Thanks for the links, NRpt. I will have a close look as soon as I find the time.
NotRappaport » October 30th, 2017, 5:46 pm wrote:Given that it's path information is accurate and it's viewable times are known many days in advance, its very hard for me to imagine that - among all the people who take the time to regularly track and document it with magnified telescopic views - no one would notice if it didn't look like what we're told it looks like. And it is equally hard for me to believe that every single person who submits images of the "ISS" to cloudynights.com and other astronomy forums is a hoaxster who no one among all rest of the stargazing enthusiasts ever call out as such.
So from that I conclude that it almost certainly does look like what is shown in the images taken by people on the ground. More importantly, I know of no close-up images that don't show the same basic thing that all the other images show. If there were people posting close-up images of the "ISS" that looked nothing like the typical image (in ways not explainable by exposure settings and light conditions) of the "ISS", for example showing only a big dot with no angular shapes or showing it was a plane... THEN I would consider that a genuine controversy and make a real effort to see it up close for myself and go through the bother of getting the telescope set up to try and accomplish this.
It all sounds very reasonable, but the exact same arguments were used to sell the mass media narrative of the destruction of the WTC: "Think of all those people who documented the attack with their cameras ... wouldn´t they notice if their pictures looked different from the broadcasts? ... could every single person uploading their amateur pictures of the smoking towers possibly be a hoaxer? ... would no one call them out? ... the complete absence of alternative views of Manhattan proves the images of the collapsing towers are legit ..." and so forth. As we have seen over the years on this forum, these arguments depend on the passive acceptance of a number of false assumptions.
In the case at hand, the critical point is in going from viewing "a bright spot" to viewing "a contraption", something you assume is not only possible, but easy.
Please note, I am not denying the possibility that the bright spot visible to the naked eye is a mysterious refuelable NASA craft, or that Barbie photographed said contrivance, but, considering what we know about astroturfing and hoax infrastructure, I am holding back on my assent that...
"it almost certainly does look like what is shown in the images taken by people on the ground.
At least until I purchase a powerful telescope and become a stargazing enthusiast myself.