[İntikam]

[rabinoz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ItXCzyUt-A

The SOFIA Platform is NOT Hubble! It is an airborne infra-red research telescope - I haven't time now, but I'll check into it more tomorrow!

SOFIA
 is an 80/20 partnership of NASA and the German Aerospace Center (DLR), consisting of an extensively modified Boeing 747SP aircraft carrying a reflecting telescope with an effective diameter of 2.5 meters (100 inches). The aircraft is based at NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center in Palmdale, Calif. The SOFIA Program Office is at NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., which manages SOFIA's science and mission operations in cooperation with the Universities Space Research Association (USRA; Columbia, Md.) and the German SOFIA Institute (DSI; University of Stuttgart).

Look up more on: Sofia Science Center, Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy.
I'll listen to more tomorrow.

[Woody]

I am not sure if Intikam will read this.

Do you do any research beyond just looking for things that support your belief?

Seems you are blindly accepting anything that says you maybe right and denying anything that says you maybe wrong.

I watched it waiting for the proof.  What I saw is information already readily available with no need to call them. SOFIA is capable of using 7 methods for imaging, sometimes SOFIA is an better option, sometimes the HST is a better option to make observations. Sometimes both are used simultaneously to make observations.

How exactly is this proof that the HST does not exist?  Is the evidence only another platform used to carry a telescope exist?  If so this evidence could have been presented a long time ago since terrestrial based telescopes have been around for awhile that have different capabilities.

[TotesNotReptilian]

I put myself through the torture of watching the entire video. For those who are curious, but don't want to risk brain damage from listening to this guy for 35 minutes, I will summarize:

"Rob" claims to be a graduate student studying AI at Stanford. He calls "Nick", who works with SOFIA, an infrared telescope that flies around on a 747. Nick tells Rob that Hubble can see up to 5 microns, and SOFIA can see up to about 250-300 microns.

Rob is too stupid to realize that in this context, "microns" is a measure of wavelength. He thinks they are a measure of how far the telescope can see, or how good the resolution is, or something...

"Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa... are you serious? So you are saying that SOFIA, which flies around at 35,000 - 40,000 feet can see nearly 150 times further than Hubble in the infrared? Wow wow... how is that possible?" -- Rob (2:38)

Nick is rather confused by this statement, but goes along with it because he doesn't realize how badly Rob has misunderstood him.

They continue to talk about the specs of the telescopes, and any possible connections between Hubble and SOFIA. Rob never really seems to realize the difference between distance and wavelength. To the bewilderment of Nick, Rob then proceeds to go into a long monolog about his "scientific algorithm" that he developed, and his investigations into the mysterious Hubble telescope:

Rob, being the genius that he is, developed an "algorithm" that a bunch of scientists at MIT thought was super great, despite not really understanding it (being not as smart as Rob). Eventually, JPL contacted Rob because it allowed them to... um... locate... stuff... that they weren't able to locate before. This led Rob to researching the mysterious phenomenon known as "black body radiation". His preferred research method was to "watch a bunch of videos" about it. (flat-earth scientist detected!) Yadda yadda yadda... more bullcrap about his "research"... please let it end........

Rob suspects that Hubble doesn't exist anymore, and that SOFIA is responsible for all of Hubble's images. He has TONS of evidence to support this theory:
1. The launch of Hubble and a few of it's support missions aren't recorded in the FAI database. (This is admittedly peculiar.)
2. By his own calculations, Hubble should not have been able to stay in orbit for as long as it has. (He assumes Hubble's orbit decays at the same linear rate as the ISS, despite them being diffenent sizes and at different altitudes. He also gets the "orbitible" decay rate of the ISS completely wrong.)
3. By his own calculations, the service missions should not have been able to reach Hubble's altitude. (Rob is apparently "very familiar with orbital mechanics and atmospheric drag" and the "laws of aerodynamics and astronomics")
4. The ISS astronauts don't take pictures of Hubble, despite it being "only" 100 miles away.
5. A few other minor observations that aren't really relevant/important enough to comb through the video for.

His argument is airtight. (What is the standard sarcasm font for this website?) Now excuse me while I go stare at some pictures of puppies to erase this crap from my mind. May God have mercy on the soul of those who suffer through all of the other videos that Intikam is spamming.

Edit: Sorry if this is unintelligible. The video turned my brain to mush.

[rabinoz]

In one sense I am sick of İntikam's ridiculous posts, but surely his Flat Earth worshipers will see from this sort of thing just how much of a laughing stock he is making the movement!

Yes, we are shocked that you don't have the knowledge to know that SOFIA and Hubble perform quite different and complimentary roles.

Carry on İnti, you are a great help!