Comet ISON: Hubble's Scientist's Claim?!?

Conspirator
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:15 am

PostTue Sep 10, 2013 8:18 pm » by Chronicnerd


First off,
Love the news segments from the disclose folks...as well I know reporting news requires one to report what is said whether or not one might or might not believe it. As such... my assumption is that the author of the following article posted on Disclose was doing just this:

http://www.disclose.tv/news/Is_Comet_ISON_a_UFO_Hubbles_scientists_do_a_reality_check/93417

I would like to invite anyone interested in this to contemplate what I would consider the following "Reasonable Questions", but first I am going to point out why I have questions.


Image
"The comet itself does not have three pieces," White wrote. "They are an artifact from adding up the separate exposures. The comet does not look the same in each exposure because both the comet and the Hubble telescope are moving during the exposure. The comet is blurred, just as a picture taken out the window of a moving car will be blurred."


A few things to point out about the above statement by Richard White:
1.) The images he released with his explanation do not show the *full picture*
2.) Is it safe to assume *ALL BODIES* in this picture would have some form of blur?
3.) If the answer is "no only Ison would blur"... then I would have to say he is smokin' something strong.

So, let's take a look at the original image people were using to generate the "multi-prong" looking image everyone was thinking was "odd":

The *ORIGINAL* image can be manipulated and viewed here:
http://hla.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/display?image=hlsp_ison_hst_wfc3_130430_f606w_v1&autoscale=&title=Ison+130430+WFC3+F606W
(you need to move up and right just a bit when it first loads)


This is the *original* section of the very large snapshot taken that many people used as the starting point to get the "triangle" looking structure:
Image

When you hit "darken" a few times you get something like this:
Image

To be very clear, I went ahead and zoomed it a bit:
Image

Now, I invite you to look at the *original*, the *zoomed out darkened version*, and then the zoomed image and think about this for a second...

If the "visual artifacts" are from *both* Comet Ison moving and the telescope moving... then I would be willing to make a *wild* guess that *ALL OTHER BODIES SHOULD BE BLURRED*... even if they were far away...

Why?
Look at the *DISTANCE* between the 3 segments of the "visual artifact"...
Look at the *TAIL* of the Comet and how it actually *forms* in the shape of the 3 segments...
Look at all of the objects around the comet... and notice how the only "blurring" happening is due to *distance* and not *MOTION*...


Now... if I take a snapshot from a moving car ("just as a picture taken out the window of a moving car will be blurred") like such:
Image

Then I would expect *most things* to have some form of *blur* on them...

Do we see *ANY* form of blur on *ANY* of the celestial bodies around the Comet Ison area?

I find Richard White's explanation a bit ~confusing~ and ~perplexing~...

There is *SO* much motion that the comet's perspective blurs to the point where you have such great distances and *SKEWING* of the ~single solid object~?

So... if it is moving...and this is a "side view snapshot" (because the tail actually stretches out we know we are looking from some form of side view)... then I would expect it to blur in the vector of the motion... but not show *very clear* gaps between the various "exposures" they "combined"...

I know another thing that shows this same type of "visual" behavior:
Image

A fan... depending upon your exposure time, you can get things like:
Image


However, this shows a motion of "extensions" from a central point...
Hey... wait a minute...

Image

Yeah... well you guys decide... I just find it "odd" that they had such "blurring" that it is nothing more than the several exposures they combined... when *every other celestial body in the same image has no form of motion artifact...AT ALL*...

But... then again... I don't photograph comets for a living...so maybe there is some special case scenario for comets...

Or... it is a "simple of enough" explanation for most people to easily accept and forget about...

You be the judge...


Cheers,

-CN

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:52 am
Location: Southern outskirts of Stockholm

PostTue Sep 10, 2013 10:58 pm » by Nedroj


Good one (:
DULCE EST DESIPERE IN LOCO

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 18986
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: In your grill

PostTue Sep 10, 2013 11:03 pm » by Slith


Impressive post. Great thinking. Wow. :flop:
Image

I'm just here for the popcorn Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4463
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:11 am
Location: Earth

PostWed Sep 11, 2013 12:02 am » by Shaggietrip


Thank you for the post CN. I have explained this myself to people to help them understand. Verbally. I must say your post explains it very well. With the images provided.


Thanks again and stay well. :cheers:
ImageImage
Star watchers,Sun,Moon or just space in interest. https://www.darkskywatcher.com/dsw74.html

Conspirator
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:18 pm

PostWed Sep 11, 2013 12:17 am » by Doogle


Looks like another winged planet. Maybe this is the fucker they meant all along. :D

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7563
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: ON A GIF: HUNT

PostWed Sep 11, 2013 12:23 am » by Fatdogmendoza


Doogle wrote:Looks like another winged planet. Maybe this is the fucker they meant all along. :D


Image

Doogle. you Peaky Blinder you... :mrgreen:

Conspirator
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:18 pm

PostWed Sep 11, 2013 12:31 am » by Doogle


Fatdogmendoza wrote:
Doogle wrote:Looks like another winged planet. Maybe this is the fucker they meant all along. :D


Image

Doogle. you Peaky Blinder you... :mrgreen:


Feeky chucker, no razors in my cap, I don't even wear one. I was being more than half serious. I think CNerd has made some pretty good observations.
I did laugh when I heard the geezer explaining the picture the other day, but what do I know(?) I'm still using polaroid.

Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 7:13 pm

PostSat Nov 02, 2013 9:29 pm » by sammygarfield


Chronicnerd wrote:But... then again... I don't photograph comets for a living...so maybe there is some special case scenario for comets...

Or... it is a "simple of enough" explanation for most people to easily accept and forget about...

You be the judge...

Cheers,

-CN


Here is is a video from someone that seems to photograph comets for a living that includes the raw images from the hubble telescope and explanations to how the image came to be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbLe6kEd6mE

Another example of the same effect is here: http://imageshack.us/a/img845/4871/hu4j.jpg

Does this help clarify anything?

Super Moderator
Online
User avatar
Posts: 18253
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:20 am
Location: underneath the circumstances

PostSat Nov 02, 2013 9:43 pm » by The57ironman


sammygarfield wrote:
Chronicnerd wrote:But... then again... I don't photograph comets for a living...so maybe there is some special case scenario for comets...

Or... it is a "simple of enough" explanation for most people to easily accept and forget about...

You be the judge...

Cheers,

-CN


Here is is a video from someone that seems to photograph comets for a living that includes the raw images from the hubble telescope and explanations to how the image came to be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbLe6kEd6mE

Another example of the same effect is here: http://imageshack.us/a/img845/4871/hu4j.jpg

Does this help clarify anything?

.


:clapper:

.....thank you and welcome to the forum

:cheers: :hiho: Sammy

.
.

.....you can educate the ignorant...but there's no fk'n helping the stupid.

.



  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook