Slashdot Mirror
UFO Evidence From SOHO Satellite
Anonymous Coward writes "EuroSeti is set to reveal during the week of Jan 24-27 National Space Centre in Leicester, UK scientifically sound and verifiable evidence based on observations taken by the SOHO satellite and other satellites that indicate UFOs are present within our solar system. For the past two years, hundreds of extraordinary UFO-like images have been gleaned by a Spanish-based team using two space-based satellites. NASA initially tried to explain the images away as pixel faults, passing meteors or asteroids, etc., but when a European-led consortium presented them with images that clearly were none of the aforementioned, they 'clamped up.'"
If UFOs are in our solar system then why hasn't SETI picked up any signals??
- Think for yourself, question authority.-
Ill believe evidence of UFO's when the evidence isn't a link to a UFO-centric site.
if you can get the american public to believe it.
Why has it become such that UFO = flying saucer?
A "UFO" is just an unidentified flying object. Anything whizzing through the air that I can't identify is a "UFO", whether or not it has anything to do with spacecraft from another world.
This article exemplifies the growing problem of apathy amongst the editorial staff of Slashdot. I'm disappointed, too, because I like this place.
Please can slashdot not post crap like this in future?
So they found some satellite images with some objects (asteroids / space debris) that hadn't yet been named / catalogued as it only showed up in a tiny mesh of 4x4 pixels before it crashed into the sun. Because of lossy image compression artifacts they think it looks like a UFO and NASA stops talking to them (something the UFO nuts take as "proof" that they're right).
Big deal - I'd stop talking to them as well.
Now they want to sell tickets to a "conference" where they'll reveal all. Wow. The only thing this scam is missing is an official from the Government of Nigeria / promise of Hot Teens / free Viagra / cheap home refinancing.
What the heck does "UFO-like" mean? Is that something that's been identified, but looks like it hasn't? Or is it something that you know you can identify, and the name is on the tip of your tongue, but you just can't remember it?
What difference does it make where the evidence is presented? Why don't you instead ask if the evidence is stong.
War is necrophilia.
It has the link that should have been on the front page for balance, if not accuracy.
Unidentified
Flying
Oject
So yes, they're UFOs, because they don't know definitively what they are. Oh, you mean you think they're alien spacecraft? I don't see any proof of that.
You quantum pair two molecules, then ship them X far apart. Any modifications to speed or velocity made to molecule 1 instantly take effect in molecule 2, you can use this aattribue to perform a kind of quantum "morse code" by hitting molecule 1 to change its attributes in specific ways. This method of FTL communication is very plausable and has of active reaearch going on in it right now.
...a European-led consortium presented them with images that clearly were none of the aforementioned, they 'clamped up.
/. goes on in full amateur mode.
In case anyone is wondering if the people at Slashdot practice journalism or even make an attempt at verifying facts, that quote provides the answer: no.
Who says? What "European-led constortium"? Where's the evidence that NASA "clamped up"? What does "clearly none of the aforementioned" mean? That's an assertion of an opinion.
This story may be perfectly true, but then again it might not be. Meanwhile,
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This should do a lot to discredit Seti. Either they are UFO loving wack-jobs, or UFO's do exist, but obviously aren't using any kind of radio communication that can be detected using Distributed computing.
Perhaps these people will put their computers to better use.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
when a European-led consortium presented them with images that clearly were none of the aforementioned, they 'clamped up.'"
Don't we all know the feeling, when some moron just keeps on talking and we really want them to shut up or go away. First my responses gets limited to "yes" and "no", then "ah" and "hm", then I just stop reacting on what they are saying all together.
my sig
If your random variables are not normally distributed ('normal' means they have low values of skewness and excess kurtosis) the typical rule of thumb is to apply some remapping function to normalize them.
If a random variable is in some sort of exponential distribution it will have a high skewness (and possibly high excess kurtosis as well) and the proper thing to do is normalize with log before looking at the Pearson correlation coefficient. This is because the statistical significance math for correlations presumes normality.
It so happens that a lot of variables on the 50 United States (plus DC) are not normally distributed and taking the log or sqrt gives a better distribution for statistical work.
Seastead this.
Ah, of course NASA buddies (*) are always smarter than their clueless european counterparts.
(*) have you ever noticed that most of the brilliant scientists working for it are not americans?
No. For that to always be true, it would have to be a flying sphere. If it's just a saucer, you might be looking at its front instead of its top and see something else, definitely not a circle.
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
Soho stands for Solar and Heliospheric Observatory in this case, not Small Office/Home Office.
Years from now people will reminisce about the late great Slashdot, I predict that a consensus will emerge that this story here was either the beginning of the end or the final straw depending on how you feel about /. today.
Notice how the "craft" appears to be at right angles (even with) the frame of the picture (assuming they have not altered the rotation for the newspaper photo).
This would lend credibility to those who claim that it is an artifact of digital camera construction. The "blur" lines up with the pixels of the camera. If most of the other UFO images aligned like this, it is a dead ringer for "pixel blur".
Table-ized A.I.
Honestly, I don't care if this gets me modded down: when pseudo science, a la roblimo's Alex Chiu "interview" is the norm, I won't bother reading Slashdot. Fortunately, there've been relatively few such articles thus far. Timothy, however, is clearly attempting to change that: first was the Starcraft book review (http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/16 /1630223&mode=thread&tid=160), and now he's posting unverified, unsubstantiated tripe from clearly biased sites. I -want- to believe in alien life! I'm dying to! But I consider myself in the same league as Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." There's a big difference between the SETI folk, who want to believe in UFOs, but are yet to see proof, and the UFO-weenies, who already believe, proof be damned.
Unfortunetly everything is like that. Rape, death, being short, being bald, being fat, being thin, being irish, blonde, poor... and so on.
:)
You have just got to laugh - the alternatives aren't good
I'm not being insensitive- I've spent half my laugh in a mental hospital..
There's a difference between entertaining an idea and believing in one. I entertain the idea of extraterrestrial life, but I don't think every unidentified flying object is one. I'll believe it when someone proves their existence using logical reasoning and not wishful thinking.
---
Open Source Shirts
It's also interesting to note that throughout history different cultures have reported seeing flying objects or flying beasts, men from the heavens, and men riding chariots across the sky. Just because they didn't call them flying saucers prior to 1947 doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Those with limited knowledge will give a label to something they've never seen in comparison to something they have seen. What we label "saucer" today ancient people may have called a chariot, a dragon, fenris the wolf, or what-have-you.
The problem may not be the legitimacy of certain sightings but may be in the fact that in 1947 people were given a term and an image that they could then slap on to anything they saw in the sky that they couldn't explain. Not much better than claiming "Faeries came to visit me last night". I don't really see us as having made too much progress on the whole past the point of those medieval and ancient peoples. We are still speculating about what's in the night sky. We are still labeling something we do not understand.
"Houston we have a problem"
"What's the problem"
"We think we just saw a UFO"
"Nah couldn't be it was probably just a metorite or a tool or something reflecting off the sun"
"Uh Houston could you identify that object for us"
"Oh could be just about anything"
"Then you're saying it's unidentified right?"
"Well no not exactly it could be a screw from MIR, or something burning up in the atmosphere"
"It's burning up in the atmosphere, right. Would that technically be considered flying?"
"Oh no no no. That would be falling or maybe we call it negative floatation, sky sinking.... hmmmm what will I call that..."
"Houston. It's an object right?"
"Well not necessarily, it could be gas or electricity or plasma and have no solid form..."
"So then what do we call it?"
"Oh let's see, we wanna stay away from UFO because for all practical purposes we have identified it.... so... hmmmmm... how about PIPTFAB (Partially Identified Possibly Terestrial Falling Atomic Bundle)"
"Why don't we just stick with Unidentified Flying Object"
"Well marketing decided that 'flying' seemed to purposeful a word. Plus anytime you say UFO people go nuts."
"Oh...."
Look, every Joe knows what UFO stands for. As long as these objects can possibly be considered "unidentifiable", they're not evidence at all, they're just freak anomolies. Inexplicable, or basically meaningless anomolies are a fact of life in every field of research, and life in general.
I think I speak for quite a few people when I really could care less, and tell me when something is conclusive. Otherwise it's just more whining about what we DON'T know and can't explain, rather than what we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
I seriously think Roswell sky-watchers are doing their cause more damage than good by constantly arguing utterly inconclusive anomolies. As long as it's even POSSIBLE to conceive of explaining them as "pixel faults", or whatever, that's not evidence. As such, they degrade their credibility one level further.
If you disagree, don't mod me down, just reply to this post.
-----
"Cogito Eggo Sum: I think, therefore, waffle."
or perhaps the technical hooks in films are just a touch facile nowadays.
DOn't forget that they had access to an alien ship for 50 years. So our architectures and computer concepts are all devolved from theirs.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Actually, the original Ken Arnold saucer wasn't saucer shaped either. It was kind of a cross between a crescent and an echelon. (How's that for historical foreshadowing?) It was only after the media picked up the term "flying saucer" that people started seeing saucer-shaped objects. This type of evolution would tend to indicate something other than nuts and bolts.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
*blink*blink*UFO MAGAZINE WORLD EXCLUSIVE*blink*blink*...
Gimmie a fuckin break. I click on the only link on this page, expecting to see hard scientific data. What do I see? A bloated-ass animated GIF of a poorly rendered flying saucer, and three magazine covers. One magazine cover has a picture of a "grey" superimposed over the white house. Lovely. The second picture suggests the Moon landing was a fraud, which is a slap in the face to the tens of thousands of engineers who made it happen. The third image suggests aliens are abducting us with spooky-dookie glowing tractor beams. Yeah, thats great. Tons of credibility there.
This "news" isn't worth the powder to blow it to hell.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
I believe that NASA knows the location of and trackes every piece of debris in orbit around the earth. Colisions are not good for satelites, shuttles, etc.
Well, I agree with the last sentence.
The camera panning and zooming can create the illusion that an object in its field of view is moving.
And let's assume ALL the reports of abductees by little white aliens with big black eyes are bipeds, and have hands, feet, fingers, toes, etc... (just like us). If they are THAT similar to humans and Earthly primates, then one of two things occured: 1. (the most likely) They came from Earth before us, aka a "Pre-Adamic Race" - the bible may mention this, and I may be wrong on this; or 2. They put us here and all other bipeds/quadrapeds. I think the former is more likely, but that they branched out to explore the universe/solar system, taking a break to examine the little ape-like primates that we are. It is so very unlikely for these features to develop in species that originated from completely different environments let alone different PLANETS! The Earth seems replete with the right combination of chemical elements to keep life, the economy, and technology interesting. This could be an incredible and unlikely chance event or by divine design, you be the judge, but according to some information out there, WE are the experiment designed by the aliens, who also instilled into our conscious the idea/sense of God or other diety. So many things to ponder...
Actually, the Areceibo dish with its current transmitter and receiver should be able to hear a copy of itself from anywhere within the Milky Way (except possible for the small wedge hidden by the galactic core). And those could be upgraded if we really felt the need/desire to do so.
We're *well* within the ability technically to make ourselves heard. The problem is being noticed. With that many stars in the galaxy, everybody's transmitting with a -3 AC penalty.
It is almost a guaranteed thing that the image is an artifact from the imaging device used to take the picture. Even in the absolute absence of all light, CCD's, and to a much larger extent CMOS imagers, have pixels register light when there is none there. It is impossible to observe any light without effecting the picture in some way or another; it's a scientific fact. Toss enough photons at a non-film camera, and there will be ghosting, and there will be 'erratic non-smooth' tails. It's interesting how often people point at a 'right angle' in a photograph, and say "see that right-angle blur? That can't happen in nature." And yet these people are the same ones who conveniently forget that the camera used to take the picture has (gasp!) right-angles in its mechanism. Or the hexagonal lights (can you say 'camera iris' or 'lens flare'?).
The sad fact is that all too often, people in general (and Americans in particular), believe that they really 'know science', when the reality is that much of what we see is based on an incomplete understanding. We Americans are particularly bad about believing pseudo-science, and its supporters. For that matter, there is a famous test (I don't recall whom did it; please feel free to elaborate), in which test subjects were told to turn a knob which would inflict pain on another person. The 'real' scientists who were performing the test were observing how the average American tends to believe anyone who looks like they are educated about something. The test subjects were told that turning the knob would do no harm, in spite of the actor in the next room screaming in 'agony' and begging for mercy. Basically, there are a lot of human sheep who just want to believe a liar because it's easier than educating oneself, and trusting his/her own judgement-- so they trust the judgement of someone else, often con artists.
It's this lack of understanding of science that enables groups to claim that the Apollo moon landings were faked. Con artists found some loopholes in what people believe about physics, and exploited them. It doesn't even take a degree in physics to show they're lying, or at least mistaken. But too many people do not know the real nature of how light works, how it is percieved, and how our machines translate and process light into data we like to believe is useful. The fact is simple: Light is extremely complex, and its behavior is still extremely difficult to understand. There is so much about the nature of light that isn't taught in even a mid-level college physics class, that people just think that it must be simple, when in fact it is very, very complex. So when a lie is presented to them, they believe it fully, because it 'makes sense', even though it is pure rubbish.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Brush up on your reading skills.
"NASA initially tried to explain the images away as pixel faults, passing meteors or asteroids, etc., but when a European-led consortium presented them with images that clearly were none of the aforementioned, they 'clamped up'."
If the images that "clearly were none of the aforementioned" were clearly of overexposed planets, the above statement remains 100% true. 'clamped up' is a meaningless phrase, irrespective of who's supposed it's supposed to be 'quoting'. I'd suggest that by 'clamped up' (by which I imagine they mean clammed up) they mean that NASA just stopped dignifying them by looking at any more of their amateurish splodges.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Face it, Roland Emerich was pulling insipid crap out of his ass (again). All his movies follow the same pattern:
- Excellent first act, makes movie seem full of potential
- Boring second act. Dumb melodrama. Lots of talking heads. We usually learn more about the bad guys than we could even want to know.
- Lame and uninspired third act. Protagonists are down and out, but at the last minute they pull something together and kick the bad guys' ass.
Take, for example, ID4:
- First act: aliens come and blow shit up
- Second act: they're down in the Area 51 bunker for what seems like ages. Lots of "talking heads" scenes.
- Third act: down and out, all seems lost. Suddenly, Jeff Goldblum has a "Eureka!" moment, and after some trite "Tell my children I love them!" self-sacrifice crap, the good guys win.
Stargate:
- First act: the stargate is discovered. They go through it, and come across the natives.
- Second act: Mr. Crying Game arrives, we get some uninspiring examples of how bad of a person he is. Then he kicks the heroes' asses.
- Third act: down and out, all seems lost. Then, "unexpectedly", Guy From Supernova won't kill his friends, and Boys Who Rebelled Against The Establishment Because They Saw The True Path help our heroes save the day.
The Patriot:
- First act: the colonists get sick of the Limeys and start some shit. While clearly outclassed and outmanned, there is still Hope. We see the Good Guys use their Good Guy Intuition to kick some British ass.
- Second act: Colonel Bad Guy On Horseback gets permission to do whatever he wants. Cue melodrama about how much he's beating the Good Guys. In a particularly underwhelming scene, Good Guy From Down Under gets whacked by Colonel Bad Guy On Horseback. Mucho mas talking heads.
- Third act: All seems lost. Both of That Braveheart Dude's sons are dead. The rebels are getting their asses handed to them. George Washington is going to be taking it up the poop chute Real Soon Now. "Unexpectedly" That Braveheart Dude comes up with a plan, and the colonists pull a Hail Mary tactic in the following battle. Cue trite "Dead Good Guy From Down Under told us some insipid 'insightful' crap in Act Two, so we're doing it by building a house" scene.
Yes, it's true that most movies follow a three act layout, but none are as formulaic as a Roland Emerich movie. None have as uninteresting of a second act or as uninspired of a third act as a Roland Emerich movie.
No one has accurately coined what it's called when you navigate around outside the atmosphere to my knowledge. If you're on water your sailing, if you're on land your driving, if your in the air you're flying. You could say in space they're orbiting, but that's like a ship in the harbor docking, it really dosen't fit the bill for ocean travel, I'd imagine space travel will eventualy take up nautical terms, due to the numerous silularities. (and all the past star trek movies :) The term UFO was coined at the time when they saw something in the sky,(presumably flying to them) if these are the same kinds of things thay saw back in the day,(whatever they are) I guess you could accurately call them UFOs. I don't really buy in to all this stuff, but if you wanted to get down to it, supposedly these things don't use friction of the air to generate lift anyway so technically if they exist they probably don't 'fly' at all.
Yes - your images look quite a bit like mine. I think simple intensity-to-hue
lookup (such as is commonly used in 'false colour' imaging) is enough to produce
the yellow and magenta region along with all the subtle shading.
With modern computer graphics, you can produce photo-realistic images of anything you like. Photographic "proof" is not longer convincing if you can't trust the people who made the picture. This image proves that this particular band of UFO nuts are not trustworthy - so even if they publish an 8x10 glossy of their president shaking hands with The Great Thwaart of Twaarg himself with the seal of a notary public attesting to it's authenticity - I won't believe it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Occam's razor dictates that when faced with a choice between bilinear-blending plus false colour versus hordes of invading little green men in pink and yellow spaceships (yeuck!!) - we should go with the faked image theory until overwhelming evidence shows otherwise.
www.sjbaker.org