The ISS is a Gulfstream jet.

A spotlight or projector is a single source of light, how would it appear as a large object from earth?

The ISS:

]

Astroturf is a brand name. How does one post a zero content "synthetic playing field" reply? Do you even think before you type?

Quote from: sokarul on May 04, 2016, 10:34:00 PM

Astroturf is a brand name. How does one post a zero content "synthetic playing field" reply? Do you even think before you type?

Quote from: sokarul on May 05, 2016, 06:23:24 AM

Quote from: sokarul on May 04, 2016, 10:34:00 PM

Astroturf is a brand name. How does one post a zero content "synthetic playing field" reply? Do you even think before you type?

Quote from: palmerito0 on May 05, 2016, 09:07:49 AM

Quote from: sokarul on May 05, 2016, 06:23:24 AM

Quote from: sokarul on May 04, 2016, 10:34:00 PM

Astroturf is a brand name. How does one post a zero content "synthetic playing field" reply? Do you even think before you type?

Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection.

Quote from: palmerito0 on May 05, 2016, 09:55:09 AM

Quote from: palmerito0 on May 05, 2016, 09:07:49 AM

Quote from: sokarul on May 05, 2016, 06:23:24 AM

Quote from: sokarul on May 04, 2016, 10:34:00 PM

Astroturf is a brand name. How does one post a zero content "synthetic playing field" reply? Do you even think before you type?

*sigh*

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection.

Here's a synthetic ISS for you to 'play' with yourself over, then:

]

Quote from: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 05:44:04 AM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 28, 2016, 05:21:55 AM

And there's no way they could power a spotlight of the necessary size.

LOL!!!

Never heard of LEDs?

Or generators?

Shit, the RAF stuffed a 2,700 million candela searchlight into a plane back in the 1940s ffs, & that was powered by lead batteries!

I cannot believe you even wrote that shit; 'aerospace engineering student' my arse.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 28, 2016, 05:21:55 AM

Also, they couldn't fly high enough to emulate the ISS correctly, because its altitude is verifiable by triangulation.

Shame no-one's ever done it then.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 28, 2016, 05:21:55 AM

Plus, if you have a good enough telescope (which isn't saying much), you can resolve the shape of the ISS.

Please look up the word 'projector' in a dictionary.

Plus, you ignored all this:

Quote from: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 05:09:50 AM

Besides, the pod in the photo could be anything.

But the FACT is that NASA own a Gulfstream fitted out to carry a large pod beneath it.

And, as I saw a Gulfstream jet carrying a large spotlight/projector beneath it back in February that was capable of imitating teh silly fake ISS (remember that bit, Walter Mitty?), this FACT seems rather suspicious, does it not?

Well, it does to normal people...

To Clown Derfers with Evidence-Immunity Syndrome it does not, I bet.

But thanks for letting us all know you have no interest whatsoever in Truth & are just here to 'Defend' a multi-billion dollar military-industrial fraud.

That is helpful knowledge.

Here's your "shpayze-shtashun" again, Legba.  Jerk off to it all you like, because you clearly have nothing better to do. 

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 09, 2016, 01:50:06 PM

Here's your "shpayze-shtashun" again, Legba.  Jerk off to it all you like, because you clearly have nothing better to do. 

Of course they would present that photo in order to try to cover up for themselves.  Did you think that NASA would post the real projector image?  Are you really that naive?

our most prominent satellite

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 09, 2016, 03:29:55 PM

our most prominent satellite

'Our'...

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2016, 01:58:40 PM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 09, 2016, 01:50:06 PM

Here's your "shpayze-shtashun" again, Legba.  Jerk off to it all you like, because you clearly have nothing better to do. 

Of course they would present that photo in order to try to cover up for themselves.  Did you think that NASA would post the real projector image?  Are you really that naive?

I'm not the naive one here.  That honor goes to Legba, for mistaking a jet for the ISS and for thinking that a small pod on a small jet could be passed off as our most prominent satellite, and to you, for actually thinking that he might know what he's talking about.  Neither of you seem to grasp what projectors do or how satellite tracking works.  I almost feel bad for you. 

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 09, 2016, 03:29:55 PM

our most prominent satellite

'Our'...

Did the satanists at NASA tell you that too?  Because if NASA says it, it must be true, right?

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on April 22, 2016, 05:19:51 PM

James would never lie about moonshramps.

Quote from: John Davis on April 26, 2016, 12:52:06 PM

He really wouldn't.

Quote from: jroa on April 26, 2016, 04:27:32 PM

I agree. 

And NASA would never lie about the space program. 

The difference is that NASA releases huge amounts of verifiable public-domain data that also matches third-party observations, and its structure is set up to where a hoax is wholly unfeasible.  Not to mention you can see the satellites flying about up there if you look hard enough. 
In contrast, you just have to take James' word about a particularly strange dream/hallucination that he had.

Quoting yourself when nobody responds to your statement probably means that people thought the statement was too dumb to respond to in the first place.  It probably does not mean that your statement has not been quoted enough times. 

Quoting yourself when nobody responds to your statement probably means that people thought the statement was too dumb to respond to in the first place.  It probably does not mean that your statement has not been quoted enough times. 

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2016, 04:13:56 PM

Quoting yourself when nobody responds to your statement probably means that people thought the statement was too dumb to respond to in the first place.  It probably does not mean that your statement has not been quoted enough times. 

I'm pretty sure that was a quote from yourself.  That's usually called irony, but in your case, it's called dumbassery.  I don't even think you read what it is that I quoted. 

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 09, 2016, 04:34:09 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2016, 04:13:56 PM

Quoting yourself when nobody responds to your statement probably means that people thought the statement was too dumb to respond to in the first place.  It probably does not mean that your statement has not been quoted enough times. 

I'm pretty sure that was a quote from yourself.  That's usually called irony, but in your case, it's called dumbassery.  I don't even think you read what it is that I quoted. 

Yes, I read your post.  You quoted me, and then quoted yourself, as if your statement is all of the sudden a smart one just because you quoted it.  There is no irony there, but I will accept your admittance of dumbassery.

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2016, 03:50:31 PM

Did the satanists at NASA tell you that too?  Because if NASA says it, it must be true, right?

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 27, 2016, 08:08:26 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on April 22, 2016, 05:19:51 PM

James would never lie about moonshramps.

Quote from: John Davis on April 26, 2016, 12:52:06 PM

He really wouldn't.

Quote from: jroa on April 26, 2016, 04:27:32 PM

I agree. 

And NASA would never lie about the space program. 

The difference is that NASA releases huge amounts of verifiable public-domain data that also matches third-party observations, and its structure is set up to where a hoax is wholly unfeasible. 
Not to mention you can see the satellites flying about up there if you look hard enough.
In contrast, you just have to take James' word about a particularly strange dream/hallucination that he had.