Triangle UFO - SOHO June 24, 2012, page 3

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:01 PM

link

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Why are you avoiding the question? I made it quite clear.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:04 PM

link

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.

Your level of rudeness is impressive. Do this. Go back to the original post and find the text where they "claimed it is ET", when you fail to find it, note the part where they ask us what we think it might be while stating they are not an expert.

Then proceed to feel silly.

AnthraAndromda

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 12:40 AM

link

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Why are you avoiding the question? I made it quite clear.

WTH are you talking about?

I've avoided nothing!

beatbox

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:49 AM

link

".........

edit on 26-6-2012 by beatbox because: (no reason given)

Chadwickus

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:59 AM

link

What are kids taught in school these days?

Since when is two intersecting lines considered a triangle?

Two thirds of a triangle doth maketh a triangle!

darkbake

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:07 AM

link

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
reply to post by Vasa Croe

It could be a real, solid object. The image I provided is only a possibility. That ship is a model of a real starship, as close as I can remember, and produce.

You produced that on your own? Well-done. Although it's a bit too small.

DenyObfuscation

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:40 AM

link

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Why are you avoiding the question? I made it quite clear.

WTH are you talking about?

I've avoided nothing!

I want the math on this

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.

Is the math you claim I wish to ignore not related to the triple questioning of my description of the "object" in question as being sharp? Could it be any "sharper" in the image? I don't know but the 2 lines appear to be single rows of pixels. If that is incorrect, let me know. If correct then explain mathematically a moving object traversing the FOV of a 67,000 MPH orbiting camera tracking with the camera for 26 seconds to avoid blur and doing this in less than 24 minutes.

anathema777

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:17 AM

link

Originally posted by Chadwickus
What are kids taught in school these days?

Since when is two intersecting lines considered a triangle?

Two thirds of a triangle doth maketh a triangle!

In case your post was in reference to the title of the thread, let me explain. I named it the same name as the YouTube video in the OP.

AnthraAndromda

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 06:20 PM

link

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

I want the math on this

Start here

Is the math you claim I wish to ignore not related to the triple questioning of my description of the "object" in question as being sharp? Could it be any "sharper" in the image? I don't know but the 2 lines appear to be single rows of pixels. If that is incorrect, let me know. If correct then explain mathematically a moving object traversing the FOV of a 67,000 MPH orbiting camera tracking with the camera for 26 seconds to avoid blur and doing this in less than 24 minutes.

No the math isn't related.

Actually the image is several rows with only the "right" one's "on". It is highly improbable that a single cosmic could do all of that, and, I think that multiple causing the same image would be equally as rare.

Well, describing the math for that "pass by" would be far to difficult here. So, let's just say: "It all Relative".
Further, if the intent was to be seen; all they need do is pak at some point for 20 minutes, an image is guaranteed. Finding the vector to leave One exosed to the lens for 20 minutes without stopping is nearly as easy. Given, the math is a bit complicated, but, that whats computers are for. The code for this could easily reach 400+ lines, though isn't significantly different from the kinds of math I use when building graphics routines.
But, again, if One does not have a good foundation in geometry and trig, trying to explain the math would only be frustrating for all. There is plenty of excelent instruction on all aspects of mathematics on the Internet; the opportunity is yours.

edit on 27-6-2012 by AnthraAndromda because: (no reason given)

DenyObfuscation

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Start here

I don't think so. Your spin on probability is ridiculous.

Perhaps you should start HERE

AnthraAndromda

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

Not sure what your issues are, not sure that I care. My "spin" on probability? Just what is that supposed to mean Perhaps IF you knew what I was talking about you could begin to understand, alas you don't, and it appears you are unwilling to learn.

You are all hung-up on shape, and cannot "see" the forest for the trees. You are aware that shape has little to do with this, right?

Quick question;"How many cosmic rays does it take to "light-up" a CCD array?"

Unfortunately, you are missing the point. Until you can see that "point" there is nothing to discuss.

ETA:
Here; is this two intersecting lines? cosmic rays? or a solid triangular shape seen in space?

Answer: starship (model).

edit on 28-6-2012 by AnthraAndromda because: (no reason given)

Wolfhammer

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link

reply to post by Reece

Great minds think alike. It was the first thought that popped into my mind..

Very interesting pic.. Wish NASA would comment on this stuff. I'd to hear what explanation they come up with.

Phage

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Further, if the intent was to be seen; all they need do is pak at some point for 20 minutes, an image is guaranteed. Finding the vector to leave One exosed to the lens for 20 minutes without stopping is nearly as easy.

If the intent was to be seen why not park in front of the spacecraft for three or four days or at least a few hours.

Oh never mind, you'll just come up with another excuse which makes no more sense than anything else you've come up with.

DaveNorris

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link

solar flare reflecting off of the swamp gas that you imagined after your alcohol feuled evening in the insane asylum. nothing to see here, move along

DenyObfuscation

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

My "spin" on probability? Just what is that supposed to mean

Your assertions are unsupported. You're making up numbers.

You are all hung-up on shape, and cannot "see" the forest for the trees.

You claimed it's a triangle, not me. I can't see the triangle, for there are only two lines.

Quick question;"How many cosmic rays does it take to "light-up" a CCD array?"

I would think one however you're the one who is "acutely aware of how CCD devices work".

Actually the image is several rows with only the "right" one's "on".

What do you base this on?

AnthraAndromda

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Your assertions are unsupported. You're making up numbers.

Yes, the numbers were "made up", they were only for illustration. The actual probabilities would be very small. The math supports my assertion.

Quick question;"How many cosmic rays does it take to "light-up" a CCD array?"

I would think one however you're the one who is "acutely aware of how CCD devices work".

One per pixel. Even if entering from the side, there is a very small probability that the strike will be at the correct angle and trajectory to strike more than one cell. I suppose there is a chance that one entering frm the frnt may "so over load" the system that many are activated, but, that would "look" more like a "splotch" than anything else. I would expect to see "discharge trails" toward the edges. But, none of that is there.

The "image" is being created by a "structured" energy (Photons, etc). And with the number f times it has apeared, it should be investigated.

Actually the image is several rows with only the "right" one's "on".

What do you base this on?

If I import the image into my graphic editor (or any paint app) you can easily see that it is multiple pixels. You can see several pixels that make up the "right arm" on the save "raster" line as pixels from the "left arm". How would a single cosmic ray do that?

You can also see a gradient of sorts in the "object", this is cause by some areas being less energetic than others (less light).

The more we get into this the less plausable the cosmic ray hypothesis becomes, but still; perhaps once.

DenyObfuscation

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Do you object to these being called cosmic ray strikes?

Borrowed from alfa1's post on pg 1

AnthraAndromda

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

Abslutely not.

It show how truly random cosmic rays are.

tsurfer2000h

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link

Well to those of you that want to call this a ship be it ET or from earthly creation think about this....

If Joe Blow sees this on the SOHO site, then everybody that has an internet connection can see the same images yet there is no other news reports about this object only a video from youtube, Why is that?

Oh, that's right there is nothing there..

Lastly what about the amateur sun watchers and why can't they see this massive ship?

anathema777

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
Well to those of you that want to call this a ship be it ET or from earthly creation think about this....

If Joe Blow sees this on the SOHO site, then everybody that has an internet connection can see the same images yet there is no other news reports about this object only a video from youtube, Why is that?

Oh, that's right there is nothing there..

Lastly what about the amateur sun watchers and why can't they see this massive ship?

I would venture to say its because it IS some kind of image artifact or anomaly as previously pointed out by other posters. After carefully examining the original picture I have identified at least 2 of these Cosmic Rays or Anomalies on the left side of the sun/image. It makes sense however small the odds that if an image captures two of these rays beginning to intersect it could produce exactly what we are looking at. As much as id love to see an actual craft of unknown origin flying around our sun, until shown/explained better or otherwise id say this has long been solved.

-Anathema
edit on 6/29/2012 by anathema777 because: (no reason given)