Near-Earth objects and close calls

1654898594647.png


1654898355834.png

After catching the Jun 10th fireball, recalled the one from 10 days earlier. Actually pretty close to each other, an attracter or something.

Continued:


View attachment 61554


View attachment 61555



Close enough for horseshoes:

View attachment 61556

View attachment 61557


View attachment 61558

Kind of like clock work, @sToRmR1dR, they keep locating around Gibraltar. Maybe it's nothing. 🤷‍♂️
I'm pretty sure it's because there's a good all-sky network of cameras down there in southern Spain.
 
There have been some striking images being shown recently in comparison to Hubble (the link has a split movable screen - see green tab on the photo):

Webb vs Hubble - SMACS 0723 Galaxy Cluster​


View attachment 61006

Another striking image

of the Cartwheel Galaxy, made by the James Webb Space Telescope


NASA and the Webb Space Telescope team unveiled a new image from the James Webb Space Telescope this week, and unsurprisingly, it's amazing. The image shows the Cartwheel Galaxy and its companion galaxies. It's a composite made using images from Webb's Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) and Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI).

The Cartwheel Galaxy, also known as ESO 350-40 or PGC 2248, is a rare ring galaxy located about 500 million light-years away in the Sculptor constellation. The Cartwheel Galaxy, seen largest in the image below, resulted from an intense high-speed collision between a large spiral galaxy and a smaller galaxy that's not visible. The Webb team writes, 'Collisions of galactic proportions cause a cascade of different, smaller events between the galaxies involved; the Cartwheel is no exception.'
The high-speed collision affected the galaxy's shape and structure. You can see two rings, a bright inner ring, and a surrounding ring. The pair of rings expand outwards from the center of the collision. These features are why astronomers call the Cartwheel Galaxy and other galaxies like it 'ring' galaxies.

The bright core of the Cartwheel Galaxy contains a lot of extremely hot dust and the brightest areas are home to large clusters of young stars. The outer ring, which has expanded for about 440 million years, hosts star formation and supernovas. As the ring continues to expand, it interacts with the surrounding gas, triggering additional star formation.

The Hubble Space Telescope has also observed the Cartwheel Galaxy, although its imaging technology couldn't see as well through the large amount of dust. Webb's better abilities for detecting infrared light unveil new details about the galaxy.
With Webb's NIRCam, the space telescope's primary imaging instrument, scientists can see in the near-infrared range from 0.6 to 5 microns. This allows researchers to see crucial wavelengths of light and observe additional stars. By using infrared light, Webb can see through the dust in the outer ring of the Cartwheel Galaxy and see many of the young stars forming near its outer edge. The Webb team writes, 'NIRCam also reveals the difference between the smooth distribution or shape of the older star populations and dense dust in the core compared to the clumpy shapes associated with the younger star populations outside of it.'

To learn more about the dust within the galaxy, MIRI reveals regions within the Cartwheel Galaxy that are 'rich in hydrocarbons and other chemical compounds, as well as silicate dust, like much of the dust on Earth. These regions form a series of spiraling spokes that essentially form the galaxy’s skeleton.'

NASA and its Webb partners also released an image using only the data from NIRCam, which looks more like the original Hubble image, albeit with much less detail, and highlights the importance that MIRI plays in the final composite image.

cartwheel-galaxy-jwst-nircam-miri-composite-1920px-lead-image.jpg
James Webb Space Telescope


hubble-cartwheel-galaxy-full-size.jpg
Hubble


jwst-cartwheel-galaxy-nircam-only-image-full-size.jpg
NIRCam
 
A Spaceweather.com tip, Puma ;-)

When you refer to an article at Spaceweather.com; instead of using only their primary adress "spaceweather.com", you could click on their time machine archives (with the actual date of the article you wish to show), and then fetch the corresponding link address in the menu bar.

Example: "Three meteor showers in one night"
(https://) www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=31&month=07&year=2022

This way, the referred link will always be attached to the article you wish to point to - without ever getting lost when somebody else wishes to read it later (Becuase the main adress "spaceweather.com" changes content almost daily; the original article would get lost after 1-2 days).

Their time machine archive goes all the way back to year 2001 !


View attachment 61731
Thank you Xpan I will follow your recommendation. I had problems with my internet connection the past few days and am catching up.
 
Well, I think it is a pretty simple question, considering that your post was kind of hit and run, and rather cryptic...
I am glad you see that…I am not understanding why my inquiry would be viewed as an open ended question, nor loaded- it simply appears OP is expressing doubt as to reality of images and an explanation of why that is would be nice…
 
Well, I think it is a pretty simple question, considering that your post was kind of hit and run, and rather cryptic...
hi Glenn,
your post was kind of hit and run, and rather cryptic...

ok, well, let's have a look see... which post, yesterday at 10:02 or today ?

with respect to yesterday's post:
"uh huh 1659726515521.png" ... that's me slapping my head, figuratively speaking of course. i do the same thing when i see people driving alone while wearing a mask in their vehicle.

with respect to today's 10:42 post:

yes / no or close ended questions are simple, agreed; they require the answer of a 'yes' or a 'no', both of which are called an 'absolute' and are useful for testing knowledge i.e. on a test.
open ended questions on the other hand require a longer answer and demonstrate an understanding of the subject and invite discussion. i'm not trying to be witty; i'm pointing out that close ended questions are pointless in a forum for opening up enquiry.

here are a couple of open ended examples:

" hey goggles, i didn't understand your post; what are your thoughts about the WEBB photos ? "

" hey goggles, why do you think that the photos aren't real ? "

your hit and run and cryptic comment about my post is your opinion, i respect that; however, if you want to ask me some open ended questions about WEBB i'd be more than happy to discuss such.

cheers
 
I am glad you see that…I am not understanding why my inquiry would be viewed as an open ended question, nor loaded- it simply appears OP is expressing doubt as to reality of images and an explanation of why that is would be nice…

hi tschai,

yes, i was expressing doubt in my op; and maybe that was what Glenn thought was cryptic - so thanks, i'll remember that and not be cryptic again to avoid any ambiguity.

a good chunk of my career was spent checking, investigating root cause, finding out why things will, won't, or didn't work in the mechanical engineering field, in the heavy industry, nuclear, and telecom areas - yet i'm no photographer, i often photograph my thumb when using my iphone.

in a nut shell here's why i doubt that the photographs are "real":

NASA's live web feeds have been edited as shown by several youtube graphic artists and other photographic professionals.
why would NASA do this ? i'm not making this up - there are serious video discrepancies or glitches, with many people asking questions but not receiving answers about NASA's video footage over the years.

NASA has repeatedly told the public that ALL the Apollo era technology was lost; all the engineering, scientific, photographs and equipment; NASA is part and parcel of the US DoD.
if you're a civilian engineer working on a corporate project for the DoD you would know what the term micro managed means to the nth degree - we're talking about stuff that supposedly went to the moon - not a redesign of some airplane landing gear - but something sent off the planet ! they lost it ? nope i don't by it - so why would they lie about losing it ? well, maybe because they didn't send anything to the moon. ever.

and finally, the "real" deal breaker:
NASA has, over the last few years, said that any craft designed for a trip to Mars has to be heavily shielded against the VA belt radiation. hmmmm. ok. so how did the guys in Apollo get through it ? NASA shills will say they simply went around it ... nope.
the VA belt radiation isn't like a campfire. one doesn't just do a fly by or go around it like these shills tell us. the VA high speed particles damaged a space shuttle a few times and they were no where near it.
People have been programmed by TV and media repetition, imo, to believe the lunar capsule, literally an aluminium can, without any shielding, made it through the VA belt twice *. i haven't even mentioned the effect of temperature on that tin can.

and this concludes why, imo, the photos are fake. very well digitally created, yet fake.

* here is a question asked of the C’s from the last session:
(vulcan59) Have humans flown past the Van Allen radiation belts?
A: Yes. More than once too!


i've included the above question to demonstrate why a yes/no question offers nothing other than yes or no answer - because interpreting the answer leads to ambiguity.
had the question been open. i.e. asking with the words when, who, how ... might have removed ambiguity - imo the C's were not talking about the Apollo mission astronauts as some people may have inferred - rather humans from another planet or another time frame.
on the other hand maybe the C's were talking about the Apollo guys, i dunno, i could be mistaken too. :-)

cheers
 
hi Glenn,
your post was kind of hit and run, and rather cryptic...

ok, well, let's have a look see... which post, yesterday at 10:02 or today ?

with respect to yesterday's post:
"uh huh View attachment 62058" ... that's me slapping my head, figuratively speaking of course. i do the same thing when i see people driving alone while wearing a mask in their vehicle.

with respect to today's 10:42 post:

yes / no or close ended questions are simple, agreed; they require the answer of a 'yes' or a 'no', both of which are called an 'absolute' and are useful for testing knowledge i.e. on a test.
open ended questions on the other hand require a longer answer and demonstrate an understanding of the subject and invite discussion. i'm not trying to be witty; i'm pointing out that close ended questions are pointless in a forum for opening up enquiry.

here are a couple of open ended examples:

" hey goggles, i didn't understand your post; what are your thoughts about the WEBB photos ? "

" hey goggles, why do you think that the photos aren't real ? "

your hit and run and cryptic comment about my post is your opinion, i respect that; however, if you want to ask me some open ended questions about WEBB i'd be more than happy to discuss such.
hi tschai,

yes, i was expressing doubt in my op; and maybe that was what Glenn thought was cryptic - so thanks, i'll remember that and not be cryptic again to avoid any ambiguity.

a good chunk of my career was spent checking, investigating root cause, finding out why things will, won't, or didn't work in the mechanical engineering field, in the heavy industry, nuclear, and telecom areas - yet i'm no photographer, i often photograph my thumb when using my iphone.

in a nut shell here's why i doubt that the photographs are "real":

NASA's live web feeds have been edited as shown by several youtube graphic artists and other photographic professionals.
why would NASA do this ? i'm not making this up - there are serious video discrepancies or glitches, with many people asking questions but not receiving answers about NASA's video footage over the years.

NASA has repeatedly told the public that ALL the Apollo era technology was lost; all the engineering, scientific, photographs and equipment; NASA is part and parcel of the US DoD.
if you're a civilian engineer working on a corporate project for the DoD you would know what the term micro managed means to the nth degree - we're talking about stuff that supposedly went to the moon - not a redesign of some airplane landing gear - but something sent off the planet ! they lost it ? nope i don't by it - so why would they lie about losing it ? well, maybe because they didn't send anything to the moon. ever.

and finally, the "real" deal breaker:
NASA has, over the last few years, said that any craft designed for a trip to Mars has to be heavily shielded against the VA belt radiation. hmmmm. ok. so how did the guys in Apollo get through it ? NASA shills will say they simply went around it ... nope.
the VA belt radiation isn't like a campfire. one doesn't just do a fly by or go around it like these shills tell us. the VA high speed particles damaged a space shuttle a few times and they were no where near it.
People have been programmed by TV and media repetition, imo, to believe the lunar capsule, literally an aluminium can, without any shielding, made it through the VA belt twice *. i haven't even mentioned the effect of temperature on that tin can.

and this concludes why, imo, the photos are fake. very well digitally created, yet fake.

* here is a question asked of the C’s from the last session:
(vulcan59) Have humans flown past the Van Allen radiation belts?
A: Yes. More than once too!


i've included the above question to demonstrate why a yes/no question offers nothing other than yes or no answer - because interpreting the answer leads to ambiguity.
had the question been open. i.e. asking with the words when, who, how ... might have removed ambiguity - imo the C's were not talking about the Apollo mission astronauts as some people may have inferred - rather humans from another planet or another time frame.
on the other hand maybe the C's were talking about the Apollo guys, i dunno, i could be mistaken too. :-)

cheers
okay- I have my answer, thanks.
 
Well, I think it is a pretty simple question, considering that your post was kind of hit and run, and rather cryptic...
Yes, it was a simple question that did not need a smart-alecky answer. It would have been too simple, I guess, to just answer the question with an answer that was more than "yes" or "no". Like, "No, and here's why....."
 
Back
Top Bottom