It wasn´t overly useful
Thanks Flabbergasted for your frank and fair assessment.
Sometimes when you go searching for diamond rings in a public park, if you're lucky, you might find a garnet or a tarnished silver coin. Success really depends on many factors. The documented quest I was tasked with and the path I took may not have unearthed a diamond, it was not an endeavor that I would naturally have taken on.
Please allow me to review the items that appear relevant to me from my walk in the park.
1. I am not convinced that the poorly researched statement "The time cadence will be no faster than 10 spectral band images every hour" is a valid point. It ignores the differentiation of synonyms. Clearly ignoring the implication of 1 complete image every hour. Not 10. That's redirection.
When is a channel an image? And what is a spectral band image?
My supposition is that 'a spectral band image' is a component, or channel, of a "10-channel image set". Most RGB images contain at least 3 channels yet when have you ever heard someone refer to a blue channel as an image, or a JPG as a "3-channel image set" or a PNG as a "4-channel image set"? That's because the channels have already been combined into a single file.
And the comment "Look at the end of this document" shows that was not sincerely done, or not understood, by the poster. Intentional, or not, it was obfuscation; or in layman's terms, muddying the waters.
And all I found was evidence that
"that same error" is not an error at all, but NASA reality. Cherry-picking is not proof of anything and yet it was used to discredit the discrepancy that I noticed.
2. Polar satellite data is abysmally deficient, erratic and inconsistent, at least the publicly accessible stuff.
3. Unless my math is wrong, according to the information I could glean from the internet, it looks like
VIIRS is travelling about 1000 mph faster than escape velocity, so it shouldn't be orbitting the planet, it should be on its journey to some distant galaxy.
4. The initial point that I was making was that the moon's shadow in the EPIC video does not look like a shadow created in a 3d program using current ray-tracing technology and common astromonical figures, but I was able to find a solution. I don't know if the 3D renderer is anatomically correct or not, but
if the EPIC imagery is computer generated and they obtained similar results then there are workarounds to make it more plausible to the unwashed masses. A slight darkening of the planet? Bang for buck. It doesn't 'pop'.
5. The riddle "
If there are no satellites where does the undeniable satellite data come from?" is a serious question. It would help me (and I am certain many others) immensely if someone could come up with a plausible answer. It's not a demand, it's a plea.
And, before I go, if you were an art director for a sci-fi movie that included a scene with an eclipse event, would you go with A, B, C, or something in between?
