It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The mystery of the missing section of Google Sky solved [UPDATED]

page: 1
118
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+118 more 
posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
It took me several months, 15 hours of telescope time, and a journey of about 1000 miles to the University of Michigan, but I have finally completed the most in-depth investigation to date of Google Sky's "Missing Section." I have done something I have not seen anyone else ever do in relation to this issue, which is to locate an actual physical negative of the missing photograph in question. The glitch that caused it to go missing from Google Sky is an issue only Google can answer (a bit of intrigue only drives up more hits for Google Sky so it's to their benefit to leave the mystery standing), but as for the missing photograph itself, it has been located and analyzed in detail.



You can download the astrometrically solved images and the corresponding KMZ files I used to overlay these images back onto Google Sky at the following links:

Astrometry of the missing Digitized Sky Survey scan composite:
nova.astrometry.net...
Blue SERC-J film plate DSS scan containing the anomaly discussed in the video:
nova.astrometry.net...
My picture of the original blue SERC-J film negative:
nova.astrometry.net...
My telescope's picture of the missing section:
nova.astrometry.net...
 


UPDATE
Recently this image from google sky has gone viral with the claim that it reveals what was hiding under the missing section.

i.imgur.com...
It can be seen in this youtube video and many others like it which have been released in the last few days:
www.youtube.com...
The coordinates of this object as seen in the picture above do not match the missing region of google sky. Look at the coordinates; 5h 53m 27s, -6d 10' 56" for the "missing section" and then about 5h 42m 21s, +22d 36' 34.5" for the image of the "winged star." This star is a T Tauri star, a young star system still surrounded by a small reflection nebula which is known as GN 05.39.2 in the Atlas of Galactic Nebulae. T Tauri stars and sub-types of T Tauri stars (such as FU Ori stars) are frequently associated with small reflection nebulae like this, and even its peculiar shape is not actually unique to this star. A very similar example can be found in Parsamian 21, seen here:

i.imgur.com...
Parsamian 21 is located at the following coordinates:
19 29 00.86 +09 38 42.9
It is completely unrelated but provides a suitable example of a very similar star. These stars are not in our solar system and are not moving even over decades of time. Here's a time lapse of the GN 05.39.2 from 1951 and 1990 (the latter is part of the actual image you see on Google sky and similar programs like WWT, the former is a much older image of the same star from the same telescope). A high proper motion star can be seen to the right which is likely to be reasonably close to our solar system, but the star of interest and nebula do not move at all:

i.imgur.com...
Even if it were making a beeline straight for our planet it should still move due to parallax and it should also grow in size over decades of time, yet that is not the case. It is completely unrelated to the missing image of google sky that this thread was originally created about. I created this thread months ago, long before this story was created out of whole cloth and went viral.
edit on Sat Jun 27 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: update per OP




posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Very nice work. Every time a basic mystery is solved an angel gets its wings.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
good job, your dedication for your own truth and to share them here with us is not only diligent, its almost paranormal round here, thank you, excellent work



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Well done OP.
Truly stella work (see what I did there).
I was expecting an alien base or something but very very well done.
S&F.

Have you notified google btw? you may get paid.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
That's excellent stuff. But why was that area omitted in the Google Sky makeup in the first place, just a coincidence then.

edit on 9-1-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Well done OP.
Truly stella work (see what I did there).

I do, you just nicked my band's name...see my Avatar.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
It's good see see somebody go ( behind the curtain ) and s+f but this could be deep dis info .but great thread either way



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Denoli
It's good see see somebody go ( behind the curtain ) and s+f but this could be deep dis info .but great thread either way

The beauty of science is that it's repeatable and verifiable. I laid out every step I took and cited my sources. I'm not saying you're accusing me of anything, but I'm just saying, anyone is able to verify everything I said. Anyone who wishes to check it for themselves can take a trip to the University of Michigan and see the actual negative in person for themselves just like I did.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Honestly though contact google Iam sure they would love to have that bit of info to make the map complete and you make make all your cash back which you must have spent researching it all.
Hek If you want I will be your manager at a cut rate of 20%


At the very least they will say thanks and do a write up about your travels.
edit on 9-1-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: ngchunter

Honestly though contact google Iam sure they would love to have that bit of info to make the map complete and you make make all your cash back which you must have spent researching it all.
Hek If you want I will be your manager at a cut rate of 20%

Well they've actually known about the problem and where to get the missing DSS scan for at least 8 years now, it's been posted on their products forum. As far as I can tell they have no interest in fixing it. Mystery and intrigue only generates more hits for their product rather than less. I'll send it to them, but I would honestly be shocked if I got a response of any kind. And really, I don't want to be reimbursed, it would create the appearance that I'm doing this for money. I know that may sound surprising given the lengths I went to, but it was a labor of love.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Good for you dude a true scientist
.

Oh and seeing you are a whizz with the ole telescopes can you look at this thread?.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is guys like you that has gotten me interested in astronomy and would love your imput.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: ngchunter

Good for you dude a true scientist
.

Oh and seeing you are a whizz with the ole telescopes can you look at this thread?.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is guys like you that has gotten me interested in astronomy and would love your imput.

Heh, there were a lot of strong opinions forming in that thread, some of which I strongly disagreed with so I kept myself from saying anything lol. It's all personal preference I guess, but personally I would recommend a cheap reflector for a first telescope, not a refractor. A relatively short focal length Newtonian reflector is going to be easier and more pleasing to use on a given "cheap mount" than a long tube high focal length achromatic refractor of the same price. That is my personal experience, anyway. I gave away a cheap Newtonian as a christmas gift. I got it for free and I really don't like the mount, it's basically a slightly modified camera tripod, but because the short focal length Newtonian is naturally low magnification it's very "forgiving" of an imprecise mount. It's actually pretty easy for a beginner to use and you can very quickly locate objects with it. Long focal length refractors are notoriously punishing and frustrating if you put them on cheap, shaky, imprecise mountings. And that's to say nothing of the optical quality, which for a cheap achromat is usually terrible and immediately obvious as color fringing on the moon and other bright objects (which is all you'll probably be able to find with a cheap wobbly mount). Simply put, my best advice for a cheap telescope to dip your toes in is for a small 4.5 or 6 inch Newtonian with a red dot finder. A dobsonian style mount would probably be best. You'll get more light collecting area for your buck and it'll be easier to use. Collimation is important, but you might as well learn how to do it if you're going to get into astronomy. It's not as bad as people say, lots of helpful tutorials are available online these days. I tweak the collimation on my Cassegrain almost every time I use it, takes 5 seconds once you know what you're doing.

Hope that helps!
edit on 9-1-2015 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
So what exactly is under the "glitch"?

Can you summerize your findings..



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Misterlondon
So what exactly is under the "glitch"?

Can you summerize your findings..

Not sure what you mean? You mean under the blue plate anomaly? Well according to the original negative, nothing at all, just black space.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

I just want to say thank you for making a nice thread and the good work. Its been such a drag around here lately and its nice to see not only a good thread but someone solving something themselves instead of just offering an opinion. Way to go mate.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Nice work buddy, That black box has been bothering me for years. Listen, I respect you a lot for the time that you took in order to present this for us all, you're a talented human being. Hope all is well with you. Your Future Ally ~$heopleNation



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I take it Google Sky is a public project much like Wiki?



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Well done, some awesome investigative work there, it just shows that sometimes not everything is a conspiracy,

Star and Flag for you sir!



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Very impressive quality work there.

I would enjoy more threads like this. Debunking conspiracies thoroughly is just as interesting as reading them!
edit on 10amSat, 10 Jan 2015 07:04:49 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I subscribed to your channel a few weeks back and this popped up in my feed. I follow quite a few astro-sciency type channels and just thought it was a DeepSky video on something. (It was very early, and I was on the loo, so my brain hadn't engaged quite yet).
Anyway, it hooked me in straight away - and I was quick to check who it was! I have to say you've done a highly professional job and have a great speaking voice and manner on camera. The lengths you went to solve the puzzle is outstanding and I hope you get an applause from every mod!


Congrats, you have to be very pleased with yourself!
edit on 10-1-2015 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
118
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join