rigorousintuition.ca

What are they?

They're easily visible in the NASA images, if you zoom in. NASA also provides the images combined into an mpeg movie, so I've been trying to put together a movie that shows how they move, but it's not done yet.



Image 1 (at 3 o'clock)

Image 2 (at 5 o'clock)

Main NASA link

I know! I know! It's the dragons' tail of planet X...

alwyn wrote:I know! I know! It's the dragons' tail of planet X...

I see now why this place has such a reputation for in-depth analysis

The reflective highlight of the first object he views in the video seems misplaced vis-a-vis the light source of the sun.



I would expect it to be located in the upper right hemisphere.

monster wrote:

alwyn wrote:I know! I know! It's the dragons' tail of planet X...

I see now why this place has such a reputation for in-depth analysis

Good lord, monster, can't you take a joke?

alwyn wrote:

monster wrote:I see now why this place has such a reputation for in-depth analysis

Good lord, monster, can't you take a joke?

Nothing like a spinning UFO graphic to say "take this thread seriously." Thanks for nothing. Take your clipart elsewhere.

It's hard to take a thread seriously where the video you referenced linked to God Like Productions, Monster. And you started with the clip art. Bite me. If they are natural phenomena, they could be asteroids, or planets. Venus and Mercury are occupying relatively close places in the ecliptic right now. If they are not natural phenomena, then they are UFO's. Take your pick.

Even if these aren't photographic artifacts and are inside the orbit of Mercury, thus waaay in the foreground of the sun, they most certainly would approach the size of the Earth. That would be some fucking UFO.

But, on the other hand, aren't some of those exoplanets known to orbit their stars extremely close? Like .1 AU and below? Could it be unknown planets simply always within the glare of the Sun, too close for us to see in the mornings or evenings, like we can Mercury or Venus?

barracuda wrote:The reflective highlight of the first object he views in the video seems misplaced vis-a-vis the light source of the sun.



I would expect it to be located in the upper right hemisphere.

True. Not sure what to make of that. Here are zoomed images of the others:



I know absolutely nothing about digital artifacts in NASA images, how prevalent they are or what they look like. And, one of the spheres does have a large distortion around it. But still, the other ones are so perfectly spherical... I usually think of digital artifacts as having right angles.

I'll have to look through the rest of the NASA images, see if I can find better examples. Maybe put together an animated gif to see how they move.

alwyn wrote:It's hard to take a thread seriously where the video you referenced linked to God Like Productions, Monster.

Then you know what? Get the fuck out of the goddamned thread, you fucking troll.

82_28 wrote:Even if these aren't photographic artifacts and are inside the orbit of Mercury, thus waaay in the foreground of the sun, they most certainly would approach the size of the Earth. That would be some fucking UFO.

But, on the other hand, aren't some of those exoplanets known to orbit their stars extremely close? Like .1 AU and below? Could it be unknown planets simply always within the glare of the Sun, too close for us to see in the mornings or evenings, like we can Mercury or Venus?

There were some occult legends of a planet "Vulcan" in between the orbit of Mercury and the Sun. A couple of 'churches' even made ephemeri for it. Haven't heard much about it lately, but this may bring it back.

monster wrote:

alwyn wrote:It's hard to take a thread seriously where the video you referenced linked to God Like Productions, Monster.

Then you know what? Get the fuck out of the goddamned thread, you fucking troll.

So I'm a troll if I point out a suspect link? I thought better of you Monster. Maybe you're just having a bad day. Sorry if I presumed that our former relationship would allow me to inject some levity into one of your posts.

I actually have quite a bit of interest in celestial phenomena. Occupational, I guess. I liked that you posted the pics, I am interested in the subject, and apologize for ruffling your feathers. We will now return to the previously scheduled thread.

Alwyn, I just wanted to say I can kind of understand why monster got so annoyed. It reminds me of the innumerable times I've posted some new item of information about, say, 9/11 or David Kelly somewhere, only to see others respond with graphics of flying saucers/tinfoil hats/"Elvis alive on Mars" headlines, etc. That kind of response tends to rile people up, even if it wasn't your intention to do so (and I don't believe it was).

Anyway... Now that I'm in this thread, I can only say, "Well, that looks very strange, whatever it is."

Presuming those things are not photographic artifacts: What kind of substance would they need to be made of to survive without melting (or evaporating) that close to the sun? Serious question. What is the temperature in that region? What elements can survive as solids there?

here's link to the 2048x2048 version...
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/01/18/behind/euvi/195/2048/20100118_053530_n7euB_195.jpg

the "objects" are not seen in the pic 10 minutes before or 10 minutes after.

but... If they are "behind" (further away) the sun, this reflectivity would be possible...
like this:


Maybe it's something, maybe it's just imaging artifacts.

MacCruiskeen wrote:Alwyn, I just wanted to say I can kind of understand why monster got so annoyed. It reminds me of the innumerable times I've posted some new item of information about, say, 9/11 or David Kelly somewhere, only to see others respond with graphics of flying saucers/tinfoil hats/"Elvis alive on Mars" headlines, etc. That kind of response tends to rile people up, even if it wasn't your intention to do so (and I don't believe it was).

Anyway... Now that I'm in this thread, I can only say, "Well, that looks very strange, whatever it is."

Presuming those things are not photographic artifacts: What kind of substance would they need to be made of to survive without melting (or evaporating) that close to the sun? Serious question. What is the temperature in that region? What elements can survive as solids there?

Thanks for you kind regard. I only picked the saucer because of the unidentified theme, it really wasn't done to mock. I will add that graphic image to the list of 'unfriendly ones'.

It's hard to say because of the closeness of the picture, but ruling out parallax error of the camera, could we be seeing planets not 'in' the corona, but 'through' the corona?

Is the camera situated earth side? Because if it is, then it really is the right position for mercury and venus.