More NASA Oopsie-daisies!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Took you a while to admit that didn't it?

[b]It is assumed that the moon was on its path through the sky, since most people only have ever seen the moon in the sky.

It was also assumed that your claim of an elephant doing the same thing as the moon actually had legs, too, but that didn't work out so well, either.
Au contraire, it worked out per ...[text shortened]... pse that is different from what would be expected in a timelapse from a different vantage point.[/b]

There is no admission, as though something hidden and secret is suddenly brought to light.
You cannot say definitively whether the sky is visible in either of the time lapses.
That's not an aha moment by any stretch of reality.

Funny how you repeat the lie that I claimed the elephant did the same thing as the moon then each time you are called on it admit that I did not, then forget again by the next post.
Actually, here's what you said to start it off:

1. If you have a camera a few cm above the ground and it films an elephant walking in a straight line past the camera, will the elephant appear to rotate? In which direction will it rotate?

You were clearly attempting to equate what is seen in the time lapse of the moon with what was happening with a camera panning on an elephant walking past the recorder's otherwise static position.

So far we have established some incontrovertible facts:
1. Whether an object appears to rotate depends in part on the camera.
No, again.
Movement of a camera can make an object appear to rotate: true.
A camera can capture an object rotating independent of the camera's movement: true.

2. We don't know what the camera was doing in the timelapse in question, so cannot determine the cause of the apparent rotation.
We also don't know what the person recording had for lunch, but I don't know that it has an awful lot to do with an incredibly fake animation produced by NASA, being passed off as a representation of real-life events.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There is no admission, as though something hidden and secret is suddenly brought to light.
You cannot say definitively whether the sky is visible in either of the time lapses.
That's not an aha moment by any stretch of reality.

If you cannot say definitively whether or not it is visible, then it logically follows that you cannot say definitively whether it is rotating in the image.
Aha.
That you cannot seem to see that simple fact through the fog of your cognitive dissonance tells us a lot.

Actually, here's what you said to start it off:

1. If you have a camera a few cm above the ground and it films an elephant walking in a straight line past the camera, will the elephant appear to rotate? In which direction will it rotate?

You were clearly attempting to equate what is seen in the time lapse of the moon with what was happening with a camera panning on an elephant walking past the recorder's otherwise static position.
No, I wasn't. Odd that you can see some things clearly that simply aren't there, but something right in front of your eyes is hard to discern.

So far we have established some incontrovertible facts:
1. Whether an object appears to rotate depends in part on the camera.
No, again.
Movement of a camera can make an object appear to rotate: true.
A camera can capture an object rotating independent of the camera's movement: true.
You seem to be struggling with English.

We also don't know what the person recording had for lunch, but I don't know that it has an awful lot to do with an incredibly fake animation produced by NASA, being passed off as a representation of real-life events.
If the animation is fake, then provide evidence that it is fake. What you provided so far is, by your own admission, no more useful than what some anonymous YouTuber had for lunch.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you cannot say definitively whether or not it is visible, then it logically follows that you cannot say definitively whether it is rotating in the image.
Aha.
That you cannot seem to see that simple fact through the fog of your cognitive dissonance tells us a lot.

[b]Actually, here's what you said to start it off:
[quote]1. If you have a camera a ...[text shortened]... o far is, by your own admission, no more useful than what some anonymous YouTuber had for lunch.

You seem to be struggling with English.
That, or you're having a hard time with the concept that a camera is able to capture the rotation of an item, irrespective of its own movement or lack thereof.

If the animation is fake, then provide evidence that it is fake. What you provided so far is, by your own admission, no more useful than what some anonymous YouTuber had for lunch.
Again, you're in luck.
The evidence that the animation is fake is... drum roll, please... the animation itself.
Do you see anything in NASA's time lapse which appears unusual in the least?
Anything which doesn't align with the expected observations?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You seem to be struggling with English.
That, or you're having a hard time with the concept that a camera is able to capture the rotation of an item, irrespective of its own movement or lack thereof.

If the animation is fake, then provide evidence that it is fake. What you provided so far is, by your own admission, no more useful than what so ...[text shortened]... hich appears unusual in the least?
Anything which doesn't align with the expected observations?

Ah, so you have seen the REAL thing so many times you can because you are SUCH an expert now pronounce that work as fake. Got it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Ah, so you have seen the REAL thing so many times you can because you are SUCH an expert now pronounce that work as fake. Got it.

Clouds move, sonhouse.
Except on earth for five hours during NASA's time lapse.

But they fake nothing, right?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Clouds move, sonhouse.
Except on earth for five hours during NASA's time lapse.

But they fake nothing, right?

Like I said now you are an extreme expert on videos taken from a million miles away. Impressive.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Like I said now you are an extreme expert on videos taken from a million miles away. Impressive.

Did the clouds move during the five hour time lapse, sonhouse?
If there is any movement detectable, is it the expected amount over the course of five hours, sonhouse?

Are you retracting your comments regarding the satellite flying past the earth, or should we just let that one slip silently by without notice?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You seem to be struggling with English.
That, or you're having a hard time with the concept that a camera is able to capture the rotation of an item, irrespective of its own movement or lack thereof.

There are two possible meanings of that sentence.
1. A camera can capture the rotation of an item whatever the movement of the camera.
or
2. It is possible that a camera can capture the rotation of an item.
I do not dispute 2 and it does not contradict the sentence you said no to.
1. Is quite obviously false.

Again, you're in luck.
The evidence that the animation is fake is... drum roll, please... the animation itself.
Do you see anything in NASA's time lapse which appears unusual in the least?
Anything which doesn't align with the expected observations?
No.
So, basically you've got nothing and are desperately hoping that I have something for you. Sorry to disappoint.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There are two possible meanings of that sentence.
1. A camera can capture the rotation of an item whatever the movement of the camera.
or
2. It is possible that a camera can capture the rotation of an item.
I do not dispute 2 and it does not contradict the sentence you said no to.
1. Is quite obviously false.

[b]Again, you're in luck.
The evidenc ...[text shortened]... ou've got nothing and are desperately hoping that I have something for you. Sorry to disappoint.

Let's recap.
You've said:

There are two possible meanings of that sentence.
1. A camera can capture the rotation of an item whatever the movement of the camera.
or
2. It is possible that a camera can capture the rotation of an item.
I do not dispute 2 and it does not contradict the sentence you said no to.
1. Is quite obviously false.

If I am reading your convoluted sentence correctly--- despite the obstacles you opt to place in the way of concise expression--- you are claiming one possible meaning of the sentence, i.e., it is possible for a camera to capture the rotation of an item regardless of its own movement or lack thereof, is obviously false.

Do I have that right?
Are you claiming it is impossible for a camera to record an item's rotation?

No.
So, basically you've got nothing and are desperately hoping that I have something for you. Sorry to disappoint.
So, again, if I have you right, you're claiming there is nothing at all unusual about NASA's five hour time lapse with respect to the expected movements and appearances of any part of the subject matter, i.e., the moon, the earth or the area around either or both.
Do I have that right?
How this is represented is pretty much what you would expect to see for that time frame?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's recap.
You've said:
[quote][b]There are two possible meanings of that sentence.
1. A camera can capture the rotation of an item whatever the movement of the camera.
or
2. It is possible that a camera can capture the rotation of an item.
I do not dispute 2 and it does not contradict the sentence you said no to.
[i]1. Is quite obvious ...[text shortened]... I have that right?
Are you claiming it is impossible for a camera to record an item's rotation?[/b]

Boy are you having trouble with English.

No, I am not claiming that it is impossible for a camera to record an item's rotation.
I am claiming that it is not possible in all circumstances and the relative movement of the camera is crucial.

So, again, if I have you right, you're claiming there is nothing at all unusual about NASA's five hour time lapse with respect to the expected movements and appearances of any part of the subject matter, i.e., the moon, the earth or the area around either or both.
Do I have that right?
How this is represented is pretty much what you would expect to see for that time frame?
Yes.

I am also pointing out that you've got nothing and this is just another of your ridiculous time wasting tactics.

You've got nothing. Not even the balls to admit that you've got nothing. Pathetic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Boy are you having trouble with English.

No, I am not claiming that it is impossible for a camera to record an item's rotation.
I am claiming that it is not possible in all circumstances and the relative movement of the camera is crucial.

[b]So, again, if I have you right, you're claiming there is nothing at all unusual about NASA's five hour time ...[text shortened]... g tactics.

You've got nothing. Not even the balls to admit that you've got nothing. Pathetic.

Boy are you having trouble with English.
Not really: just your employ of the same.
Concision is key.

I am claiming that it is not possible in all circumstances and the relative movement of the camera is crucial.
You're adding something completely unrelated to the original intent.
We weren't asking if all things were possible, we were determining whether one thing was possible, i.e., whether or not a camera could record rotation of another object regardless of its own movement or lack thereof.
Either that is a possibility or it is not a possibility.
The rest of it is inconsequential to that question.

Yes.
Well, if you see nothing wrong with the rest of the presentation, we really don't have much to talk about.
Were a child or any functioning adult to watch NASA's time lapse, they would conclude there is no cloud movement, but you are able to see something no one else can detect, so apparently you're super special.

I am also pointing out that you've got nothing and this is just another of your ridiculous time wasting tactics.
Actually, the time wasting tactics are from your neck of the woods, with your silly little games of watching the elephant rotate.
Good times.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Boy are you having trouble with English.
Not really: just your employ of the same.
Concision is key.

I am claiming that it is not possible in all circumstances and the relative movement of the camera is crucial.
You're adding something completely unrelated to the original intent.
We weren't asking if all things were possible, we were d ...[text shortened]... ur neck of the woods, with your silly little games of watching the elephant rotate.
Good times.[/b]

You would be a GREAT politician.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You would be a GREAT politician.

Yeah: I know a lot of politicians who are willing to rub people's nose in the truth.
Do you even think before you put this crap out?

The time lapse that NASA put out is so clearly a blundered animation, it takes extreme will power to declare it is anything other than a fraud.
Fake as hell: just like the rest of the organization.

The disconnect is so strong, there are two grown men on this site who are attempting to assert that a complete lack of normal cloud formation and movement is actually happening--- in the very same spot where it is not happening!
Who can argue with that logic?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Concision is key.

Try it some time rather than your usual bluster.

We weren't asking if all things were possible, we were determining whether one thing was possible, i.e., whether or not a camera could record rotation of another object regardless of its own movement or lack thereof.
Either that is a possibility or it is not a possibility.
It is not always a possibility.

Well, if you see nothing wrong with the rest of the presentation, we really don't have much to talk about.
In other words, you've got nothing.

Were a child or any functioning adult to watch NASA's time lapse, they would conclude there is no cloud movement, but you are able to see something no one else can detect, so apparently you're super special.
When I have stated that I can see something that no-one else can detect? Anything I have stated that I can see, I can find someone else that can see it too. You on the other hand have notably failed to find anyone else that can see what you claim to see.

Here is the challenge: provide a single child or functioning adult that you can demonstrate is not you in disguise that sees a problem with the NASA timelapse.

Actually, the time wasting tactics are from your neck of the woods, with your silly little games of watching the elephant rotate.
That would have been a simple question and answer if you hadn't utterly failed to see the elephant rotate for post after post because of your fear that admitting to it would destroy your precious world view. That it took so long for you to admit the obvious is all on you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Try it some time rather than your usual bluster.

[b]We weren't asking if all things were possible, we were determining whether one thing was possible, i.e., whether or not a camera could record rotation of another object regardless of its own movement or lack thereof.
Either that is a possibility or it is not a possibility.
It is not always a pos ...[text shortened]... stroy your precious world view. That it took so long for you to admit the obvious is all on you.[/b]

It is not always a possibility.
So for the yes/no portion of the question--- which was the only part to the question--- you cannot decide if the answer is yes or no.
It either is a possibility or it is not a possibility.
That's what makes it a yes/no question.
But you can't answer directly.
Weird.

In other words, you've got nothing.
What I have is an animation, provided by NASA.
The animation has several troubling issues, with just a few small inconsistencies.

There is no atmosphere on the earth (except for clouds).
The clouds not only do not move or form during the five hour time lapse, but unusual formations remain intact the entire time.
The moon follows a straight, linear path across the camera frame, with no move toward or away from the earth, as its diameter remains relatively the same from the entrance stage left to exit stage right, except...
That being said, on its exit stage right, the moon should begin to decrease in size as it is moving away from the camera, but it gets bigger.
The moon is rotating in perfect sync with the earth's rotation, over the same area on the planet the entire five hours.
The earth is very clear and in focus, but the moon is out of focus, despite being closer to the camera.
The sun spot on the middle of the earth indicates the sun is directly behind the camera, but, for some unknown reason, the sun spot doesn't show up on the moon when it passes into that same line.
There was a lunar eclipse in 2015, but it happened a few months later, in September: where is the eclipse this animation suggests on July 16, 2015?

But other than that, nothing.

When I have stated that I can see something that no-one else can detect? Anything I have stated that I can see, I can find someone else that can see it too. You on the other hand have notably failed to find anyone else that can see what you claim to see.
You're claiming to see things, claiming to know people who will claim the same thing.
Congratulations.
Now, simply show the things you see, since they're not apparent otherwise.
Show the moon spinning on its axis (which even NASA says we'll never see).
Show the normal formation and changes in cloud cover.
Show any of the items you claim.

Here is the challenge: provide a single child or functioning adult that you can demonstrate is not you in disguise that sees a problem with the NASA timelapse.
On NASA's presentation of this animation, comments were disabled.
There are hundreds and thousands of people who have called this particular piece of horsecrap exactly what it is: fake as hell.
And none of them are related to me, as far as I know.

I won't waste another second on your inane elephant rotation silliness.