It took me several months, 15 hours of telescope time, and a journey of about 1000 miles to the University of Michigan, but I have finally completed
the most in-depth investigation to date of Google Sky's "Missing Section." I have done something I have not seen anyone else ever do in relation to
this issue, which is to locate an actual physical negative of the missing photograph in question. The glitch that caused it to go missing from Google
Sky is an issue only Google can answer (a bit of intrigue only drives up more hits for Google Sky so it's to their benefit to leave the mystery
standing), but as for the missing photograph itself, it has been located and analyzed in detail.
You can download the astrometrically solved images and the corresponding KMZ files I used to overlay these images back onto Google Sky at the
following links:
UPDATE
Recently this image from google sky has gone viral with the claim that it reveals what was hiding under the missing section.
i.imgur.com...
It can be seen in this youtube video and many others like it which have been released in the last few days: www.youtube.com...
The coordinates of this object as seen in the picture above do not match the missing region of google sky. Look at the coordinates; 5h 53m 27s, -6d
10' 56" for the "missing section" and then about 5h 42m 21s, +22d 36' 34.5" for the image of the "winged star." This star is a T Tauri star, a young
star system still surrounded by a small reflection nebula which is known as GN 05.39.2 in the Atlas of Galactic Nebulae. T Tauri stars and sub-types
of T Tauri stars (such as FU Ori stars) are frequently associated with small reflection nebulae like this, and even its peculiar shape is not actually
unique to this star. A very similar example can be found in Parsamian 21, seen here:
i.imgur.com...
Parsamian 21 is located at the following coordinates:
19 29 00.86 +09 38 42.9
It is completely unrelated but provides a suitable example of a very similar star. These stars are not in our solar system and are not moving even
over decades of time. Here's a time lapse of the GN 05.39.2 from 1951 and 1990 (the latter is part of the actual image you see on Google sky and
similar programs like WWT, the former is a much older image of the same star from the same telescope). A high proper motion star can be seen to the
right which is likely to be reasonably close to our solar system, but the star of interest and nebula do not move at all:
i.imgur.com...
Even if it were making a beeline straight for our planet it should still move due to parallax and it should also grow in size over decades of time,
yet that is not the case. It is completely unrelated to the missing image of google sky that this thread was originally created about. I created
this thread months ago, long before this story was created out of whole cloth and went viral.
edit on Sat Jun 27 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because:
update per OP
good job, your dedication for your own truth and to share them here with us is not only diligent, its almost paranormal round here, thank you,
excellent work
originally posted by: Denoli
It's good see see somebody go ( behind the curtain ) and s+f but this could be deep dis info .but great thread either way
The beauty of science is that it's repeatable and verifiable. I laid out every step I took and cited my sources. I'm not saying you're accusing
me of anything, but I'm just saying, anyone is able to verify everything I said. Anyone who wishes to check it for themselves can take a trip to the
University of Michigan and see the actual negative in person for themselves just like I did.
Honestly though contact google Iam sure they would love to have that bit of info to make the map complete and you make make all your cash back which
you must have spent researching it all.
Hek If you want I will be your manager at a cut rate of 20%
At the very least they will say thanks and do a write up about your travels.
edit on 9-1-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason
given)
Honestly though contact google Iam sure they would love to have that bit of info to make the map complete and you make make all your cash back which
you must have spent researching it all.
Hek If you want I will be your manager at a cut rate of 20%
Well they've actually known about the problem and where to get the missing DSS scan for at least 8 years now, it's been posted on their products
forum. As far as I can tell they have no interest in fixing it. Mystery and intrigue only generates more hits for their product rather than less.
I'll send it to them, but I would honestly be shocked if I got a response of any kind. And really, I don't want to be reimbursed, it would create
the appearance that I'm doing this for money. I know that may sound surprising given the lengths I went to, but it was a labor of love.
It is guys like you that has gotten me interested in astronomy and would love your imput.
Heh, there were a lot of strong opinions forming in that thread, some of which I strongly disagreed with so I kept myself from saying anything lol.
It's all personal preference I guess, but personally I would recommend a cheap reflector for a first telescope, not a refractor. A relatively short
focal length Newtonian reflector is going to be easier and more pleasing to use on a given "cheap mount" than a long tube high focal length achromatic
refractor of the same price. That is my personal experience, anyway. I gave away a cheap Newtonian as a christmas gift. I got it for free and I
really don't like the mount, it's basically a slightly modified camera tripod, but because the short focal length Newtonian is naturally low
magnification it's very "forgiving" of an imprecise mount. It's actually pretty easy for a beginner to use and you can very quickly locate objects
with it. Long focal length refractors are notoriously punishing and frustrating if you put them on cheap, shaky, imprecise mountings. And that's to
say nothing of the optical quality, which for a cheap achromat is usually terrible and immediately obvious as color fringing on the moon and other
bright objects (which is all you'll probably be able to find with a cheap wobbly mount). Simply put, my best advice for a cheap telescope to dip your
toes in is for a small 4.5 or 6 inch Newtonian with a red dot finder. A dobsonian style mount would probably be best. You'll get more light
collecting area for your buck and it'll be easier to use. Collimation is important, but you might as well learn how to do it if you're going to get
into astronomy. It's not as bad as people say, lots of helpful tutorials are available online these days. I tweak the collimation on my Cassegrain
almost every time I use it, takes 5 seconds once you know what you're doing.
Hope that helps!
edit on 9-1-2015 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)
I just want to say thank you for making a nice thread and the good work. Its been such a drag around here lately and its nice to see not only a good
thread but someone solving something themselves instead of just offering an opinion. Way to go mate.
Nice work buddy, That black box has been bothering me for years. Listen, I respect you a lot for the time that you took in order to present this for
us all, you're a talented human being. Hope all is well with you. Your Future Ally ~$heopleNation
I subscribed to your channel a few weeks back and this popped up in my feed. I follow quite a few astro-sciency type channels and just thought it was
a DeepSky video on something. (It was very early, and I was on the loo, so my brain hadn't engaged quite yet).
Anyway, it hooked me in straight away - and I was quick to check who it was! I have to say you've done a highly professional job and have a great
speaking voice and manner on camera. The lengths you went to solve the puzzle is outstanding and I hope you get an applause from every mod!
Congrats, you have to be very pleased with yourself!
edit on 10-1-2015 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)