Eeyore wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

You are full of ****. Even the great Pyramid is not easily visible from
space, and when it is found and gazed upon, the feature size is quite
small, so a satellite is NOT going to make a reflection, nor generated
light spot that would compete with any star, much less the brightest
stars. D'OH!

Its not? Then tell us what is this:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Giza,+Egypt+pyramid&sll= 30.076292,31.208903&sspn=0.107401,0.159645&ie=UTF8 &ll=29.9791,31.134846&spn=0.013438,0.019956&t=h&z= 16&om=1

It sure looks like the Great Pyramid at Giza, Egypt as seen from
space.

So how about you calculate the subtended angle and discover how large an image it would result in on an average camera.

What is an 'Average' camera? Those fixed focus prepaid tourist crap,
or the professional ones with great telephoto zoom lenses that I see all
the time? If you were in space, looking at a planet what kind of camera
would YOU use?

An average camera (quoted in terms of a classic 'snapshot' camera using traditional film) has a 35mm lens. The image size of the negative/positive is 36x24mm. I'd accept that an
enthusiastic photographer might be carrying a 105 or 135 mm telephoto/zoom lens though. I certainly used to.

No matter how you slice it, it is visible from space if you know how,
and where to look.

It is not visible with the 'naked eye' without some form of assistance.


Who said it was? I said it could bee seen from space, as the link
prooved, but you're too busy claiming to be a god on another newsgroup
to pay attention,.




--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida