Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

page: 32
65
<< 29  30  31   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tallone

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Tallone
Comet 67P. Another dirty snowball. Oh yeah. Right.

What we have right there is one huge **************G Mountain! No LEss!

I give you, electric comet 67P. A myth buster. Just like ISON was in fact.

Explain to me how does a mountain have the density of 0.4 g/cm³, which is less than ice and only slightly higher than cork.

It is a common courtesy to cite a source,

Where do you get your density data from?

Apologies, I thought basic information about 67P is easily accessible to anyone. I used Wikipedia, which cites this source: blogs.esa.int...
Density is calculated using mass and volume, both of which have been estimated to a good degree from various measurements, and will be refined as more data becomes available. rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov...


www.esa.int... am.jpg
Tell me how this photo gives any indication at all 67P is "aggregations of rocky material, frozen volatiles (ices) and organic stuff." Where is all of this ice?

Underneath the dust, hydrocarbons, and rocky materal. As I have mentioned in my previous post, comets form non-icy crust (or "mantle") through depletion of volatiles and formation of rubble mantle and irradiation mantle. The recent Rosetta blog states that the data from the lander shows that it sits on a layer of dust beneath which there is ice.


The corpse of your 'mainstream model' is skewered by the evidence in the photos we are seeing.

Photos are only part of the data, and shouldn't be used on their own to form sweeping conclusions.
edit on 23-11-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tallone




The corpse of your 'mainstream model' is skewered by the evidence in the photos we are seeing.

Interesting. You can tell by looking at a monochrome image what something is composed of.
The density is determined by dividing the mass by the volume. The volume is determined by external measurements. The mass is determined by the orbit of Rosetta around the comet.

And all of the measures come courtesy of ESA (and NASA). No I wouldn't be able to 'tell' all of that from monochrome images. You raise a good point right there. What is with the images? Monochrome? Come on. I would expect a hell of a lot more information, a heck of a lot more data - given the amount of money and the amount of time (years) they have poured into the planning of this mission.

What are we getting for our tax dollars? Fuzzy dark monochrome images. And then after mere hours on the 'comet', the lander runs out of power. Where did all that money go? They couldn't afford cameras that might give us decent images, color? They couldn't afford a nuclear cell to power the thing? How many years of design and preparation went into this mission?

I call BS. Total and absolute BS.

The photos we do have show clear signs of being Photo Shopped or tampered with in similar software. Anyone with Photo Shop and experience using the program understands this. The hi res photos can be downloaded and checked out and the tampering is obvious if you know what to look for.

So no. I wouldn't depend on the photos. But looking at the photos ESA does give us demonstrate this ain't no dirty snowball. Not even close.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Tallone
Nice rage, bro, keep it up.

The lander returned a plethora of valuable data, which will be examined and studied thoroughly, and the findings published in their due time. Rosetta (the main part of the mission, btw) is still up there, alive and kicking, and doing its thing.

The mission is for science, not for public amusement.

Practically all science cameras in space work in B&W, in conjunctions with scientific filters. NAVCAM images are B&W because that camera is used for navigation, not for creating pretty colourful pictures to please the public. Hopefully, we will see some colour images from OSIRIS soon.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace




Nice rage, bro, keep it up. The lander returned a plethora of valuable data, which will be examined and studied thoroughly, and the findings published in their due time. Rosetta (the main part of the mission, btw) is still up there, alive and kicking, and doing its thing. The mission is for science, not for public amusement. Practically all science cameras in space work in B&W, in conjunctions with scientific filters. NAVCAM images are B&W because that camera is used for navigation, not for creating pretty colourful pictures to please the public. Hopefully, we will see some colour images from OSIRIS soon.

That's pretty disingenuous. Even coming from you.

NASA is funded by the American tax payer dollar. You would think the American tax payers deserve their photos without filters, with colour, with whatever 'luxurious extra' scientists from NASA are seeing in the images they receive.


NASA funding is larger than all other departments, including Transportation ($14 billion) Treasury ($12.4 billion) and the Department of the Interior ($11.5 billion). Furthermore, almost all departments have seen their budgets slashed to reduce the Federal deficit and debt. Although NASA's budget has been cut, its percentage of discretionary spending has actually grown -- from 1% in 2010 to 1.7% in 2015.

useconomy.about.com...
Allowing that B/W photos are most often used by space researchers and do include light at either end of the spectrum, infra-red and ultra-violet information, you would still think wouldn't you that NASA had a few dollars in their budget to present photos to the public resembling images seen by the human eye? Wouldn't you? While keeping the detailed information in place for all to see. I am sure the average tax payer would expect at least that little in return, even if it were to be regarded as "entertainment" as you have it. BTW have you ever seen the average annual (even quarterly) glossy posted out to stockholders? Most corporations get it.

But see, you walk away from the main point I make above. The obvious obfuscation. Why does NASA feel the need to release images to the public with parts blurred. The pixel distortion is obvious to anyone familiar with Photoshop. It's pathetic really. Why hide stuff from the very people who fund the enterprise to begin with.

It isn't as if corporations don't make enough from space research they should worry about other companies stealing critical data from photos, or am I wrong there?

Nice straw man argument you put out there Wildspace, I guess its better you do engage in some level with the debate though, rather than calling for my threads to be closed down. As I seem to recall you doing on this very thread. Right?

edit on 25-12-2014 by Tallone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Tallone

Merry Christmas to you too.

Most of what you wrote in your reply is purely subjective or erroneous.

1. The Department of Defence is also funded by the American public. Should the public have a say in weapons research and testing, or military operations, or anything else the army does?

2. Plenty of true-colour images of space had been released by NASA. (By the way, you _need_ filters for a colour image. You own compact digital camera's sensor only sees in B&W, and uses a matrix of red/green/blue filters and a software to combine that data into a colour image).

3. "NASA funding is larger than all other departments" - simply not true, as it's a tiny fraction of the DoD budget.

4. "The obvious obfuscation. Why does NASA feel the need to release images to the public with parts blurred." - I have never seen any example of predetermined obfuscation or blurring. I have seen plenty of image artifacts, data drop-outs, etc. though.

5. "Nice straw man argument you put out there Wildspace, I guess its better you do engage in some level with the debate though, rather than calling for my threads to be closed down. As I seem to recall you doing on this very thread. Right?" - What strawman argument? I've really only shared what I know of astronomy and space programs, including the Rosetta mission. I don't recall calling to get your threads to be closed down, care to link me to that bit? I do remember saying something like "I'm out of here, posting here seems pointless", but I guess my passion for space and science is stronger than my attempts to ignore ignorance.

~~~

P.S. a colour image of the Rosetta's comet has been released, so I hope you'll be satisfied at least in that regard: blogs.esa.int...

My processed image: www.unmannedspaceflight.com...
(normalised colours to get rid of the greenish cast, and reduced levels to reflect the comet's dark albedo)
edit on 25-12-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace




3. "NASA funding is larger than all other departments" - simply not true, as it's a tiny fraction of the DoD budget.

Stop right there. I didn't say it. Neither did the source--and you are paraphrasing (incorrectly) the off site source, not me. The article I quoted from is differentiating the NASA budget to all others aside from the DoD, the Educations department, and so on. You can read the context from the article. This is a source I'm citing in order to make a point, Not the strawman argument-another one- you pull from it. The point I make is this, pay attention now, NASA receives funding from the tax payer, and it amounts to an awful lot of funding. NASA receives MORE funding than does the Department of Transport, or the Department of the Interior - larger than ALL other US government departments aside from the five mentioned in that article if you bothered to refer to it before replying. But you don't bother to do that. Either because your sole intention is to rebuke each and every post I make or, more likely, you are -effectively at least- just another paid shill. It looks like it.

So where's your sources? You don't bother.

Or are you spouting off the top of your head and expecting it to be acceptable unverified as it stands, or falls in your case? Again, it looks like it to me.

The single colour image from Rosetta released by NASA to the public is a joke. You know it.




I don't recall calling to get your threads to be closed down, care to link me to that bit? I do remember saying something like "I'm out of here, posting here seems pointless", but I guess my passion for space and science is stronger than my attempts to ignore ignorance.

Ha ha. You mean you are spinning so much BS you can't keep up with it. Well, Wildspace the evidence for that is right here.
See a reply to Tallone by wildespace
That's the top of page 15 on this thread. Anyway... don't expect we'll be hearing much more from you here, unless of course having to reply to a post by an identified target is a part of your contract.

edit on 25-12-2014 by Tallone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Tallone
Ok, that was a proposition to close this thread, but I no longer think so. However, when a thread gets completely out of hand, I don't see why moderators shouldn't consider closing it. One of your similar threads got moved from here to Skunkworks, and then locked as it got personal and out of hand.

NASA's budget size is quite beside the point here; besides, flying to space is expensive. NASA need all that money, and more.

I have noticed that you don't really address the points I brought up throughout this thread, such as true-colour images of space being numerous and widely available, or that 67P has impossible average density for a solid chunk of rock.

I state my sources, apart from times when I think the facts are very well known, or very easily available on the 'Net.


The single colour image from Rosetta released by NASA to the public is a joke. You know it.

Nope, that's just your opinion. Why is it a joke? How would you personally have done it? Please back up your statements with something.

Lastly, I don't want this thread to be filled with personal remarks and attacks; science is the topic here, and I'd rather concentrate on comets and science in general, than who has what failings or intentions.

So, to keep this on track, some valid questions for you:

1. How do you reconcile 67P's very low density with the belief that it's a chunk of rock?
2. Should the public control/influence/dictate function of all state departments that are funded with public tax dollars, including the Army, hospitals, Police?
3. Regarding space images, how would you have done it? Attach a consumer digital camera to the spacecraft and hope it works?
edit on 25-12-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Tallone




The single colour image from Rosetta released by NASA to the public is a joke. You know it.

Perhaps you should have directed your rant elsewhere. The Rosetta mission is not a NASA mission.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Why would I want to reply directed to me on this thread on a different one? This is the thread I started, remember? I am the OP. Not Wildspace...
But you sure you didn't mean to reply under Wildspace instead of as Phage? You display the same level of confusion, perhaps intentional.

NASA, ESA, JAXA, and the Chinese space agency also demonstrate no real difference in so much as they all seek to lead their public on a bit of a wild goose chase. The photos released by ESA just like NASA, and just like the photos released also by the CNSA are either of drastically reduced quality - showing a level of pixalation unable to carry the information required by a researcher or they are patently doctored. Either or, these space agencies share in common an apparent intention to mislead the public - the taxpayer. This much is obvious to anyone familiar with Photoshop or a similar quality photo editing software upon examining the available downloadable images.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tallone
The photos released by ESA just like NASA, and just like the photos released also by the CNSA are either of drastically reduced quality - showing a level of pixalation unable to carry the information required by a researcher or they are patently doctored.


Care to show some evidence for that silly claim?



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Tallone

It's amazing how something as simple as getting familiar with Photophop unravels the biggest and most poignant of global conspiracies.

/sarcasm


showing a level of pixalation unable to carry the information required by a researcher

Sorry, but how have you come to this conclusion? Have you asked professional researchers for their opinion? Tons of research has been produced from NASA and ESA data (images or otherwise).

Sorry, but your arguments in this thread don't hold any water. All I'm seeing is posturing, name-calling, and finger-pointing, without a thread of substance.

(And I don't enjoy making these kind of posts. As I said earlier, I'd rather talk about science and data coming in from these space missions.)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: Tallone

It's amazing how something as simple as getting familiar with Photophop unravels the biggest and most poignant of global conspiracies.

It is isn't it? Amazing ESA hardly seems to bother to hide their attempts to deceive the taxpayers with these photos. NASA, et al.


originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: Tallone

Have you asked professional researchers for their opinion? Tons of research has been produced from NASA and ESA data (images or otherwise).

It's amazing too how you can just assume so much about someone you do not know. I'm a trained researcher. Spent years wading through numbers, data of several kinds, including visual media of several types. Trained to recognize patterns.


originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: Tallone

Sorry, but your arguments in this thread don't hold any water. All I'm seeing is posturing, name-calling, and finger-pointing, without a thread of substance.

(And I don't enjoy making these kind of posts. As I said earlier, I'd rather talk about science and data coming in from these space missions.)

Ha ha. Are you sure you are not refering to your own posts? Once more, I am the OP of this thread. I reserve the right to reply to anyone who persistently calls me out for posts on my own thread. You completely within your rights to go and read a thread on a similar subject posted by someone who's perspective aligns with your own. Clearly though expressing a genuine interest in the topic is not what you are about. Otherwise you would not persist in your attempts to dismiss this thread/ what I have to say. Now if you "don't enjoy making these kinds of posts as you say" than simply do not.

The inanity of the comet as dirty snowball is explicitly obvious to those who have flagged this thread. More people are waking up to the constant obfuscation engaged in by ESA, NASA, et al. The deception of these space agencies is the real conspiracy. Those who, like myself see this, are interested in pointing this out to others so they too can wake up.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Tallone

Oh, I'm not trying to dismiss what you say. To the contrary, I'm calling on you for elaborating, clarifying further, and supporting what you state. I have asked you several valid questions regarding what you said in this thread, and you have ignored those question. With regards to what you posted above, I can only ask you to elaborate:

1. How exactly are ESA deceiving the taxpayers with those photos? (and how does that relate to scientific research and space exploration, which is what space agencies are there for)

2. How would you know what to look for in images and other data coming from space missions. Are you a professional astrophysicist or planetary scientist?

I am very much interested in the topic of space in general and comets in particular. Depite this thread's title, ISON wasn't revealed to be an electric comet. So now we're discussing Rosetta's results concerning the 67P "Chury". I can only reiterate the points I brought up:

1. "Dirty snowball" is a layman term that is (besides being quite unfortunate, in my own opinion) isn't a scientific term and isn't used in scientific research. I agree that the sooner astronomers stop calling comets "dirty snowballs", the better. Comets are complex, and varied, conglomerates of minerals (aka dust and rocks), hydrocarbons, and frozen volatiles (collectively called "ices") which include H2O.

2. Iceless and blackened comet surface is accounted for in the mainstream model, through formation of rubble mantle and irradiation mantle.

So, my dear Tallone, let's discuss science and demonstratable facts, not fling subjective statements and accusations.
edit on 12-1-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 29  30  31   >>

log in

join