"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-...‘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.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Arugula Claim: Only 6% of COVID deaths are "real" - the rest died due to comorbidities Coronavirus COVID-19 11
Jesse3959 Being seen from space - methods to demonstrate that sats are real and provide live video? Flat Earth 6
Mick West Are the Navy UFOs "Real," or just in the Low Information Zone? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 31
Stefan Leahu How atmospheric tunelling and refraction really look like in real life. Flat Earth 0
Stefan Leahu A real-life 2D curvature analogy and a few thoughts regarding scale Flat Earth 2
Mick West How to test if Satellites are real Flat Earth 2
derwoodii Claim Melania Trump has a double, will the real 1st lady please stand up Conspiracy Theories 11
Mick West How to Prove Satellite Images are Real - Ground Truth Flat Earth 16
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Sandor Szekely Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any. Flat Earth 1027
Georgie G Debunked: SpaceX Rocket Crash Landing Anomalies General Discussion 21
MikeC Aircraft weight and balance in the real world Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailspotter Fake photo with real looking EXIF Data Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
Leifer Erin Brokovich does not believe in chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 64
MikeC Ukraine has no real borders? General Discussion 51
Joe Latoya Ammons - A Real Life Demonic Possession? General Discussion 91
scombrid Is any crisis real? Yes, even the mall attacks in Kenya were fake. Conspiracy Theories 6
Cairenn Fake on line journals with Real names Practical Debunking 0
dan theman Gallbladder Flush Real or Fake Health and Quackery 13
Alchemist Real Life Wolverine? UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
S Is the Saphonian bladeless wind turbine for real or a scam? Science and Pseudoscience 40
FreiZeitGeist FB: Airline Pilots Who Believe that Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 28
Mick West Real Names Site Feedback & News 30
sunyatajon If Chemtrails were real, they would affect the perpetrators Contrails and Chemtrails 24
JRBids Real Photo? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Queue Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs (Ukraine Serial Killers), Real? or Internet Hoax? General Discussion 12
TheCorruptOnes Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 18
George B When is some concept Real, a Conspiracy or Fantasy? Conspiracy Theories 48
Spongebob Introducing The Real Charlie Veitch... People Debunked 2
George B Solar Maximum Doom. Hype or real? HAARP 17
Juror No. 8 Obama kills Osama: What if real reporters were allowed White House press passes? General Discussion 0
U INDENIABLE PROOF chemtrails is real Contrails and Chemtrails 66
Farganne Anyone care to apply REAL science to explain THIS? Part II Science and Pseudoscience 6
Farganne Anyone care to apply REAL science to explain THIS? Science and Pseudoscience 16
Bunkerbuster I think chemtrails are real breaking news Contrails and Chemtrails 234
PCWilliams Video: Are Chemtrails Real? Contrails and Chemtrails 13
firepilot Any real degree for Ilya Sandra Perlingieri? Contrails and Chemtrails 19
Mick West David Icke: The moon is not real. UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 44
M Claim: Hints of life on Venus: Scientists detect phosphine molecules in high cloud decks UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 16
Mick West Mysterious drone swarms over Colorado and Nebraska - Chasing Venus? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 40
Mick West The P900 Rippling Orb Effect & Taking Photos of Venus Flat Earth 23
TEEJ Identified: UFO over Scotland, 2015. [Venus] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 27
Astro Debunked: Venus is abnormally bright Science and Pseudoscience 10
J Zeitgeist (the film, Peter Joseph), Zeitgeist Movement, Venus Project Conspiracy Theories 37
Related Articles












































Related Articles

Top