The mind-blowing game-changer you can't unsee.

page: 2
137
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Nyiah
 


The speck does not rotate relative to the sun even though the camera is rotating. Your make-up analogy would not do this.




posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


A thoughtful comment, but the time lapse is only twenty five days in 2013. The other image I posted shows a different location, taken in 2012.
Most of the images come from Stereo B (which also moves.)
Stereo A images show different information and I will write a post about them shortly, as well as posting more .gifs.

Let's not forget that there are several objects around the sun, and there is no way to track which is which.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HiramA
 




I called NASA's representative for the Stereo project (Joseph B. Gurman) to get an explanation but my call was not returned.


Seems like he already talked about it :


Dr. Joe Gurman, NASA Stereo Project scientist states the giant solar UFOs are compression artifacts. Moreover, he states, the "’central data recorder’ at DSN, that stores all the playback data from all the missions DSN supports, failed' on January 18, 2010, the date the solar UFO wave began, thus accounting for the images of giant UFOs (see full statement in the article below).


www.examiner.com...

Someone else contacted him too :


Below the email I send to Joseph B. Gunman:

Dear Joseph.

I have been on the SSC website and are confused because of some pictures taken by the Behind HI-1 observatory between january 5th and 6th 2010. There is specially two images that baffles me (see below) and I can´t find anything about it on nasa.gov news section nor in the Stereo Learning Center?

I may ask you this simple question: What is it? I can see some of the images leading up to these two images below shows sign of spacecraft roll, but this “object” with solar-like flares on top of it confuse me? I know you are busy and maybe you and your team are about to report on this issue, but I would love to hear a word or two from you on this particular object, or at least refer me to info about it if it exists.


...and the answer was :


Below the email I got from Joseph B. Gunman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center:


Hi, Mr. Jørgensen -

The STEREO coordinated observations calendar that includes that day,

stereo.nascom.nasa.gov... ,

says, “HGA calibration, Ahead 14:00 UT, Behind 16:00 UT
Behind: SECCHI corrupted images until 4 UT,”

where HGA refers to the high gain antenna, for January 6 of this year. The entry for the previous day, January 5, includes,

“SECCHI warm restart, 21:25, corrupted images.”

Thus I _suspect_ what you’re seeing are areas where onboard memory has been overwritten, and various corrections may have been applied to the wrong camera’s images. Thus, you appear to have combinations of an HI image, a COR1 mask, and an EUVI image (first image link), and an HI-1 and EUVI images (second link), respectively.

I’m copying this to Drs. Chris Davis (of the SECCHI HI team at Rutherford Appleton Lab) and Bill Thompson here at Goddard so they can correct or amplify on my barely-educated guess.

Best,

Joe Gurman


alienspacecentereast.wordpress.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Great work OP. I have seen these pictures before and wonderd
what was causing it, but the way you present it, there can be
no doubt in anyone's mind that what ever it is, is not a oops or
spot on the camera, it is there in space, by the sun, what ever it is,
it exist.

After looking at pics before, i had a guess that it was real, but the
animation of the spining camera frame, and the flare going over the
top of it, just leads to the logic that what ever it is, it there.

Great work OP!



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Trueman
 


Gurman seems to be making this stuff up as he goes along. The date of the first image taken "clearly showing this anomaly" was 2007, three years before the 'corruption'.

The images in red and blue don't show this anomaly, again showing something completely different. Stereo B - COR1 images are green. They are the only ones relevant to THIS discussion.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiramA
2- These objects have been visible since 2007, but nothing has been said publicly by NASA officials. Many available images have been deleted from the public data base, had parts hidden with black rectangles, or renamed such that they could not be found.
It can be shown that NASA did some gymnastics with their equipment in order to verify that these objects were not an anomaly caused by lens defects, interference patterns, etc. In the space of 27 hrs, the image was seen to rotate 360 degrees in regular intervals. I called NASA's representative for the Stereo project (Joseph B. Gurman) to get an explanation but my call was not returned.

rotate

This rotation view shows what's really going on.

I don't know why you're having such difficulty interpreting it. Here is my interpretation:

There are clearly two separate patterns seen in the rotation imagery.
One pattern rotates, and the other pattern doesn't rotate
The pattern that rotates appears to be external to the photographic equipment, so whatever is rotating we can presume is distant, like the sun.
The pattern that doesn't rotate appears to be part of the photographic equipment.
I think the so called "objects" you refer to fall into this category.
So they aren't external to the spacecraft, because they rotate along with the imager.

It's unbelievable how you can put this image together and then misinterpret it so badly. What it is telling us is pretty obvious.

So the solar flare isn't passing over the "object". What you call an "object" is some kind of internal reflection in the photographic equipment, in the satellite, millions of kilometers away from the sun and the solar flare, so of course there is no interaction between the two.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I simply took the images supplied by Helioviewer and put them in chronological sequence. At first I thought that the object was rotating, but after a quick look, I saw it was the telescope. I then just rotated each image using the occluder as a guide until they lined up and there you have it. I see your point, I really do, but that doesn't explain how the flare can pass in front of it.
I have put many hours of thought into this, and your insulting reply does not address the principal problem we are dealing with. If your analysis is limited to any one image, you are correct, it could be a problem within the equipment, but when put into context (all the information presented) your explanation does not cut it.
For someone so quick to judge, you don't seem to be putting much thought into this.

I will re-state my questions:
How can the flare pass over it if it is internal?
If the object (one of several - btw) is internal, why does it not rotate with the camera?
P.S. The sun is NOT rotating, neither is the object, just the camera. Get it?
edit on 19-8-2013 by HiramA because: more info



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   


If this is an internal artifact, how does the differing luminosity emanating from the sun affect it so directly, and in the right orientation?
There are two images in this .gif taken five minutes apart.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by HiramA
 





Gurman seems to be making this stuff up as he goes along. The date of the first image taken "clearly showing this anomaly" was 2007, three years before the 'corruption'.


If that is the case, try to contact another scientist that you consider reliable.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiramA
...I will re-state my questions:
How can the flare pass over it if it is internal?


The artifacts (whatever they are -- internal reflections maybe?) may not be opaque. Therefore, when the flare passes through it, we can still see the flare



Originally posted by HiramA
If the object (one of several - btw) is internal, why does it not rotate with the camera?
P.S. The sun is NOT rotating, neither is the object, just the camera. Get it?



I don't understand why you can't get this. THIS is what should have made you realize it IS part of the camera. As the camera spins (creating the spinning sun) the "object" does NOT spin relative to the image frame. Therefore, the object is part of the image frame (some sort of image artifact/internal camera artifact)

Here's an example I made. I tape a scrap of plastic in front of my camera lens (emulating a camera artifact). Then I took four pictures of my keyboard, rotating the camera 90° after each pitcture. I then put all of the pictures together, rotated them like you did, then made a GIF. Here's the result...

As the Camera spins, so does the keyboard (like the sun was spinning in your GIF), but the scrap of plastic stayed in the same place (just like the "object in question" in your GIF):




edit on 8/19/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/19/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiramA
If this is an internal artifact, how does the differing luminosity emanating from the sun affect it so directly, and in the right orientation?
There are two images in this .gif taken five minutes apart.
If it's a reflection, and the original varies in intensity, then so can the reflection, right?
You can't really draw any conclusions about the orientation in a reflection, if it's lens flare, which it might be. Looks a lot like lens flare.


Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Here's an example I made.
Nice work on the example. Hopefully that will help him understand.
edit on 19-8-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I think it's pareidolia. This was proven to be a lens flare.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


1- The 'object' is the pen next to your keyboard, not the plastic.
2- The sun is NOT spinning in my image. I stabilized it in order to show that even though the camera is spinning, the object and the sun are NOT. If you stabilized the keyboard, the pen would not move, but the plastic 'speck' on your lens would.

This is not complicated, people.

But thank you for proving my point for me.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ArcAngel
 


Where and by whom, please?



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiramA
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


1- The 'object' is the pen next to your keyboard, not the plastic.
2- The sun is NOT spinning in my image.
I stabilized it in order to show that even though the camera is spinning, the object and the sun are NOT.
Because the camera is spinning, the sun does indeed appear to spin in your image. So I don't know how you can say the sun isn't spinning in your image. It does appear to be spinning, the way the keyboard appears to be spinning in Soylent's example.

Of course in both cases, it's the camera that's actually doing the spinning, so the appearance that the sun and the keyboard are spinning is sort of an illusion.

To put it another way, if you stabilize the sun in your GIF instead of the "objects", and then the "objects" will rotate with the camera.
edit on 19-8-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
If the Sun is NOT rotating in your montage, and the satellite is, then that 'whatever' has to be outside of the Satellite parked out.

The satellite rotates, then any internal lens artefact or what ever have to rotate too. I see what your saying and the light does appearto illuminate it.

Interesting thread.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Trueman
 


Who says I consider a NASA scientist reliable. They've been lying to us for too long now.
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I did stabilize the sun in my .gifs. I didn't want to stabilize the object for just that reason, but it just turned out not to move. The sun in my .gifs is NOT rotating. Neither is the object. Only the satellite is rotating. Here's a clue, look at the spots on the lower part of the image. Are they rotating? No. They are part of the sun's corona.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiramA

...
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I did stabilize the sun in my .gifs. I didn't want to stabilize the object for just that reason, but it just turned out not to move. The sun in my .gifs is NOT rotating. Neither is the object. Only the satellite is rotating. Here's a clue, look at the spots on the lower part of the image. Are they rotating? No. They are part of the sun's corona.
No, the corona of the sun clearly appears to rotate counter-clockwise in your gif.

If you can't recognize this then there's no point in any further discussion on the topic as you appear to have a cognitive block of some sort.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Do you really think that there are no fluctuations in the sun's output. You are talking about the wisps of energy coming from different places in the sun. The rotation is an illusion. They're actually spurting out of the surface in different areas. What you should be looking at are the dark areas of the corona which VERY CLEARLY DO NOT MOVE thanks to my stabilizing them.
I am 5 minutes away from posting nine images to help explain my point for all those who can't wrap their heads around the spatial relationship betwween moving objects and those that are fixed.
The sun's corona is not regular and fluctuates greatly. Look at the spots at the bottom as the image rotates, not the wisps of energy.





top topics
 
137
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join