live iss!

This is how I perceive it. Can anyone who has a telescope try this out on focussing on the full moon to see if my thinking is right or wrong on this.
I'd prefer someone independent and unbiased to do this.
I only have a cheap crap telescope and it won't let me see a full moon, just a section.

I have looked at the Moon through several telescopes.  Your thinking is wrong.  Given the appropriate eyepiece, the vast majority of telescopes can show the whole moon at once.  All three I've used could show an image similar to the examples in question in this thread.

Cheap telescopes often only come with high magnification eyepieces so they can advertise huge magnifications on the box.  The problem is that higher magnifications give narrower, dimmer views than lower magnifications in a given scope.  It's possible your telescope only came with eyepieces that give too narrow a view to see the whole Moon.  But a detailed view of the whole Moon is possible.

I don't dispute all telescopes seeing the moon. I am asking if it's possible to see a close up of the moon and still see the "whole" moon.

Since "close up" and "whole" are pretty much mutually exclusive terms, I would venture a guess and say no.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 01:34:24 AM

I don't dispute all telescopes seeing the moon. I am asking if it's possible to see a close up of the moon and still see the "whole" moon.

Since "close up" and "whole" are pretty much mutually exclusive terms, I would venture a guess and say no.

This one, as so many others, is a question based on the wrong selection of words, since sceptimatic wants others to the the work for him.

And he wants others to do the work for him because then he can decide whether he can spin the answer in his favor or call everybody a liar.

First, no astronomer that I know has ever used the phrase "close up". You can call anything you do with a telescope a "close up", since it is a close up compared with a camera with a normal (non-telephoto) lens. In that case, the answer would be "yes".

Second, a "close up" could be the use of a magnification that is strong enough that the Moon covers more than the field of view. If you use a regular-to-cheap eyepiece on your telescope you get a field of view of some 40 degrees. If you use the maximum magnification of an not-so-entry-level telescope, you will typically get some 200x magnification. Therefore you have a field of view of some 0.2 degrees, and the Moon has an apparent size of about 0.5 degrees, so you would see less that half the width of the full Moon, or just about all the Sea of Tranquility.

Anyhow, the discussion is pointless, since sceptimatic is not even trying to look at the Moon. He just wants to rant.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 01:52:29 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 29, 2013, 12:28:41 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2013, 11:40:28 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 29, 2013, 11:32:54 AM

Sceptimatic, you remind me of the Terminator - cannot be bargained with, cannot be reasoned with, and absolutely will not stop.
All your arguments are "this can't be true because it's stupid" or "this person is a liar". That's all you've got.

I want your clothes...your boots...and your motor cycle. 

The issue here is, none of you can be bargained with either as you refute any anomalies and any evidence immediately, so what's the difference?

I happen to see fake screaming out of it all, yet explaining it all to people who are already drilled into rebutting it is not easy.

We refute anomalies? What anomalies do we refute?

Any and every.

Name one. A specific one.

watch this video and listen to what they say about no "up" or "down" in space.
Ok now pay attention to the video from 1 minute 50 onwards and concentrate on the womans hair.

Let's use her own logic first of all as a supposed clever Astronaut/scientist. Why isn't she tying her hair in a pony tail or a bun?
That's not really that important...but what is important, is, why is her hair sticking up as if she's upside down on Earth, yet when she moves, her hair simply bounces.

Let's look at Newtons law many of you have bandied about.
An object (her hair) will stay in motion , unless acted upon by another force.
For instance:
Once her hair moves, it should carry on moving until something stops it, for example, her face, yet her hair stays up no matter where she moves.

Also, there is no logical reason for her hair to always be up, unless she was upside down on Earth, OR Harmony hairspray has been applied generously, or some other product that sticks hair up.

Think of punk rockers.

Give me a logical reason why this should be happening with her. Oh and don't come up with the old static carry on either.


#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Our World: Sleeping On Board the International Space Station

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 01:34:24 AM

This is how I perceive it. Can anyone who has a telescope try this out on focussing on the full moon to see if my thinking is right or wrong on this.
I'd prefer someone independent and unbiased to do this.
I only have a cheap crap telescope and it won't let me see a full moon, just a section.

I have looked at the Moon through several telescopes.  Your thinking is wrong.  Given the appropriate eyepiece, the vast majority of telescopes can show the whole moon at once.  All three I've used could show an image similar to the examples in question in this thread.

Cheap telescopes often only come with high magnification eyepieces so they can advertise huge magnifications on the box.  The problem is that higher magnifications give narrower, dimmer views than lower magnifications in a given scope.  It's possible your telescope only came with eyepieces that give too narrow a view to see the whole Moon.  But a detailed view of the whole Moon is possible.

Oh, I don't dispute that my telescope is crap and has crap eye pieces.
Anyway, could you take a picture of the moon with one of those telescopes and maybe put it on here if it's possible, if you don;t mind that is.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 01:34:24 AM

I don't dispute all telescopes seeing the moon. I am asking if it's possible to see a close up of the moon and still see the "whole" moon.

Since "close up" and "whole" are pretty much mutually exclusive terms, I would venture a guess and say no.

Nice side step.

Quote from: markjo on January 30, 2013, 06:13:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 01:34:24 AM

I don't dispute all telescopes seeing the moon. I am asking if it's possible to see a close up of the moon and still see the "whole" moon.

Since "close up" and "whole" are pretty much mutually exclusive terms, I would venture a guess and say no.

This one, as so many others, is a question based on the wrong selection of words, since sceptimatic wants others to the the work for him.

And he wants others to do the work for him because then he can decide whether he can spin the answer in his favor or call everybody a liar.

First, no astronomer that I know has ever used the phrase "close up". You can call anything you do with a telescope a "close up", since it is a close up compared with a camera with a normal (non-telephoto) lens. In that case, the answer would be "yes".

Second, a "close up" could be the use of a magnification that is strong enough that the Moon covers more than the field of view. If you use a regular-to-cheap eyepiece on your telescope you get a field of view of some 40 degrees. If you use the maximum magnification of an not-so-entry-level telescope, you will typically get some 200x magnification. Therefore you have a field of view of some 0.2 degrees, and the Moon has an apparent size of about 0.5 degrees, so you would see less that half the width of the full Moon, or just about all the Sea of Tranquility.

Anyhow, the discussion is pointless, since sceptimatic is not even trying to look at the Moon. He just wants to rant.

You seem hell bent on proving me wrong in my assumptions, so I'm asking for you to prove me wrong, yet it appears you are side stepping this issue as well.

Quote from: MrT on January 30, 2013, 05:41:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 01:34:24 AM

This is how I perceive it. Can anyone who has a telescope try this out on focussing on the full moon to see if my thinking is right or wrong on this.
I'd prefer someone independent and unbiased to do this.
I only have a cheap crap telescope and it won't let me see a full moon, just a section.

I have looked at the Moon through several telescopes.  Your thinking is wrong.  Given the appropriate eyepiece, the vast majority of telescopes can show the whole moon at once.  All three I've used could show an image similar to the examples in question in this thread.

Cheap telescopes often only come with high magnification eyepieces so they can advertise huge magnifications on the box.  The problem is that higher magnifications give narrower, dimmer views than lower magnifications in a given scope.  It's possible your telescope only came with eyepieces that give too narrow a view to see the whole Moon.  But a detailed view of the whole Moon is possible.

Oh, I don't dispute that my telescope is crap and has crap eye pieces.
Anyway, could you take a picture of the moon with one of those telescopes and maybe put it on here if it's possible, if you don;t mind that is.

I do plan on getting an adapter to mount my camera to my telescope.  When/if I get a picture of the Moon I would be glad to post it up. 

Wolf posted one up that he took already as well.

Give me a logical reason why this should be happening with her. Oh and don't come up with the old static carry on either.

When my hair is even a little dirty, or if I use crappy shampoo, I can run my hands through it and it will stand up, even against gravity.  Now, my hair isn't nearly as long as what's shown in the video, but it's not in a weightless condition either.  The hair itself could be resisting the movement. 

My mother's hair will eventually be a poofy mess if she doesn't condition and brush it regularly (despite being subject to "gravity" or whatever you atribute as the reason things fall on Earth).  Some people's hair naturally becomes quite curly.  Why is it so hard to believe that someone's hair could end up looking like a bouncing, puffy mess in a weightless environment without showers.  I realise they do wash their hair, but I doubt they are using the same exact products and procedures that allow hair to be smooth and flowing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 08:45:10 AM

Give me a logical reason why this should be happening with her. Oh and don't come up with the old static carry on either.

When my hair is even a little dirty, or if I use crappy shampoo, I can run my hands through it and it will stand up, even against gravity.  Now, my hair isn't nearly as long as what's shown in the video, but it's not in a weightless condition either.  The hair itself could be resisting the movement. 

My mother's hair will eventually be a poofy mess if she doesn't condition and brush it regularly (despite being subject to "gravity" or whatever you atribute as the reason things fall on Earth).  Some people's hair naturally becomes quite curly.  Why is it so hard to believe that someone's hair could end up looking like a bouncing, puffy mess in a weightless environment without showers.  I realise they do wash their hair, but I doubt they are using the same exact products and procedures that allow hair to be smooth and flowing.

The logical answer I would have expected was, " yes that does appear strange...why would her hair simply just stay up like that even with static."

If her hair was dirty, it would be a greasy mop, so we can assume it's clean.
We also know that static like that in a craft would cause lots of problems in the amount it would take to whip her hair up like that, so we can discount that on logical grounds.

We also know that in a weightless environment with no up or down, her hair should be up and down or side to side depending on her head movements, yet it stays upright at all times.

The only two logical conclusions can be..she has some hair stiffening compound on it and does this for a bit of fun as she still relives her punk rocker days and she is free to do this in the space station.

OR.....

She has some hair stiffening compound on her hair, because she is faking being in the space station in zero gravity and is playing a mix between a zero gravity plane and also a green screen.

What seems more likely?

The only two logical conclusions can be..she has some hair stiffening compound on it and does this for a bit of fun as she still relives her punk rocker days and she is free to do this in the space station.

OR.....

She has some hair stiffening compound on her hair, because she is faking being in the space station in zero gravity and is playing a mix between a zero gravity plane and also a green screen.

What seems more likely?

First of all, to me the first is more likely because of the huge amount of other evidence of the space station being real. 

However, I notice you ignored all of my post except the part about dirty hair (I don't know about you, but my hair gets a bit stiff when it gets dirty, and that's long before it's a "greasy mop").  What about women, my mother included, needing frequent brushing and conditioner to keep their hair from looking fairly close to that even here on Earth?  Also, some hair is naturally curly, so hair itself has some stiffness.  If not pulled down by gravity, why is it so strange that it would instead stick somewhat straight out?  My hair sticks out fairly straight when it's short.  As it gets longer it's weight pulls it down.  If I was in a weightless environment what would stop it from sticking basically straight out like in the video?

And also, even perfectly clean, my hair will be a bit stiff if I use crappy shampoo (at a cheap hotel for example).  Enough that it can basically stand straight out even against gravity.  So, why is it that hair in the video so absolutely unbelievable to you?

To your "logic" it seems like undeniable proof that the ISS is a hoax.  To me, it seem to be behaving pretty much like hair does, and would be expected to behave in a virtually weightless environment (particularly one without the benifit of hot showers). 

Either way, you seem almost distraught by the mere thought that someone could believe that hair looks how it would under the supposed conditions of the ISS.  So I don't suppose there is much reason to continue the discussion.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 10:31:43 AM

The only two logical conclusions can be..she has some hair stiffening compound on it and does this for a bit of fun as she still relives her punk rocker days and she is free to do this in the space station.

OR.....

She has some hair stiffening compound on her hair, because she is faking being in the space station in zero gravity and is playing a mix between a zero gravity plane and also a green screen.

What seems more likely?

First of all, to me the first is more likely because of the huge amount of other evidence of the space station being real. 

However, I notice you ignored all of my post except the part about dirty hair (I don't know about you, but my hair gets a bit stiff when it gets dirty, and that's long before it's a "greasy mop").  What about women, my mother included, needing frequent brushing and conditioner to keep their hair from looking fairly close to that even here on Earth?  Also, some hair is naturally curly, so hair itself has some stiffness.  If not pulled down by gravity, why is it so strange that it would instead stick somewhat straight out?  My hair sticks out fairly straight when it's short.  As it gets longer it's weight pulls it down.  If I was in a weightless environment what would stop it from sticking basically straight out like in the video?

And also, even perfectly clean, my hair will be a bit stiff if I use crappy shampoo (at a cheap hotel for example).  Enough that it can basically stand straight out even against gravity.  So, why is it that hair in the video so absolutely unbelievable to you?

To your "logic" it seems like undeniable proof that the ISS is a hoax.  To me, it seem to be behaving pretty much like hair does, and would be expected to behave in a virtually weightless environment (particularly one without the benifit of hot showers). 

Either way, you seem almost distraught by the mere thought that someone could believe that hair looks how it would under the supposed conditions of the ISS.  So I don't suppose there is much reason to continue the discussion.

I agree with you. There is no reason for you to continue this discussion, as the fact that you have tried to pass her hair off as a normal thing happening is the only way you can explain it.

This is just one of many things that proves to me that the ISS is a joke and no more than a model in a studio, plus a rigged up set of copy cat parts in a pool designed to imitate space walking etc.

I don't dispute all telescopes seeing the moon. I am asking if it's possible to see a close up of the moon and still see the "whole" moon.

If by 'close up' you mean a magnified view of the moon (such as through a common telescope) and still see the "whole" (meaning the half of the sphere visible to Earth while illuminated) moon.... then yes, it's possible with the correct magnification.

Give me a logical reason why this should be happening with her. Oh and don't come up with the old static carry on either.

My hair is a couple inches long.  If I press my hand on the top of my head and compress my hair, it springs back up despite gravity.  (after washing and even including conditioner)

Take a strand of hair that is a couple inches long and hold it horizontal.  Does it droop down?  No.  If it's long enough, yes, it will begin to bend because of it's weight.

Apply those concepts to the video.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 01:34:24 AM

I don't dispute all telescopes seeing the moon. I am asking if it's possible to see a close up of the moon and still see the "whole" moon.

If by 'close up' you mean a magnified view of the moon (such as through a common telescope) and still see the "whole" (meaning the half of the sphere visible to Earth while illuminated) moon.... then yes, it's possible with the correct magnification.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 08:45:10 AM

Give me a logical reason why this should be happening with her. Oh and don't come up with the old static carry on either.

My hair is a couple inches long.  If I press my hand on the top of my head and compress my hair, it springs back up despite gravity.  (after washing and even including conditioner)

Take a strand of hair that is a couple inches long and hold it horizontal.  Does it droop down?  No.  If it's long enough, yes, it will begin to bend because of it's weight.

Apply those concepts to the video.

Have you seen how long her hair is?

it wouldnt make a diference how much hair their was. its 0g. length dsnt change how it would float.

Have you seen how long her hair is?

Do you understand a 'weightless' environment?

it wouldnt make a diference how much hair their was. its 0g. length dsnt change how it would float.

So why is it sticking up in this weightlessness and refuses to move elsewhere.
You clearly know what I mean and you clearly know this is impossible unless she is using some kind of hair stiffener.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 12:13:32 PM

Have you seen how long her hair is?

Do you understand a 'weightless' environment?

Yes.

How about factoring in a 17,000 supposed mph space station into that.

I did, just not mathematically because I don't feel like doing that much work to prove logic. The ISS is over 200 miles away traveling 17000mph, not on the ground, 200 miles away. It might be a little rusty, but use your brain.

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 30, 2013, 12:16:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 12:13:32 PM

Have you seen how long her hair is?

Do you understand a 'weightless' environment?

Yes.

Then you should understand the length of her hair makes no difference. She just got out of bed. She has bedhead.
Here is bedhead on earth:


So you're skeptical when her hair looks crazy after waking up in prolonged 0G? Come on.

When did you take this picture?

12 January 2011 around 6pm.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 02:10:12 AM

How about factoring in a 17,000 supposed mph space station into that.

I did, just not mathematically because I don't feel like doing that much work to prove logic. The ISS is over 200 miles away traveling 17000mph, not on the ground, 200 miles away. It might be a little rusty, but use your brain.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 12:26:52 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 30, 2013, 12:16:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 12:13:32 PM

Have you seen how long her hair is?

Do you understand a 'weightless' environment?

Yes.

Then you should understand the length of her hair makes no difference. She just got out of bed. She has bedhead.
Here is bedhead on earth:


So you're skeptical when her hair looks crazy after waking up in prolonged 0G? Come on.

It's not bed head she's got, as she is like this in all of her fake space station videos.
Your attempts at convincing me are feeble at best.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 02:08:44 AM

When did you take this picture?

12 January 2011 around 6pm.

Then why is it copyrighted 2009?

Quote from: Dog on January 30, 2013, 04:55:53 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 02:10:12 AM

How about factoring in a 17,000 supposed mph space station into that.

I did, just not mathematically because I don't feel like doing that much work to prove logic. The ISS is over 200 miles away traveling 17000mph, not on the ground, 200 miles away. It might be a little rusty, but use your brain.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 12:26:52 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 30, 2013, 12:16:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 12:13:32 PM

Have you seen how long her hair is?

Do you understand a 'weightless' environment?

Yes.

Then you should understand the length of her hair makes no difference. She just got out of bed. She has bedhead.
Here is bedhead on earth:

So you're skeptical when her hair looks crazy after waking up in prolonged 0G? Come on.

It's not bed head she's got, as she is like this in all of her fake space station videos.
Your attempts at convincing me are feeble at best.

Well she just got out of bed, so it was a logical answer. The next logical answer is what everyone else is saying. Human hair just after one day without showering can become quite dirty/oily (not really visible), and can easily look crazy on earth without hair product, my hair being an example. So living in a space station for months with limited showers and a 0g environment could easily make it look like that. NEXT. Something not so trivial this time...

Quote from: Wolf on January 30, 2013, 11:59:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 02:08:44 AM

When did you take this picture?

12 January 2011 around 6pm.

Then why is it copyrighted 2009?

It isn't

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2013, 12:42:31 AM

Quote from: Dog on January 30, 2013, 04:55:53 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 02:10:12 AM

How about factoring in a 17,000 supposed mph space station into that.

I did, just not mathematically because I don't feel like doing that much work to prove logic. The ISS is over 200 miles away traveling 17000mph, not on the ground, 200 miles away. It might be a little rusty, but use your brain.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 12:26:52 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 30, 2013, 12:16:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 12:13:32 PM

Have you seen how long her hair is?

Do you understand a 'weightless' environment?

Yes.

Then you should understand the length of her hair makes no difference. She just got out of bed. She has bedhead.
Here is bedhead on earth:

So you're skeptical when her hair looks crazy after waking up in prolonged 0G? Come on.

It's not bed head she's got, as she is like this in all of her fake space station videos.
Your attempts at convincing me are feeble at best.

Well she just got out of bed, so it was a logical answer. The next logical answer is what everyone else is saying. Human hair just after one day without showering can become quite dirty/oily (not really visible), and can easily look crazy on earth without hair product, my hair being an example. So living in a space station for months with limited showers and a 0g environment could easily make it look like that. NEXT. Something not so trivial this time...

Ok, I'll make this simple.

Her hair is about 12 inches long but let's say 10 inches just so I'm not over estimating it.
Here's a deal for you.

Go and get some hair or anything that resembles the texture of hair and make it about 10 inches long. Get a finger thickness sized clump of it, then without using anything on it, stand it upright whilst holding the bottom of it with your finger tips.

Tell me what happens.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2013, 12:43:20 AM

Quote from: Wolf on January 30, 2013, 11:59:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 02:08:44 AM

When did you take this picture?

12 January 2011 around 6pm.

Then why is it copyrighted 2009?

It isn't

It is.

Quote from: Dog on January 31, 2013, 12:48:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2013, 12:42:31 AM

Quote from: Dog on January 30, 2013, 04:55:53 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 02:10:12 AM

How about factoring in a 17,000 supposed mph space station into that.

I did, just not mathematically because I don't feel like doing that much work to prove logic. The ISS is over 200 miles away traveling 17000mph, not on the ground, 200 miles away. It might be a little rusty, but use your brain.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 12:26:52 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 30, 2013, 12:16:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 12:13:32 PM

Have you seen how long her hair is?

Do you understand a 'weightless' environment?

Yes.

Then you should understand the length of her hair makes no difference. She just got out of bed. She has bedhead.
Here is bedhead on earth:

So you're skeptical when her hair looks crazy after waking up in prolonged 0G? Come on.

It's not bed head she's got, as she is like this in all of her fake space station videos.
Your attempts at convincing me are feeble at best.

Well she just got out of bed, so it was a logical answer. The next logical answer is what everyone else is saying. Human hair just after one day without showering can become quite dirty/oily (not really visible), and can easily look crazy on earth without hair product, my hair being an example. So living in a space station for months with limited showers and a 0g environment could easily make it look like that. NEXT. Something not so trivial this time...

Ok, I'll make this simple.

Her hair is about 12 inches long but let's say 10 inches just so I'm not over estimating it.
Here's a deal for you.

Go and get some hair or anything that resembles the texture of hair and make it about 10 inches long. Get a finger thickness sized clump of it, then without using anything on it, stand it upright whilst holding the bottom of it with your finger tips.

Tell me what happens.

1. We've already stated length does not matter. It still weighs (almost) nothing in space.

2. I don't have a 0g environment to test your pointless test in.

Quote from: Dog on January 31, 2013, 12:51:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2013, 12:43:20 AM

Quote from: Wolf on January 30, 2013, 11:59:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 02:08:44 AM

When did you take this picture?

12 January 2011 around 6pm.

Then why is it copyrighted 2009?

It isn't

It is.

Evidence?

Dog:
Click on the picture and save it and you will see it's copyrighted.

Why would you be so bothered trying to shoot me down over the picture when Wolf posted it and claimed it's  from 2011?

You're not Phil Plait or someone like that are you. 

Dog:
Click on the picture and save it and you will see it's copyrighted.

Why would you be so bothered trying to shoot me down over the picture when Wolf posted it and claimed it's  from 2011?

You're not Phil Plait or someone like that are you. 

It was taken on 12 January 2011. I promise you. I have completely overwhelming evidence, but I don't want to post it here for personal reasons. The site I submitted the photo to has strict rules and photos must be photos from a digital camera and they must be taken within the week of the challenge, else you're disqualified. This is very strongly moderated. If you want I can go find the original and you can have a look at the EXIF data. It's at home and I'm not at home.

If you want, I can take a photo this evening and send it to you? But I'm sure you can see the moon from where you are.

Don't be an ass.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2013, 01:30:48 AM

Dog:
Click on the picture and save it and you will see it's copyrighted.

Why would you be so bothered trying to shoot me down over the picture when Wolf posted it and claimed it's  from 2011?

You're not Phil Plait or someone like that are you. 

It was taken on 12 January 2011. I promise you. I have completely overwhelming evidence, but I don't want to post it here for personal reasons. The site I submitted the photo to has strict rules and photos must be photos from a digital camera and they must be taken within the week of the challenge, else you're disqualified. This is very strongly moderated. If you want I can go find the original and you can have a look at the EXIF data. It's at home and I'm not at home.

If you want, I can take a photo this evening and send it to you? But I'm sure you can see the moon from where you are.

Don't be an ass.

So you submitted your photo and they copyrighted it and put 2009 down just for the sake of it did they?
Why did they copyright your photo then?