A real Apollo hero: Margaret Hamilton.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Whatever you say flatasser. This coming from a dude who thinks there are no such things as satellites, GPS is done from ground stations, NASA ALWAYS lies, there is no such thing as Coriolis effect, Earth cannot be spinning because it is somewhat flat even though every other planet in the Solar system are obviously round.

You are so far out in left field ...[text shortened]... And I imagine you will have a little chuckle getting me to respond yet again. Just like a troll.

I truly couldn't care any less than I do about your response, since it has been the same thing since... ever.
You have no idea what you are talking about and have no evidence supporting what you purport to believe.
Given factual, undeniable and irrefutable proof of NASA's duplicity, you plug your ears and run away.
Football?
That's the least of their issues, and yet you cannot answer it!
Satellites?
How about airplanes?
Watch any feed from ISS and start counting how many airplanes you see in the sky below the camera.
225 miles up, count how many of the thousands of satellites which we KNOW are definitely in orbit around the earth.

Let me know the number, because--- so far--- the answer is zero.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I truly couldn't care any less than I do about your response, since it has been the same thing since... ever.
You have no idea what you are talking about and have no evidence supporting what you purport to believe.
Given factual, undeniable and irrefutable proof of NASA's duplicity, you plug your ears and run away.
Football?
That's the [b]least of ...[text shortened]... y in orbit around the earth.

Let me know the number, because--- so far--- the answer is zero.[/b]

What an assshole reply. That is the dumbest response you have made yet. You think that is some kind of argument? No wonder you believe in flatass. No airplanes in those pics of ISS. So that means ISS is fake? Jesus, you are reaching, way out on a limb. So take a camera in the middle of Pennsylvania, point it up, how many airplanes would you see? What a bonkers reply.

So now you admit there are satellites? Orbiting Earth. So how do you do that on a flatass planet?

Originally posted by sonhouse
What an assshole reply. That is the dumbest response you have made yet. You think that is some kind of argument? No wonder you believe in flatass. No airplanes in those pics of ISS. So that means ISS is fake? Jesus, you are reaching, way out on a limb. So take a camera in the middle of Pennsylvania, point it up, how many airplanes would you see? What a bonk ...[text shortened]... o now you admit there are satellites? Orbiting Earth. So how do you do that on a flatass planet?

Read it again.
Watch an ISS feed and count how many airplanes or satellites are ever in view from it.
None.
I guess they don't exist.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Read it again.
Watch an ISS feed and count how many airplanes or satellites are ever in view from it.
None.
I guess they don't exist.

Wrong assshole.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3243916/Can-spot-plane-ISS-astronaut-captures-remarkable-image-single-aircraft-seen-250-miles-Earth.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wrong assshole.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3243916/Can-spot-plane-ISS-astronaut-captures-remarkable-image-single-aircraft-seen-250-miles-Earth.html

That's awesome.
You continue to make my point for me and are completely unable to control yourself otherwise.
If you're unable to stop insulting others, at least be good at it...
or accurate would be nice.

Read it again.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's awesome.
You continue to make my point for me and are completely unable to control yourself otherwise.
If you're unable to stop insulting others, at least be good at it...
or accurate would be nice.

Read it again.

You can see the aircraft from ISS. That is what you asked for and that is what I provided.

I called you an assshole because you just made up a sentence when you didn't even research it out. That is lazy besides being a troll.

So you sit on a mountaintop somewhere and have good binoculars. How many airplanes would you see 250 miles away? Try it sometime. I can even do the math.

Suppose you have a jet with wingspan of 80 feet, just a guess.

So 250 mile circle is 500 mile radius. Times Pi, about 1500 mile circle.

Works out to about 8 million feet in circumferance. Out of that 8 million feet we have an object 80 feet wide. One part in about 100,000. That is about 12 arc seconds. You better have a nice telescope to see an object 12 arc seconds wide. Or do you not understand my logic here? I spelled it out step by step. One arc second divides a circle into 1,296,000 parts. Divide that by 99,000 = 13 arc seconds. If you had 99,000 such jets all lined up in a circle 1500 miles in circumference, they would be lined up wingtip to wingtip. So you better have a nice telescope, don't think binoculars are going to do it.

If you took the time to actually look at the ISS image, they had to zoom in pretty close to be able to spot the plane because they had a great camera onboard.

But all that means nothing to you does it? You still will go on dissiing ISS, NASA and every other great space accomplishment.

Here is another ISS image with the moon in background, taken by an Australian amateur astronomer:
Just scroll down the same page as the ISS photo of the plane.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You can see the aircraft from ISS. That is what you asked for and that is what I provided.

I called you an assshole because you just made up a sentence when you didn't even research it out. That is lazy besides being a troll.

So you sit on a mountaintop somewhere and have good binoculars. How many airplanes would you see 250 miles away? Try it sometim ...[text shortened]... an Australian amateur astronomer:
Just scroll down the same page as the ISS photo of the plane.

Lots of words.
Lots of numbers.
Lots of insults.

Zero reading comprehension.

Read it again.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Lots of words.
Lots of numbers.
Lots of insults.

Zero reading comprehension.

Read it again.

I read it. You said show me a plane image taken from ISS. I showed you that. You chose not to accept it.

I also showed you exactly what an aircraft would subsend in a circle of radius 250 miles which is what that jet represents but you don't even understand the argument. You need to take some optics 101 courses.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I read it. You said show me a plane image taken from ISS. I showed you that. You chose not to accept it.

I also showed you exactly what an aircraft would subsend in a circle of radius 250 miles which is what that jet represents but you don't even understand the argument. You need to take some optics 101 courses.

Watch any feed from ISS and start counting how many airplanes you see in the sky below the camera. 225 miles up, count how many of the thousands of satellites which we KNOW are definitely in orbit around the earth.

No, you didn't read it.
And you still consider insults the appropriate action to take, you with me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

[b]Watch any feed from ISS and start counting how many airplanes you see in the sky below the camera. 225 miles up, count how many of the thousands of satellites which we KNOW are definitely in orbit around the earth.

No, you didn't read it.
And you still consider insults the appropriate action to take, you with me.[/b]

"Watch an ISS feed and count how many airplanes or satellites are ever in view from it."

That was certainly an ISS feed, a photo taken by an onboard camera. And that answered your charge. Get over it.

You clearly did not understand my analysis of seeing an aircraft from 250 miles away. They showed that one because they had a very good high res camera. If by 'ISS feed' you mean the tv cameras, they have nothing like the resolution needed to actually see aircraft 240 miles away. You are just pulling the red herring card. You didn't even READ my analysis of seeing a jet 250 miles away ON EARTH did you. Because of your poor education your eyes just glazed over having to read arithmetic.

You haven't a clue when it comes to optics and even what an arc second is. You really need some remidial education, perhaps a night school if they let you out of your room in the old folks home.

A quick tour of an arc second: You have a circle 1,296,000 miles in circumferance.

One arc second resolution cuts that circle into 1,296,000 equal parts so it is easy (at least for me) to see one part of that circle, which has a radius of 106,264.8 miles and a telescope with one arc second resolution would be able to make out something one mile across if it is in the center of that circle. That is about half the distance to the moon so doubling the radius means you can only make out an object 2 miles across with that one arc second resolution.

Hubble has 25 times that resolution so at the moon it can make out stuff 2/25 miles which means it can see stuff 422 feet across and anything smaller would just be a dot of light if there was enough light coming off the object.

So looking at that plane from 250 miles away with 13 arc second res means chopping a circle into about 100,000 parts and good luck seeing a plane 250 miles away with anything but a good amateur telescope.

Originally posted by sonhouse
"Watch an ISS feed and count how many airplanes or satellites are ever in view from it."

That was certainly an ISS feed, a photo taken by an onboard camera. And that answered your charge. Get over it.

You clearly did not understand my analysis of seeing an aircraft from 250 miles away. They showed that one because they had a very good high res camera. ...[text shortened]... 00 parts and good luck seeing a plane 250 miles away with anything but a good amateur telescope.

Both of the terms "watch" and "feed" infer a constant action, not a singular event, i.e., the feed from NASA which they define as 'live' and 'issuing from ISS at 225 miles above the earth' requires motion, thus the counting.

That was certainly an ISS feed, a photo taken by an onboard camera. And that answered your charge. Get over it.
It is not a feed, but a single solitary image.

You clearly did not understand my analysis of seeing an aircraft from 250 miles away.
Wasn’t out of my depth, thanks.

If by 'ISS feed' you mean the tv cameras, they have nothing like the resolution needed to actually see aircraft 240 miles away.
Sure they do.
The night images they show routinely include lightning flashes, cityscapes and the like.
There should be streaks of lights passing over the various areas of earth, but we never see any.

You didn't even READ my analysis of seeing a jet 250 miles away ON EARTH did you. Because of your poor education your eyes just glazed over having to read arithmetic.
I don’t read more than half of the things you write, typically, because you go off on tangents unrelated to the topic put to you and I’m not going to waste my time reading something that is inapplicable.

You haven't a clue when it comes to optics and even what an arc second is.
You have nothing to base this on, and, in fact, what I have provided up to this point indicates that I at least understand some principles of optics related to density, changes in medium, etc..


You really need some remidial education, perhaps a night school if they let you out of your room in the old folks home.
And perhaps you need some remedial spelling lessons?
Your insults once again backfire.
Perhaps now is a good time to set them aside and remain focused on the topic.
You’re a few decades in front of me, age-wise, and you didn’t cotton to others focusing on your age; not your best stuff.

So looking at that plane from 250 miles away with 13 arc second res means chopping a circle into about 100,000 parts and good luck seeing a plane 250 miles away with anything but a good amateur telescope.
And good luck to those people on earth who claim to be able to see ISS with their naked eye, right?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Both of the terms "watch" and "feed" infer a constant action, not a singular event, i.e., the feed from NASA which they define as 'live' and 'issuing from ISS at 225 miles above the earth' requires motion, thus the counting.

[b]That was certainly an ISS feed, a photo taken by an onboard camera. And that answered your charge. Get over it.
It ...[text shortened]... good luck to those people on earth who claim to be able to see ISS with their naked eye, right?[/b]

Again, you display your ignorance of things optic. Lower resolution doesn't mean you can't see something small. It means you can't get a decent image of it. If it is emitting light or reflecting light, it will still shine and you still see a dot of light. In fact that is what almost all the stars are, most telescopes cannot resolve a star but they still see the light from that star.
Your statement shows you don't know the difference. BTW, you can download the path ISS takes and when it is overhead and if the skies are cloud free even YOU can see it. But of course that would blow your program so you wouldn't want that so you would never go to the trouble of actually looking up the data and seeing if it matches to what you see in the sky.

http://www.isstracker.com/

This tells where ISS is at any given time and the predicted path.

But it's all fake, right, you would never look for it even if you had the curiosity to do that.

Another way to see it in your neck of the woods:

https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/view.cfm?country=United_States&region=Michigan&city=Cheboygan#.WOT6Y_nyuUk

I don't know exactly your town but here is one in Michigan. If you ever bother to look.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Again, you display your ignorance of things optic. Lower resolution doesn't mean you can't see something small. It means you can't get a decent image of it. If it is emitting light or reflecting light, it will still shine and you still see a dot of light. In fact that is what almost all the stars are, most telescopes cannot resolve a star but they still see ...[text shortened]... nyuUk

I don't know exactly your town but here is one in Michigan. If you ever bother to look.

In baseball, every batter gets three strikes prior to being called out if a hit or walk doesn't occur first.

You struck out a long, long time ago.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In baseball, every batter gets three strikes prior to being called out if a hit or walk doesn't occur first.

You struck out a long, long time ago.

Just another way of saying you refuse to actually look, putting you in the same boat as the early astronomers, like Galileo where people refused to look through his scope and see the moons of Jupiter, they prefered to remain in the dark about the real world they lived in, stuck in their superstitions and religion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just another way of saying you refuse to actually look, putting you in the same boat as the early astronomers, like Galileo where people refused to look through his scope and see the moons of Jupiter, they prefered to remain in the dark about the real world they lived in, stuck in their superstitions and religion.

No.
It's another way of saying the conversation is--- again--- fruitless and pointless.
Each and every time--- and without fail--- you refuse to answer the question or address the topic specifically directed to you, instead going off on irrelevant topics.

If you wish to have a conversation, you will need to follow certain accepted rules of engagement.
Otherwise, you can continue throwing up a wall of text that I will continue to refuse to read.