Found an interesting NASA picture, need help.

Ok, i have far too much time on my hands at work, but found this as i was skimming the net for unusual things, as we do.
And found this picture on some website, no real details, only that the author of that page believes they are UFO's.

What do you think, here's the link.

www.azuredoor.freeserve.co.uk...

And the cropped part of the image they are referring to.



The picture can be verified here.

spaceflight.nasa.gov... 107e05070.html

So is it a light phenomenon?
Or something they forgot to airbrush out.

The photo is so abstract its difficult to id anything there. I assume the large bright object in the center is the sun.

I don't know what the objects above the main object are. If independent objects, they are shining with an intensity approaching that of the sun. If they are between the sun and the camera, they probably should appear as shadows.

If I were looking for a mundane explanation...I would lean toward an effect caused by bright lights reflecting internally in a camera or on a lense.

The full size photo makes me lean heavily toward a reflection artifact. Primarily because the objects appear under the horizon. (Actually above the horizon, but I think the image has the Earth on top. You know what I mean.)

[edit on 25-7-2006 by MrPenny]

I assume the large bright object in the center is the sun.

Yes.

What struck me is the third object far back, if this is a light reflection of some kind, why is this not illuminated the same way as the rest?
If that makes sense.


Thanks MrPenny for your comments.

It's further away from the light source.

Originally posted by Mogget
It's further away from the light source.

Meaning that it is an object?

And catches less light.

Or is the same light relection but further away???

Originally posted by Denied
What struck me is the third object far back, if this is a light reflection of some kind, why is this not illuminated the same way as the rest?
If that makes sense.

If it's a light reflection (which I believe it is), that one would be dimmer because it's a reflection of a reflection. If you look at the full size image right near that area, there's a even dimmer "object", which would be the reflection of that reflection.

Here's my "interpretation" of it. The sun hits the camera lens and into that magic part of the camera that takes the picture (for the life of me I don't know what that's called); that much is obvious. Some of that light reflects off the inside of the camera at a given angle and hits the glass of the lens again. Glass has two reflective sides (the front and the back), so you get two reflections. Based on the index of refraction, you get the two reflections slightly apart from each other. These hit that magic part at a slightly different angle than the sun did, so you now have two extra spots.

These two spots are rather bright, so they're going to do the same thing--you can use your fingers to estimate that the distance between the sun and the first set of spots is the same as the distance between the first set and the second set. The sun hits the camera at an angle of X degrees; that light reflects back to the glass at the same angle, back to the camera at the same angle, then back to the glass and back to the camera again at the same angle. Keeping the angles the same will keep the distances the same--vice versa too, keeping the distances the same means the angle's the same.

(Note: I'm using the distance between the first spots and the center of the bright thing we're assuming is the sun, not the edge of it.)

If you had super good eyes (and a much more sensitive camera) you'd see quite a few more spots like that I'm sure, all at the same distance from each other as the first.

That's my take on the situation--index of refraction and angle of reflection, basic high school physics with a touch of geometry thrown in for kicks.

Unfortunately, no depth of field can truly be determined in this photo. We can't say with certainty that the third object is closer, farther away, or at the same depth than the other objects. Its a painters trick that an object can be made to look farther away by simply muting its brightness and color.

The third object is actually a group of dimmer objects. Blowing the image up in an image editor can show this. I'm going to stick with reflections and the relative brightness of objects is a result of layered optics.

Edit to add:
Hmmm, the previous poster states it pretty good.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by MrPenny]

Meaning that it is an object?

Meaning that it is some kind of reflection or lens flare that is further away from the light source in the picture.

Seriously, I don't mean any disrespect, but spending too much time on pictures like this that have absolutely no useful data in them at all is pointless. I look at a picture like that, and instantly think "reflection/lens effect". I then disregard it entirely.

It's like when people film "lights" in the night sky, and wonder whether they are UFOs or not. In short, if the light just sits there, or travels in a steady, straight line, then forget it. It isn't worth bothering about. You should only give it more of your time if it does something unusual.

What was it that someone said once ?..........

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Ambiguous, blurred, indistinct photos are not extraordinary evidence.


[edit on 25-7-2006 by Mogget]

You should only give it more of your time if it does something unusual.

I am not versed in reflections, but i did find the picture unusual.
Its better to ask, than to never.



[edit on 25-7-2006 by Denied]