Hubble debunked: Stanford Graduate Finds Out Hubble Doesn't Exist

We are giving you a chance for you maybe on think.

You care to sum up the points of this video?

HST is an optical telescope, SOFIA an ifrared telescope

SOFIA can see further into the infrared spectrum

why is this such a surprise?

We are giving you a chance for you maybe on think.

Really?
Do you really think a telescope can only see a few microns away?

Hubble is primarily a VISUAL microscope.
SOFIA is an IR one.
As such, SOFIA can see in the IR, Hubble can see in visible.

How about you tell us where he finds out Hubble doesn't exist so we don't need to watch 35 minutes of crap?

You care to sum up the points of this video?

HST is an optical telescope, SOFIA an ifrared telescope

SOFIA can see further into the infrared spectrum

why is this such a surprise?

Nobody see it by telescope, except NASA worker So-called amateurs.

Do you know what a micron is, İntikam?  You've misunderstood what Nick Veronico (the victim of this caller) actually said, and I think Robert Bassano (the caller, a well known flat earth idiot) intentionally misunderstood and intentionally gave Mr Veronico no opportunity to correct him.  When Veronico says SOFIA can see "further" than the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), he doesn't use "further" to mean a longer distance to the observed object, he means further up the electromagnetic spectrum.

And nowhere in this audio does your Stanford student "find out" that Hubble doesn't exist.  (Did Bassano even go to Stanford?  Nothing online says he did except these various videos and references to them.)  What he supposedly finds out that the Shuttle launch is allegedly "missing" from a third party's database, and that a few random people he talks with have never seen the scope themselves, and from that he makes the preposterous leap to "I don't think it's even there"?  That's weak.  He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of orbits by using the term "geosynchronous" several times in reference to both the HST and the International Space Station (ISS), neither of which operate anywhere near that high, followed by more ignorance of both orbits and optics when he marvels at how ridiculous it is that "the ISS can't even take a picture of it!"  Hubble is not a large object, and at the nearest point in their orbits it is 100+ miles away.  That's not an easy photograph!  Then he outright lies when he claims that the Shuttle couldn't have gotten up to Hubble's orbit, which forms the basis for another claim that the HST must be fake.  Then some more stupidity about orbits (a recurring theme with this Bassano dipshit) when he says "if you pushed HST up back into its orbit, that means it would have kept going.  If you captured HST, and had to push it back into orbit, and it has no propulsion system to stop it from going any further, that means they lost it". No, Mr Stanford student, it doesn't mean that at all.  Then some telescope ignorance when he claims the James Webb is a replacement for Hubble.  No, it's not really a replacement.  The Webb is an infrared observation instrument; Hubble is visible light instrument.  One does not replace the other except in the very limited sense that Webb will still be observing when Hubble reaches end of mission.  Then, just when I thought he could get no stupider, he proved me wrong: he concludes that NASA sent a shuttle up to grab Hubble out of orbit, bring it back to earth, fix the optics, and repurpose it as the SOPHIA imager?!?!  Really?  No, that's not how optics work!  Lenses and mirrors for infrared are different than ones for visible light.

Kinda upset that I wasted over 30 minutes of my life listening to this and replying to this.

Nobody see it by telescope

If you are capable of tipping you head backward slightly,
you can watch it transit with your own eyeballs.

http://www.heavens-above.com/main.aspx?lat=38.9637&lng=35.2433&loc=Turkey&alt=1220&tz=TRT

Do you know what a micron is, İntikam?  You've misunderstood what Nick Veronico (the victim of this caller) actually said, and I think Robert Bassano (the caller, a well known flat earth idiot) intentionally misunderstood and intentionally gave Mr Veronico no opportunity to correct him.  When Veronico says SOFIA can see "further" than the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), he doesn't use "further" to mean a longer distance to the observed object, he means further up the electromagnetic spectrum.

And nowhere in this audio does your Stanford student "find out" that Hubble doesn't exist.  (Did Bassano even go to Stanford?  Nothing online says he did except these various videos and references to them.)  What he supposedly finds out that the Shuttle launch is allegedly "missing" from a third party's database, and that a few random people he talks with have never seen the scope themselves, and from that he makes the preposterous leap to "I don't think it's even there"?  That's weak.  He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of orbits by using the term "geosynchronous" several times in reference to both the HST and the International Space Station (ISS), neither of which operate anywhere near that high, followed by more ignorance of both orbits and optics when he marvels at how ridiculous it is that "the ISS can't even take a picture of it!"  Hubble is not a large object, and at the nearest point in their orbits it is 100+ miles away.  That's not an easy photograph!  Then he outright lies when he claims that the Shuttle couldn't have gotten up to Hubble's orbit, which forms the basis for another claim that the HST must be fake.  Then some more stupidity about orbits (a recurring theme with this Bassano dipshit) when he says "if you pushed HST up back into its orbit, that means it would have kept going.  If you captured HST, and had to push it back into orbit, and it has no propulsion system to stop it from going any further, that means they lost it". No, Mr Stanford student, it doesn't mean that at all.  Then some telescope ignorance when he claims the James Webb is a replacement for Hubble.  No, it's not really a replacement.  The Webb is an infrared observation instrument; Hubble is visible light instrument.  One does not replace the other except in the very limited sense that Webb will still be observing when Hubble reaches end of mission.  Then, just when I thought he could get no stupider, he proved me wrong: he concludes that NASA sent a shuttle up to grab Hubble out of orbit, bring it back to earth, fix the optics, and repurpose it as the SOPHIA imager?!?!  Really?  No, that's not how optics work!  Lenses and mirrors for infrared are different than ones for visible light.

Kinda upset that I wasted over 30 minutes of my life listening to this and replying to this.

Kudos to you for watching it!

Do you know what a micron is, İntikam?  You've misunderstood what Nick Veronico (the victim of this caller) actually said, and I think Robert Bassano (the caller, a well known flat earth idiot) intentionally misunderstood and intentionally gave Mr Veronico no opportunity to correct him.  When Veronico says SOFIA can see "further" than the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), he doesn't use "further" to mean a longer distance to the observed object, he means further up the electromagnetic spectrum.

And nowhere in this audio does your Stanford student "find out" that Hubble doesn't exist.  (Did Bassano even go to Stanford?  Nothing online says he did except these various videos and references to them.)  What he supposedly finds out that the Shuttle launch is allegedly "missing" from a third party's database, and that a few random people he talks with have never seen the scope themselves, and from that he makes the preposterous leap to "I don't think it's even there"?  That's weak.  He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of orbits by using the term "geosynchronous" several times in reference to both the HST and the International Space Station (ISS), neither of which operate anywhere near that high, followed by more ignorance of both orbits and optics when he marvels at how ridiculous it is that "the ISS can't even take a picture of it!"  Hubble is not a large object, and at the nearest point in their orbits it is 100+ miles away.  That's not an easy photograph!  Then he outright lies when he claims that the Shuttle couldn't have gotten up to Hubble's orbit, which forms the basis for another claim that the HST must be fake.  Then some more stupidity about orbits (a recurring theme with this Bassano dipshit) when he says "if you pushed HST up back into its orbit, that means it would have kept going.  If you captured HST, and had to push it back into orbit, and it has no propulsion system to stop it from going any further, that means they lost it". No, Mr Stanford student, it doesn't mean that at all.  Then some telescope ignorance when he claims the James Webb is a replacement for Hubble.  No, it's not really a replacement.  The Webb is an infrared observation instrument; Hubble is visible light instrument.  One does not replace the other except in the very limited sense that Webb will still be observing when Hubble reaches end of mission.  Then, just when I thought he could get no stupider, he proved me wrong: he concludes that NASA sent a shuttle up to grab Hubble out of orbit, bring it back to earth, fix the optics, and repurpose it as the SOPHIA imager?!?!  Really?  No, that's not how optics work!  Lenses and mirrors for infrared are different than ones for visible light.

Kinda upset that I wasted over 30 minutes of my life listening to this and replying to this.

We can pay your 30 minutes, poor bastard.

The video does not contain anything suggested in the tittle,

Anyway now flat earthers claim that nasa needs an INFRA telescope mounted on a 747 to PHOTOSHOP hubble images ? LOL give me a brake

The video does not contain anything suggested in the tittle,

Anyway now flat earthers claim that nasa needs an INFRA telescope mounted on a 747 to PHOTOSHOP hubble images ? LOL give me a brake

Yes our real problem is why Hubble Has not sent fake pictures for quite some time. We missed its fake pictures. Let's laugh a little.

Yes our real problem is why Hubble Has not sent fake pictures for quite some time. We missed its fake pictures. Let's laugh a little.

It has never sent fake pictures, only real ones. You ignoring new pictures doesn't mean they aren't there.

Quote from: aisantaros on January 25, 2017, 03:41:22 AM

The video does not contain anything suggested in the tittle,

Anyway now flat earthers claim that nasa needs an INFRA telescope mounted on a 747 to PHOTOSHOP hubble images ? LOL give me a brake

Yes our real problem is why Hubble Has not sent fake pictures for quite some time. We missed its fake pictures. Let's laugh a little.

Hubble's genuine pictures are released regularly.

Here's one from last month:

http://hubblesite.org/image/3970/news

Quote from: İntikam on January 25, 2017, 04:04:41 AM

Quote from: aisantaros on January 25, 2017, 03:41:22 AM

The video does not contain anything suggested in the tittle,

Anyway now flat earthers claim that nasa needs an INFRA telescope mounted on a 747 to PHOTOSHOP hubble images ? LOL give me a brake

Yes our real problem is why Hubble Has not sent fake pictures for quite some time. We missed its fake pictures. Let's laugh a little.

Hubble's genuine pictures are released regularly.

Here's one from last month:

http://hubblesite.org/image/3970/news

Surely this picture is so enlightening. Thank you. I can draw better than it by closed eyes.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 25, 2017, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: İntikam on January 25, 2017, 04:04:41 AM

Quote from: aisantaros on January 25, 2017, 03:41:22 AM

The video does not contain anything suggested in the tittle,

Anyway now flat earthers claim that nasa needs an INFRA telescope mounted on a 747 to PHOTOSHOP hubble images ? LOL give me a brake

Yes our real problem is why Hubble Has not sent fake pictures for quite some time. We missed its fake pictures. Let's laugh a little.

Hubble's genuine pictures are released regularly.

Here's one from last month:

http://hubblesite.org/image/3970/news

Surely this picture is so enlightening. Thank you. I can draw better than it by closed eyes.

Sure, you can draw better than that, just like you have an IQ over 100.

No one believes your nonsense.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 25, 2017, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: İntikam on January 25, 2017, 04:04:41 AM

Quote from: aisantaros on January 25, 2017, 03:41:22 AM

The video does not contain anything suggested in the tittle,

Anyway now flat earthers claim that nasa needs an INFRA telescope mounted on a 747 to PHOTOSHOP hubble images ? LOL give me a brake

Yes our real problem is why Hubble Has not sent fake pictures for quite some time. We missed its fake pictures. Let's laugh a little.

Hubble's genuine pictures are released regularly.

Here's one from last month:

http://hubblesite.org/image/3970/news

Surely this picture is so enlightening. Thank you. I can draw better than it by closed eyes.

Go ahead. Let's see if it works any better than you posting with a closed mind.

You said Hubble wasn't posting pictures. I just showed you they did. Owned again.

Quote from: İntikam on January 26, 2017, 12:15:01 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 25, 2017, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: İntikam on January 25, 2017, 04:04:41 AM

Quote from: aisantaros on January 25, 2017, 03:41:22 AM

The video does not contain anything suggested in the tittle,

Anyway now flat earthers claim that nasa needs an INFRA telescope mounted on a 747 to PHOTOSHOP hubble images ? LOL give me a brake

Yes our real problem is why Hubble Has not sent fake pictures for quite some time. We missed its fake pictures. Let's laugh a little.

Hubble's genuine pictures are released regularly.

Here's one from last month:

http://hubblesite.org/image/3970/news

Surely this picture is so enlightening. Thank you. I can draw better than it by closed eyes.

Go ahead. Let's see if it works any better than you posting with a closed mind.

You said Hubble wasn't posting pictures. I just showed you they did. Owned again.

Fuck off. Did you call this an space image? You should making joke. Where is galaxies, stars, detailed examinations? I think you forgot how Hublle a strong satellite. It can show two headlights of a car in a star. My windows screen saver is also more detailed than this "picture". Are you idiot something or what that believe this thing seems like a screensaver.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 26, 2017, 12:34:19 AM

Quote from: İntikam on January 26, 2017, 12:15:01 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 25, 2017, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: İntikam on January 25, 2017, 04:04:41 AM

Quote from: aisantaros on January 25, 2017, 03:41:22 AM

The video does not contain anything suggested in the tittle,

Anyway now flat earthers claim that nasa needs an INFRA telescope mounted on a 747 to PHOTOSHOP hubble images ? LOL give me a brake

Yes our real problem is why Hubble Has not sent fake pictures for quite some time. We missed its fake pictures. Let's laugh a little.

Hubble's genuine pictures are released regularly.

Here's one from last month:

http://hubblesite.org/image/3970/news

Surely this picture is so enlightening. Thank you. I can draw better than it by closed eyes.

Go ahead. Let's see if it works any better than you posting with a closed mind.

You said Hubble wasn't posting pictures. I just showed you they did. Owned again.

Fuck off. Did you call this an space image? You should making joke. Where is galaxies, stars, detailed examinations? I think you forgot how Hublle a strong satellite. It can show two headlights of a car in a star. My windows screen saver is also more detailed than this "picture". Are you idiot something or what that believe this thing seems like a screensaver.

Go fuck yourself.  I think you forgot that you are a fucking moron. The galaxies are right there in the picture, you fucking retard. Why not go to the link I gave you and download the 16Mb TIF image and use that as a screensaver, dick. See how easy it is to resort to abuse instead of discussion, prick? You want to resort to that kind of debate then we can all play, wanker. Here, this is the analysis you didn't appear to read on the website you obviously went to to get the picture. If you search for Hubble and Small Magellanic Cloud, you will find that there are a lot of people looking at Hubble data. You won't do that, because you're a coward.

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope captured two festive-looking nebulas, situated so as to appear as one. They reside in the Small Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy that is a satellite of our Milky Way galaxy. Intense radiation from the brilliant central stars is heating hydrogen in each of the nebulas, causing them to glow red.

The nebulas, together, are called NGC 248. They were discovered in 1834 by the astronomer Sir John Herschel. NGC 248 is about 60 light-years long and 20 light-years wide. It is among a number of glowing hydrogen nebulas in the dwarf satellite galaxy, which is located approximately 200,000 light-years away in the southern constellation Tucana.

The image is part of a study called Small Magellanic Cloud Investigation of Dust and Gas Evolution (SMIDGE). Astronomers are using Hubble to probe the Milky Way satellite to understand how dust is different in galaxies that have a far lower supply of heavy elements needed to create dust. The Small Magellanic Cloud has between a fifth and a tenth of the amount of heavy elements that the Milky Way does. Because it is so close, astronomers can study its dust in great detail, and learn about what dust was like earlier in the history of the universe. "It is important for understanding the history of our own galaxy, too," explained the study's principal investigator, Dr. Karin Sandstrom of the University of California, San Diego. Most of the star formation happened earlier in the universe, at a time where there was a much lower percentage of heavy elements than there is now. "Dust is a really critical part of how a galaxy works, how it forms stars," said Sandstrom.

Quote from: İntikam on January 26, 2017, 02:13:58 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 26, 2017, 12:34:19 AM

Quote from: İntikam on January 26, 2017, 12:15:01 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 25, 2017, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: İntikam on January 25, 2017, 04:04:41 AM

Quote from: aisantaros on January 25, 2017, 03:41:22 AM

The video does not contain anything suggested in the tittle,

Anyway now flat earthers claim that nasa needs an INFRA telescope mounted on a 747 to PHOTOSHOP hubble images ? LOL give me a brake

Yes our real problem is why Hubble Has not sent fake pictures for quite some time. We missed its fake pictures. Let's laugh a little.

Hubble's genuine pictures are released regularly.

Here's one from last month:

http://hubblesite.org/image/3970/news

Surely this picture is so enlightening. Thank you. I can draw better than it by closed eyes.

Go ahead. Let's see if it works any better than you posting with a closed mind.

You said Hubble wasn't posting pictures. I just showed you they did. Owned again.

Fuck off. Did you call this an space image? You should making joke. Where is galaxies, stars, detailed examinations? I think you forgot how Hublle a strong satellite. It can show two headlights of a car in a star. My windows screen saver is also more detailed than this "picture". Are you idiot something or what that believe this thing seems like a screensaver.

Go fuck yourself.  I think you forgot that you are a fucking moron. The galaxies are right there in the picture, you fucking retard. Why not go to the link I gave you and download the 16Mb TIF image and use that as a screensaver, dick. See how easy it is to resort to abuse instead of discussion, prick? You want to resort to that kind of debate then we can all play, wanker. Here, this is the analysis you didn't appear to read on the website you obviously went to to get the picture. If you search for Hubble and Small Magellanic Cloud, you will find that there are a lot of people looking at Hubble data. You won't do that, because you're a coward.

Quote

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope captured two festive-looking nebulas, situated so as to appear as one. They reside in the Small Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy that is a satellite of our Milky Way galaxy. Intense radiation from the brilliant central stars is heating hydrogen in each of the nebulas, causing them to glow red.

The nebulas, together, are called NGC 248. They were discovered in 1834 by the astronomer Sir John Herschel. NGC 248 is about 60 light-years long and 20 light-years wide. It is among a number of glowing hydrogen nebulas in the dwarf satellite galaxy, which is located approximately 200,000 light-years away in the southern constellation Tucana.

The image is part of a study called Small Magellanic Cloud Investigation of Dust and Gas Evolution (SMIDGE). Astronomers are using Hubble to probe the Milky Way satellite to understand how dust is different in galaxies that have a far lower supply of heavy elements needed to create dust. The Small Magellanic Cloud has between a fifth and a tenth of the amount of heavy elements that the Milky Way does. Because it is so close, astronomers can study its dust in great detail, and learn about what dust was like earlier in the history of the universe. "It is important for understanding the history of our own galaxy, too," explained the study's principal investigator, Dr. Karin Sandstrom of the University of California, San Diego. Most of the star formation happened earlier in the universe, at a time where there was a much lower percentage of heavy elements than there is now. "Dust is a really critical part of how a galaxy works, how it forms stars," said Sandstrom.

Go fuck yourself.

I never be a moron so I don't remember when I was. Maybe you are.

You idiot, I already download it as 16mb. What are you thinking about 16mb. Wtf 16mb, 1 second of my connection data speed also about 16mb. 16 mb img can be a screensaver only. If you see it enough, you prove you are a moron.

You claim I can't see that images okey? Actually you provoke me to research on that images. I'm not provokated but will look it for show you how is it a idiotism.

I'm searching now by "online" as:

Hubble and Small Magellanic Cloud...

Wait, don't go anywhere, I'll share screens...

I found these:



I'll online debunk it. Now, right here.

I clicked the first picture on the adress of what you give:



Where is it come from? "nasa.gov". Is everything okey? Okey. Lets look more detailed to picture. Did you see it?

If you did not, Let me show you.... (to be continued)



I examined them in 3600x3600 NASA image and shrinked for you. I can bring here original 3600x3600 img or you can find it. It is clearly seems they are created by copy-paste.

Almost all stars are created by NASA by the way of famous "copy-paste". All detailes of them are same. A bit brighness, a bit darkness, a bit increase this one, abit decrease this one.

Onebigmonkey and other idiots already ready to believe !

<Debunked online>

Wow. Call the news! Intikam has figured out that stars look similar! Those point-like dots that only vary in color and magnitude all look the same, except some have slightly different color and some are brighter or less bright!

PMSL

Now look for articles, not pretty pictures, dumbass.

Hubble just takes the photos. The real work is done by people.

Fuck off. Did you call this an space image? You should making joke. Where is galaxies, stars, detailed examinations? I think you forgot how Hublle a strong satellite. It can show two headlights of a car in a star. My windows screen saver is also more detailed than this "picture". Are you idiot something or what that believe this thing seems like a screensaver.

Yes, Hubble is a powerful telescope that can resolve things much further away than humans on Earth can with their naked eyes.
However they cannot resolve a headlight on a star.

One thing you might be forgetting is just how big space is.

This is 200 000 light years away and only 20 light years wide and 60 light years long. That would make it 3.5 arc minutes wide and 10 arc minutes long.
The sun is around 30 arc minutes wide.

So to someone on Earth, without any telescope, they would see this as a small smudge, around 1 tenth the size (linearly, so 100th based upon area) of the sun.
But the Hubble telescope has much greater resolving power and can make out numerous independent sources of light in this image.

How about you pull your head out of your ass and try to come up with something rational rather than this childish crap?

I never be a moron so I don't remember when I was. Maybe you are.

Really? You're not a moron?
So you know what you are saying is pure bullshit, you are just trolling?

You idiot, I already download it as 16mb. What are you thinking about 16mb. Wtf 16mb, 1 second of my connection data speed also about 16mb. 16 mb img can be a screensaver only. If you see it enough, you prove you are a moron.

M, not m. It's a MEGA byte (which should be B, not b), not a milli byte.
You are off by 9 orders of magnitude.
Yes. Big pretty pictures can be used as a screen saver. That doesn't mean they aren't real.

I'm not provokated but will look it for show you how is it a idiotism.

You mean to show more of your dishonesty?

I'll online debunk it. Now, right here.

Spouting a bunch of ignorant crap isn't debunking it.

I clicked the first picture on the adress of what you give:

No. He didn't give that address. You picked it yourself.

Lets look more detailed to picture. Did you see it?
If you did not, Let me show you

No. This shows your ignorance of how photography works and how space works.

What makes you assume they are copy paste?

If I take a picture of a bunch of perfect spheres, will you claim that is copy-paste?

It is clearly seems they are created by copy-paste.

No. It clearly seems like it is a picture of space, with some well known image artefacts.
It shows that once again you are spouting pure garbage rather than anything rational.

Almost all stars are created by NASA by the way of famous "copy-paste". All detailes of them are same. A bit brighness, a bit darkness, a bit increase this one, abit decrease this one.

What do you expect to be different about them?
Just because they are similar doesn't mean they are copy-pasted.
But just like so often, you feel the need to attack it any way you can, which means not rationally.

<Debunked online>

You mean pure bullshit spouted about it?

In response to your retarded bullshit, İntikam, please watch the video in my sig.

Please don't breed you dumb cretin.

In response to your retarded bullshit, İntikam, please watch the video in my sig.

Please don't breed you dumb cretin.

I'll not watch your retarded video and will not comment on your post. First, you have to learn to write humanely. Till that, instead of writing here, you should back to your moms pussy.

You are ignored.

I'll not watch your retarded video and will not comment on your post. First, you have to learn to write humanely. Till that, instead of writing here, you should back to your moms pussy.

You are ignored.

Well, you just commented on his post, so great job there.

How about you learn some humility and decency and stop acting like such an arrogant penguin?

I'll not watch your retarded video [...]. First, you have to learn to write humanely.  [...] you should back to your moms pussy.

Quote from: İntikam on January 27, 2017, 12:59:50 AM

I'll not watch your retarded video [...]. First, you have to learn to write humanely.  [...] you should back to your moms pussy.

Replied for:

In response to your retarded bullshit, İntikam, please watch the video in my sig.

Please don't breed you dumb cretin.

Don't seperate my post again. This is a disrespecting.

I don't get it, why would they need to photoshop that stuff, when it's all up there and visible? Seriously, just look through a telescope, or go to an amateur astronomer meeting and see them up close performing astrophotography.

Quote from: Kami on January 27, 2017, 01:52:09 AM

Quote from: İntikam on January 27, 2017, 12:59:50 AM

I'll not watch your retarded video [...]. First, you have to learn to write humanely.  [...] you should back to your moms pussy.

Replied for:

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 26, 2017, 01:41:02 PM

In response to your retarded bullshit, İntikam, please watch the video in my sig.

Please don't breed you dumb cretin.

Don't seperate my post again. This is a disrespecting.

Just pointed out the hypocricy in your argument.

Quote from: İntikam on January 27, 2017, 04:48:20 AM

Quote from: Kami on January 27, 2017, 01:52:09 AM

Quote from: İntikam on January 27, 2017, 12:59:50 AM

I'll not watch your retarded video [...]. First, you have to learn to write humanely.  [...] you should back to your moms pussy.

Replied for:

Quote from: FETlolcakes on January 26, 2017, 01:41:02 PM

In response to your retarded bullshit, İntikam, please watch the video in my sig.

Please don't breed you dumb cretin.

Don't seperate my post again. This is a disrespecting.

Just pointed out the hypocricy in your argument.

BUT YOU SEPARATED HIS POST!!!! DON'T YOU KNOW THAT IT IS A DISRESPECTING??

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 26, 2017, 12:34:19 AM

Quote from: İntikam on January 26, 2017, 12:15:01 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 25, 2017, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: İntikam on January 25, 2017, 04:04:41 AM

Quote from: aisantaros on January 25, 2017, 03:41:22 AM

The video does not contain anything suggested in the tittle,

Anyway now flat earthers claim that nasa needs an INFRA telescope mounted on a 747 to PHOTOSHOP hubble images ? LOL give me a brake

Yes our real problem is why Hubble Has not sent fake pictures for quite some time. We missed its fake pictures. Let's laugh a little.

Hubble's genuine pictures are released regularly.

Here's one from last month:

http://hubblesite.org/image/3970/news

Surely this picture is so enlightening. Thank you. I can draw better than it by closed eyes.

Go ahead. Let's see if it works any better than you posting with a closed mind.

You said Hubble wasn't posting pictures. I just showed you they did. Owned again.

Fuck off. Did you call this an space image? You should making joke. Where is galaxies, stars, detailed examinations? I think you forgot how Hublle a strong satellite. It can show two headlights of a car in a star. My windows screen saver is also more detailed than this "picture". Are you idiot something or what that believe this thing seems like a screensaver.

It's a picture. It's a picture of a thing called a "nebula."
Simple as that.
If you have a problem with this , why don't you take a visit to your nearest astronomical observatory ?
 If you don't know what a nebula is, and what a picture of a nebula looks like, they can give you some help and you might learn a thing or two.....If you really want to learn anything, that is.