Is ISS a projection?

The seconds refer to times when the little light rises in, say, the NW, goes about 10 degrees above the horizon, then sets in the NW again a few seconds later.  NASA claims that it does this, and I have personally seen the little light go up and then back down, just as NASA predicted.  I could not make this up if I tried.

Ok, so I missunderstood your context. Yes, that works as you described.

General statement.
So basically, all what is left is to use a telescope (from my own experience 50-100x magnification should suffice) to see ISS in enough details. Plus one should take into account what others said few posts earlier about the possibility of ISS being a projection/hologram. Then you will find your final answer. I do not want to convince anyone. I simply suggest making your own observation. It is absolutely doable.

Quote from: jroa on December 11, 2015, 12:43:26 AM

The seconds refer to times when the little light rises in, say, the NW, goes about 10 degrees above the horizon, then sets in the NW again a few seconds later.  NASA claims that it does this, and I have personally seen the little light go up and then back down, just as NASA predicted.  I could not make this up if I tried.

Ok, so I missunderstood your context. Yes, that works as you described.

General statement.
So basically, all what is left is to use a telescope (from my own experience 50-100x magnification should suffice) to see ISS in enough details. Plus one should take into account what others said few posts earlier about the possibility of ISS being a projection/hologram. Then you will find your final answer. I do not want to convince anyone. I simply suggest making your own observation. It is absolutely doable.

How about if we substitute a really powerful zoom lens instead of a telescope, that way I can document this.  It is winter here right now, but by the spring, I will do every thing I can to get a good zoom lens for my DSLR camera.  Will that make you happy? 

I simply suggest making your own observation. It is absolutely doable.

Stop pretending you can track the 'ISS' with a normal telescope you fraud.

Here's what your 'ISS' is, possibly backed up by a fast-moving high-altitude plane fitted with a spotlight as needed:

Anyone wanting to know what these lights in the sky we're told are satellites etc. really are should look up 'Operation Moonwatch'.

Basically, NASA conned a bunch of amateur astronomers into tracking all the naturally-occurring NEO's for them, under the pretext of tracking rocket launches, so they could later re-assign the NEOs as 'satellites' or what-have-you.

It was part of the 'International Geophysical Year', 1957-58, another large part of which was Antarctic exploration...

Interestingly, 'Sputnik' was launched (& was allegedly visible from the ground with the naked eye, lol!) in late 1957 & the Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959.

Can you see what they did there?

Cos Legba sees what they did there!

Near-Earth-Objects, or NEO's have been known about for centuries; they used to call them 'wandering stars'.

Now they call them 'satellites'.

Using:




See (http://www.universetoday.com/64776/incredible-image-atlantis-and-iss-transit-the-sun/) for details (3rd paragraph)...

• Sun ~1920 arcseconds in the sky (32' 00" average); ~17.125" on my monitor
• ISS height - 356' high; ~.5" on my monitor
• ISS angle ~56.06 arcseconds
• Calculated distance ~248.1 mi.
• Per orbital info, 249 mi.

Not bad...

It embarrasses me that people actually believe those pictures to be real. It's scary to think that so called intelligent human beings fall for this shit. I pray they are just taking the piss and don't really believe this crap.

Oh yeah? Well guess what, I'll take those prayers of yours and stick them so far upp your arse you can taste god himself. Because you know what? You don't need Google to figure this thing out, just a brain free from religion and some optics.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2015, 03:32:53 PM

It embarrasses me that people actually believe those pictures to be real. It's scary to think that so called intelligent human beings fall for this shit. I pray they are just taking the piss and don't really believe this crap.

Oh yeah? Well guess what, I'll take those prayers of yours and stick them so far upp your arse you can taste god himself. Because you know what? You don't need Google to figure this thing out, just a brain free from religion and some optics.

I resent that. I'm what you call religious I'm confident that the Bible never claimed that the earth is flat. I understand your fustration but don't shoot your fellow soldier in this fight.

Of course, if these 'satellites' etc. were just trackable NEOs it'd explain why they're visible from 100s of miles away too, as they're basically big lumps of rock that've been heated white-hot in the thermosphere...

No need for holograms; just re-name things that've always been there, after getting a bunch of mugs to do the hard work of tracking their orbits for you in the first place...

Simplest & cheapest solution imaginable.

Quote from: sircool on December 11, 2015, 07:03:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2015, 03:32:53 PM

It embarrasses me that people actually believe those pictures to be real. It's scary to think that so called intelligent human beings fall for this shit. I pray they are just taking the piss and don't really believe this crap.

Oh yeah? Well guess what, I'll take those prayers of yours and stick them so far upp your arse you can taste god himself. Because you know what? You don't need Google to figure this thing out, just a brain free from religion and some optics.

I resent that. I'm what you call religious I'm confident that the Bible never claimed that the earth is flat. I understand your fustration but don't shoot your fellow soldier in this fight.

I'm sorry but that's how I feel, I do have problems with religions because they require submission to one thing. As an atheist and a man if science I do not understand how someone can believe blindy whitout evidence, and that can cause one to put look away from skeptisism, I'm not saying it does automatically, there are a lot of religious smart people i think. And I take back the last thing I said: one needs a free mind, religion or not:)

Folks, how do you know any picture is real - not faked? Why present any pictures at all in this forum? How do you know a picture is "fake" unless you know what it is supposed to look like. How do you know that? Have you looked at the sun (through a filter of course)? Photographed it?

The only way YOU can find out for yourself is to use a REAL telescope, binoculars, camera with zoom lens and look/photograph the REAL sky for yourself. Unfortunately, unless you do, you must rely on other REAL people doing REAL things. Then you can't just arbitrarily yell "fake". Honestly, unless the people here get their butts out of their computer chairs and actually go out into the real world and try this, there is really nothing to argue about.

Having done amateur astronomy (taken pictures myself) in the real world, I have no reason to doubt the LOTS of pictures of other astronomers - unless something can be DEMONSTRATED to be false. Perhaps I believe everything is true until it is proven false instead of false until proven true (which would eliminate virtually all pictures out there and in this forum).

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 11, 2015, 07:41:59 AM

Quote from: sircool on December 11, 2015, 07:03:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2015, 03:32:53 PM

It embarrasses me that people actually believe those pictures to be real. It's scary to think that so called intelligent human beings fall for this shit. I pray they are just taking the piss and don't really believe this crap.

Oh yeah? Well guess what, I'll take those prayers of yours and stick them so far upp your arse you can taste god himself. Because you know what? You don't need Google to figure this thing out, just a brain free from religion and some optics.

I resent that. I'm what you call religious I'm confident that the Bible never claimed that the earth is flat. I understand your fustration but don't shoot your fellow soldier in this fight.

I'm sorry but that's how I feel, I do have problems with religions because they require submission to one thing. As an atheist and a man if science I do not understand how someone can believe blindy whitout evidence, and that can cause one to put look away from skeptisism, I'm not saying it does automatically, there are a lot of religious smart people i think. And I take back the last thing I said: one needs a free mind, religion or not:)

That's ok. Without going into detail and derailing the thread I believe in the Christian God of the Bible because that's where the truth leads. I admit that I believed in God before I could prove him or at least give evidence for him but as I walked in my Christian life I found more and more proof for the existence of God.

You can use a telescope to tell that the ISS is there yourself and you can use my equation to calculate it's rough height. I made a calculation for both round earth and flat earth, the flat earth one will give an answer that is actually higher than the round earth, up to a certain point.

Wow! You lot REALLY don't want to talk about trackable NEOs, do you?

VERY interesting!

Let's examine the evidence again:

Here's what your 'ISS' is, possibly backed up by a fast-moving high-altitude plane fitted with a spotlight as needed:

Anyone wanting to know what these lights in the sky we're told are satellites etc. really are should look up 'Operation Moonwatch'.

Basically, NASA conned a bunch of amateur astronomers into tracking all the naturally-occurring NEO's for them, under the pretext of tracking rocket launches, so they could later re-assign the NEOs as 'satellites' or what-have-you.

It was part of the 'International Geophysical Year', 1957-58, another large part of which was Antarctic exploration...

Interestingly, 'Sputnik' was launched (& was allegedly visible from the ground with the naked eye, lol!) in late 1957 & the Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959.

Can you see what they did there?

Cos Legba sees what they did there!

Near-Earth-Objects, or NEO's have been known about for centuries; they used to call them 'wandering stars'.

Now they call them 'satellites'.

Plus, of course, if these 'satellites' etc. were just trackable NEOs it'd explain why they're visible from 100s of miles away too, as they're basically big lumps of rock that've been heated white-hot in the thermosphere...

No need for holograms; just re-name things that've always been there, after getting a bunch of mugs to do the hard work of tracking their orbits for you in the first place...

Simplest & cheapest solution imaginable.

Any of you raown derfers care to argue otherwise?

Or is reporting every post I make, no matter how factual & logical, now your preferred method of 'debate'?

This is proof that you have never seen the ISS.  It is visible at most for several minutes, but more commonly it is visible for less than a minute and often, just seconds.  Just because it supposedly takes 90 minutes to fly around the ball Earth, that does not mean you can see it for 45 minutes at a time.  Perhaps you should study up on RET so you can be more productive in these discussions?

Thank you for acknowledging the International Space Station, which mere existence completely refutes the so-called model you defend for the shape of the Earth.

Quote from: jroa on December 11, 2015, 12:13:27 AM

This is proof that you have never seen the ISS.  It is visible at most for several minutes, but more commonly it is visible for less than a minute and often, just seconds.  Just because it supposedly takes 90 minutes to fly around the ball Earth, that does not mean you can see it for 45 minutes at a time.  Perhaps you should study up on RET so you can be more productive in these discussions?

Thank you for acknowledging the International Space Station, which mere existence completely refutes the so-called model you defend for the shape of the Earth.

You are just seeing pretty lights in the sky. They are likely using active camouflage system. There were examples of this for jet planes on the web.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-01/active-camouflage-system-uses-e-ink-make-tanks-invisible-battlefield
http://www.halopedia.org/Active_camouflage

How about if we substitute a really powerful zoom lens instead of a telescope, that way I can document this.  It is winter here right now, but by the spring, I will do every thing I can to get a good zoom lens for my DSLR camera.  Will that make you happy?

Do what you want. You do not need to make anything to make me happy.

But once you document that, make your own conclusion. Feel free to share it here or anywhere else.

Quote from: Brouwer on December 11, 2015, 04:00:10 AM

Quote from: jroa on December 11, 2015, 12:43:26 AM

The seconds refer to times when the little light rises in, say, the NW, goes about 10 degrees above the horizon, then sets in the NW again a few seconds later.  NASA claims that it does this, and I have personally seen the little light go up and then back down, just as NASA predicted.  I could not make this up if I tried.

Ok, so I missunderstood your context. Yes, that works as you described.

General statement.
So basically, all what is left is to use a telescope (from my own experience 50-100x magnification should suffice) to see ISS in enough details. Plus one should take into account what others said few posts earlier about the possibility of ISS being a projection/hologram. Then you will find your final answer. I do not want to convince anyone. I simply suggest making your own observation. It is absolutely doable.

How about if we substitute a really powerful zoom lens instead of a telescope, that way I can document this.  It is winter here right now, but by the spring, I will do every thing I can to get a good zoom lens for my DSLR camera.  Will that make you happy?

I would recommend:

• Get the zoom lens.
• Get some sort of tripod so the camera doesn't move when taking a picture.
• Use the software for seeing where ISS is going to be in the sky by your location.
• Set up and take the longest picture possible (1 min would be great) to see a smudge where the ISS is moving relative to the stars.
• BTW, you can take a pic of geosynchronous satellites this way too. They will be dots with stars moving. (http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/pr0106.html)
• Take a faster pic (<1 sec) to actually get a clear pic of ISS.
• As the pic may be dim, you may need to adjust the brightness/gamma on the pic to get a better view.
• Bravo for trying!!!

Here is an interesting picture of the ISS over the Earth. It is so real, that if you look real close you can actually see the ISS shadow on the Earth.


The site if you want to visit.
http://phogotraphy.com/2015/03/20/iss-fake-photo/

Here is an interesting picture of the ISS over the Earth. It is so real, that if you look real close you can actually see the ISS shadow on the Earth.


The site if you want to visit.
http://phogotraphy.com/2015/03/20/iss-fake-photo/

The site says it is the shadow of the moon. And I would agree, as that shadow does not look like a space station but more round...

Quote from: Yendor on December 12, 2015, 07:43:38 AM

Here is an interesting picture of the ISS over the Earth. It is so real, that if you look real close you can actually see the ISS shadow on the Earth.


The site if you want to visit.
http://phogotraphy.com/2015/03/20/iss-fake-photo/

The site says it is the shadow of the moon. And I would agree, as that shadow does not look like a space station but more round...

Be honest...do you really see round and not a shadow of the ISS hanging in front of the fake Earth image. The ISS is lit up by a bright light and is casting a shadow on the Earth.

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 12, 2015, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: Yendor on December 12, 2015, 07:43:38 AM

Here is an interesting picture of the ISS over the Earth. It is so real, that if you look real close you can actually see the ISS shadow on the Earth.


The site if you want to visit.
http://phogotraphy.com/2015/03/20/iss-fake-photo/

The site says it is the shadow of the moon. And I would agree, as that shadow does not look like a space station but more round...

Be honest...do you really see round and not a shadow of the ISS hanging in front of the fake Earth image. The ISS is lit up by a bright light and is casting a shadow on the Earth.

I am very sure that the shadow is round:

(It is hard to outline well as it has a veeery smooth edge)
If this was done in a film studio, the shadow would also be much sharper and clearer.

Quote from: Yendor on December 12, 2015, 08:22:53 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 12, 2015, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: Yendor on December 12, 2015, 07:43:38 AM

Here is an interesting picture of the ISS over the Earth. It is so real, that if you look real close you can actually see the ISS shadow on the Earth.


The site if you want to visit.
http://phogotraphy.com/2015/03/20/iss-fake-photo/

The site says it is the shadow of the moon. And I would agree, as that shadow does not look like a space station but more round...

Be honest...do you really see round and not a shadow of the ISS hanging in front of the fake Earth image. The ISS is lit up by a bright light and is casting a shadow on the Earth.

I am very sure that the shadow is round:

(It is hard to outline well as it has a veeery smooth edge)
If this was done in a film studio, the shadow would also be much sharper and clearer.

They try and not make it too obvious. I think it looks like this to me.

Either way, I enjoy debating you because you don't get all mad and say nasty things like some others on here. Have a good day or evening, which ever it is.

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 12, 2015, 09:12:20 AM

Quote from: Yendor on December 12, 2015, 08:22:53 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 12, 2015, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: Yendor on December 12, 2015, 07:43:38 AM

Here is an interesting picture of the ISS over the Earth. It is so real, that if you look real close you can actually see the ISS shadow on the Earth.


The site if you want to visit.
http://phogotraphy.com/2015/03/20/iss-fake-photo/

The site says it is the shadow of the moon. And I would agree, as that shadow does not look like a space station but more round...

Be honest...do you really see round and not a shadow of the ISS hanging in front of the fake Earth image. The ISS is lit up by a bright light and is casting a shadow on the Earth.

I am very sure that the shadow is round:

(It is hard to outline well as it has a veeery smooth edge)
If this was done in a film studio, the shadow would also be much sharper and clearer.

They try and not make it too obvious. I think it looks like this to me.

Either way, I enjoy debating you because you don't get all mad and say nasty things like some others on here. Have a good day or evening, which ever it is.

That site it talking about pictures of the eclipse and the picture you posted is a picture of the eclipse.  It is NOT a shadow of the ISS, it is a shadow of the Moon.  The angles are wrong for it to be the ISS.  The ISS is lit more from the left.

Quote from: Yendor on December 12, 2015, 09:50:05 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 12, 2015, 09:12:20 AM

Quote from: Yendor on December 12, 2015, 08:22:53 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 12, 2015, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: Yendor on December 12, 2015, 07:43:38 AM

Here is an interesting picture of the ISS over the Earth. It is so real, that if you look real close you can actually see the ISS shadow on the Earth.


The site if you want to visit.
http://phogotraphy.com/2015/03/20/iss-fake-photo/

The site says it is the shadow of the moon. And I would agree, as that shadow does not look like a space station but more round...

Be honest...do you really see round and not a shadow of the ISS hanging in front of the fake Earth image. The ISS is lit up by a bright light and is casting a shadow on the Earth.

I am very sure that the shadow is round:

(It is hard to outline well as it has a veeery smooth edge)
If this was done in a film studio, the shadow would also be much sharper and clearer.

They try and not make it too obvious. I think it looks like this to me.

Either way, I enjoy debating you because you don't get all mad and say nasty things like some others on here. Have a good day or evening, which ever it is.

That site it talking about pictures of the eclipse and the picture you posted is a picture of the eclipse.  It is NOT a shadow of the ISS, it is a shadow of the Moon.  The angles are wrong for it to be the ISS.  The ISS is lit more from the left.

What ever...

You can ignore Master Evar, if you look back in his post history he's admitted that he gets paid to do this (what else he gets paid for I shudder to think).

You can ignore Master Evar, if you look back in his post history he's admitted that he gets paid to do this (what else he gets paid for I shudder to think).

Really, you don't mean that do you?

Quote from: nodnyl on December 12, 2015, 11:47:52 AM

You can ignore Master Evar, if you look back in his post history he's admitted that he gets paid to do this (what else he gets paid for I shudder to think).

Really, you don't mean that do you?

Would I say it if I didn't?

Amazing how nobody wants to talk about Trackable Near Earth Objects...

Let's examine the evidence again:

Here's what your 'ISS' is, possibly backed up by a fast-moving high-altitude plane fitted with a spotlight as needed:

Anyone wanting to know what these lights in the sky we're told are satellites etc. really are should look up 'Operation Moonwatch'.

Basically, NASA conned a bunch of amateur astronomers into tracking all the naturally-occurring NEO's for them, under the pretext of tracking rocket launches, so they could later re-assign the NEOs as 'satellites' or what-have-you.

It was part of the 'International Geophysical Year', 1957-58, another large part of which was Antarctic exploration...

Interestingly, 'Sputnik' was launched (& was allegedly visible from the ground with the naked eye, lol!) in late 1957 & the Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959.

Can you see what they did there?

Cos Legba sees what they did there!

Near-Earth-Objects, or NEO's have been known about for centuries; they used to call them 'wandering stars'.

Now they call them 'satellites'.

Plus, of course, if these 'satellites' etc. were just trackable NEOs it'd explain why they're visible from 100s of miles away too, as they're basically big lumps of rock that've been heated white-hot in the thermosphere...

No need for holograms; just re-name things that've always been there, after getting a bunch of gullible mugs to do the hard work of tracking their orbits for you in the first place...

Simplest & cheapest solution imaginable.

Any of you raown derfers care to argue otherwise?

Or is reporting every post I make, no matter how factual & logical, now your preferred method of 'debate'?

Yendor, that is not a shadow from ISS. ISS is only 356' long. If the ISS was directly casting a shadow on Earth at like noon, I doubt you would see it. Look at this picture of the ISS against the Sun. The sunshine all around ISS would make its shadow insignificant.


Your picture would most likely be the Moon's shadow coming onto the Earth during a solar eclipse as viewed from the ISS.

That iss against the sun image has already been debunked as a fake. If they are going to fake images they need to learn how to do it properly.

That iss against the sun image has already been debunked as a fake. If they are going to fake images they need to learn how to do it properly.

How would you debunk it?