04 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMock surprise wouldn't be insulting me, it would be exposing your own idiocy.
You watched the video and see it differently.
I won't insult you with mock surprise.
Perhaps you can speculate exactly what the idiot is reacting to, if not in agreement with the audience, as it clearly appears.
I have no idea what he is reacting to. I also know that you don't either. You just think you do, but you have no actual evidence for it.
04 May 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadSeeing an object the size of an airplane 225 miles away--- even with a telescope--- isn't proof that people are actually on it.
He doesn't accept video or photographic evidence as it may be faked, hence my suggestion he go and see it with his own eyes.
Not a single time in the entire career of ISS have we EVER seen a video from inside a launch to the station.
Not a single time in the entire career of ISS have we EVER seen a live transmission from inside ISS with a vantage point of the earth below.
Not a single time in the entire career of the ISS have we EVER seen any sign of airplanes in flight below it OR any of the tens of thousands of satellites supposedly orbiting the earth.
That you equate what they present as life on the station with what we can detect in LEO is more an indictment on your lack of critical thinking than it is anything else.
04 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't suppose you maybe thought about the fact the launch vehicle is hitting 3 g's for about 15 minutes and they are quite busy and have no time to settle assinine disputes about video from launch to ISS. What would you expect to see anyway? You would just dis that because you would then demand there be at least 2 video camera's one facing ground and the other space. But there would be no ISS to see at all since they have to match orbits and nothing would be visible for a half hour or more. And you have the traitorous gall to call that fake because of that. You are an assswipe degenerate traitor.
Seeing an object the size of an airplane 225 miles away--- even with a telescope--- isn't proof that people are actually on it.
Not a single time in the entire career of ISS have we EVER seen a video from inside a launch to the station.
Not a single time in the entire career of ISS have we EVER seen a live transmission from inside ISS with a vantage poin ...[text shortened]... detect in LEO is more an indictment on your lack of critical thinking than it is anything else.
04 May 17
Originally posted by sonhouseDon't hold back: tell me how you really feel.
I don't suppose you maybe thought about the fact the launch vehicle is hitting 3 g's for about 15 minutes and they are quite busy and have no time to settle assinine disputes about video from launch to ISS. What would you expect to see anyway? You would just dis that because you would then demand there be at least 2 video camera's one facing ground and the ...[text shortened]... e the traitorous gall to call that fake because of that. You are an assswipe degenerate traitor.
04 May 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have no idea what he's reacting to, but I'm the idiot?
Mock surprise wouldn't be insulting me, it would be exposing your own idiocy.
[b]Perhaps you can speculate exactly what the idiot is reacting to, if not in agreement with the audience, as it clearly appears.
I have no idea what he is reacting to. I also know that you don't either. You just think you do, but you have no actual evidence for it.[/b]
That's rich.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis must be a joke. The ISS is 250 miles above the Earth; you really expect to see airplanes whizzing along under it?
Seeing an object the size of an airplane 225 miles away--- even with a telescope--- isn't proof that people are actually on it.
Not a single time in the entire career of ISS have we EVER seen a video from inside a launch to the station.
Not a single time in the entire career of ISS have we EVER seen a live transmission from inside ISS with a vantage poin ...[text shortened]... detect in LEO is more an indictment on your lack of critical thinking than it is anything else.
And space is big and not many satellites (glad you admit they exist) are orbiting at such low altitude anyway.
Why did they send the International Space Station up if they had no intention of putting astronauts on it? And if they put it up, why wouldn't they?
You can't be as stupid as this. This is just trolling.
EDIT: I guess I missed that the satellites are only "supposedly orbiting the Earth".
04 May 17
Originally posted by no1marauderYou can't be as stupid as this. This is just trolling.
This must be a joke. The ISS is 250 miles above the Earth; you really expect to see airplanes whizzing along under it?
And space is big and not many satellites (glad you admit they exist) are orbiting at such low altitude anyway.
Why did they send the [b]International Space Station up if they had no intention of putting astronauts on it? And if they put it up, why wouldn't they?
You can't be as stupid as this. This is just trolling.[/b]
Don't underestimate Freaky.
04 May 17
Originally posted by sonhouseThere are plenty of pictures/videos of Earth taken from the ISS.
I don't suppose you maybe thought about the fact the launch vehicle is hitting 3 g's for about 15 minutes and they are quite busy and have no time to settle assinine disputes about video from launch to ISS. What would you expect to see anyway? You would just dis that because you would then demand there be at least 2 video camera's one facing ground and the ...[text shortened]... e the traitorous gall to call that fake because of that. You are an assswipe degenerate traitor.
Not that Freaky would believe they are authentic.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI know, but I think if you saw it with your own eyes, you would be on the way to accepting that it actually exists as an object. I mean one can fake an 11 second delay (although you haven't given a convincing argument as to why one would do such a thing) but to launch a fake object into the sky and get it to hover around on a very specific schedule, seems to me to be a little overdoing the fakery. I mean seriously, how much fuel does it need to stay up there? All that just to try (and fail) to keep nutters like you happy.
Seeing an object the size of an airplane 225 miles away--- even with a telescope--- isn't proof that people are actually on it.
Not a single time in the entire career of the ISS have we EVER seen any sign of airplanes in flight below it OR any of the tens of thousands of satellites supposedly orbiting the earth.
Your scientific knowledge is frankly embarrassing.
04 May 17
Originally posted by no1marauderThis must be a joke. The ISS is 250 miles above the Earth; you really expect to see airplanes whizzing along under it?
This must be a joke. The ISS is 250 miles above the Earth; you really expect to see airplanes whizzing along under it?
And space is big and not many satellites (glad you admit they exist) are orbiting at such low altitude anyway.
Why did they send the [b]International Space Station up if they had no intention of putting astronauts on it? And if they put it up, why wouldn't they?
You can't be as stupid as this. This is just trolling.[/b]
At night, they should be able to see the trails of their lights.
If we're able to see them 225-260 miles up, they should be able to see some sign of movement beneath them.
And space is big and not many satellites (glad you admit they exist) are orbiting at such low altitude anyway.
Here's a neat little graphic which shows how few satellites are reportedly up there:
http://stuffin.space/
Gosh, it must be painful to be so wrong so many times.
Let me help you out, as a friend.
From the company shills, Popular Science:
From down here on the ground, space looks like a pristine void. But Earth's orbit is actually crowded with a ton of stuff, from human-made satellites to many smaller pieces of debris whirling around at dangerously high speeds, as the film Gravity so memorably dramatized. In fact, there are an estimated 500,000 or so smaller orbital debris (between one and 10 centimeters in diameter) and about 21,000 larger bits (larger than 10 centimeters) spinning around Earth right now, according to NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office.
Oops.
Altitude ranging from 100 to 300 miles is designated for shuttles, space stations, spysats, navsats, hamsats, etc..
ALL of these should be visible to ISS, should be detectable for its cameras.
So far?
NADA.
(Hmmm... Maybe NASA should change its name?)
In the 300-600 mile range, weather and photo satellites.
These, too, should be within visual as well as camera detection range, but...
NADA.
In the 600-1200 mile range, more spysats, military comsats, and more hamsats.
These are likely too far for the poor li'l ISS to detect, so let's give them a pass.
3,000-6,000 range, super-duper important science sats; sadly also out of range.
6,000-12,000 range you have your navsats... but too far away.
22,300 range are the so-called stationary satellites used for communications, broadcast, and weather.
And floating anywhere between 250-50,000 are the elliptical satellites for early-warning, Molniya (Russkie for lighting) broadcast, communications, spysats, and more hamsats.
Everything emboldened should be both visible to the ISS as well as in reverse.
Oddly, we NEVER see any of them, none of them EVER see the ISS.
Now, before you get all emotional, I'm referring to the elliptical satellites which have purportedly been the source for various pictures of the earth's orbit.
In not a single one of those images (not a photograph, and not a video) which themselves are laughably cartoonish in their depictions has ever recorded the ISS which is allegedly circling the globe once every ninety minutes.
More to the point, of the THOUSANDS of artificial material in the orbit of the earth--- in parts or whole--- not a single time ever have they recorded any of them.
Why did they send the [b]International Space Station up if they had no intention of putting astronauts on it? And if they put it up, why wouldn't they?[/b]
You're asking me?
You can't be as stupid as this. This is just trolling.
Back atcha.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is either rank stupidity or trolling.
[b]This must be a joke. The ISS is 250 miles above the Earth; you really expect to see airplanes whizzing along under it?
At night, they should be able to see the trails of their lights.
If we're able to see them 225-260 miles up, they should be able to see some sign of movement beneath them.
And space is big and not many satellites (glad you a ...[text shortened]...
You're asking me?
[b]You can't be as stupid as this. This is just trolling.
Back atcha.[/b]
Why don't you use the App that shows you when and where you can see the ISS with your naked eye as I have done several times? Or you can use this handy dandy site? https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/
Why would people on the ISS be interested in filming small bits of space debris or even satellites?
Yes, I'm asking you: Why did they send the International Space Station up if they had no intention of putting astronauts on it? And if they put it up, why wouldn't they?
Provide an answer, please.
Quite frankly, NASA doesn't seem to feel that trying to convince a small number of nuts in the existence of something that they could see with their own eyes is worth a lot of their time.
EDIT: Low Earth orbit is defined as 100 miles to 1200 miles above the Earth. In that entire area, there are only 758 satellites. https://satellites.findthedata.com/d/o/Low-Earth-Orbit
That's a minuscule amount considering the area.
And it's all BS anyway; IF NASA stuck an astronaut with a camera at a window in the ISS and filmed a satellite going by you'd just claim it was a fake anyway. So why should they waste their time?
04 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis about as convincing as your allegations in the other thread that astronauts were throwing around a football with the Super Bowl teams' names on them or that the ISS couldn't possibly be seen with the naked eye.
If you can't figure out what he is reacting to, it's a wonder you were able to figure out how to push play on the video.