What is the visual difference between a stone and a satellite?

"bart janssens" wrote in message
om...
Alexander Avtanski wrote in message
...
Evidently, this guy have never seen the ISS... :-)))


What did you see?

Depending on the telescope and tracking, anyone with the knowhow can see
something like this...
http://www.astronomy.com/Content/Dyn...0/845hvkyl.asp

A stone, which could be a natural satellite?

Most definitely not.

Or was it a articifial satellite?

Absolutely.

Or do you admit there is NO visual difference???

There is a vast visual difference, namely structure, predictable position,
etc..

Now, go hawk your flawed theories to a group who doesn't prove you wrong
every clear night.
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com

"Stephen Fels" wrote in message m...
"bart janssens" wrote in message
om...
Alexander Avtanski wrote in message
...
Evidently, this guy have never seen the ISS... :-)))


What did you see?

Depending on the telescope and tracking, anyone with the knowhow can see
something like this...
http://www.astronomy.com/Content/Dyn...0/845hvkyl.asp

Did you REALLY see "THIS",
or did you only visit the VIRTUAL site?


A stone, which could be a natural satellite?





Most definitely not.

Or was it a articifial satellite?

Absolutely.

Or do you admit there is NO visual difference???

There is a vast visual difference, namely structure, predictable position,
etc..

Now, go hawk your flawed theories to a group who doesn't prove you wrong
every clear night.

Predictable position?

So the moon and the planetes are articifial satellites,
because of their predictable positions...

"Stephen Fels" wrote in message m...
"bart janssens" wrote in message
om...
Alexander Avtanski wrote in message
...
Evidently, this guy have never seen the ISS... :-)))


What did you see?

Depending on the telescope and tracking, anyone with the knowhow can see
something like this...
http://www.astronomy.com/Content/Dyn...0/845hvkyl.asp

Did you REALLY see "THIS",
or did you only visit the VIRTUAL site?


A stone, which could be a natural satellite?





Most definitely not.

Or was it a articifial satellite?

Absolutely.

Or do you admit there is NO visual difference???

There is a vast visual difference, namely structure, predictable position,
etc..

Now, go hawk your flawed theories to a group who doesn't prove you wrong
every clear night.

Predictable position?

So the moon and the planetes are articifial satellites,
because of their predictable positions...

Stephen Fels wrote:
My personal scope setup doesn't include a camera yet, but I've seen the T
shape of the modules and solar panels. There are dozens of amateurs all over
the world making similar images. It just takes a CCD camera and some
patience. You could see it for yourself, if you find someone in your area
with a tracking telescope and knowledge of how to predict the ISS' passage
(your local planetarium probably has knowledge of someone who would happily
show you their pictures, or even let you join them one night and see for
yourself).
[ ... ]

Yes, it was interesting - I actually never expected that the solar
panels would be visible, until I read that they are. It was really
interesting that with my scope, even on moderate magnification, and
even tracking fully on hand (just setting the scope with the polar
axis pointing in such direction, so I had to move mostly one axis,
rather than both) the solar panels were well visible.

I've seen also the randevous of the shuttle with the station -
but that was with just binoculars and without the scope. The next
time, assumming they're going to restart the flights soon, I'm
going to try to make out the shuttle. Anyone who had done this,
I mean visually and with no auto-tracking?

Regards,

- Alex

Stephen Fels wrote:
My personal scope setup doesn't include a camera yet, but I've seen the T
shape of the modules and solar panels. There are dozens of amateurs all over
the world making similar images. It just takes a CCD camera and some
patience. You could see it for yourself, if you find someone in your area
with a tracking telescope and knowledge of how to predict the ISS' passage
(your local planetarium probably has knowledge of someone who would happily
show you their pictures, or even let you join them one night and see for
yourself).
[ ... ]

Yes, it was interesting - I actually never expected that the solar
panels would be visible, until I read that they are. It was really
interesting that with my scope, even on moderate magnification, and
even tracking fully on hand (just setting the scope with the polar
axis pointing in such direction, so I had to move mostly one axis,
rather than both) the solar panels were well visible.

I've seen also the randevous of the shuttle with the station -
but that was with just binoculars and without the scope. The next
time, assumming they're going to restart the flights soon, I'm
going to try to make out the shuttle. Anyone who had done this,
I mean visually and with no auto-tracking?

Regards,

- Alex

Stephen Fels wrote:

See, the whole problem with your theory that such speeds are impossible (and
I've told you this before, but you ignored me)

The troll isn't ignoring you; he's baiting you. He's one of
those netlosers who has no talent or intelligence, and can
only feel good about his pathetic existence by annoying normal
people. ("Look at me, I'm so clever I can make a smart person
waste his time!")

--Bill Thompson

Stephen Fels wrote:

See, the whole problem with your theory that such speeds are impossible (and
I've told you this before, but you ignored me)

The troll isn't ignoring you; he's baiting you. He's one of
those netlosers who has no talent or intelligence, and can
only feel good about his pathetic existence by annoying normal
people. ("Look at me, I'm so clever I can make a smart person
waste his time!")

--Bill Thompson

In articles says...

A lot of very good comments. I agree with Bill that the guy
was trolling (or else is a complete oaf), but I like and also
appreciate your well-said messages!

Ed Cannon - - Austin, Texas, USA

In articles says...

A lot of very good comments. I agree with Bill that the guy
was trolling (or else is a complete oaf), but I like and also
appreciate your well-said messages!

Ed Cannon - - Austin, Texas, USA

"Ed Cannon" wrote in message
...
In articles says...

A lot of very good comments. I agree with Bill that the guy
was trolling (or else is a complete oaf), but I like and also
appreciate your well-said messages!

Thank you Ed and Bill. I initially posted "don't feed the trolls" myself,
but since there is so little traffic here to begin with and since he
actually responded (in the past he's never acknowledged my challenges to his
logic) I thought I'd present a case for reality. I'm genuinely curious how
far the "logical" constructs of his worldview extend. I won't go back and
forth with this guy, if it's apparent he's covering his ears and going
"Lalalalalala!".

Clear skies to all!
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com