The aftermath of the last Muslim-inspired bombing of the London Underground was
well visually documented by photos taken by travelelrs with their mobile
phones...

Here's a new phenomenon. UFOs !

" A crowd of 100 stunned stargazers brought a town centre to a standstill when
five mysterious UFOs were spotted hovering in the sky.

Drinkers spilled out of pubs, motorists stopped to gawp and camera phones were
aimed upwards as the five orbs, in a seeming formation, hovered above
Stratford-Upon-Avon for half an hour. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770



Graham

Eeyore wrote:

" A crowd of 100 stunned stargazers brought a town centre to a standstill when
five mysterious UFOs were spotted hovering in the sky.

They're not UFO's. They're the new prototype experimental
super-duper-ultra-bright LEDS that will hit the market next season.

Either that, or they're one of those Chinese fake Nokia exploding phone
batteries flying through the air.

Or one of the infamous Sony laptop LiIon batteries. After burning someone's
crotch of course... (chuckle)

Ok, I'll behave, but at least I'm on topic.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:16:52 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

The aftermath of the last Muslim-inspired bombing of the London Underground was
well visually documented by photos taken by travelelrs with their mobile
phones...

Here's a new phenomenon. UFOs !

" A crowd of 100 stunned stargazers brought a town centre to a standstill when
five mysterious UFOs were spotted hovering in the sky.

Drinkers spilled out of pubs, motorists stopped to gawp and camera phones were
aimed upwards as the five orbs, in a seeming formation, hovered above
Stratford-Upon-Avon for half an hour. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770



Graham

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy - NASA have recently (last
month or so) been playing with docking and un-docking some satellites
to test for manouverability of robot spacecraft:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list186590

and of course this is just what they can tell us about - who knows
what secret/military/chinese things are going on. The whole episode of
them flying in formation and a fifth closing and slowing into the
formation sounds like it fits... I wonder how "hovering" they were as
satellites (at least the ones generally visible as naked-eye objects)
move very rapidly. It does mention that they passed off beyond the
horizon, which again fits sateelite observations - at least for those
that don't "wink out"

It does mention " a few minutes" and "half an hour" which, if
true/accurate might tend to rule out satellites as anything close
enough to be a NEO tends to have to move very quickly to stay up
there. there must be better informed minds than mine can comment on
this - anyone?

'tis interesting tho'

feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy

Hello ?

Since when were satellites readily visible on a cellphone camera ?

See the video here....
mms://a229.v26674c.c26674.g.vm.akamaistream.net/5/229/26674/46a70995/1a1a1a9b086f9d0162cb37b01d7ee75381e45381f66190066f d338a7d60838689fce38ad1992c2f9/ufo250707.wmv



Graham

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:59:46 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy

Hello ?

so what is your take then?


Since when were satellites readily visible on a cellphone camera ?

See the video here....
mms://a229.v26674c.c26674.g.vm.akamaistream.net/5/229/26674/46a70995/1a1a1a9b086f9d0162cb37b01d7ee75381e45381f66190066f d338a7d60838689fce38ad1992c2f9/ufo250707.wmv



Graham

I have seen satellites that were very much brighter than any star,
and tho' I had no direct comparison, I would estimate they would rate
with Venus or Jupiter - one memorable instance moved across the sky
very rapidly, gave a very intense flash (~2 secs) as the sun reflected
directly of it at just the right angle and (typically) winked out of
view (no it wasn't a meteor - I *can* tell the difference).

Anyway, it depends on the camera and the brightness of the object(s)

I will experiment with my w800 in low light mode with stars/planets -
if we actually get a cloud-free fscking night (

That vid definately puts the initial reports in a different light...
these must be new definitions of hurtling/shooting/fizzing across the
sky that I had previously been unaware of )

Certainly ain't signing up to the little green man answer just yet.

The lantern thingy.... hmm... I have a buddhist temple quite near me
and at certain times of the year they let off little square "ballons"
with a candle-type thingy burning in them. They are quite odd to see a
few of those go drifting over at dusk. I wonder what these "lanterns"
at the rugby club were. If not designed to float in the air, I doubt
they would. The written report about them moving fast it quite
appocraphal having seen the vid.

feebo wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy

Hello ?

so what is your take then?

What's the subtended angle of a satellite ? Do you understand what I mean ?

And why would a satellite move around in the sky ?

Graham

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:40:41 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



feebo wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy

Hello ?

so what is your take then?

What's the subtended angle of a satellite ? Do you understand what I mean ?

And why would a satellite move around in the sky ?

Graham

did you actually read read the link I posted earlier?

answer the question: what is your take?

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:16:52 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

The aftermath of the last Muslim-inspired bombing of the London Underground was
well visually documented by photos taken by travelelrs with their mobile
phones...

Here's a new phenomenon. UFOs !

" A crowd of 100 stunned stargazers brought a town centre to a standstill when
five mysterious UFOs were spotted hovering in the sky.

Drinkers spilled out of pubs, motorists stopped to gawp and camera phones were
aimed upwards as the five orbs, in a seeming formation, hovered above
Stratford-Upon-Avon for half an hour. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770



Graham
Blame it on global warming!

feebo wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
feebo wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy

Hello ?

so what is your take then?

What's the subtended angle of a satellite ? Do you understand what I mean ?

And why would a satellite move around in the sky ?

did you actually read read the link I posted earlier?

Do you understand what 'subtending an angle is' ? It's absurd to suggest they
were watching satellites.


answer the question: what is your take?

I can't see any human caused explanation for whatever they saw.

Graham

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:35:05 +0100, feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy - NASA have recently (last
month or so) been playing with docking and un-docking some satellites
to test for manouverability of robot spacecraft:


You could take one of those car lot spot lights up into space to the
space station, and the spot size it would make would be like a pinhead.
Those are far closer the Earth than any orbiting object. D'OH!

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:17:31 +0100, feebo wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:59:46 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy

Hello ?

so what is your take then?


Since when were satellites readily visible on a cellphone camera ?

See the video here....
mms://a229.v26674c.c26674.g.vm.akamaistream.net/5/229/26674/46a70995/1a1a1a9b086f9d0162cb37b01d7ee75381e45381f66190066f d338a7d60838689fce38ad1992c2f9/ufo250707.wmv



Graham

I have seen satellites that were very much brighter than any star,

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!

and tho' I had no direct comparison,

You also had nothing to back your claim that that was what you were
looking at.

I would estimate they would rate
with Venus or Jupiter - one memorable instance moved across the sky
very rapidly, gave a very intense flash (~2 secs) as the sun reflected
directly of it at just the right angle and (typically) winked out of
view (no it wasn't a meteor - I *can* tell the difference).

If it was an orbiting object, the flash or reflection you observed
would not be "brighter than any star".

Anyway, it depends on the camera and the brightness of the object(s)

No ****?

I will experiment with my w800 in low light mode with stars/planets -
if we actually get a cloud-free fscking night (


Be sure to have enough brains to put it on a tripod.


That vid definately

"Definately" is definitely not even a word.

puts the initial reports in a different light...

Your claims are dubious, at best.

these must be new definitions of hurtling/shooting/fizzing across the
sky that I had previously been unaware of )

Do you remember ever having been administered shock therapy treatments?

Spurious Response wrote:

feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy - NASA have recently (last
month or so) been playing with docking and un-docking some satellites
to test for manouverability of robot spacecraft:

You could take one of those car lot spot lights up into space to the
space station, and the spot size it would make would be like a pinhead.
Those are far closer the Earth than any orbiting object. D'OH!

Do you have an opinion on what they could be ?

Graham

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.


--
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

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Spurious Response wrote:

feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy - NASA have recently (last
month or so) been playing with docking and un-docking some satellites
to test for manouverability of robot spacecraft:

You could take one of those car lot spot lights up into space to the
space station, and the spot size it would make would be like a pinhead.
Those are far closer the Earth than any orbiting object. D'OH!

Do you have an opinion on what they could be ?

Graham



Just a wild guess - maybe the marking lights on a Blimp going over?

Radiosrfun wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Spurious Response
feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy - NASA have recently (last
month or so) been playing with docking and un-docking some satellites
to test for manouverability of robot spacecraft:

You could take one of those car lot spot lights up into space to the
space station, and the spot size it would make would be like a pinhead.
Those are far closer the Earth than any orbiting object. D'OH!

Do you have an opinion on what they could be ?

Just a wild guess - maybe the marking lights on a Blimp going over?

It was stationary (not 'going over') and silent (no engines) though. I'd expect
a blimp's gondola to be visible too. Plus, aircraft are required to have
flashing lights, not ones that are continuously illuminated.


Graham

Radiosrfun wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Spurious Response wrote:
feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy - NASA have recently (last
month or so) been playing with docking and un-docking some satellites
to test for manouverability of robot spacecraft:

You could take one of those car lot spot lights up into space to the
space station, and the spot size it would make would be like a pinhead.
Those are far closer the Earth than any orbiting object. D'OH!

Do you have an opinion on what they could be ?

Just a wild guess - maybe the marking lights on a Blimp going over?

The grouping of 4 of the lights reminds me very much of the Belgian UFO
sightings.....

Wavre, Belgium
30 March 1990

Around 11:00 p.m. the local police began receiving numbers of telephone calls
reporting lights in a triangular formation over Wavre, twelve miles south of
Brussels. The police in turn reported the sightings to the radar station at
Glons. Glons radar confirmed the sightings of a UFO on radar at an altitude of
3,000 meters. The radar station at Semmerzake verified the Glons tracking and
reported it to the Air Force. The radar trackings were compared to the 11/89
trackings at Eupen and were found to be identical. Police witnesses reported
that, instead of the unidentifieds being three objects flying in formation, it
was one triangular-shaped object with three lights, as had been the Eupen
object.

Because of the large number of reports, Colonel Wilfried De Brouwer of the
Belgian Air Force decided to scramble two F-16 interceptors from Bevokom. The
F-16s were vectored in by Glons radar, and they soon detected a positive
oval-shaped object on their on-board radar at 3,000 meters.. They could see
nothing visually.

When the F-16 pilots attempted to lock on to the object with their on-board
radar, it reacted immediately. It changed shape on their radar to a diamond
shape, increased its speed to 1,000 km/hour, and took swift evasive action.
Tapes of the on-board radar of the F-16s show that the object descended from
3,000 meters to 1200 meters in 2 seconds. That's a speed of 1800 km/hour. The
tapes also show the object accelerating from 280 km/hour to 1800 km/hour in a
few seconds. This represents an acceleration of 46 G, which is more than a human
body could withstand. It is notable that at no time was there a sonic boom.

The object moved erratically, in a zig-zag path, over the city of Brussels,
taking evasive action whenever the pursuing F-16 tried to lock-on. Eventually,
it left the F-16s behind, disappearing at an impossible rate of speed.

These objects were seen by thousands of witnesses, many of whom gave signed
statements to the police. They were photographed and filmed. The objects were
tracked by ground radar at several different installations, and also by the
on-board radar of the F-16s. The objects took evasive action when threatened by
the F-16s and were able to maneuver at speeds that are impossible for any known
aircraft.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc413.htm

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Radiosrfun wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Spurious Response
feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy - NASA have recently (last
month or so) been playing with docking and un-docking some satellites
to test for manouverability of robot spacecraft:

You could take one of those car lot spot lights up into space to the
space station, and the spot size it would make would be like a
pinhead.
Those are far closer the Earth than any orbiting object. D'OH!

Do you have an opinion on what they could be ?

Just a wild guess - maybe the marking lights on a Blimp going over?

It was stationary (not 'going over') and silent (no engines) though. I'd
expect
a blimp's gondola to be visible too. Plus, aircraft are required to have
flashing lights, not ones that are continuously illuminated.


Graham



You could be correct, I've never seen a "blimp" at night (least not that I
can actually recall). As I said, was a wild guess.

Eeyore wrote:

feebo wrote:

I wonder if this is some satellite thingy

Hello ?

Since when were satellites readily visible on a cellphone camera ?

Try using one with a built-in flash. ;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Free the Mallocs!

"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 avergae camera.

Graham

flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:39:26 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

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.

That is a highly magnified image, not what a person could 'see' from
space.


That is an extremely vague reply. You don't state where they are in
'space', yet that photo was taken from 'space'.


--
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

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?


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


--
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

"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.

Graham

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

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

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,.

How about you answer the question ?

It's proved not 'prooved' btw. I do appreciate you hicks have a few challenges with spelling words....

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

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,.

How about you answer the question ?

It's proved not 'prooved' btw. I do appreciate you hicks have a few challenges with spelling words....


I don't bother to spell check for donkeys. Now **** off.

--
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

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

It's proved not 'prooved' btw. I do appreciate you hicks have a few challenges with spelling words....

I don't bother to spell check for donkeys.

Because you're a ****wit.

I suggest you learn some basic English language skills.

I'm also keen to see your math wrt the subtended angle of the pyramids too.

Graham

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:39:26 GMT, "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 is you being a goddamned idiot, as usual.

EVER heard of ZOOM, dumb****? It is that little plus/minus bar thingy
that YOU scrolled upward.

"As PHOTOGRAPHED from space", and "as viewed by the naked eye from
space" are two entirely different things, you goddamned utter idiot.

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

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:31:01 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:39:26 GMT, "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.

That is a highly magnified image, not what a person could 'see' from
space.

Thank you.

I was a bit more... angrily terse...

...with the twit that spouts wise cracks, and peanut gallery comments at
every turn,attempting to jab at me, yet he is not wise, and his arms are
far too short.

How are those jaw bones, abscess boy? Bwuahahhahaha!

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:48:08 +0100, 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 avergae camera.


I just posted an approximation that likely leans toward too big still.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:00:46 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:39:26 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

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.

That is a highly magnified image, not what a person could 'see' from
space.


That is an extremely vague reply. You don't state where they are in
'space', yet that photo was taken from 'space'.


Don't know much about optics, do ya, boy?

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:17:08 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


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,.


READ the post you responded to with your peanut gallery attempt at yet
another jab, BOY!

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:14:24 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

It's proved not 'prooved' btw. I do appreciate you hicks have a few challenges with spelling words....

I don't bother to spell check for donkeys.

Because you're a ****wit.

I suggest you learn some basic English language skills.

I'm also keen to see your math wrt the subtended angle of the pyramids too.


I do not even think he knows about what you are referring to.

Even my Laser Disc (nearly twenty years old) images, taken from the
shuttle with a hasleblad sp were not that great.

Spurious Response 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 avergae camera.


I just posted an approximation that likely leans toward too big still.

Clearly you're an idiot in that case.

Graham

flipper wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote
flipper wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

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.

That is a highly magnified image, not what a person could 'see' from
space.


That is an extremely vague reply. You don't state where they are in
'space', yet that photo was taken from 'space'.

My reply is not 'vague' at all, in spite of your attempt to obfuscate
the matter.

Satellites don't take 'cell phone' photos. They use highly
sophisticated imaging systems so good that, as the popular saying
goes', "they can read a car's license plate"

Nice idea, don't think that's going to happen. My father knew a guy from Beck Optics who supplied lenses for U2s and the like.

Even they didn't make any claim beyond a resolution that would resolve a dustbin lid.

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:05:14 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response 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 avergae camera.


I just posted an approximation that likely leans toward too big still.

Clearly you're an idiot in that case.


You are the idiot, ****head.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:09:51 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote
flipper wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

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.

That is a highly magnified image, not what a person could 'see' from
space.


That is an extremely vague reply. You don't state where they are in
'space', yet that photo was taken from 'space'.

My reply is not 'vague' at all, in spite of your attempt to obfuscate
the matter.

Satellites don't take 'cell phone' photos. They use highly
sophisticated imaging systems so good that, as the popular saying
goes', "they can read a car's license plate"

Nice idea, don't think that's going to happen. My father knew a guy from Beck Optics who supplied lenses for U2s and the like.

Even they didn't make any claim beyond a resolution that would resolve a dustbin lid.


They can damn near read the date on a dime now.

They can certainly see car tags and the like.

Spurious Response wrote:

They can damn near read the date on a dime now [from a satellite] .

They can certainly see car tags and the like.

Absurd nonsense. Atmospheric disturbances (heat haze for example) would obscure them.

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:24:28 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

They can damn near read the date on a dime now [from a satellite] .

They can certainly see car tags and the like.

Absurd nonsense. Atmospheric disturbances (heat haze for example) would obscure them.


Ever heard of laser interferometery, dumb****?

Used in conjunction with standard optical photography, fringes, and
edges can be clarified.

For someone that claims to know someone that was at one time involved
with intelligence gathering, you sure are one stupid, uninformed little
cockroach.

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

They can damn near read the date on a dime now [from a satellite] .

They can certainly see car tags and the like.

Absurd nonsense. Atmospheric disturbances (heat haze for example) would obscure them.

Ever heard of laser interferometery, dumb****?

What the hell has that got to do with imaging from 100 + miles away ?

Graham

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:41:29 -0700, Spurious Response wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:31:01 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:39:26 GMT, "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.

That is a highly magnified image, not what a person could 'see' from
space.

Thank you.

I was a bit more... angrily terse...

...with the twit that spouts wise cracks, and peanut gallery comments at
every turn,attempting to jab at me, yet he is not wise, and his arms are
far too short.

How are those jaw bones, abscess boy? Bwuahahhahaha!

If you wear high heels, I feel sure the Toothless Terrier will give you a
blowjob.

Jim