Missing Planetoid

[reynoldbot]

There are several examples of aurora hanging over the earth's limb on wikipedia, including one image which apparantly shows stars (or possibly planets) on the daylight side of earth.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_borealis

Here is the link to said image:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AAurora_Borealis.jpg

Not being an expert on star charts or anything like that, what do you guys think? The earth appears to be overexposed, probably done so to emphasize the aurora. It's interesting though, that the daylight earth was not even more so overexposed, considering what normally is required to A: get a good aurora image and B: for stars (or planetoids) to register. It also appears that the image is motion-blurred.

EDITED TO ADD: Fixed the link. Thanks BertLs

[BertL]

reynoldbot, replace the colon (the : symbol) with %3A.

That should work.

[Grand Lunar]

Exactly, which is the same as many HBs do. They might be quite ignorant of what they are actually seeing, but they insist that because it looks like x to them, it must be x.

Fortunately Kiwi, I was open minded enough to allow my preconception to be proven wrong.
I feel educated now. And they say there's nothing good on the internet!

Thanks for the image, Bob B. That perfectly illustrates what was seen in the other image.
Is the really bright light the sun? If so, this film is VERY different from Apollo's; I've seen images where the sun almost drowns out the lunar surface. Some shuttle images are similar.

Who cares what Greenmagoo thinks the astronauts could have or should have done?

His followers on YouTube.
Even though he did appearently get THIS one right, his other arguements are bitter failures.

[Count Zero]

Is the really bright light the sun?

The sun would totally saturate an image of this exposure. My guess is that it is a dramatically-overexposed moon

[Kiwi]

reynoldbot said:

...what do you guys think? The earth appears to be overexposed, probably done so to emphasize the aurora. It's interesting though, that the daylight earth was not even more so overexposed, considering what normally is required to A: get a good aurora image and B: for stars (or planetoids) to register. It also appears that the image is motion-blurred.

Auroras require about the same exposure as stars, or a longer exposure than the brightest stars, so the light on the Earth in that photo is unlikely to be sunlight -- it's more likely weak moonlight. Note the yellow-orange lights to the right of Lake Manicouagan -- I wonder if they are communities along the St Lawrence Seaway, but they could also be reflected cabin lights. It looks to me as if most of what we see on Earth is cloud, and it's possible too that the lakes are covered with ice. I haven't been able to identify the stars, but perhaps could if we knew exactly when the photo was taken and what way it is facing. Northern hemisphere people might have a better chance of identifying them than I do.

It's always worth taking a photo of a landscape under moonlight because it can really fool people if it has identifiable stars in it, because the land will look exactly the same as if it was shot under sunlight and the sky will be blue. Clouds will also look natural if they are stationary.

I once took a 20-second shot of Orion setting over New Zealand's snowcapped Mount Ruapehu in blue sky with Sirius above, and if people recognise the constellation, the first thing they want to know is how I got a shot that includes stars in daylight. I didn't. A nice bonus was that the colour lab thought the stars were dust on the negative, so did some extra free prints.

Interestingly, in my shot Orion is oriented the same way it is in Bob B's photo, with the belt vertical.

[Grand Lunar]

Ah, an overexposed Moon is the likely explaination.

I wonder what the 7%-albedo-HBs think of that.

Can you show off some of your work here, Kiwi? That sounds like it'd be neat to see.

[Bob B.]

countzero said:

Is the really bright light the sun?

The sun would totally saturate an image of this exposure. My guess is that it is a dramatically-overexposed moon

Correct, it is the moon.

[Grand Lunar]

bob said:

countzero said:

Is the really bright light the sun?

The sun would totally saturate an image of this exposure. My guess is that it is a dramatically-overexposed moon

Correct, it is the moon.

My next guess would've been Lucifer (last paragraph before Epilogue. ;D

[AtomicDog]

Bumping this thread to inform all that this discovery has made the ALSJ:

workingonthemoon.com/A14venus/a14Venus.html


Did anyone here contact the ALSJ writers and tell them what the ApolloHoaxers found?

And to think, it was a HB, showtime, who got the ball rolling!

[Data Cable]

Hmmm... looks like I might have to share the sweatsocks. (re: my sig over on BAUTF)

[The Third Man]

workingonthemoon.com/A14venus/a14Venus.html

Does anyone else have the same problem I have, that none of the links in that page work? Every link I have tried returns "Not Found."

[Ginnie]

Links work fine for me.

Data Cable's research has been confirmed as correct!

[RAF]

Strange, because the links don't work for me, either.

I wonder what could account for that?

edit to add...and welcome to the board, The Third Man.

[Data Cable]

Links are all dead for me, too, other than the larger version of the 9191/Starry Night overlay. Perhaps due to the WIP nature of the site. I note that the "biography" page for Eric M. Jones pointed to by this particular page is workingonthemoon.com/emj.html, which comes up 404 for me, but the main page (workingonthemoon.com/) points to workingonthemoon.com/jones.html, which is valid.

Question to AtomicDog: How did you find the A14Venus page? Is it linked through from the main page somehow?

[edit: flaky auto-linking of URLs)

[Ginnie]

I think If you guys can't get the link then you aren't paid disinfo agents like the rest of us. ;D

I'm using firefox in Linux Ubuntu BTW.

Try:
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14Venus.html