It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Amazing SOHO Photograph: UFO Formation Near The Sun!

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Dude, did you even read any of my posts, and if so did you comprehend them? Your inability to understand plain English confuses me a little.


Dude???!! No I can't comprehend your verbosity. The meat in your arguments is zilch! You keep going round in circles, with absolutely NOTHING to contribute! Hiding behind other people's petticoats for answers you have absolutely no clue to! You have yet to come up with a logical/technical explanation on those so called glitches which I contend they are anomalies that need answers to. It's amazing how you continue to stonewall the issue.

So may I please request you for the zillionth time to come out with some sort of an explanation on that triangle shown in the opening post?

Thanks! Awaiting your elucidation on that anomaly with bated breath!


And no, I wont tell you what they are or what causes them.


Oh? You won't tell me because you can't as you're clueless on this anomaly. Period.

Cheers!




posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   
No I wont, because the issue is too technical to boil down to your mental ability to comprehend, as demonstrated by your erroneous postings and inability to understand the basics of science.

Also, what will you learn if I spell it our for you? Nothing. If you think for a second your going to get a highly technical education about complicated scientific instruments and principles on ATS then that is a major part of your problem.

Again, good luck seeing more aliens in your mashed potatoes, and thanks for making those of us that are really interested in this hobby out to be total fools with your utter ignorance and nonsense.

Again (I'm typing REAL slow so you can understand) the process which creates such anomalies is highly technical, and is caused (verifiable as a matter of fact) by several things at the same time. To properly explain it to you, I would have to assume you understand the current scientific knowledge of the sun's composition, magnetics, radiation, etc, Soho's instrumentation, mechanical and electrical shielding, CCD technology (and the stuff they used is FAR different that what is in your $3 webcam) and many other things. I am sorry you do not see the bigger picture here and are jumping to ABSURD conclusions based on your ignorance of these things. But I am even more sorry to see how many people drool at your ignorant conclusions. It never ceases to amaze me how many people want to believe so bad they ignore the facts surrounding your allegations.

I speak for many, Mike, when I express concern for you being a part of the large ignorant group of people who seem to represent both ATS and the whole Ufology field to the general public. It is people like you that keep this subject in the realm of ridicule.

[edit on 3-12-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


Thank you ITF! You have been a great help to me, in understanding the intricacies of LASCO technology and the makeup of the sun!


And oh yes, I'd be extremely grateful if you can tell us who this 'large group of ignorant people on ATS' are, so that we can all call it a day and stop polluting the minds of the gullible here on ATS.

Thanks once again for your very educative posts!!

Cheers!




[edit on 3-12-2007 by mikesingh]



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Does anyone agree with me here...the first image looks like one of the Nasa STS shuttle videos where the ufos all make a pattern juts like that and one moves into the middle and lights up....

Maybe there trying to tell us somthing?



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
IgnoreTheFacts

I am sure that here on ATS are many people that will understand your explanation and that have the time and patience to explain it to the other people who do not understand it and that want to learn.

So, could you please post an explanation, as condensed as you think it possible, of how that sensor (I hope I am using the right words) works and how it produces those glitches?

Thanks.

 

mikesingh

Could you tell us why you think those things are a UFO formation and not something that was expelled from the Sun or any other common thing, an explanation of why you think those things are what you say would help those that don't see a UFO fleet to understand why you say that.

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
On topic...

Nice find, Mike!

Interesting anomaly, certainly looks like it could be what you suggest: A formation of unidentified objects.

Flagged and Stared!


[Off topic...]

Difficult for me to comprehend though is why some would be so desperately strident and offensively personal in their boorish attempts to denigrate and insult those of us who truly enjoy your speculative posts.

Pathetic, and sad, really.

Don't they have better things to do with their time?

Why don't they just start a thread in the "rants" section of BTS where they can all air their grievances together and pat each other on the back and reassure themselves that they alone hold the key to all sensible knowledge.

The reason being, I suppose, is the fact that by doing so, they wouldn't get the attention there that they so desperately crave here.

I find it amusing that they claim to represent "thousands" in their little two star, off topic rants, without providing any hard data to support this contention, and yet feel no shame whatsoever to rail on against the OP's perceived lack of quantifiable "proof."

To put it another way, they petulantly demand from the OP a standard that which they themselves are unwilling to apply to their own opinions.

Isn't that, oh I don't know, rather hypocritical?


[/Off-topic]


Again, nice going Mike for the 29 Flags and 26 stars this thread has garnered so far as of this posting.

As always, keep up the good work and rest assured we'll be here to enjoy the hunt with you.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
mikesingh

Could you tell us why you think those things are a UFO formation and not something that was expelled from the Sun or any other common thing, an explanation of why you think those things are what you say would help those that don't see a UFO fleet to understand why you say that.

Thanks.


ArMaP

Here’s why I think that these images are anomalous in nature and don’t seem to be the usual CCD glitches one sees in most LASCO images. In late 1998, Joe Gurman, one of the SOHO team members e-mailed a statement to the editor of CyberspaceOrbit.com that some of the anomalies were NOT debris from any of our spacecraft. If not, then let’s look at the other points:

> Notice the much defined geometric shape of that object. It doesn’t seem to be of natural origin.

> The sun is not known to throw up huge pieces of debris from its surface. The matter, in the plasma state, is mostly protons and electrons, with small numbers of helium nuclei (alpha particles), and traces of heavier ionized atoms. The solar output includes solar wind, (which consists primarily of charged particles, mostly hydrogen ions (protons and electrons), solar energetic particles which result in a flare of visible light, solar EM radiation and x-rays, and radio noise (flux). This object doesn’t fall under any of these categories.

> That object doesn’t conform to the characteristics of a comet.

> Notice the five circular objects in a near perfect semi circle around the triangular object. Can it be a natural configuration of space debris? I think not!

> The triangular object moves away leaving the spear shaped object at the same coordinates.

> This object emits a strange looking ‘beam’ in the subsequent image and remains in position.

I am aware that the ‘tracks’ or streaks seen in most images taken by SOHO are the result of the reflection of the objects' (debris?) apparent motion during the LASCO exposure times (typically 12 - 25 seconds). But this image does not fall in this category as it is TRIANGULAR in shape and not a streak. This includes the five circular objects in the southern quadrant of the ‘triangle’.

Well, keeping this in view, I think we need to further analyse this image in order to arrive at a definite conclusion. As for me, it is an anomaly that cannot be explained away with a conventional point of view.

Cheers!



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
> Notice the much defined geometric shape of that object. It doesn’t seem to be of natural origin.

Its not defined unless you are refering to the artificially generated enlargment. In the ORIGINAL picture its just a couple of pixels next to each other. Its about as defined as 1 pixel making a very geometric box.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka
Its not defined unless you are refering to the artificially generated enlargment. In the ORIGINAL picture its just a couple of pixels next to each other. Its about as defined as 1 pixel making a very geometric box.


Well the enlargement is not 'artificially generated'. It IS an actual enlargement of the object! And here it is with its edges defined.



It's not just a matter of pixels next to each other! And triangular/circular pixels???

Cheers!



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Is it possible we're looking at the background stars? I have this latest
SOHO image in which we can see the stars in the background. The
number of stars decline as we move towards the centre of the image
because of the brightness. In a CARONAGRAPH, the sun's disc is blocked
to obtain pictures of the Corona and so the center is brightest in all these
images. In fact, an artificial "solar eclipse" is created. Check it out at:

sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

Further, using SOHO coronagraph images, amateur astronomers are discovering pieces of a giant comet that broke apart in antiquity as the fragments zoom perilously close to the Sun. Then again, the Sun puts on a dynamic show with a series of swirling coronal mass ejections. Last but not least, many sungrazing comets discovered by SOHO appear to have come from the breakup of a single gigantic comet more than 2000 years ago.

Therefore if some unusual patterns are seen in these images, one is naturally tempted to relate it to something alien.






[edit on 4/12/07 by watapi]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesinghIn late 1998, Joe Gurman, one of the SOHO team members e-mailed a statement to the editor of CyberspaceOrbit.com that some of the anomalies were NOT debris from any of our spacecraft.
I don't see that on his e-mail


Subj: rogues page
Date: 6/1/00 5:24:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: gurman@gsfc.nasa.gov (Joseph B. Gurman)
To: bardsquill@aol.com

Hi -

You certainly have an interesting collection of non-solar, non-cosmic ray features observed by the SOHO LASCO coronagraphs on your: www.cyberspaceorbit.com... page.

I believe the LASCO team all agree that they are foreground features (i.e., not solar in origin), though I don't recall hearing much serious speculation on their origin. The length of the various tracks is a reflection of the objects' apparent motion during the LASCO exposure times (typically 12 - 25 seconds). Some of those that appear clearly to be out of focus have been estimated to be only a few meters in front of the SOHO spacecraft, and are therefore probably debris from the spacecraft itself. The sharper-appearing features could, however, be much farther away.

I would object to the inclusion of the EIT image you title "strgte5sm.jpg" with the LASCO images, however, since the long, nearly horizontal feature in it is definitely of solar origin. Whenever we take time series of images in our 304 Angstrom bandpass, we observe these "bifurcated jets" (i.e., jets brighter along their edges than in the middle). There may be some streaking due to the even longer (generally ~ 32 s) exposure time for EIT 304 Å images, but their appearance on succeeding frames, and their origin in solar active regions makes it clear that they are solar in origin.

Best,

Joe Gurman
US project scientist for SOHO
Co-Investigator, SOHO-EIT

Source

Unless there is another e-mail from Joe Gurman, he does not say that those things "were NOT debris from any of our spacecraft", he is only talking about debris from SOHO itself.


> Notice the much defined geometric shape of that object. It doesn’t seem to be of natural origin.
The other thing that appears on almost all images (the spear looking thing) also has a defined shape.


> The sun is not known to throw up huge pieces of debris from its surface.
No, but alien fleets flying near the Sun are also unknown.


> That object doesn’t conform to the characteristics of a comet.
Correct.


> Notice the five circular objects in a near perfect semi circle around the triangular object. Can it be a natural configuration of space debris? I think not!
I don't think that they are debries (of what?), but I think they are in a natural configuration.


> The triangular object moves away leaving the spear shaped object at the same coordinates.
If I am not mistaken, the triangular object does not appear in any other image, so we cannot say if it moved away or just dispersed or exploded.
The spear shaped object appears on all images that I have seen between March and June.


> This object emits a strange looking ‘beam’ in the subsequent image and remains in position.
If that object is a fixed feature on all images, some of those (common) streaks that appear that would pass on that area would make that effect.


Thanks for your answer.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Any image enlargement is artificial, if it wasn't then it was an original.


And if it is resampled then it is not only artificial, it has detail that was added by the resampling algorithm.

In a digital image, there is no way of having a perfect triangle that small and in a position where all of its sides are not aligned with the vertical or the horizontal.

The edge enhancement of a resampled image is obviously a much changed image when compared to the original and should not be used as a proof of the shape of any object.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
To mikesingh: I've studied the picture, it sure looks triangular. However, one must consider a lot of factors first why it looks triangular or pyramidal.

Before studying the artifact on the picture, we need to consider the limitations or imperfections of telescopes no matter how sensitive and accurate the camera is.

Let us take this for example, the Double Helix Nebula:



This was taken from the Spitzer infrared telescope that is imaging the sky at unprecedented sensitivity and resolution, enabling it to see the double helix nebula clearly.

Though I'm quite fascinated at the interesting formation, however, even with a state of the art telescope, there's still many imperfections on the image.

Shifting to anomaly hunting mood, take a look what I've found:



The round spots surrounding the star are exactly 12. The star itself resembles the Star of David and the 12 round spots can be interpreted as the "12 Tribes of Israel". Very interestingly and conveniently formed.

What's more, The DNA Nebula is conveniently located near the anomaly. So, DNA Nebula+The Star of David+The 12 Tribes of Israel equals a direct communication from an unknown entity. I've checked other stars, everything is round, but this one, particularly, has 6 points. Very interesting.

So, in order to check for authenticity, we verify this from reputable websites:

www.space.com...
www.newsroom.ucla.edu...

This image is truly authentic without any modifications. Everything in good faith.

However, read this:


What are those streaks I see in some images?

There are high-energy particles that fly though space called cosmic rays. When one of these particles hit the camera's sensor, it causes a bright spot. When one of the particles hit the camera's sensor edge-on, it can leave a trail across the image. Exposures shorter than a second will not have many of these spots or trails. However, long exposures, like those from a minute to 20 minutes will contain many of these trails.

What are those dark donut shapes?

Small donut-like dark spots in images are actually out of focus dust specks on the filter wheels, lenses or other parts of the optics of the cameras. Because there is no way to clean the cameras in space, more of these spots may appear as the Cassini mission progresses.

saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...


And:


"Raw images" are automatically posted on JPL's Cassini website very soon after the spacecraft captures them and returns them to Earth. They have been translated from the raw data stream into an image format. Their contrast is stretched to make them easier to see, and then they are converted to JPEG format. No further processing is performed on them, which means that they usually display a lot of "artifacts," including horizontal banding, donut-shaped spots, streaks from cosmic rays, and other imperfections that can be removed through further processing. Read the JPL raw image FAQ for more information about these artifacts. The artifacts as well as the JPEG format make these images of poor quality for scientific research but good enough for the public to enjoy.

www.planetary.org...


With all these in mind, the pyramidal shape you saw is just like the hexagonal with 12 spots formation artifact. The pyramidal shape might be a an image of a prism inside the telescope being incorrectly projected on the image causing some transparency effect.



I think it would be a lot safer for us to stay clear of any geometric shape artifacts because we have to consider a lot of factors first.

We should also stay clear from any bright objects because these are the ones notorious for geometric shape artifacts.

These are authentic however:

North Pole of Saturn



Notice the hexagonal shape?

Iapetus



Notice the pentagonal shape on the top right side?

No amount of artifact can ever skew these images.


[edit:added info]

[edit on 4-12-2007 by amitheone]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by amitheone
 



amitheone, thanks for your excellent post!
Now that's what I call a good explanation, if ever there was one!

But I just wonder about NASA's contention of the 'dust' excuse they keep trotting out. I didn't know there was so much dust out there in space that sticks on to the lenses! By this time, shouldn't the HST have been covered in a myriad layers of dust???
Or don't they clean the lenses before blast-off?


That aside, when one of these cosmic ray particles hit the camera's sensor, it causes a bright spot. When one of the particles hit the camera's sensor edge-on, it can leave a trail across the image. Agreed. So there are trails or 'streaks' we can see in most SOHO images. But I wonder what causes those anomalies that are NOT streaks?

And would a dust particle on the lens be in focus? If the focal length is infinity, then a dust particle on the lens would have shown up as a very large blurred spot. How come they are so fairly well defined?

Thanks!




[edit on 5-12-2007 by mikesingh]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

But I just wonder about NASA's contention of the 'dust' excuse they keep trotting out. I didn't know there was so much dust out there in space that sticks on to the lenses!


Yes, there's lots of it actually, about 1,000 tons of space dust enters the Earth's atmosphere, according to USGS.

www.space.com...



That aside, when one of these cosmic ray particles hit the camera's sensor, it causes a bright spot. When one of the particles hit the camera's sensor edge-on, it can leave a trail across the image. Agreed. So there are trails or 'streaks' we can see in most SOHO images. But I wonder what causes those anomalies that are NOT streaks?


We need to study the pictures and compare them comprehensively with the other pictures before we can say it's an anomaly. I'm sure those anomalies shows up with the other pictures with constancy. We can't rely on just one picture. We need several of them for further investigation.

You know, it is really frustrating because we need to be well versed in these lens artifacts and familiarized ourselves with it so that we can segregate what is dust, lens flare, mirroring, color streaks, projected internal structure of the telescope, blurring, imperfections, jpeg compressions and etc. Its daunting. But with experience, I think that can be overcome.


And would a dust particle on the lens be in focus? If the focal length is infinity, then a dust particle on the lens would have shown up as a very large blurred spot. How come they are so fairly well defined?


A camera is made of several precision lenses, see the picture below:



Any dust or debris contamination on any of the lenses will cause weird objects projected on the image. Some objects will be fairly defined some objects will be blurry according to which lens it landed on. I think dusts on the aperture or CCD, behind all the array of lenses will probably be in focus and dusts in between and on the lenses will be blurry to a certain degree depending on the lens.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Great find.
The image technicalities does not interest me. There definately seems to be some sort of objects in formation out there, technical fault or actual objects under inteligent control. Either 2 of the answers may be right, therefore i think it is an excellent and very interesting find.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexZ_UK
 


You forgot "objects not under the control of intelligent forces", you should not dismiss any of the options.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexZ_UK
Great find.
The image technicalities does not interest me. There definately seems to be some sort of objects in formation out there, technical fault or actual objects under inteligent control. Either 2 of the answers may be right, therefore i think it is an excellent and very interesting find.


It's not an anomaly, unfortunately. Its an image artifact. Looking at the picture of the Nebula again, you'll see at the bottom center another formation, the same as the one pointed out. In my observation, image artifacts are constant and appears at a certain point in the image. I'm quite positive another take at the nebula will produce these artifacts again.

I would really badly like to believe what I see, and believe this is one huge ufo bigger than our sun according to the scale of the image. However, the perspective is all skewed when these artifacts are present.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   
on a point i read something about stars in the background.

this could be the explanation besides the alien tech.

what do we understand on background stars?
fist i have to clear something in order to understand: in correlation of einstein's theories the sun has the ability to bend space-time, in fact gravity is one of the side-effects. the sun is not a piece of solid rock, it is rotating, changing shape and center of gravity (slightly, but its not observed). therefore it has a randomly changing gravitational field around it and parallel to this bending space-time randomly.
so if you have an object behind the sun you can actually see that object while it should be blocked by. if one objects line of image falls at the edge of the gravitational distortion field something like a magnifying effect could be produced. notice that it is not a regular but rather random, and if you have an uneven lens or even an even one, by rotating, shaking that lens you ca produce interesting shapes and effects. and if you integrate another dimension (4D) to this, the possibilities of shapes is virtually endless.
so one shape, for being a closer star could have a longer effect and one distant (but more on the edge of that magnifying field) could be just a single frame, and maybe you saw a star that it is in fact hundreds of galaxies away. you just never know.
and this i think it is quite possible for the forces that dance around the surface on the sun.

or it could be a great alien craft galaxies away.

we in fact do know almost nothing about the sun and the equipment we build. i mean: dose anyone really knows what light is? electricity?

stop complaining about one that dose not know anything. i dont think that anyone really dose.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by encoder
 


Well, for "gravitational lensing" as you have suggested, the Sun is not
massive enough. A gravitational lens needs a very massive object such as a "cluster of galaxies" or a "black-hole" to bend the light from a very distant, bright source (such as a quasar). Please check out this APOD
page for 27th March, 2005: apod.nasa.gov...

The Sun's disc is totally blocked in the Coronograph, so nothing behind the
edges can be seen; but we can see an object even if it has just got behind the Moon's disc only due to refraction caused by the Earth's atmosphere, as we see during occultations. Also, when you watch the sunset, you keep
seeing part of the Sun even after it has actually set.

I still feel that we're seeing the background stars and the sungrazing comets and residuals of broken-up comets and the like in the original
picture posted in this thread. The odd geometric shapes could be caused by the coronal mass ejections; and the streaks caused by exposure time.

[edit on 6/12/07 by watapi]



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join