ISS through my telescope this morning!

No, it isn't. I resized the images based on the moon so that they were the exact same scale. ISS is not larger in one than the other. The difference in the thickness, not the size, of the silhouette is simply due to differences in the brightness and contrast of my image vs the P1000. That had no impact on the measurements.

OOOh 'I tract the stars" oooooo So your scope is tracking stars. Who gives a shit? What does that have to do with moon?

Still no sign of the balloon holding it up there, and it's still right in the orbit that it's supposed to be in. Damn strange.

I do work at the Nasa NBL and saw the mock up in the giant pool. It's only the habitats, but even at that, it's not nearly as large as one would think.

Because according to you, the moon's orbital motion in half a second is significant enough to impact the results. If that's the case, the moon should significantly move in my telescope while it tracks at a sidereal rate in the half second span of time it takes ISS to cross the moon.

You are a dramatic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You don't understand your own ignorance and you have the gall to insult me. This, my dear dumbass, is how much the moon moved in its orbit in half a second while my telescope tracked at a sidereal rate:
:moonorbitmotion:
Now, go on and try to convince people that the above motion is not negligible. Good luck.

:observatory:

You are too stupid to realize the you are working on the basis the the moon is orbiting! NASA BOY, Lollollol

And at his angle it transits a different portion of the moon!

OOOh 'I tract the stars" oooooo So your scope is tracking stars. Who gives a shit? What does that have to do with moon?

No shit dumbass, that's called parallax, that's the thing I was measuring. If you're going to try to troll my thread at least watch the material you're attacking.

Because according to you, the moon's orbital motion in half a second is significant enough to impact the results. If that's the case, the moon should significantly move in my telescope while it tracks at a sidereal rate in the half second span of time it takes ISS to cross the moon.

You are a dramatic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You don't understand your own ignorance and you have the gall to insult me. This, my dear dumbass, is how much the moon moved in its orbit in half a second while my telescope tracked at a sidereal rate:

Now, go on and try to convince people that the above motion is not negligible. Good luck.

....
That's not an angle. You're the one spewing garbage numbers you piece of shit. every time I film the space station I get idiots like you arguing with me endlessly about how it's fake and about how my evidence is worthless. I would love to take your puny little face and shove it into the telescopes eyepiece so the last thing your eyeball sees is the space station up close.

The Flerfers do not deny that you can see something through the scope, but they say what you are looking at is a balloon, etc.

When your angle is only .1234567% Thats huge! Garbage numbers, Garbage science!

Rockets don't work in space. End of story.

That's not an angle. You're the one spewing garbage numbers you piece of shit. every time I film the space station I get idiots like you arguing with me endlessly about how it's fake and about how my evidence is worthless. I would love to take your puny little face and shove it into the telescopes eyepiece so the last thing your eyeball sees is the space station up close.