There REALLY IS something strange in western sky around sunset...!!!

[link to www.youtube.com]

Not so "missing" is it? All that was required was to go straight to the primary source for the data. I gave that link as well:
[link to archive.stsci.edu]
And here is the result of grabbing the data from those coordinates:
[link to imageshack.us]

Of course he doesn't mention my processing of the sky survey data. Why would he? That is such an obvious red herring I can't even begin to imagine what kind of idiot would fall for it. What he does mention in the sky survey itself and the fact that google is using that, google is not producing live images themselves. Anyone can go straight to the sky survey and get the data for the "missing region" themselves.

Again, another red herring. I never said a damn thing about Morrison hearing about "my study." What I said is that he didn't disagree with me. You claimed his answer disagreed with mine. It did not. It reaffirmed what I said, even if it didn't go into as much detail, even if he didn't go to the trouble of presenting the "missing region" himself.

Your "factual point" is a red herring.

Danth's law. All you have done is throw out a red herring. I presented the "missing region" from Google sky. You claimed to be winning, but like most Danth's law violators, you have lost. Badly.

Holy shit, are you substituting the word "study" for "sky survey?" Are you that stupid? Morrison specifically mentioned the sky survey by name, the Palomar sky survey, aka POSS2/UKSTU! It's right here dumbass:
[link to archive.stsci.edu]

The plot thickens...wow

That must have been frustrating.

I think all of that info is based on this very thread and this very thread only, someone should make a comparison of wording in sighting reports and embedded vids.

Just a thought, may be coincedence or i may be wrong.

Fair enough, thank you for the response.

Yeah, wow, a bright star or planet. Gee, there aren't ANY bright stars or planets in the west right now, are there? Do tell me Blue, how does this "thicken" the plot at all? He doesn't show any wide views with other stars in the view which could be used to astrometrically solve it, so we're left to guess where exactly this is in the sky. "West" is awfully vague and leaves a number of likely candidates. And that's before we start making ridiculous assumptions that there is some bright naked eye star or planet visible in the west that amateur astronomers have not noticed, discovered, and screamed about. Yet somehow idiots on youtube with no idea how to properly measure the position of this thing, have in fact discovered something that EVERY competent amateur astronomer out there would instantly notice. To use a word you like to use, that would be "impossible."

Again, I invite you to join me at Chiefland astronomy village this year for the fall star party in two weeks. I'll be there Thursday through Sunday along with many other amateur astronomers, each one armed with extremely powerful equipment.


Last Edited by Astromut on 10/16/2013 03:20 PM

Hi Settle4it, :6tgbhnj:

yep, it is this

Oh this thread is really fun to watch...

3rd eye.. really nice job you are doing. May I please have your email, I would like to see the pics for myself. :) Thanks in advance

Still waiting for that apology.

You don't even get it. The reason for the missing data is NOT the "survey/study." And it's a SKY SURVEY. The data is NOT missing from the sky survey, THAT is the point! It's only missing from google's sky mosaic which they made by using the sky survey data. Google Sky is a secondary source and should NOT be used as a primary source. If you find something wrong or missing with the secondary source, you should check the primary source. If you had you would have seen there was nothing missing from it. I gave you links to both the primary source and an image of the "missing region" I made from the data downloaded direct from the primary source.

That's not even what I said you fucking idiot liar. It's NOT missing from the goddamn sky survey!

Oh really? Then explain why I had no problem finding the "missing data" from the same sky survey google sky used. Explain it.

Now you are really defensive astro.

1. I was not talking to you. 2. I was not referring to that AT all.

hmmm interesting... feeling threatened are you? Cracks beginning to appear in the facade.... Oops!

This guy takes the cake for pathetic troll.

Then what are you referring to?

Third eye getting you lot all flustered. He's getting to you.. crawling under your skin. Making you really have to work.

I like it. ;)

LOL! You are going to act like you understood it now?

You directed people to that thread because you thought that Boxer had created fake imagery. You said it was proof he was a fraud. That wasn’t true. You did that because you were unable to understand a simple concept. Additionally, you were unable to even admit it or apologize. You just move on under the mistaken assumption that people did not notice or will quickly forget.

I see, you won't answer the question, you just like the fact that he's trolling.

Bingo. He owes Boxer a huge apology.

I got that same impression.

Items in Question:

Picture 1--We agree it is an illustration (even though Sethy could only say "it appears to be an illustration"). Don't know about you all, but to me that suggests it could be an actual photography.

Does ANYONE agree with Sethy on this bullshit? If so, state your Name.

Picture 2--We agree, NOTHING but clear blue skies. No planes, contrails, chemtrails, lens flare, clouds, nothing (hint, hint this is OBVIOUSLY not the SW sky)

Picture 3--Waiting on "their" answer

Picture 4--We disagree. At least 5 - 10 said "lens flare" b/c of the wire, but actually the wire had nothing to do with it b/c there is some other UN-STATED proof in picture 3 that not 1, but 2 objects are flare or flare-related. What proof you ask, Astro said so and posted a finger test video. Astro has NOT responded to the black thread/sun simulation which is FAR more analogous and easier to produce than responding to my messages. He said the finger was a test, but the thread was a "game". Good thing he gets to play Dick Webster, right?

And to be clear, the object in pics 3, 4 and 5 (WERE NEVER VISIBLE THROUGH MY CAMERA VIEWER).

Picture 5--We disagree. At least 2 people said "lens flare"/"filter flare". There proof/evidence = they said so. Supporting evidence: Shill logic if there is a picture of the sun and ANYTHING else, ALL OTHER SAID things EXCEPT animals are "flares". Get it, right? Nevermind, the REAL flares in the pic (the reddish, circular, translucent flares at or around the bright object). Nope, the two flares that look like a planet AND a moon in photos and with my naked eyes, and the moon (less prominent) than the planet maintains the same DISTANCE and ORIENTATION to the planet...That's that new lens flare, right? How do they know it's a flare and not "the contrail" that everybody has been seeing? Funny, thing my pictures will take it from:

invisible to naked eye
Double lens flare on wire
Double lens flare off wire
Contrail
Venus
NEARLY identical to the DOCUMENTED --descriptions/illustrations of the "winged planet"

And then I am done, so consider us to be at stage 3 of 6.

Still waiting for a coherent explanation for why the flare obscured the wire...

Hey, message me, I might actually be able to come. If that is November 1st I will again be in Orlando and would love to attend.

Went to the Miami museum of science this weekend and the local astronomy club was there. I asked about the "object" but none had seen it. One guy immediately said Ison though.

Thanks for the invite. Would really love to attend.

Really?

Who is frustrated? I see 3rdEye dropping F-bombs on almost every post now. Some of his sentences sentences have become unintelligible and he keeps mixing up terms. In fact, he becomes increasingly belligerent with every post.

Really..??

Well I suppose that shows that beginners, as well experienced observers attend the clubs there.

ISON is currently in Leo, and is a morning object.
No way it can be seen in the west, around sunset.
And a diffuse object like a comet, at around magnitude 10, isn't an easy visual target in a 8" - 10" telescope - not a hope of seeing it by naked-eye yet.

SAME OBJECT THREE YEARS AGO......
[link to youtu.be]
THE REST SPEAK FOR ITSELF......