Google earth, MS telescope and Sirius censorship

Dear space exploration experts,

I come to you seeking thought and view seeking an explanation on why the hubble imagery of Canis Major a.k.a. the star called Sirius would be censored on both Google earth and Microsoft telescope?



Besides someone doing an incredibly sloppy job, it's been bugging me for months why anyone would censor it. I'll appreciate any input you might have on why this would be done? Even more I'd be interested in seeing any high-resolution images of Sirius should any of you have some.

Kind regards.

Maybe its just some glitch. Or an attempt to hide something they dont want you to see.

Nibiru anyone?


Cheers!!!!

The hubble deep field photo is capable of showing, in great detail, the furthest away galaxies we've been able to see so far, but when it comes to the closest star to our Sun, this is the best we can do?

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Manawydan]

hubble deep field

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Manawydan]

A glitch? On two separate software packages ( admittedly with images from the same source )? I simply can't believe that. Interestingly, google search on the subject returns almost no hits, and I am sure that I am not the first one to notice it. There are youtube videos making fun of the whole thing.

If it's truly a "glitch" it's a damn well coordinated one

I seem to remember a thread or post some time back about a Stargate being in that area and a lot of UFO activity around it. I think it was Zorgon whom posted some info about it. I'll do some digging.....

reply to post by andolin

---

I've searched on ATS for a while but did not stuble upon the thread you speak of. Oh thank you very much for your effort.

yes they are separate software packages. however they use just one set of images. one may get updated faster than the other but its still the same source.

I thought that they were "censoring" sirius for a while. what im thinking is that the proximity of the star adds to the brightness of it. as with a lot of digital cameras, the brightest part of the sun/star causes the sensors in the camera to "overload" and this is the product. could this be the cause?

reply to post by Manawydan

---

Indeed. But see when they have something they dont want anyone to see, they have the ability to not only make up a silly excuse, but to also cause the hardware to do some silly things too to support the silly excuse..such as a glitch.

When they are in control of the hardware, and all we get is what they put out, its very difficult to determine exactly why something like this happens.

It would be nice if we knew for sure why there is a blotch right over Sirius. But unless we know for sure they are giving us the honest truth, we can only guess.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by Sliick

---

I've given some though to that as well, because we use a similar shield on the helios satellite in order to shield the camera lens. But I discarded that as the reason because the shield we use for the Sun is a metal plate. A phisical element build onto the satellite, which is being held up via a metallic arm, visible on every image ever taken.

This on the other hand is obviously digital post-processing, since there is no visible lever and does not in any way resemble a sheet of metal. This was done once they already had the digital image.

Sincerely, with respect.

reply to post by Manawydan

---

Here is the thread I mentioned,
I'm not sure if it's Sirius (Think it is) but the author Mikseingh speculates that there are Monster sized mother ships guarding the star gate.

Alien Spaceships Around Stargate/Time Portal? Take Out Your Telescopes Now!

reply to post by Manawydan

---

Google sky and WWT are not authoritative sources. They're full of errors or inconsistencies, not malicious censorship. Also, I don't think you can be so sure that this image came from Hubble. Hubble's image of Sirius A looks like this:
archive.stsci.edu...
Not too impressive, hubble wasn't built so that it could take pictures of the brightest star in the night sky. Sirius oversaturates the camera very rapidly.

Here's another high resolution image of Sirius from a real archive of sky survey images, the Palomar Sky Survey II.
archive.stsci.edu...
Once again, Sirius is way too bright for large telescopes.

I think I found the reason Google sky is fouled up; they used the Hubble Guide Star catalog for this image. The problem is that the guide star catalog was to find the exact locations of stars so that hubble could orient itself. Sirius is way too bright for that and throws uncertainty into the exact locations of nearby stars for large telescopes like this, hence it was covered up to minimize the glare from Sirius so that other nearby stars could be seen.
Guide Star Catalogue version 2 (GSC2) covered it to reveal stars closer to sirius:
archive.stsci.edu...

GSC1 did not:
archive.stsci.edu...
Note that GSC1 used data from POSS2, so it's actually the same image seen above.

It looks a lot like that & there's similar things on some of the pictures from the mars rovers, when there's a reflective element in the picture.

But in this case you'd have to assume that they are using a camera specifically designed & calibrated for taking pictures of the night sky, so it shouldn't really happen.

Plus I'm pretty sure Sirius isn't the brightest star in our skies.

Has anyone noticed similar glitches with other stars?

reply to post by Sliick

---

Well not necessarily. A good example of this is the SOHO satellite that observes the Sun directly, and also has a visual spectrum camera, one with the familiar corona mask and one without. That particular camera is not an a-typical consumer grade imager. Plus it has filters to prevent oversaturating the imager unlike consumer camera imagers.


A good filter readily available at any hardware store is a welder's goggles lens. Put that in front of your camera and point at the Sun. You can get some amazing footage of it!


And the distance of Sirius, is far enough that the light intensity is not as bright as it would be if the telescope were parked much closer. Light does decrease in intensity as it travels. And dispite the fact that space is a vacume, there are random debris and such floating about that also deter the intensity of the light from the source as it travels all those light years distance.



Cheers!!!

reply to post by RFBurns

---

I know. That;s what's really irritating me. It's my job to know some damn sufisticated hardware, and I've been doing my job for a few decades. Hardware glitches do not ever do that. Ever. A hardware glitch would send the hubble hurdling towards earth in a ball of flaming plasma, but it would not make an ugly blob exactly around the closest star.

This is purposely made.


I don't mean to sound bitter, it's just that censorship really upsets me.

That they both used GSC2 is exactly the problem, why is that so hard to believe? You can find images of that area of space taken by other telescopes, even hubble, but because it's so bright there's not much to see. No coordination is needed, they both just pulled their data from the same sources so the same mistakes are repeated.

reply to post by ngchunter

---

Thank you very much for that ngchunter. I am however not convinced about the glare effect thing. This is a digitally made blob, hence the image was already taken when it was drawn. At that stage you could reduce glare mathematically, there would no longer be any need for the mask.

Kind regards

Aside from the sun, yes, it is.
en.wikipedia.org...
dictionary.reference.com...

The difference in brightness between Sirius and the background stars is truly staggering. I dare you to show me ANY camera that can properly expose that kind of range in one shot.

Sirius is not the closest star to us. It is more than twice as far away as Proxima Centauri.

I am not convinced that it was digitally drawn after the image was taken, unless it was to exclude stars that were resolved poorly and introducing bad numbers for hubble's guidance.

reply to post by Phage

---

Yes I know, but for the argument at hand I found that kind of irrelevant, really. Thank you for pointing that out though. Much appreciated.

Cheers.