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 huge UFO next to Mercury decloaked by Sun Flare

page: 4
107
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


hey Phage, Agarta here,

I just had a question or two. I dont pretend to understand the pictures and what they are showing. I mean it could be Alpha centauri for all I know and would believe it is Sunna if told so, but here are my questions.

I noticed you posted that blue thinggy that is a pic an hour average for 3 hours. Thats cool but can you lable what is seen? I mean is that white dot Mercury? and what is that black thinggy beside it on the opposite side of the white dot?

Also, is it possible for you to post a blue thinggy that corresponds with the orange vid posted date and time wise so I can see the difference between the blue thinggy version and the orange thinggy version? Or is it possible to match a blue thinggy to any of the orange thinggys posted so I can see the difference? Its hard to establish that we are even looking at the same star in them all. Yes I assume they are all Sunna but I woulld like to see a matched version of both colors.

Thanks in advance.

Agarta
edit on 3-12-2011 by Agarta because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by Vandalour

thanks, glad you like it.
Do tell if you find anything


There's a guy at the sungazers site that's really good about answering questions on this topic. I've emailed him a link to this thread. I'll post his answer when it comes in.


And here we go....


It's a combination of an internal reflection due to the extremely bright planet, and an artifact of the data processing method we use to make the images a little "prettier" to look at. As usual with this kind of thing, if folks would go and grab the raw data files from online (which are widely and freely available), they would see something quite different. The files shown in that movie are available here: stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...

What many people don't realize, or keep forgetting, is that the raw data files are pretty bland and boring. We have to perform processing upon them to enhance the solar features (outflow, streamers, CMEs, etc), and we apply color, data/time, and a couple of other tweaks. Those images in particular are heavily processed so attempt to subdue the visibility of the stars to enhance the visibility of CMEs. This is a completely automated process as we do not have the time, money or inclination to vet each file individually. Therefore we use a "one-size-fits-all" methodology for all our data processing which typically works pretty well but can show odd artifacts such as this when you get, for example, a bright CME and a very bright planet coincide.

Of course some people will still not buy this explanation. But then we could fly them into space and let them see if for their own eyes and they still wouldn't believe it. I'm a scientist and astronomer; I would love to see proof of life outside of Earth and indeed I suspect it exists somewhere in the universe. And if we did see a UFO in the data, I would be the first to be singing it from the rooftops (and I promise I'd send you an email)


Now if you want to follow something really interesting, there's a Sungrazing comet that has been discovered from Earth that is due to skim the Sun's surface on Dec 15/16 of this year. It will appear in our images around the 12th, and could be quite spectacular (or could fade completely...). I set up a page about it here and will try to post updates during next week: sungrazer.nrl.navy.mil.../birthday_comet (You can follow @SungrazerComets on twitter too, if you use that.) This comet is likely to create something of a stir if it pans out.

Best wishes,
Karl



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
We've seen similar before.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is the result of a process called background subtraction.
stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...



Does anyone else get really tired of "Hey youtube. ______ here."



Interesting video, OP. Not sure what this could be, still interesting nonetheless!


Phage, I actually read a little bit about the background subtraction from the link you posted, and background subtraction is described as:


Sometimes bright planets get mistakenly folded into the HI1 background calculations, creating dark "holes" in the data.


The video the OP posted is not showing a "dark 'hole,'" but rather a burst of light. In fact, even on the website you linked to, NASA provides photographic examples of background subtraction having dark holes, not bursts of brightness such as in this video.

Do I have a poor understanding of background subtraction? Definitely. If you could clear up any misconceptions I have that would be great. But I think you should take the time to look at the websites you're linking ATS to instead of typing what you think is the explanation into Google and pulling the first "reputable" source you see.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
noooooooooice one!

I reckon that was a shield.

..and why not - there's a lot on Mercury to protect from solar flares:


Wow ! Interesting indeed!



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by duhdiggitydan
 

It's true that the flare is not a direct result of the subtraction process (see Pauligirl's post). I had thought that it may have been related.

But you can see in the video in question as well as the other images posted that in addition to the bright flare there is a dark hole. It is clear that the subtraction process has been employed as part of the image processing spoken of.

I downloaded one of the raw images (the one from 22:49). With no processing neither the dark hole, nor the flare are there. You can also see why extensive processing is required to get any meaningful solar data out of the images.


edit on 12/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/4/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Lol I don't understand the common acceptance that Aliens just have big ships with cloaking devices, as if science fiction is a detailed documentary on alien life.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hey Phage,

I was just looking at the above pic you posted without the colors. I does not have the flare and such this I understand but according to your post it is also an hour later than the vid depicts. It is at 22:49 and you posted 23:49. Just something I noticed.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 

Thanks. A typo. There is no image from 23:49. The correct time of the raw image is 22:49
Also, it should be noted that the raw image is flipped vertically, top to bottom.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Wow..huge...de-cloaked.

Run for your lives people.. !!!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
No, it's ok.

I've been told it's stationary and has been for some time.

Apparently they ran out of fuel and until a supply UFO arrives we are safe from attack here on Earth.

!!!



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Droogie
 


Until I know what it is, I'm going with UFO.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


The only explanation? Don't you mean the only explanation you will accept? The possibility that something is actually there has not been eliminated (people's doubts are not explanations, just subjective opinions) and therefore there is another 'possible' explanation so what do you mean 'only explanation'?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
That is definitely not some sort of, "flare" or, "background subtraction."

I also don't see it as being a processing artifact either.There is clearly a cme blast that blows around it when the bulk of the cloud hits it.


Very interesting unknown object.
edit on 4-12-2011 by ninepointfive because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
It seems like it's behind the shadow of the planet. Which suggests something perfectly natural. Perhaps a glare offset.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
It's true that the flare is not a direct result of the subtraction process (see Pauligirl's post). I had thought that it may have been related.

But...


But yet you pounced before all the data was in

:shk:



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reminds me of the ringmakers of saturn... the idea of planet sized motherships isn't too hard to deal with for me really, and i like the guy in the video's apparent sincerity; i am inclined to agree with him that there really is no explanation for an object that size just randomly appearing instantaneously from a flare.

phage, i'm sorry but i feel like you insist on yourself far too much with these debunk theories that you seem to throw around like some rhetorical gospel; i don't buy it. maybe you're the final authority on everything to a select group of people on here, but to be real, from the perspective of a relatively new and unbiased observer i think you are completely full of it.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
The music on that video is really annoying. What am I supposed to be looking at? All I can see is photos of Mercury. Baaaaaaaaaaaa!



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by RickyVelveeta
 


Full of knowledge is better than full of hot air.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
The music on that video is really annoying. What am I supposed to be looking at? All I can see is photos of Mercury. Baaaaaaaaaaaa!


Then you should try and watch it again
or get your eyes checked



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
according to the direction of the solar flare if there was a ship that was decloaked it would be twice as close to the satelite taking picture as mercury. you see its affected by the cme then what you see is a cme going through empty space with mercury in the backround. the anomaly in reality is vastly smaller then mercury. even taking such into consideration, we would still be talking about a ufo that would be huge in size. but what makes me think its an object are the straight lines and angles you see in the pictures. i don't think lens flares and whatever phage is talking about come with shapes other than round/ovoid.




top topics



 
107
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join