Dec 6th UPDATE Page 17~ 100% Proof Positive ISON is Intact and Headed Towards Earth

I'm sure you didn't trust or commission the sun to ensure that the sizes were reduced enough not to cause a problem for earth and other planets? You think those things are a grain of sand? ISON is/was huge. For it to even make a transit around the sun inferno shows it has balls of steel. Its fragments sizes is anyone's guess now..

[link to www.planetary.org]

[link to www.planetary.org]

100% proof positive ISON is intact and headed towards Earth.

It will not hit Earth but will be millions of miles above our north pole.

Note: Watch all of this video for the proof before speaking out like a "know it all jackass" and making yourself look like an idiot.



UPDATE!~

Certainly still looks intact to me.

Not sure about headed for Earth though.

the tard who made that video

The only thing i can see from that link that hasn't already been discussed is the 'phase angle'...affecting how much light from the sun shines up an object...and that angle has changed obviously for Ison swinging around the sun.

So it's position showing dim on the raw images could be low-lit and showing as nothing due to the phase angle..?

If the above is correct, then we should start to see a brightening on the raw images at some point as the phase angles changes.

When the winged disc appears get ready...The ride will get bumpy

This streamer is pretty sure though??

[link to iswa.gsfc.nasa.gov]



btw. is MAVEN?? just close to Earth!!!

you're thinking illogically -- the particles are too small to be picked up normally, they're only picked up when the image is over-exposed. If they were as large as you're claiming, why aren't they picked up easily?

[link to www.planetary.org]

Astros video is black and white the other is colour which makes it more visible.

You will see a lot less in black and white that's why you don't see anything because its black and white.

mmm

Again, thanks to the outright lies & the lies of omission, by Never A Straight Answer & parroted by the shills & resident ex-spurts, we simply do NOT know, with ANY degree of certainty, exactly WHAT will happen.

They WERE, before they got so far away from the Satellite.

The other is over-enhanced contrast, THAT is why it looks that bright. The raw data shows it's quite dim. You have to over-stretch the histogram to get it to look even close to that bright.

See here's the thing, Astro. You never made an issue over the exposure of these types of images before. Comets and CMEs and flares came and went for years, and nary a peep out of you about exposure - over or under or raw or otherwise.

Now? Now the images are over-exposed, and only you know how overexposed they are, and only you can phtoshop them to be the "right" brightness levels.

Really? So what you photoshop, is how ISON looks in space? What, exactly, IS the "real" brightness level? How do you know? In what frequencies? And here's the real kicker - so what? Is the sun really all those colors shown by different frequency images in the solar observatories? Are stars really shinging with spikes coming out of them? What, in astronomy, is ever the actual color or brightness, and from what distance and conditions? Isnt' it ALL color coded for data representation? So why is ISON different? And who made you keeper of the one, true, only brightness level of ISON?

So what that it - might - have dimmed? Does that mean that the debris that made up the comet is not there anymore? It's in space - where did it go? The "debris field" when "wrongly" illuminated spread out twice the diameter of the sun! Don't you think that's pretty good for a "dead" three-mile wide comet, even when lit up "wrongly" by a brief CME? Obviously the material wasn't vaporized by the sun, or it wouldn't have lit up afterward. And obviously it's still there, even though it isn't - supposedly - lit up now. Or, at least, lit up to the level, and in the way, you have decided represents it's "real" look in space. Of course, you also don't give a standard by which you measure these things, let alone a justification for the use of such a standard.

Then you tell people that when they compare brightness of ISON with other comets, or the size of ISON with other comets, not to believe their lying eyes. But to trust you to show them what ISON "really" is after you photoshop it, and deny what they are looking at, because NONE of them understand - not one. Only you. And only after you, alone - not NASA, who is stupidly releasing "over-exposed" images. It's too bad the dumb Ph.Ds at JPL never got a clue about giving you access to the images first. Just think of the amount of confusion that could have been avoided if you could have just manipulated the images to show what they really are, before all the rabble thought they saw something.

Not only that, but isn't it interesting that the "debris field" is NOT flowing away from the sun, which means it is heavier than the ion tail and the lightest dust, because it's resisting the solar wind. But look at the size of it - over a million miles wide debris field, made of componants that are NOT the smallest componants (otherwise they'd blow away from the sun) - all out of a three mile wide original nucleus. Now that's quite a feat. Three miles vaporized could go out a million miles. But how does three miles of rather large pieces, resisting the solar wind, not vaporized, manage to cover an triangular area over a million miles wide? Unless, of course, the original nucleus was just a tad larger than three miles.

It must be so frustrating to be surrounded by so many people who just don't get it.

you really are the consummate pompous ass.

It is predictable that you choose to answer this, but not to address this.

Excellent work.. my thoughts exactly. I have been monitoring ISON on theskylive.com website and it has been brightening. It's magnitude 48 hours ago was 3.25. Today it is 4.0. Pretty amazing for a so-called ex-comet that is only dust. Didn't know that dust could brighten and increase its magnitude.

On Thanksgiving I was laughing at the 20 plus year old kids running the show. They were really knowledgeable when they said they were sure about this stuff.. afterall they said they had observed two other comets. OMG.. what ever happened to having 20+ years experience? Where were those guys?

The other is over-enhanced contrast, THAT is why it looks that bright. The raw data shows it's quite dim. You have to over-stretch the histogram to get it to look even close to that bright.

I'm not always here, I just started replying. You probably knew that and wanted to preemptively stomp your feet before I could reply. Well, I'm not in the mood to deal with impatience and other assorted bullshit, so guess what? Too damn bad. You do not get to decide which posts receive my attention at all.

Whatever, I really don't care what you think of me. He's just some tard on youtube, so he is not spared my wrath. If he were a member on GLP I might be more patient since I could at least explain to him where he went wrong, but he doesn't seem willing to debate me on youtube, so he can sod off.

Question, the Chelyabinsk asteroid which hit Russia last February 15this year, if it were in the position of ISON in the raw data picture instead, how bright or dim will it appear?

Astro, all due respect. I have viewed and read many threads and responses from you and others. What I don't understand is vague language and hidden meanings in all this. Why can't you in plain laymans terms speak(write) if I am to simple, tell me. I appreciate your work and effort, but sometimes this stuff wears one out.

The other is over-enhanced contrast, THAT is why it looks that bright. The raw data shows it's quite dim. You have to over-stretch the histogram to get it to look even close to that bright.