Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SOHO Strikes Back

Posted by michael on 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."

4 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Of course they would dismiss it by Visoblast · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Luncheon meats make the sawdust in your stomach explode."
    • -- Crow T. Robot
  2. Re:All chips are protected on a craft like this! by randyest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Cosmic rays are RAYS not particles, and it's entirely possible to a few to slip by.

    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.

    --
    everything in moderation
  3. Bias or Scam? by core+plexus · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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

  4. similar to loch ness monster "flipper pic" by decapentaplegic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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