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.

 

Extreme observatory in the Antarctic: what are they looking for?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I do agree knowledge of how we came to be and where we are going is very important...one day I hope we know the full truth. Searching for whatever is out there.....will always be there. Right now the history books should be re written. We lost the knowledge long ago. What's wrong with fixing and knowing everything we already have? If they are looking for or have found something that you nor I could complely rap our head around..you think they would tell you? That is what gets me...people think they know but have not a clue. The human race is much more sinister than I think you believe. I wish it weren't that way. One day we will all be proven wrong. By the books is just not cutting it anymore.

Lightmeup04




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lightmeup04
 

You missed the point entirely.
"They" are not looking for something. They are looking for anything. Anything. Every scientist on the planet is looking for something that would shake the foundations of our knowledge. Every scientist wants to be the next Einstein.

The Universe is wide open for them. And them are us.
edit on 12/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Did you look for an answer? An extensive sky survey was completed in its first year, even with those puny telescopes.


What kind of a question is that? I am looking for an answer and an explanation for the puny telescopes. I don't expect to see Neptune with the naked eye and I expect some continuity when it comes to what can be seen with what. I don't expect to be given a donkey to replace my car while being told that I'm going to get to my destination just as fast. So how is it happening? Or is it happening?

www.planetary.org...


The international project makes use of the 1.3 meter "Warsaw" telescope at Las Campanas, Chile, to search for microlensing events.


Finally, microlensing is dependent on rare and random events - the passage of one star precisely in front of another, as seen from Earth. This makes the discovery of planets by this method both difficult and unpredictable. As a result, despite years of intense observations, OGLE–2005-BLG-390Lb, announced in January 2006, was only the third planet ever detected by microlensing.


Whenever OGLE detects a microlensing event, it contacts a network of telescopes that specialize in searching for signs of the presence of a planet. The networks, known as PLANET (Probing Lensing Anomalies), Robonet, and microFUN (Microlensing Follow-Up Network), include 1 and 2 meter telescopes across the globe.


The telescopes at the extreme observatory are 14.5 centimeters and 1/2 meter. That's 6 inches to 1.6 feet. These other telescopes used for microlensing viewing are 3.2 feet to 6.6 feet. Plus as I pointed out an event like this is not ordered up.




Not quite. Don't you ever bother to look anything up? Mt. Everest: 8850 meters
PLATO: 4093 meters. Yes, the summit of Everest is a pleasant stroll.


LOL...so I was only off by 16,000 feet. Perfection is unattainable in a physical world. A hike up the Antarctic Plateau at 13,000 feet is paradise.

www.antarcticconnection.com...


The annual average temperature is -50°C (-58°F). Winter temperatures drop quickly, then level out. Summer is short, from mid-December to mid-January, however, temperatures can reach a balmy -30°C (-22°F)!


Oh and of course the average winter temperature is -94 F or -70 C. Mt. Everest is actually a better bet temperature wise.

weatherquesting.com...


A: It’s a cold place. The temperature never rises above freezing. In January, the coldest month, it can drop to -76 degrees F (-60 C) and averages -33 F (-36 C). Even in July, the warmest month, it averages -2F(-19 C).


And Mt. Everest is 16,000 feet closer to the stars than the Antarctic Plateau. And it's also closer than an 18 day journey to all the comforts of home.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


poleshift.ning.com...


I have spent the last 4 hours photographing the sun. At first I had the camera on auto and was not looking into the lens, as the sun here in New Zealand is intensely bright. I grabbed my sunglasses and had a look through my canon digital SLR camera, and well I couldn’t believe it! I could see a perfectly circular object, slightly red in colour compared to the sun. I couldn’t fully believe what I was seeing so called my partner to confirm what I was seeing. He too saw it.


So I got out my other camera all digital SLR’s and began flicking off photos trying to find the right shutter speed and aperture that would capture it.


Please note that I am a professional photographer and processed these photos to check the object was not a sun spot or sun glare. Plus the fact that I could see it, not with a naked eye but through the lens, I really can’t believe I have seen it for myself!


So it's always a lens flare...until it isn't...and at what point do we cross the line? and what do we do then?

I am going to give you
for innovative debunking.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Thank you for your fascinating links and contribution to this thread. The heliacal rising of Sirius earlier this year was a problem from my latitude. It didn't show and I finally got tired of getting up before dawn to look for it. That's another story though.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by lightmeup04
 


This is part of the crux of the matter. And if you understand what an expense Dome A is, just have a quick look over at Dome C for a journey into extreme cost, extreme conditions and state of the art everything to meet those. What's it all for now at this time?

arena.unice.fr...



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0nZ
The atmosphere is thinner, and a point in the sky will be viewable for a longer period at the poles (the earth rotates at the poles)

In my opinion Antarctica would be the best place for a observatory, it has solid land. The artic circle (north pole) is made up of mostly ice, so wouldnt be that great for buildings.


Thank you for your contribution. Here is an Antarctic versus Arctic Pole comparison which shows how right you are about the land mass.

www.adventure-life.com...

As far as thin air I'm just going to throw this link out and see what you think.

news.softpedia.com...

As far as something appearing to orbit the poles and never rising and never setting giving a constant view - yes - that would be the ticket if there was something specific to look for in that area. That would of course make that area, if it could only be seen from the southern hemisphere for instance, mandatory regardless of inclement conditions. So what do you think they're looking for?



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Apparently, you are still not comprehending what the :photographer: is actually saying! This "professional" gives it away, each time here:


So I got out my other camera all digital SLR’s and began flicking off photos trying to find the right shutter speed and aperture that would capture it.


And:

Please note that I am a professional photographer and processed these photos to check the object was not a sun spot or sun glare. Plus the fact that I could see it, not with a naked eye but through the lens, I really can’t believe I have seen it for myself!



Trying to "get the right shutter speed and aperture" in order to "capture" (or is it more correctly, re-create the effect??).

And, that they could NOT see it, "with the naked eye".

Well, of course, it is inadvisable without proper protection to look directly at the Sun, in any case. But, did you watch the video that Phage posted? It is clearly showing the fact of how some cameras will cause that "blob" to appear. It is sometimes a lens flare. But, that isn't the only way the anomaly can appear. It is also a function of the physical internal arrangement of the camera itself, and the way VERY bright light sources can reflect around, inside.


Ever heard of a "pin hole" camera? It is basically a way to use a very tiny size aperture, and have the Sun shine through it, to be able to view the Sun's disc, with your naked eyes, on a screen of some sort, to display the image.

This technique will show the entire disc of the Sun....AND, it would reveal any "intruder" that was there, too. It is a way to safely view a Solar eclipse, as well. The "camera" function requires care to protect the unexposed film from unwanted light...but, you can make it easier, by just using it as a sort of "projector" instead:

Pinhole Projection Method

And, another source

Make one of your own, and see for yourself. There is NOTHING there, bu the one Sun.......



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


What kind of a question is that? I am looking for an answer and an explanation for the puny telescopes.
I asked if you had looked for an answer about what CSTAR (those puny telescopes) was being used for. The answer is that it is being used for conducting photometric sky surveys. Those surveys serve a number of purposes, not just the detection of exoplanets.



These other telescopes used for microlensing viewing are 3.2 feet to 6.6 feet.
Interesting. But as your link says, microlensing can be used to detect very distant exoplanets. As your link also says, nearer planets can be found by use of transit photometry. With it, a decrease in the brightness of a star is measured as the candidate passes (transits) across it. As I posted above, CSTAR has detected a single exoplanet candidate by use of this method.

We used this photometric data set to derive site statistics for Dome A and to search for variable stars. Thanks to the nearly-uninterrupted synoptic coverage, we find 6× as many variables as previous surveys with similar magnitude limits. We detected 157 variable stars, of which 55% are unclassified, 27% are likely binaries and 17% are likely pulsating stars. The latter category includes  Scuti, Doradus and RR Lyrae variables. One variable may be a transiting exoplanet.
arxiv.org...
But, as you pointed out in the OP, there are some early plans (more like wish lists) to establish larger telescopes at the site because the seeing is so good.


And Mt. Everest is 16,000 feet closer to the stars than the Antarctic Plateau. And it's also closer than an 18 day journey to all the comforts of home.
Actually, it's "only" about 15,000 feet. "Only" half as high. "Only" a difference of almost 3 miles in altitude. Tell me, did the trip to Dome A require oxygen tanks? Tell me, do those who reach the summit of Everest get themselves and their equipment there on tractors? Tell me, how many have died attempting to reach and descend from the summit of Everest? "Closer than an 18 day journey?" Are you sure about that? www.rmiguides.com...

Day 19-64: Ascent of Mt Everest
Day 65: Withdraw to Base Camp
Day 66-68: Return trek to Namche Bazaar via Dingboche and Thyangboche
Day 69: Trek to Lukla
Day 70: Fly Lukla to Kathmandu
Day 71: Fly Back Home

www.himalayanglacier.com...




So it's always a lens flare...until it isn't...and at what point do we cross the line? and what do we do then?
Pretty much always when some "discovers" something next to the Sun. Yes, the "professional photographer" would see the lens flare when looking through the lens. It is the lens which causes a lens flare afterall. Just as the guy in the video I posted above could see it as he made the video. Too bad the "professional photographer" didn't perform a test like he did.

edit on 12/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Which is why I am dismayed about the cutbacks on space exploration....it's important. What is the name of the craft that will reach the "edge of the known universe" soon? (Sorry, it's late and my mind is mush at the moment) I can't wait to see what is discovered.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

I did not miss the point..I know they are looking anything. You seem like a very smart person phage. Looking deep into space searching for a tiny light or blip in the sky....which all it ever will be to us is a huge waste of money. How many telescopes do we need? Is there not space based telescopes that are already doing this?
Space exploration is great but come on...I believe that there is more to the story of why they are so concerned about this particular patch of sky!! I can believe that right? You can believe that everything ever told to you or you have read on the internet is the truth. So to the question..what are they looking for besides what they are telling you? You really don't know and neither do I.

Lightmeup04



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   


Thanks for your opinions. And bon voyage with your travels to southern regions.

Thanks not leaving till next year but I hope it will be fun and speaking of New Zealand that follows my link below!


I don't really have a theory. I just have observations with no explanation to fit them all. In this particular thread I'm wondering what is going on at the South Pole. What are they looking for with those puny telescopes?

What can you do with a puny telescopes? How about a Solar System being formed?


The telescope array is taking movies every 20 seconds of the same 20 degree part of the sky for 4 months at a time. This is how this non-orbiting array is set up to work. How would this work in orbit?

Have you ever seen night photography? 20 seconds is a good enough time to get a fair image of the night sky. Because the light is faint you need a long exposure (length of time to snap the photo). You continue to take images in the same area for that length of time and then stack them. Using software (similar to photoshop) you can take the best, clearest, sharpest and brightest images and end up with some brilliant photos of the night sky. Maybe they are tracking something so email them and ask
You would be surprised that you will get an answer!



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColAngus

Originally posted by luxordelphi
poleshift.ning.com...


If the "planet" were truly as close as depicted in the pictures in your link, wouldn't the effects on the other planets and Earth be catastrophic by now?

Or can planets be that huge and merely whiz nearby with nothing so much as a few dozen fish/bird die-offs and a pesky earthquake or two?


IMO, it is not possible for a heavenly object to appear to be that close without major effects. And, IMO, it is not possible for something that appears to be that huge to whiz by without major effects.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Cool, thanks for the response.

But just so I am clear, does that mean you do not believe that her photos show a planet? Or on the other hand, you do believe that there is a planet there, and in your opinion we are in fact experiencing major effects of the planet?

I only ask for clarification because my understanding of your OP is that you believe that the photo shows a planet and not something else, such as lens flare, etc. So that just makes me wonder what those major effects are. Thanks in advance.
edit on 2-12-2011 by ColAngus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Oh, the purpose is also to look for asteroids which may prove to be a problem for this planet at some point.


That's actually a purpose I can relate to. And the purpose would be that there would be asteroids steeply inclined to the orbital plane which would not be viewable from any other location on earth. Still wouldn't the same apply to the North Pole? Wouldn't a double pronged attack cover all bases? Why so exclusive?




The image in your OP is an image of an "object" near the Sun. In March the Sun is visible in New Zealand and everywhere else on the planet except very near the North Pole. In March, anyone anywhere on the planet (except someone very near the North Pole) would have seen the "object" near the Sun unless it were very close to Earth (close as in Earth orbit). An object near the Sun would be visible where ever the Sun is visible. For example, in March the Sun is in Aquarius. No matter where you are on the planet the stars of Aquarius surround the Sun in March. If it weren't daytime when the Sun is visible, those stars (and any planets which happened to be there) would be visible to everyone.


Yes...I understand all of that. The equinox is in March so the sun is direct at the equator and the view, north and south of the equator, is equal for an object close to the sun. In the photo, the object APPEARS to be on the ecliptic because of longitude/azimuth at that moment. It APPEARS to be close even though no photo of occultation has been seen. It's a question of viewpoint and a hypothetical steep southern inclination. How would that look from an equidistant north and south hemisphere location.




Your example of Sirius is correct to a degree (Sirius is never visible at very high latitudes) but makes little sense in this context. Since it lies far south of the ecliptic (and thus not visible from very far north), it is never near the Sun.


dcsymbols.com...


Every year our sun conjoins the star Sirius, at 13.5 degrees Cancer, during the first week in July; that is, as seen from the earth, the sun lies in front of Sirius which lies at the same celestial longitude as the astrological sign of Cancer in the sky.


That's how it appears. In reality I've read that Sirius doesn't fall into line with precession and that it's been put forth as a binary candidate and that it gets closer to the sun by 7.6 km or 4.7 miles every second.




Eugene, Oregon is at 44º N. Do you consider Eugene very close to the North Pole?


Yeah...ok. That latitude that I described as very southern is over 5,000 miles from me so that's pretty southern to me. And Eugene is 1/2 way to the North Pole from the equator. It's also 1/2 way to the equator from the North Pole. Do we get points for this?



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Regarding the photo: ProudBird - I understand what you are saying. You are totally and completely convinced that the object is lens flare and you allude that the operator deliberately manipulated settings in order to create this lens flare and falsely give the impression of an object in order to mystify and amaze the gullible internet viewing public.

So far so rational. And one seemingly carefully worded sentence in the quote seems to bear this out:




Please note that I am a professional photographer and processed these photos to check the object was not a sun spot or sun glare.


Why wouldn't a professional photographer say lens flare if they meant lens flare? Yes I understand it all. Still, in the environment it is presented, there is not a way to say for sure one way or the other. Leaving out all personal feelings like what is possible and what isn't, you know this is true. We could figure the odds - what are the chances that someone seeking sensation would do this? I agree with you - they're pretty good these days.

Why am I tripped up on it? Because there are observations that I need to explain for myself and I'm not willing to rule anything out yet. And because it all seems to be happening at the South Pole and that was a tie-in, though not the first, with the southern hemisphere.

As far as evidence goes...it ain't much. Still...I have my own observations to deal with and so the fascination continues.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Still wouldn't the same apply to the North Pole? Wouldn't a double pronged attack cover all bases? Why so exclusive?

Sure. great idea. The more the better. Of course, there is the problem of funding but there is at least one location considered suitable. Maybe someone will put an observatory there, especially if the work in Antarctica proves to be as fruitful as expected and testing shows the sites to be as promising as hoped.

The potential of polar regions for astronomy has long been recognized and first highlighted with measurements of exceptional seeing in Antarctica. On the basis of satellite data and topography we identified the western part of Ellesmere Island as having potential comparable to the Antarctic sites. Preliminary site seeing measurements find that Ellesmere has sites superior to the best known mid-latitude ones and does not suffer from the substantial ground layer of Antarctic plateau sites.


It is essential to fully characterize the astronomical properties of several Ellesmere sites and their operational feasibility before undertaking any major astronomical development.

www.casca.ca...



In the photo, the object APPEARS to be on the ecliptic because of longitude/azimuth at that moment.
No. It would be on the ecliptic. The Sun is on the ecliptic. When an object appears near the sun, it must be near the ecliptic as well.


It's a question of viewpoint and a hypothetical steep southern inclination. How would that look from an equidistant north and south hemisphere location.
No.
If it was an object is visible "near" the Sun in New Zealand it would have been visible near the Sun everywhere on the planet where the Sun was visible.

If it was an object far south of the ecliptic, it would not appear close to the Sun anywhere on the planet, even at the south pole.



edit on 12/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





I asked if you had looked for an answer about what CSTAR (those puny telescopes) was being used for. The answer is that it is being used for conducting photometric sky surveys. Those surveys serve a number of purposes, not just the detection of exoplanets.


They are taking every 20 second movies of a 20 degree section of sky for 4 months at a time. They are using (comparatively) tiny telescopes to do it. That's what they say they are doing. The quote you offerred says they've found 157 variable stars. (Stars that fluctuate in brightness.) It says half of those are previously un-named, un-numbered. Of those, half are binaries and pulsars. (As an explanation for their fluctuating brightness.) In BOLD the quote says they've possibly found one exoplanet. That's what they say they are doing with the data from the movies.

In the news today - Keck in Hawaii has found 18 exoplanets.

keckobservatory.org...

Of course their telescopes are giants compared to PLATO in Dome A on the Antarctic Plateau.

keckobservatory.org...

I wasn't able to determine if Keck is limiting themselves to a 20 degree section of sky or not.




Actually, it's "only" about 15,000 feet. "Only" half as high. "Only" a difference of almost 3 miles in altitude. Tell me, did the trip to Dome A require oxygen tanks? Tell me, do those who reach the summit of Everest get themselves and their equipment there on tractors? Tell me, how many have died attempting to reach and descend from the summit of Everest? "Closer than an 18 day journey?" Are you sure about that?


So Mt. Everest is no good as a location. No road. Too high. How about this established observatory at Atacama.

news.softpedia.com...


The name of this desert seems to come from the native Atacama Indians, who still inhabit the area. Another thing: Atacama harbors one of the largest astronomic observatories, the Very Large Telescope, as here is one of the clearest skies on Earth to look at the stars.


I bet they have a road too. And the sky is crystal. And their telescope is very large which is why it's called the Very Large Telescope.

Still looking for a reasonable reason for all this carryon at the South Pole.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 


Thank you for the link you supply. I had read it in a thread here on ATS. And filed it away as an unexplained anomaly. Along with a lot of other impossible sightings by amateur astronomers and naked eye enthusiasts. It was shortly after Hale-Bopp left that I caught the first one.

I appreciate your heart in the suggestions you make. IMO, these people are seeing something a lot closer than 63 light years away viewed with a homemade 10 inch/25 centimeter telescope.

Either that or some things have radically changed. It's been years since I took official agencies head-on in direct questions. I started that way and wound up with a whole lot of trouble.

Still it's interesting that New Zealand pops up again. And thank you for adding to this topic.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ColAngus
 


So when I was reading about all the carryon at the South Pole...specifically the Antarctic Plateau...with all the locations and equipment and you name it being assembled in a totally extreme environment I was reminded of a couple of researchers in from Antarctica that I met at a small buffett kind of dinner party one night in the mid to late '90's.

I have suspected that there is something visible or more visible or intermittantly more visible in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere for awhile. When I saw the photos from New Zealand, I thought, yeah, these could be real. Are they good evidence?...Absolutely not. They're virtual and that's not evidence but if they are real it's like a bread crumb in a trail of bread crumbs to follow.

The activities on the Antarctic Plateau are also virtual as far as what we know about them. Because we're not going so we're not going to be able to personally check anything out. Still there's a money trail. And there are some blogs and diaries etc. by people from all different walks of life who went and wrote. This latest carryon is being assembled by the Chinese. I'm not going to be reading their blogs because that's not one of the languages I speak. Also, their blogs are going to be heavily censored by their own government. So perfect...a perfect way to keep this all silent.

I'll give you an example: if I have a thermometer (old fashioned) to guage the outside temperature and it is old - before a certain date - it's probably made in America. If I have one after a certain date, it's probably made in China. Calibration then becomes a question of trust because I'm not going to be hearing about violations at factories in China. Or employee discontent. There is a language barrier and a cultural barrier and a communist government barrier. My thermometer could be set to guage the temperature at 5 or 10 degrees less or more than what it really is and I would have no way of knowing whether it's accurate or not.

So to answer your question - I'm looking for a quantity X to explain anomalies that I see by my own observations and also to explain the ones I read about like this one, as an example, from 2002 that says, according to MIT, that Pluto is undergoing global warming:

web.mit.edu...




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join