Yup, it's Venus

No, it's not.
Thread: Is Venus Brighter Than Normal?

Well there's a loaded question. The answer is of course nothing since I'm not "paid" to do this at all. I enjoy astronomy, even the math.

Well there's a loaded question. The answer is of course nothing since I'm not "paid" to do this at all. I enjoy astronomy, even the math.

Why dont you ever get your telescope out an record the surface of the sun moon an other close flyby objects?

Nibiru.

Nibiru.

Here's why it looked like it "wasn't moving" from night to night over months of time this summer.

And here's a spreadsheet I made to calculate its position from earth with high accuracy (to within a few arcseconds). You can use it in combination with astrometry as shown to confirm that the "bright star in the west at sunset" really is Venus.
[link to dropcanvas.com]

It appears not to move up and down, left and right... Cause it is moving towards us.

[link to adsabs.harvard.edu]

"Such a planet is found to most likely reside in the region of Scorpius, with considerably less likelihood that it is in Taurus."

Here is a serious question, not trying to be a dick...but why are you even a member of a conspiracy site when all I've ever seen you do is try to prove that they're all bunk? Are there any conspiracies you believe in?

So do you think the ancient egyptians and other civilizations that catalog a heavenly body that does a fly by on earth causing havoc and great destruction on earth due to an elliptical orbit were lying or just foolin on future earthlings?

Dr. Astro you rock.

Do you ever think that nasa will put up a remote control ship that could just live stream as it goes through our universe on the way to the asteroid belt or to another planet?

Would it be light enough for us to watch or because we look at deep space it would just be dark?

:artbellsmoking:

I'm looking at Venus and Jupiter right now

Here is a serious question, not trying to be a dick...but why are you even a member of a conspiracy site when all I've ever seen you do is try to prove that they're all bunk?

I'm here for the same reason as anyone else, I enjoy being here (how's that "NASA data" from an amateur in Japan sitting with you now, btw?). I enjoy presenting good information, I don't really care if others here accept it or not (the rational ones will though by actually doing their homework and seeing that I'm right regardless of what they think of me personally). I have become a better and much more knowledgeable amateur astronomer thanks to GLP. In the process of debunking nonsense you end up learning a lot.

Are there any conspiracies you believe in?

For what it's worth, and it's not worth anything, I believe NASA deliberately covered up knowledge that the Challenger astronauts were not only alive but also conscious for a significant period of time after the orbiter broke up. Emergency air bottles had been turned on, and they told us that 6 months after the accident since they had also told the astronauts' families and knew the information would rapidly leak if they didn't let it out themselves. What they didn't tell us was that the pilot was flipping switches in a manner which indicated he was trying to restore power (a futile effort since the fuel cells had been severed from the crew compartment). NASA knew this and hid the information for as long as they could to minimize the public outcry over the disaster. It was easier for the public to swallow if they thought it was just an explosion which resulted in the astronauts instantly losing consciousness and dying (the emergency air bottles did not supply pressurized air and wouldn't keep them conscious).

If the public knew the astronauts were fighting to stay alive in the shuttle as they fell back to the ocean, not just trying to turn on emergency air to stay conscious when they were on the way to losing consciousness from cabin decompression anyway, but also throwing switches to try to get the power back on and fly whatever was left of the orbiter (strapped in their seats they had no way of knowing for certain that the wings and fuselage were completely gone though they may have noticed the lack of payload bay doors letting sunlight in through the aft flight deck windows)... the probability was higher that there would be a public demand to completely terminate the space shuttle program right then and there. The full extent of this did not come out until 2006 in astronaut Mike Mullane's book Riding Rockets. By then the shuttle program's cancellation was already scheduled, so it was a moot point.

Back in 1986, NASA's official line was "the crew possibly, but not certainly, lost consciousness in the seconds following orbiter breakup due to in-flight loss of crew module pressure" when really they knew that at least the pilot Michael Smith was awake long enough to make deliberate decisions and try to restore power to the flight deck, more than just a few seconds. They didn't reveal that detail about Smith's switch throws, they only talked about the personal air supplies being activated since that is what they told the families of the astronauts and the information would leak if they didn't come out with it.

The emergency air bottles couldn't keep them conscious, and in fact NASA tried to brush it aside as proof that the cabin was depressurizing and they were losing consciousness and trying to find a way to stay awake. The pilot's switch throws indicate a certain level of clear headed (if futile) decision making and action on the astronauts part that NASA didn't want publicly known. I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this since it's "just a little lie" compared to some of the crazier shit that gets claimed around here, but it's the little lies that you can actually hide for years before even they finally leak out. And leak out it did in 2006 when Astronaut Mike Mullane spilled the beans on the full truth of the matter.

When Mullane made these revelations back in 2006 it made some waves in the media ( [link to www.theguardian.com] ), and the conspiracy was finally revealed. The conspiracy wasn't that astronauts weren't really flying into space like they said they were, the conspiracy was that those who died trying didn't lose consciousness nearly as quickly (indeed, if at all) as NASA tried to imply 20 years ago. It had to be horrifying for all of them, especially Christa McAuliffe who was just a regular school teacher hastily trained to fly on the shuttle.

Oh sure, it's not as "entertaining" as the conspiracy theory that the shuttle didn't really go into orbit at all or that Apollo didn't really go to the moon, but unlike all that other bullcrap it didn't require thousands of people to be in on it, just a few who were there studying the wreckage and knew what to look for. It wasn't something any independent researcher could have discovered by any means other than interrogating the astronauts and the accident investigators themselves. Independent astronomers, both amateur and professional, observed Apollo flying back and forth to the moon and the shuttle flying back and forth to ISS. But this was something that they actually COULD keep hidden. It would be like trying to investigate whether any astronaut has ever had sex in space; there's no way to know unless you were there or unless you were cleaning up the spacecraft afterwards. NASA says it hasn't happened, but only a few people would even know if it had.

Nice lens flare, now will you quit spamming my thread with lens flares?

No, it's not.
Thread: Is Venus Brighter Than Normal?

This book indicates that it does appear brighter at times. It talks about it being very bright in 1940 and this book is from 1947.
IMAGE ( [link to i61.tinypic.com] )

Dr. Astro you rock.

Do you ever think that nasa will put up a remote control ship that could just live stream as it goes through our universe on the way to the asteroid belt or to another planet?

Would it be light enough for us to watch or because we look at deep space it would just be dark?

:artbellsmoking:

Maybe one day, but probably not for a few decades. Deep space can be had from here on earth, going out to some other spot in the solar system wouldn't really change what you see. In terms of probes that explore asteroids, moons, and planets while "live streaming," the huge limitations there are latency of the signal and bandwidth. The only reason we can get any data at all from New Horizons is by having it "talk slowly" so that our radio antennas can detect the signal over the background noise. It's a very faint signal.

Well there's a loaded question. The answer is of course nothing since I'm not "paid" to do this at all. I enjoy astronomy, even the math.

Maybe one day, but probably not for a few decades. Deep space can be had from here on earth, going out to some other spot in the solar system wouldn't really change what you see. In terms of probes that explore asteroids, moons, and planets while "live streaming," the huge limitations there are latency of the signal and bandwidth. The only reason we can get any data at all from New Horizons is by having it "talk slowly" so that our radio antennas can detect the signal over the background noise. It's a very faint signal.