"The Real Venus" Shimmering circle of light

Jonathan Evans

New Member


whats all this about ? I dont understand what they are proving with this picture, this is the only thing left for me, everything about being able to see bubbles in space in some footage and that all ISS footage is all purely all CGI and green screen is all twodle
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member


whats all this about ? I dont understand what they are proving with this picture, this is the only thing left for me, everything about being able to see bubbles in space in some footage and that all ISS footage is all purely all CGI and green screen is all twodle

Where is that from? Please provide a link to the original source.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Looks like a cropped and zoomed bit of lens flare or out of focus light source to me, but yeah, a source would be helpful. GIS gives me nothing but jellyfish.
 

Hofnarr

Member
Looks like a cropped and zoomed bit of lens flare or out of focus light source to me, but yeah, a source would be helpful. GIS gives me nothing but jellyfish.

It must be a jellyfhish in space then :D

But I agree, this really just looks like a lensflare or an out of focus light.
The picture reminds me of this thread:
Orbs: Something the metaJUNK shills just can't debunk.
Jonathan Evans, the Original picture would be much appreciated.

On a secound thought, I don't think its an out of focus light, regarding the structure of the "orb" it seems more like a lensflare caused by a reflection.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's just out of focus scintillation. The "twinkling" of a star is due to ripples in the atmosphere. With planets you get similar rippling, though the twinkling is less visible to the naked eye (that's one way of telling the difference between a star and a planet in the night sky, planets don't twinkle).

The shape of the out-of-focus planet depends on the camera, the focus, and the exposure. This one appears hexagonal, which is a common shape.

20160421-081511-jpfem.jpg

Here's another example:

And another with a different shape
 
Last edited:

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
I've noticed that the video is taken through the window pane, there is an offset reflection in the glass that can be seen after the camera zoomed out and in again (from 6:12):
Screen Shot 2016-04-21 at 16.38.15.png
The reflection is dimmer and smaller than the 'direct' image that confirms this image being out of focus.

PS From personal experience, the double glazed window panes interfere with the camera automatic focus and make taking sharp images of small distant objects practically impossible.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I beg to differ a little. Normally the shape is determined by the count and shape of the aperture blades and the aperture. exposure doesn't really count in.

its called bokeh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

edit: im not used to type on a tablet.

Exposure comes into play when there's flare. It makes the edges of the shape much less distinct. Pure bokeh gives you a sharply defined geometric shape, but when things get too bright you get a much rougher shape.

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I just made this example showing Bokeh at different exposures by varying the ISO. Aperture and shutter speed are constant (f/11 1/60th). Note the darker version has more obvious edges and internal structure. The brighter images are larger, and with a fuzzy more rounded edge.
20160421-104148-1z0ua.jpg

Here's a close-up of 100 vs 800
20160421-110555-kt29y.jpg

Here's how I simulated a "star" on a blue background. A hole in some cardboard with a light behind.
20160421-110742-e3yr0.jpg
 
Last edited:

Hofnarr

Member
Pretty cool Idea! I have to play around with this tomorow.
I did a quick overlay between your pics, 100 and 3200.
flare.jpg

The Brighter "Circle" beeing at your ISO100.
As I agree, the higher the exposure the more fuzzy it gets, but both the flares are quite the same shape.
 

Henk001

Senior Member.
I recognize the image from the times I looked through my telescope and turned the eyepiece completely out of focus. You see what was basically a tiny very bright image smeared out over the view and optical parts of the telescope itself are gradually showing up. The twinkling occurs when there is a disturbance of the air in the line of sight, f.i. warm air rising in front of the camera or telescope. You would get the same effect with any other bright object.
I had to laugh in the beginning of the video, when he showed radar images of the Venus surface, wondering why you don't see those through your telescope and claiming them to be false.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Pretty cool Idea! I have to play around with this tomorow.
I did a quick overlay between your pics, 100 and 3200.
Minor point if you want to replicate it, the "3200" is actually 128000 (labeled "H" on my 7D). I forgot it went that high.

As I agree, the higher the exposure the more fuzzy it gets, but both the flares are quite the same shape.
Yeah, I probably should have said the appearance depends on those factors.

Another thing that can make a difference is anything that's very close to the lens, this could include a dirty window, or dirt on or in the lens itself. Drops of water on the lens can have an interesting effect

(Discussed here: https://www.metabunk.org/explained-...e-‘critters’-water-on-lens-caustic-bokeh.t5211/ )
 

Jonathan Evans

New Member
you guys are so awesome, I can now return to the world of the sane, and no longer worry about this "flat Earth" Rubbish, which is entirely based on Conspiracy in the first place.
 

txt29

Senior Member.
I wonder how NASA simulated the artificial Venus to all astronomers in the past centuries, and to all the ancient civilizations who observed it even before that. Oh, I forgot, all the history must be an invention of the governments, too. But then, even my great-grand-father observed the planets well before NASA existed. Did the government invent my great-grand-father, too?
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
This is what is happening. A number of flat earthers are buying digital cameras with a powerful zoom lens (60x and up) and digital zoom (4x for example). They take videos of various stars and planets. The videos are very strange for these reasons:

-They are severely out of focus because they leave the camera in autofocus.

From Wikipedia: Contrast detection autofocus is achieved by measuring contrast within a sensor field, through the lens. The intensity difference between adjacent pixels of the sensor naturally increases with correct image focus. The optical system can thereby be adjusted until the maximum contrast is detected.

Autofocus will not work properly when pointed at a dark sky with only tiny pinpoints of light.

But even if they were to use manual focus and set the lens to infinity, there could still be a problem.

On film cameras of yore, lenses were carefully calibrated to distances. You could actually use a tape measure to focus the lens. Infinity meant infinity (on a quality lens anyway). On current digital cameras meant for amateur use, the makers assume the user will almost always use autofocus. The lens actually focuses somewhat "past" infinity - to give autofocus the ability to "hunt" for maximum contrast. If you simply crank the manual focus all the way out on many digital cameras, the image will be out of focus. You actually have to back off to get distant objects in focus.

- They use maximum digital zoom, which is nothing more than a form of cropping and results in a larger image with less definition.

- Scintillation. From Wikipedia: The twinkling of stars caused by the passing of light through different layers of a turbulent atmosphere. Most scintillation effects are caused by anomalous refraction caused by small-scale fluctuations in air density usually related to temperature gradients.

The result is a video of severely out of focus low definition images of stars and planets. Put this together with scintillation and you get these strange pulsating jellyfish. They then claim that this is proof that "Science" is lying to us about what stars and planets actually are and what they look like. Science presents us with pictures of sharp points of light, but when citizen scientists actually do their own investigation, they see that stars have dimension. The claim is that these "stars" and "planets" are actually small and nearby lights fixed on the firmament or dome.

Recently the speculation is that we are seeing these stars through water, and they compare the patterns they see in their star videos to objects seen from just below the rippling surface of water in a swimming pool. The conclusion is that "space is water."
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Looking at this particular video again, I realized something. I think that most of the scintillation is caused by the photographer's breath. Look particularly at 4:20 when he makes an exclamation. The image dances at exactly the same time. Human breath is warm and turbulent, causing random refractions of light.

 

vandamme

New Member
The video I saw states that it was taken from inside, through a pane of window glass. Apparently, not telescope grade.
 
Top