ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 02:16:13 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?

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 02:19:30 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 02:16:13 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?

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.

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

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

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.

Quote from: 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

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

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.

Probably the solar branch gave it away.

So no other satellites have solar panels?

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?

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 02:30:28 PM

Quote from: 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

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.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 02:32:24 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 02:30:28 PM

Quote from: 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

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.

...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?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 16, 2012, 02:32:24 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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  You can even talk to the astronauts.  No joke. Elementary school students have done this already.  A bunch of times, actually.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">This semi-attractive Asian lady will explain to you how directional antennae work.

She also explains how to catch radio signals from satellites in orbit.

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.
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/iss_discovery_110228_eva.jpg
http://www.universetoday.com/93895/thierry-legault-astrophotography-is-an-adrenaline-rush/

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.

Quote from: garygreen on August 20, 2012, 11:40:16 AM

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.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs 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.

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.

A 227 ton man-made space vehicle? Please, this isn't Stargate.

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.