PDA

View Full Version : soho images



digitalspector
2003-Sep-18, 04:14 AM
i know i know..smack me now.

i really hate posting these things....but some of the woo-woos get all bent out of shape...and I really don't know how to answer them.

i spent the day going through archives..but havent been able to turn up an answer to this soho flaw

http://skywatch.iwarp.com/sun/images/19990922_1742_c3.gif

nor this one

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs_small/20030917_1054_c2.gif

i hate posting this crap...but I would love an easily explainable answer...

I don't know why I still bother with them, they are attempting to grasp at everything possible..to prove that something is wrong... ](*,)

I need a new hobby...rather then wrestle with then people who are bored with their lives...and want something different...

but for my peace of mind...would love an answer....i can explain it to myself...sad what they want to believe.....
grrrrr

again I apologize....

beskeptical
2003-Sep-18, 04:48 AM
I really like the rings in the first one. 8)

I think these pics are a curiosity, but if anyone seriously needs an explanation other than a satellite or astrophoto buff, then it is a bit silly. They are obviously just technical difficulties. I don't think we are dead yet, the Sun is still there, so clearly, the one from 1999 was not TEOTWAWKI.

And, the one from yesterday has a normal picture before (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs_small/20030917_1030_c2.gif) and after (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs_small/20030917_1106_c2.gif).

I guess I'm wondering why bother?

freddo
2003-Sep-18, 05:00 AM
I guess I'm wondering why bother?

I also wonder, and I know digi does too... I guess we don't like seeing ignorance perpetuated?

beskeptical
2003-Sep-18, 05:24 AM
Dig, did you hunt up the pictures or did the Woowoos post 'em and you hunted for explanations?

freddo
2003-Sep-18, 06:15 AM
Dig, did you hunt up the pictures or did the Woowoos post 'em and you hunted for explanations?

Door number 2 b! Read the threads myself... :evil:

Digi don't dig - he just comes here with this stuff when he himself doesn't have the 'good answer.'

Archer17
2003-Sep-18, 12:08 PM
bekeptical's post sums up the woowoo's perfectly. They pick and choose what anomalies to post and often use the same sources that they "trust" when it shows something unusual and don't trust when it doesn't. They love to post SOHO pics and gush when something unusual shows up in a certain frame but ignore simple logic when the anomalies don't continue to show. Instead of explaining why, if something was really there, it's so fleeting .. they try to turn things around and put the onus on everyone explain the one or two pics they post. It's pathetic really. Just remember digital, they will always stumble across unusual things in a SOHO pic from time to time so they'll never stop, but their fatal flaw is non-repeatable results. If you must do "missionary" work, put the burden of proof on them. :wink:

digitalspector
2003-Sep-18, 12:23 PM
Just remember digital, they will always stumble across unusual things in a SOHO pic from time to time so they'll never stop, but their fatal flaw is non-repeatable results. If you must do "missionary" work, put the burden of proof on them.

true enough. I'm sure if they wanted to, they could find proof of nessie.


Dig, did you hunt up the pictures or did the Woowoos post 'em and you hunted for explanations?

Skep, I do not dig. I get frustrated reading:

"look at these images they are signs of PX,":
"look nasa conspiracy,"
"look at this 4th density space hamburger"

or in concern to the picture that has the slinky in it:
"space ray of the zetas"
"government testing /nasa tech conspiracy"
#-o

and like to toss some logic into the fray. I only post the junk here, when I can not find an answer. **note, I can answer for it myself, but simply saying "its a soho fluke," without have a *LINK* to a website doesn't appease them. Apparently having a link to a website concerning a response makes it truth.
:roll:

And, We all know how honest and pure some of the sites they use are.

tmosher
2003-Sep-18, 12:26 PM
What is mentioned above perfectly fits my experience with the 'woo-woos'.

They will find ONE image and claim that something is afoot. However, if you look at the image before and after the claimed image, everything appears normal. Even when SOHO C3 shows something and SOHO C2 does not, they'll still claim it's proof of their current doom-and-gloom scenario.

It's the same with webcam images from Katcam.

Tom

Sammy
2003-Sep-18, 03:29 PM
What is mentioned above perfectly fits my experience with the 'woo-woos'.

They will find ONE image and claim that something is afoot. However, if you look at the image before and after the claimed image, everything appears normal. Even when SOHO C3 shows something and SOHO C2 does not, they'll still claim it's proof of their current doom-and-gloom scenario.

It's the same with webcam images from Katcam.

Tom
(Emphasis added)

You guys still don't get it! Thats more proof of how amazing PX is! It can hover in front of the Sun, dart around and screw up the Moon's orbit, move Phobos, zip by SOHO so fast it only get caught in one frame, and get back to occulting the sun in time for its dail photo sessions with breaking a sweat. Darn debunkers!