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

reply to post by ExquisitExamplE


or, another explanation to consider (already part of arb's) refutation, is that because the "object" is optical in nature, the light from the flare is simply passing through the optical aberration.

reply to post by paxnatus

Originally posted by paxnatus
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE

 

Yes but what you are missing is the total system is behind the sun!!!! and you are not taking into account the ecliptic angle at which those images were shot! please watch just the first few mins. of the video I posted!!

pax

I fail to see how that has any bearing or relevance to what I posted. I've decided to humor you though and I'm watching some of the video. For the record, you do realize that I'm agreeing with Hirama, and that I think there is actually a large object near the sun, right?

Really good thread, and good work put into it

I would just like to mention the following :

In this image, "rotating gif"

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

When we look closely at the bottom left "object" we can see that in the middle it has a black circle out line, and this outline seems to be rotating, mimicking the black lens block over the sun (which does not appear to be perfectly round).

Just wanted to point that out.

reply to post by tgidkp

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE

 

or, another explanation to consider (already part of arb's) refutation, is that because the "object" is optical in nature, the light from the flare is simply passing through the optical aberration.

I'm not sure I understand... first off, it's not just light that is emanating from the flare, it's a wave of plasma that is being ejected. It has mass. Secondly, if the plasma were passing through the object, it would look much different from what we see in the .gif; it wouldn't obstruct the object, but rather the object would remain the same visually, but that's not the case, as again, we can see that the plasma passes over the object.

Correct? Or am I missing something?

Here is the GIF that has the rotating border spread out going left to right in order (with the program options as the level):


With the anomaly outlined if it's hard to see:


The top of the camera is the top of each picture. Why isn't the anomaly staying put when we see each picture from the camera's perspective?

Originally posted by compressedFusion
We are back to your claim that only the distant objects should be rotating which probably should have been the object of discussion. I tried to show beyond doubt due to the satellite's orientation that the apparent movement of the corona could not be due to rotation of the sun. As you can see from the summary above HiramA agrees with you as well. In my estimation there are still two open issues:

1.) Are the dark spots outside of the occlusion disk really artifacts as Soylent states
2.) What is the merit of your statement regarding distant objects (since it implies #1 as well).

I hope this helps reduce any noise feedback in the system. All the best.

1) The dark spots certainly look like artifacts of the photographic apparatus. Not just the dark spots but all the other evidence we see of the baffles which is also outside the occlusion disk.
2) My comment about distant objects rotating refers to the illusion in the OP gif that the Sun's Corona is rotating CCW. Of course we know for certain the sun's corona is distant.

Perhaps to be more clear than "distant" I should say "external to the spacecraft". One thing that can occur and has occurred is impacts by micrometeorites that dislodge insulation which then can cause spots to appear between the camera and the sun, and those spots would not be "distant". However, I didn't see any evidence of them in the images in this thread, but they can appear in other images.

Also, when looking at the "rotating .gif" I'm pretty sure I can just barely make out a little notch at the bottom in the 6 o'clock position, very similar to what is seen in the STS-75 video.


Picture of STS-75 object, for comparison. Also note the similar interior rings.

what it is is a family of space chimps

reply to post by Arbitrageur


As you seem to be one of the main people refuting the OP's assertions, perhaps you'd care to comment on my ideas as expressed in this post?

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
I'd just like to again point out that, as we can clearly see in this image, when there is a coronal mass ejection, the resultant plasma wave passes over the object in question. If the object in question were an artifact that is inside of, or affixed to, the camera, this would not be possible. The only way for us to see what is show in the .gif, is if the plasma wave is between the object in question and the camera, and since we know the plasma wave is being ejected from the sun, it would stand to reason that the object in question is somewhere quite near the sun. Thats what my logic is telling me, although I'm open to alternate explanations or ideas.

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
reply to post by tgidkp

 

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE

 

or, another explanation to consider (already part of arb's) refutation, is that because the "object" is optical in nature, the light from the flare is simply passing through the optical aberration.

I'm not sure I understand... first off, it's not just light that is emanating from the flare, it's a wave of plasma that is being ejected. It has mass. Secondly, if the plasma were passing through the object, it would look much different from what we see in the .gif; it wouldn't obstruct the object, but rather the object would remain the same visually, but that's not the case, as again, we can see that the plasma passes over the object.

Correct? Or am I missing something?

no, its simply an optical illusion just like the tether event
www.youtube.com...

kids.niehs.nih.gov...

Just to expand on my previous plea of looking at other objects, here are seven objects (five clearly visible) which merit a good look.
The images are 10 minutes apart with a 2 second pause. I don't know why the contrast changes so drastically, but it is a good effect.

2013/07/12
07:35:19
07:45:19

Originally posted by astronomine
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I've seen your explanations, which is why I'm trying to get clarification.

You're saying the entire area within the red lines is an artifact even though the bright corona washes over it in its fluctuation. That's a pretty crappy camera if you throw everything that is stationary under the artifact rug to be able to claim the sun is rotating.

Original GIF:

edit on 20-8-2013 by astronomine because: Added original GIF

No that's not what I'm saying, the artifacts extend beyond the red lines. I see no demarcation where you drew red lines. I see a combination of photographic artifacts and real external imagery. One is rotating and one is not in the OP rotation GIF, but again as the rotating keyboard example showed where the keyboard was not rotating, the rotation is an illusion due to rotation of the camera.

It's very hard to photograph the sun's corona. There are a lot of baffles in the photographic apparatus and the fact that we see artifacts from them is just an unavoidable issue with this current technology. If we didn't use baffles, stray light would cause problems with washing out the image, so seeing evidence of the baffles is the lesser of 2 evils because they are dark, instead of light.

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
I'd just like to again point out that, as we can clearly see in this image, when there is a coronal mass ejection, the resultant plasma wave passes over the object in question. If the object in question were an artifact that is inside of, or affixed to, the camera, this would not be possible. The only way for us to see what is show in the .gif, is if the plasma wave is between the object in question and the camera, and since we know the plasma wave is being ejected from the sun, it would stand to reason that the object in question is somewhere quite near the sun. Thats what my logic is telling me, although I'm open to alternate explanations or ideas.

As a challenge to your logic, please watch this example of how camera's and artifacts can be shown to pass in front of each other. May not be directly related to this thread, but at least it will show you that it does happen and can explain a lot of these "but it's definitely behind it" arguments.

This was posted back on page 5 or 6 i think....

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
As you seem to be one of the main people refuting the OP's assertions, perhaps you'd care to comment on my ideas as expressed in this post?

Objects in which are in front of an object can appear to be behind the object. The problem is one of trying to perceive 3 dimensional space in a 2 dimensional image. I previously posted a video showing a green light passing in front of an object, which appears behind the object. Did you watch this?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The fact that we are dealing with an apparent reflection makes the issue more complicated.

Your eyes and even the camera can obviously deceive you, as that video demonstrates.

Edit: I see Thundersmurf beat me to it. Thanks Thundersmurf. It's the same video, but Thundersmurf's version is shortened to the relevant part.

Originally posted by 2012newstart
everyone who looks at the solar photos for something new to see, have noticed those objects for years may be.
Since they are bigger than Jupiter, they cannot be just a part of this solar system without being recorded so far. We deal with Extraterrestrial presence. There are such big ships in spheroidal form, as some contactees talk about. Perhaps those ships will evacuate the willing earth population before the big doom.
Another matter is, whether there is another companion star of the Sun, call it Brown Dwarf or whatever, mini solar system, is it behind the Sun all the time or is it beyond Pluto on highly elliptic and inclined orbit. The views differ on that matter, starting from Sichin and ending to today's non-traditional scientists who pop up in alternative media.

Thanks for posting.
I'm not sure the objects are spheroidal.
There are more than 7 of them.
I make them out to be about (very rough estimate) 120,000 miles (200,000 km) in diameter.
They are definately not planets, Nibiru, Planet X, asteroids or anything else on an orbital path.
As for what's behind the sun, we'll get a really good view in 2015.

reply to post by Thundersmurf


Yes, we get your point sir, but something is not right here.

None of that even matters if we can't know for sure if the sun was rotated in that image. It seems like we are getting off track here. Forgive me if I missed it but are we 100% sure the sun was rotated on the .gif? HiramA? That seems like the deciding factor in my eyes. If the sun was not rotated then the object must be real. If it was, this is probably an artifact on the lens.

If I had any experience with Helioviewer I would try and check this myself. Is HiramA the only one who has checked?

reply to post by tgidkp


I think there is some truth to the fact that they may be translucent to an extent. Perhaps they are visible in near UV but not in regular light. The Cor1 features two white-light units, but they may also be sensitive enough to near UV to pick them out. Some digital cameras (apparently) have this ability, too.
Having said that, I still think the wave washes over the object. I may seem overly confident to some, but there is always some loss when converting to .gif (256 colors.) It is just much clearer through the originals.

reply to post by WeSbO


With images taken minutes apart, it is quite impossible to tell whether it is rotating, pulsing, or just being washed over by effluence.

reply to post by ExquisitExamplE


There are notches on several of these objects. Good eye.

reply to post by roncoallstar


The sun is anchored, the camera turns, the object is real, imho.