An image of Comet Ison or is it really a comet?

Originally posted by abeverage
reply to post by Kali74

 

We go from this

To this

Those are not artifacts it is either from outgassing or it is tumbling and very lumpy.

This is going to be a very odd shaped comet I am sure. I seriously cannot wait to photograph it!

Case closed, it's a comet, not a spaceship. I must admit though, on first glance it does give off that vibe. A great image.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
How about this concerning the image of the the comet Ison and why you see those lines...

Four stacked images of Comet ISON. Since Hubble followed the background, the comet shifts position from exposure to exposure. To make the final image, we then shifted these independent images of ISON into one combined Franken-comet. (Credit: Hubble/NASA)

thewatchers.adorraeli.com...

Sorry, no spaceship this time, but maybe one day you will get one...

Good find. The question is, are these images shown on the hla.stsci.edu website composite images or not? It seems strange to me that two different images would produce the same odd pattern, because a comet obviously cannot move on a zig-zag trajectory

So.............we have hundreds of thousands of pictures from hundreds of other comets.............and none of them have ever appeared as thus?

- added -

..to connect a Negative metaphysical aspect with a Visible object,
is called "sorcery"

..think of african carved statues, where a negative entity can cling to
or 9/11 , which was ment to cause a Common subconscious Trauma... and that trauma was hammered deep into the [american] subconsciousness, by constantly showing those pics
..etc.

Likewise, this 'object' [most likely this one dont even exist: but They succeeded already to let most people beíéve it exists! ] , is connected with a metaphysical aspect : a name

..and a ritual is being created.

hope that makes sense,

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch

Originally posted by Bilk22
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch

 

Is this it?

YES!!!!

But I dont want anyone to see this until they see it for themselves first!!!

Is that not the most amazing thing EVER!!

Ok, maybe Im just a little too excited..

Yes, if this is actually ISON, it is obviously something artificial, and not a natural phenomenon, there is way too much symmetry and too many straight and parallel lines compared with other comets, whose coma's are indistinct blobs.

As for some BS time lapse psychobabble disinfo, NASA has taken millions of shots of hundreds of comets, have any appeared like this before?

edit on 19-8-2013 by PlanetXisHERE because: spelling

edit on 19-8-2013 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany

Again, I'm not saying it's a spaceship, but I think we are seeing way too much symmetry for this to be anything but artificial. How come no other comets have appeared like this? Is this the only comet NASA has this "claimed" overlay/time lapse photography on?

And the above poster is correct, if these are a series of overlain pictures, how could the trajectories be different as evidenced by the differing angles?

I think the "overlain" images explanation is just a hastily crabbed together piece of disinfo, and we should keep pursuing this topic.

We have many amateur astronomers on here, why don't we enlist their help? They should be able to see it soon. Of course just the ones who are not suspected disinfo agents. I have a small power telescope, I will dig it out and look for myself.

I'm sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but haven't you all read that those images were 3 shot composites of Hubble photographs with long exposures? Of course you have, what you fail to realize is that Hubble is orbiting the Earth, and its camera is following the background stars. So a moving camera taking 3 long exposure shots of a moving object, one when the object is approaching the center of the frame, another when the object is closest to the center of the frame (thus its shorter trail) and another when the object is leaving the center of the frame. I haven't gone through the trouble of calculating the possible combined trajectories of ISON + Hubble that would yield that particular "V" pattern, but I'm guessing it's not impossible.

Originally posted by Lone12
reply to post by BigfootNZ

 

*grin* ... - i hit a nerve BNZ ?

if what i said, is "so utterly bizarre" to you -

can i remind you about a most recent thread, " nasa finds star, older then the universe"..?
[ = morningstar - angel- who cheered when the universe was created ; morningstar = lucifer ]

It's really amazing what you can 'prove' when you're allowed to edit data, add punctuation (turning an acronym "ISON" into I, Son for example), and post partial data without context.

That star that you (and, to be fair, a *lot* of other people) are proclaiming to be "older than the Universe"....well, it isn't. If you take the time to actually do something that's terribly out of fashion these days (research), you will find that the age of the Methuselah Star is 14.5 billion years +/- 800 million years . That's right...the age is an estimate with a substantial error margin. So is the calculated age of the Universe as a whole - the best figure currently is 13.798 billion years +/- 37 million years.

If you take the minimum estimated age for the Universe, and the maximum estimated age for the Methuselah Star, then you get a star with an estimated age greater than the universe. If you take estimates closer to the center of both ranges, you get a probably First Generation star, which makes it a really, really interesting subject for study and analysis, but not something 'older than the Universe. Of course, regardless of which interpretation is most likely correct, the more sensational one will inevitably get all the headlines.

In the interest of citing sources for my data:
Methuselah Star age discussion
Estimated age of the Universe, with error margin

give me some time, and i mention you a whole load of similar rituals

question is - who do you Believe ?

In God I trust...all others pay cash.
When it comes to things in the sky, I tend to side with astronomers and astrophysicists.
For medical info, I trust my doctor.
For spiritual matters, I tend to talk to the Author, and read His book.

"They" are to you, like the aztec priests who told the people a comet would arrive, simply cause they knew it from their books : but the poor people saw them as gods.
they did it with the aim to Rule the people
..and that hasnt changed, these days.

'they' say something - ánything - and yóu blindly believe them.

...but these things shape our reality
...and they know very well, how to Bend, influence, and imprison our 'reality' .

That is called ' Sorcery ' .

"They" sound a lot like the incredibly large population of pseudo-scientists who promulgate theories based on edited evidence, seasoned with a dash of sensationalism, and garnished with a fine dusting of insistent repetition, served with a heaping side dish of denial of evidence.

just, they dont do shamanic dances no more, to achieve that : but use "science" .

Mostly, they use over-zoomed YouTube videos, garish websites, sensational half-truths, and bad logic.

Originally posted by Lone12
reply to post by BigfootNZ

 

*grin* ... - i hit a nerve BNZ ?

if what i said, is "so utterly bizarre" to you -

can i remind you about a most recent thread, " nasa finds star, older then the universe"..?
[ = morningstar - angel- who cheered when the universe was created ; morningstar = lucifer ]

give me some time, and i mention you a whole load of similar rituals

question is - who do you Believe ?

"They" are to you, like the aztec priests who told the people a comet would arrive, simply cause they knew it from their books : but the poor people saw them as gods.
they did it with the aim to Rule the people
..and that hasnt changed, these days.

'they' say something - ánything - and yóu blindly believe them.

...but these things shape our reality
...and they know very well, how to Bend, influence, and imprison our 'reality' .

That is called ' Sorcery ' .

just, they dont do shamanic dances no more, to achieve that : but use "science" .

thanks for the response
regards,

No, not a nerve at all. I simply dont like people talking absolutes in regards to stuff that they cant prove to be absolute (like my parents saying medical science is wrong on X because it contradicts their own biased prejudices about Y which need justification or their whole house of cards falls down).

As to who do i believe... i believe in myself of course.

I believe in UFOs (heck I also believe the Earth is younger than it is, i believe in the expanding earth and electric universe theories, i believe humans arent native to earth originally and we've had more than one advanced civilization on this planet etc etc), but for me I believe this is a comet from what I can see from the evidence presented, it just so happens what i believe fits with what 'they' i guess say as well... if the evidence changes it might make me change my views, not holding my breath till then however.

There is a limit though to how far you can stretch the evidence or avoid logical conclusions before you start to sound like a complete nutter. But hey, your entitled to your beliefs, im simply saying yours are pretty extreme.

Anyway this has nothing to do with the topic so lets leave it at that.

As others have mentioned a few composite shots of an unrelated subject used to get a look at something else (ie the comet), and its 99.9% most likely to be simply that since from my own knowledge and understanding of how these things are done, that explanation fits the evidence perfectly. Its a neat set of composites though.

And as an aside if this is the comet thats gonna be in the sky fairly soonish (next year isnt it?, havent done to much looking into it) im very eager for it to arrive, from what I hear where gonna have one hell of a show (similar to what we had 5 years back with one particular comet only this time it will be many times more dazzling, which i find kinda hard to believe given how amazing the last one was).

Originally posted by Deny777
I'm sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but haven't you all read that those images were 3 shot composites of Hubble photographs with long exposures? Of course you have, what you fail to realize is that Hubble is orbiting the Earth, and its camera is following the background stars. So a moving camera taking 3 long exposure shots of a moving object, one when the object is approaching the center of the frame, another when the object is closest to the center of the frame (thus its shorter trail) and another when the object is leaving the center of the frame. I haven't gone through the trouble of calculating the possible combined trajectories of ISON + Hubble that would yield that particular "V" pattern, but I'm guessing it's not impossible.

edit on 19/8/2013 by Deny777 because: Spelling

So......again, NASA has taken millions of pictures of thousands of other comets, have any looked like this? Then why is this one unique?

Sorry, I have to post this pic again, it is great:

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by Deny777
I'm sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but haven't you all read that those images were 3 shot composites of Hubble photographs with long exposures? Of course you have, what you fail to realize is that Hubble is orbiting the Earth, and its camera is following the background stars. So a moving camera taking 3 long exposure shots of a moving object, one when the object is approaching the center of the frame, another when the object is closest to the center of the frame (thus its shorter trail) and another when the object is leaving the center of the frame. I haven't gone through the trouble of calculating the possible combined trajectories of ISON + Hubble that would yield that particular "V" pattern, but I'm guessing it's not impossible.

edit on 19/8/2013 by Deny777 because: Spelling

So......again, NASA has taken millions of pictures of thousands of other comets, have any looked like this? Then why is this one unique?

Sorry, I have to post this pic again, it is great:

Maybe they started doing such compositing long exposure shots more recently? I don't know, I just think it's a reasonably plausible explanation, unlike some I've read in this thread. The alternative is what, a spaceship several miles across? A giant and symmetrical diamond? Three different objects? Sorry, as much as I'd like to believe in something that fantastic, I just can't, it doesn't even feel right. And this is coming from someone who actually thinks it's possible that the Sun is part of a binary system.

Well, they suggest the Universe might be infinite. There may even be realms within it where our laws of physics don't even work how we accept they do here. So go theories...when out of that darkness come things like this. Who knows where they come from, precisely. Especially these sungrazer/long duration ones. The track on this one is like a hard U-Turn at the sun to nearly take it's same track back out. It ought to be quite a sight.

Who knows it's details tho.... I just wish we could focus the tech to put together instrument packages we could shoot into these...like a little anchor as they pass by. Who knows where they go years or decades out....or what sensors along for the ride may get to see if we could follow.

This is great. Very odd indeed. Regardless of what NASA says about composite imagery, I still can't see why a comet would travel in that shape... Weird.

However I did just find this, and apparently it has two tails

There are two tails because there are two ways the comet can interact with the sun. Everyone thinks about light coming from the sun. However, there is also the solar wind. The solar wind is really just charged particles (like electrons and protons) that escape from the sun due to their high velocities. These charged particles then interact with the ionized gas produced from the comet.

The other tail is due to an interaction with the dust produced by the comet and the light from the sun. Really, it is this interaction that I want to talk about.

So if it was travelling towards the left of the image then the two longer lines could likely be tails. Apologies if someone's brought this up already.

not sure if its been brought up but could it possibly mean its 3 distinct "objects" making up the 1 comet? is that even possible? would explain the lines due to exposure if its coming off 3 separate objects to make up the 1 giant comet.

perhaps it was 1 massive comet that got effected due to some gravitational force through out its life that split it into 3?


either way its awesome, this is the reason i come to ATS! great stuff!

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch


It looks to me..
That Ison just have broken apart in 3 pieces.
And it probably will brake more when it get closer to the Sun.

reply to post by randyvs


Good theory as well....and we have already experienced Mr. JimOberg, basically NASA's rep on ATS, has already subjected the ATS community to one of NASA's many experiments.

It probably isn't so...but the theory stands nevertheless along the basis of extra-dimensional entities who use opportunistic moments to feed off the mass fear generated by human beings....but again unprovable theories.

Originally posted by tomten
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch

 

It looks to me..
That Ison just have broken apart in 3 pieces.
And it probably will brake more when it get closer to the Sun.

That's one very distinct possibility, particularly given the stress that comets are subjected to by a trip through the inner system. Hopefully ISON will stay intact long enough to actually deliver on the 'comet of the century' light show. So many of those have turned out rather disappointing.

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch

The three lines look like the back end of the comet ball heating up.
Comets heat up as they get closer to the sun and stuff burns off.
That's what it looks like to me.

Ah, yes!
the mothership comes...maybe.
(Only half joking)

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch


It would help if you posted the photo, maybe a screenshot grab in your OP and a working link. Interesting post nonetheless.

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch


That's so cool. I zoomed out and darkened, and behold, there was an anomaly - one of the best i've seen in years. Thats just awesome.

I don't know what the heck this is. Some argued that it was caused by a camera change but this is contradicted by the absence of change in the background, or, in the pic which did showed a background change, this direction of change was incompatible with the picture you made me see.

Thanks for a quality brain-teaser!