SoHo photos VERY INTERESTING........or not, it depends on your views.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Nope I'm NOT kidding.

The photo with the pink sun is the one that I just took a few days ago and the other photo of the sun setting is one that I took from the same location last year in December (see date stamp).

That's why I thought I saw a pink moon.

a reply to: Rob48

You do realise that most of the EIT team are not even anything to do with NASA? Half of them aren't even in the US. NASA isn't some shadowy secret organisation.

Half. Most. That answers a lot.

But you dont realise that.

Nobody is covering anything up in these images. How could they when there are lots and lots of solar observatories all around the world, and beyond, watching the same sun as everybody else. If there was anything unusual going on up there, thousands of people would know about it immediately.

Yeah. Im sure they dont have any protocol to follow in a case of something "unusual" going on. Even in large scale.

If you think you know better, you tell me what it is. This thread is meant to be about answering the OP's questions about what is in the pictures,

Answering? You thing you are in position to answering anything that is going on in the space? Maybe you call an answer, replicate nasa official words. I call this parrot complex.

not spreading rubbish about NASA being untrustworthy based on your own prejudices.

Yeah, right....

I think i hit some nerves here... Im think you're new in this area... You cleary dont know (or remember) how many times people caught nasa tampering images.

examples? Clementine rings any bells?




But as i said before.. its pointless discuss with you... You can keep saying im spreading what you sees fit. You prob "LOVE" nasa to much to see the truth

ps. farewell.

originally posted by: Antoniastar
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Nope I'm NOT kidding.

The photo with the pink sun is the one that I just took a few days ago and the other photo of the sun setting is one that I took from the same location last year in December (see date stamp).

That's why I thought I saw a pink moon.

The pic you took last year was either at sunrise or facing west(ish) where the sun sets, period & exclamation point. Please tell me you can understand that.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Oh yes that's right! OMG it was a sunrise. It's been so long since I took the photo I forgot.

Information overload.

originally posted by: RUSSO
a reply to: Rob48

Yeah. Im sure they dont have any protocol to follow in a case of something "unusual" going on. Even in large scale.

You totally missed my point. If that was a real object then anybody in a solar observatory would be able to see it. How can NASA hide the sun from public view?

I think i hit some nerves here... Im think you're new in this area... You cleary dont know (or remember) how many times people caught nasa tampering images.

examples? Clementine rings any bells?

No, I'm not new and yeah, that does ring a bell.

I know quite a bit about space. You should try learning something too rather than sticking your head in the sand. It's much more interesting when you know what you're looking at.

a reply to: Snaffers

I messaged Phage....hopefully he responds to this request to share his insightfulness on this topic

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: Snaffers

I messaged Phage....hopefully he responds to this request to share his insightfulness on this topic

Why is that necessary? I may not be Phage but I already explained exactly what the pictures show. There is no mystery here.

a reply to: Rob48

Many look for Phages input with cosmic imagery. Now if Phage was using another sign in that would just confuse some looking for the original Phage sign in
1 appreciates your input on trying to help us understand what is observed here, thanks...

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: Snaffers

I messaged Phage....hopefully he responds to this request to share his insightfulness on this topic

Why is that necessary? I may not be Phage but I already explained exactly what the pictures show. There is no mystery here.

I don't discredit you...every point is valid, but knowing Phage his knowledge is just as important as yours. Just because you shared your thoughts doesn't mean this thread and discussion are CLOSED...

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: RUSSO

ESA stated they didnt know what caused it, the only guess they had was SOHO was struck by a micrometeor shower and cause pinholing in the camera or something, which corrected itself.

No, it didn't correct itself at all. It had to be compensated for using an additional internal filter, which was included in the instrument design for just such an eventuality.

Another aspect of this is that the aperture filter where these light leaks originally came from was damaged on launch, not by a micrometeorite. The micrometeorite created a new hole that caused the light leak to reappear and required rotating a different Al filter into place, but the original tear that caused the leaks in those exact locations happened at launch. For reference, see page 12-14 of this paper:

The Al filters at the front of the instrument and at the focal plane
did not
survive the launch even though the telescope was launched under v
acuum to
avoid acoustic vibrations. Tears developed, which produced light lea
ks that were
fortunately localized to the edges of the detector so that they did
not significantly
affect the image quality (Figure 8, left).

arxiv.org...
This appears to be causing part of the confusion; a meteorite strike is not what determined the location and appearance of the original light leak, the launch damage was, the micrometeorite simply enabled the original light leak to reappear (if anything even stronger, perhaps due to additional front filter damage). The same thing probably happened here, or some glitch caused the replacement filter to rotate out of place for one series of images.

*Edit to add, here is another paper written before the 1998 micrometeorite strike which describes the original light leaks due to launch damage. See pages 13-14 of the pdf:
umbra.nascom.nasa.gov...
**Edit to also add, one more thing, the spacecraft experienced an unexpected torque when the light leak re-appeared in 1998, so that indicated something hit the spacecraft, they didn't just "assume" it was a micrometeorite strike because they couldn't think of any other excuse.
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

Alright, just for good measure, I made a video explaining the whole thing. Hope this helps.

These anomalies are discussed in the following video.
Specifically, these images are referenced at the 23:40 mark.
The video: www.youtube.com...
The creator of the video is Rolf Witzsche.

If you can accept that our sun is electric and not a fusion reactor - then this is the best explanation I've seen about these images. I feel like there is an extremely compelling argument to be made for our entire universe being electric.

For more on the electric universe theory I highly recommend that you watch the VAST amount of excellent presentations available at the ThunderboltsProject channel on YouTube: www.youtube.com...

The folks at ThunderboltsProject have done an excellent job of presenting the EU theory as well as all their findings.
These are plasma physicists, full-on scientists and credentialed individuals who have been investigating and rounding out this approach for more than 30 years.
WELL worth your time and attention.

All the best






a reply to: chelsealad

originally posted by: mattwood
These anomalies are discussed in the following video.
Specifically, these images are referenced at the 23:40 mark.
The video: www.youtube.com...
The creator of the video is Rolf Witzsche.

If you can accept that our sun is electric and not a fusion reactor - then this is the best explanation I've seen about these images. I feel like there is an extremely compelling argument to be made for our entire universe being electric.

Thank you for demonstrating then how ignorant electric universe believers are of real science and real scientific instrumentation. These SOHO images have already been fully explained and have nothing to do with electric universe woo.

Fully explained in less than 7 minutes.