Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:30 pm  

I'm now thinking you must be a WUM. You caught a fish.

28.2 is the orbital position. Not the elevation.

A flyby is where one satellite is moved out of position and a new one moved in. It takes a lot of planning and coordination. The end customers don't usually even notice.

Satellites are moved when they are knackered and old. Its called planning.

Spoon fed? Unlike you I didn't need the internet or wiki for any of that satellite info...

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:57 pm  

Vince Noir wrote:

I'm now thinking you must be a WUM. You caught a fish.

28.2 is the orbital position. Not the elevation.

A flyby is where one satellite is moved out of position and a new one moved in. It takes a lot of planning and coordination. The end customers don't usually even notice.

Satellites are moved when they are knackered and old. Its called planning.

Spoon fed? Unlike you I didn't need the internet or wiki for any of that satellite info...

Drivel. our dish points to the nearest tower...not to the sky..no difference between a TV aerial and a dish...every Skydish on Earth points to a ground based signal. Always has and still does.....they never point to the sky. With regards to a lot of coordination and planning and customers don't feel the change that defines to Bullshit. No Flyby's needed with my sky package what they're oblivious too.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:12 pm  

Put your hand in front of the LNB and see what happens.

That will show you that the reflector is doing something and not acting as an aerial.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:52 pm  

if you type like this things seem more truer, fact.

I haven't logged hours and hours on Kerbal Space Program just to be told it's all rubbish.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:21 pm  

Oooh goody! Another one's escaped! I've got 9 hours to fill so crack on! I'm awaiting Stanleys rebuttal to FAs satellite question with bated breath although he seems to be throwing a deaf 'un!

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:28 am  

Mugwump wrote:

I can't work out whether you are being deliberately stupid or you really are just stupid. You might even be a stupid person feigning even more stupidity.



Why are you "doing a Stanley", and neither making your actual point, or explaining what the fsck you are trying to say? You posed a question. I answered your question. Unless you are saying my answer is wrong (in which case, a reasonably polite "Actually FA here is your error..." would do. Your Mr. Angry bombast and playground insults are quite embarrassing. You have been known to be capable of debate without such insults. Am I supposed to be crushed, or intimidated, or something? If so - it's not working, you ignorant meathead! Go take your insults and stick em where the sun don't shine.

Stop wailing you pompous jerk. You are good at insulting anyone who doesn't subscribe to your barmpot quasi-religious beliefs (indeed you are among the WORST OFFENDERS I've seen on this site in this regard) so don't come moaning when someone returns the favour with interest.

A simple YES or NO question: If one is familiar with the inverse square law and its effects on LIGHT INTENSITY is it POSSIBLE for you to look at a photograph and arrive at a reliable conclusion about whether a SINGLE LIGHT SOURCE of KNOWN SIZE is close to the subject or far away based solely on the EFFECTS of said light source?

I know the answer to this question and can prove it experimentally. I just want to know whether you have uncovered earth-shattering discoveries which will turn the laws of light and photography on their head.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:41 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The Sun is not a relatively small light source, though. It is almost 1.4million km in diameter) compared to the Moon's tiny 3,476 km.

Due to the large distance between Sun and Moon, it is close enough for basic purposes to assume that the incoming light rays are parallel, although obviously the "speedlite" of the distant Sun is still actually far bigger than the object Moon, so even at sun-moon distance the rays from the "top" and "bottom" of the light source (the real Sun) are actually still slightly converging. Not a "small" light source.

So your basic premise is false, because you don't understand simple geometry. Your "experiment" confuses actual size with apparent size.

No one mentioned ANYWHERE that a speedlite is an EXACT DUPLICATE of the sun.

But it can CERTAINLY be placed in such a way that it can fool someone into believing that a photograph of someone was taken with the sun in camera (which tells us what about their relative sizes btw?)

We KNOW this BECAUSE?

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 7:10 am  

The Chinese landed an unmanned vehicle on the moon in 2013. They've just released hundreds of the best quality photos of the moons surface ever recorded. You can access them from the CSNA website, or check them out here... Clicky What's quite striking is the similarities to the Moon landing photos, including light and shadow. Of course, the Chinese must be in cahoots with NASA to fake these photos on a set to. Or maybe, there isn't any big conspiracy with the original moon photos at all...

The Chinese landed an unmanned vehicle on the moon in 2013. They've just released hundreds of the best quality photos of the moons surface ever recorded. You can access them from the CSNA website, or check them out here... Clicky What's quite striking is the similarities to the Moon landing photos, including light and shadow. Of course, the Chinese must be in cahoots with NASA to fake these photos on a set to. Or maybe, there isn't any big conspiracy with the original moon photos at all...

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:03 am  

TheButcher wrote: The Chinese landed an unmanned vehicle on the moon in 2013. They've just released hundreds of the best quality photos of the moons surface ever recorded. You can access them from the CSNA website, or check them out here... Clicky What's quite striking is the similarities to the Moon landing photos, including light and shadow. Of course, the Chinese must be in cahoots with NASA to fake these photos on a set to. Or maybe, there isn't any big conspiracy with the original moon photos at all... The laws of light and photography are cast in stone. Anyone who understands them can immediately spot problem lighting. Even you. Or are you saying these laws don't apply on the moon? As for the Chinese photographs. Aside from a couple I haven't really looked at them. However, I must point out that if someone had used evidence put forward by the CHINESE or the RUSSIANS twenty or even ten years ago they'd have first been pilloried and then laughed out of the discussion. Are we now supposed to accept them FA-style, without question and then shake a paw? Are they the GOOD GUYS? I should add that it's a lot easier to fake/edit photographs today than it was during the Apollo missions because of CGI. For instance, Photoshop can very accurately simulate how the inverse-square law dictates the appearance of light cones. Given time and high-resolution raw files it should still be possible to recognise issues. But as the technology and computational speed evolves it becomes harder and harder.

TheButcher wrote: The Chinese landed an unmanned vehicle on the moon in 2013. They've just released hundreds of the best quality photos of the moons surface ever recorded. You can access them from the CSNA website, or check them out here... Clicky What's quite striking is the similarities to the Moon landing photos, including light and shadow. Of course, the Chinese must be in cahoots with NASA to fake these photos on a set to. Or maybe, there isn't any big conspiracy with the original moon photos at all... The laws of light and photography are cast in stone. Anyone who understands them can immediately spot problem lighting. Even you. Or are you saying these laws don't apply on the moon? As for the Chinese photographs. Aside from a couple I haven't really looked at them. However, I must point out that if someone had used evidence put forward by the CHINESE or the RUSSIANS twenty or even ten years ago they'd have first been pilloried and then laughed out of the discussion. Are we now supposed to accept them FA-style, without question and then shake a paw? Are they the GOOD GUYS? I should add that it's a lot easier to fake/edit photographs today than it was during the Apollo missions because of CGI. For instance, Photoshop can very accurately simulate how the inverse-square law dictates the appearance of light cones. Given time and high-resolution raw files it should still be possible to recognise issues. But as the technology and computational speed evolves it becomes harder and harder.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:23 am  

It seems as though Apollo "astronaut" Alan Bean doesn't know a great deal about the Van Allen belts, either. You'd think he might just remember a few operational details given that he was in mortal danger of being grilled. Talk about an emphatic performance.

It seems as though Apollo "astronaut" Alan Bean doesn't know a great deal about the Van Allen belts, either. You'd think he might just remember a few operational details given that he was in mortal danger of being grilled. Talk about an emphatic performance.