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

reply to post by samsatt16


for one thing...
you are REALLY in the wrong thread!!
for another..this may be viewed as derailing.

reply to post by HiramA


1st POST ON ATS: HiramA congratulations on an excellent discovery and an excellent thread that you clearly put a lot of work into.

I've lurked on ATS for years and this thread was the one to finally get me to register and comment.

I have read the ENTIRE thread by the way.

HiramA: I completely understand and agree with everything u have said, as far as I can tell.

Yes the barrel-roll proves that the object is actually out there, external to the camera.

I DO NOT BELIEVE that the dissenters are genuine who have been arguing for half the thread about OP's Helio-viewer pics and gifs.

Honestly I can see how spatial reasoning / interpretation can be difficult for some people, and I recognize that I think in a more visual way than some people.

So for me, OP's pics and gifs and theories all made perfect sense the whole thread. IF u understand what OP wrote and demonstrates with pics & gifs, IF U UNDERSTAND THAT, then there is no ambiguity about the barrel-roll. And no ambiguity about what rotates during a barrel roll. Obviously EVERYTHING in the lense rotates, in a barrel roll.

This is why I do NOT believe dissenters are genuine / HONEST who are fixating on the rotation of the barrel roll.

You guys seem to be willfully misunderstanding OP's pictures and gifs.

Willfully misunderstanding them, as in PRETENDING to misunderstand them.

There is nothing complicated about a camera turning and having its entire image turn.

The guy saying that software prevents the camera's image from turning (while the camera itself turns): This obviously makes no sense at all. There is no way u believe what u are saying.

Plus OP's Hv pics clearly DO show the image rotating from the barrel roll. I do not believe anyone who has been arguing for three dozen pages, about how they can't understand the very simple barrel roll, and its obvious Hv images that show it.

ALSO for dissenters obsessed on deliberately misunderstanding OP's Hv pics: For gods sake please just go to Hv.com and verify yourselves. You 2 or 3 dissenters have been insisting on ur misunderstandings of his pics. Well great, use NASA's pics and prove him wrong then. Make ur own GIF's of NASA's own images and see if they come out exactly like the OP's did.

That would have saved everyone reading dozens of pages of dishonest dissenters throwing personal attacks and deliberately confusing every issue that they can. The choice of doing THAT (instead of verifying the NASA pics themselves) really proves how disingenuous they are.

TLDR: BARREL ROLL VERIFIES THE ARTIFACT IS EXTERNAL TO THE CAMERA.

DISSENTERS WHO CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE BARREL ROLL, OR THE PICS & GIFS, BUT WHO DON'T USE NASA'S PICS TO VERIFY THEMSELVES:

[snipped]

reply to post by Komodo


Really? I'm an implanted agent?

reply to post by raymundoko


ha ha...bet you never knew that
did you.

reply to post by autopat51


I want to know where to start collecting my checks.

lets have a little decorum, shall we...

That's just about enough of insulting people you happen to disagree with. If you can't disagree in a fashion less than insulting, don't bother.

reply to post by seagull


i agree
this has actually been quite an enjoyable thread.

reply to post by HiramA

since this is only 1 satellite camera/ lens, could something wrong with it.
show me other satellites with different filters that have it in it then you may have something.
other wise just a faulty camera and or lens

I hope my 1st post wasn't deemed insulting bc it's not meant to be.

I am calling people out though, who I'm convinced are deliberately misunderstanding the pics AND deliberately causing confusion in the thread, plus insulting everyone who doesn't agree with their own deliberate misunderstandings.

I just had to read 3 dozen pages of that, just bc the TOPIC is actually interesting.

Dissenters please spare us the phony theatrics. OP stated exactly what he did, exactly what pics, exactly what dates etc. If u guys are at all HONEST that u don't believe his GIF of barrel-roll pics, I'd love to see u guys recreate the same GIF using the same barrel-roll pics from NASA.

That would prove / disprove that OP is obviously using NASA's Hv pics properly.

Just prove it either way, using NASA's pics. Nobody wants to read 3 dozen pages of dissenters refusing to understand NASA's pics and then making up stupid insults about brain matter and whatever else u guys have been blabbing about.

Use NASA's pics and prove it, dissenters, and spare us the phony misunderstandings.

Back on topic a bit more:

OP is obviously right that the dark spots of the rotating GIF are the proper reference points. They are obvious dark spots surrounding the area around the sun, and staying fixed in place.

I don't believe the dissenters saying THEY BELIEVE the dark spots are lens artifacts. Well if u do really believe it, please use NASA's barrel-roll pics and make a GIF and prove everyone wrong.

Also CME's and flares from the sun are clearly NOT reference points. There's no way u guys believe that. Have u guys ever seen a campfire? Would u take a series of photos of a fire and expect the flames to be reference points of anything? Same for the sun, the flames change every moment and they are no reference points.

So much disingenuous garbage in the thread.

OP gets A LOT of credit for keeping calm while phony dissenters have tried to completely overwhelm his own awesome thread.

I'm following this thread from the page one, and I must say it's one of the best I've seen around here in a long time.
But this "rotating or not rotating" issue seems to drag on forever, intentionally or not. The OP did everything in his power to clarify it, along with other posters in the first pages; the debunkers went from dismissive insults to accusations of plagiarism and now to scientific proofs which in my opinion only confuse everyone.
For me to be convinced that the objects discussed here are camera artifacts I need 3 things:

1. A .gif where someone can demonstrate clearly the opposite of what the OP is trying to prove. I know, is a bit of work but we are already on page 33 so the sooner the better to finish this controversy.
2. Someone to explain why the supposed artifact sometimes disappear then appear back on the lenses.
3. Someone also to explain how come the light reflected on these objects is changing, like they are real things, out there next to sun.

Only then I can call this debunked on move on. Until then I'd say we really have a strong case here and it's still open for discussions.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by WhiteHat


We've already done everything you asked... I highly recommend you read pages 28-32 again as I have multiple gifs and images as well as scientific explanations for what is seen. One user a couple pages back even posted a gift that clearly shows the lens rotates and the artifact moves with it.

reply to post by raymundoko

Care to show me where the issues of light and appearance/ disappearance of the objects is discussed?
Thanks.

reply to post by raymundoko

One user a couple pages back even posted a gift that clearly shows the lens rotates and the artifact moves with it.

I've seen it. But everything rotated in that .gif, isn't it? I would love to see a .gif where the sun is not rotating, but the camera and the artifacts are moving. Because maybe I got it wrong but this seems to me the main issue here; that the OP is lying about the the sun being stable in his first .gifs. So what will prove him wrong is exactly that: a rotating camera, along with the artifacts, all the while the sun is still.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by WhiteHat

 

We've already done everything you asked...

No you didn't. But thanks for the laugh. I just read the whole thread. Your statement is false and disingenuous.

You spent the thread obsessing about the barrel roll, so quite logically, I asked you to recreate the barrel roll yourself, using NASA's pics that are freely available. The OP did this, and your response was to spend 3 dozen pages pretending to misunderstand his pics and GIF's.

Great, so then use the SAME EXACT PICS FROM NASA and recreate the same exact barrel roll. If your GIF turns out exactly the same as OP's then you just proved him right.

If you do that and your GIF is dramatically different, then you proved yourself right.

So either way, it would have been a much better approach than wasting everyone's time reading 3 dozen pages of your disingenuous misunderstandings of NASA photos.

reply to post by WhiteHat


No, the sun is stationary and does not rotate with the lens as can be seen from the prominence. That alone invalidates any questions to be asked about the object as from that point on it has to be considered an artifact within the camera.

reply to post by WhiteHat


Which is clearly demonstrated here:

imgflip.com...

PS, those are the same images he used in his gif. Notice the prominence on the right. That is a massive flare that would last for days. It does not move.