ISON COVER UP/May not be a Comet

[link to heritage.stsci.edu]

Actually there are five images from Hubble - they used images #1, #3 and #5 for the stacking.
If they had used all five images the V would be a continuous line.

From the fits headers:
1. image start 2013-04-30 - 03:35:43 UT - exposure 440 sec
Idle time: 00:02:31
2. image start 2013-04-30 - 03:45:34 UT - exposure 490 sec
Idle time: 00:02:31
3. image start 2013-04-30 - 03:56:15 UT - exposure 440 sec
Idle time: 00:02:31
4. image start 2013-04-30 - 04:06:06 UT - exposure 490 sec
Idle time: 00:02:31
5. image start 2013-04-30 - 04:16:47 UT - exposure 440 sec

During the exposure and the idle time ISON moved, Hubble moved and Earth moved. The combined movement gives the V-shape in this case.
There are other images that give an S-shape (different positions of ISON, Hubble, Earth)

If you stack the images and align it to the stars, you get the V-shaped ISON:



If you stack the images and align it to ISON, you get V-shaped stars (I processed all five images here):

:isonhubal:



Below the three images that are used for the "V-shaped" stacking: #1, #3 and #5.
Guiding on the stars.

Now show, where there are three objects, nuclei, wings or whatever in the images.

:isonhub1:
:isonhub3:
:isonhub5:

.

Show me the V-shape in the single exposures:

Show me where the change in orientation is the result of parallax.

As I pointed out, the point can't make a line, and a line would have to be a hundred thousand plus miles long to show 120 degrees of parallax.

Sure, there's a tiny bit of parallax, but nothing near 120 degrees - it's impossible given the size of the Earth and the distance to ISON - for a point source of light.

But - IF those photos are real, and IF ISON isn't 100K+ miles long, Then it could be smaller, but still a LINE and...

TUMBLING.

But if so, why isn't that shown HERE?:

[link to heritage.stsci.edu]

That's ISON by Hubble, dude. Where's the angling there? Where's the longitudinal spreading of the ISON object (not it's trail)? Where's the change in XYZ orientation of the object itself? Where's the "parallax"?

18 or so pages of this bullshit last night and here you fucking are again trying to spew nonsense that was previously 100% debunked.

Listen up Isontards....you will all look like fucking idiots you come back here in a few months and your ISON COVER UP is as big of a fail as Nibiru, 2012, Planet X, and all of your other bullshit.

GET A FUCKING LIFE and come out of the basement once and a while.

Idiots!

exactly ^^^


those projected paths DO NOT make a hard PERFECT 120 degree turn to form a perfect triangle.

It makes the same turn in Celestia that it made in the images.

It makes the same turn in Celestia that it made in the images.

Because its not?

BTW people like Dr Astro and Hydra ask for proof......

Funny how if I post 100% proof about them and their website. I get banned.

GO FIGURE! ;-)

prove it. we have an image of the actual object a perfect triangle. you are showing the curved path the triangle is making.

What website? My youtube channel or my flickr page?