The volume and tenacity of the Flattard Shills has caused many Anons frustration, and caused some to doubt what they believe as well. They are perhaps the most annoying of all the Shills.
In this thread I will post videos with step-by-step details to create a picture of Jupiter with telescope equipment at home. I am attempting to do it in such a way that the Flattards cannot refute it.
Pics related will confirm I am the same Anon who posted in /qresearch/ and also an obligatory baker girl…
I'm getting my videos and stuff sorted now, but first this is the image I took just now, and I will show in the videos how I did it.
Beware, the videos are VERY rough, and unedited. I did this rather quickly.
1st Video… Let's see how this goes
Video about the Camera.
Could have gone better.
Very rough videos…
This one came out good. pretty cool imho.
Almost there
Getting there…
Found it!
Cell phone cams… amirite?
Capturing…
Registax 6
Aaaaand finished.
While the raw video is uploading, here is my equipment:
Orion 127mm Mak-Cass Scope on a StarSeeker GoTo Mount - $699.99
https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Telescopes/Cassegrain-Telescopes/Orion-StarSeeker-IV-127mm-GoTo-Mak-Cass-Telescope/rc/2160/pc/-1/c/1/sc/14/p/113918.uts
Orion StarShoot All-In-One Astrophotography Camera - $349.99
https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Astrophotography/Astrophotography-Cameras/Orion-StarShoot-All-In-One-Astrophotography-Camera/rc/2160/pc/-1/c/4/sc/58/p/103030.uts
Software - Orion Astrocap, Registax 6 - Free
Total cost $1,050.00 for this simple set up.
Imagine the results I'd get with a few thousand bucks more!
In any case, debunking flat earth is priceless.
Raw Video… Hope this works.
This is the preliminary picture, after Aligning and stacking the video Frames.
And finally, as posted at the top, here is the final image, after some basic wavelet processing. Note that 3 of the moons are now visible. further processing might bring out more detail.
So any other Anons can download the raw video and process in Registax themselves to duplicate my results. Feel free.
http://www.astronomie.be/registax/download.html
Pic related is a 2nd picture I did tonight, after recording all my videos. Came out a bit better.
So that's it. I don't expect this will convince the Flattards, but it should. Anyanon can link this thread when they start shilling, and that should be the end of it.
I want to make clear, I did not do this to disprove God or the Bible. I am a Biblefag too, and have strong faith. In fact, my Astronomy hobby only strengthens my faith.
I'm always reminded of Ps 19:1 - "The heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above proclaim the work of his hands."
Every time I take my scope out, it's with reverence to the creator of these marvels.
Share and enjoy, Anons, and always pray for clear skies!
I'm not sure what you saw, But I have observed the moon many times over the years and haven't seen anything like that. Without knowing more or seeing it I wouldn't want to speculate.
Well I never claimed to be a scientist, just a guy with some telescopes who likes to take pictures. I'm not sure what you were going for with the Jesuit thing, but good for you anyway.
As to your anecdote, because that's all it is, really, have you personally observed that phenomenon? I haven't. Why should I believe a 150 year old story you copypasta'd without even naming the source, but I shouldn't believe the writings of many other astronomers from the same era who helped shape the ideas we have today? You may claim all are comp'd/lying whatever, but what proof do you have of that, really?
My best guess is that he saw a Near Earth asteroid pass in front of the moon. Entirely plausible, and makes sense since he claimed 7th magnitude, which is quite dim, to dim for the naked eye even.
In any case, I didn't start this thread to argue about any of these types of things. As you see in the videos I'm just a regular guy, who drives a regular car, lives on a regular street, in a regular house. I really have no reason to lie about anything.
I don't claim to have all the answers, and I don't just accept what I'm fed. That's why I spent the money and the time to buy 4 telescopes and cameras and learn how to use them. I can prove these things to myself. Can you do that beyond finding an echo chamber on the internet?
I will tell you that I have NEVER observed anything in all my years doing this that has made me question what I was taught. Everything I've observed has been where they say it should be, looks like they say it should and moves as expected. But I will keep on observing, because that's what seekers of the truth do, right?
What more can I say, really?
I'll look at this, but iirc, the redshift estimate the movement of a star, the distance is calculated by a parallax shift, which is a very reliable way of doing it, and that's how the term Parsec is defined. Look it up.
I haven't personally verified this because it takes about a years worth of observations on a single star, and some more sophisticated measuring equipment than I have. But I would love to try! The method makes a lot of sense and the math is simple.
I never said we haven't been lied to, but does that mean we shouldn't believe anything? All or nothing? Or should I believe what I observe with my own eyes? I'll believe that before I believe anything I read on the web.
Anyway, What else can I say?
Well that certainly was an interesting video, but it further illustrates my point about the difference between astrophotography cameras and normal cameras.
The cardinal rule of astrophotography is never image through a window, or any unknown medium, for that matter. That can introduce all kinds of anomalies.
Also I would point out that while those are "professional" cameras in the video, the telephoto lenses attached are not telescopes designed to view the sky. There is a difference. Telescope optics have multiple layers of anti-reflective coatings on all glass surfaces to prevent reflections just like what was in that video. Do you know what camera was used to shoot the video itself? we see many cameras in the video, but is the video showing the orbs actually from one of them? how would you know? The "orbs" appear to be internal reflections in the camera itself. You can tell because as soon as totality ends, the "orbs" fill in with light the same way the sun does. They are reflections.
Before you REEEEEE at me, consider this: good science is repeatable, therefore if this is real science, you should be able to duplicate this with observations of your own. If these "orbs were as bright as shown in the video, they would be visible in a telecsope or binoculars with a solar filter, so start there. Also, can you find one, just one, observation of these "orbs" from a ground based observer, not one on a plane shooting through a window? For that matter, during the eclipse of 2017 that millions in America saw, are there any even anecdotal reports of these orbs from ground based observers?
>Why does temperature in moonlight act the opposite of the sun?, which is also a different color temperature. How does a reflective surface do that?
I haven't studied this, but it sounds interesting. not sure what you're trying to prove, though.
>Then, when the next solar eclipse comes take a look down at the shadows cast through leaves of a tree and tell me why they are circular like that.
You mean like Pic related? (not my work) Hold on let me see…
> Last one was in professional cinematography
There is no way you were a pro cinemetographer and you don't know what a pinhole camera or a camera obscura is. The principle is the same. Try harder faggot.
Are we done yet? Because I'm starting to get bored.
By the way, I do have a question for the flattards I've been wondering: By your reckoning how far away is Polaris, the North Star? Let me know please.
The North Star is not stationary. FE folks keep on saying that it is, but it doesn't make it true. It moves, any honest and serious observer can see that if you cared to look. When I align my Equatorial mount, I must point it at the North celestial pole, not Polaris. If I pointed at Polaris, I would be close, but the tracking would show errors in the images due to a bad polar alignment.
Do your own research into the parallax of distant stars. They do move, as the Earth moves around the Sun. The reason it's not readily noticeable is because they are so far away. This is observable, measurable, and provable.
>Why call your own brothers and sisters flattards and basement dwellers, especially with obvious fabrications, lies, and gaps between what we're told and what we see? Not in the spirit of our movement and a huge red flag imo - at the very least it displays you yourself having an implicit bias.
Perhaps you are right, and I apologize. I probably am biased because I have actually made honest observation of these things, and it really seems like FE believers haven't, beyond what they see on the internet. I never said the powers that be are honest about everything. I know they aren't. What i am endeavoring to share here are my observations. I'm not basing anything on what I was told as you all seem to think.
>Your videos and photos prove nothing.
I disagree, but I see why someone might say that. My videos show a repeatable method to get the same results. If you all aren't willing to do any real scientific observation in a repeatable fashion, I really have nothing further to say to you.
>Like I said, the subject is complex, in nature difficult to prove,
Complex it may be, but it's really not difficult to prove if you have a telescope and you know how to use it. I cannot do that for you.
I make the quip about basement dwellers, because when I listen to these arguments, it really makes me think that some of you haven't gone outside and done any honest observation of the moon, sun, planets, and other celestial objects. If that is not the case, I am sorry, but on the other hand i don't see anyone posting any real scientific obsertvations here, just anectodes and theories that show a wild misunderstanding of basic physics, light and optics.
Bottom line: YES we have been lied to, YES there are conspiracies out there to hide the truth, YES we should investigate for ourselves. It's not all lies, and it's not all truth. I have investigated, and I have presented my conclusions here. You may choose to belive I am sincere, or believe I am a shill. I really don't care.
Anyone have the answer to the question i asked before:
>By your reckoning how far away is Polaris, the North Star? Let me know please.
I already responded, kek…
Well now that you are finished, I think I'm done here.
Someone got really riled up over all this. I must be over the target, eh?
Anyway, I really have nothing further to argue about since you brought a veritable mountain of "science" into the discussion. So much "evidence", so many "observations." Wow where do I start?
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. You are not going to change what I know and have observed, and clearly i can't change what you believe. Also, quite frankly I don't care anymore. Let's just wait and see what Q says, or once all the lies are laid bare, we will see who is wrong, and continue the discussion then.
Pic unrelated, thread needs moar tits.
BTW none of the flat earthers have been able to tell me how far away Polaris is yet. I wonder why?
OP here. I will try to answer this when I have the time. Contrary to the FE-ers, I am not only here to make fun of them. I've been ignoring the thread because they've basically taken it over with cute memes that demonstrate a deeper and deeper misunderstanding of basic science. I really don't have the time to debunk them, it's like throwing pearls before swine.
I will answer any honest inquiries, however, I just don't have time at the moment.
Op here. Now I have some time to address this question.
>The majority of your photos, much to my bafflement, depict all of the planets in a red light. I didn't really notice with Jupiter, but Saturn has always been depicted as being this off-pale blue, however in your photo it is noticeably red.
The Red hue may be due to my adjusting the white balance so it looks more natural to my eyes, but I usually do an auto adjustment and try to make the color as natural as possible. I will be honest, I've never noticed a pronounced red hue in my photos, except for a few.
As for Saturn, I have not noticed that NASA has ever depicted it as a pale blue. Pics related are Saturn pictures i found very quickly on Wikipedia. Are you sure you aren't referring to Uranus or Neptune (also in pic related)? Those are consistently depicted, and visually appear to be, pale blue-green. I've also included here my own pictures of Uranus and Neptune. From my viewing, even visually (ie not with a camera) Saturn has always appeared pale yellow.
The last pic related is maybe the one you are thinking of? It was taken in False color from Voyager 1, found here: >https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-saturn.html
Here is part of NASA's Description of the photo, found here: >https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/caption/saturn_false.txt
<This image of Saturn, taken by the Voyager 1 spacecraft on Oct. 18,
1980, was color-enhanced to increase the visibility of large, bright
features in Saturn's North Temperate Belt. …
<Three separate Voyager images taken through ultraviolet, green and
violet filters were used to construct this blue, green and red color
composite of Saturn. The lower edge of the rings were "clipped" due to a
slight drift of the spacecraft. Color spots in the rings are an artifact
of image processing.
This leads to a discussion of various photographic filters and their uses in astrophotography. Color filters, like the ones at this link:
>https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Accessories/Telescope-Eyepiece-Filters/125-Orion-Basic-Set-of-Four-Color-Filters/rc/2160/pc/-1/c/3/sc/48/p/99590.uts ,
are used primarily visually to bring out various details in planets (ie Jupiter's Cloud bands, Mars' polar caps, etc) and are not really used for photography, though they can be. I did not use any color filters in my planetary photos, however I may have used a light pollution filter designed for astrophotography, seen here:
>https://www.telescope.com/Accessories/Telescope-Eyepiece-Filters/125-Orion-SkyGlow-Astrophotography-Filter/pc/-1/c/3/sc/48/p/5559.uts?ensembleId=37 .
This is due to living in a severly light polluted area, and this helps to darken the background sky. It should transmit colors naturally, though I concede that it may be the source of the red tinge you see. I don't recall precisely which pictures i used the filter with.
There are other filter sets used for Astrophotography that are very useful for studying astronomical objects, and I will discuss them each below. Each of these sets are used with a Monochrome camera. Essentially you take multiple B/W images through each filter, and assign a color channel to each layer. Then you stack the images to get a full color image. You may assign whatever color to each layer that you want, and vary it's intensity. This means that a single object can be depicted in many ways, with many different colors, and still be accurate depictions. This leads to some remarkable photographs. I will discuss the different filter sets in the next post with more pictures.
There are three filter sets I will discuss:
LRGB - https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Accessories/Telescope-Eyepiece-Filters/125-Orion-LRGB-Astrophotography-Filter-Set/rc/2160/pc/-1/c/3/sc/48/p/5563.uts
These filters are used primarily for obtaining natrual color pictures from a B/W camera. RGB is Red, Green and Blue and are self explanatory. The L filter stands for Luminance IR-Cut. This passes the entire spectrum of light, except infrared which can degrade images of deep-sky objects. This filter is used to create a layer that carries the detail of the image, while the RGB filters convey the color information.
See pics related, and note the filenames. This is a recent capture of the Star Deneb and it's surroundings. This is a set of quick test shots I took the other day consisting of twenty 5-second subframes on each filter, aligned and stacked. Each layer may look similar, but there are subtle differences based on the star's actual color. The final picture is the combined image in natural color. You can assign any color to each channel (ie assign red to the green channel, etc), to give it a different character.
Extra-narrowband - https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Accessories/Telescope-Eyepiece-Filters/Orion-125-Extra-Narrowband-Tri-color-CCD-Filter-Set/rc/2160/pc/-1/c/3/sc/48/p/24609.uts
This set is similar to the one above, but each filter in the set only passes light in a narrow band corresponding to the light emitted by certain elements, primarily in emission nebulae, namely Hydrogen-Alpha, Oxygen-III, and Sulfer-II. This makes it possible to create images with colors assigned to the elemental composition of an object, which is useful for studying objects, as you can imagine. Again, colors may be assigned as the photographer wishes, which can lead to some very artistic photographs. I wish i owned these, but not yet.
Planetary imaging set - https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Accessories/Telescope-Eyepiece-Filters/Orion-125-Specialized-3-Piece-Planetary-Imaging-Filter-Set/rc/2160/pc/-1/c/3/sc/48/p/113383.uts
This set is again, similar to the others, but is primarily for planets and consists of a Methane, a UV and a IR filters. I don't own these yet.
My point is that the colors with which the planets and other astronomical objects are presented to us can vary wildly, while still depict the image naturally. It depends on the photographer and the information they are trying to convey. We must keep this in mind whenever we look at a NASA or a Hubble picture, and dig into the methodology they used to take the picture. It's way more than a simple point-and-shoot.
Finally, I will address several of your other points.
> is this part of red-shift and would this have a major impact on the dating and distances of stars, planets etc
Throughout the year as the Earth orbits the sun, Saturn appears to "approach" for half the year, and appears to "recede" for half the year. This might cause a very minor blue- or red-shift, but I doubt it would be noticable to my equipment. To my knowledge, redshift is not used to measure the distance to the planets.
> I've seen NASA dishonestly report on a number of occasions
I don't disagree with this, and I've never claimed to believe everything NASA purports. I know that Science in general is comp'd, but i believe that for their lies to be believable, there has to be truth mixed in, because this is always how the Satan has mislead people. I hope in my thread I've been able to filter out some of the truths. I don't believe in an all or nothing approach, like the FE-ers do. (ie NASA lies, q.e.d. the Earth must be flat.) Of course they lie, but not about everything.
>Indeed, could you include the angle used for each planet for references purposes?
I've never recorded the angle, since it changes throughout the viewing session as they rise, reach zenith, and set. The ecliptic doesn't get too high where i live, so I'd estimate that my planetary pictures were all taken between 30 and 50 degrees above the horizon, usually to the southeast, except for Venus, which i can only see in the west due to my local horizons.
>It'd be pretty explosive if you just casually demonstrated that NASA has shown the planets as the wrong colour without even realising.
See my previous posts regarding color for more info on this. Honestly, the color they present the planets in isn't a deception in my mind; anyone can view the planets in natural color through a $100 telescope. As I explained, its all about the desired presentation.
Pics related are 2 of my shots of Jupiter. Actually they are both processed from the same exact data, But They are processed in different ways to bring out certain details, and the larger one is processed using a method called Drizzling, which effectively increases the images resolution.
>This thread was started by a nasa shill, sad
Well that's not the worst thing you've called me. Still not true though.
Op here. Mars opposition tomorrow night. If it finally stops raining here I will try and take a few pics. Stay tuned.
Unfortunately I was unable to see Mars on Opposition night due to weather, but it's still in a prime viewing location, so I will still try to capture it.
Still here…. Did you FE-ers give up on me? :(
Your meme is conflating acceleration (9Gs) with Velocity (67000 mph). High school physics students know the difference here, come on. The Earth is not accelerating through space, if it were then perhaps we would feel it. if the Earth's rotation suddenly slowed or sped up we would certainly feel it. Don't you understand the difference between acceleration, velocity, and the concepts of Inertia and momentum?
This is what we man when we say your memes don't make much sense.
Another good example is this one: >>2471594
You fail to account for the incredible distances involved. As I've said before, there IS Stellar parallax caused by the Earth's orbit. It's just so negligible to the naked eye that we can't tell. This is because the Stars are VERY far away. And for a fact, depending on where you are on earth, the stars visible by the season DOES change. For instance, right now In the Northern Summer, I cannot see the constellation of Orion, however in Winter I can. In addition, you keep calling Polaris a 'stationary pole star' which any objective observation will tell you is not true. It is close to the pole, but it is not stationary.
Also, please stop using out-of-focus pictures from the damn P900 CAMERA to "prove" stuff. Buy yourself a telescope that is designed to view the sky. Pic related (own work) is what Uranus would really look like through a 5-inch telescope at f/12 focal ratio, IN FOCUS. Furthermore, how do you even find Uranus with a camera like that? Even in the darkest skies, Uranus is barely visible to the naked eye.
Please get some better material.
Actually I can. Using simple Trigonometry.
Remember: >>1985948
>So I looked up the Polaris distance question… lots of disagreement. Claims range from 433.8 to 323 light years.
I had asked about this in a previous post. The reason is very simple. If we take the smaller distance, 323 LY(Approx. 1900000000000000 miles), than at that distance, no matter where you stand on a FE, Polaris would ALWAYS be directly overhead. This is simple trigonometry.
I live about 3400 miles south of the north pole. If Polaris is 1900000000000000 miles above the North pole, this forms 2 sides of a right triangle on a FE. Follow?
Now solve for the angle that Polaris would be from my viewing location, call it 'a':
arctan(1900000000000000/3400)=89.999999… Degrees
Calculate it yourself.
Is that what I see in the sky? NO. Is that what you see? Unless you live at the north pole, then NO. In my sky, Polaris is about 42 degrees above the horizon. Why 42 degrees? Because on a Globe model, 42 degrees north latitude corresponds roughly to the distance of 3400 miles from the north pole.
Yes, that's right, the angle of view to Polaris is the SAME as your LATITUTE. Go check this out for yourself.
This COULD NOT work on a FE, and can only work on a Globe. Simple Geometry proves this, anyone can do it.
Pic related is my scope setup, the lines indicate the axis of the mount compared to the level, and you'll note it's around 42 degrees. The axis is aligned to the north celestial pole which is very close to Polaris.
This is why I stated above that an Equatorial mount like this could NEVER WORK on a FE. and yet I use it and it works EVERY TIME.
>fake science invention that I've never attempted to use and don't understand, so it must be fake.
I fixed your sentence for you.
OF COURSE I made FE calculations.
I was using your FE model to demonstrate that it does not work in the real world with real world observations.
>Where are the calculations for the speed of earth's rotation and speed moving through space? Your calculations don't include that and trig calc would turn out with your results regardless of "light" year distance because it's the same angle ratios
This is so dumb i really don't know where to begin. The speed of the earth's rotation and moving through space has nothing to do with the North celestial pole, which is fixed relative to the earth, ie it moves WITH the earth. Triginometry is all that is needed. But if you're the expert on this I'd invite you to mathematically prove me wrong. The distance absolutely changes the angle ratios. To claim otherwise proves you don't know geometry. In the case of stars, the distance is so large that the ffect is very small, but it's there.
I am most certainly not ignoring curvature. The Equatorial mount Does not work without curvature.
You mentioned the south pole, so Explain to me this, How is it, that in the southern hemisphere, the stars appear to move around the southern celestial pole and the South Star? This would not be possible on a FE. On a FE, people in Australia would see the stars moving east to west all night, but that's not what they see. Stars move around the South celestial pole. An astronomer like myself in the southern hemisphere would set his equatorial mount to point roughly at the star Sigma Octantis, the South Star. The angle of his mount would be equal to his southern latitude. How is this possible on a FE?
Please explain how the angles prove nothing and how to add Earth motions. I really think you don't understand what you are talking about, so try to clear it up.
Also, stop fucking assuming that you know what I believe. Maybe try asking?
Triginometry is Masonic now? So Pythagoras was a mason then. Even if we proved without a doubt that there is curvature, you still would not believe, but would call it a masonic trick.
Do this for me, then. Using your Flat Earth model, go out tonight and observe Polaris. Figure out the angle that Polaris is from the horizon, then find your distance from the north pole. Using those numbers, you calculate and tell me how far away Polaris is from the north pole.
I never said I agreed that it was 323 LY away; go back and look, this number was given to me by a FE-er, so I used it. Figure it out, and give me a better estimate for it's distance. If the earth is Stationary, and Polaris is stationary, then all you need is Trig. So figure it out, and get back to me.
> There would be no G force without velocity.
This statement proves you are either a shill or truly do not understand basic physics.
What is a "G force"? It is the force exerted on an object such that it's acceleration is equal to the acceleration produced by the Earth's gravitational pull. What is acceleration? It is an change in velocity over time. What is velocity? It is a measurement of the distance an object moves over time.
Let's derive some equations then.
Velocity (V) = Distance (d) / Time (t)
Acceleration (A) = V / t = (d / t) / t = d / t^2
See the difference? G-force is caused by acceleration, you know like when your car speeds up and you are pushed into your seat. When the car reaches speed and you are cruising at 60mph, do you still feel pinned to your seat? No, because the G force disappears at constant velocity.
I want you to use trig to find out how far away Polaris is, according to the FE model. I'm not arguing about the Globe model right now. Using the FE model, fixed and nonrotating, You should be able to use Trig to calculate the distance to Polaris. I'm inviting you to try.
You have still failed to explain how to add motion to the trig, and how it affects it. I'm going to prepare a different way to explain this, because obviously I'm not being clear.
I wasn't talking about gravity. I was talking about acceleration. You guys brought up the G-force.
Also FYI I hate Neil, and I really don't listen to anything he says, so please stop bringing him up. He is hardly the first person to talk about Gravity.
Adding speed and motion to this calculation would MAKE NO DIFFERENCE. That's why I can't do it. Please explain: WHAT DIFFERENCE IT WOULD MAKE???
I was just explaining to you how a G-force is defined.
Actually my experiments far from prove FE, because if FE were true, I could not use the Scope the way I do. Please explain this to me? Speed and motion are removed because their effect is so small from the viewpoint of the earth they are meaningless.
Ok Let me explain this with pictures.
I use an Equatorial mount with the telescope. In order for the EQ mount to work properly, the axis of the mount must be aligned parallel with the Earth's axis. That way the movement of the scope throughout the night tracks the movement of the Earth. That's how you can get pictures like the ones I've shared.
Ok now see Pic related. This is using the Flat Earth model. If I wanted to align the scope to parallel the axis of rotation on the Green position, I would point it 90 degrees from the horizon, right? Same thing on the Blue position. In fact everywhere you stood on a FE, you would always align the scope to 90 degrees above the horizon to align it parallel to the axis. If FE were true, this would be true, and this would always be true, no exceptions. Every astronomer on earth would need to do this. But is that what is actually done in real life? See next post.
In real life, the angle we align our scopes to varies based on our position on earth. See Pic related.
If I am standing at the Green position, note the angle from the green horizon that parallels the axis, angle b. This angle will equal angle a, which represents latitude. If you were at the blue position, the angle you would use is angle d, which is the same as angle c, or your latitude. The angles are both different, and less than 90 degrees. In fact from the southern hemisphere, they would have to align to the axis in the southern direction, and the angles again, would be different.
This is how it works in real life. It's not a trick, it's not made up. You can do this yourself.
Also the speed and motion do not matter in this example because the scopes are aligned parallel to the axis of the earth, and they all move together. Earth's movement around the sun does not change this alignment.
It's very clear to me that you have never used a telescope. Perhaps you should learn how to use one before making such claims.
Btw guys thanks for continuing to bump my thread so all the Newfags can come in and see my work. Brilliant.
All right, I'll take your argument at face value, now go do the field work to prove it. Even if the earth were not tilted, the issue would be the same. You need to align to the axis.
>The stars rotate on their own paths that do not change irregardless of where you aim your scope.
Ok I'll buy that, but I can get my scope to track a single star all night if I wanted to. Such tracking is not possible unless you align the scope axis with the axis of rotation. How is it that I can align with the axis of the sky without pointing my scope straight up in the air? Why is the angle from the horizon the same as my latitude?
>What's EM prove?
EM means EQ mount I take it? I just explained it. How does an EQ mount work on a FE? You cannot explain this.
Prove it, shill.
And you fall back on the 666 meme shilling. No evidence, no scientific observations, no mathematical proofs.
This, newfags, is what a shill looks like.
I'm done here for now. Keep bumping my thread though, so the newfags can see a shill in action.
Bumped so the Reddit Fags can see this. Flattards BTFO.
I want to believe you are sincere. Research something called geostationary orbit. That could be one reason. Another is the way the pictures were taken, perhaps. If you've ever played around with serious photography yourself, you know you can photograph fast-moving objects clearly if you set up the camera properly. As I laid out extensively above, there are many ways to take pictures. One of them which would be used when taking pictures from space looking back at the earth would be to take multiple hi-res short exposure shots, then stitch them together into a mosaic picture. That is why sometimes you may see cloud formations duplicated of things like that. For satellites in Low Earth Orbit it would be very difficult to see the entire earth in one frame. In geostationary orbit it might be easier. This also explains why we can't see stars in these pictures, because stars are very hard to see under short exposures. See pic related.
There is a difference between spinning and tumbling. Slugs and shot tumble. A rifle spins a round on one axis, which actually stabilizes flight. I'm not a ballistics expert, but this makes sense to me. Maybe research ballistics a little?