Mystery Object Caught Next To Jupiter

Ummm...yeah. I have a Nikon D7000 and while I LOVE my camera, it isn't what you would use to capture something in space, unless it is set up looking through a telescope.

With my 105mm Lense, on a good night, Jupiter would be a small point of light, or more likely, blob.

Further more, if it wasn't taken through a telescope than whatever that is, is obviously situated near earth...like in the atmosphere directly over the photographer.

So no. I do not think that that is anything actually in space, and is most likely something not really there.

I can get some pretty cool moonshots; but this one here was with a 300m lense on a good night (this might be with my D40)

But Jupiter??!! With a 105m ?? No way.

westcoast
Ummm...yeah. I have a Nikon D7000 and while I LOVE my camera, it isn't what you would use to capture something in space, unless it is set up looking through a telescope.

Not strictly true a nice shot from a Nikon D7000 owner.

Heart of Cygnus

The heart of the Cygnus D7000 using an astrotrac tracker 50mm f4 120 seconds

Here is another one Nikon D7000, 200mm f4, 5x30sec @ ISO 3200. Mounted on Astrotrac.

Andromada & Comet Panstarrs

reply to post by AutumnWitch657


If you read my post, the reason I drew the circle was to show how the image is "smeared out" along the circular path surrounding the centre point.

It's a lens reflection. The most cursory study of optics will explain it to you but if you want to believe it's some kind of gigantic space amoeba floating near Jupiter, which strangely hasn't been spotted by any of the thousands of astronomers, professional and amateur, who study the skies, then knock yourself out...

reply to post by Rob48


Wish could have responded sooner with this, but...

Sorry Rob48...you missed center frame by enough to completely destroy your reflection hypothesis.

The actual "center frame" is left and down (that's left nearly 3/8 of an inch and down almost an 1/8). The "reflection" does not "sit" in a place that can even produce a reflection.

Then of course here is the reflection itself...sorry man...I think the probability of that being a "Sirian Tri-Hull Transport" is far greater that it being a reflection.

And, while none of can "prove" its ET's mothership, I think we should be concluding that it's NOT a reflection.

(besides...you haven't even made the "Hot Pixel" call yet...I love that one too...shows how little people understand the technology).

tanka418
Near Jupiter you say?

Kinda of reminds me of these...

1981 Atari Space Invaders?

tanka418
reply to post by Rob48

 

Wish could have responded sooner with this, but...

Sorry Rob48...you missed center frame by enough to completely destroy your reflection hypothesis.

The actual "center frame" is left and down (that's left nearly 3/8 of an inch and down almost an 1/8). The "reflection" does not "sit" in a place that can even produce a reflection.

You are assuming that the "frame" as seen in a god-knows-how-many-generation copy on YouTube which could have been cropped, zoomed and otherwise messed about with is the original frame. I suggest it isn't.

tanka418Then of course here is the reflection itself...sorry man...I think the probability of that being a "Sirian Tri-Hull Transport" is far greater that it being a reflection.

Good one. That screaming you can hear is William of Ockham cutting himself shaving.

tanka418
reply to post by Rob48

 

Wish could have responded sooner with this, but...

Sorry Rob48...you missed center frame by enough to completely destroy your reflection hypothesis.

The actual "center frame" is left and down (that's left nearly 3/8 of an inch and down almost an 1/8). The "reflection" does not "sit" in a place that can even produce a reflection.

Then of course here is the reflection itself...sorry man...I think the probability of that being a "Sirian Tri-Hull Transport" is far greater that it being a reflection.

And, while none of can "prove" its ET's mothership, I think we should be concluding that it's NOT a reflection.

(besides...you haven't even made the "Hot Pixel" call yet...I love that one too...shows how little people understand the technology).

Here is an example from another thread on here

img189.imageshack.us...

The thread is here It's Aliens I tell ye

And another

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Rob48

Good one.

That screaming you can hear is William of Ockham cutting himself shaving.

lol...perhaps both of you should sharpen your razor...

The issues you find with my suggestion apply to your suggestions. Further, the object you want to be a reflection doesn't quite seem like it could be...some issues with size, content, color, shape, actually a lengthy list

My guess is that the stars and planets in shot are actually rotating, as planets are want to do, and the "object" is some kind artefact.

I think the images are a time lapse sequence and the artefact was actually in the same place during each of the shots. I also think whomever compiled these images actually aligned the heavenly bodies on each shot, then cropped the overlap. This will give the impression that the artefact is moving, and everything else is stationary, when in fact, it's the opposite.

I have no proof of this, it's simply my thoughts on it. If I'm wrong, I'll guess we'll find out soon enough.

tanka418

Rob48

Good one.

That screaming you can hear is William of Ockham cutting himself shaving.

lol...perhaps both of you should sharpen your razor...

The issues you find with my suggestion apply to your suggestions. Further, the object you want to be a reflection doesn't quite seem like it could be...some issues with size, content, color, shape, actually a lengthy list

The problem is YOU don't understand how this works the reflection/flare LOOK nothing like the object that cause them.

It about how the light rays strike the internal surface of the lenses that make up the camera lens.

Look at this image I posted above.

img189.imageshack.us...

The reflections/flare look nothing like the lights but they line up, on another thread on here someone with the same camera lens combination used for link above posted a similar picture with same effect.

You can also see that it's grossly overexposed light sources that cause the problem and at iso 2500 f6.3 for 5 seconds Jupiter is grossly overexposed!!!

reply to post by canucks555


The number 8 is linked to Saturn. The Saturn Death Cult. I think that this is a bad sign (if it's real).

reply to post by wmd_2008

I think we are wasting our breath. This forum doesn't seem to be interested in the truth if the truth is mundane, only the wackiest far-out theories...

wmd_2008

The problem is YOU don't understand how this works the reflection/flare LOOK nothing like the object that cause them.

It about how the light rays strike the internal surface of the lenses that make up the camera lens.

Look at this image I posted above.

img189.imageshack.us...

The reflections/flare look nothing like the lights but they line up, on another thread on here someone with the same camera lens combination used for link above posted a similar picture with same effect.

You can also see that it's grossly overexposed light sources that cause the problem and at iso 2500 f6.3 for 5 seconds Jupiter is grossly overexposed!!!

Reflection:

Reflection is the change in direction of a wavefront at an interface between two different media so that the wavefront returns into the medium from which it originated.

-- en.wikipedia.org...(physics)

There are two types of reflection; specular and diffuse. Since the image in question has "form" and "structure" it cannot be diffuse. Thus it must be an accurate "mirror like" reflection of it's source...in nearly all respects.

A flare is something completely different.

While I do not doubt your examples, I will hasten to remind that the center frame of the image in question is NOT where it is purported to be...AND, since y'all want to press the notion of cropping, and other manipulation of the image, we will just have to throw out all idea along these lines...in either case your "debunk" is debunked. Would yall care to try again?

tanka418


There are two types of reflection; specular and diffuse. Since the image in question has "form" and "structure" it cannot be diffuse. Thus it must be an accurate "mirror like" reflection of it's source...in nearly all respects.

A flare is something completely different.

While I do not doubt your examples, I will hasten to remind that the center frame of the image in question is NOT where it is purported to be...AND, since y'all want to press the notion of cropping, and other manipulation of the image, we will just have to throw out all idea along these lines...in either case your "debunk" is debunked. Would yall care to try again?

Nonsense. Would you agree that this image has "form and structure"?



Yes? So it must be an accurate "mirror like" reflection of its source?

But it's not:



Or how about these ones?



Notice also the characterstic "smearing out" into an oval shape with its long axis perpendicular to the line linking the image to the source of the light. Just as you see in the "mystery" object near Jupiter:



I find it amazing that you quibble over whether the frame might or might not have been cropped but totally fail to acknowledge that a simple flare or reflection is massively more likely than some hitherto undetected giant object mooching about round Jupiter! It's like people quibbling over supposed anomalies in Apollo pictures and hand-waving away the gigantic piles of solid evidence for the missions. There aren't aliens hiding everywhere!

reply to post by Rob48


kk...

We can ignore the physics if you like...

You accuse me of "jumping to conclusions" ("aliens hiding everywhere"), yet you jump to conclusions as well. Somehow in all this I am the one that is wrong..despite having physics on my side. Amazing.

The Image you queried about is a specular reflection, IF it is indeed a reflection. The object in the image in question; is a specular reflection IF it is indeed a reflection at all.

Flares are diffuse reflections.

Oh...by the way; I wouldn't be all sure that the angles involved with the reflection are correct...

tanka418
reply to post by Rob48

 

..despite having physics on my side. ...

edit on 4-3-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

meh. that's like saying, "despite what it says in the bible."
you may well be correct in your opinion, but the attitude that runs inherent in your comment above speaks volumes. :|