An analysis of the Betty Hill "star map"

Have you ever seen what Mars really looks like before?

Take a look...

www.youtube.com...


Anyone can film all this themselves, if they wish to prove it first hand.


NASA is nothing but a bunch of bs'er, that's for sure.

Had to post this one, of incredibly beautiful, REAL stars...

www.youtube.com...

Incredible details, and still shots of a star..

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: turbonium1
www.youtube.com...

It is completely impossible to capture details like this if a star was 25 trillion miles away, with 125x magnification.

That star is out of focus.

Dude, you've been lied to all along about stars, and I'm showing you the reality, so you understand what slimeball liars they all are. I hope you stand up for what you now know to be true, just as I do.

So, instead of believing in our eyes and in what astronomers have been saying for centuries we should believe some person on the Internet just because they say so.

I'll think about your case.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Here's what Saturn really looks like...

www.youtube.com...

Instead of what?

They claim the closest Saturn is to Earth at any time is 746 million miles away, which is utter nonsense once again.

A camera with 125x magnification could never see the ring - or two rings - of Saturn if it was 746 million miles away. Impossible.

I think you need to learn something about optics.

Do you see how Saturn and its ring(s) are spinning like a top?

No.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: turbonium1
www.youtube.com...

It is completely impossible to capture details like this if a star was 25 trillion miles away, with 125x magnification.

That star is out of focus.

Dude, you've been lied to all along about stars, and I'm showing you the reality, so you understand what slimeball liars they all are. I hope you stand up for what you now know to be true, just as I do.

So, instead of believing in our eyes and in what astronomers have been saying for centuries we should believe some person on the Internet just because they say so.

I'll think about your case.

I do believe in my eyes, it's the astronomers that are lying here.

If the only excuse you have is that it's out of focus, look at the last clip I posted, and tell me about it...

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: turbonium1
Here's what Saturn really looks like...

www.youtube.com...

Instead of what?

They claim the closest Saturn is to Earth at any time is 746 million miles away, which is utter nonsense once again.

A camera with 125x magnification could never see the ring - or two rings - of Saturn if it was 746 million miles away. Impossible.

I think you need to learn something about optics.

Do you see how Saturn and its ring(s) are spinning like a top?

No.

If you want to stay in denial, go right ahead. I prefer the reality I see with my own eyes, If you prefer to believe in NASA's CGI, and airbrushed fakes, that's fine with me.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Have you ever seen what Mars really looks like before?

Take a look...

www.youtube.com...

It's not easy to focus a common camera on a star or planet, so it's natural that there will be some out of focus problems, but what we mostly see on that video is called atmospheric shimmer, the result of the interference of the different layers of the atmosphere, at different temperatures,densities and refraction indices.

Having a good camera doesn't mean that the camera owner knows about photography.

Anyone can film all this themselves, if they wish to prove it first hand.

Yes, and many thousands of amateur astronomers with real telescopes can confirm what the professional astronomers say.

NASA is nothing but a bunch of bs'er, that's for sure.

NASA isn't the only one with telescopes.

Why don't you join an astronomers club in your area and learn something about astronomy?

originally posted by: turbonium1
I do believe in my eyes, it's the astronomers that are lying here.

I do believe my eyes too, but I don't believe some person on the Internet that does not provide real evidence, only proof that they know nothing about optics, photography and astronomy.

If the only excuse you have is that it's out of focus, look at the last clip I posted, and tell me about it...

No, I said that star is out of focus, you shouldn't consider all videos as having the same characteristics, considering they were made on different occasions, with different cameras and different lens and atmospheric conditions.

And yes, I saw the videos you posted, that's why I know you posted the Mars video twice.

originally posted by: turbonium1
If you want to stay in denial, go right ahead.

It's not denial because there's nothing to deny, as you haven't presented any real evidence of anything, you only presented evidence of your ignorance.

I prefer the reality I see with my own eyes, If you prefer to believe in NASA's CGI, and airbrushed fakes, that's fine with me.

As I said before, NASA isn't the only organisation with telescopes. If you really want to know the truth instead of being fixated in that "NASA lies" tune, join an astronomers club. Some have relatively large telescopes or are able to rent some time on an observatory.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: turbonium1
I do believe in my eyes, it's the astronomers that are lying here.

I do believe my eyes too, but I don't believe some person on the Internet that does not provide real evidence, only proof that they know nothing about optics, photography and astronomy.

If the only excuse you have is that it's out of focus, look at the last clip I posted, and tell me about it...

No, I said that star is out of focus, you shouldn't consider all videos as having the same characteristics, considering they were made on different occasions, with different cameras and different lens and atmospheric conditions.

And yes, I saw the videos you posted, that's why I know you posted the Mars video twice.

So please tell me how we see details on stars that are 25 trillion miles away....

I can't wait to hear your excuses for that one...


If you don't believe any of the many independent, public videos that show the exact same details on stars that are supposedly 25 trillion miles away, then get one of the same cameras and see for yourself. I know you only believe in NASA, and astronomers, who never show you any stars like this, so go find the truth for yourself, if you really want to know the truth, that is..

originally posted by: turbonium1
So please tell me how we see details on stars that are 25 trillion miles away....

We can't.

If you don't believe any of the many independent, public videos that show the exact same details on stars that are supposedly 25 trillion miles away, then get one of the same cameras and see for yourself.

I don't need to do it because I know what they show, atmospheric shimmer, something that has been known by astronomers for many years before NASA existed.

I know you only believe in NASA, and astronomers, who never show you any stars like this, so go find the truth for yourself, if you really want to know the truth, that is..

You know nothing about me, but I do prefer to believe what someone that has spent all his life studying a subject (an astronomer) tells me than some anonymous person on the Internet that only shows ignorance about astronomy, photography and optics.

originally posted by: ArMaP
I don't need to do it because I know what they show, atmospheric shimmer, something that has been known by astronomers for many years before NASA existed.

You can also see this shimmer when you look at distant cars on a hot road.

Why distant objects shimmer on hot days?


If you filmed a distant light source above the hot road right after sunset and made the light out of focus you would also see the shimmer affecting that out of focus light like it affects out of focus starlight.

My girlfriend and I joined an amateur astronomy club once and they were the friendliest bunch of people, glad you let you look through their telescopes. I had a small telescope then but some members had much larger telescopes with clearer views, but if you get the star in focus, it's still just a point of light because of the great distance. If it doesn't look like a point of light, then it's not in focus. You can see things like slight differences in colors, but no detail as you say.

If you want to see less shimmer, go to the same mountaintops where astronomers put their telescopes or other mountain tops, and look through your telescope there. You will still see shimmer, but not as much, that's why the telescopes are usually elevated.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Mauna Kea is a very good location. There is a monthly get together of amateurs at the 9,000' level every month. At least there used to be. The protests against the 10 meter telescope may have put the kibosh on that.

Of course, you can always go to adaptive optics.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: james1947

No.
I'm saying it makes no sense that ET would need "2 star maps."

How do we know what ET's need?

originally posted by: turbonium1

So please tell me how we see details on stars that are 25 trillion miles away....

What details are you talking about?

Seriously man, we don't "see" details on any star other than Earth's very own star; the "Sun". Every other star is just a small spot of light, with various properties...you know like; position, distance, color spectrum, etc.

And, I guess I'll address that "Atmospheric Shimmer" thing here. It is very real, as other have pointed out.

A few years ago I was working on a Robotic Telescope project. And atmospheric shimmer was an issue I had to address as it is a serious issue with all planet based optical telescopes. The solution I used, since lasers weren't an option, was to measure the magnitude of a specific star, and always the same star, several times over an observation session (night), then use that data to compensate the "magnitude" (brightness) of an image. These values were usually smaller than could be perceived by the Human eye. So, while the observer might not see these small changes the computer did, and could therefore return better results (more accurate) when observing any other given star.

What y'all need to understand is that ALL of this is the commonly accepted reality by ALL Astronomers, Astrophysicists, both professional and amateur. It also has nothing to do with any government agency.

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: turbonium1

So please tell me how we see details on stars that are 25 trillion miles away....

What details are you talking about?

Seriously man, we don't "see" details on any star other than Earth's very own star; the "Sun". Every other star is just a small spot of light, with various properties...you know like; position, distance, color spectrum, etc.

And, I guess I'll address that "Atmospheric Shimmer" thing here. It is very real, as other have pointed out.

A few years ago I was working on a Robotic Telescope project. And atmospheric shimmer was an issue I had to address as it is a serious issue with all planet based optical telescopes. The solution I used, since lasers weren't an option, was to measure the magnitude of a specific star, and always the same star, several times over an observation session (night), then use that data to compensate the "magnitude" (brightness) of an image. These values were usually smaller than could be perceived by the Human eye. So, while the observer might not see these small changes the computer did, and could therefore return better results (more accurate) when observing any other given star.

What y'all need to understand is that ALL of this is the commonly accepted reality by ALL Astronomers, Astrophysicists, both professional and amateur. It also has nothing to do with any government agency.

If you don't see details, you need glasses.

Why don't you describe those clips I've cited, and tell me what you see...


It's pretty obvious to anyone, with normal eyesight, I think...

It's not a magical creation of the atmosphere, but that's just how desperate you've become, to 'answer' the elephant in the room as merely being a tiny insect, as some unknown illusion, of an elephant!

Anything but the truth, of course.

I predict this 'prediction' will be filed under 'trash' by 2021, but thanks anyway.

a reply to: turbonium1

We will know on December 22, 2020.