This should be considered a 'beta' page. Please let me know what you think is good or bad about this page.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Use these links to navigate through this site
This should be considered a 'beta' page. Please let me know what you think is good or bad about this page.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
It looks good to me. It tells why the area is blank in those programs and where people can get the data. They can't ask much more than that.
They can't ask much more than that.
They can, and will. In spite of the page being there, in plain view, they will ask. Just watch.
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
Hi Undead,
Yes, you're right. We see that all the time. I guess I should have said, "It gives all the information anyone should need."
That you should have! But, that's OK, we all make mistakes. Even yours truly. :D
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
Great job, Astrogeek. Covers everything, as far as I can tell.
It all looks fine to me.
The SkyMap reference showing the 'missing' area is useful. If anyone asks what the blank area in Google Sky is hiding, the link to SkyMap and the comment 'there you go' should be sufficient.
Yes, I was very pleased to have that shown to me. I received the information from a reader who contacted me through the web page, but prefers to remain anonymous. Says he doesn't want his contact information up on the page. But, I deeply appreciate it just the same.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Very good. Looks ok to me. But what about this video on youtube? Can you debunk this one please? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtxGqZ6XNYE&feature=related
Can you debunk this one please?
Well, it is dated 3 July 208. Now, more than two years later, the people who claim Nibiru is real still have no evidence—only misidentified stars and planets; lens flares; and fraudulent videos like this one. (Bikenbeer identified it as fraudulent here, and I illustrated his explanation in this post.)
Given the above, I don't think the video you've asked us to look at really needs to be debunked. If there were anything to what it says, people wouldn't need to be fabricating "proof" of Nibiru two years later.
"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain
Well, that one is actually pretty easy.
Fact 1) IRAS was launched in 19831
Fact 2) The video quotes its source as "John Maynard", a "former U.S. Intelligence Officer".2
Fact 3) John Maynard was (according to his own statements) a "Sergeant 1st Class" (not an "officer", although there may be some confusion on how the term "intelligence officer" is used) and (also according to his own statements) he retired in 1980.3
So, we are led to believe that he was included in some super-secret intel 3 years after he retired?
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
I just would add to this page that anyone can take a pair of binoculars, a small telescope, go outside and look up and see for themselves with their own eyes.
I just would add to this page that anyone can take a pair of binoculars, a small telescope, go outside and look up and see for themselves with their own eyes.
Done.
I don't think you can see it with your naked eye or with a normal telescope, you need to have a strong infrared capable telescope. Without it all you will see are the normal visible heavenly bodies. Our eyes are capable of viewing only 10 to 14% of the full color spectrum. My only question is whatever it is, it was not originally blanked out before, they should at least be honest and say we don't know what it is, since nobody knows everything so to me that is more understandable.
My only question is whatever it is, it was not originally blanked out before
Ok.
they should at least be honest and say we don't know what it is
Well, I know what is behind the black square.
Is that enough?
I don't think you can see it with your naked eye or with a normal telescope, you need to have a strong infrared capable telescope.
Good thing the sky has been scanned in multiple wavelengths across multiple decades, most thoroughly and recently by the WISE mission, and we've found absolutely diddly-squat that fits proponents ideas and claims.
Our eyes are capable of viewing only 10 to 14% of the full color spectrum.
Sure? Depending on the scale used, visible light only takes 0.0035% of the electromagnetic spectrum, or 2.3% if you're logarythmicly generous - either way, far short of your 10-14%. It's why we use many different instruments to look at the other 90odd percent of the spectrum, where we find - you guessed it - absolutely diddly-squat that fits proponents ideas and claims.
My only question is whatever it is, it was not originally blanked out before
So that means you are fully aware of what the original data is, and where Google pulls it from, allowing you to freely search the original data and not be hindered by Google Sky not stitching images together properly. Are you going to do that, or just insist it's Google hiding something?
they should at least be honest and say we don't know what it is
As I thought. You know the most common blank spot on Google (I think there's more than one, could be wrong though) is practically right next to Orion, which is practically the most useful constellation in the night sky with which to find umpteen more constellations. In short, when you first look at the sky, odds are that you look for Orion. When you first get a 'scope, odds are you start with Orion. Hopefully you see where this is going - with countless thousands of eyes, telescopes, observations in multiple wavelengths of that patch of sky, what do we find? My new favourite phrase, absolutely diddly-squat that fits proponents ideas and claims.
All i wanted to know is what that anomalous object is, which seems to be moving south-east i don't care about 2012 or planet X, just that donut shape red orange round thing with what seems to be three sattelites around it google sky says its unknown. If it's a photo glitch or artifact, why is it moving?
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgIUdbtLG4o)
You are probably one of the few persons that can give an intelligent answer, thanks.
We need some time, max. Particularly, I can't find out what is it, because I am not an amateur astronomer or something like that, and I'm not able to recognize the stars behind the black box.
However, maybe one of our astronomers here, on this forum, can give you the answer. :-)
PS: that video is laughable.
Odds are photographic anomaly from scanning the plates.
The route to finding things like this out I think is explained on the YouTube page, if that's in the sidebar. In short, go to the original source of the data, find out how it was collected, or go to a star catalog, a sky database whathaveyou and run a quick coordinate search for the nearest objects.
I'll edit if nobody beats me to an answer, suffice it to say it sure isn't a planet with moons or whatever the claims are.
You know what I think this is?
It is the inside view when you look in a reflector telescope.
You have this spider thing where the second mirror is hooked on.
A sharper image is this one found on that same location RA: 06h18m23s, Dec 21°08m27s
And there are a whole lot of these artefacts in the same area.
So unless there are different 20 Nibirus predicted, this is a telescope artefact.
The red colour in the Youtube clip can be simple explained when you have automatic colour balancing.
Somehow the image processing software is convinced that the blue stars must be white and starts making the stars white by making the complete image more red.
Wow, you're most probably right its just an artifact. I've seen space bubbles or blobs before which are spherical in shape, but this one is toroidal in shape, difficult to just happen, unless maybe it's a collision of two objects i don't really know. I still wish though that a group of astrophysicist and astronomers would give a closer investigation, there could be something remarkable to discover there. Huge thanks for your help guys.
there could be something remarkable to discover there.
There's not. You can look at the DSS-1 and DSS-2 plate scans, and they don't show anything at those same coordinates, which suggests it is most likely a processing error or photographic anomaly from some other survey.
The you tube one is just like this.
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/7813/spiderthing.jpg
The big difference is that the image taken is out of focus and the square part appears to be round, the holding wires are clearly visible. Now take the automatic colour balancing expecting the stars to be white and make the complete image red.
My guess it is this type of telescope where the camera is at the bottom.
http://www.astroshop.eu/skywatcher-maksutov-telescope-mc-127-1500-skymax-bd-az-s-goto-set/p,18030
Not this one where the camera is put sideways.
http://www.ciao.de/Skywatcher_N_130_650_EQ_2__8659907
I made a comparison with the Youtube version.
I think they used different types of telescopes, the square thing is probably rotated 45 degree and I cannot find the 3rd wire.
And here I undid the colour correction and made it blue again. Ignore the green stars since these stars were originally not red white balanced, only the round donut part
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/5492/copyofspiderthing3.jpg
I don't think you can see it with your naked eye or with a normal telescope, you need to have a strong infrared capable telescope.
You can hire robotic telescopes all around the world that have IR filters on them.
Also Wise did map the complete sky in IR with the extended mission NEOWISE.
Is there a site that showns behind black square or even recovery data in Google Sky?
The region of sky in the infamous Google Sky black rectangle can be viewed here on Sky-Map.
In case you live a the wrong place of the planet or do have bad climate or no a telescope, you can always rent a telescope online like this:
http://www.arnierosner.com/rent-a-scope/index.html
The biggest problem I have with the whole scenario is …Why would anybody,Government or otherwise go to the trouble to"debunk/address" such a ludicrous notion such as a planet x slamming into the Earth ? There is also a NASA site
dedicated to "debunking" 2012. Food for thought.
One would think that a fantasy planet hitting the earth, or coming sufficiently close to create substantial damage, would be obvious enough that nobody would believe it. And, unfortunately, that thought would be incorrect. Sadly, not all people have very much training in critical thought.
So, let's move forward to NASA here, where they maintain a place for you to ask questions, called "Ask an Astronomer." And thanks to pseudoscientists putting this whole Nibiru garbage out there, people start writing in questions to NASA about it. Right there, NASA is drawn in, one way or another. What NASA did was decide to go pro-active, but this is hardly a surprise considering the number of 2012 questions they have been asked.
One would think that a fantasy planet hitting the earth, or coming sufficiently close to create substantial damage, would be obvious enough that nobody would believe it.
Its is really not that obvious, even for an amateur astronomer.
There is always the possibility for a rough planet to travel through the solar system. So the first time I heard about Nibiru I got interested. But once you start digging deeper into the Nibiru story, you pretty soon discover that the planet described as Nibiru is plain impossible. Impossible because you cannot have a reoccurring planet that crosses that deep into the solar system.
Perhaps I overstated that part, but I think my explanation of NASA behavior is more on topic, anyway. :)
Why would anybody,Government or otherwise go to the trouble to"debunk/address" such a ludicrous notion such as a planet x slamming into the Earth ?
Because some people actually believe it.
You sound as if you're adopting the conspiracy point of view:
NASA are saying nothing about 2012, therefore there must be something in it.
NASA are debunking 2012, therefore there must be something in it.
I hope you can see the logical fallacy in this argument.
If your 'food for thought' leads you to suppose that something might happen which is being kept from us, please feel free to tell us what and why, having first checked down the list at the left to see if it's already been dealt with.
Please remember that the 'Government' does not have a monopoly on knowledge. If there were an unknown planet heading for us we would see it. We know that many doomsday claims break the laws of physics. We know that the laws of gravity prohibit the claimed orbit of Planet X and the effects of any 'alignment'. We know that many claimed events are not predictable. Has the government been able to alter the way in which physics works? If not, then there's nothing they can keep from us.
There's no reason to assume that 2012 will be different from any other year.
I think honestly that if there was something as serious as all this was actually true (not that it is) the government would not hide and even if they did try to it wouldn't work. People need to have more faith in their governments, and stop buying into hollywood trying to make a quick dollar, they are causing people including myself (before I found this site) alot of unneeded stress and anxiety. The makers of 2012 and the creaters of all the fake websites should have to formally and publicly apologise. We will all still be here in 2013 and they will be coming up with the next doomsday as they have been doing forever. Where did this whole prediction begin and how did it spin completly out of control?
Where did this whole prediction begin and how did it spin completly out of control?
Back in 1966, author Michael D. Coe suggested that if the Mayans thought that the start of their Long Count calendar in 3114 BC represented the creation, did they think that the end of the world would come when the calendar reached its end in 2012? In fact, the calendar doesn't actually end, it clicks over to a new period. Other authors, such as Frank Waters and José Argüelles jumped on the disaster bandwagon in later books, despite the fact that scholars studying Mayan inscriptions can find no evidence that the Maya themselves believed that the end of the world would take place.
It really took off after the failed doomsday of 2000, when all the crackpots started looking for a new date for their doomsday predictions. Then there was the failure of Planet X to arrive in 2003. Just postpone it until 2012. Easy to do when you're talking about an imaginary object.
The result is the biggest load of garbage imaginable all heaped by assorted frauds and cranks on to one date. Not a single scrap of this has any scientific evidence behind it and hasn't the remotest chance of taking place.
I think honestly that if there was something as serious as all this was actually true (not that it is) the government would not hide and even if they did try to it wouldn't work.
You're right.
People need to have more faith in their governments
Yeah, they have no faith because the many governments today are known to be bad.
We have WikiLeaks, however, and it is always publishing something the population didn't know before (or knew). Many governments often hide things.
However, here we deal with science. They can't hide science, because all the claims made are testable. Anyone can test and prove doomsayers wrong.
Where did this whole prediction begin and how did it spin completly out of control?
Michael D. Coe, 1966. :-)
The makers of 2012 and the creaters of all the fake websites should have to formally and publicly apologise.
They should be sued because of the damage they cause in families. For me this is the equivalent of terrorizing people.
I agree with them being sued it's horrible the effect that this very nasty rumour has caused and will continue to cause. Thank you for answering. Also thank you for helping me to understand and learn more about this.
"You sound as if you're adopting the conspiracy point of view:
NASA are saying nothing about 2012, therefore there must be something in it.
NASA are debunking 2012, therefore there must be something in it.
I hope you can see the logical fallacy in this argument"
I am adopting no point of view other than I find the "debunking" interesting.I like to have an open mind.
More interesting than planet x is Comet Neat and it's "passage"in 2003.
I am adopting no point of view other than I find the "debunking" interesting.I like to have an open mind.
I hope that having an open mind doesn't mean blindly accepting claims without evidence.
NASA are saying nothing about 2012, therefore there must be something in it.
NASA are debunking 2012, therefore there must be something in it.
I hope you can see the logical fallacy in this argument"
Is this not what is happening?
If NASA says nothing about 2012 the conspiracy theorists will ask what NASA is hiding.
If NASA does say something, then they will use that as an argument that that is proof that NASA knows about it.
Anyway you turn it, for any CT this will be proof that there must be something.
More interesting than planet x is Comet Neat and it's "passage"in 2003.
"Passage"…?
Don't tell me you're one of those people who thinks the comet was solar ejecta….
Not at all.I don't "think" one way or the other.What I find "interesting" was the size of the comet and how close it came to our planet.Would A come of that reported size and "passage" past the sun cause any effect on Earth ?
I've got a better question. What are you basing the question off of? As in, what exactly is making you assume that any of that would affect Earth?
OH. Oh. I know what you're going by now. Warning folks, this is a conspiracy nut. Some conspiracy 'theorists' think that, because of Comet NEAT's passage to the sun in 2003, that it has caused the weather on Earth to be greatly affected.
Yeah. No. It didn't. Comet NEAT 2003 has been debunked already. Sorry.
Not at all.I don't "think" one way or the other.What I find "interesting" was the size of the comet and how close it came to our planet.
Er, only if by "close" you mean "inside the orbit of Mercury." Also, the comet was "big" only due to its proximity to the Sun and its timely encounter with a solar eruption. The exact size of the nucleus was hard to determine, but like most comets it didn't look too massive. I doubt it was anywhere near as large as the famous/infamous Hale-Bopp, which was some 60 km in diameter. Don't confuse the size of the gas cloud and tail (negligible mass) with the nucleus (still not too massive, but where almost all of a comet's mass resides).
Would A come of that reported size and "passage" past the sun cause any effect on Earth ?
As noted above, I think you have some misconceptions of what "size" means. In short, no.
Thanks Juju,that is exactly what I was asking.
Moo,your an idiot.
Moo,your an idiot.
No insults here, okey?
Children please, lest we have to clean these boards of unnecessary posts.
This thread directly relates to Google Sky, if anyone's comments stray off topic, take it elsewhere.
If they were trying to 'cover it up' I would think they'd put in a little effort and at least try and photoshop it lol!
Also, now that it is mid-2011, wouldn't anything large enough to cause damage be seen by anyone with a decent telescope?
With the size proponents claim inbound planets and brown dwarf stars and whatnot are, just your eyeballs pointed in the right direction would be enough, especially if they want said object to arrive next year.
Of course proponents don't let a little insignificant thing like physics get in the way of their fantasy worlds…
yes rita sue px was supposed to be sean since 09, its not real..
No man knows the day nor the hour when the world will end.
Become a debunker and help out those that are being fed up with lies spread by False scientists going after you'r money.
Practice what you want to and dont give up on you'r dreams my dream is to become a basketball player 'NBA'