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

page: 34
158
<< 31  32  33    35 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
In the beginning of this thread it was mentioned that there hasn't been any recent photos of ISON posted since July. Has this changed and are there any more current photos of the comet?




posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch
 


I know I read on here somewhere, that the chinese were coming! "That's not them" IS IT???


good find, thanks for posting, no clues yet as to how we can explain that image, unless my jest is correct, you know many a true word spoken in jest...



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rezlooper
In the beginning of this thread it was mentioned that there hasn't been any recent photos of ISON posted since July. Has this changed and are there any more current photos of the comet?



Yes. Many photos.
Like most claims in this thread, its easily refutable with a simple google search but nobody bothered to do so before making the claim.

An image was posted on page 15, from August 17th, but it was pretty much ignored.
On page 20, I posted a link to an astronomy message forum, where amateur astronomers were discussing this comet... but it was ignored.
On page 26 I posted a link to a photo taken on August 20th, but it was dismissed because it was "not in detail".
On page 27 I posted a link to another amateur astronomer, with more pics. Only one person bothered to reply, and they dismissed it because "not capable of looking at it in detail".

So, despite the fact that comet ISON is an object that thousands of astronomers around the world are viewing every morning, and despite the fact that a whole bunch of photos have been taken of it recently... this stupid thread that should have died an early death still lives on.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Thanks for posting the directions to images. After reading the first 8 pages I got lazy and skipped to the end to ask the question. Once again, thanks for your response.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 


1. It's because you are zooming in, object change when zoomed in on.
2. If it's a composite shot why aren't the star around it looking accordingly?



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
This "stupid thread" should stay until the comet comes closer and be seen by specialists and non -specialists alike. It is said it goes near to the Sun. What if something happens? (as a bunch of prophecies say decades ago).The hysteria around Elenin was enough, but Elenin was pretty small. Once it will happen. I do not rule out higher intelligence to put to test the stupid retarded humanity with all that and to watch how the humans react.

All that happens in the year that shouldn't be here. Remember Dec 21, 2012 and numerous theories. Almost as many as for Y2K. 2013 NASA predicted super solar maximum, and it hasn't happened yet. At best, the sun struggles to make a 11y cycle maximum. Something is going on, something is delayed with 8 months so far, and something will happen. The comets were always considered signs, back to Chinese ancient time. Don't miscalculate signs because of scientific pride that the current science knows everything and can explain every event in the sky or under the earth. It can't. What are those large globules near the Sun that should be bigger than Jupiter? No they are not some technical issue of the software, that the self-determined operators try to convince us. Where is the damned Global warming with the fossil fuel increasing ever in history? Why no scientist speak about that anymore? Because it is evident Global warming or cooling happen but are connected to the sun or any other celestial event, not so much to China becoming N1 oil consumer. Those same scientists who wanted to convince us in that 2 decades ago, now try to find suitable excuses for the new paradoxes observable. Such as strange comet, strange sun, planets that all warm up, etc. Sun changing color to white and physically burning much stronger than ever before. Have you been on a beach to make tan? Try now and you wil burn. If this is not evidence, nothing will be sufficient enough for people who will always deny the facts. Until those facts fall from the sky in the form of meteorite tail, solar flare, or God knows what more.
edit on 30-8-2013 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by 2012newstart
 





This "stupid thread" should stay until the comet comes closer and be seen by specialists and non -specialists alike.


It has been seen by NASA, ESA, and amateur skywatchers alike, that is how this thread got started.

BTW it is and will always be a comet til it dies...



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by 2012newstart
 





No they are not some technical issue of the software, that the self-determined operators try to convince us.


So you believe that there is something larger than Jupiter just hanging out up there by the sun and it isn't an artifact from the camera or the software then what do you believe it could be?

Now remember we get pics from amateur sunwatchers that look like these....





And yet we see nothing, how interesting...



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I really dont mean to beat a dead horse..Ive been researching and keeping up on ISON daily..there has been much speculation and theories, but nothing to date actually proves anything about the original pictures..

This is the latest news from the comet ISON campaign headquarters..yes, it says what others have said..but I have to tell you..I still dont believe it. This is their explanation.




In the image above (which we recommend you click on to see a comparison with its "pretty" counterpart image), we see something that doesn't look a lot like a comet, and very much not like the beautiful Hubble Heritage image of ISON.
We see three distinct nuclei that appear as short streaks oriented in different directions. Why is this?
The Hubble image of Comet ISON is not a single exposure but instead a series exposures taken at different times.
Hubble is in orbit around the Earth, so is actually moving through space at a very high velocity. When compiling this image, the Hubble team aligned all of the exposures such that the stars remained fixed in space.
This greatly enhances the detail of the stars and galaxies in the field of view and makes the image far prettier to look at. Unfortunately this also means that the comet (which is very much closer to Hubble than it is to the stars) appears in a slightly different location in each of the exposures that are taken, because the Space Telescope never sits still!
Furthermore, the images taken were long exposures -- up to 490-seconds. Any photographer will tell you that a long exposure of a moving bright light will lead to a streak in the image, and that is exactly what we see with the comet. Finally, the streaks are oriented in different directions due to Hubble's elliptical orbit around Earth. Depending on where the telescope is at a given time on this ellipse, it leads to a "streak" that trails in a different direction.


I have taken pictures all my life..streaks are streaks..and these images are NOT streaks..they are perfect objects, lighted objects..they are NOT streaks..ive taken many streaked pictures..(im not proud of it_)..this just doesnt feel right, its not an adequate answer.

I will keep up to date on this thread as much as I can, but I just wanted to tell all of you, there is something fishy about all of this!!!!

I feel that this "comet" is three parts..just like the picture shows..



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Has anyone actually read the explanation???

archive.stsci.edu...

A perfectly rational one and I see no reason to disbelieve it. I've got to admit though, it got me wondering at first!



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I know this could be a silly question. But is this comet in clear view at the mo. The last two nights when I go out for my smoke at about 8pm there is a very bright star like object to the north west of here. Its not a star, because there were no stars out tonight. And when u look at it , it has green lines coming of the bottom of it. Well it appears to. Any answers.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch
I really dont mean to beat a dead horse..Ive been researching and keeping up on ISON daily..there has been much speculation and theories, but nothing to date actually proves anything about the original pictures..

This is the latest news from the comet ISON campaign headquarters..yes, it says what others have said..but I have to tell you..I still dont believe it. This is their explanation.

And then there's this as well, from the Space Telescope Science Institute, the place that's actually in charge of conducting Hubble's observations:


In this case, the largest part of the blurring is due to the motion of Hubble itself rather than the motion of the comet. Hubble is orbiting the Earth every 95 minutes. The third exposure ended 46 minutes after the start of the first exposure. During that time the telescope moved from one side of its orbit to the other, a distance of about 8000 miles (~13,000 km). Because the comet is relatively nearby (compared with the distant stars and galaxies), its apparent position among the stars changes due to the different viewing position. This effect is known as parallax. It is expected when observing Solar System targets, and can produce very obvious motion or blurring in images as Hubble whips around the Earth.

There is a nice discussion of the effects of parallax on the Comet ISON images in this YouTube video. It includes detailed modeling of the parallax in these particular images and shows that the observed pattern is exactly what is expected.

archive.stsci.edu...
They actually refer back to a copy of a youtube video I made demonstrating that the parallax shape was what was expected given Hubble and ISON's orbits. So yes, it's parallax, it's proven. Nataylor proved it here, independently I reached the same conclusion and established the same thing, and now STScI confirms it's the right answer themselves as well. It's the parallax that was expected. How can it be "unexplained" when it's an expected consequence given the orbits involved?


I have taken pictures all my life..streaks are streaks..and these images are NOT streaks..they are perfect objects, lighted objects..they are NOT streaks..

I see, have you also been doing astrophotography all your life? And photographing comets in telescopes all your life? And analyzing the images of orbiting satellites based on their orbits all your life? Even I can't claim to have done all that all my life, but I have been doing it for a while now. Are these streaks not streaks?



If not, why not? If so, why different than the ISON streak? Naturally it doesn't show parallax, but that's because I'm on the ground, not orbiting earth.


ive taken many streaked pictures..(im not proud of it_)..this just doesnt feel right, its not an adequate answer.

I feel that this "comet" is three parts..just like the picture shows..

What about it is "not adequate" when it matches the expected motion of the comet over time? And no, that is not what it looks like in the individual pictures. It's just one part in each picture:
imageshack.us...
imageshack.us...
imageshack.us...
imageshack.us...
imageshack.us...
When you stack the pictures you get what looks like the comet is in multiple pieces due to gaps between each exposure:
imageshack.us...
Oh look, I stacked all five pictures, would you now say the comet was in 5 parts? Why not 3? You said it was in 3 parts, but when I stack 5 pictures I get 5 parts...

For an even more extreme example of parallax from orbit, see here:

In March 2011, parallax from the orbit of SDO caused the moon to appear to completely stop and reverse direction in exactly the opposite way it came (retrograde motion), causing a double partial solar eclipse. It was, to my knowledge, an unprecedented observation. I predicted it would happen months ahead of time because I was able to analyze the expected parallax and I knew when SDO would be looking (always). This pissed a number of conspiracy theorists off and caused them to downvote the video, but that's beside the point. Naturally because the moon is so much closer than ISON, the amount of parallax observed is much more extreme, causing the moon to appear to move backwards the way it came over more than its own apparent diameter (about half a degree) vs only a couple of arcseconds displacement for ISON (a tiny fraction of a degree). Nevertheless the basic concept is the same, and just like with ISON, it's completely explained and understood once you have analyzed the observation based on the orbits involved.
edit on 5-9-2013 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by fiftyfifty
 


You should keep wondering...that little bit of doubt you feel is real. You can beat me all you want..but im not joking



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter


I have taken pictures all my life..streaks are streaks..and these images are NOT streaks..they are perfect objects, lighted objects..they are NOT streaks..

I see, have you also been doing astrophotography all your life? And photographing comets in telescopes all your life? And analyzing the images of orbiting satellites based on their orbits all your life? Even I can't claim to have done all that all my life, but I have been doing it for a while now. Are these streaks not streaks?



If not, why not? If so, why different than the ISON streak? Naturally it doesn't show parallax, but that's because I'm on the ground, not orbiting earth.

Looks like I'm not actually going to get a response, so I'll just go ahead and add to this. Would you say that the comet in this image is in "multiple pieces?"
img96.imageshack.us...
It's actually the same comet as the above image. In fact, it's from the same imaging session, made from the same raw pictures. The only difference is that in this version (img96.imageshack.us... ) I stacked the individual pictures while aligning on the stars, while in this version (farm4.staticflickr.com... ) I stacked the images while aligning on the comet. As you can see, the comet's not actually in multiple pieces, that's just an illusion caused by the fact that the final image was a stack of multiple pictures with gaps between some of the exposures, making it look like it's in "multiple pieces" when the images are aligned on the stars, as they are in the case of the Hubble ISON image that made you think ISON was in "multiple pieces."



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch
reply to post by fiftyfifty
 


You should keep wondering...that little bit of doubt you feel is real. You can beat me all you want..but im not joking


As I said quite some time ago, you are not capable of discerning factual and logical information.

Do yourself a favor and stop obsessing over your delusion. It is not healthy to be this backwards.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
By now I am convinced ISON is not a comet, may be a mothership, may be artificial object traveling for some purpose known to its originator.

If it has to meet with the earth, it has to SLOW DOWN right now before reaching the sun, or make some adjustment of orbit while moving behind sun. Otherwise it will leave the plane of the planets at the Northern direction.

All the combined factors of geopolitics, expectations of prophecies, lead me to think ET contact is inevitable. ISON comes just at the right moment. "They" whoever they might be, need to manifest themselves somehow. It might be one morning as Independence day, it might be a comet, it might be a host country as older movies show in front of White House. Or Kremlin, or Versailles. Something must happen before all of us die due to nuclear war or solar flare, whichever comes first.

ISON dating (November, even October) coincides with a strange RE-consecration of the world to Mary that pope Francis scheduled for October 13. That enters into an entire saga of Fatima hypotheses that I will not discuss here, and of a comet that is needed for yet another line of events called Warning - Chastisement.

One advise to "Them": if they want to see some of the lightworkers (or prayer warriors) alive at their coming, they must speed it up. Otherwise they will not have any help from the unbelieving population, rather mistrust in "alien invasion", or a staged alien invasion" and similar. They are not gods, and it is better they stop behaving like greek gods and come down to human terms, if they are about to save any humans.
edit on 8-9-2013 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

I came across this while looking for some ISON info. I believe the source was a 1991 interview of an alleged incident that occurred in 1988.

Interesting reference back then of a black trash sea and a floating island where a one world government has control from one of the holographic projections he was shown.

Also, one of the projections showing a meteor/asteroid/comet coming down and making impact in the ocean near Puerto Rico.

With Fukushima & ISON it was worth posting the link here.
Interview from 1991



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoParadigm
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch
 





If this were true..the stars would look like lines as well, since they are roundish, also.


No because the stars are stationairy(relatively) and the comet is moving. You are not getting it at all, mam.

They make a pic with an exposure of 440seconds. Everything that happens in that period is recorded in one image. Since the comet moves it forms a line. The stars don't because they are stationairy unlike the comet.
edit on 18-8-2013 by NeoParadigm because: (no reason given)


So as the Earth rotates on it's axis, while orbiting the Sun, your saying that this 440 second interval will not effect the back ground of stars, but will cause the image of the comet to form a triangle of light. And that should be evident in all past photos of other comets, correct?
I'm more inclined to believe that, perhaps, it's stacked images. But then, why aren't the stars in the back ground effected?
edit on 8-9-2013 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch


I have taken pictures all my life..streaks are streaks..and these images are NOT streaks..they are perfect objects, lighted objects..they are NOT streaks..ive taken many streaked pictures..(im not proud of it_)..this just doesnt feel right, its not an adequate answer.

I will keep up to date on this thread as much as I can, but I just wanted to tell all of you, there is something fishy about all of this!!!!

I feel that this "comet" is three parts..just like the picture shows..


So how long is all your life just as you popped out the womb camera in hand


You didn't know the exposure time and now it has been given as 490 seconds then streaks are possible


Long time hobby photographer 30+ years but that's not all my life!!!



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


I suggest you look at this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...





new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 31  32  33    35 >>

log in

join