Author Topic: See Too Far on VHF handheld (Read 1767 times)

Matthew · « **on:** May 13, 2025, 10:44:36 AM »

I am always on the lookout for "things that make you go hmmmm" in the Ham Radio world, that raise serious questions to the point of disproving the earth being a globe. This isn't a slam dunk like various experiments I've seen done by various Flat Earthers over the years, but it's some level of evidence. This isn't a "proof" the way the nαzι VHF radar was a proof. But it adds to the body of evidence, so here you go.

If you have your eyes and ears open, you run across this stuff all the time. Invariably, the people shrug it off as one of those things, one of life's mysteries, one of those phenomena that still baffles science -- but they never "go there". It's like they know where that path leads. They always cut the thought short before they commit a mental sin of heresy. George Orwell discussed this process in his famous book 1984, he called it "Crimestop".

Disclaimer: Josh Nass (Ham Radio Crash Course) is NOT a Flat Earther and certainly does not endorse what I'm doing with his video.

I wish I had started this collection 6 years ago, but alas I did not. Nevertheless, when I'm listening to a podcast or watching a video now, and they say something that isn't getting enough attention, I save it off. I cut it into a separate clip and set it aside.

VHF radio does not bounce off the "ionosphere", even according to mainstream science. VHF is line of sight. And remember, if 100% of a signal went into space (which should absolutely happen if the earth were curved), no amount of amplification could bring it back. Just like with telescopes and visible light (images). If something is HIDDEN behind "earth bulge", then no telescope in the world would be able to bring it back into view. A billion times 0 is still 0!

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** May 13, 2025, 10:52:13 AM »

I'm trying to collect Ham Radio evidence for Flat Earth, because there's this perceived incompatibility between Ham Radio and flat earth.
Kind of like the incompatibility between science and religion. And for the same reasons! It's almost the same thing actually. A worship of "mainstream opinion" of science rather than God with His truth/reality. That kind of (not real) incompatibility, but very real in the minds of most people. It's a myth that won't die, that kind of thing.

But like I said -- every ham that's been doing it for a few years has "seen things" or "had experiences" that lean flat earth, which, if they stopped and thought about it or looked into it, would make them question. Or at least they've heard about others' experiences.

St Giles · « **Reply #2 on:** May 13, 2025, 11:12:04 AM »

I decided to take a quick look at google maps in case Garden Grove is at a high altitude. Nope. How high is their antenna, though? Anyway, it is situated just right such that the signal can get between some smaller mountains/hills before reaching the big ones. We know that guy is way up a mountain which helps, and the last few big peaks the signal has to pass around may either be luck of his location as far as line of sight between peaks goes, but I can't verify that because I don't know where both parties were standing, or perhaps the scattering effect of EM waves occurs similarly to light shined through one or more slits as the famous quantum experiment goes.

So, yeah, not a slam dunk.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #3 on:** May 13, 2025, 01:00:58 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 13, 2025, 10:52:13 AM

I'm trying to collect Ham Radio evidence for Flat Earth, because there's this perceived incompatibility between Ham Radio and flat earth.
Kind of like the incompatibility between science and religion. And for the same reasons! It's almost the same thing actually. A worship of "mainstream opinion" of science rather than God with His truth/reality. That kind of (not real) incompatibility, but very real in the minds of most people. It's a myth that won't die, that kind of thing.

But like I said -- every ham that's been doing it for a few years has "seen things" or "had experiences" that lean flat earth, which, if they stopped and thought about it or looked into it, would make them question. Or at least they've heard about others' experiences.

Though I am a ham operator, my forte is more TV DX, and under certain atmospheric conditions, stations can be received for hundreds or even thousands of miles (as happens with E-skip). I once got channel 2 from Casper, Wyoming here in the eastern part of the US with a single rabbit ear sitting in my basement. E-skip doesn't care how good your antenna is, or how bad your reception circuмstances are, and a basement with a single rabbit ear is about the worst scenario imaginable.

One thing I keep coming back to are the Longley-Rice "heat maps" that, if there are absolutely no obstacles (as over open water), drop off the signal abruptly after about 100 miles (give or take), a phenomenon that can be tested by actually being in these locations (though going out in a boat and seeing just where you lose the signal would be difficult). Here is what one of those maps looks like for a Jacksonville TV station (helpful in seeing the contrast between open water and the effects of terrain):

I would be interested in seeing how this is explained by FE. GE is able to explain this very efficiently by noting curvature of the earth.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** May 13, 2025, 02:28:39 PM »

I'd say it's the same reason we can't see the Eiffel tower from the East Coast, not even with a telescope.

Human eyes, vision, and radio waves aren't infinite. The very air has SOME moisture in it, not to mention pollen, pollution and other particles, which is going to affect the perfect lossless propagation of radio waves.

There is definitely an *ether* component to radio wave propagation. They (mainstream science) only "got rid of" the Ether (or Aether) out of necessity, to defend the moving earth and/or globe paradigm. That's it! So yeah -- ether is almost certainly a real thing. Radio waves propagate through the ether.

Considering science doesn't "believe in" the ether anymore, I'm sure they wouldn't ascribe anything to it either. Such as: changes in propagation (during the day, on a yearly cycle, on the sun's cycle, etc.) But I bet all the "variances" in propagation are due to changes in the ether. Definitely something that real scientists should pursue.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #5 on:** May 13, 2025, 02:53:26 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 13, 2025, 10:44:36 AM

Disclaimer: Josh Nass (Ham Radio Crash Course) is NOT a Flat Earther and certainly does not endorse what I'm doing with his video.

So now "refraction" bends radio waves too?

SimpleMan · « **Reply #6 on:** May 13, 2025, 03:24:30 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 13, 2025, 02:28:39 PM

I'd say it's the same reason we can't see the Eiffel tower from the East Coast, not even with a telescope.

Human eyes, vision, and radio waves aren't infinite. The very air has SOME moisture in it, not to mention pollen, pollution and other particles, which is going to affect the perfect lossless propagation of radio waves.

There is definitely an *ether* component to radio wave propagation. They (mainstream science) only "got rid of" the Ether (or Aether) out of necessity, to defend the moving earth and/or globe paradigm. That's it! So yeah -- ether is almost certainly a real thing. Radio waves propagate through the ether.

Considering science doesn't "believe in" the ether anymore, I'm sure they wouldn't ascribe anything to it either. Such as: changes in propagation (during the day, on a yearly cycle, on the sun's cycle, etc.) But I bet all the "variances" in propagation are due to changes in the ether. Definitely something that real scientists should pursue.

But would the signal just drop off entirely, like falling off a cliff, after about 100 miles?

The Longley-Rice maps (which are based upon GE, of course) seem to indicate that. Seems to me that in an FE scenario, yes, ether would have its way with the signals, but the signal would fade out gradually to zero, even over a totally unobstructed surface such as open water (which is why I used the LR map for a station that is on the coast and is omnidirectional), rather than just being there, and BOOM!, it's no longer there. In a GE scenario, it certainly would be a case of "BOOM! --- it's no longer there".

If you study such maps over a varied terrain, such as mountains or a dissected plateau (as in southern Appalachia), you'll see that there are certain ridge tops and so on that are "sweet spots" for reception, and this, too, can be verified by going to these locations and putting up an antenna. I am on kind of a ridge and there are TV stations about 85 miles from me which, according to the LR maps for these stations, land smack-dab on my property, while totally missing lower elevations a short distance away, and sure enough, those are the exact stations that I get. The signal is weak, it takes a top-flight antenna such as the Televes DATBOSS (which is what I have) to pick it up, someone with rabbit ears wouldn't stand a chance getting it. UHF parabolic dishes yield even more satisfying results.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** May 13, 2025, 03:55:37 PM »

OK, but Marconi transmitted radio signals across the Atlantic that should have been hidden by miles of curvature. They actually told him it wouldn't work for that reason. This was before they invented the notion of the "ionosphere" to explain this away.

There's also that one German system from WW2 that used triangulation of line of sight waves at long distances (that defy the globe). In fact, the top adviser to Chuchill told him they had nothing to fear since it was line of sight signal and couldn't work at those distances over the globe ... until they got hit by the Germans with it.

There was a company that boasted of a world record high-bandwidth microwave transmission ... which is 100% line of sight ... across the Mediterranean. Their towers were about 50 feet high. Someone forgot to tell them that the waves should have been blocked by thousands of feet of curvature.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** May 13, 2025, 04:00:18 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 13, 2025, 02:53:26 PM

So now "refraction" bends radio waves too?

Oh, you have to read their explanation for how those UHF waves went for many miles ... where they made up this idea of "tropospheric ducting" just to explain that one.

Predestination2 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 13, 2025, 05:42:24 PM »

German knickebein bombing proves the earth if flat once and for all.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** May 13, 2025, 07:19:19 PM »

I think it was posted on CathInfo, this UHF system used by the US military that can *regularly* and *reliably* transmit using towers -- we're talking about 97%+ reliability -- it might be those towers Ladislaus mentioned. The point is that they weren't relying on occasional "Sporadic E" or "Tropo ducting" -- because those things are a rare treat, as it were. You wouldn't be able to regularly and reliably communicate with such a system, seven days a week and twice on Sunday, if the earth were a globe. And obviously the Military only cares about results, not cosmology debates. I need to find the original post about it, which had the details. I think it was posted on CathInfo, along with many other FE proofs. I really need to make a dedicated webpage for FE topics/arguments, and make it accessible from the CathInfo main menu :)

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** May 13, 2025, 07:24:25 PM »

To answer your question though, about UHF/VHF "falling off a cliff" at a certain point --

Let's just say it's INCONCLUSIVE. That fact doesn't lean Flat Earth, but it doesn't prove a globe either. It is inconclusive. What you bring up isn't braindead or stupid, or 10-times refuted as so many other NON-arguments (e.g., ships sailing over the horizon). Nevertheless, it is merely inconclusive and merits further study.

There is obviously something different about how VHF and higher radio signals propagate, vs. lower frequency signals. That is obvious. We don't know much about how the ETHER behaves after all, since they "did away with" the Ether years ago, even though it never stopped existing. We just know nothing about it now.

Knickebein bombing radar, on the other hand, conclusively falsifies the Globe model. There is no excuse or explanation.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #12 on:** May 13, 2025, 10:05:09 PM »

You know, pope benedict tried to explain that V2 only looked anti-orthodox, but wasn't really. He called it the "Hermeneutic of Continuity" with Tradition. Most 'conservatives' didn't buy it. They got was he was trying to do, but the elephant in the room was still V2.

Had benedict simply said that V2 looked anti-traditional because of "refraction", then that would've solved everything.

1. Why did the 3rd building seem to fall down on 9.11 without being touched? Refraction.
2. Why did it appear that there were multiple shooters on the grassy knoll? Refraction.
3. "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. Well, refraction makes it seem like I did." -- It really does explain everything.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #13 on:** May 13, 2025, 10:47:32 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 13, 2025, 07:24:25 PM

There is obviously something different about how VHF and higher radio signals propagate, vs. lower frequency signals.

Long story short, lower frequencies tend to "hug the earth", such that for optimal AM reception, you really need to have your receiver grounded, and elevation isn't really an issue. VHF and UHF don't do this, they follow line of sight (pretty much so), and there is also "knife-edge" propagation, such that signals carom off of ridges and mountaintops (the "knife edges), and are reflected into valleys and such on the other side of the mountain. There can also be multiple knife edges, such that the signal from the first knife edge ricochets onto the other knife edge and beyond, and theoretically this can continue for a great distance if your knife edges are lined up just so.

There was a TV station in San Luis Obispo, California that could be received all the way to Nevada (at least in certain spots) due to the effect of the mountains that surrounded the San Joaquin Valley. TV viewers in mountain valleys are heavily reliant upon knife-edge propagation, they certainly can't do LOS, simply because that mountain is in the way. I grew up in an area that was kind of down in a bowl, and we didn't have LOS for anything except the local public TV transmitter. Stations 20 miles away had to reach us via knife-edge off the hilltops that surrounded the valley.

Predestination2 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 14, 2025, 12:42:20 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 13, 2025, 10:05:09 PM

You know, pope benedict tried to explain that V2 only looked anti-orthodox, but wasn't really. He called it the "Hermeneutic of Continuity" with Tradition. Most 'conservatives' didn't buy it. They got was he was trying to do, but the elephant in the room was still V2.

Had benedict simply said that V2 looked anti-traditional because of "refraction", then that would've solved everything.

1. Why did the 3rd building seem to fall down on 9.11 without being touched? Refraction.
2. Why did it appear that there were multiple shooters on the grassy knoll? Refraction.
3. "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. Well, refraction makes it seem like I did." -- It really does explain everything.

44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, it was refraction which made it seem as if we saw thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee!

Author Topic: See Too Far on VHF handheld (Read 1767 times)

Matthew

See Too Far on VHF handheld

Matthew

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

St Giles

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

SimpleMan

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

Matthew

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

Pax Vobis

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

SimpleMan

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

Ladislaus

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

Ladislaus

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

Predestination2

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

Matthew

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

Matthew

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

Pax Vobis

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

SimpleMan

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld

Predestination2

Re: See Too Far on VHF handheld