SOHO Strikes Back 129
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."
Did you go to school in outer elbonia ? (Score:1, Informative)
its == possessive pronoun
Jesus Fucking Christ !
Re:Did you go to school in outer elbonia ? (Score:1)
And it's Elbonia, *throws some mud at you*
SOHO (Score:1, Funny)
(OT) Pronouncing space-opera "alien" names (Score:1)
the programming rays put out by the government that they learned to produce from the Du'horti that they learned from the Ma'khal that they learned from the J'dar
Wondering how to pronounce those names? Getting stuck on the apostrophe symbols typical of space-opera "alien" names? Here are a few tips:
An apostrophe after a vowel represents the "glottal stop", the sound heard in the middle of "uh-oh", which is spelled A'o in space-opera transliteration. Thus, you're supposed to cut the preceding vowel short before starting the next sound.
An apostrophe between consonants typically represents an unaccented central "uh" sound called a "schwa", often represented in phonetic transcription with a turned 'e'. It's the sound of 'a' in "about" or 'ou' in "precious".
To place the accent: Words ending in a vowel (such as Du'horti) are typically accented on the second-to-last syllable (counting any combination of vowels with only one 'a', 'e', or 'o' as one syllable), as in Spanish or Italian. Words containing a schwa are accented on the other syllable. I'm not sure where to place the accent on Ma'khal.
Of course they deny it (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Of course they deny it (Score:2)
They live in bubble cities under the oceans of Europa.
all those nice spacebabes on Venus... (Score:1, Funny)
Spacebabes aren't for geeks.
Re:all those nice spacebabes on Venus... (Score:1)
Re:All chips are protected on a craft like this! (Score:2)
How much could a roll of tinfoil cost? 99 cents? That won't exactly break the NASA budget, even with their "faster, cheaper, better" program policy.
Re:All chips are protected on a craft like this! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:All chips are protected on a craft like this! (Score:2, Interesting)
wrong:
cosmic ray
A stream of ionizing radiation of extraterrestrial origin, consisting chiefly of protons, alpha particles, and other atomic nuclei but including some high-energy electrons, that enters the atmosphere, collides with atomic nuclei, and produces secondary radiation, principally pions, muons, electrons, and gamma rays.
Re:All chips are protected on a craft like this! (Score:2, Insightful)
Now alpha and beta rays from radioactivity can be shielded against, and alpha rays are just a couple of protons with a couple of neutrons, so you'd think that cosmic rays can also be shielded out completely... except that natural radioactive alpha and beta radiation usually comes in extremely low energies comparatively to cosmic rays. These cosmic ray particles are moving really fucking fast, so you'd need kilometers of tin foil to stop them (you still get cosmic rays underground, though the density of them goes down of course). Obviously there's some logistic problems with fitting that amount of shielding on a satellite
Daniel
Re:All chips are protected on a craft like this! (Score:1)
I used to work in the radiation therapy part of a cancer clinic. One time I put a key down on top of the film beside the calibration wedge, (i.e. I was calibrating, not beaming anyone) and exposed it to gamma rays. Instead of the key making a shadow on the film, the film was mostly unexposed except where it had had metal on top to contribute electrons. So tinfoil hats might not be a good idea! Unless they're thick enough to soak up the secondary shower.
Of course it's hard to be sensitive to optical wavelengths and NOT pick up cosmic rays, so this is a common problem for telescope CCDs. Often the blips are removed by taking several exposures and averaging with 5 or 7 sigma outliers for each pixel rejected. SOHO probably doesn't do that, however, because they look at transient phenomena.
Re:All chips are protected on a craft like this! (Score:1)
Re:All chips are protected on a craft like this! (Score:2)
Particles? Pah! They're waves, I tell you! Waves!
Re:All chips are protected on a craft like this! (Score:1)
Re:All chips are protected on a craft like this! (Score:1)
Re:All chips are protected on a craft like this! (Score:2, Insightful)
But if you shield the detector so that EM radiation can't get through, how can you use it to take pictures?.
In response to the point about it being in more than one single shot, they explained that because the SOHO sometimes sends incomplete data, and the proggy that puts it up on the web fills in the blanks from the last image.
Well though out response.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Could someone please define "UFO"? (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Could someone please define "UFO"? (Score:1)
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)
Re: DUH ... (Score:2, Funny)
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
Now I'd like to see *that* headline in UFO magazine
Re:Of course they would dismiss it (Score:2)
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.
Re:Of course they would dismiss it (Score:1)
boring... (Score:1, Insightful)
An interesting thought though... could amateur pics capture something astronomers miss?
Re:boring... (Score:2)
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?
Extracting $ from hard vacuum. (Score:1)
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.
Re:boring... (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re:Aliens (Score:2, Funny)
Sensationalism (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re:Sensationalism (Score:1)
Massive cover-up by scientists! (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re:I want to believe (Score:1)
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)
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:1)
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.
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:1)
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.
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:1)
Well, this really isn't true. Many UFO "flaps" (like the one in Gulf Breeze) have centered around populated areas.
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:1)
Several witnesses reported seeing the sillouette of the large triangular shape against the starry background, not just "V" lights. Whether that is "strong" evidence or not is another matter.
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:2)
A Bigfoot image (Score:1)
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?
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:1)
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
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:3)
There is tons of video tape UFO evidence so I don't understand why you claim there is none.
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:2)
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.
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:2)
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.
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:2)
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?
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:2)
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.
Re:The proliferation of video cameras. (Score:2)
Once again are you seriously claiming that there is no videotapes of UFOs?
I've been disappointed yet again. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I've been disappointed yet again. (Score:2)
It's never safe to take off your tin foil hats!
I mean come on; how stupid do you think the tin foil hat wearers really are?
This is GREAT for NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
SOHO's been newsworthy in the past (Score:2, Insightful)
Send Money or I'll Hide My Alien Pictures (Score:2)
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)
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]
I would really like to get a hold of that CD... (Score:1)
Silly (Score:1)
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)
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)
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.
Re:USAF UFO detector network (Score:2)
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?
Re:USAF UFO detector network (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Is this an undocumented time travel occurance where Kirk and crew visits 2001??
Re:It's the Enterprise! (Score:1)
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)
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.)
Re:Aren't the pictures from SOHO exciting enough?! (Score:1)
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?
Re:Aren't the pictures from SOHO exciting enough?! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Aren't the pictures from SOHO exciting enough?! (Score:2)
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?
Resolving Power Issue (Score:2)
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.
UFOs, maybe, maybe not... (Score:2, Redundant)
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.
dark-br's guide to karma whoring (Score:2)
2. Post it as your own (don't bother changing any of the words either, because no one will notice!)
3. Let the karma roll in...
Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Euroseti said something about multiple sources... (Score:2)
Looks familiar... (Score:2)
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)
Euroseti revealed! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Euroseti revealed! (Score:2, Funny)
similar to loch ness monster "flipper pic" (Score:2, Interesting)
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/underwaterphotogra
A view from the edge (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A view from the edge (Score:2)
I don't believe, but... (Score:2)
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%.
Re:I don't believe, but... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:SOHO? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:SOHO? (Score:1)