70 Virginis Event

[Jason H.]

A few years ago I posited that an extra-ordinary event occured in the
direction of 70 Virginis (which has an extra-solar planet candidate) as
one of the results of a science fair paper/project I did with my
daughter, which was titled

Are There Extra-Ordinary Objects Near Extra-solar Planets? (which one
can find at the following link)

http://www.cfas.org/Library/extra-solar-planets.htm

After that, I made a post (only in the sci.astro.seti NG) regarding 70
Virginis as described in that paper. In it I posited that when one
compares the POSS I Palomar Sky Survey plate to later plates, one will
find that 3 star-like objects dissappear. Because it is a 50 minute
exposure on a photographic plate, I suppose that one can probably rule
out a NEARBY broken up asteroid or comet as the three objects are very
pointlike (i.e. not trailing.) Here is a blink-comparison of the old
Palomar survey plate to a newer one

Loading Image...

Anyone can verify this by going to Skyview at
http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/skvadvanced.pl
or any other DSS site and punching in 70 Virginis and selecting the
Digitized Sky Survey.

After that post, I recall somebody speculating on that thread that the
triple objects appearance was possibly the result of a spill of coffee
by a careless astronomer :^) This was slightly irksome to me because I
had also felt that perhaps it was some electronic noise artifact that
was introduced during the scanning of the original Palomar plates.

Well, tonight I was able to rule out those objects as being a noise
artifact. THEY ARE NOT NOISE OR SCANNER IMAGING ARTIFACTS! How do I
know? Because as luck would have it, while I was training to become an
observatory operator at the University of Central Florida, I found out
that tucked away in some old custom-made wooden cabinets on wheels were
a complete set of negative prints of the original Palomar Sky Survey
plates taken in the 1950's!

(As a historical note, the negative plate prints have stamped on them
"U.S.F. Library", not U.C.F., and they are "COPYRIGHT NATIONAL
GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY - PALOMAR OBSERVATORY SKY SURVEY". I tried using an
online DSS plate finder at
http://130.167.1.148/cgi-bin/dss_plate_finder
to locate 70 Virginis on them; the plate-finder accurately showed where
on the plate objects should appear, and which date they were made, but
SFAIK it isn't useful for finding the actual negative plate prints
because the plate numbers didn't match what is inset on the negative
plate prints! I wasted much time looking for a plate number that
didn't exist. Once I determined that the plate numbers didn't match up
(by looking on a different plate for a big easy to find object, which
was M51) I quickly learned that I needed to find 70 Virginis the
old-fashioned way, with the plate RA/DEC's (each spanning a whopping 6
degree field) and the plate-finder's exact locating of it on the plate.
The above plate-finder had me looking for plate XE497 (08WT) but the
actual plate is E-1420 May 15/16 1955 13h16m43s +11deg 29'55", with the
"E" indicating which filter was used; this collection has "E" and "O"
plates of each field.)

Anyway, long story short, I now have 100% confidence that something
extra-ordinary happened in the direction of 70 Virginis on May 15-16
1955 (what it was though I don't know, but there is a planetary system
very near the line of sight! Were they stellar objects that were flung
off into space? Was it a natural event? Was E.T. sending a 3-light
beacon? :^)

Using the astronomical catalogs on SkyView and other sources, nobody
SFAIK has ever cataloged these 3 objects near 70 Virginis. If anyone
has any other images from around the 1955 time period of 70 Virginis,
or knows where I can find them, please post here about it.

Thanks, Jason Higley

[Claus-Jürgen Heigl]

Post by Jason H.
Anyway, long story short, I now have 100% confidence that something
extra-ordinary happened in the direction of 70 Virginis on May 15-16
1955 (what it was though I don't know, but there is a planetary system
very near the line of sight! Were they stellar objects that were flung
off into space? Was it a natural event? Was E.T. sending a 3-light
beacon? :^)

Whatever it was, if it was not an artifact of some kind, the next best
explanation would be that it was some kind of objects that moved faster
across the sky than 70 Virginis. Asteroids or comets come into mind. 70
Vir isn't that far off the ecliptic.

Planet-like objects around 70 Vir can be ruled out, as there is no way
Palomar could have had imaged such objects. I suspect it was something
much nearer to earth.

Claus-Juergen

[Alfred A. Aburto Jr.]

Post by Claus-Jürgen Heigl

Post by Jason H.
Anyway, long story short, I now have 100% confidence that something
extra-ordinary happened in the direction of 70 Virginis on May 15-16
1955 (what it was though I don't know, but there is a planetary system
very near the line of sight! Were they stellar objects that were flung
off into space? Was it a natural event? Was E.T. sending a 3-light
beacon? :^)

Whatever it was, if it was not an artifact of some kind, the next best
explanation would be that it was some kind of objects that moved faster
across the sky than 70 Virginis. Asteroids or comets come into mind. 70
Vir isn't that far off the ecliptic.

But the plate in question (with the 3 star like(point-like) objects) was
exposed for 50 minutes ... relatively nearby asteriods or comets or
satelites are reasonably ruled out, at this point, as they most likely
would have left a "trail" of light rather than a "point" ...

Post by Claus-Jürgen Heigl
Planet-like objects around 70 Vir can be ruled out, as there is no way
Palomar could have had imaged such objects. I suspect it was something
much nearer to earth.

The evidence seems to point otherwise I think ... too bad they have not
been reobserved.

Post by Claus-Jürgen Heigl
Claus-Juergen

I think about:

(1a) did the two images use the same equipment (telescopes)?
(1b} were the exposure times equivalent?
(1c) were the "seeing" conditions different?

(2) The objects could have been "flare stars", but 3 in one photo seems
unusual.

(3) The ojects could have been variable stars, but 3 in one photo seems
unusual too.

(4) Were comparisons of photographs (new versus old) made of adjacent
areas? Perhaps if the objects moved together then they will show up in
adjacent photos too ...

(5) are the objects indicated in a deep survey star atlas or celestial
handbook?

Al

[Alfred A. Aburto Jr.]

Post by Jason H.
A few years ago I posited that an extra-ordinary event occured in the
direction of 70 Virginis (which has an extra-solar planet candidate) as
one of the results of a science fair paper/project I did with my
daughter, which was titled
Are There Extra-Ordinary Objects Near Extra-solar Planets? (which one
can find at the following link)
http://www.cfas.org/Library/extra-solar-planets.htm
After that, I made a post (only in the sci.astro.seti NG) regarding 70
Virginis as described in that paper. In it I posited that when one
compares the POSS I Palomar Sky Survey plate to later plates, one will
find that 3 star-like objects dissappear. Because it is a 50 minute
exposure on a photographic plate, I suppose that one can probably rule
out a NEARBY broken up asteroid or comet as the three objects are very
pointlike (i.e. not trailing.) Here is a blink-comparison of the old
Palomar survey plate to a newer one
http://jasonhigley.com/70virginis.gif

Could you show the photos so they are not blinking too (so one can
examine in detail) because I think the brightest object of the three
looks like two objects ... also just above the three objects there is a
faint point of light that seems to move from the left to right. The dim
point ends up near to that (south pointing if you will) spike of light
from the star (we know that is due to the prism holder vane of course).

Post by Jason H.
Anyone can verify this by going to Skyview at
http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/skvadvanced.pl
or any other DSS site and punching in 70 Virginis and selecting the
Digitized Sky Survey.
After that post, I recall somebody speculating on that thread that the
triple objects appearance was possibly the result of a spill of coffee
by a careless astronomer :^) This was slightly irksome to me because I
had also felt that perhaps it was some electronic noise artifact that
was introduced during the scanning of the original Palomar plates.
Well, tonight I was able to rule out those objects as being a noise
artifact. THEY ARE NOT NOISE OR SCANNER IMAGING ARTIFACTS! How do I
know? Because as luck would have it, while I was training to become an
observatory operator at the University of Central Florida, I found out
that tucked away in some old custom-made wooden cabinets on wheels were
a complete set of negative prints of the original Palomar Sky Survey
plates taken in the 1950's!
(As a historical note, the negative plate prints have stamped on them
"U.S.F. Library", not U.C.F., and they are "COPYRIGHT NATIONAL
GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY - PALOMAR OBSERVATORY SKY SURVEY". I tried using an
online DSS plate finder at
http://130.167.1.148/cgi-bin/dss_plate_finder
to locate 70 Virginis on them; the plate-finder accurately showed where
on the plate objects should appear, and which date they were made, but
SFAIK it isn't useful for finding the actual negative plate prints
because the plate numbers didn't match what is inset on the negative
plate prints! I wasted much time looking for a plate number that
didn't exist. Once I determined that the plate numbers didn't match up
(by looking on a different plate for a big easy to find object, which
was M51) I quickly learned that I needed to find 70 Virginis the
old-fashioned way, with the plate RA/DEC's (each spanning a whopping 6
degree field) and the plate-finder's exact locating of it on the plate.
The above plate-finder had me looking for plate XE497 (08WT) but the
actual plate is E-1420 May 15/16 1955 13h16m43s +11deg 29'55", with the
"E" indicating which filter was used; this collection has "E" and "O"
plates of each field.)
Anyway, long story short, I now have 100% confidence that something
extra-ordinary happened in the direction of 70 Virginis on May 15-16
1955 (what it was though I don't know, but there is a planetary system
very near the line of sight! Were they stellar objects that were flung
off into space? Was it a natural event? Was E.T. sending a 3-light
beacon? :^)
Using the astronomical catalogs on SkyView and other sources, nobody
SFAIK has ever cataloged these 3 objects near 70 Virginis. If anyone
has any other images from around the 1955 time period of 70 Virginis,
or knows where I can find them, please post here about it.
Thanks, Jason Higley

[Alfred A. Aburto Jr.]

Post by Jason H.
A few years ago I posited that an extra-ordinary event occured in the
direction of 70 Virginis (which has an extra-solar planet candidate) as
one of the results of a science fair paper/project I did with my
daughter, which was titled
Are There Extra-Ordinary Objects Near Extra-solar Planets? (which one
can find at the following link)
http://www.cfas.org/Library/extra-solar-planets.htm
After that, I made a post (only in the sci.astro.seti NG) regarding 70
Virginis as described in that paper. In it I posited that when one
compares the POSS I Palomar Sky Survey plate to later plates, one will
find that 3 star-like objects dissappear. Because it is a 50 minute
exposure on a photographic plate, I suppose that one can probably rule
out a NEARBY broken up asteroid or comet as the three objects are very
pointlike (i.e. not trailing.) Here is a blink-comparison of the old
Palomar survey plate to a newer one
http://jasonhigley.com/70virginis.gif
Anyone can verify this by going to Skyview at
http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/skvadvanced.pl
or any other DSS site and punching in 70 Virginis and selecting the
Digitized Sky Survey.
After that post, I recall somebody speculating on that thread that the
triple objects appearance was possibly the result of a spill of coffee
by a careless astronomer :^) This was slightly irksome to me because I
had also felt that perhaps it was some electronic noise artifact that
was introduced during the scanning of the original Palomar plates.
Well, tonight I was able to rule out those objects as being a noise
artifact. THEY ARE NOT NOISE OR SCANNER IMAGING ARTIFACTS! How do I
know? Because as luck would have it, while I was training to become an
observatory operator at the University of Central Florida, I found out
that tucked away in some old custom-made wooden cabinets on wheels were
a complete set of negative prints of the original Palomar Sky Survey
plates taken in the 1950's!
(As a historical note, the negative plate prints have stamped on them
"U.S.F. Library", not U.C.F., and they are "COPYRIGHT NATIONAL
GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY - PALOMAR OBSERVATORY SKY SURVEY". I tried using an
online DSS plate finder at
http://130.167.1.148/cgi-bin/dss_plate_finder
to locate 70 Virginis on them; the plate-finder accurately showed where
on the plate objects should appear, and which date they were made, but
SFAIK it isn't useful for finding the actual negative plate prints
because the plate numbers didn't match what is inset on the negative
plate prints! I wasted much time looking for a plate number that
didn't exist. Once I determined that the plate numbers didn't match up
(by looking on a different plate for a big easy to find object, which
was M51) I quickly learned that I needed to find 70 Virginis the
old-fashioned way, with the plate RA/DEC's (each spanning a whopping 6
degree field) and the plate-finder's exact locating of it on the plate.
The above plate-finder had me looking for plate XE497 (08WT) but the
actual plate is E-1420 May 15/16 1955 13h16m43s +11deg 29'55", with the
"E" indicating which filter was used; this collection has "E" and "O"
plates of each field.)
Anyway, long story short, I now have 100% confidence that something
extra-ordinary happened in the direction of 70 Virginis on May 15-16
1955 (what it was though I don't know, but there is a planetary system
very near the line of sight! Were they stellar objects that were flung
off into space? Was it a natural event? Was E.T. sending a 3-light
beacon? :^)
Using the astronomical catalogs on SkyView and other sources, nobody
SFAIK has ever cataloged these 3 objects near 70 Virginis. If anyone
has any other images from around the 1955 time period of 70 Virginis,
or knows where I can find them, please post here about it.
Thanks, Jason Higley

Something else to consider ... it could still be an artifact ... maybe
just a bad photo was taken ... I mean, what could happen is that someone
accidently turned a light, or flashlight, or cigarette lighter, or ...
on when the picture was being taken and this caused false images on the
corrector plate of the telescope ...

[Mike Dworetsky]

Post by Jason H.
A few years ago I posited that an extra-ordinary event occured in the
direction of 70 Virginis (which has an extra-solar planet candidate) as
one of the results of a science fair paper/project I did with my
daughter, which was titled
Are There Extra-Ordinary Objects Near Extra-solar Planets? (which one
can find at the following link)
http://www.cfas.org/Library/extra-solar-planets.htm
After that, I made a post (only in the sci.astro.seti NG) regarding 70
Virginis as described in that paper. In it I posited that when one
compares the POSS I Palomar Sky Survey plate to later plates, one will
find that 3 star-like objects dissappear. Because it is a 50 minute
exposure on a photographic plate, I suppose that one can probably rule
out a NEARBY broken up asteroid or comet as the three objects are very
pointlike (i.e. not trailing.) Here is a blink-comparison of the old
Palomar survey plate to a newer one
http://jasonhigley.com/70virginis.gif
Anyone can verify this by going to Skyview at
http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/skvadvanced.pl
or any other DSS site and punching in 70 Virginis and selecting the
Digitized Sky Survey.
After that post, I recall somebody speculating on that thread that the
triple objects appearance was possibly the result of a spill of coffee
by a careless astronomer :^) This was slightly irksome to me because I
had also felt that perhaps it was some electronic noise artifact that
was introduced during the scanning of the original Palomar plates.
Well, tonight I was able to rule out those objects as being a noise
artifact. THEY ARE NOT NOISE OR SCANNER IMAGING ARTIFACTS! How do I
know? Because as luck would have it, while I was training to become an
observatory operator at the University of Central Florida, I found out
that tucked away in some old custom-made wooden cabinets on wheels were
a complete set of negative prints of the original Palomar Sky Survey
plates taken in the 1950's!
(As a historical note, the negative plate prints have stamped on them
"U.S.F. Library", not U.C.F., and they are "COPYRIGHT NATIONAL
GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY - PALOMAR OBSERVATORY SKY SURVEY". I tried using an
online DSS plate finder at
http://130.167.1.148/cgi-bin/dss_plate_finder
to locate 70 Virginis on them; the plate-finder accurately showed where
on the plate objects should appear, and which date they were made, but
SFAIK it isn't useful for finding the actual negative plate prints
because the plate numbers didn't match what is inset on the negative
plate prints! I wasted much time looking for a plate number that
didn't exist. Once I determined that the plate numbers didn't match up
(by looking on a different plate for a big easy to find object, which
was M51) I quickly learned that I needed to find 70 Virginis the
old-fashioned way, with the plate RA/DEC's (each spanning a whopping 6
degree field) and the plate-finder's exact locating of it on the plate.
The above plate-finder had me looking for plate XE497 (08WT) but the
actual plate is E-1420 May 15/16 1955 13h16m43s +11deg 29'55", with the
"E" indicating which filter was used; this collection has "E" and "O"
plates of each field.)
Anyway, long story short, I now have 100% confidence that something
extra-ordinary happened in the direction of 70 Virginis on May 15-16
1955 (what it was though I don't know, but there is a planetary system
very near the line of sight! Were they stellar objects that were flung
off into space? Was it a natural event? Was E.T. sending a 3-light
beacon? :^)
Using the astronomical catalogs on SkyView and other sources, nobody
SFAIK has ever cataloged these 3 objects near 70 Virginis. If anyone
has any other images from around the 1955 time period of 70 Virginis,
or knows where I can find them, please post here about it.
Thanks, Jason Higley

Possibly these dots are due to a static discharge during plate handling
prior to development of the exposed plate. These photographic anomalies are
described in the original handbook of the POSS. What was the date of the
blue plate of the same field, and are there any similar anomalies in the
same vicinity?

Examination with a magnifier might show whether the images are truly
starlike or slightly fuzzy.

[Mike Dworetsky]

I have identified these as plate flaws. See details below.

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

Post by Jason H.
A few years ago I posited that an extra-ordinary event occured in the
direction of 70 Virginis (which has an extra-solar planet candidate) as
one of the results of a science fair paper/project I did with my
daughter, which was titled
Are There Extra-Ordinary Objects Near Extra-solar Planets? (which one
can find at the following link)
http://www.cfas.org/Library/extra-solar-planets.htm
After that, I made a post (only in the sci.astro.seti NG) regarding 70
Virginis as described in that paper. In it I posited that when one
compares the POSS I Palomar Sky Survey plate to later plates, one will
find that 3 star-like objects dissappear. Because it is a 50 minute
exposure on a photographic plate, I suppose that one can probably rule
out a NEARBY broken up asteroid or comet as the three objects are very
pointlike (i.e. not trailing.) Here is a blink-comparison of the old
Palomar survey plate to a newer one
http://jasonhigley.com/70virginis.gif
Anyone can verify this by going to Skyview at
http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/skvadvanced.pl
or any other DSS site and punching in 70 Virginis and selecting the
Digitized Sky Survey.
After that post, I recall somebody speculating on that thread that the
triple objects appearance was possibly the result of a spill of coffee
by a careless astronomer :^) This was slightly irksome to me because I
had also felt that perhaps it was some electronic noise artifact that
was introduced during the scanning of the original Palomar plates.
Well, tonight I was able to rule out those objects as being a noise
artifact. THEY ARE NOT NOISE OR SCANNER IMAGING ARTIFACTS! How do I
know? Because as luck would have it, while I was training to become an
observatory operator at the University of Central Florida, I found out
that tucked away in some old custom-made wooden cabinets on wheels were
a complete set of negative prints of the original Palomar Sky Survey
plates taken in the 1950's!
(As a historical note, the negative plate prints have stamped on them
"U.S.F. Library", not U.C.F., and they are "COPYRIGHT NATIONAL
GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY - PALOMAR OBSERVATORY SKY SURVEY". I tried using an
online DSS plate finder at
http://130.167.1.148/cgi-bin/dss_plate_finder
to locate 70 Virginis on them; the plate-finder accurately showed where
on the plate objects should appear, and which date they were made, but
SFAIK it isn't useful for finding the actual negative plate prints
because the plate numbers didn't match what is inset on the negative
plate prints! I wasted much time looking for a plate number that
didn't exist. Once I determined that the plate numbers didn't match up
(by looking on a different plate for a big easy to find object, which
was M51) I quickly learned that I needed to find 70 Virginis the
old-fashioned way, with the plate RA/DEC's (each spanning a whopping 6
degree field) and the plate-finder's exact locating of it on the plate.
The above plate-finder had me looking for plate XE497 (08WT) but the
actual plate is E-1420 May 15/16 1955 13h16m43s +11deg 29'55", with the
"E" indicating which filter was used; this collection has "E" and "O"
plates of each field.)
Anyway, long story short, I now have 100% confidence that something
extra-ordinary happened in the direction of 70 Virginis on May 15-16
1955 (what it was though I don't know, but there is a planetary system
very near the line of sight! Were they stellar objects that were flung
off into space? Was it a natural event? Was E.T. sending a 3-light
beacon? :^)
Using the astronomical catalogs on SkyView and other sources, nobody
SFAIK has ever cataloged these 3 objects near 70 Virginis. If anyone
has any other images from around the 1955 time period of 70 Virginis,
or knows where I can find them, please post here about it.
Thanks, Jason Higley

Following on from my earlier post: the three spots do not appear on the
O-print of the field taken immediately before the E print. On 15/16 May
1955 the following were exposed:

O-1420 PST 2015-2027 no spots
E-1420 PST 2031-2131 3 spots

(you can get the concordance between plate numbers and dates and times from
the National Geographical Society-Palomar Observatory Sky Survey catalogue
of plates (1960))

So an exposure just a few minutes earlier showed no starlike objects in
blue light (not a trace under magnification), although many of the other
surrounding stars that are fainter show up quite well on both prints. So
the objects would need to be **extremely** red if they were real. Such a
circumstance suggests that the objects are not real but artifacts on the
original plate.

I examined them under high enough magnification to see plate grain clearly.
To me they look like three small emulsion defects. There are similar but
larger round dark examples on another plate, E-193, along its left side.
The distinction is that the edges are a tiny bit sharper than a star image
of the same brightness. Stars usually have a gradient of brightness due to
scattered light and seeing (Gaussian profile). These seem uniformly
exposed.

So sorry, no aliens, no Nobel Prize, just some plate flaws.

[Jason H.]

Thank-you very much Mr. Dworetsky for following through. You have
perhaps saved me from thousands of cycles of speculation (in my mind).

Post by Mike Dworetsky
Following on from my earlier post: the three spots do not appear on the
O-print of the field taken immediately before the E print. On 15/16 May
O-1420 PST 2015-2027 no spots
E-1420 PST 2031-2131 3 spots
(you can get the concordance between plate numbers and dates and times from
the National Geographical Society-Palomar Observatory Sky Survey catalogue
of plates (1960))

Thank-you. I'll have to see if that catalog is online.

Post by Mike Dworetsky
So an exposure just a few minutes earlier showed no starlike objects in
blue light (not a trace under magnification), although many of the other
surrounding stars that are fainter show up quite well on both prints.

So

Post by Mike Dworetsky
the objects would need to be **extremely** red if they were real.

I agree. I will try to find the O plate next week. I also think it
highly improbable that they wouldn't appear in the next image (unless
it was something like a red laser or extremely red-shifted light from
much further away.) The simplest explanation though is probably the
right one (i.e. damaged plate emulsion.)

Post by Mike Dworetsky
Such a
circumstance suggests that the objects are not real but artifacts on the
original plate.
I examined them under high enough magnification to see plate grain clearly.
To me they look like three small emulsion defects. There are similar but
larger round dark examples on another plate, E-193, along its left side.
The distinction is that the edges are a tiny bit sharper than a star image
of the same brightness. Stars usually have a gradient of brightness due to
scattered light and seeing (Gaussian profile). These seem uniformly
exposed.
So sorry, no aliens, no Nobel Prize, just some plate flaws.

AWWW MAAANN!! (I concede that you are probably right! That said, a
transient distant event or red laser come to mind, but these also seem
highly improbable (last gasps of hypothesis), I wonder if laser light
would have the same brightness gradient? Oh why bother, stick a fork
in it, it's done. :^P

Post by Mike Dworetsky
--
Mike Dworetsky

Regards and thanks again for checking, Jason Higley

[Jason H.]

Hello again Mike

Post by Mike Dworetsky
I have identified these as plate flaws. See details below.

...snip...

Post by Mike Dworetsky
Following on from my earlier post: the three spots do not appear on the
O-print of the field taken immediately before the E print. On 15/16 May
O-1420 PST 2015-2027 no spots
E-1420 PST 2031-2131 3 spots

As I promised in my last post, I have tonight found and checked the O
plate and can confirm that you are correct (thanks again for your
checking too!). As I said before, AWWW MAAAANNN!!! But hey, that's
the best thing about science, it's testable.

Post by Mike Dworetsky
So sorry, no aliens, no Nobel Prize, just some plate flaws.
From what I can tell by searching online with your name, you are

perhaps a prominent English Astronomer? If I were a professional
astronomer (or aspired to be one), I suppose that your Nobel Prize quip
might have hurt my feelings. BTW, I never implied that I was after the
glory of any scientific prize or the veneration of scientific
intellectuals (although my ego tells me that would be nice, especially
since I only have a BS in Business.) Indeed I think that if I were a
professional astronomer I might not have posted the original question
(or phrased it the way I did) seeking a second confirmation image from
that time period for fear of what my peers might say and the ruination
of my career. Perhaps someday (IMO) open dialog between professional
scientists (and others) in forums like these could accelerate the rate
of discovery, leading to a second enlightenment.

Post by Mike Dworetsky
--
Mike Dworetsky

Thanks again for checking (that's science!!), Ta Ta, Jason H.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Post by Jason H.
Hello again Mike

Post by Mike Dworetsky
I have identified these as plate flaws. See details below.

...snip...

Post by Mike Dworetsky
Following on from my earlier post: the three spots do not appear on

the

Post by Mike Dworetsky
O-print of the field taken immediately before the E print. On 15/16

May

Post by Mike Dworetsky
O-1420 PST 2015-2027 no spots
E-1420 PST 2031-2131 3 spots

As I promised in my last post, I have tonight found and checked the O
plate and can confirm that you are correct (thanks again for your
checking too!). As I said before, AWWW MAAAANNN!!! But hey, that's
the best thing about science, it's testable.

Yep.

Post by Jason H.

Post by Mike Dworetsky
So sorry, no aliens, no Nobel Prize, just some plate flaws.
From what I can tell by searching online with your name, you are

perhaps a prominent English Astronomer? If I were a professional
astronomer (or aspired to be one), I suppose that your Nobel Prize quip
might have hurt my feelings. BTW, I never implied that I was after the
glory of any scientific prize or the veneration of scientific
intellectuals (although my ego tells me that would be nice, especially
since I only have a BS in Business.)

No, it was a quip on my part, provoked by the usual sort of rants one sees.
I half expected to see a gaggle of kooks coming out of the closet because of
your interesting find. In fact there is no Nobel Prize in astronomy, though
a few astronomers have own the physics prize. the reason, I have been told,
was that Nobel's wife had an affair and ran off with an astronomer. I'd be
interested in knowing if this is a tall tale. Nobel prizes are not usually
awarded for one crucial discovery without a lifetime of distinguished work
leading up to it (or, these days, following it--e.g., Chandrasekhar).

I'm glad to see that you are interested in the pursuit of knowledge for its
own sake. Though it doesn't hurt for it to be publishable.

Yes, I'm an astronomer at University College London where I am the
observatory director in the Department of Physics and Astronomy.
Right--back to writing grant reports (I hate it. Ugh. But necessary.)

Post by Jason H.
indeed I think that if I were a
professional astronomer I might not have posted the original question
(or phrased it the way I did) seeking a second confirmation image from
that time period for fear of what my peers might say and the ruination
of my career. Perhaps someday (IMO) open dialog between professional
scientists (and others) in forums like these could accelerate the rate
of discovery, leading to a second enlightenment.

Well, I have easy access to these resources so if it isn't more than a few
minutes work I can take time to check it out. It would be a different story
if it would require a full day or something.

Post by Jason H.

Post by Mike Dworetsky
--
Mike Dworetsky

Thanks again for checking (that's science!!), Ta Ta, Jason H.

Indeed it is.

[Jardy Alfred]

Post by Mike Dworetsky
No, it was a quip on my part, provoked by the usual sort of rants one sees.
I half expected to see a gaggle of kooks coming out of the closet because of
your interesting find. In fact there is no Nobel Prize in astronomy, though
a few astronomers have own the physics prize. the reason, I have been told,
was that Nobel's wife had an affair and ran off with an astronomer. I'd be
interested in knowing if this is a tall tale. Nobel prizes are not usually
awarded for one crucial discovery without a lifetime of distinguished work
leading up to it (or, these days, following it--e.g., Chandrasekhar).

Nobel had no wife. And the story (in fact, the legend) is about a
mathematician, not an astronomer. See:

http://almaz.com/nobel/why_no_math.html

[Mike Dworetsky]

Post by Jardy Alfred

Post by Mike Dworetsky
No, it was a quip on my part, provoked by the usual sort of rants one sees.
I half expected to see a gaggle of kooks coming out of the closet because of
your interesting find. In fact there is no Nobel Prize in astronomy, though
a few astronomers have own the physics prize. the reason, I have been told,
was that Nobel's wife had an affair and ran off with an astronomer. I'd be
interested in knowing if this is a tall tale. Nobel prizes are not usually
awarded for one crucial discovery without a lifetime of distinguished work
leading up to it (or, these days, following it--e.g., Chandrasekhar).

Nobel had no wife. And the story (in fact, the legend) is about a
http://almaz.com/nobel/why_no_math.html

OK thanks for that link.

[Steve Willner]

But hey, that's the best thing about science, it's testable.

Yep. All we can do is believe what the evidence tells us. You will
notice in the sci.astro newsgroup some posters who refuse to believe
what the evidence says. We call them "crackpots."

Post by Mike Dworetsky
So sorry, no aliens, no Nobel Prize, just some plate flaws.

If I were a professional
astronomer (or aspired to be one), I suppose that your Nobel Prize quip
might have hurt my feelings.

Knowing Mike, I am sure he was being jocular, not intending to be
insulting. You made a sensible, testable suggestion that didn't
happen to be confirmed by further evidence. Disappointing, no doubt,
but nothing that doesn't happen all the time.

Indeed I think that if I were a
professional astronomer I might not have posted the original question
(or phrased it the way I did) seeking a second confirmation image from
that time period for fear of what my peers might say and the ruination
of my career.

An idea that turns out to be wrong will in no way ruin a career. The
point of science is that there are _no_ ideas that are known to be
_right_. All we can do is rule out as many wrong ideas as possible
and hope the few left unrefuted are right, but we can never prove it.
Suggesting ideas that are not yet ruled out but can be tested is the
way all progress is made. If you have other ideas or notice oddities
in other data sets, feel free to post. You can't necessarily count
on a reply, but if the idea is sensible, chances are someone will
look at it.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Post by Steve Willner

But hey, that's the best thing about science, it's testable.

Yep. All we can do is believe what the evidence tells us. You will
notice in the sci.astro newsgroup some posters who refuse to believe
what the evidence says. We call them "crackpots."

Post by Mike Dworetsky
So sorry, no aliens, no Nobel Prize, just some plate flaws.

If I were a professional
astronomer (or aspired to be one), I suppose that your Nobel Prize quip
might have hurt my feelings.

Knowing Mike, I am sure he was being jocular, not intending to be
insulting. You made a sensible, testable suggestion that didn't
happen to be confirmed by further evidence. Disappointing, no doubt,
but nothing that doesn't happen all the time.

Indeed I think that if I were a
professional astronomer I might not have posted the original question
(or phrased it the way I did) seeking a second confirmation image from
that time period for fear of what my peers might say and the ruination
of my career.

An idea that turns out to be wrong will in no way ruin a career. The
point of science is that there are _no_ ideas that are known to be
_right_. All we can do is rule out as many wrong ideas as possible
and hope the few left unrefuted are right, but we can never prove it.
Suggesting ideas that are not yet ruled out but can be tested is the
way all progress is made. If you have other ideas or notice oddities
in other data sets, feel free to post. You can't necessarily count
on a reply, but if the idea is sensible, chances are someone will
look at it.
--
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

All very sensible points. I have had to deal with many unusual sightings
found on photographs over the years. Another interesting one was a "comet"
discovery that turned out to be another type of plate flaw (pressure mark or
electrostatic spots). It looked superficially convincing, but another image
taken simultaneously elsewhere did not show anything.

[Alfred A. Aburto Jr.]

Post by Mike Dworetsky
I have identified these as plate flaws. See details below.

Mike & Jason:
I think it is important to advise the "skyview" people of the flaws in
the Digitized Sky Survey(DSS) plate that shows up for "70 Virginis" at
their web site: http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/skvadvanced.pl ...
it needs to be removed, or marked has having flaws ...