Summary of flashes and marks since 2009 (intensity rating Joules / 10^14) all system III coords :    Click HERE for one possible simulation of flashes since 2009

Explusion Mark -- July 19, 2009:  Enormous black mark "Wesley mark" spotted (the actual internal event to cause this occurs only ~16 hours earlier)  -57, 305

With this "Wesley mark" there was verified silica ejection, this forced them to change a theory they did not want to change concerning asteroids hitting Jupiter (Jupiter was to have cleared out all asteroids millions of years ago). Also, the Wesley mark did not produce an "impact halo" (compression waves, "eyebrows", etc.). 

Our theory says the silica sourced from Jupiter's core! (no asteroids needed!)

--1. June 3, 2010 (8):  1st verified flash (antipodal to "2")  -16.5, 159

"The flash occurred close to Jupiter's limb in the equatorial region, at longitude 159°W (system III) and planetographic latitude 16.5°S."

"Gemini-N/NIRI and Keck/NIRC2 surveyed reflected sunlight in strong CH4 absorption bands in the 1.5–2.3 μm region but observed no evidence for high-altitude debris. VLT/VISIR, Gemini-S/T-ReCS, and IRTF/TEXES searched for thermal perturbations and particular chemistry in the impact site (7–25 μm) but saw no signatures of (1) excess thermal energy, (2) ammonia gas dredged from the troposphere by the rising fireball, or (3) stratospheric silicate debris."

In short, they assumed "impact" from the start and went that direction.  They tried to claim the light signature was consistent with the impact theory but no other light theory has been tested or compared.  Furthermore, no heat signature or debris what-so-ever has been spotted with any of the flashes.  This is a problem for them since it constrains the objects to about 10 meters yet produces, somehow, a tremendous light outburst for 2 seconds that is easily imaged from Earth.  They used SL-9's (Shoemaker-Levy-9 comet) smallest detectable fragment to come up with a size model.  Since larger than 10m chunks were creating debris and heat in the SL-9 event, 10m was chosen as the likely max. diameter of these new and strange "impacts".

--2. August 20, 2010 (7):  2nd verified flash (antipodal to "1")  +17, 337  "I personally measured the position of the flash roughly as (140 (sys II),+17) including error of +- a few degrees."  Dr.Junichi Watanabe   (latitude cross-verified below). 

As such this location is a near-antipode to the previous flash in June!  Of course, this implies an electrical internal source.

There has been a suggestion that this flash was as far as 21.5 north but this cannot be. This flash was clearly at the edge of the NEB -- therefore it cannot be farther north than +18 degrees latitude as explained below: 

"The visible surface of Jupiter is divided into several bands parallel to the equator. There are two types of bands: lightly colored zones and relatively dark belts.The wider Equatorial Zone (EZ) extends between latitudes of approximately 7°S to 7°N. Above and below the EZ, the North and South Equatorial belts (NEB and SEB) extend to 18°N and 18°S, respectively."   Article about dynamics of Jupiter  Wiki article about belts and zones  Jupiter belt description  Flash image showing the event at the northern edge of the NEB  Article with two more observer's videos showing location at edge of NEB

--3. September 10, 2012 (13):  3rd verified flash and was most massive flash seen to date on Jupiter -- +2, 264 

"The flash location has been refined to Long= 345 deg, Lat = +2 deg in system I." (+2, 264 for sys III)

--4. March 17, 2016 (15 est.): 4th verified flash, most massive yet, viewed on limb of Jupiter rising high above the surface -- +12.4, 297.4

Above - Direct side View of Jupiter marks and flashes

--5. May 26, 2017 (9 est.) - 5th verified flash at 51 North, 292 Longitude (Sys III) - Latest flash initially detected by Sauveur Pedranghelu, a French astronomer. (+51, 292).

Flash Imaging Analysis Below

(scroll to bottom for table with best estimate: "Verifiability" scenario)

Please realize no debris or heat signature was spotted for the 5 flashes that have been verified!

We have one pair of antipodal flashes in 2010 and another single flash imaged in Sept 2012 and another one on 3/17/2016.  What does this mean for likely TOTAL flashes?  Let's summarize:

   a) 50% of the surface of Jupiter at ANY time, we cannot see because it's not facing us.  This means any flashes on that unseen side take away 50% of the image-able flashes.

   b) 20% of the time, due to Jupiter being too close to the Sun for purposes of viewing angles (Jupiter-Sun conjunction), we cannot get decent images of Jupiter.  This takes away an additional 10% of the flashes that we might have seen since we've already accounted for 50% of these in "a" (so 20%*1/2 = 10%).

   c) An estimated additional 10% or the remaining (this is a generous amount) of the viewable time (when Jupiter is not in conjunction), astronomers, pro and amateur, who would be able to image a flash are not imaging at the right time to catch one or they image it automatically but don't know they have because they don't check all frames for such a thing. 

That leaves us with the knowledge of at most only 30% [100 - (50+10+10)] of all flashes (flashes that don't leave a scar) that have actually occurred recently, assuming flashes are ongoing, whether you believe they are impacts or not.

We have a supposed scar from a very large impact event in July of 2009.  This would add another event to the conventional theory count of impacts.  Since 2009 that would make 6 impact events.  Since this July 2009 event (whatever the cause) left a multi-week scar, it was detectable over many days.  BUT, assuming they are all comet/asteroid impacts, that leaves us with an even higher total for ALL events, detected and not detected.

Since the standard theory says the reason we saw the July 2009 event was because the impacting object was so large.  That same theory says that the ratio of small to large impactors is very high, that is to say: it's hundreds of times more likely that a small impactor will hit than a large one.

The theory being pushed by the mainstream says that we did not see scars or heat for the smaller comets/asteroids because the mass of the impactors was too low.  This leaves us with the vast majority of any impact event occurring to simply flash at us without leaving a scar, yet we are supposed to believe the larger ones that leave a scar do happen, but are rare (this thinking has comically constrained the size of object to create a flash yet leave no debris or heat - they are saying the objects must be near 10m dia., not much larger, not much smaller).

One angle being pushed about why we are imaging so many events on Jupiter is that technology has increased for the amateur astronomer to be able to catch these events.  However, the rapidity of increase in events in the last few years has far outpaced the growth of technology in that same time, so this view does not hold water.  Added to this is the incredibly bad odds of impactors actually hitting Jupiter to the extent that we see a large flash -- to the point that astronomers have felt compelled to drastically change the odds of these events happening solely based on multiple anomalous imaged Jupiter impacts in the last 6+ years.  This should give one pause to consider that SOMETHING ELSE VERY SIGNIFICANT instead is going on inside JUPITER in order to clearly see "massive dayside lightning".

Verifiability - means even more flashes = approx. 49 as of 5/26/17 (last flash)

Astronomers are reluctant to claim they imaged a flash unless it can be verified independently by another astronomer. All flashes so far have at least one backup verifier. There very likely have been several more actual flash events spotted caught only by a single observer. If this is true then the actual percentage of reportable flashes drops significantly from our optimistic 30% to closer to 10% (imaged and verified flashes -- we use .30 x .30 = .09 to get this general range). 
Now, using an average interval of 60 days between flashes (assuming this is the general time between flashes on average --78 days was the time span between 1 & 2), indeed we would currently be in the 10% range of verifiable imaged flashes compared to the total. This would assume around 6 total flashes of this sort per year are actually occurring and that we just happened to catch two verifiable ones in a row in 2010.  Other papers written on this subject claim there could be 6-30 potentially detectable flashes of this sort per year based on the few flashes we have detected.  So our estimate here is definitely conservative and on the low end of number of events.  '..this extrapolates to 6-30 "potentially detectable" impacts per year.'

Below is a chart illustrating this concept based on a flash occurring about once every 60 days. The numbers 1-5 are the first 5 verified imaged flashes, and the spaces between are flashes not adequately documented (44 more estimated up to 5/26/17).  Date ranges are shown at the bottom of the table.

The "%" is the ratio of (verified flashes / total flashes).  This would assume around 49 total flashes have occurred from 7/1/2009 (proposed Jupiter fusion event day) to 5/26/17 (latest flash) and we have only managed to adequately image around 10% of them to date, or 5 verified (the most recent 5/26/2017 would be in slot 49 shown here) :


Since our data set is still small, the numbers roughly estimated in this article could be adjusted quite a bit in the future.