Somethings up with venus

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
Just to point out to the none observant... The arc of the OP's flare or emission/ejection. It's not a flare.... a flares brightest parts originate from the source i.e Venus, in the OP footage and the following gifs check out where the light that feeds the artifact(emission)? its not Venus and it even causes its own tell tail white line although a lot dimmer. It is no flare.

Before you jump to conclusions like that, I strongly advise you to look at the raw fits data. The flare is not nearly as bright as Venus (in fact you can't even really see it until you process the image with a pseudo-dark to increase contrast) and is actually quite homogenous in brightness when properly processed into view.

The best possible thing to learn from this thread is that Stereo A&B were designed for Solar work, not planetary observation.

Sure you can see stars, planets and comets, but the artifacts produced due to the technology of these instruments being geared totally to observing solar storms as they propagate in space, causes a great deal of false observation of small bright objects.

They are not designed for point light source observation. The processing done on the images is for solar data and does strange things to bright, small objects. That said, comet Lovejoy was cool in it, but in the right aspect, it could have shown us 5 tails.... I think the rule for planetary observation when it comes to SOHO equipment, is to be able to say that a planet, comet and asteroid is there, and not much else.

I made an updated video through 12/28 23:18 UT:

Just to give a preview of coming attractions, a little while after Venus leaves the field of view, perhaps a day or two later, it will produce a flare that looks like this (this is from beacon data recorded in December of last year and processed using my technique):
i319.photobucket.com...

reply to post by charlyv


Exactly. You hit the nail right on the head with that post. We can see large objects, but them influencing other objects is very hard to prove because of what the hardware was intended for in the first place, which is to detect Solar Flares. Took me awhile to learn that one myself. ~SheopleNation

that video made it very apparent that it was just as said... thank you very much for putting that together and making it so clear to us!

Wow, I find it amazing that people that thought some of these images were CMEs or some other rubbish because they look similar to pictures of CMEs in their minds ... couldn't see the much more obvious and logical matches in ngchunter's comparisons.

That's like saying this post is a bowl full of Alpha Bits cereal and proof of a mysterious and intelligent god because the letters are arranged in a manner understandable by man!

No ... it's a post. On a forum. Made on a computer.

Pattern Recognition vs Cognitive Dissonance ... FIGHT!

I think i found a link that explains better than i could exactly whats going on with venus and by the way...venus was a comet and it still is,only its a captured comet thats still ocasionally throwing off a tail created by the solar winds emanating from the sun,just like comets do and this burst off of venus has been seen happening for a long long time > www.redicecreations.com...

Here's a good explanation. People need to stop reading into SECCHI as they have been doing repeatedly.

reply to post by ngchunter

Bad seeing made far worse intermittently by the plume from the chimney you see towards the end of the video.

You were doing pretty good explaining stuff, until you tried to explain this impressive video as bad seeing!

Originally posted by ngchunter
I made an updated video through 12/28 23:18 UT:

Just to give a preview of coming attractions, a little while after Venus leaves the field of view, perhaps a day or two later, it will produce a flare that looks like this (this is from beacon data recorded in December of last year and processed using my technique):
i319.photobucket.com...

Watch the placement of Venus at time :01 and :026 you see the lens flare to the right of venus.

This same "phenomena" occurs at :16 and :40 to the left of the venus.

Originally posted by jaws1975
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Bad seeing made far worse intermittently by the plume from the chimney you see towards the end of the video.

You were doing pretty good explaining stuff, until you tried to explain this impressive video as bad seeing!

That is what it is. How many years have you been doing amateur astronomy and judging the seeing every night you go out? You can play the "argument from incredulity" game all you want, but I knew what it was from years of experience the instant I saw it and my suspicions were completely confirmed when the camera zoomed out and the videographer labeled the terrestrial object to the right of Venus as "chimney." 10:48 on the video, see for yourself. I'm right. If the videographer were smart and wanted to keep up the illusion that his video showed something "incredible" or at least "unusual," he'd take down that copy and get rid of that label to hide what that actually was.

Originally posted by ImmortalThought

Originally posted by ngchunter
I made an updated video through 12/28 23:18 UT:

Just to give a preview of coming attractions, a little while after Venus leaves the field of view, perhaps a day or two later, it will produce a flare that looks like this (this is from beacon data recorded in December of last year and processed using my technique):
i319.photobucket.com...

Watch the placement of Venus at time :01 and :026 you see the lens flare to the right of venus.

This same "phenomena" occurs at :16 and :40 to the left of the venus.

That's the point I've been making for some time now. Not sure if you were just agreeing with me or thought I was suggesting there was something strange about my video.

reply to post by ngchunter


So was it bad seeing when he showed Jupiter and it's moons, or when he showed crystal clear images of our moon? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to figure out why everything looked so good, but yet is being labeled as bad seeing.

Here's an interesting view of the flare. No idea about the commentary.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ngchunter


If agreeing means looks like a lens flare or something mechanical instead of planetary... then

Originally posted by jaws1975
reply to post by ngchunter

 

So was it bad seeing when he showed Jupiter and it's moons, or when he showed crystal clear images of our moon?

Not too bad, but seeing is extremely dependent on altitude over the horizon. What really kills it intermittently on Venus is heat wave impingement from the chimney.

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to figure out why everything looked so good, but yet is being labeled as bad seeing.

I don't think you understand what bad seeing is or how it varies with the presence of heat sources and altitude (as in the az-alt coordinate system, not the observer's altitude though that can affect it too).

At this point in the topic, might I suggest that people are arguing semantics? For example, ngchunter says "bad seeing" (which has a very specific meaning and connotation for amateur astronomers, but to inexperienced laypeople like myself just sounds like "poor ability to see anything,") and so people think he's saying the video was poor and doesn't show anything clearly. He's said that that's not what he meant and his previous posts lend him credibility in terms of his amateur astronomy and stargazing background, but people are still arguing the semantic terminology rather than the genuine point he's articulating. If he's already clarified his intent, may I suggest that people are clinging to the semantics in order to counter his conclusion because that's what they don't like? And if so, may I ask what evidence people can produce to counter his (and others') conclusion that this is simply lens flare? Basically what I'm asking is: what is the basis for the doubt?

In my opinion it's clearly visible in the video ngchunter went to the trouble of putting together, then updating, then updating again, and evidently plans to update again in the near future for us, that this was a lens flare. Does anyone have any evidence that it's anything other than exactly what it looks like in the data provided?

I mean, there are three options. 1) The individuals contributing to this topic who are experienced and knowledgeable in astronomy and optics are correct in their assessment of the video that it's a lens flare (which in my unprofessional layman's opinion is precisely what it looks like,) 2) they're intentionally lying both about the images and footage, and their expertise, and 3) they're incorrect. Assuming #2 isn't true, they're better equipped to analyze the images and footage than those of us who lack their expertise, so unless we can come up with something better supported by evidence than they have (i.e. something to support #3) or somehow invalidate their credentials, what basis is there to see this as something other than what they've said it is?

Really, what is the basis of the doubt? The urge to doubt authority? Because he and others have provided evidence - quite compelling evidence - for their conclusion, whereas none seems to have been produced to justify the doubt thereof. If there's any compelling evidence that they're wrong or lying, I'd like to see it. And if there isn't any, then shouldn't this be more or less case closed?

I intend no offense. I'm just asking an honest question.

mystery solved by an astrophysicist - it's a lens flare! www.youtube.com...

reply to post by AceWombat04
You said..."they're better equipped to analyze the images and footage than those of us who lack their expertise"

In what way do you mean exactly by "better equipped" ?,surely you dont mean telescopes or binoculars? because it would be useless to look at the images and footage in this thread through binoculars and telescopes,so by better equipped,i would assume what you mean is that you think they are "mentally" or "intelligently" more capable of seeing and understanding what this venus activity is...

Someones ability to look at the planet venus in real time through a telescope is obviously going to make them better equipped to see what they are looking at,but their telescope is not going to aide them at all when it comes to "mentally and intelligently" knowing or understanding what it is they are looking at,what these venusian activities really are...

All of us can only guess whats going on,all of us can only guess what it is we are looking at,because the only way to really know whats going on with venus is for us to go there and see it face to face and thats not going to be happening,so theres no way for us to "really know"...

reply to post by Bcs8484


Just an interesting observation I noticed while gazing up into the heavens on a clear crisp night sky on Dec. 26 .
Im assumeing the placement of Venus to the moon is as it always was this time of year, but what I found interesting was the intensity of the earthshine reflecting back to the moon and as I really focused just with the naked eye ,not even using a telescope , was an obvious sort of shifting and pulsating light.It seemed it not only shone around the outer part of the cresent portion of the light reflecting from the sun, but the planet Venus had the same sort of flaring light around it as well.
I know very little now of the solar system ,but after observing this , Im interested in looking for a cheap telescope to buy.
I wonder if the moving light I noticed around the Moon and Venus could be related to the big solar flaring of the Sun this coming year I keep reading about. Maby the intensity of the Suns light and its solar flares are actually reflecting the flares movement onto the moon and venus.