superjudge
Paranormal Novice
Has anyone else seen this video? These spheres appear to be very near the sun, even possibly in its corona. Just curious what people think of these pictures.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Spheres show up in SOHO images of the Sun??
- Thread starter superjudge
- Start date
Free episodes:
Why are the highlights on most of the "spheres" in the wrong location? Take a look at the last one. There is no way the highlight should be in the opposite direction as the Sun. The ones that have plausible highlights would make the objects so big they would be as large as a planet. I don't think something that big would go unnoticed or at the very least not affect the orbits of the rest of the solar system planets.
I say these photos have been doctored. And by a very untalented amateur.
Jose Collado
Skilled Investigator
Fascinating! I find it interesting that these "objects" are the same shape. Obviously indicates some kind of uniform design. They must be absolutely huge to be seen so clearly in an image which incorporates our sun in the same frame. Wow!
Unfortunately, as Astroboy pointed out, the highlights are an oversight. They seem to have the same highlight and none seem to be in the correct position. Now, I assume this highlight could potentially be possible depending on the shape of the object but the problem with that is, their shape on the image would generally have to be different depending on the vantage point. So to have them all have the same highlight in this image, they'd all have to be holding a position that would allow our vantage point to see them in the same formation.
To cut a long painful story short...I'm calling bunk on this one. They're too big to go unnoticed and the inconsistencies are amateurish. I'd be surprised if this was qualified as valid.
Unfortunately, as Astroboy pointed out, the highlights are an oversight. They seem to have the same highlight and none seem to be in the correct position. Now, I assume this highlight could potentially be possible depending on the shape of the object but the problem with that is, their shape on the image would generally have to be different depending on the vantage point. So to have them all have the same highlight in this image, they'd all have to be holding a position that would allow our vantage point to see them in the same formation.
To cut a long painful story short...I'm calling bunk on this one. They're too big to go unnoticed and the inconsistencies are amateurish. I'd be surprised if this was qualified as valid.
Ron Collins
Curiously Confused
The images were not doctored to insert the sphere like things but to remove them. Here is what I have just found.
So here is the URL to the actual NASA sight for all dates in January.
Index of /browse/2010/01
So I go down and click on the folder for the 21st. It brings up a page that allows me to go to the "Stereo Behind" and in the resolution of 2048 which is a link. From there it takes you to a page that has a bunch of images in chronological order. It starts at 00:05:30 UT and goes to 23:55:30 with 1 image every 5 minutes.
In the video, the guy starts by showing image "20100121_200530_n7euB_195.jpg". Now as you can see, that file format is close but not actually correct as to the naming convention in the directory.
STEREO - Science Center - Latest Images
The "n7euB" in his link is not on this page. instead they are all "n4euB". If you go to the image "20100121_200530_n4euB_195.jpg" you do not see a sphere at the bottom left, but at the top just right of center. Probably where you would expect to find Mercury.
So naturally I was a bit confused. So today being the 28th I went to that directory. There I noticed that the file naming convention is different. The "n7euB" is there. So I then looked at the 27th, again the "n7euB" is there. So I start to click through the images and sure enough I see the sphere like things in some images. Here are a sample of some links.
STEREO - Science Center - Latest Images
20100127_195530_n7euB_195.jpg
20100127_202530_n7euB_195.jpg
20100127_211530_n7euB_195.jpg
20100127_214530_n7euB_195.jpg
The "n4euB" naming convention ends on the 26th, Only the 27th and the 28th have the "n7euB" convention still there. Or at least as of this writing (Jan 28, 2010 - 7:40pm CST).
Above image is top of the list for the 27th and the bottom is 28th.
It looks to me like this is some sort of distortion and they(NASA) are coming in sometime after the images are uploaded and cleaning them up. The page that lists all the images for the 27th says it was last updated on the 28th at 18:15:42 EST by Joseph B Gurman (Joseph.B.Gurman@nasa.gov).
The page that lists the images from the 21st says it was last updated January 28 2010 at 19:56:56 by Joseph B Gurman. I looked at several other days and it appears that Joseph is working late tonight. He made some sort of update to every page from the 18th to the 30th so far.
Keeping in mind the file naming convention change we saw earlier they are either coming in later, cleaning the raw images and re-saving them as a different naming convention or they are being deceitful shits. The site certainly comes off as though these are untampered with raw images captured and cataloged daily. Though it never comes right out and says that they are untampered raw images. I think that it is pretty clear that they are manipulating the images fro some reason. Now I am not suggesting that this is for some nefarious purpose. I do think it a bit odd that they would not explain that on the site though.
What do some of you image folks make of all this?
So here is the URL to the actual NASA sight for all dates in January.
Index of /browse/2010/01
So I go down and click on the folder for the 21st. It brings up a page that allows me to go to the "Stereo Behind" and in the resolution of 2048 which is a link. From there it takes you to a page that has a bunch of images in chronological order. It starts at 00:05:30 UT and goes to 23:55:30 with 1 image every 5 minutes.
In the video, the guy starts by showing image "20100121_200530_n7euB_195.jpg". Now as you can see, that file format is close but not actually correct as to the naming convention in the directory.
STEREO - Science Center - Latest Images
The "n7euB" in his link is not on this page. instead they are all "n4euB". If you go to the image "20100121_200530_n4euB_195.jpg" you do not see a sphere at the bottom left, but at the top just right of center. Probably where you would expect to find Mercury.
So naturally I was a bit confused. So today being the 28th I went to that directory. There I noticed that the file naming convention is different. The "n7euB" is there. So I then looked at the 27th, again the "n7euB" is there. So I start to click through the images and sure enough I see the sphere like things in some images. Here are a sample of some links.
STEREO - Science Center - Latest Images
20100127_195530_n7euB_195.jpg
20100127_202530_n7euB_195.jpg
20100127_211530_n7euB_195.jpg
20100127_214530_n7euB_195.jpg
The "n4euB" naming convention ends on the 26th, Only the 27th and the 28th have the "n7euB" convention still there. Or at least as of this writing (Jan 28, 2010 - 7:40pm CST).
Above image is top of the list for the 27th and the bottom is 28th.
It looks to me like this is some sort of distortion and they(NASA) are coming in sometime after the images are uploaded and cleaning them up. The page that lists all the images for the 27th says it was last updated on the 28th at 18:15:42 EST by Joseph B Gurman (Joseph.B.Gurman@nasa.gov).
The page that lists the images from the 21st says it was last updated January 28 2010 at 19:56:56 by Joseph B Gurman. I looked at several other days and it appears that Joseph is working late tonight. He made some sort of update to every page from the 18th to the 30th so far.
Keeping in mind the file naming convention change we saw earlier they are either coming in later, cleaning the raw images and re-saving them as a different naming convention or they are being deceitful shits. The site certainly comes off as though these are untampered with raw images captured and cataloged daily. Though it never comes right out and says that they are untampered raw images. I think that it is pretty clear that they are manipulating the images fro some reason. Now I am not suggesting that this is for some nefarious purpose. I do think it a bit odd that they would not explain that on the site though.
What do some of you image folks make of all this?
bobheck
Disco still sucks.
Ron Collins
Curiously Confused
actually, if the naming convention is what it appears to be, a place holder until the image is processed, then it most certainly will disappear. Thanks for uploading them!
ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM
Whittingham
Hi folks,
It seems someone has let the cat out of the bag in these sun images! I wonder if its a solar flare debris from contact with a meteor? If its mechanized spacecraft it would leave vapor trail don't you think?
Cheer's,
blowfish
bobheck
Disco still sucks.
Well, we do need perspective. These things are probably about the size, or larger, than earth.
Maybe it's hell.
Ron Collins
Curiously Confused
Personally I think it is just digital image artifacts or some sort of distortion. The size of the object/s would be enormous. We are talking 5/8 the size of the moon or better.
Remember that the images are taken at 5 minute intervals. in some pictures the "objects" seem to move from one side to the other. I think the sun is 109 earths wide. Meaning that if you placed earth side by side you would get 109 of them to fit the width. The diameter of the earth at the equator is 7,926.41 miles. 7,926.41 x 109 is 863,978.69 miles.
That means the object would have moved at least 172,795.74 miles a minute to get from one side to the other. Unless I have screwed the math up (50/50 chance there) that is 0.01546% the speed of light.
Remember that the images are taken at 5 minute intervals. in some pictures the "objects" seem to move from one side to the other. I think the sun is 109 earths wide. Meaning that if you placed earth side by side you would get 109 of them to fit the width. The diameter of the earth at the equator is 7,926.41 miles. 7,926.41 x 109 is 863,978.69 miles.
That means the object would have moved at least 172,795.74 miles a minute to get from one side to the other. Unless I have screwed the math up (50/50 chance there) that is 0.01546% the speed of light.
bobheck
Disco still sucks.
I'm gonna side with Ron on this one. The light/shadow of the objects is inconsistent. On some of the objects in some pictures, the light side is away from the sun and the dark side is toward the sun. I think it is a distortion of some sort.
Ron Collins
Curiously Confused
Did you actually read the entire post? The images as shown were not faked. I think they are distortions that are being systematically cleansed. Either way, it is 100% true that the spherical things appear in the REAL NASA images. On the actual NASA website.
Xylo
Paranormal Adept
Yes I did read the entire post. I also looked at all the images.
Manipulation of the image can occur in the decoding software too, from my understanding. It could be some sort of an anomaly, but I still don't trust the images to show "spherical spacecraft." I might be wrong, but I still don't trust the images. Even you are saying that you believe them to be distortions.
Or to go further, I don't trust human vision, specifically MY vision. After seeing the way that our minds interpret color and spatial relationship, I don't see how I could.
Manipulation of the image can occur in the decoding software too, from my understanding. It could be some sort of an anomaly, but I still don't trust the images to show "spherical spacecraft." I might be wrong, but I still don't trust the images. Even you are saying that you believe them to be distortions.
Or to go further, I don't trust human vision, specifically MY vision. After seeing the way that our minds interpret color and spatial relationship, I don't see how I could.
ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM
Whittingham
Hi folks,
If these images are an error in the imaging process which have left a Earth size spherical distortion don't you think NASA would off prevented them being place on its website?
The real issue in ufology today and in the past is too much chaff and not enough wheat. Since the images have been removed of the sun and the so called spherical objects sends a red flag sign don't you think and maybe the disclosure movement:exclamation: might have their biggest development
so far this year regarding are we alone?
If these images are an error in the imaging process
which have left a Earth size spherical distortion don't you think NASA would off prevented them being place on its website? The real issue in ufology today and in the past is too much chaff and not enough wheat. Since the images have been removed of the sun and the so called spherical objects sends a red flag sign don't you think and maybe the disclosure movement:exclamation: might have their biggest development
so far this year regarding are we alone?
Ron Collins
Curiously Confused
Hi folks,
If these images are an error in the imaging process
The real issue in ufology today and in the past is too much chaff and not enough wheat. Since the images have been removed of the sun and the so called spherical objects sends a red flag sign don't you think and maybe the disclosure movement:exclamation: might have their biggest development
OR.... its just distortion. I'll bet NASA has an automated process that saves the images to the directory. Then it is Joseph's job to clean them up. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than the "multiple planet sized UFO's buzzing the sun" theory. As for the disclosure movement, I think you'll get more sympathy talking about bowel movements here.
ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM
Whittingham
Hi RonCollins,
I rather talk about ufo's than bowel movement's but if like you can start the debate! Disclosure movement is like placing a coin in a wishing well and that's all.
I rather talk about ufo's than bowel movement's but if like you can start the debate! Disclosure movement is like placing a coin in a wishing well and that's all.
WTFologist
Paranormal Novice
(PART 2) Nassim Haramein at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library. 2003. (4 HRS)
if the link doesn't offset properly (it doesn't for me), advance to 1 hour 28 minutes, give about 5 minutes for explanation. Haramein shows SOHO images of large objects changing course and entering the sun. total relevant clip time, about 16 minutes. for complete background, you might want to start with part 1: (PART 1) Nassim Haramein at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library. 2003. (4 HRS)
if the link doesn't offset properly (it doesn't for me), advance to 1 hour 28 minutes, give about 5 minutes for explanation. Haramein shows SOHO images of large objects changing course and entering the sun. total relevant clip time, about 16 minutes. for complete background, you might want to start with part 1: (PART 1) Nassim Haramein at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library. 2003. (4 HRS)