i must admit that the first pic well... looks .... like some sort of artificially (man ?) made object

but couldn't the second one be a comet , an asteroid strafing the sun's corona or chromosphere hence creating a tail which looks like a long cylindrical object ? Does it make sense ?

Great pics FiFtEeN.

I specially liked the last two. What in the name of Jupiter is that huge translucent 'tunnel' with eddies? Could it be the wake of a giant spaceship or, as NASA would say, a CCD glitch??

[edit on 29-9-2006 by mikesingh]

Great pictures fifteen... a good solid piece of 'no UFO's NASA??!!' ...

what evers happening out there, NASA has the soho to keep an eye out at the very least.... but like all ways their keeping it shut tight to stop us all from panic... lol i for onr would love to know what it is thats going on out there!

Nice pictures.

I'm not really that brainy lol but what is CCD's?

There is something out there........ just somewere

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Spacedeck]

mikesingh, how certain are you these photo's are real?

if this is true then that thing has to be almost the size of earth..


nice pics thx for them

nice threads mike, good pics and sources on saturn objects and sun objects, good read, and it's nice to see a thread with less bickering although there was some it was minimal and swift :0

I've seen the last picture posted by FiFtEeN before, except when I last read it it was thought to be an unknown planet, but this makes much more sense.

The objects in the pictures have to be ingelligently made. There is no way they're not. I don't really know what to say in this thread except that this might just be the proof we've been looking for..

There is NO WAY that the object in the first picture is Saturn. It's way too large, especially if you consider the distance that saturn is. Saturn should just be a blip like everything else.

So NASA just used a picture with an UFO on the Cassini Huygens site to illustrate why they loose contact with the probe for a few days....hmmm...I think not!

This topic title jogged my memory. I have to search through my many books but if I recall correctly one of Earth's original astronomers noted seeing an object cross the sun's disc a few hundred years ago.

OK, guys. Here's some more mind boggling stuff from Lizz Edwards. Saturn? Mars? Venus? I think there's something out there which is beyond comprehension! I don't believe for a moment that all these photographs have CCD glitches - a fairly common 'explanation' given by NASA etc.



The same object enhanced with different colored filters.

the pics are broken links for me.

But... you're editing those images. You're editing them until you find something you're happy with. Yes, it looks like a UFO... but that's not the original image. Instead of zooming in and reducing quality and parsing colour filters, take a look at the original image. You can't make a good guess on a manipulated image as to what the original looked like.

By mikesingh
Ecto, that was fairly simple. I just re-adjusted the size of the pic by increasing the pixel count. That's it!

By increasing the pixel count... where do the extra pixels come from? They come from the program trying to find a happy medium between surrounding pixels that'll fit in with the image. So in effect, you're putting in pixels that never existed. Zoom in with a program that doesn't distort pixels, such as paint (bad example, but it shows individual pixels).

By mikesingh
According to Lizz Edwards: "I am still amazed that NASA says that this is a CCD glitch.
After 15 months of examining these films how can a glitch be so constant?"

...Because unless you doctored the image afterwards, or the physical photo itself degrades, a photograph won't change itself years down the track. If this person meant 15 years, and this glitch still occurs, I would like to ask the person if they have any experience in CCD photography in space, and what they would like to suggest to remove the glitches in a very unpredictable environment.


FiFtEeN: I had a gander at those pics, and this is what I have to say.
1. I think it's quite cool, actually. Looks like a moth in space. Could very well be a glitch, but there's no size reference as to how big it is. It could be one metre from the camera and be a sort of space-moth thing, or it could be lightyears away and be totally immense.

2. Could be a glitch. We don't know what caused that to happen, so it makes no sense to speculate and form a conclusion on limited knowledge.

3. Looks to me to be consistent with that horizontal bleeding.

4. Probably the same as above, just on a more drastic level.

5. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

6. It's obvious in the top left corner that it's bled horizontally. To what the big thing down the bottom is, no idea.

7. Same picture as before.

8. Same image again? But that "ace of spades" looks cool. No idea what that is.

9. I'm assuming you mean that large column of flare (I assume) down the bottom. That looks bloody cool, but I wouldn't discount it more than something such as too much light intensity. There's circles within it overlapping, how cool.

10. I can't see anything?

Those are just my opinions of what I've read about NASA's explanations. I agree that there's something other than us out there, but many of these photos are pure speculation on something many people know next to nothing about, including myself... I can't in my right mind say any of them are spaceships or whatnot. I hope I offered the other side of the coin.

I have to say it... but I wish people would stop manipulating and doctoring images in order to prove something. These "filters" don't enhance the image. They destroy it's original integrity, and you have a new image - something you can't possibly base off the original unless you knew exactly what the image was before hand - which is not in this case.

It's the same as me, trying to BS my way through a university essay: more obscure than is needed, overinflated size, and anything I want it to be.

Originally posted by Xar Ke Zeth

I have to say it... but I wish people would stop manipulating and doctoring images in order to prove something. These "filters" don't enhance the image. They destroy it's original integrity, and you have a new image - something you can't possibly base off the original unless you knew exactly what the image was before hand - which is not in this case.

It's the same as me, trying to BS my way through a university essay: more obscure than is needed, overinflated size, and anything I want it to be.

OK, Xar, I gotta hand it to you. Good argument there!

But hell, what else can be done to arrive at a logical conclusion? Just leave the pics as they are? In other words, should you be satisfied with 'what you guess is what you see'? Shouldn't one go a step further to try and get nearer the 'truth'?

Of course, I'm not implying fudging photographs!! But doing something to get closer to solving the enigma? Is there any other way? Or should we just sit back and enjoy the SOHO pics suffixed with NASA/JPL's 'explanations' for the anomalies?