be used by ground antennas capable of following the north-south movement, Satellite Tracking earth stations. Before the fuel comes to an end, satellites can be moved to a graveyard orbit to keep the geostationary altitude free for subsequent missions.


Eccentricity” is the deviation from the circle. In other words, they want to keep the satellite in a circular orbit (geostationary one), not an elliptical one, which is the transfer orbit. For a concave Earth/glass sky scenario, this translates as them wanting to use the thrusters to move the satellite horizontally on the glass to keep the same longitudinal position relative to the Earth, but letting the satellite move vertically with the glass wobble thereby saving fuel. Moving to a graveyard orbit would translate as moving the satellite a few kilometres further north or south of the equator, freeing up a slot for new satellites.

You are probably thinking, well hang on, how can a geostationary satellite use thrusters to move itself and the last stage of the rocket 3 meters a minute on glass? Glass is not frictionless. The weight of the satellite and rocket would surely be too much for the thrusters to budge it from a stationary position. Yes. This can only mean that there must be a relatively friction-free slippery substance on the top layer of the glass. This I postulate is ice/water.

At altitudes of 76 to 85 km in the mesosphere (50 to 85 km altitude) there are noctilucent cloud made of ice crystals more commonly observed at 50° to 70° north or south of the equator at twilight. Little is known about them (or even the mesosphere itself) or how they form and where they come from etc. Again, I postulate that these ice crystals attach themselves to the glass like ice to a freezer compartment and that both below and above the glass there is a very thin layer of attached ice crystals. The temperature at 85 km is said to be -90 °C, and rises above this height as we start to get into the thermosphere, but it is probably still freezing at 100 km on the underside of the glass. The same may not be said for the ice above the glass which bears the Sun’s full EM wave intensity that the glass layer blocks. Either the radiation from the Sun (thermosphere) slightly melts some of the ice on top of the glass forming a very slippery watery layer for the satellite to “float” or “glide” over, or the satellite is able to glide on the slippery ice itself like an ice skater. Physicists still don’t understand why ice is very slippery, just that it is.

Of course, the thermosphere prevents the geostationary satellite from being much higher than 100 km, and certainly no higher than 200 km; but there are also the Van Allen Belts. NASA engineer Kelly Smith states:

“Orion is NASA’s next generation spacecraft. Built with versatility in mind, it can take astronauts deeper into space than we have ever gone before… For these missions, Orion has to be one tough spacecraft – withstanding high speeds, searing temperatures and extreme radiation. Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems. And there is only one way to know we got it right – fly it in space… Shielding will be put to the test as Orion cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors on-board will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we put people through this region of space.”


As well as proving that the moon landing was a load of shite (again), it also shows that they have never been into the Van Allen Belts until they send Orion up there in the future. Where do the Van Allen belts start? Officially at 200km, but:

The gyroradii for energetic protons would be large enough to bring them into contact with the Earth’s atmosphere. The electrons here have a high flux and at the outer edge (close to the magnetopause), where geomagnetic field lines open into the geomagnetic “tail”, fluxes of energetic electrons can drop to the low interplanetary levels within about 100 km (62 mi), a decrease by a factor of 1,000.


This means they haven’t sent anything higher than 200 km (and probably a lot lower) where the van Allen Belts reside, which is between -65°S and +65°N latitude. This is further evidence that geostationary satellites are only 100 km high sitting on the glass. Let’s start by analysing satellite television and other geostationary satellites and see how they can work on a glass sky in a concave Earth.

Satellite television

All TV satellite dishes seem to point to the equator. uses Google maps to locate any geostationary satellite from any location and the angle always seems to point to the equator (at least those few tested by myself).

direction 97w galaxy 19 satellite
If the satellite dish is located in New York, it must point south west to the exact location of the 97w galaxy 19 satellite at the equator.
pontianiak galaxy location
If the satellite dish is located in Pontianak, Indonesia, which is just about bang on the equator, it must point along the equator to the exact location of the 97w galaxy 19 satellite.

It doesn’t matter if you live in the northern hemisphere, on the equator, or in the southern hemisphere, the dish must always point to an exact location on the equator.

If you live in western Australia, the dish will face north-east. The further east you live in Australia, the more north the dish will face. The direction in New Zealand is north westerly.


Reading these instructions, the angle of reception is also very precise and near impossible to find without a signal meter. A TV satellite dish also doesn’t move or track anything moving. This would seem logical as satellite TV is said to use geostationary satellites, and these don’t change position relative to the Earth. They are said to orbit at the same rotational speed of the Earth, but the Earth doesn’t move, therefore neither do GEO satellites.

How does satellite dish elevation to the horizon fit into this model? Elevation depends on the latitude and longitude distance away from the satellite. We can see this in the table below which includes those locations closest to directly above the satellite, at latitudes from practically on the equator up to +80° above it. ( Azimuth just means the longitude angle away from vertical – 180° means the location is directly above the satellite.)

Satellite: Eutelsat 24B - 25.6E
 Location         Azimuth   Latitude    Elevation 	
Hammerfest         178       70.6634      10.8
Oulu		   179.9     65.0126      16.7
Helsinki	   179.2     60.1733      21.7
Vilnuis		   179.6     54.6872      27.6
Bucharest          180.7     44.4268      38.8
Marsa Matruh       179.4     31.3543      53.4
Alfashir	   178.9     13.6306      74
Kisangani	   142.4     0.5167       89.2
locations directly above geosat shows us the locations directly above the satellite Eutelsat 24B which is at longitude 25.6E.

All locations except Kisangani are 2° within 180°, meaning that the satellite is directly below them. The highest point in the sky directly above our heads is 90°. This means that at 89.2°, Kisangani is practically directly underneath the satellite, hence any minute distance to the side will accentuate its azimuth. It is so near that it doesn’t effect the elevation much.

The elevation fairly accurately equates to latitude – the lower the latitude, the higher the elevation, kind of. The radar beam can go about another 10° further north to +80° latitude before it hits the horizon. This confirms the radar range of the satellite as about 18,000 km (16/18ths of 20,000km). The latitude/elevation ratio works when you take the latitude figure away from the maximum latitude allowed (80°) for those locations up to Marsa Matruh. You then have to use the 90° elevation instead for Alfashir and Kisangani in order for those elevation figures to match latitude properly.

How does this work with bendy light?

It has been demonstrated that light bends – mostly upwards on a convex Earth – and always upwards inside a concave one. The horizon is always at eye-level no matter the altitude. The Earth has also been geodetically measured as concave. In 3D, this makes light radiate from a single point like a circus tent top. Therefore, the bend of light increases with longitude as well – hence the further away we are located from the satellite (in radiating circles), the lower it is on the horizon. This is also verified on

If the Earth is seen as a concave bowl from a top-down view, the elevation of the satellite above the horizon decreases with each larger circle as the radar beam radiates away in its circus tent top shape.

Because the satellite isn’t near the centre of the Earth cavity, but 100 km high, a very important conclusion can be made regarding the position of objects and the bend of light, namely:

The location of a light source in the sky is determined by its angle of emitted light, not the angle of the bend of light as it hits the observer.

It doesn’t matter if the light source (satellite) is 10 feet high and can see a 90 feet horizon, or 100 km high and see 9000 km distance. The relationship between the light source and the observer must always be determined by the angle of emitted light only, not the angle of the bend as it hits the eye (or antenna). This is made evident by looking at the two diagrams below.

The elevation of the satellite dish in a concave Earth can never be determined by the angle of the bend of light unless the satellite were to be positioned near the centre of the cavity.
Both the light source and the observer will always see each other at the same angle as that emitted by the light source.

This means that it is impossible to know the altitude of a light source without knowing its intensity and/or the sensitivity of the light receiver. Mathematically, this frees the location of the Sun’s source of light from the centre of the Earth cavity as we don’t know its intensity or our eye sensitivity relative to everything else. I still think the Sun machine itself is still very close to the centre as stated in my thesis due to the electric mechanism and effects, solar day length variation throughout the year, gravity mechanism, polar satellite mechanism, same Sun size from different latitudes (except the occasional elliptical Sun at the Arctic/Antarctic circle), as well as the position and theory behind stars (to be written about in a future article).

So the altitude of the source of sunlight would be determined by both the Sun’s intensity at the centre of the cavity and the sensitivity of our eyes. Is there a way to determine this sunlight altitude perceived by the naked eye? Possibly. Let’s look at the supposed maximum horizon range of geostationary satellites.

The horizon range (footprint) of the geostationary satellites is outlined in red – the actual source of which is is another source which shows a more elliptical range.

NSS 6 range
The range of the geostationary satellite NSS-6 looks to be a curved square.
elliptical looking geostat range
The same NSS-6 satellite, but this time shown to have an elliptical range.

Both the shapes above are misleading because they are projections on a flat map. The longitudinal range is about 18111.667 km either side of the satellite. The latitudinal range is also about the same at very roughly 18001.255 km. This is close to halfway around the world (20,000 km) or roughly until +80° and -80° latitude. Therefore this range is really a perfect circle which is very reminiscent of the circular inverted circus tent shape to which all light follows in a concave Earth.

In Copernican world, the horizon range of visible light from a 100 km altitude on the glass is 1133.9 km. In a concave Earth, the horizon can be vastly greater, especially over water and at night. However, geostationary communication satellites (e.g. television) use frequencies in the radar range (c-band, x-band, ku-band, and ka-band) for example 10.774 GHz. This is well above any possible skywave frequency to bounce off the ionosphere. This website gives two satellites, one radiating 10.815 GHz, the other 12.597 GHz. Some of these are the same frequencies as boat radar (x-band to ku-band) which have shown at least a 89 km horizon with what looks to be an approx 3.5 meter high antenna and a beam sent 1.15° to 25° up from the horizontal at 40 watts. The equivalent Copernican visible light horizon at 3.5 m high is 6.7 km, or about 15 times less. Purely on that hypothetical basis alone, a radar beam 100 km high could reach 15 times the 1133.9 km horizon, or 17,000 km. Therefore, a 18,000 km radar range (9,000 km horizon) does not sound too fantastic at all.

The Corpernican horizon doesn’t apply to a concave Earth of course, but if we take that as a very rough guide then the source of perceived sunlight by the naked eye would be a little bit over 15 times greater than 100 km, which is 1,500 km or about a quarter of the way to the centre of the cavity. Why a little bit over? Because at 100 km radar reaches 80° latitude north and south, whereas the Sun on the equinox reaches a touch over 90° in both hemispheres. So the equivalent radar position would be higher than 100 km, say 115 km? The Sun’s intensity is many, many times the wattage of a typical boat radar (40 watts), obviously. This makes calculating the visible altitude of sunlight an impossibility without knowing the Sun’s wattage and the average known naked-eye visibility from a known wattage of visible light, both nadir and horizon distance.

Cyrus Teed thought the Sun was at the centre, but its reflection a lot nearer the Earth:

“The sun is an invisible electromagnetic battery revolving in the universe’s center on a 24-year cycle. Our visible sun is only a reflection, as is the moon, with the stars reflecting off seven mercurial discs that float in the sphere’s center.”


teed seasons
Teed claimed the visible Sun effect is much nearer the Earth than the invisible actual one. This isn’t necessarily my view.

There is also something else they can do to extend the horizon as well as altitude, and that is to increase the intensity of the EM wave itself. Power increases the amplitude of the EM wave (how tall the wave is) which increases the distance to the horizon, at least according to an ex-Navy electronics technician and the Greater Yarmouth Radio club:

Amplitude has to do with the signal strength, which has an effect on distance in that, the stronger the signal, the further it can travel.


And guess what? For satellites sending radar frequencies, amplifiers are used… all the way up to 1500/3000 Watts it seems.

Amplifying the radar frequency will give a huge boost extending the horizon limit. This makes the 9000 km radar horizon even more attainable.

Lastly, the 18,000 km range (9000 km horizon) looks to be an absolute maximum area within which the real range of the microwave transmitters lie. This area depends on the frequency of the transmitter, with the C-band (lower frequency) having a bigger area, and the Ku-band (higher frequency) having the smallest. This also makes perfect sense as, all other qualities being equal, a radio wave of lower frequency has a further horizon than a higher one.

Given two signals of equal strength and different frequencies, lower frequencies travel further than higher ones.


C-band 49E
C-band from GAZPROM SPACE SYSTEMS YAMAL 202 – 49°E downlink area. Only the top half of the available 18,000 km2 is being transmitted to.
Ku-band 55E
ku-band from GAZPROM YAMAL 402 – 54.9°E downlink area. About a third of the area of the C-band from YAMAL 202 is covered with a definite slant.
C-band from SPACECOM AMOS 5 – 17°E downlink area. An irregular shape, but just about covers nearly all of the available 18,000 km2.
amos5 17E
Ku-band for the same satellite, AMOS 5 – 17°E downlink area. Only most of Africa is covered with two centres of high signal strength.

The area of these various frequencies is anything but uniform, especially a lovely circular shape. This must mean that the transmitter or transmitters are intentionally directed to the strongest receiving area and are probably themselves not circular in shape. This is indeed stated as what is happening.

Until recently, the usual practice has been to create the desired coverage pattern by means of a beam forming network. Each beam has its own feed and illuminates the full reflector area. The supposition of the all the individual circular beams produces the specified shaped beam… The shaped reflector represents a new technology. Instead of illuminating a conventional parabolic reflector with multiple feeds in a beam-forming network, there is a single feed that illuminates a reflector with an undulating shape that provides the required region of coverage.


So, they used to use a network of transmitters to get the required shape; now they use one, as it is the reflector which now has the required shape. They have to do this as:

The antenna pattern is analogous to the “Airy’s rings” produced by visible light when passing through a circular aperture. These diffraction patterns were studied by Sir George Biddell Airy, Astronomer Royal of England during the nineteenth century, to investigate the resolving power of the telescope. The diffraction pattern consists of a central bright spot surrounded by concentric bright rings with decreasing intensity.


A circular aperture just means a circular hole from which the wave is emitted. In a concave Earth, this diffraction pattern is a “circus tent top” or curved funnel with decreasing intensity away from the projected centre. The antenna as a “circular hole” is indeed the case as “A horn antenna would be used to provide full earth coverage from geostationary orbit”. What is a horn antenna? These are conical-shaped antennas which wiki also says are used for sending signals on communication satellites (geostationary satellites).

Exponential (conical) horns have minimum internal reflections, and almost constant impedance and other characteristics over a wide frequency range. They are used in applications requiring high performance, such as feed horns for communication satellite antennas and radio telescopes.


They look like this:

The C-band feed horn antenna used on the NSS-12. You can see many more feed horn antennas and arrays used by communication satellites on this website.

These horn antennas are used with reflector dishes. The old method of multiple transmitters to one parabolic dish is illustrated below:

old reflector method
The network of horn antenna holds the pattern which is projected on to the Earth by the parabolic dish.

Where are these horn antennas located on an actual satellite? Let’s compare the footprints of the geostationary satellites we have already mentioned and see how they fit:

We’ve already seen this C-band footprint of Amos-5 above. (This time it is in colour).
The Amos-5 satellite is the lower one. It shows that its reflector dish is on the bottom of the satellite with the two horn antenna transmitters at the required angle to form the right side of the footprint. The other dish on the top side forms the left side of the footprint. Looking at this photo, you can see the hinge-type device going across its back showing the dish is able to rotate.
The already seen picture of Yamal 202’s C-band footprint.
The cut-and-paste image of Yamal 202 has its reflectors at angles looking either side, showing that they can rotate. These reflectors on the bottom and top side of the satellite and match the footprint well.
A better picture of Yamal 402’s Ku-band footprint.
The cut-and-paste image of Yamal 402 shows the two reflector dishes form the shapes of the footprint on the left. The pair of dishes are on the underside (glass side) and match perfectly their intensity areas left and right. The other dish is on top of the satellite. All dishes are at slightly different angles. They must be vertical (i.e. up and down) on the satellite, rather than to the side as the orientation of the oblong dishes matches the orientation of the footprint on the ground.

Despite one of the parabolic reflectors being on the topside of the satellite, it can still see most of the ground up to the horizon, as the horizon is eye-level and the reflector is nearly as high as the satellite is tall. Imagine standing on a table and looking at the ground until the horizon – most of the ground up to the edge of the table is visible.

Apart from matching the satellite’s footprint, what else tells us that the parabolic dishes are on the top and bottom of the satellite? Because geostationary satellites are sitting on the glass, the extended solar panels are too long to fit inside the space between the satellite and the edge of the rocket resting on the glass, whereas the parabolic dishes are not (maximum dish diameter on an Arianne 4 rocket is limited to 3.2 meters). The satellite is still attached to the last stage of the rocket when it rests on the glass. The space between the satellite and the rocket floor allows for the dish, but not the panel. This is the reason why you never see 4 long solar panels sticking out a geostationary satellite along the 4 cardinal points.

Communications satellites have to relay signals, i.e. receive and send. According to this website, a feed horn can send or receive a signal, (the signal hits the dish which sends it to the feed horn, or vice-verse) but it cannot do both at the same time – “The dish on the receiving end can’t transmit information; it can only receive it.” So where on the satellite are the receiving antennas? Looking at the pictures of the satellites above, it looks to be at the front facing forward. This makes sense as the narrow beam just has to be received from one location (TV programme broadcaster) and so the front of the satellite acts like the satellite dish at a house with a protruding front feed horn. The way the receiving dish is orientated can also tell us the up and down side of a satellite. If the receiving dish is pointing down, then the side under this dish is the bottom as all signals from Earth are directed up. This also agrees with the pictures of the satellite dishes and their footprints.

TV satellites send and receive EM waves. What about weather images where the sensor is only receiving ambient light?

Geostationary weather satellites

Passive sensors
When emitting EM waves, we have seen in another article that the horizon is limited by four factors:

  • water
  • time of day and day of year
  • light frequency
  • light intensity

The last two can be controlled; and communication satellites use amplifiers to boost the horizon to 9000 km; but what about receiving light (passive sensors), rather than emitting it (active sensors)? Funnily enough, it is possible to control the received light’s amplitude (intensity), as this is exactly what the higher ISO setting does on a digital camera.

When you increase the ISO setting, you’re not really making it more sensitive to light, you’re simply amplifying the light values it’s managed to capture.


Of course, a sensor has to be sensitive enough to “capture” the light in the first place before it can be amplified. But how sensitive are satellite sensors? According to Fundamentals of Satellite Communication (page 56):

In addition to these, bright stars are also sometimes used as sharp reference points. Since these are not easy to locate and require very sensitive sensor transducers with higher amplification requirement, these are not frequently used in geostationary satellite.


Stars are invisible to average camera sensors at weather balloon height and invisible to myself and another poster during the summer at 10km height from a plane. Another two posters on YouTube separately reported seeing stars at cloud level below them whilst at cruising altitude. If satellite sensors can detect starlight, even at a mere 100 km high (glass layer height), then their sensors must be ultra, super, mega, fantastically sensitive to picking up EM waves; and is proof that satellite sensors are no mere “eyes” or “cameras” looking at the horizon 100 km high. They are very sensitive sensor transducers (a transducer turns light into an electrical signal, for example). Also, are satellites really whizzing around the Earth at 7600 m/s if they are able to scan starlight that very second and therefore reference their location that same second? Seems very unlikely. I’ve even managed to find a rare composite image of stars from the scientific msx satellite. Note the flat or very, very nearly flat horizon and “wavy” atmosphere below – clouds? Also, what is the sunlight reflection on this “atmosphere” on the left side? Sunlight reflecting off the satellite onto ocean below? Or sunlight reflecting off the ice/water/glass? How far away is that reflection really?

“A composite of Leonid meteor images recorded by a CCD camera onboard the MSX satellite. Image Credit: NASA Ames”. Now there is an eye-level horizon to be proud of.

Although the above image is a composite one, i.e. it is a collation of separately detected strips of light, it clearly shows the Earth horizon as just about flat and at eye level!. The entire atmospheric plane is wavy as well which is a little odd. The ccd sensor hasn’t detected super-bright stars; it is the sensors super sensitivity which has magnified the brightness of the incoming starlight. These super-sensitive satellite sensors are often cooled, and can be made of superconducting material:

(2010) During last years one can note the significant progress in development of various super-sensitive detector arrays, based on superconducting bolometers for purpose of passive radio vision at terahertz frequencies (0.3..10 THz), including radiometers for ground-based and space astronomy.


The sensors are called multispectral radiometers. Further verification of such ultra sensitivity comes from slide 3 of S. X-Pol’s Powerpoint presentation on Radiometer Systems, which states:

Radiometers are very sensitive receivers that measure thermal electromagnetic emission (noise) from material media… The design of the radiometer allows measurement of signals smaller than the noise introduced by the radiometer (system’s noise).


They are able to detect signal noise smaller than that created by the machine itself. Wow. Not a digital camera then.

GOES imager
The NOAA have their GOES geostationary weather satellites on the equator. If we look at the design of their imager, we can see it is very similar to a fixed power “Cassegain telescope-come-radiometer“. All these radiometers, whether on geostationary or polar “orbiting” satellites, that look at the ground are called Earth sensors or horizon sensors. This is very applicable to this article’s theory and the next one on polar satellites.

The design of the GOES imager looks very similar to a telescope.
The manufacturing of GOES-12 shows all the sensors on the bottom side (like INSAT-3D – a storm warning satellite), with the rocket end attached to where the people are. Judging by the size of the man on the ground, the two imaging mirrors (black surrounds) look to be about 50cm long.

Average professional observatories are 1m in diameter, so half that is a pretty big aperture. How big is its sensor, or sensors even? Judging by the design diagram, the sensor looks to be the little box at the back of the primary mirror and is possibly around 5 cm2 or more if we compare it to the size of the scan mirror at 50cm wide. Considering the biggest sensor on commercial digital cameras are 3.6 x 2.4cm, that is a fair size, especially for a super-sensitive one.

The typical super zoom commercial cameras have the next to the smallest possible sensor available, bar a mobile phone, and also when fully zoomed in have a tiny aperture (lens width). Yet, they are still able to detect objects over water on the horizon when fully zoomed in, which were invisible to both the sensor and the naked eye sans zoom. The object is always either pure white or black indicating that a high iso setting was used to detect the most light.

Even in Copernican land, an altitude of 100 km can see over 1100 km distance. Imagine how far a 100km high 50cm+ aperture Cassegrain telescope and ultra super-sensitive sensor can see?

windmill horizon
Super-zoom cameras see objects way beyond the normal horizon over water as black and white.
visible goes-13
A visible light image from GOES-13 is also black and white and poor resolution.

Judging by the photo of the GOES satellite, it looks like their sensors are on the bottom, facing but not touching, the glass. So, how does the telescope see all the horizons 360° around, if it is looking down on the glass? The scan mirror rotates in 2 axes allowing it see 360°. The only horizon limitation is the black optical port covering which looks to act like a lens hood preventing lens flare or glare.

Does it take one long exposure of the Earth to produce the Earth disk? Seemingly not.

By means of a servo driven, two-axis gimbaled mirror scanning system in conjunction with a Cassegrain telescope, the Imager’s multispectral channels can simultaneously sweep an 8-kilometer (5 statute mile) north-to-south swath along an east-to-west/west-to-east path, at a rate of 20 degrees (optical) east-west per second. This translates into being able to scan a 3000 by 3000 km (1864 by 1864 miles) “box” centered over the United States in just 41 seconds. The actual scanning sequence takes places by sweeping in an East-West direction, stepping in the North-South direction, than sweeping back in a West-East direction, stepping North-South, sweeping East-West, and so on.


That is a very quick swath, which is probably why the resolution is so bad – 1 km for visible light, 4 km for infrared, 8 km for water vapour (clouds). The book Observation of the Earth and Its Environment: Survey of Missions and Sensors gives a slightly different time-frame:

A normal full earth disk scan (18 x 18) is done ins 25 minutes (a 3000 km x 3000 km area can be scanned in 3.1 minutes, a 1000 km x 1000 km area in 40 seconds).


Comparing the latitude and longitude of the full Earth disk maps with Google Maps, we can see that the horizon limit looks to be somewhere around between 70° and 75° latitude. It falls slightly short of the communications satellites’ radar horizon of 18,000 km (80°/81° lat). 3000 km2 is a sixth of 18,000 km2, so 3.1 minutes x 6 is 18.6 minutes; quite close to the 25 minutes necessary to produce the full Earth disk. After scanning, it is not 100% clear to me whether it is the satellite processors or the servers on Earth that collate all the scanned images together as a composite to produce the “Earth disk”. It seems to be the satellite doing the collating as the first infrared full earth disk image sent from GOES-14 in 2009 was too wide (oval shaped), which NASA immediately worked on correcting. I bet they did! That oval shape is the same shape as the scan mirror. Coincidence?

GOES-14 too wide first image
The first GOES-14 IR image from 2009 was too wide and had to be “corrected”.
infrared goes-13
A far-infrared image from GOES-13 with no “processing” errors.

Also, how could a full-earth disk be taken in one shot when a telescope has no variable zoom function? It is fixed powered, i.e. one magnification. The telescope isn’t zooming in for a 1000 km x 1000 km shot and then making a maximum zoom out for a full Earth disk “photo”. The Earth-disk above is a composite of 8 km x 20° swaths or strips which themselves are composed of 1/4/8 km pixels. Its oval shape is corrected to a round disk one. That is all it is. It is very important to understand that the Earth image is a round disk, not because of the Earth’s shape, but because of the shape of the incoming light/optical scan mirror and its range.

What about other commercial uses of geostationary satellites? Let’s look at satellite internet.


This doesn’t really use satellites, but there are services available. Normally, the internet uses land-based wires (and/or base stations) and fiber-optic cables laid on the ocean floor. Satellite internet service is said to be available for remote areas, but the speed is much slower. Ditto for cruise liners.

The frequencies used are either C-band (3.7 – 6.4 GHz) or Ku-band (11.7 – 14.5 GHz) which are not skywave frequencies. Wiki says they also don’t normally use geostationary satellites due to the latency issues.

Having said that, all the satellite internet providers research so far only give details about the geostationary satellites they use. uses Telstar 12 at 15°W and Pas 1R at 45°W or Galaxy 18 and AMC 9 for North America, Satmex 6 for Central and South America, IS-15 for the Middle East, Telstar 11 for Africa etc. A German internet satellite provider also uses geostationary satellites exclusively – In fact, a satellite internet review website comparing 4 providers says:

Satellite internet depends on geostationary satellites, which orbit at the same speed as the Earth’s rotation and thus remain stationary relative to a location on the Earth’s surface. The satellites send and receive internet signals. To receive satellite internet at home, you need a special satellite dish or receiver and a service contract with an internet satellite provider.


And so does another review website. It does look like both satellite television and satellite internet use only geostationary satellites. You can check them yourself on either (for geostationary only) or (where most satellites can be found). Also of interest is the level of secrecy surrounding satellites.

Not all detailed satellite footprints can get published here. Some do underly a NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) of the satellite operator.


What about other commercial applications that are said to use orbiting satellites and/or geostationary ones?

Satellite phones

These can be used in very remote areas such as in the middle of the ocean, wilderness or desert with perfect clarity, which rules out base stations. The clarity would also rule out skywaves which have very temperamental reception, usually better at night (depending on the frequency used). The frequencies for satellite phones vary but never belong in the skywave (AM radio – 3 to 30 MHz) bracket. Satellites themselves operate on even more varied frequencies, but never skywave.

They usually connect to “orbiting” satellites too, although some phones use geostationary networks along the equator which only need 3 or 4 satellites for global coverage, but are limited to 70° latitude either side of the equator. How does it work?

The Iridium system is truly “global”. When a call on the Iridium system is initiated, the satellite with the best signal to the portable phone will establish the call and then “hand off” the call to as many successive satellites as necessary to route the call to the earth station (known as a Gateway) in the general area of the destination. In other words, if you were calling from Brazil to the United States, the call wouldn’t come to earth until the satellite over Arizona established a connection with the USA Gateway. At this time, the call would then be routed along conventional phone lines to where the call was placed.


There is no mention of orbiting satellites in the above description. However, Iridium satellites are said to use polar orbits which is discussed in the next article as these are a different breed of satellite altogether.

The Iridium satellite constellation also uses a polar orbit to provide telecommunications services. The disadvantage to this orbit is that no one spot on the Earth’s surface can be sensed continuously from a satellite in a polar orbit.


We will find out why, in a concave Earth, no one spot can be sensed continually in the next article. The only other commercial phone satellites I could find that are supposed to orbit the Earth are Globalstar, which uses 44 satellites at 52° inclination (glass latitudes):

Globalstar orbits have an inclination of 52 degrees. Therefore, Globalstar does not cover polar areas, due to the lower orbital inclination. Globalstar orbits have an orbital height of approximately 1400 km and latency is still relatively low (approximately 60ms)… In 2005, some of the satellites began to reach the limit of their operational lifetime of 7.5 years. In December 2005, Globalstar began to move some of its satellites into a graveyard orbit above LEO.


“No polar areas”, “7.5 year operation limit”, “graveyard orbit”. These sound very geostationary issues rather than orbital. The quicker connections (lower latency) has also been experienced by a user:

Iridium is more expensive (see prices below) and has a much more extensive satellite network than Globalstar, yet surprisingly I found that the Globalstar gets me quicker connections in Colorado valleys where all satphones have a difficult time, and I get fewer dropped calls.


This would be due to the satellites latitudinal (north and south) position, putting it far nearer to the user than either Iridium’s polar satellites (south pole – see next article), or any equatorial geostationary network such as Thuraya (6.3° away from the equator – see end of article)… unless of course you lived near either of these two areas. Fewer call drops is very odd for an “orbiting” network of satellites travelling at 7.6 km a second.

In fact, looking at the map of Globalstar’s worldwide coverage what we really see are 22 stationary satellites around the globe positioned at 100 km altitude on the glass above these hotspots. They use thrusters to maintain their location on the glass until the fuel runs out in 7.5 years, after which time they are moved to the side to make way for the new satellites.

Globalstar’s worldwide coverage. We can even see where the satellites are really located over the strongest (orange) areas.

This also seems the most likely scenario when we read that with Globalstar’s “satellite must be in range of an earth station.” These 22 satellites are directly over land, over their hotspots of highest signal strength.

The only other commercial usage of orbiting satellites (not geostationary or polar) is GPS.


GPS is much more tricky for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this technology requires triangulation to obtain your position. That is easy using mobile phone base stations as they do not move and know their position all the time. GPS does use base stations where avilable (both mobile phone technology and GPS systems became available around the same time), but this doesn’t explain GPS over sea or in remote areas. For orbiting satellite GPS systems, how does a satellite whizzing around the Earth at ridiculous speeds (7600 meters per second) know where it is that very second? By using other network satellites whizzing around the Earth in all different directions, which in turn use fixed locations on the Earth? Sounds very, very complicated and extraordinarily difficult. Not only that, but there would be no room for any type of signal delay whatsoever… and time is absolutely critical to GPS calculations according to wiki:

The GPS system concept is based on time. The satellites carry very stable atomic clocks that are synchronized to each other and to ground clocks. Any drift from true time maintained on the ground is corrected daily. Likewise, the satellite locations are monitored precisely. GPS receivers have clocks as well—however, they are not synchronized with true time, and are less stable. GPS satellites continuously transmit their current time and position. A GPS receiver monitors multiple satellites and solves equations to determine the exact position of the receiver and its deviation from true time. At a minimum, four satellites must be in view of the receiver for it to compute four unknown quantities (three position coordinates and clock deviation from satellite time).


“Likewise, the satellite locations are monitored precisely”. A bit of a vague statement which doesn’t describe how a 7600 m/s satellite’s location is monitored and by whom and where? From a base station? It could also describe a stationary satellite sitting on the glass. All locations of the GPS satellites on the glass would have to be precisely known for triangulation purposes. According to Wiki, the receiver picks up three pieces of data from the 4 satellites – 1. clock alignment code (epoch) so the receivers and satellites’ clocks are running at the same time; 2. times of transmission of the sent signals from the satellites; and 3. the satellites’ position.

The receiver measures the distance by aligning its clock with those of the satellites and timing the difference between the time of transmission and the received time of arrival of the signal. With the known speed of light and a few equations later, the distance is calculated. This known distance together with the known positions of the 4 satellites is mapped onto an Earth ellipsoid (concave globe) such as EGM96 and voila, your exact location on the Earth is known.

But this begs the question, how does the satellite know its location that second? Because it is “monitored precisely”? It would have to be triangulated precisely every second from two or more fixed positions on land and sent its then current co-ordinates from one of these fixed positions so that it can then relay its location to the GPS receiver on the Earth. There would be a constant delay as the GPS receiver on Earth would always be picking up an old location. Is this incorporated into the calculations? And what if just one fixed position on land isn’t in range? It will have to use two or more satellites (a network) which are also trying to triangulate their 7600 m/s changing positions, adding even greater variable delays. Does this sound believable to you?

All GPS satellites on the glass have their antennas pointing forward on the face of the satellite.

All the antennas that I can make out are on the forward face of the satellite. (Some animations have other antenna types on the bottom and top as well.)
The GPS antenna array is at the front (for simultaneous users) as well as all the other helical antennas. It is unclear to me if the black cone is a horn antenna or part of a hydrazine thruster unit. Probably the former due to its off centre position.

The type of antennas used by consumers to receive GPS signals is usually a quad helix style with other types such as spiral helical antennas. It is this kind of antenna that looks to be the main type fixed to the face of a GPS satellite. The radiation pattern of a helical antenna is “…omnidirectional with maximum radiation at right angles to the helix axis”. This means the satellite doesn’t send a signal behind itself but everywhere below and in front of it. This suits transmitting to the ground, but not when it is synchronising its clock with the other 3 or 4 satellites, some of which will be behind others. A lot of animations show other types of antennas on the top and bottom of these satellites (patch antennas could also be there, but not clearly visible to me). I would guess that these send a signal to the other satellites in the “sky array” on the glass.

A quad helix antenna used on satellites.
The helical antennas on the face of the satellite are used for ground communication.

Note the hydrazine thrusters for “orbital corrections” on the Block II satellite are pointing forwards only. If the glass sky is rotating westward as previously presumed by ATS-1’s “transfer orbit”, then so the satellite would also be facing westward so that the thrusters push it back eastward. That is assuming that they want that particular gps satellite to stay longitudinally stationary. That may not be the case at all. They may want to initially push it further north or south with the GPS antenna facing in the opposite direction and then let the glass sky very slowly move the satellite around. Other non-GPS satellites have the thrusters on the side and even “ion engines”. Very reminiscent of the Bielfeld/Brown effect and lifters.

An exploratory satellite (supposedly) with “ion engines“. Mmmmmm.

There look to be 5 types of the 31 GPS satellites still in operation. 24 are needed in one constellation for full global coverage – 4 in each of the 6 “orbits”. In a concave Earth, this could translate to one in each hemisphere on both the dark and light side. None of the 5 models except for the first model, Block 2A, reveal any thrusters on their animations. This means that they must rotate both westward and up/down at over 3 m per minute with the glass layer. Having said that, they are all said to have lifespans of 7.5 or 12 years, but they are all still in operation, even Block 2A from 1990! So fuel cannot be an issue here.

Information on all GPS satellites in operation.

The second issue with GPS is the skywave possibility. Although the frequencies used seem correct, there could be a hiccup in the details. GPS uses the L-band microwave frequencies which are well above skywave AM radio possibilities, except GPS sends 154 x 10.23 Mhz and 120 x 10.23 Mhz modulated packages.

The C/A code is transmitted on the L1 frequency as a 1.023 MHz signal… The P(Y)-code is transmitted on both the L1 and L2 frequencies as a 10.23 MHz signal.


I’m not a technician, but these sure suspiciously sound like GPS should operate on skywave frequencies of 10.23 and 1.023 Mhz, which are supposed to bounce off the ionosphere. However, skywaves themselves may be a bogus concept as these only occur at night for very low AM radio frequencies. Visible light has been shown to bend the least at night by the late Wilhelm Martin, and it is no different for radio it seems. In fact, the “skywave” frequency packages of GPS make a much better case for satellites and against the skywave explanation. Why? Because a yachtsman’s or airliner’s GPS works on/over the ocean during the night AND day… but skywaves only achieve inter-continental distances over the ocean at night. During the day, AM radio travels via “ground waves” up to a maximum range of only 500 km depending on the various factors outlined in the horizon article.

So far, the only satellites said to be orbiting are the 22 from Globalstar and the 31 GPS ones. There are of course military satellites and ones used to study space above them (scientific sensors or always on top looking up). Polar satellites are a different breed and don’t belong here. If GPS are not orbiting, but really stationary, then they are probably sitting on the glass away from the equator at other latitudes to 1. make room for the official geostationary ones and 2. give full global coverage. Wouldn’t astronomers have noticed them not moving against the background of rotating stars, especially those who have to view and record the night sky continually? They may well have. First though, let’s look at the observed geostationary ones.

Observed satellites

Here is a photograph taken of the starry sky from the Netherlands in 2010 by Marco Langbroek with a Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar MC 2.8/180mm lens, Canon EOS 450D @ 800 ISO, 10s exposure. The geostationary satellites have supposedly been identified.

All the stationary points of light have been labelled as geostationary satellites.

What is initially perplexing about the above photo? The spacial alignment and elevation don’t match for objects on the equatorial plane. Take box 1 (Thuraya 2A) and 6 (Galaxy 27) which are very nearly on top of one another. From Amsterdam, the longitudinal (azimuth) difference is 20.8° with a dish elevation angle of 20.1° and 8.4° yet they are very nearly on top of one another. Box 4 (Turksat 2A) is longitudinally just 2.1° further west than Thuraya 2A (box 1) and yet is way across from Thuraya 2A in the middle of the photo.

Thuraya 2A satellite has a 20.1° dish elevation from Amsterdam and the dish needs to be rotated 134.2° to the side from true north.
galaxy 27
Galaxy 27 satellite has an 8.4° dish elevation from Amsterdam and the dish needs to be rotated 113.4° to the side from true north.
Turksat 2A satellite has an 21° dish elevation from Amsterdam and the dish needs to be rotated 136.3° to the side from true north. This is only 2.1° further west than Thuraya 2A.

This proves that geostationary satellites are not strictly just orbiting around the equatorial plane at the same speed as the Earth is allegedly rotating, despite always pointing its graphic at the equator on google maps.

Circular Earth geosynchronous orbits have a radius of 42,164 km (26,199 mi)… A geostationary orbit (GEO) is a circular geosynchronous orbit in the plane of the Earth’s equator with a radius of approximately 42,164 km (26,199 mi) (measured from the center of the Earth). A satellite in such an orbit is at an altitude of approximately 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above mean sea level. It maintains the same position relative to the Earth’s surface. If one could see a satellite in geostationary orbit, it would appear to hover at the same point in the sky, i.e., not exhibit diurnal motion, while the Sun, Moon, and stars would traverse the heavens behind it.


The reason seems to be Thuraya 2A’s 6.3° inclination. An inclined orbit is one which allows the satellite to move in a analemma figure of eight north and south after the thrusters have run out of fuel; or use less fuel to keep the satellite in the same longitudinal position, but let it drift north and south. 6.3° is a specific location however. It sounds as if this satellite always remains at 6.3° north of the equator at 44° east. This means that Thuraya 2A was deliberately placed in that position on the glass and it uses its thrusters to remain at this location. Interestingly, the supposedly secret military satellite PAN moves its longitudinal stationary position over the middle East from time to time. Spy satellite Mentor 4 (Orion 4) is also there. These geostationary satellites are positioned in a fairly wide latitudinal band around the equator (at least north from it). How wide? Up to 30° north judging by what Marco Langbroek said on – archive (Monday, Jun. 25, 2012) about his photo below:

More geostationary satellites AND apparent associated debris photographed from the centre of Leiden, Netherlands. “All the objects on the picture have an elevation below 30 degrees.”

Of course, we don’t know for sure if the stationary white dots in the above photos have been correctly labelled, just that they exist up to 30° when viewed from the Netherlands. The military satellite Milstar is also supposed to be there as well as supposed rocket debris. There is no way to accurately distinguish debris from a satellite. I assume the photographer thought that this particular white dot was a little elongated therefore must be a separated rocket. Perhaps, perhaps not. Still, the above photo showing stationary white dots from below tree level to up to 30° high in the sky indicates a pretty wide “band” for equatorial geostationary satellites.

Are geostationary satellites visible to the naked eye? Not according to photographer Saeid Aghaei who shot this photo below of YAMAL 202 with a Celestron CGEM 11 in Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope; 2800mm focal length; f/6.3; EOS Canon 50D camera; exposure time of 110 seconds; ISO 400; time of photo 01:42:40 (+04:00 GMT). Incidentally, the white/yellow dot at the top of the photo wasn’t identified.

“Yamal 202 has a magnitude of approximately 10, far too dim to be seen with the unaided eye. In fact, none of the stars on this scene are sufficiently bright to be detected without the aid of a telescope or binoculars.”

This agrees with the British 1963 documentary on how to photograph satellites.

The satellites that are 400 miles away are 15 times less bright than the dimmest star that can be seen by the naked eye.


That may be true for geostationary satellites nearish the equator, but “the camera is used for tracking the satellites that are whizzing around the Earth“. The first satellite was Sputnik 1 in 1957. There were supposedly somewhere between 100 to 200 satellites sent up by 1963.

Combined, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. launched six satellites in 1958, 14 satellites in 1959, 19 in 1960 and 35 in 1961. In 1962, the United Kingdom and Canada launched satellites of their own, along with the 70 satellites launched by the U.S. and U.S.S.R.


The above satellites are “orbiting” with the first geosynchronous one launched in 1965. By orbiting, they really mean the satellites rotated with the glass (no thrusters). Over three metres per minute is not whizzing around by anyone’s standard.

satellite tracking camera
The camera used to viewing satellites whizzing around the Earth at 15 times less brightness than the dimmest star seen with the naked eye. “

So if satellites are 15 times less bright than the dimmest star, what are all those very consistently bright white dots we occasionally see with our naked eyes traversing the sky at night? Not satellites. How do observers know that these traversing white dots are satellites? They don’t. They have to go to websites such as or for predictions; and where do they get the heliocentric “orbiting” data from? The space agencies of course. In fact, without such external confirmation it is impossible to tell what a moving light in the sky is. According to one satellite observer “FireballStorm” from abovetopsecret forum.

…Many of the above characteristics can mean that it’s possible to confuse a satellite with other objects that can be seen in the sky such as aircraft (you can’t always hear the sound of the engine/engines if the aircraft is a long way off or at high altitude), or “sky lanterns”, or even a slow meteor. All of these things are often effectively point sources of light, and can be seen from deceptively great distances. The only way to tell for sure in some cases is to track down and identify the satellite, if indeed a satellite was responsible…


The speed of these white dots is also very varied but usually (red flag alert) “about the speed of a commercial jet aircraft at cruising altitude”. I see. So it isn’t a great leap of logic to assume that usually these traversing white dots may be commercial aircraft – not always, just usually.

Most satellites that are visible to the naked eye will look like stars that move slowly but steadily across the sky in a straight line, usually about the speed of a commercial jet aircraft at cruising altitude, but some will be a bit faster, and some crawl across the sky much more slowly.


What about the rest, outside of “usually”? First, let’s find out more. Apart from a massive speed variation, we also have a huge difference in brightness from invisible to a short, bright, ground-lighting glare:

While some satellites are quite bright, the vast majority are relatively faint, and many are invisible to the naked eye, even when observing from dark/un-light polluted skies. Many of the brighter satellites tend to be constant in brightness as they traverse the sky, but this is not necessarily always the case. Sometimes, as the the angle between observer/satellite and Sun changes, a part of the satellite (usually a panel or array) will find the right angle to catch the light and increase the amount of light that is being reflected back to you dramatically.


The increase in the amount of light is what they call Iridium flares which can be super bright or just make the object visible to the naked eye for a few seconds. A couple of examples below are from YouTube:

(Click to animate) A white dot increases its brightness becoming visible for a very short time.
(Click to animate) A white dot gets very bright (at least through a telescope) and never leaves its circular light emitting shape before carrying on traversing the sky.

They are called iridium flares after the 66 Iridium satellites used for sat phones whose main mission antenna (MMA) panels are said to reflect the sunlight causing the glare. Sounds reasonable for the heliocentric satellite model, except there are also white dots which glare and dim, then glare again periodically or randomly. These can’t be Iridium satellites but instead the tune changes to just sunlight reflecting off any old solar panels or gold foil bodies or rocket debris that is “tumbling” aka rotating because these satellites are junk, non-operational.

Whilst IRIDIUM flares are usually very predictable, tumbling or out of control satellites/debris can produce seemingly random flares, or there may be a sequence in some cases… It’s not unusual that the satellite itself is too dim to see with the naked eye, and the first that you know of it is when you see a flash or a series of them, rather than a single prolonged flare, though either is possible depending on the satellite and the way it is rotating. As some satellites/debris rotate quite rapidly, short duration flares or flashes can be the result. In some cases a glint can last just a fraction of a second, and resemble a “camera flash” going off in the distance.


flashing iriduim4
(Click to animate) A slow moving randomly flashing white dot of limiting brightness in the top right corner of the video.
flashing iriduim3
(Click to animate) A very fast moving periodically flashing white dot looking more like a typical very low earth orbit meteor perhaps.

The variation in brightness, consistency, speed and size of these white “dots” traversing the sky is profound. Satellites are all roughly the same size, fitting into the payload fairing of rockets which double in size variation. Satellites are usually about the size of car or minibus (although other websites claim they are merely the size of a fridge), have the same white coloured rockets, wrapped in the same gold insulating foil, with the same solar panels and occasionally antenna dishes. Nearly all the “orbiting” satellites are said to travel at the same altitude as well – 697 km (400 miles). Their “light reflecting” variation isn’t as profound as the difference in the white dots. Is there a natural phenomenon that could encompass this massive variation? Yes there is; although that isn’t to say that all white dots should be grouped under one heading.

Slow moving meteors have been given as an example, but another obvious contender (if not the exact same thing as slow-moving meteors) are near-Earth asteroids. Normally meteors are classed as very fast moving (one second), but there is a massive variation in this kind of meteor/asteroid object that litters inner space.

Firstly, these objects range in size very dramatically from a dust particle to the size of a car at the very least, as known iron meteorites have lost some of their material burning through the glass.

Interplanetary dust is composed of bits of rock from a few to several hundred microns in diameter produced by asteroid collisions or ejected from comets.


1000 microns is one millimetre. Super tiny on the one hand to “park the bus” on the other.

These are just the actual verified iron meteorites which have landed on Earth. There could be bigger ones orbiting in inner space.
Another huge iron meteorite – Hoba, the biggest in the world, left in its original location.

Secondly, their altitude can be anywhere from 100 km bouncing off the glass like a skipping stone to tightly orbiting the Sun at the centre of the Earth cavity… and all altitudes in between. A few meteors have been known to skip off the top of the “atmosphere” (cheers Jon). Yeah, skip off the top of air with a density at one millionth that at sea level. You have to be kidding me. There is a barrier up there, that is obvious. These meteors are called Earthgrazers.

As an Earth-grazer passes through the atmosphere its mass and velocity are changed, so that its orbit, as it re-enters space, will be different from its orbit as it encountered Earth’s atmosphere. There is no exact criterion for passing by outside of the atmosphere, except perhaps roughly 80 km (50 mi) up, or the Kármán line at 100 km (62 mi).

100 km again! What a number. Again and again and again and again. It’s magic.

If a meteor shower peaks around the time the radiant point is close to your horizon, you may experience some meteors known as Earthgrazers. These meteors skim across the top layer of our atmosphere at a very shallow angle, thereby producing very long trails and trains of dust from the horizon to a point overhead. We use to call these meteors “skippers.” They hit the atmosphere, but like a rock skipping across the water, they often bounce back out into space for a second. Gravity wins out and pulls the meteor back into the atmosphere once again. Depending upon a variety of circumstances, multiple skips can be seen.


Multiple skips like a rock skipping across the water. Well I never! Most of the time, just like a stone across water, these meteors succumb to gravity for good and fall to Earth. Occasionally, they can skip back out to inner space again showing that these meteors may even be able to orbit the inner cavity even right up to the glass height; although in this instant it came round a second time before gravity eventually got a hold.

perseid earthgrazer
(Click to animate). An earthgrazing meteor hits “something” up there in the sky to make it change its angle and perceived speed.

I’ve already theorized that meteors/asteroids are discharged parts of the Sun released after electrical surges from the Sun’s sulfur filament. The initial discharge could be in any direction – north/south, south/north, east/west, north-east/south-west, etc. The orbiting mechanism hasn’t been worked out yet in a concave Earth, at least by me; but these objects do orbit regardless of the why.

Thirdly, their shape is completely random and irregular. However, although irregular, there is often a very approximate consistent diameter, at least on one side, as some of them can appear quite flat. This flatness could easily be formed when melting through the glass however.

It’s unusual for an iron meteorite to have a bit sticking out. Notice the severe melting on all these iron meteorite samples.
An irregular-shaped iron meteorite with a strong indentation. These meteorites melt through the glass largely intact. The melt is due to the severe temperatures after being ejected by the Sun.

Fourthly, their material make-up is also varied to a degree. Before meteors hit the glass, their makeup is that of iron meteorites. These are mostly made out of iron/nickel alloys (two-thirds/one third) with a touch of cobalt thrown in. Other materials of significant amounts are iron sulphide (troilite), graphite and cohenite (carbon), and iron phosphorus (schreibersite). These materials turn up in iron meteorites in different amounts, but iron and nickel are the two vastly predominant elements, occasionally being the only material present at all.

Two of the above materials are highly reflective, namely an iron/nickel alloy – taenite and schreibersite. Schriebersite is highly metallic in its lustre which means it is highly reflective and occurs as “plates, rods or needles”. Depending on its location to the surface area of the meteor, schreibersite is a possible cause of the “iridium” flares seen around the world. There may not be a high enough percentage of this material to justify such reflectivity.

When compared to the dark grey chondrite material (mostly glass – enstatite), schreibersite is very reflective.
But when compared to the super shiny taenite, schreibersite is a little darker and therefore perhaps a little duller.

The main highly reflective material is taenite. I’ll repeat what is written on the sun as a sulphur lamp article about taenite.

Nickel-iron metal in iron meteorites occurs in the form of two distinct alloys. The most common alloy is kamacite, named for the Greek word for “beam”. Kamacite contains 4 to 7.5% nickel, and it forms large crystals that appear like broad bands or beam-like structures on the etched surface of an iron meteorite. The other alloy is called taenite for the Greek word for “ribbon”. Taenite contains 27 to 65% nickel, and it usually forms smaller crystals that appear as highly reflecting thin ribbons on the surface of an etched iron.

Taenite essentially has a nickel lattice and kamacite has an iron lattice. At high temperatures both iron and nickel are face-centered, and iron meteorites are essentially all taenite. As the temperature drops, kamacite begins to exsolve, expelling nickel into the taenite and forming thin lamellae of almost pure iron.


Taenite is highly reflective, which is the only iron/nickel alloy in the meteor at high temperatures. All asteroids/meteors start off as ejected white hot material and could cool down slowly over time at low altitude further away from the Sun. At say 400 km high, the thermosphere is still very hot and the orbiting meteor would still probably be hundreds of degrees centigrade; it isn’t white hot though. The quote above doesn’t say how high “high temperatures” are, but it is safe to say there is a lot of taenite in the meteorite; enough to reflect the sunlight and cause “iriduim” flares, that’s for sure.

The very reflective strips are non-corroded taenite in amongst the darker and duller Kamacite.

At lower altitudes, say 200 km or even less, the meteor is less hot and more Kamacite is present, which is much less reflective. All these natural space objects rotate on their axis, especially odd-shaped ones I would have thought. This would explain the periodic flaring of a few white dots as they “tumbled” through space. The white dots and iridium flares that have been labelled as satellites are said to be only seen soonish after dark and before dawn due to the sunlight reflecting off the object at higher-than-ground altitude. In the middle of the night, they are in the Sun’s shadow. The higher the altitude, the longer the reflective time. Any travelling white celestial dot seen in the middle of the night could either be a very high altitude object (asteroid/meteor) or a white-hot object at any altitude. So newly formed meteors may be responsible for a few white dot sightings whether in the middle of the night or near dawn/dusk.

The point of all the above is to show how extremely likely it is that meteors/asteroids are causing these phenomena, not satellites in a heliocentric model. This is especially true as to the size and distance of satellites from the observer at dawn/dusk in the mainstream model.

At a minimum of 300 km high (usually 697 km though), the sunlight reflecting satellite near dawn/dusk is 1000s of kilometres away.

There is further hearsay evidence from the administrator of Cluesforum, Simon Shack, who said:

…it has only recently dawned upon me that my father once told me that he also saw them (the faint ‘moving stars’) as a kid. Well, when he was a kid, Sputnik (the alleged first-ever man-made satellite) was still years away from being “launched”… Too bad my dad passed away in 1990 – he’d be able to testify / corroborate this much on Cluesforum for himself.


interestingly, an astronomer filmed a stationary “Iriduim” flare while searching the night sky for meteors.

stationary iridium flare
(Click to animate). I would say these few short seconds show a very slow moving flare rather than stationary. What is it showing?

The flare looks to be very bright, but also very slow moving rather than stationary.

“They are not iridium flares because they are stationary,” said James Beauchamp, an amateur astronomer who hosts the meteor camera for Sandia National Labs and New Mexico State University, and who posted this video on You Tube. “And they are not geosynchronous satellites because the azimuth/elevation are too far North. They are reflective because they always happen just prior to or after sunrise/sunset. Whatever it is, it’s slow and BIG.”

Beauchamp says he see a flash like this about once every month or so. Some are really bright like this one, and others are just small blinks.


Because of its time of appearance, it is really low in the sky. Is it too low and slow moving to be a meteor/asteroid? Probably. It is visibly moving (just) in those few seconds, so it can’t be a GPS or Globalstar phone satellite sitting on the glass whether stationary or moving 3 metres a minute. Could it be something like a drone (cheers Simon)?

“Titan’s drones are able to run for five years at an altitude of some 65,000 feet (19,800 meters). They can perform functions similar to geostationary satellites, but are less costly.”

Could those mostly upward facing solar panels reflect light towards the ground? Maybe. Who knows?

Overall reality verdict:

Geostationary satellite technology, such as AMOS-5, exists.
An AMOS cut-and-paste-in-animated-space satellite in action over Earth… not.


  • Geostationary satellites are likely resting on the upper side of the glass sky due to extreme deployment difficulties when trying to put them hanging on the underside.
  • The father of rocketry Werhner von Braun speculatively hit the glass in or before 1943 in Germany. He told the allies his findings in January 1945 whereby the concept of geostationary satellites was born.
  • This concept came to fruition in 1966 (despite the Soviets claiming the same in 1957) with Application Technology Satellites. The distance moved across and below the equator in 12 years tells us the speed of rotation of the glass layer, which is very roughly 3 metres per minute.
  • Elliptical inclined orbits and transfer orbits in the heliocentric model have been theorized to be the speed of rotation of the glass sky in a concave Earth.
  • To remain at the same position as the ground and not move with the glass (geosynchronous) thruster are used. The glass offers too much friction for thruster on satellites weighing tonnes. Therefore a very thin layer of ice/water is theorized to be present on the top side of the glass.
  • Both the thermosphere and the Van Allen Belts stop any man-made object reaching an altitude much higher than 100 km, and certainly not higher than 200 km within the +65°/-65° latitudes as NASA engineer Kelly Smith has already testified.
  • Satellite television dishes point towards the equator, approximately. The elevation angle of the dish is based on latitude and longitude position of the dish. The angle never changes over time.
  • The maximum range potential of these satellites is 80° north and south of the equator. This vast range and the 100 km height of the TV broadcasting geostationary satellite, means that there is no direct mathematical equivalent position of the light source inside the Earth cavity. I.e., it is not the bend of light that determines the position of the object in the sky, but the angle of light emitted from the source itself. Either it is the amount of bend, or the increased sensitivity of the receiver/amplitude (power) of the source (or possibly both) that determines the range of the light source.
  • In practice, a TV broadcasting satellite’s range is determined by the frequencies emitted and by the angle/shape of the reflector dish or antenna array on the satellite. These ranges on the ground match reflector dishes located on the top and bottom side of the satellite only. This fits with the concept of geostationary satellites sitting on the glass looking at the horizon.
  • A parabolic dish can never be wider than the space inside the rocket’s payload fairing, as the satellite is still attached to the last stage of the rocket as it sits on the glass. Hence the reason why there are no solar panels protruding along the four cardinal points.
  • Satellite passive remote sensors are super sensitive instruments which are also greatly amplified so as to “see” a fantastically long range horizon.
  • A black and white satellite picture of stars and a meteor shower shows a very nearly flat and eye-level horizon. The sensitivity of the passive sensors on board these scientific satellites is extreme in order to capture starlight at their altitude.
  • Nearly all weather and earth image satellites are polar ones. GOES is the exception. A GOES imager is located at the bottom of the satellite, looking down on the Earth. It’s sensor sensitivity and/or “lens hood” are the only factors which look to limit its range. These sensors are called earth sensors or horizon sensors.
  • The mirrors of the telescope rotate in two directions taking 1/4/8 km pixels in an 8 km north-south x 20 east-west strip per second. These are collated together to form the full-Earth disk. The Earth is a disk, not because of its shape, but because of the shape of the optical mirror and its range.
  • The internet itself uses fibre optic cables on the sea bed and landlines/mobile phone base stations. Satellite internet is available for remote areas on the microwave frequencies and seems to use exclusively geostationary satellites.
  • Satellite phones can also be used in a totally remote area and use microwave frequencies. The choices are geostationary satellites, the polar satellite network Iridium, or “orbiting” satellite network Globastar.
  • Globalstar suffers from very few call drops and quicker connections in Colorado Valley than the Iridium network whose satellites are also supposed to be orbiting, but from pole to pole rather than say east to west. This makes sense if the Globalstar network is really geostationary satellites located on the glass over their hotspots.
  • GPS requires triangulation. Triangulation of one moving location with two fixed points is easy, but with one or more objects moving at 7600 m/s sounds very difficult and will incur time delays at the very least.
  • Four of the five types of GPS satellites do not have thrusters. All the satellites are still fully operational despite a couple being in operation since 1990.
  • GPS frequencies are packets of skywave frequencies. This makes skywave a false concept, made up to explain why AM radio travels further at night, which is also a property of visible light, as demonstrated by Wilhelm Martin. GPS is on all the time, day and night.
  • Geostationary satellites have been observed by long exposure photos. Some stationary white dots that were higher than they should be are explained by a geostationary satellite’s inclination (north/south position) away from the equator, showing that the equator is a fairly wide band, not an exact narrow strip.
  • Geostationary satellites cannot be seen with the naked eye. According to a 1963 British documentary, orbiting satellites are 15 times less bright than the dimmest star.
  • Orbiting white dots cannot be identified as satellites without going to websites who have the satellites’ orbiting data to hand. Where does this data come from? The space agencies. A moving white dot can be anything from an aeroplane to an asteroid.
  • The moving “white dots in the sky” must have another explanation. These white dots have a massive variation in brightness, size, consistency and speed. Meteors/asteroids fit the bill perfectly due to their huge variations in these areas (including altitude), whereas satellites do not. Hearsay evidence also points to a natural explanation as supposedly someone saw the moving white dots in the pre-satellite era (pre-1957).
  • Very slow moving white flares have been spotted on a regular basis at a high angle in the sky by meteor watchers – so far, not satisfactorily identified.

If you think geostationary satellites sitting on a very thin layer of ice/water on the glass sky at 100 km high is wild, then wait till you read about polar satellites in a concave Earth. There can be only one mechanism that fits their description, assuming what they say about them is true sans the heliocentric model. Let’s find out what this mechanism is.

26 thoughts on “Geostationary satellites”

  1. Hy, I’m french, the frog man

    An Occam razor comment on satellite : how do they perfectly stabilise a satellite on a determined position in 3D in space ? With those poorly thrusters on sides ? Ridiculous. They have to put a lot in all sides of the satellite. But if you’re looking at satellites before launching, there isn’t enough thrusters. What a pity.

    It is simply impossible to stop any object in space and to avoid it to turn and turn and turn and turn, because nothing can stop an object in space. NOTHING !!!! AND NOT AN ISS !!!!

    Other subject : I’m using this site to detect trickeries on pictures, and you will have a lot of surprises with NAZA pictures, “blue marble” or pictures of ISS from earth with telescopes :

    Try it and adopt it for all pictures

    View Comment
    1. Thanks Tof.

      Good thinking on the stabilizers. You can’t actually stop the spinning either way in a frictionless environment with thrusters. How true.

      However, there is a way to stabilize rockets in space I think with weights. Not that satellites do that of course. I don’t recall any mechanism on the payload fairing or satellite itself that causes that, but I could be wrong.

      The rocket doesn’t stop spinning either, just slows its spin down dramatically. So again, that solution wouldn’t stabilise the satellite, just slow the spin down. It would also make the satellite harder to spin in the other direction. As you say the satellite couldn’t remain spin motionless.

      View Comment
  2. When I graphically draw a geo sat at 23,000 miles, its most northerly limit is 80.22 degrees, on the ball earth. That agrees with what I expected.
    Did you compensate for the greater distance that the more northerly observer is from the geo sats, which is about 13% more than an equatorial observer, on a globe? Where it is only 1.5% percent on a flat earth.

    View Comment
    1. Unless the earth is concave and light bends upwards. Is that why they chose that mythical 23,000 number is it? Ha ha. Makes sense. The geo sats can only see up to 80 degrees so we have to say we put them at a certain distance that would be correct mathematically on a ball earth and straight light. Nice. Doesn’t fool us though. Why 23,000? Why not put them out a bit further out for near full earth coverage. In for a penny, in for a pound. They don’t because they can’t and that 23,000 is made up.

      View Comment
  3. Using positions, the geos are optically verified.
    I usually find them with in 1/8 of a degree using Stellarium.

    Light bends down in our atmosphere, not up. That is why we have more than 12 hrs of sunlight at the equinoxes, even when including the top vs the bottom of the sun’s limb.

    View Comment
    1. Yes, we can see the geo sats and point dishes to them.

      How do yo know light bends down? Have you tested it? WM has.

      More than 12 hours of sunlight at equinoxes also explained in a concave earth –

      You see the problem isn’t a model, any model, inverted or not. The problem is the evidence and the experimental measuring or lack thereof to determine which model is the correct one. This has already been determined and is now being verified (with some luck).

      View Comment
      1. No need for satellites if the ionosphere can be used as the medium for transmission. A broadcasting tower of some sort has to send the signal to the supposed artificial satellite in the first place. Is it really out of the realm of possibility that what we consider satellite communications are nothing more than signals bounced back off of the ionosphere sans any sort of floating or embedded artificial device.

        “The earth is 4,000 miles radius. Around this conducting earth is an atmosphere. The earth is a conductor; the atmosphere above is a conductor, only there is a little stratum between the conducting atmosphere and the conducting earth which is insulating. . . . Now, you realize right away that if you set up differences of potential at one point, say, you will create in the media corresponding fluctuations of potential. But, since the distance from the earth’s surface to the conducting atmosphere is minute, as compared with the distance of the receiver at 4,000 miles, say, you can readily see that the energy cannot travel along this curve and get there, but will be immediately transformed into conduction currents, and these currents will travel like currents over a wire with a return. The energy will be recovered in the circuit, not by a beam that passes along this curve and is reflected and absorbed, . . . but it will travel by conduction and will be recovered in this way. ”

        [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, Editor, Twenty First Century Books, 1992, pp. 129-130.]

        “The Tesla biographer John Joseph O’Neill noted the cupola at the top of the 186 foot tower had a 5-foot hole in its top where ultraviolet lights were to be mounted, perhaps to create an ionized path up through the atmosphere that could conduct electricity.[22] How Tesla intended to employ the ground conduction method and atmospheric method in Wardenclyffe’s design is unknown.[23] Power for the entire system was to be provided by a coal fired 200 kilowatt Westinghouse alternating current industrial generator.”

        View Comment

Comments are closed.