The ISS is a Gulfstream jet.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2016, 06:40:05 AM

Quote from: TylerJRB on February 24, 2016, 06:35:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2016, 06:25:09 AM

Quote from: TylerJRB on February 24, 2016, 06:16:54 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 24, 2016, 06:07:06 AM

Quote from: TylerJRB on February 24, 2016, 06:03:04 AM

I too have seen it several times over the past few years. Both with my eyes and with an inexpensive pair of binoculars and small 6" telescope.

Liar.

6" mirror you idiot. Its called a skywatcher 150p. Had it for about 3-4 years now.

Another typical weakling. Cannot bear to be left out of the spot the space station brigade. Give it up for crying out loud.
You've seen as much of the space station as you have of the star-ship enterprise. 

hahaha, and your valid point is? when you have never even seen it yourself? I suggest you actually look at it through a similar instrument and come back with a valid argument.

Regards to your other point? as you can see it was scott kelly who is coming to his final year onboard the space station. Everyone has fun from time to time. And no as you claimed. Expensive equipment is not being damaged.

I'd like your opinion on how they are weightless then? if they are not orbiting the earth?

I'd like your opinion on how this person appears weightless.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

Compared to this? lol you are as retarded as papa.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

That's about the answer I expected. Case closed. Start living in the real world instead of the fantasy one; that way you'll start to see stuff hidden in plain sight.

Quote from: TylerJRB on February 24, 2016, 06:38:44 AM

Lol australia? what makes you think this?

Cos you said so you crank.

Quote from: TylerJRB on February 24, 2016, 06:38:44 AM

And why couldnt I view it in my telescope? 32mm eyepiece and it is easy to track by hand.

No it is not.

Just stop lying & stealing for your rotten living will you?

I never said such a thing.

I'm not lying at all, i HAVE. Stealing what exactly?

Quote from: TylerJRB on February 24, 2016, 06:43:27 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2016, 06:40:05 AM

Quote from: TylerJRB on February 24, 2016, 06:35:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2016, 06:25:09 AM

Quote from: TylerJRB on February 24, 2016, 06:16:54 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 24, 2016, 06:07:06 AM

Quote from: TylerJRB on February 24, 2016, 06:03:04 AM

I too have seen it several times over the past few years. Both with my eyes and with an inexpensive pair of binoculars and small 6" telescope.

Liar.

6" mirror you idiot. Its called a skywatcher 150p. Had it for about 3-4 years now.

Another typical weakling. Cannot bear to be left out of the spot the space station brigade. Give it up for crying out loud.
You've seen as much of the space station as you have of the star-ship enterprise. 

hahaha, and your valid point is? when you have never even seen it yourself? I suggest you actually look at it through a similar instrument and come back with a valid argument.

Regards to your other point? as you can see it was scott kelly who is coming to his final year onboard the space station. Everyone has fun from time to time. And no as you claimed. Expensive equipment is not being damaged.

I'd like your opinion on how they are weightless then? if they are not orbiting the earth?

I'd like your opinion on how this person appears weightless.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

Compared to this? lol you are as retarded as papa.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

That's about the answer I expected. Case closed. Start living in the real world instead of the fantasy one; that way you'll start to see stuff hidden in plain sight.

case closed? lol i'm still awaiting my answer. How are they weightless?

All the shills have avoided this suggestion.

Which makes me think it's a very good idea...

I suggested earlier that it'd be better to point a powerful directional/parabolic microphone at the ISS than a telescope.

Anyone out there with one should give it a go; if it's in shpayze you shouldn't hear any engine noise, should you?

But I bet you will...

And TylerJRB; never heard of being an accessory to a crime?

Stop lying & stealing, okay?

It is ILLEGAL.

All the shills have avoided this suggestion.

Which makes me think it's a very good idea...

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 24, 2016, 05:16:54 AM

I suggested earlier that it'd be better to point a powerful directional/parabolic microphone at the ISS than a telescope.

Anyone out there with one should give it a go; if it's in shpayze you shouldn't hear any engine noise, should you?

But I bet you will...

And TylerJRB; never heard of being an accessory to a crime?

Stop lying & stealing, okay?

It is ILLEGAL.

A microphone? You claimed you could tell the ISS was a Gulfstream. Not just a plane but you could tell what make the plane was. Now it's better to point a microphone instead?

Why don't you do that, publish your findings and change the world forever.

Yep, I KNEW you retards'd hate the idea.

I don't have to do it though.

I don't have to do a damn thing in fact.

I have observed that a Gulfstream jet is capable of imitating the ISS.

I have observed that my reporting of this observation sent a nest of disinfo-shills into a frenzy of denial.

I know for a fact that the ISS is a physically-impossible object.

I know for a fact that you cannot see an object the size the ISS is claimed to be from 250 miles away.

I know for a fact that both NASA & the ESA use Gulfstream jets.

I have concluded from these facts that the ISS is very likely a Gulfstream jet.

With a spotlight/projector system of some sort attached.

I do not care what any of you think; you are nothing to me.

Toodle-pip, Losers!

I have concluded from these facts that the ISS is very likely a Gulfstream jet.

With a spotlight/projector system of some sort attached.

So based on seeing something in the wrong place at the wrong time that does not match the description of what amateur astrophotographers regularly show, you think you have shown the ISS is fake.

Ladies and gentlemen, Papa Lagba!

So based on seeing something in the wrong place at the wrong time that the ISS turning up precisely 12 hours late and does not match the description of what amateur astrophotographers regularly show exactly matching many amateur videos on youtube you think you have shown the ISS is fake.

Ladies and gentlemen, Papa Lagba! I am a shill!

Fixed your bullshit for you markjo.

I'm waiting for Papa to call me someone else here.

the ISS turning up precisely 12 hours late

This is what I said, not at the time predicted.

exactly matching many amateur videos on youtube

But does it look like what astrophotographers have seen?  Because those are not gulf stream jets.

Fixed your bullshit for you markjo.

Lets do a little calculation shall we?

Lowest altitude of mid-level clouds (since you claimed it came through a cloud): 1.98kms

Distance at which it appears on horizon: 159kms (per wolfram alpha)

Maximum length to travel horizon to horizon: 318kms

Time to traverse sky: 5 minutes

Velocity needed to traverse sky: 3,800 km/h!

Seeing as the gulfstream is a subsonic jet, it appears that what you observed is impossible.   Perhaps you want to rethink your position?

Lowest altitude of mid-level clouds (since you claimed it came through a cloud): 1.98kms

Said it was a cirrus, Liar.

A low-ish one to be precise, Liar.

About average for Gulfstream cruising altitude in fact, Liar.

So that's you done there & then, Liar.

Don't try to get one over Legba, Liar.

Told you that, Liar.

You finished now, Liar.

Cos you twisting facts to defend your fake ISS, Liar.

And you'd only do that if you had something to hide, Liar.

And what you hiding is that the ISS is a Gulfstream jet, Liar.

Toodle-pip, Liar.

You know a citrus cloud typically is found at 6kms in altitude and has a minimum altitude of 5kms which only makes for a larger velocity?

I purposefully chose constraints that would give a lower limit on velocity.

It looks like your theory has a serious problem.

I like how papa cliams how he cares little what we think, yet he is the biggest attention whore on the forum.

Maybe papa should put more effort into saving his marriage 

Quote from: Big Fat Sock Puppet LIAR on February 24, 2016, 09:06:32 AM

Lowest altitude of mid-level clouds (since you claimed it came through a cloud): 1.98kms

Said it was a cirrus, Liar.

A low-ish one to be precise, Liar.

About average for Gulfstream cruising altitude in fact, Liar.

So that's you done there & then, Liar.

Don't try to get one over Legba, Liar.

Told you that, Liar.

You finished now, Liar.

Cos you twisting facts to defend your fake ISS, Liar.

And you'd only do that if you had something to hide, Liar.

And what you hiding is that the ISS is a Gulfstream jet, Liar.

Toodle-pip, Liar.

Notice you you had to ignore most of his post? Yeah you were destroyed.

The one point he focused on ended up hindering his cause too.  I hope he lets it die on the vine now.

You know a citrus cloud

LOL!!!

Fruit-flavoured clouds now?

You IDIOT.

You lot have no idea what any kind of aircraft looks like flying at any speed or any altitude...

You are complete morons & are just making shit up & pulling words & figures out of your asses whilst cheering each other on.

It's like the Special fucking Olympics here; do you each get a lollipop every time you post or something?

YOU asked me to look at the ISS; IT DID NOT ARRIVE.

Keep ignoring that little fact, don't you?

IT DIDN'T TURN UP ON TIME.

Where was it then; hiding behind a 'citrus cloud' at 2.98km or something?

LOL!!!

And what DID turn up, precisely 12 hours late in typically shoddy NASA fashion, was a Gulfstream with a spotlight that looked EXACTLY LIKE THE ISS.

DON'T THAT GIVE YOU A CLUE WHAT'S REALLY UP THERE?

You HOPELESS bunch!

Just GTFO, clowns.

  I hope he lets it die on the vine now.

Oh, I'll bet you do...

'Citrus clouds'...

LMFAO!!!

So how do you explain all the amateur photos of the ISS?

'Amateur photos'; GTFO!

Quote from: Total Buffoon on February 24, 2016, 09:57:11 AM

You know a citrus cloud

LOL!!!

Fruit-flavoured clouds now?

You IDIOT.

Calm down.  Auto-correct is a thing on phones.

You lot have no idea what any kind of aircraft looks like flying at any speed or any altitude...

You are complete morons & are just making shit up & pulling words & figures out of your asses whilst cheering each other on.

It's like the Special fucking Olympics here; do you each get a lollipop every time you post or something?

Calm.  Down.  You sound very angry.

YOU asked me to look at the ISS; IT DID NOT ARRIVE.

Keep ignoring that little fact, don't you?

No.  I have repeatedly ask you to substantiate your claim.  Maybe you made a mistake.  I can't really say.  Considering the vitriol and ardor you display, I can not trust you to be unbiased.

IT DIDN'T TURN UP ON TIME.

Where was it then; hiding behind a 'citrus cloud' at 2.98km or something?

LOL!!!

Maybe it was behind a cirrus cloud.  That sounds like a perfectly good reason for it not being where you expect it.

And what DID turn up, precisely 12 hours late in typically shoddy NASA fashion, was a Gulfstream with a spotlight that looked EXACTLY LIKE THE ISS.

DON'T THAT GIVE YOU A CLUE WHAT'S REALLY UP THERE?

You HOPELESS bunch!

Just GTFO, clowns.

I just showed you that what you saw does not match any accounts of the ISS based on the amount of time it takes to cross the sky at the altitude you are claiming.  Can you do anything with that other than criticize a simple spelling error?

Quote from: Total Buffoon on February 24, 2016, 10:57:13 AM

  I hope he lets it die on the vine now.

Oh, I'll bet you do...

'Citrus clouds'...

LMFAO!!!

We can keep batting this around, no difference to me, but your claim of seeing it 12 hours later coming from the wrong direction and being a gulfstream jet is obviously incorrect.  I hope you can do more than harp on spelling errors, but I somehow doubt you will offer anything of substance.

'Amateur photos'; GTFO!

Amatuer photos trump your amateur observation without substantiation.  Especially when the amateur photos match the official description of the ISS.

Amatuer photos trump your amateur observation without substantiation.

LOL!!!

You seem to think this is a courtroom.

It is not.

I will tell you how things are; because I know how things work.

You do not.

The ISS should be the greatest engineering miracle of mankind.

Every single aspect of its construction should be recorded in minute detail.

But it is not.

There is no evidence of it even being 'constructed'.

One day it was not there; the next it was.

It does not exist because it cannot exist.

Therefore the light we see in the sky cannot be the ISS.

I have observed it & it is a Gulfstream jet with a spotlight.

That is all.

Goodnight!

Quote from: Citrus Cloud Spammer on February 24, 2016, 12:34:25 PM

Amatuer photos trump your amateur observation without substantiation.

LOL!!!

You seem to think this is a courtroom.

It is not.

No, I just trust sources with substance.

I will tell you how things are; because I know how things work.

You do not.

Then please show me how a Gulfstream jet traveling at an altitude of 2kms can cross the visible portion of sky in five minutes.  If you can do that, I will take your claim more seriously.

The ISS should be the greatest engineering miracle of mankind.

Every single aspect of its construction should be recorded in minute detail.

But it is not.

There is no evidence of it even being 'constructed'.

One day it was not there; the next it was.

Or it took multiple missions over a number of years. that are all documented.  If you don't trust the source that is something else, but your claim is false.

It does not exist because it cannot exist.

Therefore the light we see in the sky cannot be the ISS.

You mean to say: you think it does not exist because you believe it can not exist.  Don't overstate what you have achieved on this little corner of the internet.

I have observed it & it is a Gulfstream jet with a spotlight.

I have shown that that could not explain the observed flight paths of the ISS. 

That is all.

Goodnight!

Goodnight!

What has fruit flavoured clouds have to do with Western Low Land Gorillas taking over the Internations Space Station? Time to switch on the infinite improbabliity drive?



New HD live stream is here.   Live_ISS_Stream on USTREAM: Live video from the International Space Station includes internal views when the crew is on-duty and Earth views at other times...   

The fact that they even sent a gorilla suit up to the ISS shows how ridiculous it is.

But you won't get that, being a psychopathic liar & all...

No, I just trust sources with substance.

So do I; my own eyes.

And my own eyes tell me that a Gulfstream with a spotlight is capable of imitating the ISS.

Also, your link is total bullshit.

It gives no meaningful data whatsoever on the construction of the ISS.

Because there is none.

Just as there is no meaningful data on the 'science experiments' they allegedly do up there.

It is a sham.

And you cannot see an object the size of a football field from 250 miles away anyway.

Anyone who claims you can is either lying or insane...

We both know which one you are.

Toodle-pip, LIAR!

Quote from: markjo on February 24, 2016, 02:11:27 PM

No, I just trust sources with substance.

So do I; my own eyes.

And my own eyes tell me that a Gulfstream with a spotlight is capable of imitating the ISS.

Except a gulfstream jet is incapable of traveling fast enough to transit the sky in five minutes, as I have shown, and you have not addressed.

Also, your link is total bullshit.

It gives no meaningful data whatsoever on the construction of the ISS.

Which does not mean that there is none.  It was meant to show that within 30 seconds of dealing with your claim I could begin to take it apart, as flimsy as it is.

Because there is none.

Prove it.

Just as there is no meaningful data on the 'science experiments' they allegedly do up there.

It is a sham.

Prove it.

And you cannot see an object the size of a football field from 250 miles away anyway.

If it is sufficiently bright, you can see it, but not with much detail.  This is why viewing of the ISS is recommended at sundown so that it is reflecting maximum sunlight to your eyes.  Add a telescope to the mix and you can see some of the images that are incredibly common.  Oh by the way, have you found any "ISS-geeks" on the record complaining that it is traveling in the wrong direction? 

Anyone who claims you can is either lying or insane...

We both know which one you are.

Toodle-pip, LIAR!

We can see stars from quadrillions of kms away, I don't know why you think this scale is so special.

Anyway, we know the Gulfstream jet you saw was not imitating the ISS, because they can't travel fast enough.  It is cut and dry and you have yet to provide a viable refutation.

There was likely some other issue in your initial viewing; or maybe there wasn't.  You should really try it again and document it this time.

Except a gulfstream jet is incapable of traveling fast enough to transit the sky in five minutes, as I have shown, and you have not addressed

Lie & Lie.

I told you that you know absolutely nothing about airplanes or the fake ISS & are just making shit up.

Because you are.

Which does not mean that there is none.

You don't have any & you work for these scum.

So yes, there is none.

Prove it.

Your onus, weasel.

Prove it.

Your onus again, weasel.

If it is sufficiently bright, you can see it

It'd have to be burning like a magnesium flare to be visible from 250 miles away you retard.

IS the ISS burning like a magnesium flare?

You should really try it again and document it this time.

Lol no!

Wasted enough time on bullshit thanks.

The ISS is a Gulfstream jet with a spotlight stuck to it.

You disinfo-shills wouldn't all be going mental if I was wrong.

Toodle-pip, Loser!

You can see an object 250 miles away quite easily.

You can see saturn through a small telescope, enough detail to see the clouds, the moons and the ring itself. That is 116,464km wide at a minimum distance of 1,200,000,000km.

ISS is 73 metres long at a distance of 400km.

What does that tell you about what you can and cannot see?

And I asked before if the ISS is fake, how are they weightless?

You can see an object 250 miles away quite easily.

An object the size of a footy field?

GTFO.

And I asked before if the ISS is fake, how are they weightless?

How are WHO weightless?

The pilots of the Gulfstream?

GTFO.

No evidence of how it was built; no evidence of any science being done on it; just a light in the sky to build a sci-fi fantasy round.

Yeah; sounds legit.

Toodle-pip, Trekkies!

I suggested earlier that it'd be better to point a powerful directional/parabolic microphone at the ISS than a telescope.

Anyone out there with one should give it a go; if it's in shpayze you shouldn't hear any engine noise, should you?

But I bet you will...

I asked my friend in Dubai to do just that recently (no passes near me unfortunately).

This is what he heard. Seriously.

 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

There's a whole fracking menagerie of apes up there, not just the one gorilla!

Quote from: TylerJRB on February 25, 2016, 03:07:47 AM

You can see an object 250 miles away quite easily.

An object the size of a footy field?

GTFO.

Quote from: TylerJRB on February 25, 2016, 03:07:47 AM

And I asked before if the ISS is fake, how are they weightless?

How are WHO weightless?

The pilots of the Gulfstream?

GTFO.

No evidence of how it was built; no evidence of any science being done on it; just a light in the sky to build a sci-fi fantasy round.

Yeah; sounds legit.

Toodle-pip, Trekkies!

You've now had 2 examples that common everyday of objects with a smaller angular diameter than the ISS that are seen in the sky.

As for the construction and science issues, how hard have you looked?  What evidence are you willing to accept?