Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
topsecretresearch

UFO's Shooting Up In The Sky

99 posts in this topic

Not much better than Adamski's claims. Heck, isn't that one of Lazars' "sports models"?

Wow, there are a couple names I've not heard much about lately. I thought they both got laid to rest years ago as basic fakes.

If so many UFO's shoot up, why do they not continue out of the atmosphere? Not a one has ever been recorded doing so by amateur observer or official sources. If one did, we might have a direction to follow, and one that SETI could concentrate on.

We have a great number of satellites in space with "eyes" pointed outward. Why have none of them detected anything coming or going? Amateurs of one sort or another have been paying attention to the atmosphere and what's beyond it across the EM spectrum virtually from DC to daylight and they (at one time we but I haven't had anything operational for years) have seen/heard nothing.

Oh, wait. I know. Da Ebil Gummint suppresses that information because that's what they do. That should cover any CTs responses quite nicely.

And if they do not leave the atmosphere, where do they go? And if they do not leave via space, why would one think the visions were craft being controlled by aliens?

Oh, but these are the friendly aliens based out of Area 51 and having underground bases all over the place. Gee, I wonder if there's one here in Hawaii ...

SportModelReal.jpg

Oooh, shiny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about it? He says "IMO". I don't see the sun in the photo, only the sun light. Unless there is another photo with the sun in it that statement is conjecture. I choose to believe it because I don't see any thing faked, IMO. Admittedly, I saw the pic via my smart phone but it's sufficient. There are things out in our world that we can't explain away. I accept that more willingly than things that are explained via fear tactics and social pariah-ism... ie religion.

So there was (allegedly) something in the sky, and a person took a pic of said (alleged) thing... Looks real... I accept that I don't know what the heck it is. If some one can prove absolutely that it it's a fake then, fine. I accept that as well. Until then, looks real. ;)

Yes I said IMO because I am no photo expert and I admit I can be wrong.

Lourdes hospital is on the south side of Riverside Drive which runs east/west. Looking towards Vestal from the hospital or the street means you are looking south to south west. Though you can not see the sun, you can see the glow from the sun in the lower left of the image. This puts it at dawn (approximately) which is backed up by the trees being in shadow indicating the sun is not very high in the sky. The UFO is high enough that direct sunlight is lighting the edge and should also be lighting the bottom of the UFO but doesn't. In my mind, the only reason for the discrepancy would be photo manipulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, there are a couple names I've not heard much about lately. I thought they both got laid to rest years ago as basic fakes.

You would be surprised. Bee here will happily take on anyone with a bad reputation as genuine truth-seekers being suppressed, and Ed Mitchell advocates Bob Lazar. Needless to say, I do not find Astronaut Mitchell's second hand claims convincing.

We have a great number of satellites in space with "eyes" pointed outward. Why have none of them detected anything coming or going? Amateurs of one sort or another have been paying attention to the atmosphere and what's beyond it across the EM spectrum virtually from DC to daylight and they (at one time we but I haven't had anything operational for years) have seen/heard nothing.

We do with regard to natural phenomena though. I belong to an amateur astronomy forum where a fellow Aussie was the first to pick up 2 Jupiter strikes that NASA had missed. He informed NASA who then received confirmation on one of the strikes from another amateur astronomer. Then we have the gas worker from Yorkshire who discovered 4 exoplanets from home. The amateur contingent is largely overlooked IMHO.

Oh, wait. I know. Da Ebil Gummint suppresses that information because that's what they do. That should cover any CTs responses quite nicely.

I am not sure it covers any response, but might receive approval from a few ;) Funny how these guys think they are answering unasked questions, when all they produce is quagmire.

Oh, but these are the friendly aliens based out of Area 51 and having underground bases all over the place. Gee, I wonder if there's one here in Hawaii ...

They must really like it here, none seem to leave, they just build fleets in underground bases with apparently the sole purpose of scaring some and befuddling others.

Oooh, shiny!

I was surprised it was not red. ;) To get to light speed, surely your vehicle has to be red!

But I think the OP pic has much of this nostalgic "classic" UFO look about it.

Yes I said IMO because I am no photo expert and I admit I can be wrong.

Lourdes hospital is on the south side of Riverside Drive which runs east/west. Looking towards Vestal from the hospital or the street means you are looking south to south west. Though you can not see the sun, you can see the glow from the sun in the lower left of the image. This puts it at dawn (approximately) which is backed up by the trees being in shadow indicating the sun is not very high in the sky. The UFO is high enough that direct sunlight is lighting the edge and should also be lighting the bottom of the UFO but doesn't. In my mind, the only reason for the discrepancy would be photo manipulation.

Pretty sound observation I would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be surprised. Bee here will happily take on anyone with a bad reputation as genuine truth-seekers being suppressed, and Ed Mitchell advocates Bob Lazar. Needless to say, I do not find Astronaut Mitchell's second hand claims convincing.

Well, there's an interesting pair, Bee and Ed Mitchell. They do somehow go together thought. Kind of like tar and feathers.

We do with regard to natural phenomena though. I belong to an amateur astronomy forum where a fellow Aussie was the first to pick up 2 Jupiter strikes that NASA had missed. He informed NASA who then received confirmation on one of the strikes from another amateur astronomer. Then we have the gas worker from Yorkshire who discovered 4 exoplanets from home. The amateur contingent is largely overlooked IMHO.

At the peak, I had several sets of ears pointed skyward, one on the hydrogen line at 1401 MC with a massive (for a rather small back yard) radiometric array, a broadband one centered on 20 MC for Jupiter's own variety of "whistlers" and a trio that covered basically 0 to 45 KC in three 15 KC segments. (Sorry, I'm old school and using those Hertz things hurts. ;)) The 1401 MC radiometer had three National INS8073 SC/MP microcontrollers as well as a host of National COP402 & COP410 controllers handling all those gritty little nitties. The other systems had the computers when the radiometer wasn't in operation plus had tape decks I'd custom made for them. Having friends at Green Bank helped, of course, but in the end it had to be my sweat to make it all come together. :yes:

However, I agree. Amateurs are given short shrift in the one place where everyone - amateur and professional alike - is playing with the same "source data", the sky. Historically, amateurs have contributed more to astronomy in the way of discoveries than professionals but then there are significantly more of "us" vs "them" with significantly more eyes and ears pointed skyward at pretty much everything there is to be looked at. Everyone has the same source data, we just use it differently.

I am not sure it covers any response, but might receive approval from a few ;) Funny how these guys think they are answering unasked questions, when all they produce is quagmire.

Well, yeah. That's how they work. Well, one way. Another is to claim harassment when asked to produce evidence or claim they don't have to since it's "common sense" or some such. In the end, when there's else nothing left, there is still Da Ebil Gumminttm.

They must really like it here, none seem to leave, they just build fleets in underground bases with apparently the sole purpose of scaring some and befuddling others.

And not a farglesnappin' one of them stops by to let this old pilot fly one. What kind of a deal is that anyway? I was a darned good pilot with jet time but got taken out by a medical. If their flight systems are as good as they're cracked up to be (which may be a poor choice of terms), that shouldn't be a factor.

I was surprised it was not red. ;) To get to light speed, surely your vehicle has to be red!

Well, yeah. Isn't that why it's called red shift?

But I think the OP pic has much of this nostalgic "classic" UFO look about it.

Over the past 60 or so years, UAPs have changed significantly. I wonder if it's due to equipment upgrades, different species' fleets, different classes of craft or simply what movie has produced the most recent influence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the UFO I saw shot up into the sky, and many other people have reported them doing exactly the same thing. One time, some scientists told me the must be using some kind of anti-gravity field, but I'm certainly no expert on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the UFO I saw shot up into the sky, and many other people have reported them doing exactly the same thing. One time, some scientists told me the must be using some kind of anti-gravity field, but I'm certainly no expert on that.

The only one that did for me was a high altitude weather balloon at 8500' that almost became a close encounter of the worst kind in sort of a "What the 4377 was that!" moment.

Anyway, extensive research has been done in the US and elsewhere into anti-gravity propulsion. The most successful have been based on the Biefield-Brown Effect which is an electrostatic field and does work but isn't real strong. To date, no one has been able to produce a generator capable of lifting its power source or anywhere near it. It is fun to play with and there are sources on the web to show how to build lifters using this effect.

This, of course, discounts alien technology which would be a closely guarded government secret if it exists. Here's sort of an interesting problem. For anyone outside the very small tight community that would know about such things, there is absolutely no evidence any such technology exists. There is also absolutely no evidence it doesn't exist. This is so much like everything else in Ufology. What a bummer. :no: :no:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only one that did for me was a high altitude weather balloon at 8500' that almost became a close encounter of the worst kind in sort of a "What the 4377 was that!" moment.

This, of course, discounts alien technology which would be a closely guarded government secret if it exists. Here's sort of an interesting problem. For anyone outside the very small tight community that would know about such things, there is absolutely no evidence any such technology exists. There is also absolutely no evidence it doesn't exist. This is so much like everything else in Ufology. What a bummer. :no: :no:

Naturally, I have no evidence about it. This discussion was just a small, informal group of military people and scientists that concerned a variety of different subjects, and I just happened to be part of it--a very small part. Well, we got to talking about the Washington DC flap of July 1952 and were just looking through some old records and documents, and some of the scientists started talking about anti-gravity fields and things like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, in our little discussion group, someone also had a thick report from very early on in the UFO investigation, dating from 1948 or 1949. I had a chance to look through that but never saw it again. It mentioned Aflred Loedding and many of those people involved in the various studies back them--must have run to about 150 pages. It was kind of a summary of what they knew back then, with the types on UFOs reported and quite a few pictures. I'd forgotten about that one, but I don't think it was ever declassified and made available to the public--not that I'm aware of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once in a while, amateur and professional astronomers do catch sight of what they believe are UFOs, but in this business you have to be looking in the right place at the right time--or looking everywhere all the time, like the military does.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Zt0hS3JdY&feature=player_detailpage

I do not like that annoying music. All I can say is that amateurs and professionals have reported quite a few "anomalies" out there in space over the years. So did the scientists doing meteoric sky surveys, at least according to Dr, Hynek, as did the folks at Operation Moonblink.

One has to be uniquely lucky (or unlucky) to see a genuine UFO, though.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not hard to find a lot of these amateur astronomer UFOs on the Internet--shadows and lights and blinkers on the Moon, on other planets or in space. This stuff has been reported for as long as any kind of astronomy has existed, which should not come as a great surprise to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although naturally I have always thought that if NASA found something really weird, you and I are not likely to know about it, unless someone leaks it. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One has to be uniquely lucky (or unlucky) to see a genuine UFO, though.

I honestly do not see how. There are literally thousands of pairs of eyes trained into space at any given moment. With things like the below, the claims of moon bases and the like will lessen as people understand just how well we do watch the skies.

FBQOEAJGQVYPYMR.LARGE.jpgGary30Fiske.jpgbinos_davereneke_mj084.jpgimg_4399-500x375.jpg

And these are the portables that people take to star parties. Some honest monsters in some backyards. Sounds like Kludge had a magnificent set up.

With things like this times several thousand, it is little wonder the amateur community has the great hit rate that it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trick photography! Seriously though, there is a big difference between a UFO and E.T.

Sometime they could be one and the same...just sayin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly do not see how. There are literally thousands of pairs of eyes trained into space at any given moment. With things like the below, the claims of moon bases and the like will lessen as people understand just how well we do watch the skies.

Sorry for the delayed response. I've been ill and pretty much unable to participate.

First off, I love that first pic. That would have been Noelle after I adopted her if I'd had an optical telescope. (She did love the microscope I got her, though. All kinds of cool stuff to look at even in rainwater puddles. OTOH, one fridge we had [very briefly] was the source of things we couldn't find in any book.) :yes:

Anyway, The skies are under 24/7 surveillence by amateurs around the world with both optical and radio telescopes. Some amateurs have personal observatories equal to or better than some of the smaller "professional" ones. For the most part, amateurs are the ones discovering comets and other objects while the big boys busy themselves with looking for extrasolar planets. There's room for everyone and everyone gets to work with the same sky.

And these are the portables that people take to star parties. Some honest monsters in some backyards. Sounds like Kludge had a magnificent set up.

I liked it. I had two projects going, the Hydrogen line at around 1401 MC and the Jupiter-Io plasma torus. The first was more serious work and was essentially duplicating what Green bank etc had done so I had a reference to see how well my equipment was doing its thing. The second was more for fun but it was recorded as well then edited to remove the times it was silent.

With things like this times several thousand, it is little wonder the amateur community has the great hit rate that it does.

There are way more amateurs than professionals and, as I mentioned above, they all are working with the same sky.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delayed response. I've been ill and pretty much unable to participate.

Gidday Kludge

Not a problem at all mate, I am sorry to hear you have been unwell, I hope things pics up for you.

First off, I love that first pic. That would have been Noelle after I adopted her if I'd had an optical telescope. (She did love the microscope I got her, though. All kinds of cool stuff to look at even in rainwater puddles. OTOH, one fridge we had [very briefly] was the source of things we couldn't find in any book.) :yes:

I hear ya mate, my Dob is only 10" but it looks rather big next to my daughter, it's heartwarming to see the little ones take an interest. I had a microscope as a kid, well not me, my big brother, but I absconded it regularly. Awesome things. Being a boy, I examined many fly wings and legs LOL.

Anyway, The skies are under 24/7 surveillence by amateurs around the world with both optical and radio telescopes. Some amateurs have personal observatories equal to or better than some of the smaller "professional" ones. For the most part, amateurs are the ones discovering comets and other objects while the big boys busy themselves with looking for extrasolar planets. There's room for everyone and everyone gets to work with the same sky.

We get a chance to look through the big toys as well. I have been meaning to book time at out local observatory, been a heck of a year. Hopefully it will be available when I am soon.

I liked it. I had two projects going, the Hydrogen line at around 1401 MC and the Jupiter-Io plasma torus. The first was more serious work and was essentially duplicating what Green bank etc had done so I had a reference to see how well my equipment was doing its thing. The second was more for fun but it was recorded as well then edited to remove the times it was silent.

I am suitably impressed mate, I have not gone the radio path, but I think I know what my retirement will consist of ;)

I have read about some very impressive home radio projects, I'd love to eventually have visual and radio as well as cameras set up, but again......... retirement is something I am quite looking forward to, only 20 more years............. Hopefully I will have gathered some decent kit by then.

There are way more amateurs than professionals and, as I mentioned above, they all are working with the same sky.

Indeed, but the professional get the best toys. Things like the Cassini mission make one green with envy, yet elated that these guys share.

Cheers

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not one of the worst crocks you ever saw the Martian Buildings ? By my guess it means that Mars has a whole race of beings that are about 3cm tall ,from the distance and scale in the rover photos . Well We never said that Marvin was a Giant amoungst Men !

Now do we really need to worrie about a Mars Invasion? I think not.

We need to send man to Mars though,we need to Make a real Go at it there. Just because its Hard.

A Really Great Man said that once . we should fall into that mind set again ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a problem at all mate, I am sorry to hear you have been unwell, I hope things pics up for you.

Workin' on it. Meanwhile I'm doing all I can with what I got. Errr ... what was the topic again? ;)

I hear ya mate, my Dob is only 10" but it looks rather big next to my daughter, it's heartwarming to see the little ones take an interest. I had a microscope as a kid, well not me, my big brother, but I absconded it regularly. Awesome things. Being a boy, I examined many fly wings and legs LOL.

Noelle loved the stuff she found in water and that one fridge. I thought she would follow up and study biology in college but she went with criminal forensics instead. Still, her interest in wiggly things in water stood her in good stead.

I'd love to see a pic of the two of them - your daughter and the telescope - together sometime. I suspect it's sweet.

We get a chance to look through the big toys as well. I have been meaning to book time at out local observatory, been a heck of a year. Hopefully it will be available when I am soon.

I got time at Allegheny Observatory occasionally when Pitt students et al weren't on it. We only had 88 days/year average of good seeing which made time somewhat at a premium and I usually wound up getting time when the atmosphere wasn't so well behaved.

I am suitably impressed mate, I have not gone the radio path, but I think I know what my retirement will consist of ;)

I have read about some very impressive home radio projects, I'd love to eventually have visual and radio as well as cameras set up, but again......... retirement is something I am quite looking forward to, only 20 more years............. Hopefully I will have gathered some decent kit by then.

The technology is getting better for all three so by the time you retire, the equipment to make a radio setup at least ten times better than mine was affordably will be pretty much a walk in the park. Optics are always improving as are cameras. Heck, you could have three cameras shooting at the same time covering the same piece of sky, one in the visual range, one IR and one UV. I envy you what will be available then.

Indeed, but the professional get the best toys. Things like the Cassini mission make one green with envy, yet elated that these guys share.

Nice thing about all that equipment being NASA's is that the photos et al are public domain. Because of that, school kids can see them and, as has already happened, find things the professionals missed. The cool part is that the pros love when that happens. That's another part of astronomy that differs so much from other sciences. There's room for everyone.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure that even NASA has a few filters before a photo is released. It afterall is still funded by the Gov. But I think they would also be the First to Leak something really Great ! JMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure that even NASA has a few filters before a photo is released. It afterall is still funded by the Gov. But I think they would also be the First to Leak something really Great ! JMO

Actually, for general (ie, internet) consumption, they release the best shots but pretty much all of it can be requested in any of several formats. I think the only charge is for burning them to DVDs which is minimal plus postage and, believe me, dependent on what you request there could be many much lots of them. (I gave mine to an astronomer friend of mine before I moved here ... all 23 or so of them ... and that was just lunar photos from various sources.)

Damn, I'm getting the itch again ... :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read about some very impressive home radio projects, I'd love to eventually have visual and radio as well as cameras set up, but again......... retirement is something I am quite looking forward to, only 20 more years............. Hopefully I will have gathered some decent kit by then.

There's never enough time is there, at least you have decent amounts of clear skies though, a lot more then I get up here anyway :D ...as for some decent kit, you could do a lot with that Dob anyway, stick it on an NEQ6, they are brilliant for visual as you know anyway...and cameras to get started with are cheap enough, you don't need some 3k CCD, you'll spend long enough trying to get the hang of it anyway, trust me ;) ...get an imaging source camera, or preferably something that can double up as guide cam when you move onto that, you'll pick one up cheap enough, and just start with lunar and planetary work.......with second hand gear you could have the dob taking some decent images for probably under 1k if you shop about.....(once you start though the wallet will take a hit, cause the list of "I gotta have that" just grows and grows lol)

As for radio...you can make an antenna for meteor hits for pence, spectrum lab is free and easy to use...or an old satellite dish is a good start too for solar work......and you'll pick a hand held scanner up that'll get you started cheap enough on ebay (it's not particularly time consuming either once you get your head around it - and given your electrical knowledge it'll be childs play for you no doubt).

Basically, don't wait till retirement, start now :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's never enough time is there, at least you have decent amounts of clear skies though, a lot more then I get up here anyway :D ...as for some decent kit, you could do a lot with that Dob anyway, stick it on an NEQ6,

Hmmm ... Nearly 1,000 £ plus postage to Australia. While it looks like a decent mount (he says trying to wipe the drool off his chin), I have to wonder what the final cost would be.

and cameras to get started with are cheap enough, you don't need some 3k CCD, you'll spend long enough trying to get the hang of it anyway, trust me ;) ...get an imaging source camera, or preferably something that can double up as guide cam when you move onto that, you'll pick one up cheap enough, and just start with lunar and planetary work.......with second hand gear you could have the dob taking some decent images for probably under 1k if you shop about.

Psyche, old buddy, I forgot you're an electrical type. Microcontroller development boards are cheap and powerful. Low end cameras to attach to them are cheap but good enough to get a handle on the how tos and wherefores before bumping up to a better piece. (This is the path I'm taking although I'm going *real* low end - 640x480 with CS mount optics - for starters but my applications are very different.)

Sky, a question. My Canon EOS 20D has a USB output that allows me put what would normally be on the LCD screen (which I don't use anyway) on my computer. Would something of this order be of any value using a T-mount? If so, a number of the older model EOS digitals and their *shudder* ;) Nikon counterparts are coming down in price as new models come out and I'm reasonably sure most if not all have a USB connector.

(once you start though the wallet will take a hit, cause the list of "I gotta have that" just grows and grows lol)

Isn't this true of all hobbies? I've noticed all of mine tend to vie for what cash is available after expenses.

As for radio...you can make an antenna for meteor hits for pence, spectrum lab is free and easy to use...or an old satellite dish is a good start too for solar work

For the former, I forgot about the setup for atmospherics that covered essentially 0 to 45 KC. (kHz to you young'ns. :P ) This was before Spectrum Lab and I had to do a little electronic jiggery pokery to make it work. It was supposed to go up to 60 KC but I never added the last section to it. For the latter, for a while I had an FM antenna array attached to a receiver at 110 MC. All it did was tell me when the sun was passing zenith. Big woop although the strength did vary somewhat with the sunspot activity. One of the planned but never started projects was to look at it in the microwave region although I wasn't sure where I wanted to look ... which was kinda why I never started it.

Basically, don't wait till retirement, start now :)

Yep, yep. Good ideas there. And, yes, start now. Before it's too late for your daughter to join the fun. :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm ... Nearly 1,000 £ plus postage to Australia. While it looks like a decent mount (he says trying to wipe the drool off his chin), I have to wonder what the final cost would be.

It didn't occur to me you wouldn't have a supplier in Aus - i'd be surprised if you couldn't source one somewhere. As for price, these mounts are built like tanks, i've got the HEQ5 and NEQ6, and I can't see why they won't last me a lifetime....so I'd be more then happy to buy second hand, which will bring the price down. Also, you don't need the handset version, since you can can get an EQDir lead and adaptor and run the entire set-up on EQ-Mod (that'll bring the price down too, and EQ Mod is pretty damn good tbh)

Psyche, old buddy, I forgot you're an electrical type. Microcontroller development boards are cheap and powerful. Low end cameras to attach to them are cheap but good enough to get a handle on the how tos and wherefores before bumping up to a better piece. (This is the path I'm taking although I'm going *real* low end - 640x480 with CS mount optics - for starters but my applications are very different.)

The real low end stuff is still good to go Kludge. I started with a philips spc800 (flashed it to 900) and used that for Lunar (I paid £8 for that camera)...I then bought another one, bought a larger plastic casing and ripped the wiring diagram off a lad on another forum, and added a cooling fan at teh back to keep the chip cooler...this was for longer exposure work, worked ok on M42....moved onto video though after that so haven't tried it on anything else (seen good results with others using this though).

Sky, a question. My Canon EOS 20D has a USB output that allows me put what would normally be on the LCD screen (which I don't use anyway) on my computer. Would something of this order be of any value using a T-mount? If so, a number of the older model EOS digitals and their *shudder* ;) Nikon counterparts are coming down in price as new models come out and I'm reasonably sure most if not all have a USB connector.

Plenty, and I do mean plenty of astrophotographers swear by DSLR's...and there results match anything else i've seen. The LCD screen is a must though really, I tried with the D40 (which doesn't have the LCD screen) and lost interest with frustration at focusing issues...the screen makes all the difference. Attaching it won't be a problem, from memory I think it was a M42 adaptor you needed, been a while since I tried it though so i'd have to check that. Canons are the DSLR of choice from what I see people using. I think for harder fainter objects though that a guide camera and scope might be more necessary, other then that, you might need some extension tubes for focus (all depends on the scope).....what scope you got by the way? And what the F number? (you want F5 or under really, a nice fast scope, but that's not to say you couldn't go slower, it'll just be more frustrating).

Obviously there's a whole host of filters etc as you dig deeper for better images....but you'll get results without them.

Isn't this true of all hobbies? I've noticed all of mine tend to vie for what cash is available after expenses.

When I see what my misses spends on jewellery and perfumes I feel less guilty ;)

For the former, I forgot about the setup for atmospherics that covered essentially 0 to 45 KC. (kHz to you young'ns. :P ) This was before Spectrum Lab and I had to do a little electronic jiggery pokery to make it work. It was supposed to go up to 60 KC but I never added the last section to it. For the latter, for a while I had an FM antenna array attached to a receiver at 110 MC. All it did was tell me when the sun was passing zenith. Big woop although the strength did vary somewhat with the sunspot activity. One of the planned but never started projects was to look at it in the microwave region although I wasn't sure where I wanted to look ... which was kinda why I never started it.

I have pretty much only dipped my toe in these waters in the last year...but I am getting some good advice and making some minor steps with it. Radio Astronomy is a complicated aspect of it (for me anyway)..but I want to get it right, so i'm going slowly but methodically..

Edited by The Sky Scanner
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just noticed you mentioned C-Mount optics - you thinking of doing some widefield work then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't occur to me you wouldn't have a supplier in Aus - i'd be surprised if you couldn't source one somewhere.

I'm not but Psyche is. I'm in the mid-Pacific - island of Oahu, state of chaos ... er, Hawaii. Mauna Kea is a few islands over and I hope to visit someday. I'll have to take oxygen with me (Cardiopulmonary system ain't what it use to be.) but that's a minor detail.

As for price, these mounts are built like tanks, i've got the HEQ5 and NEQ6, and I can't see why they won't last me a lifetime....so I'd be more then happy to buy second hand, which will bring the price down. Also, you don't need the handset version, since you can can get an EQDir lead and adaptor and run the entire set-up on EQ-Mod (that'll bring the price down too, and EQ Mod is pretty damn good tbh)

Well, that would be for Psyche. (Psyche, where you stay, brah?)

The real low end stuff is still good to go Kludge. I started with a philips spc800 (flashed it to 900) and used that for Lunar (I paid £8 for that camera)...I then bought another one, bought a larger plastic casing and ripped the wiring diagram off a lad on another forum, and added a cooling fan at teh back to keep the chip cooler...this was for longer exposure work, worked ok on M42....moved onto video though after that so haven't tried it on anything else (since good results with others using this though).

Now, adding a Peltier cooling unit would take the temp down about as low as you'd want with no trouble at all. The only fan you'd need then would be to cool the hot side of the junction. Hmmm ... I have an idle webcam or two here. Maybe I'll do a bit of hatchet work. Also modify one for IR for grins 'n giggles. Too bad it'd be all green but for cheap, what can one expect?

Plenty, and I do mean plenty of astrophotographers swear by DSLR's...and there results match anything else i've seen. The LCD screen is a must though really, I tried with the D40 (which doesn't have the LCD screen) and lost interest with frustration at focusing issues...the screen makes all the difference.

Hmmm ... interesting. Usually I use the viewfinder (old freelance & aerial photographer-type (with a short career in glamour) who came up with viewfinders rather than LCDs :) ) however I didn't have any focus problems with my Canon using the USB port. If I had, I'd use manual focus which I'd have to do with anything except an EF lens anyway. Eye luvz me Canon DSLR and will probably get another when I can along with a nice long lens. Really nice & long. :yes:

Attaching it won't be a problem, from memory I think it was a M42 adaptor you needed, been a while since I tried it though so i'd have to check that.

Now, isn't that convenient since M42 lenses are relatively cheap so I have an adapter. I also have an EF to FD adapter and a couple others I'd have to dig out to remember what they are. All require manual F-stop and focus control (none of the automatic functions work through the adapters) but that's cool. I can fool the camera into doing about anything if I have to.

Canons are the DSLR of choice from what I see people using.

Well, of course. Before I got my 20D, I went through everything I could find on both Nikon and Canon DSLRs including lenses, accessories, limitations ... the works. The 20D turned out to be the best bang for the buck (This was in 2004.) and I've never once regretting the decision. It has an 8 megapixel sensor which is kind of amusing since the low end Rebel now is up to 12 megapixel.

I think for harder fainter objects though that a guide camera and scope might be more necessary, other then that, you might need some extension tubes for focus (all depends on the scope).....what scope you got by the way?

Oh, I know the answer to that one! At the moment, none. Finances haven't allowed anything of that order, in part since I'm helping my daughter with medical expenses. She's terminally ill and her state & federal support don't cover anything near enough. The plan is to get a relatively long lens for the Canon when I can along with a far more stable tripod (or an inexpensive but serviceable equatorial mount) then shoot some of my old "one minute" shots - long enough to get a decent image without visible trails. I used to do that with ASA1600 slide film then push it to 3200. The Canon will do ASA3200 on its own and, besides, I'm not sure I know how to push a digital image. :)

And what the F number? (you want F5 or under really, a nice fast scope, but that's not to say you couldn't go slower, it'll just be more frustrating).

Sticking with lenses for the while, it will be a balancing act between $$$Yankee and an optimized lens decision. I'd love to get something around 200-250mm (No zoom since I can't see needing it) with decent glass but that's kind of out of my reach for now. From what I can see, I'll probably wind up with something in the 90-105mm range which will have to be good enough.

Obviously there's a whole host of filters etc as yu dig deeper for better images....but you'll get results without them.

But of course! Same holds true with "normal" photography. While I never liked the "effects" lenses - multi-image, stars etc - colored and other filters were fun to experiment with. I suspect doing timed shots through different filters could create some interesting pictures.

When I see what my misses spends on jewellery and perfumes I feel less guilty ;)

Had two of them. Now I'm just looking for a slave. Lower maintenance and can be sold if a better model comes along. ;)

I have pretty much only dipped my toe in these waters in the last year...but I am getting some good advice and making some minor steps with it. Radio Astronomy is a complicated aspect of it (for me anyway)..but I want to get it right, so i'm going slowly but methodically..

If you know any ham radio operators, they should be able to help you or point you to someone who can. I think I'd do what you suggested for Psyche, start with an atmospheric receiver since it's easy to make and a blast to play with. With that, something to listen to Jupiter would be fun and there are several articles on the web for that. (Same with atmospheric detection equipment.) Both are pretty basic and NASA has Project JOVE which is a good basis for a Jupiter unit. If I remember right, it can also be used for solar radiometry which is a twofer which helps the budget. Also, there are a few units much like that used for atmospherics that can be used for detecting solar storms which can be another twofer if done right.

So much fun, so few mangoes. Er, wait. I think the season is started. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just noticed you mentioned C-Mount optics - you thinking of doing some widefield work then?

Well, not what I had in mind but that sounds like a cool idea. I live directly under the approach path to Honolulu International Airport (HNL) which also serves Hickam Air Force Base. I also live at another air field, what used to be the Barbers Point Naval Air Station but has reverted to civilian operation with military tower personnel since the military uses the field for practice and other things. The plan is to set up one or two cameras so I can track and video airplanes on the HNL glide slope or move them outside so I can shoot video of what little of the takeoff of the assorted military aircraft as I can get. (There are buildings and assorted other miscellanea in the way.) OTOH, removing the IR blocking filter from a camera for night shots could also be fun since the prominent features would be the engine exhausts.

Not every airplane will get shot but we sometimes get "visitors" like a U-2, Antonov An-124, one I haven't seen yet (It usually comes in at night.) but is a serious heavy that I can't identify from the engine sound and others. I'm also hoping to catch our F-15s and F-22s which thus far have been too fast for me to grab my camera and get a decent shot.

OTOH, a little widefield never hurt anyone. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.