Ray's Astrophotography Proved It:
NASA's 3I/ATLAS Images
Don't Match Raw Data
Transcript
0:00
And you see that picture right it's not
0:03
a point of light whereas the pictures
0:06
that we are seeing on the released
0:09
website is like a point of light.
0:13
This video is made possible by Ray's
0:15
astrophotography. Make sure to check the
0:17
link below. Subscribe to his channel and
0:20
show him the respect he's earned.
In
0:22
this video,
Ray has just uncovered
0:24
something that's shaking the amateur
0:25
astronomy community.
When NASA released
0:27
their latest Hubble images of comet 3i
0:30
atlas on December 4th, something didn't
0:32
add up. The published image showed a
0:34
tiny pinpoint of light with a massive
0:36
blue coma. But when Ry downloaded the
0:39
raw Hubble data himself and processed
0:41
it, he got completely different results.
0:44
We're talking about a major discrepancy
0:46
between what Hubble actually captured
0:48
versus what was released to the public.
0:50
Ry spent hours processing the same raw
0:52
files NASA used, and what he found
0:54
raises serious questions about image
0:56
interpretation and the PSF modeling
0:58
techniques being applied.
T
his isn't a
1:00
conspiracy theory. This is raw data
1:03
analysis from an independent researcher
1:05
who's been tracking this comet for weeks
1:07
from his own backyard.
And here's the
1:09
kicker.
Ray's amateur equipment is
1:11
actually capturing structural details
1:13
that are mysteriously absent from NASA's
1:15
processed images.
Stick around because
1:18
we're about to dive deep into the raw
1:20
Hubble data and compare it side by side
1:23
with what an independent
1:24
astrophotographer is seeing from Earth.
1:27
So, it's good to be back taking
1:29
pictures. It's been very cloudy and uh
1:34
seeing the blue skies excites me. So, we
1:38
can capture more and more pictures of
1:41
comet 3i atlas. So I was taking a look
1:44
at the recent Hubble pictures. They were
1:48
released like couple of days ago and
1:51
what intrigues me was the p the way the
1:55
pictures look. I was looking at closeup
1:59
of Hubble. I noticed two things like one
2:04
is the comet 3 atlas looks like a dot
2:10
and there is a big blue coma around it
2:13
and then of course they have those
2:14
hexagonal kind of things. Internet is
2:18
going crazy over it but it could very
2:21
well be an artifact from the way the
2:24
lenses on the hub are. So that was not
2:28
the part of the mystery.
The mystery was
2:31
you get a point light from the 3I/atlas
2:36
that I was never able to capture
2:39
and even Hubble when it took the
2:41
pictures before
2:43
that's not how the pictures were.
It has
2:46
a big blob of light and it has a tail
2:48
that the previous picture and this one
2:51
was like a tiny dot of light and the big
2:53
coma.
So that made me curious to go into
2:57
the Hubble website and download the
3:00
data, the raw pictures that Hubble took
3:03
actually. And I spent time to process
3:08
those pictures. The moment I actually
3:11
downloaded and I saw the picture,
those
3:14
pictures look very different than the
3:17
picture that was published.
3:19
This is where things get interesting.
3:21
Rey isn't making wild claims. He's doing
3:23
what any good scientist should do,
3:25
verifying published results with raw
3:27
data. When he downloaded the actual
3:29
Hubble observation files from their
3:31
public archive, the images looked
3:33
fundamentally different from NASA's
3:35
press release. Now, NASA applied
3:38
something called a point spread function
3:40
model or PSF, which is a legitimate
3:42
mathematical technique used to determine
3:44
where light originates from in an image.
3:47
But here's the problem.
PSF modeling
3:49
involves assumptions and
3:51
interpretations. It's not just raw
3:53
observation, it's processed
3:55
interpretation.
Ray processed the same
3:57
files using standard techniques and
4:00
couldn't replicate NASA's results.
His
4:02
processed images still showed a large
4:04
bright blob with visible structure,
4:07
while NASA's version showed a compressed
4:09
point source.
This matters because when
4:11
you're studying an object that's
4:13
behaving as unusually as Atlas, every
4:15
structural detail counts.
Ray has been
4:18
observing this comet for weeks now, and
4:20
he's consistently seeing a cone-shaped
4:22
front structure with elongated features
(Thats an actual image of 3I/ATLAS from another
amateur astrophotogropher, not Ray.)
4:25
and what appear to be spiral jets in the
4:27
back.
(Was shown in a video featuring our buddy Avi.
Those are actual images
and if you don't think so?
Then why are multiple independent ground based astrophotographers
seeing the same thing and the published NASA images being
over processed?
And how did me and honey say early on that this
was exactly what would happen?
That NASA and other authorities could only conceal this for so long?
That to many people on the ground would be looking at it?
Avi nailed it himself early on:
"The effort of gatekeepers to hide
anomalies and maintain
traditional thinking
will ultimately fail."
Preliminary Anomalies of 3I/ATLAS
Avi Loeb Medium 7/12/25
Even though he himself
seems more and more like a gatekeeper
these days.
Remember this:
Luke 12:2
There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed,
and nothing hidden that will not be made known. )
But NASA's heavily processed image
4:30
strips away all that complexity. The
4:32
question becomes, are we seeing what's
4:34
actually there or what the processing
4:36
algorithm thinks should be there?
So I
4:39
kept processing the picture to see if I
4:42
can get any closer to way the published
4:45
picture is going to look. I wasn't
4:47
successful getting to that point. I
4:50
believe the interpretation of those
4:53
pictures to me looks like there is a
4:59
scientific term called PSF. It's called
5:02
point spread function.
5:04
So you know where that light is and how
5:07
it is spread.
I believe they must have
5:10
applied some
5:13
model to figure out maybe the dot of the
5:18
light where it is coming from
5:21
and
5:23
did not show like this big blob that we
5:26
are seeing whenever we see the three
5:29
atlas that's the difference that I saw
5:33
when I immediately looked at the picture
5:36
I'm going to share that picture with you
5:38
and I'll show you the differences
5:40
between those two pictures.
So when I
5:42
was looking at the pictures that I was
5:44
taking, I'm getting more and more clear
5:48
that three atlas is more like a cone
5:51
shape in the front
5:53
and it's a
5:56
elongated object in the back and there
5:59
are these spherical or a tornado kind of
6:03
jets that are spinning in the back.
6:06
That's how I'm seeing now three atlas no
6:10
matter how many times I take a picture I
6:13
think that's the structure it is
6:15
revealing itself
uh but this point light I did not
6:20
understand so I went ahead and started
6:22
processing those
I'm going to share
6:24
those pictures with you
so please do
6:26
subscribe to my channel I take pictures
6:30
of comets asteroids
6:34
various astron astronomy videos. So when
6:38
I post these new videos, you'll get a
6:40
notification.
Uh let me show you the
6:43
data that I captured and I processed the
6:47
Hubble picture. So this is the picture
6:50
NASA released. They took a picture
6:53
couple of days ago on December 4th
6:57
and it shows that point of light.
6:59
Let's break down what Ry discovered when
7:01
he compared images.
NASA's released
7:03
image shows a sharp point of light at
7:05
the core, almost star-like, surrounded
7:08
by a hexagonal diffraction pattern and
7:10
the blue coma. But when Ry processed the
7:12
raw 272nd Hubble exposures himself, he
7:16
got something entirely different.
The
7:18
raw data shows a larger, more diffuse
7:21
central region with visible structure
7:23
extending backward.
There's no clean
7:25
point source in the raw files.
Now NASA
7:28
isn't lying.
(Horseshit.)
They're applying
7:30
sophisticated algorithms designed to
7:32
mathematically determine where the
7:34
actual nucleus is located within that
7:36
bright blob.
But those algorithms make
7:38
assumptions about what comets should
7:40
look like. Ray's concern, and it's a
7:42
valid one, is that these assumptions
7:44
might be smoothing out real structural
7:47
features.
Remember, three I atlas
7:49
isn't behaving like a typical comet.
7:51
Independent observers worldwide are
7:53
reporting unusual activity, rapid
7:55
brightness changes, and complex
7:57
structural features.
(That is the truth, so why isn't Avi Loeb
talking about any of the work that
independent observers are seeing?
Gatekeeper these days much Avi?)
When you apply
7:59
standard processing to non-standard
8:01
objects, you risk missing what makes
8:03
them unique.
Ray's backyard observations
8:05
with 40 to 60-second exposures are
8:08
showing jets, spiral structures, and
8:10
dynamic activity that simply aren't
8:12
visible in NASA's processed release.
(This is 100% exactly
what honey and I were talking
about in July.
As 3I/ATLAS gets closer to earth
(as it is doing now)
to many people are going to be able to see
that what we are being told about it
just simply isn't the case.)
The
8:15
272 exposures Hubble used were probably
8:18
too long. They oversaturated the image,
8:20
washing out fine details. Ray even
8:23
points out that previous Hubble
8:24
observations used 40-second exposures
8:27
and captured rotation and structural
8:29
spin. This time, the longer exposures
8:32
created one bright blob that reveals
8:34
less information than shorter exposures
8:36
would have.
(You really think that's not intentional?
You really think NASA didn't know
that longer exposures
with 3I/ATLAS being closer
wouldn't:
"reveal less information
than shorter exposures
would have."
So why the switch
in the exposure times then?
NASA simply doesn't want you
seeing this thing how it really is.
The lack of images from Oct 3rd when it was closest to Mars
from their best closest instrument HIRISE camera on the reconnaissance Orbiter and the fuzzy images they have released since etc.
tell you exactly what's up.
And by the way NASA,
what was this picture of
that you released right as 3I/ATLAS
was passing close by Mars?
They never said
and nobody is even
asking that question anymore.)
8:37
So, I was intrigued with this point of
8:39
light and I
8:42
went ahead and downloaded that image.
8:46
This is just a JPEG file.
8:49
And I try to zoom into this file. This
8:52
is the file that NASA released. And I
8:55
zoomed into this file. This is showing
8:57
that core with a point of light. And
9:01
also it shows that hexagon kind of look.
9:04
I think that requires a separate video.
9:08
Internet is going crazy over that
9:12
particular um
9:15
structure. But anyway
9:18
coming back to this part.
9:21
So I'm more interested in this one
9:23
single point of light.
How did NASA got
9:26
or Hubble got that picture?
9:29
So I went ahead and into the website
9:34
from Hubble website. I downloaded the
9:36
pictures
9:38
and you are seeing
9:40
the four pictures that were downloaded
9:44
that were taken on the 4 December 4th
9:48
and these were actually 270 seconds
9:51
exposure.
9:53
I would have preferred if they had taken
9:55
like 40 seconds or 25 seconds. The image
9:58
is so bright. We would have seen more
10:01
structure if they had taken smaller
10:03
exposure.
But anyway, it's almost like 4
10:06
and 1/2 minutes, 4 minutes and 30
10:08
seconds. So, these are way too bright
10:10
pictures.
(And nobody thinks
NASA knew that would be the case?
Are you serious?
)10:13
are the ones that I downloaded from the
10:15
website.
10:20
So, they are pretty much like black and
10:22
white pictures.
10:25
The coloring we have to do
10:29
and you see that picture right it's not
10:33
a point of light
10:39
whereas the pictures that we are seeing
10:43
on the released website is
10:47
like a point of light
I'm just putting
10:50
that side by
10:54
So
10:56
Hubble took the pictures that we
10:58
normally get which is a little bit
11:01
bigger uh cone in the front whereas this
11:04
one I'll zoom in for you.
11:08
It becomes like slightly smaller, right?
11:11
It just becomes like a small point of
11:13
light.
11:14
This side by side comparison is crucial.
11:16
On one side,
you have the raw Hubble
11:19
data processed by Ray, showing a large,
11:21
bright cone-shaped structure in the
11:23
front with visible extensions.
On the
11:26
other side, NASA's released image shows
11:28
a tiny compressed point with most of the
11:31
back structure missing. The jets and
11:33
streaks that Ray sees in the raw data
(from the actual downloaded
NASA images)
11:35
have been algorithmically removed or
11:37
compressed in the official release.
Now,
11:40
why does this matter?
Because three I
11:42
atlas is exhibiting behavior that's
11:44
unprecedented. Multiple independent
11:46
observers are documenting what appear to
11:48
be rotating jets, spiral plasma
11:50
formations, and a complex multicomponent
11:53
structure.
(Avi?
Brother?
Why no comments on what
multiple independent observers
are seeing on the ground?
Who has you by the balls sir?)
When you process those
11:55
features out of the image to create a
11:57
clean point source, you're potentially
11:59
discarding the most scientifically
12:01
interesting data.
(Thats why they did it yo.
Why did they switch
to a longer exposure time
when 3I/ATLAS was closer
unless it was to give them
the results they wanted?
"When you process those
features out of the image to create a
clean point source, you're potentially
discarding the most scientifically
interesting data." )
Ray isn't saying NASA
12:03
is wrong. He's saying their
12:05
interpretation prioritizes certain
12:07
assumptions over observable structure.
12:09
And here's something that should raise
12:11
eyebrows. Ray's amateur equipment is
12:13
capturing tail structures and coma
12:16
details that aren't visible in the
12:18
Hubble processed image.
Hubble is a
12:20
space telescope with no atmospheric
12:22
interference. Yet, the official release
12:25
shows less structural detail than
12:27
ground based observations.
(You don't think that's by design?
We have been yapping for weeks now about
how amateurs are getting better clearer images
from ground based amateur telescopes
than NASA is with Space Based Hubble etc.
We were talking about this exact thing happening
back in July.
It shouldn't be happening
(Amateurs outperforming NASA)
and why it is
aint exactly hard to figure out
as to why.
Nasa doesn't want people to see it as it is.
We were told it wouldn't be viewable
again till early December
but then shortly after perphilon
(Oct 29th)
it was observable in the eastern pre dawn sky.
NASA cant even get that right these days?
WTF?
HELLO?
ANYBODY HOME?)
The cosmic ray
12:29
hits visible in rays processed Hubble
12:32
files could have been removed with
12:33
standard techniques, but the structural
12:35
differences aren't about cosmic rays.
12:38
They're about fundamental processing
12:40
choices.
When Ray runs time-lapses on his
12:42
ground observations, he sees jets
12:45
swirling backward
into the solar wind.
(Nothing goes 37,000 KM outward
INTO
a 800,000 MPH wind.
Nothing.
See why they are trying
to over process the images
so you don't see it now?)
12:47
That dynamic behavior tells us something
12:49
about the physics of what's happening
12:51
with three I atlas.
12:52
It is missing
all that stuff in the back
12:56
and also this point and all these
12:59
streaks of
13:01
jets or whatever is coming out from
13:05
that.
It just becomes almost like
13:09
that point of light and the coma. That's
13:11
it.
(Because that is
all NASA wants you to see!)
So that got me intrigued to process
13:15
these images further. So I made these
13:18
images, colorized them, did the same
13:21
process like what NASA does.
13:24
And let me show you those ones. There's
13:27
several steps to do to get to that
13:31
point. But once I completed all those
13:34
steps, I got similar images like what
13:38
NASA got.
13:40
So I got these four images now. So these
13:43
four images are the ones that I could
13:47
compare with the pictures that NASA
13:51
took. I can't do any timelapse on these
13:53
because these are way too bright. And I
13:56
can run time lapse for you, but there is
13:59
nothing much to see.
14:01
You can't see the spin. And by the way,
14:04
this white stuff that you are seeing,
14:07
this is all cosmic rays that are hitting
14:10
the Hubble sensor.
14:13
There is a way to remove it. I didn't
14:15
remove it.
14:18
And you don't see the
14:22
coma spinning because the coma is like
14:24
just one big bright blob.
They should
14:26
have taken smaller exposures.
(NASA DOESNT KNOW THAT?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
See Luke 12:2 above.)
14:29
The previous NASA pictures were 40
14:31
seconds. We were able to actually get
14:33
the spin. Now since they're closer, they
14:37
should have taken lesser exposures like
14:40
small time and we would have got a
14:43
fantastic view. But this is what we have
14:46
to work with.
(At this point
how can anybody with a brain
that actually works
not know NASA doesn't want you to get
"a fantastic view")
14:48
But this picture is nowhere similar to
14:52
the picture that was released. The
14:55
picture was released more showing like a
14:59
point a small point and then lesser coma
15:02
there than the reality that you are
15:05
looking at.
I wanted to compare these
15:08
pictures with
15:10
the pictures that I was taking. So I'm
15:14
showing you the image comparison. So
15:16
this is the Hubble picture and I process
15:19
that.
This is the picture that was
15:21
released and this is the pictures that
15:24
we are taking in the backyard.
15:26
Still we are dominating in terms of the
15:29
coma, the tail, everything. I did not
15:33
see that stuff here for some reason.
15:37
This was 240
15:39
seconds. This is 60 seconds.
15:43
Think about what Ray just demonstrated.
15:45
His backyard telescope setup. amateur
15:48
equipment by space observatory standards
15:50
is revealing more structural detail in
15:52
the coma tail and jet features than what
15:56
appears in NASA's processed Hubble
15:57
image. The Hubble telescope cost
15:59
billions of dollars, orbits above
16:01
Earth's atmosphere, and has access to
16:03
the clearest possible views of space.
16:06
Yet, when it comes to capturing the
16:07
actual structural complexity of three
16:10
Atlas, groundbased observations provide
16:12
superior information.
Why?
(Because they don't want people
to see it as it really is.
Cause it is clearly
not a comet.
And that is what we both
said on July forth.)
Because the
16:15
raw data is being interpreted through
16:17
processing pipelines designed for
16:19
typical cometry behavior.
Ray's
16:21
60-second exposures show the full extent
16:23
of the coma visible tail structures and
16:26
the swirling jet activity he's been
16:28
documenting for weeks.
His time-lapses
16:31
show dynamic motion jets rotating and
16:33
spiraling backward. Meanwhile, the 270 second
16:37
Hubble exposures, while longer and
16:39
theoretically capable of capturing more
16:41
light, have been oversaturated and then
16:43
heavily processed to extract a
16:45
mathematical point source. The result is
16:48
an image that looks scientifically
16:49
clean, but may be missing the actual
16:52
phenomenon. This is exactly why
16:54
independent verification matters in
16:56
science. NASA has institutional
16:58
credibility,
(Not after their
"live event"
they dont.
They destroyed any:
"institutional credibility"
that day.)
massive resources, and
17:00
sophisticated technology, but they also
17:03
have standardized processing protocols
17:05
that assume certain behaviors. When you
17:07
encounter an anomalous object, those
17:09
standard protocols might not be
17:11
appropriate. Ray isn't working with an
17:13
agenda or predetermined conclusions.
17:15
He's just processing what he sees and
17:17
comparing it to official releases. And
17:20
the discrepancies are significant enough
17:22
that they warrant serious scientific
17:24
attention.
(100% agree.
So where is Avi on this?
Where is he on all the ground based observations
that are revealing more than the NASA images?
Why is he not talking about any of that?)
And on our time lapses, we
17:26
are seeing the jet going back in this
17:30
area. Right? I must have shown that in
17:32
the other videos. I can show you one
17:35
more time. So if you see our time
17:37
lapses, you should see the jet going
17:40
back like swirling into the wind kind of
17:42
thing. Right? That's the structure that
17:46
I'm getting more and more familiar now.
17:49
(Nothing goes 37,000 Km
into a 800,000 mph head wind.)
Right?
17:51
People are asking me to slow down some
17:54
of these videos like show it a bit
17:57
slower.
17:59
Put in time stamp when you are putting
18:01
the comment that I know like if I'm
18:04
going too fast running these things I
18:07
can slow it down.
18:08
What Rey has documented here goes beyond
18:10
just one comet or one set of images.
18:13
This is about the fundamental tension
18:15
between institutional science and
18:17
independent observation. NASA processed
18:20
those Hubble images using point spread
18:23
function, modeling a legitimate
18:25
technique designed to mathematically
18:27
pinpoint where light sources originate.
18:29
But PSF modeling is based on assumptions
18:32
about what you're looking at. When those
18:34
assumptions don't match reality, you get
18:37
results that are mathematically elegant
18:39
but potentially misleading.
(The misleading is obviously intentional.
Point blank.
At their "Live Event"
They (NASA) didn't talk about any of the 12 (or 13) anomalies
of 3I/ATLS,
they didn't mention
The IAWN "exercise.,
They didn't publish an image from the reconnaissance orbiters HIRISE camera
from Oct 3rd when 3I/ATLAS was closest to mars etc.
You can not seriously look at that body of evidence just presented
and hope to make a case for:
"potentially misleading"
by doing all what they have to date?
NASA has proven beyond a reasonable doubt
they are being
INTENTIONAL MISLEADING.)
Ray
18:42
downloaded the same raw files NASA used,
18:45
processed them with standard
18:46
astronomical techniques, and arrived at
18:49
fundamentally different conclusions
18:51
about what the images show.
His
18:53
processed Hubble data reveals a large
18:55
structured object with visible
18:57
extensions and complex features. NASA's
19:00
release shows a compressed point source
19:02
with most structural details removed.
19:05
Now, let's be clear about what this
19:06
means.
NASA isn't fabricating data or
19:10
deliberately hiding information.
(Oh Yes they are.
You gotta look at the entire body of evidence presented above that supports that conclusion, not just the images that Ray downloaded from NASA and then compared to what they published publicly.
The other video I watched of Rays didn't have this narrator.
I dont know where he came from or why he is in this video
but everything else he has said up to this point I was fine with.
But
"NASA isn't...
deliberately
hiding information"
Is 100% Bull Shit.
The fact NASA didn't even mention
ONE ANOMALY
about 3I/ATLAS at their "live event"
(let alone the other evidence listed above)
disproves that notion all together.
Ray and whoever is doing the narration
(seems AI overlaid audio vocal if you ask me)
seem a lil afraid to say the truth as explained above.
It's like they know they are on to something
(and will be even more as 3I/ATLAS comes closer to earth)
in the discrepancy's between
the NASA images Ray downloaded
and the ones they released publicly.)
They're
19:12
applying standard processing techniques
19:14
that work well for typical comets.
But
19:17
three Atlas isn't typical.
Independent
19:20
observers worldwide have been
19:22
documenting unusual behavior, rapid
19:24
brightness fluctuations, complex jet
19:26
activity, rotation patterns that don't
19:28
match standard cometry models.
(Avi has been talking about those points all along
so why isn't he talking bout the fact that amateur ground based observations
are revealing more than what NASA is choosing to release.
Avi?
Your credibility is on the line buddy.)
When you
19:31
apply standard processing to
19:33
non-standard objects, you risk smoothing
19:35
out the very features that make them
19:37
scientifically interesting.
Ray's
19:39
ground based observations consistently
19:41
show a cone-shaped forward structure
19:43
with spiral jets rotating in the back.
19:46
His time-lapses captured dynamic motion
19:48
jets swirling into the solar wind
(Nothing can extend out 37,000 km
into a 800,000.
You can not build a technology
that circumvents the laws of physics.
Sunday, November 9, 2025
It's not a technological problem...(3I/ATLAS)
It's a
laws of nature
problem.)
coma structures rotating.
19:51
These aren't
19:53
artifacts or processing errors. Multiple
19:56
observers with different equipment in
19:58
different locations are seeing similar
20:00
features. The fact that amateur
20:02
groundbased equipment is capturing more
20:04
structural detail than processed Hubble
20:06
images should concern the astronomical
20:09
community.
(And where is Avi Loeb's concern
in talking about all of this?)
Hubble's raw data contains
20:11
the information
Ray proved that by
20:13
processing it himself.
(So why was it over processed
and the exposure times longer?
Couldn't have been to conceal it right?)
But the
20:15
interpretation pipeline being applied to
20:17
that data is designed for objects
20:20
behaving according to established
20:21
models.
(It aint the interpretation pipeline.
That had nothing to do with the NASA
"live event" where anomalies etc
were intentionaly withheld.)
When objects don't behave
20:23
according to those models, you need to
20:25
adjust your processing approach, not
20:28
force the data to fit predetermined
20:30
expectations.
20:32
This is exactly what independent
20:34
researchers like Ray bring to the table.
20:37
Without institutional pressures to
20:38
conform to existing models, without
20:41
publication requirements or peer-review
20:43
politics, independent observers can
20:45
simply report what they see. Rey has
20:48
been transparent about his entire
20:50
process. He's shown you the NASA
20:52
release, the raw Hubble files, his
20:54
processing steps, and his ground based
20:57
observations for comparison.
The 270 second
21:00
Hubble exposures
were probably a mistake
(That doesn't explain the intentional withholding of information at the NASA live event whether it be the IAWN exercise, 3I/ATLAS anomalies, or not releasing an image from the HIRISE camera on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter from Oct 3rd when 3I/ATLAS was closest to Mars.
All of those instances were mistakes as well?
Right...sure...gotcha...)
21:03
for an object this bright and active.
21:05
Previous Hubble observations used
21:07
40-second exposures and successfully
21:09
captured rotation and structural
21:11
changes. The longer exposures this time
21:14
oversaturated the core, creating one
21:17
massive bright blob that washes out fine
21:19
details.
(Everything else NASA has here as listed above
done shows intent
but that doesn't?
Come on now)
Then applying aggressive PSF
21:22
processing to that oversaturated data
21:25
compressed everything down to a point
21:26
source, removing the structural
21:28
information that was still present in
21:30
the raw files.
(They don't want you to see it!)
Meanwhile, Ray's 40 to
21:33
60 sec exposures from his backyard
21:36
preserve structural detail specifically
21:39
because they don't oversaturate.
(But NASA didn't do that on purpose?
You really think that?
)21:41
isn't about amateur versus professional.
21:43
It's about appropriate exposure times
21:46
and processing choices for the specific
21:48
object you're observing.
What makes
21:50
Ray's work particularly valuable is his
21:52
consistency. He's been imaging three I
21:55
atlas for weeks, documenting its
21:57
evolution, and the structural features
22:00
he sees are reproducible across multiple
22:02
nights and multiple exposures. That's
22:05
not cherry-picking data or seeing
22:07
patterns that aren't there. That's
22:09
systematic observation.
When you combine
22:11
his ground observations with his
22:13
independent processing of the Hubble raw
22:15
data, a clear picture emerges. Three
22:19
Atlas has significant structural
22:21
complexity that's being lost
(INTENTIONALY!)
in NASA's
22:23
standard processing pipeline.
The spiral
22:26
jets, the cone-shaped forward structure,
22:29
the dynamic rotation, these are real
22:31
observable features that deserve
22:33
scientific attention, not algorithmic
22:35
removal. If you want to understand
22:37
what's actually happening with three eye
22:39
atlas, you need to look at multiple data
22:42
sources, including independent
22:44
ground based observations that aren't
22:46
filtered through institutional
22:48
processing assumptions.
Ray's giving us
22:50
that unfiltered view, and it's revealing
22:53
a comet far more complex and active than
22:56
the official images suggest.
Comets don't do this:
The
22:58
astronomical community needs more
23:00
independent researchers willing to
23:02
download raw data, process it
23:04
themselves, and ask uncomfortable
23:06
questions when the results don't match
23:09
official releases. That's how science
23:11
advances, not by accepting processed
23:13
images at face value, but by verifying,
23:16
questioning, and comparing multiple
23:18
approaches to the same data.
If you
23:20
found this analysis valuable, support
23:22
independent astronomical research by
23:25
subscribing to Ray's Astrophotography.
23:27
He's documenting three eye atlas in real
23:30
time with no institutional filters, no
23:33
processing assumptions, just raw
23:35
observation and transparent methodology.
23:38
Share this video with anyone interested
23:40
in comets, astronomical imaging, or the
23:43
importance of independent scientific
23:45
verification.
23:47
Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Are
23:49
the processing differences concerning to
23:51
you? Should NASA release less
23:53
aggressively processed versions of
23:54
Hubble images alongside their official
23:57
releases?
The conversation about how we
23:59
interpret astronomical data is just
24:02
beginning, and your voice matters. Keep
24:05
watching the skies.
Keep questioning
24:07
official narratives.
And remember,
24:09
sometimes the clearest view comes not
24:10
from billion-dollar space telescopes,
24:13
but from dedicated observers in their
24:15
own backyards. Asking the right
24:17
questions.
(Agreed!)
Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
If there was ever a time?
Its right now.
"Tommorrow only exist
on the calendar of a fool."
And:
"you will be saved."
Doesn't mean from what's coming
oh no no no no,
but rather your soul
shall be saved
from eternal separation
from God
with no chance of reconciling,
HELL.
No comments:
Post a Comment