Wikisky.org DSS2 Anomaly Coordinates 02 22 40.68, -07 16 19.2

Originally posted by Rhain
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

 

Could you provide a link to the site you found it on. I tried to open Wikiksky.org but no go for me.

"DSS2" Survey
02 22 40.68 -07 16 19.2
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/440dc23e94cb.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Hamal3xj

You have done a magnificent work with the photographs in your line of investigation.

Regards.

Thanks!
I'm somewhat miffed that this has not received more attention though.
Yes, I used the word "miffed"

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
By the way...
I emailed the Keck Observatory the day I discovered this asking them if they could tell me what it was. Still no response. I'm sure it went into the circular file amid the sounds of uncontrollable laughter.

Update:

Never heard back from them.
"Shocking. Positively shocking", he said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

It's been a while since I looked in on this thread. Apparently it's been a while since anyone has looked in on this thread.

I was browsing a thread on gravitational lensing by XPLodER:

Giant Optical Magnifying Glasses In Space Found
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and remembered my "Cetus" anomaly thread. Perhaps what I was seeing in the image I found was the result of gravitational lensing of some sort. Or not. I don't know. But I thought I'd try out my new copy of Photoshop and see if I could bring out some more detail in the image. I fooled with the contrast and the graininess and some other things. I also flipped the image such that the bright light is at the bottom in one photo and flipped it again so the bright light is at the top. Just to see what it would look like. Here are the tweaked photos. Any idea what this could be?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e49435da8b80.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b374644e1fc8.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are


I just posted this in XPLodER's thread:

What that actually seems to be is a series of dense and thin regions of gas forming a circle around a distant star or galaxy. What's being called lights actually appears to be denser regions of the gas seen floating around. The darker regions are spots where the gas is thinner, and it appears to be the displacement of the gas out of these regions that's causing the denser (brighter) regions between them.
What's displacing the gas out of these specific regions, I have no idea.

Originally posted by Violater1
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

 

Nice find

I'm quite baffled by this disk. The filtered photo's display a disk with hemispheres evenly separated by counter-sunk bowls.
SnF

There does seem to be a certain 3-dimensionality to it. I'm baffled as well. Still.

Dusting this off as well. What is it, and why is it there?

overlap convergence

The "checkerboard" pattern is most lkely a jpg compression artifact known as a "blocking artifact". Blocking artifacts are composed of 8-pixel x 8-pixel blocks, and is caused by jpg interpolation of pixels.



This particular picture presented by the OP (above) looks like it was also re-sampled again, post-compression (hence the blurriness of the 8x8 pixel block, and why the blocks are made up of more than 8x8 pixels).



Example of blocking artifact/compression arifact:

Image source:
www.webdesignerdepot.com...

Originally posted by ngchunter
Well it's important to remember that wikisky is not the original source for the images it contains. It uses pre-existing sky survey data, DSS2 stands for digitized sky survey 2 which are scanned directly from the old Palomar Sky Survey 2 film plates from 20 years ago or more. Wikisky and other similar secondary sources then take that data, compress it, combine the 3 grayscale images shot at different wavelengths into a single color image, and stitch it together to make their all-sky mosaics. The final result contains image artifacts that weren't there in the originals, so it's important to go back to the original sources and use that as your research reference. Here are the original images for those coordinates in DSS2/POSS2:
archive.stsci.edu...
archive.stsci.edu...
archive.stsci.edu...

OP, you're just magnifying compression artifacts over and over which are the result of google et al processing of the original data. They're not in the original images. Why did you ignore this post from ages ago and continue to use google et al for accessing sky survey data? Well, I guess you wouldn't have anything to talk about if you followed my recommendation...

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by ngchunter
Well it's important to remember that wikisky is not the original source for the images it contains. It uses pre-existing sky survey data, DSS2 stands for digitized sky survey 2 which are scanned directly from the old Palomar Sky Survey 2 film plates from 20 years ago or more. Wikisky and other similar secondary sources then take that data, compress it, combine the 3 grayscale images shot at different wavelengths into a single color image, and stitch it together to make their all-sky mosaics. The final result contains image artifacts that weren't there in the originals, so it's important to go back to the original sources and use that as your research reference. Here are the original images for those coordinates in DSS2/POSS2:
archive.stsci.edu...
archive.stsci.edu...
archive.stsci.edu...

OP, you're just magnifying compression artifacts over and over which are the result of google et al processing of the original data. They're not in the original images. Why did you ignore this post from ages ago and continue to use google et al for accessing sky survey data? Well, I guess you wouldn't have anything to talk about if you followed my recommendation...

Exactly. Like I said above, it is a combination of jpg compression artifacts and resample.

Here's what I mean. Let's compress/resample an image of another star. Here are one of the original images from ngchunter's post (quoted above). I chose one star and circled it:




Here is a close-up of that star, without any additional jpg compression:




Here is that same star, with a certain level of jpg compression. Note the "blocking artifacts", which manifest themselves as 8-pixel x 8-pixel blocks (hence the term "blocking artifact". Along with hose blocking arifacts, a few pixels in the 8x* block become bright due to the compression algorithm, which chooses the color of a pixel based on its "nearest neighbor" (as seen in the bright pixels that appear to the left and below the star...pixels that were not bright in the original image):





And here is that same star again, with the blocking artifact, but this time the image was resampled, which smothed out the blocking artifact. You can't see the 8-pixel x 8-pixel block anymore, but those bright pixels to the left and below the star continue to be visible, only now they have been "smoothed out" due to resampling. It now looks like the original star has a semi-circular ring around it. The ring is not really there, but is simply just due to jpg compression artifacts:




Granted, this is not EXACTLY what the OP found, but as you can see, jpg compression artifacts can create things that are not really there.