Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

SOHO Strikes Back 129

Posted by michael from the luke-i-am-your-father dept.
Nick Lightfoot writes "As seen on /. several days ago, Euroseti is holding a conference to show off it's collection of pictures of 'UFOs' taken by SOHO cameras. SOHO has released a response page to show how a cosmic ray or other similar ccd artifact could be mistaken for a UFO, especially after the image has been enhanced. After watching Euroseti's video featuring some of the images, I was able to identify one of the 'UFO' images as a comet, and several others looked like they were just planets. Hopefully they will release some images on the web soon so I taking take a closer look at them without having to buy their £15 cd."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SOHO Strikes Back More

SOHO Strikes Back

Comments Filter:

  • Did you go to school in outer elbonia ? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    it's == it is
    its == possessive pronoun

    Jesus Fucking Christ !

  • SOHO (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A Small Office/Home Office satelite would do something the big commercial, governmental and scientific satelites couldn't! Amazing!

  • Of course they deny it (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ogion ( 541941 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @02:07PM (#5157763)
    It is because they want to keep all those alien gadgets to themselves. And think of all those nice spacebabes on Venus they would have to share with the rest of the world.

  • Well though out response.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xaxat ( 309420 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @02:12PM (#5157783)
    They understand that they will never be able to convince the hardcore UFOlogists, but at the same time they recognize the fact that there are a lot of people going "Hey, whats up with that?"

    The fringes will never be convinced, but responses like this and Phil Plait's BadAtromy.com will help to explain to the inquiring minds who's scientific literacy isn't what it should be.
  • It seems that people here wave around the discovery of UFOs as some kind of major event. So they found some previously unidentified comets? What's the big deal?
    • UFO technically means Unidentified Flying Object, which could even refer to an as of yet unclassified bird or insect, or a piece of debris in space that has not been identified.

      However, the term UFO has come to mean in popular culture a craft built by aliens. The big deal is a bunch of people getting excited over a misinterpretation.

  • Of course they would dismiss it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Visoblast ( 15851 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @02:14PM (#5157791) Homepage
    The real question now is can some other independent group prove such UFO-ish artifacts can be created like the SOHO group claims. After all, it was once said that the moon was too bright for Hubble to image, but color tests were acknowleged to be done using clouds over Earth. Now we finally have publicly avaialble low-res moon images from Hubble.

    • Re: DUH ... (Score:2, Funny)

      by diggitzz ( 615742 )
      HAHAH ... SOHO's "how to" [nasa.gov] on making UFO's kind of takes the doubt out about whether or not UFO-ish artifacts can be created ...

      I mean, if you really think a second independent group needs to "prove" that you can use photoshop to interpolate a bad pixel, then gimme some money and you've got yourself an article!

      Hmm .. if you still don't believe it, perhaps you can explain away similar bad pixels that show up in particle-detector data at Fermilab or CERN as itty-bitty UFO's haunting the collider? Or maybe they're little angels taking the dead particles away to heaven?

      Now I'd like to see *that* headline in UFO magazine ...

    • After all, it was once said that the moon was too bright for Hubble to image, but color tests were acknowleged to be done using clouds over Earth.

      At the resolution necessary to resolve a LM, the moon probably is too bright. Color tests likely don't require any kind of resolution at all. Anyway, see this link [badastronomy.com] for some discussion of this issue.

      • At the resolution necessary to resolve a LM, the moon probably is too bright.
        Actually for an narrow field image, such as would be needed for resolving a LM, the image gets dimmer. As explained on this site [compuserve.com]: "So why is the focal ratio important? Well, for photographic purposes, the focal ratio determines the overall brightness of the image. The lower the f/number, the brighter..." The f/ratio effectively determines a telescopes field of view. The narrower the field of view, the greater the magnification. That is how eyepieces work, they effectively increase a telescopes focal ratio and increase the magnification. Again quoting the above mentioned site:
        One of the reasons you don't use eyepiece projection to photograph dim, deep-sky objects is that by adding an eyepiece, you are increasing the telescope's effective focal length, which in turn increases the focal ratio (sometimes to as much as f/30 or f/40), resulting in a dimmer image. Deep-sky photography really shouldn't be attempted with focal ratios greater than about f/12.

  • boring... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This UFO debate has gone on too long. Most of these pitcures will look like cows in space and won't be credible evidence, SOHO or not. There are better things to worry about people.

    An interesting thought though... could amateur pics capture something astronomers miss?
    • could amateur pics capture something astronomers miss?

      Until pros get telescopes monitoring all of the sky all of the time at all wavelengths, yes. Most telescope fields of view are so small (depending on wavelength) that we miss a lot of transient phenomena. To some extent that's OK since astronomical timescales are notoriously long, but some things happen on faster timescales.

      But this case is a bunch of nonastronomers using images taken by professional astronomers, who better understand the flaws in the images.

      I wouldn't even dignify Euroseti as amateurs, since their selling SOHO images for 15 pounds REEKS of a scam. If you had found good evidence of ET, would you be trying to hawk it like that?

      • From their opening screen at http://www.ufomag.co.uk/euroseti.htm (no, I WON'T dignify them with a proper link).

        WORLD EXCLUSIVE

        Warning! Danger Will Robinson! Huckster Alert!

        STARTLING UFO IMAGES

        Startling, hum? Why, exactly, are every last one of these sorts of slimeballs (check for usage of "startling" and "shocking" on tv, in the tabloids, etc., and see who uses it and for what general purposes) unable to comminucate their message without recourse to one or the other of this odd pair of words? See above re: Huckster Alert!

        Actual NASA Satellite image

        Use of the word "actual" in front of an otherwise completely mundane, normal, everyday, sort of thing being YET ANOTHER example of the abovereferenced HA's.

        A full-page advertisement in the January 2003 issue of UFO Magazine has generated considerable interest

        Any time "interest" gets generated by an ADVERTISEMENT, you can be sure that somebody is selling something. Yet another HA.

        For the past two years, hundreds of extraordinary UFO-like images have been gleaned by a Spanish-based team using two space-based satellites

        As though there's some other sort of satellite?

        There's more of this kind of complete bullshit, but I don't feel like copying, pasting, and commenting further. You get the idea, eh?

        The fact that these gizoobers are attempting to sell cd's of imagery flaws and whatnot, for a price that would make the RIAA happy, is ALL anybody needs to know about them, or their retarded subject matter.

        I'm guessing these images won't even show up on Kazaa. Not even worth the time and trouble to download for NOTHING.
    • An interesting thought though... could amateur pics capture something astronomers miss?

      Absolutely. Buy yourself a half-decent telescope and make a habit of scanning uninteresting patches of sky. Sooner or later you'll find a comet, and the odds are you're the first person who ever saw it. Note down its exact position and the place and time of the observation, contact your local university's astronomy people, and if it's not on the books then it gets your name.

      IIRC, most comets are still discovered by lucky amateurs.

      • Re:boring... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Forgotten ( 225254 )
        IIRC, most comets are still discovered by lucky amateurs.

        That used to be true, but nowadays the LINEAR [mit.edu] project picks up most of them. Amateur astronomers still account for a few a year, though. There are a lot of comets out there to be found.

  • Article is misleading (Score:5, Informative)

    by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @02:17PM (#5157800) Homepage Journal
    The SOHO page *actually* shows how a 'flying saucer' can be faked by manipulating their data, NOT how the original data can be 'mistaken' for a UFO.

  • Sensationalism (Score:5, Funny)

    by Entropy248 ( 588290 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @02:21PM (#5157820) Journal
    This is a brilliant scam, and I am quite impressed. Someone has finally figured out how to capitalize on the gullability of certain extremist UFO groups.

    I've got proof that Elvis exists! I've got hundreds of photographs taken by an outside agency. I've scanned them all, and for the low-low price of $25 (USD), you can own a copy of the proof on CD. I'll let you see a few really low quality internet videos of them before you pay, but I promise you that blur in the corner is The King!

  • Massive cover-up by scientists! (Score:5, Funny)

    by dave_mcmillen ( 250780 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @02:32PM (#5157866)
    Take a look at this SOHO image [nasa.gov]! Not only is the Solar system crawling with UFOs, but they've also been concealing the fact that the Sun is mounted on a giant stick! Sure, they say the stick is just a shadow from a pylon in front of the camera, but we know the truth, don't we?

    Now the real question is: whose stick is it? And are they likely to come back and probe us?

    • Re:Massive cover-up by scientists! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The shape of these images, which they contend is their greatest strength, is also their greatest weakness.

      If you look at the parent of this post, the image shows all of the planets, and their "pixel bleed". Note that all of the pixel bleed is horizontal.

      If these images of UFO's we're real, they would be in all different plane's from 0 - 360 degree's, not just at right angles to our point of view.

      The fact that every one of their pictures shows the object flying at parallel to the picture really proves, or at a bare minimum indicates, that these are in fact pixel bleed and other artifacts.

      IMHO.

  • Thank you! (Score:5, Informative)

    by J. J. Ramsey ( 658 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @02:35PM (#5157878) Homepage

    I was wondering when Slashdot itself would post a link rebutting Euroseti's pseudoscience. What's a wonder to me is that Slashdot didn't update the article by adding a link to here [icnetwork.co.uk] when this comment [slashdot.org] pointed it out.

  • I want to believe (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @02:36PM (#5157884) Homepage Journal
    This was a brilliant tag line for the 'X-Files'. The viewer was simultaneously shown the venerability and Achilles heel of the Mulder character. We appreciate his ability to accept implausible explanations, but know his desire to believe will deliver him to repeated failures, without regard to the nobility or validity of his search.

    Anyone who has seriously massaged data knows the dangers of 'wanting to believe' It is very hard to limit oneself to error correction and legitimate pattern enhancement. This is especially true when one is using off the shelf, not fully understood, tools. It is so easy to introduce artifacts that can be mistaken for reality.

    This is exactly what happened to these images, the Man on the Moon image, Man on Mars image, and will continue to happen. People want to believe. They consider themselves cosmopolitan for their ability to accept improbable explanations, but forget the first step was to extinguish all possible conventional explanations, the first of which is systematic error.

    The universe does not lie, but it is vague enough so we can easily lie to ourselves. It is as easy to create UFOs out of fuzzy images as it is to create animals out of passing clouds. We can not use either to prove or disprove the existence of anything.

    • absolutely!
      It reminds me of that guy who spent years proving that the Sphinx was thousands of years older than perviously assumed. And came out with data that I was compelled by and believe, it seemed pretty likely, and frankly, not that out of this world. It explained a lot about it, and I'm not so small minded to think that people couldn't have built something that remarkable long before.
      Then however he decided that while the original face of the Sphinx would be a cat, that the current one is carved into, seemed to resemble that of the 'face' on Mars, and that obviously it was built by Martians. At this point I just lost all respect for him and his scientific mind!

  • The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by duckpoopy ( 585203 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @02:40PM (#5157901) Journal
    The proliferation of video cameras along with the lack of recent corraborated sightings seems to show that UFOs are not visiting us now. How many people independently videotaped the WTC collapse? Yet there are no current, credible UFO videos. Did 'they' stop visiting in the 1950's? The only way to keep these hoaxes alive is to push them just beyond the sight of the masses. If everybody had a CCD telescope then the hoaxsters would have to resort to doctoring Hubble images to 'prove' their point.

    • Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by vjmurphy ( 190266 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @03:13PM (#5158039) Homepage
      "How many people independently videotaped the WTC collapse?"

      Uh. A lot. Because they knew it was going to happen. I think you mean "How many people independently videotaped the first WTC tower getting hit by the first plane?" That number is a lot smaller.
      • True--as far as I know only the French documentary crew happened to film the first plane hitting the tower. But within minutes of it happening, there were scores of cameras pointing at the disaster.

        So it would be reasonable to assume that any sort of a UFO event lasting more than just a brief instant would likely be captured by a number of cameras.
        • So it would be reasonable to assume that any sort of a UFO event lasting more than just a brief instant would likely be captured by a number of cameras.

          UFO's allegedly don't hang out around large populations (at least not appear). This greatly reduces the chance that multiple cameras will capture anything without advanced notice.
          • UFO's allegedly don't hang out around large populations (at least not appear). This greatly reduces the chance that multiple cameras will capture anything without advanced notice.

            Well, this really isn't true. Many UFO "flaps" (like the one in Gulf Breeze) have centered around populated areas.

      • Yep: I don't disagree with your conclusions: there certainly should be a good number of high-quality, unassailable UFO (and Bigfoot) videos/pictures by now.

        • there certainly should be a good number of high-quality, unassailable UFO (and Bigfoot) videos/pictures by now

          Here's a Bigfoot [google.com]. How was this one faked?

        • Bigfoot/Yeti etc have been utterly banished into the realms of urban myths, but ... they could very well exist.

          There are still LOTS of undiscovered species here on Earth, granted, most aren't large mammals, but I still don't see why one of them could not be another branch of hominid tree. Or maybe a tribe of Neanderthals that has survived against all assumptions, they've only been gone for tens of thousands of years ... animals believed to be gone MUCH longer than that have surfaced alive and well (eg. the coelacanth).
    • Look up Mexico City Solar Eclipse UFO on google. There was a pretty spectacular UFO event in Mexico city which was videotaped by lots of people. It was just before a solar eclipse IIRC so lots of people had cameras and video tape machines handy.

      There is tons of video tape UFO evidence so I don't understand why you claim there is none.
      • Look up Mexico City Solar Eclipse UFO on google.

        Done. [google.com]

        Here's an interesting link [about.com]--be sure to read the skeptic's perspective [about.com] on the second page. In short, the UFO very likely was the planet Venus.

        I have not been able to verify this (I don't have access to paper copies of the document) but it has been reported [aol.com] that even a group that would quite like to see a substantiated sighting of an alien craft (MUFON - the Mutual UFO Network) agrees that this sighting is bogus. (Citation is Abercrombie, Andy. No Title. The Lone Star (TX) MUFON Reporter. 15 May 1993)

        The still pictures on this site [allwebco.com] are less than impressive. They could very easily be the result of the planet Venus, plus some artifacts due to camera motion, image enlargement, and smoothing. (Only this first image [allwebco.com] is unenlarged--and I'm not overly excited.) I can't seem to play their first video, but the second one is not from the eclipse; it is another event. To be fair, this second video is more interesting (it has a moving object), and represents either better evidence (on its face) or a hoax requiring more effort.

        There is tons of video tape UFO evidence so I don't understand why you claim there is none.

        There is tons of video tape evidence of an unidentified flying object, yes. Unless it is Venus. Millions of people were watching the eclipse that day--Mexico City is not exactly a small community. Where was the panic in the streets? The frantic news reports?

        The clincher for me is that there were tens of thousands of astronomers present, both amateur and professional. The object is described in most reports as stationary and quite bright (visible even during daylight), and it was not far in the sky from a highly observed phenomenon (the Sun during an eclipse). Astronomers unable to indentify a very bright stationary object that suddenly appeared in the sky would not hestitate to report it. Why? Not because they're thinking aliens--but rather, because they're thinking supernovae. Discover a nearby one and you're famous for the rest of your life in astronomical circles. So where were the reports to the International Astronomical Union? Actually, since the object faded to invisibility much more rapidly than a supernova, it would be even more interesting--a hitherto undiscovered class of astronomical object, worthy of discussion and analysis. A quick review of the literature reveals nothing--not even a "Gee, that's weird" type note in an astronomical journal.

        Unless all the atronomers are in on the conspiracy of silence. But there's nothing in it for them. A lot of them would be thrilled to have proof of other life in the Universe--it would help them get more funding.

        • The skeptics page you pointed out was just stupid. It made no attempt to discuss the video tape or the eye witnesses. Besides the video tapes there was also lots of still footage. Most of the of the UFO debunkers pretty much take the same approach and if I may paraphrase they say either "it could have been venus so therefore it was venus" or "it could have been faked so therefore it was faked". Both of those are logical fallacies.

          As for the event itself I saw the videos (more then one) and the object was definately moving in a back and forth manner. I minored in astronomy and have spent many a night staring at the sky with both the naked eye and telescopes of varying sizes and have never seen any planet move in that fashion. Whatever that thing was it was not venus.

          Of course the that was but one event that was videotaped. There must be hundreds of hours of videotapes of UFOs are you seriously claiming that all of them were venus? Surely not. For example does this [jman5.com] look like venus?

          BTW in Mexico UFO events are actually reported on TV. In the US that almost never happens. Perhaps that's why there was no panic in the streets. Although I still don't see how panic in the streets is somehow relevant.

          "Astronomers unable to indentify a very bright stationary object that suddenly appeared in the sky would not hestitate to report it."

          It was clearnly not an astronomical event so there was no need to investigate it as if it was. Any astronomer who attempted to claim that this was some sort a new stellar phenomena would have been laughed out of the profession and rightfully so. A moving object which only lasts for a few minutes and disappears? What kind of a star is that? Oh I know it's venus. Venus frequently appears during daylight, moves around a bit, and then disappears again.

          • Most of the of the UFO debunkers pretty much take the same approach and if I may paraphrase they say either "it could have been venus so therefore it was venus" or "it could have been faked so therefore it was faked". Both of those are logical fallacies.

            Both of those are reasonable interpretations of events. When you have a lot of people looking at the sky who don't usually look at the sky, they can make errors of interpretation. Incidentally, I didn't make the absolute statement that the object was Venus. I stated that it was "very likely". Don't accuse people of committing logical fallacies when they make qualified statements based on reasoning and available evidence.

            As for the event itself I saw the videos (more then one) and the object was definately moving in a back and forth manner. I minored in astronomy and have spent many a night staring at the sky with both the naked eye and telescopes of varying sizes and have never seen any planet move in that fashion. Whatever that thing was it was not venus.

            I too have studied astronomy and spent many nights (and days) looking at the sky. Unfortunately, neither you nor I attended the Mexico City event (pity--it would have been something to see, UFO or not) so our qualifications as observers are moot. If you shoot video of Venus (or any small, stationary, bright object) using a camera zoomed in close, you will get apparent motion. Even if you use a tripod, wind often introduces some vibration. This problem is exacerbated when the video is digitized and further enlarged.

            Of course the that was but one event that was videotaped. There must be hundreds of hours of videotapes of UFOs are you seriously claiming that all of them were venus? Surely not. For example does this [jman5.com] look like venus?

            Don't get all bent out of shape. I was addressing this one incident. Each video of each event should be evaluated on its merits. Based on the accounts that I have read, it seems that on the balance of probabilities the object seen was likely Venus. For the record, I would be thrilled to find evidence of other life in the Universe. (I've said as much on another recent thread [slashdot.org]. I'd like to see a large space-based interferometer built so we can do spectroscopy of distant planetary atmospheres--look for signs of life. I think that the search for extraterrestrial life (and intelligence!) is worthwhile and interesting.

            But I also think, based on the evidence presented, that the bright spot over Mexico a decade ago was Venus. Refusing to consider that some UFO incidents have reasonable explanations makes you no more credible than those who refuse to consider that any incidents may have something to do with extraterrestrial life.

            • " But I also think, based on the evidence presented, that the bright spot over Mexico a decade ago was Venus. Refusing to consider that some UFO incidents have reasonable explanations makes you no more credible than those who refuse to consider that any incidents may have something to do with extraterrestrial life."

              The motion was not "apparent" and this is very easy to test by measuring the motion on multiple video footage. For example when the object went behind a cloud all the recorders recorded the same thing, when the object came back out into view all the cameras recorded the same thing.

              I am open to any "reasonable" explanation but venus is not a reasonable explanation. Venus does not move, venus does not disappear suddenly after appearing suddenly.

              Like I said there have been many incidents all over the world that have been videotaped. Most of them by people who have no means of faking videotapes (which is very hard to do and require lots of money) not all of them are venus, not all of them are swamp gas, and no matter how hard they try the skeptics can not explain all of them. Which leaves the question. What are they?
              • The motion was not "apparent" and this is very easy to test by measuring the motion on multiple video footage. For example when the object went behind a cloud all the recorders recorded the same thing, when the object came back out into view all the cameras recorded the same thing.

                Spacecraft aren't the only things that move. Clouds do, too. And high clouds will appear quite similar to observers spread over a large area. If you can point me to some footage from the eclipse date that was filmed by a camera held reasonably steadily that shows both the UFO and the ground (or some other fixed object) in the frame for reference, then I'll revisit my tentative conclusion.

                I'm curious, actually--are we discussing the same event? I'm referring to sightings before and during the solar eclipse visible from Mexico City on July 11, 1991. There have been other sightings reported in the same area, from around that time, and in the years since.

                I am open to any "reasonable" explanation but venus is not a reasonable explanation. Venus does not move, venus does not disappear suddenly after appearing suddenly.

                I reiterate my requests for additional information as stated above. Show me some good footage, with a solid reference point in it. (And make sure we're talking about the same day.)

                Like I said there have been many incidents all over the world that have been videotaped. Most of them by people who have no means of faking videotapes (which is very hard to do and require lots of money) not all of them are venus, not all of them are swamp gas, and no matter how hard they try the skeptics can not explain all of them. Which leaves the question. What are they?

                As I have stated before, I'm not addressing all the reports of UFOs. Many will quite probably turn out to be misinterpretation of subjective evidence, or hithero unknown natural phenomena (very exciting in itself--many UFO sightings can now be attributed to recently discovered exotic forms of lighting [csufresno.edu]). Some incidents are quite intriguing and warrant additional study.

                I don't pretend to have an explanation for all UFO sightings, and I would be thrilled if there existed an unambiguous case for one or more of them being visitors from another world. Nevertheless, in this case, for this one group of sightings, even pro-UFO groups like MUFON tend to accept the Venus hypothesis. The fact that there exist sightings for which no good explanation exists does not mean that all sightings represent alien visitations. Such a conclusion would be a most regrettable "logical fallacy".

                If you want to discuss some of the other sightings in Mexico or elsewhere, that might be more fruitful. I also look forward to any further evidence that you might have regarding the July 11 events.

  • I've been disappointed yet again. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Slashdot Insider ( 623670 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @02:42PM (#5157908)
    Gentlemen, it's safe to take off your tin foil hats now.

  • This is GREAT for NASA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NigelJohnstone ( 242811 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @02:43PM (#5157915)
    This UFO claim will put SOHO back in the news again. Without it, SOHO is not news worthy.

    Same with the Moon Landing Hoax claims. There are teenagers who didn't know we even went to the moon. But since the hoax-program, NASA and its moon landing is a topic of TV discussion and NASA is news again.

    Don't kid yourself NASA needs the hoaxer & UFO loonies, because without it, its just a big expensive agency that MTV generation doesn't know or care about.

    Sure it has to reply to the moon-hoaxers and UFO spotters, but it gives NASA a great chance to show its footage on prime time TV.

    • Whenever there's a big coronal mass ejection or solar flare, I always see pictures from SOHO on the local news. Heck, I've even seen them on Drudge. Space-related news still makes the news on a regular basis. To claim that NASA needs some controversy to get itself in the limelight is just incorrect.
  • OK... You have incontrovertible photos of alien spacecraft inside the Solar System. Must be pretty exciting. After all, this is the proof that will change humanity forever. You've got to be bursting at the seams to tell the world.

    So, what do you do? You wait leisurely for a few weeks, and then charge a few quid for a seat at the grand unveiling at a rented room.

    Uh huh. Sure

  • Bias or Scam? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by core plexus ( 599119 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @03:05PM (#5158003) Homepage
    Scientific bias is a difficult thing to overcome. One must always treat hypotheses and theories as volatile, and not be married to any one maiden, no matter how attractive.

    On the other hand, there is always the question of where the line is between bias and fraud. If you believe and the evidence is inconclusive, then you might be guilty of bias. If you make up 'evidence', especially if it is contrary to existing evidence, and then try to sell it (no matter if it is mineral exploration data, or cosmic data), then that is a whole nother kettle of fish.

    The bottom line is this: If there are ET's, and they are advanced enough to avoid detection on any large or credible scale, then they are surely aware of our capabilities (including SOHO and /.), and should have no problem continuing avoiding detection.

    All this is just chatter to those who believe, and no evidence to the contrary will persuade them. Hundreds of millions of people worship gods that they cannot see, touch, or communicate with; others have turned this belief into a big, profitable business.

    Shirtless woman joyrides in stolen police cruiser [xnewswire.com]

  • If someone could get a hold of that CD and upload those images to a site that would be awesome. I am really interested in this and would like to see these SOHO images and do a bit of my own investigation on them.
  • "Finally, after a "touch-up" of the color table, we have what may look like a nice UFO with a glow and exhaust fumes!"

    Geez! These guys clearly don't have any clue, they don't even know that UFOs don't exhaust anything!

    -shpoffo

    • Re:Silly (Score:3, Funny)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )
      Geez! These guys clearly don't have any clue, they don't even know that UFOs don't exhaust anything!

      Because we humans are near the verge of destroying ourselves, the aliens have upped the pace of abductions. The problem is that they don't have enough "regular" saucers for the job, so they had to pull some of their older chemical-based-propulsion saucers out of mothball and get them working again. Thus, exhaust fumes.

      Even aliens are not immune from boom and bust cycles. Hmmm. Maybe there is a market for abduction tracking software.

  • USAF UFO detector network (Score:5, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @03:43PM (#5158227) Homepage
    The U.S. Air Force has operated a large scale UFO detector network since about 1980, the Ground Based-Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance System. [mitre.org] It was built to identify flying objects launched by the USSR, but it does much more. Two 1-meter computer-controlled telescopes at each site scan the skies for anything bigger than a basketball. The three sites (Diego Garcia, Maui, and Arizona) are run by the USAF 24th Space Wing. Most of the sky is scanned several times every night.

    Since the USSR wound down, GEODSS has also been used for finding near-earth asteroids. [nasa.gov] A few objects show up every month. Here's the list for December, 2002 [nasa.gov].

    MIT's Lincoln Labs also operates an automated skywatch. [mit.edu]

    Here's an image from GEODSS. [mitre.org] The objects that show as streaks are moving relative to the starfield.

    If it's out there, one of these systems will pick it up within a few days.

    • If it's out there, one of these systems will pick it up within a few days.

      Well, if you go to the Lincoln Lab site and look around, you see lots of detection events that are labeled "Lost or Not Real". So, these systems might already be picking it up. But how do you follow up on a "Lost or Not Real" detection?

      • That's why GEODSS has auxiliary telescopes. When the automatic scanner picks up something interesting, an auxiliary telescope takes a good look at it. Some USAF sites (at least Maui) can also illuminate the target with a laser. [dtic.mil]

        The Lincoln Labs LINEAR scope came on line in 1998, and immediately overwhelmed the Minor Planet Center with asteroid reports. There's a lot of rock out there to track. But between the USAF, the astronomical community, and the people who watch for near-earth asteroids, the near sky is getting more attention than ever before.

  • It's the Enterprise! (Score:3, Funny)

    by TrekkieGod ( 627867 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @03:47PM (#5158251) Homepage Journal
    The original picture before the "enhancement" looks more like a spacecraft to me. It looks like the original, constitution class, Enterprise, in orbit! The enhanced picture is obviously fake...it looks like flying saucers seen in TV shows.

    Is this an undocumented time travel occurance where Kirk and crew visits 2001??
    • The original picture before the "enhancement" looks more like a spacecraft to me. It looks like the original, constitution class, Enterprise, in orbit

      This suggests a way for aliens to hide their existence: Make their ships shaped like cosmic-ray pixel streaks.

      Or make their ship shaped like the words, "Printed On Kodak Paper" or "Copyright 2003 Disney Corporation".

      Nobody will believe the photo blots are anything more than film labelling or watermarking. If an astronaut with photos says, "but the ship was shaped like a copyright notice, I swear!", they will toss him/her into the looney bin for sure. Not even diehard UFO nuts will buy that one.

  • Aren't the pictures from SOHO exciting enough?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by David Kennedy ( 128669 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @04:08PM (#5158360) Homepage
    What really gets me is that the people searching for UFOs in the SOHO data obviously find that more exciting that the SOHO data... and that's tragic.

    I mean, it takes some effort to follow the detailed science SOHO was designed to support, but the images alone should be worth looking at. Go look at this hotshot [nasa.gov] of four planets and the Sun's outer layers. Tell me you don't find that image awe-inspiring, or that you don't think the ability to get that image is among man's most impressive achievements.

    (Yes, I'm a scientist by training, and do find this stuff genuinely awe-inspiring and have no time for those who refuse to learn and chase after UFOs. I never worked with SOHO, but I sat in a lab for three years across from someone who was doing a PhD on SOHO data. I was working on something much more boring for my PhD.)
    • I've never been trying to find UFO's from SOHO data, but I think I can understand people who are trying to do so.

      Most people DO NOT have the training to make anything out of that picture, hard facts about more subtle physics of the working of the Sun, and other things that SOHO is meant to monitor, they don't mean anything to them, and why should they? For your average Joe, it's enough to know what sun is, and some don't buy even that. What they don't need to know is every minute fact of it.

      They think that searching for the UFO's on the otherhand, does not take any special skill or training - or course they are wrong - but that's what they think - hey everyone can look for weird lights and artifacts from space imaginery, in search for an UFO, you don't need to be a nuclear physicist or an astronomer to do that! See the appeal for non-scientists?
      • > See the appeal for non-scientists?

        I take your point but I'm still bemused that someone can trawl through SOHO piccies, see artefacts and think that (a) no-one else has ever noticed these things and (b) there's no point checking around the site to see what makes them look that like.

        CCD bleed isn't a particularly hard idea to grasp.
        We're all used to seeing not-disimilar things on TV when a documentary/news-camera hits a bright light.
    • Yes, I'm a scientist by training, and do find this stuff genuinely awe-inspiring and have no time for those who refuse to learn and chase after UFOs.

      Won't you feel silly if they actually ever do find one? Or rather, an Identified FO--one that can be verified as being alien in origin. (I'm a hard scientist, if you're wondering--physical chemistry, with segues into medical physics and tissue optics.)

      Sure, I see UFO hunting as something that people can pursue as a hobby rather than as a "real" job, but then, a lot of important astronomical discoveries are made by amateurs.

      Hunting UFOs is sort of like Linux (calm down--it's a very loose analogy). There are zealots, skeptics, and people in between. There are groups that try to make money from the phenomenon [redhat.com], and people that just report on it [slashdot.org]. There are people that contribute a little bit to the community now and than, there are those that view it with a benign disinterest--and there are those that pour hours into it with singleminded determination with no expectation of reward.

      Me, I love the (real, useful, unmassaged) SOHO imagery, and I think we should be putting tons of funding into materials science so we can build a space elevator. I'd also like to build a big space-based visual/near IR interferometer so we can do spectroscopy of planetary atmospheres around other stars.

      Meanwhile, I run a SETI@Home unit every so often, and I don't begrudge them the cycles. I also am waiting patiently to see good evidence of a genuinely unidentified flying object--not Venus--and I will weigh any claims on their merits. I mean, sure the SOHO data are exciting, but wouldn't evidence of extraterrestrial life tickle you, too?


  • I don't think anyone has mentioned that if these images were alien craft flying in close proximity to the Sun, the resolving power of SOHO would have to be around 100 or so meters (I believe that in UFO lore most alleged craft aren't too much larger than that). I don't think SOHO was designed with that capability in mind - most solar flares and anomalies are considerably larger than that.
  • ...in the sense of unidentified objects. A few arguments pop into my small amateur astronomer mind:

    It might be some dynamic physical or electric behaviour in the CCD or optics. The hardware is a few years old, after all, in extreme conditions. Might be water condensating on lenses, might be reflections from ice crystals, might be obscure electric charge dynamics on the CCD.

    SOHO is located in one of the 5 Lagrange points where it stays at same relative position with both Earth and Sun. Since this is an exceptional point, some space garbage such as rocks or space suit gloves might get stuck in the vicinity of the (unstable) point for some time.

    UFOs, as flown by some extra-terrestial intelligent beings, might generally be rather small objects. Space is big. SOHO's cameras do not have extremely good resolution and any visible object would have to be either enormous, very bright, or somewhat close to SOHO (and Earth), but between SOHO and Sun. Somehow that wouldn't seem to make much sense.

    Similar bright objects have not been observed from Earth based observatories, which would mean that it's a local phenomenom to SOHO. This would hint towards the first two possibilities above.

  • Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)

    by taustin ( 171655 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @04:18PM (#5158408) Homepage Journal
    Hopefully they will release some images on the web soon so I taking take a closer look at them without having to buy their £15 cd."

    If these people were interested in science, they'd have release the photos on their web page first, then issued the press releases. When they do it the other way around, it's not about science. It's about the £15.
  • ... saw the same thing. At least in that video they released. What's stupid is (and this has been said before) that they haven't released all their images in unaltered form to the public, SHOWING that comparison. If say three sources saw the same thing, from different orbits, and that object was shown to be moving in weird ways over time then I'd start to be intrigued by what they're saying. But until then I'm going to chalk it up to image over-enhancement on their part, and a primary motivation to make a quick buck off the findings.

  • Wow, NASA's demonstration linked from the story looks an awful lot like the one I did [lrdesign.com] the last time this topic was discussed on slashdot [slashdot.org] a week ago.

  • Something real now on SOHO cameras, LIVE. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    With all this nonsense about UFOs flying around, I'd like to point that there is something actually interesting on SOHO's LASCO C3 camera images right now. The comet Kudo-Fujikawa [cometography.com] has entered the camera's field of view. See the "live" pictures at the SOHO site [nasa.gov]. The comet is entering from the top of the picture.

  • Euroseti revealed! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Cleetus Freem ( 633000 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @05:38PM (#5158749)
    So you think Euroseti's claims are a bit far-fetched? Perhaps just an attempt to cash in? Well, in a long ranging scientific analysis of the images obtained by euroseti, we at bobjonesuniversityseti have revealed the TRUE nature of the "UFO's" in the SOHO images. Here is the proof! [n2net.net]
  • These things always remind me of the "enhanced" pictures of the Loch Ness Monster's flipper. Believed 'em at the time, but hey, I was five.

    To quote monster hunter Robert Rines, "This picture we enhanced and it shows a flipper some two to three feet across and six to eight feet long."

    Debunked at: http://www.loch-ness.org/files/underwaterphotograp hs.html [loch-ness.org]

  • A view from the edge (Score:3, Insightful)

    by YoDave ( 184176 ) on Saturday January 25, 2003 @08:58PM (#5159632) Homepage
    What struck me while watching the video was that every instance of a "saucer shaped object" was very clearly viewed edge on. As is the case with images of galaxies, real space craft would be viewed from many different angles. The fact that each and every image is viewed edge on proves that they are not what they may look like.
    • Not that I by any means believe that the SOHO artifacts are alien craft, but couldn't aliens (hypothetically speaking) build flying tubes? A long cylinder would like a straight line (just like the edge of a saucer) from almost all angles.
  • I don't believe that extraterrestrials are visiting the solar system. And it also looks to me that the images shown by the UFO enthusiasts have been doctored.

    However, none of the explanations given by the SOHO folks so far seem to account for the image in this article [icnetwork.co.uk]. That streak isn't perfectly straight. Possible explanations that I can come up with are: the whole image is just a fake, a cosmic ray that "bounced" off a nucleus, something close to the camera lens that bounced off the glass, or the image of a star or planet taken while the satellite was maneuvering. Someone who knows space imaging and these kinds of cameras should present a credible argument on what the real reason is.

    Again, I don't believe in extraterrestrial visitors. But, on the other hand, I think asking for a specific, plausible explanation for each individual imaging artifact is valid: these are scientific instruments, and if they show such effects, one should be able to account for them 100%.

    • I'm not working on SOHO, but the SOHO Deputy Project Scientist just dropped me a note about their stuff, so I guess I should try... :-)

      It is very hard to analyze that if you don't know what has happened to the picture. The planet is easy enough, that's an over-exposed planet. The "exhaust fumes" is I guess what you're pointing at which is not straight. You would expect it to be straight if it is pixel bleeding, not if it is e.g. a cosmic ray. And if you look at it closely, you'll see that the streak consists of no more than 7-8 pixels, some in pairs, other alone on a line. What you're seeing there is actually the lines in the CCD, the image has been resampled to a resolution much greater than that of the detector, and then smoothed. I would say that a cosmic ray that has hit the detector in the vicinity of the planet. If you look at how many rays you would see [nasa.gov] during a sun storm, it is very unlikely that no cosmic would never be close to a planet in the field... Also, it is a very weak cosmic, it didn't even saturate the detector.

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Close