It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Blurred Out UFO Near the Sun? Satellite Destroyed as a Warning?

page: 8
42
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
for future reference
sungrazer.nrl.navy.mil.../transits_2015
Transits of Objects through the LASCO C3 and C2 fields of view (FOV) in 2015

The following list was compiled by Worachate Boonplod
All dates and magnitudes are approximate.

LASCO C3
(Dec26)-Jan27
4 Vesta
mag +7.5
left to right
Jan27-Feb03
Mercury
mag +4
left to right
Feb18-Mar06
Neptune
mag +8.0
left to right
Mar29-Apr15
Uranus
mag +5.9
left to right
Apr02-Apr17
Mercury
mag -2
right to left
May15-Jul11
Mars
mag +1.5
left to right
May25-Jun05
Mercury
mag +5
left to right
Jul17-Jul30
Mercury
mag -2
right to left
Aug13-Aug17
Venus
mag -4.1
lower-left to lower-right
Aug16-Sep06
Jupiter
mag -1.7
left to right
Sep26-Oct04
Mercury
mag +4
left to right
Nov05-Dec01
Mercury
mag -1
right to left
Nov21-Dec08
Saturn
mag +0.4
left to right

LASCO C2
Jan08-Jan15
4 Vesta
mag +7.5
left to right
Feb24-Feb27
Neptune
mag +8.0
left to right
Apr04-Apr08
Uranus
mag +5.9
left to right
Apr08-Apr11
Mercury
mag -2.2
right to left
Jun08-Jun19
Mars
mag +1.5
left to right
Jul22-Jul25
Mercury
mag -2
right to left
Aug24-Aug29
Jupiter
mag -1.7
left to right
Nov14-Nov20
Mercury
mag -1.4
right to left
Nov28-Dec01
Saturn
mag +0.4
left to right




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Unless an object is very close to the spacecraft it would have to be moving at a very high rate of speed to be in one image and not another. But, if it were moving very fast, it would show a "motion blur" effect. Here's what that looks like, debris from the spacecraft in the near field.



Do you have science to back up this assertion?

Seriously; I would like to see the math.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Phage
Unless an object is very close to the spacecraft it would have to be moving at a very high rate of speed to be in one image and not another. But, if it were moving very fast, it would show a "motion blur" effect. Here's what that looks like, debris from the spacecraft in the near field.



Do you have science to back up this assertion?

Seriously; I would like to see the math.



Of what possible use could that be to you? When pressed you are loath to provide either.
edit on 9-3-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Phage
Unless an object is very close to the spacecraft it would have to be moving at a very high rate of speed to be in one image and not another. But, if it were moving very fast, it would show a "motion blur" effect. Here's what that looks like, debris from the spacecraft in the near field.



Do you have science to back up this assertion?

Seriously; I would like to see the math.



Of what possible use could that be to you? When pressed you are loath to provide either.


Indeed...my bad. I keep thinking that virtually everyone should be capable of understanding, and finding those things I consider "simple". By the way; as of late...I have been very forthcoming with all of the requisite science and math...although, I do expect you to actually do your Due Diligence and check it out...as opposed to make statements like you frequently do, and is evidenced here.


As for the present request; I would like to see the process that lead to the statement...I'm thinking the process does not justify the statement. And would like to see my assessment proven wrong.




top topics
 
42
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join