Slashdot Mirror
SOHO Strikes Back
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."
it's == it is
its == possessive pronoun
Jesus Fucking Christ !
A Small Office/Home Office satelite would do something the big commercial, governmental and scientific satelites couldn't! Amazing!
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.
-- we're dressed in green, and we're feeling mean
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.
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."
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?
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.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
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!
Webmaster Wanted - Entropic Reactions
hehe or an area in New York. Actually, There is a pretty good definition of this particular SOHO here.
<:
They spend lots of $$ protecting everything from radiation on these craft, does NASA think we are that stupid?
;)
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.
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
In answer to your comment: Yes, of course there is shielding to protect instrumentation...and it's not perfect. Cosmic rays are RAYS not particles, and it's entirely possible to a few to slip by. In fact, they do. As for a series of pictures, a CCD by definition can become saturated for a time; similar to your eye after looking at a bright object, then looking away. This could explain how one ray or packet of rays could cause this phenomena.
as an alien i find your comments offensive!
Take a look at this SOHO image! 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?
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 when this comment pointed it out.
Silly Rabbit,
Spacebabes aren't for geeks.
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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
Cosmic rays are mostly protons, which were particles last time I checked. A proton going through a CCD will certainly deposit charge in some of the pixels, same as a photon would.
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
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.
word.
Gentlemen, it's safe to take off your tin foil hats now.
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.
Which doesn't really invalidate his point. Cosmic rays are extremely high-energy particles, because they were emitted, maybe by a quasar or a similar high-energy emitter, somewhere far, far away in another frame of reference, which gives them even higher kinetic energy in our frame of reference.
:-)
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
Carpe Diem
Oops, my bad. I was thinking "photons" and assumed gamma ray / no particle. However, secondary interaction with the spacecraft and its shielding produces gamma of VERY high energy (thousands of MeV possible) => penetrating radiation. (next time I'll refresh my rusty memory on a subject before injecting my two cents ;)
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
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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
Yes, the CHIPS may be shielded...
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.
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
HAHAH ... SOHO's "how to" on making UFO's kind of takes the doubt out about whether or not UFO-ish artifacts can be created ...
.. 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?
...
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
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-
Since the USSR wound down, GEODSS has also been used for finding near-earth asteroids. A few objects show up every month. Here's the list for December, 2002.
MIT's Lincoln Labs also operates an automated skywatch.
Here's an image from GEODSS. 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.
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??
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
No shit sherlock, that was my point.
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 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.)
You actually don't want to stop them, but let them pass right through, since most radiation damage is caused by the secondary shower of stuff knocked off the target by the original particle.
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.
If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
SOHO Strikes Back was my favorite part of the trilogy.
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.
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.
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.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
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.
Wow, NASA's demonstration linked from the story looks an awful lot like the one I did the last time this topic was discussed on slashdot a week ago.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
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.
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
--Thomas J. Kopp
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 has entered the camera's field of view. See the "live" pictures at the SOHO site. The comet is entering from the top of the picture.
Particles? Pah! They're waves, I tell you! Waves!
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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!
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.
p hs.html
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
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.
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.
Is it fascism yet?
1. Pick a score 5 comment from a previous /. article
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...
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
However, none of the explanations given by the SOHO folks so far seem to account for the image in this article. 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%.
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
there certainly should be a good number of high-quality, unassailable UFO (and Bigfoot) videos/pictures by now
Here's a Bigfoot. How was this one faked?
Will I retire or break 10K?