"I think I've found a track, what do you think?"

jsmaje · Post by **jsmaje** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: 9688223V1, I'm with _apollo13_:
I think the surface there is very gently sloping down from the top: notice how the near-triangular feature at top right comes into focus slightly before the one at bottom-right doesn't quite. As far as I understand, such triangular features (if not yet fully explained) are almost certainly artefactual defects on the surface.

Fjgiie's 'track' seems to nestle close to the one at bottom right, and looks to all intents and purposes just like a small surface 'blob' that's not yet come fully into focus. Unfortunately we can't see whether it does or doesn't shortly go out of focus - there's just not enough focal depth provided here to be sure.

Also, there's that little speck in the mid-lower-left region at what seems to be the same level. Surface dust or inclusion? Can't be both!

Meanwhile, I'd click on it too!

the moon · Post by **the moon** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:57 am

I see the surface as flat. The triangle features sort of act as water wells. The hole goes straight down into the gel at various depths. At the bottom of the well, toxins (inclusions) seep into the ground water (gel) around the well, and then poison people (confuse dusters).

jsmaje · Post by **jsmaje** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:00 pm

the moon wrote:I see the surface as flat. The triangle features sort of act as water wells. The hole goes straight down into the gel at various depths. At the bottom of the well, toxins (inclusions) seep into the ground water (gel) around the well, and then poison people (confuse dusters).

OK, another idea: might there be a horizontal crack in the aerogel, as I believe Zack G has said somewhere can in fact happen, and subject to the same artefactual processes?

I'm just trying to understand why the bottom-right triangle formation next to fgjiie's blob/track seems to be only coming into focus at the lowest depths (with little evidence at a higher level), since all such triangles I've seen have been surface phenomena, never beginning to appear at depth.

The other gunge nearby does indeed focus at the same level as the top features, but might therefore lie on my theoretical upper surface...?

Can anyone else see what I mean? Meanwhile, 'confused' is certainly apt!
John

the moon · Post by **the moon** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:29 pm

Ok so I'm contradicting myself like 5 minutes later. After looking at it again much closer and considering what you said jsmaje, this triangle formation in question doesn't go straight down but is cut into the gel at an angle. It's rare that they do that but I've seen it before. In this picture the red lines are the outline of the top of the well. The blue lines are the bottom. The black lines are the walls.

Rojer · Post by **Rojer** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:57 pm

Hi, I just found this one (1293579V1 ), there seems a track in the bottom left.
Now 102 viewed but 8 reported, I'm the 8th

.

Wolter · Post by **Wolter** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:35 am

Well something is buried there, remains only the question, What?

Rojer · Post by **Rojer** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:52 am

I felt that I have seen this before, so I checked in my events and see two records.

Really my old friend.

jsmaje · Post by **jsmaje** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:09 pm

Re: fgjiie's9688223V1:

the moon wrote:Ok so I'm contradicting myself like 5 minutes later. After looking at it again much closer and considering what you said jsmaje, this triangle formation in question doesn't go straight down but is cut into the gel at an angle. It's rare that they do that but I've seen it before. In this picture the red lines are the outline of the top of the well. The blue lines are the bottom. The black lines are the walls.

Brilliant! Thanks to your graphics I can now see exactly what you're talking about - that the lower-right triangle sits lower than the associated circular deformation at surface level *, but at a displaced angle (vs. Bluegraf's more typical triangle8181405V1 which sits directly below its surrounding surface circle). I'm still waiting to hear from someone who can explain such aerogel artefacts.

So, I guess fgjiie's possible track remains safe for the moment, and that the same-level speck on the left is most likely a coincidental inclusion.

My edit/addition:
* though your red lines suggest the associated surface feature is also triangular despite its obvious circularity (of which Bluegraf's is a classic example, in my experience). I'd dearly love to know what sort of conditions during aerogel manufacture, or resulting from space-exposure/particle impact/recovery/lab processes etc., could produce a surface circle leading down to a triangular well-like defect. And there's all those 'naked' triangles and regimented lines of triangular chevrons...
Seems to me so far that (sadly) there are more as-yet-unexplained but ?interesting aerogel artefactual features in the movies we're seeing than any potential interstellar dust particles!

jsmaje · Post by **jsmaje** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:10 pm

Rojer wrote:I felt that I have seen this before, so I checked in my events and see two records.
...
Really my old friend.

Hi Rojer,
Seeing repeat movies in a random delivery process can be much more frequent than intuitive (and if you don't, it may be a sign that the process is being manipulated or non-random).

This issue arose earlier. See my posting here and the previous/subsequent discussion about it.

Albeit imperfect in detail, my simulation did reliably demonstrate how repeats can be unexpectedly frequent. I withdrew it shortly after, but would be happy to make a better version if thought helpful.

John

fjgiie · Post by **fjgiie** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:29 pm

Whatcha gonna do with movies like these two?

_Movie 404198V1___49_______17
_Movie 143055V1___52_______7

We can always say "when in doubt click on the unexpected".

Mighty Pete · Post by **Mighty Pete** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:27 pm

fjgiie:

Your going to call them bad focus. Look carefully. Interesting but bad focus. Obviously the microscope was not perfectly parallel to the surface. One side comes into focus then the outer side. The first one, it comes into focus on the last frame, I don't think it went deep enough..

Nikita · Post by **Nikita** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:13 am

Two cents from the picky one:
I agree with Might Pete on the first one, I don't see the surface until near the bottom.
The second one I'd call an inclusion. I think it might be slightly slanted, but I really think more importantly, there is no signature to the spec. It comes into focus and starts to blur on the last frame. No trail before, clear spec visable, blurs afterwards. We aren't supposed to see these things, so that gives me doubt.
But that's by the book and you know discoveries aren't made always following the book!

fjgiie · Post by **fjgiie** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:12 pm

.
About _Movie 404198V1 - Here are some exacting magnifications of the track in referenced movie.

___ regular VM size________________ big___________________ bigger

My thoughts are that this movie will end up with a good ranking based on the shape of the track. This movie may need to be remade with better focus. I will try to watch for this movie and see if it is any good as far as a track candidate.
.
[edit] 20 April 2008 The RedTeam only gave a rating of 2.2593 to this movie out of TEN for perfect. [/edit] fjgiie

the moon · Post by **the moon** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:42 am

fjgiie every movie has a spot that looks like that. I'm pretty sure it's on the surface.

Anyway, on to the next.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =5503742V1
Strange movie here. Absolutely nothing visable except one dot. I can't even tell if the dot is on the surface or below since there's no surface. But the thing that makes this dot different from any I've seen is that once it comes into focus, it stays in focus from the mid focus range to the bottom. Or rather it doesn't change at all, not one pixel. Which makes me suspicious that the movie is broken and all the frames from the middle down are in the fact the exact same frame. But if they aren't and the movie is fine, then I'd say it has a good chance of being a track.

Can anyone tell for sure? Like by checking the image links or some image editing software?

Nikita · Post by **Nikita** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:16 am

Clearly a bad focus! (Pun intended)
It is odd that it looks like it stays the same once it is in focus. But since we can't determine what is going on, a bad focus would flag them to rescan it.
Perhaps it is one of those sticks that we see that is standing up instead of on it's side???

Stardust@home

"I think I've found a track, what do you think?"

9688223V1

Difficult Movies

Shape means a great deal to me