Haha.

Stan. Do you even read the links you send? Try reading it again. Analogue and digital are just different delivery methods. Satellite tv used to be analogue (Maybe still is in some parts of the world, I don't know) but they switched to digital because digital is less prone to interference. I'm not sure what the signal type has to do with proving satellites don't exist.

I worked in the military for quite a few years in Intelligence, specifically Imagery-based intel. Stuff from satellite, aircraft, that kind of stuff. How do you suppose those precision weapons, operations planning, encrypted communications, modern avionic systems etc etc work without satellites? I presume the satellite imagery I used to see regularly was just fake?

Get a grip of yourself, Stan.

[iFirstly. We're talking SKY TV. Nothing has ever changed signal wise. The analogue signal recieved through your dish is digitalized through the Skybox. That is simply how it works. Then Sky dial into your broadband and supply the varied package.

Secondly. So called Satellite imagery is through high altitude Drones. Why do the military use drones if Satellites are up there. Durrh. All other communications are Ground based. There's 18 x platforms of ground based technology that can be used singular or entwined. Theres nothing you could tell me about Ground Based Triangulated technology Mr Infantry man.[/iy. Simples.

Great! So, can you explain to me how come a satellite phone will work at the North Pole, then? Or in the middle of the Sahara? Or the Amazon rainforest? Or the middle of the Pacific? Or any other utterly remote place on the globe?

Military drones are unmanned aircraft that do the very same jobs as normal military aircraft, and that my crazy friend, is all fact from someone who worked with them. Me. The reason we use drones in some instances should be fairly obvious. To do with sensitivity of where they operate and/or the danger posed to human pilots doing the same job. Satellite imagery is from satellites. Not drones. Again, an actual fact for you. To even suggest that UAV's provide coverage of the entire Earth with satellite imagery shows three things.

1. A massive gap in your knowledge, research, and critical thinking.
2. You have to be monumentally stupid or lazy for this to happen by accident.
3. You're being deliberately ignorant.

I don't think you're stupid. I do think your research is lazy and sloppy. But your biggest problem is deliberate ignorance.

By the way, there's nothing you can tell me about aerial and satellite based imagery in the military Mr Armchair liar.

Your Gps will triangulate in most baron places through new tesla radio technology. Look it up. Its quite fascinating.

I'm not on about Bombing. I'm on about reconnaissance. Durrh

Once again, read what I put.

Military Satellites can only provide a certain level of surveillance, regardless of what you've seen in the movies. They mainly provide radar coverage over large areas. They can provide optical imagery to a certain scale. That being a large scale. They can only provide optical imagery if there's no clouds and seeing as the planet is pretty much littered with clouds all the time, not a particularly good option if time is a constraint on your work. If you want to plan an operation on the ground or run BDA missions then satellites are no good. They don't have the resolution that can be provided by an aircraft. All 'small' scale surveillance has to be done by aircraft. Some at high altitude some at low. That's how you get the best detail.

Satellites mainly provide communication.

Now, Mr Armchair liar, you could try answering the question I asked instead of avoiding it as usual.

How does a man in Lincolnshire fly a UAV in Afghanistan in real time, if satellites don't exist to provide constant communication of the pilots inputs?

Come on Stan, you can do this! try answering this one question.

He won't. He won't ever answer any straight question. This is why I am certain he's trolling, at least part of the time, though he is clearly delusional.

Now you most certainly know they couldn't possibly have sent full screen full frame-rate video to you down a 1990 phoneline, so why did you even bother, with that embarrassing attempt to rectify your "broadband" mistake, liar?