Amateur photo of ISS like you've never seen before

I imaged on 8-17-15 the ISS at 59° from my backyard. I made this combo image to show you my image and a internet image of what the ISS looks like in space. I used my Edge HD 14 OTA with a SKYnyx 2.2 Mono CCD camera that has global shutter. The Barlow X 1.6 with an Astrodon orange filter. All on an custom modified EQ-G and ER tracking software made for me and my mount.
Kind Regards
Philip Smith

http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=116516&PHPSESSID=0rr8dse48o7gjfmcbodcr4at50

I say amateur meaning he's not a professional astronomer or space-guy. He may be a professional photographer I have no idea.

Wow, those are great photos!

What story do you have for this one? I need a good story.

The original Star Wars looked more realistic than that.  lol

The original Star Wars looked more realistic than that.  lol

Maybe you missed the fact that this was taken by some random guy with a telescope and you can see the ISS and take photos like that too if you have the right hardware.  Even decent binoculars will allow you to make out the shape of the station.

What a lovely animation. I prefer this one though:

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

It's much more realistic (screenshot of vid):

Quote from: jroa on August 22, 2015, 05:27:19 AM

The original Star Wars looked more realistic than that.  lol

Maybe you missed the fact that this was taken by some random guy with a telescope and you can see the ISS and take photos like that too if you have the right hardware.  Even decent binoculars will allow you to make out the shape of the station.

How is this guy random?  Was there a lotto drawing to determine who would take the photo?  Or, do you mean random as in, "It could be anyone," like NASA, who supplied the photos?  Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word random before you just toss it out, or maybe you are just making up your own definition for words?  You tell me.

Sorry Jroa but in the dictionary the random when used as an adjective can be used simply to mean 'unknown'. So the use of random by Mikeman is perfectly fine. So before you criticise perhaps YOU should look up the word yourself.

Which dictionary are you misquoting? 

How is this guy random?  Was there a lotto drawing to determine who would take the photo?  Or, do you mean random as in, "It could be anyone," like NASA, who supplied the photos?  Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word random before you just toss it out, or maybe you are just making up your own definition for words?  You tell me.

I mean random as in not in any way associated with any of the hundreds of huge agencies that would have to be in on the impossible conspiracy you believe in.

I see.  So, you made up your own definition for the word. 

Which dictionary are you misquoting?

Dictionary.com:-
Informal.
unknown, unidentified, or out of place:
A couple of random guys showed up at the party.

How to discredit someone - the flat earther way.

Quote from: jroa on August 22, 2015, 01:57:39 PM

Which dictionary are you misquoting?

Dictionary.com:-
Informal.
unknown, unidentified, or out of place:
A couple of random guys showed up at the party.

lol, informally tween talk.  I did not realize we were texting each other. 

I see.  So, you made up your own definition for the word.

I assumed that flat earthers could pick up on what I was trying to say by using logic but now I see where I went wrong.

The original Star Wars looked more realistic than that.  lol

Since you have no reference for what the ISS "should" look like, your comment here is irrelevant and meaningless.
Unless you can say how what is shown departs from what "should" be seen (which you don't) then keep your gob shut.

How to discredit someone - the flat earther way.

Now the moderator needs to get back on topic.

How do you disprove the pictures? Saying "Fake" is not evidence.

Quote from: jroa on August 22, 2015, 05:27:19 AM

The original Star Wars looked more realistic than that.  lol

Since you have no reference for what the ISS "should" look like, your comment here is irrelevant and meaningless.
Unless you can say how what is shown departs from what "should" be seen (which you don't) then keep your gob shut.

I am supposed to reference what a make believe flying trashcan is supposed to look like?  Are you serious?  I thought you people were the science fiction writers, with your pretend flying transmitters zooming around at a gazillion miles per hour, yet now, you are requiring for me to do your legwork?  Do you understand that this does not make your side look very bright? 

Quote from: Mainframes on August 22, 2015, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 22, 2015, 01:57:39 PM

Which dictionary are you misquoting?

Dictionary.com:-
Informal.
unknown, unidentified, or out of place:
A couple of random guys showed up at the party.

lol, informally tween talk.  I did not realize we were texting each other.

Nope, sorry. Just the informal use of the word which has a high enough usage to warrant an entry in the dictionary. Mikeman used it over in U.S. and it is often used in the same context here in the UK.

Quote from: jroa on August 22, 2015, 04:53:18 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 22, 2015, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 22, 2015, 01:57:39 PM

Which dictionary are you misquoting?

Dictionary.com:-
Informal.
unknown, unidentified, or out of place:
A couple of random guys showed up at the party.

lol, informally tween talk.  I did not realize we were texting each other.

Nope, sorry. Just the informal use of the word which has a high enough usage to warrant an entry in the dictionary. Mikeman used it over in U.S. and it is often used in the same context here in the UK.

u r my bff

Quote from: Mainframes on August 23, 2015, 11:24:47 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 22, 2015, 04:53:18 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 22, 2015, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 22, 2015, 01:57:39 PM

Which dictionary are you misquoting?

Dictionary.com:-
Informal.
unknown, unidentified, or out of place:
A couple of random guys showed up at the party.

lol, informally tween talk.  I did not realize we were texting each other.

Nope, sorry. Just the informal use of the word which has a high enough usage to warrant an entry in the dictionary. Mikeman used it over in U.S. and it is often used in the same context here in the UK.

u r my bff

Do you understand the argument that this thread is making? Do you understand what's happening? Does someone need to take you home?

By the way gramps, your attempt at "tween talk" is about 10 years out of date.

so u no my bff?

Is it any wonder this website has the bad name that it has. jroa's actions only make it look even worse. I still think it's just an act ? Or just a game  ? Nobody call really be THAT terrible ? . Or can they ? LOL.

Here is an idea for this website.:
"This website is for flat earth fantasies. Everyone is welcome to THINK up their IDEAS for things that MIGHT have to be IF the earth was flat. But Round Earthers ARE welcome. We know the earth is not flat but please don't try to spoil our fun by posting true facts, figures and evidence about the real Round Earth ."

To me, this video of the ISS shows it is actually tumbling. The video is looped, so it starts over before it actually completes the tumble. I bet it would tumble if they didn't stop the video. The live stream of ISS shows it perfectly straight and level all the time. Does anyone else see this or I'm I just being critical of this wonderful machine?

I find a lot of things about this GIF to be odd.  I don't understand why it is lit up like a Christmas tree.  But the oddest thing to me is that in the last frames of the photo, the solar panels are nearly perpendicular to the camera, which means the sun is directly behind the Earth, yet the panels do not reflect a flash of light back to the camera. 

RE'ers will claim that the lights are reflections of the sun, yet, they never change as the flying trashcan tumbles around space and the light reflecting off the panels never changes, no matter what angle the panels are. 

I suppose some people are simply very gullible and grainy low quality film is evidence to them, sort of like the people who believe in Big Foot or the Lock Ness Monster.  lol

To me, this video of the ISS shows it is actually tumbling. The video is looped, so it starts over before it actually completes the tumble. I bet it would tumble if they didn't stop the video. The live stream of ISS shows it perfectly straight and level all the time. Does anyone else see this or I'm I just being critical of this wonderful machine?

If the observer were at the center if the Earth looking at the USS it would hold it's orientation, but the observer is on the ground with the ISS passing as close as 100 miles away from him in it's huge >4000 mile radius orbit.  It makes sense that it appears to tilt because it's being seem from different angles.

I find a lot of things about this GIF to be odd.  I don't understand why it is lit up like a Christmas tree.  But the oddest thing to me is that in the last frames of the photo, the solar panels are nearly perpendicular to the camera, which means the sun is directly behind the Earth, yet the panels do not reflect a flash of light back to the camera. 

RE'ers will claim that the lights are reflections of the sun, yet, they never change as the flying trashcan tumbles around space and the light reflecting off the panels never changes, no matter what angle the panels are. 

I suppose some people are simply very gullible and grainy low quality film is evidence to them, sort of like the people who believe in Big Foot or the Lock Ness Monster.  lol

Space ships (and stations) have to be really reflective bacause the Sun is brighter up there without an atmosphere filtering it out and they need to reflect away light to keep the ship or station cool.  That's why it appears so well lit up.  The panels are also not facing towards the observer, they are facing slightly up.

You flat earthers are desperate to find flaws in this gif aren't you?

Quote from: Yendor on August 24, 2015, 09:21:34 AM

To me, this video of the ISS shows it is actually tumbling. The video is looped, so it starts over before it actually completes the tumble. I bet it would tumble if they didn't stop the video. The live stream of ISS shows it perfectly straight and level all the time. Does anyone else see this or I'm I just being critical of this wonderful machine?

If the observer were at the center if the Earth looking at the USS it would hold it's orientation, but the observer is on the ground with the ISS passing as close as 100 miles away from him in it's huge >4000 mile radius orbit.  It makes sense that it appears to tilt because it's being seem from different angles.

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2015, 09:31:25 AM

I find a lot of things about this GIF to be odd.  I don't understand why it is lit up like a Christmas tree.  But the oddest thing to me is that in the last frames of the photo, the solar panels are nearly perpendicular to the camera, which means the sun is directly behind the Earth, yet the panels do not reflect a flash of light back to the camera. 

RE'ers will claim that the lights are reflections of the sun, yet, they never change as the flying trashcan tumbles around space and the light reflecting off the panels never changes, no matter what angle the panels are. 

I suppose some people are simply very gullible and grainy low quality film is evidence to them, sort of like the people who believe in Big Foot or the Lock Ness Monster.  lol

Space ships (and stations) have to be really reflective bacause the Sun is brighter up there without an atmosphere filtering it out and they need to reflect away light to keep the ship or station cool.  That's why it appears so well lit up.  The panels are also not facing towards the observer, they are facing slightly up.

You flat earthers are desperate to find flaws in this gif aren't you?

You can't call us casual observers and how do you know where the sun is in this gif?

You can't call us casual observers and how do you know where the sun is in this gif?

I know where the Sun is because that's where the solar panels generally point.

Quote from: Yendor on August 24, 2015, 10:32:34 AM

You can't call us casual observers and how do you know where the sun is in this gif?

I know where the Sun is because that's where the solar panels generally point.

It looks to me the panels are moving all over the place. They can't capture much sun like that.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 24, 2015, 10:41:38 AM

Quote from: Yendor on August 24, 2015, 10:32:34 AM

You can't call us casual observers and how do you know where the sun is in this gif?

I know where the Sun is because that's where the solar panels generally point.

It looks to me the panels are moving all over the place. They can't capture much sun like that.

If the individual photos were captured while the ISS was on the night side of the earth, then the solar panels aren't going to capture much sun regardless of which way they point.