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

Originally posted by raymundoko
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.

edit on 23-8-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

There is no such post in the entire thread that shows a GIF with artifacts rotating separately from the external image.

The claim is based on deliberately misunderstanding NASA's pics and the GIF's of NASA's pics.

Hence I asked ray to recreate the barrel roll that he has spent 3 dozen pages pretending to misunderstand.

Recreate it and prove / disprove it.

reply to post by peacefulpete


Mods can we do something about this guy? It's obvious he registered to just be abusive and accusatory.

imgflip.com...

That is the gif that shows the artifact rotating with the lens while the sun stays stationary. Its on page 30, 31 and 32

Originally posted by raymundoko
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.

Man how many readers do you think believe you, that you can't understand the barrel roll of the space telescope.

Just recreate it yourself and prove / disprove your 3 dozen pages of arguments.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by peacefulpete

 

Mods can we do something about this guy? It's obvious he registered to just be abusive and accusatory.

imgflip.com...

That is the gif that shows the artifact rotating with the lens while the sun stays stationary. Its on page 30, 31 and 32

edit on 23-8-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

I'm obviously not abusive or accusatory.

Your link obviously shows the ENTIRE image turning. Including the sun.

If you bothered to recreate the barrel roll yourself then you would prove / disprove this.

Really how could you spend 3 dozen pages arguing about the barrel roll and not bother to use the pics yourself to recreate it and prove your own point?

reply to post by peacefulpete


/facepalm that's exactly what that gif is...the barrel roll using the same images from NASA. For you to think the Sun rotates shows a complete lack of understanding of solar mechanics and I have added you to my ignore list like that guy many pages back. The solar prominence on the right of the gif is a flare that would last for days. It does not rotate with the lens, and if you think it does you are the one being disingenuous, not me.

Edit: the dark ring around the occulter is NOT part of the Sun, but an admiitted defect of the lens as was shown on page 31 and 32. Absolutely no part of the Sun, other than the prominence, is visible. You MUST use the long lasting prominence as a point of reference.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by peacefulpete

 

/facepalm that's exactly what that gif is...the barrel roll using the same images from NASA. For you to think the Sun rotates shows a complete lack of understanding of solar mechanics and I have added you to my ignore list like that guy many pages back. The solar prominence on the right of the gif is a flare that would last for days. It does not rotate with the lens, and if you think it does you are the one being disingenuous, not me.

edit on 23-8-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

Yes the gif is the barrel roll. Yes the whole image rotates including the sun. It's beyond obvious and self-evident.

"Solar mechanics" is an irrelevant phrase, when discussing a CAMERA TURNING AND ITS IMAGE TURNING.

You are the one swearing that the sun doesn't rotate in the barrel roll GIF's which would make the GIF's fraudulent, as has been accused.

That's why I asked you to recreate the barrel roll GIF properly. Show us how it's done. You accuse the GIF of being wrong, OK MAKE A PROPER GIF THEN.

Flares make no sense as reference points. If u take photos of a campfire, its flames will not be reference points either. This is exactly the same logic as referring to solar flares as such. And no you cannot assume how long any given flare is going to last, so spare us your assumptions that a really big flare must last days or weeks, just because you would like to assume so.

Last I saw a fire on Earth, the flames sure danced around FAST. It's why flames and solar flares are not reference points.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by peacefulpete

 

Edit: the dark ring around the occulter is NOT part of the Sun, but an admiitted defect of the lens as was shown on page 31 and 32. Absolutely no part of the Sun, other than the prominence, is visible. You MUST use the long lasting prominence as a point of reference.

edit on 23-8-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

Just to be crystal clear, I perfectly understand that no part of the sun is visible in these NASA pics.

Actually I don't think anyone in the whole thread EVER thought that.

The sun is blocked out, we got it.

But I disagree that the dark ring around the occulter is ENTIRELY made of defects as you're claiming. Some of those markings and dark spots are actually there, in space, close to the sun. These dark spots & markings are the true reference points regarding the barrel roll GIF's.

And if the whole dark ring is only made of defects, great, please make your own GIF of the same NASA pics and prove it to us.

And solar flares, CME's etc. will still NEVER make sense as reference points.

Ok, I see it now about rotating. It's "I say" against "he says" what is a reference and what is rotating.

Meanwhile, till you solve this problem can someone explain how the artifacts visibility is influenced by the flare's light? They should be the same , no matter what happens with the sun, right?
This is a very important point, I think, in deciding what they are.

Edit: This is what I'm curious about.

Originally posted by roncoallstar
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.

I saw your post before you edited it where you came to the opposite conclusion, and you were right the first time.

The corona is not rotating in the top gif. The objects are rotating as the camera rotates, but the corona of the sun is not.

The corona is rotating counter-clockwise in the bottom gif which the OP claims has been stabilized so it doesn't rotate.

I'm not sure what made you change your mind, and edit your post to say the opposite of what you initially said, but apparently some people are struggling with some cognitive perception issues here.

Contrary to what some people are saying about the corona not being completely stable, it looks pretty stable to me in the top image where it's not rotating, in that all the major features of it don't appear to rotate, like they do in the OP's original gif.

Also I wonder if someone tried this, from HiramA last post:

So I compared the images and found that the older images were quite different than the newer ones. The small black dots were not the same. Not only had they changed position (slightly,) they had also changed position relative to each other.
This is due to the changing position of the satellite as it orbits the sun. The angle between them changed, but they retained their shape.
Here's how you would test it. Get two or three images from Hv with a recent date (each one day apart) and line up the dots. You will see they match. Get two or three images from Hv with an older date (each one day apart) and line up those dots. You will see they match, too. Now overlay one set over the other and compare the dots. You will see that the older dots don't match the newer ones. This is conclusive, repeatable, and can be done by anybody. It proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the small black dots and all the dark areas of the corona are NOT artifacts and are external to the instruments.

Come on people, let's put the ego aside a little bit and get to the bottom of this.

Originally posted by WhiteHat
Come on people, let's put the ego aside a little bit and get to the bottom of this.

I already replied to this earlier.

It's either lots of Jupiter sized objects which for some reason astronomers have never noticed, which for some reason only appear in one of the two Stereo satellites, or else it's something like insulation debris from micrometeorite impacts that gets jostled and shifts position from subsequent micrometeorite impacts.

Since the latter explains why they would show up in only one of the two satellites and why astronomers haven't noticed a bunch of extra Jupiter-like objects floating around the sun, that seems more likely than the extra un-noticed Jupiter-like objects to me.

If by "get to the bottom of this" you mean you want someone to go to the satellite and take a picture of the exact piece of insulation or whatever it is causing the artifact to satisfy you, that's probably not going to happen, so in that event feel free to dream about a whole fleet of extra Jupiters around the sun if that pleases you. However you still have the issue of why they aren't correlated by both stereo satellites...right?

reply to post by roncoallstar


He anchored the picture of the Sun, and rotated the camera. If the artifact was a creation of the camera, when he rotated the camera, the artifact would have rotated relevant to the camera; instead, it stayed relevant to the Sun.

And Arbi;

I'm not sure what made you change your mind, and edit your post to say the opposite of what you initially said, but apparently some people are struggling with some cognitive perception issues here.

That's an ad hominem, and highly unnecessary in a civilized debate. Knock it off. Unless of course, you are uncivilized?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by roncoallstar
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.

I saw your post before you edited it where you came to the opposite conclusion, and you were right the first time.

The corona is not rotating in the top gif. The objects are rotating as the camera rotates, but the corona of the sun is not.

The corona is rotating counter-clockwise in the bottom gif which the OP claims has been stabilized so it doesn't rotate.

I'm not sure what made you change your mind, and edit your post to say the opposite of what you initially said, but apparently some people are struggling with some cognitive perception issues here.

Contrary to what some people are saying about the corona not being completely stable, it looks pretty stable to me in the top image where it's not rotating, in that all the major features of it don't appear to rotate, like they do in the OP's original gif.

Assuming you're being honest in your assessment of these images, then you (or someone) just needs to recreate these GIF's using NASA's pics and that would prove / disprove ur assessment.

Your assessment means that the OP faked his images & GIF's.

It's either that or you are seeing these images wrong.

To me it looks very clear that:

Top GIF the whole pic rotates including the sun.

Bottom GIF the sun is stable.

If u honestly disagree then it must be from using the solar flares as reference points.

The reason it doesn't work is because the flares are constantly moving around quickly, like when u look at a campfire.

If you use the dark spots as reference points, then you will come to the opposite conclusion.

Also these are NASA pics, come on guys. If OP faked his images & GIF's then why don't people just use the same NASA pics and prove it...

Originally posted by WhiteHat
Ok, I see it now about rotating. It's "I say" against "he says" what is a reference and what is rotating.

Meanwhile, till you solve this problem can someone explain how the artifacts visibility is influenced by the flare's light? They should be the same , no matter what happens with the sun, right?
This is a very important point, I think, in deciding what they are.

Edit: This is what I'm curious about.

edit on 23-8-2013 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)

This actually took me a little while to understand exactly what you're saying.

I THINK you're pointing out that the "object's" visibility seems to change, as the flares also change. And that the flares and the object do not display exactly the same amount of light at all times. Right?

And you're saying that if the "object" was a camera defect / artifact, then we'd expect the object to have the same light matching exactly with the flares. Right?

So I think your point is that: The somewhat-independent lighting / reflection of the object indicates that it's a real object out there in space. (Whereas if the light of the object always matched exactly the flares, then it would seem more like a camera issue.)

I agree with what I think you're saying lol. Did I understand your post?

The essence of the argument/thread summed up in bold here.

Excellent post.

Originally posted by peacefulpete

Just to be crystal clear, I perfectly understand that no part of the sun is visible in these NASA pics.

Actually I don't think anyone in the whole thread EVER thought that.

The sun is blocked out, we got it.

But I disagree that the dark ring around the occulter is ENTIRELY made of defects as you're claiming. Some of those markings and dark spots are actually there, in space, close to the sun. These dark spots & markings are the true reference points regarding the barrel roll GIF's.

And if the whole dark ring is only made of defects, great, please make your own GIF of the same NASA pics and prove it to us.

And solar flares, CME's etc. will still NEVER make sense as reference points.

The claim that everything but the Sun itself rotates in the viewpoint during a barrel roll is ludicrous. Trying to convince doubters of that theory using some magical "software" explanation is beyond ignorance and dishonest at best.

Keep going OP. It is about time we start to discuss possibilities of what these anomalies really are - as I started to do on page 3 or 4. There are many of these spheres visible if you look closely. Check STS-75 data - they looks similar. The STS-75 anomalies were only picked up by UV-range camers btw.

Originally posted by peacefulpete
Your assessment means that the OP faked his images & GIF's.

It's either that or you are seeing these images wrong.

I never accused the OP of faking anything. I accused him of not properly identifying the sun's corona, and you are having the same difficulty.

The reason it doesn't work is because the flares are constantly moving around quickly, like when u look at a campfire.

Campfires don't look stable. The corona of the sun changes, but in the time frame of these gifs, not very much, so it's not even remotely anything like a campfire. The fact that you would suggest such a thing makes me wonder if you're trolling.

If you use the dark spots as reference points, then you will come to the opposite conclusion.

Yes this is what the OP did, and why he came to the wrong, opposite conclusion, because the corona is light, not dark. The dark spots OP stabilized are artifacts of the photographic apparatus, probably dark areas caused by the baffles.

found this Youtube video from the Helioviewer,...



is that a comet at 0:07 from the middle right part of the screen, first thing I thought was something being fired at the sun and then there is a impact after it passes, or do i need to take my tinfoil hat off and admit its just a boring comet?

reply to post by peacefulpete


Yes, you understood correctly, thank you for clarifying.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

It's either lots of Jupiter sized objects which for some reason astronomers have never noticed, which for some reason only appear in one of the two Stereo satellites, or else it's something like insulation debris from micrometeorite impacts that gets jostled and shifts position from subsequent micrometeorite impacts.

They show up in both Stereo satellites.
Stereo A

Stereo B


Not always they show up in both, but they are definitely there.
So can we move ahead now, to questions like why they are not always visible, why they are looking like ripples, why are they semi-transparent, and most important, WTH are these objects?

reply to post by WhiteHat

Those look nothing alike to me.
As I said, no correlation between them.