Originally posted by buddhasystem
Now, I went to the original paper (in Russian), and read it carefully -- it doesn't sound too convincing to begin with. I did it just as a cross check with the English version. What I see is speculation and artifacts.

It's in Russian, but after spending rather too long feeding paragraphs into Google Translate, I've come up with what seems like a reasonably sensible English translation. Out of respect for copyright I can't reproduce that text here, but I'll paraphrase.

New classes of extrasolar planets with relatively small masses (“super-Earths”) located in low orbits near low luminosity stars possess moderately high temperature and atmospheric pressure at their surfaces. Such physical conditions and composition of an atmosphere is incompatible with the Earth’s aminonucleic acid form of life. But should they be considered as conditions incompatible with any form of life at all? Considering the conditions on Venus as a possible analogue of physical conditions on low-orbiting exoplanets of the “super-Earths” type, a new analysis of Venusian surface panoramas’ details has been made. These images were produced by the VENERA landers in 1975 and 1982. Also the images which had not been previously considered were included in the processing. A few relatively large objects were found with size ranging from a decimeter to half meter and with unusual morphology. The objects were observed in some images, but were absent in the other or altered their shape. The article presents the obtained results and analyzes the evidence of reality of these objects.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Now, I went to the original paper (in Russian), and read it carefully -- it doesn't sound too convincing to begin with. I did it just as a cross check with the English version. What I see is speculation and artifacts.

Care to link us to the original paper? I only see a picture of a portion of it. Do share with us where you went to the original paper, thanks

There is so much variation in noise among these five images, and they have been so processed with sharpening and infilling of data, that I think it is pointless to micro-analyze tiny little features and whether they have changed, much less whether they represent the presence of moving, living creatures or not.