Waspie_Dwarf, on 06 February 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:
To be honest I don't know why they mean when they said:
I uploaded this image to the UM gallery earlier yesterday and the caption confused me then, it is highly ambiguous. Looking through the NASA web sites it looks as if that caption dates back several years, and me even be contempary to the image release.
The image is a false colour UV image and certainly not how the human eye would see it. To the human eye Venus' clouds have a bland, almost uniform appearance as seen in this image taken by MESSENGER on 5th June 2007:
I wonder if the way to interpret that caption is:
Thank you mate. It sure had me confused, what you have above is pretty much what I see, but a bit more yellow, and to my eye, it always looks likt the surface is moving, like one big solid turbulent cloud. I have never been 100% sure if that violence is something I am seeing, or if I am just lousy at collimation.
Edited by psyche101, 07 February 2013 - 05:31 AM.
Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs.