Fantastic, great job Mike, and great pictures Fifteen, they are even really nice just to look at. Serioulsy though, theres alot of bs on this board but occasionaly someone pulls through and does some excellent work, good job guys! I wish i had something to submit to this board really but sadly I do not.

Anyways, great stuff

Yeah. Unless NASA (or whoever) starts taking insanely high resolution pictures, where zooming in does not degrade quality in any way, yes, you should base it off the original image. If you don't know what something is, changing it to resemble something is pure assumption and speculation.

A logical progression through your questions should be used to arrive at a logical conclusion. No assumptions should be made, nor should any bias be prelevant, arguing the facts until no facts currently known can explain the event/phenomenon/etcetera. If it can be explained, then it's hardly an enigma.

Basically, this is my suggestion. If you're unhappy with an answer, for example, NASA (could be anyone) then explore it yourself. If NASA says it's the intensity from unexplained bursts in an impossible-to-predict environment, then explore it. Research how these cameras work, research what objects currently known in space could cause these discrepencies. Discard all assumptions, and research only facts. That way, if no facts can explain the phenomenon, you're free to speculate. There's no reason to speculate on something when there's an answer already waiting to be found.

That's if you're serious in trying to find the "truth", if you're unhappy with the answers. Believe me, I think there are definitely unexplained things out there, possibly extra-terrestrial life being one of them, but I'd do the above first before I'd be willing to jump on a speculative conclusion.

Agreed!! But I've seen all the so called explanations. Doesn't jell. Officially, most of these 'objects' photographed near the Sun are explained away as:

Saturn.
A far off galaxy.
A shining star.
A comet.
A CCD glitch.
Dust on the lense.
Overheated imaging circuits on SOHO.
Radiation.
Reflections.
And so on....The only explanation left is Santa on his sleigh, on his way home for Christmas!!!

There are approx 300 'natural' explanations for UFOs! But NONE mentions that they could be UFOs! Why is that?

Be that as it may, here is a good SOHO pic of a 'Sun Cruiser'. Of course, it could be swamp gas too!!


SOHO/LASCO pic of a 'Sun Cruiser'.

Yes it's swamp gas mikesingh, i have seen that in my back yard while taking out the trash. When i saw it i put on my 3D glasses i got from the movies and it disappeared and was actually a moth.

Mike, I appreciate your pics and sharing them with us but, as i have mentioned in other threads before, I am absolutely and 200% with deny ignorance and finding the truth. However, as it is said "the truth is in HERE", no matter how phenomenal the pics, there will always be skeptics, which is again, healthy, but sometimes we are shown something that is seriously against the grain and it WILL be debunked and WILL be a "glitch".

If I, for example, had to pick up my video camera and be shown around a UFO and taken inside and interview the occupants and use their "facilities" and eat their cakes that their momma baked and show them how the ride-on works and film the "captain" cutting my grass and go on a fishing trip and then watch them eat the fish through their ears, it would be debunked.

What we tend to miss is, with all the debunking and one liners, we are not really looking at the possibilities and discussing them - as MUCH as we NEED to deny ignorance, sometimes we perhaps present more ignorance than we try and deny by slapping on blinkers. I don't post in many UFO threads because i don't usually have much value to add so just watch them and follow the topic. But I do enjoy your posts which tend to have some good quality pics and comment/posts.

I don't think anyone actually has all the answers but in a collaborative effort, as we see many times, even in this thread, we can get closer to the truth. Not whether they ARE UFOS or NOT, the fact is, where there is smoke there is fire but we will never see the wood for the trees - but i DO, personally, enjoy your posts AND (some) others in this forum. I also follow the links posted by others because that is an important part of getting to the truth. Now whether ther are solar flares or UFOs, I cannot tell, but again, where there is smoke there is fire - usually.

reply to post by shearder

---

shearder, great post!! I appreciate your objectivity and analysis. Heck! The truth is out there, but getting 'there' is a problem of mind boggling proportions! (For now at least!)

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh

---

Thanks Mike. What I also appreciate is that you "hang" with your thread and add comment and take criticism with a smile and try to back up any claims as much as possible. Wish i could add more value but as much as i enjoy this stuff, i haven't been investigating it a hell of a lot till about a year ago because of time etc etc.

BUT DAMN, it would be cool when this is proven i hope i am alive then.

Ok I've heard the pros and cons on these pics. Tell me how to debunk this shot I captured before Nasa deleted it. CCD burnout? then what the hecck is that beam all about.

Nasa Soho Beam Image




Truth2u

WOW, man!!! How and where the devil did you get that if NASA deleted it? If they did, then it's obvious they wanted to hide the smoking gun!! Great find!

Now what could that be? The skeptics are gonna be falling over themselves trying to pile on the usual explanations - CCD glitches, circuit malfunction, exposure problems and what have you!

I'm waiting! Cheers!

I've been watching Soho for many years but this day I knew I had something. The fact that they took it off the server says it all. Another curious point about Nasa I challenge anyone to find a picture of the space station the shuttle or any thing orbiting the Earth with just one star in the backgound. They go to great lenghts to eliminate them my guess it's alot easier then aribrushing every ufo in the thousands of pictures published.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by truth2u]

Here is the realtime link for those that have not seen it.

Nasa Soho Realtime Images

Hmmm...Now how didn't I think of that? A very valid point! But I wonder why they didn't brush out the UFOs in the tether incident? I guess doing that in a video is pretty tough?

Cheers!

One word sums it up for Nasa on this thread "GOTCHA"

reply to post by mikesingh

---

Maybe NASA removed it to stop such speculation as this?
Sometimes the simplest answers are the real ones

reply to post by Chorlton

---

you are right the simplest answer is usually right ..

It looks like a spaceship , most people that see it think its a space ship , nasa tries to hide it , well for me the simples answer would be ..guessed it ..a space ship ..

or would you go with mysterious glitches , sun swamp gasses , ice particles that survied the heat of the sun or other rocks for that matter that didnd burn up of the heat of the sun .. ?

So you tell me what is more simple if you want to use ockham's razor on this one ?

Another beam image


Former Canadian Minister
Of Defense Admits UFO's Are Real!

this "sun cruiser" reminds me of some kind of aztec figure. great posts!

Forgot about this post/Saturn "ringmakers" article.... does anyone have any updated "ringmakers"/e'book of either of these articles?

This thread alone is worth keeping active for awhile. . . .

As far as I know, there are no e-books available on the Ringmakers of Saturn, if that's what you're looking for. You can try and lay your hands on Norman's book. I haven't read it, but according to John, it's worth it!

Cheers!

I am going to be a stick in the mud. Some of these aren't UFOs and there are actually that I would put down to CCD glitch. Others I can't explain however !

The claims that that UFO/Saturn looking object is actually Saturn is bull #, as its been stated Saturn is far too far away to look that big, some of the cylindrical objects I would say maybe comets infected with the CCD glitch. There are some though that I cannot identify, especially the one thats claimed to be 'Saturn'. To the person who posted that, never trust anything NASA says when it claims an object in a picture isn't a UFO when it looks so much like one

I will say without doubt though that all of those photos are interesting

Here'a another object seemingly breaking up near the sun. Resembles a similar object shown earlier on this thread. It cannot be a comet for the simple reason that the direction of the tail is not what it should be. Is it a case of the proverbial 'missing pixels'?


Courtesy: SOHO/LASCO

Object enlarged and filtered...



Cheers!

[edit on 15-10-2007 by mikesingh]