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

reply to post by alienDNA


I doubt it was a artifact or anything to do with the lens since a CME passed plasma waves in front of the object in question. That rules that out certainly.

reply to post by Staroth

reply to post by Staroth


Because the artifact is clear, not opaque. This gives the ILLUSION that is is passing over it, when in fact that isn't happening. Basically if you take a reflection of something, then move a brighter object where the reflection is, it appears to pass OVER the lighter reflection. You can actually do this with mirrors as we had to do it in college during atmospheric studies.

Use one mirror to reflect a dim light source onto the wall, now use another mirror to reflect a brighter light source to the same area. If you move the mirror reflecting the brighter light over the reflection of the dimmer light, you will see it appears to pass over it while in fact they are in the same spot on the wall. It's called an optical illusion.

en.wikipedia.org...

An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality

While I am not a graphic artist or photographer, my job for 5 years and 7 years of education before that was mostly looking at images both from earth and low earth orbit of Upper Atmospheric Phenomena. While I don't claim to be an expert in astro-photography, I am familiar enough with what can trick the eye in images and videos when looking at the sky from an extensive background in doing just that.

And again to keep this at the top of the page:

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by MoonMine

 

1) My name isn't Raymond.
2) You can admit your horrible mistake at your earliest convenience:

As has been fairly obvious from the get go to those of us who know what we are looking at, the sun stays stationary, the artifact moves with the lens. Your problem is you took the word of an amateur (The OP) that he had stabilized the sun, when in fact he had stabilized the artifact.

reply to post by alienDNA


It has been completely debunked:

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

Look at the top of this page. We are looking at an artifact on a lens that someone though was a giant space ship/entity in stationary orbit around the sun. Turns out it is an artifact in the lens per the following:

1) The camera on the rear side does not show the same object indicating it is an issue with one satellite
2) Other satellites pointed at the sun also show nothing in the area
3) The sequence of images he used in his gif to attempt to show the object stays stationary when the camera rotates was actually his user error of stabilizing the wrong object. When shown frame by frame the sun stays stationary and the artifact moves with the lens.

reply to post by InhaleExhale

Uneducated can be known if the person trying explain his revelation cant grasp basic facts that destroy their mind blown game changer. Foolish can be known when pointing out errors and one simply refuses to listen and continues on their path.

No not for seeking info and learning. but for not understanding what they are relaying to others.

This is a discussion no one is "relaying" anything to anyone, this is not a university and non here are teachers.

Keeping a decent civil discussion for all so we can learn from one another or even experience a new thought that may at first sound wrong to us but sometimes leads to deeper thought, study and understanding...this is the goal of a great discussion!

Your way is to dismiss, embarrass, harass and chase off any who may not bein your opinion qualified to speak.
I think you have the wrong website. We here do not need to be a group of Phd holders to speak!

You think you are being logical but look what forum you are arguing in!

Sometimes ones cup is to full to add any learning from anyone else.

Getting five hours of sleep in the last 50+ hours seems to have been a huge mistake. Some seem to have taken advantage of my absence in order to run with a theory which I showed to be incorrect. Arb's analysis is flawed from the get-go, but nobody seems to remember that. I will try to pick up from whence I left off, recap, and address the issues that popped up in the last five hours or so. But first, coffee.

Originally posted by Staroth
reply to post by alienDNA

 

I doubt it was a artifact or anything to do with the lens since a CME passed plasma waves in front of the object in question. That rules that out certainly.

Not really. An internal reflection of some sort or a flaw on the lens could be transparent enough to allow the waves to be visible as the passed through it.

The bottom line is that the "object" remains in the same part of the image frame no matter where the camera is pointed. That tells me it is some sort of artifact of the camera/image.

reply to post by HiramA


I already /threaded your thread guy. Look at the tops of pages 18 and 19. Clearly an image artifact.

reply to post by raymundoko


I see a solid object ..obviously and nothing clear or we wouldn't be able to see it in the first place.So that would rule out your optical illusion.
Secondly, the two stereo spacecraft are in orbit and what do things do while in orbit?

reply to post by Char-Lee


You claim to want learn from one another, but you as well as others on this thread REFUSE to accept the rather iron clad evidence that has been laid out to show that this is an artifact of the lens. What you should have said is you want to learn from people who are as like minded as you are, and dismiss those who aren't. You are in the same boat you are claiming him to be in, just from the different end.

He was right in using the world foolish, and I posted the definition because you seemed unclear about what the word means.

So basically: Pot, meet Kettle.

reply to post by Staroth


I know you THINK you see a solid object, but you don't. I already clearly demonstrated that the object moves with the rotation of the lens while the sun stays stationary. That alone invalidates everything related to the object being a vessel, planet or entity orbiting the sun.

Also, you trying to bring up HEO to me is laughable at best, as I am the one who has the experience in that area, whereas you probably have none.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

You claim to want learn from one another, but you as well as others on this thread REFUSE to accept the rather iron clad evidence that has been laid out to show that this is an artifact of the lens. What you should have said is you want to learn from people who are as like minded as you are, and dismiss those who aren't. You are in the same boat you are claiming him to be in, just from the different end.

He was right in using the world foolish, and I posted the definition because you seemed unclear about what the word means.

So basically: Pot, meet Kettle.

I haven't dismissed anything, you see through your own filter.

reply to post by Char-Lee


But on the contrary, you regularly ignore the scientific evidence and only engage with like minded individuals. Then when something is concretely disproved you just leave the thread. Don't let the creation date of this account fool you, you and I have debated before, usually with you supporting the bad side of the argument, like comet Elenin.

Originally posted by Char-Leeunless it was of intelligent design and was made to stay in one spot.

Originally posted by Char-LeeThere are so many possibilities, they could use out gassing just like comest do to move. They could fill up at stars and use particles known or unknown to us to travel in some way.

To many possibilities beyond us to even imagine, but if it were me traveling the unknown, I would build BIG and try and look like a natural object so I could come near planets to observe without being seen as intelligent life with unknown responses.

Originally posted by Char-LeeIf a ship were to light itself brightly to look like a comet could the amateur astronomers pictures reduce that light and see the shape beneath?

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by IQPREREQUISITE
As far back as 1999 people have already been looking at solar anomalies and phenomena...here's a link to one of them. I'm just putting it out there for reading and comparison.


1999 SOLAR ANOMALY

Maybe there was something there after all and it stayed. great discussion here.
abob.libs.uga.edu...

The suggestion that comet Hale-Bopp might have a satellite orbiting its nucleus, based on Hubble Space Telescope images, has resurfaced amid doubts. Reporting in the current issue of Earth, Moon, and Planets, an international journal, Zdenek Sekanina of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory writes about a Hale-Bopp satellite detected by applying theoretical modeling to images taken with Hubble's Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 on five days during 1996.

Sekanina says the satellite is roughly 30 kilometers in diameter (18 miles), compared with a main nucleus estimated to be 70 kilometers across (43 miles). The two objects appear to be separated by about 160 to 210 kilometers. The satellite appears to take two or three days to complete an orbit, Sekanina said.

Firstly, it might be easier if we all refer to the same things by using the same names (which have been in use since the beginning.) All my images are named and in order to keep this understandable, I encourage you all to refer to them by name. Edit- all are named except this one and its counter-part which we should call spin1 (this one) and spin2 (the counterpart.)-Edit

The image Arb made (with the little red arrows) anchors the object to the streaks of effluence. This cannot be correct and this is not just my opinion but it is the way all the images displayed on Helioviewer are presented. North is up. The coronal discharge is not static but fluctuates and cannot be used as reference points. The dark areas of the corona can be used to anchor images as they are consistently in the same location and attitude in 99+% of Helioviewer's images. When these do not appear in the same location, the deduction is that there is rotation of the camera. Try it for yourself. When one steps forward in time on the Helioviewer site, the images stay aligned according to the dark spots on the corona, not the glowing discharge. I suggested that this be tried in order to put the issue to bed once and for all, but it seems that nobody did. I have spent many many hours on Hv and this point is so obvious to me... well, just try it.
Most of the last bit of arguing has centered around this point.
There are two points of view here: 1- the object is anchored to the discharge in which case rotate is wrong, and 2- the object is anchored to the dark spots (and not just the spots (black dots) but the texture of the corona - the 'cool' places) in which case rotate is correct.
If you think the object is anchored to the discharge, kindly explain this next image to me:

Arb's examination is incorrect as is all subsequent argumentation based upon it.

Someone asked in the thread about someone taking their own camera, putting something on the lens and rotating it, etc.

I'm crazy enough to do that.

Here is an animated gif of something on my lens, the stump with the jar on it will be my "sun". I rotated the camera at 90 deg angles and snapped the frames. Then put them together here. I have NOT changed the orientation of the picture (this is important as you will see), but have left the picture (not camera) orientated so that my "sun" stays in the center but it's orientation will rotate. The result:




the "sun" rotates, but the "object" on my lens stays in place.

Now, let's remove the object from the lens and actually put a real object next to my sun and repeat taking pictures while rotating the camera, then putting the gif together, I again do NOT change the orientation of the picture. The result:



The "object" that really is next to my "sun" rotates with the sun.

Now, let us step it up.

Let us take those same pictures, this time with a real object next to my "sun" and when I make the gif, I'm going to change the orientation of the PICTURE so that the sun stays in place (does not move or rotate). The result:



As you can see, the object does indeed stay next to the "sun" even though the camera was rotated....but ONLY because I changed the orientation of the PICTURE.

Let's do that again, only with the object on my lens. I will change the orientation of the PICTURE to keep the "sun" centered. The result:



As you can see, the object on my lens does move around while the "sun" stays centered, but only because I changed the orientation of the PICTURE.

Let us look at the OP's animated gif again. But here is how we are going to look at it. We are going to look at it in the gif editor. Here is frame 1:



Please note where the zoom bar and left side menu is. It's to the left and orientated normally.

now, let us take a look at frame 2:



The frame has been rotated. NOT by the camera on Stereo. But by the OP. Look at the location of the zoom bar and menu now. The picture was orientated so that the "object" stays in the same place.

Here is frame 4:



Again, the PICTURE has been rotated. not the camera. Not the satellite. The picture has been again, rotated by the OP to keep the "object" in the same place.

Something the OP has denied. The op claims that he has kept the sun in the same place. Well it is located in the center all right......but he has manipulated the images so that it rotates.....and keeps the 'object" in place.

People: you've been had. Images have been manipulated by the OP with claims that are not true.

I've alerted the mods to this as this is a violation of the TCs here on ATS. Changing the images and then making claims about them that are not true is a definition of: HOAX.

20 pages of arguing over something that anyone could have tested with their own camera and a simple GIF editor............sigh.

reply to post by HiramA


Unfortunately you are wrong.Solar prominence do not fluctuate like you think they do:

wiki.answers.com...

They can last for WEEKS, and your images are MINUTES apart. The sun doesn't plop those up like a volcano. Especially massive once like what are seen in the images, those are the ones that will linger for weeks at a time.

The active regions which spurn these disturbances have been known to last for weeks on end generating filaments, prominences, sunspots and plage over and over again until they eventually are cycled back down into the convective zone to return again later as a new region.

Again, you are making assumptions about a science you are not familiar with. This is not a dig on if you are smart or not, you put this thread together so you are obviously smart. You just aren't familiar with the science or the imagery you are trying to use to support your case.

reply to post by raymundoko


Yes I have speculated all over the place and enjoyed it to. You can't tell me what is in my own mind, but then again I guess that is your way. I have never said a thing against your position only your manners.

reply to post by eriktheawful


I have thought since a few pages in that this might be a deliberate hoax for stars and flags. It is just too hard for me to believe he can be very familiar with editing software and was not aware of what he was doing.

reply to post by Char-Lee

This is a discussion no one is "relaying" anything to anyone, this is not a university and non here are teachers.

so when people discuss anything, they are not relaying what they know or their opinions?

You think you are being logical but look what forum you are arguing in!

Yes,

A forum in much need of of some basic using your brain logic, just basic thought really, its like the toddlers game where one is required to fit the cylinder in the circle hole, however whats seen in this forum many times is attempting to fit the cylinder in a square hole and the ones attempting such think its a perfect fit.


Please explain the logic of saying there is a whatever the the size of such and such next to or behind the sun, or on its way towards us when a person can look up and see 5 planets with their eyes alone at night and one of those planets, Jupiter, the largest of, is said to be smaller than what is approaching.

You have eyes,

Being here on this forum obviously makes me assume you look at the night sky and have some interest,

Why not look and see, when you find this Nibiru or whatever the OP is hinting at let us know so we can go out in our backyards and see for ourselves.

Sometimes ones cup is to full to add any learning from anyone else.

depending on what its full of,

One can always pour some out and allow new substance

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I have thought since a few pages in that this might be a deliberate hoax for stars and flags. It is just too hard for me to believe he can be very familiar with editing software and was not aware of what he was doing.

I certainly hope you are right at this point if you openly accuse someone of a deliberate hoax.

reply to post by InhaleExhale

so when people discuss anything, they are not relaying what they know or their opinions?

It is known as sharing thoughts and information.