An image of Comet Ison or is it really a comet?

reply to post by abeverage

Unless there was movement of the camera during the observation then parallax does not explain the Boomerang shape.

Parallax was not meant to explain the boomerang effect. The effect is because of change in camera perspective.

Parallax only explains why the stars appear in the same position as if no change in perspective took place.

At least that's the theory.

They didn't change position durung the shots. I think the 3 lines represent 3 different long exposure shots from 3 different positions of Hubble.

Originally posted by NeoParadigm
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

The line if it was several different shots would still be in a straight lin not and arc.

The pic is a composition of several long exposure shots with a viewpoint change between them. The long exposure shots are making it appear as a line, the angle is due to the viewpoint change between these shots.

At least that's what I think we are looking at.

edit on 19-8-2013 by NeoParadigm because: (no reason given)

Thanks, I know it is irritating when people ask questions before they read the whole thread.

I was also wondering, would the tail not have responded to the exposures as lines also instead of seeing the diffused light as we do?

reply to post by abeverage


The Hubble 'scope is in orbit... thus always moves... right? Everything in the galaxy is moving, too, and beyond.

In fact, every piece of matter we know about is moving... but I digress... and digress...

Comets are NOT dirty snowballs or made of ice. The pictures from all missions to comets and asteroids show a solid rock. Deep Impact did ultimately proof that there is no water present.

What Deep impact also did proof...there is electrical activity and interaction going on, creating the corona and the huge flash when the projectile did impact.

The glowing parts on the comet surface is NOT just reflecting material, it's electrical discharge.

So..since they have proven that comets are basically electric capacitors, similar to florescent lightbulbs, could this explain why those glowing lines appear? Still doesnt explain why they are perfectly symmetrical, though.

reply to post by Char-Lee

I was also wondering, would the tail not have responded to the exposures as lines also instead of seeing the diffused light as we do?

This seems to be a common misconception in this thread. You are not looking at the tail. The blob of light is just overexposure to light, in the image.

At least that's what I think.

Let me get this right, I may have missed something, but is the latest attempt to debunk these attempting to claim these white, straight looking tube-like images are cross-hairs? Don't most cross-hairs line up at 90 degree angles?

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


There are too many explanations, and none of them sit well with me..just my two cents.

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch


Still a great find an a interesting thread. S&F

there was people saying at one time ISON, had two tails.. This is a very odd picture, has anyone from NASA, explained what the hell this is? Or are they not explaining anything about this image they uploaded? I am just curious, forgive me if this has already been asked, I have not read every page in the thread..

I just find it interesting that the image is showing 3 distinct objects, also I am curious about the scale of the image, how large are these objects?

I am not going to hold my breath on any answers from NASA, and I am sure there is some kind of logically explanation....

I will say there is something very weird about this comet, and the other one following it scheduled to pass in 2014...

Originally posted by NeoParadigm
reply to post by abeverage

 

Unless there was movement of the camera during the observation then parallax does not explain the Boomerang shape.

Parallax was not meant to explain the boomerang effect. The effect is because of change in camera perspective.

Parallax only explains why the stars appear in the same position as if no change in perspective took place.

At least that's the theory.

They didn't change position durung the shots. I think the 3 lines represent 3 different long exposure shots from 3 different positions of Hubble.

edit on 19-8-2013 by NeoParadigm because: (no reason given)

Which is why we need the data on the exposure and there was more than one you know right? If you saw my series this happens in about 3-4 photos. And we can disagree that it is more than one exposure.

Originally posted by Baddogma
reply to post by abeverage

 

The Hubble 'scope is in orbit... thus always moves... right? Everything in the galaxy is moving, too, and beyond.

In fact, every piece of matter we know about is moving... but I digress... and digress...

Yes everything is moving...so why does it happen in a few images an not in them all?

reply to post by Bicent76


Well, supposedly Deep Impact has pictures as well, not released yet, of course.

I really think Thor says it all...lol..you gotta love his humor, he also has great info!
SCIENCE IS NOT 100% SURE THAT ISON IS A COMET

reply to post by abeverage


It would be extremely helpfull to know which pic was made out of which other pics from what position at what time.

It dont know if that was a correct sentence.

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch


Though as usual with an interesting thread like this, the answer is lost in the noise (my noise included).

Tsurfer2000 found the NASA explanation that it's a conglomerate construction of three photos (with shutter speeds that create the long effect)... back around page 9 or so... the "frankenphoto" blurb... it doesn't mean it can't be discussed and the pic is very neat and it was a great find (kudos to the fiancee') but the three photos explains the three lights well... and the distance of the background stars explains why they aren't light lines, too.

The symmetrical arrangement is peculiar, but those details are explained, too, or were when I read it and was more alert hours ago.

For what it's worth from this professional amateur.

reply to post by Baddogma


The "V" faces the "tail" of the "comet" in the July 17th picture, but if you look at the images from June 27th images and zoom in on that one, and darken, no "V" anomaly there...... interesting thread none the less. Wasn't there a post recently on ATS that ISON is coming by 666 years after a comet that allegedly caused a plague in the past?

reply to post by abeverage


Not to mention, as i stated AND showed pictures of other comets a few pages back..no other comet shows like this one.

Its nibiru. V. Now lets just hope all their badly coded mystery school stuff is completely dark frequency errors and this isn't bad guys showing up. That whoever this is doenst like the slavers. Anyway, I'd be right their face even if godzilla shows up and tell them For The People and that they have no permissions here and have to leave. For Love Stands Its Ground.

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch
reply to post by Bicent76

 

Well, supposedly Deep Impact has pictures as well, not released yet, of course.

yea they are using probes, and everything we have to observe this thing but ahem where are all the pictures? Why are they being kept top secret?

What surprises me is there is so much hype for a comet, being spewed to us yet hardly any images of the damn, thing or explanations about its nature.. The only logical conclusion I can draw, is they do not know what its nature is, and that is why they are not showing many images of a comet they find strange. First the scientist were rambling on about how bright this comet was going to be and how large it was. Then they decided it was not really that big, now they think it wont be super bright, yet other scientists do ..

This is what I think, I think NASA, has no idea what ISON is...

so why not just release the images to the world, let us help

Originally posted by Baddogma
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch

 

Though as usual with an interesting thread like this, the answer is lost in the noise (my noise included).

Tsurfer2000 found the NASA explanation that it's a conglomerate construction of three photos (with shutter speeds that create the long effect)... back around page 9 or so... the "frankenphoto" blurb... it doesn't mean it can't be discussed and the pic is very neat and it was a great find (kudos to the fiancee') but the three photos explains the three lights well... and the distance of the background stars explains why they aren't light lines, too.

The symmetrical arrangement is peculiar, but those details are explained, too, or were when I read it and was more alert hours ago.

For what it's worth from this professional amateur.

Oh i heard NASA's explanation..their V FILTER...yea right..I'll believe that one ..lol..V filter..im laughing here