# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: The Knowledge on August 14, 2012, 03:40:28 PM

Title: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 14, 2012, 03:40:28 PM
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/ (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/)

From this page, you can easily link to your own location to check visible sightings of the International Space Station, which is variously claimed by the weak minded FE'ers on this site to be an aircraft, a ghost, a magic projection, or a figment of the imagination.
I have twice this week checked out the data for my location with my own eyes. (i.e a ZETETIC OBSERVATION). It was 100% accurate regarding the position and duration of the sighting. This shows the data is not fictional, regardless of how much Tom starts babbling that it's based on a mathematical model and therefore a lie. The fact is, the prediction has been shown to match reality.
The astute will be ahead of me already on how this dents FET, but for the simple souls such as Thork, the problem FET is faced with is one of triangulation. If you know where you are, and another observer knows where they are, and they can both see the ISS at the position it's predicted to be in from their location, then simple trigonometry can give you a good estimation of the height of the ISS and how fast it's going. It doesn't take much calculation to show that this thing is higher and faster than an aircraft, and what's more, combine these observations with data from any home astronomy program (I use Redshift) and you can see it pass into the shadow of the earth at exactly the correct place for where the sun is supposed to be located relative to the earth's surface.
We all know FET is made up garbage, but it always satisfies me to toss in yet more disproof.  8)
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: dado on August 14, 2012, 04:21:09 PM
Great stuff...
Thork, Tom Bishop, do not dispair, Creationist community will gladly accept you as their followers.
Please close this site and thanks for a good fight.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: dado on August 14, 2012, 04:24:20 PM
Oh no, wait, one last try with something called .......
PSEUDO-ISS?!?!
ANTI-ISS???

No? Nevermind.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on August 14, 2012, 08:06:29 PM
I regularly check ISS predictions for my area and I show my family. Alaways bang on time. It was the same for the Space Shuttle. So sattllites and Space travle are varified.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 14, 2012, 08:48:03 PM
I've seen the "ISS" through my telescope. That you can actually believe its a 227 ton man made object in space is laughable at best. How gullible can you really get?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on August 14, 2012, 08:55:42 PM
I've seen the "ISS" through my telescope. That you can actually believe its a 227 ton man made object in space is laughable at best. How gullible can you really get?

So you're saying that seeing isn't believing?  ???
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 14, 2012, 09:19:54 PM
I've seen the "ISS" through my telescope. That you can actually believe its a 227 ton man made object in space is laughable at best. How gullible can you really get?

So you're saying that seeing isn't believing?  ???

Even at high magnification the ISS looks like a cardboard kite. Saying that small speck is a space station is like pointing at a Chinese lantern and claiming it is an alien ship.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2012, 09:28:04 PM
The astute will be ahead of me already on how this dents FET, but for the simple souls such as Thork, the problem FET is faced with is one of triangulation. If you know where you are, and another observer knows where they are, and they can both see the ISS at the position it's predicted to be in from their location, then simple trigonometry can give you a good estimation of the height of the ISS and how fast it's going. It doesn't take much calculation to show that this thing is higher and faster than an aircraft, and what's more, combine these observations with data from any home astronomy program (I use Redshift) and you can see it pass into the shadow of the earth at exactly the correct place for where the sun is supposed to be located relative to the earth's surface.

So stop posting and actually do one of these thought experiments then. We get people here every day saying "if you do this... this will happen" and then think that they won.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on August 14, 2012, 09:35:01 PM
I've seen the "ISS" through my telescope. That you can actually believe its a 227 ton man made object in space is laughable at best. How gullible can you really get?

What is it then exactly?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 14, 2012, 10:51:53 PM
I've seen the "ISS" through my telescope. That you can actually believe its a 227 ton man made object in space is laughable at best. How gullible can you really get?

What is it then exactly?

I haven't gathered enough observational evidence to show what it is, only what it isn't, and it isn't a space station.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on August 15, 2012, 12:22:20 AM
I've seen the "ISS" through my telescope. That you can actually believe its a 227 ton man made object in space is laughable at best. How gullible can you really get?

What is it then exactly?

I haven't gathered enough observational evidence to show what it is, only what it isn't, and it isn't a space station.

We have all our evidence, why havn't you? It's not good enough for you to say I don't know, then tell us that it's not. Why then was the Shuttle visible when it was scheduled for space flight, then gone once landed?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: iwanttobelieve on August 15, 2012, 01:06:10 AM
until disproven, space flight is very possible.
otherwise we would be crashing into the sun.
objects in space are also affected by the UA
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: dado on August 15, 2012, 03:42:53 AM
I've seen the "ISS" through my telescope. That you can actually believe its a 227 ton man made object in space is laughable at best. How gullible can you really get?

So you're saying that seeing isn't believing?  ???

Even at high magnification the ISS looks like a cardboard kite. Saying that small speck is a space station is like pointing at a Chinese lantern and claiming it is an alien ship.
Surely you realize that a speck can weight 227 tons since you are observing it from a great deal of distance?
How about this, try to observe other objects, or cut down magnification and climb a mountain and observe something else close to that weight... Buildings, bridges, etc... Will they be half the size of a speck if you decrease magnification...
Ever thought of that...

In any case, if ISS is up there, no matter if it was cardboard or actual 227 ton ISS, how come it manages to be up there with this FE laws?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 04:55:36 AM
The astute will be ahead of me already on how this dents FET, but for the simple souls such as Thork, the problem FET is faced with is one of triangulation. If you know where you are, and another observer knows where they are, and they can both see the ISS at the position it's predicted to be in from their location, then simple trigonometry can give you a good estimation of the height of the ISS and how fast it's going. It doesn't take much calculation to show that this thing is higher and faster than an aircraft, and what's more, combine these observations with data from any home astronomy program (I use Redshift) and you can see it pass into the shadow of the earth at exactly the correct place for where the sun is supposed to be located relative to the earth's surface.

So stop posting and actually do one of these thought experiments then. We get people here every day saying "if you do this... this will happen" and then think that they won.

Er, have you STILL not learned to read? Did you see the bit that says that I made zetetic observations myself? The experiment has been done, idiot. If you'd like to see some maths on it:
Altitude from southern England: 40 degrees
Altitude on same pass seen from western Wales: 71 degrees.
Distance between these two observation points is roughly 325km. If the ISS position is taken as the point of a triangle and the observation sites as the other two points, that gives an angle between the two lines of sight of 69 degrees. This is therefore not far off an isoceles triangle, which means that
the minimum distance the ISS could be from the ground to create this view is somewhere around 200km - which would be if the plane of the triangle was perpendicular to a line between the two observing locations. However, it's not, it's actually leaning over somewhat, which means the triangle plane described between these three points is "stretched out" in the direction of the ISS. I'm not sure what mathematics is required in order to account for this, presumably by adding in a third observation point, say from mid Scotland at 25 degrees. Then you can create a tetrahedron with only one possible vertex position, but I'm not sure exactly how that is calculated. However, even my simple working out has given a minimum height above the ground well above that of aircraft.
If anyone can do more precise calculations, please feel free to correct me.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 04:58:43 AM
I've seen the "ISS" through my telescope. That you can actually believe its a 227 ton man made object in space is laughable at best. How gullible can you really get?

Argumentum ad ridiculum - "it can't be true because I think it's silly"
Tell me, sticky skinned youth, what telescope did you use to observe the ISS, and how did you guide it? Because I think you're telling lies.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 15, 2012, 06:28:19 AM
Argumentum ad ridiculum - "it can't be true because I think it's silly"

Please do not put words in my mouth. It simply shows you're incapable of finding a real point to make.

Tell me, sticky skinned youth, what telescope did you use to observe the ISS, and how did you guide it? Because I think you're telling lies.

Irrelevant.

Surely you realize that a speck can weight 227 tons since you are observing it from a great deal of distance?
How about this, try to observe other objects, or cut down magnification and climb a mountain and observe something else close to that weight... Buildings, bridges, etc... Will they be half the size of a speck if you decrease magnification...
Ever thought of that...

In any case, if ISS is up there, no matter if it was cardboard or actual 227 ton ISS, how come it manages to be up there with this FE laws?

That is your only reason? It can therefore it does? Why do RE'ers always resort to this invalid reasoning? "The Earth could be round, therefore it is!"

How silly.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: iwanttobelieve on August 15, 2012, 06:32:25 AM
The An-225 Mriya jet flew just fine at a maximum weight of around 275 tons.
There should be no reason they couldnt get 275 tons into space.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 07:16:23 AM
Argumentum ad ridiculum - "it can't be true because I think it's silly"

Please do not put words in my mouth. It simply shows you're incapable of finding a real point to make.

Tell me, sticky skinned youth, what telescope did you use to observe the ISS, and how did you guide it? Because I think you're telling lies.

Irrelevant.

That wasn't putting words in your mouth, it was a demonstrative example of the principle of argumentum ad ridiculum, for those who don't understand it, like yourself. (If you understood it you wouldn't do it, QED.) As for finding a real point to make - I started this thread. I made quite a big point there, don't you think? Then I did some maths. What have YOU contributed other than argumentum ad ridiculum?
And no, it's perfectly relevant that I think you're telling lies because you are basing your silly argument on observations you claim to have made. To expect information regarding these observations is both reasonable and relevant.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 15, 2012, 07:55:42 AM
That wasn't putting words in your mouth, it was a demonstrative example of the principle of argumentum ad ridiculum, for those who don't understand it, like yourself. (If you understood it you wouldn't do it, QED.) As for finding a real point to make - I started this thread. I made quite a big point there, don't you think? Then I did some maths. What have YOU contributed other than argumentum ad ridiculum?
And no, it's perfectly relevant that I think you're telling lies because you are basing your silly argument on observations you claim to have made. To expect information regarding these observations is both reasonable and relevant.

So, you had no real point to make, noted.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 15, 2012, 08:16:27 AM
There were only 2 days last year when the supposed location of the ISS didn't match what I observed so I believe it is fairly reliable. However, it looks an awful lot like a plane when I was using a telescope.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 15, 2012, 09:15:08 AM
There were only 2 days last year when the supposed location of the ISS didn't match what I observed so I believe it is fairly reliable. However, it looks an awful lot like a plane when I was using a telescope.

Still on the "it looks like... therefore it is..."

I wonder how you can perform any science.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 15, 2012, 09:20:09 AM
Well there is no reason one set of the solar panel branches should appear larger than a commercial jet in my telescope. Especially at the supposed distance above earth.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 15, 2012, 09:21:13 AM
There were only 2 days last year when the supposed location of the ISS didn't match what I observed so I believe it is fairly reliable. However, it looks an awful lot like a plane when I was using a telescope.

Still on the "it looks like... therefore it is..."

I wonder how you can perform any science.
Doesn't apply since I never said "therefore it is" anything. I'll give you a couple of days to come up with a better comeback.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 15, 2012, 09:22:40 AM
There were only 2 days last year when the supposed location of the ISS didn't match what I observed so I believe it is fairly reliable. However, it looks an awful lot like a plane when I was using a telescope.

Still on the "it looks like... therefore it is..."

I wonder how you can perform any science.
Doesn't apply since I never said "therefore it is" anything. I'll give you a couple of days to come up with a better comeback.

You implied it very hard.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on August 15, 2012, 09:26:00 AM
Well there is no reason one set of the solar panel branches should appear larger than a commercial jet in my telescope. Especially at the supposed distance above earth.

Why not?  First of all, how do you know that it's just one set of solar panels that you're seeing? Also, the solar panels on the ISS are much more reflective than a commercial jet (especially at night).
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 09:35:18 AM
That wasn't putting words in your mouth, it was a demonstrative example of the principle of argumentum ad ridiculum, for those who don't understand it, like yourself. (If you understood it you wouldn't do it, QED.) As for finding a real point to make - I started this thread. I made quite a big point there, don't you think? Then I did some maths. What have YOU contributed other than argumentum ad ridiculum?
And no, it's perfectly relevant that I think you're telling lies because you are basing your silly argument on observations you claim to have made. To expect information regarding these observations is both reasonable and relevant.

So, you had no real point to make, noted.

So you have no reading ability, noted.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 09:36:45 AM
There were only 2 days last year when the supposed location of the ISS didn't match what I observed so I believe it is fairly reliable. However, it looks an awful lot like a plane when I was using a telescope.

Please tell us what telescope you used, what level of magnification, and by what method you tracked the ISS with the telescope. Sticky Pig Boy was asked this and failed to provide any information, can you do better?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 15, 2012, 09:44:17 AM
Celestron 6 inch Newt. reflector, sky align tracking version 4.2
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 15, 2012, 09:45:39 AM
Well there is no reason one set of the solar panel branches should appear larger than a commercial jet in my telescope. Especially at the supposed distance above earth.

Why not?  First of all, how do you know that it's just one set of solar panels that you're seeing? Also, the solar panels on the ISS are much more reflective than a commercial jet (especially at night).
Since when is brighter=bigger  ???
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 09:45:52 AM
Celestron 6 inch Newt. reflector, sky align tracking version 4.2

And the magnification, as requested?

I'm also curious how you were able to get the telescope to track the ISS across the sky accurately, since from the information I can find the Sky Align tracking system has sidereal, lunar and solar tracking speeds but not one for the variable speed of the ISS. Especially since whatever magnification you were using, it would have to be pretty powerful to pick out details on the ISS. So hardly any margin for error in tracking.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on August 15, 2012, 10:28:50 AM
Well there is no reason one set of the solar panel branches should appear larger than a commercial jet in my telescope. Especially at the supposed distance above earth.

Why not?  First of all, how do you know that it's just one set of solar panels that you're seeing? Also, the solar panels on the ISS are much more reflective than a commercial jet (especially at night).
Since when is brighter=bigger  ???

I don't know.  Perhaps about the time that larger reflectors became able to reflect more light than smaller reflectors.  Now would you care to answer my questions to you?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 15, 2012, 10:56:24 AM
2mm with moon grade dif. filter.

Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 15, 2012, 11:01:36 AM
Celestron 6 inch Newt. reflector, sky align tracking version 4.2

And the magnification, as requested?

I'm also curious how you were able to get the telescope to track the ISS across the sky accurately, since from the information I can find the Sky Align tracking system has sidereal, lunar and solar tracking speeds but not one for the variable speed of the ISS. Especially since whatever magnification you were using, it would have to be pretty powerful to pick out details on the ISS. So hardly any margin for error in tracking.
I have to do a manual input, which sucks using skyalign because it isn't really made for it, so I can get a little bit of viewing time before it goes outside of my FOV
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 15, 2012, 11:18:58 AM
Celestron 6 inch Newt. reflector, sky align tracking version 4.2

And the magnification, as requested?

I'm also curious how you were able to get the telescope to track the ISS across the sky accurately, since from the information I can find the Sky Align tracking system has sidereal, lunar and solar tracking speeds but not one for the variable speed of the ISS. Especially since whatever magnification you were using, it would have to be pretty powerful to pick out details on the ISS. So hardly any margin for error in tracking.
I have to do a manual input, which sucks using skyalign because it isn't really made for it, so I can get a little bit of viewing time before it goes outside of my FOV

Yes, I'd imagine you can probably manage a whole one or two seconds with it visible.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: yagerasrehtreatalf on August 15, 2012, 11:29:13 AM
The ISS as seen from earth. http://www.perseus.gr/Images/sat-iss-20100529-labels.jpg (http://www.perseus.gr/Images/sat-iss-20100529-labels.jpg) (Note: the picture shows the ISS twice(once earlier in the morning(9am) and then moments later in the morning.) The other object in the frame is Jupiter)

An Airplane as seen from earth. http://jamesmarse.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/buna-035.jpg (http://jamesmarse.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/buna-035.jpg)

Now is obvious the ISS looks nothing like a jetliner.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 15, 2012, 11:35:04 AM
The ISS as seen from earth. http://www.perseus.gr/Images/sat-iss-20100529-labels.jpg (http://www.perseus.gr/Images/sat-iss-20100529-labels.jpg) (Note: the picture shows the ISS twice(once earlier in the morning(9am) and then moments later in the morning.) The other object in the frame is Jupiter)

Do not click this link. It attempts a javascript intrusion on your computer.

An Airplane as seen from earth. http://jamesmarse.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/buna-035.jpg (http://jamesmarse.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/buna-035.jpg)

Now is obvious the ISS looks nothing like a jetliner.

Because airplanes don't come in various shapes and sizes?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: yagerasrehtreatalf on August 15, 2012, 11:47:59 AM
The ISS as seen from earth. http://www.perseus.gr/Images/sat-iss-20100529-labels.jpg (http://www.perseus.gr/Images/sat-iss-20100529-labels.jpg) (Note: the picture shows the ISS twice(once earlier in the morning(9am) and then moments later in the morning.) The other object in the frame is Jupiter)

Do not click this link. It attempts a javascript intrusion on your computer.

An Airplane as seen from earth. http://jamesmarse.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/buna-035.jpg (http://jamesmarse.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/buna-035.jpg)

Now is obvious the ISS looks nothing like a jetliner.

Because airplanes don't come in various shapes and sizes?

Hmmm. trying to hide the evidence by lying about a picture found from Google trying to run a java-script. God you flatearthers a pathetic.

Also http://static5.depositphotos.com/1017265/521/i/450/dep_5212670-Airplanes-in-the-sky.jpg (http://static5.depositphotos.com/1017265/521/i/450/dep_5212670-Airplanes-in-the-sky.jpg)
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/d7-JAI1vc5o/0.jpg (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/d7-JAI1vc5o/0.jpg)
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/ISS_747_comparison.gif (http://www.daviddarling.info/images/ISS_747_comparison.gif)
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 15, 2012, 12:17:32 PM
Hmmm. trying to hide the evidence by lying about a picture found from Google trying to run a java-script. God you flatearthers a pathetic.

I've already reported you for posting a link to a malicious site. I can show the antivirus and Firefox NoScript warning to mods if needed. Getting angry about a debate is one thing, trying to disrupt someone else's property and then continuing to do so is simply crossing the line. Please take your script kiddie shenanigans elsewhere.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on August 15, 2012, 01:10:39 PM
2mm with moon grade dif. filter.

What am I wrong about?  ???
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:34:48 PM
Hmmm. trying to hide the evidence by lying about a picture found from Google trying to run a java-script. God you flatearthers a pathetic.

I've already reported you for posting a link to a malicious site. I can show the antivirus and Firefox NoScript warning to mods if needed. Getting angry about a debate is one thing, trying to disrupt someone else's property and then continuing to do so is simply crossing the line. Please take your script kiddie shenanigans elsewhere.

you are, hands down, the worst internet troll I've ever come across.  Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on August 15, 2012, 02:58:47 PM
Hmmm. trying to hide the evidence by lying about a picture found from Google trying to run a java-script. God you flatearthers a pathetic.

I've already reported you for posting a link to a malicious site. I can show the antivirus and Firefox NoScript warning to mods if needed. Getting angry about a debate is one thing, trying to disrupt someone else's property and then continuing to do so is simply crossing the line. Please take your script kiddie shenanigans elsewhere.

you are, hands down, the worst internet troll I've ever come across.  Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.

......and he completely avoided my question about the space shuttle.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: dado on August 15, 2012, 03:43:42 PM
Hmmm. trying to hide the evidence by lying about a picture found from Google trying to run a java-script. God you flatearthers a pathetic.

I've already reported you for posting a link to a malicious site. I can show the antivirus and Firefox NoScript warning to mods if needed. Getting angry about a debate is one thing, trying to disrupt someone else's property and then continuing to do so is simply crossing the line. Please take your script kiddie shenanigans elsewhere.
I just opened the pic with newest Chrome and Firefox, no such reports...
And it's a mighty fine pic of the ISS.
Case closed.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 15, 2012, 03:52:30 PM
I just opened the pic with newest Chrome and Firefox, no such reports...
And it's a mighty fine pic of the ISS.
Case closed.

You must not have NoScript for Firefox. You should get it, seeing as how it got you this:

(http://i.imgur.com/RRXAl.png)

I wasn't joking. Run an antivirus scan.

http://www.symantec.com/security_response/attacksignatures/detail.jsp?asid=24594 (http://www.symantec.com/security_response/attacksignatures/detail.jsp?asid=24594)
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: tunu on August 15, 2012, 05:27:57 PM
seriously you guys, everyone knows that any website that ends in .jpg is full of java script and the best way to spread viruses.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ski on August 15, 2012, 11:04:59 PM
I have twice attempted to view the ISS on days NASA has announced it would be overhead. Neither time did I see anything. I did once see a streak of light that NASA purported to be the space shuttle.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 16, 2012, 01:28:28 AM
I have twice attempted to view the ISS on days NASA has announced it would be overhead. Neither time did I see anything. I did once see a streak of light that NASA purported to be the space shuttle.

Does it prove something?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 01:52:20 AM
It only means something in relation to the point the OP was attempting to make, but I'm sure you haven't read any of the posts in the thread, because this is your modus operandi today.  Stop with your low-content, argumentative posting.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 16, 2012, 02:24:10 AM
It only means something in relation to the point the OP was attempting to make, but I'm sure you haven't read any of the posts in the thread, because this is your modus operandi today.  Stop with your low-content, argumentative posting.

Is asking a question low-content posting?
Is accusing me of low-co,tent posting a way of not answering the question?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: dado on August 16, 2012, 06:37:30 AM
I have twice attempted to view the ISS on days NASA has announced it would be overhead. Neither time did I see anything. I did once see a streak of light that NASA purported to be the space shuttle.
Sell your telescope, raise funds from your fellow FEs and do the high jump like explained in this topic http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55482.0.html#.UCz3sKnia2Y (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55482.0.html#.UCz3sKnia2Y)
. Touchdown, and proclaim FE is bullcrap...
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 16, 2012, 07:04:23 AM
I have twice attempted to view the ISS on days NASA has announced it would be overhead. Neither time did I see anything. I did once see a streak of light that NASA purported to be the space shuttle.
Sell your telescope, raise funds from your fellow FEs and do the high jump like explained in this topic http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55482.0.html#.UCz3sKnia2Y (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55482.0.html#.UCz3sKnia2Y)
. Touchdown, and proclaim FE is bullcrap...

Even if the Earth was round, that device would not take you high enough to see any curvature. Please learn your own theory before trying to dump your inane thoughts on ours.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: dado on August 16, 2012, 07:17:01 AM
I have twice attempted to view the ISS on days NASA has announced it would be overhead. Neither time did I see anything. I did once see a streak of light that NASA purported to be the space shuttle.
Sell your telescope, raise funds from your fellow FEs and do the high jump like explained in this topic http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55482.0.html#.UCz3sKnia2Y (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55482.0.html#.UCz3sKnia2Y)
. Touchdown, and proclaim FE is bullcrap...

Even if the Earth was round, that device would not take you high enough to see any curvature. Please learn your own theory before trying to dump your inane thoughts on ours.
Of course it would, read all highjumpers' testimonials.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 16, 2012, 08:55:45 AM
Of course it would, read all highjumpers' testimonials.

Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Kendrick on August 16, 2012, 09:12:35 AM
Reading this thread it occured to me that the shape in the sky we refer to as the ISS vaguely resembles what could be an airborne orgy of mating albatross if you squint your eyes and use your imagination.

Just trying to contribute and bring the discussion back on track.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 11:37:55 AM
I have twice attempted to view the ISS on days NASA has announced it would be overhead. Neither time did I see anything. I did once see a streak of light that NASA purported to be the space shuttle.

Funny, all the rest of us manage to view it perfectly well. Even Ichi. The trick is to do it when there are no clouds, that's probably where you're going wrong.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 01:07:57 PM
It's not terribly cloudy where I live. I'm not so foolish to think I could see something behind the cloud bank. I'm simply saying I've never managed to see it at an announced passing. I don't care what conclusions you deduce from that. Ichi also said he failed to sight it on occasion.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 01:19:47 PM
It's not terribly cloudy where I live. I'm not so foolish to think I could see something behind the cloud bank. I'm simply saying I've never managed to see it at an announced passing. I don't care what conclusions you deduce from that. Ichi also said he failed to sight it on occasion.

Ichi also said that he'd made detailed observations of it using the equipment he mentioned, but went very quiet very quickly when he realised that I understand telescope magnification and guidance very well indeed and had spotted he was talking out of his arse. So sorry "Ichi agrees with me" doesn't increase your believability one iota.
Since we know you deny the existence of refraction in air, and therefore we can conclude your grasp of science is poor, we can reasonably assume that your failure to observe the ISS is more likely to be from looking in the wrong direction than the ISS not being there. There is more than one conclusion that can be drawn from you failing to see the ISS, and it not being where it should is, unfortunately, way down the list
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 01:21:29 PM
It's not terribly cloudy where I live. I'm not so foolish to think I could see something behind the cloud bank. I'm simply saying I've never managed to see it at an announced passing. I don't care what conclusions you deduce from that. Ichi also said he failed to sight it on occasion.

Ichi also said that he'd made detailed observations of it using the equipment he mentioned, but went very quiet very quickly when he realised that I understand telescope magnification and guidance very well indeed and had spotted he was talking out of his arse. So sorry "Ichi agrees with me" doesn't increase your believability one iota.
Since we know you deny the existence of refraction in air, and therefore we can conclude your grasp of science is poor, we can reasonably assume that your failure to observe the ISS is more likely to be from looking in the wrong direction than the ISS not being there. There is more than one conclusion that can be drawn from you failing to see the ISS, and it not being where it should is, unfortunately, way down the list
Oh really? What about the specs goes against my observations? I gave you everything yet all you did was admit I could view it.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 01:28:07 PM
It's not terribly cloudy where I live. I'm not so foolish to think I could see something behind the cloud bank. I'm simply saying I've never managed to see it at an announced passing. I don't care what conclusions you deduce from that. Ichi also said he failed to sight it on occasion.

Ichi also said that he'd made detailed  observations of it using the equipment he mentioned, but went very quiet very quickly when he realised that I understand telescope magnification and guidance very well indeed and had spotted he was talking out of his arse. So sorry "Ichi agrees with me" doesn't increase your believability one iota.
Since we know you deny the existence of refraction in air, and therefore we can conclude your grasp of science is poor, we can reasonably assume that your failure to observe the ISS is more likely to be from looking in the wrong direction than the ISS not being there. There is more than one conclusion that can be drawn from you failing to see the ISS, and it not being where it should is, unfortunately, way down the list
Oh really? What about the specs goes against my observations? I gave you everything yet all you did was admit I could view it.

See the word in red. You claimed you had seen it in good detail and drawn conclusions about its appearance. I said that you could have seen it for a couple of seconds at most, if you were lucky. I'm not going to deny that you could have seen it with your equipment, because you could. However, making an observation detailed enough to make the statements you did regarding its appearance would frankly have been impossible. Just as I can hand hold a telescope to look at Jupiter with 300x magnification, yes I CAN see it if I'm careful but I could not make accurate conclusions about the appearance of the planet's clouds etc.
Personally I don't believe you saw it with your telescope at all, but I'm not going to deny that it's possible, because it is - just about. But not to make the conclusions you made.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 01:30:38 PM
LOL comparing deatils on Jupiter to being able to see the ISS..for shame TK.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 01:31:55 PM
"You could have seen it for a couple of seconds at most"
-[response picked from a pile of crumpled papers in a tophot]
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ski on August 16, 2012, 01:32:12 PM
I have never attempted to view it through a telescope. The "space shuttle" moved so fast that I doubt it would be possible for me to catch the ISS. On the other hand, the ISS didn't really make an appearance at all for me. So I don't think that was the problem.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 01:59:58 PM
it looks an awful lot like a plane when I was using a telescope.

LOL comparing deatils on Jupiter to being able to see the ISS..for shame TK.

And you can ascertain that in a fleeting glimpse with it streaking across your field of view for no more than a couple of seconds maximum?

Oh, and BTW, it looks to be a comparable angular size to Jupiter in the picture linked in this thread, hence a reasonable comparison.

Also, Lrn2difference between "observing details" and "being able to see at all".

Feel free to keep digging, you're doing me massive favours.  ;)
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 02:05:10 PM
I would like to know which hat you pulled the couple of seconds response from.

You realize the telescope moves right?

Being able to discern a branch of solar panels in hardly an intricate detail btw. Next thing you know, you'll tell me I couldn't see the red spot on Jupiter because it's a fine detail  ::) So sad to see you treading water like this.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 02:13:06 PM
I would like to know which hat you pulled the couple of seconds response from.

You realize the telescope moves right?

Yes, I know exactly how it moves and at what speeds because I found the documentation and instructions online in a PDF file. I also know the sort of speed the ISS moves across the sky, and that it varies, and I also know what sort of magnification and field of view you'd get with a 6 inch reflector and a 2mm eyepiece. I do own a telescope myself, not the same one as you, but I understand them. Which means I know that you'd be very lucky to get it in your view at all, even luckier to follow it for more than about one second, and beyond the parameters of reasonability to make an observation in which you could say with any certainty that it resembled a plane.

Of course it is perfectly possible that you just looked at a plane by mistake. If you wish to deny this, you must present reasons why it could not be so.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 02:16:13 PM
My argument is based upon sizing. Not the exact layout of a plane. Keep up please, this was already covered.
You can read all the PDFs you want but it isn't a substitute for logic.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 02:19:30 PM
You can read all the PDFs you want but isn't a substitute for logic.

It's a pretty good substitute for claiming you got a good look at the ISS through your telescope though. You assumed I'd take your word for it that your magic telescope guidance software could automatically track a fast moving satellite. Busted.

I find it very telling that not once have you told us how long you did keep it in your field of view for.

Take a few minutes while you decide whether to lie or be truthful about it.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 02:21:13 PM
You can read all the PDFs you want but isn't a substitute for logic.

It's a pretty good substitute for claiming you got a good look at the ISS through your telescope though. You assumed I'd take your word for it that your magic telescope guidance software could automatically track a fast moving satellite. Busted.

I find it very telling that not once have you told us how long you did keep it in your field of view for.

Take a few minutes while you decide whether to lie or be truthful about it.
About 5-10 seconds. It's not like I had any reason to time it.
It isn't automatic. I'll already told you it was manual input. Can you read?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 02:24:41 PM
You can read all the PDFs you want but isn't a substitute for logic.

It's a pretty good substitute for claiming you got a good look at the ISS through your telescope though. You assumed I'd take your word for it that your magic telescope guidance software could automatically track a fast moving satellite. Busted.

I find it very telling that not once have you told us how long you did keep it in your field of view for.

Take a few minutes while you decide whether to lie or be truthful about it.
About 5-10 seconds. It's not like I had any reason to time it.
It isn't automatic. I'll already told you it was manual input. Can you read?

Yes, I can read, I read the PDF file of instructions for operating Celestron scopes with that software. I don't believe for a moment you could manually guide it for that length of time at that magnification. Also quite interesting that when I originally asked how you tracked it you said using the software, now it's gone to manual guidance.

You have also not told me how you know it was the ISS you were observing and not some other object.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 02:27:17 PM
It''s quite easy. You turn on the software. Track an object. You go through manual input at it's 3 varying scope speeds....but of course you already knew that from the PDF right (http://i4.ifrm.com/1552/168/emo/blulaugh.gif)

Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 02:30:28 PM
It''s quite easy. You turn on the software. Track an object. You go through manual input at it's 3 varying scope speeds....but of course you already knew that from the PDF right (http://i4.ifrm.com/1552/168/emo/blulaugh.gif)

Yes, 3 scope speeds none of which would be precise enough to track the ISS at that magnification.

You still haven't told me how you know it was the ISS you were observing and not some other object.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 02:32:24 PM
It''s quite easy. You turn on the software. Track an object. You go through manual input at it's 3 varying scope speeds....but of course you already knew that from the PDF right (http://i4.ifrm.com/1552/168/emo/blulaugh.gif)

Yes, 3 scope speeds none of which would be precise enough to track the ISS at that magnification.

You still haven't told me how you know it was the ISS you were observing and not some other object.
Oh really, can you give me the scope speeds adjustments to make that judgement? Or did you find another magical PDF that said it won't work BAHAHA you do realize that
Quote
3 scope speeds none of which would be precise
doesn't make sense right?

Probably the solar branch gave it away. But if you want to keep arguing for no reason other than to argue, let's keep going.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 02:36:54 PM
Probably the solar branch gave it away.

So no other satellites have solar panels?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin
it looks an awful lot like a plane when I was using a telescope.

Oh? Do planes have solar panels on a big branch? Is it just me or does anyone else think these two quotes kind of cancel each other out?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 02:39:57 PM
It''s quite easy. You turn on the software. Track an object. You go through manual input at it's 3 varying scope speeds....but of course you already knew that from the PDF right (http://i4.ifrm.com/1552/168/emo/blulaugh.gif)

Yes, 3 scope speeds none of which would be precise enough to track the ISS at that magnification.

You still haven't told me how you know it was the ISS you were observing and not some other object.
Oh really, can you give me the scope speeds adjustments to make that judgement? Or did you find another magical PDF that said it won't work BAHAHA you do realize that
Quote
3 scope speeds none of which would be precise
doesn't make sense right?

...ENOUGH TO TRACK THE ISS AT THAT MAGNIFICATION

Jeez, if you're going to edit out half a sentence to make it appear like it says something else, don't leave the original unadulterated quote right in there so everyone can see. Basic rule of FEing.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 03:42:09 PM
It''s quite easy. You turn on the software. Track an object. You go through manual input at it's 3 varying scope speeds....but of course you already knew that from the PDF right (http://i4.ifrm.com/1552/168/emo/blulaugh.gif)

Yes, 3 scope speeds none of which would be precise enough to track the ISS at that magnification.

You still haven't told me how you know it was the ISS you were observing and not some other object.
Oh really, can you give me the scope speeds adjustments to make that judgement? Or did you find another magical PDF that said it won't work BAHAHA you do realize that
Quote
3 scope speeds none of which would be precise
doesn't make sense right?

...ENOUGH TO TRACK THE ISS AT THAT MAGNIFICATION

Jeez, if you're going to edit out half a sentence to make it appear like it says something else, don't leave the original unadulterated quote right in there so everyone can see. Basic rule of FEing.
It still doesn't make sense...so I don't see what you're complaining about.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: dado on August 18, 2012, 12:55:54 PM

...ENOUGH TO TRACK THE ISS AT THAT MAGNIFICATION

Jeez, if you're going to edit out half a sentence to make it appear like it says something else, don't leave the original unadulterated quote right in there so everyone can see. Basic rule of FEing.
So, are all FEs liars like him?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 19, 2012, 10:19:56 AM
Probably the solar branch gave it away.

So no other satellites have solar panels?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin
it looks an awful lot like a plane when I was using a telescope.

Oh? Do planes have solar panels on a big branch? Is it just me or does anyone else think these two quotes kind of cancel each other out?

Ichi, are you going to give an explanation for this? Or are we to take it that you have no consistent opinion on the interpretation of your observations and just say whatever enables you to oppose the RE'ers at the time?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 19, 2012, 12:16:20 PM
RE'ers are so gullible NASA could tell them that the ISS is the Archangel of Electronics. After all, if you're willing to believe that a 227 ton man-made object whooshes through the sky on a daily basis simply because someone told you it did, there is no limit to what you wouldn't believe based on their word alone.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on August 19, 2012, 02:51:37 PM
RE'ers are so gullible NASA could tell them that the ISS is the Archangel of Electronics. After all, if you're willing to believe that a 227 ton man-made object whooshes through the sky on a daily basis simply because someone told you it did, there is no limit to what you wouldn't believe based on their word alone.

If NASA said the ISS was the Archangel of Electronics I wouldn't believe it. Think of an original reply please.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: iwanttobelieve on August 19, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
RE'ers are so gullible NASA could tell them that the ISS is the Archangel of Electronics. After all, if you're willing to believe that a 227 ton man-made object whooshes through the sky on a daily basis simply because someone told you it did, there is no limit to what you wouldn't believe based on their word alone.

we have already determined a 227 aircraft does just fine, why wouldnt a space station?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 20, 2012, 12:39:54 AM
RE'ers are so gullible NASA could tell them that the ISS is the Archangel of Electronics. After all, if you're willing to believe that a 227 ton man-made object whooshes through the sky on a daily basis simply because someone told you it did, there is no limit to what you wouldn't believe based on their word alone.

1) NASA isn't alone on this project (you still have to prove the conspiracy).
2) Thousands (hundred of thousand?) of independant people have seen it with a telescope or with their naked eye.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 20, 2012, 12:54:48 AM
I place a penny on a rock. I center a telescope, located 200 meters away, on this penny. I ask passersby to observe said penny through said telescope.

"What do you see?" I ask innocently.
"A coin."
"What kind of coin do you see?"
"I'm not sure, I can't see enough detail."
"Does it look like a dime?'
"Why, yes, it does look like a dime."

Why did that person think a penny looked like a dime? Simply because I mentioned that it might be a dime. The ISS is not a space station, yet everyone thinks it is, because it's supposed to be. It is simply too far away to positively identify as anything other than an unknown object. A 227 ton man-made space vehicle? Please, this isn't Stargate.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: BoatswainsMate on August 20, 2012, 03:02:57 AM
I see what you are trying to say. The problem is that you can notice the difference between a satellite and the ISS.

And you will notice that a penny is not a dime, different color, size, and markings. Just like the ISS is a different size and shape. Good try though.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on August 20, 2012, 04:24:23 AM
I place a penny on a rock. I center a telescope, located 200 meters away, on this penny. I ask passersby to observe said penny through said telescope.

"What do you see?" I ask innocently.
"A coin."
"What kind of coin do you see?"
"I'm not sure, I can't see enough detail."
"Does it look like a dime?'
"Why, yes, it does look like a dime."

Why did that person think a penny looked like a dime? Simply because I mentioned that it might be a dime. The ISS is not a space station, yet everyone thinks it is, because it's supposed to be. It is simply too far away to positively identify as anything other than an unknown object. A 227 ton man-made space vehicle? Please, this isn't Stargate.

How do you explain that it wasn't visible before it existed? How did it suddenly appear and grow larger as it was being completed? Was it a coincidence that this object appeared at the same time the space station was being completed? How do you account for that? What is it? Answer the question. Don't tell me what it's not, heard it all before. Large commercial planes that weigh the same if not more have no trouble staying in the atmosphere let alone space.  In space it should be easier right? You are in denial my friend.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: burt on August 20, 2012, 10:57:44 AM
I like Rushy, he silly: he talk silly, he think silly. Rushy you make my day - I am sad, I know - I come here to laugh and, oh boy, how you make me laugh; you have even  surpassed Tom "Chuck Norris" Bishop.

I have not seen the ISS, because I aint looked for it, but I think that this thread has pretty much put the FEers on the back foot. As with most other threads, the FEer's are resorting to answering whatever questions directed at them only partially. There is a rule of decorum in argumentation which is: that you attack the strongest part of an argument and not the weakest. Too bad, FEers, you are doing quite the opposite.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: garygreen on August 20, 2012, 11:40:16 AM
What an asinine analogy.  Do dimes and pennies transmit radio signals?

Here is a .pdf from the National Association for Amateur Radio on how to eavesdrop on ISS radio signals. (http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ARISS/Contact%20the%20ISS-Ford-Jun10%20QST.pdf)  You can even talk to the astronauts.  No joke. Elementary school students have done this already.  A bunch of times, actually.

This semi-attractive Asian lady will explain to you how directional antennae work. (http://#)

She also explains how to catch radio signals from satellites in orbit. (http://blog.makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/)
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on August 20, 2012, 11:41:12 AM
I place a penny nickle on a rock. I center a telescope, located 200 meters away, on this penny nickle. I ask passersby to observe said penny through said telescope.

"What do you see?" I ask innocently.
"A coin."
"What kind of coin do you see?"
"I'm not sure, I can't see enough detail."
"Does it look like a dime?'
"Why, yes, it does look like a dime."

Why did that person think a penny nickle looked like a dime? Simply because I mentioned that it might be a dime. The ISS is not a space station, yet everyone thinks it is, because it's supposed to be. It is simply too far away to positively identify as anything other than an unknown object. A 227 ton man-made space vehicle? Please, this isn't Stargate.

Fixed to make it a bit more plausible.  Also, amateur astronomers have taken photographs of the ISS with enough detail to show astronauts performing an EVA.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 20, 2012, 12:26:14 PM
What an asinine analogy.  Do dimes and pennies transmit radio signals?

You really think that if a massive space station existed, you would intercept unencrypted transmissions from it and listen at your leisure? More like a way to give the unwary a false sense of success. If you watch anything ISS related it plays out like a bad reality show. Like all reality shows, you know its supposed to be real, but you can't help feeling that its all scripted, probably because it is.

Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Lorddave on August 20, 2012, 01:39:11 PM
What an asinine analogy.  Do dimes and pennies transmit radio signals?

You really think that if a massive space station existed, you would intercept unencrypted transmissions from it and listen at your leisure?
Why not?
Encryption is not needed. The problem is that it bounces the signal of satellites so they can always be in contact with NASA.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on August 21, 2012, 02:43:29 PM
I place a penny on a rock. I center a telescope, located 200 meters away, on this penny. I ask passersby to observe said penny through said telescope.

"What do you see?" I ask innocently.
"A coin."
"What kind of coin do you see?"
"I'm not sure, I can't see enough detail."
"Does it look like a dime?'
"Why, yes, it does look like a dime."

Why did that person think a penny looked like a dime? Simply because I mentioned that it might be a dime. The ISS is not a space station, yet everyone thinks it is, because it's supposed to be. It is simply too far away to positively identify as anything other than an unknown object. A 227 ton man-made space vehicle? Please, this isn't Stargate.

How do you explain that it wasn't visible before it existed? How did it suddenly appear and grow larger as it was being completed? Was it a coincidence that this object appeared at the same time the space station was being completed? How do you account for that? What is it? Answer the question. Don't tell me what it's not, heard it all before. Large commercial planes that weigh the same if not more have no trouble staying in the atmosphere let alone space.  In space it should be easier right? You are in denial my friend.

Typical of you Rushy. You cannot directly answer my post. I'd love to hear Tom's rsponse too.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 21, 2012, 04:23:32 PM

You've been told already that argumentum ad ridiculum is no defence in this thread. Repeating the same stuff won't make you more correct.

Interesting that Ichi has gone quiet when asked to defend his two conflicting statements that the ISS both looks like a plane and has a big branch of solar panels. I suggest that he was not truthful about observing it with his telescope.
Not one person has presented any refutation of my original post that the ISS can be proved to be an object in orbit and not an aircraft, regardless of what it looks like up close, simply from its positions and movements.
Another win for RE.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Lorddave on August 21, 2012, 06:24:00 PM

You've been told already that argumentum ad ridiculum is no defence in this thread. Repeating the same stuff won't make you more correct.

Interesting that Ichi has gone quiet when asked to defend his two conflicting statements that the ISS both looks like a plane and has a big branch of solar panels. I suggest that he was not truthful about observing it with his telescope.
Not one person has presented any refutation of my original post that the ISS can be proved to be an object in orbit and not an aircraft, regardless of what it looks like up close, simply from its positions and movements.
Another win for RE.
False.
All you've shown is that you can see an object in the sky.  You have no evidence to say it is at the altitude needed for orbit.  It could easily be a large plane with a flat bottom that's painted to resemble what you would ordinarily see.  The fuel could easily be delivered while the ISS was over an ocean where there are virtually no viewers.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 21, 2012, 06:48:47 PM

You've been told already that argumentum ad ridiculum is no defence in this thread. Repeating the same stuff won't make you more correct.

Interesting that Ichi has gone quiet when asked to defend his two conflicting statements that the ISS both looks like a plane and has a big branch of solar panels. I suggest that he was not truthful about observing it with his telescope.
Not one person has presented any refutation of my original post that the ISS can be proved to be an object in orbit and not an aircraft, regardless of what it looks like up close, simply from its positions and movements.
Another win for RE.
False.
All you've shown is that you can see an object in the sky.  You have no evidence to say it is at the altitude needed for orbit.  It could easily be a large plane with a flat bottom that's painted to resemble what you would ordinarily see.  The fuel could easily be delivered while the ISS was over an ocean where there are virtually no viewers.

Easily?  I think you should look up the definition of that word, and then look up how many places in the world you can see the ISS and the speed it would need to be going at.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 21, 2012, 09:02:14 PM

You've been told already that argumentum ad ridiculum is no defence in this thread. Repeating the same stuff won't make you more correct.

Interesting that Ichi has gone quiet when asked to defend his two conflicting statements that the ISS both looks like a plane and has a big branch of solar panels. I suggest that he was not truthful about observing it with his telescope.
Not one person has presented any refutation of my original post that the ISS can be proved to be an object in orbit and not an aircraft, regardless of what it looks like up close, simply from its positions and movements.
Another win for RE.
False.
All you've shown is that you can see an object in the sky.  You have no evidence to say it is at the altitude needed for orbit.  It could easily be a large plane with a flat bottom that's painted to resemble what you would ordinarily see.  The fuel could easily be delivered while the ISS was over an ocean where there are virtually no viewers.

Did you actually bother to read the first page in this thread? Clearly not. I even provide some quick and dirty maths to show how the minimum height possible for the ISS exceeds that at which planes fly, and it has also been demonstrated in this thread that it appears at the times it's predicted to in the locations it's predicted to. In fact, since starting this thread, I've also found a large community of worldwide ISS followers exists on Twitter, who post up pictures of it passing overhead often within minutes of it happening. This makes an admirable set of data checkers, don't you think?
I know it's the fashionable thing to play Autodisagree With TK, but really, do some joined up thinking.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on August 22, 2012, 12:38:09 AM

You've been told already that argumentum ad ridiculum is no defence in this thread. Repeating the same stuff won't make you more correct.

Interesting that Ichi has gone quiet when asked to defend his two conflicting statements that the ISS both looks like a plane and has a big branch of solar panels. I suggest that he was not truthful about observing it with his telescope.
Not one person has presented any refutation of my original post that the ISS can be proved to be an object in orbit and not an aircraft, regardless of what it looks like up close, simply from its positions and movements.
Another win for RE.
False.
All you've shown is that you can see an object in the sky.  You have no evidence to say it is at the altitude needed for orbit.  It could easily be a large plane with a flat bottom that's painted to resemble what you would ordinarily see.  The fuel could easily be delivered while the ISS was over an ocean where there are virtually no viewers.

Did you actually bother to read the first page in this thread? Clearly not. I even provide some quick and dirty maths to show how the minimum height possible for the ISS exceeds that at which planes fly, and it has also been demonstrated in this thread that it appears at the times it's predicted to in the locations it's predicted to. In fact, since starting this thread, I've also found a large community of worldwide ISS followers exists on Twitter, who post up pictures of it passing overhead often within minutes of it happening. This makes an admirable set of data checkers, don't you think?
I know it's the fashionable thing to play Autodisagree With TK, but really, do some joined up thinking.

This is exactly right. If the ISS is passing directly over the middle of a country, chances are that a fair percentance of the population would be able to see it at the same time, due to it's height. Would this be possible with a plane? The ISS passes quite quickly depending on where it passes, anywhere between 1 to 5 mins max. With a commercial airliner at high enough to leave a jet-wash that would take far longer to pass by.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Lorddave on August 22, 2012, 05:38:43 AM
Speed can be fooled by perception.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 22, 2012, 06:18:53 AM
Speed can be fooled by perception.

Please do elaborate.  This is some weak devil's advocacy you're doing here.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 22, 2012, 06:25:05 AM
The ISS is most likely a holographic projection, a simple task considering that the object can be "painted" into the sky, unlike a true 3D projection.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Lorddave on August 22, 2012, 06:52:19 AM
Speed can be fooled by perception.

Please do elaborate.  This is some weak devil's advocacy you're doing here.
No. Weak trolling.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on August 22, 2012, 06:58:19 AM
No. Weak trolling.

Well at least you admit it.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 22, 2012, 07:48:22 AM
The ISS is most likely a holographic projection, a simple task considering that the object can be "painted" into the sky, unlike a true 3D projection.

From where would it be projected?
Sources for saying its a simple task?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: burt on August 22, 2012, 08:22:25 AM
The ISS is most likely a holographic projection, a simple task considering that the object can be "painted" into the sky, unlike a true 3D projection.

From where would it be projected?
Sources for saying its a simple task?

Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 24, 2012, 04:01:07 PM
I note that despite being active in other parts of the forum, Ichimaru Gin has slithered awayfrom this thread now it's been revealed he's talking nonsense. FET is unable to counter this proof. Flat Earth disproved yet again.  ;D
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 25, 2012, 07:16:14 PM
I note that despite being active in other parts of the forum, Ichimaru Gin has slithered awayfrom this thread now it's been revealed he's talking nonsense. FET is unable to counter this proof. Flat Earth disproved yet again.  ;D
I've been away for the week due to studying for boards.

You haven't reveled anything. "SATELITTES DON"T LOOK LIKE PLANES!" has basically been all of the ingenuity you've able to muster (and what a struggle even that was for you) when in fact you're resting on a strawman. Did you come up with that all by yourself widdle knowledge?
Maybe if you were more interesting I would have checked back during studying this past week. You are but a flea on the back of a glorious tiger.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: burt on August 26, 2012, 06:56:21 AM
I note that despite being active in other parts of the forum, Ichimaru Gin has slithered awayfrom this thread now it's been revealed he's talking nonsense. FET is unable to counter this proof. Flat Earth disproved yet again.  ;D
I've been away for the week due to studying for boards.

You haven't reveled anything. "SATELITTES DON"T LOOK LIKE PLANES!" has basically been all of the ingenuity you've able to muster (and what a struggle even that was for you) when in fact you're resting on a strawman. Did you come up with that all by yourself widdle knowledge?
Maybe if you were more interesting I would have checked back during studying this past week. You are but a flea on the back of a glorious tiger.

Someone is in the throws of resentment.

you contradicted yourself, whose fault is that?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 26, 2012, 07:19:23 AM
I note that despite being active in other parts of the forum, Ichimaru Gin has slithered awayfrom this thread now it's been revealed he's talking nonsense. FET is unable to counter this proof. Flat Earth disproved yet again.  ;D
I've been away for the week due to studying for boards.

You haven't reveled anything. "SATELITTES DON"T LOOK LIKE PLANES!" has basically been all of the ingenuity you've able to muster

You have been actively posting in the lower sewers of the forum. Don't give me the "I've been busy" lies. Your post history is viewable by everyone.

You have also just made it look like you never read the OP, who needs RE'ers to scorch your posts when you do such a good job yourself?  :D
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 26, 2012, 08:47:07 AM
I note that despite being active in other parts of the forum, Ichimaru Gin has slithered awayfrom this thread now it's been revealed he's talking nonsense. FET is unable to counter this proof. Flat Earth disproved yet again.  ;D
I've been away for the week due to studying for boards.

You haven't reveled anything. "SATELITTES DON"T LOOK LIKE PLANES!" has basically been all of the ingenuity you've able to muster (and what a struggle even that was for you) when in fact you're resting on a strawman. Did you come up with that all by yourself widdle knowledge?
Maybe if you were more interesting I would have checked back during studying this past week. You are but a flea on the back of a glorious tiger.

Someone is in the throws of resentment.

you contradicted yourself, whose fault is that?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 26, 2012, 04:05:16 PM

Probably the solar branch gave it away.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin
it looks an awful lot like a plane when I was using a telescope.

Right there, sunshine.  ;)
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 27, 2012, 04:25:34 PM
Well there is no reason one set of the solar panel branches should appear larger than a commercial jet in my telescope. Especially at the supposed distance above earth.
If you concentrate for more than two posts, you could comprehend that my statement is based on sizing.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 27, 2012, 05:38:23 PM
Well there is no reason one set of the solar panel branches should appear larger than a commercial jet in my telescope. Especially at the supposed distance above earth.
If you concentrate for more than two posts, you could comprehend that my statement is based on sizing.

Eh? You say it looks like a plane in your first quote. It's in this thread, go back and read it. You don't say it's the size of a plane, you don't say it's bigger than a plane, you don't say it's smaller than a plane, in that post you say "it looks an awful lot like a plane".
Meaning "it doesn't look like a space station", independent of size. That's the only way a rational person would interpret what you said in that post.
THEN after much dithering and havering, you mention that you knew it was the ISS because it had a big solar array on it. Whether you thought it was bigger, smaller, or the same size as a plane is neither here nor there, admitting it had a whopping great solar array is admitting that it doesn't look like a plane.
Still, I'll give you 9/10 for effort, even with the minus several million for achievement.  :-*
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 28, 2012, 06:48:04 AM
I wasn't aware that describing something relative to one object makes it mutually exclusive to all other objects in the universe.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: burt on August 28, 2012, 07:15:11 AM
I wasn't aware that describing something relative to one object makes it mutually exclusive to all other objects in the universe.

I wasn't aware that you consistently speak rubbish.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 28, 2012, 07:20:54 AM
I wasn't aware that describing something relative to one object makes it mutually exclusive to all other objects in the universe.

I wasn't aware that you consistently speak rubbish.

You are not aware?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: burt on August 28, 2012, 07:30:19 AM
I wasn't aware that describing something relative to one object makes it mutually exclusive to all other objects in the universe.

I wasn't aware that you consistently speak rubbish.

You are not aware?

Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: garygreen on August 28, 2012, 10:05:09 AM
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ARISS/Contact%20the%20ISS-Ford-Jun10%20QST.pdf (http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ARISS/Contact%20the%20ISS-Ford-Jun10%20QST.pdf)

You can also build a relatively simple radio antenna and have a conversation with astronauts on the ISS.  It's easier than you'd think.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 28, 2012, 10:46:46 AM
Fitting a radio antenna onto a UAV with actors playing roles on the other end isn't a difficult task.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 28, 2012, 10:52:49 AM
Fitting a radio antenna onto a UAV with actors playing roles on the other end isn't a difficult task.

Proving thet the ISS doesn't exist, on the other hand, seems to be an impossible task.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 28, 2012, 10:55:22 AM
It depends on what you define as the "ISS." The ISS as NASA defines it does not exist. The bright object flying through the sky, however, does in fact exist. One does not need to accept both.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 28, 2012, 11:05:30 AM
It depends on what you define as the "ISS." The ISS as NASA defines it does not exist. The bright object flying through the sky, however, does in fact exist. One does not need to accept both.

Nice loont idea. Funny but stupid (unless you have some grounds for this idea).
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: BoatswainsMate on August 28, 2012, 11:26:36 AM
Im going to start calling Rushy Tom's alter ego. He speaks just as nonsensical as Tom and even has a better hint at trolling. Fantastic Rushy! keep up the Tom foolery! haha get it!
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 28, 2012, 11:32:22 AM
I wasn't aware that describing something relative to one object makes it mutually exclusive to all other objects in the universe.

That's because you don't bother to read posts in this thread. Sorry, but if you are going to attempt to contribute to the discussion you will be expected to do that. Then you'd realise that Ichi's comment about the solar panels was in response to my question "how did you know it was the ISS and not something else?".
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: garygreen on August 28, 2012, 11:33:37 AM
Fitting a radio antenna onto a UAV with actors playing roles on the other end isn't a difficult task.

Using such a method to trick radio hams would actually be totally impossible.  But, you already knew that.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 28, 2012, 11:36:28 AM
It depends on what you define as the "ISS." The ISS as NASA defines it does not exist. The bright object flying through the sky, however, does in fact exist. One does not need to accept both.

Strawman argument. The existence of any object at all behaving like a satellite, that is visible across most of the world to millions of people, many of whom cross check its transits in real life with those predicted and find they match, with a calculable altitude (see page 1 for maths) utterly destroys FET.
Run along, back under your bridge now.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: burt on August 28, 2012, 11:43:07 AM
It depends on what you define as the "ISS." The ISS as NASA defines it does not exist. The bright object flying through the sky, however, does in fact exist. One does not need to accept both.

Which bright object?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: burt on August 28, 2012, 11:49:38 AM
It depends on what you define as the "ISS." The ISS as NASA defines it does not exist. The bright object flying through the sky, however, does in fact exist. One does not need to accept both.

Nice loont idea. Funny but stupid (unless you have some grounds for this idea).

I was under the impression this was a empirical argument not a definitional one.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on August 28, 2012, 01:07:32 PM
Fitting a radio antenna onto a UAV with actors playing roles on the other end isn't a difficult task.

Perhaps not, but it would be difficult to get that UAV to move fast enough across the sky to match the predicted movements of the ISS.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on August 28, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
Fitting a radio antenna onto a UAV with actors playing roles on the other end isn't a difficult task.

Perhaps not, but it would be difficult to get that UAV to move fast enough across the sky to match the predicted movements of the ISS.

Difficult? Maybe. Probable? Yes.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 28, 2012, 01:43:36 PM
Fitting a radio antenna onto a UAV with actors playing roles on the other end isn't a difficult task.

Perhaps not, but it would be difficult to get that UAV to move fast enough across the sky to match the predicted movements of the ISS.

Difficult? Maybe. Probable? Yes.

What is a UAV? Presumably something that has no trouble travelling at thousands of miles per hour at altitudes of over 200km?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ski on August 30, 2012, 12:25:11 AM
Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 30, 2012, 12:47:26 AM
Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???

Have you heard of something called a radar?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Ski on August 30, 2012, 01:13:55 AM
You and TK are using RADAR to observe the ISS now? I'm impressed.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 30, 2012, 01:46:21 AM
You and TK are using RADAR to observe the ISS now? I'm impressed.

As you said:

Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???

A radar would tell the distance to an object (and the altitude).
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 30, 2012, 01:49:54 AM
You and TK are using RADAR to observe the ISS now? I'm impressed.

As you said:

Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???

A radar would tell the distance to an object (and the altitude).

It would, if it were possible to train a radar on such a supposedly fast traveling object.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 30, 2012, 01:52:44 AM
You and TK are using RADAR to observe the ISS now? I'm impressed.

As you said:

Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???

A radar would tell the distance to an object (and the altitude).

It would, if it were possible to train a radar on such a supposedly fast traveling object.

It can. Search for yourself.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 30, 2012, 01:54:39 AM
I did.  Thank you very much.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 30, 2012, 01:58:52 AM
Then you know the ISS is real.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 30, 2012, 02:02:16 AM
The ISS is a puppet in the hands of the NASA conspiracy.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 30, 2012, 03:05:44 AM
If only you could prove it!
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on August 30, 2012, 05:32:18 AM
Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???

Why not?  Levee has.

You and TK are using RADAR to observe the ISS now? I'm impressed.

Check me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, that's supposed to be Irush's day job.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 30, 2012, 09:21:37 AM
Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???

This is incredible. Don't you guys bother to read the threads?  ::)
See the first page of this one, then get lost and stop wasting everyone's time.
Because it's not like the FE'ers have a method for finding out the altitude of the sun, is it?  :P
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2012, 12:22:55 PM
Because it's not like the FE'ers have a method for finding out the altitude of the sun, is it?  :P

Have you searched?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 30, 2012, 02:40:59 PM
Because it's not like the FE'ers have a method for finding out the altitude of the sun, is it?  :P

Have you searched?

Tom, that is irony you numbskull. Good grief.
I was drawing a parallel between the "FE'er accepted" method of calculating the height of the sun by triangulation and my own method of calculating the height of the ISS by triangulation. Whoever started suggesting radar as a method actually had a good point, but as those who have bothered to read the thread will know, it isn't required to get a rough altitude for the ISS as we have multiple proven observation points and angle data for each.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2012, 07:01:29 PM
Because it's not like the FE'ers have a method for finding out the altitude of the sun, is it?  :P

Have you searched?

Tom, that is irony you numbskull. Good grief.
I was drawing a parallel between the "FE'er accepted" method of calculating the height of the sun by triangulation and my own method of calculating the height of the ISS by triangulation. Whoever started suggesting radar as a method actually had a good point, but as those who have bothered to read the thread will know, it isn't required to get a rough altitude for the ISS as we have multiple proven observation points and angle data for each.

Is it assumed that the surface of the earth is flat or curved between those two observers in the calculation?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 31, 2012, 01:19:29 AM
Because it's not like the FE'ers have a method for finding out the altitude of the sun, is it?  :P

Have you searched?

Tom, that is irony you numbskull. Good grief.
I was drawing a parallel between the "FE'er accepted" method of calculating the height of the sun by triangulation and my own method of calculating the height of the ISS by triangulation. Whoever started suggesting radar as a method actually had a good point, but as those who have bothered to read the thread will know, it isn't required to get a rough altitude for the ISS as we have multiple proven observation points and angle data for each.

Is it assumed that the surface of the earth is flat or curved between those two observers in the calculation?

Curved, of course.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2012, 10:01:48 AM
Assuming a flat surface gives a different result in using parallax to determine the distance to bodies in the sky:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun)
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on August 31, 2012, 10:40:32 AM
Assuming a flat surface gives a different result in using parallax to determine the distance to bodies in the sky:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun)

This method assumes that the Sun is small and close to the Earth, which is incompatible with observations.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 31, 2012, 03:02:35 PM
Because it's not like the FE'ers have a method for finding out the altitude of the sun, is it?  :P

Have you searched?

Tom, that is irony you numbskull. Good grief.
I was drawing a parallel between the "FE'er accepted" method of calculating the height of the sun by triangulation and my own method of calculating the height of the ISS by triangulation. Whoever started suggesting radar as a method actually had a good point, but as those who have bothered to read the thread will know, it isn't required to get a rough altitude for the ISS as we have multiple proven observation points and angle data for each.

Is it assumed that the surface of the earth is flat or curved between those two observers in the calculation?

Actually, when I did the maths, I assumed a flat surface for the sake of simplicity of calculation. The small amount of error thus generated has very little effect on the result. In fact, a flat surface gives a higher result for altitude than a curved one does.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2012, 03:58:55 PM
Assuming a flat surface gives a different result in using parallax to determine the distance to bodies in the sky:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun)

This method assumes that the Sun is small and close to the Earth, which is incompatible with observations.

Parallax shows that the sun is small and close to the earth in the flat earth model.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2012, 04:00:00 PM
Actually, when I did the maths, I assumed a flat surface for the sake of simplicity of calculation. The small amount of error thus generated has very little effect on the result. In fact, a flat surface gives a higher result for altitude than a curved one does.

Under a round earth the second observer is standing at a different angle to the body than the first observer, which affects the calculations.

If a flat earth gave a higher altitude then you're doing it wrong.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on August 31, 2012, 05:00:42 PM
Actually, when I did the maths, I assumed a flat surface for the sake of simplicity of calculation. The small amount of error thus generated has very little effect on the result. In fact, a flat surface gives a higher result for altitude than a curved one does.

Under a round earth the second observer is standing at a different angle to the body than the first observer, which affects the calculations.

If a flat earth gave a higher altitude then you're doing it wrong.

Good point, I failed to take that into account. Let me quickly work out the amount of error this introduces...

OK, done that. With the distances used in my example, it makes a difference of about 3%. Sorry, not enough to make any difference. Still too high to be an aircraft.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on September 01, 2012, 04:02:05 AM
Assuming a flat surface gives a different result in using parallax to determine the distance to bodies in the sky:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun)

This method assumes that the Sun is small and close to the Earth, which is incompatible with observations.

Parallax shows that the sun is small and close to the earth in the flat earth model.

Yes the guy who is consistenly wrong.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 09:42:10 AM
Assuming a flat surface gives a different result in using parallax to determine the distance to bodies in the sky:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun)

This method assumes that the Sun is small and close to the Earth, which is incompatible with observations.

Parallax shows that the sun is small and close to the earth in the flat earth model.

Yes the guy who is consistenly wrong.

What's wrong with the calculations in the above link?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: EmperorZhark on September 01, 2012, 10:22:34 AM
Assuming a flat surface gives a different result in using parallax to determine the distance to bodies in the sky:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun)

This method assumes that the Sun is small and close to the Earth, which is incompatible with observations.

Pretty much everything: the Sun is much bigger, much further away than FET predicts.

In FET, the apparent size of the Sun would be very different from wher you are. If you take the funny drawing of FE, if you are at 45° under the Sun, it would look about 70% smaller than if you were standing at 0° under it.

Parallax shows that the sun is small and close to the earth in the flat earth model.

Yes the guy who is consistenly wrong.

What's wrong with the calculations in the above link?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on September 01, 2012, 10:38:13 AM
Assuming a flat surface gives a different result in using parallax to determine the distance to bodies in the sky:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun)

This method assumes that the Sun is small and close to the Earth, which is incompatible with observations.

Parallax shows that the sun is small and close to the earth in the flat earth model.

Yes the guy who is consistenly wrong.

What's wrong with the calculations in the above link?

How about the fact that it provides inconsistent results when performed from different locations?  Parallax (triangulation) distance calculations should provide consistent results regardless of where the observations are made.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 10:41:25 AM
How about the fact that it provides inconsistent results when performed from different locations?  Parallax (triangulation) distance calculations should provide consistent results regardless of where the observations are made.

What other locations was the experiment performed from and who performed it?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on September 01, 2012, 11:11:08 AM
How about the fact that it provides inconsistent results when performed from different locations?  Parallax (triangulation) distance calculations should provide consistent results regardless of where the observations are made.

What other locations was the experiment performed from and who performed it?

Read ENaG.  Rowbotham performed it in England and got a result of less than 700 miles. Also, a link within your link show a result of about 2000 miles.

BTW Tom, when did you ever perform that particular experiment and where is your documentation?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 12:45:19 PM
How about the fact that it provides inconsistent results when performed from different locations?  Parallax (triangulation) distance calculations should provide consistent results regardless of where the observations are made.

What other locations was the experiment performed from and who performed it?

Read ENaG.  Rowbotham performed it in England and got a result of less than 700 miles. Also, a link within your link show a result of about 2000 miles.

In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham tells us is that the sun was at an altitude of 700 on the day and time his measurements were taken.

I've always said that the sun changes altitude over the course of the year, which is seen in its analemma:

(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/wp-content/blogs.dir/311/files/2012/04/i-6ba35f30df4d9c7b7f3321803a4a470d-Analemma_pattern_in_the_sky.jpg)
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
BTW Tom, when did you ever perform that particular experiment and where is your documentation?

I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on September 01, 2012, 02:10:47 PM

I've always said that the sun changes altitude over the course of the year, which is seen in its analemma:

Unfortunately, the size of its disc does not change correspondingly. Another crackpot TB idea joins its fellows in the trash bin of reason.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: garygreen on September 01, 2012, 02:14:37 PM
Contacting the International Space Station with a few watts and a shoestring budget antenna: http://www.work-sat.com/Work-Sat/Misc_files/QRP-ISS.pdf (http://www.work-sat.com/Work-Sat/Misc_files/QRP-ISS.pdf)

FET can't explain why these objects are undetectable after they pass below the horizon.  The propagation of high frequency radio waves through the atmosphere is well understood.  If the Earth were flat, then we could listen to ISS signals (or whatever is used to fake them) at any time and from any point on Earth.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on September 01, 2012, 03:56:34 PM
The propagation of high frequency radio waves through the atmosphere is well understood.

Yes, it is. The physics of orbits are well understood. The shape of the earth is well understood. The reason for the existence of a horizon is well understood. The mechanism governing solar and lunar eclipses are well understood. The paths of the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun are well understood. The reason for stellar rotation around two celestial poles is well understood. The reason for continuous daylight at the poles in summer is well understood.

Yet FET requires us to pretend that our explanations for all of these - explanations that all mesh together into a whole that backs up each component part - are false.
Pitiful. And people wonder why I accuse them of trolling.  ::)
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on September 01, 2012, 04:50:52 PM
I assume Tom and Rushy have iphones or smartphones? I have a challenge for you. Download the ISS or Sattracker apps. When you have a clear night, use the apps. Then argue with us over the existance of Satellites OK?

I play golf . I also have a GPS that shows be the distance to the front, middle and back of the green. How could this be possible without anything directly above me?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on September 01, 2012, 05:23:31 PM
GPS does not require satellites to work.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on September 01, 2012, 07:34:30 PM
BTW Tom, when did you ever perform that particular experiment and where is your documentation?

I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

Was Winship in two places at the same time when he calculated the distance to the sun?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on September 02, 2012, 02:04:39 AM
GPS does not require satellites to work.

Crap answer. Did you download the apps? Prove it to me GPS does not need satellites. You are shit scared to be proven wrong.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 02:11:00 AM
GPS does not require satellites to work.

Crap answer. Did you download the apps? Prove it to me GPS does not need satellites. You are shit scared to be proven wrong.

Ignore the troll, it just pukes out the sentence that most disagrees with whatever the last RE'er posted, whether there's evidence for it or not. If you're careful, you can get it to disagree with itself without it noticing.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on September 02, 2012, 03:38:52 AM
GPS does not require satellites to work.

Crap answer. Did you download the apps? Prove it to me GPS does not need satellites. You are shit scared to be proven wrong.

Ignore the troll, it just pukes out the sentence that most disagrees with whatever the last RE'er posted, whether there's evidence for it or not. If you're careful, you can get it to disagree with itself without it noticing.

LOL. I've noticed on more than one occasion.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on September 02, 2012, 12:20:39 PM
GPS does not require satellites to work.

Crap answer. Did you download the apps? Prove it to me GPS does not need satellites. You are shit scared to be proven wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN)

Simply because you do not understand what GPS is, does not give you the right to make insincere comments. You are like a child angry at a physics teacher because "hurr durr physics is dum."
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on September 02, 2012, 12:44:03 PM
LORAN is not GPS.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on September 02, 2012, 01:20:30 PM
LORAN is not GPS.

Not by definition. It does, however, perform the same function.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on September 02, 2012, 02:28:05 PM
LORAN is not GPS.

Not by definition. It does, however, perform the same function.

For some (primarily aircraft and ships) and for now (your link says that LORAN is losing popularity due to GPS).  However, the ubiquitous GPS enabled consumer devices that we all know and love do not use LORAN.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on September 02, 2012, 03:11:18 PM
GPS does not require satellites to work.

Crap answer. Did you download the apps? Prove it to me GPS does not need satellites. You are shit scared to be proven wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN)

Simply because you do not understand what GPS is, does not give you the right to make insincere comments. You are like a child angry at a physics teacher because "hurr durr physics is dum."

Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Rushy on September 02, 2012, 04:20:49 PM
LORAN is not GPS.

Not by definition. It does, however, perform the same function.

For some (primarily aircraft and ships) and for now (your link says that LORAN is losing popularity due to GPS).  However, the ubiquitous GPS enabled consumer devices that we all know and love do not use LORAN.

Well of course they do not use what we label LORAN. Consumer electronics take advantage of the vast, nameless system of radio towers dotted all over the landscape. It is no coincidence that consumer electronics contain the most inaccurate location systems, because they must use point triangulation provided by these towers. The concept that consumer electronics must use a device orbiting thousands of kilometers above the Earth to discern your location is brought upon by an misunderstanding of what we know as "GPS" really is. It is also no coincidence that all of the GPS satellites are supposedly under U.S. Air Force control.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 04:37:43 PM

I've always said that the sun changes altitude over the course of the year, which is seen in its analemma:

Unfortunately, the size of its disc does not change correspondingly. Another crackpot TB idea joins its fellows in the trash bin of reason.

The atmosphere has a magnification effect which balances out the size of the sun when it is closer or more distant: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 04:40:50 PM
I assume Tom and Rushy have iphones or smartphones? I have a challenge for you. Download the ISS or Sattracker apps. When you have a clear night, use the apps. Then argue with us over the existance of Satellites OK?

I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

Most satellites are the size of a car or smaller. You can't see a car in space for the same reason you can't see a car on the ground from the height of an international flight. As they cannot be seen, those satellites may not exist at all. Downloading an app to see them is a waste of time.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 04:58:04 PM
I assume Tom and Rushy have iphones or smartphones? I have a challenge for you. Download the ISS or Sattracker apps. When you have a clear night, use the apps. Then argue with us over the existance of Satellites OK?

I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.
And of course all the others, including the Progress supply capsule that docks with the ISS and which was easily visible a few weeks ago following almost the same path as it approached. Many satellites have their path predictions available, and in my experience these match reality. Although you appear to be conceding that the ISS has indeed been proven to be a satellite (which it has), I request you supply proof of the words in red independent of the claim that they can't exist as a consequence of earth flatness. I'd bet good money that you are unable to do so.
Quote
Most satellites are the size of a car or smaller. You can't see a car in space for the same reason you can't see a car on the ground from the height of an international flight. As they cannot be seen, those satellites may not exist at all. Downloading an app to see them is a waste of time.
You had this argument crushed years ago when people patiently explained to you that it's not just about size, it's about brightness and contrast. Since you don't listen, perhaps we should print out these old threads and nail them to your forehead.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: markjo on September 02, 2012, 05:11:47 PM
Well of course they do not use what we label LORAN.

Then why did you bring it up?

Quote
Consumer electronics take advantage of the vast, nameless system of radio towers dotted all over the landscape.  It is no coincidence that consumer electronics contain the most inaccurate location systems, because they must use point triangulation provided by these towers. The concept that consumer electronics must use a device orbiting thousands of kilometers above the Earth to discern your location is brought upon by an misunderstanding of what we know as "GPS" really is. It is also no coincidence that all of the GPS satellites are supposedly under U.S. Air Force control.

Come now, you expect us to believe that the US Air Force is using countless stationary towers in order to simulate 3 dozen or so uniquely identifiable moving signal sources?  Then please tell us, what is the true nature of this "GPS" that we think we know?
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 05:28:07 PM
Quote from: The Knowledge
And of course all the others, including the Progress supply capsule that docks with the ISS and which was easily visible a few weeks ago following almost the same path as it approached. Many satellites have their path predictions available, and in my experience these match reality. Although you appear to be conceding that the ISS has indeed been proven to be a satellite (which it has), I request you supply proof of the words in red independent of the claim that they can't exist as a consequence of earth flatness. I'd bet good money that you are unable to do so.

I said that the ISS was visible. I didn't say it was a satellite.

Quote from: The Knowledge
You had this argument crushed years ago when people patiently explained to you that it's not just about size, it's about brightness and contrast. Since you don't listen, perhaps we should print out these old threads and nail them to your forehead.

Sunlight bounces off of cars on the ground, creating intensely lit objects, but you still cannot see those cars from an international flight.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 05:31:48 PM

I've always said that the sun changes altitude over the course of the year, which is seen in its analemma:

Unfortunately, the size of its disc does not change correspondingly. Another crackpot TB idea joins its fellows in the trash bin of reason.

The atmosphere has a magnification effect which balances out the size of the sun when it is closer or more distant: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Sorry, that's nonsense. You don't have any proof of any of that, it contradicts all known physics governing light, and your wiki page does not constitute proof.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 05:32:49 PM
Quote from: The Knowledge
And of course all the others, including the Progress supply capsule that docks with the ISS and which was easily visible a few weeks ago following almost the same path as it approached. Many satellites have their path predictions available, and in my experience these match reality. Although you appear to be conceding that the ISS has indeed been proven to be a satellite (which it has), I request you supply proof of the words in red independent of the claim that they can't exist as a consequence of earth flatness. I'd bet good money that you are unable to do so.

I said that the ISS was visible. I didn't say it was a satellite.

Quote from: The Knowledge
You had this argument crushed years ago when people patiently explained to you that it's not just about size, it's about brightness and contrast. Since you don't listen, perhaps we should print out these old threads and nail them to your forehead.

Sunlight bounces off of cars on the ground, creating intensely lit objects, but you still cannot see those cars from an international flight.

I have put the word you are selectively ignoring in red. Address it now or leave the thread.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: garygreen on September 02, 2012, 06:24:48 PM
I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

While many of these objects cannot be seen in visible light, they all emit radio waves that are easily 'seen' by thousands of amateurs on a regular basis.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm (http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm)

Here is another repository of observations and tracking information: http://www.n2yo.com/ (http://www.n2yo.com/)
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 06:29:50 PM
Sorry, that's nonsense. You don't have any proof of any of that, it contradicts all known physics governing light, and your wiki page does not constitute proof.

The effect is well known. There's an example in the link.

I have put the word you are selectively ignoring in red. Address it now or leave the thread.

I did address it. It doesn't matter if a car is driving on a black highway. It still isn't going to be seen from an international flight, let alone space.

I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

While many of these objects cannot be seen in visible light, they all emit radio waves that are easily 'seen' by thousands of amateurs on a regular basis.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm (http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm)

Here is another repository of observations and tracking information: http://www.n2yo.com/ (http://www.n2yo.com/)

Stratellites.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: garygreen on September 02, 2012, 07:48:46 PM
I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

While many of these objects cannot be seen in visible light, they all emit radio waves that are easily 'seen' by thousands of amateurs on a regular basis.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm (http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm)

Here is another repository of observations and tracking information: http://www.n2yo.com/ (http://www.n2yo.com/)

Stratellites.

This explanation is falsifiable for several reasons.  I'm more than happy to expand on any of these, but you don't seem too keen on entertaining the discussion.

1.  From the point of view of a terrestrial observer, most of these objects traverse the sky from horizon to horizon in minutes because the objects themselves orbit the Earth in a few hours.  And, these objects have very precise and well understood trajectories.  See the n2yo link.  I can think of no way for a blimp to maintain such extreme, constant velocities.  I also can't image how its course wouldn be unaffected by atmospheric turbulence.

2.  Radio hams routinely have to compensate for Doppler effects when communicating with these objects, especially the ISS.  These effects cannot be faked for all observers.  For one thing, you'd have to know exactly who was listening to your stratellite, and when/where they were listening.  And, compensating your signal for one observer would disrupt the signal for other observers.  http://www.qsl.net/ah6rh/am-radio/spacecomm/doppler-and-the-iss.html (http://www.qsl.net/ah6rh/am-radio/spacecomm/doppler-and-the-iss.html)

3.  If these signals were broadcast from blimps floating above a flat Earth, all of their signals would be detectable to all observers at all times.  Radio waves are not absorbed and scattered by the atmosphere in the same way as visible light.  UHF and VHF radio waves, for example, are hardly affected by the atmosphere at all.  That these signals disappear when the object drops blow the horizon is proof that they are in orbit, not just out of sight.

4.  The geometry doesn't work.  See: my childish drawing.  Replace the Moon with a satellite and the drone with a stratellite.  It just wouldn't work.

(http://i.imgur.com/0sGuG.png)

Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Moon squirter on September 03, 2012, 01:26:55 AM
I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

While many of these objects cannot be seen in visible light, they all emit radio waves that are easily 'seen' by thousands of amateurs on a regular basis.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm (http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm)

Here is another repository of observations and tracking information: http://www.n2yo.com/ (http://www.n2yo.com/)

Stratellites.

Tom, Stratellites could not possibly travel at such speeds, by the nature of their construction.  They are gas-filled lighter-than-air craft and would therefore require massive amounts of energy at a constant rate, delivered from a propulsion system that weighs next-to-nothing.  Travelling supersonically would also be massively problematic for a blimp.

Also, another small problem:  I cannot find a single example of one currently in use.    Zero evidence.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Moon squirter on September 03, 2012, 01:45:17 AM
Most satellites are the size of a car or smaller. You can't see a car in space for the same reason you can't see a car on the ground from the height of an international flight. As they cannot be seen, those satellites may not exist at all. Downloading an app to see them is a waste of time.
You had this argument crushed years ago when people patiently explained to you that it's not just about size, it's about brightness and contrast. Since you don't listen, perhaps we should print out these old threads and nail them to your forehead.

Yes Knowledge, I'm afraid you're arguing with close-minded religious zealot with no capacity for reasoning.

Also please bear in mind that Tom as no knowledge of optics:

Once side of the magnifying glass magnifies images, the other side of the magnifying glass shrinks images.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: Battery72 on September 03, 2012, 01:46:36 AM
Sorry, that's nonsense. You don't have any proof of any of that, it contradicts all known physics governing light, and your wiki page does not constitute proof.

The effect is well known. There's an example in the link.

I have put the word you are selectively ignoring in red. Address it now or leave the thread.

I did address it. It doesn't matter if a car is driving on a black highway. It still isn't going to be seen from an international flight, let alone space.

I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

While many of these objects cannot be seen in visible light, they all emit radio waves that are easily 'seen' by thousands of amateurs on a regular basis.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm (http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm)

Here is another repository of observations and tracking information: http://www.n2yo.com/ (http://www.n2yo.com/)

Stratellites.

Really? How would this work? Show me one is use today. Are these on my satracker? Did you download the apps I asked you and Rushy to download? Rushy has avoided answering that like the plague. I suspect you will too.
Title: Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
Post by: The Knowledge on September 03, 2012, 04:35:59 AM
Sorry, that's nonsense. You don't have any proof of any of that, it contradicts all known physics governing light, and your wiki page does not constitute proof.

The effect is well known. There's an example in the link.
No, that's an example of you not understanding/deliberately misrepresenting a photographic effect.

Quote
I have put the word you are selectively ignoring in red. Address it now or leave the thread.

I did address it. It doesn't matter if a car is driving on a black highway. It still isn't going to be seen from an international flight, let alone space.
So Tom doesn't understand contrast whatsoever, but thinks he does. Noted.

Quote
I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

While many of these objects cannot be seen in visible light, they all emit radio waves that are easily 'seen' by thousands of amateurs on a regular basis.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm (http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm)

Here is another repository of observations and tracking information: http://www.n2yo.com/ (http://www.n2yo.com/)

Stratellites.
Disproven by not only everyone elses's posts prior to mine regarding this, but also by my diagram that Rushy claims doesn't exist in the other thread. Do a search.