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

I almost made a reply refuting HiramA's evidence, then at the last second I realized I was wrong...

After doing my own research, I have to conclude that while the sun and everything else in it is rotating in the original "roll" manuever, HiramA did in fact rotate each frame and align them to one spot, so everything appears to not rotate in his .gif. I can prove that this is in fact correct.

Observe the original "roll" maneuver.

via Imgflip GIF Maker
It's hard to deny that EVERYTHING in this picture is rotating, including the sun. If we are to believe this was a roll maneuver, which I think we can agree that it is, then it is certain that everything in these frames is rotating.

Here is HiramA's original .gif.

Clearly he had to rotate each image to make all the frames line up and compensate for the roll. If he compensated for the roll, which he did, then that is PROOF that the sun is NOT spinning in his .gif. Everything in that frame is completely stable and not rotating, especially the sun. Just look for yourself and compare the 2 gifs. It is confusing as all heck, but it's a fact.

Now that we have established that the sun is NOT rotating in HiramA's .gif, can we finally put the whole rotation thing to rest? I am not saying that these are objects, or artifacts on the lens, because by my conclusion it could be very well be either. As far as the rotation thing believe I just verified what HiramA has been trying to show us .

reply to post by HiramA


Unfortunately you are wrong again:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...




The white circle is where the actual sun is.

reply to post by roncoallstar


See the post I just made. I will post a full explanation combining the two posts.

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.

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.

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.

This is the center-piece image for all the dissenters.
Instead of testing my theory, they have resorted to this image time and again.
If an object is anchored to the streaks (which are constantly changing as shown by Roncoallstar's .gif and others I had posted earlier) my theory is WRONG.
But my theory states that the object must be anchored to the dark portions of the corona which I have proven are not artifacts.
Don't get me wrong. I would love nothing more than to learn that hundred-thousand mile diameter objects are not in fact parked next to the sun. Unfortunately, the credible evidence does not suggest this.

reply to post by roncoallstar


YES! Couldn't agree more! Let us just call it a draw to please everyone and move on with the hypothetical question of what are those things if not artifacts?

Just sayin...still your thread OP

reply to post by IQPREREQUISITE


I am sorry, he is wrong because he thinks the artifact, which I just now debunked, is the suns corona. That is not the case. That is also an artifact and there is a good, detailed explanation of it in my most recent post and also here:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by HiramA


I just posted two more pictures for you, which show you where the boundary for the actual sun is as well as an explanation of the dark area that you thought, wrongly, was the corona.

reply to post by HiramA


Only the dark portion you think is the corona isn't the actual corona, but an admitted artifact, a defect in the lens:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by raymundoko


Please, do the same test I just did in HV for yourself. Forget about the corona. The sun IS rotating in the original roll maneuver. The sun is NOT rotating in HiramA's .gif.

You are showing images on the original roll maneuver, so of course it is rotation from your perspective, get what I am saying?

reply to post by roncoallstar


I have done it, and that's how I know I am right...I just happen to know what I am looking at. Your initial post was 100% correct, then you changed your mind because you thought the dark area was the corona, when that is not the case.

You have to use the prominence I have outlined in my image as a point of reference to see what is rotating and what is not. It is clear that as the camera rolls, the sun stays stationary and the artifacts move with the lens.

reply to post by raymundoko


Given that you are right...and I'm not arguing here, just a question...why does the "artifact" come and go on some dates like the one where I met you a few pages awhile back...2012/05/08 to 2012/05/28 i think, not sure...but you know what I'm asking I'm sure.

Originally posted by HiramA
Here's an image from May 02, 2012

Please note that there are many gaps in the Helioviewer data base. Many intriguing images have no follow up, sometimes for months.

When I did see the donut shaped object in the lower left corner I got very intrested in this thread.

Intrested because of the donut shape which is a familiar shape found in space. I can't say for sure your donut shape objects also have this notch cut out.

Look at these donut shape objects in space....

Spa ce Donuts

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by HiramA

 

I just posted two more pictures for you, which show you where the boundary for the actual sun is as well as an explanation of the dark area that you thought, wrongly, was the corona.

The boundary is not neccessarily where one image starts and another ends (between Cor1, Cor 2, and EUVI.)
There must be overlap otherwise how would NASA stitch together the images?

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.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by roncoallstar

 

I have done it, and that's how I know I am right...I just happen to know what I am looking at. Your initial post was 100% correct, then you changed your mind because you thought the dark area was the corona, when that is not the case.

You have to use the prominence I have outlined in my image as a point of reference to see what is rotating and what is not. It is clear that as the camera rolls, the sun stays stationary and the artifacts move with the lens.

edit on 22-8-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

"I have done it, and that's how I know I am right..."
Would you care to share what you've done? Or did you mean your arrow diagram?

Are you claiming that the prominence is not moving? Many .gifs have already shown this not to be correct.

reply to post by HiramA


But no matter what, you have to remember the actual sun, including corona, only takes up the internal 3/4 of the occulting disk. Sure it might be slightly off between shots, but for the most part the corona is NOWHERE NEAR the edge of the occulting disk.

reply to post by raymundoko


I didn't think anything about the corona as it does not factor in at all to what I am talking about. Forget the corona.

Please, explain to me how it is possible that the camera does a roll, and somehow the sun rolls with it? That is what you are saying if you are to believe that. If a camera rolls in space fixated on the sun, the sun WILL rotate too, this is common sense. What you are saying is that when the camera rolls, everything BUT the sun rotates. Obviously that makes no sense.

Look at the .gifs. It's universal physics, and they don't lie.

reply to post by HiramA


The prominence only moves when you stabilize the artifact, because when you do that you are rolling your view witht he lens which cause the prominence to appear to rotate. This is called an optical illusion, one perpetuated by you going "This is what is happening". If you break your gif down one frame at a time, as I did, you clearly see the prominence is stationary, as it would be with a roll, and the artifact moves with the lens.