Somethings up with venus

reply to post by Patriotsrevenge


And the battle begins.

Because phage, ngchunter, me etc. have something to gain if we lie that it's a a lens flare...
Let me check my bank account quick for my monthly payments from NASA

Originally posted by notonsamepage

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge

 

No.
The previous "event" was not lens flare. It was an artifact of image processing.

edit on 12/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

yeah sure

Well, he's right:
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by UdonNiedtuno

 

It is not a lense flare, an they know it,

It is a lens flare. It flares every time it enters or leaves the field of view. It flared when it entered the field of view, and the flare is forming now in reverse order as it leaves the field of view. Stop with the accusations of dishonest posting. Here's my video showing all the Beacon image data from 12/14/11 through to today. With my processing of the raw data you can clearly see how it's a regular lens flare:

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by notonsamepage

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge

 

No.
The previous "event" was not lens flare. It was an artifact of image processing.

edit on 12/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

yeah sure

Well, he's right:
www.youtube.com...

yeah rigth

reply to post by notonsamepage


nice music

Originally posted by notonsamepage

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by notonsamepage

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge

 

No.
The previous "event" was not lens flare. It was an artifact of image processing.

edit on 12/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

yeah sure

Well, he's right:
www.youtube.com...

yeah rigth

I examined the raw data and processed it myself using the same general technique they use. It's a processing artifact, I know it for a fact. Argument from incredulity does not a good argument make. Do you have experience working with raw astronomical image data in fits format? Did you examine the raw data yourself? Did you repeat their methods yourself?

reply to post by ngchunter


You're dead on.

Nothing could convince me otherwise. That would take some serious pixle work if so

reply to post by Bcs8484


I imagine some methane geyser or volcano. It's actually not that much of its atmosphere. Because bare in mind, this equipment is highly light sensitive.

Purely anecdotal but I was watching Venus most night last week setting around 16:30 did think it looked strange, looked as though part of its light was being stretched out from it, but then theres a whole number of reasons it can look distorted.

Dont let these disinfo-guys fool you! Their mates at NASA had time to tamper with those images already..propably right away when a certain person was alarmed here at ATS.

Its not a lens flare.

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
Dont let these disinfo-guys fool you!

Prove that I'm a "disinfo-guy" or that I "tampered with the images."

So we're done with the deny ignorance stuff now? Can I put my tin-foil hat back on now? I mean seriously look how many have come forth with quality evidence that it is nothing more than a lens flare, yet you have all these "others" who continue to yell "look man it's not a lens flare! Just Look at it! Does that look like a lens flare?!"

Guess what? it does. Thank you Phage and nghunter for tackling this before it got out of hand. Sadly, to no avail. It seems people will think anything to keep any theory in their mind alive. I'd love to stay and see how this blows over, but I'd rather go play BF3. Good night

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
Dont let these disinfo-guys fool you! Their mates at NASA had time to tamper with those images already..propably right away when a certain person was alarmed here at ATS.

Its not a lens flare.

Seriously? You can take the same data and do it yourself. Make your own animated gif.

Get you a free gif animator from sourforge, and put the frames together yourself. It's very easy to do.

I do alot of graphic art. I know a fake when I see one. It would take a VERY long time for someone to edit those pixles to look JUST like THAT. You can see the lense flare around the planet in the background that takes up nearly the whole screen. If you mess with photography, hell, look at how the sun plays on your car mirror.. Take your camera phone out and just point it at lights and move it around.. you'll see the same effect.

Originally posted by mr10k
So we're done with the deny ignorance stuff now? Can I put my tin-foil hat back on now? I mean seriously look how many have come forth with quality evidence that it is nothing more than a lens flare, yet you have all these "others" who continue to yell "look man it's not a lens flare! Just Look at it! Does that look like a lens flare?!"

Guess what? it does. Thank you Phage and nghunter for tackling this before it got out of hand. Sadly, to no avail. It seems people will think anything to keep any theory in their mind alive. I'd love to stay and see how this blows over, but I'd rather go play BF3. Good night

Thank you! To those who still insist that it doesn't look like a lens flare, I used to get the same type of oval flare in stars on the edge of the field of view of my telescope to an even greater extreme than STEREO does. Fortunately I found a way to physically reconfigure the optical train to minimize this, but as Phage found when you look at the raw data and don't do anything to enhance the contrast, you don't even notice the flare. It's not until the images are processed and the glare from the sun removed that it becomes obvious.

Check out 3:51 in this video:

Originally posted by Phage
Looking at the raw image, there doesn't seem to be anything going on. Yes, that's the full sized image. We need the high quality science data to get more detail.

I expect it's a processing artifact.

I've seen them before on another board -- yes, it's image artifacts. People get awfully worked up about them, though.

reply to post by ngchunter


Did you just admit that you work for NASA?

reply to post by WeekendWarrior


No, I don't work for NASA, but I was the one who presented the images showing it to be a lens flare.

reply to post by WeekendWarrior


Thats what I thought too,very telling isnt it?

Although "certain" members come crashing into every space related thread ready to pour cold water over it.

Maybe if these people appear you know you are right in the suspicions.

who knows?