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

reply to post by roncoallstar


The sun DOESN'T roll with it...look at my breakdown of his gif. Those pictures are his gif frame by frame. You can clearly see he stabilized the artifact, not the sun. Stabilizing the artifact causes the sun to appear to rotate instead of the lens.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by HiramA

 

Unfortunately you are wrong again:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The white circle is where the actual sun is.

Originally posted by raymundoko
I am going to put this up one last time as it definitively debunks this thread. Anyone who does not understand how this debunks the thread, fundamentally lacks knowledge of solar mechanics and imaging.

First, here is the post which contains and email from the Dr who runs the program:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And here is an image which shows where the suns actual corona ends as explained by the program as well as what Hirama wrongly thinks is the corona:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

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

Ipso facto ALL DATA which uses the object I have outlined with the red square in ANY PART of their hypothesis has invalidated all other parts of their hypothesis and must go back to the drawing board.

Also...I am a physicist so I know a thing or two about universal physics...M.Sc. Atmospheric Physics and Dynamics

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by IQPREREQUISITE

 

See, that is the question that needs to be asked. And unfortunately, since it has already been shown that it rotates with the camera, the answer is more than likely an issue with the imaging, be it software or hardware.

Here are a couple more links that discuss how cosmic rays show up as bubbles:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And space debris:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

AND SPACECRAFT ROLLS:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Internal reflections:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

As you can see the very image in contention here shows up in multiple artifact explanations.

Well, the only one that looks like anything we've discussed so far describes a double exposure which has already been addressed. None of your other artifact explanations are even similar.

reply to post by HiramA


Yes, nothing looked similar at all...

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by roncoallstar

 

The sun DOESN'T roll with it...look at my breakdown of his gif. Those pictures are his gif frame by frame. You can clearly see he stabilized the artifact, not the sun. Stabilizing the artifact causes the sun to appear to rotate instead of the lens.

I don't see how you can claim to see the "sun" rotate if it is entirely hidden by the occluder.
You must mean the eruptions (flares, effluence, discharge, CMEs.) These things move and dissipate rather quickly as shown in my wave .gif and do not make stable reference points.

reply to post by raymundoko


Nope, in fact just the opposite. Stabilizing the artifact locks the sun in place.

The camera did a roll, would you agree that everything in the field of view rolled as well? Including the sun? Or do you believe that everything but the sun rotated? Please answer this.

Originally posted by HiramA
You must mean the eruptions (flares, effluence, discharge, CMEs.) These things move and dissipate rather quickly as shown in my wave .gif and do not make stable reference points.

Are they completely stable? No.

Are they stable enough to identify them as reference points in the rotating gif you posted in the OP? Yes, which is how we can tell the corona appears to rotate in that image.

reply to post by roncoallstar


What you have to understand is he is trying to prove the artifact in the lower corner rotates with the suns corona, which he believes is the dark ring surrounding the occulting disk. You can't try to prove one artifact by using a SECOND artifact. You have to use the prominence I have outlined, which is what I did in HV. Again, your first post was correct, the one you edited out.

Why does the vatican have a telescope. According to a 2010 article in Popular Science by Rebecca Boyle the “new instrument with an evil-sounding name is helping scientists see how stars are born.”

The University of Arizona, together with the Vatican and Jesuit Order, announced today it named its newest high-powered telescopic instrument ‘Lucifer’.

There has been a great deal of speculation, among Vatican critics, why in the first place the Jesuit Order was allowed to build a huge stellar observatory on Mt. Graham in Arizona – on holy Indian ground – in cooperation with the state-run University of Arizona.

With the naming of Lucifer, critics claim the Vatican has showed its true colors, using God and Jesus as shills for their true master — Lucifer.

Why would a religious institution be interested in Astronomy. It's illogical in my opinion unless they are looking for something. What?.

reply to post by roncoallstar


The Stereo imaging system is programmed to always keep the sun north to south from top to bottom, so if the camera rolls, the sun does NOT roll with it. This is what I have explained several times. An example of this is taking a video camera and filming an object. Does the object turn upside down in the viewer? No, only when you view the video does it appear to turn upside down. This imaging software is designed to NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. The sun will always appear to the viewer to be north to south from top to bottom. When the camera rolls, the sun does not for those viewing it. You can see an example of that here:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Notice that as the camera rolls the prominence on the east and west of the sun remain stationary, as designed by the software.

reply to post by raymundoko


We seem to be offtrack here. Nevermind the corona. I am talking about the original camera roll. Look at it.

via Imgflip GIF Maker
The camera Is rolling, no? Please answer.
EVERYTHING in this field of view is rotating, no? Please answer.

Answer those 2 questions and we can continue.

reply to post by roncoallstar


Yes, that is the camera roll, now look at the prominence on the right side coming from the corona which stops about 3/4 of the way from the outside of the occulting disk. You have to keep your eye on that as the camera rolls, notice how it stays stationary? That is by design of the imaging system to keep the sun always facing north to south from top to bottom. That shows you the sun does NOT rotate with the lens, only the artifacts.

Let me get this straight ray, you think I should have anchored the object to the glowing effluence, right. Well why would one use an unstable phenomenon as an anchor point? This image by NASA with labels (a nice addition from Hv which can help track CMEs and other events) shows that what you refer to is actually a CME event.
Do you consider this a reliable benchmark?

Why would NASA label their coronal mass ejections to have happened way way above the surface?

reply to post by raymundoko

That is correct.
The camera is rotating.
The Sun's corona is not rotating, as seen in that gif.

Originally posted by HiramA
Do you consider this a reliable benchmark?

Are you trying to obfuscate the issue by throwing in something different?

Look at the animated gif roncoallstar just posted showing a relatively stable corona.
Perfectly stable? no.
Stable enough to tell it's not rotating? yes.

reply to post by raymundoko



I see what you are saying, I really do.

One thing I can't understand is how a camera can roll but not rotate things in the field of view, only with the lens rotating. If this is true then could we have to assume that the people who uploaded these photos to HV altered the orientation of the pictures they uploaded during this roll? That is the only way I see it being possible, as a camera lens is not housed in a gyroscope. I hope you understand what i am trying to say.

reply to post by HiramA


Yes, the large prominence like the one on the right last hours, days and weeks. More than ample enough time to use it for the minutes it takes to complete a roll.

reply to post by HiramA


ALso I just saw your edit, because coronal mass ejections are MASSIVE, often times LARGER than the sun itself.

See these image for proof, notice how small the sun is compared to the CME's

www.nasa.gov...

That specific CME lasted a few hours, the flare it came from lasted for days before and after the CME.

reply to post by roncoallstar


Again, take your video camera out and put it on something, watch it through the viewer. The object always stays right side up in the viewer. That is the image we are given, we are looking through the viewer. It isn't until you watch the film in a SOFTWARE player that the image appears to turn upside down. The software on the stereo systems simply prevents that from happening.

reply to post by HiramA


I have already linked scientific information that they do NOT dissipate quickly. Small ones yes, but prominent ones like in the images I linked last for, one more time, HOURS, DAYS AND EVEN WEEKS depending on the type of flare they are associated with. You seem to be confused about the difference between solar prominence, flares and CME's. Solar prominence are the cool loops that go in and out of the sun, they often originate from flares , or active regions of the sun. These last for tens of minutes usually. Flares are long lasting prominence (I.E. by definition of the word prominence: the fact or condition of standing out from something by physically projecting or being particularly noticeable; Not solar prominence: a large, bright, gaseous feature extending outward from the Sun's surface) which shoot the bright rays out from the sun. These are what last for days and weeks. CME's which are usually as large or larger than the sun, shoot out of these Flare's and can last for hours or days.