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.

 

Sirius censored in Google Earth Sky-View

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Somebody just put their cranky pants on. Seriously dude you well doing well at educating and helping people out with information, until the snide remarks. No need to try to make people out to be stupid. I don't know much about sirius and this is one of the places I come to find out more. Please don't ruin the experience by trying to prove how educated you are and how some others aren't. It's not ignorance, if they are here trying to find the truth.




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Mr. Astyanax -
but since the word censorship is in use here...

whether or not Google is "censoring" our view of the heavens - I have no way of knowing

it does seem like you could probably still see it - the old fashioned way

at least until the SOBs figure out a way to block out the sky

[edit on 3/2/2009 by Spiramirabilis]



Yeah, how can it be censoring when you can just walk outside and look up??? I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which of the stars up there is sirius....seriously....



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Hi everyone! I'm new to posting here, but have been reading the topics on this website for some time. I find it very interesting and I try to keep an open mind, but after reading some posts regarding censorship on Google Sky I began wondering why people would believe they are trying to cover something up. I'm an astronomy buff and frequently spend time searching Google Sky. I have found anomalies in the past, but tend to just write them off as problems with the pictures, overlays, ECT. For example, the blue "spaceship" hovering over Sirius appears to me to just be a reflection from a telescope's mirror. I've seen a similar reflection looking through my dobsonian in the past. I just feel that if the powers that be were trying to hide something, wouldn't it make more sense to leave the original images (or copies of the originals without any strange phenomenon) intact rather than blocking them out with a big black box or orange blob? Especially if it's something that people are unable to confirm independently. Surely they must know that mere hiding of it would cause some sort of an uproar about a conspiracy. I'm just throwing this out there and mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone who might believe otherwise. Anyway, it's just my opinion. BTW-great site! I am spending way too many hours on it though.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by seuban
 


It's really cool that you pointed out that they are a reflection of some sort. That was my first guess too, mostly 'cause I founded many other "spaceships" like that around google sky. Like this one goo.gl... that stands next (?) to Alpha Centauri which is the brightest star of the constellation of Centaurus, just like Sirius is the brightest star of Canis Major and has a similar spaceship hanging around. BUT, after some zooming around the "things" I also found this goo.gl... and this goo.gl... . Those look like some kind of transportation system to me and yeah, it doesn't take too much to fascinate me.

But that's not the end of the story.

I found a book called "The Sirius Mystery" by Robert K.G. Temple and it is all about some findings of extraterrestrial contact among many civilizations from Africa, including the egyptians. But there's this tribe called the Dogon that shows many historical proofs of contact with the alien race 'Nommo' that came from Sirius and it actually explains a lot about how the civilizations suddenly started to deal if technologies that weren't equivalent with the day and age.
And then they start talking about the mother ships of the 'Nommo', the "wheel with rays" that emerged slowly like if it was taking solid form out of the air. Here are some drawings of the Dogon, the last one is a carved stone found in Egypt: goo.gl... ; goo.gl... ; goo.gl...
(those images where scanned directly from the book)

So, do you guys feel me?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by fightback0912
 


What i have learnt is that Horus biult man women and child on five of these planets that surround Sirius and includeing Sirius.O Siris rebiult himself on Sirius five.

With lets say with the hubble telescope and some land based telescopes you would be able to see Earth like Planets that are only eight point four light years away.I believe it is kept a secrete for it is so close yet so far away.We can see but we cannot get there,How depressing.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by forddavidjuniorWith lets say with the hubble telescope and some land based telescopes you would be able to see Earth like Planets that are only eight point four light years away.I believe it is kept a secrete for it is so close yet so far away.We can see but we cannot get there,How depressing.
No, you can't directly see Earth-like planets 8.4 light years away with Hubble.

The diameter of the Earth is about 12,800 km. At a distance of 8.4 light years, the Earth would subtend an angle of 0.000000009° (0.0000324 arc seconds). The angular resolution on the Hubble is about 0.05 arc seconds. In other words, the Earth viewed from 8.4 light years away is about 1,500 times too small for Hubble to make out.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The truth is that we can not prove that our nearest neighbouring stars are in fact stars. They keep us enthralled with stories of the billions of stars, the immense distances, and about how they can detect things orbiting theses stars. Well I say show me the nearest stars in a convincing fashion, so I can see CMEs, coronal loops, etc. Turns out it is not that easy, impossible, at the moment anyway.




In photographic terms, you could say that its image occupies just one pixel... just like the vast majority of stars that are imaged.


So most stars are only one pixel in size. Not a lot of detail then.
A thread on this forum looks at just what our abilities are, and what it would take to see the nearest star in a way that would show us something similar to what SOHO shows us. And if we can not prove that Sirius is a star, why am I to believe that the objects thousands or millions of light years away are stars?

asterisk.apod.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
So most stars are only one pixel in size. Not a lot of detail then.

This is not news to anyone who is versed in optics and astronomy. You confuse resolution with detail of information. You confuse pretty, pretty pictures with knowledge. We know much about the stars around us even if we can't directly resolve them as more than point light sources.


And if we can not prove that Sirius is a star

Your arbitrary goalpost does not equate to "a lack of proof" that Sirius is a star. Get over it.
edit on 1-8-2012 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 




We know much about the stars around us even if we can't directly resolve them as more than point light sources.


And what is it that we "know" about the stars around us? There are interpretations of data collected by instruments that detect spectral lines of ionised elements, and instances of magnetic fields, but planets can have magnetic fields too. The nearest 'stars' need to have the full resources of all available sciences focused on them, rather than telling us about stars they think they are seeing thousands or millions of light years away. The structure of the cosmos based on present astronomy 'facts' is either an honest misinterpretation of the data, or a huge con job that dates back to Galileo and is perpetrated to this day by the Vatican.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
If you people are interested in researching with REAL astronomical data, download this awesome public domain software: Harvard's DS9
It's an image analysis tool specially designed for space images, and as a BONUS it has built-in access to REAL, SCIENTIFIC, astronomical databases.
Google Sky is a neat toy, very good to introduce kids and teenagers to astronomy but not quite powerful as a research tool.

DISCLAIMER: Learn to use it before claiming something is wrong, is a very complex piece of software.

Hope it helps.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by prevenge

Esoteric schools are expecting the "Chintamanti stone" to come to us from the Dog Star of Sirius.
To bless us with immortality and bring in a global world order.....

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

freaky deaky baby

-


Syria
Sirius
Serious



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

They do if that's what they advertise they do...

Rme



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Sirius is associated with the Egyptian goddess Isis and is referenced also by many first nation peoples
It is the star system from which it is reputed that Semi-Aquatic aliens visited the Dogon tribe of Mali 5000 years ago
Sirius is the brightest naked eye star in the night sky when visible is in cosmic spitting distance being a mere 7 or so light years away
Perhaps it's brightness has been masked to reveal other less visible stars nearby.
It would be interesting to see what other stars have been masked and if they too are the brighter stars



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by ngchunter
 




We know much about the stars around us even if we can't directly resolve them as more than point light sources.


And what is it that we "know" about the stars around us? There are interpretations of data collected by instruments that detect spectral lines of ionised elements, and instances of magnetic fields, but planets can have magnetic fields too. The nearest 'stars' need to have the full resources of all available sciences focused on them, rather than telling us about stars they think they are seeing thousands or millions of light years away. The structure of the cosmos based on present astronomy 'facts' is either an honest misinterpretation of the data, or a huge con job that dates back to Galileo and is perpetrated to this day by the Vatican.


Yes, we know nothing at all and everything is purely speculation.....
Or, look here, and learn that that's not true
" interpretations of data collected by instruments" that's how we know, it's the scientific method, and it's the way we can take different pieces of data and build models that explain said data in an ongoing, infinite process.
Knowledge is not a one-dimensional lineal variable.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by drakus
 




Or, look here, and learn that that's not true


So you are a PhD astrophysicist? I'm impressed. All of that gobbledygook looks like assumptions based on assumptions about stuff so far away we'll never know the truth. I want to see Sirius ejecting CMEs and x-ray flares, then I'll believe it is a Sun.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by drakus
 




Or, look here, and learn that that's not true


So you are a PhD astrophysicist? I'm impressed. All of that gobbledygook looks like assumptions based on assumptions about stuff so far away we'll never know the truth. I want to see Sirius ejecting CMEs and x-ray flares, then I'll believe it is a Sun.


What else could it be, if not a sun? The temperature of Sirius (evident from its brightness) can only be caused by thermonuclear reactions inside it. Ergo, it's a sun. In fact, what we know about the Sun comes from measurements using various types of equipment. We gather observed data and make theories about how it all fits and how it works. That's science for you. If you're gonna state that Sirius is not a star because you can't see CMEs on it, it's an equivalent of a baby throwing a toy out of his pram.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by ngchunter
 




We know much about the stars around us even if we can't directly resolve them as more than point light sources.


And what is it that we "know" about the stars around us? There are interpretations of data collected by instruments that detect spectral lines of ionised elements, and instances of magnetic fields, but planets can have magnetic fields too. The nearest 'stars' need to have the full resources of all available sciences focused on them, rather than telling us about stars they think they are seeing thousands or millions of light years away. The structure of the cosmos based on present astronomy 'facts' is either an honest misinterpretation of the data, or a huge con job that dates back to Galileo and is perpetrated to this day by the Vatican.

The mass, temperature, and composition of others stars shows that they're stars, not planets. It's not a "con job" but then again I'm talking to someone who ignores proof that yes, you can see stars while in deep space without having to be anywhere near earth's atmosphere.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by drakus
 

I want to see Sirius ejecting CMEs and x-ray flares, then I'll believe it is a Sun.

No one cares what you want. You wanted proof that you can see stars without looking through earth's atmosphere. I gave it to you, you ignored it. Your arbitrary goalposts do not comprise a rational argument.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by drakus
 




Or, look here, and learn that that's not true


So you are a PhD astrophysicist? I'm impressed. All of that gobbledygook looks like assumptions based on assumptions about stuff so far away we'll never know the truth. I want to see Sirius ejecting CMEs and x-ray flares, then I'll believe it is a Sun.

Do this:
Take a picture of the Sun,
Open in computer
Zoom out
Zoom out
Zoom out
...
(repeat as many times necesary to simulate galactic distances.
Look at it
You have a star.


OR

Make a spectrographic analysis of the Sun's light.
Notice the spikes in spectra, compare it to the spectra of different elements
Hidrogen and helium (mostly), good.
Now do the same with one of those lights in the sky (try not to use an actual galaxy, we have more than one of those)
Notice the similar spectra, showing similar composition.
Analyze the thermal profile of each.
By now it should be very obvious that both are similar bodies (with varying size, mass, and ratio of H/He/Fe elements)
Like the Xkcd mantra says: Science, it works b****es!

edit on 5/8/2012 by drakus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 





You wanted proof that you can see stars without looking through earth's atmosphere. I gave it to you, you ignored it.


No you didn't, you gave me spectral signatures of some objects out there, detected by some very complex instruments that you obviously don't understand. You need to examine each of those instruments and the science behind them before you go jumping to conclusions about what they are seeing.

@drakus




Do this:
Take a picture of the Sun,
Open in computer
Zoom out
Zoom out
Zoom out
...
(repeat as many times necesary to simulate galactic distances.
Look at it
You have a star.


No, you have a single pixel.
Lets start your method with a photo of a round of cheese instaed.
Zoom out...
You end up with one pixel. Maybe the heavens are filled with cheese?




Make a spectrographic analysis of the Sun's light.
Notice the spikes in spectra, compare it to the spectra of different elements
Hidrogen and helium (mostly), good.


Now you are getting closer. All the modern instruments search primarily for Hydrogen and Helium spectra, as they are the most common elements out there. Unfortunately, most planets and even moons have an ionosphere containing Hydrogen, which will 'glow' when it is electrically charged to a certain voltage. That charge is mainly cuased by bombardment by UV, EUV and X-ray energies.
Here is the Earth seen from the Moon at Hydrogen wavelengths.


The spectra of all the planets will find the presence of most of the elements, in various proportions. Also, light traveling through any gas clouds between here and the target must be affected, so you do not know if the signatures are from the 'star', or the stuff inbetween.

So they see one pixel, and a 'colour', and an intensity, and make up some fluff about how it must be a star of a certain size, age, type, when that is only one interpretation. The colour is very important, but what colour is our own Sun? There is much differing opinion on that, so if there is no consensus on the colour of our Sun, how are we supposed to believe they know the colour of all the other 'Suns'?
casa.colorado.edu...
And even intensity is now in doubt.



Intervening matter. Contrary to common belief interstellar space is not a perfect vacuum. Dust and gas between stars can absorb and scatter starlight leading to a reduction in brightness and a reddening in colour.

outreach.atnf.csiro.au...
And it was recenly announced that the intervening material may be much denser than previously thought, so not much hard data left to go on in deciding what all those objects are out there. Probably Oort sphere planets, moons, and large lumps of electrically charged rock.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join