Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah
Can we know whether we're looking at the entire optical field of view, or has the image sequence been cropped and registered? Internal reflections usually correlate to deflection either of the target or of the optical axis. The apparent lack of change in field of view or of any object within the field of view counterindicates an internal reflection. However if we're looking at registered crops then the axis can have changed and put that big bright object through different parts of the optical path to create a varying reflection.
|
It is hard to say what he is using and what the source of light may be. He may have also employed a field derotator. I am just wondering with it bouncing about if it weren't some sort of stray light/internal optical problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah
A quick Google indicates he may have personal contacts at NASA, if I'm reading the Spanish correctly. That may explain his choice of escalation. There may indeed be celestial coordinates available for this sighting, but they won't be given in a news report. If I'm hearing the Spanish report correctly, the observer operates a significant observatory, so I think he can be considered reasonably qualified.
|
I don't think that is good enough. See my post about Chuck Shramek and the Hale-Bopp companion "discovery". You don't go public with a discovery of something if you are a professional astronomer. You go straight to the IAU with a find and let them see if it can be recovered by others. Just because you are "director" of an "observatory" does not mean much. I know many amateurs who consider themselves "directors" of their own observatories. Some do very good work and all know to go to the IAU with any finds and not the media. If you examine the
IAU site you will see why when they talk about "new" discoveries:
For every real new comet discovery, the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams (CBAT) gets perhaps five reports of "discoveries" that do not pan out. And in most of these unconfirmed or erroneous discovery reports, the observers declare "NEW COMET" or "COMET DISCOVERY", even though they have only seen the possible object once (with no detectable motion), or even though they only have a single photograph on one night with a suspicious-looking object.
This does not completely apply in this case but you get the idea. All discoveries require some skepticism and that should apply in this case. Running to the media declaring you discovered something anamolous is not exactly what one would expect from a professional astronomer.