live iss!

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?

I saved the image like you said. Didn't see anything to do with 2009. The copyright you may be seeing might be the site copyright (updated in 2009 probably then) - they don't want other sites with these images on. I don't copyright my photos - some people there do.

I'll send you the original in a few hours time when I get home. I will also see if I'm awake when the moon is high enough tonight and I'll get a photo of that and send it to you if you're not satisfied.

You're being an ass hole troll. Regardless of the photo, the fact is you can view the moon like that with just about any telescope. Another fact is that I have tracked the ISS personally (and yooo can tooo! ). You don't have to believe me, I really don't care.

You really don't get any, hey? And you can't contribute to anything so you try to troll here to some ridiculous idea where you can make stuff up, right?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2013, 02:46:10 AM

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?

I saved the image like you said. Didn't see anything to do with 2009. The copyright you may be seeing might be the site copyright (updated in 2009 probably then) - they don't want other sites with these images on. I don't copyright my photos - some people there do.

I'll send you the original in a few hours time when I get home. I will also see if I'm awake when the moon is high enough tonight and I'll get a photo of that and send it to you if you're not satisfied.

You're being an ass hole troll. Regardless of the photo, the fact is you can view the moon like that with just about any telescope. Another fact is that I have tracked the ISS personally (and yooo can tooo! ). You don't have to believe me, I really don't care.

You really don't get any, hey? And you can't contribute to anything so you try to troll here to some ridiculous idea where you can make stuff up, right?

You really didn't need to go into the troll business as it has zero effect but anyway, here's what I would like you to do, if you don't mind.

Take a picture of the moon, just like the one you posted or as similar as you can, then I would like you to put that picture beside the telescope you used with a note with your wolf name on it and the time and date you took it.

On the table should be 3 things.
1. The picture of the moon.

2. The telescope used.

3. A note with wolf on it, plus the time and date you took the picture.

Fair enough?

Oh and by the way Wolf:
Your picture is on 48 sites.

Damn. Only 48. (I'm not a professional, so I really don't care who copies my photos - and besides, it's a photo of the moon, big whoop!).

Ok, fine. I'll do that (I love astro-photography, but I don't have money to take photos of the really cool stuff cos I'd rather spend it on a house). In fact, I'll add in a screenshot of your post. (Let's just hope it's not cloudy tonight...). Remember that the moon isn't a quarter moon tonight - it's about a 3/8 moon.

But how will you know the actual photo of the moon is an actual photo of the moon I took? I'll take a photo of the camera used with the photo displayed on the LCD and I'll add in a reflection on the LCD of something in the photo so that you can see it's not a photoshopped in reflection (I wish I was that good with photoshop).

Just a note - the telescope will not be on a table (it's too big).

So what to expect (in around 11 or so hours)?

1. A photo of the moon like the one I previously posted (nicely photoshopped to get the details crisp and the contrast high).
2. The original unedited photo of the moon.
3. The camera used to take the photo with the photo displayed, next to the telescope, a piece of paper with "Wolf" and the time and date of the photo on it and a print out of your post with your demands.
4. A close up of the LCD of the camera used to take the photo with something reflected in it (and the something will be in the frame).

After all that schlep, you will be able to deduce the following:
1. An Orion XT8 telescope with an Orion Sirius Plossl 25mm eyepiece is capable of allowing one to view the whole moon in the field of view with a relatively high level of detail.

Damn. Only 48. (I'm not a professional, so I really don't care who copies my photos - and besides, it's a photo of the moon, big whoop!).

Ok, fine. I'll do that (I love astro-photography, but I don't have money to take photos of the really cool stuff cos I'd rather spend it on a house). In fact, I'll add in a screenshot of your post. (Let's just hope it's not cloudy tonight...). Remember that the moon isn't a quarter moon tonight - it's about a 3/8 moon.

But how will you know the actual photo of the moon is an actual photo of the moon I took? I'll take a photo of the camera used with the photo displayed on the LCD and I'll add in a reflection on the LCD of something in the photo so that you can see it's not a photoshopped in reflection (I wish I was that good with photoshop).

Just a note - the telescope will not be on a table (it's too big).

So what to expect (in around 11 or so hours)?

1. A photo of the moon like the one I previously posted (nicely photoshopped to get the details crisp and the contrast high).
2. The original unedited photo of the moon.
3. The camera used to take the photo with the photo displayed, next to the telescope, a piece of paper with "Wolf" and the time and date of the photo on it and a print out of your post with your demands.
4. A close up of the LCD of the camera used to take the photo with something reflected in it (and the something will be in the frame).

After all that schlep, you will be able to deduce the following:
1. An Orion XT8 telescope with an Orion Sirius Plossl 25mm eyepiece is capable of allowing one to view the whole moon in the field of view with a relatively high level of detail.

I'll look forward to it, thanks.

Quote from: Wolf on January 31, 2013, 02:43:42 AM

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?

He's about to crack the conspiracy wide open with this one...

Seriously though, I don't see anything about 2009.

When do we get to see your pictures of the moon Sceptimatic?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2013, 02:46:10 AM

Quote from: Wolf on January 31, 2013, 02:43:42 AM

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?

He's about to crack the conspiracy wide open with this one...

Seriously though, I don't see anything about 2009.

When do we get to see your pictures of the moon Sceptimatic?

You're not.

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

Yes I know how to save files, and yes it's copyrighted, still nothing about 2009....
What does this moon photo have to with anything though? Yes you can take a picture of the moon. With a camera. That big moon thing in the sky can be photographed. What the hell are you going on about?

And thank you for dropping the useless hair argument. Now bring something real to the table.

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.

Yes I know how to save files, and yes it's copyrighted, still nothing about 2009....
What does this moon photo have to with anything though? Yes you can take a picture of the moon. With a camera. That big moon thing in the sky can be photographed. What the hell are you going on about?

And thank you for dropping the useless hair argument. Now bring something real to the table.

I haven't dropped he hair argument. It's one of the most conclusive proofs of a fake ISS.

The copyright of 2009 is on the Samsung camera - so the Samsung software version is copyrighted 2009:


The camera hasn't had batteries in for a very long time, so the time and date on it are wrong. I found this out when editing the photos and I wasn't about to go take another photo of the moon (it's quite a setup and I had already packed everything away).

Here are the photos:

1. Edited photo of the moon (very basic quick editing)


2. Unedited photo of the moon (Flickr resizes it to 800px)


3. All the stuff asked for


4. Closer in


5. More detail (the time shown is CAT and the year was covered up - you can see it in the photo above)


6. Reflections to prove the photo was taken by me with my camera


I hope this is enough to show that I did indeed take a photo of the moon.

Thanks for taking the time to do that Wolf.
I mean, I haven't changed any thoughts on fakery of all the things I've said but I accept you took a moon shot.

I shot this with my HD video camera using it's 30x zoom.  Wolf's pictures look much better though.

That's decent for a video camera!

I took a photo with my Nikon as well, and that seems to be even better. The sky was unfortunately not clear at all and the moon was low in the sky, so there was interference from the hot air rising. I was also holding the camera over the eyepiece. I'd love to get a mount for my SLR. Ideal conditions would be icy cold winter's night and a clear sky after a cold front then you'd get a detailed photo!

That picture is edited slightly, I tweaked the brightness and contrast a hair.  That was taken in June if I remember, so I need to try again now that it's cold.  I'd love to get or build a camera mount for my telescope and spotting scope.  I need to collimate the telescope though first too.  I think it's a little off.

Quote from: Dog on January 31, 2013, 02:11:38 PM

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.

Yes I know how to save files, and yes it's copyrighted, still nothing about 2009....
What does this moon photo have to with anything though? Yes you can take a picture of the moon. With a camera. That big moon thing in the sky can be photographed. What the hell are you going on about?

And thank you for dropping the useless hair argument. Now bring something real to the table.

I haven't dropped he hair argument. It's one of the most conclusive proofs of a fake ISS.

Well it's not very conclusive, it's just a hypothesis. Neither you or I have been in a 0g environment for a prolonged period of time to see the effects. And I don't think we will anytime soon. So since it can't be concluded, bring a more challenging point on the ISS being a hoax.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2013, 02:26:18 PM

Quote from: Dog on January 31, 2013, 02:11:38 PM

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.

Yes I know how to save files, and yes it's copyrighted, still nothing about 2009....
What does this moon photo have to with anything though? Yes you can take a picture of the moon. With a camera. That big moon thing in the sky can be photographed. What the hell are you going on about?

And thank you for dropping the useless hair argument. Now bring something real to the table.

I haven't dropped he hair argument. It's one of the most conclusive proofs of a fake ISS.

Well it's not very conclusive, it's just a hypothesis. Neither you or I have been in a 0g environment for a prolonged period of time to see the effects. And I don't think we will anytime soon. So since it can't be concluded, bring a more challenging point on the ISS being a hoax.

An object in motion, will stay in motion, unless acted upon by another force.
Ok so we have a supposed weightless zero G environment in the so called ISS.
Once an Astro liar moves, they stay in motion unless they grab something or hit something right?

Let's look at her hair:

She moves about, yet her hair stays upright no matter what but what you notice is, it bounces.So in effect, it does go to move but is stopped by some force.
Now we know that it cannot be an object, as we can see there is no objects for her hair to bounce against.

Only one thing possible.
She has some kind of hair stiffener on which keeps her hair like it is.

Don't make me put up drawings of what I mean to prove this as it will take time. Just accept that it's not normal and goes against the other things they do in that fake ISS.

Quote from: Dog on January 31, 2013, 11:16:01 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2013, 02:26:18 PM

Quote from: Dog on January 31, 2013, 02:11:38 PM

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.

Yes I know how to save files, and yes it's copyrighted, still nothing about 2009....
What does this moon photo have to with anything though? Yes you can take a picture of the moon. With a camera. That big moon thing in the sky can be photographed. What the hell are you going on about?

And thank you for dropping the useless hair argument. Now bring something real to the table.

I haven't dropped he hair argument. It's one of the most conclusive proofs of a fake ISS.

Well it's not very conclusive, it's just a hypothesis. Neither you or I have been in a 0g environment for a prolonged period of time to see the effects. And I don't think we will anytime soon. So since it can't be concluded, bring a more challenging point on the ISS being a hoax.

An object in motion, will stay in motion, unless acted upon by another force.
Ok so we have a supposed weightless zero G environment in the so called ISS.
Once an Astro liar moves, they stay in motion unless they grab something or hit something right?

Let's look at her hair:

She moves about, yet her hair stays upright no matter what but what you notice is, it bounces.So in effect, it does go to move but is stopped by some force.
Now we know that it cannot be an object, as we can see there is no objects for her hair to bounce against.

Only one thing possible.
She has some kind of hair stiffener on which keeps her hair like it is.

Don't make me put up drawings of what I mean to prove this as it will take time. Just accept that it's not normal and goes against the other things they do in that fake ISS.

My previous point still stands. Next.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 02, 2013, 04:21:53 AM

Quote from: Dog on January 31, 2013, 11:16:01 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2013, 02:26:18 PM

Quote from: Dog on January 31, 2013, 02:11:38 PM

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.

Yes I know how to save files, and yes it's copyrighted, still nothing about 2009....
What does this moon photo have to with anything though? Yes you can take a picture of the moon. With a camera. That big moon thing in the sky can be photographed. What the hell are you going on about?

And thank you for dropping the useless hair argument. Now bring something real to the table.

I haven't dropped he hair argument. It's one of the most conclusive proofs of a fake ISS.

Well it's not very conclusive, it's just a hypothesis. Neither you or I have been in a 0g environment for a prolonged period of time to see the effects. And I don't think we will anytime soon. So since it can't be concluded, bring a more challenging point on the ISS being a hoax.

An object in motion, will stay in motion, unless acted upon by another force.
Ok so we have a supposed weightless zero G environment in the so called ISS.
Once an Astro liar moves, they stay in motion unless they grab something or hit something right?

Let's look at her hair:

She moves about, yet her hair stays upright no matter what but what you notice is, it bounces.So in effect, it does go to move but is stopped by some force.
Now we know that it cannot be an object, as we can see there is no objects for her hair to bounce against.

Only one thing possible.
She has some kind of hair stiffener on which keeps her hair like it is.

Don't make me put up drawings of what I mean to prove this as it will take time. Just accept that it's not normal and goes against the other things they do in that fake ISS.

My previous point still stands. Next.

Not with hair that's close to a foot long it doesn't. I'd let you off if her hair was a few inches long.

The hair stays up, because that's its natural state.  Hair is a solid with elastic qualities.  Since there is no force pulling the hair down, it stays in the position its in.  Her moving around introduces some force, making it wave a bit, but the elastic force in the hair always pulls it back into that state when outside forces aren't acting on it.

The hair stays up, because that's its natural state.  Hair is a solid with elastic qualities.  Since there is no force pulling the hair down, it stays in the position its in.  Her moving around introduces some force, making it wave a bit, but the elastic force in the hair always pulls it back into that state when outside forces aren't acting on it.

What elastic force?

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 03, 2013, 09:34:02 AM

The hair stays up, because that's its natural state.  Hair is a solid with elastic qualities.  Since there is no force pulling the hair down, it stays in the position its in.  Her moving around introduces some force, making it wave a bit, but the elastic force in the hair always pulls it back into that state when outside forces aren't acting on it.

What elastic force?

When you bend a piece of rubber, or other elastic material, it springs back into place.  The force that does this is called elastic force.  All materials have this in fact, including hair.  The force comes from within the material.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 03, 2013, 09:58:32 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 03, 2013, 09:34:02 AM

The hair stays up, because that's its natural state.  Hair is a solid with elastic qualities.  Since there is no force pulling the hair down, it stays in the position its in.  Her moving around introduces some force, making it wave a bit, but the elastic force in the hair always pulls it back into that state when outside forces aren't acting on it.

What elastic force?

When you bend a piece of rubber, or other elastic material, it springs back into place.  The force that does this is called elastic force.  All materials have this in fact, including hair.  The force comes from within the material.

So when she moves about, this so called elastic force should go down, hit her face and spring back up and back down again until the elasticity wanes, yet all we see it bouncing hair that moves slightly back when in fact it should keep going as there's nothing stopping it.
What's the magic potion for this called?

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 03, 2013, 10:04:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 03, 2013, 09:58:32 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 03, 2013, 09:34:02 AM

The hair stays up, because that's its natural state.  Hair is a solid with elastic qualities.  Since there is no force pulling the hair down, it stays in the position its in.  Her moving around introduces some force, making it wave a bit, but the elastic force in the hair always pulls it back into that state when outside forces aren't acting on it.

What elastic force?

When you bend a piece of rubber, or other elastic material, it springs back into place.  The force that does this is called elastic force.  All materials have this in fact, including hair.  The force comes from within the material.

So when she moves about, this so called elastic force should go down, hit her face and spring back up and back down again until the elasticity wanes, yet all we see it bouncing hair that moves slightly back when in fact it should keep going as there's nothing stopping it.
What's the magic potion for this called?

The forces involved are clearly not as extreme as you imagine them.  The elastic force is much stronger than the force introduced by the movement of her head. There is also air on the station, making air resistance a factor.  Although, this is probably not as much a factor as the elastic force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 03, 2013, 10:08:16 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 03, 2013, 10:04:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 03, 2013, 09:58:32 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 03, 2013, 09:34:02 AM

The hair stays up, because that's its natural state.  Hair is a solid with elastic qualities.  Since there is no force pulling the hair down, it stays in the position its in.  Her moving around introduces some force, making it wave a bit, but the elastic force in the hair always pulls it back into that state when outside forces aren't acting on it.

What elastic force?

When you bend a piece of rubber, or other elastic material, it springs back into place.  The force that does this is called elastic force.  All materials have this in fact, including hair.  The force comes from within the material.

So when she moves about, this so called elastic force should go down, hit her face and spring back up and back down again until the elasticity wanes, yet all we see it bouncing hair that moves slightly back when in fact it should keep going as there's nothing stopping it.
What's the magic potion for this called?

The forces involved are clearly not as extreme as you imagine them.  The elastic force is much stronger than the force introduced by the movement of her head. There is also air on the station, making air resistance a factor.  Although, this is probably not as much a factor as the elastic force.

I'll give you 5/10 for effort. A little tip. Never take a job as a salesman, you will struggle for money.

How is that even relevant?

How is that even relevant?

Because your explanation is garbage and unbelievable. Any person with an open mind can clearly see that the womans hair is unnatural in it's movement on a supposed space station that is weightless.

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 03, 2013, 10:32:37 AM

How is that even relevant?

Because your explanation is garbage and unbelievable.

I'm using basic engineering concepts: material properties, and mechanics/physics etc.  You're reaction calling it garbage illuminates your ignorance.

It's just typical scepi. He asks a stupid question, that even if he would be right(which he won't, because it's elementary physics), it still wouldn't discount space travel, we give him the answers anyway, jump through his stupid hoops, he then tries to discount it a few times and fails miserably, then he calls BS because he can't comprehend. Rinse and repeat.

Quote from: Dog on February 02, 2013, 02:00:38 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 02, 2013, 04:21:53 AM

Quote from: Dog on January 31, 2013, 11:16:01 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2013, 02:26:18 PM

Quote from: Dog on January 31, 2013, 02:11:38 PM

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.

Yes I know how to save files, and yes it's copyrighted, still nothing about 2009....
What does this moon photo have to with anything though? Yes you can take a picture of the moon. With a camera. That big moon thing in the sky can be photographed. What the hell are you going on about?

And thank you for dropping the useless hair argument. Now bring something real to the table.

I haven't dropped he hair argument. It's one of the most conclusive proofs of a fake ISS.

Well it's not very conclusive, it's just a hypothesis. Neither you or I have been in a 0g environment for a prolonged period of time to see the effects. And I don't think we will anytime soon. So since it can't be concluded, bring a more challenging point on the ISS being a hoax.

An object in motion, will stay in motion, unless acted upon by another force.
Ok so we have a supposed weightless zero G environment in the so called ISS.
Once an Astro liar moves, they stay in motion unless they grab something or hit something right?

Let's look at her hair:

She moves about, yet her hair stays upright no matter what but what you notice is, it bounces.So in effect, it does go to move but is stopped by some force.
Now we know that it cannot be an object, as we can see there is no objects for her hair to bounce against.

Only one thing possible.
She has some kind of hair stiffener on which keeps her hair like it is.

Don't make me put up drawings of what I mean to prove this as it will take time. Just accept that it's not normal and goes against the other things they do in that fake ISS.

My previous point still stands. Next.

Not with hair that's close to a foot long it doesn't. I'd let you off if her hair was a few inches long.

So you bring up a point that was already addressed, and on top of that my point STILL stands.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 03, 2013, 10:35:34 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 03, 2013, 10:32:37 AM

How is that even relevant?

Because your explanation is garbage and unbelievable.

I'm using basic engineering concepts: material properties, and mechanics/physics etc.  You're reaction calling it garbage illuminates your ignorance.

You are using what you have been schooled to use.