Mind you, the gas is all at the same temperature, yet it will be quite dark at most wavelengths.
Now if I put in a blob of cooler, denser gas, it will
emit BB radiation. In fact, at 6000K it might give off a solar-like spectrum. So at both 5010 and 5030 Angstroms it will give off a bit of light. At 5030 it will be brighter than the hotter, thinner gas, but at 5010 it will be far dimmer.
Do you see this? The blob is cooler than the thin gas, but will emit at 5030 while the thin gas will not.
This is why your entire thesis here is incorrect. As you have been told many, many times, you are assuming the Sun is emitting thermally like a dense gas. This is way oversimplifying what's really happening.
The Sun is of course emitting thermally, but there are many non-thermal processes as well. The magnetic fields are a huge part of that. It is these non-thermal processes that are driving the images you are trying to interpret.
As I told you very
clearly back at the old BABB, you cannot just look at an image and interpret it as you wish. You need to understand the underlying physics, and it is clear from everything you have been posting here for weeks that you do not understand those physics.
People here have been incredibly patient with you, but my own patience is running out. In this post alone I have given you enough information to figure out a lot of what's going on, and there are dozens of earlier posts by other people imploring you to look into the basic physics of those images. From your post I quoted above it appears to me you are ignoring this advice, since you still talk about BB radiation when it is not pertinent to the images. I strongly
urge you to get a book on plasma physics (like Osterbrock's "Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae") or at least read up on line versus continuous emission before posting here again. You are in very real danger of violating Rule 13 about posting arguments such as these.