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

Ok, so I'm not into UFOs as some people at the UFO forums are, and don't know everything about this subject but enjoy reading about it nevertheless, and one thought came across my mind:

What if they don't want to hide?

Just my two cents

reply to post by abeverage

Yep, when I am wrong (rarely LOL) I have no problem admitting it.

I try to do the same.

I still want to find the exposure times and I still disagree with the parallax conclusion.

But what do you disagree with exactly? You feel that parallax would not explain why the comet seemingly changed direction because of a changed camera perspective, while the stars didn't show this change, or are you just saying that there is no evidence to suggest that the pic is made from other pics from different angles at different times?

Originally posted by Spacespider

The "breaking up" theory is logical, but the shapes looks strange for a puzzle, its hard to fit these pieces back together

s&f

As Flyersfan said, we may be seeing the bright spots that have heated on the whole of the comet. that does may sens when you look at what shows up in infrared on heated objects.

reply to post by Rainbowresidue


If this is truly something amazing and they know it, then they are not trying to hide it. Or at least not doing a good job at it which I would find hard to believe.

edit, yes, I misinterpreted you comment.

Originally posted by NowanKenubi
Hi all,

I was wondering... IF this ISON picture was made to show a comet with a clear cosmic background as NASA says...

...why did they present us a picture that was saturated with light?

I mean, they tell us that the lines are appearing because of "xyz" explanation, but they did present a picture showing only a blob of light at first... as if they were expecting most people to only see the blob of light...

Am I making sense?... lol

Possibly because that "blob of light" is showing more of the actual comet, as it looks and as we will see it when it gets near.

Originally posted by NeoParadigm
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch

 

The point is that if you take a picture of a moving "dot" with an open shutter it will show up as a line.

I think the lines you are seeing in the pic is the comet at different points in time and at different postions, in one image.

That is the only logical explanation I can come up with.

Doesn't mean it can't be something else though.

edit on 18-8-2013 by NeoParadigm because: (no reason given)

Oh, I got your point clearly enough from your first post and the nice picture you added for illustration. However, your theory ignores one fact. With the phenomenon you're talking about, the line of light will be in the direction of motion. In other words-- I don't think a comet could produce that kind of effect with an "open shutter" photo, unless that comet abruptly changed the direction of its flight, in such a way that it produced that somewhat sharply angled "boomerang" shape. Rather, I'd imagine an open shutter on a comet would produce a straight line.





@OP You shouldn't assume everyone is like you. In the absence of a highly plausible explanation, that picture is weird and impressive no matter how you look at it.

To be honest, the "OMG you have to go through the work and see this for yourself" every other post on the first page got kind of annoying pretty fast, and if you hadn't pointed out that someone posted a picture of it, I might have just shut the thread after a few posts-- and I'm sure I wouldn't have been the only one. Very often people around here say stuff like "ZOMFG you HAVE TO see this picture!" And 90% of the time, when it has to do with space, or UFOs or satellite imagery, the OP is the only person who is impressed. So 90%+ of the time it's not worth "doing the work" because 90% of the time OP is wrong.

In this case you happened to be right-- and fortunately someone was nice enough to upload a pic so the rest of us could see if it was worth discussing, without potentially wasting our time, for the millionth time.

If you're not computer savvy enough to take a screenshot and post it, you can just be forthright and say so, and someone will probably do it for you soon enough.


Anyway, good catch.

Originally posted by MarsSentinel

Originally posted by Jahari
snip Question. Why do we assume ufo's have or need headlights?

What we assume is that the lights are a side effect of the electro-gravitic propulsion system.

It is assumed, I assume, that the way "space ships", whether NASA Black Triangles or true "alien" interdimensional vehicles, travel is by gravitic nullification and direction through electro-gravitics (the same force they used to lift the pyramid stones, the same force Ed used at COral Castle, the same force encoded into the Masonic lodge wall murals in Philly (I think its Philly), and the same force that is illustrated all over European art and architecture as those "S"-shaped decorations on the corners etc of large buildings).

It's a silly assumption, but there it is.

There 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.

reply to post by NeoParadigm


I apologize for not being clear.
What if the E.Ts are not trying to hide themselves?

I've read several threads here over the years - please don't make me search them - where people stated that NASA had changed pictures, or had covered up the truth and it was proven.

So in that case this wouldn't be the first time they let something slip accidentally , besides I 'm not sure these photos came from NASA this time, I think the source is different, please correct me if I am wrong. Again , I'm just an amateur .

Call me a "conspiracy nut"..but why the heck would they shut down the space fence at THIS time..

Federal budget cuts are compelling the US Air Force to shut down its space surveillance system, which detects and tracks objects and satellites orbiting the Earth, but costs the agency $14 million a year.

link

If ISON is supposed to be the comet of the century, wouldnt they wait until after December..I dont know..its just all too weird for me.

And, maybe its really nothing and I just want to see more into it than there really is.

reply to post by iwilliam

Oh, I got your point clearly enough from your first post and the nice picture you added for illustration. However, your theory ignores one fact. With the phenomenon you're talking about, the line of light will be in the direction of motion. In other words-- I don't think a comet could produce that kind of effect with an "open shutter" photo, unless that comet abruptly changed the direction of its flight, in such a way that it produced that somewhat sharply angled "boomerang" shape. Rather, I'd imagine an open shutter on a comet would produce a straight line.

You probably have not read the rest of the comments yet, but the theory is that Hubble's perspective changed and the pic is a composite of multiple long exposure shots from different times and perspectives.

This would explain the deviation in course, and parralax would explain why the position of the stars didn't change noticably in the composition pic.

reply to post by iwilliam


I realize what you are saying about the ZOMG stuff..but, if you could just see how seeing this with your own eyes. (the darkening or lighting of the picture and having it "appear" before you) was worth all my hype!

I didnt want to post a picture so that others could experience that ZOMG for themselves.

snugging my tinfoil hat on
So what about Ison swinging past the sun, allegedly there is already a cube ship parked there. Just for conversations sake what makes anyone think we'll see Ison come back around?

yep...call me crayzeeee

I think this would warrant an explanation of a NASA official or experienced astronomer.

I am sorry, wild speculation about craft and mentioning of nutcases like Collier won't do it. (AT LEAST FOR ME).

The "break-up" theory for the comet doesn't fly since those objects seem strangely symmetrical. WHATEVER it is (and I do not say "UFO" or waste my time with pointless speculations), whatever it is it deserves attention and some form of explanation by *someone* qualified who can tell us what we see here.

This is just me, but I can speculate about "craft" once I can discount official explanations about what we see, NOT make UFO speculations beforehand without first considering conventional explanations. And this is why I first want to hear some expert's opinion about those images.

Originally posted by NoRulesAllowed
I think this would warrant an explanation of a NASA official or experienced astronomer.

I am sorry, wild speculation about craft and mentioning of nutcases like Collier won't do it. (AT LEAST FOR ME).

The "break-up" theory for the comet doesn't fly since those objects seem strangely symmetrical. WHATEVER it is (and I do not say "UFO" or waste my time with pointless speculations), whatever it is it deserves attention and some form of explanation by *someone* qualified who can tell us what we see here.

edit on 19-8-2013 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

You said exactly what I am thinking. And yes..I dont want to call the people who like Collier, "Nutcases"..but I do not subscribe to his theory at all..I want a logical explanation that doesnt involve little green men and hearing voices from Andromeda or whatever star system those voices come from this time.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
That's what's called an Anzu bird, or at least the sign of...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wonderful thread and the "weapons" or "Anzu bird" are of the same shape as this comet photo.

Originally posted by NoRulesAllowed
I think this would warrant an explanation of a NASA official or experienced astronomer.

I am sorry, wild speculation about craft and mentioning of nutcases like Collier won't do it. (AT LEAST FOR ME).

The "break-up" theory for the comet doesn't fly since those objects seem strangely symmetrical. WHATEVER it is (and I do not say "UFO" or waste my time with pointless speculations), whatever it is it deserves attention and some form of explanation by *someone* qualified who can tell us what we see here.

edit on 19-8-2013 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

We're sorry, due to deep budget cuts we are unable to collect sufficient data to offer you a complete explanation.

At the time the funds needed have been diverted to the Muslim outreach program directives for NASA.

You're on your own...

Have been following this thread and found it truely exciting......

However, if you zoom back out to the larger picture when it has been darken by 3 or 4 times then you will notice that there are straight lines eminating from the two brighter stars in the bottom left hand side of the larger picture....... Could this be a similar effect to what we are seeing with the comet..?

Originally posted by filledcup

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...

ok i think the' four stacked images' just mean that they placed 4 pictures together like one big square from 4 smaller squares. one of the pictures by itself holds the entire comet ISON.. the others show surrounding space.

edit on 19-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)

That is not what they said.

we then shifted these independent images of ISON into one combined

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch


Wow, that is weird. Don't look much like what it's billed as does it.
That's really puzzling, I went about as dark as you could go and it doesn't look anything at all like a comet. If it were lens shift wouldn't all the other stars have the same shift to them?

Originally posted by NeoParadigm
reply to post by abeverage

 

Yep, when I am wrong (rarely LOL) I have no problem admitting it.

I try to do the same.

I still want to find the exposure times and I still disagree with the parallax conclusion.

But what do you disagree with exactly? You feel that parallax would not explain why the comet seemingly changed direction because of a changed camera perspective, while the stars didn't show this change, or are you just saying that there is no evidence to suggest that the pic is made from other pics from different angles at different times?

Unless there was movement of the camera during the observation then parallax does not explain the Boomerang shape. And why would they move HUBBLE during the mission, and during an image. That makes no sense and has the potential to ruin any observation, they would have done the observations then did a re-alignment.