What exactly did you mean by "I dispute the images present an accurate depiction of reality" then? That sounds like a long-winded way of saying they are fake.
It is not a long winded way of saying anything else other than exactly what I wrote.
Which evidently you do not understand.
You do realize I posted an image of a kangaroo with a long riffle, correct?
Did I post a real image?
Can you see it?
Earth telescopes could see the impact sites 10 minutes after they occurred. A space based telescope saw them as they happened.
So, you admit the Earth based telescopes did not see the impacts.
Thank you for finally writing some factual information.
I understand you are saying the images do not "depict reality" and since NASA says they do, what are you implying? Why can't you come out and just say they are lying?
Well, you didn't write that earlier.
You kept writing that I claimed the images were fake.
I believe that is highly disingenuous on your part.
I believe it is deliberate.
And I am more concerned about that issue rather than what you believe my opinion on NASA is.
I am not even going to get into the motives of NASA with you engaging in this obvious misrepresentation of my points.
You are using "real image" in a very strange way. Every single image is a "real image" by your definition, so saying an image is a "real image" is redundant, pointless and doesn't add to the discussion. Nobody else would use "real image" in the way you do.
Like this^
This type of classification from you.
A personal attack.
Something someone does when they have no response.
You write that my application of the words,"real image," is deficient, yet you know the image is visible and available for viewing.
I got a clue for you.
That makes the image, "real," in every sense of the word.
In fact, the
only sense of the word.
You also seem to be hung up on the word "impact" so let me try and explain without using that word.
1. The Galileo spacecraft took pictures of multiple comets as they each hit Jupiter, each causing a massive explosion. This told us exactly when they first hit.
2. Ten minutes later after the comets hit, as Jupiter rotated, Earth based telescopes saw the these explosions.
Just like you can see a mushroom cloud after a large explosion, Earth based telescopes could see the expanding explosions ten minutes after they started, and for much longer. They were massive events and were observed for days.
No, Earth based telescopes did not see the comets when they first hit, but saw the results 10 minutes later. Galileo saw the comets first hit the planet.
No, I am not hung up on the word "impacts."
Seeing impacts and seeing sites are two different things.
If you cannot come to grips with using language correctly and honestly, then we do need to stop.
Nothing you have posted here is honest and I am not going to engage it any longer.
Buh bye...