It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Triangle UFO - SOHO June 24, 2012

page: 2
9
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:01 AM

In short: there is enough information in that small bit of image to deduce that it is a triangle shaped object.

No there is not. Enough to IMAGINE a third side or as many more sides as you would like.

LASCO C2, the orange picture, has a shutter speed of about 26 seconds.

SOURCE

You think a spacecraft travelling fast enough to only appear in one image, not in the images recorded minutes before or after, basically stops for 26 seconds to pose for SOHO? Really?

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

You think a spacecraft travelling fast enough to only appear in one image, not in the images recorded minutes before or after, basically stops for 26 seconds to pose for SOHO? Really?

Sure, why not? Appearantly cosmic rays are doing that.

Although, since images are captured at 12 minute intervals, a ship doesn't have to move very fast to be seen in only 1 frame, depending of course on distance, field of view, etc.

You may think that it is improbable that this is an actual object, and you would be right, however, the probability of an image like that being cosmic rays is orders of magnitude less. Making it far more likely to be an object.

Since none of us have "been there", the only recourse we have is to apply math (probability), logic, and what ever other knowledge we may have.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:27 PM

Sure, why not? Appearantly cosmic rays are doing that.

No, they're not. No one is saying these images show cosmic rays traveling through space. They are strikes on the CCD sensor.

Cosmic rays: High energy particles from the solar wind, and from the galaxy as a whole, whip around the SOHO spacecraft and interact with the detectors. These produce spots and streaks on the detector ranging from a single pixel, to large streaks that span a large fraction of the image.

SOHO

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:40 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
No, they're not. No one is saying these images show cosmic rays traveling through space. They are strikes on the CCD sensor.

Cosmic rays: High energy particles from the solar wind, and from the galaxy as a whole, whip around the SOHO spacecraft and interact with the detectors. These produce spots and streaks on the detector ranging from a single pixel, to large streaks that span a large fraction of the image.

SOHO

Yes, I am acutely aware of how CCD devices work.

However, if these occurances of precisely the same image, cannot be random events; probability demands they are not. Leaving a physical object reflecting something onto the CCD (likely photons) as the most probable.

The "official" explaination given by NASA for this is much like the "lint" on the lens. An occasional event giving the impression of an "object". I've already stated elsewhere that this is wholly BS on NASA's part (class 100 clean rooms and all that). And while this is an explaination that can be easily received by the masses, it is hardly truth.

Given the randomness of cosmic rays and other "energies", a single occurance of such a shape is virtually impossible, never mind the 4+ that have been posted and argued here. It is these "encore" performances that make it an "object".

But, if you want to apply a wee bit of science; take your digital camera, leave on the lens cap, and set it a "bulb" exposure. Hole the "shutter" open for 26 secnds, then look at the image. Do this several times and look at the differences. You should not see the same "pattern" ever again, unless of course your camera is not functioning properly (you could have unmapped "hot" cells", and they will always be the same).

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:16 PM

Yes, I am acutely aware of how CCD devices work.

Then why did you say this,

Sure, why not? Appearantly cosmic rays are doing that.

when I asked if you thought a spacecraft stopped to pose for SOHO? There's nothing similar between a cosmic ray strike on the sensor and an imaginary triangle flying through space and pausing for publicity.

This bullspit is a little off-topic,

The "official" explaination given by NASA for this is much like the "lint" on the lens. An occasional event giving the impression of an "object". I've already stated elsewhere that this is wholly BS on NASA's part (class 100 clean rooms and all that). And while this is an explaination that can be easily received by the masses, it is hardly truth.

but if you post a link to an existing thread of your choice on this subject I'd be happy to debate it there.

Given the randomness of cosmic rays and other "energies", a single occurance of such a shape is virtually impossible

Says who? This is simply your own speculative fantasy.

About your suggested science experiment, what in the hell are you trying to say and why leave the lens cap on?

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:54 PM
This is so freaking annoying....when someone who knows absolutely nothing about what they are looking at decides to start a thread about SOHO...and claim it is ET.

If you have no damn clue as to how to interpret something ...ASK..instead of making a thread claiming alien ships are near the sun.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:53 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
when I asked if you thought a spacecraft stopped to pose for SOHO? There's nothing similar between a cosmic ray strike on the sensor and an imaginary triangle flying through space and pausing for publicity.

I put it that way because neither needs to "stop and pose". And, just what would be the differences? Any energetic strike on the sensor would cause a "cell" to turn on, and it wouldn't matter if it was a photon, an electron, or a cosmic ray; it only needa enough energy.

"The "official" explaination given by NASA for this is much like the "lint" on the lens. An occasional event giving the impression of an "object". I've already stated elsewhere that this is wholly BS on NASA's part (class 100 clean rooms and all that). And while this is an explaination that can be easily received by the masses, it is hardly truth."

but if you post a link to an existing thread of your choice on this subject I'd be happy to debate it there.

I don't wish to debate something that should never happen. I said this to illustrate that NASA is not above lying about the technology and/or its assembly methods to avoid trying to answer a question they can't answer.

Says who? This is simply your own speculative fantasy.

The mathematics of probability. No speculation nor fantasy.

About your suggested science experiment, what in the hell are you trying to say and why leave the lens cap on?

In theory, you should be able to "see" nearly the same random cosmic ray "strikes" on your camera's CCD. You leave the lens cap on to keep light out, allowing for only energetic "strikes" to create the resulting image. This wee expirement could even show that I'm full of it (potentially).

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:54 PM

While the OP did mention a "craft", he in n way said anything about ET. I said that, as a possibility, and opinion.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:58 PM

In theory, you should be able to "see" nearly the same random cosmic ray "strikes" on your camera's CCD.

Except that we do not experience primary cosmic radiation on the Earth's surface thanks to 100 miles or so of atmosphere above us.
snap.lbl.gov...

edit on 6/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:56 PM

Well, if One's camera supports it, there may be enough. In my case however, my Fuji does not support keeping the "shutter" open. I may, at best, do a secnd or so., and my old Pentax ME (which does support "bulb") uses old school film. Perhaps both my cameras are too old

Anyway, no, I would not expect it to be as intense.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 05:02 PM

What do you think the chances are for a "square" UFO?

edit on 6/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 05:11 PM

I put it that way because neither needs to "stop and pose". And, just what would be the differences?

You don't see the difference? The cosmic rays seen in the image are strikes on the sensor, not seen out flying around in space. Would a craft appear so sharp in the image with a 26 second exposure? What's it matter really, I'm talking to someone who believes in 2 sided triangles?

I don't wish to debate something that should never happen. I said this to illustrate that NASA is not above lying about the technology and/or its assembly methods to avoid trying to answer a question they can't answer.

But you did and you are. If you think that fiber is really something outside the instrument in space then post a link to the thread of your choice.
edit on 25-6-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
This is so freaking annoying....when someone who knows absolutely nothing about what they are looking at decides to start a thread about SOHO...and claim it is ET.

If you have no damn clue as to how to interpret something ...ASK..instead of making a thread claiming alien ships are near the sun.

Posted by Anathema, myself, in the Original Post.

Here is a newly posted image from earlier today of what appears to be some sort of craft, anomaly or image artifact near the Sun. Its info says its from SOHO Lasco C2 June 24 2012. Curious as to what you all think. I am no expert on SOHO or its images so I have no idea what this is. Hopefully one of you can shed some light on the matter. Thanks.

- Anath3ma

Where to begin with this... First off ill go ahead & state the first obvious rule of thumb to replying to a post. Read it, digest it, then attempt an intelligible reply.

Second I never declared it ET. I called it exactly what it is, a craft, anomoly or image artifact.

Again nowhere does it say Alien Ships are near the Sun in my post. I mean seriously did you even bother to READ the post before starting your uninformed, poorly worded attempt at flaming? Troll much? I mean hell ill be honest your post is great for a good laugh. The irony of the whole thing just cracks me up.

Anyway I dont have a problem interpreting what im looking at, and I did ASK everyone for opinions on what we're looking at. Again, lmfao. Thanks. :-)

-Anathema

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:28 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
You don't see the difference? The cosmic rays seen in the image are strikes on the sensor, not seen out flying around in space. Would a craft appear so sharp in the image with a 26 second exposure? What's it matter really, I'm talking to someone who believes in 2 sided triangles?

Firstly; you assume too much.

You call that "sharp"?!?? I'm sorry man, but, if you truly wish to ignore the math involved here, perhaps I should just let you go back to sleep.

But you did and you are. If you think that fiber is really something outside the instrument in space then post a link to the thread of your choice.

Perhaps briefly on the debate. You are aware of how devices like that are assembled, are you not? In a clean room, probably class 100. The sae sonditions that are used for semicnductors and hard disks. Do you know what a "fiber" like that would do to your hard drive? Crash it! No, sorry, can't buy it. I've been software/hardware engineer for far too long to accept a lame excuse/story like that. Dust, lint in a clean room...absolutely no excuse.

Please understand, I'm not saying it is an Andromedan Starship, only that the ship may be a possibility.

edit on 25-6-2012 by AnthraAndromda because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:39 PM

A square UFO? Sure why not. Although, I would never conceive of such a thing. But then, I am a firm beleiver in the notion that One's starship should be "cool", unfortunately there aren't many of those.

Even that model I posted isn't very "cool", it is literally a stack of different sized triangular slices. And while it may be quite functional, I wouldn't want to be caught on it...well, maybe, if it was all that was available.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:41 PM

Except that the "UFO" I showed is no more a square than the one in the OP is a triangle.
Both are random cosmic ray strikes.

edit on 6/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 07:12 PM

if you truly wish to ignore the math involved here

Pencil and paper ready, school me.

The 1 mm fiber, I really don't care what you buy about it or not, or what shouldn't be. Name the thread where you want me to shred your delusions of that fiber being anything out in space for 6-1/2 years or drop it.

Please understand, I'm not saying it is an Andromedan Starship, only that the ship may be a possibility.

No, you have said

the probability of an image like that being cosmic rays is orders of magnitude less. Making it far more likely to be an object.

Understand this, I'm not saying it might not be an Andromedan Starship, but that it's not even a possibility.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:13 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

The 1 mm fiber, I really don't care what you buy about it or not, or what shouldn't be. Name the thread where you want me to shred your delusions of that fiber being anything out in space for 6-1/2 years or drop it.

A little sensitive on this subject are we? Okay ... fiber dropped.

the probability of an image like that being cosmic rays is orders of magnitude less. Making it far more likely to be an object.

You could not take me out of context, and I could explain a bit better.

This image is kind of like the "straw that broke the Camel's back". When I saw the first one, I decided it must be cosmic rays, interesting shape, but that was all. Then more images like it corpped up.

I'm a big fan of probability, it has served me well over my 40 year professional carrer. Has helped me design many solutions, and is quite reliable.

When I see one image like this, I accept the general thought. When I see a second, I say "Wow" and ove on. A third and I may begin to think of alternatives to the popular explaination. When I see a forurth and more I begin to become convinced that the popular hypothesis is wholly incorrect.

That is where I am at now.

Look at it like this:
1 interesting natural event. But, since we don't see them all the time, the event is rare. (We'll say 1 : 10 one chance in ten)

2. Wow, "would ya look at that!" quite rare (1 : 100)
3. Hmmmmm. 1:10,000
4. 1 : 100,000,000
5. 1 : 10,000,000,000,000,000

I think you can see where this is going. Now, IF the appearance of this image sould become regular, then perhaps we should lok for yet another explaination. Either way, it should be considered "interesting" and, perhaps, studied a bit.

We're done.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:27 PM

We're done.

Would a craft appear so sharp in the image with a 26 second exposure?

You call that "sharp"?!?? I'm sorry man, but, if you truly wish to ignore the math involved here, perhaps I should just let you go back to sleep.

Where's the math on that? Not concerned with your odds making.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:57 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Where's the math on that? Not concerned with your odds making.

Oh, sorry, my bad. Fist though, my arithmatic is a bit faulty. At 5 events the probability is 0.00001 or 1 in 100,000

Pt = P1 * P2 * ... * Pn;

Doesn't matter where the probability stands now, the more it appears, the more unlikely it is to return.

If it continues to appear, your cosmic ray hypothesisis in serious danger.

top topics

9