More NASA Oopsie-daisies!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So for the yes/no portion of the question--- which was the only part to the question

Concision just isn't your strong suit is it?

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.
You just can't accept the original statement, so you are desperately flailing around with word games. Not weird, just stupid.

What I have is an animation, provided by NASA.
The animation has several troubling issues, with just a few small inconsistencies.
Yet when asked to provide them, you had nothing. The origional YouTube had some claims, that you claimed to support. Three claims in fact. All of which I demonstrated to be utter nonsense, and it is clear by the way you are trying desperately to forget them that you agree.

There is no atmosphere on the earth (except for clouds).
And you know this how? Don't tell me. You can see it? In the sky perhaps? The sky that you are not quite sure whether you can see? Or is you head still up the elephants behind? Its dark in there, that might explain your blindness.

The clouds not only do not move or form during the five hour time lapse, but unusual formations remain intact the entire time.
Although that isn't actually true, if it was, why is it a problem?

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.
Please state to the best of your ability:
1. How much the moon should be moving away from the camera as it exits stage right.
2. How much bigger it gets.
You claim to see something and know something, lets have actual figures so we can determine whether you are actually seeing it or just imagining it like before.

The moon is rotating in perfect sync with the earth's rotation, over the same area on the planet the entire five hours.
No, it isn't.

The earth is very clear and in focus, but the moon is out of focus, despite being closer to the camera.
Not actually true, but if it was, it is a problem why? Cameras normally have a set focal length.

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.
What is a 'sun spot' and what causes it?

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?
The satellite in question is not exactly between the Earth and the sun.

But other than that, nothing.
So basically, nothing.


You're claiming to see things, claiming to know people who will claim the same thing.
Actually you were the one that made a claim and cannot support it with a single example.

Show the moon spinning on its axis (which even NASA says we'll never see).
Bet you can't quote NASA on that.

Show the normal formation and changes in cloud cover.
I claimed to have seen that? You lie.

Show any of the items you claim.
I showed you an elephants arse and you stuck your head in it and took hours to find your way out. You eventually admitted seeing it too.

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.
And you cannot present a single one of them. You haven't even presented a single piece of evidence that any of them even exist.
But it is also noted that even then you have tried desperately to change the challenge. I didn't ask you to present someone who found "that particular piece of horsecrap exactly what it is: fake as hell". I asked you to find someone that claimed to see what you see that you claim I do not see. Something specific. And someone we can have a proper discussion with on this site. Not someone who might have commented anonymously on some site if they had been given the chance. Someone we can question to see if they really aren't you and that we can make fun of.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Concision just isn't your strong suit is it?

[b]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.
You just can't accept the original statement, so you are desperately flailing around with word games. Not weird, just stupid.

What I have is an animation, pro ...[text shortened]... he chance. Someone we can question to see if they really aren't you and that we can make fun of.

You just can't accept the original statement, so you are desperately flailing around with word games. Not weird, just stupid.
It's not that I can't, it's that I won't.
You were asked a yes/no question.
I'd ask you another one again, one that inquires whether or not you responded with either yes or no, but we have already seen that is too difficult a challenge for you, so we'll let it rest with your inability to tell the difference, mkay?

Yet when asked to provide them, you had nothing. The origional YouTube had some claims, that you claimed to support. Three claims in fact. All of which I demonstrated to be utter nonsense, and it is clear by the way you are trying desperately to forget them that you agree.
There was never any question that the three issues conveyed in the video are not only problematic, you have to act as though you don't see them in order to make them go away: you have no answer otherwise for the issues raised.
You claim you do, but you've not once provided proof of clouds moving/forming, moon spinning on its own axis or etc..

And you know this how? Don't tell me. You can see it? In the sky perhaps? The sky that you are not quite sure whether you can see? Or is you head still up the elephants behind? Its dark in there, that might explain your blindness.
I shouldn't have to tell you, but what the hell: I'm feeling generous.
When you watch the CGI/ISS feed, the atmosphere is apparent via optical observation.
On this particular animation, none is visible... unless, of course, you can see something no one else is able?

Although that isn't actually true, if it was, why is it a problem?
It's only a problem if you can prove it is not true.
But since you cannot--- or at least, have not--- we can chalk this up to QED and points against your cause.

You claim to see something and know something, lets have actual figures so we can determine whether you are actually seeing it or just imagining it like before.
Says the silly elephant rotating ringleader who has not yet supported even one of his contentions with any support whatsoever.
In fact, you are so bereft of evidence, you're asking others to do the work for you!
Overlay any one of the frames of the moon from entrance to exit on any and all of the other frames.
You'll see for yourself: the moon shows little to no variation in size--- until it gets to the exit, when it should be diminishing.

No, it isn't.
It starts just to the left of the US West Coast and it exits over the same area of land.

Not actually true, but if it was, it is a problem why? Cameras normally have a set focal length.
Not actually true, but actually true.
Weird.

What is a 'sun spot' and what causes it?
In this case, I am not referring to the scientific term sun spot, but rather, the spot on the earth which is reflective of the sun's direct reflection.
You know: that really bright spot that hovers right about the direct middle of the earth in the animation.

The satellite in question is not exactly between the Earth and the sun.
And my font size is perfectly readable, so... how did you jack up what I actually said?

So basically, nothing.
Go back to sleep, son.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Concision just isn't your strong suit is it?

[b]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.
You just can't accept the original statement, so you are desperately flailing around with word games. Not weird, just stupid.

What I have is an animation, pro ...[text shortened]... he chance. Someone we can question to see if they really aren't you and that we can make fun of.

Oh: I guess you had more to talk about...
Bet you can't quote NASA on that.

The same side of the moon always faces an earthbound observer because the moon is tidally locked to Earth. That means its orbital period is the same as its rotation around its axis.
Reveal Hidden Content

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/from-a-million-miles-away-nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth

I claimed to have seen that? You lie.
When you answer a point blank question which only has a yes or a no to it with a yes, that's a claim to have seen it.
No, sir: you lie.

And you cannot present a single one of them. You haven't even presented a single piece of evidence that any of them even exist.
I present to you: the internet.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You were asked a yes/no question.

No, I wasn't. Hence the lack of yes or no in the answer. And hence the refusal to accept the answer because it didn't conform to your world view.

There was never any question that the three issues conveyed in the video are not only problematic, you have to act as though you don't see them in order to make them go away:
Yet you seem to have conveniently forgotten all about them.

you have no answer otherwise for the issues raised.
Answers have been given. I can't be held responsible for your blindness in not seeing them.

You claim you do, but you've not once provided proof of clouds moving/forming,
Have I once provided a claim that such events could be seen?

moon spinning on its own axis or etc..
No need to provide proof. The images are available to the public on the NASA website. Anyone can check it for themselves.

I shouldn't have to tell you, but what the hell: I'm feeling generous.
When you watch the CGI/ISS feed, the atmosphere is apparent via optical observation.
On this particular animation, none is visible... unless, of course, you can see something no one else is able?
So if you can't see it, it isn't there? Is that what you are claiming? Are you really that stupid?
You do realise that we are back to elephants and the position of the camera?
Do you expect to see the fleas on the elephants arse from a hundred miles away?

It's only a problem if you can prove it is not true.
But since you cannot--- or at least, have not--- we can chalk this up to QED and points against your cause.
You are confusing yourself again.

Says the silly elephant rotating ringleader who has not yet supported even one of his contentions with any support whatsoever.
So another 'nothing' from you then.

In fact, you are so bereft of evidence, you're asking others to do the work for you!
You seem confused about who is making the claims here.

Overlay any one of the frames of the moon from entrance to exit on any and all of the other frames.
You'll see for yourself: the moon shows little to no variation in size--- until it gets to the exit, when it should be diminishing.
And once again, I ask you to provide actual figures as to what you believe it should be doing. Without those we simply cannot know whether or not any size difference should be determinable at all.

It starts just to the left of the US West Coast and it exits over the same area of land.
Well given that 'just to the left of the US West Coast is the whole Pacific Ocean, that's a rather vague claim. Certainly doesn't amount to not moving.

Not actually true, but actually true.
Weird.
Again: nothing.

In this case, I am not referring to the scientific term sun spot, but rather, the spot on the earth which is reflective of the sun's direct reflection.
Reflection in what?

And my font size is perfectly readable, so... how did you jack up what I actually said?
More nonsense in leu of actually addressing my point.

Go back to sleep, son.
So basically, nothing.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Oh: I guess you had more to talk about...
[b]Bet you can't quote NASA on that.

The same side of the moon always faces an earthbound observer because the moon is tidally locked to Earth. That means its orbital period is the same as its rotation around its axis.
[hidden]https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/from-a-million-miles-away-nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth[/hidden]

[/b]

You loose the bet. Wish I had put money on that one.

When you answer a point blank question which only has a yes or a no to it with a yes, that's a claim to have seen it.
No, sir: you lie.
Which page and post number? Odd that you couldn't quote it.

I present to you: the internet.
So, basically nothing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You loose the bet. Wish I had put money on that one.

[b]When you answer a point blank question which only has a yes or a no to it with a yes, that's a claim to have seen it.
No, sir: you lie.
Which page and post number? Odd that you couldn't quote it.

I present to you: the internet.
So, basically nothing.[/b]

Yeah.
Well, good luck with that, buddy.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Yeah.
Well, good luck with that, buddy.

Looking at the way you have addressed the NASA timelapse shows your religious mindset.
You saw a timelapse and compared it to your set of 'doctrine' which funnily enough is doctrine about what you believe to be a religion of which you are not a member.
Next you declared that because the timelapse didn't match your doctrine the timelapse must be fake.
When people point out that your understanding of the 'doctrine' is completely wrong, you just dig in your heels and deny deny deny. Again, I have to repeat, this is supposedly doctrine of a religion that you are not even an adherent of. Pure comedy. And pure religious thinking.
You would get away with such ridiculous behaviour in a religious setting discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It doesn't work amongst rational minds discussing the real world.

What you should have done is looked at the timelapse and realised that it didn't match your poor understanding of the mechanics of the solar system and taken the opportunity to learn something new.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Looking at the way you have addressed the NASA timelapse shows your religious mindset.
You saw a timelapse and compared it to your set of 'doctrine' which funnily enough is doctrine about what you believe to be a religion of which you are not a member.
Next you declared that because the timelapse didn't match your doctrine the timelapse must be fake.
W ...[text shortened]... rstanding of the mechanics of the solar system and taken the opportunity to learn something new.

Excellent summation; sadly, wrong narrative.
You can't explain any of the inconsistencies of NASA's presentation and you either don't see them because you don't want to, or you won't admit that you do.
That's neither here nor there, in the scheme of things.
I don't need to convince you of truth in any form; you need to convince yourself and I totally trust that process.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You can't explain any of the inconsistencies of NASA's presentation

We went through the first 'inconsistency' you produced in extreme detail, and after much dodging feigned blindness, you eventually essentially admitted that you simply could not substantiate your claim of an inconsistency and then produced a long list of other supposed inconsistencies, most of which we have not discussed in detail, but insofar as we have, you have not addressed explanations I gave but rather attempted to dodge them.

So before pronouncing that I can't explain any of them, lets go through them one by one in detail. Pick your favourite to start with. Be prepared to get schooled yet again as your understanding of basic science is abysmal.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We went through the first 'inconsistency' you produced in extreme detail, and after much dodging feigned blindness, you eventually essentially admitted that you simply could not substantiate your claim of an inconsistency and then produced a long list of other supposed inconsistencies, most of which we have not discussed in detail, but insofar as we have, ...[text shortened]... t with. Be prepared to get schooled yet again as your understanding of basic science is abysmal.

Nah, bruh.
I already gave up.
You win.
I'm wrong.
Just a nut job with a keyboard and too much time on his hands.

Resume your regularly scheduled broadcasts.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Nah, bruh.
I already gave up.
You win.
I'm wrong.
Just a nut job with a keyboard and too much time on his hands.

Resume your regularly scheduled broadcasts.

Right. Like you really admit anything. Nobody has changed your mind one whit, which goes right along with your conspiracy religion.

What is really happening here is you just going off on a sulk because you can NEVER come up with straight answers, instead just introducing yet more BS to your strategy of deparately trying to convince people here, you figure you win if you just convert ONE person to your conspiracy religion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Right. Like you really admit anything. Nobody has changed your mind one whit, which goes right along with your conspiracy religion.

What is really happening here is you just going off on a sulk because you can NEVER come up with straight answers, instead just introducing yet more BS to your strategy of deparately trying to convince people here, you figure you win if you just convert ONE person to your conspiracy religion.

You really don't understand exactly what I am doing here, sonhouse.
It's not super complex, but if you think all the Punch -n- Judy stuff is what is turning the crank for me, you're simply not paying attention to the bigger scheme of things.

If you want to know what it's really all about, let me know.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You really don't understand exactly what I am doing here, sonhouse.
It's not super complex, but if you think all the Punch -n- Judy stuff is what is turning the crank for me, you're simply not paying attention to the bigger scheme of things.

If you want to know what it's really all about, let me know.

I'll take my cues from science thank you. Conspiracy is most definitely NOT my religion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I'll take my cues from science thank you. Conspiracy is most definitely NOT my religion.

That's actually what this is all about.
You don't pay attention to science any more.
You formerly did, but you're not now.
Haven't been for quite some time.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's actually what this is all about.
You don't pay attention to science any more.
You formerly did, but you're not now.
Haven't been for quite some time.

But YOU, the science maven knows exactly what it's all about.