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

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


yes. because they are not objects. they are artifacts created in the lens due to
A. external damage
B. internal damage
C. software error

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by alienDNA
reply to post by WhiteHat

 

they are not changing positions.

That is correct.

A person can go to helioviewer and see that these objects are always there, in the same position in the image frame, for months and years at a time.

They moved in time.
I won't make another .gif, my fingers are cramping. You do it, if you are so sure they are not moving.
Here are the instructions:

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.

doublepost

reply to post by WhiteHat


here we go again.. the op is incorrect in all of his approach.
he is incorrect fundamentally in everything he is posting because what he thinks is the corona is NOT the corona at all.

his instructions does NOT by any means prove that the "objects" are not artifacts.
if we assume the damage is external, and in the protective glass; even if it shifted just something like 0.000001mm, the percieved distance relative to the sun might look like they have moved over time.
im not saying this neccesarily is the case, but it certainly does not prove that they are real objects that move around in space.
my explanation that the glass shifted is more probably than the alternative.


they are artifacts man. trust me on this.

reply to post by WhiteHat


I did that, and yes, it does appear they move ever so slightly, but any shift in the protective glass or lens that has the artifact will result in this change. Space flight isn't some perfectly smooth ride. There are dings and bumps along the way including rolls and corrections which might jar equipment. Remember, Hubble had to be repaired multiple times after all. The slight shifting of the artifact doesn't change the fact that it is an artifact. That would mean that this "object" if it were external to the camera rotates around the sun at the exact same rate as the satellite taking the image. With the location of the artifact being BELOW the sun, it would be visible from the other side, and it is not.

reply to post by raymundoko


yes exactly what i said also. any shift would make these "objects" appear as they moved in space.

it is so extremely obvious they are artifacts, so at this point in time i really cannot understand how anyone with any sort of normal intelligence and reasoning would not accept this fact already.

sorry for my english, im from sweden.

reply to post by alienDNA

There are two kinds of people I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.

I had to man, sorry

Ik begrijp nederlandse toen ik het las. Maar ik kan het niet horen. Zeg ik dat goed?

I still can't believe someone compared the sun to a campfire...

One burns wood, the other FUSES ATOMS creating prominence that eject 10 to the 16th billion amounts of material out into space. Some of which appear as massive prominence reaching out for millions of kilometers at nearly a MILLION kilometers per hour and taking hours or DAYS to calm down.

reply to post by raymundoko


bro, im swedish, not dutch, had no idea what you just said :p

reply to post by raymundoko


yes. and not to mention the distance to a campfire is infinitely smaller than the distance to the sun.
if the campfire was as big as the sun, and viewed from the same distance, im sure the flames would appear similar to the suns flares.


just due to the fact of lightspeed.

I'm back. I think I have got at the bottom of this.
I hate to be a party pooper, and I was very excited about discovering something new, but I have to be faithful to the truth, even if I don't always like it.

I think it is debris.
I just found this pic at the Stereo site:


along with this explanation:

These small debris particles are brightly illuminated by the Sun, and are easily seen by the coronagraphs if they wander into the field of view. They are tremendously out-of-focus, and often appear as "donut" shapes in the COR1 and COR2 telescopes because of the central occulter in these telescopes. The bigger the piece of debris appears, the closer it is to the telescope. Because the COR1 and COR2 images are generally built up from a series of images, the same piece of debris will often show up multiple times.

Link

I couldn't help noticing the same donut shape, the same transparency.
Then I went to helioviewer to find this specific pic, and is not there. You can check it out for yourselves.
This is telling me that they usually don't post pics compromised with so many debris; on the other side the objects discussed here are persistent and stayed there for a very long time so they have to put them there, otherwise would have been years without a pic.

This also explains why they were visible on both satellites. Debris.
There is still the issue of those smaller objects, not shaped like a donut, but I doubt it is some earth-shaking discovery.

I would love to hear some arguments to invalidate this debris theory, but for now I can't see a more logical option. Please prove me wrong
Now I really go to jump off the window
Have fun!

reply to post by WhiteHat


guy

give it up already. They are not objects. They are artifacts.

The barrel roll.gif proves it without any doubt.

reply to post by alienDNA


He is trying to use common sense at least and has noticed that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must not be a dog. If one thing has been proven to be an artifact, and another looks just like it, then ipso facto both are artifacts. I commend him for his effort.

The donut shapes are caused by reflections of debris in the field of view. Sure some of them may be external to the image, but the one in particular the OP latched onto was within the camera itself as it has been definitively shown to rotate with the lens while the sun remains stationary.

Also, some people have tried to compare these to the tether incident. Many of the objects in the tether incident were reflections, and videos have been provided to show how that happens, including ones in this thread. The other objects which cannot be explained by reflections are excited plasma interacting with the charged tether:

ntrs.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.tethers.com...

I also discussed them extensively in previous threads.

From the official paper above:

Although the TSS-1R mission was not completed as planned, the Italian satellite was
deployed to a distance of 19.7 km--making TSS-1R the largest man-made electrodynamic
structure ever placed in orbit. This deployment was sufficient to generate high voltages
across the tether and extract large currents from the ionosphere. These voltages and
currents, in turn, excited several space plasma phenomena and processes of interest.

While I can't claim to be a PLASMA physicist, my degree is in Atmospheric Physics, I can say that I have an nearly equivalent amount of education, though not as specialized, in the field and my five years of research in HI were nothing but Plasma Phenomena. This involved measuring the gaboodles of charge entering our ionosphere from the Sun and determining what was happening on the sun to charge our ionosphere and cause, or not cause, TLE's. We were tasked with answering questions like: Can we detect a charge build up? Can it be measured? Do we know "breaking points"? What is happening on the sun that could be a cause? Can we look at the sun to see when and where we need to measure in the atmosphere? You know all the kinds of things you need to protect really expensive LEO's.

My work probably made it possible for Boeing, in conjunction with the DoD and Air Force, to put nice permanent spy planes in LEO and not have them get bonked out of the sky by TLE's. And yes, at one point in my life I was technically a contractor for the DoD, although not me specifically, the research firm I worked for was. I still had to go through the background checks and get security clearance and what not. I hope that doesn't make me a paid disinfo agent. Perhaps they brain washed me and I am not actually in control of my mind and fingers?

My point of the above off track story is that I paid to go to schools for this, then I got paid to do this. I am very familiar with the solar mechanics involved in the images as well as the Sun-Earth connection caused by them. To the OP I would give the same good advice I got in college:

Better to go 10 steps back to make sure you are going forward in the right direction.

reply to post by HiramA


I want to play devils advocate on these. The rings have been seen on various images for a long time. In fact the location of the rings is exactly the same. While a great chunk of what your demonstrating is great research, it's almost too good. Optics that are used in high-end telescopes and satellites are subjected to huge errors in manufacturing. Think of the Hubble telescope in that regard. I spoke to an optical engineer that has worked in the lens grinding and CNC polishing of gear that is used in several military scopes and optics. I won't disclose the person but the business is Lacroix optical. He explained that in the process of Q and A you can see rings in the optics of the lenses, that can show up within certain focal points in the image. Stating that as the lens moves to different location certain artifacts show up that usually show rings within the image. I received an actually picture showing these types of banding or rings. (looking for an upload button) By all means I'm not debunking your research, but want to validate that you have engaged the proper scientist or optical engineers that can validate these images.

reply to post by HaveEducatedOpinions


ah I found the video link he sent to show the rings!

It can be found from 1:20 - 1:32 seconds on this video.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by HaveEducatedOpinions


Great find and great addition to the thread. This matches with NASA's explanation which I had previously linked.

I've read nearly every comment in the thread up to page 25.

1) it's a fascinating thread, which has not been debunked up to that point, in my opinion.

2) some cite an obvious and measurable gravitational pull if the object(s) were truly that large. Could it be that the object(s) were always there ( since measuring gravity began, that is ) and their influence on gravity has been overlooked?

I generally refrain from space and alien type theories. My only opinion thus far is that the OP hasn't been debunked up to page 25. Still, the gravity aspect kept nagging at me, so I posed the question before forgetting to do so ...

Funny... I got tired before page 25 because the OP could not seem to grasp the reasonable explanations provided over and over [and over] by multiple members. That's what really blew my mind.

reply to post by CheckPointCharlie


Read pages 28-33 where I really kick it into gear. Prior to those pages I thought the OP was a troll looking for stars and flags who had stolen this idea from another website which is banned here for known hoaxes (I was warned and my post removed where I accused him of that). Once it was reviewed by the mods and they determined there was no ill intent behind the post, I decided to just finally put the effort in to completely squash this theory.

Originally posted by draknoir2
Funny... I got tired before page 25 because the OP could not seem to grasp the reasonable explanations provided over and over [and over] by multiple members. That's what really blew my mind.

Which is why I thought he was a troll just looking for stars and flags on a new account. I felt like he was knowingly taking advantage of people who would eat it up. When the post was re-opened I decided it would require a bit more effort, but still quite easy, to completely and utterly debunk the OP's hypothesis.

reply to post by CheckPointCharlie


Read from 28 and onward.


Tldr,
It is Super ultra debunked without any doubt what so ever.
The OP has been proven fundamentally wrong in his approach due to mostly the fact of his original gif, where he mistakes artifacts for the corona.
Had he been right in that actually was the corona it would have been a bit more fascinating.
But since he was incorrect from the get go, the thread basically became redundant.


Then another gif surfaced that clearly showed that the sun was stationary during the barell roll. And the artifacts rolled together with the camera, thus totally killing the thread.
Some people however for whatever reason failed to see this very blatant and obvious evidence, thus the thread kept going a bit more.

reply to post by raymundoko

Which is why I thought he was a troll just looking for stars and flags on a new account. I felt like he was knowingly taking advantage of people who would eat it up. When the post was re-opened I decided it would require a bit more effort, but still quite easy, to completely and utterly debunk the OP's hypothesis.

Funny to hear that since many members congratulates the OP for the hard, excellent work and got the idea that the troll was somebody else. Maybe you need to re-read your own first posts.
I think your opinion will be much more respected if you'll stop congratulating yourself so much for so little, and taking credit for something you didn't do.

I really hope to hear from the OP soon, it's his opinion I'm curious about. I'm sure he'll have something interesting to ad.