There are 12 reader comments
• Oct 30 2003 • 7:06AM
definitely a hoax
• Oct 30 2003 • 8:37AM
Ok, the "it's a hoax" joke (and corresponding meta jokes) in response to remaindered links stops here, okay guys? It was maybe funny the first couple of times, but I don't want it developing into a "thing" that we do here because there's nothing else to say about a link. Legitimate "it's a hoax" wonderings are still OK.
And, FWIW, the pic is not a hoax...it was taken by a friend of a friend of mine.
• Oct 30 2003 • 10:05AM
I dont know why, but I had a gut feeling before I even read the comments that someone was gonna play the Hoax card. Its gotten quite old indeed.
• Oct 30 2003 • 11:22AM
Wow. Amazing.
• Oct 30 2003 • 12:18PM
It does seem more likely (well, to me) that the variations in lighting you see in the picture would be because of variations in the density of the smoke and corresponding amounts of sunlight allowed through, rather than because of the solar activity, though.
• Oct 30 2003 • 3:33PM
Hey, FOAF is credible enough for me. I linked to it...
• Oct 30 2003 • 6:57PM
I'm in San Diego and saw them with my own eyes.
• Oct 30 2003 • 6:59PM
I'm in San Diego and saw them with my own eyes.
• Oct 31 2003 • 12:37AM
matt: FWIW, In the last two bushfire seasons here in OZ, I've seen the same red orb sun, but without anything that looks like those spots. Bushfire smoke at these distances is relatively evently spread. Your hypothesis calls for extremely localised density changes.
So I'm gunning for real sun spots.
• Oct 31 2003 • 11:10AM
Here's another shot of the sun (avec sunspots) through the smoke.
• Oct 31 2003 • 1:10PM
Compelling....
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.
dowingba • Oct 29 2003 • 11:24PM
T minus 10 seconds until "HOAX" accusation...