[EngineerMan]

But you do have experience with trajectory calculations and flight path analysis.

Yes

Can you provide us with an example of what work you did perform with trajectory calculations and flight path analysis?

No.

I would like my conspiracy questions answered though.  Perhaps you won't answer them because it is not reasonable to assume such a conspiracy could be maintained by 10s or 100s of thousands of scientists/engineers and a multitude of governments.

[totallackey]

But you do have experience with trajectory calculations and flight path analysis.

Yes

Can you provide us with an example of what work you did perform with trajectory calculations and flight path analysis?

No.

I would like my conspiracy questions answered though.  Perhaps you won't answer them because it is not reasonable to assume such a conspiracy could be maintained by 10s or 100s of thousands of scientists/engineers and a multitude of governments.

Well I find your lack of willingness to provide some more detailed background information troubling, perhaps even indicative of no real experience in the area.

Which, in and of itself, provides some insight as to how you could be fooled, not only by NASA and other agencies, but just about anyone else who comes along, in answering your OP question.

[ChrisTP]

He could well be under NDA for all we know (or he could be lying but don't rule anything out)

[totallackey]

He could well be under NDA for all we know (or he could be lying but don't rule anything out)

What could he possibly disclose?

I asked him for some background information regarding his work in trajectory calculations and flight path analysis.

He may have no clue as to how to even calculate a model rocket trajectory, for all we know.

[Parallax]

How have I been fooled?  Did my family and friends lie to me?  Have I been living a fantasy? How does that play into your flat earth model?

No, I wouldn't say that your family and friends are lying to you. On the contrary, they most likely have been deceived as have you. So when you inputted all those calculations and got the angle correct and so on, you were calculating for a Globe. As such your calculations would have been correct. However, since the earth is a flat plane, what I suspect has happened is that your calculations and such have been adjusted behind your back, by the people at the top, and then false information has been fed into your system. Therefore what you think is happening is quite the the opposite, and if you watch shuttles Dock at the iss, then that's just cgi. I'm sure you'll agree nasas budget allows for very, very, very realistic cgi to be created.

[Tumeni]

if you watch shuttles Dock at the iss, then that's just cgi. I'm sure you'll agree nasas budget allows for very, very, very realistic cgi to be created.

Shuttles (NASA STS missions) have not docked at the ISS for 9 years or so. But when they did, astrophotographers on the ground were there to use their high-powered telescopes to photograph the event(s).

How would NASA manage to install CGI on every photographer's telescope?

[AATW]

if you watch shuttles Dock at the iss, then that's just cgi. I'm sure you'll agree nasas budget allows for very, very, very realistic cgi to be created.

Shuttles (NASA STS missions) have not docked at the ISS for 9 years or so. But when they did, astrophotographers on the ground were there to use their high-powered telescopes to photograph the event(s).

How would NASA manage to install CGI on every photographer's telescope?

I've seen some of those images and to be honest I was never quite sure where they came from but, sure enough

https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-02/amazing-pic-discovery-docking-iss-taken-earth/

This is an image of the Space Shuttle Discovery taken from the ground, no easy feat in itself. But it wasn't taken by an observatory or a massive scientific instrument. Rob Bullen snapped this image from the UK using an 8.5" telescope.

[Parallax]

if you watch shuttles Dock at the iss, then that's just cgi. I'm sure you'll agree nasas budget allows for very, very, very realistic cgi to be created.

Shuttles (NASA STS missions) have not docked at the ISS for 9 years or so. But when they did, astrophotographers on the ground were there to use their high-powered telescopes to photograph the event(s).

How would NASA manage to install CGI on every photographer's telescope?

Would you be able to share some of these alleged photographs?

And all around the world, that alleged photo doesn't really count. It's a black and white, pixellated mess. Also there's a massive contradiction in that article saying the iss isn't hard to see yet then mentions the fact it's travelling at 17,000 mph. It it's going that speed, then if you did look at it with a crude telescope (as that article implies), it would very, very quickly move out of your shot.

[Tumeni]

Would you be able to share some of these alleged photographs?

Sure, once you come up with a plausible explanation for how NASA could know in advance which photographer was going to take a photo, and install CGI in his telescope or camera ...

It matters not that the one AATW cited is/was "a pixellated mess". Pixellation is no proof of fakery.

[Parallax]

Would you be able to share some of these alleged photographs?

Sure, once you come up with a plausible explanation for how NASA could know in advance which photographer was going to take a photo, and install CGI in his telescope or camera ...

It matters not that the one AATW cited is/was "a pixellated mess". Pixellation is no proof of fakery.

So you don't have them. And when have I said nasa have installed cgi in someone's telescope?

[AATW]

And all around the world, that alleged photo doesn't really count. It's a black and white, pixellated mess.

I doubt it's a black and white photo but the objects it's photographing are not brightly coloured.
And sure, it's not that crisp but it's looking at objects 250 miles away through the atmosphere, what do you expect?

Also there's a massive contradiction in that article saying the iss isn't hard to see yet then mentions the fact it's travelling at 17,000 mph. It it's going that speed, then if you did look at it with a crude telescope (as that article implies), it would very, very quickly move out of your shot.

It's moving very fast but it's a long way away. I did a few rough calculations and if you imagine a meter line 5 meters above your head then the ISS would appear to go along it in about 10 seconds. Pretty quick, and that does present challenges for people trying to take photos of it, but I wouldn't say it's impossible for a skilled operator.

What do you think that photo is? Is the person who took it lying? Or wrong about what he's taken a photo of? Is it just fake?

[Tumeni]

So you don't have them. And when have I said nasa have installed cgi in someone's telescope?

Yes, I do.


(https://www.universetoday.com/83609/incredible-video-of-shuttle-approaching-iss-taken-from-earth/

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground

and here's some of the ISS on its own

http://www.mikesalway.com.au/the-iss-through-my-12-scope/

That's just from a minute or so of looking for them... not difficult to find)

 

You claimed that "if you watch shuttles Dock at the iss, then that's just cgi." and "NASA's budget allows for very, very, very realistic cgi to be created"  - how could it be CGI, when the watchers are independents who are unknown to NASA? How would the CGI get into the process, where NASA are not involved?

[Parallax]

The second is a crude photograph that has already been posted. More likely is that people uploading these are nasa informers. It's not nasa installing cgi on people's telescopes, it's fake news.

[AATW]

The second is a crude photograph that has already been posted. More likely is that people uploading these are nasa informers. It's not nasa installing cgi on people's telescopes, it's fake news.

And this is the trouble with arguing with people on the internet who are entrenched in their position.
You asked for evidence, it has been presented so you just hand wave it away and declare it fake without a scrap of evidence.

[Parallax]

The second is a crude photograph that has already been posted. More likely is that people uploading these are nasa informers. It's not nasa installing cgi on people's telescopes, it's fake news.

And this is the trouble with arguing with people on the internet who are entrenched in their position.
You asked for evidence, it has been presented so you just hand wave it away and declare it fake without a scrap of evidence.

No. I asked for proof, and what was presented was crude images.

I also pointed out, to you as it happens, that the article you cited says the iss is moving at 17,000 mph. So assuming that is true, and you did somehow see it through a telescope, it would be moving so fast it would be out of view almost instantly. Which means you would have to keep moving your telescope.

And while we are at it, boffins keep saying we have about 100,000 pieces of space junk in orbit. So if the iss is travelling at 17,000 mph, how in the hell has it not so much as clipped one of these things?

[AATW]

for proof, and what was presented was crude images.

No you didn't. You said

Would you be able to share some of these alleged photographs?

They have been shared. Sorry they're not super high quality, the ISS is a long way away. It would be odd if they were very good quality

I also pointed out, to you as it happens, that the article you cited says the iss is moving at 17,000 mph. So assuming that is true, and you did somehow see it through a telescope, it would be moving so fast it would be out of view almost instantly. Which means you would have to keep moving your telescope.

Yes, people have to keep moving their telescope. As they do to track any celestial object. Have you never seen coverage of a sport like golf? Camera operators have to track a fast moving golf ball and they do. This is an odd thing to be incredulous about.

And while we are at it, boffins keep saying we have about 100,000 pieces of space junk in orbit. So if the iss is travelling at 17,000 mph, how in the hell has it not so much as clipped one of these things?

It has

http://thescienceexplorer.com/technology/space-debris-hit-international-space-station-causing-small-crack-window

[Tumeni]

No. I asked for proof, and what was presented was crude images.

Actually, you didn't. You just asked to see the photos.  Crudity is not, of itself, a disproof of content.

" ... the article you cited says the iss is moving at 17,000 mph. So assuming that is true, and you did somehow see it through a telescope, it would be moving so fast it would be out of view almost instantly. Which means you would have to keep moving your telescope."

Astrophotographers have telescopes which can be moved. I fail to see the insurmountable problem here, given that I've seen the ISS cross my sky twice in one evening, and it takes around 5 - 7 minutes to completely pass over me. Hardly a challenge.

And while we are at it, boffins keep saying we have about 100,000 pieces of space junk in orbit. So if the iss is travelling at 17,000 mph, how in the hell has it not so much as clipped one of these things?

The ISS orbital height remains constant, essentially, so it is never anywhere near anything which occupies a constant higher or lower orbit. For instance, let's say a piece of debris is in orbit at 300 miles up. The ISS is at 254 miles. So there will always be 46 miles or more separating them, assuming each maintains a spherical orbit.

As for anything else in non-regular orbits; space is aptly named. There's a lot of room between orbital objects. Calculate the volume available to all the satellites and junk, and calculate average space available to each. It's huge.

[AATW]

The ISS orbital height remains constant, essentially, so it is never anywhere near anything which occupies a constant higher or lower orbit. For instance, let's say a piece of debris is in orbit at 300 miles up. The ISS is at 254 miles. So there will always be 46 miles or more separating them, assuming each maintains a spherical orbit.

As for anything else in non-regular orbits; space is aptly named. There's a lot of room between orbital objects. Calculate the volume available to all the satellites and junk, and calculate average space available to each. It's huge.

Before Parallax jumps in I want to point out that Tumeni's response is not a contradiction to mine.
The fact is the ISS has been hit by space debris, but Tumeni's response is a good explanation for why it doesn't happen regularly.

And Parallax - consider the contradiction in your arguments. You are simultaneously arguing it is difficult to get photos of the ISS because you'd have to keep moving the telescope (which is true) but then you are complaining that the resulting photos are not high quality. Why would you expect them to be if, as you say, they are hard to take well because of the speed of the ISS?

[Parallax]

So basically what I'm hearing is one person saying the iss gets hit, and another saying it basically doesn't because there's so much space between everything.

The photo Tim Peake snapped has to be fake. Something moving at 17,000mph (according to a link posted here), in a vacuum, would pretty much be destroyed if something hit it. But no. What we apparently have is the equivalent of a pebble hitting a windscreen, and leaving a little crack. But a space version. Of something moving faster than any vehicle on earth. I'm fairly sure that picture is NOT conclusive proof from an actornaut, who snaps a picture of a cracked window against a blue screen, hence why we see cgi.

[AATW]

So basically what I'm hearing is one person saying the iss gets hit, and another saying it basically doesn't because there's so much space between everything.

I literally addressed that above because I knew you would in desperation leap on that apparent contradiction.
You asked why it has never been hit. It has. But Tumeni has correctly explained why it isn't constantly being hit - yes there are a lot of space debris items but they are spread out over a very large area.

The photo Tim Peake snapped has to be fake. Something moving at 17,000mph (according to a link posted here), in a vacuum, would pretty much be destroyed if something hit it.

It depends what the something is, if you read the article I posted you'd see they think the thing that hit the ISS was a tiny fleck of paint.
The rest of your post is you just claiming it's all fake again without any evidence provided.