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.'"
A Small Office/Home Office satelite would do something the big commercial, governmental and scientific satelites couldn't! Amazing!
And when they come to Earth and systematically wipe us out one city at a time, one brave computer geek will upload a virus to thier mothership, and take the whole alien fleet out! They'll make movies out of this!
Oh wait, they already did...
RaGe
We're all just noise on the wires..
Ill believe evidence of UFO's when the evidence isn't a link to a UFO-centric site.
It doesn't do any good to look for signals that we either wouldn't recognize or even see at all.
Who is to say that a more advanced civilization would even bother communicating with Radio? That whole "Light Speed" limit kind of makes communication by this method rather worthless.
I'll leave scientifically valid theories as to other ways they might communicate to someone advanced enough to figrue that out.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
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.
Sure, I know they are claiming that the so-called 'Slashdot Effect' has rendered it invisible, but do we have any independent witnesses? Any physical proof? No...
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
This article exemplifies the growing problem of apathy amongst the editorial staff of Slashdot. I'm disappointed, too, because I like this place.
Umm... Wouldn't the profile of a flying saucer, viewed from a satellite be, um, circular?
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.
Apple might go really bankrupt sometime and then we have no weapons left to use against them.
Somehow I think there might be another explanation:
News story
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
Buyer beware. They're selling stuff. CDs for 15 pounds a pop (~25USD), and tickets for 20 pounds a pop.
:) Significantly less sexy, eh?
Supposedly, you are supposed to be able to view a video interview with some guy, but there are no links to that interview. You've got to buy the CD.
So, "uh-huh".
And let's keep in mind that UFOs are unidentified flying objects. A meteor *IS* a UFO, if it hasn't yet been identified.
In fact, if they have identified it as anything, it's not a UFO any more.
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
The name of the image file on the page is Disney.jpg.
Hmmm.
/..sig file not found - permission denied.
Three words: you have no clue.
This "quantum pairing" doesn't allow passing of information.
UFO Mag says there are UFO's around the world and we're supposed to believe them? There is absolutely no evidence that even remotely validates their claims that a bright blur on some SOHO images are UFO's, versus meteors, comets or cometary fragments. They don't even describe what wavelength or anything. I say bull shit now!!! The burden of proof is on their shoulders!
Who is to say that a more advanced civilization would even bother communicating with Radio? That whole "Light Speed" limit kind of makes communication by this method rather worthless.
Even if you assume that that light speed is an absolute limit, there are good reasons not to use radio over any distance greater than a few hundred metres. The reason is simply efficiency: if you know more or less where the entity you want to communicate with is, why waste energy by broadcasting the signal on other directions? Over short ranges, broadcasting is good because it gives you freedom to move relative to a relay station, but between relay stations, hard links like optical fibre, or directional transmission by laser or microwave are the way to go.
This can explain also why SETI@Home haven't found anything. The period of time between an alien civilization starting to broadcast radio and then realizing that there were more efficient ways to communication would have to overlap with the period in which our civilization was listening for said signals. Not only that, but even if a civilization would have overlapped at 50 lightyears, if they happened to be 200 lightyears away, there would be no overlap. We are talking about mere decades out of millions of years. Maybe exactly the signals we were looking for passed us by just before radio invented.
Further, the limitation of lightspeed in communication is only really a problem if you assume that the users of it have to worry about time. I think it is reasonable to assume that before any civilization makes it any distance into space, they will have solved the problem of aging for themselves by whatever means.
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
Seeing this type of news on a UFO centric site certainly raises the crap-o-meter, but if in any doubt go and ask real astronomers over at http://www.badastronomy.com
Its a site run be a real astronomer with real scientists there ready and willing to answer questions.
StarTux
Can see this adding to their conspiracy theories:
"The US Govt hit us with a massive denial of service attack after we broke this story, which means they are trying to hide something".
StarTux
See this link. :)
:)
:)
More seriously, the first google link is a bunch of eurofolks running seti@home. I seriously doubt that seti@home has generated any pictures of "ufos" in our solar system. The second link is the one above. The third seems to be some crank who regularly gives speeches on "SETV" (the "Search for Extraterrestrial Vehicles") -- he claims to be a "professor", which may be true, as advanced degrees are hardly a prophylactic against insanity.
So, ooh, ahh, some bunch of UFO freaks have announced that some obscure other group (which may or may not also be a bunch of UFO freaks) have proof (proof! At last, real proof! Mwuah-ha-ha-ha-ha!) of UFOs. Geeze, there's news for ya! Guess what, one group or another of UFO freaks has been claiming that they have proof (real proof, see, it's a genuine photograph of a blob, what more do you want, sheesh!) for years. Wake me when someone with a operating brain gets involved.
Frankly, without a little more than this, I'm sticking with Timothy Leary's theory that so-called UFOs are actually human time-travellers from our future astral-projecting themselves back to our time.
- 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.
IANAA, IAAAA.(FemaleStateLegislatorsPercapita2001*CostOfLivingG roceryItems2000*(AIDSTotalPercapitaThru2001/4+Suic idesPercapita1990+10*MurderPercapita2001)*(America n_Indian_Eskimo_or_AleutPercapita1990+Scotch_Irish Percapita1990)/BlacksPercapita1990)
Seastead this.
What difference does it make where the evidence is presented? Why don't you instead ask if the evidence is stong.
Because evidence that appears on its face to be strong yet comes from a completely incredible (i.e., not credible) source can usually dismissed without further examination. It's a time-saver.
We use this technique all the time here on Slashdot. Remember all those Microsoft press releases about how Windows is more secure than UNIX? Because Microsoft released them, or funded the company that released them, we don't even bother to try to refute them. They're obviously not objective. Same thing here. When a UFO nut says, "Satellite detects UFO!" it's not even worth reading the article.
I write in my journal
Now I have to filter out Timothy too. I'm down to like 2 "editors" left.
New slashdot headlines:
Britany Spears impregnated by CowboyNeal.
CmdrTaco blood is made of taco sauce.
Timothy's brain is removed and no one noticed.
Oh well thats why I keep reading slashdot you never know what is next.
As I was reading your post, it struck me more and more that what you were saying does not at all add up in comparison to what I've read on the subject in Scientific American and Science. But then came this:
:) We just know that it happens. And it has already been used to transmit data...check out the Scientific American of a couple of months back, which had an article about how this was done for not just a particle or two, but for two whole volumes of gas.
"Additionally, if the two photon are emitted exactly 180 degrees opposite of each other, and both are traveling at velocity c, the transmission of data has a theoretical velocity of twice the speed of light."
This just doesn't fit with current physics. Why? Because those photons travel in a reference frame...it's not called general/special !relativety! for nothing. The photons (and the data) travel at a speed of c...also relative to each other, due to the space-time dilation effect (ie it space-time compresses the faster you travel). Thing is, we don't know why or with what mechanism paired particles retain that odd connection...that's why it's called the 'strange attraction'
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Dear Sir,
/. revolutionary activities at once and report to your Control.
Thanks to recent advances in technology mind control lasers have never before been as safe and as effective as they are today. Insights from confidential sources have allowed us to make past limitations in our systems obsolete. Now mind control lasering technology relies on non-material interference bands and goes directly into each subject regardless of most terrestrial technologies jamming efforts.
Please cease your
Thank you,
They
Yes, the video is pretty cool. But I don't think it's genuine. Here's why:
1. The girl is pointing to the tower and says something like "whats that". The reaction of the cameraman is to zoom right in until we see the craft hovering at the side of the building. I know *I* wouldn't have zoomed in instinctively at once if someone just said "look there".
2. Although the craft is moving *really* fast (exceeding 2000 kph in my opinion) the girl never looses track and continues to point to its exact location. I know that if *I* would ride a helicopter when a strange aircraft is passing by at ludicrous speeds (tm), *I* would be having trouble to track it in real time.
3. (now the most scientific point) Towards the end of the movie the aircraft passes in front of the helicopter at a speed of, say, at least 2000 kph. We can't be sure about distances here but let's say it's distance to the helicopter was 10 meters at its closest. Now: passing by in front of a brittle thing like a small mid air helicopter WITHOUT even making the helicopter shake a bit? Hell, the air draft alone (not to mention engine exhaust) should have gotten the heli into serious trouble at those speeds!
Mind you, I don't know a thing about aviation, that's probably why my analysis is wrong. Any pilots around here? I'd like to hear your opinion!
There is a lot of confusion with this. When the particles are, as you called, 'a quantum pair' and Alice measures one of them, the other one assumes the same measured value, so Bob also sees the same value. There is no way to transmit information that way, since Alice doesn't know or controls what value her measurement will turn out to be. But, as soon as she measures, both Alice and Bob has the same, totally useless, random piece of information. Well, not useless, you can use this as an encryption key, but that's another story...
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
When I look at the image at the head of the linked page ("Disney.jpg" - curiously)
what I see is a VERY low resolution image.
Look at the red trail behind it. There are a bunch of little raster-aligned
four-pointed star shapes. (The one on the extreme left is a prime example).
This is what you get if you take a VERY low resolution image an blow it up
with simple bilinear blending between the pixels. Taking this as evidence
of the original image resolution, we can see that the 'spaceship' at the
righthand end of the image is just about 3 pixels across - but has been
false-coloured so that the bilinear blending has become magenta and yellow
bands. Those are not 'real' they are just a part of the false-colouring.
Isn't it suspicious that the "UFO" is exactly aligned with the raster?
This is a fake...well, perhaps not exactly a fake - but an intentional
mis-use of image manipulation to produce an image that was never really
there.
You could reproduce this image in GIMP in about 3 minutes flat.
1) Create a 20x20 RGB image.
2) Using a 1 pixel brush, paint a diagonal line using bright red.
3) Fatten one end of the line slightly.
At this point, your image (if you'd gotten it from a photo of the
night sky) wouldn't convince you that this was a UFO - would it?
It could be any kind of a trail, meteor, military jet on afterburner,
a flare, a firework, anything like that.
4) Increase the image resolution to 400x400
Notice how the 'tail' now looks EXACTLY like the one in the
ufomag web site. Look at the 'star' shapes in the tail.
So, now let's do some "false-colour enhancement":
5) Choose 'select by colour' - set the threshold down to nearly
zero percent and click on a region at the center of the 'head'
of the trail. Fill it with magenta.
6) Pick a pixel close to that, fill it with a nice lemon yellow.
Notice how your image looks startlingly similar to the one
on the ufomag website. All the artifacts present in their
image are present in yours.
Now, I'm not saying that they painted their image in GIMP,
I'm quite prepared to accept that it's a photo of a real
world night-sky object. However, the pretty pink and yellow
spaceship on the right - complete with spooky red glow and
engine exhaust is no more than a deliberately produced
artifact.
The yellow and pink regions are BOTH narrower than the original
pixel resolution - no feature narrower than TWO pixels wide
(Nyquist sampling limit) can ever be reconstructed from an
image.
Bah. BULLSHIT!!
www.sjbaker.org
This looks to me like an image of an ordinary star saturating the ccd (the cross), with some small portion of the exposure time suffering from a tracking problem (the diagonal smear). Many telescopes have a cross-shaped support for the imaging device within the light path, and what results is a cross-shaped diffraction peak around bright stars. Or, saturation of the pixels under a bright image bleeds out along the principal directions of the ccd. Notice how the cross is aligned with the up and down directions of the image?
Three words: you cannot count.
Most of them are attributable to dust thrown off by the spacecraft itself -- e.g. one of the instruments would close its door, and then another instrument would see loads of moving specks.
Other streaks (like the one at the top of the linked page in the article) are often attributable to cosmic rays (often deliberately mistyped as "comic rays" by my cow orkers) or ionizing radiation from the Sun itself.
The LASCO wide-angle coronal camera often sees stuff moving in strange directions -- most of that is sungrazing comets from the Kreutz family of comets.
I work at the Southwest Research Institute now, and my coworker Dan Durda has done an extensive search through thousands of LASCO images for moving objects that don't fit the pattern of the sungrazing comets -- because he's interested in "vulcanoid asteroids", asteroids inside Mercury's orbit. He didn't find any, but I'm sure that any alien spacecraft jetting through the field of view would have tripped his algorithm.
It's certainly possible that these guys have found something new, but remember that "UFO" doesn't necessarily mean "alien spaceship".
Interestingly enough, SOHO itself registered as a false positive (caught by humans, fortunately) for the earthbound SETI algorithms. It's a strongish radio source that doesn't fit their earth-satellite pattern, since it's sitting at the Earth-Sun Lagrange point.
*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