Somethings up with venus

reply to post by overanocean
Why does venus more or less look exactly like a star,a lot like what the north star looks like,why dont we see it as being a round planet,say like a really small moon?...Just wondering because i dont know...

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

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"...

Classic Dunning-Kruger effect right here. A telescope is just a tool, and I don't recall AceWombat saying anything about telescopes specifically in reference to me. Being an amateur astronomer is more than just owning a fancy telescope; the latter does not make you the former. You don't even understand what I'm "equipped" to do, you think it's just about "looking at the planet Venus in real time."

Setting aside for a moment the fact that this particular ability means I can check to see if Venus really is emitting anything right now, settings aside for a moment that I actually did do just that and showed that it's not, setting aside for a moment the fact that I used my telescope to demonstrate the same principle of lens flare seen in the STEREO video and how it varies with Venus' position in the frame, I'm capable of a lot more than simply "looking at Venus," and yes, it means I do "really know" things. I'm not just guessing. My expertise means I'm able to process the raw STEREO beacon data even better than the automated system that handles those images. That comes from years of experience working with raw astronomical data. The telescope was simply the tool I used to collect that data.

Take for instance 2005 YU55; I not only observed it and recorded video of it, I used that video data to calculate its orbit and prove Richard Hoagland wrong in claiming that it wasn't following the previously published orbit and would either hit or narrowly miss the moon. Another example would be the Mercury processing artifact claimed to be a "de-cloaking UFO" - I wasn't the first around here on top of that one, but I did indepedently confirm that it was a processing artifact and independently recreated the artifact by processing the images myself. Now in this instance, not only did I "observe Venus" and show that there's no emission there, I also made a prediction of what will happen with this Venus lens flare once Venus leaves the field of view. Let's assume for a moment that my prediction comes true, how could I make a prediction like that if I don't have any more expertise than "the ability to look at the planet venus in real time through a telescope?"

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by overanocean

 

Why does venus more or less look exactly like a star,a lot like what the north star looks like,why dont we see it as being a round planet,say like a really small moon?...Just wondering because i dont know...

With a telescope you could do just that, but your eyes lack the optical resolution to resolve the disc of Venus.

reply to post by Phage


OMG Phage doesn't have an answer!
Does that mean we are all doomed?
I await further analysis.....

very interesting
let me add my 2 cents to it

on that day
my and my friend seen a flashing object in the clear sky, (with naked eye)
it was moving left and right, it was like a star yet it wasn't a twinkling star because as compared to other stars it did not move along with them.
it pretty much moved across the entire sky in 40 minutes. so if X is IT and C are stars it looked like this

before

c c

c
c c X


after 40 min

X

c c

c
c c




It was like a flare and it was flashing , it looked like it was coming towards earth,
It is just ironic that it happened on the same day as the "venus" flare

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by musselwhite
i do remember seeing this on t.v. - i am unable to recall the program - science channel, discovery, something but it showed a burst of what i came to understand as a magnetic field - wish i could recall - venus is highly magnitized -

A magnetosphere is formed when a stream of charged particles, such as the solar wind, interacts with and is deflected by the intrinsic magnetic field of a planet or similar body. Earth is surrounded by a magnetosphere, as are the other planets with intrinsic magnetic fields: Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Jupiter's moon Ganymede has a small magnetosphere — but it is situated entirely within the magnetosphere of Jupiter, leading to complex interactions. The ionospheres of weakly magnetized planets such as Venus and Mars set up currents that partially deflect the solar wind flow, but do not have magnetospheres, per se.

en.wikipedia.org...

what i do recall is these burst happen at certain points in their orbit - i'm going to dig a little further -

here's a link www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu... i find interesting but it is waaaaay out of my league!

great find - s/f

EDITED: i remember now, it was john gorman youtube site:

www.youtube.com...

edit on 28-12-2011 by musselwhite because: (no reason given)

Wow i think you video here proves the lens flare thing final...

I am not sure how you folks are thinking here. At exactly 2:50 of this video, he clearly states "there is absolutely no way that can be camera flare"

How are you taking that statement, then making a counter statement that this video proves it is lens flare?

I would like to also inject that this video does not completely reflect the mass that is seen in the OP's post. In the OP post, and the Stereo pics, we CLEARLY see a mass, which I estimate is 1/20th the visual size of venus in that shot, ejecting and forming at the 11 o'clock position. In the video, however, there is no such mass -- just the forming of a loop.

So please, indulge me -- how are you folks making a statement that this is lens flare when:

1. The video is completely different in appearance than the Stereo A&B pics.
2. The Video's narrator clearly states "there is no way that is lens flare" at 2 minutes 50 seconds.

Please explain. Or better, can any of the lens flare theorist show me the same effect with venus from an earlier point in time that looks remotely similar to the photos of 12/27/11? That would convince me, since it has been stated, "This happens all the time with Venus"

Or, is this simply a perspective issue, where the mass is being seen at a different angle, thus looking like a mass when it is merely the loop as described previously?

One last question for a lens flare expert: Stereo AB does not have a physical lens. It has a series of mirrors and a CCD. How can lens flare, which is a direct function of light through a curved lens, be the case here with a telescope that has no lens?

edit on 28-12-2011 by phantomjack because: (no reason given)

Because it starts as the camera comes onto it and repeats the same "flare" as the camera leaves it, just like the flre people said.

This happens with the planets all the time. Just keep an eye on it and you'll see.

After all the evidence and arguments provided in this thread, I too conclude it is an lens effect/flare. It'd be much more exciting if it would've been an asteroid hitting Venus, or a ship taking off from it or Venus farting but I doubt any of it.

reply to post by Bcs8484


Maybe it was the spaceship that was surrounding mercury a few weeks ago, crashed into venus?

reply to post by murkraz


its spaceships o.o

reply to post by blocula


What I said was:

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?

I said they're better equipped than those of us who lack their expertise, which should answer your question as to what I meant by "equipped." As he said, I didn't say anything about physical equipment. I stand by what I said. Unless there is some basis for believing those posting in this topic with amateur astronomy and optical expertise are lying, then yes, in my opinion they are most definitely better equipped than you or I to analyze this data.

If you disagree, I can respect your opinion, but would respectfully ask that you provide evidence that disproves or at least challenges their conclusion, which is supported by compelling and demonstrated evidence multiple times throughout this topic now. Or in the event that you do think they're lying about their expertise, I would ask that you provide some basis or evidence in support of that as well.

If neither of those can be done then, as I said, isn't it basically case closed? Just asking questions.

Originally posted by Roundtree
reply to post by murkraz

 

its spaceships o.o

Originally posted by SheopleNation
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

I'd say it was proof, that the equipment doesn't work as advertised ... if it shows "ghost" information of objects, then it most certainly will also sho "ghost" information of sun flares.

alas, not reliable... and we're back to stage one ... the observations, made by OP and others, is therefore pretty good, even if their first interpretation was not accurate. If the equipment shows something, that isn't there ... then the equipment most certainly, is not reliable ... we're not "mind readers" ... we observe what we see, and interpret what we see ... if you think you are capable of "interpreting" things beyond what is visible ... good for you, join the spiritual community ... it's not a scientific observation.

reply to post by ngchunter
So that should also mean that all of the stars we see up in the night sky are not really stars,they just look that way,just like venus looks more or less exactly like a star,but its not a star at all?

What this thread is all about,these massive flares,or whatever they are,emanating from Venus have been seen for a very long time,at least thousands of years.Venus entered this solar system long ago as a huge comet > www.redicecreations.com... >

"The Vedas said that the star Venus looks like fire with smoke. The star had a tail, dark in the daytime and luminous at night. This luminous tail, which Venus had in earlier centuries, is mentioned in the Talmud `Fire as hanging down from the planet Venus. Described by the Chaldeans the planet Venus `was said to have a beard. "Beard" is used in modern astronomy in the description of comets"

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by ngchunter

 

So that should also mean that all of the stars we see up in the night sky are not really stars,they just look that way,just like venus looks more or less exactly like a star,but its not a star at all?

edit on 29-12-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

Stars are point-like light sources because of their tremendous distance, thus no telescope on earth can directly resolve them. Planets are resolvable, however.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by SheopleNation
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

I'd say it was proof, that the equipment doesn't work as advertised ... if it shows "ghost" information of objects, then it most certainly will also sho "ghost" information of sun flares.

Hate to break it to you, but no one ever advertised it being a telescope completely free of lens flares no matter how bright the light source. And no, coronal mass ejections do not produce lens flares in the heliospheric imager; they're incredibly dim extended signals compared to exceedingly bright small objects like Venus. You have to go to great lengths just to remove the sun's glare in order to see them.

If the equipment shows something, that isn't there ... then the equipment most certainly, is not reliable ... we're not "mind readers" ...

If you had the experience and expertise myself and others have you'd also have the discernment to be able to tell that this is a lens flare. That's what refractors are subject to, it's a natural consequence of their design. Even reflectors can and do have internal reflections; it happens to my reflector all the time when I shoot a bright enough light source. I have discernment though and recognize it for what it is. You deal with false signals in science, it happens, it doesn't mean you disregard everything because a piece of equipment is capable of giving a false signal under a known set of circumstances. Whether it's a bright planet at the edge of the field of view, or a spurious bright spot that appears behind planets as they cross the field of view (NRL's heliospheric jpg preview images), you don't throw the equipment out just because you need to understand how it works and what spurious signals it is capable of giving (and when). If you don't understand those things and reach a wrong conclusion, then you should work to improve your own understanding.

I am UK and soz about off topic but is the Venus carry on to blame for that red/orange ......i would say star but look east if uk about 11o'clock pm really wierd never noticed it like that before.

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

 

Don't make assumptions about what other people believe or why they believe it. My statement is just to give you an example of someone who does not fit the box you seem to be putting people like me in.

I am not putting you in a box ngchunter, I just dont take the normal what I am told for truth. The flare example shown by others isnt the same as seen in the OP.

kinaree

notice the kinaree object present in these photos below also Venus behavior looks different from the OP images.

not same Venus behavior below?? No kinaree???

with that I think MANY must be patient and whats to be revealed SHALL be..

edit on 12/28/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

Really what are the chances that something so similar with the same angle is not the same thing? there may be differences on the final processing of the photo.
Personally I now trust more in Phages' word as he showed that if something was weird or unexceptionable he would say so. I always questioned that since he was always on the debunking side every single time i have read stuff. I am ready to accept their proof on this one even though I would dearly love to have something strange and rare on this photo!

reply to post by StealthyKat


venus is the object in the sky that looks like a goat- a scapegoat that gets blamed for all ufo sightings