PDA

View Full Version : Please tell me what this is.



stoni
2003-Jun-04, 05:18 AM
I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me what the object is that is located at approximately 5 o'clock, to the right of the sun. I DON'T believe its Planet X but I don't know what it is. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
http://groups.msn.com/FTTOUFO/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=16379&LastModified=4675424693078579319

ocasey3
2003-Jun-04, 05:52 AM
I refer you to this thread:http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5978

freddo
2003-Jun-04, 06:05 AM
Ahah!!! I was lookin' for that too - cheers.

C.

carolyn
2003-Jun-04, 06:38 AM
Hi welcom to the board

If you spend some time on here and look around many of the threads you will see that this picture has been debated ad ifo......

You havn't got a relation called skywalker have you? :-?

stoni
2003-Jun-04, 06:40 AM
Are you saying it's a lens flare, sun dog, etc?

ocasey3
2003-Jun-04, 07:16 AM
It is most likely a lens flare.

stoni
2003-Jun-04, 07:18 AM
I did see some pictures and the discussions of them, started by Skywatcher but I didn't see this particular picture - I'm sorry if I'm being redundant. The pictures that I've seen are of sun flares, but this one concerned me because it appears to be "something" - it could be the moon, for all I know - that's why I came here to ask - I thought there would be people here who know.

ocasey3
2003-Jun-04, 07:38 AM
The picture to which you are linking to is an isolated portion of a photo that skywatcher posted about. If it were the moon the "object" in question would be almost exactly the same size as the sun. That is why we get solar eclipses, the moon passes in front of the sun and blocks it out.

The way that the light radiates off the "object" in spikes is sure sign of it being a lens flare.

WolfKC
2003-Jun-04, 08:18 AM
"stoni", I dont suppose YOU could tell US a bit more about the picture could you? Perhaps exactly where it came from, when it was shot, what kind of lens was used..... It's obviously not the moon. You understand that now dont you? You understand why it could not possibly be the moon?
I hope you aren't going to be like skywatch and start posting every imperfect picture you find on the net. The picture you are asking about is so terrible that without information that it's from a reliable source, what it's pointed at and when it was taken... I believe you wont get any better answer than you already have. I believe even our resident genius professional astronomers wont be able to tell you definitive information about that picture without you first providing accurate information. And even then, in all likelihood it's just a badly shot overexposed overdeveloped lens flared faulty processed blur of a very normal light source.

ajax25
2003-Jun-04, 10:35 AM
"this" is a troll...........

josun
2003-Jun-04, 11:00 AM
Stoni,

I know you are still in question as to the objects in the picture that I beleived was taken in Victoria? Austrailia...At least it has beem claimed by a person known as J?

Also it is claimed to be a regular filmed 35mm?

Well if those are not bubbles that form with the processing (I got that somewhere on this site possibly?)....Then I also cannot answer your direct question, because I do not know for sure how it was taken and if these objects were superimposed on them.

The people here have been quite burned out with querys on many pics, asking for explanation , some posted by those trolling to stir controversy.
I do not think that you are in that categoury..You seem honestly concerned.

I can suggest what wolf has and maybe one step further ,that you choose another forum that is dealing more with planetary objects, however do not get discouraged if some seem to come down hard on you for even posting it.

I do wish I had more experiance in the field of photography, but I do know that hoaxes can be fabricated, and in lieu of all the many foolish claims that have been made of PX being here or there and being proved false ...so you will need to examine that also.
As far as the picture you have ,just hang around for awhile ,you will get an answer that you are looking for.

stoni
2003-Jun-04, 12:55 PM
Josun, thank you for your reply - it answered more than one question!

Obviously, this is no place for questions. I'm used to having conversations based on mutual respect. From my FIRST AND ONLY post, I've been ridiculed, derided, called a "troll" and talked down to like I'm a moron and all for the simple reason that I asked a question.

Hamlet
2003-Jun-04, 01:27 PM
Josun, thank you for your reply - it answered more than one question!

Obviously, this is no place for questions. I'm used to having conversations based on mutual respect. From my FIRST AND ONLY post, I've been ridiculed, derided, called a "troll" and talked down to like I'm a moron and all for the simple reason that I asked a question.

Stoni, I think you need to grow a thicker skin. Only one poster called you a troll and I don't believe anyone talked down to or ridiculed you. Other posters asked for more information about the photo, which you have yet to provide.

I only been participating in this forum a short time, but I have been a long time reader. In my observations the regulars here are, for the most part, a patient and knowledgeable lot who are more than willing to answer questions. Stick around. I'm sure you will learn something.

DragonRider
2003-Jun-04, 01:48 PM
Obviously, this is no place for questions. I'm used to having conversations based on mutual respect. From my FIRST AND ONLY post, I've been ridiculed, derided, called a "troll" and talked down to like I'm a moron and all for the simple reason that I asked a question.

......'stoni', this *is* a place for questions, but when the same questions have been asked, and answered, and asked again, and answered again, and asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered.......(you get the point, I'm sure)......the answers tend to get short, along with patience.......
....Although you, 'stoni', have not asked repeatedly, many have.....And when the 'tone' of the post seems to have the 'Golly, gee, wow, will you look at this? I don't know what this could be. Can someone explain this to me? What is it? How can that be?' ring to it, some may consider the fact that it's possible, and even likely, that the same person has registered as several different people.....
....Is that the case with you?......Maybe, but I wouldn't make that assumption on one post......
...As someone else suggested, stick around, read the past posts and replies and you may have many questions answered.....The people here are perfectly willing to help out.....but if you do a little research and info gathering on your own before asking a question, you may find that the answers to your questions are out there at your fingertips.....If they're not, this is (one of) the place(s) to 'pick the brains' of some smart, experienced people........(of which, I don't claim to be on astronomy :) )
....And, welcome......

coolguy
2003-Jun-04, 01:58 PM
So whats the conclusion on what it is?

Val Trottan
2003-Jun-04, 02:16 PM
Hey guys ... take it easy.
Stoni had a question and asked it.
People responded and 'she' (going on fem. names end in "i" usually) was here to respond. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that she isn't a troll.
(She is right in pointing out that she was treated as one almost immediately, and by more than three of the posters in this thread, not just the obvious one.)

It may be second nature for some of us here to glance at a photo and immediately determine what it is, like a lens flare or something just as innocent. I am rather learned but haven't a clue in what various forms lens flares may appear. I had questions about that same picture myself, and take the answers given here at face value because I defer to the wisdom of others when dealing in arenas I am not familiar with.
However, not everybody is the same.

John Q. Public coming here (invited from various spots on the web) may not be familiar with the conversations on other threads. They may not even know what a troll is, but may exhibit traits of one. It is unfair for us to assume that anyone who registers is familiar with the internal politics which is the BABB.

Sorry, but I just felt the need to point that out.

We aren't going to spread the good news about astronomy if we shoo away all the potential students.

WolfKC
2003-Jun-04, 02:17 PM
The people here have been quite burned out with queries on many pics, asking for explanation, some posted by those trolling to stir controversy. Not just burned out with queries... burned out with the perpetual refusal to learn from the numerous patient responses. Perhaps its a sad coincidence that at the same time several of us give up on SW, a brand new person asks a very similar general question about a very fuzzy picture and even uses similar wording (especially in the post referenced (http://groups.msn.com/FTTOUFO/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=16379&LastModified=4675424693078579319))
So perhaps my questioning sounds harsh, but I would like to make sure that any new poster understands why things are a certain way (this picture not being of the moon) before proceeding. Otherwise, we'll just have more SWs.
Anyway, sorry if I sound harsh but I am unhappy with SW who has proven to have a mental block (or is enjoying the trolling) when it comes to pictures and questions like these. And SW's perpurtal claims of innocent curisoty just makes it worse.
PS: at least stoni seems to have better spelling.

Greenhalgh
2003-Jun-04, 02:18 PM
Lense flare IMHO... and I should know: seen plenty of them this past month mucking around with my new camera! :lol: Could be wrong though. There certainly isn't anything hovering around the sun in the form of PX though, I know that much.

nanojath
2003-Jun-04, 02:23 PM
Regarding the need for a thicker skin... Well, I don't want to condone bad behavior here. This is a public forum, however, and you will get people who are less than polite, but as has been noted, there is also a lot of knowledge, insight and humor floating around.

If there is a level of frustration, it is because there have been such a large number of pictures floating around, and a lot of them show up multiple times (I've seen the picture you link to in three separate contexts). Often, a definitive answer of "what is it" is not forthcoming. It's hard to tell: You can't verify the person who took it or the method they claim (camera type, conditions etc.) There are a number of common causes of artifacts in photographic images - there's a post floating around somewhere about this topic - and when someone digitally manipulates the image (as the image presented has been manipulated) it makes what the picture "actually shows" even more obscure. People are not applying scientific methods of enhancement to these images - they are just noodling around with photoshop looking for the most dramatic image. From a scientific observation point of view, the data is now meaningless.

Add to this a number of people who are actually faking images for whatever reasons, and you end up with a lot of material out there that excites curiosity and comment.

So, if we know we can't rely on these images, then we have to determine other sources of information to determine if it's remotely possible that there is an unknown body of significant size in our solar system.

Fact one: we are not seeing variance in the orbits of the other planets. A planetary body entering our solar system would perturb the orbits of other planets in a way that would light up observatories all over the world. The idea that this sort of thing is getting covered up is just not believable. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of groups and individuals independently doing astronomy every single day in academia, governments and the private sector. If some secret power can organize a conspiracy of silence among all of them then we might as well be living in the matrix and all bets are off.

Fact two, nothing unusual is showing up in the SOHO sattelite images of the sun. A ton of these images (they look like a blank circle with all kinds of solar activity around the circumfrence) get bandied around, and they are all normal - people think they see something in them because they don't understand where the images come from or how they work. As others have pointed out, archives of these images are available for comparison, and demonstrate that we're observing nothing unusual. The sun is active but not surprisingly so (it's acutally cooling off from a prior peak in activity if I understand it correctly), there are no unusual bodies hanging around it. If you see an image that has some weird artifact in it (half blanked out, chunks of image missing) you will find people claiming that NASA has cooked it to hide something. What they fail to demonstrate is any consitency of these effects appearing that would indicate a concerted effort to hide something. The variance is random, and it's just normal effects - data transmission errors, artifacts from the extremely high energy of the images and the fact that this data is being beamed from space.

The best suggestion, I think, is browse around this forum and read into the many other postings of curious images. The various comments provide a pretty good cross-section of reasonable explanations for the pictures that are floating around out there. Eventually, most of us come to the conclusion that, while in many cases you cannot provide a definitive answer to that question "what is it?", in the absence of evidence supporting the unlikely, radical explanation (mystery planet lurking around the sun) the simple, ordinary explanation (artifact of the photographic process, and/or honest but misguided manipulation that makes something appear to be there that isn't, or outright hoaxing) is overwhelmingly the most likely one.

stoni
2003-Jun-04, 02:54 PM
Thanks to those of you who answered in a civil manner. I do appreciate it. The mistake was mine, I see now, in that I know so little about astronomy that I thought the picture really was of the sun. I did look around before I posted, hoping to see another post on this, but this board is so large, I missed it. I am sorry.

I think I will stick around and read more because I obviously do need to learn a lot more about the subject matter, however, I will decline the suggestion to grow a thicker skin. What I have serves me quite well, thank you. It's thick enough to protect me but thin enough to know when it's been smacked, lol.

For the record, I am a female, I am not skywatcher (please note that my email was used to register and it's NOT a generic hotmail account), I have never posted to this board under any other name and if that comment on my spelling was a compliment ???, then thank you.

I will now make a serious attempt to read every post here before I post again so it's probably going to be a looooooong time before I post again. So relax! It's gonna be ok...

Val Trottan
2003-Jun-04, 02:57 PM
Welcome to the board, Stoni.

Greenhalgh
2003-Jun-04, 03:10 PM
Ah, I'm beginning to neglect my duty! Welcome to the forum! I too was once lost, but now am found... reminds me of something :lol:

Anyhow, stick around and all becomes clear soon enough! :wink:

s-boat
2003-Jun-04, 03:31 PM
I would say by your last post stoni, that your skin is thick enough :)

It is interesting to see how the reactions are starting to come in, and that the patience of the regular posters is becoming thin. I think we all know that we can only debunk PX for so long, and it begins to become increasingly difficult to even bother with the SW's, and that regurgitating the same garbage over and over gets very frustrating.

There are still a couple other skeptics who post on BABB, but they are so far and few between, that the need for posting is becoming less and less. I know it is sometimes humorous to look at the Zeta's/Nancy's predictions, and comment on the lack of intelligence and truth behind them, but it is only those of us who are fully aware PX doesn't exist that are reading these. We don't need further proof.

I know it has been discussed on another topic, but I feel that by the attention we still give to PX, we are fueling the recognition of PX, regardless of the validity of the claims being made. The best thing to happen in my eyes, is to set up a final message board denouncing the existence of PX, with all of us posting our two cents worth, and call 'er quits on the whole PX thing.

The less attention PX gets, the less recognition it receives. The faithful followers who have not turned their back on Nancy and PX never will, or will not be skewed by the comments we make. I would much rather look at the real phenomenon science and astronomy provide, and discuss the amazing things that are out there, instead of a fictitious place drawn up in the mind of an insane, confused woman.

Just my $0.02

Hamlet
2003-Jun-04, 04:26 PM
Thanks to those of you who answered in a civil manner. I do appreciate it. The mistake was mine, I see now, in that I know so little about astronomy that I thought the picture really was of the sun. I did look around before I posted, hoping to see another post on this, but this board is so large, I missed it. I am sorry.

I think I will stick around and read more because I obviously do need to learn a lot more about the subject matter, however, I will decline the suggestion to grow a thicker skin. What I have serves me quite well, thank you. It's thick enough to protect me but thin enough to know when it's been smacked, lol.

For the record, I am a female, I am not skywatcher (please note that my email was used to register and it's NOT a generic hotmail account), I have never posted to this board under any other name and if that comment on my spelling was a compliment ???, then thank you.

I will now make a serious attempt to read every post here before I post again so it's probably going to be a looooooong time before I post again. So relax! It's gonna be ok...

Hi stoni. My comment about growing a thicker skin was harsher than I meant and for that I apologize. I didn't want you to quit the BABB so quickly and miss out on what could be a very positive experience. I know it has been for me.

I hope there's no hard feelings and welcome to the board.

Wirraway
2003-Jun-04, 04:39 PM
Obviously, this is no place for questions. I'm used to having conversations based on mutual respect.


on usenet? you gotta be kidding. anyway, I just heard from the Heckawe Elders, and they say:

"It is Ballooooooon!"

dgruss23
2003-Jun-04, 05:09 PM
Ummm - if the object to the right of the Sun is planet X visible only because of the eclipse, then why isn't the Sun eclipsed in this picture?

Comixx
2003-Jun-04, 08:33 PM
Well, I too would like to refer to the eclipse statement: An eclipsed sun appears as a ring. Even very badly overexposed it would not be a solid, regular brightness, but more like a donut in appearance.

What this picture appears to be is a badly overexposed picture of the Sun, which was then brightness and contrast enhanced in a photo manipulation program to bring out the lens flare.

To test for lens flares: Draw a line through the centers of the brightest object and the secondary object. If that line exactly cuts the 2 objects in half, it is most likely a lens flare. Coincidentally, that line very often will point to the exact center of the picture (but if the picture is cropped in any way, this may not be true).

Byrd
2003-Jun-04, 09:33 PM
So whats the conclusion on what it is?

That it's not Planet X.

That if there was a Planet X to see, we wouldn't have to answer questions about "is this it" because EVERYONE would see it.

You can't miss a second sun during the daylight. There would be double shadows on the ground; each shadow pointing a different direction.