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

reply to post by eriktheawful


You are waaaaaay off.
There is a difference between COR1 and COR2.
There is a difference between EUVI and COR.
Your circles are not even close to being in the right places.
Your data is misleading.
Just look at the positions of Stereo 1 and Stereo 2. Of course they don't show the same data.
Neither do the red and blue images which are different instruments tuned to look for different wavelengths.
When you change the station from AM to FM, you won't get the same song.

www.astronomy.com.cn...

Nice try.

reply to post by weavty1

reply to post by eriktheawful


Your image of 2013/06/12 at 23:55:42 is one of the few images which does NOT show objects clearly. Grats!
Skip ahead 5 days and you will see the original image which I refered to as my very first link in this thread.
So I guess that negates the theory of lens damage/flare/artifact.
Thanks for that!

Originally posted by HiramA
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

You are waaaaaay off.
There is a difference between COR1 and COR2.
There is a difference between EUVI and COR.
Your circles are not even close to being in the right places.
Your data is misleading.
Just look at the positions of Stereo 1 and Stereo 2. Of course they don't show the same data.
Neither do the red and blue images which are different instruments tuned to look for different wavelengths.
When you change the station from AM to FM, you won't get the same song.

www.astronomy.com.cn...

Nice try.

That is your argument back? That's it?

Ah, you are new here.

I've presented my information, cited my sources. Official sources.

Which you claim are wrong.

Exactly how many years do you have in astrophotography? Digital photography? Optical telescope use?

Do you have a portfolio of our work to show that you know what you are talking about when it comes to camera and lens artifacts?

Enough years of experience in these fields to be able to make the statements that you have made which basically boils down to:

"I'm right and everyone else is wrong because I know how to use the Helioviewer and a photoshop program to make animated .GIFs."

Do you have anything to back yourself up with?

Just got here and your credibility just took a serious nose dive to rock bottom.

Cite your sources and PROVE that those are not camera and lens artifacts. Your rotating GIF already proves that your "objects" are internal to the system and not external. You killed your own thread with that animated image.

Well, it did for those of us that actually know what we are talking about when it comes to photography and astrophotography.

Good luck. With that attitude, you certainly are going to need it around here on ATS.

Don't you hate it when you get unqualified twits looking at things they don't understand.

It's like watching a postman attempting to do heart surgery..they have no clue what they are looking at, yet at the same time telling us what is wrong...

I have no clue what is showing up but I am pretty sure they are natural reason for it..such as glare, smudges..etc.

To go down the aliens path is utter nonsense and just for the people who choose to live outside of the real world and would rather deal in fantasy.

That is your argument back? That's it?
I don't want to argue. Just share and let people think about what they see.

Ah, you are new here.
Yes, so what? You were too, and you had something to say. My turn.
Besides, that doesn't mean I was just born.

I've presented my information, cited my sources. Official sources.
So have I.

Which you claim are wrong.
I did no such thing. Your sources are probably ok, but your information is just not relevant to this discussion.

Exactly how many years do you have in astrophotography? Digital photography? Optical telescope use?
None, you? They are not my images, they are NASA's.
Why put them up in the first place, if I'm not qualified to use them.

Do you have a portfolio of our work to show that you know what you are talking about when it comes to camera and lens artifacts?
I did not realize I needed such a thing in order to post here.

Enough years of experience in these fields to be able to make the statements that you have made which basically boils down to:


"I'm right and everyone else is wrong because I know how to use the Helioviewer and a photoshop program to make animated .GIFs."
I have made no such claim.

Do you have anything to back yourself up with?
NASA's images, Adobe's technology, and reason is all.

Just got here and your credibility just took a serious nose dive to rock bottom.
Depends who you ask, I guess.

Cite your sources and PROVE that those are not camera and lens artifacts. Your rotating GIF already proves that your "objects" are internal to the system and not external. You killed your own thread with that animated image.
My sources have been cited and I never said this was proof of anything, I have only stated my opinion. And you spelled 'your' wrong.

Well, it did for those of us that actually know what we are talking about when it comes to photography and astrophotography.
If you know that I am wrong then why bother with such a noob as me? I am a threat to no one. If I have misrepresented myself or given false information, ATS will put an end to me. I have not been rude.
When defending one's views is seen as an attack on someone elses', the perspective must be questioned.

Good luck. With that attitude, you certainly are going to need it around here on ATS.
I have seen worse already by people who have been here a while. I think I will do alright.

reply to post by Onslaught2996


I never mentioned the word "alien".
You did, though.
But I admit, somehow 'micro-organism' just doesn't fit in with the images.

is it possible to enlarge JUST the anomaly?
that might be interesting.

reply to post by Onslaught2996


"To go down the aliens path is utter nonsense and just for the people who choose to live outside of the real world and would rather deal in fantasy."

It looks like you're on the wrong topic then, doesn't it. Did you lose your way or just make a detour? Why are you reading this thread concerning objects around the sun? I know where I posted it. But if you don't believe, that's fine.
I am stating that there are physical objects that are visible around the sun whose origins are unknown. They could be terrestrial, in which case I financed them and would like to know where my tax dollars are going. They could be extra-terrestrial, in which case I don't know what will happen. I am open to the possibility of ET life, but I also know that there have been state secrets. Did China build them? I understand if TPTB don't want this known, but I thought this was a forum for exchange and intelligent discussion, not bash-the-messenger and laugh about it later over drinks.

You are free to believe whatever you want about this, I have no power over you, but I am free to think that the explanations are not satisfactory (and in some cases wrong) and continue to delude myself. For if I can live within this kind of deluded society, I can surely deal with a virtual subset of this deluded society, which may very well include me.

If only those who would prove me wrong would do it with the evidence I provide, I will gladly lay down my 'pen' and I will have learnt something today. Well if all these astro this-and-thats know exactly what is wrong, why can they not be clear and succinct about it. Show me. I'll shut up. Berate me and I will wait for answers.

In the meantime, I will dream of a better world, and a peace which will spread throughout the universe.

btw - Does this look familiar?

im not sure what is meant by a dot on the lense staying in the same place while the camera rotates.
if i place a dot at the 12 oclock position on the lense and turn it quarter turns to the right,
the dot will obviously follow, changing from the 12 to the 3 to the 6 oclock position. it has to..
it has become part of the camera.

reply to post by autopat51


one moment please


If the dot was on the lens, it would rotate with the camera relative to the background (internal.) If the dot was in the background, it would rotate around the image (external.) I removed the rotation of the sun and object, and so all you see is the rotation of the camera.

Originally posted by HiramA
reply to post by Onslaught2996

 

could be terrestrial, in which case I financed them and would like to know where my tax dollars are going.

Hey who says their are American if they were not lens artifacts?

We British have done spacy things.

We put a british satellite into space with a british rocket!

....once.

reply to post by autopat51


If you go to Helioviewer.org and put in the same settings, you will be able to zoom as much as you want.

reply to post by HiramA


im sure you have already done this..
any thoughts?

reply to post by autopat51


Helioviewer.org

type in the date you're interested in

and these settings...

in the rotating GIF, there is a bright prominence, which I presume to be generated by the sun, which appears to be spinning.

you agree that this is spinning?

well, from what I can tell, this bright prominence is probably actually stationary, and the camera is moving. is this correct?

well, if the bright prominence is stationary in space, and this object we are investigating is also relatively stationary, then the bright prominence and the object ought to be basically "strapped" to each other.

so thus, if the prominence appears to rotate.... and the object is directly adjacent to the prominence in real space ....then the object should also appear to rotate. they should be moving together.

but in your GIF, they do not move together. which to me says that they are not in the same space.

please clarify? (yes, I k ow you have several times already)

we are not seeing the sun rotate,
we are seeing flares erupt from the sun.
just appears to be rotating i believe

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980


Why does NASA have an airbrushing department? Gary Mckinnon found it when he hacked into their computers with a 56k modem. I have no idea what these things are but NASA does in fact clone (very poorly) and airbrush stuff out, its found in hundreds of pics. Theres no mistaking a clone tooled image when its done poorly.

reply to post by tgidkp


from our position in space (earth) we could not see the sun rotate like this.
you would have to be a million miles in space and directly above it to
see it rotate counter clockwise like this.

reply to post by tgidkp


I do not agree that this is 'spinning'; it is fluctuating.

No, I do not think that to be correct.

No, the protuberance, if it fluctuates, cannot be bound. Look at the dots at the bottom of the image. The dark areas of the corona. These are, as I interpret them, areas of lower energy output. I am not qualified to say that they are one thing or another, though. This is just my opinion.

No but I have two interesting .gifs which address this concern. I will post them just as soon as I get some sleep.

Now it depends what you are referring to.

Just did. Thanks for the thoughtful question.

Goodnight