What kind of question is 'how does love come from rocks?'

It's like asking 'How do Unicorns use knives and forks?'

Stan's other account hasn't worked out how to ask coherent questions. it's not swerving, it's having no idea what it's on about.

Can anyone understand what Stan's other account is rambling about?

Rocks soak-up the love from creatures that die close to them. It builds up slowly over time, but not deep time because that silly idea doesn't exist. When the rocks are full they emit a faint song, not unlike Barry White circa 1978. The frontal lobes of our brains act like sponges and are drawn to the rocks where we press our buttocks against them until a feeling of fulfillment fills us up. The next person we meet will then fall in love with us. See, Science bitches.

HaHaHa Game Set And Match to you. Whoooosh.

The Butcher isn't me - he got the brains, I got the looks.

So - for the second time; explain the question and I'm happy to respond - I asked you to do that before Stan, but you ignored me. I believe I also asked how life on earth was created and how long we've been here, but you swerved that one too...

Mr Butcher and his many alter ego's

Angry level[iSee why use chipcards if the Satellite was worthy of allocating packages. Its because they don't use satellites.[/i
Ok - I won't ask again.

How weird. Your post says "The dishes point in the general direction with a vast area of low orbital space" - but before now, you've been claiming they don't, you've insisted they point at ground based mysterious towers that nobody has ever seen. Are they like Schrodingers dishes then, they point two diffferent ways at the same time?

Next, what's this "orbital space"? Someone who believed in the shoit about a flat earth wouldn't acknowledge orbital space, as you can only orbit a globe. Slip showing, Mr. Troll?

Next you tell me I "You must start appreciating the distances involved here". What distances, Stan? The distance to the geostationary satellite which doesn't exist? I have always appreciated the distances very well. Before now, you've always insisted they are untrue, that there are no satellites, and that the Earth is not a globe.

What, then, are your current personal co-ordinates? Because if I didn't know better, I would guess on a road heading somewhere towards Damascus!

Anyone who actually wanted to know the first thing about Sky satellite transmission would learn within seconds of googling that the satellites transmit their signals in a huge footprint that covers the whole UK at reasonable signal strength, but the outer parts of the signal, even though it is now tighter than it once was, can be picked up far afield in Europe - if you have a big enough dish to compensate for the weak signal.

Your scientific illiteracy is bizarre. The alignment of the dish simply governs how strong the signal is. Align it exactly (as they do) and you'll get the strongest signal available at that location. Slightly misalign it, and you'll still get a signal, but it will not be as strong.

Your top-of-your -head alignment theory is stupid too. I have a pretty cheap electrical alignment system on my telescope that has absolutely no problem in keeping a star MOVING with the rotation of the Earth constantly in the centre of the field of view for hours. That's a moving target, light years away. Not a geostationary target, a mere 22,000 miles away.

I already explained why it's not actually possible to transmit all those channels in analogue. But if you've discovered some scientific breakthrough that makes it possible - please, share it with the world. It would be nice to be conversing with a scientific genius who knows how to achieve something previously considered impossible. What's the secret, Stan? Can't wait!

Gee Whizz you're tristing this conversation again. Read my post again. I actually said. " From my point of view it appears to me you are trying to create the illusion that the dishes have the pinpoint accuracy of a sniper at maniacal distances, I don't buy that. The dishes point in the general direction with a vast area of low orbital space to capture the signal.I don't buy that. You are attempting to create the illusion that a satellite will always be in precisely the exact location give or take a few microns even in geostationary models. I don't buy that either. [iNothing on earth could aim up that high with pinpoint precisio[/in.[i If that were true you would keep losing the signal just by the vibrations the wind incurs on the building or structure supporting the dish. Just like the sniper rifle will miss the target by a vast margin for the slightest twitch at the sending end. You must start appreciating the distances involved here. Sky TV is Analogue Transmitted always has Always will.[/i
[i
Why are you having so much difficulty proving the veracity of the geosychronous orbit claims? So far its always Stanley this, burden that, disprove bla,bla, bla. You sound like a scratched vinyl music record skipping over and over and over. Just let me know when you have something to prove the geostationary satellites claim beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't even seem to give a crap how easy making a geostationary Satellite claim is for the hoaxsters, who can go up and check, eh?

Let's say for the sake of argument that you know for a fact that the belts are impossible to approach or breach. Now, how are you going to offer the communication benefits they say geostationary Satellites offers in that situation? Are you going to throw in the towel and give up or will the pressures of development and progress force you to apply your mind to the development of Ground based networking technologies that have mimicked the Satellite hoax. No doubt this post will be torn and twisted to cranial name calling.[/i

Your post is gibberish. You are ranting. You make no point worth responding to. You have a catalogue of hard fact evidence and unanswered questions so it is up to yu to at least pick one and give an answer. Incoherent rants don't cut it.