astronut wrote:Oh, let me guess, I explain and photograph all of it, which I'm happy to do, then one of you claims he wasn't able to find ISS and therefore it must be fake, even though he didn't really try. Sorry, but a claimed negative attempt does not disprove positive confirmation. We're not going to play that game. Tell you what, come to the Chiefland Fall Star Party this year and I'll show you ISS in person, straight through the eyepiece.
I for one would give it a legitimate go, if it were physically possible. Thusfar, it does seem possible. Isn't that saying something? But for you it's not enough. You demand instant trust and respect as if you could slam the side of a "Trust" vending machine. You can't pull that here. If you don't want bullshit, stop peddling it, sir!
Your position is very fragile, but it doesn't have to be.
- You say you have many people who will support your position. (A useless statement as numbers of believers does not make something true. Look at Religion, or cults as an example.)
- You say the responsibility is on us to prove you are false. (Also false. We are not here to prove you are false. We exert our human right to doubt the word of another. We doubt you. There is no further responsibility on your part or ours. You act as though you want to be trusted, or else you would be content with being mistrusted and leave it alone. If you act in good faith, and you want to be trusted by us
, then please continue to answer our questions. It is a very long process. Have patience.)
- You claim to have a better sense of truth or falsehood by labeling hoaxes uncovered on this site as not hoaxes
. (Big mistake. You want to take on every piece of blatantly false propaganda? The 9/11 propaganda? The 7/7 propaganda? The Apollo 11 missions? You want to challenge all
of this? Then get busy in those individual forums, saying the "nose out" error is just a glitch and there was no CGI used on 9/11 footage. But you haven't done any work to claim such things. By making sweeping statements about things you haven't researched yourself, your attempts to gain credibility appear as little more than poorly researched, paranoid, overly-defensive ad hominim attacks. It's almost as if you have a stake in disproving the underlying credibility
of the premise of this forum, rather than reading about every subject here and judging on an individual, case-by-case basis. That's not very scientific, is it?)
- You claim you have been accused of being part of a "conspiracy" and that that is the very purpose of this forum. (No. This shows a failure to understand why we are here. We want to know what is true
. But that means being able to test it for ourselves. If you stop sharing information about how you specifically made this image, in detail, then there is no reason anybody in the world, including your fellow experts, should believe the story you give about it. All this information:
For the record, I use a Meade 8" LX200 Classic Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope, Brent Boshart's Satellite Tracker software, and a Meade LPI strapped to the viewfinder for acquiring ISS while recording it through the main telescope with a modified Samsung SDC-435 at prime focus (with or without a 2x barlow). I also use anti-vibration pads to help stabilize the view and a video capture card to record the video from the SDC-435 (I do have a mallincam, but I find the Samsung provides sharper views of bright objects like ISS). You can see what this setup looks like, in this case with the samsung attached to a widefield refractor that I sometimes use for astrophotography, here:
This setup can be replicated for about $3000
... is a good start. But let's keep going. Please explain how these things interact to form the picture. Please explain how you found where the ISS is and how you captured it.)
Because the majority of the ISS pictures we've posted here appear to be doctored in some way, it is safe to assume there is a reason for it. The pictures did not "doctor themselves."
Ergo, there is a concerted effort to hide information. If you want to call that a conspiracy, and therefore lump yourself in it should you turn out to be a fraud, be our guest. We are just as happy to call frauds "fraud" and not lump them in a collaborative effort. You seem to hold a suspicious belief that the stakes of proving your legitimacy include revealing a conspiracy. Why is that? Why so worried about the implications of your credibility? Expose the truth and show there is no room for photoshopping this picture. Or, if it is photoshopped, show your innocence.
But that's not what people have directly accused you of. Please read carefully and stop acting so defensive as if you have a strong foothold on reality whereas we don't. We are treating you very fairly, and as we would treat anyone who claims to have a legitimate stake in science and the truth. If you are so confident, stop calling us names just because we are questioning you.
Also, if you are legitimate, you must see the following perspective: we don't know you are legitimate yet and therefore, from our perspective, you could be lying. How does your demand for trust actually make your more trustworthy? It does not. Stop demanding respect while accusing all the forum members, in sweeping statements, of being out of their minds. It comes across as very desperate and very ... alarmist, groupthink mob-mentality.
Kind of something Fox News would do to discredit someone underhandedly by smearing them and distorting their words. Stop it now.